Thanks to one of the commenters on this site - Larry - I hear that the teaching unions are trying to ban BNP members from being teachers or governors.
I've no doubt that these same people are the sort who were up in arms the other day when the shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said that B&B owners should have the right to refuse entry to homosexuals.
Personally, I think he is right. Furthermore, I think the NUT is quite within its rights to refuse membership from anyone who is a BNP member. I also think it's quite right for a club to refuse entry to someone who doesn't meet their dress code or a bank to reject an application for an overdraft from someone who doesn't have any money.
My point is this - everybody, every business and every organisation should have the right to decide who they allow in. There should not be any laws restricting you on who you can turn away - regardless of the reason.
Why is there such a big furore over a tiny B&B refusing to admit a homosexual couple and yet no concern at all by the establishment at the blatant discrimination by liberal progressives towards BNP members? They are not doing anything illegal by being members of the BNP. It isn't against the law (yet) to be a member of the BNP and yet the NUT are not just clamouring for a ban from their organisation for BNP members - they are trying to bully the government into blatant discrimination.
Like I said - if the NUT want to ban BNP members from being part of their bigoted, fascist group then that is up to them. If I were a teacher and a member of the BNP I would not want to belong to such a disgusting extremist organisation as the NUT - but it is none of their business who schools employ or have as governors.
Once again we see the blatant hypocrisy and bigotry of the liberal establishment. They do not stand for "equality". They do not stand for "fairness". They stand for shoving their sick social agenda down the throats of the British people.
They are vicious nasty bigots and they think nobody notices. They are wrong.
Showing posts with label BNP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BNP. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Interesting
I've just completed The Telegraph's "Vote Match" test to see which party most matches my views. An option at the end allows you to deselect the parties which you wouldn't consider voting for - but as I wouldn't consider voting for most of those listed I didn't see much point - so I selected all.
The big surprise (for me, anyway) was that my top match was the BNP who nudged UKIP out by 2% (73% against 71% match).
However, I wouldn't place too much store in that as, according to Vote Match, the Green Party were a reasonably (OK, just under 50% match) close third! Considering that I answered that I believe AGW to be a myth and that my least concerns included the "environment"* - this is plainly ludicrous.
Perhaps the most revealing result, though, was that the two parties at the bottom were the Conservatives (23% match) and Labour (21%). Give it a go - but don't rule any party out of the decision and see what it recommends for you.
* As it happens, I am intensely concerned about the environment, but about real environmental issues in my own country and my own backyard - not about some made up scaremongering regarding some distant land over which I have and can have no control whatsoever.
The big surprise (for me, anyway) was that my top match was the BNP who nudged UKIP out by 2% (73% against 71% match).
However, I wouldn't place too much store in that as, according to Vote Match, the Green Party were a reasonably (OK, just under 50% match) close third! Considering that I answered that I believe AGW to be a myth and that my least concerns included the "environment"* - this is plainly ludicrous.
Perhaps the most revealing result, though, was that the two parties at the bottom were the Conservatives (23% match) and Labour (21%). Give it a go - but don't rule any party out of the decision and see what it recommends for you.
* As it happens, I am intensely concerned about the environment, but about real environmental issues in my own country and my own backyard - not about some made up scaremongering regarding some distant land over which I have and can have no control whatsoever.
Friday, March 26, 2010
No compromise
Sometimes I get a bit frustrated with the situation I find myself in. By that I mean that I don't feel comfortable about supporting any of the political parties because there simply isn't one which I completely or even mostly agree with.
In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).
In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).
Does that make sense? It does to me.
Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.
People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).
I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).
And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.
For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.
Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.
In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).
In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).
Does that make sense? It does to me.
Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.
People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).
I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).
And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.
For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.
Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Could this happen here?
To be honest, I don't know much about Wilders politics or that of his Freedom party - but the fact they are described by the media as "far right" suggests they are probably something like the BNP and, according to the Telegraph piece, Wilders is on course to become the next Prime Minister of Holland.
Personally, I've always thought it unlikely that a party like the BNP could ever make serious inroads into our political system. It happens all the time in Europe because - well, most Europeans are more reactionary and less stoical than us British. The politics of other European nations have always been a little flaky and swings towards extremism on the right and the left are not uncommon. On the whole, Europe does not have a great history on democracy - which is one of the reasons why I can not understand why we allow them to tell us how to do it!
However, I always thought Holland - of all the European countries - was the one most like us. The Dutch are a famously stoical and tolerant bunch as well. They are a constitutional monarchy and they don't have a history of political swings towards extremism. As I said, I don't actually know just how "extremist" Wilders is (probably not at all), but the fact that someone described as "far right" is seriously being touted as the next PM of Holland is still quite a surprise.
So could it happen here?
No - not under our present system.
You see, the factor in Wilders favour is the voting system - proportional representation - and we don't have PR in Britain.
At the moment.
But if some people get their way we will have - and then the prospect of a genuinely far right or far left party becoming a significant factor in our political system will be far greater.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Personally, I've always thought it unlikely that a party like the BNP could ever make serious inroads into our political system. It happens all the time in Europe because - well, most Europeans are more reactionary and less stoical than us British. The politics of other European nations have always been a little flaky and swings towards extremism on the right and the left are not uncommon. On the whole, Europe does not have a great history on democracy - which is one of the reasons why I can not understand why we allow them to tell us how to do it!
However, I always thought Holland - of all the European countries - was the one most like us. The Dutch are a famously stoical and tolerant bunch as well. They are a constitutional monarchy and they don't have a history of political swings towards extremism. As I said, I don't actually know just how "extremist" Wilders is (probably not at all), but the fact that someone described as "far right" is seriously being touted as the next PM of Holland is still quite a surprise.
So could it happen here?
No - not under our present system.
You see, the factor in Wilders favour is the voting system - proportional representation - and we don't have PR in Britain.
At the moment.
But if some people get their way we will have - and then the prospect of a genuinely far right or far left party becoming a significant factor in our political system will be far greater.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Cameron can win - but he needs the BNP
Yesterday I was saying that I don't think the Tories can win enough seats at the next election to enable them to form a government based on the latest opinion polls. However, there was one factor that I forgot to take into account - the BNP factor.
After the last election, someone did an analysis of the UKIP factor on Tory results - I think it was over on EU Referendum. Their analysis suggested that there were a number of closely contested seats which , had the UKIP vote transferred to the Tory party then the Conservatives would have won the seat - and if this had been translated across the country then the final result would have been much tighter resulting in, probably, a hung parliament.
Of course, not everyone who voted UKIP would necessarily have put their X next to the Tory party if UKIP weren't an option - there are plenty of left wing voters who are EU sceptics too - but there is no doubt that UKIP are very much a party in the old Tory mould and much more likely to attract right wing votes.
Of course, there have always been minor parties on the right and the left which have taken small amounts of votes away from the two main parties. I don't include the Lib Dems in this as they basically inherited an established voter base from the Liberal Party. Yes, there were defections from both Labour and Conservative voters to the Lib Dems, but these were balanced out by defections from the Liberal Party vote to Labour and Tory.
However, the arrival of UKIP on the scene was a significant change. Although they remain a minor party, there is no doubt that the number of votes they are winning is enough to influence results - and generally this is to the detriment of the Tory Party. While this has been happening to the Tory vote there hasn't been a similar significant challenge to the Labour vote.*
Until now. The growth of the BNP over the last decade means that they are now at a point where they could become Labour's "UKIP" - a party which takes enough votes away from Labour to leave them short in marginal seats that could result in a Tory victory. Make no mistake, the BNP are a party which appeals primarily to working class voters who would usually vote Labour.
The BNP factor may be crucial in the coming General Election. Will it be enough to give Cameron's Conservatives an election victory? Probably not, but it may just be enough to ensure a hung parliament. What is certain is that the Tories are reliant on the BNP doing well to have any hope of forming the next government.
I wonder how they feel about that!
* Some might point to the Green Party as Labour's equivalent to UKIP, but I don't include them in this even though The Green Party is an ultra left party. They appeal, primarily, to middle class urban voters and are more likely, if anything, to be taking votes away from the Tories and Lib Dems in urban areas where eco-fascism is popular than they are Labour - and Labour are very strong in urban areas. Nobody who has a serious interest in the environment and rural affairs would vote Green.
After the last election, someone did an analysis of the UKIP factor on Tory results - I think it was over on EU Referendum. Their analysis suggested that there were a number of closely contested seats which , had the UKIP vote transferred to the Tory party then the Conservatives would have won the seat - and if this had been translated across the country then the final result would have been much tighter resulting in, probably, a hung parliament.
Of course, not everyone who voted UKIP would necessarily have put their X next to the Tory party if UKIP weren't an option - there are plenty of left wing voters who are EU sceptics too - but there is no doubt that UKIP are very much a party in the old Tory mould and much more likely to attract right wing votes.
Of course, there have always been minor parties on the right and the left which have taken small amounts of votes away from the two main parties. I don't include the Lib Dems in this as they basically inherited an established voter base from the Liberal Party. Yes, there were defections from both Labour and Conservative voters to the Lib Dems, but these were balanced out by defections from the Liberal Party vote to Labour and Tory.
However, the arrival of UKIP on the scene was a significant change. Although they remain a minor party, there is no doubt that the number of votes they are winning is enough to influence results - and generally this is to the detriment of the Tory Party. While this has been happening to the Tory vote there hasn't been a similar significant challenge to the Labour vote.*
Until now. The growth of the BNP over the last decade means that they are now at a point where they could become Labour's "UKIP" - a party which takes enough votes away from Labour to leave them short in marginal seats that could result in a Tory victory. Make no mistake, the BNP are a party which appeals primarily to working class voters who would usually vote Labour.
The BNP factor may be crucial in the coming General Election. Will it be enough to give Cameron's Conservatives an election victory? Probably not, but it may just be enough to ensure a hung parliament. What is certain is that the Tories are reliant on the BNP doing well to have any hope of forming the next government.
I wonder how they feel about that!
* Some might point to the Green Party as Labour's equivalent to UKIP, but I don't include them in this even though The Green Party is an ultra left party. They appeal, primarily, to middle class urban voters and are more likely, if anything, to be taking votes away from the Tories and Lib Dems in urban areas where eco-fascism is popular than they are Labour - and Labour are very strong in urban areas. Nobody who has a serious interest in the environment and rural affairs would vote Green.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Roll up, roll up
So the BNP have abandoned their whites only policy and voted to change their constitution to permit black or Asian members. I wonder if this will be enough to satisfy the racial equality bigots - somehow I don't think so.
Nor do I expect there to be a massive rush of Asian and black people applying to join - although I know personally of at least one Asian gentleman who will be sending off his membership application very shortly!
What I do think, though, is that forcing the BNP to admit non-whites to their ranks is the biggest mistake the established parties could ever make. With one stroke they have removed the main barrier that has prevented many white people from supporting the BNP - supporting, not joining. At the same time they've removed the main criticism that the mainstream parties habitually relied on to attack the BNP - that they are a "racist party".
With the demise of that barrier I suspect a lot more people will vote BNP at the next election than otherwise may have done. I don't expect the BNP to win any seats in parliament, but I do believe that this will provide the base from which they will push on to eventually achieve that goal in one or two elections time.
As such, this is a spectacular own goal from the mainstream political parties.
Nor do I expect there to be a massive rush of Asian and black people applying to join - although I know personally of at least one Asian gentleman who will be sending off his membership application very shortly!
What I do think, though, is that forcing the BNP to admit non-whites to their ranks is the biggest mistake the established parties could ever make. With one stroke they have removed the main barrier that has prevented many white people from supporting the BNP - supporting, not joining. At the same time they've removed the main criticism that the mainstream parties habitually relied on to attack the BNP - that they are a "racist party".
With the demise of that barrier I suspect a lot more people will vote BNP at the next election than otherwise may have done. I don't expect the BNP to win any seats in parliament, but I do believe that this will provide the base from which they will push on to eventually achieve that goal in one or two elections time.
As such, this is a spectacular own goal from the mainstream political parties.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Race, tolerance and immigration
Some New Labour insider has apparently blurted out that unrestricted immigration and open borders are neither unintended or regrettable, but were in fact a deliberate attempt by the left to flood Britain with foreign faces and ethnic minorities with the intention of forcing their disastrous policy of multiculturalism on the native population.
The only real surprise about this for me is that anyone is surprised. Surely this has been obvious for some years to anyone who casts a critical eye over our nation and the monumental cultural changes that have been imposed on it over the last ten years?
Of course, nobody really is surprised. Most of us knew this was the case long ago and we also knew that the policy of calling anyone who opposed this massive cultural change on Britain a "racist" was purposefully intended to stifle debate and any genuine scrutiny of this open door immigration policy.
The question is - now that the truth is out in the open will it make any difference? I don't think so. I don't think the left are going to have a sudden change of mind and from what I have seen of the Tory Party there is little hope that they would do anything about it.
One of the few lucid moments of the comedic Question Time last week was when someone questioned whether Labour's "failure" to tackle immigration was to blame for the rise of the BNP?
Are you serious? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course it was to blame for the rise of the BNP - Jack Straw's bumbling response was not because he couldn't admit that the BNP electoral success is due to Labour immigration policy - it was because he didn't see it as a "failure" of that policy. Far from it - it was, from his perspective, a complete success.
Labour are also quite happy to see the BNP become more prominent. It serves their cause of portraying right wing as "racist" and thus increases the left wing hegemony on mainstream politics. The Tories have no choice but to move further away from the right to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP - not that the Tories seem to bothered by that - and even UKIP run scared of being guilty by association.
The important thing now is how we as a nation respond to this revelation and how our political parties treat us in response to our response. My guess is that the mainstream parties will hope that any dissatisfaction amongst the population will quickly dissipate and they can return to their usual style of arguing about minor details of almost identical policies.
However, I think that this, combined with the way the indented "mugging" of the BNP leader on QT has so disastrously backfired, will increase dissatisfaction of the British working class with Labour and see an increase in support for the BNP. A poll taken shortly after QT was broadcast suggested that one in five British voters would consider voting for the BNP - I think the real figure is actually probably higher. After all, how many of those polled were actually white British?
You'll often find that those who claim most not to be racist are quite often the most racist - which is why people like Ken Livingstone deny rights to white men that they extend to black or Asian men, but can't stop themselves making outrageous slurs against a Jewish reporter when they're caught off guard. The denial of the same rights to white people that black or Asian people enjoy is quite demonstrably racist - just because the person you are being racist against happens to be the same race as you doesn't make it any the less racist.
The thing is, everyone is racist to some degree or another. To deny this seems ludicrous to me. And yet to be declared a racist in today's society is one of the most damaging slurs you can throw at someone - people have lost their jobs, their reputation and their livelihoods on a single allegation of racism. For some daft reason it is even considered a "crime"!
We're supposed to live in a tolerant society - although, in truth, our society today is far less tolerant than it was 50 or even a 100 years ago. So why can we not tolerate someone who wants to be racist? As long as they don't go around demanding that we slaughter all people they don't like (although there is one group which frequently does that and are never held to account for it) and observe some basic principles of manners and politeness then why does it matter if a white person doesn't like black people or an Asian despises white people?
Many people may not like this viewpoint - but they have no right to impose their view on society any more than I have the right to impose my view on them. It should not matter - but as long as someone tries to enforce that it does you will see an increase in real, nasty racism. People do not like being forced to accept things that they do not like. You can not make a racist a non-racist just by saying they can't be racist. It will only fuel their sense of injustice and increase their feelings of being ignored at the expense of a minority.
We're storing up huge problems for the future that will tear this country apart if we do not address them soon. If we truly want to be a tolerant society we have to learn to tolerate ALL viewpoints - including those we don't like - not just those which a small elite deem to be acceptable.
The only real surprise about this for me is that anyone is surprised. Surely this has been obvious for some years to anyone who casts a critical eye over our nation and the monumental cultural changes that have been imposed on it over the last ten years?
Of course, nobody really is surprised. Most of us knew this was the case long ago and we also knew that the policy of calling anyone who opposed this massive cultural change on Britain a "racist" was purposefully intended to stifle debate and any genuine scrutiny of this open door immigration policy.
The question is - now that the truth is out in the open will it make any difference? I don't think so. I don't think the left are going to have a sudden change of mind and from what I have seen of the Tory Party there is little hope that they would do anything about it.
One of the few lucid moments of the comedic Question Time last week was when someone questioned whether Labour's "failure" to tackle immigration was to blame for the rise of the BNP?
Are you serious? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course it was to blame for the rise of the BNP - Jack Straw's bumbling response was not because he couldn't admit that the BNP electoral success is due to Labour immigration policy - it was because he didn't see it as a "failure" of that policy. Far from it - it was, from his perspective, a complete success.
Labour are also quite happy to see the BNP become more prominent. It serves their cause of portraying right wing as "racist" and thus increases the left wing hegemony on mainstream politics. The Tories have no choice but to move further away from the right to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP - not that the Tories seem to bothered by that - and even UKIP run scared of being guilty by association.
The important thing now is how we as a nation respond to this revelation and how our political parties treat us in response to our response. My guess is that the mainstream parties will hope that any dissatisfaction amongst the population will quickly dissipate and they can return to their usual style of arguing about minor details of almost identical policies.
However, I think that this, combined with the way the indented "mugging" of the BNP leader on QT has so disastrously backfired, will increase dissatisfaction of the British working class with Labour and see an increase in support for the BNP. A poll taken shortly after QT was broadcast suggested that one in five British voters would consider voting for the BNP - I think the real figure is actually probably higher. After all, how many of those polled were actually white British?
You'll often find that those who claim most not to be racist are quite often the most racist - which is why people like Ken Livingstone deny rights to white men that they extend to black or Asian men, but can't stop themselves making outrageous slurs against a Jewish reporter when they're caught off guard. The denial of the same rights to white people that black or Asian people enjoy is quite demonstrably racist - just because the person you are being racist against happens to be the same race as you doesn't make it any the less racist.
The thing is, everyone is racist to some degree or another. To deny this seems ludicrous to me. And yet to be declared a racist in today's society is one of the most damaging slurs you can throw at someone - people have lost their jobs, their reputation and their livelihoods on a single allegation of racism. For some daft reason it is even considered a "crime"!
We're supposed to live in a tolerant society - although, in truth, our society today is far less tolerant than it was 50 or even a 100 years ago. So why can we not tolerate someone who wants to be racist? As long as they don't go around demanding that we slaughter all people they don't like (although there is one group which frequently does that and are never held to account for it) and observe some basic principles of manners and politeness then why does it matter if a white person doesn't like black people or an Asian despises white people?
Many people may not like this viewpoint - but they have no right to impose their view on society any more than I have the right to impose my view on them. It should not matter - but as long as someone tries to enforce that it does you will see an increase in real, nasty racism. People do not like being forced to accept things that they do not like. You can not make a racist a non-racist just by saying they can't be racist. It will only fuel their sense of injustice and increase their feelings of being ignored at the expense of a minority.
We're storing up huge problems for the future that will tear this country apart if we do not address them soon. If we truly want to be a tolerant society we have to learn to tolerate ALL viewpoints - including those we don't like - not just those which a small elite deem to be acceptable.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bullys and bias
I've now watched QT on iplayer and it was, as others have pointed out, a travesty - but my own view was that was always likely to be the case. Let's be honest here - neither the BBC or those non-affiliated people taking part are in the least bit impartial and no one who goes on QT espousing views which the liberal elite do not deem acceptable is going to get a fair hearing.. It's been that way for some years now - at least since the departure of the late, great Robin Day.
Nick Griffin was rightly lambasted by Dimbleby over his past - but it is then wrong for Dimbleby not to apply the same standards to the other guests. Why, for instance, is he not criticising Jack Straw for his communist past? Why isn't he pointing out to Bonnie Greer that the Black Panther Party are now a respected political movement in the USA, but began as an overtly racist organisation (and quite probably remain so)? Not that I'm suggesting Ms Greer was involved in the Black Panther movement, but it demonstrates the absurd non-critical approach taken to overtly racist non-white organisations compared to the highly critical approach taken towards the BNP.
And why wasn't Dimbleby pointing out to Warsi that the majority of Moslem countries still treat women and non-Moslems as second class citizens (at best) and that perhaps she ought to consider why it is that non-Moslems are banned from entering certain cities? Not racist, strictly speaking, but most certainly fascist! How would she feel if Britain decided that non-Christians were not permitted within 10 miles of Westminster Cathedral?
Ultimately, though, I think Griffin has suffered some personal damage from this - but nothing that he won't recover from. He actually came off less badly than the others who were shown to be rude, ill mannered and incapable of proper debate. Shouting at your opponent and interrupting them at every opportunity does nothing to improve your own standing, but will encourage others to take a more sympathetic view of the person being bullied.
So this may not have worked out great personally for Griffin, but I don't think it will have done the BNP any harm. What it most certainly has done, though, is damage the credibility of the BBC and the other guests who appeared on the show.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The rise of fascism
As BNP leader Nick Griffin prepares to appear on BBC Question Time this evening I thought it would be appropriate to explore the phenomenal rise of fascism in Britain today.
And what better place to start than with the revelation that the Tory Party are to ban men from being candidates for election in certain constituencies. This was an arbitrary decision taken by a small elite of the Tory Party without consultation or vote by the ordinary members. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Tory Party.
This is nothing new or unique to the Tory Party either. The former London mayor, Ken Livingstone, was prone to rejecting duly appointed personnel purely on the basis of their gender or their colour - those personnel being too white and too male for Red Ken to bear. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in London.
Meanwhile, the Labour deputy leader pledges to end "the nightmare of men only boards" suggesting that she will use the power of government to interfere in private industry purely to promote a specific gender group at the expense of the other gender group. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Labour Party.
It's not only in politics where we see fascism is thriving. Environmentalists are trying to close down power stations, thus depriving millions of essential energy at a time when they need it most, purely on the basis of their misguided beliefs. They have no mandate to do so - just their belief that they alone are right - and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to use violence and destruction to achieve their aims. The parallels with Nazi brown shirts are all too obvious. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the environmental movement.
Then we have the police - once a respected and independent crime prevention organisation, but now nothing more than government enforcers. They arrest and imprison people purely on the basis that they hold views which the government object to or have said something which the government has decreed you are not allowed to say. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the police "service".
Fascism is alive and well and thriving every where you look in Britain today. The main political parties are as fascist as anything we have ever seen in this country come to power. And we worry about some minor party leader coming on to a TV programme once in a blue moon? The time to worry about fascism in this country is when the government of this country dictate who you can vote for and who you can listen to. Unfortunately, I don't think that time is far away now.
And what better place to start than with the revelation that the Tory Party are to ban men from being candidates for election in certain constituencies. This was an arbitrary decision taken by a small elite of the Tory Party without consultation or vote by the ordinary members. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Tory Party.
This is nothing new or unique to the Tory Party either. The former London mayor, Ken Livingstone, was prone to rejecting duly appointed personnel purely on the basis of their gender or their colour - those personnel being too white and too male for Red Ken to bear. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in London.
Meanwhile, the Labour deputy leader pledges to end "the nightmare of men only boards" suggesting that she will use the power of government to interfere in private industry purely to promote a specific gender group at the expense of the other gender group. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Labour Party.
It's not only in politics where we see fascism is thriving. Environmentalists are trying to close down power stations, thus depriving millions of essential energy at a time when they need it most, purely on the basis of their misguided beliefs. They have no mandate to do so - just their belief that they alone are right - and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to use violence and destruction to achieve their aims. The parallels with Nazi brown shirts are all too obvious. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the environmental movement.
Then we have the police - once a respected and independent crime prevention organisation, but now nothing more than government enforcers. They arrest and imprison people purely on the basis that they hold views which the government object to or have said something which the government has decreed you are not allowed to say. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the police "service".
Fascism is alive and well and thriving every where you look in Britain today. The main political parties are as fascist as anything we have ever seen in this country come to power. And we worry about some minor party leader coming on to a TV programme once in a blue moon? The time to worry about fascism in this country is when the government of this country dictate who you can vote for and who you can listen to. Unfortunately, I don't think that time is far away now.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Before pulling the trigger, aim gun away from foot
Apparently the BNP is to start permitting non-whites to join as a result of a legal challenge. I'm not too convinced that there will be a massive rush from non-whites to sign up to the BNP, but I certainly know at least a couple who will apply.
The thing is, though - if the BNP do start allowing non-whites to join then the mainstream parties will have simply removed one of the key barriers that prevents many people voting for the BNP. By forcing the BNP to stop discriminating on the basis of race, they will have deprived themselves of their favourite taunt that the BNP racially discriminate!
They might then claim that the BNP are only allowing non-whites to join because the law says they must, but the same could be said about any other organisation - including the mainstream parties.
I have a feeling that the establishment has just shot itself in the foot.
The thing is, though - if the BNP do start allowing non-whites to join then the mainstream parties will have simply removed one of the key barriers that prevents many people voting for the BNP. By forcing the BNP to stop discriminating on the basis of race, they will have deprived themselves of their favourite taunt that the BNP racially discriminate!
They might then claim that the BNP are only allowing non-whites to join because the law says they must, but the same could be said about any other organisation - including the mainstream parties.
I have a feeling that the establishment has just shot itself in the foot.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
You know that schools are in a a bad way ...
.... when the products of the system are not deemed qualified enough to stack shelves or to waft a box of detergent in front of a bar code reader at Tesco. Sir Terry Leahy says the standards are "woefully low" and he should know - being the boss of Britain's biggest private employer.
I suppose some will argue that those in the education system - such as the inspectors, teachers and exam markers - have a much better insight into the real state of education, but those people are terribly biased towards a system which generally they support thanks to the default political stance of your average "educationalist" (i.e. raving Marxist).
The boss of Tesco knows the reality, though and the reality is that schools are churning out dross these days. Quite often it is dross with 4 or 5 GCSEs, but frankly those are virtually worthless qualifications. The vast majority of school leavers who go on to university spend the first year of their life in tertiary education doing remedial work to bring them up to the standard required to study for a degree - something which the sixth form of a secondary school is supposed to prepare them for!
I know it's set in the USA, but do you remember the film "The Graduate"? Yes, I know it had little to do with education - well, formal academic education, anyway - but Dustin Hoffman played a character called Benjamin who had just attained a bachelors degree (I can't remember what in). He was just coming up to his 21st birthday.
The character was pretty unremarkable - he was certainly no prodigy - just your average everyday graduate of those times and the average graduate in England back then was also around the 21 mark. These days - what with gap years before they start, remedial years when they do start and more gap years during their time at university - the average age of a graduate is likely to be two or three years older - and yet they appear less able than their sixties and seventies equivalents.
Our entire education system is in a dire state - from primary through to university it is failing to deliver the standards required and is falling well below the standards of 30 years ago. The reason is obvious. Education stopped being a process for preparing children for the world of work and became a tool for indoctrinating children into the left wing political dominance.
Even in that sense, though, there are signs that education is failing. Not only are more and more school leavers lacking in the basic skills which were once taken for granted it is also becoming apparent, to me anyway, that many of those school leavers (including many that left school some time ago) are increasingly disillusioned with the left wing world view that has been foisted upon them and are turning to conservatism.
Generally they tend to be from white "working class" backgrounds - the very people the left was supposed to support, but who were long ago abandoned in favour of more appreciative "victim groups" such as immigrants, gays and feminists. The working class of Britain has always been socially conservative and, I suspect, will always remain so. The fact that they have been failed so abysmally by all our mainstream parties is the reason why so-called "far-right" parties such as the BNP are starting to prosper. The truth is that the BNP offer left wing politics with social conservatism - something which the white working class is bound to find attractive after so many decades of being sacrificed for the causes of minorities.
I suppose some will argue that those in the education system - such as the inspectors, teachers and exam markers - have a much better insight into the real state of education, but those people are terribly biased towards a system which generally they support thanks to the default political stance of your average "educationalist" (i.e. raving Marxist).
The boss of Tesco knows the reality, though and the reality is that schools are churning out dross these days. Quite often it is dross with 4 or 5 GCSEs, but frankly those are virtually worthless qualifications. The vast majority of school leavers who go on to university spend the first year of their life in tertiary education doing remedial work to bring them up to the standard required to study for a degree - something which the sixth form of a secondary school is supposed to prepare them for!
I know it's set in the USA, but do you remember the film "The Graduate"? Yes, I know it had little to do with education - well, formal academic education, anyway - but Dustin Hoffman played a character called Benjamin who had just attained a bachelors degree (I can't remember what in). He was just coming up to his 21st birthday.
The character was pretty unremarkable - he was certainly no prodigy - just your average everyday graduate of those times and the average graduate in England back then was also around the 21 mark. These days - what with gap years before they start, remedial years when they do start and more gap years during their time at university - the average age of a graduate is likely to be two or three years older - and yet they appear less able than their sixties and seventies equivalents.
Our entire education system is in a dire state - from primary through to university it is failing to deliver the standards required and is falling well below the standards of 30 years ago. The reason is obvious. Education stopped being a process for preparing children for the world of work and became a tool for indoctrinating children into the left wing political dominance.
Even in that sense, though, there are signs that education is failing. Not only are more and more school leavers lacking in the basic skills which were once taken for granted it is also becoming apparent, to me anyway, that many of those school leavers (including many that left school some time ago) are increasingly disillusioned with the left wing world view that has been foisted upon them and are turning to conservatism.
Generally they tend to be from white "working class" backgrounds - the very people the left was supposed to support, but who were long ago abandoned in favour of more appreciative "victim groups" such as immigrants, gays and feminists. The working class of Britain has always been socially conservative and, I suspect, will always remain so. The fact that they have been failed so abysmally by all our mainstream parties is the reason why so-called "far-right" parties such as the BNP are starting to prosper. The truth is that the BNP offer left wing politics with social conservatism - something which the white working class is bound to find attractive after so many decades of being sacrificed for the causes of minorities.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Different standards apply
Driving home very late last night I finally gave up on the CD and switched on the radio and tuned in to Radio Five Live - which turned out to be a big mistake.
The radio show playing at the time was a "debate" about whether is is right to ban BNP members from being teachers. I put debate in quotes because it was nothing of the sort - anyone who dared to oppose the idea of banning BNP members from teaching was shouted down by various participants while anyone supporting the ban was given ample opportunity to rant and rave no matter how ridiculous their proposition.
For example, one idiot kept ranting about whether we'd allow paedophiles to teach. Well, judging by the frequent and numerous incidents of teachers having sexual relations with their underage pupils I'd say it is pretty apparent that we already do - but what the hell is this equating being a member of a legitimate political party with kiddy fiddling?
The moderator - or whatever he was - allowed this on the basis that the BNP is "openly racist". Racism, apparently, is actually a crime according to the people on the show. I actually thought the crime was racial discrimination, racial harassment or incitement to racial hatred rather than just expressing or thinking racist views or thoughts - but what do I know. After all Ron Atkinson was sacked for casting aspersions on a black footballers commitment, but he wasn't actually convicted of any crime - I guess things have moved on from those days.
Anyway, the assertion was that anyone who is a member of the BNP must be racist - a sweeping generalisation which wouldn't be allowed in any other situation. For that reason, the panel decided that it was right to ban BNP members from being teachers as they would treat non-white children as inferior.
But hang on a second - if that is the assumption then we should also ban members of the Labour Party from being teachers as you could equally claim that they are just as likely to treat children of bankers, accountants, company directors etc as inferior. And you should ban Conservatives from teaching as they would be inclined to treat children of miners (if we had any), factory workers (ditto) and union activists as inferior.
Likewise you should ban Green Party members from teaching as they would treat meat eating children, those that arrive at school in 4x4s and just about any kid who isn't a tree hugging nut nibbler as inferior. Actually, we ought to just ban Green Party members. And what about Moslems - particularly those who go for the full Moslem garb? There you have a radical Moslem teacher who may be treating non-Moslem children as inferior - and may even be putting pressure on moderate Moslem children and their families to adopt the full regalia! Why don't we ban Moslems from teaching, then?
And as someone pointed out - to universal silence - we should ban feminists and gays from teaching as they may be inclined to treat boys or straight children (huh?) as inferior. If you take the proposition to its natural conclusion - nobody should be allowed to teach.
But of course that is ridiculous. The fact is that teachers have to obey stringent rules in the way they treat children - both national laws and local school rules - no matter what their political affiliation or particular world view is. If any teacher breaks those rules they can be disciplined and even sacked - whether they are BNP members or members of the NUT (and the vast majority who have been disciplined or sacked have been members of the latter rather than the former).
What is being suggested here is that different rules should be made for BNP members purely on the basis that those who make the rules don't like them. That is bigotry, discrimination and intolerance on a grand scale.
The radio show playing at the time was a "debate" about whether is is right to ban BNP members from being teachers. I put debate in quotes because it was nothing of the sort - anyone who dared to oppose the idea of banning BNP members from teaching was shouted down by various participants while anyone supporting the ban was given ample opportunity to rant and rave no matter how ridiculous their proposition.
For example, one idiot kept ranting about whether we'd allow paedophiles to teach. Well, judging by the frequent and numerous incidents of teachers having sexual relations with their underage pupils I'd say it is pretty apparent that we already do - but what the hell is this equating being a member of a legitimate political party with kiddy fiddling?
The moderator - or whatever he was - allowed this on the basis that the BNP is "openly racist". Racism, apparently, is actually a crime according to the people on the show. I actually thought the crime was racial discrimination, racial harassment or incitement to racial hatred rather than just expressing or thinking racist views or thoughts - but what do I know. After all Ron Atkinson was sacked for casting aspersions on a black footballers commitment, but he wasn't actually convicted of any crime - I guess things have moved on from those days.
Anyway, the assertion was that anyone who is a member of the BNP must be racist - a sweeping generalisation which wouldn't be allowed in any other situation. For that reason, the panel decided that it was right to ban BNP members from being teachers as they would treat non-white children as inferior.
But hang on a second - if that is the assumption then we should also ban members of the Labour Party from being teachers as you could equally claim that they are just as likely to treat children of bankers, accountants, company directors etc as inferior. And you should ban Conservatives from teaching as they would be inclined to treat children of miners (if we had any), factory workers (ditto) and union activists as inferior.
Likewise you should ban Green Party members from teaching as they would treat meat eating children, those that arrive at school in 4x4s and just about any kid who isn't a tree hugging nut nibbler as inferior. Actually, we ought to just ban Green Party members. And what about Moslems - particularly those who go for the full Moslem garb? There you have a radical Moslem teacher who may be treating non-Moslem children as inferior - and may even be putting pressure on moderate Moslem children and their families to adopt the full regalia! Why don't we ban Moslems from teaching, then?
And as someone pointed out - to universal silence - we should ban feminists and gays from teaching as they may be inclined to treat boys or straight children (huh?) as inferior. If you take the proposition to its natural conclusion - nobody should be allowed to teach.
But of course that is ridiculous. The fact is that teachers have to obey stringent rules in the way they treat children - both national laws and local school rules - no matter what their political affiliation or particular world view is. If any teacher breaks those rules they can be disciplined and even sacked - whether they are BNP members or members of the NUT (and the vast majority who have been disciplined or sacked have been members of the latter rather than the former).
What is being suggested here is that different rules should be made for BNP members purely on the basis that those who make the rules don't like them. That is bigotry, discrimination and intolerance on a grand scale.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Making the BNP "acceptable"
So it appears that the establishment are going to force the BNP to accept non-white members.
In a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was told that he had less than a month to provide written undertakings that the party would abide by race relations legislation.
That in itself is a very telling paragraph - it tells you where true power lies in this country (and it is not within government) - but I also wonder what the result of such a decision would mean for the BNP. They may be forced to change their constitution to accept non-white members, but that doesn't mean they will change their policies.
And with the removal of the one barrier - the charge of racism - that prevents many people from joining, supporting or voting for the BNP it could actually result in a surge of support for the "far right" party, but is unlikely to result in a surge in membership applications from non-whites (even though I know one or two Sikhs who would join in an instant).
Personally, I've always considered the BNP decision to limit membership to whites self-defeating - they can restrict who joins simply by policy just like the Tory, Labour and Libdem parties can (and do). Equally, I think this decision by the (absurdly titled) Equality and Human Rights Commission just as self-defeating. The EHRC seem to forget that the Black Panthers were also a group who restricted membership based on ethnicity and, while they did so, were treated as pariahs. As soon as they were forced to open up their membership they became mainstream and are now lauded and celebrated by the left even though their fundamental principles never changed.
In a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was told that he had less than a month to provide written undertakings that the party would abide by race relations legislation.
That in itself is a very telling paragraph - it tells you where true power lies in this country (and it is not within government) - but I also wonder what the result of such a decision would mean for the BNP. They may be forced to change their constitution to accept non-white members, but that doesn't mean they will change their policies.
And with the removal of the one barrier - the charge of racism - that prevents many people from joining, supporting or voting for the BNP it could actually result in a surge of support for the "far right" party, but is unlikely to result in a surge in membership applications from non-whites (even though I know one or two Sikhs who would join in an instant).
Personally, I've always considered the BNP decision to limit membership to whites self-defeating - they can restrict who joins simply by policy just like the Tory, Labour and Libdem parties can (and do). Equally, I think this decision by the (absurdly titled) Equality and Human Rights Commission just as self-defeating. The EHRC seem to forget that the Black Panthers were also a group who restricted membership based on ethnicity and, while they did so, were treated as pariahs. As soon as they were forced to open up their membership they became mainstream and are now lauded and celebrated by the left even though their fundamental principles never changed.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Are the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems racist?
I seem to be posting a lot about the BNP these days. Believe me, I find it a little tiresome, but I find the "BNP are racist" argument even more so. The excellent blog Letters From A Tory links to yet another tirade against the BNP from Matt Wardman.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Who are the racist fascists?
The BNP on "The Big Questions"
I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".
First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).
Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.
The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.
No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.
Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).
It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.
Meanwhile in South Africa
Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.
As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....
"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."
The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.
In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.
I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".
First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).
Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.
The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.
No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.
Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).
It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.
Meanwhile in South Africa
Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.
As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....
"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."
The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.
In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
My thoughts on the BNP election victory
There's been an awful lot of talk about the election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons from the BNP to the EU Parliament. The MSM have been falling over themselves to give various political luminaries the chance to say how "sickened" or "horrified" they are by the thought that these people have been elected by British voters.
The first thing that crosses my mind is that a lot of these people - such as Nick Clegg - are supporters of the shitty PR voting system that allows for fringe parties to get elected. If you want PR, then get used to parties like the BNP winning seats, because it will happen - but don't then blame the British people for the crappy voting system you introduced.
The other thing that struck me was that if we weren't members of the EU then the BNP wouldn't be sending BNP members to Brussels to attend the mother of all mickey-mouse parliaments.
Don't blame the British people for their election - blame PR and Ted Heath!
The first thing that crosses my mind is that a lot of these people - such as Nick Clegg - are supporters of the shitty PR voting system that allows for fringe parties to get elected. If you want PR, then get used to parties like the BNP winning seats, because it will happen - but don't then blame the British people for the crappy voting system you introduced.
The other thing that struck me was that if we weren't members of the EU then the BNP wouldn't be sending BNP members to Brussels to attend the mother of all mickey-mouse parliaments.
Don't blame the British people for their election - blame PR and Ted Heath!
Above the law
I've been out most of the night enjoying some local hospitality so I missed the news, but apparently the BNP held a press conference outside the Houses of Parliament which was disrupted by a protest from a group calling itself "Unite Against Fascism" (obviously, they don't do irony).
What amazes me is that this group were apparently waving placards and chanting - which is fair enough as that is what protesters do - but I thought there was a law prohibiting protests within a certain radius of parliament?
As anyone knows, the Houses of Parliament is protected by a number of armed, uniformed police officers as well as a fair few of plain clothes milling about. It should not have been possible for this group to get anywhere near the Houses of Parliament with their placards - and on having done so they should have been arrested immediately.
The fact that they did get to protest where they did and that nobody tried to stop them tells me an awful lot about that protest - i.e. it must have been condoned by somebody in authority who feels they have the power to usurp the law.
That is more scary than any BNP press conference.
What amazes me is that this group were apparently waving placards and chanting - which is fair enough as that is what protesters do - but I thought there was a law prohibiting protests within a certain radius of parliament?
As anyone knows, the Houses of Parliament is protected by a number of armed, uniformed police officers as well as a fair few of plain clothes milling about. It should not have been possible for this group to get anywhere near the Houses of Parliament with their placards - and on having done so they should have been arrested immediately.
The fact that they did get to protest where they did and that nobody tried to stop them tells me an awful lot about that protest - i.e. it must have been condoned by somebody in authority who feels they have the power to usurp the law.
That is more scary than any BNP press conference.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Are we opening the door to extremists?
Alice Miles thinks that denial is going to open the door to the "extremists" of the BNP.
.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.
Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.
That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.
That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.
When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.
It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.
.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.
Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.
That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.
That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.
When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.
It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.
Oh, brother!
Over on The Telegraph, Stephan Shakespeare announces the saviour of democracy - a voters union.
Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.
I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.
Indeed there are.
First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.
Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.
Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.
Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.
Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.
Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.
Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.
At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.
In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.
They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.
Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.
Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.
The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.
The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.
UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.
Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.
I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.
Indeed there are.
First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.
Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.
Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.
Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.
Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.
Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.
Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.
At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.
In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.
They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.
Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.
Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.
The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.
The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.
UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Core beliefs
First of all, let's start with the best joke of the day from Tim Montgomerie talking about the possibility that the BNP may win a seat in the EU Parliament.
Britain will no longer be able to proudly say it has kept fascists out of high office.
That's funny for a couple of reasons. First of all, the BNP don't claim to be fascist - that assertion is put forward by people like Montgomerie - they claim to be just another democratic political party, but one with a different world view to that of the three main parties. Just because someone says different doesn't make it so - it's what they do that matters.
Which is why it is funny on the second level - because if you want evidence of fascism you only have to look at our current government for that. Fascism is characterised by authoritarianism, corporatism and the suppression of free speech - three major features of this Labour administration. Fascists in high office? We already have them, Tim old boy.
The main thrust of Montgomerie's article though is to claim that the BNP present a veneer of respectability to hide their core beliefs and have successfully used the internet to promote this. Montgomerie uses an anecdote about a conversation with two people who were suggesting they would vote BNP.
I asked if they knew about the Nazi ideology that many BNP activists followed. I asked if they knew about the party's preference for an all-white Britain. They didn't. They were horrified and promised to find a different vehicle for their protest vote.
Now this may be true about some BNP members, but the point is that it is not necessarily the position of all of them or even the majority of them. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members who actively support elements of Nazi ideology - such as anti-smoking, animal "rights", environmental obsession and suppression of free speech and thought.
More to the point, you will find amongst the ranks of the senior Labour party many MPs and even current and former Cabinet members who were supporters and followers of the communist ideology. Let's be honest about this, Hitler was a madman and responsible for the death of some 15 million people, but he pales in comparison with the heroes of the left.
The ideology that so many Labour members, MPs and leaders followed caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. It's repellent enough that the Nazis murdered some 6 million people in their concentration camps - why is it less repellent that the communists so beloved of Labour murdered tens of millions more in their gulags?
Why do we forget this? Why do we forgive it?
I know it's hard, but if you remove Hitler's anti-semitism and the fact he led Europe into a major conflagration there is no doubt that he transformed Germany from a broken and pathetic nation into a major industrial and economic power. People forget just how low Germany had sunk in 1933. Hitler's Germany gave us BMW and Volkswagen. Communism gave us the Moskvitch and Lada.
So if you're talking about core beliefs - are BNP any worse than Labour?
I don't think so.
Britain will no longer be able to proudly say it has kept fascists out of high office.
That's funny for a couple of reasons. First of all, the BNP don't claim to be fascist - that assertion is put forward by people like Montgomerie - they claim to be just another democratic political party, but one with a different world view to that of the three main parties. Just because someone says different doesn't make it so - it's what they do that matters.
Which is why it is funny on the second level - because if you want evidence of fascism you only have to look at our current government for that. Fascism is characterised by authoritarianism, corporatism and the suppression of free speech - three major features of this Labour administration. Fascists in high office? We already have them, Tim old boy.
The main thrust of Montgomerie's article though is to claim that the BNP present a veneer of respectability to hide their core beliefs and have successfully used the internet to promote this. Montgomerie uses an anecdote about a conversation with two people who were suggesting they would vote BNP.
I asked if they knew about the Nazi ideology that many BNP activists followed. I asked if they knew about the party's preference for an all-white Britain. They didn't. They were horrified and promised to find a different vehicle for their protest vote.
Now this may be true about some BNP members, but the point is that it is not necessarily the position of all of them or even the majority of them. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members who actively support elements of Nazi ideology - such as anti-smoking, animal "rights", environmental obsession and suppression of free speech and thought.
More to the point, you will find amongst the ranks of the senior Labour party many MPs and even current and former Cabinet members who were supporters and followers of the communist ideology. Let's be honest about this, Hitler was a madman and responsible for the death of some 15 million people, but he pales in comparison with the heroes of the left.
The ideology that so many Labour members, MPs and leaders followed caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. It's repellent enough that the Nazis murdered some 6 million people in their concentration camps - why is it less repellent that the communists so beloved of Labour murdered tens of millions more in their gulags?
Why do we forget this? Why do we forgive it?
I know it's hard, but if you remove Hitler's anti-semitism and the fact he led Europe into a major conflagration there is no doubt that he transformed Germany from a broken and pathetic nation into a major industrial and economic power. People forget just how low Germany had sunk in 1933. Hitler's Germany gave us BMW and Volkswagen. Communism gave us the Moskvitch and Lada.
So if you're talking about core beliefs - are BNP any worse than Labour?
I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)