Wednesday, April 25, 2007

"People who support the BNP are without exception racist scum"

So sayeth Alex of Recess Monkey, who has a CiF post up about the BNPs use (if any) of the social networking software Facebook.

I disagreed and gave reasons as best I could. Sorry for regular readers if I repeat myself. A lot of this is cut'n'paste.


"Alex - you really are urinating into a Force 10 here. All this well-meant stuff is unlikely to have the effect you want.

Let me attempt to explain why.

In 2001 the Observer reported a demographer (who I’m presuming with zero evidence was David Coleman of Oxford University) as saying that on current trends for immigration, emigration and birthrate, whites would be a minority in Britain by 2100. I’m not sure if he’d taken into account the million-odd Poles who have come over since EU enlargement, and I’m not sure talking of ‘whites’ is helpful either. I prefer the term ‘Native Britons’, which distinguishes the indigenous people from Albanians, Poles, Frenchmen and other Eastern Europeans.

Since then immigration has increased dramatically, and emigration of natives likewise. Brits are leaving at a rate not seen for 100 years. More than half the babies born in London and 20% of those born in England have mothers who were themselves born overseas.

The latest forecast is that "on present trends, by 2073, the majority population of this country will either have migrated here, or be the child or grandchild of parents who did so. No past wave of immigration has ever come anywhere near having that kind of consequence."

Two points here.

First, it may be that the demographers and the ONS people are fabricating the stats. But people on the Left don't seem to want to discuss them. The absence of any attempt at rebuttal is itself IMHO significant.

The second is that apparently this change is not worthy of debate or discussion. The Observer said that "It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease."

Most people on the Left are instinctively sympathetic to an indigenous people who find their land occupied by strangers. Those who resist are heroes. Native Americans, the native Irish, Aborigines, Palestinians, the Indians of South America. All these peoples may have ended up belonging to much richer nations as a result of immigration, but they didn't necessarily appreciate the favour.

I cannot understand what's so special about the English, that they, uniquely among the nations and races of the earth, are apparently expected to acquiesce in their own replacement.

Most people don't spend their time studying ONS stats. They just notice the changes in their area, or when they visit a city. The problem is that those who are concerned about immigration, and who feel that social cohesion demands an immediate stop to immigration while those who are already here integrate, have an extremely limited voting choice. None of the three major parties have the slightest intention of halting mass immigration. Because to do so would be racist.

The native British are a demoralised bunch, and have generally reacted to immigration by voting with their feet rather than for people who like Odin and dislike Jews. But as the incomer population grows, the English are finding that there’s nowhere (emigration apart) to run to. This may be why the BNPs vote of nearly 5% in the 2004 Euro elections was around four times their 1999 vote.

This trend may not continue - as children of all cultures grow up together they may unite and reject communal politics.

But Bradford, Oldham, Burnley aren’t terribly hopeful pointers. It seems to me more likely that as the Native Brit population declines, and natives become the minority in more and more areas, politics will almost inevitably become split on ethnic lines, as for example in Fiji. The demographics are still pointing all one way, the Tories are unlikely to to make major changes if and when they do ever win power.

So in 20 years or so there'll be a nativist British party, representing a substantial proportion, if not a majority, of the native English. The only question is what the name of that party will be.

At the moment, for good or ill, the only party that seems to many natives to be for 'people like us' is the BNP.

So Alex, as long as demographic change on this scale continues, banning the BNP from Facebook, harassing and sacking its activists, "duffing them up in the street" (copyright B.Bragg) are in the long run not going to make a difference.

The BNP may have many idiotic ideas. They may also have some very nasty ones at the heart of their ideology and among their senior people.

But that isn't why people are voting for them. The native Brits haven't suddenly become swivel-eyed types with obsessions about black IQ, Jewish conspiracies and the other things that make a BNP ideologues eyes light up. The English don't do fascism. They just don't want to be a minority in their own country.



UPDATE - Alex Hilton's response :

"Labantall - you're the scariest person to have commented so far. Would you mind telling me what a native Briton is to you? Picts, Celts, Norse, Angles, Britons, Scots, Danes, Normans, Saxons, Gaels, Huguenots? But you know this. You know that you could pick a different date in history and find a different group of outsiders to hate."

makes it pretty clear that the last thing he wants is to think about is why people are voting BNP. And the combination of ad hominem and wild assumption implies that he's operating on the principle noted by the historian AJP Taylor. Discussing the Katyn massacre of Polish Army officers (blamed at the time by the Poles on the Russians and by the Russians on the Germans) he said words to the effect of "as the Russians have discovered, the best way of sustaining an argument is never to put any evidence forward to defend it".

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bradford 2006

Northern Monkey said...

"The English don't do fascism. They just don't want to be a minority in their own country."

That pretty much sums up the views of myself, my girlfriend, parents and sister none of whom you could call "racist".

However I refuse to vote for a National Socialist party even if they are right on one issue. So I wait (In vain?) for the creation/emergence of a party worthy of my vote...hopefully I won't have to wait till it's too late.

Anonymous said...

The problem one is faced with, amongst my mates - all good (childless!)liberal lefties to a man/woman is that we live in a white prosperous area. They seem to think that becoming a minority is irrelevant. Pointing out the problems in other British cities is merely bad manners or something. They wont realise its too late.

I never worried about Jewish power (why do we have nation changing immigration?) or Black IQ (a utiltarian argument against immigration) but one finds oneself using these arguments to people because nothing, absolutely nothing seems to sink in. Racial conflict - its all the fault of the Daily Mail etc etc. Race hate - thats whites attacking blacks. Violent crime - a white racist conspiracy to hurt blacks, who are just the same as us really. And on and on it goes...

For instance if the argument about becoming a minority isnt dismissed out of hand, Im told it wont happen. Why not? I ask my pals, given that we wont control immigration and we certainly look at anything horrid like differential birth rates. To that Ive never received a satisfactory answer, in fact Ive yet to receive any answer at all!

Im afraid then its going to be a vote for the BNP.

Anonymous said...

I looked at that Bradford article.

Given that the non-white pop is @ 20%, assuming the electorate reflect that, then the BNP may have received 16% of the white vote. About 1 in 6.

JuliaM said...

"..Most people don't spend their time studying ONS stats. They just notice the changes in their area.."

Precisely! This is why all the handwringing, leafletting and PR in the world will not prevent more votes for the BNP (or total disengagement with voting in some people, which may have the same effect).

People aren't blind,no matter what New Labour councillors have been told to think by head office.

Fulham Reactionary said...

Alex Hilton has responded to Laban's posts at CiF by saying:

"Labantall - you're the scariest person to have commented so far. Would you mind telling me what a native Briton is to you? Picts, Celts, Norse, Angles, Britons, Scots, Danes, Normans, Saxons, Gaels, Huguenots? But you know this. You know that you could pick a different date in history and find a different group of outsiders to hate."

One really does have to wonder about people like that. They simply refuse to see what is right in front of them, and in their minds anything that anyone says that doesn't chime exactly with their fantasy (because that's all it is, or ever will be) of a happy multicultural Britain existing in a state of blissful harmony, is automatically transformed into the spittle-flecked rantings of a paranoid Nazi.

He also, sadly, appears to embody the attitudes of the three main parties. They all seem to think that if they just pretend there isn't a problem, then everyone else will come to agree with them. Given this, and given that the BNP would actually do something about the problems this country faces, they'll probably have my vote in the future.

And the possibility of really upsetting the likes of Alex Hilton makes the prospect of voting BNP all the more attractive.

Observer said...

Hilton was born in Ilford in 1976 and is a journalist and internet entrepreneur.
He stood for Parliament as the Labour Candidate for Canterbury in the 2005 General Election and until this year's May Council elections, was Labour Councillor for the Newbury ward in the London Borough of Redbridge.

Voyager said...

Racial conflict - its all the fault of the Daily Mail etc etc. Race hate - thats whites attacking blacks.

The most primitive of the defense mechanisms are considered to be primitive because they fundamentally rely on blatant misrepresentation or outright ignoring of reality in order to function. These mechanisms flourish in situations (and minds) where emotion trumps reason and impulsivity rules the day. Children use them naturally and normally, but then again, children are by definition emotionally immature and not held to a higher standard as are adults. When adults use these methods on a regular basis, it is an indication that their emotional development is at some level delayed.

Denial; an outright refusal or inability to accept some aspect of reality that is troubling. For example: "this thing has not happened" when it actually has.

Splitting; a person cannot stand the thought that someone might have both good and bad aspects, so they polarize their view of that person as someone who is "all good" or "all bad". Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. For example: "My boss is evil", after being let go from work, when in reality, the boss had no choice in the matter and was acting under orders herself. Splitting functions by way of Dissociation, which is an ability people have in varying amounts to be able to wall off certain experiences and not think about them.

Projection; a person's thought or emotion about another person, place or thing is too troubling to admit, and so, that thought or emotion is attributed to originate from that other person, place or thing. For example: "He hates me", when it is actually the speaker who hates. A variation on the theme of Projection is known as "Externalization". In Externalization, you blame others for your problems rather than owning up to any role you may play in causing them.

Passive-aggression; A thought or feeling is not acceptable enough to a person to be allowed direct expression. Instead, that person behaves in an indirect manner that expresses the thought or emotion. For example: Failing to wash your hands before cooking when you normally would, and happen to be cooking for someone you don't like.

Fantasy; engaging in daydreams about how things should be, rather than doing anything about how things are.

Displacement;
An unacceptable feeling or thought about a person, place or thing is redirected towards a safer target. For example, it may feel unsafe to admit anger towards a parent, but it is perfectly safe to criticize the neighborhood he or she lives in.

Isolation/Intellectualization; Overwhelming feelings or thoughts about an event are handled by isolating their meaning from the feelings accompanying the meaning, and focusing on the meaning in isolation. For example, you cope with the recent death of a parent by reading about the grieving process.

Repression; A milder form of denial; You mange uncomfortable feelings and thoughts by avoiding thinking about them. You are able to admit that you feel a certain way (unlike in denial), but you can't think of what might have led up to that feeling, and don't really want to think about it anyway.


Reaction Formation; You react to uncomfortable, unacceptable feelings or ideas that you have (but aren't quite conscious of really), by forming the opposite opinion. For example; you unconsciously hate your parent, but your experience is to the contrary; you are only aware of loving feelings for your parent.

Yaffle said...

Laban,

Good posts, but you imply that people who believe there are racial differences in IQ (and other variables?) are nutters. I'd be interested to know your reasons why. Such research as has been done on this touchy subject, usually by white researchers, has tended to put east Asians slightly above whites, with blacks some way back. Hardly the actions of swivel-eyed white supremacists.

BB said...

The most devious thing about people like Alex Hilton is that when they come to responding to arguments like Laban's they resort to the most convoluted and subtle hair-splitting, claiming that it's very difficult to draw all the boundaries required, etc.

Yet when it comes to categorizing their enemies they resort to the most crude and unsubtle pigeon-holing possible, according to which someone as thoughtful and mild-mannered as Laban becomes evil racist scum like all the rest.

Anonymous said...

I never worried about Jewish power (why do we have nation changing immigration?) or Black IQ (a utiltarian argument against immigration) but one finds oneself using these arguments to people because nothing, absolutely nothing seems to sink in.

Take 1000 people who think mass immigration might be a problem. Most of those people have nothing against those immigrants but are worried about the impact of attempting to absorb so many people in such a short time. One of those people is worried about the Jewish power and the IQ of blacks.

That one person is the idiot that the media focus on, that the media quote from, that Alex Hilton writes articles about, and they do that because they know that if the 999 ordinary people see such people and their motivations, they will attempt to distance themselves from that idiot.

Dave said...

Yeah Fulham, guys like that are the true racists. I very much doubt he'd be trying to deny the existence of Native American tribes or Africa tribes distinct identity but when he comes to the English oh there's no such thing.

I used to wonder about people like that also, now not so much, I don't know this guy but its amazing if you lookup a list of MP's or political agitators how many of them are not 'native' English.
Now that shouldn't stop them having an opinion ofcourse, but it puts a slightly different perspective on the situation instead of it being healthy introspection it becomes something rather different.

Felicity said...

"Racist scum" is a rather hysterical outburst for the way many in Britain feel.
I shall be voting BNP along with the "racist scum" in my book club.
We dont want any more immigration from hostile foreign lands who wish to bring their backward tribal cultures with them.
End of.

Anonymous said...

I shall be voting BNP along with the "racist scum" in my book club.

Victor Gollancz and his 'Left Bookclub' have a lot to answer for !

Anonymous said...

I will also being voting for the BNP .
I did not leave the mainstream parties , they left me !!!

Laban said...

"you imply that people who believe there are racial differences in IQ (and other variables?) are nutters"

"swivel-eyed obsessives" I think was more or less the description.

I just think things like that are pretty unimportant. Anyone who looks at athletics records can see that there are physical differences between races, so there may be mental differences too. But these only tend to make a difference at the margins, which isn't where we live in our everyday interaction with people, although the differences may be apparent at Olympic medal and Nobel Prize level.

Culture IMHO trumps genes.

Anonymous said...

A liberal type is happy for the Aboriginal Peoples of these islands to have their own Super-County-Council in Edinburgh and Cardiff, because he knows that it is the Teutonic heritage in the English that brought technology and civilisation to the woad-wearing hill tribes who are now semi house-trained and undetaking one of the three major periods of catastrophic rule in London.

James VI of Scotland moving to London had an atempt to blow him up; his son was beheaded; his grandson skirted with the same fate; and his other grandson was kicked out of England.

Ramsay MacDonald made a pig's ear of things in 1929 and resigned his Cabinet to invite the Conservatives to sit around the table; then he was able to help Germany build a Navy in 1935 so its new Chancellor did not feel too miffed at the Versailles Treaty

And after these successes England got Blair-Brown and the happy band of CND Scotsmen to see if they could continue the tradition of creating a complete shambles of running a serious country

Anonymous said...

Anon. above says:-

"Ramsay MacDonald made a pig's ear of things in 1929....; then he was able to help Germany build a Navy in 1935".

And to think, if he'd just stayed the course (adjusted his diet?), he could have seen his way to the point where -

"About one in seven children at primary school in England and one in 10 at secondary school speak a language other than English" (source BBC, from the "annual school census" - can't trace the origin).

Bliss, innit!

Bert Rustle said...

Laban wrote "I just think things like that are pretty unimportant. Anyone who looks at athletics records can see that there are physical differences between races, so there may be mental differences too. But these only tend to make a difference at the margins, which isn't where we live in our everyday interaction with people"

This is a basic error of statistics. If we have two sets of people, say British average IQ 100 and Japanese average IQ 106. Then there will be many more Japanese with IQ over 130 than British and many more British with IQ less than 80 than Japanese. An IQ of 130 is where one would expect to find successful lawyers, doctors, engineers and managers. I would hazard a guess that top scientists would be much higher where virtually all in this example would be Japanese. At the other end of the scale, nearly all the road sweepers or labourers would be British, not Japanese.

So we do not need to get anywhere near the level of national or Olympic champions or tops scientists for large disparities to surface. The problem is that statistics (and economics according to Pinker, “Blank Slate”) are counter-intuitive and need to be studied to see how they work.

The whole situation is greatly exacerbated when comparing black Americans or West Indians, average IQ 85 with British or Japanese.

Yaffle said...

As a swivel-eyed obsessive I couldn't help noticing this in today's Telegraph:

Figures show that almost a fifth of Chinese pupils in English state schools are registered as "gifted" against a tenth of white children. It further underlines the dominance of pupils from China and comes days after scientists warned that economic stability was at risk because British students lagged so far behind those from overseas.

Snafu said...

Laban, an excellent post.