Posted on 10/26/2009 6:27:37 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
• Party claims biggest ever recruitment night
• BBC feared far-right victory in high court
• Griffin attacks capital as 'no longer British'
The British National party will receive a pre-general election boost in the opinion polls, ministers fear, after more than 8 million people watched the far-right leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time on Thursday evening.
As the party claimed that a record 3,000 people had registered to join its ranks in the biggest recruitment night in its history, Lord Mandelson warned that Griffin's exposure would produce "a bubble in the opinion polls for the BNP". He reflected fears across the mainstream political spectrum that the BNP had received a once-in-a-generation PR opportunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
video!?
Please be more specific—you can’t mean withdrawing from the “illegal” and “immoral” wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, do you?
This is actually pretty high for a party that is as thoroughly reviled as the BNP, and may be under-reported due to people being hesitant to admit what they really think to pollsters.
Sorry, but that doesn’t answer my question: are you suggesting that the Tories adopt the position that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and “illegal,” and “immoral,” according to this loose band of fascists?
“If the “Conservatives” don’t adopt much of the BNP’s agenda, they may see the BNP scoring some significant wins in the upcoming election”
The BNP is a socialist party. It draws from the traditional “working class” party, Labour, much more than from the Conservatives. Think “National Socialism”.
The various forces opposed to the politcally correct totalitarian state being erected by the mainstream parties that allow EU domination need to find unity.
It may not be physical unity but some sort of vote sharing deal where BNP runs in the north and the UKIP runs in the south with other smaller Christian groups included in some constituencies.
Otherwise, none of the smaller parties will get House of Commons representation in the next election.
The BNP is fiscally left-wing and a big proponent of the paternalistic state; pretty much in every way antithetical to liberty. Combine that with their proud racism (not the faux “racism” label given to anti-welfarists in America) and antisemitism, and you are getting very close to a dictionary definition of National Socialism.
Inviting entire generations of perpetual welfare dependents (self-correcting by elimination of the guaranteed government benefits which attract the parasites), coddling criminals, diminishing the role of personal responsibility, expanding the domain of social collectivization, and other short-sighted policies have left Britain in such a dire state that it is not shocking that the European experience of 70 years ago is being repeated (people switching effortlessly between the twin Hegelian camps of fascism and communism) there. The slaves appear to want merely a different master.
Get out while you still can.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 306 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 133 million to 439 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975 percent (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.
Immigration, legal and illegal, has had and will continue to have a major and far-reaching impact across a broad spectrum of existential challenges that confront this nation, e.g., national security, the economy/global competitiveness, jobs, health care, taxes, energy independence, education, entitlement reform, law enforcement, social welfare programs, physical infrastructure, the environment, civil liberties, and a continued sense of national identity/shared sense of endeavor. Immigration policy is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Changes to our existing immigration policies should be an integral part of the solutions to our problems. Yet, rarely will you read or hear immigration policy linked to these challenges by the political and media elites. Instead, legal immigration has become the third rail of American politics—for Republicans only.
I might have missed the part where he said that they were "immoral" as distinct from "not in British interests". Got a link?
“I don’t like the sound of ‘ese ‘ere ‘Boncentration Bamps.’”
Refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peacekeeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake;While I could argue that Britain does have an interest in seeing al-Queda eliminated, I see their viewpoint in not having an interest in long-term "nation-building".
In a world in which irreplaceable natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate we have a duty to our children and future generations to move towards economic growth which is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable in the long-term, rather than the present ‘boom and bust’ policies.Yup, these guys are real winners . . . tax-cutters.
Beautiful logic, isn't it? Simply declare all wars short of a German invasion fleet sailing across the Channel not in the "national interest."
And PM Angela Merkel is cutting taxes in Germany. Soon we will be the only Socialist country left in the West.
And there's your mistake: you assume that a victory (no matter how large) of a non-Thatcherite party in the UK will return another party in the UK to its Thatcherite roots. The notion is simply absurd.
A large number of people voting BNP will indicate that there is a significant voting block that is fed up and can no longer be taken for granted, and must therefore be wooed back. The Conservatives would then need to find out what needs to change to woo BNP voters back to the Conservatives. The answer is likely to be immigration.
Ask yourself what the Republican response to a large number of NY State voters deserting to the Conservative Party will be?
I'm sure a lot of people voted for the Nazi Party in 1932 for precisely that reason.
You are pounding a square peg into a round hole. You are exporting (literally) your aspirations about the political process and attributing them to a party that does not deserve them (and won’t act on them if they succeed).
Just a friendly reminder, please don’t link to the BNP’s website. They are not welcome here. They are not all who they try to appear to be on the surface.
I was not aware of that, and will comply.
“If the “Conservatives” don’t adopt much of the BNP’s agenda, they may see the BNP scoring some significant wins in the upcoming election.”
In the short run, the BNP’s gimmicks may give them the much required mileage but in the long run it is a recipe for failure.
In the long run, tolerating large numbers of economically-unproductive, culturally-unassimilable immigrants is a recipe for national suicide.
Heartening to see that statement from an 'official' FR source (if I may call you that!)
The BNP is not the GOP of the UK. They are pretty openly racist in a way that would not be acceptable in the US.
“In the long run, tolerating large numbers of economically-unproductive, culturally-unassimilable immigrants is a recipe for national suicide.”
Classifying immigrants as economically-unproductive and culturally-unassimilable is baseless. The U.S itself is a shining example of these very immigrants contributing largely and productively to the economy. People have lived harmoniously inspite of belonging to both eastern and western cultures except for deliberate, stray incidents of violence ignited by narrow-minded racists.
BNP bump.
In the US, the bulk of the immigrants are Catholic (more or less) Mexicans and South Americans. They will assimilate into American life eventually, particularly if we toss out the concept of bilingual education and make them learn English. They will inter-marry with native-born citizens and be assimilated within a few generations.
The Muslim immigrants are different. Their girls are prohibited from marrying non-Muslims, on pain of death. Their boys can marry non-Muslims, but the non-Muslim must then become Muslim. They are disproportionately on public assistance. They tend to riot at the drop of a hat (or a Mohammod cartoon).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.