Bnp

[rizzla]

But that's a detail. I vote for them because of the big picture - because of what will happen if they don't win

Yeah, but look at that big picture again; what might happen if they DO win?

Outside England, I doubt the idea of a right-wing English nationalist party re-defining what it means to be ‘British’ would be viewed very favourably by the rest of the UK. But maintaining the union would be the least of our problems; telling folk in England that they’re not truly ‘British’ even although they (or their parents/grandparent) were born there is asking for trouble. On the plus side when the ashes do finally burn out, you’ll always have the consolation that the BMP achieved the impossible by managing to unite all races, creeds and colours into fighting a common enemy.

Since I fully support English nationalism, I wouldn’t describe myself as an anti-English racist. But the BMP aren’t an option; the English culture will not be saved until your local imam is proud to fly a St Georges Cross outside his Mosque.

 

[TheLordReigns]

Yeah, but look at that big picture again; what might happen if they DO win?

Outside England, I doubt the idea of a right-wing English nationalist party re-defining what it means to be ‘British’ would be viewed very favourably by the rest of the UK.

No, I don't think it would be. I disagree with the BNP on that one - I think we would be better off independent. For that reason I wish the SNP full success. Election time more than anything shows just how different Scots and English are. We would have a Conservative government right now if we could decide our own political destiny.

But the BMP aren’t an option; the English culture will not be saved until your local imam is proud to fly a St Georges Cross outside his Mosque.

Well then it'll never happen; unless perhaps they have imposed an Islamic State. But I think it more likely they would replace St George's with an Islamic flag - one that wasn't on the opposing side during the Crusades. Islam alone could be the death of us. Global warming alone could cause devastation on a scale unthinkable. Peak oil could throw us back into the stone age. The EU alone could bring about unprecedented loss of national sovereignty, democracy, and independence. I can't understand the supposed 'moderate' voices on here. It seems to me that voting BNP is the only sensible option left - the other options are the extremist ones, in my view.

Anyway, before I say too much else, I really need to follow those leads provided by GreenM. If I find that the BNP leadership still do have these kind of links, then I would have to step away from them until and if they are further reformed (a change of leadership would be nice - perhaps an ex-UKIPer).

 

[rizzla]

Um, with England having 530 out of 650 mps, who do you blame for not having a Conservative Government? As for differences between Scots and English, name them. Oil; EU; sovereignty? these affect us all, even the ‘foreigners’ who stay here. But hey, its your democratic right to campaign for independence, vote BMP & go down the white supremacist route (no matter how good the rest of their policies, that’s what the BMP are first and foremost). And should you choose this, may you enjoy your life building barricades, reading “White Resistance Manual” and trying to do unto others afore they do unto you.

Yes, I’m being cynical. Sorry. Its not a good trait I know, but in my limited defence I guess its getting late just now.

Maybe if you learn to love your country instead of hating other people you might be less afraid. You don’t need a Jihad or a crusade to fly the CstG outside a mosque; you only need to give those inside a reason to identify themselves with England. Which shouldn’t be too difficult considering most of the folk inside are probably English anyhow.

~peace~

 

[TheLordReigns]

Um, with England having 530 out of 650 mps, who do you blame for not having a Conservative Government? As for differences between Scots and English, name them. Oil; EU; sovereignty? these affect us all, even the ‘foreigners’ who stay here. But hey, its your democratic right to campaign for independence, vote BMP & go down the white supremacist route (no matter how good the rest of their policies, that’s what the BMP are first and foremost). And should you choose this, may you enjoy your life building barricades, reading “White Resistance Manual” and trying to do unto others afore they do unto you.

Yes, I’m being cynical. Sorry. Its not a good trait I know, but in my limited defence I guess its getting late just now.

Maybe if you learn to love your country instead of hating other people you might be less afraid. You don’t need a Jihad or a crusade to fly the CstG outside a mosque; you only need to give those inside a reason to identify themselves with England. Which shouldn’t be too difficult considering most of the folk inside are probably English anyhow.

~peace~

Well, I heard that more people in England voted Conservative than Labour last election. perhaps that's a false rumour ... I don't know how to check it out. Mosques flying St Georges? I really think you're out of touch, just as you think I am.

 

[TheLordReigns]

well, I don't accept that the majority of the party are white supremists, though if the leadership are, then I will be concerned.
Anyway, this shows that more people inEngland voted Conservative last time around:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

But I admit that with gerrymandering, Labour still would have won, with an astonishing 286 seats to the Tories' 193 (now that is gerrymandering), despite having less overall votes. But the overall vote, thanks to the non-English voters, was 356 seats to 198. Now Scotland can vote how it pleases - that's their choice. I just don't think England should have to suffer the consequences any more.

 

[Goatboy]

I don't have the nail bomber's activities memorized that I'd be able to even tell you where he went. I was going to write 'Hackney' instead of Brixton, but I thought I would go for the better known. And having had a curry at Brick Lane a couple of weeks ago, and a Chinese at Soho the week before, those were my examples. If they correspond with any terrorist activity then it is a coincidence.

Well that’s good to know. As it happens I do have those places memorized, I frequent all three areas and have done since the late nineties.

But note how an acceptable level of multiculturalism for you is completely unacceptable to another.

So, putting aside his (psychotic) methods, again what do you say to someone like Copeland?

On what grounds do you argue that ‘English culture’ needs defending, but not to the extent of driving out or violently suppressing that which “doesn’t belong”?

Scottish John had it wrong, but I find it really tedious to try to argue over what constitutes 'culture' since it is hard to quantify (for any culture), and since that particular person said that the English don't have a culture (funny, my foreign-born wife thinks the English culture is great, and doesn't want to see it vanish), I considered him an anti-English racist and decided not to respond any further (especially since he says everyone else does have a culture and that they should be preserved).

I think you and I must have been reading different threads. But as it’s not key to the discussion I shan’t pursue this further.

There is a difference between natural changes to a culture, and ones that are enfored from above (like in say Tibet, or by military invasion in general). The purpose of a state is to preserve the culture and environment of a nation - that is what people are fighting for in Kashmir and Sri Lanka and other places. In fifty years time, if the BNP don't get in, we won't have anything recognizable, because we will probably be living under an imposed Islamic state.

Ok, now this is getting really hard to follow.

You support the BNP in their aim of taking power and protecting ‘English (British?) Culture’, by means of reversing (or at the very least halting) the natural changes that have occurred to said culture over the last few generations, so as to prevent an ‘imposed Islamic state’, because a culture imposed from above is a bad thing.

Is that a fair portrayal of your stance?

If so, I can see a small problem there which you seem to have overlooked.

To use John's analogy - kind of like having a bunch of hooded nutters come in and throw your yorkshire pud in the rubbish and force you to eat curry. You might not think that possible, but top intelligence in both the US and UK have said that it will happen, and Gadaffi and a high-ranking Turkish politician have openly boasted about it.

I’d love to see some citations, but mainly just for the laughs.

Look, I don’t doubt these things have been said, nor that they may have been seriously intended by the people who said them.

I just fail to see how some yahoo saying that stuff necessitates you voting for another bunch of yahoos who promise they can protect you from it.

Take a look around you, what aspect of English Culture would you like to partake of that you’re are prevented from engaging in?

Eat your Yorkshire pudding, there is no-one stopping you.

What you’re really railing against is that someone else may want to put mango chutney on theirs.

I fear people such as yourself will keep talking out-of-touch humanistic idealism until it's too late for all of us. I'm not happy with what is happening, and choose to try to avert catastrophe using my political rights.

Riiiiight, my humanism is “out of touch”, but your nationalism is bang up to date, and a relevant and proportionate response.

Thing is, my humanist philosophy will defend your rights, political and others, to the end.

Why is it I don’t think your nationalism reciprocates that courtesy?

As for BNP councillors - yes, they need to find a better calibre, and they are. People are very brave to stand up as a councillor for that party, and unfortunately they just don't have the pool of people willing to make that stand. But they are slowly making progress. And they certainly aren't the only party with bad people standing for them.

I can’t think of any other party whose spokespersons display anything like the level of hypocrisy of the BNP. Benefit fraudsters, council tax dodgers, a gay porn director and a ballet dancer who dates a foreigner employed in a (very) non essential, British tax payer subsidized, ‘industry’.

Let me be crystal clear, I have no problem with two of those activities and little concern over another two, but for these people to claim the BNP has the right idea on how to run this country…

Hypocrites.

Stinking hypocrites

But that's a detail. I vote for them because of the big picture - because of what will happen if they don't win.

Yeah, I remember, being forced to eat curry, boy that would suck.

 

[TheLordReigns]

[/font][/color]
But note how an acceptable level of multiculturalism for you is completely unacceptable to another.

Yes, that's why we should have been consulted about it. I note that most of the population believe that mass immigration has been damaging to the country.

So, putting aside his (psychotic) methods, again what do you say to someone like Copeland?

What do I say? Without trying to sound provocative again, I think that it is leftists who have created the Copelands. And the home-grown Muslim terrorists - because mass immigration will always leave a disconnected second and third generation. Any terrorist needs to receive the just punishment for murder, as God directed Noah, whether white, black, Muslim, Christian or whatever. I don't think there is anything I could say to such a person, other than to try to instill some gospel teaching in him in the hope that he might turn and soften his heart and repent. Perhaps I would begin by telling him that all nations - and colours - are descendants of Adam.

You support the BNP in their aim of taking power and protecting ‘English (British?) Culture’, by means of reversing (or at the very least halting) the natural changes that have occurred to said culture over the last few generations, so as to prevent an ‘imposed Islamic state’, because a culture imposed from above is a bad thing.
Is that a fair portrayal of your stance?

No, not really.

I’d love to see some citations, but mainly just for the laughs.

Look, I don’t doubt these things have been said, nor that they may have been seriously intended by the people who said them.

Well, look it up. I'm not going to waste time just for your entertainment

Riiiiight, my humanism is “out of touch”, but your nationalism is bang up to date, and a relevant and proportionate response.

absolutely. Nationalism is the natural state. humanism is transient. it'll be gone in forty years - either we'll have BNP or Islam.

Thing is, my humanist philosophy will defend your rights, political and others, to the end.

I disagree. The BNP are the only party I see committed to traditional forms of liberalism and democracy. It's the leftists who demonise opponents with Trotskyite pc words. It's leftists who prevent people from joining legal parties. It's leftists who engage in wide-reaching social experiments like multi-culturalism without bothering to consult the public. It leftists who criminalise criticism of homosexuality (Christian preachers have been arrested already), Islam (Christians in Europe and the USA have been arrested, and of course Nick Griffin was arrested for daring to venture his opinion about Islam). No, please don't pretend that leftists protect freedom of speech. You have inherited the empty shell of such ideals, but there is no substance to them anymore. There is now an implied understanding that one must tow the line if one wants to have 'free speech'. In a truly liberal society, even those who deny the holocaust (not the BNP BTW) ought to be unmolested by the government. It is leftists who are the greatest danger to the free expression of the Christian religion in the western world. And I mean the true, historic Christian religion, as it has always been taught and held - not modern counterfeit mixtures of humanism, feminism and evolutionism.

Under a BNP government, I would expect that your rights to speak your mind would be totally and utterly protected. Even their website publishes letters from people who believe like you.

a gay porn director and a ballet dancer who dates a foreigner employed in a (very) non essential, British tax payer subsidized, ‘industry’.

oh come on! They must be pretty good if this is the best you can come up with. Their policy towards homosexuality is to tolerate it, but not allow it to be promoted at public expense, not to criminalise criticism of it. And his film was hardly hard core - a couple of butts, if I remember right. But you are right - it is disgraceful - unforgivable - that a ballet dancer be allowed to join the BNP. Yes, that alone should let everyone know what an evil party they are. And to think it's a ballet dancer who has a far eastern boyfriend. Terrible! Nazi! Fascist!

 

[TheLordReigns]

[/font][/color]

I can’t think of any other party whose spokespersons display anything like the level of hypocrisy of the BNP. Benefit fraudsters, council tax dodgers, a gay porn director and a ballet dancer who dates a foreigner employed in a (very) non essential, British tax payer subsidized, ‘industry’.

Well the Ballerina is a member, nothing more - she is hardly a spokesperson, though being a ballerina doesn't seem to me to be good reason not to be a spokesperson. I don't know who you are referring to about the benefit fraudsters. But as I said before, there are reasons why their councillors have not always been the best - to do with the fact that few people are willing to put themselves at rick (look at Angela Clarke who had to step down because her house was getting windows broken and the local Muslims were threatening to rape her daughter).
But after the recent fiasco with Labour councillors and activists deliberately braking election rules to win more councillors at the recent elections, I don't think you can really point any fingers. What about the Labour councillors caught with indecent images on their computer? We can play this game all day, but at the end of the day I know that the BNP are trying to address this, and that they have some excellent people standing for them. Labour, however, are rotten to the core and will never reform because they are only interested in staying in power no matter what.

 

[Goatboy]

Yes, that's why we should have been consulted about it.

Consulted about what, specifically?

Multiculturalism? Immigration?

Should I need to get the rest of the British public’s approval before I decide to marry a foreigner and raise my kids in both cultures?

Should we be holding a general election every time someone wants to move to the UK to work?

This vague “we should have been consulted about it.” means nada.

I note that most of the population believe that mass immigration has been damaging to the country.

And?

I know this belief is common and serves the purpose of the party you came here to discuss (well, reactionaries in general), but do you think it is actually true?

If so, what evidence do you have that this belief reflects reality?

Without trying to sound provocative again, I think that it is leftists who have created the Copelands. And the home-grown Muslim terrorists - because mass immigration will always leave a disconnected second and third generation.

So, “leftists”, are responsible for the mass immigration that has lead to these second and third generation terrorists and people like Copeland.

Only we’ve had more Conservative government than Labour in this country since the end of the second world war. Without defining “leftists” properly that claim really doesn’t mean anything.

So it is provocative to say that far right, Islamic and white supremacist terrorists are somehow the fault of “leftists”, but, more importantly, it’s kind of silly.

I don't think there is anything I could say to such a person, other than to try to instill some gospel teaching in him in the hope that he might turn and soften his heart and repent. Perhaps I would begin by telling him that all nations - and colours - are descendants of Adam.

But unfortunately a lot of white supremacists have their own interpretations of the Bible, which hold that this isn’t the case.
(I’m not saying Copeland is one of these, but they exist).

Nationalism is the natural state. humanism is transient. it'll be gone in forty years - either we'll have BNP or Islam.

Nice assertions, care to back them up with an argument?
(By my reckoning both philosophies’ roots can be traced back to Hellenic Greece, with the more modern forms a product of a renaissance both enjoyed in the late 18th century)

You weren’t born knowing the words to God Save the Queen and at various points in its history humanity has arranged itself in family groups, individual tribes, tribal coalitions, empires and countless other systems, please quit mistaking your own prejudice for objective reality.

However I do love the way you see the BNP and Islam (I assume you’re still referring to this “imposed” Islam) as alternatives to one another, indeed the only alternatives on the table.

They aren’t even different sides, they’re merely different flavours of authoritarianism.

I disagree. The BNP are the only party I see committed to traditional forms of liberalism and democracy. It's the leftists who demonise opponents with Trotskyite pc words. It's leftists who prevent people from joining legal parties. It's leftists who engage in wide-reaching social experiments like multi-culturalism without bothering to consult the public. It leftists who criminalise criticism of homosexuality (Christian preachers have been arrested already), Islam (Christians in Europe and the USA have been arrested, and of course Nick Griffin was arrested for daring to venture his opinion about Islam). No, please don't pretend that leftists protect freedom of speech. You have inherited the empty shell of such ideals, but there is no substance to them anymore. There is now an implied understanding that one must tow the line if one wants to have 'free speech'. In a truly liberal society, even those who deny the holocaust (not the BNP BTW) ought to be unmolested by the government. It is leftists who are the greatest danger to the free expression of the Christian religion in the western world. And I mean the true, historic Christian religion, as it has always been taught and held - not modern counterfeit mixtures of humanism, feminism and evolutionism.

Wow, rant much?

I’m not going to waste my time trying to parse all that into meaningful arguments, I will point out;

1/ You are, clearly, the one demonizing (“leftists” - hah)

2/ You forgot to include Imams on your list of people who have fallen foul of the (IMHO) repressive hate speech legislation.

3/ Criticizing homosexuality is still legal (encouraging violence against homosexuals, not so much).

4/ I know of no-one “molested” by the government for Holocaust denial. (FYI. David Irvine lost a libel case, which he brought against somebody else.)

5/ There is no such thing as “true, historic Christian religion, as it has always been taught and held” if you think that there is, you are either ignorant, delusional or both.

The earliest extant versions of Christianity which I know of are the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, neither can date itself convincingly to the beginning of the first century AD and both have enjoyed revisions in theology and dogma through the millennia.

If there is such a thing as True™ Christianity, which (although I obviously don’t think so) there may well be, it’s either been kept as really close secret for two thousand years or it has been revealed at some point since then.

Under a BNP government, I would expect that your rights to speak your mind would be totally and utterly protected. Even their website publishes letters from people who believe like you.

And I expect I’d enjoy a short period as a resistance fighter for The Peoples’ Free Republic of Brixton, before being caught, tortured, then shot.

oh come on! They must be pretty good if this is the best you can come up with. Their policy towards homosexuality is to tolerate it, but not allow it to be promoted at public expense, not to criminalise criticism of it. And his film was hardly hard core - a couple of butts, if I remember right. But you are right - it is disgraceful - unforgivable - that a ballet dancer be allowed to join the BNP. Yes, that alone should let everyone know what an evil party they are. And to think it's a ballet dancer who has a far eastern boyfriend. Terrible! Nazi! Fascist!

I said very clearly that what bothered me was the hypocrisy and I think I made it pretty clear where that hypocrisy lay.

So, are you claiming students would be allowed to make homo-erotic films under a BNP government?

Will they subsidise companies sponsoring foreigners to come and take paid employment in the performing arts?

Don’t they claim that immigrants are draining the welfare state to the detriment of white Britons?

I suspect everyone reading this knows the answers and your shrill, hysterical, accusation of things that I did not say won’t distract from that.

Oh and you might want to actually look up “HMS Discovery, a Love Story”, before discussing it further (I believe you can link to it via Stnewall's website), it’s hardly “Shaving Ryan’s Privates”, I’ll grant you, but rather more than just “a couple of butts”.

I’d reproduce some of the, exceptionally fruity, poetry here, but it would probably mean an instant ban.:o

Anyway, I may not be back on-line until after the weekend, but I’ll be happy to continue this then if you wish.

Nightey-night and don’t let the leftists bite

Goatboy

 

[TheLordReigns]

[/font][/color]

Consulted about what, specifically?

About whether we wanted to become a multi-cultural society.

Should I need to get the rest of the British public’s approval before I decide to marry a foreigner and raise my kids in both cultures?

Of course not. You're just being silly now. We have always legally allowed that before mass immigration began.

Should we be holding a general election every time someone wants to move to the UK to work?

Again, I'm talking about a radical transformation of our culture and possibly way of life. People should have been asked.

This vague “we should have been consulted about it.” means nada.

Well maybe you don't believe that important decisions effecting all of us should be done with our consent, but I do. I believe in national self-determination. That is why I like the BNP's commitment to bringing that about - especially their pledge of citizen-initiated referenda, such as takes place in Switzerland and some American states. Now despite talk of 'democracy', leftists really don't want that kind of thing because they see it as their job to change human nature through legislation and usher in the perfect utopia where everyone loves each other and gets along; and they know that people would reject their social experimentation, given a chance.

I know this belief is common and serves the purpose of the party you came here to discuss (well, reactionaries in general), but do you think it is actually true?

If so, what evidence do you have that this belief reflects reality?

"47% of whites said they felt immigration had harmed society in the last 50 years, compared with 28% who felt it had benefited Britain.
And almost two-thirds of whites said they believe immigrants do not integrate or make a positive contribution to Britain."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1993597.stm

Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that immigrants were a bad influence on Britain - the highest proportion of all countries surveyed.
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=602872004

Which of the following statements regarding Britain’s culture do you most agree with?
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Britain is losing its culture[/FONT]
66%
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Britain’s culture is stronger than it used to be[/FONT]
3%
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Britain has always been a diverse society with nsingle culture[/FONT]
24%
[FONT=Arial,Arial]None of these[/FONT]
7%​

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TrevorMcDonaldtoplines.pdf


Here's another one that's very interesting:
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/omi060101069_1.pdf

In this one 59% said all further immigration should be halted. When it was mentioned that this was a BNP policy, the number dropped to 48%. In both cases it was greater than the number who said it shouldn't be. So the image of the BNP is still a big problem. But even 48% would be like the biggest landslide if people would vote for what they believe.

So, “leftists”, are responsible for the mass immigration that has lead to these second and third generation terrorists and people like Copeland.

Only we’ve had more Conservative government than Labour in this country since the end of the second world war. Without defining “leftists” properly that claim really doesn’t mean anything.

Yes, but in a threat like this I can hardly call you 'liberals', since I'm arguing that you are not liberal in the traditional sense. But yes, the Cons have done their share (despite Thatcher promising before her election that she would stop mass immigration). Both the capitalist fascist right (Conservatives, Republicans) and the left are committed to mass immigration irrespective of what people want. But the left want it faster. I read that immigration has trippled under Labour.

So it is provocative to say that far right, Islamic and white supremacist terrorists are somehow the fault of “leftists”, but, more importantly, it’s kind of silly.

Well of course it is the fault of leftists who have created an unworkable situation. And I think it will get worse and worse - possibly civil war, once peak oil and global warming start kicking in. Yes, it is the fault of those who were not far-sighted enough or who didn't think that the people should have been consulted directly. But neo-conservatives also have a share of the blame, particularly with regards to the destruction of the environment and the potential peak oil crisis.

Nice assertions, care to back them up with an argument?
(By my reckoning both philosophies’ roots can be traced back to Hellenic Greece, with the more modern forms a product of a renaissance both enjoyed in the late 18th century)

Nationalism is the natural state of all societies. Look at societies throughout the world that don't have an Enlightenment heritage - they are all ethno-centric. Even advanced countries like Japan, that have said they will not have mass immigration as the people don't want it. Yes, you are right that there has always been a humanistic thread running through western civilization, but it is only in the last fifty years that it has overthrown the idea of nationalism. I would posit that this owes much to the Enlightenment and it's ideas. It began to be believed that society could be run in accordance with impersonal and eternal laws - the role of culture and the ethnic group were abandoned. This of course led to the US Constitution not having any reference to the Christian culture of the people - the government no longer represented the interests of the people who established it, but certain principles. Fast forward to the early 20th century and the Franfurt School of Trotskyite communism, and we have the growth of political correctness and post-colonial white guilt. These are used to silence all opposition to mass immigration which was conceived as a tool to destroy the strong Christian and Classical foundation of the Western nations. Now before you ask for proof - you will need to dig into this for yourself. My point is only to comment on history, not to try to prove it is history. If you don't want to do that, that is up to you, but I don't really want to spend time justifying opinions. You can reject my opinion. But nationalism was even the default view of the West until recently (and I don't mean nation-statism - I mean the natural love of your own tribe and society, and the desire to preserve it for your children). It's still the view of the rest of the world. But another reason secular humanism is not sustainable is because it contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. The future will either be Islamic, or BNP, in my opinion. Actually I think there is also a chance of a totally centralised Soviet style surveillance society, a place where life has lost everything of meaning. Or a third-world crime-ridden Britain split up into gang-run districts. Who knows? I just know I don't like three of those options, so I'm gonna take a chance on the other one.

They aren’t even different sides, they’re merely different flavours of authoritarianism.

Actually I think the BNP are the only party that are not authoritarian, and who would restore traditional freedoms, improve democracy, re-establish our national sovereignty and preserve our traditional legal system.

2/ You forgot to include Imams on your list of people who have fallen foul of the (IMHO) repressive hate speech legislation.

Can you seriously not see the difference between saying that Islam is wicked and vicious, and calling for the mass deaths of innocent civilians? Is this really the point you have reached?

3/ Criticizing homosexuality is still legal (encouraging violence against homosexuals, not so much).

Yes, and the distinction is becoming blurred. But I had my thoughts more on other countries where leftists (sorry if you don't like that term - suggest another and I'll use it if I can) have succeeded in introducing this kind of legislation.

4/ I know of no-one “molested” by the government for Holocaust denial. (FYI. David Irvine lost a libel case, which he brought against somebody else.)

Again, I was speaking of 'leftists' in general.

5/ There is no such thing as “true, historic Christian religion, as it has always been taught and held” if you think that there is, you are either ignorant, delusional or both.

The earliest extant versions of Christianity which I know of are the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, neither can date itself convincingly to the beginning of the first century AD and both have enjoyed revisions in theology and dogma through the millennia.

There has always been a consensus on the fundamental articles of faith, such as those expressed in the Apostles' Creed. All churches have always claimed to accept that the Scriptures are inerrant. They have not always acted on that. And until the nineteenth century, feminism, seculur humanism, evolutionism, etc were condemned by all churches.

And I expect I’d enjoy a short period as a resistance fighter for The Peoples’ Free Republic of Brixton, before being caught, tortured, then shot.

I think that you would just be shot if you were involved in such treasonous behaviour. We are talking Nick Griffin, not George W. Bush.

So, are you claiming students would be allowed to make homo-erotic films under a BNP government?

I would think so.

Anyway, I may not be back on-line until after the weekend, but I’ll be happy to continue this then if you wish.

Nightey-night and don’t let the leftists bite

it's their bed bugs that I need to watch
Anyway, naw, I don't think I want to discuss any more. I said my bit. You can either accept it or reject it, but that's where I stand, so help me God.

 

[TheLordReigns]

Actually, we have that in common NWO is absolutely real. But anyone who believes that is labelled a conspiracy nut. Makes it easier to ignore, I suppose.

I've now deleted the History for that day, but off the top of my head, from BNP, to Nick Griffin, to someone called David Myatt and another man called Darren Wells, and then to Ian Stuart who was another member of Combat 18, and then went on to found Blood and Honour and Skrewdriver

Well I've been looking into stuff today, and have decided to keep on eye on articles at the Searchlight website. Interestingly they cover some of the issues facing the modernization process in the BNP, and the resultant conflict that it is creating. It seems that Griffin's 'strong leadership' style has been used to throw neo-Nazis out of the party. This surprised me (from Searchlight of all people). But at the same time, my digging has shown me that there are more of the old school still in the BNP then I would like to admit. I am also very concerned with some of the choices of people that Griffin has around him (i.e. Mark Collet, who gives me the impression of being extremely unstable and dangerous). There is also a leadership contest at the present, with one of the old right members challenging Griffin, though he doesn't have much chance. It might actually help the party get rid of that type. But it is a concern, and I need to pay more attention to the possibility that Griffin is not sincere. It seems even the far right argue over that. Anyway, I'm still looking, though I hope that the increase in party membership by more moderate people has made the process of modernization irreversible.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Well I've been looking into stuff today, and have decided to keep on eye on articles at the Searchlight website. Interestingly they cover some of the issues facing the modernization process in the BNP, and the resultant conflict that it is creating. It seems that Griffin's 'strong leadership' style has been used to throw neo-Nazis out of the party. This surprised me (from Searchlight of all people). But at the same time, my digging has shown me that there are more of the old school still in the BNP then I would like to admit. I am also very concerned with some of the choices of people that Griffin has around him (i.e. Mark Collet, who gives me the impression of being extremely unstable and dangerous). There is also a leadership contest at the present, with one of the old right members challenging Griffin, though he doesn't have much chance. It might actually help the party get rid of that type. But it is a concern, and I need to pay more attention to the possibility that Griffin is not sincere. It seems even the far right argue over that. Anyway, I'm still looking, though I hope that the increase in party membership by more moderate people has made the process of modernization irreversible.

Hello, bro

So where do you stand on the whole thing now? In terms of voting, for example, would the BNP still get yours, as they are at the moment?

 

[TheLordReigns]

Hello, bro

So where do you stand on the whole thing now? In terms of voting, for example, would the BNP still get yours, as they are at the moment?

Hi again,
I think I need to take a step back for a little while ... I was planning on joining, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Ditto for voting for anyone. I do still wish them well in elections though, and hope that they continue to reform. I've read some pretty encouraging quotes from Nick Griffin on far-right anti-BNP sites (where they think he has sold out because he says positive things about immigrants or blacks or Jews). But right now I just feel abit sick of it all, and politics in general. I need some time out. Well thanks for your patience, and for listening!

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Hi again,
I think I need to take a step back for a little while ... I was planning on joining, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Ditto for voting for anyone. I do still wish them well in elections though, and hope that they continue to reform. I've read some pretty encouraging quotes from Nick Griffin on far-right anti-BNP sites (where they think he has sold out because he says positive things about immigrants or blacks or Jews). But right now I just feel abit sick of it all, and politics in general. I need some time out. Well thanks for your patience, and for listening!

Am sorry for not replying sooner! I don't think I'd seen you'd replied, maybe? Huh. Am sorry

You sound a bit sad about the whole thing. Try not to, k? As sucky as the world is, there's still so much beauty in it. Getting embroiled in politics is sort of the opposite in revelling in Jesus, and in the loveliness that surrounds us... look at Pat Robertson

Thank you for being so open-minded about it all. On a very selfish level, it's sort of made my day that you want to take a step back. It feels like God stepped in and stopped you from taking a leap into something very dark, but only cos you allowed Him to, and that's pretty cool. God is all wonderful and stuff

God bless you very, very much. Smile lots today