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.

The next Zimbabwe

Long before I started blogging - long before there was an Internet for me to blog on even - I was one of those people who wasn't taken in by the conversion of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe or the "saintly" Sir Robert Mugabe (just plain Mr. as he was back then), although I have to be honest and admit that even I was surprised by how quickly Rhodesia the bread basket of Africa was turned into Zimbabwe the basket case of Africa.

Zimbabwe didn't collapse overnight - it was a long process that began in 1979. Similarly, Mugabe didn't suddenly become a despot - he was always a despot. It just took a long time for the west to realise.

And the reason for both of these events being allowed to happen is that for 20 years of Mugabe's rule he was given an easy ride by the liberal left and their media. It was only when the dreadful state of that once successful state became impossible to deny that the liberal left started to give it some scrutiny - and by then it was too late. Zimbabwe is a failed state with a population riddled with disease and on the verge of starvation.

What is more, anyone pinning their hopes of an MDC putsch and a change of government making a difference will be severely disappointed. It will not change a thing - different face, same old corrupt despotic regime.

The reason I am saying this now is because I want it to go on the record this time - in 20 years time South Africa will be where Zimbabwe is now. The "rainbow" nation will be just another failed African state riddled with corrupt self-serving officials, disease will be rife and huge numbers of people will be living in a state of perpetual starvation.

Why do I think this? Socialism.

Mugabe was and is a Marxist. The ANC was and is Marxist. Even in the hands of genuinely good people socialism will always lead to authoritarianism and totalitarianism - it has to, there is nowhere else for it to go. The only question is - how soon?