BNP good or bad for British Poltics ?

[Astro]

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out"

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

"And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next"

Manic Street Preachers

The 1st post is well known and quoted a lot.

If part of the population on the planet is persecuted it affects us all in the end.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Because they both believe that anyone who is not "pure white" (Aryan) should be killed.

They do do they? Does that go for all BNP members or is it part of their hidden manifesto ?

Therefore they are both racist - that's what they have in common.

So which is it? Death to all non-aryans or simple racism they have in common ?

Nazis are big in France, Germany, America, Canada, UK - they are more underground in the UK, but not now they have a political recognition at City Hall

BNP does not equal Nazi just because you say so. And "City Hall", where are you from ?

- we may see Skinhead thugs back on the streets of London again. (I definately remember them in the 70's/early 80's).

I remember lots of skinheads then but i don't remember any Nazi skinheads Could that possibly be...a stereotype

They hate the Muslims, and taking advantage of the hate against Muslims by George Bush and cronies to sneak in the back door politically.

There is so much wrong with that sentence I dont even know where to start.

He was not seen as a threat.

Of course he was!

Other governments including the British Government ignored Hitler's invasions and colonizing of Sudetland, Austria, Czecoslovakia.
This encouraged him to keep on invading.

Don't be silly. Hitler had his plans; "encouragement" was not needed. As for other governments "ignoring" Hitler, thats sillier still - they could have had more effective responses to his actions but "ignore" is far from the truth.

It was only when he invaded Poland that Chamberlain reluctantly had to declare war on Germany.

I think you've been reading "Topsy and Tim Go to War".

The history books are written with hindsight.

No they try to be factual with an application of hindsight.

See Beowulf's post below.

why ? ive already read it?

[Twirly]

BNP does not equal Nazi just because you say so. And "City Hall", where are you from ?

She's from London. And this is City Hall, where the Greater London Authority are based - including the newly elected member of the BNP.

[Dreadful Scathe]

She's from London. And this is City Hall, where the Greater London Authority are based - including the newly elected member of the BNP.

ooh i've walked past that - nice building

[Twirly]

ooh i've walked past that - nice building

With a weird interior. Went to visit it on the Open House weekend a couple of years back. Has this sloping ramp/staircase that winds its way through the middle of the building like a giant helix.

Gave me a seriously bad does of vertigo, not helped by my dear father yelling down the middle at me from a couple of floors up as I was gingerly trying to get down as soon as possible (by staring intently at the floor and not looking round me as I walked) and making me look up...

[Barry Shnikov]

Again, it sounds like you're saying that the government is positively discriminating African and Asian people, by offering them an injection that they are refusing white British people. The simple fact is that the NHS has decided that, as the risk of infection is higher in those ethnic groups, they should still be immunised. It's not a case of treating ethnic minorities better to the detriment of 'British' kids...it's about a group more at risk.

Is this all to do with herd immunity?

We already have herd immunity to TB in the UK; however, to retain that herd immunity we need to innoculate newcomers to the herd.

Is that it?

(Herd immunity: if a minimum percentage of the herd are immune to a disease then it cannot take hold within the herd since there are not enough vectors for it to spread; however if the immunity drops below those levels then an epidemic becomes possible.)

[Barry Shnikov]

(Quoted by Twirly)Secondly the harm done in adverse effects from the vaccine, usually abscesses at the sight of injection, outweigh the preventive effect.

So who sufers the abscesses at the sight of the injection? The vaccinator? The patient? Or is it anybody watching the procedure? Sounds gruesome...

[Barry Shnikov]

He was not seen as a threat.

Other governments including the British Government ignored Hitler's invasions and colonizing of Sudetland, Austria, Czecoslovakia.
This encouraged him to keep on invading.

It was only when he invaded Poland that Chamberlain reluctantly had to declare war on Germany.

Churchill had the foresight, but was accused of war-mongering.

Ah, Alexander Pope, thou should'st be here at this time...

Hitler most definitely was seen as a threat. The French spent millions building the Maginot Line; at the time of the invasion of the Low Countries Frances' tanks outnumbered Germany's and it had more troops facing east than Germany had facing west.
Britain had been increasing military spending exponentially for several years in the late 1930s - warships had been built and ordered, the RAF had new procurement initiatives in place, and the British Expeditionary Force was ready to cross into France at the first sign of an invasion. These things don't happen overnight, you know: think of how long the preparations for Raiders of Iraq 2 took.

It's also incomplete to say that Churchill had foresight and was accused of warmongering. Chamberlain's cabinet were well aware that a war with Germany was probably inevitable; their policy was to delay that for as long as practical, because they knew that Germany's economy was on the brink of imploding. Hitler bought time with the Anschluss and by annexing the Sudetenland, thereby gaining access to large supplies of raw materials (particularly steel) and an increased labour force.

Yes, in public, Chamberlain and his cabinet spoke of doing deals with Hitler and 'small countries a long way away', while Churchill was smoldering with zeal for blood and guts. In the meantime, Britain and France were desperately horse trading with other countries, particularly the USA (which had its own grudges against Germany) to prevent Germany having access to the global markets on credit terms. It sounds dull, I know, and isn't at all in keeping with the image of the war we get from Hollywood and Ealing, but the object of the exercise was to make it financially impossible for Germany to get to its feet, militarily speaking.

But the policy nearly bore fruit. The invasion of the Low Countries and France was a last-gasp effort. Mannstein's blitzkrieg plan left no possibility of successfully coping with counter-thrusts, it was an all-or-nothing strategy. If the French and the British had been blessed with better generals, or they had had better intelligence or not been fooled by the northern feint, then Army Group Kleist could well have been crushed. Germany had ammunition for only a few months fighting; apart from the armoured divisions, the German army was still transported by horse and cart (from the rail heads).

That might all seem rather detailed; but the front-page-of-the-tabloid version of history is normally not the right one. Hitler was taken very seriously by the rest of Europe.

It is generally accepted, and this is where I think you may be coming from, that he was hugely underestimated within Germany, first by his political opponents in Bavaria in the late 1920s, and then by those in national politics during the early 1930s. Hindenberg, notoriously, could never bring himself to believe he would be outmanoeuvred by a mere corporal.

[stewart38]

Im going crazy I agree 100% in DS and BS last posts

If it gets any worse Ill be hitting my rep button

[stewart38]

This is how the debate on immigration can become hysterical...people actually thinking it's somehow discriminating against white people for African/Asian people to get an immunisation due to their increased risk of contracting a certain disease. It can suddenly become a 'they get better health care' argument, when that's not true.

This is the whole point

If you asked some Sun readers the percentage of non whites there are the uk, they would say 70%

If you open up debate the truth will find its way out somehow

[Will]

Is there a difference between the National Front and the BNP?

Oh and what ever happened to Enoch Powell?

The NF is a lot more extreme than the BNP. I think that one of the difference between the two parties is that the NF is into "forced repatriation" where as the BNP are not. However, if you want a fuller answer, here's a clip on youtube of why the NF don't like the BNP. (I think most people will find this persons views pretty offensive, so be warned before you click.)

Also, someone mentioned combat18, which I believe are a group of extreme right-wing anarchists, much like the group "classwar" are a group of extreme left-wing anarchists. Both groups link themselves to the parties on the 2 extreme's of British politics.

(What I find striking is the amazing similarities between the behaviour and views of both extremes - undemocratic, anti-semetic, anarchistic.)

[Tiger Feet]

Is this all to do with herd immunity?

We already have herd immunity to TB in the UK; however, to retain that herd immunity we need to innoculate newcomers to the herd.

Is that it?

(Herd immunity: if a minimum percentage of the herd are immune to a disease then it cannot take hold within the herd since there are not enough vectors for it to spread; however if the immunity drops below those levels then an epidemic becomes possible.)

Yeah, i think so (can we not quiz me too far on this...me littlest one is teething!)

[Astro]

Just a thought. Many people of the 'silent majority' are concerned about immigration, possibly along with issues like hoodie-society and a failing NHS. They could see their choice as either emigrate, as many middle class professionals have, or vote for someone who will address their concerns. Labour have got us in the current mess so not exactly the first choice to sort it. Conservatives have got a poor record on delivery (all talk but no action) ..... so if immigration is your real concern, who are you going to vote for to sort it out? The thought of fascists wielding power is not a pleasant one ... but if the only other option if the abyss, what are you going to do? Again ... not condoning the BNP .... just raising a point of view.

I didn't think the BNP were against non-British, non-white people. I thought they were campaigning against the whole supporting of illegal immigrants with benefits and housing, etc, which might sound quite attractive to your average British Joe.

There is nothing wrong with debating Immigration as long as you consider that immigrants are individuals not a group. They come to this country for many reasons, including escaping persecution and for economical reasons. What is wrong with an individual wishing to come to the UK to improve their life?

Illegal immigrants who are doctors, dentists, nurses, surgeons, university professors, teachers, scientist, engineers etc., do emigrate to the UK.

However they are not allowed to work in the UK until they have been prosessed through Imigration Control at Croydon and given a NINO (if allowed to stay)

This can take years.

Meanwhile they are living in hostels(or possibly compounds) with their children surviving on food vouchers.

They don't qualify to go on a council housing waiting list.

So the next time you are queing behind a man/woman paying with food vouchers, remember, he or she could be a doctor hating his/her circumstances and eager to get back to work and save lives.

If they were allowed to work as soon as they arrived, then they could get a mortgage or rent privately, and would be self supporting with their wages to live on.

Why don't they stay in their own country then, you might ask?

Their country may be at war and/or has changed politically. If they stayed they could be flung in prison or murdered.

The people who manage to "get out" are usually the proffesionals with a bit of money behind them to escape with.

The poor have litttle means of escape.

[Astro]

Ah, Alexander Pope, thou should'st be here at this time...

Hitler most definitely was seen as a threat. The French spent millions building the Maginot Line; at the time of the invasion of the Low Countries Frances' tanks outnumbered Germany's and it had more troops facing east than Germany had facing west.
Britain had been increasing military spending exponentially for several years in the late 1930s - warships had been built and ordered, the RAF had new procurement initiatives in place, and the British Expeditionary Force was ready to cross into France at the first sign of an invasion. These things don't happen overnight, you know: think of how long the preparations for Raiders of Iraq 2 took.

It's also incomplete to say that Churchill had foresight and was accused of warmongering. Chamberlain's cabinet were well aware that a war with Germany was probably inevitable; their policy was to delay that for as long as practical, because they knew that Germany's economy was on the brink of imploding. Hitler bought time with the Anschluss and by annexing the Sudetenland, thereby gaining access to large supplies of raw materials (particularly steel) and an increased labour force.

Yes, in public, Chamberlain and his cabinet spoke of doing deals with Hitler and 'small countries a long way away', while Churchill was smoldering with zeal for blood and guts. In the meantime, Britain and France were desperately horse trading with other countries, particularly the USA (which had its own grudges against Germany) to prevent Germany having access to the global markets on credit terms. It sounds dull, I know, and isn't at all in keeping with the image of the war we get from Hollywood and Ealing, but the object of the exercise was to make it financially impossible for Germany to get to its feet, militarily speaking.

But the policy nearly bore fruit. The invasion of the Low Countries and France was a last-gasp effort. Mannstein's blitzkrieg plan left no possibility of successfully coping with counter-thrusts, it was an all-or-nothing strategy. If the French and the British had been blessed with better generals, or they had had better intelligence or not been fooled by the northern feint, then Army Group Kleist could well have been crushed. Germany had ammunition for only a few months fighting; apart from the armoured divisions, the German army was still transported by horse and cart (from the rail heads).

That might all seem rather detailed; but the front-page-of-the-tabloid version of history is normally not the right one. Hitler was taken very seriously by the rest of Europe.

It is generally accepted, and this is where I think you may be coming from, that he was hugely underestimated within Germany, first by his political opponents in Bavaria in the late 1920s, and then by those in national politics during the early 1930s. Hindenberg, notoriously, could never bring himself to believe he would be outmanoeuvred by a mere corporal.

That's a good post Barry.

Personally I think that Hitler and Churchill should have slugged it out with each other, or perhaps had a duel at dawn.

That would have saved so much misery and devastation.

Hitler admired Britain was had hoped to get Britain on his side.

His mistake was fighting a war on 2 fronts, if he had retained the Nazi/Soviet Pact in 1939 with Stalin, (ot The Hitler/Stalin Pact 1939) he would have won.

Bush has made the same mistake - a war on 2 fronts - Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Personally I think that Hitler and Churchill should have slugged it out with each other, or perhaps had a duel at dawn.

They had nothing against each other as individuals, but the loss of Hitler would have made a huge difference - its interesting to note that after his death at the end of the war there was no Nazi underground simmering away awaiting return to power, he pretty much was the Nazi party. It died when he did.

Bush has made the same mistake - a war on 2 fronts - Iraq and Afghanistan.

not quite the same thing

[Astro]

They had nothing against each other as individuals,

I read in the Mitford Diaries about a social dinner party given at some Lord's house, a few years before WW2.

Oswald Mosley had brought along Hitler as a dinner guest. His wife, Diana was there, and I'm not sure, but I think Stanley Baldwin (the then Prime Minister was either the host or a guest).

Churchill was a dinner guest, and took an instant dislike to Hitler.

Non of the other guests did, apparently, he could be very charming (Hitler)

but the loss of Hitler would have made a huge difference - its interesting to note that after his death at the end of the war there was no Nazi underground simmering away awaiting return to power, he pretty much was the Nazi party. It died when he did.

Nazism has never died out, and it is on the rise

not quite the same thing

Shirin Ebudi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, gave a passionate speech in 2003 denouncing the way certain governments are using the so-called War on Terror to erode Civil Liberties.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Churchill was a dinner guest, and took an instant dislike to Hitler.

But he was a politician - how he felt about him personally did not enter into it. I'm sure there were others Winston took a dislike to as well.

Non of the other guests did, apparently, he could be very charming

Thats how he managed to do what he did.

Nazism has never died out, and it is on the rise

Its facism with a stolen name - the Nazi party died at the end of world war 2.

Shirin Ebudi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, gave a passionate speech in 2003 denouncing the way certain governments are using the so-called War on Terror to erode Civil Liberties.

Indeed, and the UK is one of the worst.

[Astro]

Its facism with a stolen name - the Nazi party died at the end of world war 2.

So why do the facists still read and rever as a bible, Hitler's book "Mein Kampe"? (PS I have never read it, have always meant to).

Why do they use the numbers 18 and 88? (derived from alphabetic numbers - Adolf Hitler and Heil Hitler)

Why do they still do the Nazi salute and say "Heil Hitler"?

The Swastika is an ancient powerful symbol, which Hitler approbated.
I think he inverted it though?

[Dreadful Scathe]

So why do the facists still read and rever as a bible, Hitler's book "Mein Kampe"? (PS I have never read it, have always meant to).

Why do they use the numbers 18 and 88? (derived from alphabetic numbers - Adolf Hitler and Heil Hitler)

Why do they still do the Nazi salute and say "Heil Hitler"?

Because they admire him ? just a guess

The Swastika is an ancient powerful symbol, which Hitler approbated.
I think he inverted it though?

No, he just moved it round 45 degrees.

[Barry Shnikov]

So why do the facists still read and rever as a bible, Hitler's book "Mein Kampe"?

Surely Julian Clary wrote Mein Kamp? Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It means 'My struggle' (German for tank is Kampfwagen - Kampf means war, struggle, etc. depending on context.)

I wouldn't bother reading Mein Kampf - as a work of political philosophy it sucks, and as a good read it sucks the big one.

The way to look at it is this. The Nationalist Socialist Party was two things, really. (It wasn't socialist, so that's one thing.) First, it was a political movement aimed at reversing the humiliating treatment Germany received in the Treaty of Versailles. Germany lost some of its great cities, huge swathes of land (Alsace-Lorraine), was only allowed piffling armed forces, couldn't manufacturer armaments. Second, the party 'inherited' the simple (not to say, empty)-minded racism and prejudice of the working class Bavarians from which it emerged. Germany, of course, was a proud and mighty nation, which was prevented from taking its rightful seat in the global halls of power by the defeats of WW1. Well, that's obviously not the fault of Germans - they are the natural inheritors of the earth, right? So - um - it must a conspiracy. And who are the worst conspirators? Right! The jews. So it's an international Jewish conspiracy. Hey - who's in charge of the United States? Roosevelt! That's a jewish name, isn't it? And who are the most powerful men in the US - Rothschild. He's a jew. And there's a Rothschild in France - brother, isn't he? Or cousin? So there are your jews. Obvious, isn't it?

So the first element is missing from the political philosophy of all current Swastika-wielding simpletons, but the second element is most definitely there. But the main reason, I believe, that these nitwits openly espouse Hitler and Nazism is that they really want to plss off ordinary people.