Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:10 | #

Much triumphalism at the BNP website, though.  The one and the other are siblings.  It is inevitable that the BNP will rise in the public’s esteem and the main Parties will react, attempting to:-

1) Paint them with as dark a shade of evil, racist black-heartedness as they can, and

2) Steal their red, white and blue clothes.

The former is already an over-played hand, and won’t work.  If the BNP refines its operations in certain respects, particularly with regard to ever greater discipline among its officers, then it will become plain that the Establishment is lying in its desperation.

Point two will require the strategists to add to its present Islamic schwerpunckt by talking, talking, talking about the demographic future of England and the ignored rights of the English.  There will be no getting away from the fact that the issue is race.  The political trajectory will take it ever nearer to the centre of public discourse.  Your question, Svi - do whites have the same right to defend their ethnic interests as any other people? - is where the battle will finally be fought and decided.

Posted by BNPPNB on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:03 | #

“Point two will require the strategists to add to its present Islamic schwerpunckt by talking, talking, talking about the demographic future of England and the ignored rights of the English.  There will be no getting away from the fact that the issue is race.  The political trajectory will take it ever nearer to the centre of public discourse.  Your question, Svi - do whites have the same right to defend their ethnic interests as any other people? - is where the battle will finally be fought and decided.”

Question - can the BNP do that in the current UK political climate and do they have the will and understanding to do it.  Ultimately, the problem is race, not religion or culture.  Certainly, they can score points about Islam, especially after 7/7.  But black Christians and South Asian Hindus are the problem too.

The fact that a non-white Britain is not Islamic does not make it “all right.”

Posted by john rackell on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:17 | #

...by talking, talking, talking about the demographic future of England and the ignored rights of the English.  There will be no getting away from the fact that the issue is race.  The political trajectory will take it ever nearer to the centre of public discourse.  Your question, Svi - do whites have the same right to defend their ethnic interests as any other people? - is where the battle will finally be fought and decided.

There’s a poignant letter on the BNP letter’s page, “Your Say”, dated Tues, Nov. 7.

Contrary to what you may think since I am gay, I support the BNP stance against mass immigration on the basis British natives will die out. I read the scientific information showing native DNA is replaced in just a few generation lines. Both of my sisters are having children by Black men. This is a worrying trend throughout the country in terms of native DNA. I feel this is not right on a big scale as British DNA is not being distributed throughout Africa, for instance, so they retain their genetic identity.

Funny, even though I don’t consider myself particularly prejudiced - I can’t help but feel his two sisters are the death of me and mine.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:45 | #

BNPPNB,

Well, I am a poor seer.  But some things are inevitable, and one of them is that in this contest all political artificiality will be torn down.  Public discourse is an abrasive process.  It does not stand still, and it is not owned by any of the parties to it.  The BNP cannot hold the line at Islamification, just as the Establishment cannot hold the line at the celebration of diversity.  The arguments of both will be pushed relentlessly towards their particular bottom line.

In the end the choices before the English public will be to follow their own ethnic interests with the BNP or to follow the interests of the Establishment.  The one is self-preservational and insists as its ultimate value upon the protection of birthright.  The other is self-sacrificial and insists as its ultimate value - for us only - upon a pious humanism, an empty universalism and non-existent egalitarianism.  These dubious gifts, of course, kill the old loyalties and ties and grant the Establishment perpetual power and alien peoples England.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:55 | #

John,

The need to preserve our ethny is in large part the need to stop miscegenation.  In the time it will take for the above arguments to crystallise and resolve themselves in the public consciousness much Zivian dysgenesis will be visited upon us.  One of the negative aspects of the BNP’s concentration on Islamification is that the argument against genetic transformation is going by the board.

Today’s verdict will, in the short term, confirm the BNP in its cultural line of attack.  But it won’t stay like that, unless of course our vibrant AQ operatives get through and change the nature of the debate again.

Posted by Retew on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:30 | #

One thing I wouldn;t be happy about were I a BNP sympathiser, never mind member, was the absence of a BNP spokesperson on the BBC Radio 4 (the BBC’s talk station in the UK, for those who don’t know) report on the acquittal on their indepth “World Tonight” news program late in the evening.

Instead, there was a writer on multicultural issues called Munira Mirza and someone called Wayman Bennet, joint secretary of the UAF (Unite against Fascism), both of whom agreed that the BNP was a disreputable organisation whose views and policies were beyond the pale.

In the interests of balance, there should have been one there or at least someone who sympathised with their point of view.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:21 | #

I saw the laughably grotesque Congoid, Wayman Bennet, on BBC World TV and the lickspittle deference shown to him by the craven interviewer would have triggered any self-respecting White’s upchuck reflex.

The BBC requires root-and-branch restructuring and the first act of a sane government would be to sack the 4 Jews, the Indian and the Afro-Caribbean from the Board of Governors.

Posted by wjg on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:34 | #

Was this really a victory for Britain?  For Whites?

Three thoughts:

1)  That this law prosecuting “hate” is even a law that is in any way respected is more evidence of defeat than an acquittal of violating it is a victory.  Is the argument that Griffin and Collett didn’t “hate” and are therefore innocent or that they did hate (following the insipid logic of such a law) but that to do so is the domain of free men thereby rendering the law dead?  It certainly appears, accepting the BBC’s “analysis”, to be the former.  Hence, Griffin’s victory will only cause an even more illegitimate law to be created for the next White patriot to be impaled upon.

2)  I agree with the thoughts above re. Griffin’s Islam obsession.  The brown muslim invaders who live in Britain, like the brown christian invaders, and the brown xxx invaders are the main tactical fight, not Islam per se.  As a matter of fact Islam, as a faith of the nations in the Middle East, can be an ally against our greatest enemy - the nation wrecking and white-hating advocates of the NWO.

3) The real fight is something Griffin has chosen to ignore for now, something Tyndall did not ignore.  And that is the spiritual blight that has infected the White World.  Until it is dealt with there can be no victory.  Even miscegenation is a symptom of this same disease.  Is Griffin being shrewd in its avoidance or is it an indication of treachery?  If history is any guide it will prove to be the latter.

Posted by john on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:59 | #

The rapid rise of the BNP is good enough for most people that the leadership is doing something right.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:25 | #

My dear friends at Harry’s Place (you know, where MR fears to tread) often entertain comments about our Muslim pals and their faith which make Griffin and Collett sound like Louisa May Alcott.

The neurotic Jewish caliphate-fearers and other fellow travellers of Baby Bush can now rest easier that they won’t get a visit from the cyberboys in blue.

However, as a quietist, Christian paleocon I find blanket denuciations of *any* creed that has lasted for many centuries, commands adherents in many countries and appears to advocate respect for tradition, family, sexual differentiation and hierarchy somewhat suspect. It may not suit Blighty, but it has caught on quite widely elsewhere: one billion votaries and rising. OTOH, despite the propaganda of paranoia, nothing remotely resembling a united polity has ensued, rather the opposite: the Islamic world has been as denominationally and nationally fissiparous as Christendom, a fortiori since the Ottomans surrendered their empire.

I therefore wonder if Mr Griffin and his statist, pro-Israel associates are quite the sort of people conservatives should be cheering on. Their scapegoating of ‘British’ Muslims, who are largely powerless, contrasts with their increasing Jew-friendliness. Whom should British patriots fear more: Abu Hamza or the Rothschilds? Iqbal Sacranie or Richard Desmond?

The BNP has jumped on a liberal-mores bandwagon to denounce Muslims in a very historicist manner, as ‘backward’, ‘barbaric’ and so forth. The unstated premise is that our wonderful modern democratic world is in every way superior. Not according to my values, it ain’t.

This is not to say we want Muslim Arabs, Pakistanis and the like over here, any more than other breeds with incompatible phenotypes, however high there are IQs (and that includes Germans). I remain firmly convinced that generously assisted repatriation of the Islamic and Israelite awkward squads is the way forward, and would be pushing on an open door. But demographic nightmares about Muslims ‘replacing’ us are alarmist extrapolations.

Griffin strikes me as a dodgy martyr, gloating over the outcome of what may well have been a put-up job with the British equivalent of the German “anti-Nazi” fabricators of spookdom. More than ever, Griffin’s background and his tacking towards the colour-blind but vaguely ‘Judaeo-Christian’ line convinces me that he is, if not an actual plant, someone who has been turned and hired.

The gap between him and David Cameron’s Tories narrows constantly. Both are a bit more isolationist and wary of ZOGmerica than the regnant ideology, but ‘citizenist’ rather than racially conscious (watch for the first mulatto to be inducted into the BNP). The BNP has formally dropped repatriation; its angry exposes of Muslim wrongdoing, like the Democrats’ attacks on the conduct of the Iraq invasion, cover a deafening silence where proposals for rectifying the siuation should be. All the BNP has to offer is more strenuous statist efforts at assimilation: preaching the superiority of Britishness, ‘cracking down’ on separatist communitarianism.

Prepare for a full-blooded switch to Le Pen-style ideology shortly by Griffin. We can see from how France has gone in the last 30 years since Raspail’s prophetic masterwork how effective a buttress against national demoralisation and dissolution is the theory that folks of all colours can become good citizens if only they ditch their ancestral beliefs on passing through immigration- or if we pretend that they’ve ditched them, in censuses and the like.

I’m a simpleton. I reckon that what makes a nation distinct, pleasant and conformable to the wishes of its indigenes is that not many non-indigenes ever muscle in. So I can draw little comfort from the current political scene. All we see is a minor course correction away from ‘salad bowl’ multiculturalism towards a new ‘we’re all British now’ consensus uniting Brown, Cameron and Griffin—with only what Franquist Spain called ‘contrasts of opinion’—under the One World umbrella. “This is the 21st century… no turning back…, got to learn to live with each other” etc, etc.

To the extent that the civic pieties of the USA have been shaken by experience over the 40 years since negro emancipation and open-borders immigration began with a vengeance (literally), the swing has been towards a similar ‘color-blind’, anti-affirmative action, anti-quota, anti-racial spoils system sentiment. Referendum results in the latest election show this is still operating. But it does not conduce to formal recognition that the USA is hopelessly fractured racially and should split into separate polities. Anything but. Ward Connerly’s the right-wing hero, not William Pierce.

Such a consensus, such a reaffirmation of melting-pot delusion, would be more hostile to racial consciousness and exclusivity than ever, because it would make biological reality into an unspeakable heresy. The acquittal of Griffin and Collett only licenses public figures to be ruder about religious non-cooperators in the great drive to make us all po-mo, secular-minded Cool Britons. The BNP’s exculpation gives no warrant to those of us who just want foreigners, including British-born ones, out of OUR country.

Posted by john on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:18 | #

I agree with the simpleton part.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:53 | #

Look what this man Gordon Brown said in a speech in 1999:

“I am here tonight because I passionately believe in a Britain which is multinational, multiracial and multicultural, a Britain which is not bland, uniform or monochrome but a Britain which is rich in colour, celebrates its diversity and indeed gains strength and unity from that diversity.  The Britain I believe in is a Britain where the British values of tolerance, fair play, openness and internationalism can become so powerful and pervasive that we can over time banish discrimination, cast aside prejudice, remove bias and outlaw racial hatred.

This is pure totalitarianism in the service of forcing race-replacement on Britain.  He says he wants to “outlaw racial hatred” at a time when the thing known as “racial hatred” is defined so as to include disputing the legitimacy of ... guess what?  of forced race-replacement.  So what we have is, they’re forcing race-replacement on the country and outlawing any questioning of it.  Conjunctions like that don’t happen by accident:  there’s an overall plan to methodically do away with the predominance of the white race in Britain, exactly as there is in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Eurosphere. 

Brown’s response to the Griffin acquittal is in the same totalitarian spirit (also linked in Svi’s comment, first in the thread):

“Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made,” he said.  “Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes.  If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.”

The laws weren’t draconian enough and will have to be tightened:  there cannot be any opposition to race-replacement permitted.  None whatsoever.  Once the transformation’s complete and whites no longer have hope of saving themselves, totalitarians like Brown may reconsider.  Oh, that’s the other thing totalitarians like:  placing populations before the fait accompli.  They love doing that.

Are the good people of the U.K. going to let themselves be placed before the fait accompli? ...

I have faith they won’t but will keep faith with each other, with their ancestors, and with their posterity-to-come—yes, keep faith, that’s the right expression.  We’re dealing in the sacred here, make no mistake.

Posted by Salopian on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:57 | #

“Matt”

You may not agree with the tactic, but the realpolitik behind Griffin’s attacks on Islam are that laws concerning racial hatred are rather tighter than those covering religion. In the 1980s John Tyndall went to prison for saying that blacks commit a lot of crimes, Griffin martyring himself in the same way would benefit no-one.

It also widens and legitimises the BNPs platform if they are at talking the same language as the MSM and the likes of Harry’s Place - even if it is total bollocks. Rather like global warming and the ozone layer, the typical C1C2 voter whom the BNP must win over, gets in a muddle between “asylum” and “immigration” (lllegal or legal), and is conditioned to the dreaded “I’m not racist but…” apology when speaking out in their interests. If playing along with the medias game somehow equates with the BNP adopting a “culture rather than race” stance, then please see the first para in the “What we stand for” section of their website:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm

Whilst I am uneasy about the attacks on Islam, it is fair to say that very few Muslims are indigenes - or that your typical voter doesn’t realise who is really being referred to.

I’m sure you know this because you yourself have approved of the BNP’s tactic of exploitating of brown/white tension in the north and the midlands in the recent plast.

You suffer from the same “look-at-me” narcissim as JJR, although more elegantly written. What else can explain your incredibly concerted efforts at Harry’s Place, where you 30+ sock puppets are constantly craving attention, and you often reply to your own posts using a different handle.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:48 | #

“Matt” You wrote “demographic nightmares about Muslims ‘replacing’ us are alarmist extrapolations”.

Well it depends on many factors, many or all of which might alter over time, so the following may be simplistic.

Im given to understand that the current muslim population of the UK is a mere 1.5 million+, thats 1 in 40 of ‘us’. Im further given to understand that about 20 years ago that figure was half ie 750,000 (1 in 80). I cant see that its totally implausible that the figure might double again in 20 years, given current immigration policies and the propensity of muslims to large families. We could be talking 3 million (1 in 20) in 2026 and 6 million in 2046 (1 in 10). I might well still be around then and the ghostly phrase “demographic nightmares….alarmist extrapolations” will no doubt be ringing through my aged head.

Anyhow if we are not headed for 3 million muslims by 2026 I would like to know whats going to be changed, immigration policy and/or muslim family size?

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 06:30 | #

Slightly O/T

Anyone know about this, on Channel 4 in the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/11/05/svgenetic05.xml&page=1

Ive heard something about it, seems to be a nice liberal fantasy ie no such thing as English, we’ve all got masses of foreign genes etc etc. Whats the scientific story though, I suspect they are playing a bit fast and loose with the facts.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:33 | #

Lurker,

When the Telegraph story appeared I sent the URL to a certain knowledgable party who, though he did not feel inclined to work-up a full head of technological steam, remarked as follows:-

The “Telegraph” story is absurd and could be easily answered…

... the tests are statistical estimates of affililiation/similarity to different ancestral pools, and cannot be directly interpreted to mean that any person actually has X % ancestry from source Y.

One could point out that “English” was not a category of the test, and if the English ethny is in fact an ancient ancestral mix of different genepools this does not in any way invalidate the concept of Englishness, English genetic interests, or someone being of unmixed English stock.  Or the obvious distinctions between an Englishman and a Negro….

By analog, the Bullmastiff is a mix of Mastiff and Bulldog; it is now an established, stable breed, and one can speak of a dog being a “purebred Bullmastiff.”

The fact that a Bullmastiff is composed of two other breeds no more means that a Pekingnese can be a Bullmastiff than the fact that the English may be a blend means that a Negro is somehow “English.”

If Orange is a mix of Yellow and Red, this does not logically imply that Orange does not exist, or that Purple can somehow be a shade of Orange.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:41 | #

I suppose the Telegraph isn’t to be blamed for lacking understanding of what DNAPrint is actually testing, and how it must be applied.  But the construction of a purely la-la-liberal argument is another matter, and goes beyond mere ignorance to something more more like harmful intent.  The lesson to be drawn from it is that the journal of “right-wing”, “Conservative” England is as antipathetic to native England and as committed to the black-white miscegenative goal as any Zivist.

Posted by john on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:08 | #

If I remember rightly the artical was by an art critic. He drew conclusions opposite to those of Salter.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:05 | #

Andrew,.

As far as I am aware the BNP is more Hubbert than Stern.  The global warming debate, however, throws up many a wry moment:-

African nomads to be first people wiped out by climate change

Kenya’s herdsmen are facing extinction as global warming destroys their lands

Causalities aside, the sentiment here is not unlike what Dessie Tutu said of the Bushmen evictions:-

When a culture is destroyed in the name of progress, it is not progress, it is a loss for our world.”

The argument becomes “respectable”, then, when it is not made about us by “odious fascists”.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:55 | #

From that Telegraph article:

Carol Thatcher, to her credit, took the news of her Middle Eastern origins particularly well.

One glance at her reveals obvious Jewish ancestry.  It’s hard to believe she wouldn’t know.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:20 | #

Steve Sailer suggests a way to get Gordon Brown to reconsider his own ugly totalitarianism:

“Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out,” Chancellor Gordon Brown told the BBC.  “If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.”

[...] Perhaps Tony Blair’s presumed successor, Gordon Brown, should shepherd through Parliament an ex post facto law and bill of attainder specifically naming Nick Griffin as going to prison for violating in 2004 the Anti-Free Speech Law of 2007.  And why not get rid of trial by jury while he’s at it?  And how about a law banning opposition parties, other than ones led by the wholly unthreatening David Cameron?  Who can afford to care about 991 years of English constitutional liberties anymore when 2% of the population is Muslim?

More seriously, Americans should start to re-assess their tourism plans in light of the British Government’s desire to criminalize free expression.  How much longer can you afford to take the risk of vacationing in Britain when you could be arrested for, say, some comment you posted on somebody’s blog?  Granted, as an argument in favor of free speech, that’s rather a letdown compared to John Milton’s, but I can’t imagine any other kind of arguments than “Tourists are money!” having any impact on getting Brown to rethink killing free speech.