BNP Membership list leaks again

  On 10/21/2009 at 12:23 AM, LUDD said:

lols

 

http://vice.typepad.com/vice_magazine/2009/07/london-babes-of-the-bnp.html

 

This made me smile, but i am a puerile twat.

 

Let’s try a word association game. Just say the first word that comes into your head.

OK.

 

Golly.

Wally.

 

Rag.

Rug.

 

Goose.

Duck.

 

Oswald.

Place.

 

Concentration.

Head.

 

Bunny.

Rabbit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk

  On 10/21/2009 at 12:18 AM, inteeliguntdesign said:

  On 10/20/2009 at 9:51 PM, ezkerraldean said:

never seen any of his interviews until today. he seems to put so much emphasis on the difference between being "civically british" and "ethnically british". i'm like this is just semantics, who gives a fuck

 

they do, cos then they can set barriers to becoming british - they can essentially boss non-whites around for not being civilised, where their definition of civilised is you do what we say... two definitions is highly useful to them because they can say, to appease the haters, that non-whites can be british, duplicity flying high.

 

the guardian map is pretty amusing around the midlands area. all the mainly white areas have loads of racists. but the one area that you'd think would have the most, leicester, cos it's like 50% white 50% non-white, has hardly any.

 

Just get rid of the rest of the 50% white and racism will end, then finally the economy will start to raise again because people will no longer be occupied in being racists.

wot

 

your sarcasm/non-sarcasm is confusing.

anyway the bnp are complaining question time was basically a lynch mob. dunno if ofcom will do anything. it was basically all the panelist/audience against griffin. the audience could have asked anything, though, so it was hardly the bbc's fault there. i suppose they could have got another racist to back up griffin's positions, but the bnp are pretty niche, so it would't have been representative.

 

i'm coming around to the opinion this may backfire on anyone against the bnp. the whole thing showed the bnp are batshit insane. but will this really decrease the support for the bnp? their supporters are hardly the most rational out there. censoring the bnp would be bad, but i suspect intellectually bashing the bnp would only convince those thinking rationally not to vote for the bnp, i.e. not most of the bnp's potential support.

 

still, the the bnp got one of their seats in the european parliament, in yorkshire, not because more people voted for them than last time, but because most people couldn't be arsed voting for the other parties. if this is comes as a wakeup call for apathetic voters then maybe it will have all been worth it.

 

dunno tho. fighting the bnp on rational grounds seems a bit silly to me. they're all about putting fear into their potential supports, so it seems wiser to try and defuse that fear first and foremost.

Problem was all they wanted to do was attack Griffin as a man, which is fair enough, but none of his hollow policies got a look in. So anyone who had a problem with jobs for British workers yesterday, still has the same problem today and Griffins still the man telling them he can sort it. One question was directed about the global economy, but the panel glazed over, as 'creepy gays' make better TV.

 

 

 

Edit last line should read: creepy gays, nazis and sharks.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Dirty Protest

  On 10/23/2009 at 8:42 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Problem was all they wanted to do was attack Griffin as a man, which is fair enough, but none of his hollow policies got a look in. So anyone who had a problem with jobs for British workers yesterday, still has the same problem today and Griffins still the man telling them he can sort it. One question was directed about the global economy, but the panel glazed over, as 'creepy gays' make better TV.

 

 

 

Edit last line should read: creepy gays, nazis and sharks.

 

Agreed. The problem witbh Question Time is that it presented politics as entertainment more than anything. It was embarassing sometimes - especially with the audience member "accidentally" saying Dick Griffin for laughs, just seems immature. Start name calling and it takes any seriousness away from the topics.

 

The thing is, he's a vile person by nature and if they just pressed the topics more and got him to talk about the BNP policies properly, he would have hung himself with his own rope. I think anyway.

  On 10/23/2009 at 9:03 PM, BCM said:

 

You can make the argument that what he did in his youth is irrelevant. Several of the present cabinet were once communists.

 

I hate his appropriation of Churchill. At times in his life Churchill was a failure. A figure of ridicule. He had dodgy views on women, and an even dodgier grasp of economics. Simultaneously a boorish drunk depressive and historian and intellectual. A rubbish peace time PM. But in Britain's darkest hour he got it right. That's the narrative and that's what makes him great. And to have some maggot-cocked lightweight like Griffin trying to invoke his spirit...

 

  Quote

The thing is, he's a vile person by nature

fix it to: victim of culture. I'd like to know how Griffin picked up racist opinions.. do you think they are genetically ingrained values he holds? No. I only hope that was semantics getting the better of you.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Bread

  On 10/24/2009 at 12:36 AM, Bread said:

fix it to: victim of culture. I'd like to know how Griffin picked up racist opinions.. do you think they are genetically ingrained values he holds? No. I only hope that was semantics getting the better of you.

 

Hes got a gammy eye, if my child of the 70's media watching is anything to go by, hes trying to take over the world.

 

 

Looks like us London types and our London Question Time audience really just speak for ourselves. YouDiv.com stats and facts

 

 

When did my life change to newspaper reading online on a Friday night, depressingly I know after I click reply i'll go to Brooker blog and screenwipe will be up, so its not a new thing =(

Edited October 24, 2009 by Dirty Protest

  On 10/24/2009 at 12:36 AM, Bread said:

  Quote

The thing is, he's a vile person by nature

fix it to: victim of culture. I'd like to know how Griffin picked up racist opinions.. do you think they are genetically ingrained values he holds? No. I only hope that was semantics getting the better of you.

 

That'd be the case. I suppose I could have picked better words..

 

What I meant is that his views he tries to conceal are vile. Obviously it's ludicrous to imply you can have racist genes.

 

Vile's a dramatic word eh? Sounds over the top no matter what you're describing.

  On 10/24/2009 at 12:54 AM, Obel said:

  On 10/24/2009 at 12:36 AM, Bread said:

  Quote

The thing is, he's a vile person by nature

fix it to: victim of culture. I'd like to know how Griffin picked up racist opinions.. do you think they are genetically ingrained values he holds? No. I only hope that was semantics getting the better of you.

 

That'd be the case. I suppose I could have picked better words..

 

What I meant is that his views he tries to conceal are vile. Obviously it's ludicrous to imply you can have racist genes.

 

Vile's a dramatic word eh? Sounds over the top no matter what you're describing.

 

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=209831&sectioncode=26

Edited October 24, 2009 by kakapo

  On 10/24/2009 at 1:06 AM, kakapo said:

  On 10/24/2009 at 12:54 AM, Obel said:

  On 10/24/2009 at 12:36 AM, Bread said:

  Quote

The thing is, he's a vile person by nature

fix it to: victim of culture. I'd like to know how Griffin picked up racist opinions.. do you think they are genetically ingrained values he holds? No. I only hope that was semantics getting the better of you.

 

That'd be the case. I suppose I could have picked better words..

 

What I meant is that his views he tries to conceal are vile. Obviously it's ludicrous to imply you can have racist genes.

 

Vile's a dramatic word eh? Sounds over the top no matter what you're describing.

 

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=209831&sectioncode=26

Interesting article, just wanted to highlight this quote from it which I feel is important:

"Our genetic make-up gives us propensities, which then unfold in different ways because of cultural factors."

Propensities do not create values - the environment triggers propensities, and it is the environment alone which teaches you how to be a vicar, a racist or a rapist. To imply that genes dictate human behaviour on such a grand scale is similar to also saying that your brain has a preconceived notion of everything to do with the culture you are just about to be born into.. I have no doubt that if you took Hitler as a baby, and raised him with a group of eskimos ever since birth, he would adopt the same values shared by that group of eskimos if he knew nothing else, and his frame of reference was limited to that environment. I'm sure he'd be good at building igloos and catching fish, because those skills would have been taught to him, not imprinted by genetics.

 

As for racism, our brains are hardwired for social activities - we are social organisms.

Here's something to consider, if every race on the planet were meant to be against each other, and to create divisions, how come nature allows for mixed race offspring to become healthy with no notable health defects as a result of becoming a mixed race child? If nature wanted us to all become divisional in our ways, then surely science would show us that negative results could derive from having mixed race babies? So.. since there seems to be no apparent health/biological problems or anomalies with mixed race people, why doesn't racism just drop dead? Because people feel emotionally satisfied with what is familiar to them - if you grow up in a racist family, the chances are you may become just as racist as your Mother and Father. I can support this view as I have a friend who has racist tendencies and I can see that his Father (who he has always looked up to throughout childhood, and fully respects) also adopts racist points of view.. He even quotes the same phrases and learns the same mannerisms as his Father.

 

It's important to note that our brain includes a huge cerebral cortex which prefers to learn new behaviours rather than follow present, coded patterns like animals do with smaller brains.

  On 10/24/2009 at 1:42 AM, Bread said:

Here's something to consider, if every race on the planet were meant to be against each other, and to create divisions, how come nature allows for mixed race offspring to become healthy with no notable health defects as a result of becoming a mixed race child?

"were meant to be against each other", implies Intelligent Design, innit. nothing was "meant".

 

  Quote

If nature wanted us to all become divisional in our ways, then surely science would show us that negative results could derive from having mixed race babies?

why? nature surely does want us to be divisional, as per the laws of Natural Selection. genetics doesn't come into it on these timescales.

 

 

  Quote

So.. since there seems to be no apparent health/biological problems or anomalies with mixed race people, why doesn't racism just drop dead?

because xenophobia seems to be almost inherent in the human makeup, and has to be suppressed consciously and through education. i'm convinced of it. chavs / football hooligans are the perfect example for me.

 

 

 

also go back to your last Zeitgeit thread and answer my questions lol

Edited October 24, 2009 by ezkerraldean

<><><><>

Edited October 24, 2009 by ezkerraldean

 

Here's the problem with the way they treated Griffin on QT, now BNP can go on the defensive and it'll work in their favour.

  Quote

But won’t you then be an immigrant too?

Yeah but the answer to that is I would go over to their country and respect their country. I wouldn’t go over there and try and do suicidal bombs [sic]. The immigrants that come over to this country should be making this a good country and proud of it and helping this country, but most of them don’t

 

If at first you don't succeed . . .

Here's something to consider, if every race on the planet were meant to be against each other, and to create divisions, how come nature allows for mixed race offspring to become healthy with no notable health defects as a result of becoming a mixed race child?

  Quote

"were meant to be against each other", implies Intelligent Design, innit. nothing was "meant".

It depends on how you interpret what I am saying, just like it depends on how a religious person interprets the Bible. I believe that by understanding nature (and please note that when I say nature, I am in no way referring to a God, I am merely taking into account the environment being scientifically understood), then we can progress further in our outlook on life. If mixed race children were being born with biological/genetic defects in anyway, shape or form, then I would say that nature (meaning the scientific understanding of the environment, including biology) would suggest that it is a bad idea for mixed race children to be reproduced. Take the example of the Liger (half tiger, half lion), it's parents are a lion and a tiger, however the liger can not reproduce anymore "ligers" into the wild as scientific understanding of biology shows that the genes can not be passed on, which suggests it shouldn't happen. Although this might not be a good example, when someone implies the very word "nature", I realise it can be interpreted as a God or intelligent design when really I am only referring to the scientific understanding and boundaries.

 

If nature wanted us to all become divisional in our ways, then surely science would show us that negative results could derive from having mixed race babies?

  Quote

why? nature surely does want us to be divisional, as per the laws of Natural Selection. genetics doesn't come into it on these timescales.

No, this is where I disagree. In the wild animal kingdom, most animals live in scarcity of resources. Environment can have an influence on which species pass on genes. If there is lack of food in the wild, animals will compete and fight.. but it is not the genes causing the battles between species for food and resources, it is the scarce environment. If you provided an abundant environment for a set of species, do you think many fights will occur over who gets what IF every animal is sufficiently provided with what they require as far as basic needs are concerned (abundance of sexual intercourse, abundance of water and food). Couldn't we say that their behaviours would differ compared to leaving animals in a scarce environment, leaving them to their own pretenses?

 

So.. since there seems to be no apparent health/biological problems or anomalies with mixed race people, why doesn't racism just drop dead?

  Quote

because xenophobia seems to be almost inherent in the human makeup, and has to be suppressed consciously and through education. i'm convinced of it. chavs / football hooligans are the perfect example for me.

Again, I strongly disagree. "Chavs" are a product of their environment resulting from many factors: poor parenting/lack of relevant role models ever since childhood/lack of money and resources to truly empower and improve their lives.. to create their lives more interesting rather than needing to smash a window or swear at people in their neighbourhood/lack of care and compassion given to them ever since birth.. all these factors contribute and dictate to what values a so-called "chav" would hold. Try not to use the word chav as well, you aren't improving things by still using it. I live in the UK and used to live in Crawley (between Brighton and London) - it was full of young people with anti-social behaviours and I can honestly say that all the above factors DO contribute to their characteristics. I have seen it all first hand. If we took all the anti-social children as young babies, and put them in a positive environment (I will leave it up to you to determine what positive environment you could use), then it is reasonable to suggest that they would not have had the anti-social direction in life. Are you suggesting there is a gene for what makes a "chav"?

 

  Quote

also go back to your last Zeitgeit thread and answer my questions lol

I only stopped answering certain questions as I thought I had already answered them in previous responses. If I were to resurrect that thread, I'd more than likely create resentment among people here anyway.. I get the idea that most people choose ignorance over learning new things here at watmm. There are too many egos on the internet.

  On 10/24/2009 at 2:51 PM, Obel said:

 

Here's the problem with the way they treated Griffin on QT, now BNP can go on the defensive and it'll work in their favour.

He's a good communicator, he doesn't over complicate his choice of words and he makes himself very easy to understand.. Most people living in the UK who have had a very "patriotic" background would certainly associate themselves with his mentality. I feel that his points of view are backwards. The UK have come so far now that racism tendencies have been gradually reduced -- and it looks like there is no turning back. We have outgrown the views he supports.

  On 10/24/2009 at 5:05 PM, Bread said:

  On 10/24/2009 at 2:51 PM, Obel said:

 

Here's the problem with the way they treated Griffin on QT, now BNP can go on the defensive and it'll work in their favour.

He's a good communicator, he doesn't over complicate his choice of words and he makes himself very easy to understand.. Most people living in the UK who have had a very "patriotic" background would certainly associate themselves with his mentality. I feel that his points of view are backwards. The UK have come so far now that racism tendencies have been gradually reduced -- and it looks like there is no turning back. We have outgrown the views he supports.

 

Maybe we have, but on the other hand there are still a lot of people who are taking to his opinion, less educated ones in the ways of the world I guess. I know shit loads, there's an estate down the road form me where I'm seeing BNP stickers in cars all of a sudden.

 

I think the issue is that people are becoming so disillusioned with politics as of late, especially considering the recession and all and voters in general are declining. And on the other hand you've got this party appealing to younger people because they're speaking their language - even if most of it is a cover for their intentions.

 

I mean, I don't vote for any particular party because I haven't found one that represents my views - yet. I don't believe in this whole lesser-of-two-evils mentality that's got people bouncing between Labour and Conservatives since as long as I can remember and I'm lucky that I'm educated enough to know that the BNP aren't simply "for the British people" as they're trying to appear. But there are a surprising amount of young people that think that the BNP are speaking for them and as long as they appear bullied in the media then it will earn them sympathy from some people. Maybe I'm not getting myself across right, I don't talk about politics much. I don't believe the BNP are a real threat as such, but I do believe this is making them more popular.

  On 10/24/2009 at 5:00 PM, Bread said:

If you provided an abundant environment for a set of species, do you think many fights will occur over who gets what IF every animal is sufficiently provided with what they require as far as basic needs are concerned

i recall the time i fed a bunch of ~10 iguanas in costa rica with a rucksack full of lettuce. they kept fighting over leaves and biting eachother even when they were practically swimming in lettuce leaves. they're programmed to fight, regardless of resources innit.

 

  Quote

  Quote

because xenophobia seems to be almost inherent in the human makeup, and has to be suppressed consciously and through education. i'm convinced of it. chavs / football hooligans are the perfect example for me.

Again, I strongly disagree. "Chavs" are a product of their environment resulting from many factors: poor parenting/lack of relevant role models ever since childhood/lack of money and resources to truly empower and improve their lives.. to create their lives more interesting rather than needing to smash a window or swear at people in their neighbourhood/lack of care and compassion given to them ever since birth.. all these factors contribute and dictate to what values a so-called "chav" would hold. Try not to use the word chav as well, you aren't improving things by still using it. I live in the UK and used to live in Crawley (between Brighton and London) - it was full of young people with anti-social behaviours and I can honestly say that all the above factors DO contribute to their characteristics. I have seen it all first hand. If we took all the anti-social children as young babies, and put them in a positive environment (I will leave it up to you to determine what positive environment you could use), then it is reasonable to suggest that they would not have had the anti-social direction in life. Are you suggesting there is a gene for what makes a "chav"?

i'm suggesting that everyone possesses that "gene" in them, and that personal will and/or specific education is needed to suppress it. there's perpetual ethnic strife going on around the world, be it random tribal warfare that still goes on across most of africa, or ethnic conflict even in rich-ish regions like the caucasus and northern ireland. it's not like the loyalists and IRA are fighting over resources, is it? they're fighting out of xenophobia and never-ending cycles of asinine reaction. and look at students. supposedly educated folk that certainly aren't existing in a lacking state of resources, yet they will start fighting at the drop of a hat if an "us" and "them" scenario is ever established. seen enough of that in Leicester, which has 2 unis. always massive tension and fights in pubs whenever there's a Leicester uni v DMU bar crawl, or whenever they play eachother at football. and most students in this country had an upbringing a world apart from most chavs, so i don't see environmental upbringing as having much of an effect.

 

 

bit of a waffle there. as far as i can see, what we'd call a chav is the default state of a human being. humans, like all other animals, love fighting, unless they're educated to do otherwise. humans might fight over resources, but even if they had everything they needed they'd fight anyway, because killing people who are different to you is fun and heroic.

Edited October 24, 2009 by ezkerraldean

  On 10/24/2009 at 5:00 PM, Bread said:

I only stopped answering certain questions as I thought I had already answered them in previous responses. If I were to resurrect that thread, I'd more than likely create resentment among people here anyway.. I get the idea that most people choose ignorance over learning new things here at watmm. There are too many egos on the internet.

aw :(

 

my point was about how zeitgeist would be initially implemented across the world. i can't see it being possible without russian revolution-style violence.

BNP lol