Vote No To The BNP

Following on from pt1 published this week (click here), pt2 (click here), pt3 (click here) pt4 (click here) and pt5 (click here), again I would like to offer my thanks to Iain Dale and TotalPolitics.com for allowing me the use of the full interview with Nick Griffin for this series of articles.

Part 6 begins with Nick Griffin’s views on being fascist

How do you react to being called a fascist?

We’re not fascist. If fascism is defined in its proper sense, it’s about worship of the state or of a man that personifies the state. Our tradition is very much in the British tradition of limited government with checks and balances and so on.

You could have fooled me. Half your policy programme involves a larger state.

We’re not fascist in that regard. It’s about a close, almost incestuous relationship, between the state and the corporations. It’s corporate fascism. The Thatcherite, Blairite PFI – that’s fascist. Another defining factor of fascism is the use of political violence as a political weapon against your opponents. And we’re the victims of a Marxist fascism – we do not practise or want to practise violence against anyone else.

When we see the BNP talking about control and having the people more involved in running the country, this generally brings up an image of a smaller state with control handed down to local government and organisations. But somehow the BNP version of this local government seems to different to what would be the norm, in that the BNP version would actually create a bigger state.

And with a bigger state comes bigger running costs, in a time where every other party is looking at ways to cut the costs of the state and repay the deficit the BNP have plans that will increase the size of the state and therefore how much that state would cost the tax payer, whilst at the same time claiming to be able to remove income tax?. Just how can we create and pay for a bigger state as well as taking income tax out of the system?.

The answer is simple we can’t, well we can under a BNP Government who’s policies mean the creation of around 100 extra taxes to replace income tax, and of course lets not forget from a previous part of this series of articles simply borrowing more money at a hefty interest rate to cover these costs.

In his response Nick Griffin avoids the real question of a larger state by turning his answer to accusations of state sponsored violence, and claims the BNP don’t get involved in such tactics, looking at the next question will instantly remind you that the BNP in fact do use violence as a tactic:

Apart from throwing journalists out of press conferences…

Apart from throwing out lying journalists when they’re asked. I’ve been instructed that the fellow that quite gleefully grabbed his nose and twisted it shouldn’t be put on duties like that anymore, because that was over the top. But the journalist was still breaking the law and he was removed with the minimum force necessary.

I’m sure everyone remembers this incident where a journalist who was invited by the BNP was man-handled by a group of BNP ‘Security’ staff, the cynic in me would simple suggest that the journalist was invited on purpose in order that the BNP could throw him out to gain some headlines they wouldn’t have gained otherwise.

From Nick Griffins previous answers on the propaganda question this becomes more of a reality.

Why is the BNP so anti-gay?

We’re not drastically anti-gay. We were, but it was just a reflection of white working class culture of the 70s. It’s unfamiliar, it’s odd and I’m afraid it is creepy. Grown men kissing in public is creepy to most people. You don’t often see it. But if you do see it, it’s not a matter of homophobia. It’s odd and you have to explain it to little kids – that’s strange. We’re not anti-gay. I took over a party which had a total ban on homosexual members. We’ve got gay members now and people know who they are, but it’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.

When the worlds super powers like the USA are changing to remove the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ from it’s military, the British National Party want to expand the don’t ask don’t tell mentality across the whole of the United Kingdom.

And lets not forget that one of the BNP policies is to repeal the Civil Partnerships Act and to re-introduce section 28 style laws. Do we really want to consider a party that is happy to turn the UK back into a country of oppression, where minority groups are pushed into the shadows and seen as second class?

With the don’t ask don’t tell policies of the BNP we can safely assume that they would also put an outright ban on things like Gay Pride Marches, do we really want to control people to this level?, can you honestly vote for a party that wants to oppress a large section of the UK?

End of part 6

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Following on from pt1 published this week (click here), pt2 (click here), pt3 (click here) and pt4 (click here), again I would like to offer my thanks to Iain Dale and TotalPolitics.com for allowing me the use of the full interview with Nick Griffin for this series of articles.

Part Five Starts with the BNP ideas on reforming the benefits system:

How would you reform the benefits system?

By recreating a proper hard industrial base in this country to create real, decent, well paid jobs. That would raise the overall wage rates up and make it worth people’s while working so they could afford to work. There are people all around the country who genuinely can’t afford to work. It’s madness. Once there’s work out there that is decently paid and people can take it. If they don’t take it and they’re fit to work, they can starve.

Recreating a proper hard industrial base? i’m sure Nick Griffin is very well aware that the country is already in debt, so just how does the BNP intend fund this project of turning the UK back into a mass industrial nation?, and reminding Nick of one of his previous answers regarding the worlds oil reserves how are we going to power this second coming of the industrial revolution?.

Britain is already a world leader in many new technologies and needs to remain that way, because as anyone with a few active braincells knows the technologies of the future are NOT heavy industry; it’s technology, bio science, medical, nano technologies. Britain has had it’s industrial age and in order to remain competitive on the world markets we need to be constantly moving forward and staying ahead of the game.

Britain needs to remain pushing forward and not harking back to the big chimneys pounding out smoke, Britain as an island nation simply cannot compete when it comes to countries like China in terms of heavy industry, but where we can and do achieve world leading status is in technology, but we are in a lucky position that although they are not 100% perfect at least our three main parties understand this and are prepared to help push the technology industries forward.

The next section of the interview deals with Afghanistan and the BNP’s most loved subject Immigration and Islamification, which frankly I am so bored of right now I can’t even gather the energy to write about, apart from to point out the resemblance of the BNP attitude to the Muslims and that of the Nazi parties attitude to the Jews.

The BNP Propaganda machine goes into overdrive against the Muslims, all we have to do is look back through a few years of the BNP’s own history to see that they used very similar propaganda against the blacks and the jews in the early days.

All Nick Griffin has done is realise that attacking the blacks and the Jews didn’t win the BNP any votes, so all they have done is switch the propaganda machine into hatred of the Muslim community instead, and the sooner people see this simple switch the better.

The BNP have nothing much to say on the Economy and the other important things that matter to the country but they certainly have a lot to say about why British people should be afraid of and hate the Muslim community, but this is a standard BNP tactic find an ethnic group and blame them for as much as possible. Find as many ways for British Whites to hate them as possible, stir up as much division as possible in the hope that people will vote for you.

We can see that demonstrated in the response Nick Griffin gave to the following questions:

How can you fight Al-Qaeda then?

You can stop any more young Muslims pouring into Britain for a start because we weren’t bombed by Afghan peasants on 7 July.

You can’t tar them with the same brush.

We were bombed by people who we, locally in the area, had pointed out to the police several years before as being radical and involved in paramilitary training in the woods. We weren’t bombed by Afghan peasants.

But these Muslims who perpetrated the 7/7 bombings, they grew up in this country – they weren’t immigrants. They were born here. That rather defeats the argument: “Don’t allow any more Muslims in.”

No, but that’s a start. We’re not going to be attacked by Afghan peasants. Does Al-Qaeda as such even really exist, as opposed to it being just an ideological trend? It’s a means on the internet more than anything else. These people don’t need a guiding hand. It’s a bit like the old anti-semitic crazies with the elders of Zion. They never existed. Likewise, obviously Bin Laden existed – probably is still alive – but the young Muslims that probably make up ten per cent of Britain’s immigrant population who are fanatically pro Al- Qaeda and Jihad, they don’t need guidance from a man in a cave. They’re going to destroy your society one way or another and they’ve got various ways to do it and they’re going to do it.

Nick Griffin clearly denies the threat of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Training camps in Afghanistan, the only threat according to Nick Griffin are immigrant Muslims, think about it Mr Griffin where do these people go to get the training and equipment needed to blow up things? they go to the Afghan region and attend the training camps run by Al-Qaeda and protected by the Afghan Taliban.

In the interview you did with Andrew Marr last year you said that you found Mein Kampf very dull but enjoyed one chapter of it. Which chapter was that?

That was the chapter on propaganda – that was interesting.

In what way?

Because it’s a long time since I read it, I can’t remember it. The only thing I can remember is repetition. But I suppose perhaps the Nazis were ahead of their time in now standard advertising techniques…it’s irrelevant really.

If you remember in an early part of this series I covered the BNP idea of spreading the Propaganda, and here we see Nick Griffins inspiration for the repetition ideal, the more we push it into peoples heads they more likely they are to accept it and believe it.

Which explains exactly why the BNP have a constant stream of anti Muslim articles running on their website and of course across the whole range of BNP Support websites, hammer it down someones throat and they will be so scared of it that they will believe anything you tell them.

This is the exact same tactic the Nazi Party used against the Jews, the BNP have simply changed the target to the Muslims but the idea is exactly the same as the Nazi Party of old.

End of Part 5

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Following on from pt1 published this week (click here), pt2 (click here), and pt3 (click here), again I would like to offer my thanks to Iain Dale and TotalPolitics.com for allowing me the use of the full interview with Nick Griffin for this series of articles.

Part Four starts with Nick Griffins views on the Banking Crisis

RBS, the Bank of Scotland, Lloyds – you’d have let them all go down the pan?

We’d have let them all go down the pan. And then we’d have nationalised all the assets and turned it into a national reconstruction bank so that where people are still paying mortgages and all the rest, there would be money coming in. We’d have looked after the shareholders and written everybody else off.

So in Nick Griffins opinion the banks and all the people that held savings accounts in said banks could pretty much go to hell, he would have looked after the shareholders (the richest) and sod the poor savers, who would have gotten NOTHING from a BNP Government.

Again we see a Nick Griffin BNP policy that is directly against the very people it claims to be fighting for, if you where rich enough to buy shares in one of the failed banks then that’s all well and good you would have gotten your money back. But if you were a pensioner with a small savings account to help in your retirement you’d have LOST that money and gotten NOTHING from a BNP Government. Here we see again the BNP directly hitting the very people he wants to vote for him, the lower end of the wage spectrum who can just about afford to save any money, a BNP Government would have simply ignored them and looked after the people who could afford to buy shares.

Ask yourself do you really want to vote for the British National Party now it’s leader has clearly told you, if you had a small savings account and didn’t hold shares then tough you would have lost it.

But what about national debt?

We would get it down. It’s safe to assume there’d be a great reluctance of the assorted financial institutions around the world to lend money to a BNP government, although generally they lend to everybody, don’t they?

Here we see Nick Griffin proving he has no idea at all about the economics of Britain, when asked about the National Debt (the key word being Debt), Nick Griffin talks about borrowing more money, so borrowing money pays off the National Debt according to Nick Griffin.

Again we see no structured plan or even ideas from Nick Griffin on how to clear the countries deficit, just borrowing more. Under the BNP Policies we would need to borrow a lot more than the current Labour Government has, but this is the BNP they have no understanding of how to construct and cost policy.

At a price.

Well, there’s a profit to be had, so they certainly would do. We would deal with the fact that we’re getting into debt more and more by not being in the European Union.

Just what exactly is this answer meant to mean Nick? it makes no economic or even logical sense, are you basically saying the BNP will all but bankrupt the country and a BNP Government will just continue to borrow at whatever interest rate they can get to keep basic services running?

Is it just me or have the BNP become an even more scary prospect now? just from the last two answers we see that Nick Griffin has NO IDEA how to manage the countries economy.

I still haven’t heard what you would do in the next two years to address the huge level of borrowing that we now have.

We would set about eliminating all the sectors of the politically correct servile state that we possibly could, which goes well beyond translators and all the rest of it. We are in a terrible hole. Things have got to be fairly drastic to deal with it. For instance, health and safety inspectors in restaurants, we pay a fortune for them.

That would save a pathetic amount.

It isn’t made up of a couple of huge sums, this expenditure. It’s across the board. It’s an example.

So Nick Griffins big plan for repaying the debt is revealed, cutting services like Translators and paying for things like Black History Month etc, cutting back on services to ethnic minorities etc, and he really thinks this is even going to touch the sides of the National Debt? what an idiot frankly.

A quick FYI Mr Griffin the UK owes something just short of £1 Trillion so cutting a few hundred million on ethnic minority spending and saving £6 billion on not being in the EU won’t touch the sides of the debt, like every other party a BNP Government would need to cut public spending which Nick Griffin seems completely oblivious to.

The BNP Economy Policy may as well just read we’re going to give Ocean Finance A Call.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Following on from pt1 published earlier today (click here), and pt2 (click here), again I would like to offer my thanks to Iain Dale and TotalPolitics.com for allowing me the use of the full interview with Nick Griffin for this series of articles.

We start Part Three with Nick Griffins views on Interracial Relationships.

If your son brought home an Asian girlfriend, what would your reaction be?

Much the same reaction as I know many Sikhs and West Indians would give, which is: “I’m not comfortable with this and you need to both really think about it because you’ve both got two different bloodlines and two different cultures and when you mix them up you destroy both of them.”

This is one I always have difficulty getting my head around that people still hold such views, for years we have lived in a more open world since the first ships were built and warriors and people of different lands went visiting new lands across the seas to either conquer or visit; different races and people’s have mixed both as friends and within relationships. None of this mixing has lead to the dieing out of any race of people’s.

Yes races have died out throughout history, but I would like anyone who can to prove to me that a race of people have died out because they ‘mixed’ with another race of people. This continued backward thinking always amazes me.

Human emotion doesn’t count?

Sure, absolutely. It’s not the business of a political party to try to interfere in affairs of the heart, which is something we’ve enshrined as a definite statement in the new constitution. From a moral point of view, we believe that massive integration and mixing is bad because it’s destructive of human cultures. We actually believe in a bizarre way we are the only genuine multiculturalists.

If it isn’t the business of Political Parties to interfere in the affairs of the heart why do the BNP actually try and do that by continually telling people that they can’t/shouldn’t or discourage the mixing of races? if this isn’t interfering with a persons personal choice then I really don’t know what is.

Now I like anyone else on this planet have my personal preferences, my likes and dislikes when it comes to relationships, and I would take no notice of anyone even less so a political party who tries to either tell me or encourage me to only enter a relationship with a member of a particular race, Nick Griffin displays a level of ignorance with his responses.

Let’s talk about BNP policies. There’s a common theme about how globalisation is wicked, and how it is really damaging society, damaging the economy, and all the rest of it. Doesn’t trying to resist globalisation make you look like King Canute?

No, I don’t think so. Everyone is going to very soon find out that globalisation is going to go into a reverse in any case. Because globalisation is fundamentally based on almost free transport, which is based on almost free energy. And because we have used up almost half the world’s oil – there is plenty left – but from here on it gets more expensive. The economic business model of China is making things with near slave labour, and shipping them here almost free. Undercutting Western industries is actually a badly flawed business model because it ain’t going to get here free anymore. Fuel prices are going to go through the roof the moment the world economy begins to recover.

Have you ever read such a pile of absolute rubbish?, yes whilst he is correct in saying the worlds oil reserves have almost halved the attitude of a global environment will never just stop, if anything the globalisation of the planet will continue as countries work together on solving the solutions for the modern world that confronts us as we use up more and more of the earths natural resources.

With new technologies developing all the time in our modern world, new forms of fuel will be developed that will enable the worldwide trade to continue and expand long after many of us on this planet have died. The false believe that the world will suddenly start to say we can’t work together anymore to solve problems, or we can’t trade with each other is not going to happen. And frankly Britain as a country would pretty much cease to exist without world trade, as a small island nation we would really not survive as we are today without a continued part in the business of world trade.

Without the ability to sell and move British products and services around the world our economy would fail and send the country back to the time the BNP see as the indigenous population times, the BNP may then see the dream of an all white nation, but it will almost certainly be an all white nation with no power, no ability to produce everything it needs to survive.

You have this notion of going back to the 19th century and wanting to impose tariffs on lots of things, which would mean some products would double in price.

Sure, what we’re looking at with the redrafting of this is to say, it has to be far more nuanced, that it has to be done over a period of time.

Your core vote, I imagine, is the white working class, not very well-off. This is going to hit them.

That’s why it has to be done in a very steady, slow and nuanced fashion. As long as it’s creating proper jobs and helping in a rather more closed economy, it’s helping to raise the tax base. It’s helping families to help themselves not being forced to be a burden on the state. It’s going to be a benefit.

In the first answer we get a clear answer from Nick Griffin admitting that prices for many products would double in price under the BNP taxation system, the BNP taxation system is far more stealth than any tax introduced by many political parties in recent years.

The BNP sell the taxes as a tax on the businesses and not directly on you the British public, but we all know in reality exactly who these taxes will hit, but a tax on Supermarkets (like the BNP’s planned Transportation Tax), and the Supermarkets will automatically pass that tax onto you the customer by raising the price in the stores. Ultimately you the British voting public will be paying in excess of 100 taxes that the BNP would introduce.

The BNP also know that these taxes will hit the very people that vote for them the hardest, Nick Griffin openly admits that here. So rather than protecting the white working class British people they claim to be defending they will in point of fact based on Nick Griffins own words be hit the worst and have to pay the most under a BNP taxation system.

What about another one which would hit the same group of people, increasing VAT?

We’ve never said we’re increasing VAT.

I think you’ll find you have.

We believe the Labour Party and the Tories without a shadow of a doubt would increase VAT. We know they’re going to increase VAT to 20 per cent after this election, and put it on food in harmonisation with Europe so it’s coming anyway, and that’s wrong. I’m sure we haven’t said we’ll increase VAT.

You need to read your own literature. How would you cut the national debt?

By stopping bailing out the banks because they’ve crippled themselves. They should all go to the wall. And we should simply pick up the pieces. That would stop it getting that much worse.

As you can see from Nick Griffins answers here he seems unaware of his own party policies, on VAT the BNP would increase VAT as their own polices say,  by enacting some of their other polices they would HAVE to raise VAT to compensate for the costs involved in enacting the other BNP policies.

Although the BNP may not have directly said they would increase VAT just enacting their own stated polices would leave the country with a big hole in its accounts that the BNP would have no choice but to raise VAT, these types of responses from Nick Griffin clearly shows he and the BNP have no understanding of exactly how the economy works.

And Nick Griffins ideas on cutting the National Debt, well clearly again he shows a complete lack of understanding on how the British Economy works. The British economy is a complex thing that is interconnected across Europe and around the world through the financial markets. The BNP policies of protectionism and removal of Britain from the wider world markets would effectively kill the British Economy and turn Britain back into something approaching a third world nation within just a few short years.

Once we have been removed from the wider world markets a BNP Government would have no option but to continue to raise taxes and invent new taxes just to keep basic services running. The BNP need to realise we are a small island nation that needs that conection to European and World markets in order to survive and prosper.

End of part three.

Vote No To The BNP in 201

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Following on from pt1 published earlier today (click here), again I would like to offer my thanks to Iain Dale and TotalPolitics.com for allowing me the use of the full interview with Nick Griffin for this series of articles.

Part Two starts with Nick Griffin and the British National Party (BNP) visit to Libya:

Some years ago, you went on an all expenses paid trip to Libya. Has the BNP ever had money from Colonel Gadaffi?

No, we didn’t at the time. We got a big crate of green books, which promptly disappeared in customs, so we didn’t actually get any.

But you were asking Gadaffi for money, weren’t you?

We were asking them for money if they were giving it, yes.

You had no reservation about going to a government that supported terrorists, and asking them for financial support?

We looked at Gadaffi’s ideas. A lot of what was said about Gadaffi in all probability is propaganda.

This is the first time I have seen Nick Griffin answer questions on the Libya visit, and from the responses I can see why he hasn’t really answered before, I know that everyone reads things in a different way and understanding in is the mind of how the reader reads something. But on reading Nick Griffins response to the first question it would have sparked my mind to push an extra question here, that questions being:

You said “No, we didn’t at the time” does that mean you have received any money from Libya or Gadaffi at any other time? the “we didn’t at the time” to me is questionable on many levels as it certainly leaves Nick Griffin open to have received money “at another time” wouldn’t you say?.

And we clearly see Nick Griffins open answer stating he/they would have taken money if it were on offer, over the years Libya is well know for sponsoring terrorist attacks yet Nick Griffin in his capacity of BNP Leader would have happily taken money from a country that openly sponsor terrorists. The BNP love to scream from the rooftops about the Labour Party being funded by the Unions yet Nick Griffin would have no problem taking money from aka being funded by a state that sponsored terrorist attacks.

If the Equalities and Human Rights Commission hadn’t forced you to accept black and Asian members, would you have got to that point yourselves?

There was a long running debate within the party whether this would have to be done, or should be done. It had the potential to be very divisive. By forcing the issue, they certainly brought it forward by several years. But I think it would have happened anyway. Because it’s been forced, it’s united us. They’ve done us a favour.

How many black and Asian people have applied or been accepted for membership so far?

We’ve had several West Indian members for years.

I’ve covered the Equalities Commission case on numerous times so I’m not going to waste my time covering that all over again, apart from to say that we can see by Nick Griffins answer to the first question, the BNP could clearly have avoided all the court costs involved in this case as the BNP could have simply bought forward it’s own internal plans to change the Constitution.

This is a clear indication that Nick Griffin and the BNP used the EHRC case for free publicity and for propaganda in an attempt to raise it’s profile to the general public, which also proves that the BNP since the start of the EHRC case have lied to their members with the numerous articles and begging letters for money when they could have clearly avoided the issue entirely.

The second question here is interesting, when asked how many black and Asian people have applied to join the BNP Nick Griffin clearly avoids the questions by claiming to have “We’ve had several West Indian members for years” this answer is in itself very telling in that Nick Griffin is proving that the constitution could have been changed long ago without the need for the EHRC court case by having West Indian members for years shows the party were already accepting of non-white members and therefore no need to have an all white membership policy, which again proves the BNP are more than happy to lie to their own membership in order to gain extra propaganda as the hard done to party whilst extorting all the money possible from it’s membership.

I thought it was against your constitution. You’ve been at great pains over the past few years to say you’re not a racist party. But that clause in your constitution proves the opposite.

It could be presented as proving the opposite, certainly. It’s always been problematic in political terms. Superficially, it’s a huge political albatross. I would say in effect, possibly. In public perception, definitely. But in terms of its intention, not. And its intention really comes from two things. Firstly, in certain parts of the country, South London say, with young, second and third generation West Indians, where they’re a lawless menace to everyone around them. Or in Northern mill towns with Muslim gangs preying on white and Sikh girls and lads of other communities. It’s just a fact. In Northern towns, you’re dealing with dozens of families with 13 and 14-year-old daughters, who have been, and are being, gang raped by Muslims, so it’s precisely that. But this isn’t a rape issue, this is a cultural issue.

We can clearly see here that Nick Griffin remains a racist at heart, young white males also commit crime, white adults also commit crime; yet Nick Griffin at no point attempts to acknowledge that. He follows his standard propaganda tactic of finding any other ethnic to blame whilst avoiding the issue of white British people committing crime.

Can we really have an MP that only sees people who are not white as a problem? this is a question the people of Barking are going to have to ask themselves when considering a vote for Nick Griffin in the 2010 General Election.

Do you believe gang rape is Islamic?

“These women are lawful to you, those who your right arm can own.” It’s in the Koran time and time again. [This quote is not in the Koran.]

He we have a prime example of the uneducated nature of Nick Griffins understanding of other religions, if you are going to quote a line from the Koran at least make sure the actual quote exists. But what this response does show us is just how the BNP propaganda machine works, basically you can make up anything you like because you know your intended listeners will just trust you because they wouldn’t check to see if the actual quote exists.

What this type of response should show any potential BNP voter is that they need to check everything they are told by the BNP, jjust because they call it a quote or a fact doesn’t mean it is a fact.

Surely, you don’t believe that moderate Muslims believe that?

Moderate Muslims don’t interpret it like that. But there is a young, street punk Islam that does believe precisely that, and that’s what the ones who are funding most of the madrasas believe. The Saudis believe that too.

I think Iain Dale should have pointed out here that certain elements within the Christian Religion also interpret the Bible differently, this isn’t just limited to Muslims it stretches through all religions and throughout history.

End of Part 2

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP