Heartland

"colour" for the rest of us! and indeed!

it was for those backward Amerikans dear

James Blast wrote:it was for those backward Amerikans dear

that is also rasist but they would understand as i actually do!

it's not only okay but preferable to extract the micturation from Yanks - I dunno why!?

Oh don't cry for me Barcelona...

You obviously need glasses. I just refuse to be lectured to by an unelected Muslim and a yank who writes bad poems (Greer) in front of an audience of hand picked muppets.

it's a small world and you smell funny

James Blast wrote:it's a small world and you smell funny

But not of Curry

this is probably not the forum for you mistressteal others are available

anyone fancy a pint?

Magners?

Ice?

mistressteal wrote:Oh don't cry for me Barcelona...

You obviously need glasses. I just refuse to be lectured to by an unelected Muslim and a yank who writes bad poems (Greer) in front of an audience of hand picked muppets.

To which of the following do you object to being lectured to by the most:

1 Unelected

2 Muslim

3 Yank

4 Bad poetess.

Can you provide proof for your last statement, and, if just an opinion, can you please explain how you came to that conclusion given that the BNP and Nick Griffin in particular, are throughly disliked by the mainstream in Britain (or on other words, what kind of reaction were you expecting)?

Maybe it's time The Reptile House reprinted the Sisters Gegen Nazis t-shirts and sew-on patches.

In the meantime, I'm off down The Winchester....

I object to UNELECTED and MUSLIM mainly. Does that answer your question?

I'm starting to think that this thread has served its purpose.

Unless the content takes an upswing, this thread will be closed soon.

mistressteal wrote:I object to UNELECTED and MUSLIM mainly. Does that answer your question?

Thank you for answering.

The unelected objection, I can understand and agree with...up to a point as it depends entirely upon the person and their knowledge, experience.

The second objection, I don't understand, nor accept as valid. A person's religion doesn't mean a thing to me as a zealot is a zealot regardless of religion or political persuasion.

My second question wasn't rhetorical.

fiendy Dragging myself back onto topic for a moment...

The BNP need to be watched carefully and an understanding needs to be made of why there has been a rise in support for them to find out exactly what areas of policy need addressing by the mainstream and a compromise reached.

One thing that certainly needs looking at with greater scrutiny are the immigration and emigration figures, so far only one is made public and that's what seems to be causing most of the distress and shaping perceptions. It might help if the "they're stealing our jobs" meme was addressed properly with a few home truths about certain sections of the white working (benefit?) class given more air time.

One thing that constantly needs to be addressed is the lack of understanding within certain areas of the UK population as to exactly what a fascist is and how that relates, directly, to the BNP. They (the BNP) need to be constantly exposed for what they are. Unfortunately, the Question Time episode, didn't manage well enough, but did the best it could in the short time available. Personally, I wanted it to go on for longer as Nick Griffin was starting to show severe signs of being about to crack under the pressure and not being able to understand why his attitudes and ideas were meeting with such uniform hostility. His paranoia showed clearly with the comment about liberal media conspiracy and "lynch mob" and cries of it all being a "set up" (paranoid sentiments echoed by his supporters as it can't possibly be that reasonable people find the policies of the BNP utterly unpalatable).

It would've been nice to see Nick Griffin pressured into stating categorically, on recorded television, exactly what he meant by "indigenous British people".

I'm sure there will be other opportunities, but this was the best one so far.

Time will tell.

a complete cynic asks re. Griffin's performance, without going into his party's line:

Could it just be a case of the BNP not having a decent 'spin' set-up? - a well briefed and groomed politico could have fended off all the curved balls.

"indigenous British people"

i think he said something about those that "evolved" here after the ice age

amazingly he must be able to trace his own lineage back that far because let's face it, a great many people here are descended from the celts or the romans (who were truly an integrated "race") aren't they?

Syberberg wrote:
The second objection, I don't understand, nor accept as valid. A person's religion doesn't mean a thing to me as a zealot is a zealot regardless of religion or political persuasion.

Come now. I've read enough of your comments on here to know you're smarter than that. You really don't think the content of said zealotry matters? Religion informs moral and political views, and if one is a zealot, the content of the zealotry will be informed by religion. We can throw up our hands and say "all religion is bad," but that's rather simplistic at best, and ignores relevant differences between the moral and therefore political teachings of different religions.

Quiff Boy wrote:... those that "evolved" here after the ice age ...

Utterly laughable. That idea seems to owe something to the racial theories of the Thule Gesellschaft, that the Aryan races' original homeland was in the icy north. It's all obvious bollocks in these days of genetic analysis; the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis has been pretty convincingly demonstrated to be true (all "non-African" humans are descended from a smallish group of people that left Africa ~80000 years ago)

Quite frankly 80000 years is peanuts in terms of human evolution. Even today there's substantially more genetic variation among Africans than there is among non-Africans.

The Celts aren't indigenous either. The Picts might have been but the closest we had to indigenous were the Caledonii, the Brythons and the unknown early Irish peoples, all of whom seemed to disappear. Now, can Nick Griffin or any of his cronies trace their ancestry that far back?

stufarq wrote:The Celts aren't indigenous either. The Picts might have been but the closest we had to indigenous were the Caledonii, the Brythons and the unknown early Irish peoples, all of whom seemed to disappear. Now, can Nick Griffin or any of his cronies trace their ancestry that far back?

from what i've seen, quite a few of them only go back a generation or two until they're apes

It's a rare person in the UK that can go back even as far as the Norman conquest (tends just to be the Aristos that can trace back to one or another of William's Barons) -- but apparently if you can get back to around 1600AD you're related to everyone else in Britain who can trace their ancestry back that far .

Which is kind of the point; we're all related to each other. Or as Bill Hicks put it "it's a round world last time I checked". Separating humanity into "us" and "them", while understandable in terms of human psychology, is stupid in terms of our knowledge of genetics.

<----gets coat

IIRC some tv prog, don't most of us brits carry some african dna? i'd love to have my dna analysed. wonder how much that costs.

Syberberg wrote:

mistressteal wrote:I object to UNELECTED and MUSLIM mainly. Does that answer your question?

Thank you for answering.

The unelected objection, I can understand and agree with...up to a point as it depends entirely upon the person and their knowledge, experience.

The second objection, I don't understand, nor accept as valid. A person's religion doesn't mean a thing to me as a zealot is a zealot regardless of religion or political persuasion.

My second question wasn't rhetorical.

fiendy Dragging myself back onto topic for a moment...

The BNP need to be watched carefully and an understanding needs to be made of why there has been a rise in support for them to find out exactly what areas of policy need addressing by the mainstream and a compromise reached.

One thing that certainly needs looking at with greater scrutiny are the immigration and emigration figures, so far only one is made public and that's what seems to be causing most of the distress and shaping perceptions. It might help if the "they're stealing our jobs" meme was addressed properly with a few home truths about certain sections of the white working (benefit?) class given more air time.

One thing that constantly needs to be addressed is the lack of understanding within certain areas of the UK population as to exactly what a fascist is and how that relates, directly, to the BNP. They (the BNP) need to be constantly exposed for what they are. Unfortunately, the Question Time episode, didn't manage well enough, but did the best it could in the short time available. Personally, I wanted it to go on for longer as Nick Griffin was starting to show severe signs of being about to crack under the pressure and not being able to understand why his attitudes and ideas were meeting with such uniform hostility. His paranoia showed clearly with the comment about liberal media conspiracy and "lynch mob" and cries of it all being a "set up" (paranoid sentiments echoed by his supporters as it can't possibly be that reasonable people find the policies of the BNP utterly unpalatable).

It would've been nice to see Nick Griffin pressured into stating categorically, on recorded television, exactly what he meant by "indigenous British people".

I'm sure there will be other opportunities, but this was the best one so far.

Time will tell.

I would love to expand my answer but I have been informed by the administrator that he will not allow any comment from me that he does not agree as it is his website and he pays for it – so there! Apparently some of my replies have been a little too “bitchy� and has upset some bleeding heart liberal sensibilities (pass the tissues around) and if I continue I will be banned.