Are the BNP racist? Watch

john1987
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 9 years ago
#81
(Original post by CertifiedAngel)
The fact that their leader has been imprisonned numerous times for breaking the anti-racism laws...
Would you like to give some evidence with links to back up this statement?

The only times I can think of were in the 1990's when he was representing a far-Right magazine, not a mainstream political party, and statements made in a private meeting in 2004 for which he was later acquitted. And the latter had nothing to do with racial discrimination, as he was talking about Islam.
0
quote
reply
john1987
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 9 years ago
#82
(Original post by JMonkey)
And many advantages. Yes just focusing on problems in a tiny minority of our population (ie about 7%) is really what will pull this country back to strength. It's not the banks we need to tackle, or labours shockingly bad education policies, or the global recession generally
Actually, I think you'll find the BNP have attacked all of these things too. People just focus on looking at their immigration policies, because they stand out more than the other things.

(Original post by JMonkey)
We all know how much immigrants have benefited the economy, and how good they are at filling the skills shortages and the jobs English people wont do.
That's more of an argument for motivating the indiginous work force than inviting the whole world to live in our little island.
0
quote
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 9 years ago
#83
(Original post by john1987)
Actually, I think you'll find the BNP have attacked all of these things too. People just focus on looking at their immigration policies, because they stand out more than the other things.
Just a shame that the policies that are isolationist would leave us a crippled mess with an appallingly uncompetitive economy. Thus leaving them unable to tackle any issues other than a crumbling system.

That's more of an argument for motivating the indiginous work force than inviting the whole world to live in our little island.
:laugh:

With whips and chains I suppose, you can't make people want to do **** jobs unless you are talking about forcing people to do **** jobs, then you'll probably have mass emmigration of your oh so great white race.
0
quote
reply
john1987
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 9 years ago
#84
(Original post by JMonkey)
Just a shame that the policies that are isolationist would leave us a crippled mess with an appallingly uncompetitive economy. Thus leaving them unable to tackle any issues other than a crumbling system.



:laugh:

With whips and chains I suppose, you can't make people want to do **** jobs unless you are talking about forcing people to do **** jobs, then you'll probably have mass emmigration of your oh so great white race.
Hey, I never described the white race as "oh so great". Where did you ever get that from?

It might not be an easy task, but it's been done before - for instance in the USSR with the initial Leninist revolution in 1917 >. Economies and countries don't just die out because of a change in system.
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#85
Report 9 years ago
#85
(Original post by JMonkey)
Well yes but there is no scientific or philosophical, political or sociological rational for the way they feel. It's essentially mindless bigotry. The thing I find surprising is if you do a little digging you find just how superficial the arguments are, and I don't just mean in terms of skin colour. There really is no practical way to implement any BNP policies without destroying England's economic viability. No scientific way to define who is racially pure enough anyway, and certainly no way we could remain part of Europe under their policies. It's like they want to create a nation that is 100% not a part of the world. It's all pie in the sky like the libertarian utopia.
Agreed, these people are irrational and fixated, and don't respond to reason. They'll probably die believing in their notion of racial purity and die unhappy knowing that their dreams of all-white societies are not actually going to happen. Indeed in the long term pretty much all large-scale advanced societies will become ethnically mixed because - as these BNP supporters can't comprehend - most humans don't care too much about skin-colour or 'race' and there's plenty of attraction between people from different ethnicities.
quote
reply
Failed123
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#86
Report 9 years ago
#86
(Original post by john1987)
Rubbish. White British people are already an ethnic minority in many towns, cities and suburbs throughout the UK and if something isn't done about out-of-control immigration and the swamping of our country with alien cultures, we will soon be a minority nation-wide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...inorities.html (not a tabloid newspaper and not published during the recession)
Okay :erm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...uk.thefarright

'Even in the middle of nowhere, there are three mixed race children in that school,' she added, to gasps of outrage from the assembled gathering. 'It's terrible. Disgusting. Talk about the tide climbing higher and higher; there's nowhere left to escape; we've no choice now but to stand and fight.'

Oh noooz, coffee coloured children!!! White people need to fight! :gasp:

I just wanted an excuse to post this quote, it made me laugh
0
quote
reply
Kolya
Badges: 14
#87
Report 9 years ago
#87
It would be wrong to think that the immigration policies of the BNP are the only problem with it. Even if I wanted a complete halt to immigration, and to remove recent immigrants from the country, the BNP would be unlikely to get my vote. The problems with the party, while focused on the racial ideology, extend far beyond objections to their immigration policies. To pretend that they are simply strongly opposed to "coloureds", regardless of how objectionable that is, is to underestimate the party's problems:

The party has worrying violent undercurrents, is homophobic, is anti-Islam, supports corporal punishment, supports capital punishment (and not just for murderers, but for paedophiles(?!1) and drug dealers as well), and supports compulsory national service. The BNP would also legalize gun ownership. It would remove teachers they see as having an "anti-British dogma". They would focus history teaching on the British isles, and remove teaching of world history. They would bring back assemblies based on "traditional Christian values". And, despite their protestations about the erosion of free speech, they will "require ideological balance on university faculties".

So, to me, the focus on the BNP's racism (or otherwise) seems to miss the wider picture; even if I were strongly against immigration, I don't think the huge number of their other objectionable policies could make them an attractive political party to most people in the C21.

1. Yes, 2005 their manifesto supports "restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles...where their guilt is proven beyond dispute". I would presume that this is simply a stupid mistake on the BNP's part, and that they are actually referring to child sex offenders, rather than paedophiles.
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#88
Report 9 years ago
#88
(Original post by Kolya)
It would be wrong to think that the immigration policies of the BNP are the only problem with it. Even if I wanted a complete halt to immigration, and to remove recent immigrants from the country, the BNP would be unlikely to get my vote. The problems with the party, while focused on the racial ideology, extend far beyond objections to their immigration policies. To pretend that they are simply strongly opposed to "coloureds", regardless of how objectionable that is, is to underestimate the party's problems:

The party has worrying violent undercurrents, is homophobic, is anti-Islam, supports corporal punishment, supports capital punishment (and not just for murderers, but for paedophiles(?!1) and drug dealers as well), and supports compulsory national service. The BNP would also legalize gun ownership. It would remove teachers they see as having an "anti-British dogma". They would focus history teaching on the British isles, and remove teaching of world history. They would bring back assemblies based on "traditional Christian values". And, despite their protestations about the erosion of free speech, they will "require ideological balance on university faculties".

So, to me, the focus on the BNP's racism (or otherwise) seems to miss the wider picture; even if I were strongly against immigration, I don't think the huge number of their other objectionable policies could make them an attractive political party to most people in the C21.

1. Yes, 2005 their manifesto supports "restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles...where their guilt is proven beyond dispute". I would presume that this is simply a stupid mistake on the BNP's part, and that they are actually referring to child sex offenders, rather than paedophiles.
Well, you're right. The BNP have a whole bag full of bad spanners when it comes to political policies - and which many people don't seem aware of. I tend to argue against the racism because it is both a central and longstanding element in their ideology and something I regard as totally morally unacceptable, but there's no shortage of other stuff to object to.
quote
reply
Prince Rhyus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#89
Report 9 years ago
#89
What about mixed race people? Would we be encouraged to return to where only part of our family is from? What about those mixed race kids who live in single parent families where that parent is white? Are you going to encourage them to give up their kids?
0
quote
reply
Arminius
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#90
Report 9 years ago
#90
(Original post by Kolya)
It would be wrong to think that the immigration policies of the BNP are the only problem with it. Even if I wanted a complete halt to immigration, and to remove recent immigrants from the country, the BNP would be unlikely to get my vote. The problems with the party, while focused on the racial ideology, extend far beyond objections to their immigration policies. To pretend that they are simply strongly opposed to "coloureds", regardless of how objectionable that is, is to underestimate the party's problems:

The party has worrying violent undercurrents, is homophobic, is anti-Islam, supports corporal punishment, supports capital punishment (and not just for murderers, but for paedophiles(?!1) and drug dealers as well), and supports compulsory national service. The BNP would also legalize gun ownership. It would remove teachers they see as having an "anti-British dogma". They would focus history teaching on the British isles, and remove teaching of world history. They would bring back assemblies based on "traditional Christian values". And, despite their protestations about the erosion of free speech, they will "require ideological balance on university faculties".

So, to me, the focus on the BNP's racism (or otherwise) seems to miss the wider picture; even if I were strongly against immigration, I don't think the huge number of their other objectionable policies could make them an attractive political party to most people in the C21.

1. Yes, 2005 their manifesto supports "restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles...where their guilt is proven beyond dispute". I would presume that this is simply a stupid mistake on the BNP's part, and that they are actually referring to child sex offenders, rather than paedophiles.
To be honest your post rather surprised me, because i support pretty much all of the things you've just mentioned. They don't strike me as particularly weird or anything, they seem sensible.

I would agree that they are extreme- i want extreme changes and the BNP genuinely proposes them. All the other parties will keep everything pretty similar and thats what distinterests me.

The fact that the BNP would radically change the economy, against the trends of most western nations is again something that greatly attracts me. I don't know if you know this but they plan to nationalise all banks (because the banks are the root cause of our problems see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7wp7yvRZx0)
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#91
Report 9 years ago
#91
Arminius: I would agree that they are extreme- i want extreme changes and the BNP genuinely proposes them.
The more often BNP supporters make this plain the better in my view.
quote
reply
Soz1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 9 years ago
#92
(Original post by Prince Rhyus)
What about mixed race people? Would we be encouraged to return to where only part of our family is from? What about those mixed race kids who live in single parent families where that parent is white? Are you going to encourage them to give up their kids?
We're both victims and vermin. The less of us the better. I'm sure if you look around the BNP website (I personally find it disgusting and try to avoid it) and read / watch some of Griffin's speeches your questions will be answered. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

(Original post by Failed123)
Okay :erm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...uk.thefarright

'Even in the middle of nowhere, there are three mixed race children in that school,' she added, to gasps of outrage from the assembled gathering. 'It's terrible. Disgusting. Talk about the tide climbing higher and higher; there's nowhere left to escape; we've no choice now but to stand and fight.'

Oh noooz, coffee coloured children!!! White people need to fight! :gasp:

I just wanted an excuse to post this quote, it made me laugh
This was an old article, but the quote above was from Nick Griffin's wife. Actually, you learn quite a bit from reading old articles about the BNP from many newspaper websites, as well as the BNP's old websites.
0
quote
reply
john1987
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 9 years ago
#93
(Original post by Arminius)
To be honest your post rather surprised me, because i support pretty much all of the things you've just mentioned. They don't strike me as particularly weird or anything, they seem sensible.
Ditto.

(Original post by Soz1)
We're both victims and vermin.
Just so you know, I don't personally view you, or mixed race people as a group, in this way.
0
quote
reply
Prince Rhyus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#94
Report 9 years ago
#94
(Original post by Soz1)
We're both victims and vermin. The less of us the better. I'm sure if you look around the BNP website (I personally find it disgusting and try to avoid it) and read / watch some of Griffin's speeches your questions will be answered. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.
The point is aimed at those who say the BNP isn't racist - if it isn't racist, why have policies that even refer to race? Why bring in a policy where those of different races are prevented from marrying? There's a moral or three in the story of Romeo and Juliet - about the power of love...
0
quote
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 9 years ago
#95
The BNP is racist, what we are divided over is how racist and in what way: racialism? The argument then boils down to whether you consider nationalism and intolerance towards non "Britons" as particularly racist. Me I say particularly, it assumes so many negative connotations that it can't be anything but.

But if you are the modern apologist for the BNP you probably believe that even though it's policies are straight out of Mein Kampf, there is nothing but reason beyond race, and only contingent to political expediency. You're an idiot, but in any democracy you are entitled to your opinion.
0
quote
reply
Kolya
Badges: 14
#96
Report 9 years ago
#96
(Original post by Arminius)
To be honest your post rather surprised me, because i support pretty much all of the things you've just mentioned. They don't strike me as particularly weird or anything, they seem sensible.
Well, I object to all of them, and that would prevent me from voting for the BNP if I were a strong nationalist who was opposed to immigration. Reasons that I object to some of those policies are (and I'll pick the ones that we might be able to find some common ground on):

- Their policy on homosexuality is a large cause for alarm. I see no problem with homosexuality, and so am strongly turned away by comments by the BNP that it spreads "moral turpitude" and that presentation of homosexuality should be kept out of schools and the mass media. The National Press Officer for the BNP said that he personally would like homosexuality to be recriminalized. It would be very difficult for me to vote for a party that supported such a position of homosexuality, no matter how much I wanted a complete halt of immigration.

- I dislike the idea of bringing back "traditional Christian values" and "traditional Christian worship" in schools. I am a strong secularist, so that policy would turn me off the BNP. A secular humanist who was strongly opposed to immigration would have to think carefully before voting for the BNP and their traditional Christian agenda. Why aren't the BNP more friendly to those of no faith?

- I dislike compulsory national service because I cannot see how to reconcile service in the British armed forces with a dedication to Just War Theory. How would they treat those with serious ethical objections to compulsory national service?

- Regarding history teaching, I think it is extremely important to have a thorough understanding of world history. By understanding world history, we will be better placed to deal with diplomatic disputes, will understand the variety of cultures that exists across the globe, and will be more able to appreciate works from international writers.


- I think university faculty should be appointed solely on merit, rather than taking into account their ideological views.


Surely you don't disagree with me on these straightforward positions? There are other issues that may be more heated (such as capital punishment), but how can you support the BNP on the less fraught points that I have raised?
quote
reply
Arminius
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#97
Report 9 years ago
#97
(Original post by Kolya)
- Their policy on homosexuality is a large cause for alarm. I see no problem with homosexuality, and so am strongly turned away by comments by the BNP that it spreads "moral turpitude" and that presentation of homosexuality should be kept out of schools and the mass media. The National Press Officer for the BNP said that he personally would like homosexuality to be recriminalized. It would be very difficult for me to vote for a party that supported such a position of homosexuality, no matter how much I wanted a complete halt of immigration.
Personally speaking, i have no problem with homosexual individuals or its practice as i think people should be free (where it is between consenting adults) to do what they wish in the bedroom.

BUT there is a problem with homosexuality for the nation. Namely, homosexuality precludes reproduction and thus the continuation of an individualls genes. Theoretically, if everyone was homosexual the human race would die out. In this sense it is a defficiency in a societies fitness - a society with a lower proportion of homosexuals is a fitter society.

As i have already said i don't think homosexuality should be criminalised or denied equal rights as other citizens but it does have an effect on wider society which should not be ignored either.

From this position i think the government's pro-homosexuality rhetoric is pottentially dangerous, it should not be 'encouraged'. The BNP should be neutral on the issue, rather than pro- which i what i think labour is.

I dislike the idea of bringing back "traditional Christian values" and "traditional Christian worship" in schools. I am a strong secularist, so that policy would turn me off the BNP. A secular humanist who was strongly opposed to immigration would have to think carefully before voting for the BNP and their traditional Christian agenda. Why aren't the BNP more friendly to those of no faith?
I have no faith either and i have the same concerns as you on this point. I would prefer if the BNP took up a secular position. It would actually make most sense for them to be officially agnostic as so much of their ideology is rooted in darwinism.

I think the references to christian values are an attempt to bring on board a few christians, but i see nothing wrong with the values they want to bring back. Less promiscuity, greater care for other people, greater moral awareness etc would be good and in some ways i am not to bothered if these are derived from christianity - if they help delivery the better society we desire.

I dislike compulsory national service because I cannot see how to reconcile service in the British armed forces with a dedication to Just War Theory. How would they treat those with serious ethical objections to compulsory national service?
I imagine they would be exempt from service just like they were when britain used to have national service, you could opt out on moral grounds.

Regarding history teaching, I think it is extremely important to have a thorough understanding of world history. By understanding world history, we will be better placed to deal with diplomatic disputes, will understand the variety of cultures that exists across the globe, and will be more able to appreciate works from international writers.
I think the BNP would agree with you 100% on this, the point of that policy is not to ignore other parts of the world. It is to study BOTH british history and world history. You need to understand your own history in order to understand who your country is in the world. Present history teaching is ideologically focussed on liberalism (women's voting, black civil rights movement, 60's hippies etc), communism and the holocaust and is taught as history-lite.

I think everything should be studied in as much depth as possible for a truly broad understanding.

I think university faculty should be appointed solely on merit, rather than taking into account their ideological views.
I think the point in the manifesto was NOT to interfere with admission, infact it was to RESTORE balance to university campusses which are at the moment totally dominated by a small minority of hardcore left-wingers. Most unis have undemocratic anti platform policies in place, for example, which bar views like the BNP from being aired - pretty hypocritical huh?. This sort of thing is what should change. I think uni campuses should be politically neutral if possible, which would promote participation. Rather than the left wing whitwash we have at present and most students do not participate in student politics partly as a result of this.

Surely you don't disagree with me on these straightforward positions? There are other issues that may be more heated (such as capital punishment), but how can you support the BNP on the less fraught points that I have raised?
I hope i've addressed your concerns.
0
quote
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 9 years ago
#98
(Original post by Arminius)
Personally speaking, i have no problem with homosexual individuals or its practice as i think people should be free (where it is between consenting adults) to do what they wish in the bedroom.

BUT there is a problem with homosexuality for the nation. Namely, homosexuality precludes reproduction and thus the continuation of an individualls genes. Theoretically, if everyone was homosexual the human race would die out. In this sense it is a defficiency in a societies fitness - a society with a lower proportion of homosexuals is a fitter society.

As i have already said i don't think homosexuality should be criminalised or denied equal rights as other citizens but it does have an effect on wider society which should not be ignored either.

From this position i think the government's pro-homosexuality rhetoric is pottentially dangerous, it should not be 'encouraged'. The BNP should be neutral on the issue, rather than pro- which i what i think labour is.
This just shows how out of touch the BNP are with reality. Evolution says any trait that produces no benefit only disadvantage should be removed from the gene pool. Homosexuality still exists and what's more it is detrimental seemingly at least to sexual selection. How then does it survive in most animals and man? Let's just say that what promotes fitness need not only occur in men, but in women it makes them more likely to have children. There is some study that concludes that some of the genes for homosexuality are also genes which when found in women promote a more pronounced sexual attraction to men.

Thus over all, families with said genes in their heredity will on average and over time have more children than those who lack it. Thus homosexuality, which isn't a choice anyway should actually be accepted, if that is you want to promote genetic fitness. The reason it exists in animals are often more obvious, such as reducing population numbers when the environment cannot sustain them, in rats for example they become homosexual and canabalistic once the population reaches a starvation level. The benefit here is obvious.

Why does homosexuality exist? Why does any gene exist, it's a fluke that seems on the surface detrimental to fitness and adaptability but actually promotes it by a quirk of fate. Thus it survives.
0
quote
reply
~The Mixed Race Girl~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 9 years ago
#99
Theyre racist..they say it themselves...There was once this article about Griffin and he said something like "a lot of people call us racist...in fact we are racist"
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (123)
18.36%
No (406)
60.6%
Not really bothered about them (141)
21.04%

Watched Threads

View All