RSS FeedEXCLUSIVE: Leaked Email Shows BNP London Mayor Desperation
Iain Dale 7:44 PM
In a desperate attempt to boost their ailing London mayoral and London assembly campaign, the British National Party has been reduced to pleading with English Democrat mayoral candidate Matt O'Connor (famous from Fathers for Justice) to defect to them and abandon his campaign. In a email, leaked to me earlier this evening, the BNP London organiser Nick Eriksen tries to paint the BNP as the most "'father-friendly' party in Britain". He says "the modern BNP is a sensible, democratic and non-racist party". And Nick Griffin no doubt loves small children and furry animals. Here's the full text of the BNP missive. It is almost beyond parody...
I trust Matt O'Connor is sensible enough to tell the BNP precisely where they can stick their email.
Dear Matt,
I am surprised, and disappointed, to see that you are considering standing as London Mayoral candidate for the English Democrats. In view of your concern for justice for fathers when it comes to family separation and the custody of children, you must surely be aware that the British National Party is the ONLY party to clearly state, in its national manifesto, that "Divorce and family laws and maintenance arrangements discriminate against men" and to have the policy pledge to "make joint custody of children the norm in divorce cases"...
...The BNP is the most 'father-friendly' party in Britain. Of course I know that there are loads of lies and smears directed towards us, but if you read our manifesto you will see that the modern BNP is a sensible, democratic and non-racist party and one which I am sure you could support.
The English Democrats are, frankly, a miniscule fringe group who are using you. You will know that last year they received fewer votes in a parliamentary by-election that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, and the other week in a by-election in Lambeth the EDs received a mere 8 votes - less than the number of people required to fill in the nomination form!
If you are genuinely concerned about England's representation within the Union, then you will see from our manifesto that it is the BNP's policy to "introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom". As you can see the BNP is the party which best represents the views you are seeking to promote. Instead of allowing yourself to be used by the English Democrats for their own ends you should come over to the party which genuinely cares about families, fathers and children. The BNP is growing at a tremendous rate. While the EDs were obtaining a mere 8 votes in Lambeth the BNP won a council seat in Havering. People are realising that the BNP is not as it has been misrepresented by our opponents in other parties and in the media. We are a friendly party with the best interests of the British people at heart. Our policies are based on traditional values and commonsense.
Please do contact me if you would like to discuss this or if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
Nick Eriksen
BNP London Organiser
I trust Matt O'Connor is sensible enough to tell the BNP precisely where they can stick their email.
Labels: BNP, English Democrats
49 Comments:
Enjoying the blog.
Strange, there is no mention of the BNP policy pressing for the 'voluntary' repatriation of fathers who do not happen to fulfil the BNP's criteria of being 'white British'.
Maybe the BNP should rephrase that email to read "white British father-friendly"? I am just trying to identify which traditional value that policy equates with, or how it benefits British fathers who happen to be non-caucasian...
And no mention that the English parliament the BNP propose is for the racially English only. I am not sure if this means only pure Anglo-Saxons or if Vikings and Normans get a look in too.
Of course they should consider that Matt O'Connor considers more than just fatherhood. He may genuinely believe in the ED policies and not be a single issue man.
If I lived in London Matt would have my vote, with Boris second.
The Secret Person is correct.
What the BNP propose is not an English Parliament as you or I would imagine it.
What the BNP want is an English Parliament composed of Anglo-Saxons only.
They are actually in favour of blood tests to determine lineage. This is what Lee Barnes (the BNP's 'legal eagle') posted on my blog:
only the ethnic english would be allowed to register and vote...
Everyone will have the right to vote in the British elections regardless of ethnicity - only indigenous Scots, English and Welsh will have the right to vote in their respective parliaments....
The welsh and scots parliament should also be ethno-specific parliaments to represent the indigenous peoples of those lands...
Be under no illusions about the BNP.
Where's the evidence of desperation in this email? They're trying to gather support, like all parties do. Recent elections show their support is definitely increasing.
And what's Tony Sharp's problem with voluntary repatriation for non-white people? Would he live in a white minority area? Of course not.
Besides, there are many organisations for the exclusive benefit of non-white ethnic groups. Do those groups demand blood-tests to determine ethnicity?
secret person and Toque, it's a perfectly acceptable political view to hold - that the English people do not have a special right to control England - but it does give a licence to imperialists everywhere.
(and Toque, Barnes does not mention blood tests in the quotes you offer.)
To all who attack the BNP for seeking to represent the indigeneous peoples of Britain, it would seem more reasonable given the BNP's lack of power to attack the big three parties who avowedly represent all peoples' interests but the natives.
Tell Cameron not to consult with the Jewish community; Brown not to speak to Indian organisations; Huhne to repudiate Operation Black Vote, and so on ad inf.
I am English
I want an English Parliament
I would not qualify for the BNP's "English" Parliament
Ergo, the BNP are not advocating an English Parliament.
Toque said...
"What the BNP want is an English Parliament composed of Anglo-Saxons only."
What a great idea - can't happen soon enough.
Toque, does this mean that under the BNP's policy, Alistair Darling would not be allowed to stand for a Scottish Parliament because he was born in London, and Jim Fitzpatrick (MP for Canning Town) wouldn't be allowed to stand for the English Parliament because he was born in Glasgow (despite having lived in England for twenty five years before being elected to Westminster)?
I wonder though, how does this differ from the English Democrats' view? Christine Constable has said on ConservativeHome that David Cameron is "Scottish", but Cameron was born, raised, educated, employed, and elected in England.
Does this not mean that the English Democrats and the BNP are no different in this area? I'm not trying to pick a fight with the ED trolls. I really want to know.
How on earth do you police who can stand in an "ethno-specific" English or Scottish Parliament anyway? One of my old girlfriends had Scottish parents but her father served in the army. She was born in Germany (where her father was posted), lived there for five years, then went to live in the South of England. She has never lived in Scotland and has an English accent: would the BNP consider her to be English or Scottish?
The BNP's family policies are, fundamentally, about producing more white children. This keeps the racists happy. Nick Griffin, though, has realised that he can dress these policies up as "family-friendly" in some general sense.
For example, the BNP state, "Homosexual relationships do not produce offspring—essential to the survival of a people and a nation." Most of us think that families are about love and sharing, but to the BNP they apparently represent a duty to procreate and nothing more.
Has anyone here actually read the BNP's last manifesto? It's contains some fundamental contradictions.
The main one is the immigration policy.
The BNP have removed their last proper manifesto from their web site and replaced it with a 'mini-manifesto'. This is not actually a real manifesto, it's a re-working of the old "our stance" bit which I think was put there to distract attention from the BNP's real policies and act as bait to people who will just read what they want to and not really research anything.
In the mini-manifesto and the old "our stance" pages it states that the BNP would call a halt to ALL immigration.
It says, under "our agenda for change" in the last manifesto, the following:
"we call for an
immediate halt to all further immigration,"
However, if you look at the BNP's actual policy on immigration it is clear that this is not the case, the BNP would not in fact stop all immigration:
"A BNP government would accept no
further immigration from any of the parts of the world which present the prospect
of an almost limitless flow of immigration: Africa, Asia, China, Eastern and South
Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America would all be placed on an
immediate ‘stop’ list."
The excuse is that these countries present the prospect of an almost limitless flow of immigration, "Almost".
1. Surely pretty much any country on the planet presents the prospect of almost limitless immigration?
2. "almost limitless" does not mean "limitless", it means the opposite, it means limited. So the actual phrase without the spin should be "any country that presents the prospect of limited immigration". Hmmmm?
3. In the 2001 census the country where the majority of our existing immigrants came from (and I see no evidence to suggest this has changed) was the Republic of Ireland. Yet the Republic of Ireland is not on the stop list, neither are Australia, Germany and several other countries in the top ten and twenty countries of origin for our existing immigrants.
4. If the driver for this policy is not population and resources then what is it? What do the most of the countries on the stop list have in common? Well, I've spotted one thing - the majority of the population in all of those countries (with the possible exception of South America, which I'll come to next) are non-white. South America happens to contain a lot of potential Communists and socialists though. An old enemy of the BNP.
So, we have the FACT that the BNP's most up to date proper general election manifesto blatently contradicts itself.
We have the fact that the excuse for the 'stop list' is a load of guff.
We have all the evidence around the history of the BNP, it's current constituation and the views of it's members.
What the BNP has done (or rather, what Nick Griffin has done) since the disasterous 1997 election (for them) is to hide behind legal and marketing speak in order to avoid being seen as blatently racist. Nick Griffin studied law and he's also using the same defence as he did last time in court, he couldn't be done from incitement to racial hatred (again) because he targetted a religion, Islam. Islam isn't a race, therefore being anti-Islam cannot be racist in the strictist definition of the word.
Essentially what this all amounts to though, is racism by proxy.
The BNP are not simply about looking after the interests of "indigenous" people, it is not some kind of organisation for positive discrimination and awareness of a minority. The BNP is, and has been for many years, proactively chipping away, preying on people's fears and inciting hatred towards entire groups of people simply on the basis of their religion or race.
No only is the BNP still racist in my opinion (and the evidence is there to back it up) but it would actually discriminate against millions of people on the basis they are likely to non-white because they are coming from places where most people are non-white.
It must also be noted that the BNP only sees democracy as a means of gaining to a position where it can get rid of democracy. Nick Griffin has made it clear previously that he prefers the use of force over rational debate. Rational debate must surely be essential to our democracy?
I've said enough for now. Plenty to think about there and I'm happy for people to pick it all apart if they like.
Joe Chapman wrote ... Has anyone here actually read the BNP's last manifesto? ... At the last general election, I read every manifesto except Labour's. As I recall, the BNP did allude to race as a biological reality and to the existence of significant racial differences and that the other parties did not.
In my opinion the BNP is now unequivocal regarding race, indeed they even have a website section “racism cuts both ways” with a statistical analysis of British crime data.
Whether by accident or design the only political party whose policies align with current scientific research on human behaviour and biology is the BNP. Read the academic research - a useful starting point is
Professor Linda Gottfredson as much of her work is accessible to the educated layman. Large quantifiable differences exist between races, including disease resistance, pharmaceutical response, lactose tolerance, testosterone levels, maturation rates and intelligence. Regarding the latter, requiring that examination pass rates or employment success must be pro-rata with the sizes of population groups does contradict scientific observations, are not achievable and do give rise to false accusations of prejudice.
I would suggest that the current form of BNP has been created by the lines of argument presented in the comments above and the Drive-By Media coverage. Only the most highly motivated individuals, who can be termed extremists, would have had anything to do with the BNP in the past due to the high personal cost. The BNP are potentially the subject of undercover documentaries at all times and apparently now behave accordingly. This changed behaviour now makes them electable in the eyes of an increasing number of people. The Establishment Party is held in contempt by many of their own voters, which gives a further boost to the BNP as a protest vote.
As for the Ruling Class who insist that the general public celebrate diversity and embrace difference – where do they live and exactly how are their children educated?
Joe Chapman: Must you use so many words to be so silly?
"Joe Chapman: Must you use so many words to be so silly?" - anonymous.
No, I could use just a few, like you have done, but as it seems I have a bit more going on in my head than thinking up a very poor snipe at someone else's post.
So what is it about my post you find so silly then?
Bert Rustle,
Have you got any comments about any specific part of what I wrote about the BNP? Regardless of what is right or what is wrong morally or ethically, is anything in my post inaccurate in your view?
On the point about Professor Linda Gottfredson:
So what? We all know there are differences between races but it isn't quite as black and white (pardon the pun) as you appear to be trying to make out. I'll use one of your own examples - Lactose intolerance. This actually occurs within a race too. Many white Europeans are lactose intolerant too. The theory is that it was just one or two tribes in Europe who developed tolerance to cow's milk, not everyone. It's a very complicated picture.
Without making assumptions it is difficult for me to say why Bert put that bit in.
On the point about 'intelligence' again - so what? The fact is that I work in an office with people of many different nationalities and races, they are all doing different kinds of work, you don't get all the Irish doing one type of job and all the Indians doing another. Although, admittedly most Indian people I meet work with data as analysts. We have Africans who are analysts too. So on this basis I would suggest that the perceived genetic differences between races are not really the important factor.
http://www.themoviefitna.com/
Joe Chapman wrote ... Have you got any comments about any specific part of what I wrote about the BNP? ... No, save that I would say that your comment ... Essentially what this all amounts to though, is racism by proxy. ... is a reasonable summary of your post. Regarding the BNP position, I would say that essentially what this amounts to is an acknowledgement of current scientific research on human behaviour and biology and the fact that the indigenous Europeans have nowhere to run to as inter-ethnic problems increase with increasing Diversity.
More generally, there are (ex-) communists and (ex-) CND members in the British Government and those with rather more serious convictions than speaking in public or distributing leaflets in prominent public positions in Ulster and many other places. Consequently I see no reason why Nick Griffin or indeed Keith Best or Jonathan Aitken should not hold similar positions.
Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that the BNP has many members who are also members of various intelligence agencies, as was the case with the paramilitaries in Ulster and who are similarly motivated. The moment these individuals have room to manoeuvre, political effectiveness will reduce. Paramilitary party discipline was rather more vigorously enforced in Ulster yet the in fighting still occurred, so I would hazard a guess that being in the BNP rather than the Establishment Party will continue to be personally demanding for the foreseeable future and that the hostility of the Ruling Class to the BNP will increase in tandem with whatever electoral success it achieves. For these reasons, I do not foresee the BNP either behaving as, or being accepted by, the various wings of the Establishment Party.
Joe Chapman wrote ... is anything in my post inaccurate in your view? ... I am not aware of a time efficient way for me to verify the many points you make.
Joe Chapman wrote ... Lactose intolerance. ... it is difficult for me to say why Bert put that bit in. ... It is an example of recent adaption to environment, whereas walking upright is not. This contradicts the assumption of many that evolution of significant differences stopped in the distant past.
Joe Chapman wrote ... I would suggest that the perceived genetic differences between races are not really the important factor ... With respect, your experience is not a scientific experiment. Read the academic research - a useful starting point is
Professor Linda Gottfredson as much of her work is accessible to the educated layman. For example see Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies which was published in In C. C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology. New York: Wiley. I would be happy to respond to substantive factual points raised by this article if you discuss it on your own blog(s).
Joe Chapman wrote ... Lactose intolerance. This actually occurs within a race too. Many white Europeans are lactose intolerant too. ... Indeed. The statistical analysis of empirical data does not enable conclusions to be drawn about individual data points, only groups of points, with an increasing reliability as the number of data points increases.
"Regarding the BNP position, I would say that essentially what this amounts to is an acknowledgement of current scientific research on human behaviour and biology" - Bert
How? Please can you elaborate. I can't find any evidence to back up your point.
"More generally, there are (ex-) communists and (ex-) CND members in the British Government and those with rather more serious convictions than speaking in public or distributing leaflets in prominent public positions in Ulster and many other places. Consequently I see no reason why Nick Griffin or indeed Keith Best or Jonathan Aitken should not hold similar positions." - Bert
Could you just clarify this for me - are you saying that because they are already some dodgy people in positions of power then that means it's OK for some other dodgy people to also have power?
Also I note that you lump Communists and CND members in with criminals. On what basis? I can imagine there are lots of arguments to be had about some Communist regimes and the murder of lots of people etc but CND?
"Joe Chapman wrote ... is anything in my post inaccurate in your view? ... I am not aware of a time efficient way for me to verify the many points you make." - Bert
What do you mean by "time efficient"? You either do something or don't surely?
"Joe Chapman wrote ... Lactose intolerance. ... it is difficult for me to say why Bert put that bit in. ... It is an example of recent adaption to environment, whereas walking upright is not. This contradicts the assumption of many that evolution of significant differences stopped in the distant past." - Bert
OK. I wasn't arguing that point though, so I'm still not sure why you put that it. To me it demonstrates that the race issue is not as straight forward as some people suggest. Would you like to see those who are lactose tolerant defined as a different race or something?
"Joe Chapman wrote ... Lactose intolerance. This actually occurs within a race too. Many white Europeans are lactose intolerant too. ... Indeed. The statistical analysis of empirical data does not enable conclusions to be drawn about individual data points, only groups of points, with an increasing reliability as the number of data points increases." - Bert
Yes, I understand that perfectly well, I'm an analyst. "increasing reliability" doesn't not mean something is reliable or accurate though.
"Joe Chapman wrote ... I would suggest that the perceived genetic differences between races are not really the important factor ... With respect, your experience is not a scientific experiment." - Bert
That's an assumption. How do you know my experience isn't based on scientific experiment?
I'm not arguing against the idea that there are differences between races, I just think that as there are always exceptions (and I see many exceptions in day to day life) we shouldn't be using the data from the experiments for anything other than study, it certainly shouldn't be used, in my opinion, to discriminate and generalise. That would not be scientific.
If you don't want to discuss this further then fair enough, that's up to you. It's seems that you have an interest in this subject, maybe it's my fault but I'm having difficulty figuring out for sure what your angle is on all of this.
Bert,
What do you know about "Pioneer"? What's your overall perception of this?
Cheers.
Joe Chapman wrote ... How? Please can you elaborate. I can't find any evidence to back up your point. ... That is my perception from BNP bloggers and the party website. Others may of course draw very diferent conclusions from the same data.
Joe Chapman wrote ... are you saying that because they are already some dodgy people in positions of power then that means it's OK for some other dodgy people to also have power? ... No. In my opinion if Gerry Adams or Nelson Mandela can join the democratic process than so can others.
Joe Chapman wrote ... I note that you lump Communists and CND members in with criminals. On what basis? ... Brevity. I did not assert or imply that criminals are communists or any other combination. My comment is as simple as I can make it.
Joe Chapman wrote ... What do you mean by "time efficient"? ... It was an oblique way of hinting that I do not have the time to study your post in detail.
Joe Chapman wrote ... "increasing reliability" doesn't not mean something is reliable or accurate though. ... I agree.
Joe Chapman wrote ... That's an assumption. How do you know my experience isn't based on scientific experiment? ... What you described in your comment was not a scientific experiment. That was not an assumption. You may run your work environment as a scientific experiment but that is not what you described.
Joe Chapman wrote ... What do you know about "Pioneer"? ... I believe that Professor Linda Gottfredson, Professor J Phillipe Rushton, Professor Richard Lynn and others have received funding from or at least have had some form of association with the Pioneer Fund. Is that your point?
As you writing style has changed from Tolstoy to Telex in the interests of efficiency I will extrapolate and presume without probable cause that you are in the process of constructing a smear of the researcher rather than addressing the results of the research. “Shoot The Messenger” is another possible description. Smearing a scientist’s inconvenient results has occurred previously. Reportedly Hitler was against Relativity because it was “Jewish science” and banned IQ tests as Jews out-performed Aryans I will not entertain it.
Let us say that scientist X is funded by the Stalin-Hitler Humanity Fund. In what way does this affect the peer review process of this scientist’s work? If scientist Y is a mass murderer serving life without parole, in what way does this affect the peer review process of this scientist’s work?
If scientist Z states “I hate population group/cluster/race XX and I hope they die a slow and painful death” on national TV, in what way does this affect the peer review process of this scientist’s work?
Messrs Gottfredson, Lynn and Rushton have been published in a wide range of peer reviewed journals, alongside their protagonists. Are the referees alternately racist and anti-racist or are they objectively assessing the papers submitted? Do you dispute that that Messrs Gottfredson, Jensen, Lynn and Rushton are held to a higher refereeing standard in these same journals than their protagonists? Do not their protagonists have agendas? Who does not have agendas?
Hitler, Tolstoy, Stalin etc...?
Where did all of this come from? Who is Telex?
Thanks for taking the time to answer me anyway.
You seem to be a bit irritated, I don't know why you think someone would want to just smear this professor, but you brought her into this for some reason. I'm sure you realise that as you don't have time to read through what I wrote then I certainly don't have time to study this Professor's work in order to properly understand it. So I either have to find some other way of evaluating the siutation or just accept it. As I'm not someone who just trusts what someone else is saying to me, unless that person has earnt my trust, then I can't just accept it like that.
Joe Chapman wrote ... I don't know why you think someone would want to just smear this professor, but you brought her into this for some reason. ... Because you asked ... What do you know about "Pioneer"? ... and Professor Linda Gottfredson has an association with the Pioneer Fund which has been the subject of various smears in the past. I presumed that your question was asked for a reason and that you would enlighten me with your reply. Perhaps I was wrong and if my extrapolation without probable cause was erroneous, then I apologise but I now ask you in turn what do you know about "Pioneer" and why did you ask me?
Joe Chapman wrote ... I'm sure you realise that as you don't have time to read through what I wrote ... I would not make the remark that Anonymous wrote ... Joe Chapman: Must you use so many words to be so silly? ..., but to be blunt I would hazard a guess that it would have taken me considerably more time to give the response you asked for than it took to compose those points in the form that you presented and that it left room for improvement. No doubt others will respond adequately to your comment in due course but I have too many other commitments. This is a failing on my part, not yours.
Joe Chapman wrote ... then I certainly don't have time to study this Professor's work in order to properly understand it. ... I would hazard a guess that most people with a traditional examination based A-Level standard of science education would be able to properly understand the article I linked to and I would be happy to respond to substantive factual points raised by this article if you discuss it on your own blog(s).
Joe Chapman wrote ... I either have to find some other way of evaluating the siutation ... unless that person has earnt my trust, then I can't just accept it like that. ... Read the research, or even read the articles by Nicholas Wade in The New York Times as he gives selective highlights of some of the research in a very readable fashion.
Joe Chapman wrote ... Hitler, Tolstoy, Stalin etc...? Where did all of this come from? Who is Telex? ... Tolstoy – verbose, Telex – laconic. Hitler,Stalin - Let us say that scientist X is funded by the Stalin-Hitler Humanity Fund. In what way does this affect the peer review process of this scientist’s work?
That is as clear as I can make it. However as this is clearly not clear enough, I will give another two analogies. Firstly, if someone were a National Socialist or indeed an International Socialist, how would that affect any logical deductions they made from the statistical analysis of empirical data. Secondly, reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, does that invalidate the arguments he presented?
Bert,
You are using some words I don't know so I'll have to go look them up.
Is there any chance you could summerise what you are going on about and why, please?
It all seems like a lot of fancy writing but I don't know what bearing it has on anything here, I must be missing something.
What's with all the Nazi/National Socialism/Communist stuff?
Joe Chapman wrote ... could summerise what you are going on about ... My comments to you are as precise and as clear as I can make them and I am sorry that they appear to be inadequate.
Joe Chapman wrote ... I must be missing something. ... I am missing your reply to the following question: what do you know about "Pioneer" and why did you ask me?
Bert,
It's not the content of your posts that's having difficulty with really, it's understanding what your actual opinion is and why you are going on about eugenics, Hitler, Stalin etc.
In answer to your question about "Pioneer": I know very little about it, you appear to know more because you are talking about a Professor that was apparently funded by Pioneer and you are talking as if you are someone who knows about this subject.
Terry Heath, March 28, 2008 5:27 AM, the English are a particular ethnic group. If you are not of that ethnic community, you should use another term to describe yourself. It does not mean someone who simply lives in England.
Pete Chown, March 28, 2008 11:28 AM, if the BNP’s family policies are fundamentally about producing more white children, what is your objection? What do you have against white children? Most of us think having families is about love and sharing – to you apparently they represent the survival of a race and nation you would rather didn’t survive.
Joe Chapman, March 28, 2008 2:45 PM, you say the BNP and Nick Griffin are racists by proxy. The truth is that they openly discriminate by race – they are a party exclusively for white people, for example. But is this racism? Or is this self-defence?
When every other party seeks to consult and represent the particular interests of minority ethnic and racial groups, but absolutely rejects the legitimacy of English and white collective interests, it’s a rather odd Englishman or white person who complains only about the BNP’s stance. It’s not anti-racism, it’s Uncle-Tomism.
And on the most fundamental issue for every people – its self determination and control of its homeland, you will, if consistent, also find against Labour, the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems, who support ethnic nationalism, for their own favoured peoples including the Jews (Cameron goes so far as to say Jewish nationalism is in the DNA of his party).
When Brown said he’ll meet with the Dalai Lama, I’ll bet your first thought wasn’t ‘Brown is a racist by proxy, simply trying to exclude the Chinese from Tibet’. It would have been if you were consistent.
Dale, Sharp, tsp, Heath, Toque, Chown, and Chapman, if you’re Englishmen, stop being Uncle Toms, and start demanding your people are treated equally to other peoples by our political masters.
This might mean opposing parties that support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state or which fail to denounce the Dalai Lama’s ethnic nationalism - or it might mean supporting ethnic nationalism for your own people.
But you can’t continue to treat peoples so unequally and yet not be racist.
"Joe Chapman, March 28, 2008 2:45 PM, you say the BNP and Nick Griffin are racists by proxy. The truth is that they openly discriminate by race – they are a party exclusively for white people, for example. But is this racism? Or is this self-defence?"
It could be both.
It's not just self-defence though, if it is self defence at all.
The reason for this is because the BNP does not simply promote the awareness of being white and British (definition?) it pro-actively campaigns against those it sees as not qualifying as being white or British. Indeed, the whole reason for the existence of the BNP is as a party that believes in an exclusive Britain as defined by the supporters and members of the BNP based on racial purity.
Add to this the FACT that a very large number of BNP supporters, members (including senior members) are openly campaigning for racial purity in Britain and are constantly defining what it means to be British, against the natural flow of the reality of being British which includes people of different races and even religions.
You can go on about England and being English all you like, but we are discussing the British National Party, which includes (for the time being maybe!) England, Wales and Scotland. What is Nick Griffin? Is he an Englishman? He's of Welsh descent, has a welsh name, lives in Wales and has said previously that he is foremost a Welsh nationalist before a British Nationalist!
Joe Chapman, you can say all that of the big three parties regarding Israel, and say it of Jonathan Sacks and Maureen Lipman who are staunch Zionists, yet insist on the right to live in another people's country.
It is this inconsistency which itself constitutes racism. You are targetting one group of people for race replacement in their homeland in an entirely unprincipled fashion.
"another people's country"
You seem to be saying that because Jonathan Sacks and Maureen Lipman are Jewish and believe in Israel they don't belong in Britain.
If I had discovered that Jonathan Sacks and Maureen Lipman were going around trying to incite racial hatred against non-Jews and doing all the things that the BNP do then I would be opposing them too. So far I haven't bumped into them anywhere.
I think you will find that just because you believe that a country is your homeland doesn't mean you actually have to live there.
I see what you are trying to do and it won't work, trying to make out that because I'm speaking out against The BNP and not Jonathan Sacks and Maureen Lipman (who I didn't even know are Zionists until you mentioned it) I must be racist.
This looks to me like a very poor attempt to get one over in me in an argument.
Why have you resorted to this?
And I haven't even mentioned Nick Eriksen yet so what you are going to be like if I did that I don't know!
You seem to be saying that because Jonathan Sacks and Maureen Lipman are Jewish and believe in Israel they don't belong in Britain.
Not quite, it was you who seemed to imply that Griffin is a Welshman and a 'British nationalist' and therefore cannot believe in an England for the English.
Another unprincipled exception Joe?
When these double standards prejudice the basic interests of particular ethnic groups THAT'S racism.
I see what you are trying to do and it won't work, trying to make out that because I'm speaking out against The BNP and not Jonathan Sacks and Maureen Lipman (who I didn't even know are Zionists until you mentioned it) I must be racist.
Exactly - this is essentially the point I already made about your attacking the BNP but not the other parties.
"it was you who seemed to imply that Griffin is a Welshman and a 'British nationalist' and therefore cannot believe in an England for the English."
I'm sorry that it seemed that way, that was not my intention with the comment.
The point is that Griffin is the leader of the British National Party, therefore I'm making the assumption that Wales is included as part of Britain within the definition of "British", however, a Welsh Nationalist may argue differently. The two appear to be in direct contradiction.
So are you now saying that you think Griffin believes in England for the English? Does this mean you think the BNP want to stop all Welsh, Scottish and Irish from coming to live in England and that all people on non-English descent (whatever that is) shouldn't have a say on English government matters?
All very confusing, can you please clarify your position on this?
"Exactly - this is essentially the point I already made about your attacking the BNP but not the other parties."
How is it your point?
Which of the other parties are proposing to prevent some immigrants from coming into the UK simply on the basis that they might be non-white?
Which of the other parties was set up specifically as an anti-non white party?
Which of the other parties goes around the internet spreading anti non-white immigrant, anti-Muslim propaganda?
The BNP have proactively been doing all of this for years, an organised campaign with the purpose of inciting racial and religious hatred (see you in court Mr Darby?)
There is case after case after case mounting up against the BNP yet you still keep pretending things have changed and this is the new squeaky clean BNP.
Funny though how the BNP only ever owns up and does something about problems after they've been found out. Oh but of course, the rest of the Senior BNP members can't possibly have known that for the last few years their London organiser and (former) 2008 London Assembly candidate was running a blog where he wrote all sorts of shockingly nasty things about blacks, Muslims, women, children and others. Sure.
All that time that Roy James ex BNP candidate for Sheffield, was posting as "Heidrich41" on Stormfront, quoting Hitler in his signature and making derogatory and racist comments about black people, as soon as the evidence got too much Griffin just refused to help him, no-one spoke out against his Mr James' views apart from people like me. Roy James has since revealed that he is indeed a "National Socialist" and that they are many others in the BNP.
But, it seems that your logic is that because some people are seen to be having at go at a few individuals in other parties and because there are possibly racists in other parties, it's all OK.
To whom it may concern,
In reference to your article about the B.N.P. in British elections and their growing popularity I feel you are similar to so many other media concerns in your steadfast refusal to ask the obvious; if support for the B.N.P. in London alone has risen from 3000 to 300,000 in a few years then the most important question is clearly, why?
There seems to be only four possibilities:
1) Hundreds of thousands of people have suddenly become 'racist'.
2) Hundreds of thousands of people have suddenly become stupid.
3) The B.N.P. is no longer/never really was, racist.
4) The economic boom of the last ten years fuelled a 'benefits bribery system' along with a conspiracy of media/parliamentary silence regarding the true feelings of the VAST majority of ENGLISH people regarding mass foreign migration and an accompanying 'multiculture' never put to the British people in referenda despite constituting the greatest social change in our country’s history.
Of course, some of us who vote B.N.P. also feel morally outraged that the most essential workers (i.e. in health and business) are being taken from Africa and Asia despite the U.N. constantly saying these most desperate of places suffer greatly from this 'brain drain'.
We believe our 1.5 million British unemployed between 16-24 should be OUR new generation of doctors and nurses and the populations of other countries deserve to keep theirs.
We also believe 25,000 women trafficked into our country to be raped to death in our cities because we have NO BORDER CONTROL is a horror of biblical proportions, ignored in favour of British business (or simply put: the rich getting richer.)
The mass of people voting B.N.P. are not racist and actually think race is a non-issue. Instead we are looking at a full range of party policies and more importantly the opportunity for this nascent party to continue to grow and change and finally to become a party to represent our people rather than a globalised commercial M.N.C. greed machine as the non-socialist Labour and non-conservative Tory partys have become. (See sub-prime mortgages, unregulated financial sector, super-rich immunity, and the basic rich/poor divide.)
A building, be it a hospital, a school, a library, is only so much bricks and mortar. A name irrelevant without a human face. And a party as true, fair, honest, racist, evil, socialist, nationalist, liberal, or anything else as the people that constitute it's control.
People like me, member of Anti-Slavery International, member of Mensa, member of the B.N.P., and with a good education, and with honesty and morality, and a overriding wish to debate alternatives to current European governments.
Governments soon be little more than a vast 'managerial tier' within the M.N.C. financial and trade networks. Networks that are currently creating a low paid 'drifting' mass of world populations, the sole purpose of which being to gravitate to which ever country they are most needed as cheap labour.
A mass soon to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion and in doing so also increase the constant civil war world-wide that is bound to follow.
To whom it may concern,
In reference to your article about the B.N.P. in British elections and their growing popularity I feel you are similar to so many other media concerns in your steadfast refusal to ask the obvious; if support for the B.N.P. in London alone has risen from 3000 to 300,000 in a few years then the most important question is clearly, why?
There seems to be only four possibilities:
1) Hundreds of thousands of people have suddenly become 'racist'.
2) Hundreds of thousands of people have suddenly become stupid.
3) The B.N.P. is no longer/never really was, racist.
4) The economic boom of the last ten years fuelled a 'benefits bribery system' along with a conspiracy of media/parliamentary silence regarding the true feelings of the VAST majority of ENGLISH people regarding mass foreign migration and an accompanying 'multiculture' never put to the British people in referenda despite constituting the greatest social change in our country’s history.
Of course, some of us who vote B.N.P. also feel morally outraged that the most essential workers (i.e. in health and business) are being taken from Africa and Asia despite the U.N. constantly saying these most desperate of places suffer greatly from this 'brain drain'.
We believe our 1.5 million British unemployed between 16-24 should be OUR new generation of doctors and nurses and the populations of other countries deserve to keep theirs.
We also believe 25,000 women trafficked into our country to be raped to death in our cities because we have NO BORDER CONTROL is a horror of biblical proportions, ignored in favour of British business (or simply put: the rich getting richer.)
The mass of people voting B.N.P. are not racist and actually think race is a non-issue. Instead we are looking at a full range of party policies and more importantly the opportunity for this nascent party to continue to grow and change and finally to become a party to represent our people rather than a globalised commercial M.N.C. greed machine as the non-socialist Labour and non-conservative Tory partys have become. (See sub-prime mortgages, unregulated financial sector, super-rich immunity, and the basic rich/poor divide.)
A building, be it a hospital, a school, a library, is only so much bricks and mortar. A name irrelevant without a human face. And a party as true, fair, honest, racist, evil, socialist, nationalist, liberal, or anything else as the people that constitute it's control.
People like me, member of Anti-Slavery International, member of Mensa, member of the B.N.P., and with a good education, and with honesty and morality, and a overriding wish to debate alternatives to current European governments.
Governments soon be little more than a vast 'managerial tier' within the M.N.C. financial and trade networks. Networks that are currently creating a low paid 'drifting' mass of world populations, the sole purpose of which being to gravitate to which ever country they are most needed as cheap labour.
A mass soon to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion and in doing so also increase the constant civil war world-wide that is bound to follow.
All very confusing, can you please clarify your position on this?
How is it your point?
It does not matter what I think BNP policy is, however, if “all Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people” planned on moving to England next week, I’m sure all political parties would try and find a way to stop it happening; and it appears from the direct quotations Toque provided that BNP policy is to have the English vote on English affairs (although it seems he was scaremongering with talk of ‘blood tests’). These are consistent and defensible policy positions.
It would not be consistent if Griffin were to promote and defend a British nationalism which would exclude people from ethnic groups exotic to Britain, yet himself lived in another people’s homeland and opposed their right to pursue ethnic nationalist goals which would exclude him. I think, in fact, that such a double standard would be objectively racist, yet regrettably this attitude is almost universal among the Jewish people in Britain, and is supported by all the main parties who likewise think that’s what good and proper for the Jewish people is to be forbidden to us.
But, it seems that your logic is that because some people are seen to be having at go at a few individuals in other parties and because there are possibly racists in other parties, it's all OK
No, logic says that if the other parties are objectively racist, your attacking the BNP alone for being, in your view, ‘racist’ is a double standard. Logic says, too, that when you attack the BNP for supporting ethnic nationalism, you ought also attack the big three parties who also support ethnic nationalism: Cameron, for example, claims, rather bizarrely, that Jewish nationalism is in the DNA of his party.
If you want to talk about inciting hatred against ethnic groups, I think the place to start is with speech intended to stigmatise the politics of survival of those groups. Nothing could be more hateful or racist than propagandising for the dispossession and dissolution of a people. It is entirely predictable that this will provoke violent opposition, so to then utilise the violent defensive response to further stigmatise defensive politics among the target people, as you are now doing, merely adds detail to a picture of hostility.
Origin 8,
You have missed out another possibility:
5) Since 1997 the BNP has become better at wording it's propaganda and policies in order to fool the electorate into thinking that they are an anti-immigration party when in actual fact their immigration policy is really only against immigration from countries where the population are mainly non-white. The success of this marketing can be seen in the previous study conducted which appear to show that most people actually agree with BNP policy on immigration. In fact they did not. People were given a statement, not told what the source of the statement was and asked if they agreed with it, the statement simply said that all immigration should be stopped. It was then claimed that this was BNP policy. It was not. So in actual fact, what was claimed as a victory for the BNP (that most people agreed with the BNP) was completely the opposite, most people in the study did not agree with the BNP, most people do not want to discrimate against people on the basis of race, the BNP does.
So, people aren't being stupid etc, they have been fooled, you don't have to be stupid to be fooled.
"We also believe 25,000 women trafficked into our country to be raped to death in our cities because we have NO BORDER CONTROL is a horror of biblical proportions, ignored in favour of British business (or simply put: the rich getting richer.)"
So who is doing the raping? bearing in mind that immigrants are still a minority and most immigrants are from Ireland.
"We believe our 1.5 million British unemployed between 16-24 should be OUR new generation of doctors and nurses and the populations of other countries deserve to keep theirs."
Well, it makes sense to use the existing pool of people, if they have the skills, or to make sure that the existing pool of people have the skills. This is a complex issue, it is entirely possible that 1.5 million people isn't enough to fill the gap and that only a small proportion have the skills for the jobs or even want to do those jobs. Therefore we have to fill the jobs somehow. What do you propose to do? Force unskilled people to do jobs that they don't want to do? Would that be better for our country in your opinion?
"The mass of people voting B.N.P. are not racist and actually think race is a non-issue."
You sound very certain about that, how do you know? I agree that many BNP voters aren't racist, they have been fooled into thinking that the BNP isn't based on race when in actual fact it is.
"The mass of people voting B.N.P. are not racist and actually think race is a non-issue. Instead we are looking at a full range of party policies and more importantly the opportunity for this nascent party to continue to grow and change and finally to become a party to represent our people rather than a globalised commercial M.N.C. greed machine as the non-socialist Labour and non-conservative Tory partys have become. (See sub-prime mortgages, unregulated financial sector, super-rich immunity, and the basic rich/poor divide.)"
So are you suggesting that the BNP is socialist now? or maybe National Socialist?
"A mass soon to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion and in doing so also increase the constant civil war world-wide that is bound to follow."
That's debatable, but remember this:
Your party is not proposing to stop immigration. It's just trying to stop non-whites from coming to live in Britain, under the guise of being anti-immigration. In reality immigration is just another means to achieve it's life long ambition - racial purity for Britain.
Anon: Toque, does this mean that under the BNP's policy, Alistair Darling would not be allowed to stand for a Scottish Parliament because he was born in London?
The BNP's position, as I understand it, is that it is genetics rather than where you are born that is what determines your eligibility.
I don't think the EDP have, on principle, any objection to anyone who is elected to represent an English constituency.
Joe Chapman,
Quote: "You have missed out another possibility:
5) Since 1997 the BNP has become better at wording it's propaganda and policies in order to fool the electorate into thinking that they are an anti-immigration party when in actual fact their immigration policy is really only against immigration from countries where the population are mainly non-white."
Irrelevent. If multiculture was working it wouldn't matter what the B.N.P. said. And their pro-white attitudes and white only membership is not disguised. It is justified both by the numerous ethnic only groups, and the fact that this is a European country and only white British are having their entire existence determined on this island.
Quote:
"The success of this marketing can be seen in the previous study conducted which appear to show that most people actually agree with BNP policy on immigration. In fact they did not. People were given a statement, not told what the source of the statement was and asked if they agreed with it, the statement simply said that all immigration should be stopped. It was then claimed that this was BNP policy. It was not. So in actual fact, what was claimed as a victory for the BNP (that most people agreed with the BNP) was completely the opposite, most people in the study did not agree with the BNP, most people do not want to discrimate against people on the basis of race, the BNP does."
Some would say any belief you have about your own people within your own country cannot be discriminatory, even if it includes prefering not to allow masses of any peoples not of your ethnicity to settle. If this IS discriminatory, then the vast majority of the world is so.
And stopping all immigration, as wanted by most, is as much to do with ethnicity as anything else.
Eastern European or non-white. It is still not racist for ethnicity to be an issue.
Quote:
"We also believe 25,000 women trafficked into our country to be raped to death in our cities because we have NO BORDER CONTROL is a horror of biblical proportions, ignored in favour of British business (or simply put: the rich getting richer.)"
"So who is doing the raping? bearing in mind that immigrants are still a minority and most immigrants are from Ireland."
No one race has a greater propensity to rape than another. Just greater opportunity. That was my point.
Quote:
"We believe our 1.5 million British unemployed between 16-24 should be OUR new generation of doctors and nurses and the populations of other countries deserve to keep theirs."
"Well, it makes sense to use the existing pool of people, if they have the skills, or to make sure that the existing pool of people have the skills. This is a complex issue, it is entirely possible that 1.5 million people isn't enough to fill the gap and that only a small proportion have the skills for the jobs or even want to do those jobs. Therefore we have to fill the jobs somehow. What do you propose to do? Force unskilled people to do jobs that they don't want to do? Would that be better for our country in your opinion?"
Better to leave it as it is then? 1.5 million on benefits and continue to take the most essential health workers from other countries? Many years ago British men finally got not only fair wage terms but also a reasonable length of working day.
These terms have been undermined by immigration. Getting them back along with some national pride would be a start.
Quote:
"The mass of people voting B.N.P. are not racist and actually think race is a non-issue."
"You sound very certain about that, how do you know? I agree that many BNP voters aren't racist, they have been fooled into thinking that the BNP isn't based on race when in actual fact it is."
I am certain for two reasons:
1) I have met and talked to hundreds of members at various meetings.
2) I am sure both B.N.P. members and voters know that the B.N.P. is a party, among other things, based and bias on race, but consider correctly that it is a non-issue because this is not racism.
Everyone is bias towards their race. It doesn't mean they hate others. Minorities for instance want to be represented in various areas of public service so white applications are refused for those jobs. I don't consider that to be anything more than a natural desire towards their own, as indeed is the fact people gravitate and settle in their own racial communities. (And proof multiculture is inefficient of course.)
Quote:
"we are looking at a full range of party policies and more importantly the opportunity for this nascent party to continue to grow and change and finally to become a party to represent our people rather than a globalised commercial M.N.C. greed machine as the non-socialist Labour and non-conservative Tory partys have become. (See sub-prime mortgages, unregulated financial sector, super-rich immunity, and the basic rich/poor divide.)"
So are you suggesting that the BNP is socialist now? or maybe National Socialist?
The Nazi party existed before Hitler's racism. It was a socialist workers party. Nationalism plus socialism does not equal racism. Or are you really saying that this parties policies created Hitler.
Quote:
"A mass soon to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion and in doing so also increase the constant civil war world-wide that is bound to follow."
"That's debatable, but remember this:
Your party is not proposing to stop immigration. It's just trying to stop non-whites from coming to live in Britain, under the guise of being anti-immigration. In reality immigration is just another means to achieve it's life long ambition - racial purity for Britain."
Sorry. As mentioned before, racism is a non-issue for most B.N.P. supporters.
"Irrelevent. If multiculture was working it wouldn't matter what the B.N.P. said."
How is it irrevelent?
How are you defining "multiculture"?
How is "multiculture" in your definition not working?
Why wouldn't it matter what the BNP said?
"And their pro-white attitudes and white only membership is not disguised."
"are" not disguised. Yes I know. I was referring to their immigration policy though, which is disguised. It also contradicts itself too.
"It is justified both by the numerous ethnic only groups, and the fact that this is a European country and only white British are having their entire existence determined on this island."
What is justified?
How are only white British people having their entire existence determined? What do you see as being the determination?
"Some would say any belief you have about your own people within your own country cannot be discriminatory, even if it includes prefering not to allow masses of any peoples not of your ethnicity to settle. If this IS discriminatory, then the vast majority of the world is so.
And stopping all immigration, as wanted by most, is as much to do with ethnicity as anything else.
Eastern European or non-white. It is still not racist for ethnicity to be an issue."
I'm not suggesting that recognising ethnicity is racist. Pro-actively spreading hatred against an entire group of people simply on the basis of their race (or now commonly accepted - religioun) is. The BNP have been doing that for years and are still doing it. As I've said, the BNP is not some organisation which simply looks after the interests of a certain group and promotes awareness of that group, it is an organisation that pro-actively seeks racial separation and racial purity for Britain by demonising those who do not belong to the 'right' group.
Whether most people want to stop ALL immigration is debatable. We only have small studies to go on, which can be completely innaccurate anyway. The fact is that the BNP does not want to stop ALL immigration, that is not debatable, it is a fact. Therefore if you think that most people in this country want to stop ALL immigration but the BNP do not want to stop ALL immigration this means that most people do not agree with the BNP.
"No one race has a greater propensity to rape than another. Just greater opportunity. That was my point."
Sorry, don't get your point there. Please elaborate.
"I am certain for two reasons:
1) I have met and talked to hundreds of members at various meetings.
2) I am sure both B.N.P. members and voters know that the B.N.P. is a party, among other things, based and bias on race, but consider correctly that it is a non-issue because this is not racism.
Everyone is bias towards their race. It doesn't mean they hate others. Minorities for instance want to be represented in various areas of public service so white applications are refused for those jobs. I don't consider that to be anything more than a natural desire towards their own, as indeed is the fact people gravitate and settle in their own racial communities. (And proof multiculture is inefficient of course.)"
So, you are certain that most BNP supporters aren't racist because:
1) You have spoken to some BNP members, but not all of them. Hmmm... Surely in order to know whether most BNP supporters are not racist you would have to have spoken to every BNP supporter. Otherwise it's an assumption based on what you have personally witnessed, however, that doesn't mean that you are correct.
2) Because you are sure of something. You are certain because you are sure? Same thing isn't it? We've already established that this argument is not simply about being aware of ethnicity and having a preference for a particular ethnicity. Many people have a preference to sleep with members of the opposite sex, it does not make them homophobic. However, if they going around attacking gays and trying to prevent them from doing things simply on the basis that you don't agree with their sexual preference that would be homophobic and an extreme prejudice. Oddly enough the BNP also does this as well attack people on grounds of race and religion.
"The Nazi party existed before Hitler's racism. It was a socialist workers party. Nationalism plus socialism does not equal racism. Or are you really saying that this parties policies created Hitler."
No. I was just trying to find out if you think that the BNP is socialist or National Socialist. Instead of answering that you appear to have justified National Socialism instead by trying to separate it from racism. Which is a bit strange.
"Sorry. As mentioned before, racism is a non-issue for most B.N.P. supporters."
So basically you are saying that you think BNP supporters think that racism doesn't matter. Hmmm...
"Irrelevent. If multiculture was working it wouldn't matter what the B.N.P. said."
How is it irrevelent?
How are you defining "multiculture"?
How is "multiculture" in your definition not working?
Why wouldn't it matter what the BNP said?
Multiculture is the political policy stating that you need not conform to the way of life of the country in which you settle. However it is now basically the general term for anything not of British origin or culture, including race and language.
The strength and influence of multiculture is naturally determined by numbers of immigrants and their votes. Parliamentary sovereignty means a majority vote on anything regarding the religion, culture, laws, etc...of this country, can be changed. Everything English in England is only as fundamentally protected as an English majority and the desire of those English to retain it.
And the B.N.P. manifesto is vastly different to the manifestoes of the 'mainstream' parties. Simply put, if life in Britain was great under these parties' policies we would not be the forth biggest party in Britain with our alternatives.
"And their pro-white attitudes and white only membership is not disguised."
"are" not disguised. Yes I know. I was referring to their immigration policy though, which is disguised. It also contradicts itself too.
Thanks for correcting my grammar that was important.(Manifestoes can be ..toes, or ..tos, by the way, and the 'too' in your last statement is redundant.)
And i'm not sure how our immigration policy in disguised. Invisible ink maybe? Perhaps you should tell our enemies of these 'contradictions' as well. I am sure they would be delighted to use them against us. Because as yet I have heard nothing.
"It is justified both by the numerous ethnic only groups, and the fact that this is a European country and only white British are having their entire existence determined on this island."
What is justified?
How are only white British people having their entire existence determined? What do you see as being the determination?
I suppose the best way to put it would be to say that if there had been an organisation representing only Native Americans centuries ago, (their rights, fears, etc...) then that would be JUSTIFIED. Because there wasn't, their existence was DETERMINED by the will of others.
(We English as either an individual identity with self-determination rights or mongrels without individuality, being another discussion. I happen to think that we have had historic migration from surrouding areas of the same basic European descent which is why we had been at least 95% white up until the middle of this century, and why in modern times we haven't before had the serious racial and religious problems we have today.)
Quote: "Forty years ago visitors discribed Britain as homogeneous. That unlike the U.S. and other leading countries there were relatively few serious lines of division. Whereas race, religion and territory divided other countries it did not in Britain."
Politics U.K. 5TH Edition. (Official text book of 'A' Level and above.)
P.S. All other countries migrations have also been from the surrounding area and of similar ethnicity. That has kept THEIR relative internal peace.
"Some would say any belief you have about your own people within your own country cannot be discriminatory, even if it includes prefering not to allow masses of any peoples not of your ethnicity to settle. If this IS discriminatory, then the vast majority of the world is so.
And stopping all immigration, as wanted by most, is as much to do with ethnicity as anything else.
Eastern European or non-white. It is still not racist for ethnicity to be an issue."
I'm not suggesting that recognising ethnicity is racist. Pro-actively spreading hatred against an entire group of people simply on the basis of their race (or now commonly accepted - religioun) is. The BNP have been doing that for years and are still doing it. As I've said, the BNP is not some organisation which simply looks after the interests of a certain group and promotes awareness of that group, it is an organisation that pro-actively seeks racial separation and racial purity for Britain by demonising those who do not belong to the 'right' group.
Pro-actively seeks racial separation? Look aroud you. That policy must be working like a dream!
The B.N.P. pointed out years ago that white girls were being TARGETED by Asian and black gangs for trafficking and abuse. A recent programme exposed it and a brave muslim officer admitted it had been ignored by politicians under pressure from people like you because it might cause racial tension. If the B.N.P. didn't back up the allegations they make then they would gleefully be taken to court.
And years ago is not the B.N.P. today. The non-socialist Labour party has changed beyond all recognition is less than a decade.
So have we.
(P.S. There is no 'u' in religion.)
Whether most people want to stop ALL immigration is debatable. We only have small studies to go on, which can be completely innaccurate anyway. The fact is that the BNP does not want to stop ALL immigration, that is not debatable, it is a fact. Therefore if you think that most people in this country want to stop ALL immigration but the BNP do not want to stop ALL immigration this means that most people do not agree with the BNP.
No. They obviously hate everyone. If the B.N.P. says non-white immigration caused the problems we have today; separated communities, segregation, the need for 'diversity' policies that refuse white men jobs even though they are dying in Iraq, ect.. then that is not racist if they back it up with facts. They have. And make no mistake, whites in Africa, blacks in Asia, Asians in Africa, Jews in Germany, ect.. all could be there for decades, even centuries, but still the right circumstances will expose the natural racial divisions and possibly cause civil war, holocausts, or simple territorial divisions as with the endless problems in Eastern Europe.
I believe immigration from outside northern Europe will set down the roots of division and intermittent civil-war in this country that will last for decades, perhaps centuries.
"No one race has a greater propensity to rape than another. Just greater opportunity. That was my point."
Sorry, don't get your point there. Please elaborate.
If 10% of each race would rape or are rapists, and one group can simply call a number to 'order' a girl for rape, anytime, day or night, that is greater opportunity. We have given our 10% that number.
"I am certain for two reasons:
1) I have met and talked to hundreds of members at various meetings.
2) I am sure both B.N.P. members and voters know that the B.N.P. is a party, among other things, based and bias on race, but consider correctly that it is a non-issue because this is not racism.
Everyone is bias towards their race. It doesn't mean they hate others. Minorities for instance want to be represented in various areas of public service so white applications are refused for those jobs. I don't consider that to be anything more than a natural desire towards their own, as indeed is the fact people gravitate and settle in their own racial communities. (And proof multiculture is inefficient of course.)"
So, you are certain that most BNP supporters aren't racist because:
1) You have spoken to some BNP members, but not all of them. Hmmm... Surely in order to know whether most BNP supporters are not racist you would have to have spoken to every BNP supporter. Otherwise it's an assumption based on what you have personally witnessed, however, that doesn't mean that you are correct.
2) Because you are sure of something. You are certain because you are sure? Same thing isn't it? We've already established that this argument is not simply about being aware of ethnicity and having a preference for a particular ethnicity. Many people have a preference to sleep with members of the opposite sex, it does not make them homophobic. However, if they going around attacking gays and trying to prevent them from doing things simply on the basis that you don't agree with their sexual preference that would be homophobic and an extreme prejudice. Oddly enough the BNP also does this as well attack people on grounds of race and religion.
A sexual preference doesn't effect the whole of the nation. Immigration does. When a sexual preference does effect more than the individuals involved, i.e. PROMOTING it, then people have the right to voice an opinion on the subject.
And sorry about the word 'certain'. No one is omniscient. Perhaps I should have said that I am as certain of myself as you are of yourself. (Judging by the absence of the words 'I think' and 'I believe', in your statements.)
Actually i'm probably more so, seeing as I am in constant contact not ony with the B.N.P. but also U.K.I.P., the Tories, Labour, and the political lecturers at Oxford.)
P.S. I would have to have spoken to B.N.P. supporters until I reached the 51% required to know 'most' weren't racist. Not all of them.
"The Nazi party existed before Hitler's