UKIP = The BNP in suits ??

Nice discussion on what is fascism here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8316271.stm

The exact details are blurred on what *is* fascism, but the article comments on how it is generally bandied about by people when they want a really offensive insult to sling.

Nice Selective quote there Ernie – how about the other points?

Globalisation has caused the export of jobs and industries to the Far East, and has brought ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities who depend on them.

Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers.

Free market economics? I think not!

When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end and secure, well-paid employment will flourish.

We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people.

Right wing?

To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership and will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants.

Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers.

Sorry, thats sounds suspiciously like the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. To me!

The Labour government recently introduced legislation to discriminate against white males in the job market. This racist legislation is a travesty and gross betrayal of the British working class, and will be repealed forthwith by a BNP government, along with all other measures which in any way discriminate against the indigenous population.

The state institutions were built by British taxpayers and there is a moral duty and obligation on the state to give preference in the job market to native Britons.

Free market?

The banksters cannot be let off the hook for their role in the current financial crisis. The BNP demands that the banksters responsible for the catastrophe which has crippled the international banking system be held personally legally liable for their actions in terms of corporate governance laws. They should have to pay a personal price for the mess they have created, and not be rewarded with huge bonuses which have come from taxpayer-funded bailouts.

In a nutshell, the BNP plan to rebuild Britain will consist of the following steps:

– The nurturing and encouragement of new and existing British industries;

– The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports;

market protectionism? right wing?

– The promotion of domestic competition;

– Increased taxes on companies which outsource work abroad;

– The reintroduction of the married man’s allowance;

– The raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million;

– The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing;

– Halving council tax by centralising education costs and eliminating multiculturalism spending and unnecessary bureaucracy;

– The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.

Renationalisation? Right wing policy?

The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day.

Oriental countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have managed their economies to combine private enterprise competition with the national good, and these are the models the BNP would emulate.

Collectivism!

I

n 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.

Personal tax is far too high. Billions of pounds can be slashed off government spending by inter alia:

– Ending the £9 billion foreign aid budget;

– Ending the £4.5 billion a year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

– Ending the untold billions spent subsidising the immigration swindle and all its ancillary costs (benefits, court and jail services, counter-terrorism measures, the “race relations” industry and a host of others);

Sounds pretty much like every government since time immemorial

– Ending the billions pumped into the EU swindle;

– Severely curtailing the tax-subsidised feeding frenzy at Westminster and other levels of government; and

– Cutting back all unnecessary layers of government which have been artificially created by years of politically correct Labour and Tory rule.

Actually about the only points I'd agree with them on

I've just spent a week in South Africa on business. I'm not easily phased when abroad, but the overt racism that I came across when I was there really shook me rigid. Two particular instances stick in my mind, one being a discourse at the dinner table by an intelligent, articulate, well travelled white woman as to how the "blacks" are not as reliable as the "coloureds", however, if you want someone who'll be really trustworthy they have to be white. The second being another discourse, this time on the subject of how the Jews are responsbile for the worlds current economic situation.

The point of this, was that until being slapped in the face with this throwback to the 60's and 70's I was of the opinion that free speech was the significant issue, and that even racists had a right to their opinions. We, in this country have moved on a long way, but frankly it would be a mistake to let that slip. I cannot even start to explain how deeply offensive I found those comments, and it really has made me reconsider my stance on ALL of the intolerants and bigots in this world, whther it be Nick Griffin, or anyone else.

They are not entitled to abuse and denegrate others. It is simply unacceptable, and as far as I'm concerned should be limited to the closet and nowhere else.

When was the last time the UK allowed in a foreign Muslim to preach hatred against Christians?

Um, Abu Hamza? And as far as I can tell, he got on unchallenged for a fair amount of time.

Ratty really, you need to stop it ……you're talking complete nonsense mate.

You know very well that even extreme right-wing fascists like General Franco believed in nationalising the railways, but it didn't stop him from being committed to right-wing free markets policies.

And yes, the BNP have jumped on the bandwagon and attacked bankers, or "banksters " as they call them in their childish way because it sounds like "gangster" …….unbelievable how they can descend into such puerile bollox on their own official website. But there is no mention whatsoever of nationalising the banks – obviously it's not something which they believe in.

And yes, they talk about schemes which are "the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers." So workers should only be motivated to "ensure the success of their employers" ? That doesn't sound very "left-wing" to me.

Of course you completely ignore the fact that they believe, quote : "that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise" despite the fact that you claimed they had no commitment to free enterprise !

I could go on, but quite frankly I can't be arsed mate ………….sorry 😐

BB – Having worked in several international plcs and travelled for my job, the views you heard are not only confined to SA. There are equally abhorrent views held in Aus, US, and, more on a national basis than race, in a lot of Europe.

We are not perfect by a long way, but we are better than many.

Um, Abu Hamza?

Firstly he's in prison.

Secondly, he was already living in Britain when he committed his offences. Britain did not knowingly allow someone in on the understanding that they would be spreading hatred.

There is no comparison whatsoever.

Wasn't Abu Hamza wanted in Jordon for similar things when we accepted him here? Thought there was a whole issue about him being repatriated there.

In which case ernie, this ain't right.

Britain did not knowingly allow someone in on the understanding that they would be spreading hatred.

Wasn't Abu Hamza wanted in Jordon for similar things when we accepted him here?

Not that I am aware of. Abu Hamza has been a British citizen since 1980 – a time when Islamic fundamentalists and extremists were being officially supported by the British government.

I don't believe that Geert Wilders has ever held British nationality.

Don't touch that dial…

😉

soz Ernie, Yemen not Jordon.

Just something I remembered about the hooker of Islam from the depths of my memory somewhere.

Apologies.

Yemen not Jordon.

As I understand, Abu Hamza is wanted in Yemen in connection with bomb plots – not for preaching hatred. I believe that the alleged terrorist involvement occurred long after Abu Hamza had become a British citizen and had the right to entry into the UK.

He is not a good example of a foreigner who has knowingly been allowed by the authorities, to enter the UK with the aim of spreading hatred and social discord.

I have to assume that if he is the best example in answer to my question : "When was the last time the UK allowed in a foreign Muslim to preach hatred against Christians?" then examples of foreign Muslims being knowingly allowed into Britain to preach hatred against Christians, are very thin on the ground.

Wasn't that Sheikh Bakree ???? tolerated for a while after calling for the execution of the Prime minister – I'm struggling to remember the details

Berm Bandit – did you mean Abu Qatada?

Abu Hamza………Sheikh Bakree ? Abu Qatada?

OK so basically we are looking at examples of foreign (or not so foreign) Muslims which the authorities have quite rightly, taken action against …..expelled, imprisoned, whatever.

How does that in anyway justify allowing a foreigner from the Netherlands to come here so that he can stir up trouble ?

ernie_lynch, what's the difference between tolerating hateful speech just because it happens after the speaker has landed, and letting in a guy because words he has used in the past have been judged to be hateful?

Even if we can suppose he will say the same things again once in the country, the type of toleration appears to be essentially the same.

In any case, whereas the blond guy does seem quite off-putting, as far as I have heard, he has never talked in violent terms about his subject (radical Islamists) the way radical Islamists have been known to talk about… well… pretty much anyone who isn't a radical Islamist.

But if I'm wrong, I will take that back.

Berm Bandit – did you mean Abu Qatada?

Nope definately mean Abu Hamza al-Masari.

As I understand, Abu Hamza is wanted in Yemen in connection with bomb plots – not for preaching hatred

Bit of a wriggle there if you don't mind me saying so Ernie. Please quote the names of at least three people who are wanted for blowing people up on the basis that they liked them very much indeed. In return I shall ride my bike naked around my local forest for one hour, obviously on the basis that you reciprocate should you be unable to do so.

hi guys, new to the forum
this is some deep shit you guys are talking here, very enlightening.
almost like a modern day history lesson.

he has never talked in violent terms about his subject (radical Islamists) the way radical Islamists have been known to talk about… well… pretty much anyone who isn't a radical Islamist.

He doesn't seem to draw much, if any, of a distinction between terrorists and Muslims. If he does then he's astonishingly bad at expressing it. And the reason his film stops short of advocating violence against Muslims is pretty obvious – he'd be charged with inciting religious hatred (which has happened anyway).

He doesn't really have anything to say apart from condemning Islam as an irredeemably violent religion – based on the actions of a handful of its supporters, some cherry-picked verses from the Koran, and the actions of a couple of political regimes whose human rights abuses are widely known and condemned, usual by organisations such as Amnesty who don't resort to offending several million followers of a religion. Even if you accept that his polemic is somehow meant with the best of intentions, I can't see what it offers in the way of constructive solutions.

I once saw a documentary about "Sheikh" Bakree. At one point, he was walking through an HMV with the film crew and interviewer when he passed a cardboard cutout of the "Spice Girls". He simpered at the camera and said:

"Who are these spicy whimmen? They must be arrested immediately!"

Musical considerations apart – what a ridiculous little gnome he is… 🙄