I was going to stay out of this but no race should really have the right to claim land as their own anymore, thats backwards thinking.Hitler thought germany had the right to claim several countries i.e. Poland as German territory and look where that led.
And it took us 6 YEARS to defy Hitler and we gave him a LOT of land and resources before he invaded Poland. Clearly our culture was so great if we were willing to give a Racist Fascist Dictator everything he wanted. The BNP bringing back those old ways would clearly be such a good thing, giving into biggots purely on their skin colour, place of birth and minute parts of their complete national identity... hope that's not to off-topic but i won't stand people lying about history to try and create reason.
It's not off-topic as in you made a counter argument still connected to the main topic. A very good counter argument too
no race should have a right to claim land other than their homeland. that can get difficult in some cases, but in the case of Britain it's pretty clear cut. The island is British, its surrounded by water so there can't be any dispute over where the borders are; they are quite simply where the land and the water meet. the Munich agreement gave us time to muster our armed forces. We could not have stood up to him without that time. Wars cannot be won in a day, he had resources and after the munich agreement so did we. WW2 is my speciality in history, so don't accuse me of lying.
Australia is surrounded in water, shout the majority white population hand control over to the aboriginals?
why not, the whites can come back to Britain since most of their ancestors were deported from Britain in the first place.
The problem here is that you either answered the question dishonestly or it is your opinion that white people from Australia should come back Britain so that the Indigenous Australians can take control of the Australian government. The former is disappointing, and latter is ridiculous.
Where would they go, you've already admitted that the country is at breaking point, our resources are stretched as they are, NHS waiting times are at an all time high, do we really need more people with a lax attitude to alcohol.
you're making up a problem then, what the Australians do is entirely up to them. if the indigenous Australians decide they want their country back, as is their right to decide, then the white Australians have the right to move to Britain, because of their heritage. I don't really care if they do or they don't. well all the illegals and hangers on would be gone from this country for a start, as would all the non-integrated foreigners. that's the whole point of nationalism.
Theres a difference between people who aren't integrated and people that are not willing to integrate. The main vice that I have with the BNP is that they're too far right, crossing the boundaries of extreme, and that I believe they talk with a forked tongue.
Cutural differences, language barriers, the fact that they've just moved to another country. If I'm completly honest I don't feel very integrated, but thats ok because I'm white.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKuGrkBPf-s Completly forgot about this, surely even the BNP can be low enough to target children, your childhood is meant to be something that is innocent and targeting children with what imo are facist opinions is completly out of order.
The BNP is by no means the perfect party from what I've read, their anti-homosexual views and their roots as a racist party back in the 90's make them a bit doubtable. That said, I can certainly understand their points against excess immigration and the lack of immigration. We have the very same problem in Denmark, only to a lesser extent. People use to come to Denmark then the male would go work in a kiosk somewhere or start a fast food place while the female would stay at home and take care of the children. In itself no a bad thing, except that as an immigrant you need to get out and learn about the society you have become a part of, you can't expect to move to a new country and then bring all your rules and traditions with you. That's not how it works, countries differ and if you want to live in a country then you have to follow the rules and traditions of that country. I feel it's completely outrageous that there's a Muslim court of law capable of bypassing UK law in favour of Sharia law, basically there is a society within the society, as if they took their country and demanded that the UK give up part of it's rule to that country so they didn't have to change at all. It seems no other UK party is really willing to stop this and most are even afraid of coming off as being racist and therefore allow things like this. If that happened in Denmark then I'd be the first person to join the party here that's heavily against immigration without integration. Even though I disagree with many of their other points - I'd possibly get involved in that party and try to get it to be more moderate on other points.
Actually, as it turns out, The UK Independence Party want to lower immigration but rather than immigrating every non-white in Britain whether they were born here or not, they want to leave the EU. It's part of the EU's original rules that any citizen under the EU is allowed free travel (not cost) to anywhere else in the EU. If we left the EU, then people from Eastern Europe in countries also part of the EU can't freely immigrate to our country. However with many of the Muslim and Indian immigrants, they're beginning to get down to 2nd or 3rd generations. Only those incredibly devout or just immigrated insist that there should be sub-cultures like that while those who are British-born prefer to fit in with our society but keep parts of their original culture within their own private lives. The idea that there is a Muslim court is similar to how they've set up Muslim-only schools, but after we've alienated them due to the 6/7 (7/7 for US) attacks i think they feel like they have to create their own sub-culture on the outskirts of British society. I know, and am friends, with several people who's parents/grandparents emigrated here and they are as normal as the rest of us. I highly doubt that they would go against the law of the land to get a ruling from their religious court.
The historical inaccuracy continues... IF the Munich agreement gave us time to muster our armed forces, then we wouldn't have had to sacrifice a hell of a lot of men at Dunkirk and wait until the Americans joined to once more invade Europe. It's more likely that we kicked off the war so soon not because we knew we'd be able to fight Hitler but because we were afraid of him joining on with Stalin after they signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact to split Poland. I too know a LOT about WW2 and it's causes so i think I'll be able to point out the wrongs of your statements.
If UKIP want to leave the EU, why are they on the gravy train of MEP expenses? the UKIP leader claimed £2million and refuses to have his accounts audited. likewise, so do all the other UKIP MEPs. 80% of donations to that party disappeared under the 'miscellaneous expenses' banner, and the party does not want their expenses published. Now why might that be? Maybe they're afraid of their voters finding out where the money actually went. Additionally, why have they got MEPs that want reform of the EU rather than leaving it entirely?. The Americans did not join until the last 6 months of the war, by which time the allies held the upper hand already. All the Americans did was helped bring the end of the war sooner. Allied victory was already assured, it was just a case of when. Also incorrect on the Dunkirk statement, a beach assault like that will of course have massive casualties. it was thanks to the so-called 'phoney war' that we had the men to assault the beaches, and the air superiority to win the battle of Britain. It was this allied air superiority that foiled Operation Sealion, the planned Nazi invasion of Britain.
