Mehdi Hasan is the senior political editor of New Statesman, which is an organ of the British left Establishment.  You can read an email he sent Simon Darby here and, in Britain, listen to a BBC i-player recording of Mehdi’s aggressive anti-BNP views.

Failing that, here’s a post he put up at New Statesman which offers the same rationale:

Yesterday I took part in a Radio 4 discussion about the BBC’s coverage of the BNP with the corporation’s chief adviser on politics, Ric Bailey. You can listen to it here.

Bailey seemed to me to be a decent and intelligent man performing a delicate and difficult balancing act in a high-pressure job. But I was alarmed to hear him repeat, again and again, in response to my question (“Does the BBC consider the BNP to be a normal party?”), that the BNP is a “legal, elected party”.

So? Hitler was elected.

It’s my contention that the BBC, and various other media organisations, are contributing to the “normalisation” of the BNP through soft, context-free, fact-free interviews and through the corporate and editorial repetition of this nauseating mantra: “The BNP is a legal, elected party”.

But it’s not a NORMAL party, is it?

I mean, which other political party has racist, neo-fascist and neo-Nazi roots? Which other political party can be legitimately described as a “Nazi” party, as the Standard Boards of England ruled in 2005 - it is, the Board said, “within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate”? Which other political party has a leader who is a convicted criminal and a Holocaust denier? Which other political party includes local organizers who have convictions for gang rape or racist assaults? Which other political party has, among its former members, a terrorist and convicted murder and a man convicted under the Explosives Act? Which other political party has, as its MEP, a man who began his political career in England’s National Socialist party? Which other political party believes that Islam is a “cancer” and that Jews run the media?

Does it really breach the BBC’s impartiality guidelines to simply point this out to the viewers, listeners and readers of the corporation’s output? Or do we instead have to be treated to a fawning interview with a man, Mark Collett of the BNP, who has said, “Hitler will live forever, and maybe I will.”

Thankfully, as a colleague has pointed out to me, the BNP’s electoral triumphs remain limited - check out this result at a recent council by-election in Hertfordshire.

Now, in that radio interview Mehdi not only made the point that BNP representatives should not be entertained on the airwaves, but if by some chance they were, they must be “challenged”.  But with what?  What foundational argument does Mehdi have to counter the BNP’s?

So I thought I would invite Mehdi, or any other New Statesman folk, to tell us, and posted the following remarks there:

Mehdi,

I hope you will be generous enough to acknowledge that the English people are under grave and growing demographic pressure.  You speak of normal political parties, but what is happening to us demographically is in no sense normal, all those political parties that you would label “normal” concurr with it.

The historical and racial import of our times is not the pursuit of postmodern freedoms, but the race-replacement of a creative and beautiful European people by its own political and cultural class through the agency of mass Third World immigration.

This is completely unprecedented and it constitutes the ultimate racism, Mehdi.  In truth, I believe it qualifies as a genocide under the terms of the 1948/51 Convention (Article 2 paras b and c).  It is also contrary to the terms of the September 2007 United Nations General Assembly Approval of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We English are legally, morally and naturally entitled to resist this, and neither you nor any other actor on the left can, in my view, offer a valid argument to the contrary.  I hear leftists continually claim that they want to “defeat” or “expose” the BNP’s arguments, as if the liberal ascription of “racism” to English self-defence was the moral determinant.  It isn’t.  Continuity is the moral determinant.

I have debated hundreds of leftists, many of them academics, and none have prevailed against the morality and justice of English survival.  Their failed recourse is always:

1. Crude character assassination by the use of the r-word or some other supposed moral signifier;

2. To claim either that “race” does not exist or, specifically, that the English do not exist as a people (are “mongrels”, “immigrants”, etc) and cannot therefore be replaced or saved from replacement;

3. To contend that England’s children must atone for the past actions of elites of the British state by offering themselves up to the Third World;

4. To contend that white skin is a signifier of a racism and oppressiveness which, whilst it is not inate, is really only a learned or “socially constructed” fear of or unfamiliarity with the “other”, and which, again, must be exorcised by offering up our children to the Third World,

5. To deny that any historical process of race-replacement is in train at all, or that the English demographic is in decline, and even that the English will be “happier” or “free” in their new racial dispensation, even after minoritisation.

These are all failing arguments.  But if you think that you have something new and better, and that can withstand serious cross-examination by able and courteous interlocutors, perhaps you will kindly visit

majorityrights.com

... which is a medium not of the BNP or any narrow nationalist group, but of the international radical right.  I will set up a post this afternoon utilising this comment.  Let us see if you are as good as your word, and really possess the ambition and ammunition to “expose” our arguments.

This invitation is, of course, open to anyone else who thinks he or she has a coherent argument for the slow race-replacement of the English in England by unasked for and unwanted aliens.

Oh yes, Mehdi, and is this really you?