While the American press continues to purl and knit about whether it'll be Obama or Clinton, a momentous occasion took place in England. The rightly-controversial, whites-only British National Party (BNP) scored promising electoral victories in the most recent election, most notably electing a member to the London Assembly Seat, and holding a total of 100 council seats for the first time ever.
This has been a while in coming. For the past few years, since Nick Griffin took control of the organization, the BNP has drastically reworked its image. Gone were the obvious links to racism and violence that plagued it in the past. Word substitution and careful rephrasing of ideas became the new way, and the more boisterous members were told to leave and join the National Front. Recent world events -- most notably 9/11 and an increased understanding of the dangers of radical Islam -- have made some of their less-changed messages seem much more palatable, even sensible. And, given the short memories of the electorate, that's been more than enough to gain the BNP support and votes from people you'd think would be more sensible.
On the surface, it seems as though the BNP have risen from a questionable past to a better future. The truth is not too deeply hidden, though; if you know where and how to look, it's clear that the party has only changed its language, and not its heart. It remains to be seen if the BNP's remarkable -- but still modest -- gains will pave the way for future successes, or give them a chance to shoot themselves in the foot in front of the cameras, rather than behind them. But no one should be fooled by the hype -- past the propaganda, this is still your father's BNP.
These days, the BNP packages itself behind a slick -- if overly busy --web page that has just about every answer you could want, except for the truth. The real face of the party leaks out, though, thanks to undercover work by The Guardian (in 2006) and the occasional embarrassing photograph from David Duke's European American Conference (in 2005). So much for learning from errors of the past!
In fact, the most ironic thing about the BNP's much-vaunted page proving they're not racists or White Supremacists is that it proves them, by their arguments, to be White Separatists, which is also a racist philosophy. (It also shows they can't debate worth a damn, which is why they may have so many problems getting elected, until now).
For example, lifted straight from the page:
i. Why do you disapprove of mixed marriages?
We believe in human diversity and in preserving the individuality and identity of all different ethnic groups. It is sad when a unique human genotype becomes extinct - as has happened around the world in the past and is happening today in the Amazon and in New Guinea. While a small number of mixed marriages – or mixed race children - in Britain won't, in themselves, make any difference, if this is encouraged however as it is at present by politicians and the media then inevitably the traditional British genotype will be endangered in the long-term. Environmentalists are always keen to preserve unique animal species in the wild, so why shouldn't the same principle apply to people? We believe that Britain's proud history of glorious achievements demonstrates that the British genotype is a valuable one and deserves to be preserved.
iv. If you believe that the races are different then you are racists. Not at all. The definition of a racist is someone who hates people of other races. We do not hate anybody. Anyone who says the BNP is racist is either misinformed or a liar.
v. Why don't you let blacks and Asians into the BNP? For the same reason the Girl Guides don't allow boys to join. Does that mean they are sexist? Does it mean they hate boys? Of course not, it's just that their aim is to cater for the interests of girls, and similarly the BNP isn't racist, but our purpose is to cater for the interests of the indigenous British population. The indigenous population of Britain is now the only group which is facing systematic, legalised and institutionalised discrimination, harassment and oppression. That's precisely why the British people need the BNP - because we are the one and only organisation that has their interests at heart. There are hundreds of organisations exclusively for blacks or Asians, but only one organisation for the indigenous population - the BNP.
viii. Do you accept or deny that blacks/Asians born in Britain are totally British? People are partly the product of their environment, but mainly of their genes. Spike Milligan and Joanna Lumley were born in India – do you think they are Indians? It was the Duke of Wellington who said that just because someone is born in a stable that doesn't make him a horse. To be truly British one has to have a British genotype, as well as to have fully adopted British culture. Blacks and Asians born here are legally British and should be treated as such, but they are not genetically British. Indeed, most blacks and Asians do not see themselves as wholly British, and often refer to themselves as British Asians, or British Pakistanis, etc.
xi. Do you want an all-white Britain? We have no objection to a limited number of people of different races or cultures, but they shouldn't be so many that they actually change the area they live in. Ethnic minorities should be just that – minorities, making up no more than 2-3% of the population of any given area. In some areas their numbers have become too high, and there are parts of our towns and cities which have become visibly foreign. We want a traditional Britain.
Note the use of "indigenous" for White. Note how they very carefully say that they aren't racists because they don't hate, but won't acknowledge directly that the reason they want a more "traditional" (that is, mostly White) Britain is because they think that immigrants bring crime and hate with them, to say nothing of freaky religions they can't understand. On a more visceral note, they're terrified of a creeping, brown shadow turning their cities and towns non-White, one filled flat at a time.
Is it White Supremacy? No. But it is White Separatism, which is just as racist as hating someone because of the color of their skin, or thinking them inferior. In this case, you're stating, through your desire to keep non-Whites out, or at least to 2-3% of the population, that there must be something wrong with non-White people, otherwise you'd be accepting them with open arms.
Then there's the old Nick -- Nick Griffin, who spearheaded and managed the BNP's conversion from overt racism to coded racism. One of his chief detractions is that he's a denier of the Holocaust, which is another matter that the party would like swept under the rug. And to his credit, Griffin has done most of the sweeping.
As the BNP says on its "Truth" page:
vii. Your leader is on record denying the Holocaust ever happened and claiming that Jews control the media -- you are clearly an anti-Semitic party. Not at all. Dredging up quotes from 10, 15, 20 years ago is really pathetic and, in a sense, rather fascist. Everyone knows that people's political philosophies evolve and change as they develop – at least three Labour ministers were previously Communist Party members, for instance - and Nick Griffin has repeatedly stated that he has changed his views since then. The BNP is in no way anti-Semitic nor do we deny the Holocaust. We have many Jewish members and are pleased to have a Jewish councillor in Epping, who is, indeed, the group leader there.*
The 10 years ago is a very significant number, as that's the last time that Griffin really got caught with his trousers down on the subject. Since his conviction for incitement for what he wrote in The Rune, long ago when he and his colleagues weren't aiming for respectability, he has been very, very careful about how he couches things.
"Then we have an hour plus of Q&As and debate ... several of the leftists try to sidetrack the debate down the Holocaust road although that does at least allow me to set the record straight and deal with the combination of Wikipedia lies and out-of-context propaganda and to put on record the fact that -- while I used to be very angry at (and rude about) the way the left-liberals use the Holocaust as a moral club to silence debate on the key issues of our time -- I have never denied the fact that the Nazis murdered huge numbers of Jews in one of the great crimes of a century of terrible inhumanity."
Angry and rude? Oh, definitely. And he isn't lying when he says he never denied the fact that Nazis killed huge numbers of Jews. However, as with so many things the BNP, or their spokespeople, say, that's a rather slippery half-truth.
The truth is that, as someone who does not like Jews and non-White people in his Britain, he denied the full verifiable, historical record of the Holocaust in order to support his dislike when faced with being likened to the Nazis. The old argument, most often prompted by claims that "If you hate Jews and non-whites, and don't want a multi-racial society, you're like the Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the Holocaust" was "They didn't kill six million Jews. They only killed a thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand. More people died on the battlefields. The Holocaust simply did not happen as described."
Using the careful language that he's employed in recent years, Griffin spouted the line that he once said "very rude things," because he was upset that the Holocaust had been "used as a business" and as a "huge moral club to prevent any discussion of things such as the preservation of nationality" and problems with mass immigration. But that said that "I have never doubted that vast numbers of entirely innocent Eastern European Jews were murdered by the Nazis and their allies during the Second World War."
So far, he was on message. But then he made the mistake of allowing himself to be tired down to actual numbers, rather than saying "vast." How many dead? He said that he believed that 20 million were killed, according to what was stated at Nuremburg. (Video is here. He starts talking about the Holocaust at 4:02)
20 Million? Where on earth did he get that number? The best estimates we have -- bolstered in part by the Nazis' excellent record-keeping -- is around 11 million, when all victims, including the Jews, are totaled together. The only number I can find in reference to 20 million killed in a Holocaust would be the 20 million killed by Josef Stalin in the 1930's while remolding the Soviet Union to fit his desires. (Lest anyone forget that, in terms of sheer bodycount, Stalin was much worse than Hitler)
Again, this isn't a "recanting" or "retraction" of his earlier, stated beliefs but a dodge, and a rather slippery and slimy one at that. Nick Griffin hasn't changed his views: he's just learned to parse his statements, and hopes that no one can remember that he did deny something quite important. The fact that he won't seriously answer how many died in the Holocaust is a sign that he hasn't really put any thought behind the gravity of his previous errors.
Indeed, according to a rather intriguing article by Searchlight magazine -- which chronicles Griffin's career with the National Front, before coming on board with the BNP in 1995 -- "As recently as April 2007 Griffin told a reporter that he did believe in the Holocaust but only because "European law" required him to do so."
Let it be resolved, then: Nick Griffin's BNP is, was and will most likely always be bad news. Still, as a nose-broken Geraldo Rivera once said (after dealing with the sort of people Nick Griffin and the BNP might clasp to their bosom), Sunlight is the best disinfectant. One can only hope that having a BNP man in full view on the London Assembly will show the British people exactly what they're dealing with, and lead to the party's swift fumigation the next electoral cycle.
*(Note: The BNP does have Jewish members, yes. However, they appear to be non-practicing Jews if the reports are correct. Also, we should remember that, in the case of genuinely anti-Semitic Jews, Black Confederate soldiers, and Gay Republicans, that no one is immune to drinking the kool-aid when it comes to joining an organization that doesn't like you.)
http://rant-farm.blogspot.com/
J. Edward Tremlett is a lot of things, currently. He's back in the states after a seven-year stint in Dubai, UAE. He's been published in such diverse places as The American Partisan, the International American, The End is Nigh, Pyramid Magazine and Worlds of Cthulhu. He has a story in the "Echoes of Terror" horror anthology. He's also ready to get back in the saddle and kick some ass after too long of a radio silence.
Would you apply the same standards of racism to others?
"In this case, you're stating, through your desire to keep non-Whites out, or at least to 2-3% of the population, that there must be something wrong with non-White people, otherwise you'd be accepting them with open arms." I take issue with this statement. If the British National Party want their people and heritage to continue to live in the future they must think something is wrong with non-White people? I suppose to be fair you would have told Gandhi that he must have thought there was something wrong with "non-Brown" people because he opposed colonialism and wanted self-rule and a reversal of White immigration. I also suppose you would tell Tibetans and Native Americans that they shouldn't try to defend the right of their people to survive because they must think something is wrong with others too?
Wanting to stop mass immigration is not about hating other cultures and peoples but loving your own. Denying Native Europeans the same rights that everyone else has had since the end of colonialism because you are uncomfortable with their being "White" is terribly racist, although that is probably not your intention. This includes the right to self-determination, the right to freedom from persecution and the right to live.
by
Joshua M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 4:12:39 AM
"If the British National Party want their people and heritage to continue to live in the future they must think something is wrong with non-White people?"
"people" and "heritage" are their code-words for "White." And, in a multi-ethnic society, such as Canada, the USA and, yes, the UK, when people go on about their people and their heritage, there's usually some xenophobic reason. If all people are created equal, then all people are equal, even if they're different, and should be treated as such.
Having said that...
"Wanting to stop mass immigration is not about hating other cultures and peoples but loving your own."
I'm not in favor of mass immigration for economic reasons, not social ones. And I agree with the BNP's stated policy of deporting illegal immigrants and making certain that people who immigrated in under certain conditions still meet those conditions. I don't agree with calling an all-stop and/or offering to pay to help send people home, though. If they've been there long enough, they're Britons, even if they don't have the "genotype," just as immigrants to America are now Americans, even if they aren't Native Americans.
But that line about "loving your own" - that is a prime example of coded White Separatism, right there.
And judging from your author profile, you ARE BNP, right?
by
J. Edward Tremlett (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 54 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 7:43:44 AM
Congrats to the BNP! I hope them the best. Mr Termlett's article has some facts correct but has dozens of conceptual flaws. Britain is not multicultural and its not multicultural because we say its not multicultural. This has all of the all the authority of you saying it is which is no authority at all.
Do we want all of the nonwhites deported? No we can accept a minority, as much as the Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Africans accept others - which they don't. You seem to want to force feed Whites others but as far auditing the behaviors of others, you just don't and you do so for nefarious reasons.
I'm White, I'm not interested in being force fed others who serve as my watcher and who have been indoctrinated with hate agaisnt me.
I'm not interested in living with Blacks who as a course of life demand 500 years of slavery from me becuase of my skin color. I'm not interested in living with Chinese people that demand tolerance and then in turn keep a place just for them called China. I'm tired of Jews who demand tolerance and then demand a place just for them called Israel. The Holocaust? The Jewish Holocaust of WWII was real and horrific but is simply one of many holocausts, one of many that you deny by acts of omission. You sir are a holocaust denier. The Soviets killed far more and the Soviet Union was run by an uncomfortably high number of Jews.
I'm not interested in living with the phoneys like White men who marry Asian women and then in turn insist on me saluting their self anointed merit badge because they state very publicly they are not racist and their mixed race merit badge says so. If they are "not racists" why then did they not marry marry a Black women when they had the chance? No, I won't kneel to these people.
I don't like living with "Brown People" when thier women less desirable than ours. Pakis don't marry Black women, Indians don't marry Black women, Arabs don't marry Black women. Thats an an unnatural amount of pressure on White people in a "race free societies" . BTW do Asians contribute an fair share of women? No- because they kill their women off as parasites and untermenschen .
BTW can you make Black people act human? Then number of human rights violations committed by Africans Blacks against Afrrican Blacks is appaling especially when they run to White people via asylum and demand humanity when Black people aren't offering it.
Mr. Termlett, The BNP ain't a problem. You have plenty of more important work elsewhere.
Warmest Regards,
Dan Smith
by
dan smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 1:40:51 PM
In a way you're right. It's people like you who are the problem. The BNP just gives you a voice in public affairs.
Thanks for your "input," but you would have done better to have said nothing at all. As it is you pretty much proved my point better than anything I could have written.
by
J. Edward Tremlett (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 54 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 5:33:56 PM
Congrats to the BNP! I hope them the best. Mr Termlett's article has some facts correct but has dozens of conceptual flaws. Britain is not multicultural and its not multicultural because we say its not multicultural. This has all of the all the authority of you saying it is which is no authority at all.
Do we want all of the nonwhites deported? No we can accept a minority, as much as the Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Africans accept others - which they don't. You seem to want to force feed Whites others but as far auditing the behaviors of others, you just don't and you do so for nefarious reasons.
I'm White, I'm not interested in being force fed others who serve as my watcher and who have been indoctrinated with hate agaisnt me.
I'm not interested in living with Blacks who as a course of life demand 500 years of slavery from me becuase of my skin color. I'm not interested in living with Chinese people that demand tolerance and then in turn keep a place just for them called China. I'm tired of Jews who demand tolerance and then demand a place just for them called Israel. The Holocaust? The Jewish Holocaust of WWII was real and horrific but is simply one of many holocausts, one of many that you deny by acts of omission. You sir are a holocaust denier. The Soviets killed far more and the Soviet Union was run by an uncomfortably high number of Jews.
I'm not interested in living with the phoneys like White men who marry Asian women and then in turn insist on me saluting their self anointed merit badge because they state very publicly they are not racist and their mixed race merit badge says so. If they are "not racists" why then did they not marry marry a Black women when they had the chance? No, I won't kneel to these people.
I don't like living with "Brown People" when thier women less desirable than ours. Pakis don't marry Black women, Indians don't marry Black women, Arabs don't marry Black women. Thats an an unnatural amount of pressure on White people in a "race free societies" . BTW do Asians contribute an fair share of women? No- because they kill their women off as parasites and untermenschen .
BTW can you make Black people act human? Then number of human rights violations committed by Africans Blacks against Afrrican Blacks is appaling especially when they run to White people via asylum and demand humanity when Black people aren't offering it.
Mr. Termlett, The BNP ain't a problem. You have plenty of more important work elsewhere.
Warmest Regards,
Dan Smith
by
dan smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 2:23:15 PM
J. Edward Tremlett, I've asked you if you would apply the same standards of racism to others and I don't see much of an answer to my question in your response (although I appreciate getting a response). You mention Canada the United States and the UK as your examples of multi-ethnic societies were if people "go on about their people and heritage" they are probably xenophobic. Why do you only include "White" majority countries in that list? Shouldn't you also label South Africans and Bolivians who go "on about their people and heritage" as xenophobes as well? This goes back to my earlier accusation about how it seems you are simply uncomfortable with "White" people expressing their identities and having the same rights as non-"White" people. Please prove me wrong.
Now as for your last question, I am not a member of the BNP but I do support them. There is a great deal of anti-White racism in society which is sometimes violent. Yet if you mention the existence of this problem you are considered the racist and xenophobe for doing so. As a result of this oppressive atmosphere no mainstream media source or politician will expose this issue, which leads to the problem growing worse and worse as time goes on. This situation has gotten to the point where according to the government's own biased statistics White people are the most likely to be the victim of race-hate crimes. They stopped releasing these statistics years ago when that became clear. The whole thing is made even more unfair by the way the government goes to enormous lengths to protect "minorities" but won't apply that same protection to the people who currently need it the most.
I support the BNP primarily because they are the only group that is willing to bring this issue up and campaign for an end to ALL forms of racism, including racism against White people and they are demonised for doing so. Also, I used to be pretty neutral about immigration until I saw the rapid transformation occuring around me and realized (through a great deal of research that I did on my own) that my people and culture would cease to exist in a remarkably short span of time as a result of current government policy and that I would see much of it happen over the course of my own life. This made me angry, not at the settlers from abroad, but at the politicians who would bring about the end of a people (their own people!) who had existed for tens of thousands of years and call it "progress". Although immigration is not the primary reason I support the BNP I would not to support the physical destruction of any people (Jews, Whites, Hindus, whatever) for any reason no matter how popular it is at the moment, especially not my own.
You can call that "White Separatism" if you like (I wouldn't), but I don't think you can conflate opposing genocide with racism. Yes I said genocide, if you look up the United Nations genocide convention you will find that imposing conditions on a people leading to their physical destructon is genocide. There are also many other United Nations treaties that condemn the sort of thing being done to Native Europeans including that little thing on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. You can support multiculturalism if you like but don't deny any people the right to live and go on living in the future. Thank you.
by
Joshua M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 6:09:55 PM
"J. Edward Tremlett, I've asked you if you would apply the same standards of racism to others and I don't see much of an answer to my question in your response"
There's no question worth responding to, there. But if you insist:
India: Arseraped by British "guests" for bloody ages. Wanting to get contol over themselves after throwing the colonial yoke off. Given previous abuses by White overlords, general attitude of "throw the Whites out" is highly understandable, and probably justifiable.
UK: Encouraging immigration to get cheap labor to drive economy for bloody ages. Now uncertain how good an idea that was, but looking at third and fourth generation immigrant enclaves who are a part of the landscape, friends and neighbors, and taxpayers. Given the previous rude treatment towards non-Whites in the UK, the growing attitude of "throw the non-Whites out" is both ungrateful and snotty.
Prove you wrong? Your statements speak for themselves -- especially your irrational fear of "genocide" because of the actions of a few racist non-white goons, crime problems and the like.
You and Dan Smith might not like it, but the UK is multicultural now, and is going to be from now on. You can either revel in the good parts, like we do over on our side of the pond, or hide in the dirt in fear if you want. But some people look forward and try to solve problems as they exist here and now, rather than forcing the landscape back to a "traditional" past that's long gone, now.
And they, not you, will carry the future on their backs.
Sorry if I mistook you for a BNP member, but from the sounds of things you really should join up. I think you'd fit right in.
by
J. Edward Tremlett (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 54 comments)
on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 8:10:57 PM
You say my fear of genocide is irrational yet later claim that:
"And they, not you, will carry the future on their backs."
If it is so irrational to talk about genocide why do you go on to speak about a future where my people don't exist? Also, I went to the trouble of referencing the United Nations genocide convention for you and it is very clear in Article II: Section C: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" is one of the recognised forms of genocide and you just admitted that in a "multicultural" future (it will probably be monocultural in the long run as one group will eventually take over, as has happened in other historic states that had multiple competing cultures) my people will have no future.
I also find it interesting that you believe that we should be gratefull to immigrants for cheap labor but don't believe the Indians should have been gratefull to White immigrants for providing them with all of our technology. After all, India wasn't exactly a democracy before British rule, it was under Islamic minority rule before (and they conducted documented genocidal attacks on Hindus). So Indians could hardly blame the White immigrants as being responsible for their occupation in the first place.
I still wonder if you are just uncomfortable with people of White origin expressing their identities and demanding the same treatment as everyone else.
by
Joshua M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 2:26:53 AM
'You say my fear of genocide is irrational yet later claim that:
"And they, not you, will carry the future on their backs."
If it is so irrational to talk about genocide why do you go on to speak about a future where my people don't exist?'
*headdesk*
Okay... did you read the sentence before it?
'You can either revel in the good parts, like we do over on our side of the pond, or hide in the dirt in fear if you want. But some people look forward and try to solve problems as they exist here and now, rather than forcing the landscape back to a "traditional" past that's long gone, now.'
"People" is not one race or another. "They," the "people," are those who look forward rather than backward - from any race or background - and deal with the UK they have, rather than the so-called traditional UK the BNP and people who agree with them are trying to sell. You can't get there from here, anymore.
As for this:
'It is completely not neccessary to force people of immigrant decent out to ensure the rights of Native British people and it would be cruel to do so ... I hope you know that I wouldn't want to do that and based on the BNP's website I don't believe that is their policy either.'
It was their policy, once. Now they want to offer people money to voluntarily repatriate. I think the offer's only going to be good until the UK has a BNP Prime Minister, though, and then it's going to be rescinded, and the boot redeployed.
by
J. Edward Tremlett (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 54 comments)
on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM
I am not illiterate J. Edward Tremlett and I am certainly not "hiding in the dirt". Do you really think creating an image of illiterate Native British people hiding in the dirt for fear of arrest or physical harm if they speak out against what is being to them advances your argument about the benefits of multiculturalism in any way? Throughout history those who have done harm to others have always rendered their victims as less then human, while arguing that what they are doing is "inevitable" and "natural". You certainly seem to be trying to depict ME as less then human with your words and I don't think that I deserve that and I will never "hide in the dirt" for fear of what might be done to me because I believe a better future is still possible.
Also, I notice that you don't deny that the destruction of the Native peoples of Europe is what multiculturalism is leading to. You don't try to argue with my quoting the United Nations Convention on Genocide so much as you try to argue with the definition of "people" to say that neither race nor culture can define a people. While that may sound lovely and utopian to you if your definition of "people" was accepted by the UN there wouldn't be any genocides! After all, if groups who face destruction on account of their race or culture aren't a people then how can they claim to be victims?
As for reveling in the good parts of multiculturalism I find they are few and far between. The economic boost migrants are supposed to give us only reduces per-capita income while they consume more in taxes then they contribute and uses up our limited resources and land at an ever accelerating rate. If I want foreign products I could import them (just as they import ours when they want them), if I want foreign food we can simply find out the recipe and make it ourselves (just as they make our foods without needing migrants from the west to cook for them) and if I want to experience foreign cultures I can go on vacation. None of these benefits is worth the destruction of the peoples who have lived in Europe since the end of the ice age. Nor are they worth being beaten and receiving death threats in elementary school from kids much older then myself because of who my people are, while I am told that racism is something only "White" people can do and that the colonisation by my people of other peoples lands is an unforgivable sin while their colonisation of my homeland is "progress". I don't enjoy being expected to celebrate other cultures (no matter how disfunctional or violent they really are) while I am told to celebrate my own is "intolerant". I certainly don't like being told that my people are so flawed that we need "enrichment" to become good human beings.
As for your final comment about how you think the BNP are lying about voluntary repatriation and how you think they will "boot" out people of immigrant descent. That's just dark speculation on your part and slander to "boot".
by
Joshua M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 5:25:59 PM
... someone's going to slam it. You don't seem to be capable of understanding anything I'm writing in response to your whining. Why then should I think anything else?
"Do you really think creating an image of illiterate Native British people hiding in the dirt for fear of arrest or physical harm if they speak out against what is being to them advances your argument about the benefits of multiculturalism in any way?"
This - and just about everything after it - is exactly why this thread of yours is getting so tiresome. You are so wrapped up in this victim mentality that anything I say automatically becomes an affront to "your people," rather than just your comments. I find your arguments silly, full of unjustifiable fears and hard to swallow, but when I tell you as much you turn it around into an attack on everyone you think you stand for, and not just your own ideas.
That's a tactic the American Left uses a lot, and it's sniveling and cheap, quite frankly. Please grow up.
"Also, I notice that you don't deny that the destruction of the Native peoples of Europe is what multiculturalism is leading to."
It's not worth denying because it should be self-evident that it's not going to happen. If you're so worried that it is, well fine. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to allay your fears. You're reveling in victim status, but I don't have to answer for it.
"Nor are they worth being beaten and receiving death threats in elementary school from kids much older then myself because of who my people are,"
Death threats in elementary school? Sounds like you had a rough time of it, and that may explain where this victim mentality comes from. Now it's time to grow up past that nonsense, stop seeing menace in your shadows and live.
"As for your final comment about how you think the BNP are lying about voluntary repatriation and how you think they will "boot" out people of immigrant descent. That's just dark speculation on your part and slander to "boot"."
The BNP have become increasingly less honest about their intentions and ideas in order to get elected, and this has been documented and can be demonstrated, as I have done in the article above (which I'm now wondering if you even bothered to read). The fact that they have to tell their members to keep racist and anti-semitic comments to themselves when in public, as the Guardian reported just a couple years ago, says a lot to me.
So why SHOULD I believe them when they say they've gone from "deport them all" to "offer them money to leave?" I think you can openly suspect lies from someone who's been less than candid with you on recent occasions without it being "slander" - another phrase the BNP and its supporters like to use when someone's caught them yet again.
by
J. Edward Tremlett (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 54 comments)
on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 8:53:22 PM
Sorry to double-post but I just noticed something in you comment, J. Edward Tremlett. You say you don't like the growing attitude of "throw the non-Whites out" and if you sense such an attitude in people I agree with you completely. It is completely not neccessary to force people of immigrant decent out to ensure the rights of Native British people and it would be cruel to do so. Just because we were kicked out of most of the nations we settled in in the past is no reason to repeat such behavior. I hope you know that I wouldn't want to do that and based on the BNP's website I don't believe that is their policy either.
by
Joshua M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 2:51:52 AM
