Thursday, March 27, 2008

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Email Shows BNP London Mayor Desperation

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...

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.

50 comments:

PCSO Bloggs said...

Enjoying the blog.

Tony Sharp said...

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...

The Secret Person said...

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.

Toque said...

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.

Simon said...

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?

Free Tibet and Free England said...

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.

Terry Heath said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Toque said...

"What the BNP want is an English Parliament composed of Anglo-Saxons only."

What a great idea - can't happen soon enough.

Anonymous said...

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?

Pete Chown said...

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.

Joe Chapman said...

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.

Bert Rustle said...

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?

Anonymous said...

Joe Chapman: Must you use so many words to be so silly?

Joe Chapman said...

"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?

Joe Chapman said...

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?

Joe Chapman said...

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.

Anonymous said...

http://www.themoviefitna.com/

Bert Rustle said...

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.

Joe Chapman said...

"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.

Joe Chapman said...

Bert,

What do you know about "Pioneer"? What's your overall perception of this?

Cheers.

Bert Rustle said...

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?

Joe Chapman said...

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.

Bert Rustle said...

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?

Joe Chapman said...

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?

Bert Rustle said...

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?

Joe Chapman said...

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.

free tibet and free england said...

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 said...

"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!

free tibet and free england said...

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.

Joe Chapman said...

"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!

free tibet and free england said...

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.

Joe Chapman said...

"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.

Origin 8 said...

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.

Origin 8 said...

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.

free tibet and free england said...

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.

Joe Chapman said...

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.

Toque said...

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.

Origin 8 said...

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.

Joe Chapman said...

"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...

Origin 8 said...

"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 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.

The B.N.P have both nationalist and socialist leanings. Not national socialist as it has now been twisted into. However globalisation has created issue based politics, not general ideologies.

"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...

Doesn't matter because it hardly exists. Racial tensions and aggression is 99% territorial and financial. Racism is an aggression towards another race because of the belief that your race is superior, i.e. slavery and imperialism.
Racial aggression today is nature. If you want to stop this aggression, then stop migrating one race onto anothers territory. (Especially if you stop bringing that latter gifts. I.e. you cost more than you bring.)

P.S. We both spelt 'irrelevant' wrong.

Joe Chapman 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."

Like Christianity, pizza, curry, jazz, flying, our numeric system, words like "zero" and "algebra" and so on you mean?

Please could you point me in the direction of the party and policy where it states what you have mentioned?

"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."

OK, so we are talking about just England again or Britain? What happens if lots of Welsh or Scottish people for example decide to move to England and prefer to speak Welsh or Scots? How about Germans? Since Germans are the number 4 country of origin for our existing immigrants and your party, the BNP, does not want to stop Germans from coming here either, are you OK with that?

Which bits of our culture would you like to keep exactly?

"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."

So I guess that makes the BNP right then using your logic?

"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's disguised racism. As I've pointed out already. The contradiction is there in black and white in the PDF document (which your party has now removed from its website after I kept going on about it) It clearly states one thing at the top of the page, which is that the BNP intend to stop ALL immigration, but in the actual policy at the bottom of the page it is clear that is not the case, the BNP would only stop immigrants from countries where the population is mostly non-white. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. The interesting thing is that it does appear that I'm the only person to have picked up on this, that doesn't mean I'm wrong though, what is more is that everytime I've challenged someone on the BNP's policy there's been no real argument against what I've said, we just come to a dead end with me saying something is that way and the other person not disagreeing with me and not really arguing against what I'm saying! I'm sure people can make their own minds up... actually no I'm not sure, that why the BNP does well because it puts the stuff that it wants people to believe to the front and hides what's really going on in the 'small print'. They know that most people won't actually read and understand the policies properly, if they did they would realise that the BNP isn't anti-immigration.

"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."

Very different times and circumstances though weren't they? Countries now have groups to represent minorities because of these incidents in the past. How would the tribes have known about all this? I don't think this is a useful comparison and in any case all you are doing here really is distracting attention away from my point, which is that The BNP is some organisation set up to simply represent a group or a minority, it exists to make Britain racially pure. It's a simple as that yet for some reason you keep going on as if the BNP were som innocent little group set up to represent white people. That is not the case, the evidence is all there in actions, history (including some very recent stuff), quotes from key people and even recent policy.

"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."

Sorry but you aren't making much sense to me now at all. What's with the "no" business? What I said is quite straight foward and logical, it's based on the BNP's actual policy I don't understand your argument against what I'm saying.

It looks like you are saying that because the BNP says something it must be true. Also, if you think that different races mixing causes natural division then do you think that the world should be racially segregated or something? Let's take an example, how would you deal with Jews? Do you think perhaps that all Jews should go live in Israel? If so what would happen to the Palestinians? How about the Cornish, are they English?

You also seem to be blaming the holocaust on the Jews now:

"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."

So essentially it seems that you see the victims of holocaust as being a possible cause of holocaust! That kind of like saying a woman caused herself to be raped by wearing a short skirt or something. Very bad.

"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."

What on earth are you going on about now? Dial-a-rape? You're not Nick Eriksen are you?

"If" "10%" So your argument is based on what exactly?

"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."

Hang on... I'll play devil's advocate here:

How about if the BNP saw homosexuality as not being part of British culture? Hmmm... actually, what is the BNP's stance on homosexuality anyway? Maybe things have changed but there's still a great deal of homophobia out there amongst BNP supporters.

You appear to be suggesting, by talking about "PROMOTING" homosexuality, that you think people can be turned gay or that there are lots of militant homosexuals out there who want to make you gay! What are you afraid of exactly?

"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.)"

Yes I admit I'm guilty of that too sometimes. However, there are some things that I can be certain of, such as the BNP's policy on immigration for example.

"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."

Yes, you got me there too. A schoolboy error on my part. Sorry.

So, have you spoken to 51% (or >50% to be more accurate) of BNP supporters then?

"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."

Again, you are trying to make out that the BNP was just innocently doing something, reporting crime. This is how your activists get away with posting what they do on newspaper forums for example. The thing is that they ONLY report crimes by non-whites or Muslims (avoiding Jews mostly these days because you can't get away with that so easily these days.)

The tactics (yes, that is what they are) are to point the finger as much as possible at certain groups whilst ignoring the overall picture. It's not that different to what the Nazis did either. It's all about tapping into the fears of the electorate and providing them with a convenient scapegoat for all of their problems. The reality is very different though.

It'd be like a group going around constantly pointing out there's a disproportionate amount of men committing serious crime and implying that therefore this means all men are likely to commit a serious crime. It works for several groups, yet the BNP concentrates on non-whites and Muslims whilst pretending to be against all immigration when it is not.

"The B.N.P have both nationalist and socialist leanings. Not national socialist as it has now been twisted into. However globalisation has created issue based politics, not general ideologies."

Do you know Roy James? he was the BNP's candidate for Sheffield about 2 years ago, he went around Stormfront campaigning for the BNP under the name of an infamous Nazi Mass Murderer, Heidrich41, using derogatory terms for black people and going on about hating seeing women pushing around "half monkeys", in his Sheffield Forum signature he had a Nick Griffin quote, in his Stormfront signature he had a Hitler quote. His avatar was a picture of his Nazi hero. Mr James has since admitted (after spending a great deal of time claiming the stuff people were saying about him and his party were lies) being a National Socialist and has said that he knows many BNP members who are. Roy left the BNP because they couldn't afford his legal fees, he wasn't sacked, there was no public dismissal of Roy James. The internet is awash with BNP supporters and members using praising Hitler and the Nazis, using the same symbols (runes) as the Nazis did etc. But of course, they must all just be fake BNP supporters eh? Perhaps you think they are all "reds" (as you like to refer to people like me) in disguise, trying to make the BNP look bad?

What about the fact that the same man who once wrote in Spearhead about the holocaust being fabricated, the same man who was convicted of inciting racial hatred of Jews, is still the leader and main policy maker for the BNP? Is that right?

Of but of course, it all must be water under the bridge, we've all done bad things in our past haven't we?

"Doesn't matter because it hardly exists. Racial tensions and aggression is 99% territorial and financial. Racism is an aggression towards another race because of the belief that your race is superior, i.e. slavery and imperialism."

I think you are attempting to re-define the commonly held definition of racism in order to play it down. An attempt to disarm me. It won't work. It hasn't worked.

"Racial aggression today is nature. If you want to stop this aggression, then stop migrating one race onto anothers territory. (Especially if you stop bringing that latter gifts. I.e. you cost more than you bring.)"

Racial aggression is nature? That is rubbish, you must think people are blind. I sit in an office everyday with people of different races, I have a person of a different race in the band I'm in, people of different races have children together (how do you feel about that by the way? What is the BNP's stance on this?) Yet there's no racial agression, so does this mean we are all unnatural or something?

Phew... all over with. For now.

Origin 8 said...

ME: 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."

YOU: Like Christianity, pizza, curry, jazz, flying, our numeric system, words like "zero" and "algebra" and so on you mean?

Please could you point me in the direction of the party and policy where it states what you have mentioned?

ME: You seem to think everything needs to be absolutely clear and unequivocal! When you deal with people, nothing is. All is feeling and nature. People recognise their way of life changing. I defined multiculture as above. It is not a policy, but rather a failed ideology from the late 1960's Labour thinking - probably to do with learning during Empire that non-interference in other cultures keeps the peace best. (Please don't expand this discussion into the wrongs of Empire by the way.)
So, assuming YOU accept the word exists and can be defined, let's hear your definition.

ME: "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."

YOU: OK, so we are talking about just England again or Britain? What happens if lots of Welsh or Scottish people for example decide to move to England and prefer to speak Welsh or Scots? How about Germans? Since Germans are the number 4 country of origin for our existing immigrants and your party, the BNP, does not want to stop Germans from coming here either, are you OK with that?

ME: I said "of this country" so I was talking about England. Welsh, Scots or German coming here in their millions and voting to change England's culture, language, ect..would be something we would vote to stop. As all other world nations would want to stop we English moving to their country in our millions (and continuing to pour in every day) and then demanding special treatment such as English only short-lists to their parliament or diversity policies which mean natives of their countries have their applications for jobs ignored so we can be 'represented' ethnically in their country.
However as you pointed out, these peoples and other Europeans have already come in numbers, and we are still speaking English. Many non-Europeans into their third generation are still in their own communities with their own language, and sending home for all their non-English speaking relatives to come over and marry others in their every expanding segregated communities. Remember that muslim preacher who said to the Home Secretary, "what are you doing in a muslin area?" Or the B.B.C. talking of something found in an Asian or black area. And territorial gang wars between these immigrants on ENGLISH land. Europeans haven't done that.

ME: "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."

YOU: So I guess that makes the BNP right then using your logic?

ME: 2+2=4. That is right. Everything else is preference.

ME: "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."

YOU: It's disguised racism. As I've pointed out already. The contradiction is there in black and white in the PDF document (which your party has now removed from its website after I kept going on about it) It clearly states one thing at the top of the page, which is that the BNP intend to stop ALL immigration, but in the actual policy at the bottom of the page it is clear that is not the case, the BNP would only stop immigrants from countries where the population is mostly non-white. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. The interesting thing is that it does appear that I'm the only person to have picked up on this, that doesn't mean I'm wrong though, what is more is that everytime I've challenged someone on the BNP's policy there's been no real argument against what I've said, we just come to a dead end with me saying something is that way and the other person not disagreeing with me and not really arguing against what I'm saying! I'm sure people can make their own minds up... actually no I'm not sure, that why the BNP does well because it puts the stuff that it wants people to believe to the front and hides what's really going on in the 'small print'. They know that most people won't actually read and understand the policies properly, if they did they would realise that the BNP isn't anti-immigration.

ME: Thank God the stupid people of Britain, lazy, ignorant, dismissive, and generally incompetent have you to guide them and help them understand. You say, "it does appear that i'm the only one to have picked up on this, that doesn't mean i'm wrong though..."
Seven times more people read the B.N.P. website last year than did all the other political parties combined. Well, maybe they all picked up on it as well but just forgot to tell you. (That's sarcam by the way.)

ME: "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."

YOU: Very different times and circumstances though weren't they? Countries now have groups to represent minorities because of these incidents in the past. How would the tribes have known about all this? I don't think this is a useful comparison and in any case all you are doing here really is distracting attention away from my point, which is that The BNP is some organisation set up to simply represent a group or a minority, it exists to make Britain racially pure. It's a simple as that yet for some reason you keep going on as if the BNP were som innocent little group set up to represent white people. That is not the case, the evidence is all there in actions, history (including some very recent stuff), quotes from key people and even recent policy.

ME: The circumstances of the Native Americans is irrelevant. The reasons why things happened, who represented whom, or didn't, battles, failed treaties, lies, ideology...it doesn't matter.
This time it is clear and unequivocal: if immigration to this country doesn't significantly lessen or stop, then that plus trends of much higher immigrant births will mean our eventual extinction. The 'mainstream' knows this and that is why they're busy trying to convince everyone we don't exist. They do this by calling us all British (Asian British, British black, British Muslim, White British, ect..It's on all application forms for instance.) For political reasons however, they call the REAL British, the Welsh and Scots, by their actual names.

ME: "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."

YOU: Sorry but you aren't making much sense to me now at all. What's with the "no" business? What I said is quite straight foward and logical, it's based on the BNP's actual policy I don't understand your argument against what I'm saying.

ME: Point of clarification; you had implied that wanting to stop only non-white immigration to Britain is racist and therefore hateful.
It isn't.
This is why I implied someone wanting to stop all immigration must hate everyone.
I was being sarcastic as I don't believe it's racist to recognise the greatest problems with immigrantion into this country are with non-white immigrants. And I mean problems such as with intergration, religion, cultural differences and language more than anything.

YOU: It looks like you are saying that because the BNP says something it must be true. Also, if you think that different races mixing causes natural division then do you think that the world should be racially segregated or something? Let's take an example, how would you deal with Jews? Do you think perhaps that all Jews should go live in Israel? If so what would happen to the Palestinians? How about the Cornish, are they English?

ME: I am saying that the world IS racially segregated. These areas are called countries. And the Jews wanted a homeland (irrespective of persecution) because world peace and harmony and friendship and trade and learning are all facillitated by peoples have a homeland that is familiar not only culturally, but also racially. Point out a country with more than one ethnicity that isn't divided. (And I don't necessarily mean by war.)The Jews and Palistinians aren't all living together why? And what are they fighting over? Could it be territory?
And the Cornish are English and/or Welsh.

YOU: You also seem to be blaming the holocaust on the Jews now:
"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."

So essentially it seems that you see the victims of holocaust as being a possible cause of holocaust! That kind of like saying a woman caused herself to be raped by wearing a short skirt or something. Very bad.

ME: Again you talk of dreamy fantasy and I talk of realism. Your way takes no responsibility other than, "that's wrong. Let's all love each other!" While I point out life, human nature, evolution, history, and cold hard facts. We are all capable of great things AND great wrongs. If you Joe are a white man, and you were born in 1900 in Germany, living through WW1 and WW2, into hyper-inflation, humiliation, hope and dispair, ect.. then you would be just as likely to have acted like a 1930's German. You would not be writing on this page in the same way. I.e. your circumstances would have brought out the worst rather than the best of you. So it follows if any subsequent generation lives through similar horrendus circumstances than the worst of them will prevail. EVERYTHING I talk about is simply a warning NOT to re-create these colliding circumstances of multi-racial countries with oncoming hardship. Africans were kicked out of Asia, Asians out of Africa and Jews out of nearly everywhere. And all with, at best, the indifference of the majority of the home countries population. Not necessarily hate, just an inward focus on their own community and race during times of hardship.
I tell you what, just watch what happens as the recession hits. Watch racial tensions mount and complaints and resentments over money to this community or to that race only project, grow. Racial problems rise and fall with the economy. We don't get better and better at living together. If we do then racial tensions should dissapate during the recesssion right? As we all 'pull together'?
P.S. We also have Jewish councillors. They know every party has unsavioury individuals, but also know that things change.

ME: "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."

YOU: What on earth are you going on about now? Dial-a-rape? You're not Nick Eriksen are you?
"If" "10%" So your argument is based on what exactly?

ME: I find it hard to believe you don't know when someone is talking figuratively. I have spoken in a similar way to my friends at Anti-Slavery International and they understood my meaning.
Enough said.

ME; "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."

YOU: Hang on... I'll play devil's advocate here:
How about if the BNP saw homosexuality as not being part of British culture? Hmmm... actually, what is the BNP's stance on homosexuality anyway? Maybe things have changed but there's still a great deal of homophobia out there amongst BNP supporters.
You appear to be suggesting, by talking about "PROMOTING" homosexuality, that you think people can be turned gay or that there are lots of militant homosexuals out there who want to make you gay! What are you afraid of exactly?

ME: Point of clarification: Homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse than any other. That is the B.N.P. stance. We would stop the promotion in public, i.e. schools, T.V., ect...of ANYTHING overtly sexual. We promote the family, husband, wife, children, as the most fundamentally stable national unit because we believe this is the building block missing from society, but accept all other lifestyles and organisations that help them.

ME: "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."

YOU: Again, you are trying to make out that the BNP was just innocently doing something, reporting crime. This is how your activists get away with posting what they do on newspaper forums for example. The thing is that they ONLY report crimes by non-whites or Muslims (avoiding Jews mostly these days because you can't get away with that so easily these days.)

The tactics (yes, that is what they are) are to point the finger as much as possible at certain groups whilst ignoring the overall picture. It's not that different to what the Nazis did either. It's all about tapping into the fears of the electorate and providing them with a convenient scapegoat for all of their problems. The reality is very different though.

ME: You say, "..whilst ignoring the overall picture." Well these aforementioned white girls being trafficked didn't seem to be important enough to be part of the overall picture. And how many memorial buildings, schools, ect... are there to white people killed in racial attacks? Or does that never happen?
Now this isn't a 'tit-for-tat' situation. ALL these crimes are equally wrong. But pointing out that all peoples are equally to blame encourages the English not to be so guilt-ridden and silent about their concerns. Our white victims of crime focus COMPLETES the overall picture.

YOU: It'd be like a group going around constantly pointing out there's a disproportionate amount of men committing serious crime and implying that therefore this means all men are likely to commit a serious crime. It works for several groups, yet the BNP concentrates on non-whites and Muslims whilst pretending to be against all immigration when it is not.

ME: No peoples are more likely to commit crime. But circumstances can make individuals more likely to. So, for instance, if you arrive in another country unable to speak the language you would be more likely to be driven to crime. As a matter of fact as poverty tends to drive crime it's safe to say that the poorest section of any society has a proportional higher crime rate. So if the majority of immigrants are both the porest of their society AND don't speak English....
And of course we didn't have trafficking and other international crime before our open border policy. Not on this scale.
And then of course the government says "poor immigrants, we must help them...", well thats O.K. when you're in a ten year economic boom and there's enough to go round, but now that boom is coming to an end...
And before you start crying, I am not saying anything like a majority of immigrants commit crime. I am saying immigration has helped create a mass poor in this country which has increased the rich/poor divide beyond measure. And that can only be bad for crime statistics.

ME: "The B.N.P have both nationalist and socialist leanings. Not national socialist as it has now been twisted into. However globalisation has created issue based politics, not general ideologies."

YOU: Do you know Roy James? he was the BNP's candidate for Sheffield about 2 years ago, he went around Stormfront campaigning for the BNP under the name of an infamous Nazi Mass Murderer, Heidrich41, using derogatory terms for black people and going on about hating seeing women pushing around "half monkeys", in his Sheffield Forum signature he had a Nick Griffin quote, in his Stormfront signature he had a Hitler quote. His avatar was a picture of his Nazi hero. Mr James has since admitted (after spending a great deal of time claiming the stuff people were saying about him and his party were lies) being a National Socialist and has said that he knows many BNP members who are. Roy left the BNP because they couldn't afford his legal fees, he wasn't sacked, there was no public dismissal of Roy James. The internet is awash with BNP supporters and members using praising Hitler and the Nazis, using the same symbols (runes) as the Nazis did etc. But of course, they must all just be fake BNP supporters eh? Perhaps you think they are all "reds" (as you like to refer to people like me) in disguise, trying to make the BNP look bad?

What about the fact that the same man who once wrote in Spearhead about the holocaust being fabricated, the same man who was convicted of inciting racial hatred of Jews, is still the leader and main policy maker for the BNP? Is that right?

ME: Ever heard of Tony Blair? Started a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, allowed British banks to do what ever they wanted without regulation, destroyed British democracy by not allowing a referendum on E.U. treaties, was investigated by police on corruption charges, had his henchmen through out any Labour supporter who disagreed with him...there's so much more that I'd run out of space. How much is he worth now?
Nick Griffin made his remarks nine years ago (never denying the holocaust) and has appologised many times. As mentioned before we now have both Jewish members and councilliors. Tony Blair's crimes however, were just last year, and as mentioned have caused immeasurable sufferring. And as for Roy James, well of course we attract racist looneys, and then we find them and through them out. You would have a complaint if he was still here. How many scandals have Labour and Tory M.P.'s been in yet still kept their seats... and salary...and perks...and expenses...and votes in parliament...


ME: "Doesn't matter because it hardly exists. Racial tensions and aggression is 99% territorial and financial. Racism is an aggression towards another race because of the belief that your race is superior, i.e. slavery and imperialism."

YOU: I think you are attempting to re-define the commonly held definition of racism in order to play it down. An attempt to disarm me. It won't work. It hasn't worked.

ME: "Commonly held", is actually the "re-defining" you refer to.

ME: "Racial aggression today is nature. If you want to stop this aggression, then stop migrating one race onto anothers territory. (Especially if you stop bringing that latter gifts. I.e. you cost more than you bring.)"

YOU: Racial aggression is nature? That is rubbish, you must think people are blind. I sit in an office everyday with people of different races, I have a person of a different race in the band I'm in, people of different races have children together (how do you feel about that by the way? What is the BNP's stance on this?) Yet there's no racial agression, so does this mean we are all unnatural or something?

ME: No. Yet again I find myself having to explain more clearly to you while having no problem being understood by everyone else. I am saying when racial aggresssion OCCURS it is 99% territorial or financial. It is natural to be at peace. You in your little office could have one of every nationality in the world with you and that would be fine, but take a million of every race and put them in ANY one country, African, Asian, or European, it doesn't matter, then you will have racial aggression that has nothing to do with racism.

Joe Chapman said...

Origin 8

You seem to be getting your knickers in a twist now. I haven't got the time at the moment to respond in full so let's try this bit by bit, using your new chosen method of making the conversation less confusing:

YOU: "Multiculture is the political policy stating that you need not conform to the way of life of the country in which you settle."

YOU: "It is not a policy, but rather a failed ideology from the late 1960's Labour thinking."

ME: Are you correcting yourself or just contradicting yourself? Bearing in mind that your party's policy on immigration contradicts itself I suspect that you are contradicting yourself.

YOU: "Seven times more people read the B.N.P. website last year than did all the other political parties combined."

Maybe, you can't actually tell how many PEOPLE read the web site and what they read though, you can only measure IP addresses and a couple of other things.

Now tell me what percentage of those 'people' were anti-BNP activists?

What percentage of those visitors agree with the BNP?

What percentage of them read the actual policies?

You can't. It only records IP addresses and visits that lasted a certain amount of time, therefore the traffic on the BNP web site cannot be accurately used to gauge support for the BNP. You have no idea how many people visted the web site, just how many IP addresses and you have no idea of the political leaning of those people behind the IP addresses or what they actually read, just which pages they visited and what they typed into the search engine.

For all we know, most of the visitors to your web site could have got there from links on anti-BNP web sites or by typing in "The BNP is racist".

Of course, your party could prove me wrong on that by publishing the details, but you won't because you know I'm probably right and that a large percentage of the traffic actually comes from people who disagree with your party!

It could be simply the the fact that the BNP are the only party to be making full use of the internet to spread propaganda, also the BNP have a lot of enemies from all different political leanings, including other nationalists, so of course they are bound to get a lot of traffic on the web site.

YOU: "Point of clarification; you had implied that wanting to stop only non-white immigration to Britain is racist and therefore hateful.
It isn't."

ME: It isn't what? Racist, hateful or both?

YOU: "as for Roy James, well of course we attract racist looneys, and then we find them and through them out."

Yes you do attract racist loonies, why's that then?

No, he wasn't thrown out when you found out about him. Neither have any of the others been. How about Nick Griffin's bodyguard as well, you know, the one photographed with "Hitler" and several other Nazi related items tattoed across his chest?

How about Mark Collett? You know, Nick Griffin's right hand man (and probably first in line to the BNP throne), star of "Young, Nazi & Proud"?

YOU: "Point of clarification: Homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse than any other. That is the B.N.P. stance."

Right so, the BNP has no problem with having homosexual members? No problem with gay people at all? It's just another "disposition" is that it?

On the stuff about Tony Blair, yes, I've never supported Tony Blair, I've never even voted Labour. I was totally against invading Iraq although I was also totally against Saddam Hussein's regime too.

YOU: "No. Yet again I find myself having to explain more clearly to you while having no problem being understood by everyone else. I am saying when racial aggresssion OCCURS it is 99% territorial or financial. It is natural to be at peace. You in your little office could have one of every nationality in the world with you and that would be fine, but take a million of every race and put them in ANY one country, African, Asian, or European, it doesn't matter, then you will have racial aggression that has nothing to do with racism."

Is it actually racial aggression in that case then? Surely if you take one large group of people and throw them in with another group of people, problems are likely to happen? Maybe not though. Depends on the circumstances.

It's not a little office, it's a very big one with lots of people working together from various races and places. No trouble at all. There are local white people, indians, sri lankans, pakistanis, iranians, russians, africans, polish, irish, scottish, welsh and many others. All doing various different jobs too, no signs of the eugenics rubbish that many of your supporters bang on about either.

YOU: "No peoples are more likely to commit crime. But circumstances can make individuals more likely to. So, for instance, if you arrive in another country unable to speak the language you would be more likely to be driven to crime."

ME: So surely it would make more sense to limit immigration on the basis of skills and other criteria, rather than race like your party does? Or - stop ALL immigration, regardless of race?

Why are they more likely to commit crime anyway?

Why aren't they more likely to learn to speak the language?

Why do you single out the criminal element rather than the good positive one?

If your party truely believes that no peoples are more likely to commit crime then why does it discriminate against immigrants on the basis of race?

Why do many of your supporters target internet forums with "news" stories about non-whites committing crime?

YOU: "But pointing out that all peoples are equally to blame encourages the English not to be so guilt-ridden and silent about their concerns. Our white victims of crime focus COMPLETES the overall picture."

ME: No it doesn't. I've heard all of this before and I think it's an excuse. The reason I think this is because your party says it is addressing some sort of imbalance but what it actually does is just tip the imbalance the other way. Your party doesn't go around equally reporting crimes regardless of race, it only tends to report crimes by non-whites and Muslims and ignores pretty much everything else. That is not being equal or fair, it's the opposite.

You are getting in a right old mess with this one, your party is trying to put across that it wants to stop ALL immigration and over the course of our argument here on this blog you have actually proved that it not the case, what is more is that you are actually justifying it all whilst still contradicting yourself.

YOU: "P.S. We also have Jewish councillors. They know every party has unsavioury individuals, but also know that things change."

Plural? I thought it was just the one?

Pat Richardson.

Here, in Mr. Richardson's own words is why he is in the BNP:

"I'm in the BNP because no one else speaks out against the Islamification of our country,"

"Being Jewish only adds to my concern about this aggressive creed that also threatens our secular values and Christian tradition."

Pat Richardson is the one who is trying to get Jewish votes for the BNP in London and he's doing it because he hates Islam.

What I'm pretty sure is happening (based on experience and your leader's previous methods) is that your party, the BNP, is attempting to cultivate divisions between Jews and Muslims.

In the 1980s and early to mid 1990s your leader did it the other way around, he sought support from people like Gaddaffi and the Iranians, he did this because they shared the same goal - racial separation and hatred of Jews. Then, Griffin was convicted of inciting racial hatred against Jews and it became more and more difficult to target Jews. As it has become more acceptable to attack Muslims in this country rather than Jews (possibly because Griffin wanted to distance himself and the party from being seen as Nazis) it became obvious that it could work the other way around.

The way I think that your party works is this:

1. Tap into existing fears amongst the electorate.

2. Get some of the electorate to do the finger pointing whilst claiming that you represent the average British person (as defined by your party), thus giving strength to the BNP because you can say to people like me that I'm attacking the average British person therefore I am bad and wrong.

3. Cultivate divisions between certain groups, "Hello Mr Jewish person, forget all that nasty BNP history, I'm a different person now, this is New BNP and I'm New Nick Griffin. I know how you feel, those pesky Muslims, join us and we'll help you sort them out (and we'll help you go home to Israel too)" etc

4. Sit back and watch the fight without getting your hands dirty.

5. Step in and say - "told you so" and "look at that lot, fighting amongst themselves, time to get rid of the lot of them, Vote BNP".

Anyway, I have other things to do now, like sing the Red Flag and torture small furry animals so I'll see you later...

Origin 8 said...

ME: "Multiculture is the political policy stating that you need not conform to the way of life of the country in which you settle."
ME: "It is not a policy, but rather a failed ideology from the late 1960's Labour thinking."

YOU: Are you correcting yourself or just contradicting yourself? Bearing in mind that your party's policy on immigration contradicts itself I suspect that you are contradicting yourself.

ME: It was an ideology ACCEPTED into political policy. And i'm still waiting for your definition of multiculture.

ME: "Seven times more people read the B.N.P. website last year than did all the other political parties combined."

YOU: Maybe, you can't actually tell how many PEOPLE read the web site and what they read though, you can only measure IP addresses and a couple of other things.
Now tell me what percentage of those 'people' were anti-BNP activists?
What percentage of those visitors agree with the BNP?
What percentage of them read the actual policies?
You can't. It only records IP addresses and visits that lasted a certain amount of time, therefore the traffic on the BNP web site cannot be accurately used to gauge support for the BNP. You have no idea how many people visted the web site, just how many IP addresses and you have no idea of the political leaning of those people behind the IP addresses or what they actually read, just which pages they visited and what they typed into the search engine.
For all we know, most of the visitors to your web site could have got there from links on anti-BNP web sites or by typing in "The BNP is racist".
Of course, your party could prove me wrong on that by publishing the details, but you won't because you know I'm probably right and that a large percentage of the traffic actually comes from people who disagree with your party!
It could be simply the the fact that the BNP are the only party to be making full use of the internet to spread propaganda, also the BNP have a lot of enemies from all different political leanings, including other nationalists, so of course they are bound to get a lot of traffic on the web site.

ME: And it could be everyone at a Labour party conference is 'watching the enemy'. The fact remains we are now the forth biggest party in Britain. Only 3000 voted for us at the last mayoral election, this year it is estimated that we will get 300,000.
Enough said about why people look at our website and whether or not they like what they see.

ME: "Point of clarification; you had implied that wanting to stop only non-white immigration to Britain is racist and therefore hateful.
It isn't."

YOU: It isn't what? Racist, hateful or both?

ME: Wanting to stop non-white only immigration if backed up by logic and reason is neither racist nor hateful. And we have backed it up.

ME: "as for Roy James, well of course we attract racist looneys, and then we find them and through them out."

YOU: Yes you do attract racist loonies, why's that then?
No, he wasn't thrown out when you found out about him. Neither have any of the others been. How about Nick Griffin's bodyguard as well, you know, the one photographed with "Hitler" and several other Nazi related items tattoed across his chest?
How about Mark Collett? You know, Nick Griffin's right hand man (and probably first in line to the BNP throne), star of "Young, Nazi & Proud"?

ME: How these people thought or still think is unlikely to be known by either you, me or a bias media. (Though I know Nick Griffin and admire his calm and willingness to discuss anything with all-comers.)
And attracting loonies might be because of YOUR propaganda, which gives no opportunity to discuss issues with the B.N.P. and disprove you.
If all you claim is true then why doesn't the 'mainstream' engage us and expose it? Your concerns are about what might happen with us in power, whereas Iraq, trafficking of guns, drugs, and people, the massive rich/poor divide, the theft by M.P.'s, the endless list of social failure since Enoch Powell has happened under 'mainstream' politics.

ME: "Point of clarification: Homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse than any other. That is the B.N.P. stance."

YOU: Right so, the BNP has no problem with having homosexual members? No problem with gay people at all? It's just another "disposition" is that it?

ME: Correct. Or can you prove otherwise? You seem to think you have proof of everything else.

YOU: On the stuff about Tony Blair, yes, I've never supported Tony Blair, I've never even voted Labour. I was totally against invading Iraq although I was also totally against Saddam Hussein's regime too.

ME: "No. Yet again I find myself having to explain more clearly to you while having no problem being understood by everyone else. I am saying when racial aggresssion OCCURS it is 99% territorial or financial. It is natural to be at peace. You in your little office could have one of every nationality in the world with you and that would be fine, but take a million of every race and put them in ANY one country, African, Asian, or European, it doesn't matter, then you will have racial aggression that has nothing to do with racism."

YOU: Is it actually racial aggression in that case then? Surely if you take one large group of people and throw them in with another group of people, problems are likely to happen? Maybe not though. Depends on the circumstances.

ME: It's racial aggression.

YOU: It's not a little office, it's a very big one with lots of people working together from various races and places. No trouble at all. There are local white people, indians, sri lankans, pakistanis, iranians, russians, africans, polish, irish, scottish, welsh and many others. All doing various different jobs too, no signs of the eugenics rubbish that many of your supporters bang on about either.

ME: As I implied, MILLIONS of all the above in any country not their own would be the problem. They would pressurise services, segregate into their own communities, leave many natives isolated and resentful in a country they no longer recognise, and the result would be these same natives asking themselves, "who's country is this anyway?"

ME: "No peoples are more likely to commit crime. But circumstances can make individuals more likely to. So, for instance, if you arrive in another country unable to speak the language you would be more likely to be driven to crime."

YOU: So surely it would make more sense to limit immigration on the basis of skills and other criteria, rather than race like your party does? Or - stop ALL immigration, regardless of race?

ME: Doesn't work. The mass of people coming is overwhelming. And as mentioned before, I don't think taking the most essential workers from other peoples countries is either moral or sustainable. A re-focus, however difficult, on training our own people is the only long-term solution. That means better wealth distribution, which means a narrowing of the rich/poor divide, which means stopping both cheaper labour from entering Britain and cheaper 'skilled' immigrants.

YOU: Why are they more likely to commit crime anyway?
Why aren't they more likely to learn to speak the language?
Why do you single out the criminal element rather than the good positive one?

ME: I said the poorest of any society is most likely to commit crime. And many immigrants coming to this country are desperate. Remember they are not guaranteed a job here. And learning the language? It has only been recently they had either had to or that we hadn't had to pay for it. Most people quite rightly ask the question, "why didn't they have to learn BEFORE they came?"
WE don't owe the world a living.

YOU: Why do many of your supporters target internet forums with "news" stories about non-whites committing crime?

ME: As I said, to get the FULL picture of crime. Only then can we hope to understand the reasons behind it.

ME: "But pointing out that all peoples are equally to blame encourages the English not to be so guilt-ridden and silent about their concerns. Our white victims of crime focus COMPLETES the overall picture."

ME: No it doesn't. I've heard all of this before and I think it's an excuse. The reason I think this is because your party says it is addressing some sort of imbalance but what it actually does is just tip the imbalance the other way. Your party doesn't go around equally reporting crimes regardless of race, it only tends to report crimes by non-whites and Muslims and ignores pretty much everything else. That is not being equal or fair, it's the opposite.

ME: As I said, who would have reported the trafficking of white girls by immigrant gangs if not us? Because as that Muslim officer admitted, these crimes that might upset race-relations are ignored by the main parties and liberal establishment.

YOU: You are getting in a right old mess with this one, your party is trying to put across that it wants to stop ALL immigration and over the course of our argument here on this blog you have actually proved that it not the case, what is more is that you are actually justifying it all whilst still contradicting yourself.

ME: We wont stop immigration of British ethnicity, i.e. our pre-1945 mass migration. Because that migration would intergrate. As we have already seen with non-white migration, neither they nor most of us want to lose our individual identities, consequently we have a divided country.

ME: "P.S. We also have Jewish councillors. They know every party has unsavioury individuals, but also know that things change."

YOU: Plural? I thought it was just the one?
Pat Richardson.
Here, in Mr. Richardson's own words is why he is in the BNP:
"I'm in the BNP because no one else speaks out against the Islamification of our country,"
"Being Jewish only adds to my concern about this aggressive creed that also threatens our secular values and Christian tradition."
Pat Richardson is the one who is trying to get Jewish votes for the BNP in London and he's doing it because he hates Islam.
What I'm pretty sure is happening (based on experience and your leader's previous methods) is that your party, the BNP, is attempting to cultivate divisions between Jews and Muslims.
In the 1980s and early to mid 1990s your leader did it the other way around, he sought support from people like Gaddaffi and the Iranians, he did this because they shared the same goal - racial separation and hatred of Jews. Then, Griffin was convicted of inciting racial hatred against Jews and it became more and more difficult to target Jews. As it has become more acceptable to attack Muslims in this country rather than Jews (possibly because Griffin wanted to distance himself and the party from being seen as Nazis) it became obvious that it could work the other way around.

ME: Pat Richardson being worried and not wanting to see the Islamification of this country is not hateful or racist. You can't be either of these things if you are giving an opinion on how you wish your own country to be.
And your rather simplistic ramblings about Nick Griffin and his motives OVER TEN YEARS AGO regarding the Jewish question is as irrelevant to today's B.N.P. as it is tired.

YOU: The way I think that your party works is this:
1. Tap into existing fears amongst the electorate.
2. Get some of the electorate to do the finger pointing whilst claiming that you represent the average British person (as defined by your party), thus giving strength to the BNP because you can say to people like me that I'm attacking the average British person therefore I am bad and wrong.
3. Cultivate divisions between certain groups, "Hello Mr Jewish person, forget all that nasty BNP history, I'm a different person now, this is New BNP and I'm New Nick Griffin. I know how you feel, those pesky Muslims, join us and we'll help you sort them out (and we'll help you go home to Israel too)" etc
4. Sit back and watch the fight without getting your hands dirty.
5. Step in and say - "told you so" and "look at that lot, fighting amongst themselves, time to get rid of the lot of them, Vote BNP".

ME: Why do you continue to treat the public with such contempt? Let me tell you something, people's actions, reactions, beliefs, and political affiliations, are all dictated by their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and FIRST-HAND PROBLEMS The public is not reacting to us. They are reacting to this appalling multicultural failure that was only held together by a ten year long world-wide economic boom now over. There is no more money for benefits to buy people's silence.

YOU: Anyway, I have other things to do now, like sing the Red Flag and torture small furry animals so I'll see you later...

ME: Look forward to it.

Joe Chapman said...

Origin 8,

No need to keep shouting, I’m not blind.

YOU: “It was an ideology ACCEPTED into political policy. And i'm still waiting for your definition of multiculture.”

ME: OK thanks for clarifying your position. You still contradicted yourself though by stating that multi culture is a policy then stating that it isn’t and now you are stating that it is but have adjusted the way you put it across to make it look as if both statements were correct in the first place.

I don’t have a definition for “multiculture”. The first time I heard the word was when you used it right here, I will accept the commonly held definition but unfortunately I don’t know of one as I’ve never heard anyone other than you use it. In which case I’ll have to make up my own definition or use your definition (whatever that is), but I don’t see how that is going to help anything. My spell checker doesn’t seem to like the word either but it’s probably set to US English so can’t be trusted.

Actually, I’ve just checked my Oxford Dictionary of English and the word “Multiculture” doesn’t exist in there either, neither does the word “Feminazi” (no, I know you didn’t mention that word, I thought I’d throw it in though) either, doesn’t mean they don’t exist though I suppose but I don’t understand how I’m supposed to give a definition for a word that I’ve only ever heard one person mention and had never heard before. What is your point anyway?

YOU: “ME: And it could be everyone at a Labour party conference is 'watching the enemy'. The fact remains we are now the forth biggest party in Britain. Only 3000 voted for us at the last mayoral election, this year it is estimated that we will get 300,000.
Enough said about why people look at our website and whether or not they like what they see.”

ME: OK, enough said, basically it seems that you have no argument against any of the points I raised about the number of visitors on your web site and the use of the data for political profiling or gauging the positive popularity of your party.

Regarding the Labour party conference analogy – Don’t Labour party members have membership ID? Are you suggesting that ‘the enemy’ has infiltrated Labour Party membership to such an extent that most people at their conference could be spies?

Some questions:

What is meant by “biggest”? Is that in terms of votes, members or the number of pies consumed?

What data was used to come to the estimated figure of 300,000?

YOU: “Wanting to stop non-white only immigration if backed up by logic and reason is neither racist nor hateful. And we have backed it up.”

ME: So essentially you think that holding a prejudice against an entire group of people based on race isn’t racism because you and your party (a party which is widely perceived as being racist and has a leader who has been convicted of inciting racial hatred) say it’s reasonable and logical!?

So go on, please explain the logic and reason.

YOU: “How these people thought or still think is unlikely to be known by either you, me or a bias media. (Though I know Nick Griffin and admire his calm and willingness to discuss anything with all-comers.) “

ME: Er… no, Roy James has written his thoughts on his blog and told me in person too, so I know. Now you know too.

I’m sure Nick Griffin is calm and willing to discuss anything with all-comers, that’s why he’s done so well. Although he hasn’t seemed quite that calm on the several occasions I’ve seen him.

Many murderers, rapists and paedophiles are also calm and willing to discuss things with all comers too. Make what you will of that.

YOU: “And attracting loonies might be because of YOUR propaganda, which gives no opportunity to discuss issues with the B.N.P. and disprove you.”

Does it? How? Here I am discussing it all with a BNP member – you. You’ve had plenty of chance, I haven’t tried to stop you, I openly encourage people to argue against what I say, thank you for doing so but so far no-one has been able to prove me wrong or even come up with a decent argument against it.

The idea that loonies (who were previously considered to be fine upstanding British people by your party and went around standing for elections for you and campaigning for you) might be attracted to your party because I report what your party is really about, is fair enough.

I admit that by exposing the true face of your party many people are actually attracted to it. Unfortunately they are ‘loonies’ (according to you). Personally I think most people will either ignore what I write or be disgusted at The BNP.

YOU: “If all you claim is true then why doesn't the 'mainstream' engage us and expose it?”

ME: If? You seem to be insinuating that what I say isn’t true, in which case please go ahead and show me up for being wrong. I don’t know why the mainstream hasn’t picked up on the things that I have picked up on regarding BNP policy and its contradictions. Maybe no-one else has looked hard enough? I can’t say for sure, you’ll have to ask the mainstream (whoever they are) and not me. I don’t even read the mainstream media so wouldn’t know whether they have picked up on it or not anyway.

YOU: “Your concerns are about what might happen with us in power, whereas Iraq, trafficking of guns, drugs, and people, the massive rich/poor divide, the theft by M.P.'s, the endless list of social failure since Enoch Powell has happened under 'mainstream' politics.”

ME: My concerns are about what your party proposes to do if it were to have power, what it is doing now and what it has done over the past 30 years.

The rest seems to drift off into some rant featuring Enoch Powell which comes to no conclusion. What are you trying to say? Reading into it I suspect you are trying to justify your party’s actions by pointing out wrongs done by others. That justifies nothing. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

Regarding the BNP’s stance on homosexuality:

YOU: “Correct. Or can you prove otherwise? You seem to think you have proof of everything else.”

YOU: “Homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse than any other. That is the B.N.P. stance. We would stop the promotion in public, i.e. schools, T.V., ect...of ANYTHING overtly sexual. We promote the family, husband, wife, children, as the most fundamentally stable national unit because we believe this is the building block missing from society, but accept all other lifestyles and organisations that help them.”

ME: There’s actually a bit of a contradiction in that last statement of yours, on the one hand you state that homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse that any other but then you promote a heterosexual relationship as being the model relationship, this indicates that you think that heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships.

According to you (the BNP) “the family” = husband + wife. So which one in a same sex relationship is the husband and which is the wife then?

Glad I re-quoted this again because I missed the fact that you have stated that you would ban anything overtly sexual on the TV. Fair enough in schools (although you’ll have a bit of a problem with teenagers I suspect), and fair enough before the watershed (actually, even that is debatable) but ban it outright?

Now who is treating the people of this country with contempt? Since when has TV been public anyway? Most people watch TV in the privacy of their own homes, therefore those people watching it have a choice whether to watch porn or not, they don’t need some New BNP nanny state telling them what they can or can’t watch.

YOU: “ME: It's racial aggression.”
Sorry, what is? A black man and a white man have a fight, so therefore the fight must be racial aggression? I’m not sure what your point is really here.


YOU: “ME: As I implied, MILLIONS of all the above in any country not their own would be the problem. They would pressurise services, segregate into their own communities, leave many natives isolated and resentful in a country they no longer recognise, and the result would be these same natives asking themselves, ‘who's country is this anyway?’”

How many millions? At what point does this become a threat? How are you defining “natives” here, within the context of Britain?

How do you know this is what would happen? I can’t see any reasoning or thinking behind your argument.

Regarding limiting immigration by skills:

YOU: “Doesn't work. The mass of people coming is overwhelming. And as mentioned before, I don't think taking the most essential workers from other peoples countries is either moral or sustainable. A re-focus, however difficult, on training our own people is the only long-term solution. That means better wealth distribution, which means a narrowing of the rich/poor divide, which means stopping both cheaper labour from entering Britain and cheaper 'skilled' immigrants.”

ME: How do you know it doesn’t work? Or is this another one of your “because I said so” arguments?

What do you mean by “the mass of people coming is overwhelming”? Overwhelming in what sense? Which people are you talking about?

You talk as if I was suggesting kidnapping skilled people and making them work here, agreed that if people are in some way forced to come here then that is wrong, or if there is a shortage of those skills in those other places then it is bad that they are leaking these skills, maybe it would be better to take skills from more immediate sources (if they are available) but that is another debate which I’m happy to have somewhere else.

What I do know is that there’s no justification in this argument for discriminating on the basis of race. So if your argument is simply that immigrants take jobs from non-immigrants then why does your party not propose to stop all immigrants? Also, why don’t you look at things on a more local basis too? What if the answer is instead of limiting things by country you limit things by region, city or town? Make sure you employ a local villager rather than someone from the city? This will help against transport problems and resources too. I don’t see you talking about that though.

YOU: “I said the poorest of any society is most likely to commit crime. And many immigrants coming to this country are desperate.”

ME: Yes and many aren’t. Many people moving to London from Wales might be poor and desperate too. My parents moved down south for work, bloody parents, taking the jobs off of local southerners! They were from a very poor background too.

YOU: “Remember they are not guaranteed a job here.”
Who is guaranteed a job anywhere?


YOU: “And learning the language? It has only been recently they had either had to or that we hadn't had to pay for it. Most people quite rightly ask the question, ‘why didn't they have to learn BEFORE they came?’”

ME: Yeah, I think that’s a fair comment. Maybe people (over a certain age) should have to be able to speak the language before they move here. Then again, there’s always potential too.

YOU: “WE don't owe the world a living.”

Who is “WE”? No one said that anyone owes the world a living.

ME: “Why do many of your supporters target internet forums with "news" stories about non-whites committing crime?”

YOU: “As I said, to get the FULL picture of crime. Only then can we hope to understand the reasons behind it.”

ME: How is only reporting crimes by non-whites, the full picture, exactly? It’s not, I think it’s selectively biased reporting in order to try to condition people into associating all non-whites with crime and other bad things with the ultimate purpose of inciting racial or religious hatred.

YOU: “As I said, who would have reported the trafficking of white girls by immigrant gangs if not us? Because as that Muslim officer admitted, these crimes that might upset race-relations are ignored by the main parties and liberal establishment.”

ME: So, your logic is this:

The BNP reports crime by some immigrants, therefore the BNP is OK.

No, it doesn’t work like that.

YOU: “We wont stop immigration of British ethnicity, i.e. our pre-1945 mass migration. Because that migration would intergrate. As we have already seen with non-white migration, neither they nor most of us want to lose our individual identities, consequently we have a divided country.”

ME: Oh dear, what you have just done there is admit that your party has lied. The information regarding your immigration policy in your mini-manifesto and the previous ‘our stance’ bit on your web site is a lie. You have essentially just admitted that.

How do you know that other migration would not integrate exactly? Is it because you say it won’t or is there actually some reasoning behind your argument, I can’t find any in your statement.

This term “British ethnicity” is a bit worrying too, it seems that your party will reserve the right to determine what “British ethnicity” is and even define what being British is. This seems at odds with what our country is actually about.

YOU: “Pat Richardson being worried and not wanting to see the Islamification of this country is not hateful or racist. You can't be either of these things if you are giving an opinion on how you wish your own country to be.
And your rather simplistic ramblings about Nick Griffin and his motives OVER TEN YEARS AGO regarding the Jewish question is as irrelevant to today's B.N.P. as it is tired.”

ME: So you now admit that you over inflated your Jewish membership numbers then, why’s that?

The point here is that Mr Richardson is apparently only really interested in attacking Islam, it’s his main reason for being a BNP member, that doesn’t to me seem to be an honourable way of going about doing things and it shows the kind of person that joins the BNP and what the BNP is really about. Besides, it doesn’t appear that Mr Richardson is simply worried about something, he’s going out of his way to try to force divisions, putting Jew against Muslim. It’s not just voicing a concern. You make it sound so innocent when it’s clear that it’s not just by reading the man’s own words.

Regarding Nick Griffin: What is simplistic exactly? So what if what he said and did was over ten years ago. It is you that is taking the British electorate for a mug by treating us as if we live in Eastenders land where people do nasty things to each other in one episode then it’s all forgotten about and everyone’s friends in the next episode. It’s not as if we are talking about a couple of throw away comments either, Nick Griffin went on and on for years about the holocaust being completely fabricated and how the Jews are trying to take over the planet etc.

YOU: “Why do you continue to treat the public with such contempt? Let me tell you something, people's actions, reactions, beliefs, and political affiliations, are all dictated by their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and FIRST-HAND PROBLEMS The public is not reacting to us. They are reacting to this appalling multicultural failure that was only held together by a ten year long world-wide economic boom now over. There is no more money for benefits to buy people's silence.”

ME: I do not treat the public with any contempt, it is you and your party that does that by thinking that most of us will fall for your psychological, marketing (spin), contradictions, propaganda and outright lies.

You talk to me as if I am an outsider and pretend that you are speaking for the average British person, I am not an outsider and you are not speaking for most British people.

I actually believe that most of us are intelligent enough to see through it all and make our own minds up based on real things rather than extreme prejudice, ignorance and hatred like you, your party and many of your members and supporters do.

The unfortunate fact though, is that millions of people can be fooled and you don’t have to be stupid to be fooled. History shows us that, life shows us that.

Origin 8 said...

YOU: No need to keep shouting, I’m not blind.

ME: You mean deaf.

YOU: I don’t have a definition for “multiculture”. The first time I heard the word was when you used it right here, I will accept the commonly held definition but unfortunately I don’t know of one as I’ve never heard anyone other than you use it. In which case I’ll have to make up my own definition or use your definition (whatever that is), but I don’t see how that is going to help anything. My spell checker doesn’t seem to like the word either but it’s probably set to US English so can’t be trusted.

ME: It's a word in my dictionary, (part of multiculturalism), it's on the internet, within any full discussion of immigration, and part of many surveys by YouGov among others.

ME: And it could be everyone at a Labour party conference is 'watching the enemy'. The fact remains we are now the forth biggest party in Britain. Only 3000 voted for us at the last mayoral election, this year it is estimated that we will get 300,000.
Enough said about why people look at our website and whether or not they like what they see.”

YOU: OK, enough said, basically it seems that you have no argument against any of the points I raised about the number of visitors on your web site and the use of the data for political profiling or gauging the positive popularity of your party.

ME: Enough said because no one could know who or why people look at our site. But I suggest you google B.N.P. ,not for our site, but look at other independent information regarding how popular the party was just a few years ago compared to this last year or so when most people like myself joined. That increase is why I believe most people looking at our site have a positive view of us. What is your evidence otherwise? Because "maybe this", or "maybe that", is not enough.

YOU: Regarding the Labour party conference analogy – Don’t Labour party members have membership ID? Are you suggesting that ‘the enemy’ has infiltrated Labour Party membership to such an extent that most people at their conference could be spies?

ME: Again it's just figuratively speaking. If I said, "yes, all Labour members are spies," it would be possible but absurd. And 'possible but absurd' is my definition of your suggestions as to why people look at our site.

YOU: Some questions:
What is meant by “biggest”? Is that in terms of votes, members or the number of pies consumed?

ME: Votes AND members.

YOU: What data was used to come to the estimated figure of 300,000?

ME: The London Paper and anti-B.N.P. organisations in London trying to encourage as many people as possible to vote against us our this huge increase in popularity to name two.

ME: “Wanting to stop non-white only immigration if backed up by logic and reason is neither racist nor hateful. And we have backed it up.”

YOU: So essentially you think that holding a prejudice against an entire group of people based on race isn’t racism because you and your party (a party which is widely perceived as being racist and has a leader who has been convicted of inciting racial hatred) say it’s reasonable and logical!?

ME: If I were prejudice I would hate and fear. I do neither. If I were prejudice I would attack and insult people in their own lands. I do not. I want ALL people to have the better life they deserve in their own countries because THAT is the only way to assure peace. And let's remember something, MOST racially motivated crimes are committed by non-white immigrants AGAINST other non-white immigrants. This was always going to happen. We need to give our Third World aid to the doctors, nurses, and other essential people we have 'poached' from these most desperate of countries and allow them to create greater stability and prosperity in their own lands with this and other aid.
WE HAVE TRIED JUST GIVING AID, and it doesn't work. It is just so much money for arms if they have no point of growth or reference because we have taken their most essential people.
Watch Channel 4's 'Immigration. An inconvenient truth'. It may just open your eyes. It is not a programme about hate, it is about reality. The reality is that it is a non-white immigration problem. Second, third, forth generation, it doesn't matter, non-white immigrants of different races, religions and cultures remain hostile to EACH OTHER, even after over forty years, and this is going to explode into civil war without any prompting from any white British.

ME: “How these people thought or still think is unlikely to be known by either you, me or a bias media. (Though I know Nick Griffin and admire his calm and willingness to discuss anything with all-comers.) “

YOU: Er… no, Roy James has written his thoughts on his blog and told me in person too, so I know. Now you know too.
I’m sure Nick Griffin is calm and willing to discuss anything with all-comers, that’s why he’s done so well. Although he hasn’t seemed quite that calm on the several occasions I’ve seen him.
Many murderers, rapists and paedophiles are also calm and willing to discuss things with all comers too. Make what you will of that.

ME: Roy James has been thrown out of the party, and Nick Griffin is thought of as something by you and something else by me. So I say again, who knows what this politician or ANY politician thinks. I wont go into another Blair rant, but both he and Thatcher made huge changes to this country, many causing hardship and grief, but perhaps there was no choice. Perhaps events of the day overtook everything. We couldn't stay as we were in seventies socialism nor in the early nineties with failed conservativism. Now, yet again, we cannot remain as we are. Events will take a course of their own irrespective of political policy because today it is about IDENTITY.

ME: “And attracting loonies might be because of YOUR propaganda, which gives no opportunity to discuss issues with the B.N.P. and disprove you.”

YOU: Does it? How? Here I am discussing it all with a BNP member – you. You’ve had plenty of chance, I haven’t tried to stop you, I openly encourage people to argue against what I say, thank you for doing so but so far no-one has been able to prove me wrong or even come up with a decent argument against it.
The idea that loonies (who were previously considered to be fine upstanding British people by your party and went around standing for elections for you and campaigning for you) might be attracted to your party because I report what your party is really about, is fair enough.
I admit that by exposing the true face of your party many people are actually attracted to it. Unfortunately they are ‘loonies’ (according to you). Personally I think most people will either ignore what I write or be disgusted at The BNP.

ME: And thank you for talking to me. However if we could talk as the whole nation listened I would be much happier. Or if you could talk to Nick Griffin as the nation watched. This will never happen. They say it's because they don't want to give us the "oxygen of publicity", however if I could turn to the Iraq war just for a moment, or the E.U. referendum that wasn't, I would point out that the accusations of war crimes and treason respectively, both as great accusations as any, were allowed to be countered by Labour spokesmen. We should also be allowed to stand or fall while facing OUR accusers. That lack of fair-play and democratic right to properly represent our voters, irrespective of what we say, is solely a reflection on the other parties. They seem to think, like you, that the public are so stupid that they cannot decide for themselves.

ME: “Your concerns are about what might happen with us in power, whereas Iraq, trafficking of guns, drugs, and people, the massive rich/poor divide, the theft by M.P.'s, the endless list of social failure since Enoch Powell has happened under 'mainstream' politics.”

YOU: My concerns are about what your party proposes to do if it were to have power, what it is doing now and what it has done over the past 30 years.
The rest seems to drift off into some rant featuring Enoch Powell which comes to no conclusion. What are you trying to say? Reading into it I suspect you are trying to justify your party’s actions by pointing out wrongs done by others. That justifies nothing. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

ME: No political policy or party is going to be right or wrong, it is merely going to have consequences. Some may benefit, other will not. People decide their positions based on only a few things. Financial situation is top, (as in the current U.S. election. Iraq was the number one issue there, now it's their economy.)
Immigration ANYWHERE is primarily a business deal. There is no great morality in it's supporters or opponents. They both look primarily at the economy. The other political parties use race for political ends. That is reality. We, like all parties, would make decisions by which some would benefit and others not. But any extremist policy would only work if it was backed by the people or enforced by the army. We have no such policies and will introduce none. Our focus is simply REVERSING the mass immigration of the last forty years. That is no more extreme than creating it in the first place. There is nothing to fear with us in power.

ME: “Homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse than any other. That is the B.N.P. stance. We would stop the promotion in public, i.e. schools, T.V., ect...of ANYTHING overtly sexual. We promote the family, husband, wife, children, as the most fundamentally stable national unit because we believe this is the building block missing from society, but accept all other lifestyles and organisations that help them.”

YOU: There’s actually a bit of a contradiction in that last statement of yours, on the one hand you state that homosexuality is a genetic disposition, no better or worse that any other but then you promote a heterosexual relationship as being the model relationship, this indicates that you think that heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships.

ME: All other things aside then yes heterosexual is more ideal. But only as we are talking without individual reference, i.e. about no one in particular.

YOU: Glad I re-quoted this again because I missed the fact that you have stated that you would ban anything overtly sexual on the TV. Fair enough in schools (although you’ll have a bit of a problem with teenagers I suspect), and fair enough before the watershed (actually, even that is debatable) but ban it outright?
Now who is treating the people of this country with contempt? Since when has TV been public anyway? Most people watch TV in the privacy of their own homes, therefore those people watching it have a choice whether to watch porn or not, they don’t need some New BNP nanny state telling them what they can or can’t watch.

ME: Sorry, need to clarify. I refer to underage, i.e. below 16 issues. It is a difficult of course. The current laws on public nudity, or lewd behaviour, ect, would be toughened. Other things that showed sexual activity or violence without consequence, i.e. computer games, videos, or even musical lyrics, would be best countered by exposing those involved as weak, pathetic and 'uncool'. We would promote the idea of MEANING to sex, while simultaneously putting an ‘uncool spin' on those who simply sell it. Banning, as you say, is neither helpful nor appropriate.

YOU: “ME: It's racial aggression.”
Sorry, what is? A black man and a white man have a fight, so therefore the fight must be racial aggression? I’m not sure what your point is really here.

ME: Simply that it is racial aggression if the context is tribal and territorial. But not racist.

YOU: “ME: As I implied, MILLIONS of all the above in any country not their own would be the problem. They would pressurise services, segregate into their own communities, leave many natives isolated and resentful in a country they no longer recognise, and the result would be these same natives asking themselves, ‘who's country is this anyway?’”

YOU: How many millions? At what point does this become a threat? How are you defining “natives” here, within the context of Britain?
How do you know this is what would happen? I can’t see any reasoning or thinking behind your argument.

ME: I find it as hard to believe that you don't know the basis of the entire argument most people have against immigration, (economy aside) that being the fact we have ALREADY become Balkanised in many areas. I repeat my suggestion that you see the above mentioned Channel 4 programme, I believe you can see past episodes on their website.

Regarding limiting immigration by skills:

ME: “Doesn't work. The mass of people coming is overwhelming. And as mentioned before, I don't think taking the most essential workers from other peoples countries is either moral or sustainable. A re-focus, however difficult, on training our own people is the only long-term solution. That means better wealth distribution, which means a narrowing of the rich/poor divide, which means stopping both cheaper labour from entering Britain and cheaper 'skilled' immigrants.”

YOU: How do you know it doesn’t work? Or is this another one of your “because I said so” arguments?
What do you mean by “the mass of people coming is overwhelming”? Overwhelming in what sense? Which people are you talking about?
You talk as if I was suggesting kidnapping skilled people and making them work here, agreed that if people are in some way forced to come here then that is wrong, or if there is a shortage of those skills in those other places then it is bad that they are leaking these skills, maybe it would be better to take skills from more immediate sources (if they are available) but that is another debate which I’m happy to have somewhere else.

ME: How do I know that we can't pick and choose immigrants with any competence? How do I know numbers are overwhelming? I think Home Secretary John Reid put it best when he said that the immigration system and Home Office is not fit for purpose. Oh, and the fact we have over a million illegal immigrants many of whom went through our system but simply disappeared when told they had to go home. We have not enough people or money put aside to find them. Their numbers are so great and there is always more coming.
And the U.N. said taking to best health workers from Africa was killing them. Literally.

YOU: What I do know is that there’s no justification in this argument for discriminating on the basis of race. So if your argument is simply that immigrants take jobs from non-immigrants then why does your party not propose to stop all immigrants? Also, why don’t you look at things on a more local basis too? What if the answer is instead of limiting things by country you limit things by region, city or town? Make sure you employ a local villager rather than someone from the city? This will help against transport problems and resources too. I don’t see you talking about that though.

ME: City or town, village or hamlet, if they are white British then this is their country. They as British, deserve to be a British government’s priority. We (white British) don't owe the world a living.
And allowing white immigration, is partly because we can't stop it, (though we would have a referendum on membership of the E.U.) and partly, as mentioned before, because in the past white immigration has integrated. The job issue is economic and goes up and down. The race, religion, culture, identity and segregation crisis will be constantly here until our policies are adopted.

ME: “I said the poorest of any society is most likely to commit crime. And many immigrants coming to this country are desperate.”

YOU: Yes and many aren’t. Many people moving to London from Wales might be poor and desperate too. My parents moved down south for work, bloody parents, taking the jobs off of local southerners! They were from a very poor background too.

ME: If they, like those Londoners, where white British then they have the right to move anywhere. However, we (white British) don't owe the world a living. And despite appearances to the contrary, we do have an immigration policy to prove it.

ME: “And learning the language? It has only been recently they had either had to or that we hadn't had to pay for it. Most people quite rightly ask the question, ‘why didn't they have to learn BEFORE they came?’”

YOU: Yeah, I think that’s a fair comment. Maybe people (over a certain age) should have to be able to speak the language before they move here. Then again, there’s always potential too.

YOU: “Why do many of your supporters target internet forums with "news" stories about non-whites committing crime?”

ME: “As I said, to get the FULL picture of crime. Only then can we hope to understand the reasons behind it.”

YOU: How is only reporting crimes by non-whites, the full picture, exactly? It’s not, I think it’s selectively biased reporting in order to try to condition people into associating all non-whites with crime and other bad things with the ultimate purpose of inciting racial or religious hatred.

ME: “As I said, who would have reported the trafficking of white girls by immigrant gangs if not us? Because as that Muslim officer admitted, these crimes that might upset race-relations are ignored by the main parties and liberal establishment.”

YOU: So, your logic is this:
The BNP reports crime by some immigrants, therefore the BNP is OK.
No, it doesn’t work like that.

ME: And your logic is ignore the crime if the B.N.P. report it?

ME: “We wont stop immigration of British ethnicity, i.e. our pre-1945 mass migration. Because that migration would integrate. As we have already seen with non-white migration, neither they nor most of us want to lose our individual identities, consequently we have a divided country.”

YOU: Oh dear, what you have just done there is admit that your party has lied. The information regarding your immigration policy in your mini-manifesto and the previous ‘our stance’ bit on your web site is a lie. You have essentially just admitted that.

ME: We will stop all immigration apart from certain cases. These will be of white ethnicity. We would not force any non-white to leave. If this stance has changed since I last looked, I hardly think it is a substantial change. So I will look again but feel sure that I will agree with any new stance.

YOU; How do you know that other migration would not integrate exactly? Is it because you say it won’t or is there actually some reasoning behind your argument, I can’t find any in your statement.

ME: Channel 4. "Immigration. An inconvenient truth." And the whole argument against immigration that is not an economic argument. All answers are there.

YOU: “Pat Richardson being worried and not wanting to see the Islamification of this country is not hateful or racist. You can't be either of these things if you are giving an opinion on how you wish your own country to be.
And your rather simplistic ramblings about Nick Griffin and his motives OVER TEN YEARS AGO regarding the Jewish question is as irrelevant to today's B.N.P. as it is tired.”

YOU: So you now admit that you over inflated your Jewish membership numbers then, why’s that?
The point here is that Mr Richardson is apparently only really interested in attacking Islam, it’s his main reason for being a BNP member, that doesn’t to me seem to be an honourable way of going about doing things and it shows the kind of person that joins the BNP and what the BNP is really about. Besides, it doesn’t appear that Mr Richardson is simply worried about something, he’s going out of his way to try to force divisions, putting Jew against Muslim. It’s not just voicing a concern. You make it sound so innocent when it’s clear that it’s not just by reading the man’s own words.

ME: Blowing up London is putting Muslim against Jew. Not Mr. Richardson. A Muslim minority of course, (though the Muslim Council of Britain refused to contradict claims by Muslim preachers that it was a plot by MI5) but the fact remains that we shouldn't be interfering in their countries or they in ours.

YOU: Regarding Nick Griffin: What is simplistic exactly? So what if what he said and did was over ten years ago. It is you that is taking the British electorate for a mug by treating us as if we live in Eastenders land where people do nasty things to each other in one episode then it’s all forgotten about and everyone’s friends in the next episode. It’s not as if we are talking about a couple of throw away comments either, Nick Griffin went on and on for years about the holocaust being completely fabricated and how the Jews are trying to take over the planet etc.

ME: No he didn't. He foolishly allowed a journalist to goad him into remarks questioning the number of Jews killed. He was also found guilty of allowing holocaust denial material to be sold. But I am not going to try to defend him any more than a Labour party member would try to defend Blair, or indeed a Tory defend the Falklands. All I know is that he and the B.N.P are my choice. Far more acceptable than the rest and far closer to my way of thinking. And ten years is a long time. Many people in the shadow Labour government in 1987 stayed to work with Blair's 1997 version. A change in attitude and approach is possible and does happen over ten or less years.

ME: “Why do you continue to treat the public with such contempt? Let me tell you something, people's actions, reactions, beliefs, and political affiliations, are all dictated by their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and FIRST-HAND PROBLEMS The public is not reacting to us. They are reacting to this appalling multicultural failure that was only held together by a ten year long world-wide economic boom now over. There is no more money for benefits to buy people's silence.”

YOU: I do not treat the public with any contempt, it is you and your party that does that by thinking that most of us will fall for your psychological, marketing (spin), contradictions, propaganda and outright lies.
You talk to me as if I am an outsider and pretend that you are speaking for the average British person, I am not an outsider and you are not speaking for most British people.

ME: I don't believe ANYONE voting for any party has been tricked by propaganda and spin. You however think that anyone not agreeing with you has been.
And I never said I speak for the average British person, I said on certain issues today, i.e. immigration and multicultralism, I believe the majority think a certain way.
And what makes YOU think that I don't speak for the majority of white British? And do you think that you do?

YOU: I actually believe that most of us are intelligent enough to see through it all and make our own minds up based on real things rather than extreme prejudice, ignorance and hatred like you, your party and many of your members and supporters do.

ME: And I actually believe that ALL of us are intelligent enough to see through it all and make our own minds up based on real things rather than extreme cowardice, ignorance and mindless irrationality like you, other parties, and their supporters.
We can personally insult each other or discuss the issues.
It is up to you.

Joe Chapman said...

ME: "No need to keep shouting, I’m not blind."

YOU: "You mean deaf."

ME: No, I mean blind.

The rest will have to wait.

Joe Chapman said...

Origin 8,

Well it seems that your party's predictions weren't quite so accurate, you managed 1 BNP London Assembly member, Mr Richard Barnbrook who I see a few days ago took time out from his campaign to secretly meet with some influential neo-fascists from Europe.

Your figure of 300,000 votes was way out, it was more like 130,000, approximately 5% of the vote.

All the rubbish about being the 4th main party is shown to be just that, rubbish, in fact in the London Assembly you are in 5th place behind the Greens who have retained their 2 seats.

A slight victory for the BNP in gaining some local council seats but despite all the campaigning, the state of the government and all the guff coming from your party about great gains The BNP appear to have done rather badly compared to your projections, in pretty much every local election, it looks like from the figures that instead of the number of votes for The BNP going up they have gone the other way with many areas showing approximately 17% as opposed to the previous 29%.

I'm looking on the brightside - now that Barnbrook is in we should start to see more mainstream exposure of him and The BNP, which is great because you won't be able to control that exposure and the chances are it won't go the way you want it to because you and your party are way too dishonest and have too much to hide. It'll be interesting to see how well Barnbrook uses his new position considering he has other commitments elsewhere.

That second vote thing for Boris Johnson went well didn't it.

Oh dear. Boris has got a bit of catching up to do still though, especially over his "picanninies" comment and convincing Londoners to keep him there, in which case he'll need to be seen to be coming down hard on racists etc so he'll need a good way of doing that. Fortunately he's got Barnbrook to provide some ammunition.

Anyway, bye for now!

Joe.

Joe Chapman said...

I suppose I should be fair to the BNP and let them have their say on this, so what better way to do so than posting some comments from the BNP's Lee Barnes:

"In spite of the lies told by the capitalist media who also promoted the lies of the UAF in their tatty pages, in spite of the Communist Searchlight perverts and crooks spreading their lie leaflets in our communities and in spite of the gangsters that run the trades unions, the homosexual apostate priests and politically correct perverts and in spite of the corrupt BBC - WE DID IT !" - Lee Barnes, BNP.

"We all know that we actually got about three elected and that postal ballot fraud, tampering with the boxes, stealing votes, fake voters and an unprecedented influx of aliens all allowed to vote in the GLA were all used to deny us the true numbers of elected representatives - BUT WE DID IT !" - Lee Barnes, British National Party

"No the BNP didnt say it would win 40 seats, I did on my PRIVATE BLOG. I was almost right. Fraud kept us getting the correct number of seats and media bullshit and lies damaged our vote elsewhere." - Lee Barnes, BNP

"The British National Revolution has begun !" - Lee Barnes

"HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA YOU EVIL, PATHETIC SCUM LOSERS !" - Lee Barnes

Yep, see, it was all a conspiracy against the BNP, it must be, Lee Barnes says so.

cananeoy said...

Thanks...

Canan eoy
Articles