Friday, 27 June 2008

26 June 2008 - Henley By-Election

I met Tim Rait, the parliamentary candidate for Henley on polling day to report on the reception of the BNP by the people of Henley. He had been delayed meeting me at the station because, he told me, people would recognise him on the streets and stop him to shake his hand and chat. Another candidate, a Dr Richard Rogers of the Common Good Party had detained him for a friendly conversation and had wished him well.

Tim Rait is the poshest BNP candidate I have yet met, retired from shipping and marine insurance. There is something deeply reassuring about this English gentleman of the old school - tall, grey-haired, distinguished, who looked as if he could have been the MP for Henley in a more genteel era, and more my idea of an old-fashioned Conservative candidate than the Conservative candidate himself, John Howell.

He showed me his election address in the Henley Standard. Over-development, local democracy, Euroscepticism, more “human rights” for victims of crime than their perpetrators and lower taxes were the issues he was campaigning on. There was nothing about immigration. It was in fact Tim who was the originator of the unashamedly populist idea of a £15,000 threshold for paying income tax in the BNP mini-manifesto.

He was particularly proud of their ad, colourfully taking up a quarter of a tabloid page with Gordon Brown looking down in the mouth and a message to vote BNP in order to punish Gordon's government.

It was surprisingly sophisticated ad, perhaps equal in propaganda terms to the "Labour isn't working" message of the Tories in 1979. The concept was Nick Griffin's and Mark Collett was responsible for arranging it, I have been reliably informed. The BNP are not quite in the Saatchi league yet, it seems, despite the impressive slickness of their propaganda machine.
That Harriet Harman chose today of all days to publicise her infuriating Equality Bill, which obliges employers to positively discriminate in favour of women, ethnic minorities and the elderly must have helped the BNP. I trust this ridiculous bill will go the same way as her other equally fatuous proposal to criminalise the buying of sex by men but not the selling of sex by women. (Those interested in commercial transactions of this nature service may wish to visit

I met Andy McBride (the local organiser, ex-Navy and ex-civil service, a refugee from New Labour, a descendent of Major General Sir Henry Havelock and also related to Henry Havelock Ellis, the sexologist at Henley Town Hall, the first polling station we visited.

“If the Conservatives still had Conservative principles, there would be no need for us, would there?” Andy said in response to my comment that the Conservatives did not appear to be interested in saying or doing anything that might have been inspired by a conviction or a principle, which might explain the increasing support for the BNP. The entire Tory strategy is backed by PR minimalism and blandification: "Avoid controversy. Do nothing. It will only be a matter of time before people get tired of Party X and vote for you, Party Y again. Why the rock the boat by saying or promising anything? The suckers know they haven't got a choice!"

However, frustration at the moral vacuum that is the "compassionate Conservatism" and the waiting game the Tories are playing has made the BNP the favoured choice of a stick with which to beat the Lib-Lab-Con.

Andy's role was to accompany Tim with a minder to see that he did not come to any harm should any member of the public “get cross with us”.

The LibDem and Tory tellers outside the Town Hall shook hands with Tim when he introduced himself and offered his. I commented on this and Andy said that people were often welcoming. The grassroots Conservatives were usually sympathetic and the LibDems, being true to their liberal ideals, stuck to their convictions of free speech and freedom of belief. In short, overt hostility had been rare on the campaign, though a member in his 70s was recently assaulted when leafleting.

A minority of “ignorant people” (white, I was told) would shout abuse, he said, and the BNP rarely have trouble with ethnics whose fear and loathing of them is not usually as exaggerated as that of the indigenous “anti-fascists”.

The next stop was the polling station at Trinity Church in Harpsden Road. The LibDem teller was stand-offish but the Tory one bantered with Tim cheerfully.

Onwards to Sonning Common where Tim had to ask directions at a garage. Would he take his rosette off, I wondered, in case this caused some opponents of the BNP to deliberately misdirect him? But Tim said no, they had been perfectly civil and helpful, though he would usually carry a folder that would cover his rosette if circumstances required this.

A middle aged and wide-girthed lady of foreign origin in a revealing top and short skirt came up to Tim and Andy while I was chatting to the minder. There was conversation, followed by a burst of laughter. I asked Tim later if she had said anything of interest and was told the woman’s intentions were exclusively flirtatious.

On our way to the very picturesque village of Ewelme, I learnt that Tim obtained permission to leaflet RAF Benson, pulled off no doubt by his air of unimpeachable respectability.

Being a quiet little village, only one solitary elderly Tory teller sat outside doing the Mail on Sunday crossword when we arrived. She shook the BNP hands proffered then said that she could not agree with them. She was Jewish and had "a problem" with their reputation for being anti-semitic. Andy assured her that the BNP already has Jewish councillors and indeed welcomes Jewish members. The only people they had a problem with was the political classes of his own race. There followed a discussion about colour and citizenship. Concerned as she was by immigration, it remained her position that she did not care what colour they were as long as they were good citizens. Andy made a comment to me which suggested that he did not quite agree and may or may not have suggested that she was a race traitor. [My notes are silent on this exchange but my memory tells me that this was the gist of his meaning. If Andy is reading this, he may wish to remind me of what he said exactly!]

To the Star and Garter in Thame for lunch when I had the opportunity to ask Andy what made him join the BNP. When he suggested that immigration should be stopped for five years, an "anti-fascist" fellow trade-unionist said to him: “Then why don’t you join the f*cking BNP?” And so he did.

A telphone interview I had with John Chapman, an ex-SAS supporter in his 70s:
“The BNP is the only party to spread the right word to the British people”, he said. He did not believe he was being racist by supporting the BNP, but there were “too many people from abroad claiming benefits. How long can it go on for? This country, a small island, is being abused, and enough is enough.” He was tired of Britain being treated as “the Mecca of easy money” and there must be “millions who think like this”. “Some dramatic change” is required to combat the scourge of Political Correctness.

I have no doubt that similar versions of the above are being expressed up and down the country from all ages, classes and races. These views are routinely dismissed by our political classes, who then point out that such views belong to the BNP and the complainants should henceforth remain silent, should they wish to remain free of the social leprosy that comes with being thus associated. More often than not now, it seems, people are no longer afraid to be thus associated, and join with a sense of pride, defiance, prepared for martyrdom while enjoying the greater solidarity of the BNP in contrast to constant in-fighting that takes place within UKIP.

Onwards to the John Hampden Primary School in Thame when he emerged from the polling station very pleased with himself for having acquired a sweetly smiling Japanese lady who was introduced to me. She was from the Legislative Bureau of the House of Representatives and had been sent by the Japanese government to observe how elections were conducted in Britain. She had even heard of the BNP. No one was interested in politics in Japan either, she said. While they did not have a problem with immigration, the great debate now in Japan is whether to have a welfare state. Of course, she said, everyone wants a welfare state but without the higher taxes that come with it. It would be the kiss of death to Japanese society, I thought, but said nothing. The moment they embraced welfarism, the Japanese would become too lazy to work and their country would fill up with resented foreigners allowed in to take up jobs unwanted by those preferring to claim benefit. The EU and US are perfect illustrations of this social and economic inevitability.

Our last stop was Christmas Common. There were two BNP tellers present – a biker and a good-humoured lady who told Andy exactly how many times the Tory and Lib Dem tellers had been relieved while they had not been, not even once, since polling began.

The biker and I were agreed that all anti-discrimination legislation should be repealed. If we want to have the right to discriminate against others for any reason whatsoever then we ought to accept that others have the right to discriminate against us, fairly and unfairly.

We discussed amongst other things the horror that is the BNP party constitution, designed to deal with opponents and infiltrators, it was pointed out. All members should be given a copy of the party constitution the moment they join, he added, but they are not. Those who do acquire and read it later find it rather disturbing if not actually Stalinist and for this reason it is no longer online officially, but it can be found at

The draft constitution of my ideal party can be found at

Andy very kindly gave me a lift to the station after this. I put it to him that the colour bar was self-limiting to any political party. Excising s 1(2)(a) and (b) and s 2(1) and (2) of the party constitution would be the only way of dealing once and for all with the charge of racism. Once this question is dealt with more ex-UKIP supporters would be attracted. Ideally, both merging to become the Fourth Big Party in the UK with members already in the Upper and Lower House would be the quickest way to political influence. It is precisely this undeniable connection with racism which frightens most people and makes even its members uncomfortable and confused about whether they are in fact racist. Some of them deny that they are, others embrace the term. There are those who wish to retain the colour bar at any cost, and those who see the lifting of it as a sign that the party has finally grown up. The Labour Party after all was elected after clause iv was amended. These two events are not entirely unconnected.

From a Libertarian standpoint, such as mine, there can be no denying that white people have a right to have to exclude anyone they wish from a party for people like themselves, but is it helpful to the cause of British nationalism to impose such self-limiting restrictions on one’s support base, I asked.

There is no reason why an all white club cannot exist within a political party, open only to white members while also conferring equal rights for non-whites to do the same, if they wished to, I would have thought.

The BNP Ethnic Liaison Committee is run mainly by the ethnic spouses of white members. To my knowledge the wife of one such member has pointedly refused to help because she saw the implicit second class status of being on the Ethnic Liaison Committee. Being a member of that Committee is on par with being a woman with associate member status in a gentlemen's club or golf club. It is interesting that many refuse to see that being given a lower status rankles, and is provably racist in its assumption that only members of a white race can be a British nationalist, when we all know that, whatever you think of nationalism, it is a state of mind capable of being acquired, not your genetic inheritance over which you had no choice and cannot change.

Whether one feels a member of a group depends on whether he is accepted. Whether he is accepted entirely depends on whether the others are prepared to accept him.

It seems that Islam, armed as it is with the internationalist and global concept of “umma” and “backed” by God, will always have the edge on British nationalism, particularly if a British national is so self-limitingly defined by race, instead of being a state of mind capable of being acquired.

Andy and I then discussed the definition of a "Briton" (indigenous white, according to him) and its difference from being merely "British" (which is anyone holding a British passport).

"Briton" is defined in Chambers as "one of the Brythonic inhabitants of Britain before the coming of the English, or one of the present representatives of the Welsh: a native or citizen of Great Britain or one of its associated states: a Breton"

It can be seen that Andy's definition is open to question, and it is a great shame that a party that is meant to promote nationalism (which I would define as "any ideology that aspires to promotes the well-being and solidarity of citizens so that the nation is thereby strengthened") remains as keen as ever to support the divisive idea of officially maintaining a sense otherness between races, even while knowing that it would harm the chances of their party from becoming more successful and influential.

It is surely not enough that the BNP is doing better than before, but must do as well as it possibly can, to have a voice in the affairs of the nation sooner rather than later, particularly when so many for quite a while now have been happy to say that they like the sound of most BNP policies.

Strange, then, that there are many within the party who are bent on preventing just this from happening by insisting on a divisive colour bar that leaves them vulnerable to accusations of racism - the bête noire of our age.
Vote: Should the BNP continue its policy of preventing non-whites from joining as full members?

What do YOU think?

Saturday, 21 June 2008

Interview with Nick Griffin - May 2004

Anyone skilled in the art of giving racial offence would know that maximum effect would be achieved by calling an Indian a “Paki”, a “Paki” a Bangladeshi and a Bangladeshi or anyone non-White a “nigger”. These days it would seem that appearing to confuse the British National Party with the National Front would generate equivalent indignation among the parties’ respective membership. (The NF campaigns for the forced repatriation of non-Whites and hold marches, while the BNP never march, I was told by the Chairman Nick Griffin, and are apparently content with voluntary repatriation.) Being lumped together with another group with whom one feels no true affinity but merely superficial similarities - is offensive precisely because it makes false, sweeping and unflattering assumptions as well as robbing those on the receiving end of their individuality, so precious to our sense of uniqueness and place in the world.

Intrigued by the confused and confusing nature of the debate on race and politics, I telephoned Dr Phil Edwards the BNP Press Officer with whom I discussed the Bell Curve. He believes that this research has conclusively proven the inherent genetic inferiority of blacks since in terms of statistics it shows their lower intellectual attainments and greater propensity for crime. It struck me that the same could be said of the poor of any society who have not had the same opportunities in life as one. The apparent racial differences must surely come down to cultural environment. Our discussion however remained friendly and polite, even after I had let it be known that I was non-White, and he helpfully put me in touch with Nick Griffin to arrange the interview I sought. Affable and charming, I found myself unexpectedly and suddenly on first name terms with Nick when I called him. We met in a pub in South East London.

My interest in the BNP had been piqued by a polite paragraph in their membership web page which stated that, while they “welcomed contact and co-operation with nationalists and patriots of other races, and with other non-Whites who oppose enforced multiculturalism”, the BNP asks them to “respect their right to an organisation of their own, for their own”.

Had non-Whites really been banging on their door demanding to become members? This was puzzlingly at odds with their media reputation of being nasty to non-Whites.

Why would non-Whites wish to join a party formed with the very intention of removing them from this country?

The answer appears to be racism, but this time practised by white liberals who insist on regarding all non-whites as one amorphous group with common interests. Recently, I observed black people on Channel 4’s Without Prejudice? complaining about bogus asylum seekers and then being shouted down by white liberals for daring to express such a view, bearing in mind the colour of their skin. It is precisely this kind of ideological bigotry – the implication that non-whites are all the same, expected to think alike and be enthusiastically welcoming of all manner of immigrants and asylum seekers - that sends some of them into the reluctant arms of the BNP.

He showed an impressive grasp of the differing cultures of the various Asian peoples. It seems there are already existing tensions between Muslims, Sikhs, Kashmiris and Hindus which increasing numbers would only exacerbate. The non-whites who have approached the BNP are concerned that uncontrolled immigration would only make more probable the likelihood of a white backlash against all non-Whites. Their perception is that the BNP is the only party unafraid and uncowed by political correctness to speak out sufficiently strongly against uncontrolled immigration.

He describes a time when “a common human link” between himself and an initially abusive Kashmiri was established after the latter had been persuaded that British whites losing their homeland to foreign influences was comparable to the situation in Kashmir. The Kashmiri even invited him to speak at his local community centre to expand on this theme, but this was declined on the grounds that he would have ended up “on a kebab skewer”. In a conversation with a Muslim, there was agreement that such a degree of unrestricted immigration would not have been tolerated in Pakistan or indeed any country uncontaminated by post-imperialist white guilt and the totalitarian censorship that is political correctness. A significant number of non-whites “instinctively feel there may well be a point where even the very tolerant British will pass a certain point when all foreigners will get it in the neck.” During the Muslim riots in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley, Sikhs felt that if this carried on, “the English are going to throw us all out.” The more Westernised Muslims are concerned that the “more wild and crazy Taliban-types from Afghanistan are giving them a bad name and in any case have no desire to live like them or to dress their women up like black crows. If the Taliban types were in, the first people they would eliminate would be these moderate mullahs because they would be seen as apostates.” Self-preservation then, is the operative reason for non-white support of the BNP.

Was there not an argument then for the BNP to allow non-whites to join since that would at once the remove the stigma of racism rendering them instantly more voter-friendly and inclusive?

He acknowledges that we now live in a multicultural and multiracial society but “all multiracial societies eventually slip towards a situation like Bosnia. It is a lesson of history. It is possible to stop it somewhere, but they tend to go down that road especially when there are limited resources. In a multicultural society each group rubs up against the other groups to get the biggest possible slice of the pie. If you have an unrepresented group, it will get a smaller share of the pie. There is a Black Police Officers Association, a Black Lawyers Association and so on pushing for the interests of their ethnic group while white police officers in politically correct London, Birmingham and Manchester have been threatened with expulsion if they join the BNP.”

He concedes that it would be helpful in refuting claims of racism if there were a number of “ethnics” in the BNP but until there is a level playing field for all, the interests of whites would be gradually eroded, since political parties are the only organisation which are legally allowed to discriminate in this way. The BNP will “multiculturalise” itself when and only when the institutions remove discrimination against whites as a whole. It is the notoriety of its colour bar which makes the BNP newsworthy and he seems to think that if that were dropped, the BNP would become just another ineffectual fringe party. The other reason he cites is the predictable disappointment of the BNP’s more “purist” supporters.

What is his view on compulsory identity cards, which seems an administratively efficient way of sorting out those entitled to remain from the others who do not?

He is against them on the grounds that the First and Second World War was fought precisely to distinguish Britain from the more authoritarian European countries. The absence of compulsory identity cards is a badge of British liberty and is a matter on which he says he will not compromise. While authoritarian governments would simply impose them without consent, he continued, liberals in favour of ID cards would deliberately allow, “in their hypocrisy, the problem to get so bad that their imposition comes to be accepted as inevitable and necessary”.

On economic policy, I asked him to comment on Lord Tebbit recently describing the BNP as “socialist” on BBC1’s Question Time. The Chairman is against international capitalism because he thinks it is by nature and inclination multicultural and refers to “parasites” in the City of London with a noticeable tinge of anti-capitalist venom. I would have thought that monocultural would have been a more accurate description since, as consumers, the international capitalists would wish us to become more uniform in our preferences so that these can be predicted, manipulated and catered for with greater ease.

I put it to him that a right wing Libertarian might think that Britain’s current social ills can be traced back to the foundation of the welfare state, so attractive to all classes, nations and races of scroungers. This must have been when the rot set in, since socialism made it possible for artificially high wages imposed by the unions as well as welfare handouts to enable the British to refuse low-paid jobs. The BNP however have plans to dismantle the welfare state and aims to maintain a fully-funded National Health Service. He makes the point that a liberal immigration policy would make any welfare ultimately unsustainable. He “wouldn’t say the BNP has a socialist economic policy”, but concedes that it is “way to the left of Tony Blair”.

Continuing his diatribe against Liberals, he points out that they in fact make things worse for the very people they mean to help. The birching of criminals – short, sharp shocks – would nip in the bud the criminal tendencies of young men. On the other hand, weakly discouraging them with lenient sentences does them a disservice since they will continue to re-offend until they become unemployable career criminals. The BNP would have them birched to very firmly discourage them, but without giving them a criminal record for the first offence, so that a line can be drawn under a criminal past. It has the advantage of being cheaper than prison.

Was there ever a golden age for the British people?

His chosen one is the age after serfdom had broken down, when a large number of yeomanry owned their land, were independent and responsible for their own lives – a time when freedom was balanced by order. The medieval serf, he pointed out, had to work one day in three for his feudal lord, “which sounds terrible but meant that the other days were free, making their tax freedom day March, compared to our tax freedom day which starts in June. We are therefore twice as heavily taxed as medieval peasants.”

We were agreed that confiscation of a citizen’s property and income amounts to an infringement of his freedom - the higher the tax, the greater the infringement on a citizen’s liberty. What would be the top rate of income tax under a BNP government?

It seems the BNP would abolish income tax altogether. Direct taxation of income has the effect of being a disincentive to hard work. The cleverest people direct their energies towards tax avoidance and collection and the best brains are therefore wasted in this unproductive exercise. If through indirect taxes revenue were raised on only luxury goods (which would include cars and televisions under a BNP government), revenue would be raised more cheaply and easily. These would be dearer under a BNP government, “but we would all have more money to pay for them. Income tax is evaded by the dishonest, the criminal and the illegal immigrant, but under indirect taxation, even the foreign tourist would pay tax. A BNP Chancellor would have the goal of raising revenue, and need not distinguish between whether he raises it from direct or indirect taxation, as long as the required sum was raised. Unemployed accountants (which he describes as “a total waste of economic resources”) and tax collectors would find new jobs as extra border guards to catch smugglers (smuggling being the only form of tax evasion available in a BNP Britain), drug-dealers and illegal immigrants.

Big business marginalizing the small independent shop-owner, and in particular Sainsbury’s supermarkets (being the Blair government’s biggest contributor), are excoriated as are Health Inspectors. “There is a direct correlation in the number of Public Health Inspectors and the number of food poisoning cases. They have both gone up at the same rate, so they haven’t achieved anything.” Instead of Health Inspectors a BNP Britain would have glass doors or CCTV in restaurant kitchens and any diner would have a right of inspection. Restaurants would be compelled by law to display a list of food poisoning cases that may have occurred which would cause restaurateurs to police themselves. That this might leave many of them vulnerable to false and malicious accusations of food poisoning and therefore not be very popular amongst restaurateurs was met with the reflection that food poisoning cases are very hard to prove anyway.

He believes Britain is full up with meddling bureaucrats who worsen the very problem their purpose it is to alleviate. The more that is done for people in the form of social services – child protection and the like – the less they will do for themselves. He proposes punishing those who fail to report child abuse if this leads to the death of a child. This struck me as going against the fundamental principle of English law that one is under no legal duty to save another’s life, or there would be no end to the prosecution and persecution of those who fail in this onerous and uncertain duty.

How would the BNP regulate race relations, assuming that non-whites would not be directed to the nearest ports of exit?

In practical terms I was told the BNP would repeal the Race Relations Act. If anyone in business is “sufficiently bigoted to turn down someone who is better for the job than somebody else, they are going to lose out. It is their human right to discriminate. If they want to lose money by not having a bright young computer engineer working for them because they are the wrong colour, then it is their right to do so. On the one hand you could say that it is bigoted and stupid. On the other you can say they are just doing what they want and are happier, and money isn’t everything. If they’re happier with their lives and their business and they feel they understand the person who’s working for them, then it is not for the state to interfere, either by saying you’re going to make more money this way and we’re going to force you or for reasons of social engineering we’re going to force you, because we want everyone to love each other. It is very short-sighted because for most Brits, the more this is forced on them, the more they resent it. So, we’d abolish the whole damned lot.” If this is really as far as it goes, then I cannot imagine that this would be considered extreme by those of a libertarian bent.

He impressed upon me his knowledge of the culture and behaviour of the different races. According to him, Sikhs are the Asians who have integrated particularly well. They do not present a demographic threat as they now have a birth rate as low as the whites, treat their women as equals, nor do they seek to impose their culture on others. The Muslims birth rate however is noticeably higher and the practice of their religion more fundamentalist with each subsequent generation. They appear to be “breeding their way to majority status. When they get their majority status then they oppress everybody else. That is what Islam does. It’s a very aggressive religion indeed.” He has this to say of the Koran: “It is not a “huge screed like the Bible. There’s hardly anything in it. It’s very light and simple. Look at it through the eyes of a troublemaker who wants power and influence in his community and see what they can say to an impressionable teenager. Islam is a religion which is fundamentally aggressive and intolerant, with an alienated population.”

My holidays in Turkey did not give me the impression of an intolerant society. He agrees that since Kemal Ataturk secularised the Turkish state, Turkey could more or less be regarded as part of the West, particularly in the cities. “The Wahabi sect founded in Saudi Arabia 250 years ago who massacred other Muslims in pursuit of its fundamentalist brand of ideology is now immensely strong. A mosque a week is being opened in Britain and the majority of them are being funded by Saudi oil money.” Saudi princes, he says, have been working under an arrangement with the Wahabists for the past 30 years whereby they fund the propagation of Wahabism and are in return left in peace to continue their dissolute lifestyle, in clear contravention of Islamic strictures. These Wahabi-sponsored mosques are not preaching moderation but the most fundamentalist of Islam fundamentalism, which is a “nightmare to live near”.

On the subject of the voluntary repatriation of non-Whites, I asked what sum I would receive if I took up the offer of repatriation in order to retire to the warmer climes of my country of origin. I was assured I would receive a full pension, but no more. The targeted group would be non-Whites of child-bearing age and their families.

How much would they get to help them go home?

He cannot put a figure on it because he doesn’t know how much the British taxpayer would be prepared to pay.

What is there to prevent a BNP government from ejecting all non-whites Idi Amin-style, without the benefit of a resettlement grant?

“Huge numbers of people have someone from an ethnic minority background that they’re very fond of, someone involved with their family, someone who’s a close friend. If we break our word in that regard and start hurling them out at gunpoint, we’re going to be voted out of office. It would not be practical, it would be inhuman, it would disrupt the economy. It’s got to be phased, steady and by agreement. If we hurled out all the non-white nurses, it would benefit their country to get them back, but would leave Britain in a health crisis and we would in turn be thrown out of government at the next election. If you say we would institute a dictatorship and not relinquish power, I would say we at the BNP believe that all governments incline towards tyranny given half a chance, eventually. The only ultimate guarantee against a tyrannical government is an armed people along the Swiss model, where every citizen would have a modern assault rifle. Switzerland has virtually no gun crime because its citizens are properly trained to handle firearms responsibly. It is practically uninvadable. Why bother if every single adult is trained in arms? Switzerland has mountains and we have a huge moat. This means that the defence bill can be cheaper and a government cannot infringe on the rights of its people because if it does the people can rise up and shoot the people who rule. That is the only guarantee of freedom: when the government knows that it governs on the sufferance and with the consent of the people. Once we arm the people we cannot be a government intending to impose our way like a latter-day Gestapo.” It might just be relevant to mention that Nick has lost the sight of one eye through a firearms accident in the 80s.

On the subject of Holocaust Denial over which he has made a number of controversial pronouncements, he accepts that he has been “rude” about the Holocaust but stresses that he has never denied that Jews were killed simply because they were Jews. Nationalists tend to be rude about the Holocaust, he explains, simply because they are always being accused of wanting to gas people whenever the subject of immigration is mentioned.

My final question was his favourite colour. “For the benefit of any journalist, I should say black or white, but the truth is that it is the green of spring beech leaves.”

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Patriotism and Nationalism - Is there a difference?

What is the difference, if any, between patriotism and nationalism?

"Patriotism comes from the word patria which is Latin for nation, so in my view they mean the same thing."

"Patriotism is an instinctive thing, the way nature tells a population to defend its space. Nationalism is an ideological construct."

"You probably couldn’t get a cigarette paper between them but I am sure I am both if there is a difference."

"Nationalism is negative whereas patriotism is considered positive. Nationalism suggests racial superiority as in National Socialism and Hitler."

"Patriotism is simple love of one's country. Nationalism is an attempt to make yourself worthy of the country you say you love by not being lazy, stupid, cowardly, ignoble, ignorant, complacent, self-pitying, over-cautious and defeatist."

"Plenty. One is self-respect, the other is bad manners."

"If love is patriotism, then nationalism may be courtship - an attempt to make oneself worthy of our love object, to make ourselves better than we are."

"The difference is that nationalism is an active, political expression of one’s love for their country whereas patriotism is a purely emotional response. "

For more answers:;_ylt=Ag3aO30QU4FA7rKt1Zd798tkBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20080120112407AA6JQzc

Sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?'s-first-gay-'wedding'.html

Male Priests' Civil Partnership Blessed in Church by Rector

This could never happen in a mosque because the Koran specifically states that homosexuality is a sin to be punished, in rather the same manner as adultery.


4 witnesses would be required in the case of gay and lesbian lewdness as well as adulterous wives.The relevant verses in the Koran are:

4:15 (lewd acts between women)
4:16 (lewd acts between men)

24:1 (adultery - punishable by 100 lashes)

Those that defame honourable women and cannot produce 4 witnesses shall be given 80 lashes. If a husband accuses his wife but has no witnesses but himself except himself, he must swear 4 times by God that his charge is true, calling down upon himself the curse of God if he is lying. But if his wife swears 4 times by God that his charge is false and calls down His curse upon himself if it be true, she shall receive no punishment.

You can't say fairer than that, can you?

In theory extra-marital recreational sex is all forbidden and punishable horribly. In practice, under a liberal interpretation, acts of homosexuality and adultery are tolerated provided it is not flaunted in front of more than 3 witnesses (making a threesome legally unproblematic and, dare I say it, halal, even if any of the three participants were prone to self-accusation). The same could be said of a threesome (of any combination) with no more than three voyeurs, witnesses or observers, call them what you will.

If we now have sharia-compliant investments, then I see nothing haram in organising sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies, whilst adding to the gaiety of the nation and the umma. It is a shame the Christians didn't quite got round to articulating this sort of thing in a Word of God Book coming from one source, ie Muhammad. Instead, their moral code comes from the Old and New Testament, written by different people over the ages. No wonder schism is endemic and inevitable when Christian ideology is so messily articulated.

Old Testament: Leviticus
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

"New Testament: Romans 1:26, 27

It does after all say in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination, but some New Testamenters seem to think this does not apply to them.

Perhaps it is because New Testamenters like to think that the Old Testament cannot apply to them in any of its literal and illiberal entirety, when so many transgressions we now regard as minor to trifling could lead to the death penalty?

For an impressively long list of sins which Old Testamenters regard as deserving of the death penalty, see

In contrast, under a liberal interpretation, the Koran is a model of mercy and clemency.

The Koran restates the Ten Commandments and adds a few more of its own. No rational Muslim would argue that an act specifically stated to be a sin in the Koran could possibly deserve the blessing of any Islamic clergy! The most that could be argued in an Islamic context is the "ask us no questions and we'll tell you no lies" principle, which would be the perfect compromise between puritanical censoriousness and the libertarian ideal.

In these circumstances, homosexuality would be tolerated, provided it is not flaunted. How can anyone reasonable, whether religious or atheist (like me) deny that this is the perfect compromise? Or that the Islam of the Koran is structurally sounder, better-drafted, more coherent and sexually liberated than Judaism or Christianity?

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

Six Steps to Being 4th Big Party of the "Right" by 2010

1. Read constitution at to see if you agree that it confers more rights on its members than the current constitution of the BNP.

2. Agree that it would be nice to have a party with a constitution like that.

3. Form such a party.

4. Get everyone with a political view to join.

5. Once the party is big enough, invite anyone you would like to lead it to join and fight a leadership contest.

6. Campaign under this grassroots direct democracy party in the 2010 General Election, concentrate the protest vote and hold the balance of power!

Is this or is this not a cunning plan?

This idea is also being discussed at

the lack of democracy in British political parties - THE SOLUTION

Why don't we elect a PARTY that is not politically correct?

Because UKIP are too boring and the BNP too dangerous! (Both are equally riven with internal party strife because of a lack of democracy within the party, which demoralises the membership and creates great resentments. Interesting too that a Socialist Workers Party activist I spoke to on Saturday 31 May complained of exactly the same problem, as regards the split between Left List and Respect.)


Form a party with a constitution such as the one at

Now compare and contrast this to the horror that is the BNP constitution, found at

UKIP's can be found at

and get the BNP and UKIP to unite under a party with such a constitution, after having a leadership election.

Remember we only have 2 more years to do this, ie 2010, or we will also miss the next boat to change things.

It is well-known complaint that Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage both operate a crony-system.

No such thing would operate under the proposed party constitution which supports government by referenda. It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound realistic as long as enough people find it fair in principle, and like the sound of it.

They would be the first to join the party, discuss tactics, make the rules. After these are finalised, they can then invite the leadership contenders to fight it out.

Policy disagreements would be resolved by agreeing to disagree - much easier to do when all everyone has to do is agree for a referendum to be conducted should the party be voted into office, ie that the question should be asked, not how it should be answered. Internal party bickering over policies they would never be in a position to decide would then be surgically and permanently removed.

The new and different rule would be that all members would every year be required to give the name of the member they think most fitted to lead the party, which will be published. Based on this result, the first and second most nominated members would have the option of having a formal leadership contest.

The founder and acting leader of such a party would state the intention of immediately standing aside for a properly elected leader once a leadership contest has been conducted.

You can't say fairer than that, can you?

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

male oppression and chauvinistic feminism

If single parenthood has its origins in feminism and female emancipation, is it conceivable that women are partly to blame for the decline and fall of Western civilisation?

After all, they want to mother everything, don't they, and get offended if you point out the irrationality of their emotions?

Are we not, as a society, morbidly infantilised and over-feminised? Is not Health and Safety run almost exclusively by bossy, over-nannying safety-obsessed women?

Perhaps there is a connection between the oppressiveness of health and safety regulation and women who wait until nearly the end of their fertility to have children because they had to develop their careers. (The loss of an only child by a woman who has come to the end of child-bearing years is of course a greater disaster for her than a woman still young and capable of having more children.) This is understandable, but what sort of attitude does it create about taking calculated risks? Is it healthy for boys to be tied to mother's apron strings and be seen jogging with their trendy mums?

Should European men be seen wearing baby slings and other baby-carrying implements, just like female peasants in third world countries? Is masculine pride now completely a thing of the past?

Cato: "As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors."

Does a civilisation deserve extinction because it is irrational, infantilised, sclerotic and risk-averse, when it allows the quality of its next generation to be progressively impaired by its continuing tolerance of single-parenthood, illegitimacy and chauvinistic feminism - the kind of chauvinistic feminism that is allowed to claim that women are simultaneously

(1) equal to men
(2) better than men yet
(3) require and demand the financial support of men - such as Alyce Faye Eichelberger - without fear of contradiction?

Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.

The 63-year-old Miss Eichelberger, a psychotherapist, who married John Cleese in December 1992, is demanding half of his earnings since their wedding.

And in the meantime, her lawyers have submitted court documents that specify she needs an astonishing £71,250 a month to live on, this includes £2,000 for clothes, £5,000 on gifts, entertaining and holidays, and £1,000 for eating out.Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.

Not bad for a woman who was living with her two sons in a third-floor London council flat when she met Cleese 18 years ago.

Vote: Should men question chauvinistic feminsim that allows women to simultaneously claim to be (1) equal to men (2) superior to men AND (3) the weaker sex in need of greater protection?