I prefer clarity to agreement *UPDATED*

Charles, at LGF, is concerned that the “extreme right white supremacist” (his phrase) BNP party in England is gaining political ground.  If you check out the party’s blog, though, racial purity a la the Nazis or the KKK is not part of the party’s platform.  As far as I can tell, it wants to close Britain’s open borders, back off from European union control, and clamp down on out-of-control multiculturalism.  All of these seem like reasonable positions.  After all, under current British policies, traditional Britain is truly vanishing.  The place is ground zero for antisemitism, its Muslim influx is unending, Britain is ceding all political control to the EU, and the nation is effectively committing “we hate ourselves” suicide.  Wanting to turn back that tide doesn’t strike me as being the same as being Neo-Nazis:  desiring a totalitarian state dedicated to world domination and the eradication and enslavement of all inferior races.

Charles’ fight with the European far right is totally valid insofar as he is fighting the true neo-Nazis.  The problem seems to me to be the Orwellian one, with the degradation of language pushing people into positions that do not match the facts on the ground.

You see, thanks to the Left, words no longer mean what they used to mean, but the change is often so gradual, we don’t realize it. (That happens without politics, too, with the very old Bethlehem Hospital for the Insane in London morphing into the word “bedlam.”)

Because the Left consciously controls language (“man caused disasters” anyone?), things can get confusing. The easiest example is the way in which Nazis are defined. As their full name establishes (“National SOCIALISTS”), the Nazis were a socialist (i.e., Leftist) political organization. Nowadays, however, they are routinely referred to on the Left as “rightist” so as to conflate them with the Left’s political enemies. In fact, like the Left, they were statists. Unlike the average Lefty, however, they added to their garden-variety belief in state control a poisonous measure of racial hatred.

Linguistically, things are very confusing in Europe, where even the “rightist” political parties (say, the Tories) are to the Left of the American middle. Add to that the fact that, in Europe, there are both genuine neo-Nazis, who want to replicate the Nazis vision of racial purity, AND are concerned moderates who don’t like the political control being ceded to multicultural pro-Islamists, and you’ve got word soup.

For that reason, it would be useful if people who use the phrase “far right” with regard to European politics would define that term.  Technically, “far right,” if we’re measuring it against “far left,” simply means less government, not more. After all, if Marxist-style Leftism is the party that seeks total government control, than its opposite — “Rightism” — must be veering into pure anarchy, without any government control at all. That’s clearly not what Charles means when he speaks of the Right, though.

I think that, by saying “far right,” Charles is stating that the BNP party is racist, a la the Nazis or the KKK (and with visions of lynchings and ovens dancing in its political brain).  The website, however, indicates that it is only “racist” as the Left would define it, meaning anyone who doesn’t like Obama or is concerned about sharia.

Given the abuse language undergoes daily, the way in which words are folded, spindled and mutilated in ways that take them in the opposite direction from their original meanings, it’s entire possible that a lot of the intellectual fights on the conservative side arise because people THINK they mean the same thing, but they actually don’t. As Dennis Prager says, “I prefer clarity to agreement,” and as I’ve noted listening to his show, clarity often brings agreement.

I loath the stench of truly racists politics (e.g., KKK and Adolf worship blended with a desire to have a strong government making these deadly dreams a reality). However, I do think there needs to be a political home for Europeans who are worried about the Islamification of their nations. And as long as governments in Europe hew Left (even those that are called right), I suspect that the governments and their media outlets are going to tar all anti-Sharia people with the same ugly “far Right” brush.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

UPDATE:  Two comments I want to bring up to the post itself:

  1. Poosh

    Hi, I’m a British euroasian (halfbreed!!!!!!!!) and I just wanted to inform you of how badly wrong this post is in regard directly to the BNP. Firstly a racist party that actually wants seats in the UK is NOT going to blurt out its true motives on its public website ffs! The BNP are well known here to be VERY racist and Charles is perfectly right (for once) to be concerned about this. They are not against multi-culturalism, they are against non-whites. It is actually illegal for you to join the police force here in the UK if you are a member of the BNP (I don’t agree with this in principle but it is a disgusting thought that a member of the BNP could be in the police force all the same). There have been hidden-camera footage revealed as well displaying the party’s racism and so forth. It is WELL KNOWN in britan that this is a NAZI party.

    The are, like the Nazi Party however, NOT RIGHT WING. They are left wing – socialists. You need read their manifesto to see them as socialists. The BNP is made up of mostly working class chumps who are looking for a scape goat due to their lowly lott in life – and non-whites are there main scape-goat. I could not believe I was reading the above post, sorry. The BNP’s website is NOT somewhere to see their true colours – as if they’d broadcast their racist doctrines on it! lol. It would only take you mere minutes to see the BNP’s true colours. For example the BNP is a WHITES-ONLY party ffs.

  2. Thank you, Poosh. That’s precisely the type of information I’m seeking. That leaves a question open, though: Where the heck are moderate Europeans and British supposed to go to challenge unlimited immigration (as opposed to more controlled immigration); unbridled political correctness (as opposed to respect for others); the handing over of British sovereignty to the EU; and all the other stuff moderates are reasonable to oppose? The major political parties are joined together in a race to the bottom, and the moderates have nothing to hold onto. That had better change quickly, or the moderates will become radicalized and swell the ranks of the BNP and other racist parties.

UPDATE II: From Mike Devx, who actually did the research:

Well, I downloaded the BNP’s Constitution.  If you want to take a look it’s at the link below on their site.  It’s formatted to be assembled as a booklet, so you have to jump around from page to page on the web…

http://www.bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf

Section 2 – Membership – is clearly racial.  ‘Nuff said, for me.  I’ve got no use for a political party that restricts its membership based on race solely to Caucasians of variously described “British descent”.

Seeking to preserve culture is one thing.  You can recognize that your beloved culture is disappearing and resolve to fight to retain it.  That’s legitimate, especially when all of your current political leadership in power is doing nothing, at best, to preserve it.  But these guys have clearly defined a racial component within their own Constitution by allowing only native Caucasian British to be members of the party.

Their activities and statements ceased to be overtly racist at about 2001, it appears.  Having seen the Stealth Candidate Obama succeed at his own deception of an entire country – well, enough of a deception to fool 53% of the people – it’s entirely possible that the BNP remains as virulently racist as their relatively distant past would indicate.

I can’t say I agree with Poosh’s virulent hatred of the <b>current</b> BNP.  Speaking for myself, though, I’ve seen enough to indicate that I would never associate myself with them in any form whatsoever.

Hopefully the BNP is not the only organized party in Great Britain to actively promote and value their traditional culture and values.  If so… then where else are the British people to turn?  They certainly won’t be willing to simply surrender…

That’s good enough for me too.  But I’ll go back to my original point, which is that the mainstream political parties have closed the doors on moderate Brits who are opposed to the fundamental change in the nature of English, from a Christian country tied to traditional British values, to a multiculturalist society with a rapidly growing, and increasingly vocal and powerful, extreme Islamist population.  These people are going to flock to the BNP, despite its ugly racist ideology, because it’s the only game in town.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Like I said before, Until Charles of LGF provides an actual intelligence assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, thereby quantifying the threat, scale, and operational parameters and limits of the Neo-Nazis in Europe, I will continue to consider Charles of LGF’s arguments as spurious and him personally a victim of enemy propaganda operations that have penetrated past his mental barriers.

    No master propagandist, student of the art of propaganda, or conscientious propagandist would willingly or eagerly accept the world view of others, for such is present the ever threat that the world view of others are meant to be poison to one’s own.

    The student first learns to shield his or her mind against the attacks and insinuations of others, then the student learns to shield the mind from itself via eternal vigilance. The first is ensured by always asking “is what I am thinking and is what I am feeling my own or has it originated from the actions and words of others?” The second is ensured by studying one’s own vulnerabilities in order to prevent oneself from believing in something simply because we either fear it is true or we want it to be true.

    A master propagandist is able to defend himself in such a fashion while penetrating through the defenses of others.

    Charles, if I have his background correct, is a neo-con that was strictly a “neo-con” due to the issue of national security after 9/11. On all or most other matters, he has not progressed or spent enough time re-analyzing matters. That is understandable, for we were all very busy dealing with the Left after 9/11. But it has been 6 years now. Charles still has no let go of various indoctrination he imbibed when he was a Democrat or a supporter of Leftist causes.

    For neo-cons, the transition either makes you stronger than ever, or it deepens current fractures into future chasms. It all depends.

    The problem seems to me to be the Orwellian one, with the degradation of language pushing people into positions that do not match the facts on the ground.

    The beauty of propaganda and the various psychological warfare tools utilized is that you can pit family against family, clan against clan, nation against nation, and sister against brother and everyone would believe that they are fighting for their own reasons, grievances, and causes while you sit above them all controlling all their grievances and engineering ways to deepen the hate and division.

    A judicious use of propaganda can set your enemies against themselves, leaving no energy for them to fight you. I would like to make this note, however. The people who make noises concerning “follow the money to the Republican party” don’t even know what money is, let alone how to follow it to its source. Those people are examples of “judicious use of propaganda” in so far as they have been led to believe what the money controllers like Soros told them to believe. They are not examples for any personal act or accomplishment on their part, for they have little of worth to speak of in that sphere.

  2. Tonestaple says

    I think the problem with nomenclature in Europe is with the disappearance of anything like our idea of conservatism. They seem to have left, far left, and Nazi, and they seem to have eliminated any place for the vast middle to go. Any preference for keeping European culture European is immediately derided as racist and those proposing such a thing are called Nazis. The multi-culti cultists on the left have left no room for anyone like thee or me in their scheme of things, and that’s why you end up with people who may very well think like us hooking up with groups that may have unsavory past or present associations.

    It’s not unlike what the left has tried to very hard to do with their slavish following of Alinsky’s rules: It’s part of Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. It’s how you turn normal folk into demons.

    I believe Ymarsakar is right about Johnson’s background: I think he eventually found himself keeping company with folk he would never had kept company with pre-9/11 and it freaked him out. Without knowing who Johnson really is, I’m guessing he had spent all his time on music and computers, and, like most people, had never really thought out his positions on other issues, just adopted what was in the ether in California. Because he hadn’t thought things through, my best guess is that he has fallen for the sycophancy that comes his way from a core group of his commenters, and now has painted himself into a corner and either can’t figure out how to get out, or doesn’t want to.

    I’m thinking he doesn’t want to work it out because his favorite hobbies of late seem to be assigning guilt by association, and leaping to conclusions.

    I recently read Murray Rothbard’s essay on the sociology of the Ayn Rand cult, and it made me think of what’s been going on at LGF lately: either you agree with the leader, or you get jumped on and maybe eliminated. I think once you let yourself become a cult leader, it’s very hard to step back from that and re-evaluate your positions.

  3. says

    It helps to slap oneself into reality every once in a while. The United States supreme warriors and soldiers, the US Marines and Petraeus’ hand picked staff, negotiated successfully in alliance with Sunni mofoing bastardo Arabs, for God’s sake.

    And we are supposed to feel “bad” that Blams Vedang (something or other Dutch group) is a neo-nazi organization for meeting with one or two specific people in LGF’s mind?

    The threat, if ever there was one, rests within the details, the prime strategic moments of issuance.

    Whether people succeed against the darkness of the Left and their politics of hate and strife or not will depend wholly on how people are dealt with, not “who” is dealt with. How, not who. Details, not broad generalizations or attributions.

    An Obama making deals with Sunnis and a British army in Basrah making deals with Al Sadr are entirely different from Iraqi attempts to deal with Sadr and American attempts to deal with Sunnis. Why? Because of the details of how and of course, because of the character of the people in question.

    Charles has provided no concrete details. He has provided no accurate analysis. He has provided no analysis. He has connected dots between people, but that’s the same as the Left posting up a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein as proof of the argument that Rummy, and not the Germans and French, were responsible for arming Saddam Hussein and his war against Iran.

    It is pure emotionalism and emotionalism is not what you need if you wish to see the true face of reality.

    A remember a year or so back that LGF had this big argument about a dutch party, not related to the BNP, associating with “neo-Nazis”. This is about as strong an argument as Trent Lott’s comments at that birthday/anniversary party proving Lott and the Republicans are racist. Weak logic users of the Left will buy that, but not people like me. We have higher standards, if only because we know how to manipulate those with weaker standards for concrete definitive proof. I heard no concrete policy differences or outcries or any such from LGF over this “association”. There was no action to protect Jews or other minorities that the neo-Nazis were killing, intimidation, or corrupting. Either such didn’t exist or LGF never knew of them. If they didn’t exist, why worry about associations? If they did exist and LGF didn’t know about them, then how would LGF know whether neo-Nazis are really Nazis?

    Without knowing who Johnson really is, I’m guessing he had spent all his time on music and computers, and, like most people, had never really thought out his positions on other issues, just adopted what was in the ether in California

    Of course, I can make a more definitive and complete analysis of Charles if I am provided with more background information and certain particulars of his style and psychology/behavior. I do not read him regularly, as Book does.

    My views are preliminary and based upon sketchy recollections. But still, I would back them against anything Charles would say about the BNP. I am confident, at least, on this score.

  4. Poosh says

    Hi, I’m a British euroasian (halfbreed!!!!!!!!) and I just wanted to inform you of how badly wrong this post is in regard directly to the BNP. Firstly a racist party that actually wants seats in the UK is NOT going to blurt out its true motives on its public website ffs! The BNP are well known here to be VERY racist and Charles is perfectly right (for once) to be concerned about this. They are not against multi-culturalism, they are against non-whites. It is actually illegal for you to join the police force here in the UK if you are a member of the BNP (I don’t agree with this in principle but it is a disgusting thought that a member of the BNP could be in the police force all the same). There have been hidden-camera footage revealed as well displaying the party’s racism and so forth. It is WELL KNOWN in britan that this is a NAZI party.

    The are, like the Nazi Party however, NOT RIGHT WING. They are left wing – socialists. You need read their manifesto to see them as socialists. The BNP is made up of mostly working class chumps who are looking for a scape goat due to their lowly lott in life – and non-whites are there main scape-goat. I could not believe I was reading the above post, sorry. The BNP’s website is NOT somewhere to see their true colours – as if they’d broadcast their racist doctrines on it! lol. It would only take you mere minutes to see the BNP’s true colours. For example the BNP is a WHITES-ONLY party ffs.

  5. says

    Thank you, Poosh. That’s precisely the type of information I’m seeking. That leaves a question open, though: Where the heck are moderate Europeans and British supposed to go to challenge unlimited immigration (as opposed to more controlled immigration); unbridled political correctness (as opposed to respect for others); the handing over of British sovereignty to the EU; and all the other stuff moderates are reasonable to oppose? The major political parties are joined together in a race to the bottom, and the moderates have nothing to hold onto. That had better change quickly, or the moderates will become radicalized and swell the ranks of the BNP and other racist parties.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Poosh #5:

    First, welcome! But I do have a question, or perhaps a request, concerning this:

    [The BNP] … are not against multi-culturalism, they are against non-whites. [...] The BNP is made up of mostly working class chumps who are looking for a scape goat due to their lowly lott in life – and non-whites are there main scape-goat. I could not believe I was reading the above post, sorry. The BNP’s website is NOT somewhere to see their true colours – as if they’d broadcast their racist doctrines on it!

    Poosh, that is quite a damning charge, and it’s the first I’ve heard it. Can you provide any links that provide a second source for your information? I ask, not to challenge, but because you didn’t offer any corroborating sources, and I dislike forming my opinion based solely on what amounts to someone else’s opinion.

    Opinions are welcome, of course! I’ll do some digging myself, but I’d like to see the sources for how you’ve formed your own opinion on the perfidy of the BNP.

  7. suek says

    >>They are not against multi-culturalism, they are against non-whites.>>

    Mike asks for more info. Certainly it’s needed to give any weight to this accusation. In this country, anybody who wants verifiable ID in order to vote, for example, is considered to be racist – against Mexicans. The fact that they are illegal and not entitled to vote is made out to be irrelevant. We have a problem with illegals – it is not racist to target hispanic looking individuals in order to determine their right to be here – but it’s considered to be racist.

    In England, you have primarily Anglo-Saxons, who are white, and non-Anglos, who are mostly non-white and come from various GB former colonies. The numbers of muslims are unquestionably affecting the culture of GB. To question the loss of basic culture and the causes makes it necessary to point a finger at those who are non-Anglos – which means non-white. That doesn’t mean they are racist – they may simply be nationalists – they want their country to remain as it has been – Anglo-Saxon in law, religion and tradition. They’re not so much anti non-white as they are pro-Anglo. Those two things are not the same. In other words (and more simply), it’s not the color of the skin, it’s the culture. We have the same problem here in the States – much of what passes for racism isn’t – it’s culturism. We want the culture of our forefathers and we will resist any effort to change it. If you want to live and succeed here, become one of us – don’t try to make us change to accommodate _you_.

    E Pluribus Unum.

  8. Poosh says

    You must also understand I find it quite queer to actually be asked to defend my belief that a well-known racist party built of thugs are actually a racist party constructed of thugs… All major parties including the Tory party hate them rightly so.

    The immigration party in the UK – a mainly anti-EU one is called UKIP (UK Independence Party) – however imo they are somewhat nutty but they are certainly not racist. UKIP have greater support than the BNP.

    Here are a few articles I have managed to find on the BNP

    http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg04.htm

    http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/the-politics-of-the-BNP.php

    There is a difference between wanting to protect the culture of the British People and wanting to protect the indigenous peoples’ genetics from foreign ‘spoiling’. The latter of course is racially predicated.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/roots/2001.stm

    ^ my internet is taking to long to load that but that probs has a lot more information. The BNP are also heavily anti-semetic and even their leader has been caught out, i believe one of the links above quotes him.

    The BNP mission statement (you’d think you’d get the racist tone from their website at any rate, but anyway) :

    ” The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia. ”

    I think that’s pretty much as racist as you can get without being overt about it. And I believe BNP members have assocated with KKK members in the past… then again there’s a ex-KKK member in the Democrat party so ;p

    As a side note, Little Green Footballs behavior towards the author of JihadWatch and Atlas Shrugs is a disgrace as is his pathetic attacks on Geert Wilders.

    As a warning, what you demonstrate above is correct – often the term ‘racism’ is used to disarm and silence someone with a geniune and true problem with say immigration or multi-culturalism but in this one instance (the BNP) you are deadly wrong. They are a racist, nasty party who have in recent years had a make-over to make them look less racist. No other party wants to associate with them – and not a single Tory has anyything less than conempt for them. Even today (by coincidence perhaps) in the Daily Mail (one of the most right-wing newspapers in the UK) had a piece about some ‘racist’ comments made by the BNP’s second in command.

  9. suek says

    >>” The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia. ”

    I think that’s pretty much as racist as you can get without being overt about it.>>

    I don’t have time at the moment to visit the links you have provided…I’ll do so tomorrow AM.

    However…Taking the quoted comment above re: indigenous peoples of thee islands…would you have considered that a racist comment if it were referring to the German invasion? My guess is no. The influx of foreigners – who happen to be dark-skinned – may seem to some as much of an invasion as the efforts of Germany were. So therefore, I do not consider that to be a racist statement. It’s true that it might be, but at face value, it only says we want to keep GB as it has always been, and don’t want to be marginalized by foreigners – whoever they may be.

  10. Mike Devx says

    Thank you, Poosh. I too will be checking out the info.

    I’ve been following the webwar between Charles Johnson and those he accuses of being too cozy with racist movements. I’ve been a fan of Gates of Vienna and Atlas Shrugged, and so his attacks on them for this are worrisome to me.

    I’ll check out your BNP info later this evening and tomorrow as time permits. Thank you!

  11. says

    You must also understand I find it quite queer to actually be asked to defend my belief that a well-known racist party built of thugs are actually a racist party constructed of thugs

    Here in America we have an epistemological system that demands something called “proof” for intellectual demands and statements. This may not be sure elsewhere in the world, but it is true in America, some parts of America at least.

    When everybody is marching in lockstep to the point where they feel no need to defend their views because nobody challenges their views, that is sub-optimal. It is what leads to Nazism, it is not what cures it.

    All major parties including the Tory party hate them rightly so.

    That’s like saying the Democrats hate the Republicans rightly so because the Republicans are hypocrites. When in reality, the truth is that Dems hate anyone competing for their power and status/wealth.

    No other party wants to associate with them – and not a single Tory has anyything less than conempt for them.

    Given that Britain is this self-proclaimed monolith, then what harm will the BNP do by making Britain even more monolithic and predictable and uniform in their mannerisms, behaviors, and political ideologies? The BNP is racist for favoring a uniform and hard line stance for whites and against Muslims and non-Europeans, but the current state of British politics and culture is perfectly fine? Doesn’t seem like a worthwhile trade all in all.

    Even in the Republican party, there are people who make love fests with the hated Dems. When every single person is onboard, you either have a situation that can be labeled “mass hysteria” or you have a situation like after 9/11, where human beings are united against a mortal external threat.

    There is a difference between wanting to protect the culture of the British People and wanting to protect the indigenous peoples’ genetics from foreign ’spoiling’. The latter of course is racially predicated.

    There is an easy argument to make here. That argument is that Britain has already held the core tenets of racism, which the BNP has simply taken to its logical conclusion and in the process threatens to upset certain powerful status quo organizations that refuse to be overthrown.

    First you say this.

    Firstly a racist party that actually wants seats in the UK is NOT going to blurt out its true motives on its public website ffs!

    Then you come up with this.

    The BNP mission statement (you’d think you’d get the racist tone from their website at any rate, but anyway) :

    So which is it, does the BNP present its true motives on its public websites as you claimed, or do they not present their true motives, as you have claimed.

    If the BNP goes to such hardship to cover up their “true” aims, how is it that you are able to pierce the veil by picking up the “racist tone” from their websites? Could it be, wonder of wonders, that what you are picking up is not a racist tone but your own particular prejudices in this manner. And if so, that would not be good thing to do.

    On 26 May, violence erupted in Oldham. Hundreds of Asian youths clashed with police during a night of rioting, which the police described as “sheer carnage.”

    The Asian youths were reacting to white youths who had ran through an Asian street attacking people and property.

    I do not see what this particular segment or incidence has to do with the BNP.

    Fearing a further escalation in tensions, all candidates were banned from speaking at the election count. Griffin and Treacy stood on the platform gagged, in a silent protest against the ban.

    One thing Americans tend to have is a certain degree of cosmopolitanism, even amongst the smallest towns of America. And this element expresses itself in unique and manigifcent fashions when you contrast it with European behavior.

    Racism in the context of the BNP is more than just colour prejudice. The BNP’s racism is more fundamental, predicated on the belief that there is a racial hierarchy and that the white race is superior.

    For example, regardless of whether the BNP’s racism is fundamental or not, British racism, not to mention German racism, is and has always been fundamental.

    The Germans do not count you as a German citizen even if your father and forefathers had been born in Germany. This is an element of European ethnical purity and this pretense of calling attention to the BNP because the BNP stays true to European traditional views is not racist so much as it is European or British. It was not the BNP that made Muslims, Algerians, and foreigners into second class citizens. That was done by Labour, the “multiculturalists”, and the wannabe idiots of the political class in Britain. They needed a labour force to pay for their profligate expenses and their obscene luxuries.

    Of course this is a cultural issue, because European cultural is essentially blood based. Aristocratic hierarchies, class structures defined by accent, blood, family, education, etc. The racism of the BNP is not theirs. It is Britain’s. And it is only by destroying Britain, or what’s left of it, can you also destroy racism in Europe. But that’s not what people plan to do when they defeat the BNP.

    The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration …

    A party that wants to expel a bunch of people and lock down immigration is neo-Nazi? They’re more isolationist than neo-Nazi for the Nazis actively needed a minority to excuse emergency decrees and policies of “necessity” required to solve the “Jewish Problem” permanently. If the Jews all left, were deported, or just suddenly disappeared, it would be hard to justify Emergency Powers.

    So no, the BNP’s immigration policies are not neo-Nazi.

    In the sense that I get it, people want to expose the BNP for its racist policies because they don’t like the BNP listening to and addressing the popular outcry with actual changes in policy. The BNP was said to have changed their policies of forced deportation to voluntary deportation with the stipulation that enforced deportation still remains an option on the table. This is more than Bush or McCain offered or were willingly to consider. More in the sense of adaptation to the demands of the people and their needs, not of the actual policies themselves.

    I get that perspective on the BNP, but here we have someone telling us that the BNP is obviously racist. So why would an obviously racist party need to be “exposed”? Wouldn’t everyone in Britain, including the Tories, know the BNP for what they are? So what are you afraid of? That would people would still vote for the BNP even after knowing what they should have known all along?

    But we’re not afraid of that in America. We’re only afraid that people will buy into a con man and not realize that what they voted for, was the destruction of their economic, political, and social way of life. We’re not afraid of people voting for the KKK or their offshoots and skin head militias. We do not outlaw them. We do not prevent them from denying the holocaust. We do not even try to restrict them from organizing public protests and parades, except with the stipulation that enhanced police presence be there and that strict limitations on travel be instituted.

    So what are the British anti-BNPers afraid of? What do they think they will accomplish by “exposing” the BNP, what they have called an obivously racist party platform?

    It is not enough of an excuse to say that the other party is wrong or bad, if you have nothing better to offer to the people. The people obey intrinsic and elemental instincts for self-preservation and they will choose what they perceive as their bes tdefender and their best defender will provide the best benefits and the best defense. If you cannot provide such on your political platform to the British people, and the BNP can, then you should be concerned more with obeying and addressing the people and their problems than worrying about exposing the BNP.

    Certainly I can understand how foreigners would not wish an incorrect foreign view of the BNP. It doesn’t matter to people like Charles whether they get elected or not, for Britain is over there and America is over here, where Charles is at. Charles priorities is America first, every other nation behind, even if it is close behind. But what would a British subject or person care if foreigners or Americans believe the BNP is racist or not? We do not vote in your elections and if you are worried about the BNP, then the elections are what you should be focusing on.

    Today, the BNP has dropped its policy of compulsory repatriation and replaced it with a voluntary scheme. Make no mistake about it, this move is designed to win over supporters. The party recognise that the vast majority of people found its previous policy abhorrent. But the small print of BNP policy makes clear its true aims. The BNP claims that a BNP led government would consider forcible repatriation if not enough “non-whites” took up its offer.

    If the BNP does not publicly support compulsory repatriation, it makes no attempt to hide its backing for an apartheid state in Britain. Current party literature proposes to “protect and preserve the racial and cultural integrity of the British people – and of others too, the party believes in separation”.

    It looks to me that the BNP takes an extreme position, on the surface, concerning non-British immigration (and they define British as being predominantly white and WWII era). But, again, what makes the BNP any more radical than Labour, who brought in entire generations of Muslims to be their pocket slaves, workers to supply the needed labor force for Britain’s economy so that the rich and elite could have their tea and chips?

    The British majority party or coalition invites foreigners in and the BNp wants to expel them. Both are extreme positions, but again, what makes the BNP position racist, an partheid solution, and not all the other policies that have been in effect for decades?

    The British system of government is founded upon the idea that so long as you gave everybody a political party to vote for, they would each have their leaders and representatives, and in Parliament everybody can make nice and negotiate on the best way to resolve their petty differences, with the Prime Minister (First Amongst Equals) leading the charge under His/Her Majesty’s government.

    Well, Britain has turned from a Constitutional Monarchy into a Parliamentary system, period, with no monarchical executive powers to speak of.

    And what does that mean in the end? It means that Britain, like Germany, are used to dealing with extremists. When your party has the plurality of votes, but needs a majority of votes to hold political power, then you will make deals with extremists who may have only 5% of the vote, but that’s 5% that will bring your 46% to 51%. The German SDP party allied with the radically fanatic Green Party, which can be said to be simply the other side of the coin, with the other side being COmmunism.

    This is a particular British or even European problem. It was not created with the advent of the BNP nor their policies.

    So, when the BNP starts taking a more moderate or mainstream position, the automatic reaction I see is that “the BNP is covering its true motives up”. Certainly Americans have seen this, lately with Obama, but it remains to be seen whether this analysis is valid in Britain’s case.

    Is British politics so static and uniform that the idea of a party, even a minority party, addressing local concerns and changing their public platforms to suit the demands of the people, something so alien that the British people no longer know how to handle it except with public approbation and boycotting?

    Here in America, we expect our political parties to move towards the center. The Democrats, primarily, are the ones that call moderates, like Bush, “far right wing” lunatics and idiots.

    So we have certainly see spurious charges like that. It remains to be seen whether such spurious charges have been used against the BNP, simply because the status quo politicians, Tories and Labour, do not care for a real competitor in politics.

  12. Mike Devx says

    Well, I downloaded the BNP’s Constitution. If you want to take a look it’s at the link below on their site. It’s formatted to be assembled as a booklet, so you have to jump around from page to page on the web…

    http://www.bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf

    Section 2 – Membership – is clearly racial. ‘Nuff said, for me. I’ve got no use for a political party that restricts its membership based on race solely to Caucasians of variously described “British descent”.

    Seeking to preserve culture is one thing. You can recognize that your beloved culture is disappearing and resolve to fight to retain it. That’s legitimate, especially when all of your current political leadership in power is doing nothing, at best, to preserve it. But these guys have clearly defined a racial component within their own Constitution by allowing only native Caucasian British to be members of the party.

    Their activities and statements ceased to be overtly racist at about 2001, it appears. Having seen the Stealth Candidate Obama succeed at his own deception of an entire country – well, enough of a deception to fool 53% of the people – it’s entirely possible that the BNP remains as virulently racist as their relatively distant past would indicate.

    I can’t say I agree with Poosh’s virulent hatred of the current BNP. Speaking for myself, though, I’ve seen enough to indicate that I would never associate myself with them in any form whatsoever.

    Hopefully the BNP is not the only organized party in Great Britain to actively promote and value their traditional culture and values. If so… then where else are the British people to turn? They certainly won’t be willing to simply surrender…

  13. says

    Seeking to preserve culture is one thing. You can recognize that your beloved culture is disappearing and resolve to fight to retain it. That’s legitimate, especially when all of your current political leadership in power is doing nothing, at best, to preserve it. But these guys have clearly defined a racial component within their own Constitution by allowing only native Caucasian British to be members of the party.

    This is British culture. The day of aristocrats being seen as special because of their blood is not over.

  14. suek says

    Heh. As usual, Y has done a really good job. I’ll leave it at that.

    Mike…

    >>But these guys have clearly defined a racial component within their own Constitution by allowing only native Caucasian British to be members of the party.>>

    Ok…so suppose they rewrote their Constitution so that it allowed only British whose parentage traces back say…3 generations? No racial component, but still would exclude most non-caucasians, wouldn’t you think?

    In other words, there may be a racial component, but basically what they want is the GB of WWII era or so.

    But suppose they _are_ just plain racist…they want a racially pure GB with whites only. How far do you think they’d get pushing that idea? Probably the resentment against muslims (which Poosh refers to as Asians) would carry them to a certain point, but after that, I suspect that support would fail. The problem seems to be that you have a Christian/muslim antagonism, and in the overzealousness of not wishing to discriminate against a religion, Christians are being discriminated against and muslims are given preference under the law. The Christians were there first, and there is understandable resentment. If the non-white muslims were to vanish, and there were black Christians still in the population, I’d wager that efforts to remove non-whites would simply evaporate. In other words, I don’t think it’s so much a color issue as a religious issue – except virtually all of those of one religion are one color, and all of those who are of the other religion are of another color, so color is an identifier, and it seems if color is the primary issue.

    Extreme problems take extreme solutions. When the problems become less extreme, extreme solutions will become less attractive.

  15. suek says

    >> But these guys have clearly defined a racial component within their own Constitution by allowing only native Caucasian British to be members of the party.>>

    As stated above…color is an identifier. If you’re caucasian, you’re probably not muslim. Given the practice of taqqiya, it may well be that the problem is also a desire not to be infiltrated – and the only way to do this is to exclude all blacks.
    I don’t know about that, but frankly, given that extreme muslims consider it a virtue to lie to conceal their motives, I can understand it as a precaution.
    Jews are circumcised – that’s their identifier. The problem is how do you prevent infiltration by the opposition?

  16. says

    Where the heck are moderate Europeans and British supposed to go to challenge unlimited immigration (as opposed to more controlled immigration); unbridled political correctness (as opposed to respect for others); the handing over of British sovereignty to the EU; and all the other stuff moderates are reasonable to oppose?

    The historical solution, Book, was self-exile and going to America to start anew.

    But when the Brits get here, where are they are going to run next when Obama “transforms” America?

  17. says

    Section 2 – Membership – is clearly racial. ‘Nuff said, for me.

    But that’s not nearly enough if you are doing “research”. Research requires sources, which you have provided, as well as peer reviewable quotes and attributions, along with independent analysis and arguments utilizing the aforementioned material, and only after all this has been provided do we get the conclusion or personal opinion.

    So let’s read the actual segment in question.

    SECTION 2: MEMBERSHIP
    1) The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political,
    Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous
    Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as
    closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the
    European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined
    within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal
    ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic
    groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of
    Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL.

    2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous
    Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic
    Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The
    Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic
    Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The
    Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The
    Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic
    groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.

    3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over
    and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2

    4) The national leadership of the party shall have the sole right to determine the annual
    subscription payable by members of the party, subject to the provision that any
    change in the subscription rate determined during any year shall not take effect until
    the 1st January of the following year.

    5) All new members of the party shall remain probationary members for twenty-four
    months from the date of joining and can have their membership terminated by the
    party’s National Chairman or by an officer authorised by him to do so without recourse
    to the disciplinary procedure laid down in Section 6.

    First off, the legal slot has already been defined in Britain, it was not manufactured by the BNP. The division of whites from blacks or caucasian natives from Muslims and other ethnicities and religious groups existed in Britain as a force of law, dividing and theoretically “equalizing” race relations.

    The House of Lords case has some legalese which people may wish to interpret on the specifics.

    ‘A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if–(a) on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons or (b) he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same racial group as that other but–(i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it and (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied and (iii) which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it.’

    But what this means to me, based upon the evidence provided, is that the BNP is perfectly situated and backed by British law in declaring their “white membership” a specific ethnic and racial category. This is only defined as “racism” if you believe Britain is not being racist by specifically creating legal definitions and backgrounds concerning ethnicities and even religious movements, but is racist if the BNP categorizes their membership as exclusive only.

    Now this is particularly interesting in that the House of Lords case involved a dispute between a private school headmaster and a son and his father being rejected from that private school if they did not take off the son’s turban and cut his hair to conform to certain Judeo-Christian cultural customs of that school. The House of Lords was inevitably appealed to, and successfully, that the headmaster had no substantial reason to discriminate against the Sikh, which were defined as a racial group, under a previous Race Relations law in Britain, which meant they were under certain protections and legally defined framework.

    1) The term ‘ethnic’ in s 3 of the 1976 Act was to be construed relatively widely in a broad cultural and historic sense. For a group to constitute an ‘ethnic group’ for the purposes of the 1976 Act it had to regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics, two of which were essential. First it had to have a long shared history, of which the group was conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it kept alive, and second it had to have a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition, the following characteristics could also be relevant, namely
    (a) either a common geographical origin or descent from a small number of common ancestors,
    (b) a common language, which did not necessarily have to be peculiar to the group,
    (c) a common literature peculiar to the group,
    (d) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it, and
    (e) the characteristic of being a minority orbeing an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community. Applying those characteristics, the Sikhs were a group defined by reference to ‘ethnic origins’ for the purpose of the 1976 Act even though they were not racially distinguishable from other people living in the Punjab (see p 1066 b c and g to p 1067 g, p 1068 f, p 1069 a to e, p 1071 b to e and p 1072 d to j, post) King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 adopted.

    (2) The words ‘can comply’ in s 1(1)(b)(i) of the 1976 Act were not to be read literally, i e as meaning ‘can physically’ so as to indicate a theoretical possibility, but were to be construed as meaning ‘can in practice’ or ‘can, consistently with the cultural conditions of the racial group’ to which the person belonged. The ‘no turban’ rule was not a requirement with which the applicant boy could, consistently with the customs of being a Sikh, comply and therefore the application of that rule to him by the headmaster was unlawful discrimination (see p 1069 f to h, p 1071 b to e and p 1072 h j, post) Price v Civil Service Commission [1978] 1 All ER 1228 applied.

    (3) The ‘no turban’ rule was not ‘justifiable’ within the meaning of s (1)(b)(ii) of the 1976 Act merely because the headmaster had a genuine belief that the school would provide a better system of education if it were allowed to discriminate against those who wore turbans (see p 1069 h j, p 1070 a to d and f, p 1071 b to e and p 1072 h j, post). Decision of the Court of Appeal [1982] 3 All ER 1108 reversed.

    Now for my summarization, it appears to me that the BNP has strictly limited their membership to certain racial categories as defined and protected by British law. That is not surprising or outrageous. What is surprising is that the BNP has not been forced to include non-white or other races in their membership, for are they not a private and public organization all at once? And can the government discriminate against certain members? (If yes, then the BNP’s racism is the least of people’s problems in Britain) We have already seen in Britain that private organizations, which the BNP may be deemed in part, cannot discriminate against admitting those of other nationalities or ethnicities or racial categories.

    But that is not the tool used to beat the BNP over. People here do not mention that the BNP has broken British Law, even British Multicultural Law. They only mention the racial and ethnic limitations of the BNP itself, categories created from British law and common practice.

    Britain is not America and it is wholly incorrect to analyze British politics from an American centric or prejudiced viewpoint.

  18. says

    Heck…where are _we_ going to run when Obama “transforms” America!!

    We will run to the sound of the guns, for we will then be on Death Ground. And in Sun Tzu parlance, on Death Ground you Fight.

    http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/Mandla_DowellLee.htm

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031626.htm

    Those are the links. The Opsi one is full of legalese and someone like Bookworm will have to make a translation, for I can find little usability of the data in its current form there.

  19. says

    ‘Can comply’

    It is obvious that Sikhs, like anyone else, ‘can’ refrain from wearing a turban, if ‘can’ is construed literally. But if the broad cultural/historic meaning of ethnic is the appropriate meaning of the word in the 1976 Act, then a literal reading of the word ‘can’ would deprive Sikhs and members of other groups defined by reference to their ethnic origins of much of the protection which Parliament evidently intended the 1976 Act to afford to them. They ‘can’ comply with almost any requirement or condition if they are willing to give up their distinctive customs andcultural rules. On the other hand, if ethnic means inherited or unalterable, as the Court of Appeal thought it did, then ‘can’ ought logically to be read literally. The word ‘can’ is used with many shades of meaning. In the context of s 1(1)(b)(i) of the 1976 Act it must, in my opinion, havebeen intended by Parliament to be read not as meaning ‘can physically’, so as to indicate a theoretical possibility, but as meaning ‘can inpractice’ or ‘can consistently with the customs and cultural conditions of the racial group’. The latter meaning was attributed to the word by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Price v Civil Service Commission [1978] 1 All ER 1228, [1977] 1 WLR 1417, on a construction of the parallel provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I agree with their construction of the word in that context. Accordingly I am of opinion that the
    ‘no turban’ rule was not one with which the second appellant could, in the relevant sense, comply.

    ‘Justifiable’
    The word ‘justifiable’ occurs in s 1(1)(b)(ii). It raises a problem which is, in my opinion, more difficult than the problem of the word ‘can’. But in the end I have reached a firm opinion that the respondent has not been able to show that the ‘no turban’ rule was justifiable in the relevant sense. Regarded purely from the point of view of the respondent, it was no doubt perfectly justifiable. He explained that he had no intention of discriminating against Sikhs. In 1978 the school had about 300 pupils (about 75% boys and 25% girls) of whom over 200 were English, five were Sikhs, 34 Hindus, 16 Persians, six negroes, seven Chinese and 15 from European countries. The reasons for having a school uniform were largely reasons of practical convenience, to minimise external differences between races and social classes, to discourage the ‘competitive fashions’which he said tend to exist in a teenage community, and to present a Christian image of the school to outsiders, including prospective parents. The respondent explained the difficulty for a headmaster of explaining to a non-Sikh pupil why the rules about wearing correct schooluniform were enforced against him if they were relaxed in favour of a Sikh. In my view these reasons could not, either individually or collectively, provide a sufficient justification for the respondent to apply a condition that is prima facie discriminatory under the 1976 Act. An attempted justification of the ‘no turban’ rule, which requires more serious consideration, was that the respondent sought to run a Christian
    school, accepting pupils of all religions and races, and that he objected to the turban on the ground that it was an outward manifestation of a non-Christian faith. Indeed, he regarded it as amounting to a challenge to that faith. I have much sympathy with the respondent on this part of the case and I would have been glad to find that the rule was justifiable within the meaning of the statute, if I could have done so. But in my opinion that is impossible. The onus under para (b)(ii) is on the respondent to show that the condition which he seeks to apply is not indeed a necessary condition, but that it is in all circumstances justifiable ‘irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied’, that is to say that it is justifiable without regard to the ethnic origins of that person. But in this case the principal justification on which the respondent relies is that the turban is objectionable just because it is a manifestation of the second appellant’s ethnic origins. That is not, in my view, a justification which is admissible under para (b)(ii). The kind of justification that might fall within that provision would be one based on public health, as in Panesar v Nestlaae Co Ltd [1980] ICR 144, where the Court of Appeal held that a rule forbidding the wearing of beards in the respondent’s chocolate factory was justifiable within the meaning of s 1(1)(b)(ii) on hygienic grounds, notwithstanding that the proportion of Sikhs who could [sc conscientiously] comply with it was considerably smaller than the proportion of non-Sikhs who could comply with it. Again, it might be possible for the school to show that a rule insisting on a fixed diet, which
    included some dish (for example, pork) which some racial groups could not conscientiously eat was justifiable if the school proved that the cost of providing special meals for the particular group would be prohibitive. Questions of that sort would be questions of fact for the tribunal of fact, and if there was evidence on which it could find the condition to be justifiable its finding would not be liable to be disturbed on appeal. But in the present case I am of opinion that the respondent has not been able to show that the ‘no turban’ rule was justifiable.

    An interpretation you will not hear about the BNP’s ethnic limitations on membership is that ethnicity in Britain is not permanent. Or rather, it requires the permanent backdrop of certain elements such as a common heritage, literature, or various other things we here in America would deem “cultural”.

    But here in America we expect others to give up their culture or at least make accomodations so that they are living by American standards, regardless of what they practice or speak in the private lives.

    In Britain, that cannot be the case, for the British do not deem it legally justifiable or even common sense justifiable to create a “melting pot” where foreigners of various ethnicities and cultures must conform to One Single standard. They see this as discrimination and something that the British government must protect the minorities from.

    The BNP would disagree, I dare say, with this line of argument.

    And therein rests the gap. If a person assigns to himself the Cultural, Racial, and Ethnical identity of Muslim, Afrikan, “Asian”, then this can be interpreted to mean that they are not just citing their racial origins, but citing their Current Cultural and Philosophical loyalties. The same as when the BNP cites Celtic cultures as being the criteria for BNP membership.

    I do not claim that the BNP will accept blacks, “Asians”, and former Muslims from the Middle East (Semitic peoples), if those people designate and classify (both in the cultural sense and the legal sense) themselves as “Celtic” indigenous people of Britain. The British law on this aspect already precludes that, regardless of what the BNP may wish. But I will say that this interpretation, this potentail for re-classification that is independent of the racially born aspect (which is, of course, only one element in how British subjects decide issues of “race”) must be heard and considered if people want to go around with their opinions about the BNP.

    Otherwise, those people are walking with one eye blinded to the realities and pitfalls of modern day deception and psychological warfare operations. There is always a puppet master, always a layer within the layer, and always a true image behind the mirror’s illusionary reflection. Hard work and preserverance is required to penetrate the various lies, misconceptions, prejudices, and fundamental cultural and legal contradictions inherent in this Fallen world of Man we call Earth.

  20. Mike Devx says

    Ymar #19:
    > But that’s not nearly enough if you are doing “research”.

    Your efforts comprise ‘research’, Ymar. Mine didn’t.

    But I actually didn’t claim to do any research. I read Poosh’s articles, noted that all references were to events and quotes prior to 2002, and then decided to browse the party’s website. I ran across their Party Constitution and skimmed it.

    I found the racial component in Membership, read through it carefully several times, sat back and thought for awhile, and decided I myself could not find a way to support it.

    Your research certainly shows that Great Britain goes further in “racial management” of their people than we do here. But give Lani Guinier and her ilk room to run under Obama and others, and we’ll quickly catch up! Sigh. But for me myself, I still wouldn’t want to associate myself to the BNP, with those clauses in their Constitution. That’s all I was saying.

    Now, if the BNP is the only political party offering me support for my cultural values… boy would that be a tough call. I’m likely to vote Republican in the next few elections (as opposed to a third party or staying home), but that won’t mean I support everything in their Constitution or platform. So it’s possible, were I British, I might hold my nose and cast a vote in the current election for the BNP. Because of the comparatively total worthlessness of the other choices…

    But again, I want to emphasize, thank you for digging deeper into British policy itself on racial identity and its “proper usage” within Great Britain.

  21. says

    Your efforts comprise ‘research’, Ymar. Mine didn’t.

    Well, I was mostly replying with Book’s comment in mind there.

    UPDATE II: From Mike Devx, who actually did the research:

    I perceived a danger there concerning the absorption of BNP details, because I surmise that there was more to it that Book could benefit from hearing or reading.

    So it’s possible, were I British, I might hold my nose and cast a vote in the current election for the BNP. Because of the comparatively total worthlessness of the other choices…

    The American system is more flexible in this sense. A person may elect a Republican governor for strong defense and leadership capabilities, while at the same time electing Democrat Senators and state legislature members for their “vote buying” bennies.

    In Britain, the majority party or coalition is the one that sets policy, puts up their candidate as the Prime Minister (executive leader), and chooses cabinet positions (without the need for confirmatin from the House of Lords, the Monarchy, or anybody else for that matter).

    Americans here can elect a Democrat President and then elect a Republican majority or super majority Congress to offset that President’s power. Even though the fools of the Obama cult loyalists chose not to exercise that option, it still existed: so far. There is no such option in Britain. If they want a British Prime minister in charge of government to do certain things for Britain, then they must vote for the party that has the specific platform and hope they either get a majority or become members of a coalition government.

  22. says

    But for me myself, I still wouldn’t want to associate myself to the BNP, with those clauses in their Constitution. That’s all I was saying.

    As Americans, I tend to think we have higher standards. We have done hard work to make our culture worthy of defending, worthy of dying for, and worthy of killing millions, if necessary, for.

    But the British are far more divided by race, sex, and class than we are. We fought many wars to end slavery, but Britain simply ordered it done. But racism in Europe didn’t just stop because of that. They had no wars for it.

    Their culture didn’t remember the shock, the value, because they didn’t have to fight, die, or kill for it like Americans have had to do.

    The thing is, Charles Johnson aggregates to himself the arrogance that he knows what is best for Europe sitting in his comfortable US point of origin. This speaks of a certain Leftist arrogance, multicultural blindness, and an inherently parochial and anti-cosmopolitan perspective.

  23. Mike Devx says

    I said above,
    > Your research certainly shows that Great Britain goes further in “racial management” of their people than we do here. But give Lani Guinier and her ilk room to run under Obama and others, and we’ll quickly catch up!

    I don’t agree with many of Ms. Guinier’s positions, but I think in my head at least I was unfair to her. I was trying to remember the name of the lady who puts together “cultural sensitivity programs” for college dorm halls, in which the RA interviews the kids on the floor; and the kids are required to participate in group sessions to train them to “think correctly” about race and identity.

    That “curriculum” author has stated that only whites can be racists; that people of color cannot be racist. If only I could find that quoted information!

    I am almost certain Ms. Guinier has never gone that far. Many do, including Monica Conyers and Lynne Winfield. I shouldn’t automatically equate Ms. Guinier with the far more disturbing “sensitivity training curriculum” author. Whose name I still cannot dig up!

  24. says

    That “curriculum” author has stated that only whites can be racists; that people of color cannot be racist. If only I could find that quoted information!

    Helen probably knows. She probably was one of her students ya know.

Trackbacks

  1. I prefer clarity to agreement…

    Charles, at LGF, is concerned that the “extreme right white supremacist” (his phrase) BNP party in England is gaining political ground. If you check out the party’s blog, though, racial purity a la the Nazis or the KKK is not……

Leave a Reply