So-called anti-fascists protested outside the home of the English National Ballet. They are unhappy about the ‘BNP ballerina’. Some of them carried placards calling for her to be sacked.
Let me get this right; membership of BNP should preclude one from gainful employment? Have we now come to the point of driving out from society anyone whose views we do not like? No doubt many of these ‘anti-fascists’ were earlier this week in support of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, stridently making the case that no-one be deprived of the right to buy goods and services on account of their sexual orientation.
All very well, but do they not see the irony in their position? Or is it simply that in our prevailing morality, members of the BNP have no rights?
In the so-called fight against fascism, perhaps a little consistency wouldn’t be a bad thing.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
But what happens if someone is both gay and a member of the BNP? This was discussed here. Which way do the anti-fascists turn? Or does being a member of the BNP come before everything else?
January 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Niether side cover themselves with glory here. Still, am all for their right to protest in our free soceity!
January 12th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Yes, CS. Like you, I agree with their right to protest. Let them protest, but let them remember that they are not the sole arbiter of entitlement to rights.
‘Rights’ is becoming an ugly word, used by intolerant people to claim ever more freedoms to force their morality upon everyone else, while seeking to deny others what they insist on claiming for themselves.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
They clearly wouldn’t be taking this line if she wasn’t a leading ballerina. I doubt the protest made any difference either way, but it is an interesting debate.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I have heard some accuse the English National Ballet of promoting the BNP by not sacking her. If anyone is promoting the BNP, it is the Guardian who foolishly outed her as a BNP member, and these self-styled anti-fascists who are creating a higher profile for the BNP by gathering outside to protest.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I kind of agree with what you are saying about the guardian and the protesters giving the BNP more coverage. But what to do?
I did think it was interesting that such a wide range of “faith” based organisations were momentarily united in protesting against the Sexual Orientation Regulations.
There’s the whole question though of rights and responsibilties. If a political party is actively looking to flout the laws of the country (and I would argue the BNP are…they’re just getting increasingly clever about it) then should people who support these parties really expect there to be no consequences?
Its a tough one.
Political correctness seems to have been turned into a weapon to fired right back at anyone who tries to promote a tolerant society.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Once again, the problem stems from the lack of understanding of what is a ‘right’. Nothing can be a right if it infringes on the freedom of another.
The dancers membership of the BNP does not harm anyone else. Now if she or the BNP break laws, then prosecute. If not, mind we should mind our own business.
With regard to gays buying goods and services, they may buy from anyone willing to sell to them. That infringes on no one else’s freedom. When the new law forces people to sell goods to gays, this is removing the vendors freedom to trade.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Richard Barnbrook, BNP councillor for Barking and Dagenham, went to see Simone Clarke’s performance today.
He is quoted on the Guardian website as saying with regard to Simone Clarke’s relationship with her Cuban-Chinese partner, that he hoped the couple would not have children.
“I’m not opposed to mixed marriages but their children are washing out the identity of this country’s indigenous people,”
(The couple have a three year old child by the way).
I think Simone and Barnbrook need to have a chat.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
‘I think Simone and Barnbrook need to have a chat.’
I think Simone needs to have a chat with herself. It seems she is not as aware of the BNP’s policies as she may have thought. Not that I blame her, though. The new-look BNP has done an amazing job of keeping their unpalatable views hidden.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:21 am
“The new-look BNP has done an amazing job of keeping their unpalatable views hidden.”
You only have to look at the demographic future of Europe to see why people are turning to the BNP and the ‘far right’. By 2060, the native British population will be a minority in the UK (this will be the first time in history an ethnic group has voluntarily become a monirity in it homeland) and 20 year late, in 2080, ethnic Europeans will become a minority on the European continent.
Now these are facts…on current trends this is what is going to happen.
Many of you reading this will think ’so what? who cares if whites are a minority, after all we’re all human! And besides..the new immigrants will BECOME British!’
Well, they might ‘become’ British in the sense that they adopt some British customs and mannerism, but they will still radically alter the country’s character. Britain will be nothing like what it is now, the ‘old’ Britain will be gone and in it’s place will be something new, something that to many people will feel alien. It won’t feel like ‘their’ country anymore. The boot will be on the other foot, and they (and their children) will be the minority.
Once again, I know many of you reading this will think ‘but I don’t care if I or my children will be a minority, because we’re all human!’
But the problem is that we ARE human, and humans, whether we like it or not, prefer to be around their own kind. This is racist I know, but it’s an instinctive reaction that goes back to when we were still belonged to fighting tribes. People who didn’t look like us had to be part of an enemy tribe. They’ve even done experiments which prove this fact- If you show a white baby a picture of a black face, it reacts more negatively than when you show it a picture of a white face. (Even though it is a baby and doesn’t know what race it, itself is). The white baby instinctively knows that the black person is not a member of it’s tribe. The same applies vice versa with black babies.
You may think this is all silly, but it shows a deeper sense of racism (or ‘racial awareness’, depending on what you want to call it) than we might be conciously aware of. How many of you have very ethnically diverse friendship groups? (and I’m not talking about just about one or two black people you know from work). Also, how many of you white folks would feel comfortable at a pub or nightclub where your were the ONLY white face?
Anyhow, my point is that many white people are afraid of becoming a minority. And other are just afraid of losing Britain as it is in it’s current form, and having to live in a country that feels foreign.
This is the reason people are increasingly supporting the far right. It’ has nothing to do with believing ‘fascist’ ideology. It’s being afraid of what the future holds for them and their country.
Go on call me a ‘racist’…it’s the easy way out rather than thinking what I’ve had to say.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
One thing I forgot the emphasise…all this has nothing to do with ‘hating’ other races. I certainly don’t hate people beacuse of the colour of their skin, and clearly neither does Simone Clarke because she has a non-white partner. Despite my points about sub-concious racism, will still have to try to treat each other with love and respect.
I know for certain, I have a lot less hate in my heart than those ‘anti-Hate’ protesters who are trying to destroy Ms Clarke’s career.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Justin, thank you for your comments. I will try to address as many as I can.
You wrote:
‘Go on call me a ‘racist’…it’s the easy way out rather than thinking what I’ve had to say.’
First things first, contrary to what you expect, I will not call you a racist. When people come to my blog to comment, I like to hear them out, and respond to their arguments. Namecalling just gets in the way of that.
You also wrote:
‘You only have to look at the demographic future of Europe to see why people are turning to the BNP and the ‘far right’.’
You quoted some figures as well. I don’t know where you got your statistics from, but I broadly agree that mass immigration is a concern for many, and as the mainstream parties are not addressing it, many are turning to the far left (I beg to disagree with your categorisation of the BNP as ‘far right’).
Like you, I do not think that everybody who supports the BNP is racist. That is not the same thing as saying that the BNP is not racist. In my opinion, it is a racist party. However, there are real concerns about immigration, etc, and many people see the BNP as the only party who are even prepared to address immigration. It doesn’t mean that these people are racists. It is not, after all, racist to care about immigration. It is also not racist to care about the preservation about your culture and your way of life. Anybody reading through this blog will see that I have spoken out on occasion about the erosion of the British way of life, the supplanting of our values by alien cultures. I am concerned about the islamification of Great Britain. And I am not the only one. But what is the Government doing about these issues? Not very much. Someone made a comment on Ellee Seymour’s blog (on a post about the ballerina story) that the way the BNP literature is presented, if she (the commenter) didn’t know any better, she may have been tempted to support them. And she has a point. Many people in this country have genuine concerns about these issues, and the BNP seems to be the only party articulating these.
Why this state of affairs? I blame the Left and the political correctness lobby. For a long time, anyone who expressed concern about immigration was denounced as a racist. Even after the July 7 bombings, we had the police making idiotic statements that the attacks had nothing to do with islam, as if it was by sheer coincidence, and nothing more, that the four bombers turned out to be muslims. As a result of such thinking etc, anyone with a genuine concern knew better than to come out and say something. Remember the Conservative Party General Election campaign? ‘It is not racist to impose limits on immigration’. Even the wording of the poster, almost supplicatory, as if begging the electorate not to think of them as racists for daring to mention immigration. And how did that help them in the long-run? Not very much. We now have David Cameron doing public penance for the manifesto, as if it were a bad thing to have wanted to address immigration.
So in the main, I agree with you when you say that people have a desire to conserve their community. Too much change is not good for any community. People are entitled to care about immigration. Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing. I have just been arguing on another post that I don’t support the idea of multiculturalism. I don’t believe that all cultures are equally valid. Some cultures are downright repressive and harmful, and we should worry if they attempt to override our basic values. We are right to worry about that. That does not make us racists.
Who do I blame for the current state of affairs? None but the Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition, and the liberal Left. They have left us with a situation where we fear to speak out about the issues that concern us. The BNP have merely exploited that situation. Unless and until the mainstream begin to address this problem, the BNP will continue to make more gains.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
If Simone was a member of Repect, the SWP or some far left outfit, I wonder if the level of righteous indignation about her BNP membership would be of the same order…I think not. They’d probably be promoting her. She’s entitled to her views. I don’t share them though…
January 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I assumed you’d call me a racist because your anti-BNP statements.
Personally, I am not a BNP member, nor have I ever met anyone who is a BNP member. My impression of the BNP comes (as I assume yours does) from what I’ve read in the newspapers and on the internet.
The newspaper generally portray them as a thuggish group of skinheads (the guardian’s story about it’s middle-class members being the exception). The BNP on the other-hand tries to portray itself simply as a party of everday folk who are unhappy with multiculturalism and don’t want the ethnic make-up of Britain to change any further.
So what is the truth? Which of these two descriptions are they. Well, in my opinion they are both. Yes there is a significant ‘nasty’ factor involved, people who join-up for reasons of hate more than anything.
But, because the leadership has made an effort to attract moderate people by softening its image, these new members are in fact changing the party from within. Now I understand you might be skeptical of this considering Griffina and many of the old-guard are still in power, but there are more and more voices of moderation coming from within.
I picked this up from reading their online blogs and chat sites. The old ‘hard core’ racist elements of the BNP are furious at the directiont the party is going, and many have left in disgust. In Griffins words ‘The party has changed beyond recognition in the last few years’. And I think it will continue to change further, until it resembles the French National Front and can gather 20-25% public support.
This is my hope, because I do agree with you that there are unsavourly elements in the BNP. But the more that moderate people like Simone Clarke get involved and turn the BNP into a comon-sense oppositon to multiculturalism, the more I am inclined to vote for them.
Currently, I don’t see any other political party willing to take a stand on these issues
Regards,
Justin
January 13th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
According to the Guardian, whites will be a minority by 2100. I had previously read 2060, anyhow they’re just estimates and the result will be the same regardless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,363777,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4058740,00.html
January 13th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Justin- You may or may not be a racist, but you are an apologist for racism.
Let’s not glamourise the BNP. I value Britishness, but I don’t see it as being tied to a racial concept and I worry when I see someone in a publicly prominent position being effectively used as a poster girl for groups which seek to deprive British people of their Britishness on the basis of ethnic origin or religous identity-
And yes Justin, I a white Male HAVE been to clubs where I and a friend WERE the only white faces. We have black partners, that is why.
And being of Irish Catholic ancestry, I have no illusions that my origins are squeeky clean to the BNP either.
Like it or not in five hundred years ALL OUR DESCENDENTS WILL BE BROWN and the BNP can just get used to it.
As I said elsewhere, on another blog there are certain things people in the public eye, representing National institutions cannot do, such as use heroin or espouse views generally accepted as odious and inflammatory.
Sorry Simone, you’re very pretty, your opinions are not.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“Justin- You may or may not be a racist, but you are an apologist for racism.”
-and you are an apologist for ethnic geneocide (’gene’ocide meaning the extinction up an ethnic group).
“I value Britishness, but I don’t see it as being tied to a racial concept.”
-so an Australian Aboriginal born in China is ‘Chinese’ by your logic?
It depends on how one defines the word ‘British’ doesn’t it? Anyone with a British passport could be called ‘British’. On the otherhand it can also be used to describe the native ethnic population of this country.
I find your apparent glee at the forthcoming extinction of the Anglo-saxon gene pool quite disturbing. Would you be so blaze if it were another ethic group that faced such a future? The American-Indians for example?
What do you think about their submegence and near extinction caused by mass European immgigration? Would you tell a little Cherokee boy “YOUR DECENDANTS WILL ALL BE WHITE, and you can just get used to it!” ?
You see Joe, while you may happily await a world without white folk, a lot of people feel uncomfortable about such a possibility. That’s not racist, that’s just human nature. Just as the American Indians are justified feeling uncomfortable about their future as an ethnic group, so are the British.
Human nature is more complex than the liberal-left likes to admit. As much as people sympasise with the ‘we all bleed the same colour blood’ type catchphrases, they still feel uncomfortable about being part of a retreating ethnic group. You cannot change this fact, and for this reason the BNP, and European far-right will continue to grow.
All our decendants might be brown, but the future hasn’t been decided yet. If is does go that way I think the world will be a much less interesting place.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Joe, you said:
‘As I said elsewhere, on another blog there are certain things people in the public eye, representing National institutions cannot do, such as use heroin or espouse views generally accepted as odious and inflammatory.’
Since when does a ballet dancer become described as being ‘in the public eye’?
Sure, the public pay to go and see her, but since when does that mean that every aspect of her life should be opened up to public scrutiny? If she was using her ballet to promote the BNP, that would be another matter, but even then, I submit that that would be between her and her employers. They may well take the view that performing on stage with the BNP rosette pinned on to her costume may drive away audiences. In that case, they would be within their rights to take action.
As it it, Simone Clarke has done none of these things. She is a member of the BNP, she has not sought to promote them. In fact, we only found out about her when the Guardian decided to publish her name.
Are you telling me that anyone who works in a job where they have access to the public (your seemingly wide definition of ‘public eye’) should hold ‘acceptable views’? To extend your reasoning, the only jobs suitable for the BNP are those hidden away from other members of the public, such as, perhaps, coal mining or deep sea diving?
January 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
In response to Justin, I don’t have that many ‘anglo saxon’ genes. Even if I did they are a mere genetic combination, some of which are beneficial some of which are not. They same is true of other genetic strains which have been geographically separate for millenia and have acquired cetain characteristics, such as melanin levels in skin,in isolation. This does not mean that such genes are useful cultural identifiers or that we should somehow give a damn about the prservation of differing shades of skin or cultural concepts developed in isolation without reference to a wider global society. Have you ever seen the film Deliverance? Breeding from a limited gene pool is no great leap forward. So no, I do not ‘look forward with glee’ to the gradual disappearance of ethnic differences, I just accept it as an inevitable and not particularly worrying aspect of a an increasingly closer global community.
In response to yourself, Bel, I agree there is an underlying concept here which can unsettle. True she is not promoting the BNP through Ballet, but she is the prinipal ballerina and the BNP is for all British citizens, no matter what their ethnic or cultural identity. Her BNP membership hardly promotes the national Ballet as something for everyone.
Kate Moss lost modelling contracts for her vices, but Simone Clarke’s are in some ways more nefarious. I agree that someone’s political views are their own, but this isn’t just any other political party.
This is one that has to be stopped and has to be stopped now. Responsible people have to send out the message that parties such as the BNP have no place in modern Britain. As a free society, we can not ban the party itself, but we can maintain its pariah status and ostracise those who choose to associate with it. We can show as individuals and as a community, that we do not believe in dividing people up into categories based on where their ancestors happened to live and making those labels matter in our judgements of our fellow human beings, let alone fellow BRITISH CITIZENS.
January 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Joe, thank you for your comment. I see your concern, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that membership of BNP should lead to discrimination in employment, and ostracisation from society. You seem to be suggesting that membership of the BNP should rule one out from benefiting from the social and economic rights and freedoms enjoyed by other members of society.
Do you not find this a little troubling?
January 15th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I agree, Bel, there are some uncomfortable choices to make here. It would seem paradoxical that whilst opposing the views Britain sacrificed so much for 39-45, that we should seem to deny those freedoms that were fought for. It would seem.
However, this is not just ‘another point of view’. The BNP is not just ‘another party, albeit a bit extreme’.
To put it one way, a bank would be within it’s rights to deny someone employment on the basis of their having County Court Judgements against them. It would show a lack of financial acumen incompatible with a financial career. Or to put it another way, someone who is a member of supporter of the SPUC(like myself)may find that there are careers, such as say an abortion counsellor would not be open to them. This is not unreasonable.
Nobody forces people to join the BNP. But once people have made that choic, they must accept that such views are unpalatable to the rest of us. to be sure, discriminating against anyone is never pleasent, but if people really want to stand by such views, they must take the consequences. They can’t have it both ways.
Unfortunately, the rest of us would not be living up to our obligations to future generations- not to mention those whose ancestral British Identity was acquired in other geographical regions, people whose ancestors have been under British rule for in some cases three hundred years, but who the BNP now want to strip of their Britishness- if we did not stand up and say to people who support the BNP that they have crossed a line which separates them from the values of respect for others, fair play and human justice that this country is supposed to stand for. If we do not do that, then we are accepting Racism as ‘just another opinion’.
It was considered perfectly legitimate to treat Sinn Fein differently to other political groups only a few years ago, a group with far more electoral support and a case to put that had some argument on democratic merits. Yet it was generally agreed that while they were seen as linked to the PIRA, they could not be tolerated.
Just because people vote BNP doesn’t give them any more legitimacy then the fact that the Nazis won 44% of German votes in 1933.
If you start give the message that it’s ok to support the BNP disaffected people in some areas will take that on board. If Simone Clarke, of her own free will wants to be part of the BNP putting that message across, it’s quite legitimate for the rest of society to use her as a message that it’s not OK.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Joe, following your logic, it appears that the only jobs for which a BNP member should be unsuited are maybe, Immigration Advisor and such like.
Not ballet dancer.
Certainly not the majority of jobs in this country.
We become as intolerant as the BNP when we start ostracising people because they do not agree with us. If membership of the BNP is a crime, then that is another debate. It is not a crime to be a member of the BNP. The point of a free society is that everyone is entitled, within the limits of the law, to the same rights as everyone else. That should be as true for the BNP member as it is for everyone else.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I agree, Bel it is not a crime to be a BNP member, and nor should it be. It is socially unacceptable and so it should be.
The point I was making is that we CAN show our disapproval of the BNP as a society by drawing a line around its members and their views. That is the only way to combat such views and prevent them becoming mainstream. We have to show that there is a price to pay for holding such opinions and that price is being considered by the rest of society as someone socially unacceptable. Being principal ballerina for the English National Ballet is an honour, it is not just another job, such as, say sales ledger clerk or human resources assistant.
I don’t think it is wrong to say that the higher accolades of society should be out of bounds to those who wave two fingers at the social niceties of the society that awards those accolades.
I undertsand yout concern fot civil liberties and normally I would agree. But you cannot treat the BNP like any other political party. They are a social disease, like heroin and examples need to be set.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Joe, you say:
Being principal ballerina for the English National Ballet is an honour, it is not just another job, such as, say sales ledger clerk or human resources assistant.
I suggest that she achieved that by dint of hard work and talent, and not because someone bestowed it upon her.
She most likely deserves that job, and that is nothing to do with her views.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
On the basis of her hatrd work and talent, yes, she undoubtably does deserve the job. Unfortunately. that is countermanded by her open membership of an organisation dedicated to formenting racial tensions and undermining the very civilised society that affords us such luxuries as the National Ballet.
Her BNP membership negates any other claims she might have to what is still- hard work aside- a great honour.
Would you not agree that many impressionable young girls across the UK will look up to Ms Clarke and hope one day to emulate her?
Is she setting them an example?
However you dress it up, she is a role model who embraced views that we can not allow to spread.
God forbid I am adopting an authoritarian stance here, but can you not see that that is nothing to the appalling prospects that face us if people get the idea that the BNP are somehow socially acceptable, democratically electable and politically reasonable?
Seriously consider the prospects even of the BNP winning control in say, Barking and Dagenham.
If we are to defeat them by the rules of OUR game, democracy, (which is obviously NOT their game,) then it is all about the messages that society sends out.
The point is nobody forced her to join the BNP. She made that choice. She has to live with the fact that to the rest of us, that makes her a pariah.
January 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Have you ever seen the film Deliverance? Breeding from a limited gene pool is no great leap forward.
A very small number of people breeding in isolation can cause genetic defects, agreed. But NOT on a nation state level. For example, guess which ethnic group has the lowest problems with genetic diseases and defects in the world?
According to your theory it should be a group like the Brasilians or the Indians because their makeup has many racial influences. But no, it’s the SWEDES…the blondest of the blonde. The Swedes and the other Scandanavians have evolved with the least outside genetic influence of all the european, yet they are the healthiest. In fact, one the reasons their incredibly generous health systems can cope is because they’re so healthy. It could never work in other places.
The whole, ‘breed with your oposite to have healthy children theory is a complete myth. There is no evidence of it in reality.
“So no, I do not ‘look forward with glee’ to the gradual disappearance of ethnic differences, I just accept it as an inevitable and not particularly worrying aspect of a an increasingly closer global community.”
-I’s only the white gene pool that will disappear. Other ethnic groups would never let such fate befall them. In a 1000 years China will still be Chinese. Africa will still be African.
January 16th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Hey Joe,
If the only difference between which and black is skin colour..answer me these 5 questions..
1. why aren’t there any successfull black nations?
2. why couldn’t africans invent the following: writing, basic mathematics, the wheel?
3. why are there no great black scientists or thinkers?
4. why do blacks constantly perform well below whites on IQ tests, even though all attempts have been made to elimate cultural bias? (why do asians score better straight off the boat when such bias should effect them more?)
5. why are blacks always at the bottom of the economic scale no matter which country they live in?
All races are not equal, nothing in nature is equal. On average, blacks run faster than whites..and on average whites are smarter than blacks. That’s the result of evolving in different climates, that’s evolution.
Anyone who believes that all races are the same in every way, despite evolving separately over thousands years in vastly different climates, is not thinking straight.
I guess people will believe what they want to believe despite reality staring them in the face.
January 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Justin- What is the ‘white gene’? Not sure about that as biogenetic entity..
America seems a pretty successful society after Europe gave it all it’s poor and oppressed…
Frank, I is only fair I answer your points one by one.
1. Black nations are still economic dependencies of white western nations, their tinpot military dictatorships pawns in a larger game. Most are articifially created by western diplomats at the Berlin conference in 1884 and are still trying to develop a meaningful sense of their own national identity.
2.Er.. Where is Egypt?
3.Untrue. In the past they have been denied western educations- even in western counties- that is changing and we are seeing contributions from black people in both those areas
4. Complete racist fallacy based on the fact that binet’s original test have an ethnocentric bias. Factor in cultural differences and the discrepancy disappears.
5. Again, cultural factors. If you treat people as inferiors, they will behave as inferiors. It will take a longer time than people imagine for the scales to right themselves- Ireland has only just recovered from 800 years of British exploitation.
Lastly, Frank, Caucasoid and Negroid peoples diverged around 40,000 yrs ago. A drop in the ocean in evolutionary time. Not time enough for real biological differnces to appear- beyond the skin deep that is. It took 7 million years for the Homo line to diverge from the chimpanzee line. Ideas such as you propagate are exceedingly misleading and allow pseudoscientific prejudices to flourish, holding back real human development.
I don’t know about your ‘reality’, but certainly a very pretty black girl is staring me in the face right now, and I certainly don’t think of her as my inferior.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:47 am
whats so amazing joe is that i cant believe how fascist you are calling your self a liberal.What now?are you going to tell the people of barking and dagenham that they all deserve to die because the bnp is the official party?and what is your party doing to stop large scale immigration into this country?if you are truly a liberal you would leave simone clarke alone.dont think you have a better brain or you have a better sense than people who vote bnp.its their right.and whether you like it or not if this govt does not address this issue we could be in europe’s situation with the far right.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Thankyou for responding to each point. Let me respond to you answers in a little detail..
1. You’re blaming the failure of African nations on the arrival of Europeans. The problem is, African nations hadn’t progressed before Europeans arrived, nor have they progressed since when left to their own devices. The failure of Africa didn’t start at the Berlin conference in 1884. Whites easily colonised Africa because they had previously invented the technology that allowed them to do so. Modern weapons, modern science, modern machinery, modern institutions, modern tactics and methodologies. Black nations never developed these things so they were helpless when the Europeans arrived.
2. I’m talking about sub-saharan negroes, not Egyptians. The ancient Egyptians were not negroes although there were negroes living in Egypt. The Egyptians were a mixture of Indo-Europeans (following the great Indo-European invasions which took place from 5600 BC onwards) North African Arabs, and later, black Nubians (slaves and descendants of slaves).
A well preserved body of an early red-haired egyptian (3300 BC) is currently at the British Museum. However over time the 3 racial groups mixed and the blonde genes were bred out. There are countless references to what the Egyptians looked like, and they were not negroes:
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/redhairedmummiesegypt.html
http://www.hmnsmedia.org/files/marketing/Mummy/Hieroglyphs.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti (The Queen Nefirit Bust: “The bust itself is notable for exemplifying the understanding Ancient Egyptians had regarding realistic facial proportions.)
3. So you admit there are no great Black scientists or thinkers because you cannot not name any? Also, an intelligent race creates its OWN education institutions, it doesn’t rely on other races to educate it. Where are the great African universities and centres of learning in Africa? (in South Africa perhaps?)
4.Wrong. The discrepancy does not disappear, the racial IQ gap has not narrowed. There have been so many tests on this subject over the years, yet each time it’s the same result. And the funny thing is, the people developing the tests are usually politically motivated egalitarians like yourself. They’ve develop tests have absolutely no cultural influence at all..and still the results are the same. Even in cognitive response tests whites score higher than blacks. To quote Wikipedia: “Much research has been devoted to the extent and potential causes of racial-ethnic group differences in IQ, and the underlying purposes and validity of the tests has been examined. Most experts conclude that examination of many types of test bias and simple differences in socioeconomic status have failed to explain the IQ clustering differences. The findings in this field are often thought to conflict with fundamental social philosophies (such as yours), and have resulted in controversy.”
(And BTW, you didn’t answer my question about newly arrived asian immigrants performing better that the establish black population.)
5. Cultural factors? Come on..you think whites only discriminate against blacks, but allow other races to succeed? The failure of blacks when their left to their own devices in Africa shows it has little to do with discrimination by whites. That’s just a scapegoating.
In regards to your ‘Not time enough for real biological differences to appear’ statement’ I have 2 responses to this vague rebuttal of yours.
Firstly, to do with the numbers, a distinct biological race can evolve in around 10,000 years. The earliest european Cro-magno man, lived in Europe between 40,000 BC and 10,000 BC. (Towards the end of this period he began to develop such things as sculpture, engraving, painting, music and an early form of writing). From 10, 000 to the present he advanced a step further to become modern European.
In addition to genetic evolution, there is the process of natural selection. In the harsh climate of northern europe, being intelligent was an advantage in the battle for survival.
My second point is a more about common sense…
Different races have clearly evolved to be PHYSICALLY different from one another. This is biology is it not? Besides our obviously different facial structures and skin coloring, there are countless other differences in our physical make-up. For example, bone structure, blacks have narrower hips, longer arms and a curved femur. Whites have the opposite. An expert can tell the race of a person simple from looking at the teeth.
Also, there are countless genetic diseases the afflict only certain races, and a new pharmaceuticals industry is emerging that produces race-specific drugs. Now these biological differences have evolved since the races separated…. So where is the logic for there can be significant differences in our bodies, but not in our brains? Are our brains not part of our bodies? Has the brain been the one organ that has evolved in exactly the same way across all races, even thought the rest of our bodies have evolved differently?
The last point about your girlfriend is the reason why this topic has become taboo. It is extremely insulting to tell someone they belong to a race that is on average intellectually inferior. That is people try to avoid this issue altogether, despite all the evidence pointing to it as an obvious fact.
However a point which might give you some comfort, is that the majority of the white and black populations overlap in regards to IQ. It is just that there are more white people in the higher IQ bracket, and more blacks in the lower IQ bracket. In the white population, it is generally the people with higher IQs that have created the great inventions and advancements of European civilisation. The fact that there is no such intelligent elite group in the black race is the reason why there are not great black inventors or thinkers.
I’m sure your girlfriend is lovely and there’s probable no difference between you in intelligence. But looking at racial groups as a whole, then there ARE differences between various groups.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Before I reply to yourself, Frank, since your remarks deserve a proper response, let me just ask Gary when I ever unveiled myself as a ‘liberal’ on this blog, or when I urged the liquidation of the good burghers of Barking and Dagenham?
More worringly he asks what ‘my party’ has done to stop large scale immigation… How Gary, can you presume to know which party I vote for? From the wording of your response, I can guess how you THINK I vote, and I can tell you now, you’re wrong.
FRank to return to your points:
1. The history of culrural development was in origin conditional on environmental factors. The appearance of Emmer Wheat in the Near East 10,000 yrs ago was one such. Again, the prevalence of tractable animals capable of domestication is a crucial factor. It is why the Incas never developed the wheel- the lack of suitable ungulates to pull such vehicles even if they invented it. Sub saharan Africa never produced the favourable conditions necessary to initiate sedentary cultures with a labour surplus to invest human energy in what we see as ‘culture’. Life there was of it’s environmental nature nasty , brutish and short. When new innovations came, they were inevitably an external imposition and it takes time for these innovations to be developed by the indigenous people to fit their own cultures, rather than our needs- For example, the rail networks in Africa by and large lead from the Interior to the Coasts, the function for which they were designed being primarily the export to Europe of raw materials. This benefits our economies, not theirs.
2.There is a considerable body of academic opinion which argues that the Ancient Egyptians were a negroid people. The Language they spoke is reprsented by modern coptic- that is how the mystery of hieroglyphics wre deciphered- and the Copts are a Negroid people. Herodotus refers to the Egyptians in terms which support this.
3.There are websites which list the contributions to art and science made by black people. Otherwise with regard to your remarks about cultures providing their own education, I refer you back to point 1.
4. I have read the Wikipedia you refer to. It is notable that Wikipedia itself says that article may not be impartial. It is Pseudoscience, pure and simple. It is almost impossible to totally remove cultural factors as even our earliest stages of cognitive development take place within a defined cultural setting- one predisposed to ingraining within in those attributes of our culture deemed important- such as, say literacy and numeracy. I would argue that there is a regretable but still cultural as opposed to genetic tendancy for anti-intellectual attitudes to be handed down in black western cultures- but that is for complex social and historical reasons. Lastly. frank, without being a pedant, I don’t think you can presume to know my social philosphy solely on the basis of my opinions on race.
5. Yes whites, still discriminate against blacks. I think people- even apparently liberal ones- unconsciously think that slavery was morally wrong because it was the exploitation of stupid races by cleverer ones- a sad fact of history, but it happened because they actually weren’t as on the ball as us. It somehow eases our consciences and prevents us addressing the more troubling issues of our common humanity and the real roots of the difference in quality of life for the inhabitants of Guildford and the inhabitants of Kampala.
In answer to your new point about Cro-Magnon man, his development is purely cultural. any Paleoanthropologist will till you the anatomy of Cro-Magnon man is identical to modern man- modern Caucasoid, modern Negroid and modern Mongoloid.
What it may amuse you to consider is that Cro-Magnon man appeared in Europe as an invader from africa, dispossessing the Neanderthals who occupied Europe for 150,000 yrs.
Since Cro-Magnon man came from Africa, it is likely he was black, whilst Neanderthals, developing ethnic differnces in the colder lands of Pleistocene Ice Age Europe- was probly white with blonde hair and blue eyes.
These ytrivial physical differnces have an evolutionary explanation. But I would like to know why white people WOULD have evolved higher IQs? What is the evolutionary explanation you give for an otherwise unrecognised phenomenon in the history of the evolution of man? Why should life in Europe be so much harder than in Africa? The Neanderthals came to fruition in Europe, but were wiped out by our african ancestors 40,000 yrs ago.
Your last point is of course valid on the basis of the rest of your argument, it is one of those points which stands or falls with your stance in general. It is probably wrong of me to use those close to me as a point in such a debate, as it does lead to charges of subjectivity, which are entirely fair and therefore I will refrain from doing so.
I think you have identified certain valid enquiries to be sure, but I think in identifying a number of facts you have chosen to apply the one theory to explain all these- sometines in fact unrelated issues- with the one theory you want to believe in. That is understandable. It is a theoryb with a long standing comfort appeal. It appeals to our own historic sense that White Men- From Socrates to Sartre- have made the world what it is, and it justifies that. The reality is we have made much of the modern world in our own image, that is apparent. And if it isn’t in our image because it is ‘best ‘that way, than it leaves us with uncomfortable alternatives. Far better to believe that africa is scewed because they just can’t run themselves than admit that we took their raw materials, their mineral ores, their Ivory, their Labour and then scarpered leaving them with a few mission schools, our second hand weapons and a small western educated elite which would exploit them worse than we did, by formenting ethnic tensions amongst populations that did not have the education or the skills of their new masters- and that Africa’s mess has it’s roots in problems whites created.
Africa’s nations are not real countries, they are still economic dependencies of the west- we still have their resources without having to bother with looking after the people there- but western policies don’t exactly help responsible Africans get to run Africa either.
That’s just my take- I don’t ask you to accept it, just consider it and see if maybe there isn’t some truth in what I say…?
January 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I’ll respond shortly Joe..
January 18th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Justin asks, Would you tell a little Cherokee boy “YOUR DECENDANTS WILL ALL BE WHITE, and you can just get used to it!” ?
I’d tell him I hope he and his descendants enjoy long and happy marriages with the partner of their choice and that they have healthy and happy children, without others trying to tell them who their partners should be or complaining that these children are some sort of cultural threat or offend their aesthetic sensibiliites or whatever. What, I wonder, would Justin tell him?
January 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“I’d tell him I hope he and his descendants enjoy long and happy marriages with the partner of their choice and that they have healthy and happy children, without others trying to tell them who their partners should be or complaining that these children are some sort of cultural threat or offend their aesthetic sensibiliites or whatever. What, I wonder, would Justin tell him?”
-you forgot to add…”and besides, little Cherokee boy, I’m sure there’ll be museums about you extinct culture that your white decendants can visit, so don’t worry yourself.”
Personally, I would say this “Lad, It is a damn shame that you culture might not exist in the future and I really feel sorry for you. You’ll lose a unique way of life and a home that feels like home. You’ll lose part of your spirit and will feel alien in your own land.
But all is not lost. Sure some people don’t value your people and culture - they say it’s just inevitable that it’s going to vanish. But lad, don’t listen to them. It’s your right to cherish your unique heritage and it’s place in the world. Believe in the value of your culture because it’s part of who you are, and make it your duty to protect it for the next generation.”
That is what I’d say to the boy.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Do you have a problem with the dilution of Tibetan culture through massive Chinese immigration?
Most outsiders find it a shame that the Tibetan people and culture will soon be no more. The Tibetans themselves are extremely anxious about their future as a people. Telling them it doesn’t matter, as long as ” you descendants enjoy long and happy marriages with the partner of their choice and that they have healthy and happy children”, You would wish that for their children anyway wouldn’t you? Is that the ONLY thing in the world they have a right to worry about?
Your seem to believe that ‘cultures’ don’t have any intrinsic value, that the only value is in our inter-personal relationships.
I believe cultures do have an intrinsic value because they make our lives more interesting. They make us feel more connected with our community and they give us more of a sense of our place in the universe.
On another level, does the diversity of cultures in the world not make the world a more interesting place? Have you never travelled to another country because you wanted to experience a foreign culture?
So why is British culture so valueless in your eyes? Why does it not matter that one day Britain might be an Islamic republic, or that it becomes so multicultural that it loses any sense of itself? Why is British and European culture dispensable but others are not? It’s sad that non-British people see the value of British culture more than the British themselves. I guess it easier to get a proper perspective when you’re looking from a far, rather than when you’re actually part of something. I just wish more people could view Britain with they eyes of an outsider and realise that we have something worth defending.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Presumably Justin, you’d remind him to thank Andrew Jackson for removing the Cherokee people from their homeland and moving them away from other white folk back in the 1830s, so as to prserve their culture. Maybe Justin, you could tell him about the wise Jim Crow laws that helped preserve the integrity of his race as well…
Or maybe you could tell him that the wonderful thing about cultural heritage is that it can be passed on by Cherokee parent’s to their children EVEN when- shock horror- the other parent comes from a different ethnic background! The fact that many Native Americans today are not ‘pure blooded’, as you would describe them, does not seem to diminish their deep felt concern for the preservation of their pre-columbian traditions.
I guess my children would like as not be Birmingham City fans, but it won’t I’m sure, be genes that give them that loyalty- Do you not think that a Cherokee girl married to a white guy will pass her traditions on to her children, and her partner, if he has anything about him, would encourage that?
Nice try Justin, you were trying to use a politically charged issue to disguise the fact that your argument was still subtly linking survival of cultures to preserving racial differences.
The two are not inevitably linked.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I’m always a bit puzzled when people talk about preserving cultures. I mean, the only groups I can think of off-hand who really make an effort to preserve their cultural practices virtually unchanged from one generation to another are people like the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill or the Amish in America. Is it suggested they’re examples to emulate? Certainly our culture, in the sense of how we work, travel, are entertained and so forth has changed very radically over the last 30 years; were massive engines of cultural change like computers, the internet, a massive rise in car ownership and the invention of the contraceptive pill (to name just a few examples) avoidable? Should we have tried to avoid them?
Cultures, as Joe says, develop and change constantly. That’s completely different from their becoming extinct — or, as more usually happens — attempts being made to eradicate them (e.g. by banning the use of a language) or the people — that is, actual individuals — who practice the culture.
And I notice that Justin doesn’t seem particularly interested in letting this young Cherokee lad or lass making his or her own decisions about who to choose as a marriage partner or how they’re going to bring up their children.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
It might interest Justin to know that one of the most celebrated Cherokee leaders was the early nineteenth century Chief John Ross.
John Ross had a Scottish father and a Cherokee Mother. It didn’t stop him from being one of the greatest defenders of the Cherokee way of life against Jackson’s Cultural and Racial Imperialism. What would Justin have said to John Ross’ Children?
Would he have said “Sorry Cherokee Boy, you’re not a proper Cherokee- too much white blood!”
This imaginary Cherokee boy Justin has created is a red herring. He is an emotive yet imaginary canard being used to muddy the waters of this discussion by making the rest of us feel that our views are leading to the eradication of Native American cultures. Clever use of guilt as a tool.
As I hope I have demonstrated that argument is based on misleading logical fallacies and the attempt to link culture with genetics.
Can we please dispense with the fictional Cherokee boy and what we all might or might not say to him and stick to pertinent facts?
Justin, what would you actually tell a Black British Boy, both of whose parents were born in London, as was he himself, about his place in the world?
Where would you tell him he fitted in ?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
You’re missing the point of my analogy. The fate that befell the Indians is tragic one from their perspective. They lost their homelands, they lost their way of life and they lost their ethnic identity (not that you think that matters!).
Unfortunately, that is the way is goes in nature, one group overtakes another in the battle for survival. Back in the early 1800s it was a battle between two cultures, white and native american. If the native americans could have, they would have driven the whites back to the sea and reclaimed the land for their own. And they would have been in their right to do so.
So it is also the right for the native british to defend their culture against the imposition of multiculturalism and the dilution of their culture.
On the issue of race and culture, they are not ‘inevitably’ linked you are right. However, I do believe that certain races have a genetic predisposition for behavioral patterns and this forms an aspect of their culture (africans how a better natural sense of rhythm than whites and whites are more reserved and can often be cold -think germans). However such innate characteristics do not completely determine their culture. Customs are passed down from generation to generation. An Australian aborigine doesn’t naturally know how to play the digeredoo, he is taught.
If all the races of the world mixed completely..all the cultures would soon disappear or at least change.
Let’s say 50 million Africans emigrated to Japan, and every single one had several mixed race children with their Japanese partners. The next generation of children in Japan would not only look different but they would alter the nature of Japan itself. They would retain some aspects of the old Japanese culture, but Japan would be a much different place in so many subtle and not so subtle ways. The next generation, half japanese/half african would not pass on the traditions and customs in the same way as their forefathers. And so the Japanese culture would be changed (or “lost” depending on if you really liked it the way it was). The same thing will happen with Britain as the races mix, and you children grow up and mix in further. Look at how the Spanish influence in South America turned the decendants of vibrant jungle tribes into a homegenous, rootless, mulatto proletariat .
(You may disagree with this, but the Japanese don’t. They are extremely racially aware and are very vigilant at protecting their ethnic identity. Currently Japan has virtually no immigration policy and citizenship is based on blood. In the last decade they have only accepted around 200 refugees- that’s just 20 per year! But of course no one calls them racist because they are asian- only whites can be racist).
Another thing, with the numbers of migrants coming into Britain, it has become more and more difficult for them to integrate. Different communities are retaining their own identities and forming separate societies. How can this be good for the social cohesion? Also, if/when one day the islamic community becomes the majority in Britain, how would you feel if they voted to make Britain an Islamic state? I know this is a hypothetical that is a long way off, but it is still a possibility. Would you be happy to live an islamic state?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Interesting you should bring up the Japanese. Interesting because of history. One of the strangest things in world history has to be the Meiji Revolution of the late ninetnneth century, where over the space of a generation Japanese society changed from being a feudal insular Oriental society to become a thoroughly westernised power capable of defeating Russia in the 1905 war. That huge cultural paradign shift was not brought about by ethnic change.
Cultures change all the time. And cultures cross-pollenate, intellectually and genetically. It is part of the unfolding of history.
South america is not a ‘rootless mulatto proletariet. in many Latin American countries Creoles form less than 5% of the population, Mulattoes a further 20% or so. In most Central American states, plus most of South America aside from Chile and Argentina, Native Americans actually form the majority of the population.
If Britain became an Islamic state it would be because the people who lived here were overwhelmingly Muslim.
How likely is that, seriously?
Similar sorts of paranoid fantasies abounded in the minds of the authors of the Protocols of Zion. I would refer you to that document. It shows how dangerous ideas can be dressed up to create panic, such as people now do with the whole muslim thing. They did it with us Catholics once too.
I didn’t hear what you were going to say to the Black British Boy….?
January 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
The Japanese have always have a strong sense of their ethnic and cultural identity, regardless of how their society has been structured. The insular mindset of Japan before the Meijei revolution is testamount to that. They didn’t want outside influence poisoning their ‘pure’ and ‘honourable’ way of life.
However this changed when they realised they were being left for dead by the western powers. As the world became smaller, it became more apparent that this insularity would be their downfall. So they began to look outwards, but still retaining their great sense of national identity. It was this combination of factors the created the ultra-nationalistic, imperialist Japan that would eventual look for world domination.
The Japanese culture has more substance than merely whether it is fuedal or a free-market democracy, inward looking looking or outward looking; whether it is communist, fascist, imperialist….whatever. It is a mindset and way of life that only the japanese can truly understand. It is their careful arrangement of food on a plate, the code of honor that those in charge must fall on their swords if things go astray, it is the politeness to others regardless of how packed a train is; it is the odd sense of humor that can be seen in their television shows. These things all amount to a national character that makes Japan what it is. These Japanese characteristics are in their blood. (Also, can you state whether you think the Japanese policies of preserving their racial identity are morally wrong or not?)
I regards to South Smerica, I should have been more specific. i was generally referring to the slums of the major cities such as Rio, where the massive underclass fit my description of being a rootless mulatto proletariat.
‘If Britain became an Islamic state it would be because the people who lived here were overwhelmingly Muslim.’
How likely is that, seriously? In due time it is very likely. Look at the birthrate of muslims compared to the native British. add continued immigration of several generation and we will see a muslim majority in Britain.
Although britain will not be the first country in europe to have an islamic majority. That honor will most likely go to france. Currently 20-30 percent of the population under 25 is now Muslim. This is rising every year as the french have fewer and fewer children, while the muslim population has more.
You are obviously unaware of this fact because you’ve called it a paranoid fantasy. Well, I’ve already posted two links in this thread to Guardian articles that state a non-white majority in 2100. Are the Guardian also having paranoid fantasies? is the guardian trying to ‘create panic’ by stating this fact of demographic trends?
So back to my original question….assuming it does happen, how would you feel about that?
Reference from 3 second google search:
http://www.gwias.com/globe/archive/000072.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml
To the Black british boy I would say nothing. These discussion on race and culture are about broad demographic trends, not the emotional attachemnt to a particular individual. The black boy is an innocent bystander. The muslim boy is an innocent bystander. But they are both the result of a massive demographic shift that will change Britain into place that to me feels alien.
The people in power, the people who set policy and have lost control of our borders are the ones I would like to have a word with.
Also, cross-polentation is one thing, but complete submegence is another.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Justin- I am in broad agreement with everything you say about Japan, except one factor.
Take out your assertion that these Japanese characteristics are ‘in the blood’ and nothing you say on that subject is unreasonable. You show how a culture can change massively, whilst still staying true to its core principles.
As to the Japanese policy you quote and my opinions of morality, I would say it is neither moral nor immoral on the basis of its current mode of implementation, merely misguided and in the long term not particularly beneficial- to the Japanese. A certain amount of migration is always good for a society. I would agree also that TOO much of an influx into any culture in too short a time is damaging also, but I don’t think we’d agree on what level I thought was healthy and unalarming.
In Rio most of the’mulattoes’ you refer are the descendants of Slaves. Brazil was the Latin American society were slavery was most important- it was only abolished in 1889.
I was actually aware of the projections that have been made regarding France. I had heard 2050 put forward as a date.
I’ll admit, I can see what you hint at- to a certain degree- though I don’t actually think this will happen. This means extrapolating current population trends over the next century. This is flawed logic.
Creationists use the same argument- extrapolating modern global population growth figures to prove that all humanity could have come from Adam and Eve six thousand years ago. Obviously, that’s patently silly.
I would agree though, in the sense that I do think it has been a strange policy of western societies as a whole to discourage our own people from breeding. I think the new middle class values of marrying late and only having one or two children is slightly bizarre and something we may regret in time.
Part of this assumption assumes that all descendants of Muslims will themselves be Muslim- and fundamentalist ones at that.
I still practise a religion- the one I inherited- my brother doesn’t. My father has been an atheist for years as well.
Lastly Justin, don’t confuse the Race Issue with the Immigration issue. The BNP try to conflate the two, but not wanting hordes of Afghani asylum seekers with no necessary loyalty or contribution to make to our country, is a very different issue to how the differing communities that make up our diverse British culture can interact with each other.
I really don’t think you mean badly, Justin. I think you do genuinely care about what you say, and I actually don’t think you would want to see people get hurt.
However some of your fears, having a rational basis can get mingled with those which do not, and is exactly the exploitation of these constructs that the BNP and their Ilk are so good at. And they, deep down, do want to hurt people. Not white guys like you and me, but people, some of whom matter to me as individuals.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Point taken Joe…But the system you are espousing is Hurting Whites..Do you really think we will just lay down and Die??…I am also Irish decent and From Brum I shall vote BNP…Personal I don’t believe all “White Homeland” countries are being flooded with Non whites by accident..but thats another story…One day I fear you will have to make some hard choices my friend..Maybe you should take a walk around Sparkbrook at night you might get a feel for real Racism…I wouldn’t Bring your Black friend either,,The “Boys” down there think they are lower than Beasts as the recent outbreak of killings has proved..Funny enough an old Irish couple I know visited the old house they had there for old times sake…Both were attacked…He is 71 and she is 67…Thats the kind of thing I wont accept..So Joe enjoy the diversity “While it lasts”..You could always move and bring your White self hatred and guilt with you though..I’m sure many places would love to have an injection of good Genetics such as yours..
January 19th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Calum, interesting viewpoint. I have one question for you, if you wouldn’t mind: have you decided to vote BNP because of uncontrolled immigration? If, for example, the Conservatives come up with sensible immigration policies, will you decide to support them?
I suppose what I am really asking is this, is your support for the BNP due to the fact that they are the only ones who have openly acknowledged the issue of immigration, and come up with a hardline policy?
January 19th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Hi Bel….No I believe the Tories are Just Globalist/Nation Wrecker Dupe’s the same as the other two. As I live in Brum I can see how this society is breaking down, how Whites are Guilt tripped Slavery/Holocaust etc but people of color are encouraged to keep their unity and so on, how our kids are pumped full of left wing propaganda and encouraged to race mix via crude TV propaganda, music “Rap/hip-hop” even the dreadful Big Brother is used to make some point to the White sheeple..So I decided to look more deeply into it..The BNP are far from perfect but they are all we have. And who knows maybe they can be tweaked from within…in 1900 the population of Northern European whites was 30% its now down to 16% and falling..White women were sold feminism in the 60’s and the family structure broken up by the media never underestimate Global/media power. All that was good is now bad…the state has replaced the family. And instead of “bondage” to a man they are now slaves to Rich elite male Bankers..I also believe racism is a hardwired group protection mechanism that cant truly be undone. Ever see a domestic Dog that twirls on your shag-pile before lying down?? that is primeval behaviour, much the same as racism in a Human…If you look into it say America or any melting pot with aggrieved non Whites encouraged in there victim-hood you will see crime rape fear are the lot of whites I don’t want to live like that or my Kids to have that..anyhow Whites have a right to exist and flourish also right?…Anyhow in answer to your point no its not just immigration. Its the whole package warts an all with the BNP you need to read all on the site and make your own mind up…the Media obviously wont tell you the truth “But look into who owns the media” The supreme irony is that had most of todays Britons been adults in Nazi Germany they would have swallowed the Nazi propaganda with the same relish as they have its modern equivalent “Pc’ism”. The internal resistance to that regime didn’t come from people like themselves but parties like the BNP who are not only prepared to question the system but take personal risks to oppose it…and believe me Bel oppose it we will by whatever means necessary, we owe our Ancestors nothing less..
January 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/mail/news/tm_headline=&method=full&objectid=18506656&siteid=50002-name_page.html
Cut and paste the link to this nasty little incident Bel..It won’t get any coverage bar a few lines in the local Rag now swap Asain for White..can you imagine the fuss?..BBC, and Sky Vans would be outside and all sorts..Can you see the agenda?…Asians are VERY racist and see our “tolerance” as weakness…I think things will have to get a lot worse for white foilk to wake up…but Im sure Mr brown will manage it,,,And Cameron would be worse!!
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Calum, I don’t see how as someone of Irish Descent, you can support the BNP. They don’t like us much either. There is a link between these far right groups and people like the UVF.
Secondly, I don’t have white self hatred, I just don’t have white self adoration either. I just don’t really care what colour someone’s skin is. Or mine, for that matter.
Calum, most of the points you make tap into typical conspiracy theory lore- you seem to imply some deliberate elements of conspiratorial planning by the’liberal left’. The more I hear people articulate the sort of paranoid fears you articulate, the more I look forward to the day when ethnic differnces no longer have any resonance as a cultural identifier- a day which will be nearer as more people inevitably found mixed race families. So I comfort myself that the views of people like yourself are just the pained anguishes of a dying ideal. Sort of like the cries of 21st Century Luddites.
Bel, if the Tory Party goes back to it’s ‘nasty party’ days, it’s in trouble. It’s behaviour in the last election made some of it’s own supporters uneasy, so how it looked to others, I can only guess. Why, Bel, should people who believe in minimum state interference and liberal market policies also believe in racist policies? It doesn’t follow and could only harm the Tories. I know a lot of people who will vote Tory next time, which they wouldn’t do if they even got a sniff of ‘firmer’ policies on this subject.
Oh Calum, I might suggest you try neighbouring Small Heath out- Great place to live, ethnically mixed but friendly, great for buying Indian food at the supermarkets and no one bothers about the colour of your friends.
March 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
[...] post with the highest traffic was the second one I had written about the BNP ballerina. I later gathered from Google Analytics that it was the subject of fevered debate on BNP blogs [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Um, um, um, um, um, um.
Native British people (Celts, not Anglo-Saxons; the latter migrated from Germany) ARE a minority, you imbecilic morons.