The British National Party

The BMP believe in the separation of races, this race separation is a product of multiculturalism. We have a situation where many kids, whose parents or grandparents came from Pakistan, have never seen a white kid. This is directly because of the failed policies of multiculturalism. We need to start treating people as equal and stop giving special preference or treatment to certain groups. Cultural protectionism is what the BMP stand for, a platform they share with the Muslem Council of Britain. I have seen Nick Griffin in a BBC interview admitting that multicultalism has been a great tool for race separation. When the BMP claim to be against multicultualism what they are actually campaigning against is racial integration.
Racial integration has at its basis equality. Intergration demands that everyone is treated the same regardless of where they came from. There are no special schools and no special housing areas, we live together and learn together under a general British culture.
I am not a supporter of the BMP but I actually do hope they do well in the upcoming Euro elections. For too long the media have ignored them and demonised them. They have been allowed to spread their message unchecked because they are not taken seriously. If they win a few seats at Europe then the British media will have to take them seriously and we can finally be allowed as a nation to begin the serious debate that was denied to us all them years ago when multiculturalism was adopted as policy without ever asking the people did they want it.Of course as I am from Northern Ireland I am not British. Northern Ireland has its own nasty little type of multiculturalism called the school system. Catholic schools for catholic kids and state schools for everybody else. I have always been against this stupidity, I think schools should be schools for all people. Let Northern Ireland be a lessen to the British people, if you allow a divided nation to continue and blindly follow multiculturalism Britian will give birth to terror.

LoonylionThe 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.

It's arguable that US, GB, or the USSR could have single-handedly defeated Germany in World War II eventually, but that doesn't matter -- your absurd nationalism is beyond hypocritical and is nothing short of politically blinding. Your bias in everything connected to politics is hysterical. You're under the impression that everything you know or have been taught is right. I mean, you take the stereotypical baseball-loving American with a flag on his porch that you so consistently torch, exaggerate his ignorantly patriotic behaviour, multiply by 85 times or so, and you have you. That's this. You're incapable of moving your eyes or turning your head to see anything but what's in front of you.I was just about to type and explain the Munich Agreement and Neville Chamberlain's selfish veneer of peace but spelling it out probably won't even work. You'll disregard the statistical truth that the U.S. totaled more than twice as many men as Great Britain had fighting in Europe by the end of the war. And don't lie to yourself -- the Battle of Dunkirk had more than just casualties, in 1940 Germany had more than 2.5 times as many men fighting the war than Britain. And Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement the year before. Oops, so much for your logic. The Battle of Dunkirk turned into a flat-out evacuation and if you knew your history as well as you claim to, you would know this.Chamberlain didn't give away half of Czechoslovakia (note: not half, I'm correcting this so that maybe you will respond to the content of my post rather than trying to boast your condescending ways by correcting some tiny insignificant mentioning of something that hardly matters) in some pseudo-peace appeasement so that they could flee with a tragic amount of military deaths.--
Edit: Chamberlain was a Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so don't use your argumentative downfall as an excuse to lock this plx.

Replying to #42

Firstly, I know who Neville Chamberlain was. Anyone with the slightest grasp of history does. I know the battle of Dunkirk turned into an evacuation, I also know the RAF distracted the Germans while it was effected. Again, simple history.I never said the battle of Dunkirk was a result of the Munich agreement being breached, I said that the fact we had so many men at said battle was; It takes time to train soldiers. So much for your logic.The number of Americans in the war at the end is irreverent to the discussion, the war was in the allies favour from the battle of Britain onwards. Therefore, while it is debatable how much longer the war would have been without the Americans joining, so long as they allies maintained their air superiority, an allied win was a guaranteed outcome. Tactical blunders on the part of the Germans helped ensure this. It's a well known fact that the Germans suffered because they did not make use of radar as efficiently and broadly as they could have; this is just one example.

[quote="Loonylion"]the war was in the allies favour from the battle of Britain onwards.
That's crap and we all know it, the war became winnable after the russians finally won the year long battle at Stalingrad. Just because we HALTED not destroyed Hitler's invasion of britain does not mean we were suddenly able to defeat him. Yes it showed that he wasn't invincible but it didn't shift the balance of power.
ALSO the americans joined in 1943 (pearl harbour, look it up) and gave the allies the manpower to move through africa, italy, belgium and the netherlands.IF you were as good at history as you said you were you'd know these things.I'm also thinking we may need to make a new topic for all this historical/political ranting over WW2...

its not crap, the RAF crushed their airforce and severely dented their ability to do anything more in that direction, THEN they turned their attention to Russia, which didn't work out as they intended either. Operation Barbarossa started the month after overlord ended.

My god, I'm taking GCSE History and am still able to correct you...Germany had her sights on Russia before the war even began
Barbarossa began summer 1940 while only the blitz ended may 1941
Practically all of the German army was involved in Barbarossa until the endNow these arguments are getting quite off-topic so we should relocate them or just stop with them

you're *TAKING* GCSE history. I last did history near 10 years ago.by the way, having sights on a country is not the same as actively being engaged against them.The British date the battle from 10 July to 31 October, 1940, which represented the most intense period of daylight bombing.[10] German historians usually place the beginning of the battle in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the campaign against the USSR, which began on 22 June 1941.[11]you're out by a year, according to wikipedia.

according to wikipedianoticing the problem with that sentence.also someone needs to make a slightly more appropriate post for this so more people can (attempt) to join this argumentx9x9x out for the night and possibly also the day...

it does have a citation if you hadn't noticed.# ^ Foreman 1988, p. 8.
# ^ Foreman 1988, p. 8.

back to add one last thing:
as much as it pains me to say it, i was a year out on the Barbarossa thing
however in an even more embarrassing note, Loonylion was 3 1/2 years out about America's involvementI gathered this information from a book called Great Battles of World War 2, general editor: Dr Chris Mann, published by Parragon. The book has an RRP of £20. And yes, i own the book otherwise how would i get so much information on it so fast.x9x9x actually out this time.

Replying to #50

I think its more embarassing that someone actively studying a subject got something wrong than someone whos' last detailed look at it was over 10 years ago.You're the one taking the exam, after all.And like I said all a long, the battle of Britain was over long before the Americans got involved.

Loonylion · #47you're out by a year, according to wikipedia.

Hypocritical much Loonylion?From another topic when you had this Wikipedia citing discussion with another member on another topic:

Loonylion*** This was probably you being sarcastic ***yes and wikipedia is a reliable source... Besides, you bolded the wrong part. if you read on it says English came from the Anglo-Saxons and was influenced by the Norsemen and Normans. The Saxons were the original inhabitants of England.

dickycoquesYes, it is.

Loonylionno it isn't. if you tried to use it in a university paper as a reference you would be failed instantly.

So, if you stated that Wikipedia isn't a valid source of information, why make an exception in this topic?Oh and you know what else Loonylion?

Loonylionincorrect, racism is hatred of another race, not standing up for the native race of a nation.

You're wrong.[quote author=dictionary.com]racâ‹…ism
  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement., usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.[/quote]The definition I just bolded pretty much underlines what you said in which you deny is racism, and it also matches the main belief of the British National Party.

in a completely off-topic note, i'm not taking an exam in history for another year.
also, we're not covering WW2 itself. Only it's causes and USSR (WW2 is within the period we're studying)

Well the BNP have done as was expected and better in the local and european elections.
2 seats in the EP (not sure how that'll work) and 1 (as far as i know) seat in local council which has caused a major uproar and protests outside a building i don't know in Manchester.Time for a horrifically slow day at school with 4 out of 7 hours in the day of IT...

Everybody is talking about the BNP getting some seats, well if they do ANYTHING wrong then they will be outed so I don't see the issue

they have 3 county councillors. Labour took a right bashing (as more or less expected, although they did better than I expected considering the damage they've caused and the fact their party is in meltdown), but the overall turnout was pathetically low (around 42%). Just goes to show that people are so disillusioned with politics lately that they don't consider it worth voting.Some of the fringe parties should think themselves extremely lucky they got as many votes as they did, since they did no campaigning at all, and most of what they got was probably people voting for 'anything but the mainstream parties'. The BNP victory is a clear example of the importance of a well co-ordinated, intense campaign.Now it's just a case of holding the country together until the next general election.

Replying to #56

You quoting that from TV?And people didn't vote because of the political scandals, yes.

nope, havent watched TV for months. I wrote my views on the election.

It looks very similar to what GMTV and the local news said
Looks like everbody has a similar view...

Replying to #59

Yes, that view is that politicians are thieving gits, who do nothing except watch porn in duckhouses next to a leaky moat, whilst claiming for just about everything.. including the helium that they use to inflate their ego's.