Nick Griffin’s hidden agenda
Posted: May 29, 2009 Filed under: Politics | Tags: BNP, Britain, David Duke, KKK, Nationalism, Politics, Racist 32 Comments »I’m surprised that I’ve never seen the above clip before. I’m equally surprised that it only has just under 9,000 views. This is the kind of evidence that needs to be spread far and wide. Nick Griffin openly declares that the BNP hide behind a soft lexis of propaganda in order to gain popularity. Perhaps more shockingly, he happily reveals his true agenda – a whites-only Britain.
In the video, Griffin imparts BNP spin-tactics. He says:
There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The British National Party isn’t about selling out its ideas – which are your ideas too – but we are determined now to sell them. That means to use saleable words
Basically, Griffin has told an audience consisting of David Duke supporters, i.e. racists, that the BNP holds the same views. He categorically says that the BNP has not changed at its core. It’s still the same fascist National Front that it used to be. Yet the BNP is gaining popularity. Some people are starting believe that they aren’t racist, just realist. They’re falling for the softly-softly BNP spin and being lured in by the buzz-words. Griffin sheds light on their new propaganda tactic:
[selling our ideas] basically means using saleable words…freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable.
Griffin clearly identifies areas that the BNP can manipulate and distort in order to gain support for the party. The idea that your freedom is at risk from foreign invaders, you should feel insecure because of the risk of terrorism, misrepresenting perceptions of political correctness as erosion of identity and heritage – I could go on. Hyperbole, fear-mongering and scapegoats are the BNP’s biggest weapons.
The man showed that he is intent on duping the public into thinking the BNP holds legitimate views when he said if the BNP is “subtle enough” then they may find themselves in control of the media, and subsequently in a position to brainwash the electorate into wanting the removal of all non-whites from Britain. This is abhorrent, scary and once again highlights that the BNP are not fit to be listed as a political party.
Griffin says:
“If you hold that [fascist policy] out as your sole aim to start with, you’re going to get nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity.”
The evidence just comes through thick and fast. The BNP do not want non-whites in Britain, no matter what they say in the press or on their website. They will use the public’s desperation at our current ruling elite to gain popularity and pursue their hidden motives. The truth lies under the surface as has been proven time and time and time again.
Nick Griffin once said:
Without the white race nothing matters. [Other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create “Black Britons”, while we affirm that non-Whites have no place here at all and will not rest until every last one has left our land.
There’s no room for the BNP in Britain.
What would be wrong with an all white Britain? Did blacks and other colored people originate in Britain? No, they did not. White English speaking people originate in Britain, and they have no other homeland to go to. Blacks have all of Africa to go to. Britain is a small island group; why should it not be all white and let the rest go somewhere else to have their savage societies? Why must it be in the middle of the homeland of the white, English speaking people? It makes no sense at all.
Don’t you know we all originate form Africa?
And if we sent immigrants back home the NHS would collapse overnight with 58% of doctors being from a minority.
Oh SHIT, it’s HITLER, he’s back from the dead.
“Savage societies”? A society where people are discriminated based on their ethnicity is perhaps the most savage of all.
All your talk of “homeland” is just racist, nationalistic tosh.
Those Britons who can trace their recent ancestors to Africa are no less our brothers and sisters than those whose families have lived in Derby or York for generations. In fact, those living and born in foreign lands are no less our siblings. We all share common ancestors.
“This is abhorrent, scary and once again highlights that the BNP are not fit to be listed as a political party.”
I’m in two minds about this, but the KKK speech makes the most compelling case for kicking the BNP out of democratic politics. Media control is not how democracy works.
Why do we need an all-white Britain? Why is race important? Civilisation has developed so we are now able to move all around the globe and people of different races come into contact. This started hundreds, even thousands of years ago. Therefore you get inter-racial reproduction. It’s a natural progression that you cannot escape.
It’s part and parcel of global development as we move through time.
You say “blacks have all of Africa to go to”. This is a ridiculous statement. What about the black people who aren’t immigrants? You know, those who were born and raised here. They’re British too. The British nationality is not defined by race.
The society in which you are brought up in defines your nationality.
“go somewhere else to have their savage societies” That is highly offensive. Why do you think non-whites are “savage”?
Immigration over the years has led us to a position where we have non-whites in our country. This is not a bad thing. It’s not about ‘them and us’ when it comes to race. The colour of my skin does not play any part in what kind of person I am.
Ethnic cleansing?
The only people being ethnically cleansed in this country are the white native brits son.
How are white native brits being cleansed?
And can you please explain the term native?
As I believe that most people are not native to this land. For explain if i go back a couple of generations my ancestors are all from Ireland, but i’ve lived in Scotland all of my life.
I believe that is also true for most “British” people
How?
Put pianfully simple it is because white British mums are having white babies at an average of about a quarter of what Muslim mothers are. Now please bear in mind that these are just the Muslim’s already here, not the ones who continue to pour in everyday unabated. Also note I am not including the myriad of other different creeds colours and religions ….that’s another story.
Native? = white. The evil word eh?
That’s the difference.
You view what I see as a natural merging of races through geographic relocation as a deliberate and malicious attempt to wipe out whites.
Yes Shane, you right I (and other BNP supporters do).
Remember what Jack Straw said “The British as a race are not worth saving.”
With soundbytes like that can you blame us.
All this talk of a white-British race is simply ludicrous. The British are, as Eddie Izzard’s brilliant documentary on the subject was titled, a mongrel nation.
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/history/mongrel_nation/index.shtml
[...] This post was Twitted by simonbarrow – Real-url.org [...]
Dr. D and Dave are right.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf
“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”
Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.
The Island Model with Stochastic Migration
Thomas Nagylaki
Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
In fact, immigration creates a genetic graveyard. All genes that are in Britain and all that enter it eventually go extinct. This is the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem. You can see the proof and numerical examples at my blog.
Suppose the UK population leveled off at 75 million and 1/2 million enter per year. Assume people live 75 years. Then 1 million die per year. Subtract 1/2 million from those entering and births are 1/2 million per year. Assume 25 years from birth to parent, then the genetic survival ratio per generation is 1/2 and in 75 years, 1/8 of the genes remain.
I find you citing a 1979 study in genetics a little strange – is there nothing more up to date that proves or disproves that?
The idea that the British gene still exists is ridiculous. There will be such a minority of people who are celtic, and most of them will be in Scotland and Cornwall. We’re a totally mongrel nation, as been proven over and over.
But you know what, biggest of all – I don’t care about “preserving our race”. That’s not to say that I think that being white is a bad thing, I’m just indifferent. Who cares? Like I said above, the merging of races and different nations is inevitable.
If you’re worried about the white race not being preserved then don’t worry, it’s all in the history books. You can’t change history.
You’re white, I’m sure your children are too. It’ll be a very long time before whites are extinct. In fact, I’m not even sure that will even happen.
Much ado about nothing.
Thankyou, sir, for introducing humour to my otherwise dull day.
Your attempts at justifying your racism with science you don’t understand are so brilliantly funny you should start your own comedy tour. I’m sure it would be a hoot at science conferences.
The paper you cite considers one (1) gene, assumes the incoming population all have it, and in exactly the same way, assumes there is no competition and no selection.
In other words, not a real-world test. In the paper’s summary they discuss different (more realistic) scenarios, and their corresponding effects.
There’s an incredible gulf between that one (1) gene in a completely artificial situation, and your theory.
Meanwhile, your own calculations are fundamentally flawed because they assume that each generation of newborns will mix exactly and perfectly with the incoming group, and the genes will be replaced.
So, were .5m domestic newborns mixed in with .5m immigrant newborns (shipped in, necessarily, in some kind of massive cargo operation) and each domestic birth mated with an immigrant birth, AND the immigrant genes completely overpowered the domestic genes (if you believe this you clearly have no idea how genes work) then yes, you would be right.
Instead, it requires some incredible mental acrobatics. Your attempts to baffle with science have fallen flat on their face.
The total number of births is 1/2 the number of people. If 16 people have 8 children and they have 4, and they have 2 and that one has 1, and then none, they go extinct. They don’t have to mix with anyone. There is no requirement for any mixing. The influx limits births at [t] to 1/2 of those present at time [t-1]. There is no mixing assumption needed.
Its a mathematical theorem. Theorems don’t go out of date. The following is, however, a new improved version.
http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/immigration-vanishing-survival-theorem/
If you think of each gene as having a tagged serial number, and that daughter genes get the serial number of both parents and of the date of creation, then the theorem can be understood as follows. All serial numbers in Britain as of any date will eventually disappear without a trace. This is from the continuing immigration.
Its not merging, its replacement. Your gene line doesn’t survive at all. Every gene in Britain ends up extinct.
The genetic history is not so mongrel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics_of_the_British_Isles
Western Europe has genetic homogeneity going back many thousands of years. This is being lost because of contempt or indifference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics_of_the_British_Isles
Genes are not the same across the earth. ASPM DTNBP1 CHRM2 MCPH1 Haplogroup D, etc. These and other genes, or alleles of them to be precise, are not replaceable. The increasing violence and the fall in civility are linked to genes, they are not inexplicable random events.
It is mongrel! Even the wikipedia page you cited states that our genes come from all over Europe!
We’ve had immigration for thousands of years, be it natural or through invasion. As you say:
“All serial numbers in Britain as of any date will eventually disappear without a trace. This is from the continuing immigration.
Its not merging, its replacement. Your gene line doesn’t survive at all. Every gene in Britain ends up extinct.”
So presumably there’s no point in trying to save a line that doesn’t exist, i.e. the “British” gene. It’s already gone.
This is where I lose faith in debating with you:
“The increasing violence and the fall in civility are linked to genes, they are not inexplicable random events”
Anything that you cite as “increasing violence and the fall in civility” has nothing to do with genes. It all relates to socio-factors. To think otherwise is wholly inaccurate and dangerous.
That’s a similar way of thinking to the Bell Curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms
Completely narrow in thought and uses selective facts to back up their point, without taking into account every single piece of evidence.
What about Rhodesia to Zimbabwe? South Africa farm murders. What about this website?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Quoting anything from Wikipedia is hugely irrelevant – Wiki can be edited by anyone at any time and at University, we are not allowed to reference anything from Wikipedia.
It’s not bad as a guide, though.
[...] This post was Twitted by noxhanti – Real-url.org [...]
If you look at IVST link you will see that this takes care of the objections. You can do it gene by gene. The incoming genes only need to have a stable frequency to apply the WIM. For IVST, no stable frequency is needed.
IVST requires an incoming group (1)whose influx per year is bounded away from zero and (2) whose survival probability (or factor) times some constant exceeds that of any other group. In this case, one first proves this group has a survival probability that asymptotes to zero. Then one applies (2) to conclude the same for any other group. This is a squeeze proof.
If a group’s influx per year is greater than epsilon greater than zero, and its survival probability doesn’t go to zero, then its expected value goes to infinity. Since the number of members of the group present at any time is bounded above, an assumption of the IVST, this would be a contradiction. I.e. the average can’t exceed the maximum. Therefore the survival probability has to go to zero.
Since a constant times this group’s survival probability exceeds that of any other group, every group has a survival probability that asymptotes to zero.
The specifics of the biological mechanism are not important. If instead of genes, we have states, then the survival probability of any state goes to zero from an unbounded influx of new states. If you define entropy as S = -k sum p[i,t] ln [i,t], then S has to increase as the p[i] go to zero. This proves the second law of thermodynamics. IVST is a (new) but basic theorem of probability.
Yet again you try and blind with science. You include mathematics (that may or may not be complete tosh) in an attempt to baffle.
You are cooking up ludicrous scenarios, and adding ingredients as you go along. A halving birth rate? That’s new. You specified a constant 0.5m to begin with. That would lead to a population’s extinction on its own, with no need of your hilarious views on immigration.
I’ll admit – I was wrong on the mixing aspect. But you didn’t address that properly. Instead of a complete mix, it would be 0.25m, and then assume that the genes are replaced wholesale. (Which, as pointed out, isn’t how genes work.)
‘IVST’ doesn’t address the criticisms at all. It falls at the first hurdle:
“Assume that… 3. The survival probabilities of the genes… are equal.”
That’s a mighty big assumption, that is completely unrealistic.
The scenarios you have invented are laughable:
Genes are replaced wholesale. (‘You can do it gene by gene’ is hilarious. Thank you. It’s made my day. When you consider the time needed (and no interruptions or variance in the process) it completely rubbishes your ideas.)
“The specifics of the biological mechanism are not important.” They are very much important, as it’s the biological mechanism we’re discussing. Genes don’t “just happen”. Selection (at the very heart of genetics and evolution) occurs. But thrown out.
A ridiculous change in death and birth rates.
Concisely, your ideas are batshit fucking loco. The worst part about all this isn’t your irrational hatred of immigrants, but that I’ve had to spend time pointing out how ridiculous you are. Now I’m going to do something worthwhile.
The assumption of equal survival probability is only done in one version so that its easier to understand. What is needed is a subgroup such that (1) a constant multiple of its survival probability exceeds that of any other subgroup
and (2) its annual influx is bounded away from zero. That is stated above, but you ignored it.
The numerical example is also intended to be easy to understand. When you teach a subject you break it down into simple steps. A complicated proof is too difficult to teach right off. You also need easy to understand examples.
Your own performance shows the value of this time tested truths about teaching. You got things wrong. This grows out of your attitude of contempt and apparent superiority.
Your mentality is to think someone opposed to immigration is stupid and beneath you in intelligence. You don’t want to admit that this is a false assumption. Its the people who are pushing stopping immigration who are right. Having contempt for your teacher is not a way to learn. That is why you skipped over the point that equal survival probability is not needed. It is needed so that you can learn. But to learn you have to try.
The theorem uses the idea of a squeeze proof. The survival probability of a group is squeezed between that of a multiple of an immigrant group and zero. Then one proves that the immigrant group’s survival probability goes to zero. Then one uses that a multiple of the immigrant group’s survival probability exceeds that of any other group, this is an assumption. That then implies that any other group’s survival probability goes to zero.
Applying the theorem in practice then leads to looking at the substitution pressure to see how long it takes. Its again easier to understand fractions like 1/2. So if people live 75 years in the UK and you use 75 million as the population that levels off, and people live 75 years, then 1 million die per year. Then assume 500k enter, then 500k must be born. So the survival ratio is 1/2 per generation. If 250k enter, then 750k are born, so the survival ratio is 3/4.
Its easier to multiply out 1/2 3 times to get 1/8 and see its 3 generations or 75 years assuming 25 years from birth to death.
Did you learn squeeze proofs in calculus? Do you know how to do the proofs of theorems in calculus? I am assuming that most people have either never seen those or didn’t learn them or don’t remember them. If you look at the Nagylaki paper on Wright Island Model, you will notice its harder to learn than the above comments. IVST is easier to learn, but it still requires some work. That is why its set up with easy cases to learn the proof of and easy numerical examples.
Few people go on from a calculus course to a real analysis course. Probability is in a sense a branch of real analysis. It tends to be difficult for people to learn even compared to calculus. So its necessary to make it easier for people. That is what the simpler versions and examples are for. But those are not what is required. Notice how you skipped over how I pointed out less restrictive assumptions than equality.
This is because you are overwhelmed in learning the math. The same applies to students in calculus. They have difficulty with the limit definition and proofs. In practice it takes several courses and many years to learn calculus proofs. During this time, the theorems are simplified so they are easy enough to learn.
You might want to read up on reform calculus. Also search on Henstock Kurzweil integral. This is an integral that some want to teach in introductory calculus. Its in a sense only slightly more complicated than the Riemann integral but does as much as the Lebesgue integral for some theorems.
IVST doesn’t require measure theory to learn. That is one of its advantages. But it does require focusing on the examples and lemmas furnished. Its the attitude of contempt that keeps people of some sophistication but not as much as they think from realizing the BNP is right.
[...] in the European Parliament will be documented and available for the world to see. Given that Griffin has his own racist agenda, which he hides behind a nifty wall of spin, we can perhaps rest assured that he will hang himself [...]
you may not care about the British but millions of us do. while I dont care for griffin or the BNP. I do not want to be subjugated in my own country, by a foriegn religion. I dont care what colour Brits are but there is a difference between a Brit and a foreigner. They can come here all they want but accept our laws and customs. Dont come here for a better life than talk about installing sharia law. dont insult our troops , dont demand our benefits before they have earned them.
I just feel I should clarify here – I do care about the British. What I don’t care about is the specific preservation of race. I’m not bothered. Whatever happens, happens.
I think a lot of what you’re saying is how a many people feel. However, I think we have to be careful that we aren’t over-exposing ourselves to distortion, misrepresentation and exaggerated accounts in the press.
For example, there are many different ways in which Sharia Law is practiced – some ways are more extreme than others. As I understand it, and please anyone correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s meant to be a set of Islamic regulations on the way they should manage finances, handle family disputes and things like that. They have Sharia courts here, and they’re only allowed because they don’t contravene with any of our legislation. So, effectively, it’s just an element of being a muslim for some people. Sort of like living by the commandments for Christians, I guess.
I agree that immigrants shouldn’t come here to solely claim benefits (although I think this is a lot harder than made out) – but again I don’t think this is often the case, so we should be careful not to turn a minor issue into a major one.
I think a lot of the anger and resentment towards immigrants, Islam etc is created and perpetuated out of control by certain elements in our media.
Personally, I dislike Islam because I’m an atheist. So I hold it in the same light as I would Christianity, or Judaism.
Old Atlantic:
It doesn’t matter, though, does it. I don’t care if you’re right or wrong in what you’re saying – it has no significant consequence if races merge or disappear.
Immigration is good and we need it. Perhaps not on a mass scale, but our economy necessitates it, nonetheless. So, whilst the person opposing immigration may not be stupid, the notion that it’s bad is.
Races do matter. Its not merging, its replacement. All the white genes disappear. The result is no British survive in any form, merged or not. What makes you think that is good? Because you think white=racist? So the solution is genocide the white race?
Immigration is good is a line that’s been pushed on you to justify what is in fact bad. You have been told you are racist so you don’t deserve a homeland. When the whites are gone, they won’t even call it Britain. It will have a new name in a new language. Nothing will be left. Not genes, not culture, not civilization. When your race is replaced, your heritage is too.
The evolution that brought on the development of the white race took place under very special circumstances. Those can’t be replicated. The genes that were developed over that time are unique.
There is no economic need for immigration. Immigrants cost more in benefits than they pay in taxes. If you want to have health care later in life, you won’t have it when the country is bankrupt. Ireland has been downgraded from AAA to AA. The UK is on credit watch to lose its AAA rating from one of the rating agencies. Is that progress? That’s becoming a 3rd world country.
Races don’t matter. It’s not genocide at all, it’s natural. Being British isn’t confined to being white, you know. We already have mongrel genes anyway, so the ‘true British gene’ died out a very long time ago. Races bare no relevance.
I don’t think “white = racist”. Being white, for me, means nothing. I don’t believe in race-pride. It’s just coincidence of birth.
“There is no economic need for immigration. Immigrants cost more in benefits than they pay in taxes.”
So the 14,000 shortfall in NHS nurses – what do we do? We can’t supply them ourseleves, so immigration is the only answer. We do rely on immigration in many areas, because we have to. So, immigration IS good. It covers us.
“When the whites are gone, they won’t even call it Britain. It will have a new name in a new language. Nothing will be left. Not genes, not culture, not civilization. When your race is replaced, your heritage is too.”
Paranoid bollocks. Utter, utter rubbish.
You talk a big game, but you’re full of fallacy.
[...] Shane Croucher reckons he has found Nick Griffin’s secret [...]