Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Whiskybreath, Apr 24, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
My resolve is cracking.....
Not that I in any way agree with their position but their party election broadcast on Friday night was a little persuasive, from a relatively narrow look after your own perspective.
Followed "Frosty" around the streets of London, Frosty being a homeless ex serviceman, making the point that he'd travelled the world looking after the interests of HM Government, and that we should look after the retired service community better.
I like the cut of the man's jib. Shooting burglars and politicians..............great!
well at least somebody is talking our language unlike the mainstream parties who doesn't seem to do anything or say what the electorate want them to do! democracy or what ?
im not a big fan of BNP but maybe a little tactical voting may shake the whole establishment up!
I agree, Semper. So long as it doesn't get out of control....
After all, as the New Labour Project's principal means of gaining and retaining power has been to steal the credible policies of the LibsDems and Cons, maybe they'll go for a few of the more attractive of this lot, too.
Mine's an SLR, pse.
Having had a look at their "policies" you can see that they are heavily into nationalisation and economic protectionism, along with a raft of other authoritarian left-wingery. This is larded with large dollops of flag-waving and just-beneath-the-surface racism. so they're nationalists.
Aha! They are socialists. They are nationalists. Got it! They are National Socialists!
My contempt for them knows no bounds, not least for their ideological inconsistency but I'm just as contemptuous of mainstream politicians who are so $hite that decent people feel the need to even put in a protest vote for the BNP.
"Ideological inconsistency"? They strike me as being the least mealy-mouthed of our political bands. Mendacious, yes, but that applies as well to New Labour as them.
Having just read their Policy document, I have to say that if this document had been one from a more accecptable party, other than BNP, I'd seriously give voting for them a go. If you remove the "BNP" from each part of their listed policies some of it, at least to me sounds OK. Here is Law and Order:
Not anything I would disagree with.
I sometimes vote BNP in local elections as a protest vote but would never vote for them in a general election...they are just to dangerous.
They are (quite literally) Nazis for fcuk's sake! What part of that don't you get? They are using the exact same arguments that Hitler used 70 years ago. Do any of you need reminding of how that turned out?
First They Came...
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Really, there's a surprise never knew that
What part of that don't you get?
He may be a latter-day Nazi, but Mr Griffin doesn't seem to think his policies through. Two classic cases are the assault rifle and national service suggestions above.
National Service: There's no doubt that a period in the Forces would do some good for some people. Besides instilling discipline and fitness in an age where these are apparently on the decline, it would seem to solve the manpower problems the Forces are facing at a stroke.
Or would it? The training arms of the Forces would need massive expansion to cope with the influx of recruits. These trainers would have to come from...the regular Army, further increasing overstretch on the volunteers. Even once militarised, what could the Forces use them for? Another problem is the money required over and aboe the present (and already inadequate) defence budget. What conscription means is that a sizeable chunk of the population is being fed, clothed, housed and armed at the taxpayer's expense.
Finally, what does Griffin want conscription to achieve? If it's to bolster this country's defences, then surely the purpose is better served by both making the Forces a more attractive career (for both prospective volunteers and veterans) and by providing the money needed to have the best people, the best gear and plenty of both. If it's to act as a character-building experience, then he's sadly misunderstood the nature of the Services. They are there to protect this country, its people and its interests from those who would like to see the whole lot come down in flames. They are not there to cover for failings in education and parenting and they are certainly not an adjunct of Social Services.
As regards the assault rifles...fast forward ten years and bear in mind that a lot of people will have an assault rifle and the training to use it effectively. This includes crooks - who will probably figure that the best policy is just to kill everyone in a house as they go (better that than a bullet in the back from an angry homeowner). It also neatly ensures that most crooks will have firepower equal to that of the Army and the police. Under the circumstances, who'd be a copper?
I saw the Griffin on the box yesterday , at his "Manifesto" launch.
My, what stary eyes you have Mr. Griffin, and when allied to some of the utter garbage you were uttering, you really did look a few air miles short of Heathrow.
Let's hope they don't get someone with some charisma as Leader.
Maybe Frosty shouldn't have fallen for the old "train to be a professional builder in 4 weeks!" resettlement bull. Perhaps moving away fromLondon to somewhere more affordable might be a good idea too. Then he could get a job, make money, get a house and generally improve his life.
The BNP won't improve things though. They are a bunch of nasty, nazi, bigoted, racist, misogynist, narrow-minded, ideologically corrupt scum. They might as well stick to wooing Pope Benedict XVI, he sounds their kind of bloke.
And Nick Griffin is a piece of filth whom I would happily see locked up for ever (preferably in a coffin).
I like him. I like some of thier policies too.
Juvenal, I can understand your views on National Service as they seem to be similar to mine.
Having worked with conscripts in various nations they are of course of varying quality, some keen as mustard, some with the IQ approaching that of pond life. (Like we don't have one or two of the latter amongst our number anyway !)
I believe that National Service is very good for the individual, it can bring some out of their shells & teach others to wind their necks in, however I have seen that it does tend to dilute the effectiveness of the reglar forces to a greater or lesser degree.
As you say the Forces "are not there to cover for failings in education and parenting and they are certainly not an adjunct of Social Services."
However I do take issue with your 'assault rifle' (I hate that term,) prediction.
There are a number of countries that issue such rifles to their citizens, sometimes with even less trg than one might expect from a period of National Service in the armed forces.
The Scandawegians have 'Home Guard' organisations (don't tease them about the name, these beknighted heathens were never blessed with the telly series,) where after a couple of weeks the individuals concerned have automatic or selective fire wpns at home. Fancy an MG3 in your locker ?
The Swiss have a similar system to that which Mr Griffin suggests, and they can mobilize greater manpower than our entire armed forces within a couple of days.
Incidents or problems with these armed militias are notable only for their rarity, and all countries have their unfair share of chavs & their ilk.
If your opinion is that while it works overseas our population would be unable to handle that sort of responsibility, is it not a very racist point of view......?
Separate names with a comma.