Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    For now, yes. But I'm probably the furthest you could get from Cameron.
    Same here:cool: , we need someone better, for me it has to be Chris Grayling ftw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    People have the strange conception that all Tories adhere to the Cameron-esque, New Labour II model, which simply isn't the case. Many of my views are traditionally Tory; John Bercow shared many of my views when he was my age (and was a member of the Conservative Party).
    It's hard to be a traditional tory given the state of the party at present, I would imagine.

    Out of interest,though, which BNP policies do you find yourself most opposed to?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Are the BNP's Socialist economical leanings stopping you from pledging support? If they were right-wing in terms of the economy (like the Tories) would you commit support for them? You seem to be in favour of the BNP's social policies.

    Am I right?
    Yes, indeed, you are. But the BNP's economic policies aren't communist; they're protectionist. Although I'm supportive of centralisation of essential industries, I believe in a liberal free market for everything else (although there probably should be some restrictions on multi-national companies). I don't know if economic policy would make me commit support really. Social policy would mean I'd begrudgingly accept the economic policies of either BNP or UKIP (although the latter is useless imo).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What he wants and what he knows is do-able are two totally different things...
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    That the party was founded by a neo-nazi ...
    I think it's an important factual starting point with regard to the BNP, one that can't be repeated too often; the BNP was founded less than three decades ago by a neo-Nazi with the Nazi aim of creating an 'ethnically pure' nation, or as close as possible, an aim that is still central to the BNP. Haven't you seen the photo of Griffin in his lovely 'white-power' t-shirt then? lol

    When we're wondering if the BNP has changed or just changed its image I think we should simply think back to Griffin and the importance he places on the power and use of propaganda, propaganda he learned from Hitler. :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    When we're wondering if the BNP has changed or just changed its image I think we should simply think back to Griffin and the importance he places on the power and use of propaganda, propaganda he learned from Hitler. :yep:
    All political parties place a great deal of importance on propaganda, and all political parties could probably learn a great deal about it from Mein Kampf. As I said, I would not be suprised if UAF and HNH picked up tips from there. The fact that he,even at a young age, prefers the propaganda section to the various sections on the aryan race suggest he isn't the nazi you think he is- he was instead dragged along in the foolishness of his youth.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    When we're wondering if the BNP has changed or just changed its image I think we should simply think back to Griffin and the importance he places on the power and use of propaganda, propaganda he learned from Hitler. :yep:
    You know, many communists adhere to What Is To Be Done? and the April Theses. Does this mean that they're all violent gentry/priest killers?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nope..they've decided to change it to 'tango orange Britain' ...let the scallies unite!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NB I think you're confusing Pure Communism with something else, because the idea does not call or or justify violence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Immigration is only ever a short-term fix, with a potentially cataclysmic outcome. It is simply a myth that halting immigration would destroy our economy. There are hundreds of examples of countries developing without a heavy foreign input (for one, the two main NICs). Investment in development from an early age, and intensive training for the unemployed is a far better option.
    I wholeheartedly disagree with this point. Immigration, in regards to a country such as Britain, is crucial. These "countries" which have developed with very little immigration, may perhaps have done so due to the cheap labour and high demand for jobs. The NMW, consequently means, that this is not necessarily the case with Britain.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    NB I think you're confusing Pure Communism with something else, because the idea does not call or or justify violence.
    But for the idea to be implemented in the real world it needs violence, because communism can only work if 100% of people enthusiastically follow it which, given our very human nature, is imposable.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    Can I ask what 'our' ways are though? Am I, being white and born in England, allowed to deviate from 'our ways'?
    I oppose un-necessary change from all quarters, it just so happens were on the subject of immigration. And the fact that your white doesn’t bother me, only your views matter.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The State should decide what Britishness is, like a hegemonistic assimilationist? Criminals get put through the judicial system, regardless of their race. That's all we need. There's really no need for governments to dictate cultural norms. Individuals choose their own lifestyles (which is becoming increasingly relaxed and liberal with respect to our views towards drugs and homosexuality and house husbands...) You'll probably find that most ethnic minorities fit nicely into a tolerant Britain. If you can't tolerate them, then fine: don't let them on your property. But the world doesn't stop turning just for you m'fraid. People are already allowed to go back to their country (much like many Brits travel to and from Spain, buying and selling property).
    The state shouldn’t decide what Britishness is, GB tried that one remember. But the state also has a duty to its own people and should not put the needs of others before its own, building Mosques for example when many church’s in the country struggle to keep the roof on. Providing housing for foreigners when there are plenty of its own people on the waiting list etc. This is not intolerance of foreigners; this is an expectation of the government.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The state shouldn’t decide what Britishness is, GB tried that one remember. But the state also has a duty to its own people and should not put the needs of others before its own, building Mosques for example when many church’s in the country struggle to keep the roof on. Providing housing for foreigners when there are plenty of its own people on the waiting list etc. This is not intolerance of foreigners; this is an expectation of the government.
    Why should the state financially support the Church? The state doesn't even support my local newsagents which provides a far more useful service to society. Indeed, businesses have to pay corporations tax to the state. Some churches are charities and thus have to pay less taxes, so the state does offer financial incentives (which, incidently, I think is unfair). The same applies for certain Christian faith school/academies. Swings and roundabouts. The reason why churches are failing is not due to the lack of supply of land, but rather due to the reduced demand for Church services. Individuals vote through their expenditure - that's how economics works. Likewise, Mosques can be built by private individuals on private land be it by foreign investors or British citizens (note: "citizenship" - since race and ethnicity has never been a criteria on which people are entitled to British state services, and it never has been, since such a homogenous 'race' and 'ethnicity' has never purely existed).

    I should perhaps bring you back to the point you made (i.e. the one I was actually tackling). You said, "Yet Griffin said on the program this morning he doesn’t have a problem with immigrants "like Sir Trevor" who come here, accept British values and don’t try to change our ways. It would be great if he was telling the truth as it would give us a party with a realistic and popular immigration view but I'm not sure if he can be trusted and deep down he wants them all out." I said that the state shouldn't decide what "British" values are beyond what the law declared legal and illegal. I could say that British values involves tolerance towards all races and towards people regardless of sexuality and gender.

    Criminals get put through the judicial system, regardless of their race. That's all we need. There's really no need for governments to dictate cultural norms. Individuals choose their own lifestyles (which is becoming increasingly relaxed and liberal with respect to our views towards drugs and homosexuality and house husbands...) You'll probably find that most ethnic minorities fit nicely into a tolerant Britain. If you can't tolerate them, then fine: don't let them on your property. But the world doesn't stop turning just for you m'fraid. People are already allowed to go back to their country (much like many Brits travel to and from Spain, buying and selling property). What you wrote seemed like the view of a hegemonistic assimilationist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Why should the state financially support the Church? The state doesn't even support my local newsagents which provides a far more useful service to society. Indeed, businesses have to pay corporations tax to the state. Some churches are charities and thus have to pay less taxes, so the state does offer financial incentives (which, incidently, I think is unfair). The same applies for certain Christian faith school/academies. Swings and roundabouts. The reason why churches are failing is not due to the lack of supply of land, but rather due to the reduced demand for Church services. Individuals vote through their expenditure - that's how economics works. Likewise, Mosques can be built by private individuals on private land be it by foreign investors or British citizens (note: "citizenship" - since race and ethnicity has never been a criteria on which people are entitled to British state services, and it never has been, since such a homogenous 'race' and 'ethnicity' has never purely existed).
    In many rural communities the Church plays a much larger role than simple Christian worship, and unlike our Mosques that doesn’t involve indoctrinating our young men into battle. But I just used churches as an example, you get my general point.

    I should perhaps bring you back to the point you made (i.e. the one I was actually tackling). You said, "Yet Griffin said on the program this morning he doesn’t have a problem with immigrants "like Sir Trevor" who come here, accept British values and don’t try to change our ways. It would be great if he was telling the truth as it would give us a party with a realistic and popular immigration view but I'm not sure if he can be trusted and deep down he wants them all out." I said that the state shouldn't decide what "British" values are beyond what the law declared legal and illegal. I could say that British values involves tolerance towards all races and towards people regardless of sexuality and gender.
    Did I ever say the state should decide what British values are?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    NB I think you're confusing Pure Communism with something else, because the idea does not call or or justify violence.
    For the millionth time; "Pure Communism"/Marxism is unachievable in spite of violence because of natural strife for individual betterment and competition. In which case, ironically enough, the egalitarian ideal is nullified completely.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    In many rural communities the Church plays a much larger role than simple Christian worship, and unlike our Mosques that doesn’t involve indoctrinating our young men into battle. But I just used churches as an example, you get my general point.
    People can go to youth centres/youth groups. However, as I stated, if there is a demand for these services, then they wouldn't go 'out of business'. If youngsters want to go to the pub, or to the cinema, or to a church, or to a youth centre, then they can. Likewise, if a British citizen wants to go to a Mosque because he's converted to Islam, then he's free to do so. If there's enough demand for these services, then let the private sector (charities or businesses) fulfill that role. I don't see a rational way for states to distribute resources when it comes to the leisure market. Our wants are highly idiosyncratic compared to our basic needs (for instance, health). I may enjoy going to the cinema. Another person may enjoy going to a Church to sing songs. We both probably want good health (hence I would support universal healthcare, such as the NHS - this is something which Pete Singer argues in favour of in his paragraph on welfare economics in his 'Companion to Ethics'). Yet I would not support the state in providing economic incentives or disincentives for funding of Churches or Mosques (both of which can be quite pretty and useful in communities).

    Did I ever say the state should decide what British values are?
    Yes, if you believe that the state should discriminate between those who accept British values (like Trevor MacDonald, as alleged by Griffin), and those who are worthy of special attention purely because they don't accept this apparently universal concept of "British values". There is no need to mention races nor ethnicities - one need only make the distinction between people who obey and disobey the law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    When we're wondering if the BNP has changed or just changed its image...
    As you say, it's highly unlikely the BNP have really changed.

    Here's some footage of Griffin about 9 years ago, it formed part of the video for the BBC - Panorama - BNP - Under the Skin documentary which was produced about 5 years ago.

    I'll offer a transcript (made by me) since I know many people will not want to watch a youtube video:

    Griffin: "There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. And the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too. But we are determined now, to sell them. And that means basically, to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack those ideas - they are saleable. Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle, we've got ourselves into position, where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day, the British people might change their mind - and say yes, every last one must go. Perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with. You're gonna get absolutley nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvWDmkwifWo

    I trust this will put to rest the question about whether the BNP has genuinely reconsidered its central views, or has merely hidden them for political expediency.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaishan)
    As you say, it's highly unlikely the BNP have really changed.

    Here's some footage of Griffin about 9 years ago, it formed part of the video for the BBC - Panorama - BNP - Under the Skin documentary which was produced about 5 years ago.

    I'll offer a transcript (made by me) since I know many people will not want to watch a youtube video:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvWDmkwifWo

    I trust this will put to rest the question about whether the BNP has genuinely reconsidered its central views, or has merely hidden them for political expediency.
    Actually, no. LOL. You've actually shot yourself in the foot by omitting the emotively purveyed subtle message of the woman. You only come to that assumption because you're told to believe it. Reading that text alone doesn't say anything accept that they're changing the terminology they use to appear more respectable. That's necessary for any democratic success regardless of what party you are. You don't even know what context he says those words in. It could just be a talk about how you appear attractive to the electorate. What the hell is there in that text that hints at them keeping any of their previous ideals? There's nothing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I replied to that refutation in a weeks-old thread NB and you never responded
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    I replied to that refutation in a weeks-old thread NB and you never responded
    Really? What was it again?

    Edit: Oh yes, I remember. I wrote a response and then I managed to click on one of the stupid ads which deleted the text. :mad:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Really? What was it again?

    Edit: Oh yes, I remember. I wrote a response and then I managed to click on one of the stupid ads which deleted the text. :mad:
    I hate when that happens

    I'll dig around for it tomorrow, I'm tired now :moon:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 15, 2009
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.