West Yorkshire, the BNP and the Conservative Party
Nick Griffin is a cunt and his British National Party is both fascist and racist - please, please, if you live in the Keighley constituency, do not vote for him or them. If you like, support sitting Labour MP Ann Cryer (who has written of her worries for the constituency); if not, vote for ANYONE other than the BNP - yes, even the UKIP (and it's not often you'll catch me condoning that...)
The growing "respectability" of the BNP, and its increasing success in local elections, is one of the prime examples of how these nanny state laws to ban aspects of freedom of speech are damaging our society.
Do not be fooled by claims that the BNP is no longer racist. It is - and strongly so. It may be less violent these days, and its rhetoric may have been toned down, but it is the same organisation at heart as that which sprang out of the neo-Nazi National Front - it just keeps most of its views private now.
By banning them from saying what they truly think, they have been able to pretend that they are nice, fluffy guys who are just a bit concerned about the economic consequences of immigration (as well as make them even more annoyed at the "liberal elite" which prefers to protect filthy foreigners rather than decent British citizens). Not only that, but it means that every time we accuse them of being racist, they can claim that they've seen the error of their ways and (in most cases) rightly point out that there have been no official racist BNP pronouncements in the last few years.
Yes, the laws banning incitement to racial and religious hatred are part of the problem, not the solution. If you allowed Griffin and his ilk to spout their hate-filled crap openly, they would be far easier to show up for what they are.
By all means have laws banning incitement to racial and religious violence, but hatred fosters debate and brings the nutters out in the open where they can be quickly dismissed as the maniacs they are - strong opinions should be encouraged so that they can be proved unfounded. It's when these nutters and their true views are hidden that they pose the biggest threat.
Whose fault is the BNP's increasing popularity? Well, the National Front had its greatest success in the early 1970s (20,000 members by 1974), at a time of increasing Tory weakness; since 1997 the BNP has been gaining ever more support along with that other rather mental right-wing party, UKIP (who are like adorable little kittens compared to the BNP). With Maggie Thatcher's election to the Conservative Party leadership 30 years ago, and the party's subsequent revival, the National Front began to decline.
Yep, this rise in support for the fascist BNP is another result of a weak Conservative party - as have been most of the major ills of the last seven years.
If Labour had a proper opposition they wouldn't have got away with half the crap they've pulled; if Labour had a proper opposition, fringe groups like UKIP and the BNP would barely register in political coverage; if Labour had a proper opposition, we might have avoided the Iraq debacle; if Labour had a proper opposition the pension funds may still be intact; if Labour had a proper opposition habeas corpus may still have been a fundamental right in this country; if Labour had a proper opposition we might only have a few more months of Blair to put up with, rather than a few more years.
Instead, we're stuck with them, and the apathy of the majority towards an uninspiring political class threatens a renewed rise of extremism.
Any true patriot, unlike these self-professed defenders of Britain's heritage, would know that it is the likes of the BNP who are the true threat to this country's values. This country is a nation of mongrels and immigrants, from the Celts via the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans and on through the successive waves of immigration of Jews, Dutch, Hugenots, Italians, French, Russians, Germans, Eastern Europeans and people from the Carribean and New Commonwealth nations. It is the intolerant likes of the BNP who have no place here, not those they would have deported.
Read more on how Griffin and the party has managed to cultivate its more reserved image of recent years:
"Griffin was allowed to get away with claiming that the BNP had mellowed and no longer believed in the compulsory deportation of British citizens whose colour he disliked. This is a lie, designed to spin media dolts. Searchlight, the fascist monitoring group, points out that the small print of BNP policy says it believes in first creating an apartheid state which separates races, then encouraging 'voluntary repatriation' and then considering 'forcible repatriation' if non-whites refuse to be driven from their homes."And more on Griffin's own racism and the rise of British fascism:
"During 1996, Griffin joined the BNP... he had written that: 'the electors of Millwall did not back a post modernist rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists' ...and helped to write a pamphlet entitled Who Are the Mind-Benders?, which purported to show that important sections of the media were controlled by Jews"Thus speaks one proud half of a mixed race relationship: The BNP are scum - they should be allowed to say what they really think so we can see them for the scum they truly are.
54 Comments:
"If Labour had a proper opposition" as you say I think that about covers it.
For the sake of your children and your chidrens children, please vote for the British National Party. The only party prepared to speak out against the evil of Islam. Ignore the filth above and vote for the BNP. Your country needs you!
I think that you hit the nail right on the head as to why this is happening. The Conservatives are simply incapable of offering any real political leadership on the right and so people have no choice but to look elsewhere. As a result, we have to witness the BNP going through a resurgence of its fortunes on the British political scene.
Like many others, I always found talk of Britishness rather hypocritical in most people. How often do you find people who describe themselves as 'British'. As someone of mixed English, Welsh and Scottish ancestry I am proud of that diversity and correct people who call me 'English'. However, I am truly one of the few who does this. I would bet that the vast majority of BNP (and UKIP) supporters would reflexively reply 'English' when asked!
James
"Your children and your children's children"?
Should my current four-year relationship continue as I hope, my children will be mixed race. I doubt very much they'd thank me for voting for the BNP, or anyone for that matter.
But thanks to my anonymous BNP-supporting respondent nonetheless for the assertion that Islam is evil, which seems to prove my points.
Norsemonkey, will you refer to your future mixed race children as "mongrels", or is that an insult reserved exclusively for white people?
And why, exactly, are you "proud" of your mixed-race relationship? If race is an important factor in your relationship then that makes you a racist, doesn't it? Perhaps your "mongrel" offspring will make you proud.
And please spare us our tired regurgitation of the "nation of immigrants" speech. Until recently all significant waves of immigration into Britain were by white Europeans, and even then their numbers were relativley small. Your parallel with massive post-war non-white immigration is absurd and you know it, so why do you make the comparison?
Come back when you have an original thought.
Why is the parallel absurd? The point is that this country has seen much immigration, and that it has long been a significant part of our history. After all, we've had more "foreign" monarchs in this country than anything else - for much of the period of Empire building the British monarch could hardly speak English, but it didn't seem to do us much harm.
And why does it matter whether past immigrants were largely "white Europeans"? (A rather odd definition considering that in the past people from the Mediterranean states, Jews and even the Irish - by far the largest immigrant group until the 20th century - were not considered to be truely "white".)
As for the numbers being "relatively small" - in comparison to today's immigration yes, in terms of numbers it was quite small. But as a percentage of this country's population at the time, I think you'll probably find that various waves of past immigration - especially the Huguenots in the 17th century and Irish in the 19th - are somewhat more comparable to today. Sadly I don't have four years spare to do the PhD research which would be necessary for such a study.
At the time of, say, French Huguenot immigration, France was just as foreign (and hostile) to this country as Iraq or Iran are today. There were significant cultural and language differences - just as there are with modern immigrants. There were many tensions, and a lot of mistrust of each successive immigrant wave - just as today. But they all eventually found their place within British society and became indistinguishable from the rest of us, enriching society as a whole as a result (and no, I'm not going to list the ways how, as it would take forever).
As for whether I'd refer to my children as "mongrels" - I don't see why not, as it doesn't necessarily have to be offensive, simply meaning of mixed ancestral origin, which they would be (and which we all are). I actually used the term because it seems to annoy all these "white pride" types who seem to think themselves so racially pure (it appears to have worked). But if the black community can reclaim the word "nigger" why shouldn't the mixed-race community reclaim terms of abuse aimed at them? I find the fact that I am a mongrel quite nice - I have English, Scottish, Cornish, French and Prussian blood from various ancestors along the way, and find it rather fun to have connections with such a range of cultures. My children would hopefully feel the same.
As for being proud of my mixed-race relationship, the point was that I'm proud of my relationship. I stated it was mixed race to demonstrate that I have a personal reason to find BNP crap offensive - I have, after all, received abuse in the street while walking along with my girlfriend. When I have a reason to be biased, I try and state it, and I am quite happy to state for the record that I am biased when it comes to the BNP. The fact that I felt exactly the same way before I entered this relationship is, I suppose, neither here nor there.
Not especially original, but then neither were your contributions. Ta anyway.
I'm white with blue eyes. My wife is white with green eyes (a minor imperfection I'm willing to overlook). All of our children are white with blue eyes... and I still find the usual BNP crap offensive. Especially BNP crap spouted by anonymous cowards.
Go ahead, call me a race traitor. I happen to belong to the *human* race. And you...?
Churl, why don't you let us all know how we've been "culturally enriched" by non-white immigration? I'll start you off with exotic cuisine. Now you tell me the rest. How about your mongrel children (as Nosemonkey calls them)? Write them in a big, long list. Take your time now, won't you. (By the way, my uncle is a British war veteran and he's a BNP member).
Same goes for you, Nosemonkey. Can't wait to hear YOUR list.
Nosemonkey, your parallel was rubbish beacause white people are native to Europe, non-whites are not. As you said, the European peoples have blended into mainstream society over the years, but there is no evidence to suggest that the assimilation of non-whites will be as peaceful. What's more, the migrations you spoke of did not all happen at the same time - they occurred centuries apart. Today we have millions of immigrants of all races, nations, and religions in just a few decades. This is why your parallel is ridiculuous.
Whites and non-whites have lived together for centuries the Americas, Africa, and elsewhere. These countries are far from racially integrated and harmonious.
And if mass-immigration is so "enriching" why are whites moving away from ethnic areas in droves? Why aren't they flooding the other way? Why are non-whites responsible for so much crime if multiracial societies are beneficial to Britain? How many racist attacks on whites are "acceptable" in your multiracial utopia?
Tim, I'm curious to know which white-minority town you live in?
Nosemonkey, when you used the term "mongrel" you did it to insult your imaginary "white pride" adversaries, so clearly you see it as an insult. And why shouldn't whites feel pride anyhow?
Are you anti black-pride too? Do you believe blacks should be ashamed or proud of their complete lack of technological invention or their propensity to commit sexual assualt?
Hey, other anonymous guy. If you dad fought in WWII and supports the BNP, then your dad's a moron. HTH.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the delight that is the British National Party.
I'm pretty certain that this anonymous idiot's last three singularly stupid comments should demonstrate amply the sort of constituency the party is appealing to, despite its protestations to have got rid of its past racism.
Lovely, aren't they? Really makes you proud to be British. Really makes you want to be part of the same gene pool as these ignorant, hate-filled cowards.
Oh, and for the record, this delightful anonymous idiot loves Britain so much, he/she's posting from Australia...
Anonymous: No thanks. We have plenty of bricks.
But for the record, I grew up in a rather poor area of Sydney. I'm a Westie, mate.
That's a nation and location that makes one extremely vulnerable to racist thoughts - which I must admit to succumbing to myself... before I grew up.
Yeah I'm in Oz on my hols. Will be back in Feb.
So Nosemonkey which of my comments was racist? They were all facts, and facts don't have a moral dimension. Come on, prove me wrong. The smugness seems to be evaporating from your replies. You're resorting to cliches like "hate-filled cowards" because you can't refute my arguments.
Hey, other anonymous, you referred to my dad "being a moron", whereas I referred to my uncle. When it comes to moronic you are clearly in a class of your own.
Tim, what did you thnk of the Muslim gang rapes of white girls in "westie" Sydney?
Still waiting for all the multiracial "enrichments" I've been assured of from Nosemonkey.
Facts how, exactly? Show me your sources proving that black people have a "propensity to commit sexual assualt" and I may change my mind. Or is it simply that *some* black people have committed sexual assaults - just as *some* white people are paedophiles? Without providing evidence to back up that claim, it is simply racist, old chap.
you referred to my dad "being a moron", whereas I referred to my uncleWere this a less civilised site or an outright flame-war, that would warrant the reply: "Perhaps they are one and the same person!"
MUSLIM GANG RAPE!
Thanks for that. It led me to this wonderful site:
http://www.seanbryson.com/articles/fuck_white_bitch.html
On the face of it, it appears to be racism. I think I've already stated that I'm not a fan.
I don't need to point out that there's only one kind of racism, do I? If I do, this is going to be a very long conversation...
By the by, as for the "lack of technological invention" from black people, might I direct your attention here?
Nosemonkey. You have got to be f*cking joking.
That black "invention" story is actually insulting to black people. How you can undermine your own credibility by referring to it is embarrassing. I actually feel compelled to go easy on you.
Which of these "inventions" do you actually believe was really invented by a black person?
The "inventions" such as the ironing board and the comb were merely patent applications for products that had been in existence for centuries. They were trying to "cash in" on someone else's inventions.
What do you think the Ancient Greeks combed their hair with before "Walter Sammons" and "Lydia O. Newman" came to the rescue? Come on, tell me!
None of these other black inventions has any originality, at best they were "tweaking" with someone else's inventions. Go on, name a few and I'll prove you wrong without exception.
By the way, you can see from this Home Office report that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime for their population size, including sexual assaults, in England and Wales (by a huge margin). Now admit you were wrong and recant your accusations of 'racism' please.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/s95race2003.pdf
You poor, sad dreamer.
Churl, I'm using the 'anonymous' name because I don't have a blog name. It wouldn't be that hard to invent an alias like you have, would it. So what's your real name if you're so brave?
Now please tell me how you know that non-whites have enriched us financially more than they've drained us financially? References please.
Blacks certainly do contribute to music, but you haven't explained why we can only appreciate their music with millions of them in the country. In fact, we only need to buy their cds to listen to their music, just like they do in Japan. U2 are from Ireland and they didn't need a domestic black population to inspire them. The Beatles took their inspiration from American blacks, which they probably got from records and the radio.
What is your favourite non-white literature?
And why do you think blacks do well in certain sports whereas whites and Asians don't?
What percentage of the non-white population actually make it as a professional musician, novellist, or athlete? In contrast, what percentage of the non-white population has a criminal record?
Churl, I'm using the 'anonymous' name because I don't have a blog name. It wouldn't be that hard to invent an alias like you have, would it. So what's your real name if you're so brave?
Now please tell me how you know that non-whites have enriched us financially more than they've drained us financially? References please.
Blacks certainly do contribute to music, but you haven't explained why we can only appreciate their music with millions of them in the country. In fact, we only need to buy their cds to listen to their music, just like they do in Japan. U2 are from Ireland and they didn't need a domestic black population to inspire them. The Beatles took their inspiration from American blacks, which they probably got from records and the radio.
What is your favourite non-white literature?
And why do you think blacks do well in certain sports whereas whites and Asians don't?
What percentage of the non-white population actually make it as a professional musician, novellist, or athlete? In contrast, what percentage of the non-white population has a criminal record?
Heh - fair enough - having read that page properly now, perhaps not the best one to have linked to to demonstrate definite, indisputable "contributions". Still, if we're going to discount any inventor who builds on the prior discoveries of others, we'd have to scrap quite a few from the pantheon. Remember Isaac Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote, perchance? Or doesn't he count thanks to his Old Testament name? Dangerously Jewish...
As for the "disproportionate amount of crime", I suppose this has nothing to do with the fact that black people are also disproportionately economically disadvantaged? Or is their lack of economic success due to their inherent laziness and lack of intelligence, rather than the fact they've had to face prejudice in the workplace during much of the short time they've been in the country? The fact that people from run-down council estates commit significantly more crime than people from nice, middle-class suburbs I suppose doesn't bear any relation to this?
I have not denied (and will not, for it's evidently true) that in the early years of immigration - within the first two-three generations, perhaps - it is hard for the new immigrant groups to assimilate. It has always been the case, and will always be the case. There have been riots against French and Irish immigrants, just as there have been riots against Asian and black ones. When the French and Irish arrived, they too often ended up in low-income jobs, and a disproportionate number resorted to crime to get by. Over the years, they assimilated. The same will happen with the latest wave of immigrants - it just won't happen overnight. Especially when people like you continue to hold such ill-founded views.
Oh, and for the record, Churl is right - this isn't really a site for flaming, and this is beginning to grow tiresome. But there's no need to self-censor your swearing - I find the word "fuck" significantly less offensive than many of the opinions you seem to hold, and if I'm happy for you to state them on here I'll hardly object to the odd swear word...
Economic consequences of immigration:
Positive: "if there were no foreign-born people in the UK, taxes would have to rise, or expenditure cut by the same figure - the equivalent of about a penny on the basic rate of income tax."The most negative serious take I can find: "estimated effects are not significantly different from zero"And an introduction to the subject which explains how difficult it is to quantifyThat do? If not, you seem to have internet access - there's this wonderful site called Google which may be of use...
Oh, and favourite non-white literature?
Off the top of my head: Salman Rushdie, VS Naipaul, Haruki Murakami, Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy - and for non-fiction, Edward Said was always both readable and intelligent, plus Nelson Mandela's autobiography Long Walk to Freedom was a good read.
I'll admit to not having read much African literature - I've always been more into Indian, Russian and Eastern European stuff. But there's a good list of authors you may wish to consider here.
Nosemonkey, that report takes no account of the type of immigrant bringing in the money.
The article suggests that asylum-seekers are a cash bonanza for Britain, when really it's backpackers, and business people who set up a deal over a couple of days before flying back home again. The fruits of the deal are included in the statistics. What's more, the figures do not account additional financial strain on our infrastructure, health service, crime rates, or environment. It's a BBC propaganda trick.
Here you can see that people from non-White ethnic groups are more likely to be economically inactive.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462
Think about it. If immigrants were generating so much much wealth why do they suffer such poor socieconomic conditions?
Churl, if the asians/black people working in the NHS were willing to abandon their own homelands where medical expertise is in short supply, what does that say for their national loyalty? How can you imagine them to be proud to be British? Surely they'd flee Britain just as quickly if they found a better deal elsewhere?
As for your comment about Asian shop owners - isn't that a racist generalisation? What about white and black shop owners?
And what WAS your real name..?
Nosemonkey, I'm glad you enjoy non-white literature. Of course, books by those authors are available in book shops around the world without the need for the authors or large numbers of their kinsmen to live there.
Shakespeare currently doesn't live anywhere, but his works are more available today than when he was alive. It's likely the Bible existed in Britain long before Arabs visted the place. Incidentally, I'm rather glad that Mandela doesn't live in Britain what with his terrorist, Communist leanings.
Got to go now.
Speak later.
"what does that say for their national loyalty?" - maybe they've simply realised the inherent superiority of Britain?
"It's likely the Bible existed in Britain long before Arabs visted the place"? Quite what you think Arabs have to do with the spread of Christianity I have no idea, but I'd say it's somewhat unlikely that the Bible got here first, what with there being Arabs among the Roman forces which occupied the country. It was these forces which - eventually - first introduced Christianity (before the Bible had been finalised), and so Arabs had certainly visited before St Augustine's mission to convert the country from 597AD, which is generally considered to be the start of a Christian Britain.
Sorry, I'm afraid I'm beginning to think you're taking the piss - how can someone so proud of their nation be so ignorant of its history?
The Gospels were believed to have been written by ethnic Arab/Semitic peoples. I never said they personally brought the Bible to Britain.
Besides, I'm sure the presence of ethnic literature in Britain must be a great consolation to the numerous victims of racist assaults, muggings, shootings, sexual assaults and exotic diseases brought by third world immigration.
What's all this then?
http://europhobia.blogspot.com/2005/01/fun-with-bnp.html
Advertising for back-up? Can't argue for yourself?
Nosemonkey, if you wrote:
"As for the "disproportionate amount of crime", I suppose this has nothing to do with the fact that black people are also disproportionately economically disadvantaged? Or is their lack of economic success due to their inherent laziness and lack of intelligence, rather than the fact they've had to face prejudice in the workplace during much of the short time they've been in the country? The fact that people from run-down council estates commit significantly more crime than people from nice, middle-class suburbs I suppose doesn't bear any relation to this?"
Now, if all the above is true, how can you subscribe to a multiracial society? If this is a "success" then what is failure? Why are "disproportionately economically disadvantaged" blacks good for Britain?
While we're at it, please explain why black people are more likely to commit violent crime and sexual assualts than other ethnic minorities such as Asians and Chinese.
That other post was primarily to explain to regular readers why I hadn't done any updates yesterday, partly to explain why I haven't deleted your comments as several people have suggested via email that I should. I'm perfectly happy to argue for myself as long as I find the debate interesting, and perfectly happy to defend your right to spout off ever more desperate nonsense. I will, however, admit that I'm beginning to find it somewhat tiresome...
As for your list of crimes you attribute to immigration, I'm pretty certain that the number of immigrants affected by racist assaults far outweighs attacks perpetrated by immigrants. And no, I haven't got any figures to back that up, but then neither do you when it comes to all the other ones. Or do you mean to say that if one immigrant commits a violent crime, that means all immigrants are violent criminals? By that logic I could point out that members of the BNP have committed violent crimes, therefore all members of the BNP are violent criminals. I am, however, fairly sure that a decent number of them are simply well-meaning but woefully misguided.
And the authorship of the Bible, just for the record, is a matter for dispute. A lot more info can be found here, but what is fairly certain is that the version which came into most widespread use was based on a Greek text.
Out of interest - using your own logic based on your claims of Biblical authorship - how do you reconcile the fact that perhaps the most important influence on this country's development, Christianity, is "Arab" in origin?
Has this country been led astray by a filthy foreign religion? Should we revert to worshipping the old gods? And if so, which old gods are the ones we should opt for? The Norse pantheon - another overseas introduction? Or perhaps the Celtic lot (yet another result of immigration as, contrary to popular belief, the Celts originated in central Europe and migrated to what is now the Celtic fringe)? Or maybe we should go back to Druidic rituals, revering mistletoe and performing human sacrifices amidst rings of standing stones?
You really are proving my point admirably - the more you try to explain yourself and present arguments against immigration to back up your central racism, the more you get caught up by your own paradoxical logic.
Re: your post that went up just as I posted my last one:
"Disproportionately economically disadvantaged" doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't contributing to the economy. And as I believe I pointed out earlier, the same was rue of previous immigrant communities at first. It takes a while to settle. In time, the imbalance will be rectified.
And I'm afraid I can't explain "why black people are more likely to commit violent crime and sexual assualts than other ethnic minorities", because I'm not entirely convinced that it's true.
But I did post the reference, right here on this blog as well you know.
You can clearly see in Table 5.5 (p51) that blacks are arrested for 9.7% of sexual assualts and a massive 26.2% of robberies. In fact, blacks are disproportionately represented in EVERY category of crime relative to their 2.80% of the population.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/s95race2003.pdf
Please tell me again, why is this good for Britain? Now, again, explain the sexual assaults.
You said my comments don't necessarily mean that they (ethnics) aren't contributing to the economy. Well, I've already shown that people from non-White ethnic groups are more likely to be economically inactive.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462
How does a person contribute to the economy if they are economically inactive?
And you also wrote:
"It takes a while to settle. In time, the imbalance will be rectified."
So, basically you KNOW there will be casualties lasting several generations but you inflict it anyway. How many casulaties from the excess crime are "acceptable" for you? When will things be "settled"? Please name one country in the world where blacks and whites live free from racial animosity as proof your theory will work.
I want some answers.
I'll hazard a guess, and say Brazil. Multiculturalism seems to be working fairly well over there.
However, I'm rather busy at the moment, contributing to the economy of Britain through my job, rather than sunning myself overseas, so for the time being further responses will have to wait.
Brazil a multiracial success story? You ignorant twat.
"...today there is a growing black movement arguing that Brazilians of African decent are grossly under-represented and are barred by poverty from many of the privileges enjoyed by those of European descent."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1513246.stm
"Ignorant twat" for not having read a fairly minor news story from three and a half years ago of which you were also unaware until you just did a Google search?
Charming...
Now I really must do some proper work.
I'm very aware Christianity has its roots overseas and I'm quite happy with that. We've twisted around to our own version over the years anyhow. Calling it a "filthy foreign" religion wasn't very nice of you.
Personally I'm an atheist although I'd describe myself as culturally Christian. The Nordic, Druid and Celtic influences you described have white European origins and are therefore not really foreign at all.
"have white European origins and are therefore not really foreign at all"
...so you're a supporter of a federal Europe then? How marvellous!
REALLY going now.
Nosemonkey wrote:
"As for your list of crimes you attribute to immigration, I'm pretty certain that the number of immigrants affected by racist assaults far outweighs attacks perpetrated by immigrants. And no, I haven't got any figures to back that up, but then neither do you when it comes to all the other ones. "
You make this SO easy. Actually, in 1999, out of 280,000 racist incidents in England and Wales only 98,000 were against ethnic people. This leaves 182,000 racist incidents against whites. This means that ethnic minorities are about 25 times more likely to commit a racist crime than a white people.
Unforunately, many people like yourself have been utterly brainwashed into believing quite the opposite. After 1999 the racial statistics were mysteriously no longer published. Can't imagine why.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/s95race00.pdf
I'm off on a trip for a couple of days. No doubt you'll be relieved to have a break from being so utterly beaten and humiliated.
I still expect you to answer my other questions - I'll check on my return.
Those are the estimated figures for "incidents, including threats, which were considered by the victim to be racially motivated". The reported figures are rather lower (although also only estimated). But let's run with your figures anyway...
You know as well as I do that "racially motivated" in criminal terms doesn't rely simply on the colour of someone's skin. A crime could just as well be recorded as "racially motivated" were it to be one white person using xenophobic language while attacking another - say, an English person having a fight with a French, German, Welsh, Scottish, Irish etc. person. If I were to go and call a French person a "fucking frog" outside an England vs. France football match, and they reported it, that would go down as a racially motivated case of verbal abuse. No "ethnic minorities" need be involved.
The fact that there are significantly larger numbers of "white" people of various national/ethnic backgrounds within the UK also naturally means that it is more likely that there will both be more "white" victims and more "white" perpetrators of "racially motivated" crimes.
But compare the proportions - 98 000 people from "ethnic minorities" out of a population of 2 532 300 (Appendix A) were the victims in incidents categorised as "racially motivated" versus 182 000 incidents against "white" people out of a population of 43 496 300.
Now correct me if I've got my maths wrong, but that means that 3.8% of Britain's (well, England's and Wales') "ethnic minority" community experienced what they felt to be a racially motivated assault compared to just 0.04% of the "white" population.
So, someone from an ethnic minority is 95 times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated crime, no matter what the total numbers are.
I don't have the time, inclination, or statistical knowhow to go through the figures and try to work it out any further - what I do know is that even without the calculations above your logic doesn't follow.
Yes, 98 000 incidents "considered by the victim to be racially motivated" were against "ethnic minorities as against white people" (so I have assumed that by "ethnic minorities" the report means non-whites); that doesn't necessarily mean that the other 182 000 incidents were perpetrated by people from ethnic minorities.
There are no figures on the "race" of the perpetrators, just of the victims. A fairly major oversight on behalf of the government, that, but there you have it. Your assertion that it is "ethnic minorities" who are the perpetrators of racist crimes against "white" people simply doesn't stand up.
Haven't done your homework, have you. Tut tut.
When you refuted my claim that most racist attacks being by ethnics against whites you failed to mention the intraethnic attacks (eg Pakistani against Indian). This is more proof of the fragility of 'multiculturalism'. Besides, your "white against white" racism is exaggerated because it's much easier for "racists" to spot an ethnic rather than, say, a white Frenchman.
And in Oldham Asians DO commit most of the racist crime despite being the minority:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1160552.stm
What's more, the biggest threat of anti-semitism in Europe today comes from Muslims - all your fault, of course, for stupidly allowing them in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=5X4L2JGYKWRODQFIQMFCM54AVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2003/11/23/wxen23.xml
Anyway, when you wrote "someone from an ethnic minority is 95 times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated crime" did you feel a little embarrassed by this obvious failure of your doomed multiracial experiment?
Well, you still haven't told me:
*Why blacks commit more sexual assaults and other crimes than other ethnic groups.
*How "economically inactive" ethnic groups contribute to the economy.
*How "disproportionately economically disadvantaged" ethnic groups can exist if Britain is a multiracial success story.
*How you know that multiracial Britain will "settle down" when there exists nowhere in the world a country where black/white multiracial harmony exists.
I'm getting impatient. Give me some answers or admit defeat.
DEAR CHURL you said you never met a B.N.P MEMBER in your navy days,but being the captains cabin boy you would have been to busy keeping his hammock warm,as a ex serviceman myself i know hundreds of ex sevicemen and women who are members and i also know dozens,of sevicemen/women who are also members so dont try and bullcrap people saying they dont excist.As for the B.N.P it self,get used to idea that in time we will be in power, so you can start packing your bags and we will pack you and your multi culti friends on a 747, and you can spend your twilight years in the middle of the gobi desert,reflecting on what could have been.
Hi anonoymous,this is firefox from wales,i am a B.N.P member and may i say you write great,all your opposition talk as usual garbage,and they get so annoyed they start to swear.like the twits they are,you now have me on your side,we will tell them straight, but they would not know a straight anwser if it fell over them.The B.N.P itself in wales is getting bigger everyday.so our enemies are now starting to quake in their flipflops,speak to you soon FIREFOX.
DID you lot see on crimewatch nine of twelve rapists the police and the B.N.P are after,are yes you guessed it illigal immigriants that alone has had our telephones redhot with people wanting to join our party.So the next time you tell me how rich multicultarism is to my country think of the poor British women who have had their bodys violated by fiends,who should not have been here in the first place,maybe they did the same crime in their own country thats why they fled. WELCOME TO BRITAIN.
Just for intrest,we are fielding 110 candidates in this election. but next time round it will be a full house,THEIR WILL BE NO SACRED COWS.If their is no candidate in your area spoil your vote by writing B.N.P it it does count.We have got this goverment and their tory allies on the ropes they are very scared of us THE LION IS SLOWLY WAKING UP.
I agree i think that the BNP are a sleeping giant, and the way the big three are treating the ordinary decent folk of these islands and when they realise that all about the wicked things said about the BNP is just spin, this country will change for the better.
I agree i think that the BNP are a sleeping giant, and the way the big three are treating the ordinary decent folk of these islands and when they realise that all about the wicked things said about the BNP is just spin, this country will change for the better.
You lot who value free like i do ,should rememeber it did not come cheap read the chartist movement from 1838-1848.when thousands of men and women where jailed many where killed and thousands more deported and a lot of leaders where hung for high treason.All because they wanted to put a cross on a bit of paper.These men and women must be spinning in their graves,looking down from above and saying to themselves was it worth it.Come 157 years foward and i would tell them yes,because what happened to you is now happening to your decendants,BY THE WAY THEY WHERE TRUE BRITISH,but like you we will fight back your decendants in the B.N.P are up against the most vile goverment in our history,but history repeats itself your politicians of your day are the same as ours today PIGS IN SUITS,and they ignore the British people at their peril.
I started to write this comment to refute a point of nosemonkey... i was sure it was Einstein that said "on the shoulders of giants"
However i checked it out, and Via this review of a book by Stephen Hawkings;
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/281/1
I found out that you were indeed right!
There were however some pertinent points about the ability of blacks to invent and innovate which are totally contrary to the current egalitarian dogma that saddles us, and these are two of the highlights;
"What all these men have in common is that they successfully challenged the dominant view of their day of the way the world around them was structured. They were all European, although Einstein spent the last part of his life in America as a refugee from Nazi Germany. Aside from Einstein, they all lived in what modern historians refer to as “Early Modern Europe,” which used to be known as the Renaissance and Reformation. What was it about this period that sparked the spirit of inquiry and scrabbling curiosity that lead to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and, eventually, to our own Age of Information?"
And;
"Western civilization develops itself on the basis of a few nagging doubts, messy compromises, and the occasional individual of courage and genius, willing to challenge the established wisdom of the moment."
Im off to read the rest of the debate. (1/2 way through now).I have respect for both sides of any argument if they are prepared to debate and not just sling. There seems to me little point in holding a world view that cannot be substantiated, after all. I have to say that nosemonkey is largely doing so, but the rest of you are just spouting the same mindless insults as the guardian, which is dissapointing to me!
P.s i consider myself a racist because it is the path of least intelectual resistance, despite the liberal media trying to make it otherwise.
Regards,
Gareth.
I started to write this comment to refute a point of nosemonkey... i was sure it was Einstein that said "on the shoulders of giants"
However i checked it out, and Via this review of a book by Stephen Hawkings;
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/281/1
I found out that you were indeed right!
There were however some pertinent points about the ability of blacks to invent and innovate which are totally contrary to the current egalitarian dogma that saddles us, and these are two of the highlights;
"What all these men have in common is that they successfully challenged the dominant view of their day of the way the world around them was structured. They were all European, although Einstein spent the last part of his life in America as a refugee from Nazi Germany. Aside from Einstein, they all lived in what modern historians refer to as “Early Modern Europe,” which used to be known as the Renaissance and Reformation. What was it about this period that sparked the spirit of inquiry and scrabbling curiosity that lead to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and, eventually, to our own Age of Information?"
And;
"Western civilization develops itself on the basis of a few nagging doubts, messy compromises, and the occasional individual of courage and genius, willing to challenge the established wisdom of the moment."
Im off to read the rest of the debate. (1/2 way through now).I have respect for both sides of any argument if they are prepared to debate and not just sling. There seems to me little point in holding a world view that cannot be substantiated, after all. I have to say that nosemonkey is largely doing so, but the rest of you are just spouting the same mindless insults as the guardian, which is dissapointing to me!
P.s i consider myself a racist because it is the path of least intelectual resistance, despite the liberal media trying to make it otherwise.
Regards,
Gareth.
Why bother putting this on a web page when people can get the same discredited internationalist waffle from the owned mass media any day of the week.
Be brave and say something original once in your life monkey instead of playing along with the organ grinder's tune.
Ha ha ha, you anonymous spacker. This post's 14 months old, and no one cares.
Fight the power, eh? Idiot.
Post a Comment