Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nick Griffin covers Climate gate and denounces NWO Scam

page: 10
105
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by seethelight
No more than Nevil Chamberlain was anti-Semitic.

I'm not saying that he's racist but that his fews are simple-minded and wrong... and that's not a surprise considering his views are shared by big business and racists.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by seethelight]


You are implying he is racist, that is exactly what you are doing when you highlight other groups who may or may not be share his views.


Big business does not share his views- go fetch me a random list of big business ok, now for each one check if they have a policy that is pro or anti AGW, can you do that jew hater?


You sir are an idiot.

Russia helped the US in world war 2, so Russians must've been pro-Democracy.

Riiiight?

the truth is that people with wildly divergent views on some issues often band together when it suits them.

but that shouldn't stop you from considering the source... if you wanna align yourself with idiots then so be it... I don't.

And by the way, why in the world do you think I'm anti-Jewish... how weird.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
I agree, NG does represent the racist backwards views of many of the Brits very well.

That's why he's been elected.



As opposed to those people who have continually elected moral degenerates for 40 years that has allowed crime to explode?



After all, you guys seem to forget how your asses were handed to you by the Indians, and The Americans, etc. etc.


That actually makes no sense- you are backing the Indians for kicking out the British, so presumably you now support the British in kicking out, say, anyone of Indian heritage?



Hell, you can't even keep the dirty foreigners out of Britain.


Our traitorous elite didn't- but the storm is brewing, and I reserve most of my ire, not for the illegals but for the traitors and their lackeys



But you are allowed one anti-Semitic, racist, gay hating, black hating, manipulative, disingenuous bastard to represent your backwards thinking views.

So yeah, hate jews, hate darkies, and hate Britain, just like your hero. But don't expect the rest of us to sieg heil to your own personal Hitler.



You are a jew hater, jew hater- and people like you are fostering the storm with your hypocrisy and denials, unfortunately the upheval will not be nice



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by seethelight
No more than Nevil Chamberlain was anti-Semitic.

I'm not saying that he's racist but that his fews are simple-minded and wrong... and that's not a surprise considering his views are shared by big business and racists.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by seethelight]


You are implying he is racist, that is exactly what you are doing when you highlight other groups who may or may not be share his views.


Big business does not share his views- go fetch me a random list of big business ok, now for each one check if they have a policy that is pro or anti AGW, can you do that jew hater?


Business is by its very nature anti-tax.

How about you find a list of big businesses that are pro-tax.

That would be the real test.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
You sir are an idiot.



from you that is a compliment



Russia helped the US in world war 2, so Russians must've been pro-Democracy.

Riiiight?


No, that would make sense if it was me making the insinuations with questioning AGW and being linked to the mob, racists etc- that is you doing that, dont you remember, did you forget to take your lucozade?




the truth is that people with wildly divergent views on some issues often band together when it suits them.

but that shouldn't stop you from considering the source... if you wanna align yourself with idiots then so be it... I don't.



more contradictions




And by the way, why in the world do you think I'm anti-Jewish... how weird.


You made up lies that I hate gays and I am a gay basher- you now hate Jews, that's how this is working



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by seethelight
You sir are an idiot.



from you that is a compliment



Russia helped the US in world war 2, so Russians must've been pro-Democracy.

Riiiight?


No, that would make sense if it was me making the insinuations with questioning AGW and being linked to the mob, racists etc- that is you doing that, dont you remember, did you forget to take your lucozade?




the truth is that people with wildly divergent views on some issues often band together when it suits them.

but that shouldn't stop you from considering the source... if you wanna align yourself with idiots then so be it... I don't.



more contradictions




And by the way, why in the world do you think I'm anti-Jewish... how weird.


You made up lies that I hate gays and I am a gay basher- you now hate Jews, that's how this is working


You must be joking.

You're two examples of small gov working were someone taking a pay cut and ending a gay pride parade. You also support the anti-gay NG.

Doesn't take much to connect the dots there.

And in fact connecting the dots is really what my point is.

If you think that I meant the connection between the mob and business is racism then you're a real idiot. It's obviously financial.

You'd like me to be calling this guy racist because then you could have that argument instead of one you're desperate not to have, which is why you choose to let business be your master instead of democracy.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


I beleive (from experience) supporting the current bunch of twits and their climate change agenda is a huge mistake, and will in the long term cause more damage that good.

What people miss, when they chatter on about man made climate change, is the man made solutions, and part of that is the interpretation and implementation process, and it is people like me who try to interpret and implement these directives.. It is not the government that implements these regulations it is the corporate world, that is the real driving force behind what happens on the ground.

And the corporate world is the one driving what those democratically elected politicians say.. As I said, even nations like France pass directives into law and yet, do not follow through because their businesses do not want to implement those regulations, so they don't. Do you know how hard it is to comply in country that has a law but no way of complying with that law...

Do you see the problems, the largest nations neglect their promises due to corporate pressure.. how will that effect that climate change!.. it is the man made solutions that are failing now and will continue to fail.. how many hundred, if not thousands of legal teams are eagerly waiting on what comes out of the current set of meetings so they can pick it apart, implement that revenue making parts and ignore the rest..

and those who support man made climate change in their words that failing will be to the cost of the planet.

Anyway, you appear to have a huge problem with the BNP and indeed a larger problem with Britain.. So is it really necessary to insult all British people with comments about those Brits who had their asses handed to them in India/American revolution!

I'm going to end this conversation now by saying that I hope you manage to resolve your issues with Britain and the British.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
You're two examples of small gov working were someone taking a pay cut and ending a gay pride parade.



They are not the only 2 examples in the world, they were just 2 examples

* The first one, which you ignored, was Poland, Communist huge govt- democratic smaller govt

* In England I used the term "green shots", because there has been nothing but increasingly big government since the 60s- the Doncaster one is encouraging, less councillors, they had a ridiculous number. England will only work when a proper right wing party emerges, it won't be the Tories, they need to wither and die




You also support the anti-gay NG.


I support some of his policies, but not all- I also think that NG would not interfere with someone's sexuality, nor would I, I do not think the state should tell another adult who they should or should not have sex with



Doesn't take much to connect the dots there.



..............................and there he is, back to form



And in fact connecting the dots is really what my point is.


yep, confirmed what he first denied- you basically called the chap a racist with your inferences- same way as I can call you a paedo of Polanksi or Glitter supports AGW?



If you think that I meant the connection between the mob and business is racism then you're a real idiot. It's obviously financial.


Racism was part of your inference, you mentioned several groupings, with regards to the mob, no, I never thought that was racism, that would be odd, unless it was some sort of "racist" mob



You'd like me to be calling this guy racist because then you could have that argument instead of one you're desperate not to have, which is why you choose to let business be your master instead of democracy.



You inferred he was racist.


You choose big govt/big business- I choose small govt and to hell with the multi nationals



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Viper2097
 



There are some things that I am curious about though, You say that no one is really indigenously British. Well im confused because im from Australia and im not indigenously Australian. The Aborigines are called the "Indigenous Australians"


In the UK, there's been so much immigration and invasions over the past several thousand years that there isn't really an indigenous race. We are a mixture of many races. It's more the BNP's definition of indigenous that is important, as from what point in time do we determine who is indigenous - you simply cannot.

We have many eastern european's who have settled here over the past few years. Do they deserve to be treated as lesser people than the eastern european's who settled here after 1945? Are the children and the grandchildren of those settlers indigenous according to the BNP? But wait... they're white and can join the BNP now, but if they're not really indigenous, and according to Griffin he wants to "kick" them all out, then you can see the idiocy of it all. He says behind closed doors "kick them all out", and makes scathing attacks against Polish workers for taking English jobs, and then on BBC question time he quietly says "oh you can stay, I don't mind" to a British Pakistani. He can't even tell us what he really thinks, because he's a coward! He'll pander to the conspiracists, but he'll probably change his mind sometime in future if it suits him.

This man (Griffin) does not have a clue what he is going to say the next day, except how he's going to make himself look less extreme than when he's behind closed doors.


I always thought that (with my roots traced back to the 1st and 2nd fleet) that I was indigenously British and now you are telling me that im not?
Where am I indigenous to then?


You would have to find out what levels of immigration and flows of people into and out of Britain were to and from around that time. If you go way back, you'll probably find eastern european and middle eastern bloodlines. Humans migrated west across from the Caucasus region in Eastern Europe & the middle east several thousand years ago.

My original point being that the BNP cannot determine who is say 99.9% English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh, and so we don't know who's indigenous, and if anyone really is. They may define their own version of "indigenous", but it serves no-one apart from themselves.


if the Global political elite said that Israel had to be multicultural and more diverse,


25% of Israeli's aren't Jewish.

20.3% are arabs , and around 75% are Jews.

92.1% are white in Britain.


Why are whites not entitled to there own living space just like every single other race in the world,


There's plenty of places in Britain where the majority are whites. Not that it really matters, but just to correct you on that.


Why is the white race being singled out?


It isn't.


What is everyone so scared of? Why are all non whites so against a 99% whites only country? Every other race has one. Are they afraid of being left behind or something?


We are all human beings, and should be treated equally. It's nothing to do with how many of each race should live here, it's about the people who DO live here now.


At the end of the day, more and more White people are getting sick of handing out money to the poor struggling "brown people" as you put it and just getting slapped in the face and called a racist every time something doesnt go their way.


I actually agree with reducing immigration and deporting the immigrants with links to crime and terrorism, but I don't want to elect a fascist party in order to do that. When someone openly says on camera as part of a political party extremely racist and fascist comments, then of course that makes them a fascist.

People do throw around the racist card a bit too often, when actually there's legitimate debates about islam for example. But there's no disputing that anyone who openly goes in front of a camera and says he wants to get rid of all foreigners from Britain, is a racist & fascist.


There is a reason that Nick Griffins popularity is skyrocketing and that is because alot of people are waking up and saying "Enough is Enough"


His support is not "skyrocketing". The good people who may have voted BNP have cut their hand off to fix a broken finger, and the racists who vote BNP are not the type of people you want to be in the same room as.


Look I know that I must appear to have VERY strong views but even not as a British citizen, I know that if Nick Griffin did get into power, well.. Then white people would live better, there would be less crime, the job shortage would be all but over,


I haven't seen any capability of running a country shown by the BNP. It seems to me that their only policies are immigration. They don't know or seem to even care about running the rest of the country.

There's always short-term gains in fascist doctrines, that lead to hatred that fuels the worst in humanity shortly afterwards.

Here's something for you to consider: If we exterminate all the muslims, then we won't get any more islamic wars. How about if we just exterminate the whole human race, then we won't have any more economic problems to worry about. Both solve a few problems, just forget the bigger ones that they cause!



Nick Griffin separates people into 3 groups.
1) The Ethnically British - The Irish, Scotts, Welsh and English
2) The Civicly British - People from foreign lands who come to England for a better life and ready to assimilate into the deep culture that is English Culture
3) The rest - Everyone who comes to Britain bringing their own beliefs and not at all ready to assimilate.


And I wonder if this definition of "assimilate into culture" can vary as much as the BNP's definition of "indigenous"!



It is the 3rd group who Nick Griffin and a Large number of people from the UK do NOT believe belong in England. What is so wrong with deporting them? There are other cultures in the world (who actually make up the majority of group 3) who wouldnt be happy with just deporting you from their native lands.. oh no... They would stone you.


Griffin associates himself with KKK ideals behind closed-doors. This is his way of pretending to have more moderate views. The BNP have not even defined in their policies who is to be deported clearly enough to distinguish it from fascism.

Allowing someone to settle for a few years and then dragging them to the airport where they receive stoning punishment after returning to their homeland as a traitor for daring to speak about the atrocites & repression they have witnessed, is just as bad a crime, if not worse. Oh I'm sorry Miss, but you aren't wearing English clothes, so you must leave right away, and it's tough if the islamic regime want to rape you and then stone you to death!

[edit on 7-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
In the UK, there's been so much immigration and invasions over the past several thousand years that there isn't really an indigenous race. We are a mixture of many races. It's more the BNP's definition of indigenous that is important, as from what point in time do we determine who is indigenous - you simply cannot.



We are not a mixture of "many races" though, most of us are still white- in addition, until the latter half of the 20th century, this was still a "white" country- the odd tanned roman centurion did not a mixed race nation make, much as that oddball Bonnie Greer would like it!

Now I have no wish to, nor do I support removing non white British (though I do support removing illegal immigrants of any colour) people, but why some people have an issue with the history of this land being one of white people is strange, they seem to have race issues themselves



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Regarding biblical prophecy and "one world religion":

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Now to figure out what the mark of the beast is...maybe the money scheme used to support this power structure.

Although I'm a believer in man made climate change, I also love an interesting metaphor and a bit of a riddle..

What is another name for a mark? How about a footprint?

Like a carbon footprint?

How does it go? Every man will carry the mark of beast? So every man will be asked to calculate their carbon footprint. Sounds about right.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Of course the history of Britain is a mixture of whites, but the same white European's ancestors travelled from Africa and later the Middle East as they progresed west through Europe. Skin colour change is a part of natural evolution to adapt to climate changes. If Griffin lived in a different era, he would talk the same crap but have his own different view of indigenous British people. The first settlers would probably have not been white anyway, as it takes thousands of years for skin adaptations.

I don't want to vote for a man who associates himself with the same ideals as the KKK who thinks lynching someone on the basis of their skin colour.

And don't forget Griffin also discrimates against whites from Europe - the same kind of people he spoke to in this speech on the OP video. He said before "go home poles, go home kosavans", and then later said to a pakistani man that he gives permission for him to stay. I don't see much consistency between what he says on one day and the next, and what he claims to believe in behind closed-doors and in front of the BBC camera.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Of course the history of Britain is a mixture of whites, but the same white European's ancestors travelled from Africa and later the Middle East as they progresed west through Europe. Skin colour change is a part of natural evolution to adapt to climate changes. If Griffin lived in a different era, he would talk the same crap but have his own different view of indigenous British people. The first settlers would probably have not been white anyway, as it takes thousands of years for skin adaptations.


Couple of points, human development, emergence etc is far from settled, and due to the lengths of time I could hypothesise that Africans used to be white, but best guess is they weren't same as the original inhabitants here were not black.



I don't want to vote for a man who associates himself with the same ideals as the KKK who thinks lynching someone on the basis of their skin colour.


For all the hysterics about the KKK i suspect that the KKK does not support lynching someone because they are non white- I would be amazed if this was their current view- I do not even know their old policies lol, ie, was lynching a non white an actual policy- history changes thigs, the demoractic party used to be mired in slavery.

New Labour is filled with unrepentant communists, I do not wish to be associated with them




And don't forget Griffin also discrimates against whites from Europe - the same kind of people he spoke to in this speech on the OP video. He said before "go home poles, go home kosavans", and then later said to a pakistani man that he gives permission for him to stay. I don't see much consistency between what he says on one day and the next, and what he claims to believe in behind closed-doors and in front of the BBC camera.
[edit on 7-12-2009 by john124]


Of course he does not want loads of Kosovans here, neither would most of us I suspect- most of us never asked or consented to the mass immigration of the past 15 years- my view would always have been controlled and moderate immigration (without a policy of multi culturalism) is fine- the successive ruling elites have deliberately changed the game somewhat, meaning I would have hardened my views.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 



Couple of points, human development, emergence etc is far from settled, and due to the lengths of time I could hypothesise that Africans used to be white, but best guess is they weren't same as the original inhabitants here were not black.


Good point. The original habitants were probably very much different than the white British person.


Of course he does not want loads of Kosovans here,.


The more important point I made was that he does not have consistent views on who should be allowed to stay, and who should be allowed to go. There he is choosing to discriminate on the basis of race.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
I think this video showing us his actual views about different cultures are quite obvious, and they are fascist.

Do you understand the meaning of 'fascism'? And do you agree that people can change and develop their beliefs over time? Did you know that half of Labour's biggest players used to be involved with Communist organisations? Remind me - just how non-fascist Communist organisations tend to be?


Originally posted by john124
Can you define indigenous in terms of the BNP policies and their use of the word indigenous.

No, I will not. Partly because I've done so a million times before and partly because you wouldn't ask any other ethnic group in the world to prove their status as indigenous. What you're doing by asking this is using a common left-wing, Marxist technique. That you'd even try to deny the ethnic groups of Britain their identity is both racist and insulting. If you're so interested in ethnic purity, perhaps you should be either fighting for or against genuine nazis. The BNP are not eugenicists, nazis, fascists or obsessed with genetic purity. They just want the same recognition for the original people of Britain as the rest of the world (who are often more 'mixed' and less ancient than the British by the way).


Originally posted by john124
If Labour felt so threatened by the BNP, why didn't they campaign more in the areas where the BNP won seats? If anything, the govt. here has done little to prevent the BNP from gaining a little momentum, but now they've lost this momentum because they have to allow non-whites to join.

Firstly, there was a nationwide campaign to defame the BNP in the run-up to the Euro elections (the faked Gurkha leaflet by the Sun etc), as well as localised campaigns. Everywhere the BNP campaigned, the opposition parties banded together to produce anti-BNP leaflets etc (because all the other parties are interested only in protecting their new world order agenda). What makes you think Labour didn't campaign against the BNP anyway? Furthermore, anyone with a brain knows that LibLab&Con are the same political entity offering only the illusion of democracy. So it wouldn't matter if it were any of those three specifically campaigning against the BNP. They're all in bed together. Secondly, that the BNP now allow non-indigenous people to join is actually going to gain them momentum - you just watch (and weep).


Originally posted by john124
The BNP members do this themselves by saying really stupid & fascist comments of their own. There's no conspiracy in this: the BNP are fascist.

Please, please, please look up the definition of 'fascism'. It is the current Establishment parties and their new world order which are fascist. Fascism in 2009 is coming from 'the left' not 'the right' like it did last time. Please wake up to this fact, they're taking us all for mugs and you're helping them.

By the way, who's more evil - Gordon Brown or Nick Griffin? A man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent 'brown people', or a man who wants to preserve an ancient ethnic group?

[edit on 7/12/2009 by Cythraul]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by blupblup


Thanks for bringing that video here, I couldn't find that one earlier. This is the real Nick Griffin - out to trick people into thinking they aren't v. extreme.




You're welcome mate



[edit on 7/12/09 by blupblup]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Good point. The original habitants were probably very much different than the white British person.



Not that I actually said that, I said we could hypothesise about skin colour back then all day, best guess is it is white- following your tack maybe I could move to Australia and call myself ABORIGINE and I could defend my position by saying "NO ONE KNOWS WHAT COLOUR YOU WERE WAY BACK IN THE DAY"




The more important point I made was that he does not have consistent views on who should be allowed to stay, and who should be allowed to go. There he is choosing to discriminate on the basis of race.
[edit on 7-12-2009 by john124]


as you have admitted whites would also be included, it seems he is an equal opportunity deporter



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
The more important point I made was that he does not have consistent views on who should be allowed to stay, and who should be allowed to go. There he is choosing to discriminate on the basis of race.

The only people he would suggest leave would be illegal immigrants and those of immigrant background who'd rather not adopt British values. And no, the BNP would not discriminate on the grounds of 'race', only ancestry. And even then, the only discrimination would be in terms of who belongs to the indigenous ethnic group. No-one would dare tell Native Americans they can't decide who is one of them and who is not. No-one would call them racist. And no non-indigenous person in Britain who is willing to adopt Britain's values would be treated any differently in terms of law or decency.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 



Do you understand the meaning og 'fascism'?


YES!


And do you agree that people can change and develop their beliefs over time?


Of course. Griffin hasn't changed though.


No, I will not. Partly because I've done so a million times before and partly because you wouldn't ask any other ethnic group in the world to prove their status as indigenous.


Let's try not to change from my original point: that was that Griffin would not know who to deport, as it's not possible to determine who is indigenous to Britain. But of course he'll have his own personal guideline to determine that, which makes no sense to any rational person.


If you're so interested in ethnic purity, perhaps you should be either fighting for or against genuine nazis.


Perhaps you should read and understand what I actually said - which is that the BNP cannot determine who is indigenous to Britain.


The BNP are not eugenicists, nazis, fascists or obsessed with genetic purity. They just want the same recognition for the indigenous people of Britain as the rest of the world (who are often more mixed and less ancient than the British).


And that's when they're not getting drunk, behaving like childish thugs, and thinking about killing Obama, and in their drunken haze stupidly confusing the difference between a golliwog doll and a person. You are in for a rude awakening if you think this bunch of half-wits are going to do anything good for Britain.


the opposition parties banded together to produce anti-BNP leaflets etc (because all the other parties are interested only in protecting their new world order agenda)


Or maybe like me, they don't want a fascist to gain too many seats.


the BNP now allow non-indigenous people to join is actually going to gain them momentum - you just watch (and weep).


The BNP are always going to gain seats in places in Northern England, where a significant number of people are racist thugs in those particular constituencies. Most people see the BNP for what they are, and the more publicity they get, the less that the more intellegent people will vote for them.

If the BNP ever become more popular, it will only be because the current trash inside the BNP has been replaced by a more educated section of society from all ethnic groups. Then it won't be racist, because the people in it won't be racist. So I will welcome that - when we can wave goodbye and good riddance to trash like Griffin.


By the way, who's more evil - Gordon Brown or Nick Griffin? A man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent 'brown people'


A false comparison because Griffin has not had the same level of power. Also I do not have to like either of those people - disliking one does not mean I like the other. Someone can have had enough of mainstream, but still find the BNP completely distasteful.


, or a man who wants to preserve an ancient ethnic group?


Is that after they've got pissed-up, and shot a few golliwogs with a paintball gun!



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 



Not that I actually said that, I said we could hypothesise about skin colour back then all day, best guess is it is white- following your tack maybe I could move to Australia and call myself ABORIGINE and I could defend my position by saying "NO ONE KNOWS WHAT COLOUR YOU WERE WAY BACK IN THE DAY"


No, because it's scientific to say that the inhabitents of eastern europe travelled across europe into Britain during the ice-age before the ice melted, and therefore they adapted to their environment slowly over time. So I'm saying:


The original habitants were probably very much different than the white British person.


But whatever they looked like is irrelevant, because it's where they travelled from that is the more relevant to determine an indigenous race, which is of course an eastern european descent.


as you have admitted whites would also be included, it seems he is an equal opportunity deporter


These weren't in the same speech. One day he picks on one group, the next it's another. And later on, he retracts. That's where the inconsistency lies and makes it unequal.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by john124]






top topics



 
105
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join