egafd.com

Max

You said "As I said it my last comment the BNP are about to be destroyed by the Government. There is no real democracy"

Please answer the following questions Max.

1. If there is no real democracy, how come the Government have been unable to "destroy" the Conservative Party and is lagging far behind in the polls for the next election? If your argument was true which it is not, the risks to the Labour government from the Conservatives are far, far greater than those of the BNP so they would have "destroyed" them by now, wouldnt they?

2. Your argument, repeated on this forum many times is that the Labour government is "destroying" the BNP party by forcing them to let non-white members join. Once the non-white members get in they will force the BNP to change their ideas on immigration.

This is an extract from UKIP policies:
"UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today?s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ?no home no visa? work permits to ease the housing crisis."

Question, Max. If your argument about non-whites joining the BNP and changing policies is correct, why hasnt this happened in UKIP which has a very strong, anti-immigration and anti-EU policy and allows non-white members to join?

I await your prompt reply with interest.

3. Also if you look at the venom towards the BNP from the print media in recent days it seems likely they will do that to the BNP building up to every future election too.

Yes, Max you have noticed. Nazi, racists dont go down very well in the mainstream media. Heartwarming, isnt it?

Cheers
D

David, there is nothing that the Labour Government can reasonably do, that could involve changing laws, that could destroy the Tory party. Also, the main 3 parties are not really that dis-similar to a kind of gentleman's club where they are all pals really. In times of crisis they all pull together, also look at the back slapping and laughing and joking that goes on on the day of the State Opening of Parliament. Apparently the only person who was ever impossible for other parties to get on with in recent times was John Prescott because he was such an unprofessional oaf, but everyone was/is basically a gang similar to that of a private gentleman's club in St James's.

All three party leaders have said several times 'vote for ANYONE but the BNP'. Labour, and from next year the Tories, will keep changing the laws (as I've said a few times on various threads) so that the BNP, this gang of political pariah's, are weakened or destroyed from within. Labour will do all things reasonable to win the election next year and to weaken the Tories, but none of the main 3 have ever had an interest in 'destroying' one another.

On your point about UKIP compared to the BNP, UKIP are seen as a load of right-wing, cricket loving, Little Englanders, who may have a view on life similar to that of the editor of the Daily Mail, but none of them have the convictions that senior BNP figures have, nor do they have a background where they have said very dodgy things, including praising Hitler, denying the Holocaust, slagging off Jewish people, talking about Jewish conspiracies, and saying they want all non whites slung out of the country whether they were born here or not.

The BNP ostricised themselves from mainsteam politics when they went on in that way - and that is why none of them can ever be interviewed now without these things coming up. I think the only thing that a UKIP figure said which was a bit extreme was that women belong in the home, cooking and cleaning. That is nowhere near what the BNP have said and that is why the BNP are regarded as political lepers and will never be accepted into the mainstream.

Also, BNP ralllies and stalls which sell BNP material and give out leaflets regulalry have regalia and artwork which closely echoes that of the Third Reich. The swastika is not there, but other, less known ones are. I remember seeing a programme about the BNP on Channel 4 once and the commentator expplained these symbols that kept appearing at their rallies and on their leaflet stands.

If anyone is in any doubt about what Nick Griffin's views were (and probably still are, although he claims to have changed his opinions now) have a watch of this. Griffin is door-stepped by the investigative reporter Roger Cook in 1997, and Griffin denies the Nazi Holocaust and says he wants all non-whites booted out of Britain:



Someone this extreme, and an organisation this extreme, will have the Establishment and the main 3 parties gunning for them and those people will do anything they can to weaken and destroy them. A bunch of Bollinger swigging, straw hatted, boating at Henley types, who well-up when 'Jerusalem' is played (I'm talking about UKIP) are more viewed as a bunch of twits rather than a bunch of devils and the big 3 parties, the Establishment, and the media, just let them get on with it.

Hiya
"If anyone is in any doubt about what Nick Griffin's views were (and probably still are, although he claims to have changed his opinions now) have a watch of this. Griffin is door-stepped by the investigative reporter Roger Cook in 1997, and Griffin denies the Nazi Holocaust and says he wants all non-whites booted out of Britain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8QQwU00Jk

Err, I posted a link to the same clip earlier in this thread - subject title "A little vid for you, Davey"

Much of what you say, I agree with i.e. the bits about the Nazi, racist BNP.

However, I think you are far too optimistic about any mainstream party's capability to destroy another party except by banning. The Far Right in Britain has been around for a very, very long time. You can trace it back at the very least to Oswald Mosley in the 30's and then through the National Front and the BNP. Far right parties always do well in a Recession because they become a focus for alienated, disastisfied voters.

Even if the demand that non-whites should be allowed to join the BNP is implemented eventually then I would be surprised if it resulted in much in the way of changes.

Ask a Labour, Conservative, Liberal rank and file party member how much control they feel they have over party policies and I feel pretty sure that they will state that it is very limited and that it is the executive that makes the key decisions. I would guess that Griffin and his cronies would be currently working on constitutional changes in parallel to lessen any damage caused by the non-white membership issue.

But neither of us has crystal balls and to be honest I think this one has been batted around on the forum more than enough now.

CHeers
David

Nick Griffin came across just as I knew he would on Question Time.

Its one thing for people to hear his rhetoric, its another to be put on a panel and discuss it and I knew the guy lost his footing the moment he commented on Jack Straws dad avoiding the draft.

I bet he got a hard time for smiling along with that black woman playwright sitting next to him. i bet his doc martin booted, skin head supporters were seething at the sight of that on national television and even more important was: Do wwe really want this man to run the country into the ground if he was to get into power?

It seemed a lot of what he was discussing was based on race and not the practical points of actually running the country.

Im glad he showed himself up for what he was really about and came across as weak

oej, I thought Griffin came over quite badly, he said at one point that there was a walk through Cumbria that wihte folks were banned from, he mentioned this totally ramdomnly, and didnt expand on it. He made himself look silly a few times. However the reason he spoke about almost nothing but race was cos that was largely all he was asked about. Even though he is someone from the margins of political life, if the BBC are going to invite him on the show they should have treated him like every other politican and they did not. He was ganged up on, constantly mocked, people in the audience took the piss out of him, and so on. At one point an audience member said "Dick, sorry I mean Nick, Griffin!" and the audience gaffawed. Even if Griffin deserves all of this on a moral level, it was very unprofessional for the BBC to allow it. The whole audience were against him, which kills dead the BBC's claim that the audience were 'a cross section of political views'. I think the BNP's support has increased since the programme, certainly interest levels in the BNP have gone up. Just look at clips on YouTube of past Nick Griffin interviews - they have had 10's of thousands of viewings in the last week, some of them 100's of thousands of viewings.

Mick,

You say, "But don't forget people are allowed to change their views over time...everyone does".

I think that this comment is based on an incorrect assumption i.e. that Griffin has changed his views on Jews. What has changed is Griffin's belief that the BNP can now make much more political capital out of trying to hammer Muslims rather than Jews. That isn't to say he and the BNP have necessarily changed their views. The quote from Griffin in my post seems to support that view.

There is an analysis of Griffin's position here, which I feel hits the spot.

http://www.jewcy.com/tags/nick_griffin

"Also it wasn't so long ago that Gerry Adams was censored. He is now in and out of Downing Street every day"

I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Whether someone is censored or not; let into Downing Street or not, in my mind has no relevance whatsoever as to whether their political views are correct and acceptable or not.

Cheers
David

I agree that Griffin's views on the Holocaust are unlikely to have changed. He would have known it to have happened but went around saying for years that it did not, now he acknowledges that it DID happen. All that has changed is what he is saying, what he thinks is very likely the same as what he always thought - namely the Holocuast occured and the reason that he said it didn't for years was just to be offensive and use it as a way of belittling and offending Jewish people. Watch this clip (below), you will hear Griffin talking of a supposed Jewish conspiracy going on in Britain. This absurd interview was probably filmed around the late 1990's, but no date is given:



I think even die-hard Griffin fans may reconsider voting BNP after the stuff he says in that clip!

One thing I am intrigued about it a claim Griffin has made several times this year about the reasons he apparently can not discuss why he has (he claims) changed his mind on the Holocuast. He says European Law won't allow him to discuss the reasons. He may be referring to how he has literally had to watch every word he has said in public ever since him and his colleague were tried in Court last year, for something they said at a BNP meeting. He has also publicly stated that the rules on two people saying something are differnt in some cases to one saying it, therefore if people in the audience agree with certain things he may say - which are borderline controvesial - he could get in trouble, where as had he just said it and no one responded he may not have done. Him stating certain things can in some cases be ok, his saying the thing then someone in the audience going 'here here' could get him locked up as it means two people are 'saying' it in one place - thus it becomes defined as what a 'group' of people think rather than what an individual thinks therefore changing the emphasis. Griffin has claimed that telling the truth can now get him jailed too. I am genuinely intrigued as to what he means when he says that European Law forbids him from mentioning the reasons for why he has 'changed his views' on the Holocuast, and I would be interested to hear what those reasons for him 'chaning his mind' were (I don't believe he has as I said earlier but I would like to hear what he claims the reasons are).

I do think the fact the BNP has a Jewish councillor is significant. I wonder why a Jewish person would want to join the BNP but the person has and the party accepted them. On the issue of how the BNP have moved on from having a go at Jewish people and now have a go at muslims, I must say that the Islamification of Britain genuinely frightens me. 40% of muslims apparently want full Sharia Law implemented in the UK, and the numbers of muslims here have hugely increased in recent years and will carry on increasing for evermore at a very fast rate. I think this country is heading for huge problems in a generation's time and even though I dislike the BNP I am glad they are opposing the Islamification of Britain because no one else is raising this issue or seems to care about it.

Hi Max,
"One thing I am intrigued about it a claim Griffin has made several times this year about the reasons he apparently can not discuss why he has (he claims) changed his mind on the Holocuast."

I have explained this elsewhere, but it is basically another Griffin lie. In some countries, but NOT Britain, it is an offence to say the Holocaust did not happen. So if you were in Germany and said "The gas chambers never existed". This is potentially an offence. In Britain you would need to make the comment within the context of stating that the Jews are an evil race of people who are controlling the country by inventing a number of lies like the Holocaust. This would be viewed as inciting racial hatred.

That is why on QT, when Griffin said he could not discuss his holocaust denial, Jack Straw said that there was no law in Britain which would prevent his discussing it. Jack Straw was correct. Griffin was using this ruse as he has done a number of times to try and avoid discussing his past.

"I must say that the Islamification of Britain genuinely frightens me"
"numbers of muslims here have hugely increased in recent years"

This phrase, Max, strikes me as complete and utter bilge.

It's the sort of stuff that the BNP, Daily Mail, Daily Express etc churn out on a regular basis. It involves taking a fact and distorting it completely to support a particular point of view e.g. Muslims are scary, strange foreigners who are swamping us. Before we know where we are, we will be having our hands chopped off for stealing a bag of mints from the Spar etc. etc.

It is a key component of the BNP's current strategy. The BNP tries to create the impression that the UK is being totally swamped with Muslims and they are in the process of ethnically cleansing cities of white people.

The fact is that there are Muslims in Britain. The distortion is that the UK is becoming an Islamic country. I have not come across an estimate of the Muslim population in the UK in any publication as being higher than 3 to 4%. That isn't to say that the high concentration of Muslims in certain areas has not created tensions which groups like the BNP have tried to exploit. That is not the same thing as the "Islamification of the UK"

To come out with the phrase "Islamification of Britain" is complete scaremongering.

In short, Max, there is no need for you to sit in your home in London being frightened and scared. Get a grip! Make an effort to get to know some Muslims. Stop press, stop press, Max, some of them even drink alcohol!! I have even known a few that have taken illegal substances - good grief! Some of them have been more familiar with the history of Man. Utd than the Koran.

Cheers
David

Your patronising attitude towards other posters on this thread is starting to get on my tits.
For starters, there's no need to use the person's first name at the head of every paragraph, just to get your pontificating and supercillious message across.
Secondly, as someone who lived in London for 40 years, I can tell you with some authority that large parts of the capital are indeed becoming ghetto areas full of Asians / African Carribeans etc to the point that in some schools a white kid becomes such a minority that he becomes a target for bullying.
This cannot be right.
Now, I'm sure that in your comfy shoes sitting in middle England, this opinion constitutes that I am an out and out racist xenophobe, but believe me, nothing could be further from the truth.
I have nothing against any individual unless they do me or others harm; however when MP's and the lefty minorities start telling us that everything is just 'swell in the inner cities when it is far from, I start to hyper ventillate.
Do you think that any of these smug do gooders actually send THEIR kids to these schools - do they fuck.
Nick Griffin hates certain races and stokes hatred, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods where the 'indiginous' peoples (ie those who have lived in their environment for generations) feel threatened and marginalised by immigrants, many of whom are unable or unwilling to speak the country's native tongue.
In an age when housing, jobs and personal security are all high on the agenda of most peoples' concerns, of course the BNP will get added mileage out of playing on this section of society's fears - and not surprisingly, for all Griffin's perverted retelling of recent history, people WILL go to the BNP in their droves if they feel that his Party will give them a voice to vent their frustration and anger - which is more than can be said for Jack Straw and his ilk, who pussy foot around the issues that every man, woman and child hold close to their hearts.
DAVID, whilst by and large I feel your intentions are sincere and creditworthy, I feel that you are dumbing down and / or underestimating a/ the strength of feeling (misplaced as it is, sometimes) of, primarily, the downtrodden working classes, and b/ the power that an opportunist party such as the BNP can wield in times of oppression and instability in a seemingly 'civilised' society.
Indeed, history should tell you that virtually ANYTHING is possible, once the people decide that change is needed, be it by fair means or foul.