This was the rather interesting question asked by Independent Councillor Chris Cook at http://www.chris-cooke.co.uk/ in our regular debates on race and Islam who is, like me, independently-minded and prefers the a la carte method of ordering our political dishes (as demonstrated at http://www.1party4all.co.uk/) rather than the limited fare that is the set menu offered by the Big 3 political parties. He is currently having trouble with the UAF (United Against Fascism) brigade who believe that BNP supporters and sympathisers should be silenced and removed rather than defeated by argument. (Although generally sympathetic to the BNP and saying that they should remain an all-white party, Chris who was one of the founder members of the SDP, is in fact dead against the death penalty, one of the staples of the BNP policy "diet".)
Like most people, I agree with some BNP policies and abjure the others. How could one not, for instance, support their intention to raise the threshold for paying income tax to £15,000 per annum, whatever race or religion one might be??
http://www.bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/minimanifesto2007.pdf
When I attended the anti-Iraq war march in 2003 at Hyde Park I noticed to my surprise that the BNP were represented as were the Muslims. That there were and are in fact more people and parties against the war than were for it I am cerrtain. That this country was nevertheless dragged into it just because dimwit sheep-like Conservatives like Boris Johnson and David Cameron were also bamboozled into supporting it, is infuriating to say the least. From this surprising revelation came the seeds of http://www.1party4all.co.uk/ - an opinion-polling direct democracy website that makes the most of our agreement rather than allows it to be diluted under the irrational and oligarchical multi-party system led by "leaders" who do not seem to be displaying prudence, principle, talent or any understanding of realpolitik.
But I digress.
As I was saying, Chris wondered whether it would in fact be racist to make an admission of racial inferiority. If it is racist to regard one's race as better than all the others, surely the converse is also "racist"? After all, one cannot logically have superior races without inferior races.
I wonder what would happen if the BNP started saying more loudly: "We the white indigenous British are as a rule indolent, illegitimate, innumerate, illiterate, racially inferior and have very weak cultural traditions. We therefore need state protection from the better-organised, more family-orientated and better-educated foreign hordes who are now taking over our land and taking the bread from our mouths."
Actually, that is what some of them have been saying, who clamour for minority status and ask for whites-only council housing. This can only be described as the English urban equivalent of territorial reservations for the Australian Aborigines and Native Americans. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this display of defeatism in the English saddening and embarrassing.
The answer is "yes" - it is also "racist" to claim the converse of racial inferiority. There you go: the BNP are racist through and through - surprise, surprise! On the one hand, some of them feel superior to foreigners yet on the other hand claim that crafty better-organised foreigners exploit their political system better than they do.
However, it is still legal to have a sincerely-held beliefs and opinions in this country, however irrational, such as Feng Shui, numerology, astrology, the belief that Christ is Son of God, witchcraft, homeopathic medicine, etc.
But for how much longer?
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
1 comment:
Nobody – in the BNP anyway – is claiming the converse of racial superiority - i.e. racial inferiority - except in the imagination of the writer of this article. It may be an elegant formulation, an amusing departure. However – whether it be “racist” or no – it just ain’t so. It is the reverse of the truth.
For example, nobody is asking for 'whites only' housing. We would only ask that those who have lived in an area and contributed to the system for many years should not be automatically disadvantaged by new arrivals. Council housing these days is awarded on a priority-points system, based on greatest need. New arrivals are usually poorer and in greater need. Ergo they take most of the available housing. But if other factors were to come into play - as they used to - such as whether or not you grew up in an area, or the length of time you had been on the housing waiting list, or proximity to other family members in your area, then native whites would start to regain a few advantages over new arrivals.
Margaret Hodge has now acknowleged all these factors in Barking & Dagenham, and the Labour MP is now - in effect - promoting rights for whites - thanks to the influence of BNP representatives on the council. So the idea therefore that, in this respect anyway, the BNP is in any way promoting white racial inferiority as a way of obtaining advantages over newcomers is a caricature.
There was also - by the way - in the past a disqualification for council housing too. This
was that you could not obtain such housing if you had made yourself 'intentionally homeless'.
Some of the Liberals in the Tower Hamlets in the East End in the 1980s (who in some respects were rather similar to the BNP) argued that Bangladeshi arrivals ought not to obtain council housing at all, since they'd made themselves 'intentionally homeless' by leaving Bangladesh. As a result, therefore, most of them would need to return 'home'. (Those were the days....)
The general argument in this article is that immigrants are more skilled & useful than are the white natives. But the people I’ve mentioned are no use whatsoever. Their English skills are extremely poor (thanks to multicultural policies in education) & the current unemployment rate among young Muslim males in Tower Hamlets is between 70% and 80%.
Their 'skills' appear mainly to consist of spitting on the pavement and selling drugs.
No, the reason they're here is not because they are either useful or skilled. It's because the Labour government made the mistake of giving British passports to the parents of such people when ex-colonies such as theirs were granted independence. So, what with – first – the unfortunate legacies of Empire and - more recently – our being trapped inside the legal mechanisms of the European Union, forcing this small, overcrowded island to accept even more immigrants, it has basically been one f*** up after another.
Post a Comment