Sunday, April 16, 2006

Council Election Campaign - BNP "to drop Beckham, Rooney from England squad" ?

It seems the council election campaign has well and truly begun. All over the media is the claim of millionairess Labour minister Margaret Hodge that the non-millionaire natives of Barking are going BNP at a scary rate (wealthy Barking people are still strong anti-fascists - but they've moved to Dorset).

"Mrs Hodge said the pace of ethnic change in her area had frightened people. "What has happened in Barking and Dagenham is the most rapid transformation of a community we have ever witnessed.

"Nowhere else has changed so fast. When I arrived in 1994, it was a predominantly white, working class area. Now, go through the middle of Barking and you could be in Camden or Brixton."


Meanwhile the Telegraph is bigging up the organisation "Labour Friends of Searchlight". We're seeing here an increasing tendency to follow the US road when it comes to election expenses. LFoS is not a Labour Party organisation, will not advise people to vote Labour, just againt the BNP, and so does not break rules on election expenditure - allowing Labour to spend beyond the statutory limits in individual seats. Absent millionaires may yet play a role in Barking.

"More than 120,000 St George's Day leaflets with a picture of the England football team containing four black players have been sent out by the group, mainly to strong BNP areas in east London, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Lancashire.

At the last World Cup the BNP refused to support the English team because it had black players - and backed Denmark instead.

The leaflet says that as well as excluding black players such as Rio Ferdinand, the BNP would eject David Beckham, who is a quarter Jewish, and Wayne Rooney, who is of Irish descent."


While carrying no Union Flag-with-a-point-on-the-end for the BNP, this set the bs-detector stirring. What's the truth ?

It turns out

a) the BNP ran a piece when Denmark beat the French, saying that it demonstrated that multiculturalism didn't work. Classic Nazi nonsense a la "the fighting quality of a race depends upon its purity" (from Churchill's brilliant one-page precis of Mein Kampf - the closest I've got to it). The item ended with "Good luck in the next round, Denmark !" (This piece was part of a continuing debate - it seems hard to believe looking at France eight years later, but their 1998 World Cup victory was greeted by the entire liberal left as proof that France was a truly united multicultural nation.)

When they realised that the (multi-ethnic) England side was up againat Denmark in the next round, the piece was hurriedly removed (and Heskey scored as England won 3-0).

FWIW, I think black players will continue to be over-represented in top-level football - because they're better players. Skill levels may be the same among all races, but the physical differences which make West Africans and their descendants the best sprinters on the planet aren't going to go away.

b) The 'no Beckham or Rooney' stuff came, not from the BNP, but from every anti-racists favourite hate-sheet - the super soaraway Sun, which published a photo of an England squad 'under a BNP government'. This, and the pulled piece (which a/c/t Searchlight was written by Martin Wingfield, an unreconstructed ex-NF type), are the inspiration for this.



Information from (where else ?) Searchlight.

I must say that this second postcard, knocked up by Photoshop (what could Stalin have done with that), is not only dishonest, but counterproductive. It appears to show white rioters - a phenomenon so rare as to practically constitute an endangered species. While there are small groups of violent bad hats in that underworld where football violence meets politics, I don't think the average native will consider that a white mob torching their streets is terribly likely.

And if the implication is that BNP activities will cause some other group to torch their streets - well, at some point, 'don't do X or they'll riot' is going to lose its appeal as a political slogan.




The Telegraph seems to be well on board. This editorial points out that BNP policies include 'forced repatriation'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd thought that the main plank of the BNPs difference with the old NF was precisely that they'd accepted the practical, and maybe moral, impossibility of repatriating seven or eight million people, most of whom were born here.

Sigh. Time for the statutory disclaimer. I could never join an organisation like the BNP, being an old-fashioned type who believes in content of character, colour of eyes and all that.

But as long as the demographics all point one way, as long as continuing immigration (and continuing emigration of natives) continue to change the cultural landscape, above all as long as our white, wealthy liberal elite refuse to even think about, let alone face honestly, some of the less palatable issues raised by a multicultural society (being themselves insulated from these issues by their wealth) - then we will see politics in the UK, and particularly in England - split upon racial lines. Thet is what has happened everywhere else in the world where a nation has major ethnic divisions - and while I love the English, I can't see them being immune - they're not THAT special.

There is no sign of the pace of immigration, or native emigration, slowing. In which case the only question is which party will represent the natives. Mr Howard's my-family-were-poor-immigrants Tories might have done. Mr Cameron's born-with-a-silver-coke-spoon-up-nose Tories ?

So - a big heave this election might keep the BNP vote down. But the effort needed will be higher each time as the tide rises.

17 comments:

British National Party member said...

Interesting post.

Anonymous said...

Laban, "I could never join an organisation like the BNP, being an old-fashioned type who believes in content of character"..


If it is only charactor that mattered, why do you keep writing about (complaining about) immigration and the rapid ethnic change in this country?
If you judge each person on their charactor it wouldn't matter would it??

You sound like my dad, he has in the past made comments like, "Enoch Powell was right", "their's too many foreigners in the country", "we are losing our identity", etc etc.
But then he turns around and says he likes blacks and has always found them nice people, and is all for giving asylum to starving Africans etc.

Well you can't have it both ways.
Your generation seems very confused about this, they are sad about the loss of English identity, but at the same time seem to support policies which result in us losing our national sovereign identity, or at least policies which don't prevent us losing it.

Michaelcd said...

I don't think Laban is being particulary confusing. White Nationalists tend to relentlessly focus on who is 'genetically pure', and in doing so, put off a lot of people.

Personally I don't believe that genetics are the be all and end all of being British. The fact is a unique culture has arisen out of the fusion of both European influences, and periods of isolation. The love of this culture and history is something which is felt strongly within myself.

The modern consumer culture offers non of this. It tells us we are all the same - consumers - and the globalised world will give us 'World cities' where we can find shopping and restaurants from everywhere. The result is the gloablised monoculture where New York, London, Paris are identical in every single way. A Somalian or a Kosovan doesn't need to attempt to fit in or intergrate to this, they can talk their own language, and eat their own food; turning it into a home from home. You don't need to respect the country, you don;t need to love it and the fact is all these immigrants see Britain as a financial milchcow only.

However, IMO you can still believe that intergration is possible. People from completely antithetical cultures simply do not intergrate into western society. The North Africans in Paris are a prime example of people who may have been born in France but are sill Islamic, still anti-semetic and have a propensity to engage in mysogynistic acts of gang rape on French girls. But there were Germans in London 100 and 120 years ago who's decendents are virtually indistinguishable from other Brits.

It is easier to say to say only pure blood people are English or to be a blank slater and say that there is absolutely no difference between people whoever, wherever. And people like Steve Sailer come in for critisicm from the left and liberals and white nationalsists in equal doses. But if we can avoid genetics and accusations of ray-seessm and still defend the character, culture and country that we love. Then I don't see what the problem is.

Eric said...

Well, as a Yank outsider looking in, and without a real understanding of British politics, I can see where many Brits are growing uncomfortable with a large number of immigrants who appear to hate you and want to kill you.

But then again, maybe all those "Behead the infidels" signs were just that--signs.

dearieme said...

Eric, cut the silly 'tache off that pet of yours.

Anonymous said...

Michaelcd, but you have just done the same as Laban, you claim its charactor, culture and country that matters, when previously you have stated that Germans integrate much better than North Africans...

You can't have it both ways, either ethnicity matters or not.


Germans indistinguishable from Brits? lol, anglo-saxons are a germanic tribe...

British National Party member said...

"I don't think Laban is being particulary confusing. White Nationalists tend to relentlessly focus on who is 'genetically pure', and in doing so, put off a lot of people."

I kind of agree. While races exist, and blacks are less inteligent and more aggressive than whites, if we accept that it is immoral to remove people from this country just because they are black, and both i and the BNP do, then the next logical step is to say, ok, what do we do with them?

The BNP's current policy in this area amounts to encouraging segregation, but with fair treatment of all. Personally I consider forced or even encouraged segregation wrong, because as they have much higher birthrates, we would be overrun anyway, and it would split the country up into autonomous or semi autonomous regions. My policy would be to use a stick and a carrot to force integration, and to give money to those who cant hack it to go home.

We have to accept that, unfortunately, whole cities of them are here - I dare you to take a trip through birmingham with an "i hate ismal" t-shirt if you dont believe me - and we have to stop seperate colonies growing on our island, as they are now.

Best,
Gareth.

Anonymous said...

Its ethnicity, culture and numbers.

We can easily asborb very small numbers of almost any immigrant group, assuming our culture is self-confident enough.

However the larger the numbers the more it matters just who those people are. White euro Christians are not going to as problematical as non-white muslims. Pretending otherwise used to be liberal posturing now its a matter of wilfull stupidity.

Moriarty said...

...you claim its charactor, culture and country that matters, when previously you have stated that Germans integrate much better than North Africans...

This sentence makes no sense at all.

Are you claiming that Germans and N. Africans have the same character, culture and country, so that any perceived difference in integration is purely due to skin colour? Or, as I suspect, is the only difference between people of different countries that you notice their skin colour?

Anonymous said...

Moriarty, The question is whether we judge people based purely on their 'individual' charactor, or do we make generalizations about people based on their ethnicity.


I find it contradictory to one the one hand complain about the loss of English identity like my dad does (and many other people), and then suggest English ethnic identity isn't important as long as they have good character.
If that was true, whats to complain about in the first place?



Gareth, yes encouraging segregation is a very bad policy from the BNP, they need to build a strong national identity not divide the country. I thought they were against multi-culturalism??

JohnM said...

I find it contradictory to one the one hand complain about the loss of English identity like my dad does (and many other people), and then suggest English ethnic identity isn't important as long as they have good character.

I'm not sure this is such a contradiction.

Suggesting that we judge people based on their character is rooted in individualism, which has always been a strong element within the English national psyche. For example, English notions of freedom existed long before democracy. In contrast the modern appeal to multiculturalism is based upon collectivism. Multiculturalism does not judge people according to their individual character but according to the ethnic group they belong to. [My definition of multiculturalism here is based upon it's political aspects and not merely multi-ethnicity.]

There have been several attempts recently to define the British character, notably by Gordon Brown. It is noticable that these have tended to be risible, I would suggest, mainly because of this individualism. We can't agree on what constitutes Englishness because we reject the idea of ethnic labels.

On this reading it is perfectly possible to reject multiculturalism on the grounds of opposing it's group-think nature without it being implicit that the speaker be racist. Equally, the defence of Englishness is not inextricably based upon being ethnically English but upon the recognisition that individualism as practiced in England is under threat.

As an example, an aquaintence of mine is a Turkish Cypriot Muslim. She has married an atheist, is bringing up her children as Muslim, and never wears a veil except in the Mosque. She is livid that people presume that the MAB/MCB speaks for her in any matter. She thought the cartoons were offensive but that the demonstrations, riots and murders were far far worse.

I am pretty sure that she is an example of an immigrant that your Dad would be quite comfortable with. Although she is different, she is still recognisably English.

I would suggest that your Dad is trying to articulate the view that a concern with immigration need not be based upon racism but upon a recognition that at the end of the day, some attempt at integration needs to be made. Multiculturalism is not based upon promoting what we have in common but on emphasising that which divides us. If Multiculturalsim remains the dominant philosophy then we risk the Balkanisation of Britain.

Anonymous said...

BNP member: who is Ismal, and why are Brummies so forthright in defending his honour?

PDF

British National Party member said...

"Gareth, yes encouraging segregation is a very bad policy from the BNP, they need to build a strong national identity not divide the country. I thought they were against multi-culturalism?? "

Yes they are. They wouldnt have got us to this situation in the first place, but if they are to be elected they have to deal with it. I dont think their current proposals are right, but they are better than current policies by a long way. For reasons listed above, there is historic resistance to the idea of promoting miscegnation, but i consider it the only moral solution to the problem. (coupled with other things such as stopping anymore, deporting ALL illegals, and paying as many as possible a decent sum to go home)

Annonymous; Ismal is one of many earthly manifestations of my atrocious spelling. I meant islam of course.

Anonymous said...

johnm, good post, but the fact is, English identity is not simply anyone who believes in individualism, English people are a tribe descended from the Anglo-Saxons and a mixture of various others.
If that tribe either dies out or becomes 'swamped' by other larger groups of people, that will be the end of the English ethnic/racial identity.

Should we try to stop that happening or not?

Anonymous said...

The thought of my grandchildren living under Sharia law in our high Muslim area puts me in dread for their future.

AgainsTTheWall said...

Anonymous - are you all one person?

You have pointed up the contradiction that is the modern British conservative very nicely. Also encapsulated in 'Im not a racist but...' Pah! Strap on pair Laban and recognise the validity of the BNP's stance.

sarah bowman said...

I wish the BNP would not use Christianity for its own benefit and actually pretend they hold to Christian Values-when they clearly dont. The public constantly have to put up with the BNP rhetoric of we are not racist. Also the use of a dear Catholic Saint by a party like the BNP to forward its aim of an all white Britain (dont deny this now) is nothing short of offensive to many British Catholics like myself. I want controlled immigration in this country- I think most people do including muslims themselves. But certain problems in the UK will never be resolved by reactive voting by people to the BNP and waving about a couple of St. George's flags about like a bunch of schoolkids isnt going to solve anything. I for one I am going to vote for the Christian People Alliance and not the BNP, as they actually truly support Christian Values. People have to remember then were the BNP have won seats they have actually done jack all for local folk- they are just too paranoid about seeing Muslim influence everywhere rather then taking a proactive approach to actual problems that matter to people.
There is alternative to the BNP the Christian People's Alliance- a party that supports real Christian Values.

http://www.cpalliance.net/index.asp