BNP, does anyone take them seriously?

They have been supressed for decades - not allowed to hold student associations in colleges and universities, not allowed on the media, subject to constant one-sided propaganda without substantiation or fact, etc etc.
This probably is owing to the fact that for most of their history they have been openly and illegally racist, rather than the ever-so-slightly PC variety of neo fascists that they have tried to turn themselves into in recent years (The BNP's founder was imprisoned for inciting racial hatred in 1986).
 
How do you know this? There is an awful lot of jumping to conclusions when the UKIP position at this point is unclear, what do they say about assumptions?!

What's their stance on multiculturalism?
 
Trying to please his leftist masters on this forum I guess?
Please them as much as you like they will still hate you:P
 
Why do you say that?

Honestly, They are a very hateful group of people. The whole premise of the BNP is that the white race is superior to all others. Having parties like the BNP just helps increase racial tension in a country. John Tyndall even said that all minorities should be deported from the country. Not to mention that Nick Griffin openly denies that the holocaust ever happened. In short, the entire movement is based on hate. I don't hate the people in the BNP, but I have a strong dislike for the organization itself.
 
Honestly, They are a very hateful group of people. The whole premise of the BNP is that the white race is superior to all others.

That's not their premise at all. Their premise is that the British people and culture should be independent and allowed to choose their own destiny. They believe that all people and cultures are equally worthwhile and deserving of protection.

Now, their heresy consists in including white people and their cultures in this definition of equality.


CELTICEMPIRE said:
Having parties like the BNP just helps increase racial tension in a country.

The blame for this should go to multiculturalism and mass immigration, where it belongs.


CELTICEMPIRE said:
John Tyndall even said that all minorities should be deported from the country. Not to mention that Nick Griffin openly denies that the holocaust ever happened. In short, the entire movement is based on hate. I don't hate the people in the BNP, but I have a strong dislike for the organization itself.

I think they believe in voluntary deportation, which does not use force and is therefore not inherently immoral.

And the only time I heard Griffin speak [praise be to our government masters for letting us hear the voice of the Great Satanist once], he was careful to point out that the Holocaust happened. So...
 
The blame for this should go to multiculturalism and mass immigration, where it belongs.

Nope. The blame for racism is with the small-minded racists - they can hardly say 'oh, it's not my fault that I'm a thug, it's all multiculturalism to blame, innit?'
 
Nope. The blame for racism is with the small-minded racists - they can hardly say 'oh, it's not my fault that I'm a thug, it's all multiculturalism to blame, innit?'

I was talking about racial tension, not racism ;)
 
Nope!
 
That's not their premise at all. Their premise is that the British people and culture should be independent and allowed to choose their own destiny. They believe that all people and cultures are equally worthwhile and deserving of protection.

Now, their heresy consists in including white people and their cultures in this definition of equality.

The blame for this should go to multiculturalism and mass immigration, where it belongs.

I'm against multiculturalism as it segregates society and focuses on what makes people different. Instead, societies should push for integration, and a common culture, regardless of people's race.

I think they believe in voluntary deportation, which does not use force and is therefore not inherently immoral.

And the only time I heard Griffin speak [praise be to our government masters for letting us hear the voice of the Great Satanist once], he was careful to point out that the Holocaust happened. So...

Actually
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/beliefs.stm
 
I'm against multiculturalism as it segregates society and focuses on what makes people different. Instead, societies should push for integration, and a common culture, regardless of people's race.

So you think that race is quite apart from culture?
 
The BNP aren't "fascists" at all. :rolleyes:
I'm increasingly tending to think that the BNP actually represent something closer to Loyalism than fascism- if you look at the genealogy, at any rate, that seems to figure larger than what was for the most part a weird foreign import in the UK. Fascism certainly provided an influence on some of the more militant members of the British far-right, but as an (aspiring) mass movement you seem to see far more of the basic ingredients of both ideology and practice in the League of Empire Loyalists or the Democratic Unionist Party than in the Union of Fascists.

That's not their premise at all. Their premise is that the British English people and culture should be independent and allowed to choose their own destiny.
Bit of honesty wouldn't hurt.
 
The Sioux Indians and Australian aborigines are bigots? How can you judge entire peoples like that?


Well, they had cause. Whites were stealing everything that they had. But America, as one example, was built by immigrants. Japan, as another example is dying because they lack immigrants.
 
The Sioux Indians and Australian aborigines are bigots? How can you judge entire peoples like that?
I think that you're arguing in rather bad faith, here. You know full well that by "immigration", Cutlass meant the sort of immigration we see in the Western world today, not violent colonisation by foreign empires. That it is technically an example of "immigration" does not mean that the word is not commonly used to denote a more specific sort of social phenomena.

After all, if we're going to play clever-dicks, I could just as easily infer from your comments the claim that London is doomed unless a giant fence is built between the Wash and and the Severn Estuary, to keep out the mass-migration of Northerners, as great a source of new faces on Southern streets as the marching legions of Johnny Foreigner. We know that's not what you're saying, so we work within that knowledge, and would it be too much to ask the same of you?
 
I think that you're arguing in rather bad faith, here. You know that by "immigration", Cutlass meant the sort of immigration we see in the Western world today, not violent colonisation by foreign empires.

That earlier immigration started off very peacefully as well, with peace treaties, trade and group hugs. There is no certainty that the current mass-immigration to the West will remain peaceful or will continue to go on Western terms.

Besides which, Cutlass has a habit of arguing from extremes - his claim that 100% of immigrations are peaceful and wonderful except where the local population of bigots decides to cause problems is totally non-factual. Immigration brings a host of benefits and a host of problems, it's not unreasonable to take a close look and analyse or criticise the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom