If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Vice magazine features 'BNP Babes'
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
This is comedy gold...
http://www.viceland.com/wp/2009/07/babes-of-the-bnp/
Just one gem from the article:
Yet more proof that BNP supporters are
a) thick as pigshit
b) racist scum
I've never bought the 'protest vote' theory anyway. You'd have to be extremely stupid, a racist scumbag, or a combination of both, to ever contemplate voting that that lot. I think the 'ladies' featured in this article illustrate the point beautifully.
http://www.viceland.com/wp/2009/07/babes-of-the-bnp/
Just one gem from the article:
When people say the BNP is a fascist party, what do you think?
Fascist – I don’t understand that word.
Think of Nazi Germany, or 1930s Italy.
I can’t even remember when that happened really, but I’m against them anyway.
You’re against who?
The Germans. I know that sounds evil… I was brought up that way.
But not the Nazis?
No, I don’t agree with that at all.
What’s the best thing about living in Britain today?
I hate Britain, and I want to move to Spain in the next couple of years, ‘cos our country’s not England anymore. It’s very rare for English people to live here anymore. When I went to Lanzarote, I felt more English there than I do here, and that’s no exaggeration.
Yet more proof that BNP supporters are
a) thick as pigshit
b) racist scum
I've never bought the 'protest vote' theory anyway. You'd have to be extremely stupid, a racist scumbag, or a combination of both, to ever contemplate voting that that lot. I think the 'ladies' featured in this article illustrate the point beautifully.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
It struck me as rather like those videos about how stupid Americans are where they go out and find a few ignorant souls who can't find Britain on a map. Everyone has a good giggle about how silly the average Yank on the street allegedly is and everyone goes to bed that little happier, knowing that you're fundamentally a better person than some random strangers from a country far away who have starred in a YouTube video deliberately edited to make them look stupid. Ahhhh, that's better.
An argument for voting Labour:
An argument for voting BNP:
Enough said, really.
The difference with Americans of course, is that we can all name plenty of intelligent Americans, but I'm never once found a single BNP voter or member who wasn't either racist or stupid.
Lets be blunt about it though, there are a lot of stupid people. The BNP's arguments are simple to understand and unless you actually know about economics and consider the wider picture they make sense.
I don't think just dismissing them as racist really does any good at all. We need to address the issues in the communities where they draw support. In reality it is two poor marginalised groups fighting over the scraps, the whites voting for the BNP and others for Labour (under the misguided idea that they will help them). If we actually invested in proper housing and sustainable jobs their support would go down. Decent education couldnt hurt either.
Exactly this.
We're no closer to eradicating poverty today that we have been at any time in human history- and that situation will remain for as long as we continue adhering to the current system, so little chance of a change there.
Unfortunately the BNP continues to exist through the perpetuation of the lies, myths and manipulated half truths they're allowed to peddle. Still, millions of poor people don't buy into their lies, so I cannot see anyone being other than either a racist or a complete imbecile ever contemplating voting for them, poverty or not.
So if you seem to suggest (and I agree) they are a symptom rather than the deeper problem what should we do?
Two ideas I've come to recently would be to cancel Tridant and cut any export credit guarentee money to the arms trade. Then spend that cash on actually investing in industry and housing here. We are a country of boffins if any nation should be taking advantage of new 'green tech' it should be us.
No easy solution to that, I admit, but for as long as inequality of the magnitude we see today continues to exist, fascism will be able to attract support.
Fair point, although efforts on a grand scale to make society more level haven't got a great track record. You are in reality talking about changing the culture of the UK as a whole and that's a nigh on impossible thing to do.
Possibly with Trident - though in the wider spending its a drop in the bucket. However if you drop export credit guarantee firms won't sell, people will become unemployed and you need to spend more money.
As an aside we are one of the leaders in certain fields of green tech, look at Tanfield - based in the North East and the world's leading manufacturer of electric vans (or rather the batteries and the bits of the engines needed for electric - I think they use Ford bodies)
Could you perhaps support that with economic evidence. Because I'd say the opposite is true - historically the gaps rather low (look at eighteenth century England or medieval france).
Also capitalism actually doesn't rely on low income individuals to finance the fortunes of the wealthy (with a bit of critical thinking you'd have to ask how could it?). Using a very simple example I get rich by selling TVs, the more I sell and the higher price I sell them at the wealthier I become. However for people to buy my TVs I need them to have money and actually the wealthier they are the better because they'll then buy my expensive plasma screen HD rather than the crappy black and white. It's no co-incidence that for tens of thosuands of years, whilst people mainly lived at subsitence level, income would rise by a fraction of a % (if at all), whilst when we moved from subsitence to consumption national income started to rocket.
Well in previous discussions regarding wages and distribution of wealth you have suggested (if I may simplify it) that corporation owners and directors cannot simply redistribute their wealth equally against all workers of the company. Apparently the system would collapse, competent senior executives could not be headhunted if the pay wasn't rewarded, stocks would be devalued, etc etc.
In other words, if one were to simply ask Bill Gates to redistribute his massive wealth equally amongst all and every Microsoft employee, from the boardroom to the ladies who clean the floor, apparently that would spell disaster for the company. So if you are right, capitalism seems to depend on a few people at the top exploiting the many hundreds or thousands of workers below them, instead of all people employed by a company equally sharing all profits made.
I'm not suggesting that we should to the programme completely, just for arms. Because to be frank we the tax payers have paid for too many guns, ships, tanks etc. for nasty dictators to use.
And yes, there probably would be some job losses because of that, but again to be frank I would rather the money spent to support jobs that dont involve arming nasty governments who have a habit of killing their own people.
And anyway it wouldn't stop all arms trading at all, it would only stop (or might stop) companies selling to governments they didnt trust. And if an arms company doesnt trust a government we should not be selling them arms.
But that's not your argument. Microsoft relies on people being well paid to buy its products.
However to go into your argument if he did share his wealth the real value of that wealth would plumment (what's a share worth at £100 if people can only afford £10 - it would become £10, and that's a major loss to Government in stamp duty and capital gains to start off with). And if Bill Gates had to give away his money what's the incentive for him to build up the company (and come to that where's the incentive of the cleaner to show up if they know that there getting a cash windfall anyway)
And what about the amount we sold to stop nasty dictators invading countries or stop to stop nasty revolutionaries trying to impose an even worse system
That's fine. However, I suspect if you worked in BAe you might feel differently. You're trying to impose your moral codes on others recognising it doesn't cost you anything (and gives you a nice warm glow), but it does cost others.
That's who it's best to sell arms to. Imagine if the Luftwaffe had been reliant on spitfires - we cut off the supplies and we'd have been in berlin by Christmas 1939
It is perfectly possible for a business to be formed and to successfully sell products or services at a profit. How that profit is then distributed is completely irrelevant to the future success of the company. It's only capitalism that tells us otherwise.
She's right, this country isn't England and there are very very few English people living around here.
I live in Wales by the way. Wonder if she's heard of it.
I don't think she has because she said that the most British thing is the English flag haha
Also I think they need to get their story straight, one minute it was complaining that all the immigrants steal 'our' jobs, and now they're saying that it's ok if they come to the country as long as they work
:crazyeyes
The last thing this world needs is more guns, we should be more selective about who we sell to, its totally shameful how few controls there really are.
The government make moral judgements all time about who they want to fund and who they dont. To be frank I dont think I am in a pinko left minority by not wanting the UK tax payer to buy weapons for nast dictators (Saddam for one example).
Fair enough, we agree. The arms trade needs strict control and UK citizens need to be legally liable for any sanctions busting they do anywhere in the World.
It's really not as simple as that, as you well know. The biggest manufacturers in the world- the likes of GM and GE- are also the largest lenders of money. GM hasn't made money on cars for years, it makes it's money on the finance.
You keep the people on subsistence wages to make your own money worth more. Then you sell aspiration at 35%APR.
Poor people have plasma tellies and Sky TV. It's all bought from Bright House. It's not paid for from savings or earnings. Indeed, if people could earn enough to buy without HP, there'd be no profits at all for most major manufacturers.
Only if people can afford to buy them. Bill Gates relies on people being able to shell out £400 (at least) for a luxury item. You're original argument that capitalism relies on people keeping people poor is, to coin a phrase, not actually true....
Er? If most large companies relied on people who can only buy on credit and then default they'd be broke within a week
Probably, but they're always going to be sold and frankly we should be encouraging high-tech weapons, rather than AK-47s. High tech wars kill lots less than the old fashioned ones - if only because a high tech army is quickly pt out of action when it looses its tanks and IFVs, leaving most of the support arms with their hands in the air.
I'd much rather he had more UK and US weaponary which in 1991 we could have cut the supplies of rather than Russian where we couldn't... The UK sold him a few armoured recovering vehicles, nasty if one runs over you, but frankly of much less use than a T-72
I'm not quite sure how.... It needs to be controlled and Uk subjects need to be accountable to UK law I agree, but how that flows from my statement youre going to need to explain.
They don't, they rely on people buying on credit and paying enough interest to make a profit.
Or do you deny that GM, Ford and GE make their money through credit finance?
PS GM and Ford are broke, aren't they?
Yeah which seems to suggest you're argument isn't working as most manufacturers aren't (PS it's a bit like saying housebuilders make their money through mortgages - true but completely irrelevant on whether capitalism works or whether it relies on a poor underclass)
Capitalism works on having a poor underclass who will drive wage prices down, but selling enough aspiration to actually shift the things that are produced. With the way capitalism has adapted, this has increasingly been about selling credit and other financial products, rather than something concrete.
It's always been a balancing act between paying people too much money and paying them not enough to buy, but the invention of HP has certainly made the balancing act a lot easier. Most major manufacturers make their money on the HP agreements now, the thing they're selling on HP has almost become an irrelevance.
Take a look at car manufacturers charging more interest to people using the scrappage allowance to see how this works.