Nick Griffin of BNP: Let's Sink The Boats Of Immigrants

[Ophiuchus]

...yet still, there are people who don't get why I think they're too much of a joke to take as any real threat.

Well played Mr Griffin, that was just the laugh I needed this evening.

 

[LaughingTarget]

Good to confirm that my complete and utter loathing for that party isn't misplaced.

How did he even get elected? I live in the south and we (mostly) don't elect people like this tard.

Ahem, is it just me or are you pointing the blame for the BNP getting those seats at the north? That's not fair, unfortunately there are racist retards everywhere, including the south.

Oh, sorry if you misunderstood, I meant the Southern United States, where churches are everywhere and we're still proud of the confederacy.

Well, to be fair, we do have a few crazies in Congress, though they usually have the decency not to speak too loudly and openly about this kind of shit to anyone but their constituencies.

Still, it probably also depends on where in the South you are. Anywhere close to Mexico? I can see blatantly immigrant-hating politicians getting elected in the southwestern states, except maybe (maybe, if my faith in humanity isn't too high) California, partly due to being mostly liberal, and partly because we have enough Latinos and Asians to form a rather huge voting base by themselves.

It's a common problem during more difficult economic times. So. Cal is also heavily anti-immigrant, you don't get the more tolerant ones until you go further north, and that's mostly because they're unaware of the impacts of unrestricted illegal movement. When borders are just flung open to all comers, it tends to attract a less desirable type. Ranchers in Arizona and Texas as well as residents around and south of San Diego, CA (ever wonder why San Diego is a reliably Republican stronghold in California?) have huge problems with illegals killing livestock and damaging water distribution systems for personal consumption as well as frequent home invasions from migrant workers and general trashing of people's land.

Stereotypes are developed because a large enough segment of the apparent population do, in fact, behave that way. Legitimate immigrants to America are respectable, honest and hard working people. The majority of the illegal population is destructive and criminally prone. Illegals earned this reputation from pure, objective fact. They are destructive, both physically, as noted by the rancher problem, and economically, as they generally drain educational resources and medical resources. Illegals, primarily in more permissive states like California, consume huge amounts of resources just to hire specialized teachers just to teach them in Spanish since this particular group refuses to integrate into the local culture (why would they, their plan is just to leave after getting money) and choke off hospital care by cramming into emergency rooms. The Los Angeles area, for example, has been losing hospital space despite its growing population, this is purely because of the illegal population coupled with strict California laws making it illegal to inquire about resident status even for the most, non-life threatening problems (illegals can get free prescriptions for minor problems by just showing up at a California emergency room).

This disrespectful behavior of what amounts to human locust creates a very much understandable distrust and, in some cases, outright hatred of the immigrant population. Because individuals are unable to determine if the immigrant is your valuable, honest legal type or your destructive illegal type, the individual tends to side with the least destructive assumption, which is to assume all immigrants are destructive illegals. They view it as it's better to lose a few legal ones that to continue to permit the illegals.

The UK is falling under the same problem. With a large immigrant population and permissive immigration law, particularly toward impoverished nations, native UK citizens view this as an invasion of welfare grabbers who have no intention of contributing to UK society and wish to bring the poverty and third world with them as a check on. This friction is what causes people like Griffin to get elected into public office. The people are not happy about it.

Whose fault is it? Well, both sides are to blame. Natives need to stop being judgmental to individuals because they belong to a broad group and immigrants need to realize the reason they're leaving their native lands is because their homeland is a horrible place to live. Immigrants have to understand that they cannot bring with them their culture, language and norms. This eliminates many chances to integrate into society since it takes a command of the local language to succeed and they also fail to realize that their norms and cultures are WHY the area they are fleeing from is in such poor condition. Not all cultures are equal, most world cultures are objectively inferior since they've developed the poverty and despotism that many are so desperate to flee.

 

[BlueMage]

Leave the sinking of immigrants to places actually surrounded by water plzkthx - we're better at it than you are.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

NOOO! We are as worms! WORMS!!

<color=white>So that's the HTML tag for this. Wonder if I could use it to sub for spoiler tags or multiple line breaks.

Indeed you are.
Now perish!

<color=white>You probably could...Happy to help, incidentally.

Well, if you say so. *jumps off a cliff*
Wow, Max is baing helpful. Scary...
Anyway, so Mr Griffin is saying that we should save the lives of Africans coming over here, by killing them.

Spoiler: Well done, Mr Hypocrite

I really should stop using that sound effect, shouldn't I?

It's things like this that I can't stand about the BNP. Their policies are something I just can't agree with.

 

[timmytom1]

How about instead of using the explosives to blow up the boat of refugees/immigrants,we use it to blow you and your bigoted party sky high Mr Griffin?

 

[razer17]

I mean, imagine if they blew up a boat they thought was full of illegal immigrants, but was really just full of normal people?

because immigrants aren't real people after all

By the wya this comment is seeping wiht sarcasm, just so i dont get reported.

 

[Byrne]

He said something wild to get on the news. I guess it worked.

The more that politicians and pressure groups demonise them, the more support they're going to get from those who don't understand economics, and are generally just dim.

It is true though that immigration puts downward pressure on wages, but people need to have the benefits explained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwfqBdA21SA&feature=related

Who comes across as the idiot in this radio show?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Good to confirm that my complete and utter loathing for that party isn't misplaced.

How did he even get elected? I live in the south and we (mostly) don't elect people like this tard.

Ahem, is it just me or are you pointing the blame for the BNP getting those seats at the north? That's not fair, unfortunately there are racist retards everywhere, including the south.

Oh, sorry if you misunderstood, I meant the Southern United States, where churches are everywhere and we're still proud of the confederacy.

Well, to be fair, we do have a few crazies in Congress, though they usually have the decency not to speak too loudly and openly about this kind of shit to anyone but their constituencies.

Still, it probably also depends on where in the South you are. Anywhere close to Mexico? I can see blatantly immigrant-hating politicians getting elected in the southwestern states, except maybe (maybe, if my faith in humanity isn't too high) California, partly due to being mostly liberal, and partly because we have enough Latinos and Asians to form a rather huge voting base by themselves.

It's a common problem during more difficult economic times. So. Cal is also heavily anti-immigrant, you don't get the more tolerant ones until you go further north, and that's mostly because they're unaware of the impacts of unrestricted illegal movement. When borders are just flung open to all comers, it tends to attract a less desirable type. Ranchers in Arizona and Texas as well as residents around and south of San Diego, CA (ever wonder why San Diego is a reliably Republican stronghold in California?) have huge problems with illegals killing livestock and damaging water distribution systems for personal consumption as well as frequent home invasions from migrant workers and general trashing of people's land.

Yes. Every single day I wonder why my hometown, located as it is right on the border with Mexico, is a Republican stronghold. Especially since their fearmongering is mostly bullcrap.

Stereotypes are developed because a large enough segment of the apparent population do, in fact, behave that way. Legitimate immigrants to America are respectable, honest and hard working people. The majority of the illegal population is destructive and criminally prone. Illegals earned this reputation from pure, objective fact. They are destructive, both physically, as noted by the rancher problem, and economically, as they generally drain educational resources and medical resources. Illegals, primarily in more permissive states like California, consume huge amounts of resources just to hire specialized teachers just to teach them in Spanish since this particular group refuses to integrate into the local culture (why would they, their plan is just to leave after getting money) and choke off hospital care by cramming into emergency rooms. The Los Angeles area, for example, has been losing hospital space despite its growing population, this is purely because of the illegal population coupled with strict California laws making it illegal to inquire about resident status even for the most, non-life threatening problems (illegals can get free prescriptions for minor problems by just showing up at a California emergency room).

Case in point. Hospital treatment is a major human rights issue, and I happen to come on the side the law is currently at.

And the "refusal to integrate into the local culture" is bullshit. If you're talking migrant workers, I suppose you might have a point, in that they can't integrate without risking being caught and deported; hell, it's not like they can't be replaced, after all, and they know that. The remittances sent back home dry up if they get kicked out. As for families, second-gen immigrants are always integrated. Always. It's a crapshoot whether they'll even grow up speaking their parents' language with much fluency, and it's a near guarantee that the next generation will drop even that.

This disrespectful behavior of what amounts to human locust creates a very much understandable distrust and, in some cases, outright hatred of the immigrant population. Because individuals are unable to determine if the immigrant is your valuable, honest legal type or your destructive illegal type, the individual tends to side with the least destructive assumption, which is to assume all immigrants are destructive illegals. They view it as it's better to lose a few legal ones that to continue to permit the illegals.

You mean it's better to get rid of the mostly non-destructive illegals along with a lot of legal immigrants to get rid of the criminal element. I can't sympathize with such a view in the least.

The UK is falling under the same problem. With a large immigrant population and permissive immigration law, particularly toward impoverished nations, native UK citizens view this as an invasion of welfare grabbers who have no intention of contributing to UK society and wish to bring the poverty and third world with them as a check on. This friction is what causes people like Griffin to get elected into public office. The people are not happy about it.

And the people are blinded, overdramatic wankers.

Whose fault is it? Well, both sides are to blame. Natives need to stop being judgmental to individuals because they belong to a broad group and immigrants need to realize the reason they're leaving their native lands is because their homeland is a horrible place to live. Immigrants have to understand that they cannot bring with them their culture, language and norms. This eliminates many chances to integrate into society since it takes a command of the local language to succeed and they also fail to realize that their norms and cultures are WHY the area they are fleeing from is in such poor condition. Not all cultures are equal, most world cultures are objectively inferior since they've developed the poverty and despotism that many are so desperate to flee.

...I can't believe it took me this long into your post to finally stop taking you seriously.

Thank you for taking the time to label world cultures as "inferior." Please disregard the rest of this post; turns out it was wasted words.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

To the Americans/Canadians: Imagine if the KKK got seats in Congress: That's what we have here.

 

[Mekado]

So, after shedding a tear when he won a seat in the European parliament, Nick Griffin of the BNP decided it would be awesome to start talking. No need for a article, we have a video!

Oh Nick Griffin, you should be kissing babies of all races! Not saying such things!

Oh and for those who aren't in the know, Nick Griffin is chairman of the BNP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin], who are believed (which I say for informative purposes) to incite racial hatred and bigoted policies. Thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8141069.stm

Wow, nice, he's like a crazier Jean-Marie Le Pen (French Front National, far-right)Le Pen once made the infamous pun "Durafour-crématoire" ("four crématoire" meaning "crematory oven") about then minister Michel Durafour, who had said in public a few days before "One must exterminate the National Front" Also accusing Chirac to be on the "jew's payroll"

Anwyays, nice fella *cough*, scary thing is that his party actually has some (little) weight in France...

Sorry for the derail, he just reminds me of a younger Le Pen

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

This disrespectful behavior of what amounts to human locust creates a very much understandable distrust and, in some cases, outright hatred of the immigrant population. Because individuals are unable to determine if the immigrant is your valuable, honest legal type or your destructive illegal type, the individual tends to side with the least destructive assumption, which is to assume all immigrants are destructive illegals. They view it as it's better to lose a few legal ones that to continue to permit the illegals.

You mean it's better to get rid of the mostly non-destructive illegals along with a lot of legal immigrants to get rid of the criminal element. I can't sympathize with such a view in the least.

All illegals are destructive. I don't mean that they're all murders, I don't mean that they're all drug runners, I don't mean that they're all rapists. I mean that they're all criminals in the most basic sense of the word. When someone is a criminal, they are destructive to the judicial system in place. By not following the law of the land you are promoting anarchy. After all, if you don't want to follow one law for whatever reason, what's going to stop you from following the rest of them? If there is no substantial following of the law by the citizenry, in what sense is there a law?

I don't care if a person is coming into the country illegally from Africa, Mexico, Canada, or Britain. They are all criminals. Why? Because that's what illegal bloody well means! Follow the law until you can get it legally changed. Don't just not follow it because you don't agree with it!

Edit:

I'm sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense, I have a huge headache and you made me mad.

 

[NeutralDrow]

This disrespectful behavior of what amounts to human locust creates a very much understandable distrust and, in some cases, outright hatred of the immigrant population. Because individuals are unable to determine if the immigrant is your valuable, honest legal type or your destructive illegal type, the individual tends to side with the least destructive assumption, which is to assume all immigrants are destructive illegals. They view it as it's better to lose a few legal ones that to continue to permit the illegals.

You mean it's better to get rid of the mostly non-destructive illegals along with a lot of legal immigrants to get rid of the criminal element. I can't sympathize with such a view in the least.

All illegals are destructive. I don't mean that they're all murders, I don't mean that they're all drug runners, I don't mean that they're all rapists. I mean that they're all criminals in the most basic sense of the word. When someone is a criminal, they are destructive to the judicial system in place. By not following the law of the land you are promoting anarchy. After all, if you don't want to follow one law for whatever reason, what's going to stop you from following the rest of them? If there is no substantial following of the law by the citizenry, in what sense is there a law?

I didn't say what they were doing wasn't illegal. I was saying they weren't destructive. Needless to say, we have different definitions of that term, and I disagree rather strongly with the "destructive to the judicial system" sentiment.

I also rather hate the slippery slope fallacy, which seems to be present in spirit. If one law is weakly enforced, it could bring the entire system crashing down, was it?

I don't care if a person is coming into the country illegally from Africa, Mexico, Canada, or Britain. They are all criminals. Why? Because that's what illegal bloody well means! Follow the law until you can get it legally changed. Don't just not follow it because you don't agree with it!

I'm fairly certain they don't have much option to change laws...

Edit:

I'm sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense, I have a huge headache and you made me mad.

Since that was pretty much my reaction to the other guy's post, I can sympathize.

 

[The Hairminator]

A true genius. They should totally start sinking boats with imigrants. Or boats in particular. Me not like boats.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

This disrespectful behavior of what amounts to human locust creates a very much understandable distrust and, in some cases, outright hatred of the immigrant population. Because individuals are unable to determine if the immigrant is your valuable, honest legal type or your destructive illegal type, the individual tends to side with the least destructive assumption, which is to assume all immigrants are destructive illegals. They view it as it's better to lose a few legal ones that to continue to permit the illegals.

You mean it's better to get rid of the mostly non-destructive illegals along with a lot of legal immigrants to get rid of the criminal element. I can't sympathize with such a view in the least.

All illegals are destructive. I don't mean that they're all murders, I don't mean that they're all drug runners, I don't mean that they're all rapists. I mean that they're all criminals in the most basic sense of the word. When someone is a criminal, they are destructive to the judicial system in place. By not following the law of the land you are promoting anarchy. After all, if you don't want to follow one law for whatever reason, what's going to stop you from following the rest of them? If there is no substantial following of the law by the citizenry, in what sense is there a law?

I didn't say what they were doing wasn't illegal. I was saying they weren't destructive. Needless to say, we have different definitions of that term, and I disagree rather strongly with the "destructive to the judicial system" sentiment.

Then answer the question. If there is no substantial following of the law by the citizenry, in what sense is there a law?

I also rather hate the slippery slope fallacy, which seems to be present in spirit. If one law is weakly enforced, it could bring the entire system crashing down, was it?

It's not a fallacy, it's drawing a line. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why? If you set the president that you wont follow a law because it's a hassle to you, what next law will you then break that becomes a hassle to you? Moreover, why should people be allowed to pick and choose what laws they will and will not follow? How is that not anarchy? Why should one law be enforced, but not another? Are all laws not equal? Are all laws not important? Who sets that standard that some laws should be enforced and not others? Who decides which laws are more important than others? Can the citizens make that distinction? Can people who are not citizens make the decision as to which laws they will and will not follow? When does this end?

Edit:

When you stop enforcing the law the people stop respecting the law. How can you say with a straight face that some laws can or should be disregarded and others should not?

I don't care if a person is coming into the country illegally from Africa, Mexico, Canada, or Britain. They are all criminals. Why? Because that's what illegal bloody well means! Follow the law until you can get it legally changed. Don't just not follow it because you don't agree with it!

I'm fairly certain they don't have much option to change laws...

They don't have much option, but if you sympathize to their cause you can.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It's not a fallacy, it's drawing a line. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why? If you set the president that you wont follow a law because it's a hassle to you, what next law will you then break that becomes a hassle to you? Moreover, why should people be allowed to pick and choose what laws they will and will not follow? How is that not anarchy? Why should one law be enforced, but not another? Are all laws not equal? Are all laws not important? Who sets that standard that some laws should be enforced and not others? Who decides which laws are more important than others? Can the citizens make that distinction? Can people who are not citizens make the decision as to which laws they will and will not follow? When does this end?

So maybe we should round up everyone who jaywalks or speeds. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why?

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

It's not a fallacy, it's drawing a line. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why? If you set the president that you wont follow a law because it's a hassle to you, what next law will you then break that becomes a hassle to you? Moreover, why should people be allowed to pick and choose what laws they will and will not follow? How is that not anarchy? Why should one law be enforced, but not another? Are all laws not equal? Are all laws not important? Who sets that standard that some laws should be enforced and not others? Who decides which laws are more important than others? Can the citizens make that distinction? Can people who are not citizens make the decision as to which laws they will and will not follow? When does this end?

So maybe we should round up everyone who jaywalks or speeds. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why?

Or maybe we should just enforce the laws the way they're written. When someone jay walks, give them the appropriate response as indicated by the law, which I would imagine starts with a warning and escalates to a ticket.

I failed my check to understand your point.

 

[Bungalow]

How did he even get elected?

I'd hazard a guess that alot of people are: a) Ignorant or b) Stupid

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It's not a fallacy, it's drawing a line. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why? If you set the president that you wont follow a law because it's a hassle to you, what next law will you then break that becomes a hassle to you? Moreover, why should people be allowed to pick and choose what laws they will and will not follow? How is that not anarchy? Why should one law be enforced, but not another? Are all laws not equal? Are all laws not important? Who sets that standard that some laws should be enforced and not others? Who decides which laws are more important than others? Can the citizens make that distinction? Can people who are not citizens make the decision as to which laws they will and will not follow? When does this end?

So maybe we should round up everyone who jaywalks or speeds. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why?

Or maybe we should just enforce the laws the way they're written. When someone jay walks, give them the appropriate response as indicated by the law, which I would imagine starts with a warning and escalates to a ticket.

I failed my check to understand your point.

What is the law on illegal immigrants? Shipping them back? Fine, I support that. But my point was that you were saying that they are more likely to break further laws because they've already broken laws. I was showing that that doesn't show anything. Do you seriously believe a jaywalker is more likely to become a thug? No? Then why do you feel that illegal immigrants are more likely to become thugs?

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

It's not a fallacy, it's drawing a line. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why? If you set the president that you wont follow a law because it's a hassle to you, what next law will you then break that becomes a hassle to you? Moreover, why should people be allowed to pick and choose what laws they will and will not follow? How is that not anarchy? Why should one law be enforced, but not another? Are all laws not equal? Are all laws not important? Who sets that standard that some laws should be enforced and not others? Who decides which laws are more important than others? Can the citizens make that distinction? Can people who are not citizens make the decision as to which laws they will and will not follow? When does this end?

So maybe we should round up everyone who jaywalks or speeds. At what point do you stop breaking the law and why?

Or maybe we should just enforce the laws the way they're written. When someone jay walks, give them the appropriate response as indicated by the law, which I would imagine starts with a warning and escalates to a ticket.

I failed my check to understand your point.

What is the law on illegal immigrants? Shipping them back? Fine, I support that. But my point was that you were saying that they are more likely to break further laws because they've already broken laws. I was showing that that doesn't show anything. Do you seriously believe a jaywalker is more likely to become a thug? No? Then why do you feel that illegal immigrants are more likely to become thugs?

Actually, I believe the law is incarceration and then deportation. Not only that, but by entering the country illegally it's supposed to mean that you can't be nationalized as a citizen. Kinda doesn't work when someone has an anchor baby, but what're you gonna do, right?

I don't believe that a jaywalker is going to become a thug. The premise is where is the line drawn? Why do people get to say which laws they will and will not follow? Why does the government get to say which laws will and will not be enforced? If a law isn't enforced how is it a law?

The point isn't that someone that speeds is going to become a mass murderer. The point is a simple question: Why break that law and not others? What gives you that right?