The BNP exposed

[Apollyon]

I saw the documentary, and thought it was really quite excellent.

As for the BNP, I support some of their ideas, but there are many I find absolutely abhorrent.

[Wolf]

Alright, I hate to ask about this and interrupt the conversation, but what's the current situation with British parties? I know that there's Labour, which is Blair's party, and obviously there's the BNP, but what do they stand for? Liberal, or conservative? Who holds the power?

[Usul]

Labour is in power, they used to be socialist but Blair made New Labour (his so called 'middle way). The BNP is facist and extremely right wing. To go back to the original question I saw most of the documentary and it confirmed my beliefs that the BNP is a neo Nazi group. The footage taken by the BBC reporter was shown to a judge and he said that some members shown wer guilty of criminal acts including GBA with intent, conspiracy to commit a crime and inciting racial hatred.

[DRFsimmsy]

That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. The only way that would happen is if we built houses on every square foot of the country, and no white people never had babies again. Think before you post please.

Why is it ridiculous? I'm saying, at the current influx, mathematically speaking, we would become a minority. Are you suggesting people from ethnic minorities are unable to reproduce? France is already 10% Muslim.

Also I am against race-mixing, as History has shown that this destroys cultures, and devolves the human race into 1 culture. This is known as monoculturalism. Name one nation where integration has led to success, we can see it's not really working America, people there have no identity anymore, what does it mean to be an American now? They have no distinct culture.

The BNP *are* very obviously a racist group, but the word racism is probably one of the most misunderstood words used. I myself am racist in that I acknowledge that the differences between races are more than skin-deep, but do not hate other races but think they should live in places that they have adapted to environmentally over 1000s years. We are destroying everything evolution ever did for us!

[Edric O]

Why is it ridiculous? I'm saying, at the current influx, mathematically speaking, we would become a minority.

In how many centuries?

Are you suggesting people from ethnic minorities are unable to reproduce? France is already 10% Muslim.

The thing about ethnic minorities is that they get assimilated into the general population over time - if you allow them. The whole idea of racial segregation is abysmally stupid if you care about the preservation of your culture. The best way to preserve your culture is to encourage immigrants to become British, not to separate yourselves from them! You should be handling immigration the same way it has always been handled: by cultural assimilation of the immigrant population.

This is known as monoculturalism. Name one nation where integration has led to success

Britain. You've integrated Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans into one culture.

The British culture and the British people were created as a result of the fusion between Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. You didn't just drop from the sky. You're ALREADY the result of a cultural mix - all nations are. So what's so bad about adding another element to that mix?

See, the idea of keeping your cultural or national "purity" is moronic, because, I say it again, ALL MODERN CULTURES AND NATIONS WERE CREATED THROUGH THE MIXING OF OLDER CULTURES AND NATIONS. If your ancestors had established a BNP-style organization 1000 years ago, and if the Celts had refused to mix with the Anglo-Saxons (for example), there wouldn't BE a British people today.

The BNP *are* very obviously a racist group, but the word racism is probably one of the most misunderstood words used. I myself am racist in that I acknowledge that the differences between races are more than skin-deep, but do not hate other races but think they should live in places that they have adapted to environmentally over 1000s years. We are destroying everything evolution ever did for us!

The First Law of Evolution: Large gene pool good, small gene pool bad.

If you mix together people of different races, you get a larger and more diverse gene pool. Your population gains in adaptability and becomes more able to cope with unexpected situations (such as a new disease). Your children are stronger and healthier. But if you keep a strict racial segregation, your population has a much lower number of genes in circulation, and it becomes overspecialized. It loses the ability to cope with new situations, and may well be exterminated by some disease. This is a well known fact in biology. Don't you know what happens if you have children with your close relatives?

The idiotic racists are making their own race weaker, by inbreeding.

[Edric O]

If I was old enough I'd vote for Conservative in the General Elections.

Might I ask why?

If I lived in Britain, I'd vote for the RESPECT Coalition. New Labour and the Tories are right-wing lackeys of the rich and powerful, while the Lib Dems are just a centrist and indecisive sort of Left. Vote Respect! :)

Alright, I hate to ask about this and interrupt the conversation, but what's the current situation with British parties? I know that there's Labour, which is Blair's party, and obviously there's the BNP, but what do they stand for? Liberal, or conservative? Who holds the power?

Britain has traditionally been a 3-party system (2 big ones and one smaller), but this 3-party system is being torn to pieces as we speak. Essentially, what's happening in Britain is what you're hoping for the USA: the political establishment is crumbling, and minor parties are rising.

The 3 main traditional parties are the following:

The Conservatives (commonly, the "Tories") - the oldest party in Britain; used to be an exclusive club of the aristocracy, and the defender of the old feudal order. During the 19th century it slowly changed into a defender of the new capitalist order, which it still is today. It used to openly proclaim that it serves the interests of the rich and powerful, but it decided to keep more quiet about that after universal suffrage was introduced. The Tories have always been the right-wing of British politics. Before the 1980's, they were a little to the left of the US Democrats. Now they're in about the same place as the Republicans. The one responsible for this sharp turn to the right is the female version of Ronald Reagan, who goes by the name of Margaret Thatcher. She has been knighted and made a Baroness - presumably for service beyond the call of duty to the British aristocracy.

The Labour Party - the once proud flag-bearer of British Socialism. It grew out of the 19th century grassroots socialist movement, and was established as a party in the early 1900's. It has been the party of the poor and the working class for most of the 20th century, and it was Labour who created the British welfare state. After their landslide victory in 1945, Labour took steps to guarantee a free education to every British child, created the NHS (National Health Service - universal, free healthcare), and nationalized the Bank of England, the coal mines, civil aviation, cable and wireless services, gas, electricity, railways, road transport and steel. Most of those were re-privatized by Margaret Thatcher 40 years later, though.

Labour ceased to be a socialist party after Tony Blair and his supporters took over, implementing their "New Labour" policy. Although New Labour still pays lip service to socialism, it is essentially a center-right party identical to the US Democrats. This right-wing turn has earned Tony Blair the undying hatred of millions of leftists. I personally want to see his head on a pike.

The Liberal Democrats - a liberal party tracing its heritage all the way back to the Whigs, the main opponents of the Tories for several centuries, before the rise of Labour. The liberals used to be the party of the bourgeoisie and the working class, back in the day when they were united fighting against the aristocracy. After the aristocracy was defeated, the Tories became the party of the bourgeoisie (and what was left of the aristocracy), and then Labour rose up to become the party of the working class... so the liberals were left rather obsolete. They haven't won any general election in 80 years, but their fortunes may be changing. The liberals have always been in-between the left-wing Labour and the right-wing Tories. But during the 80's, while Labour and the Tories moved to the right, the liberals stayed in place. As a result, they are now the most left-wing of the 3 main parties, and they're gathering a lot of disgruntled Labour voters.

In addition to those traditional parties, there are the many minor parties that have been rising up in recent years. Of the growing minor parties, the biggest 3 are the following:

UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party) - split off from the Tories. It's a rather one-issue party, arguing for Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU. Most of their other policies are rather Tory-ish, but they never seem to talk about those.

The Greens - I'm afraid I don't know much about this party, other than the fact that they are, well, Greens. Their policies are probably close to those of the US Greens, since they are part of the same international movement.

RESPECT (the acronym stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism") - grew out of the anti-war movement and gathered a lot of members and supporters who split off from Labour as a protest against Tony Blair's right-wing politics. It's also the fastest growing party in Britain. RESPECT is literraly only a few months old (it was created this January), but it received some 6% of the vote at the European elections. They stand on a platform true to the original socialist principles of the Labour Party, and their ultimate aim is to dethrone Blair and reclaim Labour. And by the way, RESPECT is the party I support. :)

The current ruling party in Britain is Labour, firmly in Blair's iron grip.

[Dante]

Why is it ridiculous? I'm saying, at the current influx, mathematically speaking, we would become a minority. Are you suggesting people from ethnic minorities are unable to reproduce? France is already 10% Muslim.

Adding to what Edric has said, why should this be a bad thing? Variation is important, and comparing percentages of different peoples has no point since we're all human anyway.

Also I am against race-mixing, as History has shown that this destroys cultures, and devolves the human race into 1 culture. This is known as monoculturalism. Name one nation where integration has led to success, we can see it's not really working America, people there have no identity anymore, what does it mean to be an American now? They have no distinct culture.

Actually America has several. A country that large has to. Are you really saying that the culture and way of living will be the same all over the continent? In Texas, California, Nevada, Florida; will they all have the same culture and behaviour? Even in seperate cities, or seperate divisions in cities, the cultures are different. New Orleans is not San Francisco. Chicago is not Washington DC. Broadway and Brooklyn are (I'm told) very different places. 

Have you ever been to America? I get the feeling that you're talking about something you have no experience of.

The BNP *are* very obviously a racist group, but the word racism is probably one of the most misunderstood words used. I myself am racist in that I acknowledge that the differences between races are more than skin-deep, but do not hate other races but think they should live in places that they have adapted to environmentally over 1000s years. We are destroying everything evolution ever did for us!

*Cackles* Evolution? You're actually pinning your discriminatory little ideas on evolution? And there was me thinking that the BNP were a load of fundementalist christians who think of evolution as an evil trick of Satan. If evolution had meant black people to live only in hot countries, they would die in Britain. Likewise for white people in cold/er countries. You put an Australian octopus in a Scottish river, and it will die. Evolution has equipped it to it's enviroment and it cannot live elsewhere. You put a black person in Liverpool and will they die? Well possibly, I've heard stories about Liverpool... but it would be nothing to do with the climate.

Tell me, what would you like to see done? You'd like to see us 'evolve' into a culture of palid, simpering, penniless racists with no chins? Because if we don't interbreed, that's what's going to happen!

If I were old enough to vote, it would be Green. Definately.

Their Home Secretary (David Blunkett) is becoming more right-winged by the second, cracking down on immigration as it is I believe, and things will only get tougher...

The day that Neo-Nazi dies will be a very happy day for me.

(For those that are wondering, I'm only ultra-conservative politically. Socially I'm about as liberal as you get; hence my complete inability to find a suitable party other than the Greens, who hopefully don't care).

[nemafakei]

Slightly offtopic...

"and they're gathering a lot of disgruntled Labour voters."

Edric, you do know they formed from both the Liberals and the SDP - which once got 21% of the vote (against Labour's 22%) in the 80's?

I'm cautious of Respect... well it's title in elections has been "RESPECT: The Unity Coalition (George Galloway)"... focusing a party on one person's name is rather dangerous, about as dangerous as focusing it on one person's persistent smile...

[Edric O]

Edric, you do know they formed from both the Liberals and the SDP - which once got 21% of the vote (against Labour's 22%) in the 80's?

Well, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? I didn't mention the SDP (Social Democratic Party) because it had a rather brief existence.

For those who don't know: The SDP was a faction who broke off from Labour and joined the liberals a few years later, during the 80's. The Liberal Democratic Party is called "liberal democratic" because it was created through the fusion of the liberals and that short-lived social democratic party.

I'm cautious of Respect... well it's title in elections has been "RESPECT: The Unity Coalition (George Galloway)"... focusing a party on one person's name is rather dangerous, about as dangerous as focusing it on one person's persistent smile...

I agree. And I must admit that I didn't know about the George Galloway aspect. But nevertheless, RESPECT shows great potential, at the very least.

[DRFsimmsy]

Just because we're all human, doesn't mean we're all equal. Society is full of worthless people who contribute nothing.

I'm guessing by saying, we're all different but still equal, you mean that although we all have different traits etc, all the different skills that person posesses adds up to the same amount for each person, just differently distributed? Well, this is not true, how about a person who is paralyzed, obese, blind, every disability you can think of. What would they be other than a waste of time and money?

As for evolution: Say a black person and a white person have a child, the child would inherit the average of the distinct characterists of the parents, as white people are generally more intelligent, black people are stronger with higher testosterone levels, the child would have mediocre intelligence, and mediocre strength. This is what monoculturalism is. One race, all equally stupid and weak.

[Dunenewt]

I'll say goodbye to you now then...

...Edric, do you know who George Galloway is?

[Edric O]

Edric, do you knnow who George Galloway is?  He's the one who thought Saddam was a good man!

I don't know anything about George Galloway (or his role in the party, or his influence on their policies, or anything else for that matter), so I can't really comment on that.

The only thing I do know is that RESPECT has very good policies, and I support them. If they also happen to have a rotten apple in their midst, that's too bad, but I won't hold it against them.

[Edric O]

Just because we're all human, doesn't mean we're all equal. Society is full of worthless people who contribute nothing.

Of course - just look at the richest capitalists, for example - but that doesn't make them "inferior" in any way. They have equal rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And since any judgement on a person's "worth" is subjective (because there is no objective method or scale for determining which people are "better" than others), the only logical standpoint we can take is that all people are equal.

Or, to put it another way: If human beings are NOT equal, then how do you determine who is "superior" and who is "inferior"? Quite simply, you can't. Humans are very complex creatures - we're not just sitting on an unidimensional line between "good" and "bad". There is no objective measure of a person's "worth".

I'm guessing by saying, we're all different but still equal, you mean that although we all have different traits etc, all the different skills that person posesses adds up to the same amount for each person, just differently distributed?

That's only partially correct. What I'm saying is that you can't measure a person's "worth". Human beings have many traits, and they cannot be compared to each other. For example: Who was better, Einstein or Newton? Mozart or Shakespeare? How do you measure their "worth", and how do you compare them to each other? You can't. And the same applies to average people. Are you "better" than me? Am I "better" than you? How can you tell?

When you say that "skills add up to the same amount" you're talking as if you can actually measure a person's skills or as if you can actually measure the "amount" they add up to. My point is that you can't. There is no objective measuring unit for human skills, or for human "worth".

Basically, you can't measure the differences between human beings. Therefore any judgement of "worth" is arbitary.

Well, this is not true, how about a person who is paralyzed, obese, blind, every disability you can think of. What would they be other than a waste of time and money?

Two words:

Stephen Hawking

Furthermore, what exactly are you suggesting? That the disabled don't have a right to live?

As for evolution: Say a black person and a white person have a child, the child would inherit the average of the distinct characterists of the parents, as white people are generally more intelligent, black people are stronger with higher testosterone levels...

Averages mean nothing when it comes to individual people. Just because you're part of a group whose intelligence (or physical strength) is lower, on average, than the same characteristic of another group, that doesn't mean that YOUR intelligence has to be lower than the intelligence of any given member of the other group.

Let me give you an example...

Suppose we have two groups of people, G1 and G2. In each group there are 3 people: A, B and C in G1; X, Y and Z in G2. Now we measure the IQ of each individual:

A - 80

B - 150

C - 70

--------

X - 120

Y - 110

Z - 130

The average IQ of G1 is 100. The average IQ of G2 is 120. The people of G2 are on average more intelligent than the people of G1.

But now assume B and Z want to get married. B is part of the "stupid" group, while Z is part of the "intelligent" group. Nevertheless, B is more intelligent than Z.

Do you see the mathematical error of your argument? There is variation within each group. The average relationship between groups doesn't tell us anything concrete about the particular relationship between two random elements of each group. All it can give us are probabilities.

Therefore, even if we accept your idea that "white people are more intelligent and black people are stronger" (which is by no means proven), that doesn't mean that every time you take a white person and a black person you will have the white one more intelligent and the black one stronger. It's very possible to be the other way around. There are many black people who are more intelligent than many white people, and there are many white people who are stronger than many black people.

The child will inherit the particular characteristics of the individual parents, not the average characteristics of the parents' social groups!

One race, all equally stupid and weak.

Or "One race, all equally intelligent and strong".

If one glass is empty and another is full, when you apply "monoculturalism" you get two half-full (or half-empty) glasses. You're only looking at the empty half of the two glasses.

Furthermore, from an evolutionary standpoint, it's better to have a half-full glass than either a full one or an empty one. A half-full glass has both air and water in it. It is more adaptable. A full glass will be killed by conditions that require it to have some air in order to survive, and an empty glass will be killed by conditions that require it to have some water in order to survive. A half-full glass will live through both.

A diverse gene pool ensures survival.

[Dunenewt]

I don't know anything about George Galloway (or his role in the party, or his influence on their policies, or anything else for that matter), so I can't really comment on that.

The only thing I do know is that RESPECT has very good policies, and I support them. If they also happen to have a rotten apple in their midst, that's too bad, but I won't hold it against them.

It's his party...

[Edric O]

It's his party...

And I don't know anything about him! Everything I know is about his party, and in all the materials published by RESPECT on their website and elsewhere, they never once said anything good about Saddam.

I'll gather more information on this George Galloway, and hear all sides of the story.

[Dunenewt]

Ok sounds fair to me.  Even though your supporting a party I would never dream of voting for I have to give you credit for that.

[nemafakei]

Oh, and in the recent by-elections, the Lib Dems won one seat from Labour, and the other, they lost to Labour by ~460 votes. Respect polled ~1000 votes. Now, if only half of the Respect voters would have otherwise voted Lib Dem...

I may be wrong, but I'm worried that Respect is dividing the Left vote even more.

[Dunenewt]

As with the UKIP and Tories, dividing the right vote.

[Dante]

Just because we're all human, doesn't mean we're all equal. Society is full of worthless people who contribute nothing.

But they do not all conform to a single culture. White people, black people, oriental people, every society will have individuals who do nothing to help each other. It has no relation to their race. And of course we're not equal, that's just the way things are. But it is not inherant. There is no such thing as a human who it from birth 'better' than any other. There is such a thing as a human who has a lot of money, and can thus afford to do things that poorer people cannot. The rich person is not inherantly 'better,' as Edric pointed out. They are just richer, through any number of means.

I'm guessing by saying, we're all different but still equal, you mean that although we all have different traits etc, all the different skills that person posesses adds up to the same amount for each person, just differently distributed? Well, this is not true, how about a person who is paralyzed, obese, blind, every disability you can think of. What would they be other than a waste of time and money?

Everything has a use, there are no exceptions. Besides, I thought you were arguing against the rights of ethnic minorities rather than the disabled.

As for evolution: Say a black person and a white person have a child, the child would inherit the average of the distinct characterists of the parents, as white people are generally more intelligent, black people are stronger with higher testosterone levels, the child would have mediocre intelligence, and mediocre strength. This is what monoculturalism is. One race, all equally stupid and weak.

Intelligence and strength aren't controlled by genetics, they are controled by enviroment. A child brought up lifting heavy objects will be strong, a child brought up calculating pi will have a gift for mathematics. Probably. Genetics (and therefore skin colour) has no bearing whatsoever on the physical and mental capabilities of a person.

Besides which, your model is flawed. Genetically speaking if we were to use the model you gave us...

High intelligence: I

Low intelligence: i

High strength: S

low strength: s

White person's genotype therefore: IIss

Black person's genotype therefore: iiSS

Since high intelligence and strength are dominant alleles, they will overrule their weaker counterparts.

The White person's alleles are therefore: Is

The Black person's alleles are therefore: iS

The possible genotype for children is therefore: IiSs

There is no child with 'iiss,' aka low/medium strength and intelligence. All children would be born with both traits high. Your model is useless.

...Not only that, it's incorrect. As I said before, genetics has no place in determining skills; intelligence and strength included. I only included that little lesson in basic genetics to show that even if genetics did have some hold over those skills, you would still be wrong.

[alchemi2]

imo anyone can live in our great country, so long as they accept and become part of our culture. my objection to immigrants is when they dont accept our laws or way of life and want to bring their culture into our society and replace our values with theirs.

I truely object to those who preach decent against us and burn our flag or attack our basic way of life. if they dont like it here then we should deport them.

I really cant belive that any educated person belives in this day an age that blacks are geneticly less intelligent than whites !!! but then i suppose to accept BNP policy you cant be the sharpest tack in the box.

[Edric O]

Oh, and in the recent by-elections, the Lib Dems won one seat from Labour, and the other, they lost to Labour by ~460 votes. Respect polled ~1000 votes. Now, if only half of the Respect voters would have otherwise voted Lib Dem...

I may be wrong, but I'm worried that Respect is dividing the Left vote even more.

I don't trust the Lib Dems. They turned into the most left-wing mainstream party purely by accident, and I suspect that their commitment to left-wing policies is only skin deep. They are far too bourgeois and similar to the US Democrats for my tastes.

imo anyone can live in our great country, so long as they accept and become part of our culture. my objection to immigrants is when they dont accept our laws or way of life and want to bring their culture into our society and replace our values with theirs.

I truely object to those who preach decent against us and burn our flag or attack our basic way of life. if they dont like it here then we should deport them.

I agree, except for the part about burning the flag. What's wrong with that? It is the right of every human being to burn the flag of any country he wishes, IMO. It's a form of protest against that country's government. Any Brit (native or immigrant, it doesn't matter) should be allowed to burn the British flag if he wants to. That's just freedom of speech.

[Dante]

imo anyone can live in our great country, so long as they accept and become part of our culture. my objection to immigrants is when they dont accept our laws or way of life and want to bring their culture into our society and replace our values with theirs.

Or perhaps just adhere to their values themselves? Live and let live; let them do what they want, we'll do what we want, and everyone's happy.

I truely object to those who preach decent against us and burn our flag or attack our basic way of life. if they dont like it here then we should deport them.

Basic way of life? Now there's a phrase that sends shivers down my spine. It implies that we somehow have a right to a superior lifestyle. And the word is 'dissent.' Burning the flag is a symbol, so it would probably be for the best if it was not allowed. But if someone is just expressing an opinion then they are enetitled to it (there is, however, a difference between expressing opinion and inciting hatred and violence).

[alchemi2]

Or perhaps just adhere to their values themselves? Live and let live; let them do what they want, we'll do what we want, and everyone's happy.

Yes but their values should not be allowed to undermine our way of life eg equaility of the sexes or religious freedom

Basic way of life? Now there's a phrase that sends shivers down my spine. It implies that we somehow have a right to a superior lifestyle. And the word is 'dissent.' Burning the flag is a symbol, so it would probably be for the best if it was not allowed. But if someone is just expressing an opinion then they are enetitled to it (there is, however, a difference between expressing opinion and inciting hatred and violence).

wtf how does that imply superior?  and agree we should all be allowed to express an opinion against goverment policy and the like but not to preach hatred of anything british or the british people nor should they be allowed to incite people to plan bombs or attack our basic freedoms. If you are a british citizen then you support our basic freedoms and rights. there nothing wrong with having pride in your country or being patriotic so long as it isnt mindless.

[Dante]

There you go again, "our way of life." As if it couldn't stand a little change for the better...

If you are a british citizen then you support our basic freedoms and rights.

Generalisation. Look at me. I'm a British citizen and if I could enslave my enemies and put them to work as laboratory test subjects then I would. Does that me unpatriotic? No, for I'm quite fond of my country, if not its government.

"anything British"

Like what, exactly? Specific cities? Who complains about them? Is there anything inherantly British that people complain about that isn't found elsewhere?

[alchemi2]

::) sighs