Barnes is – at a guess – one of those ferociously hyper-intelligent and well-informed people with several bees in his bonnet and an inability to get things in order.

Parading selections from Barnes’ published opinions is the surest turn-off for smart people inclined to join or even support the BNP.

Yet these is another consideration and Vikrant in #14 brought it to mind:

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples quite clearly states that organizations run by and for indigenous peoples have the right to decide who is and is not permitted membership.

That awful and beyond-the-pale site, AMERICAN RENAISSANCE, has discussed the issues of Native American tribes like the Cherokees trying to exclude Black Cherokees from tribal membership and the various benefits conferred by membership[at the time of deportations like the ‘Trail of Tears,’ the Cherokees took their black slaves Westward with them.

As you can imagine, this has been a subject of great angst for the Thinking American Left because goodthinkful people simply HATE seeing Hispanic – Black or Redskin – Black conflict.

And as for DNA, do you think Lib/Lab/Tory would all say yes to that?

How about questioning Labour on how they are handicapping the security services by not allowing them to racially profile people in the name of political correctness? Little old white ladies from Devon do not tend to be Suicide Bombers!

And you can’t get more Totalitarian than signing us up to the EU with no referendum, as we were promised!

Not to mention the lop-sided application of hate crime legislation against whites.

That’s exactly my point Don, if we question one party then surely we should be questioning ALL parties.

Think I shall get my head together and compile a few questions then, I may be sometime, watch this space!

In fact, why not suggest ten for each right now? I’d probably pitch in with a couple to help you out. We’d have our 85 in no time.

Do you seriously believe anybody here thinks other parties should go unquestioned?

(Oh, and Colin? Sunny specifically said you could post on BNP threads, just not elsewhere. So no need for the silly name game.)

If someone wanted to compile a list of questions to address all the other parties running for election, with each list customised for each party, then I’m sure it would be an enjoyable undertaking and would elicit some interesting answers from the parties concerned.

Can you show me the list of 85 questions sent to all the other legal parties.

As a “legal party” seeking election to 10 Downing Street via the British democratic process, supplying professional, accurate, well-informed answers in response to queries from the electorate/the general public about their background, affiliations, ideology and planned policies should therefore not be a problem for the BNP, irrespective of questions being supplied to the other political parties running for election.

Not only selfish and deluded but how stupid can you sound to the general public like myself?

I liked those rock solid replies of the respondent. Especially, “ask him”. Only bigots and the ‘psychiatrically challenged’ talk on behalf of others without question…. Then there is the legal implications.

I give the BNP respondent 10/10 for forthrightness.
The questionnaire: 3/10 for effort but the obvious bias over deep history.. Thats so stupid! I was a labour voter for 30 years.. Does that make me vote Labour now?

Get real!

You really do try to dig as deep as you can to pick things apart don’t you? Says everything about the accusers.

Oh, that guy who stated. “….a senior member of the BNP has been on record as stating that he believes “women enjoy being raped”?”

This individual was an active ‘tory party member when he made that statement. Its strange how it magically came into the open after he was found to be in the BNP. At least Griffin sacked and banned him on the spot for it. Unlike the ‘torys.

Mein Kampf aside. I once read a book called “1984″ From G. Orwell. I’m happy to be placed “..on record as stating that he has “learned a lot” from it..”

Simply because my skin crawled when I found great chunks of it were implemented in Blairs last Manifesto.

Lo and behold! The estate of G. Orwell made an attempt to take Blair and the Labour party to court over it. I’m afraid it came to nothing because they gave the Labour party diplomatic status under Alister “of course there are WMD’s in Iraq” Darling..

The Wikipedia article on “The Big Lie” propaganda technique I mentioned earlier also some further interesting points

Very interesting. You find nazi stains on this party everywhere you look. Lee Barnes’s article that I linked (#89) uses the same language as the Mein Kampf.

You mean as opposed to the 90% it is now.

You should watch the youtube video on the BNP posted elsewhere- it mentions how teh policies of the BNP which arent loony are for the things we already have.

But what do you expect from policy made on the back of a fag packet?

Quote:

“The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”"

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it ?

In fact, it has further ramifications when one bears in mind that John Tyndall, the founder of the BNP and Nick Griffin’s immediate predecessor as leader of the organisation, was also an admirer of Hitler’s writings and even stated “Mein Kampf is my bible”.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.html

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-03-02.html

It could actually be taken even further than that.

Given Nick Griffin’s repeated statements about “indigenous” British people apparently all sharing the same European ancestry “after the last Ice Age”, along with his now-increasing remarks about “10,000 years” and so on, perhaps Q1 in the list should be modified to expand it beyond the original suggested 3000-year timeframe and say “non-European ancestry within the last 10,000 years”.