Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    You appear to have quoted a lunatic who believes that every post Reagan President was a communist, and that the Rothchild's sponsored the rise of communism. A basic knowledge of history would refute both points.
    That post didn't indicate Reagan being a communist at all, but instead a constituent manifestation of 'International Socialism' :teeth: Again, don't question the source based on evidence which I wasn't even using to defend my particular point anyway. He may be bankrupt with regards to the communist conspiracy paranoia but this doesn't destroy his refutation of the neo-Nazi nonsense. You're making a mountain out of an irrelevent molehill. :awesome:

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Also, given the history of the BNP, and its close links with Neo-Nazi parties on the continent, not to mention the histories of several members, I think you'd have to try harder to refute the "Neo-Nazi" label.
    I don't look at isolated incidents and one small marsh on a vast plain as 'proof' for anything; especially considering the almost exponential growth of this reformed group over the last 10 years.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It's disgusting.
    Yet the article you posted for me states this:

    Whilst the BNP are properly described as being National Socialist.
    The BNP were started in the 1980s by a neo-Nazi as a neo-Nazi party with the aim of creating an 'ethnically pure' society, or something as close as possible, just as Hitler sought to create such a thing under the heading of an 'aryan nation'. This ethnic/white-nationalist policy is still central to the BNP.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Yet the article you posted for me states this:



    The BNP were started in the 1980s by a neo-Nazi as a neo-Nazi party with the aim of creating an 'ethnically pure' society, or something as close as possible, just as Hitler sought to create such a thing under the heading of an 'aryan nation'. This ethnic/white-nationalist policy is still central to the BNP.
    It also claimed that whilst in can be justly labelled as 'National Socialist' this does not mean they're the NSDAP. I wrote an essay once about how National Socialism could carry various forms of intensity and how any doctrine that could be labelled 'National Socialist' (Stalinism for one :teeth:) is not the NSDAP because there are a vast range of counterfactual interpretations. Comparing any party that wields Nationalist and Socialist policies to the NSDAP is, as the commenter said, about as valid as comparing our liberal parties to the Austrian liberal party. Or, in my view, it's about as valid as comparing the CPB's goals to the USSR. It's narrow-minded nonsense.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It also claimed that whilst in can be justly labelled as 'National Socialist' this does not mean they're the NSDAP. I wrote an essay once about how National Socialism could carry various forms of intensity and how any doctrine that could be labelled 'National Socialist' (Stalinism for one :teeth:) is not the NSDAP because there are a vast range of counterfactual interpretations. Comparing any party that wields Nationalist and Socialist policies to the NSDAP is, as the commenter said, about as valid as comparing our liberal parties to the Austrian liberal party. Or, in my view, it's about as valid as comparing the CPB to the USSR. It's narrow-minded nonsense.
    Given that the BNP was founded as a neo-Nazi party by a guy who dressed up as a storm-trooper and with a central agenda of 'ethnic purity'/white-nationalism I don't think the description of the BNP as it is today as being 'National Socialist' is very far at all from the meaning associated with Hitler's also racially-driven National Socialism. The connections are simply too many and too strong to brush off.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Given that the BNP was founded as a neo-Nazi party by a guy who dressed up as a storm-trooper and with a central agenda of 'ethnic purity'/white-nationalism I don't think the description of the BNP as it is today as being 'National Socialist' is very far at all from the meaning associated with Hitler's also racially-driven National Socialism. The connections are simply too many and too strong to brush off.
    Well, the first thing to say about that is that for you to argue "I don't think the description...is very far off" is callous in any case, because, for me, if you're going to compare any group to the Nazis you'd need to expect them to totally emulate their actions. Second is the fact that the party has reformed; with a central agenda of nationalism and support for indigenous Britons (not white people - it has nothing to do with white/'aryan' people).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Well, the first thing to say about that is that for you to argue "I don't think the description...is very far off" is callous in any case, because, for me, if you're going to compare any group to the Nazis you'd need to expect them to totally emulate their actions. Second is the fact that the party has reformed with a central agenda of nationalism and support for indigenous Britons (not white people - it has nothing to do with white/'aryan' people).
    This is just false. I have on several occasions provided quotes from the BNP website and from the offerings of BNP statements and rhetoric to show they regularly use the term 'white' as the 'thing' they're defending. They also use references to 'ethnic Britons', sure, but this is just a twist on what they really want, which is a society as near as possible composed of entirely northern-European-looking people, i.e. obviously white people. The BNP Constitution which lists a quasi-scientific collection of ethnic groupings across Britain (its very existence being strong evidence of their racial/ethnic fixation) includes a reference at the end to how European ethnicities which are similar enough are acceptable - i.e. meaning if they're white enough.

    I'd accept that they've dropped the Nazi saluting and chanting and either hidden away or abandoned the skinheads, but their central issue is still the idea of the 'ethnically pure' or 'white' nation, take your pick which you prefer, they amount to the same thing if you're not an obviously white person. The very idea of asking someone to leave their home, their job, their friends, on the basis of their skin-colour, is utterly morally abhorrent, and the BNP have the cheek to call themselves the defenders of 'cultural Christianity'? I make no apology for making plain the neo-Nazi nature of the present day BNP because I think it's very much apparent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    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.


    This is the problem and what BNP are fighting against. Without the ridiculously bias mass media, the liberal elite imposing groups like the UAF to spread lies around and the safety valve party UKIP, BNP would clearly be getting far more votes.

    If people took those policies at face value, I think a lot of people would agree with them.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    The BNP are Nationalists and their economic policies can be considered quite socialist

    They're not national socialists though :ninja:

    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    This is the problem and what BNP are fighting against. Without the ridiculously bias mass media, the liberal elite imposing groups like the UAF to spread lies around and the safety valve party UKIP, BNP would clearly be getting far more votes.

    If people took those policies at face value, I think a lot of people would agree with them.
    What problem? The fact that not all immigrants are evil Muslims seeking to kill the Queen, dilute our culture in a strange and as of yet unexplained way and impose Shariah law?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    This is the problem and what BNP are fighting against. Without the ridiculously bias mass media, the liberal elite imposing groups like the UAF to spread lies around and the safety valve party UKIP, BNP would clearly be getting far more votes.

    If people took those policies at face value, I think a lot of people would agree with them.
    Yeah people seem loathe to actually believe what the BNP say. Although people are often sceptical of believing other parties too, so I don't really think the problem, as you say, is restricted to the BNP.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    This is just false. I have on several occasions provided quotes from the BNP website and from the offerings of BNP statements and rhetoric to show they regularly use the term 'white' as the 'thing' they're defending. They also use references to 'ethnic Britons', sure, but this is just a twist on what they really want, which is a society as near as possible composed of entirely northern-European-looking people, i.e. obviously white people. The BNP Constitution which lists a quasi-scientific collection of ethnic groupings across Britain (its very existence being strong evidence of their racial/ethnic fixation) includes a reference at the end to how European ethnicities which are similar enough are acceptable - i.e. meaning if they're white enough.
    It's all well and good for you to come out with the 'they want a homogenous nation so they'd enforce genocide' nonsense, but it's nothing but guesswork on your part. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could treat a political party as though they have some sort of solidified mentality. :confused: Their constitution listing the various subethnicities that constitute indigenous Briton is not really evidence of a 'fixation' - it merely clarifies what they mean by indigenous Briton. The point is that the indigenous populace happen to be white, but not every white person is the indigenous populace. The BNP would allow anyone to use the voluntary resettlement scheme; whether they're French, Polish, Congolese, Chinese, Thai, Chilean etc. It's not an issue solely of skin colour, but of protecting nation ethnic homogeneity. The various references to 'white' on their website and things usually concern anti-white racism, and certain discrimitary schemes led against the white populace. This is just as important an issue as anti-black or anti-Asian racism. If people feel the need to group these together as 'black' and 'Asian' on this issue then grouping as 'white' is hardly a sin. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'd accept that they've dropped the Nazi saluting and chanting and either hidden away or abandoned the skinheads, but their central issue is still the idea of the 'ethnically pure' or 'white' nation, take your pick which you prefer, they amount to the same thing if you're not an obviously white person. The very idea of asking someone to leave their home, their job, their friends, on the basis of their skin-colour, is utterly morally abhorrent, and the BNP have the cheek to call themselves the defenders of 'cultural Christianity'? I make no apology for making plain the neo-Nazi nature of the present day BNP because I think it's very much apparent.
    Asking an immigrant to leave a nation for a nationalist would be just as legitimate to ask an unruly lodger to leave your home. There's nothing abhorrent about it unless it amounts to force. Which the BNP have no intention of. And, again, it's not all about skin colour. Cultural Christianity carries little or no connection to spiritual Christianity (and much spiritual Christianity has been modified to adapt to the political climate anyway - that's hardly an argument).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    The BNP are Nationalists and their economic policies can be considered quite socialist

    They're not national socialists though :ninja:
    They could possibly be defined accurately as 'national socialists' just as Stalinism could be, but this is a mere use of words. It doesn't prove anything accept a narrow-minded basic understanding of political concepts on your part, and the view that X(1) + X(2) = Y just as X(4) and X(5) = Y, which simply is not the case. This is because there are a range of variants of both Nationalism and Socialism. To call any form of ideology that could be labelled 'National Socialist' (as, it could be argued, any moderate political organisation could be) Nazis is a hideously fallacious position to adopt.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nouvelle vague)
    And also Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman!
    He's been on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman already.

    The difference would be that on Question Time he has more of a platform - he would be able to say what he wanted about a broad range of topics (within some constraints). In interviews the interviewer has a fixed list of questions and will cut him off if necessary.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Asking an immigrant to leave a nation for a nationalist would be just as legitimate to ask an unruly lodger to leave your home. There's nothing abhorrent about it unless it amounts to force. Which the BNP have no intention of. And, again, it's not all about skin colour. Cultural Christianity carries little or no connection to spiritual Christianity (and much spiritual Christianity has been modified to adapt to the political climate anyway - that's hardly an argument).
    It is morally abhorrent because there's no reason to do so. A country is made of abitruary borders, you don't own the country you were born in, and as such you have no right to ask people to leave simply because their ancestors weren't born here.

    It is about skin colour. Will the BNP be asking Americans to leave?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    (Angry rebuttal of a light hearted jibe)
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Yeah people seem loathe to actually believe what the BNP say. Although people are often sceptical of believing other parties too, so I don't really think the problem, as you say, is restricted to the BNP.
    Sceptical of the other political parties they may be, but the way the BNP get treated by the mainstream media is on an entirely different level.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    imagine he is appointing a pakistani as the vice chairman and a somali as the party secretary to show that his party has changed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, like he'll stick to that belief if ever they got into power.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dorian gray)
    Yeah, like he'll stick to that belief if ever they got into power.
    I'm fairly sure you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    It is morally abhorrent because there's no reason to do so. A country is made of abitruary borders, you don't own the country you were born in, and as such you have no right to ask people to leave simply because their ancestors weren't born here.

    It is about skin colour. Will the BNP be asking Americans to leave?
    Considering that many Americans are of indigenous European stock then they probably won't as they revert to being native. One of the criteria for the indigenous population in the BNP consitution is those members of the other groups listed who are distributed across the planet.

    It's not morally abhorrent because the nation is a bed of similitude. Look, you don't question the rights of other nations to uphold homogeneity. You don't want to force multiculturalism on other nations. Maybe you even support the existence of Israel. All of these are incredibly hypocritical in that you don't care (assuming you're British) about the subversion of your own culture right before you're eyes. When it's threatened also by the impending prospect of indigenous Britons being a minority in their own country within the next 50 years, it's a completely rational position to take.
 
 
 
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
Which accompaniment is best?
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.