fat BNp leader Nick "Creosote" Griffin on question

Post Reply New Topic

In relation to values:

I take ethical statements merely to be ones of psychological preference rather than anything objective, nothing makes it objective killing is wrong, merely that society and culture makes murder frowned upon (which is a good thing, the idea being we enter a social contract, laws basically enforcing a ‘I don’t try and kill you, you don’t try and kill me’).

If ethical beliefs are merely expressions of psychological preference, then two people very psychologically similar could have extremely different ethical beliefs. Imagine the same person (genetically, neurologically, cognitive but not behavioural psychologically) growing up in Saudi Arabia to England, reasonable chance may hold different ethical beliefs.

How do we judge these beliefs where they are incompatible, for example English law claiming gender equality whereas Sharia law counting the authority of a woman as usually half that of a man? Simple, our laws are the product of our democracy (republic if you will). We vote politician in hoping the laws they produce will reflect our desires and if any do not sufficiently we can vote in others at the next general election, or even go on general strike if desired. Incredibly imperfectly, but this system is the closest we can get towards a shared ethical consensus. The simple advantage of this shared ethical consensus is that it is a moderate one, perhaps suiting no one perfectly but not totally doing anyone vast damage either. I emphasis, far from perfect but cannot think of any better mechanism myself. Something like Sharia law has not been democratically elected, either by the entire population of the UK or the small portion that it applies to. On this basis, I consider it far less likely to be moderate or reasonable. Hence, UK law should apply to everyone who lives in the UK, regardless of if they want it or not.

You could argue a purely separate community should be able to come to a purely separate consensus. True, but it does not have the moderating mechanism of the consensus of an entire country. Imagine a community of paedophiles forming somewhere, who are supplied with babies. All social interaction with those babies as they grow would come from paedophiles, hence the paedophiles could convince the children that this is a perfectly normal and good way of life. Hence, consensus probably does not actually mean good. I’m aware I said ethics is just expression of psychological preference, however, such expressions can be rated as good only if those making the statements have full concept of their potentials and in this case the children would not, in essence that they think they are happy but are not. I’m also aware than an entire country who’s consensus was morally wrong cannot be dealt with under this philosophy.

So I am completely against any legal separation within this country between communities, hence immigrants must adopt our laws fully. I have more to say on value and will do so soon.

I feel they should be. I can be a nationalist because I love this country, and one reason I could love this country is multiculturalism. Not saying I do love Britain but certainly multiculturalism is one reason why I think fairly positively about it.

To be fair, the Nazis did the same and they ran an incredibly successful economy. (Not that I've looked at the BNP economic policy, just commenting on this statement).

I'm going to venture a guess that I've had more interaction with people of other races than you have. They really aren't notably different from whites. There can sometimes be cultural differences, but culture is not tied so strongly to race, and even cultural boundaries can be transcended.

I'm a realist, though I'm frequently described in more colourful terms.

Okay, you probably have had more interaction with other races than me. I think the tie between race and culture is going to vary depending on where you are. Over here, for example, the large Asian population has the religion variable thrown in, too, so that can further isolate groups from mainstream society, especially in the case of Muslims. Anyway, I'll leave it there for tonight.

Religion is more of a sticking point, but from what I've observed most Asians aren't extremely religious (at least over here). Muslims (like Christians) are only a problem to the extent that they try to force their views on everyone else.

43% Of Britains sympathize with BNP's immigration opinions.

You know what I just realized? Hearing people say racist stuff in public actually entertains me, just because of the uproar it causes. I mean seriously, it's funny to watch these people say this s**t on television because of the crowd reaction, everyone starts yelling and shouting and before you know it, riot. Makes me want to sit back with a bag of popcorn every time some neo-Nazi idiot gets on their soapbox and tries to spread the hate.

At any rate, by the above criteria, this Nick Griffin guys sounds like he would be very entertaining....

opositedirection -

no way! the very reason Nazi Germany started WW2 was because Hitler's policies had driven Germany to bankruptcy. Without the gold held in French banks the Third Reich would have collapsed from within. A fairly good index of hte severity of Germany's internal economc problems at the time is the level of violence directed towards the jewish people, they being the ones who they dispalced every kind of problem onto especially economic. And we all know how that ended.

- whiskey in the jar



*snort of absolute derision* right, ok is that figure taken from the yougov poll the BNP fiddled by getting its supporters to register for because you got paid money for doing so. I understand their members were encouraged to give the £50 to the party - apparently having a few financial problems; serious ones at that.

Even if all the people of the world are as behaviourally similar as you say, they are entitled to try to preserve their genetic and phenotypic distinctiveness if they want.

Anyway, since you use your experiences with people of other races to support your point of view, I trust I can do the same. As far as I am concerned (and the liberals won’t like this) it is my several experiences with black people that has made me realise that “racial equality” is a ridiculous liberal lie.
I’m talking about general observations accumulated over time, though I do remember some incidents in particular.
I remember once, when I was a teenager, I was on a train with a friend. About 30 loud, aggressive blacks in their late teens got on. Everybody looked down hoping they’d pass. They did. Then further on, a ticket inspector had the temerity to ask to see one of the guy’s tickets. The guy proceeded to force the inspector off the train and batter him with his belt for about three or four minutes while his friends stood around shouting and screaming and egging him on.
Another time I witnessed a group of about 80 black kids riot at a train station because the barriers were faulty.
Now I suspect urban environments bring out the worst in most people. I’ve encountered several aggressive, obnoxious whites: drunkards, beggars etc. But not to the same extent ( and never to the extent of rioting en masse at the slightest provocation) – and one has to recognize patterns and weigh up probabilities if one wants to navigate through life.
I might also add that I’ve been mugged only twice in my life, both times by blacks.
I’ve met several people who have made similar observations, and since coming online I’ve discovered that the “pattern” also exists in America.

Last edited by codarac on 26 Oct 2009, 5:24 am, edited 4 times in total.

My view (and as I understand it, the BNP view) is that capitalism (at least “neoliberal international capitalism” as opposed to what you might simply call “free enterprise”) is part of the disease, other parts being social liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism, etc. I suggest to you that the solution is not the Trotskyite vision of the ethnically & culturally mixed workers of the world uniting and smashing the system, but instead nationalism: cohesive nation states governed by the concept of the long-term common good rather than the short-term selfish profit-seeking of elite individuals.



No, Titus, oppositedirection is right. It’s brave of oppositedirection to say so, because an objective examination of Nazi Germany is practically impossible in the present climate.

Nazi Germany did not base its economy on gold. Instead the government printed money backed by productive labour undertaken. And instead of going to international banks to help buy imports, she simply bartered her surplus for the surplus of other nations.

And this worked. Germany was an economic basket case when the Nazis took over, and within six years they turned it into an economic powerhouse. Meanwhile America was still suffering the effects of the Depression.
Hitler had spent years undoing the Versailles treaty without firing a shot. He knew a two-front war if it came would ruin Germany. He was always more interested in the east.

I know little about Fascist Italy's economic policies, but I guess an objective appraisal of them is pretty difficult today as well. Guilt by association, you see.
Apparently countries like Japan are the closest you get to fascist economics in the modern day.
Also, I understand Hugo Chavez is fond of international bartering.

Last edited by codarac on 26 Oct 2009, 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

YouGov paying people £50 to take a single survey?
I very much doubt it.
You'd probably need to take a thousand before you got paid that much.

Apologies for not trawling through the whole 9pages..........I have only managed half of them.

But my views are not so much on the BNP but more about Nick Idiot himself.....I watched with interest. Yes the hype was big over here in the UK. Front page of the big papers and top of the National News and BBC coverage by the bucket load....the saying 'all publicity is good publicity' seems to be ringing true here.

But I watched the man perform....and that is what he did and not very well either....he is an actor of sorts, a buffoon who is living in a Walter Mitty Land...who is inappropriate, nervous, stims a lot and laughs in all the wrong places, I can imagine he would make a great ugly sister in Cinderella, anyone with any panto vacancies . He got hammered by the vast majority of the audience and panel on the programme although from time to time did get a trickle of applause from couple of his supporters hanging around in the back. He was wayyyy out of his depth, only ever being used to talking on HIS terms at HIS venues WITH HIS supporters!! !! !! But put him in a TV studio and it all fell apart.

My question is 'is he on the spectrum? I saw lots of signs, not that I am able to diagnose, it is merely a gut feeling, an opinion....trouble is he in MY opinion also has massive dollops of Oppositional Deficance Disorder. Not a great quality in a 'politician'................As I am proud to be on the spectrum....I despair when I see examples like this being put on show........it doesn't do us any good..

Anyway I am probably out of order, just wanted to air my views, hope you don't mind.

Oh and for the record I think when push comes to shove, that some may vote BNP but the majority will NEVER admit to it...that's the wonder of a 'secret vote' I WON'T BE ONE OF THEM........ever, I despise all they stand for.

What climate? I'm sorry but oppositedirection is wrong, Hitler's policies were utter nonesense. The part about the government printing money is probably the key. The nazi party's economic policies were ridiculous! Hitler ran up a gargantuan deificit by funding public infrastructure projects and military spending. He printed endless reams of deutchmarks to pay for it all, using, as i understand, coal, oil etc as the standard in lieu of gold. Prices and wages were determined abitrarily by the government, clumsily so. Real wages dropped by a quarter and slave labor took up a quarter of all performed labor. It was an economic powerhouse which was heavily armed but couldn't meet the needs of it's own populace. I say violence directed against jews in Nazi germany is an index of her economic problems because somehting akin to the following took place "Herr Fuhrer! I get the same money but can't buy the basic items I need, I can't quit my job, there are no trade unions, I can't strike to protest all this! Why, mein Fuhrer?"

the reply: "It's a jewish plot! Jewish Communists bleeding you for profit! Your Fuhrer simply expresses your own will and desires! These plans are flawless without the jews!" Or more maturely, fascism basically displaces a class struggle onto a race war.

Hitlers germany went to war because the state was collapsing through bankruptcy - as a a direct result of the insane economic policies of the Nazi party. War meant a much greater demand for war materiel and soldiers, which boosted the weapons industry but drove state spending higher. War meant unfettered access to the resources and labour of eastern europe and the USSR. War meant access to French banks.

Last edited by TitusLucretiusCarus on 26 Oct 2009, 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no, to register.