Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

BNP: "We no longer want a White Britain" watch

Announcements
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    I hate when that happens

    I'll dig around for it tomorrow, I'm tired now :moon:
    No it's okay. You don't have to. :ninja:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.
    Thank you for your reply. I can assure you that I didn't omit anything to mislead anyone.

    The latter part of the speech in particular is telling in my view. The part where he says that when they get in control of the media "the British people might change their mind", this implies that they will use that control of the media to convince people that "every last one must go".

    The hiding of political beliefs in order to make themselves more electable is shown in the part where he says "if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with." He finishes by going on to talk about the ideal of "racial purity".

    I don't think the majority of people reading that speech would come to your intepretation, with respect.

    (Original post by littleshambles)
    I hate when that happens

    I'll dig around for it tomorrow, I'm tired now :moon:
    What refutation?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaishan)
    Thank you for your reply. I can assure you that I didn't omit anything to mislead anyone.
    No. I didn't suggest you did. I was simply saying that without taking into account what the woman says in the film, the preconception of 'deceitful facade' probably wouldn't come into your head. Especially considering the context of the speech still eludes everyone.

    (Original post by Gaishan)
    The latter part of the speech in particular is telling in my view. The part where he says that when they get in control of the media "the British people might change their mind", this implies that they will use that control of the media to convince people that "every last one must go".
    That doesn't necessarily mean censorship and dictatorial control. It seems like more of a "we will be more popular with the media if we go down this route so we can exert our influence", so effectively having a stranglehold through popularity - not censorship. I also think it's a subtle attack on the BBC (lol) who the BNP frequently believe to be under the influence of certain anti-BNP leftist organisations, as they clearly are with convicted trespasser (to David Irving's house) and ardant Communist, editor of Searchlight, Gerry Gable.

    (Original post by Gaishan)
    The hiding of political beliefs in order to make themselves more electable is shown in the part where he says "if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with." He finishes by going on to talk about the ideal of "racial purity".
    That doesn't demonstate "the hiding of political beliefs", it demonstrates more a softening of terminology so as to not make the public scream 'Nazi'. He basically states these ideas are "[their] ideas too", but that's nothing new in that he's talking to the AFBNP (who always share the BNP views anyway). The aim is - or at least was then (remember, this is 9 years ago :rolleyes:) - to make Britain an homogenous nation; that is effectively what he would rather "sell out" in "saleable words". The text shows absolutely nothing that we don't already know about the BNP. "Instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity" means nothing because 'racial purity' was always previously the message of white nationalists, and so a movement away from the usage of that word still doesn't demonstrate a masquerade of that belief any more than it does a mere shift in the use of language. Simply because it's pretty obvious anyway that utterance of 'racial purity' would be suicidal on their part. Again, without knowing the context there's little that can be deciphered with regards to a deceitful facade.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    My other point is that even if there was an intention for a 'deceitful facade' on the part of Griffin and the 1999 'team' then, regardless, there is absolutely no way on earth it would've been maintained to this day. Why? Because the party members who joined under the premise that the party had reformed wouldn't stand for it. The BNP has grown from being a street movement to a mainstream organisation of 14,000+ members, with many local councillors and two MEPs elected, in a decade. To argue that the elements of the party who initiated this 'intended facade' still have a firm grasp over it is foolish. Nick Griffin solely doesn't decide BNP course of action, just as any other leader of a political organisation doesn't. It's done on a collaborative basis, and considering many of Griffin's entourage and fellow leaders also joined under the premise that the party had reformed (Simon Darby, Richard Barnbrook, Robert West etc.) there is little to say that what the party may have intended to be a facade is still in operation. This overwhelming injection with, what I guess we could call, more moderate, nationalist/patriotic BNP members has inevitably diluted/sidelined/forced out the extremists. There's no reason not to take BNP policy at face value because of the abundance of members who would only conform to it (and nothing more extreme). Any individuals within the party who show signs of radicalism/Nazism are usually expelled; the BNP even forbids its members from posting on Stormfront. Many of the extremists within the party are forced out to the likes of NSM, B&H, N9S etc. who naturally hate Griffin because of what seems to be a 'softening'. They see him as a "race traitor", he's even on RedWatch FFS!!!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    ... the BNP even forbids its members from posting on Stormfront...
    I wonder why the might need to do such a thing? lol

    Anyway, it's not because the BNP aren't Nazis anymore, it's because they don't want the fact that they are to be too obvious...yet.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I wonder why the might need to do such a thing? lol

    Anyway, it's not because the BNP aren't Nazis anymore, it's because they don't want the fact that they are to be too obvious...yet.
    Probably for the same reason that the Labour Party or the Tory Party would expel or reprimand one of their members if they were caught posting on Stormfront. Just a thought.

    As I said, the majority of BNP members wouldn't be in support of any deceitful Nazi masquerade even if it did exist (which is unlikely), so this point's quite tired.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Probably for the same reason that the Labour Party or the Tory Party would expel or reprimand one of their members if they were caught posting on Stormfront. Just a thought.
    ...
    Nah, the BNP have to tell their members not to post on Stormfront because it's the kind of place many of them would like to hang out.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Nah, the BNP have to tell their members not to post on Stormfront because it's the kind of place many of them would like to hang out.
    And you would know this would you? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    And you would know this would you? :rolleyes:
    Visit the website. Many of the threads and attitudes shown there aren't too dissimiliar to that of a BNP supporter.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    My other point is that even if there was an intention for a 'deceitful facade' on the part of Griffin and the 1999 'team' then, regardless, there is absolutely no way on earth it would've been maintained to this day. Why? Because the party members who joined under the premise that the party had reformed wouldn't stand for it. The BNP has grown from being a street movement to a mainstream organisation of 14,000+ members, with many local councillors and two MEPs elected, in a decade. To argue that the elements of the party who initiated this 'intended facade' still have a firm grasp over it is foolish. Nick Griffin solely doesn't decide BNP course of action, just as any other leader of a political organisation doesn't. It's done on a collaborative basis, and considering many of Griffin's entourage and fellow leaders also joined under the premise that the party had reformed (Simon Darby, Richard Barnbrook, Robert West etc.) there is little to say that what the party may have intended to be a facade is still in operation. This overwhelming injection with, what I guess we could call, more moderate, nationalist/patriotic BNP members has inevitably diluted/sidelined/forced out the extremists. There's no reason not to take BNP policy at face value because of the abundance of members who would only conform to it (and nothing more extreme). Any individuals within the party who show signs of radicalism/Nazism are usually expelled; the BNP even forbids its members from posting on Stormfront. Many of the extremists within the party are forced out to the likes of NSM, B&H, N9S etc. who naturally hate Griffin because of what seems to be a 'softening'. They see him as a "race traitor", he's even on RedWatch FFS!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Visit the website. Many of the threads and attitudes shown there aren't too dissimiliar to that of a BNP supporter.
    The heavy majority of BNP supporters are not white supremacists.

    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
    What's your point? The iron law's hardly compatible with most of what I said.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The heavy majority of BNP supporters are not white supremacists.
    I wouldn't really say the majority. What are they then? Interested in preserving the "culture" of their race? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    I wouldn't really say the majority. What are they then? Interested in preserving the "culture" of their race? :rolleyes:
    Concerned about their country being destroyed for one.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    What's your point? The iron law's hardly compatible with most of what I said.
    If the BNP ever became a major party, power would move upwards rather than be dispersed throughout the membership. There is no reason to that the BNP wpuld be any more democratic than any of the other big British parties.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    I wouldn't really say the majority. What are they then? Interested in preserving the "culture" of their race? :rolleyes:
    Something like that, yes.

    The average BNP voter will probably have the view "Those immigrants are stealing our jobs, trying to force their culture upon us, they don't bother speaking our language, they don't try to integrate" etc etc etc. I wouldn't imagine they are white supremacists.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Concerned about their country being destroyed for one.
    Well, this argument is clearly going round in circles. How are immigrants destroying "your" (& your fellow kinsmen; please don't include me despite the fact we share the same colour skin) country? Please, give me a list. If you mention "culture" then I'll just shoot you down as I have done before.

    Is it jobs?
    Is it healthcare?
    Education?
    These areas seem to be the only ones you concentrate upon, bar race and "culture". Expand if you may.

    p.s. I always put "culture" in quotation marks because it's such a loose term and I don't believe you have the slightest clue what it means.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    If the BNP ever became a major party, power would move upwards rather than be dispersed throughout the membership. There is no reason to that the BNP wpuld be any more democratic than any of the other big British parties.
    You'd have a point if the majority of the leadership was from the '90's 'team' but, as it happens, it isn't. What? Are you going to say now, "Griffin will make himself the party's fuhrer and expel all other leaders", in another load of useless guesswork? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Something like that, yes.

    The average BNP voter will probably have the view "Those immigrants are stealing our jobs, trying to force their culture upon us, they don't bother speaking our language, they don't try to integrate" etc etc etc. I wouldn't imagine they are white supremacists.
    How is "preserving one race's culture" anything other than white supremacism?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Well, this argument is clearly going round in circles. How are immigrants destroying "your" (& your fellow kinsmen; please don't include me despite the fact we share the same colour skin) country? Please, give me a list. If you mention "culture" then I'll just shoot you down as I have done before.

    Is it jobs?
    Is it healthcare?
    Education?
    These areas seem to be the only ones you concentrate upon, bar race and "culture". Expand if you may.

    p.s. I always put "culture" in quotation marks because it's such a loose term and I don't believe you have the slightest clue what it means.
    I know perfectly well what British culture is. I don't really see the point in explaining it again to what is effectively a wall. You're just ignorant of it and don't want to believe it exists. You haven't shot me down at all. You've just hit me with a load of individualist libertarian, fallacious nonsense. And anyway, regardless of what I explain it does nothing to prove your blind assertion that the majority of BNP members are white supremacists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Preserving one's culture has nothing to do with us being white, white ‘supremacist’ also implies they actively hate other cultures.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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