"I wanted to slap him"

[RoyBatty]

As the storm (in a teacup) rages on in the mass media about Nick Griffith's appearance on BBC Question time, here are a few amusing sideshows.


- Bonny Greer wanted to "slap him"


She described sitting next to him as 'probably the weirdest and most creepy experience of my life'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/23/article-1222441-06ED8C48000005DC-790_468x349.jpg



'I spent the entire night with my back turned to him,' she said.
'At one point, I had to restrain myself from slapping him. But it was worth it because he was totally trounced.'


One can only assume that after clubbing Nick, Bonny would have wanted to skin and cook him as well for the cannibal feast! :D


The usual suspects busy doing what they do best, their faces contorted with sneering hatred for the BNP and those Britains who dare question the NWO and its Multikulti machine.

Exhibit #1
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/23/article-1222331-06ED7550000005DC-988_224x416.jpg

Exhibit #2, sockpuppet of Exhibit #1
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/23/article-1222331-06ED791A000005DC-656_224x416.jpg



Justice Secretary Jack Straw said the evening capped a 'catastrophic week for the BNP'.


Hmmm, if that is so, Jack, you must be very proud that a rigged panel + studio audience + touchy feely mob in the street all assembled to heap abuse on 1 x Nick Griffith performed so bravely. Perhaps as bravely as your daddy did when he opted to stay safe in prison instead of fighting Hitler eh?

Oh, the supreme irony of Jews like Straw (from a war dodging family) who accuses Griffiths (from a proud war serving family) of Nazism...... Who is the real scoundrel here Jackie boy?


Speaking this morning, Diane Abbott MP accused bosses of turning Mr Griffin, 50, into a victim as he was so strongly savaged by panellists and the audience.
Miss Abbott, the country's best-known black politician, claimed the format had been deliberately engineered to humiliate the BNP leader.
'It’s all very well in the morning to say "oh well, he got smashed" but in the long run people who are attracted to the BNP will come away saying "he was a victim",' she said.


At last, the first politician who actually "gets it" and uses common sense instead of squealing and swearing along with the faux "anti-fascist" fascist baying mob. Of course the format was engineered but as the Daily Mail's poll shows, the BNP can take heart from this performance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222441/Question-Time-panellist-launches-extraordinary-attack-BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin.html

[Jamt]

I saw a clip of this and the treatment of Griffin was brutal. Griffin’s performance was "so so" but what the hell could he do under the circumstance. I don’t know British TV audience psychological take on this but might not all of this backfire and give him some sympathy for being bullied?

[anonymaus]

The usual suspects busy doing what they do best, their faces contorted with sneering hatred for the BNP and those Britains who dare question the NWO and its Multikulti machine.

Exhibit #1
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/23/article-1222331-06ED7550000005DC-988_224x416.jpg

Exhibit #2, sockpuppet of Exhibit #1
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/23/article-1222331-06ED791A000005DC-656_224x416.jpg

They missed one:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8f/Asianrage3.JPG

[SwordoftheVistula]

I didn't watch it since I don't have sound on this computer, but at least one nationalist viewer was critical of Griffin's performance:

http://www.toqonline.com/2009/10/nick-griffin-and-the-dearth-of-geist/

Outside of the BBC Television Centre on October 22, 2009, tensions mounted between police and the unruly horde of communists who had come to disrupt the recording of one of Britain’s longest-running and most widely viewed political debate programs, Question Time. Predictably, the leftist terrorists directed their violence at the police; several of them had to be dragged out, subdued, and some were even arrested.

The root of this consternation was the perception by liberal fanatics that the BBC was lending credibility to the Chairman of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, by giving him a spot on the panel of Question Time. The fact that the BBC’s guidelines require them to host representatives who have achieved a certain level of influence among the electorate is totally irrelevant to this apoplectic rabble hell-bent on censorship.

The frantic attempt by the enemies of Life to silence a critic of their agenda filled me with excitement and anticipation. Many of the machinations of the protesters outside the TV Centre were being broadcast live on BBC News, and their desperation to stop Griffin’s appearance was so transparent that it provoked many thinking men into taking a closer look at Griffin and his ideas.

While I was concerned with whether or not Nick Griffin would make it into the BBC studio safely, I didn’t give much thought to problems that would arise once he was already on the air. I was sure that he would handle himself well once he got his foot in the door. Griffin had sent out an e-mail update, just hours before the broadcast was recorded, in which he stated that the panel, and the audience, of QT would be deliberately stacked against him; however, he said that he was prepared for this and that he would use this vehicle to disseminate our message and cut through the fog of media lies. Right before entering the studio, he said he was prepared for an old-fashioned, political rough-and-tumble.

I assumed that we would see an intelligent, well-educated (Nick is a Cambridge man), polished orator and Political Soldier deliver a life-affirming defense of our Cause, remaining steadfast in the face of blistering criticism. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed by Mr. Griffin’s performance on Question Time , and it truly saddens me that such an extraordinary opportunity to reach the British public was squandered.

The program was clearly configured to discredit Nick Griffin, and the usual format of the show was altered in a manner conducive to the witch hunt they sought, by consistently providing traps into which they hoped Griffin would fall; sadly, on more than one occasion, he did just that. David Duke provides some good analysis of the performance on his web site, which I think is worth reading for anyone who aspires to a role of prominence in Identity politics. Whatever your opinion might be of David Duke, he handles the media adroitly, and his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, which aired live on CNN, is legendary.

Griffin knew going into this situation that he was facing a group of people entirely hostile to his perspective, and yet he failed to assumed a posture that fit the situation. Instead, he sat there sheepishly grinning, staring at the desk, and forcing himself to clap for the panelists who sat there assailing him, including the Negress who was deriding his constituency. They did not return the civility.

We, as White Nationalists, must not allow ourselves to swallow, to any degree, the enemy propaganda that we are doing something shameful or dirty by standing up for ourselves, our culture, and our collective identity. When the angry Negress told Griffin that no party in the world is based on “indigenous populations,” he had a perfect opportunity to name some of the many parties in the world with consanguineous prerequisites.

Specifically, he had a chance to touch on Israel: a bigoted, war-mongering, Apartheid state whose outrages should be brought into the public discourse as much as possible. However, as Duke notes, Griffin negated that opportunity by previously stating his support for Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. I understand why Griffin does not want to attack the Jews, even if I disagree with this tactic; however, there is a big difference between not attacking Jews and being so philosemitic that you justify Zionist atrocities. What does Griffin hope to achieve by fawning over Israel? Does he think we will ever really achieve support from Jews? Does he think Jewish money comes without strings attached?

Griffin was easily lured into criticism of Muslims and other out-groups, yet he spoke very little about the nature of British Identity, how it is unique, and why it must be safeguarded. He was afforded the chance to defend our heritage and unique nature several times, most notably when the Negress on the panel rejected the notion of indigenous British people and began mumbling about Neanderthals.

We must defend our identity without being lured into disparaging others. We should provide newcomers and lemmings with very common metaphors to which they can relate: “I love my children more than the children of others, but that doesn’t mean I hate other children.” Don’t get into arguments about superiority and inter-cultural value judgments. It’s just not worth the hassle. European people are superior at reproducing other European people, and that is simply a fact. We don’t need to prove anything beyond that; our uniqueness is of intrinsic value and anyone who denies that is trying to deny Life.

Too often, Griffin came across as a dejected outsider peddling the politics of ressentiment. He seemed to lack resolve, and more importantly, Geist. He nodded his head, smiled, and seemed to concur when other panelists suggested that people were voting for the BNP simply out of frustration and a lack of options. The panelists argued that these were not so much votes for the BNP, but rather protest votes against the current system, and Griffin did not seem to challenge this. I was reminded of Nietzsche’s quote from On the Genealogy of Morals:

The slave revolt in morality begins when resentment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the resentment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and
compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is “outside,” what
is “different,” what is “not itself”; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye — this need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself — is of the
essence of resentment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external environment: it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all –
its action is fundamentally reaction.

How many BNP voters are truly committed to our world-view, and how many vote for the BNP in secrecy and shame, largely to protest the current state of affairs? This is an important question, and one of the reasons why I believe it is vital for us to be strong, determined, and life-affirming in our rhetoric. We must vanquish “the cloud” to which Jonathan Bowden often refers: a cloud which will continue to descend upon us, confusing and distorting our efforts, until we summon the resolve necessary to lift it. Lifting this cloud is an essential first step in the “reevaluation of values” needed in order to restore ourselves to health. A friend of mine summed up this imperative quite well in a recent e-mail:

We will never save ourselves, much less recover what we have lost, until we have a moral revolution: until we stop apologizing for our ancestors, stop apologizing for ourselves, and start asserting ourselves and our interests — not furtively, sneakily, and apologetically — but righteously, with the unshakable conviction that we make the world a better place. It is the self-assertion that comes naturally to any healthy organism, and if we cannot summon it, then we will be culled as one of nature’s rejects.

We can no longer afford to politely play the games of our enemies, by their rules, hoping to get lucky at some point. We must overturn the tables and expose the sinister rigging beneath it. We must do this boldly and openly, coupling mastery of style with uncorrupted masculine principle. I urge Mr. Griffin to consider the choice outlined by his fellow countryman, Alex Kurtagic, and insist on assuming a place of majesty rather than servitude.

[Electronic God-Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVB43xfBRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlQFvKgPSC0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQE0QPFoLfs

LOL

I've only just watched the first 6 minutes and already I can't help but laugh at the way they stacked everything about this "debate" against Nick Griffin.

I sense that there is a common use of pure emotionalism in defending multiculturalism and mass immigration everywhere you find it. I hardly ever see any Reason. I do see a lot of anger, guilt, whining, crying, and fear though.

Watching most people defend "multiculturalism" (and everything that seems to go with it) is like watching someone speak in emoticons:

The 12 Phases of the Multiculturalist's Argument

1. :eek: (Shock)
2. :confused: (Confusion)
3. :( (Sadness)
4. :mad: (Anger)
5. :rolleyes: (Condescension)
6. :cry2 (Tearing Up)
7. :cry (Uncontrollable Wailing)
8. :grumpy: ("How Could You?")
9. :icon_cry: (You Just Don't Understand!")
10. :shakefist (What the Hell is Wrong With You!?!?")
11.:crazy: (You Must Be Out Of Your Mind...)
12. :.... (Speechless)

[Troll's Puzzle]

They missed one:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8f/Asianrage3.JPG

'asian raaaaage' isn't appropriate for this debate, since asians generally work hard, keep their heads down, and so have no reason to whine about 'racism' keeping them down, and are in fact rather racist themselves.

It's only the benifits-class of immigrant (muslims, africans) and whiney heebs who get angry and complain about the higher standard of living whitey offers them :thumb001: