Anti Racists: Why is this BNP Video wrong?

Ok I don’t support the BNP because to my mind they are far too focussed on race-immigration issues, and some of their ideas like bringing back Conscription are a little bit too 1950’s for me.
However I saw this women make a passionate speech about why she supports the BNP, and frankly I can’t see anything wrong (as in 2 plus 2 not make 4) in what she said.

So since I'm (apparently) missing something I would like you tell me why you disagree with what she said….
Here’s the Video: uk.youtube.com...

Secondly I would strongly advise anyone against joining the BNP, unless you’re at least prepared to actually become an actual candidate and go all the way. The reasons are…

1. It will put you’re career in jeopardy.
For example it is against the rules for police officers to be a member
www.guardian.co.uk...
Or the prison service
www.guardian.co.uk...
And in addition I have read of many people losing private sector jobs because of they’re private political beliefs (i.e. BNP membership being exposed)

2. In my opinion public protest- and especially membership of minority political parties, (of any description) is only tolerated in the U.K to let the authorities know who exactly the opposition is.

3. Because the organisation is riddled with MI5 agents, and fake supporters.

4. Because it is hate filled since many of the people it attracts feel hard done by

5. And because it only takes one list of say 12,000 members to be leaked news.bbc.co.uk... from one computer in order for every key supporter to be put at great risk by every psychotic anti raciest, and perhaps also even the majority of politically aware ethnic minorities.

Anyway my main question for this subject is “why is what the lady said wrong?”

Ugh, I hate to even bother replying, but I'm peeved enough by the video and your apparent ignorance. The BNP is composed of individuals who hold deep and brazen contempt for immigrants--of course, exemplified by those with darker skin than they (who they feel are muddying the population of "true Brits"), and the non-white natives of Britain who they have publicly stated are, in essence, not pure. The woman in your video does nothing to dispel this general climate in the BNP, going on to state that she cannot fathom how blacks are allowed to create race-specific organizations while race-specific organizations of whites are viewed as racist (perhaps this has to do with the fact that whites were never chained and oppressed in England--in fact ran the whole damn place, and thus have no legitimate need to seek solace or community among their fellow whites). She continues to say, beautifully, that if it weren't for her ancestors, the blacks who create these organizations and speak out "wouldn't be able to do what [they] do". Ostensibly, she has forgotten the fact that it was her ancestors who oiled the machine that put blacks into slavery and kept them there, and that without slaves, her country likely wouldn't be where it is today (nor would any other former slave-holding region).

It is absurd that you would post this video as though it somehow dispels the so-called stereotype of the BNP member. It only reinforces it.

i don't really like throwing my 2 cents in on things that are other county's business lol seeing as we over here have a bowl full of our own. but in light of trying to figure out what was wrong with her speech i think i may have found a little something. its actually the beginning of it. when she said something about the blacks can have there own association in something but if we ask for it its racist. isn't just the fact of arguing that point kind of raciest correct me if im wrong but that seemed a little odd.

the rest of the speech was great really passionate about keeping her heritage alive and i can understand that. but there going about it all the wrong way there trying to fight fire with fire. last time i checked that doesn't work so well.

just an outsiders take on things

[edit on 20-11-2008 by neonine]

Whats wrong with what she says!!? She's mad! She's madder than a mad man who's wearing a T-shirt with the words,"I AM MAD." written on it who is hopping on one leg while singing, It's A Mad World.

Her biggest Faux pas was when she asks why there's a black police federation! The answer is clear, because the white police federation didn't want to know them! They were forced to creat their own federation. . . Then she comes out with this little pearl of wisdom;
""If It Wasn't For My Ancestors They Wouldn't Stand There. . . etc."

By that I take it she's admitting that her ancestors were part of the slave trade! And while she's saying that someone with the IQ of a deceased stoat quips in, ""We Wouldn't Have Bombers!" as if anyone who Isn't white is automatically a terrorist.
This is what is wrong with the BNP. It attracts idiots, racists and the skin headed tattooed fraternity who feel they're protecting the country when, in fact, they are doing it more harm than they ever could imagine.

I think the point she made was white only associations are illegal, but black ones are not. This is racism and it is offensive; clearly these organisations constitute a major reason for BNP membership, and by excluding whites they probably perpetuate negative attitudes-hostility towards this ethnic group.
So she does not question why minority only groups came into existence, only why they exist (a very significant difference!).

If minorities today find they cannot join the police association, or any other association, then they should well apply anyway and sue the culprit’s arses off in court. There are plenty of no-win, no fee organisations, to take up such claims (never mind the extra money obviously to be made through a private lawsuits).

It’s very interesting to see how highly you guys rate the slave trade for the West’s wealth.
The wealth it brought was tea, coffee, sugar and tobacco, all of which has long been consumed, yes it made some (mostly privileged people) even richer. However so did…
1. Agriculture
2. Paved roads brought by the Romans
3. Our early education system
4. Our own feudal system (during which surfs i.e. peasants were bought and sold and only given just enough land to eat in exchange for they’re work).
5. Organised monarchs-governments that collected tax’s
6. And cottage industry.
All of these predate the slave trade, and are what put the West in a position to even contemplate buying slaves from the other side of the world.

Africa in contrast never developed Western culture, and if it weren’t for North Africa the entire continent would have been devoid of civilisation before the first white man even put on the continent.
Furthermore baring perhaps the discovery of a few more plant medicines South Africa’s culture hardly changed in a 10,000 year period. So if it wasn’t for the Victorians (or Western influence since) there would still be today no infrastructure, or modern cities, perhaps not even electricity.

Furthermore Black slavers captured fellow Africans to export them abroad, therefore they profited too, and although colonialism was cruel it did at least bring the 20th century, which has resulted in both massive population growth and increases in life expectancy. So therefore the benefit is largely mutual.

In historical racial demographics England is far different from America.
Because by the time the slave trade was abolished throughout the British empire (in 1807) ethnic minorities made up less than one half of a percent of the U.K population. Three decades ago they numbered less than one million, and today its 4.8 million (or 7.9% of the population). royalsociety.org...

Despite that ethnic minorities make up 22% of the male prison population, and 29% of it’s female: www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
And they constitute 41.9% of people murdered in London.

Therefore I think you’ll find that the BNP’s main complaint is not with less than 1 in 400 hundred people who arrived hear through slavery, but the numbers, and (the escalation) of those arriving since. As well as the disproportionate threats they pose as clearly shown by government statistics that bans membership of they’re own organisation as an act of anti-racism.
They also don’t like how whites are beginning to (or have become) ethnic minorities in British cities, this is shown by the fact that BNP support is highest in ethnic minority areas (as to opposed to being highest in white areas which is what you would naturally expect from a ignorant white organisation).


Personally I don’t really care about even eventually becoming an ethnic minority in my own country providing we all prosper and think alike; as opposed to being the ultimate form of multiculturalism (which is the Iraqi Baghdad model) where people have preserved their heritages so well, that it only takes a maniac to commit a few random killings in order to re-start a full blown civil war. This is something I do fear.
I also strongly sympathise with the BNP’s single handed opposition to so called “positive discrimination” as it’s something I find deplorable (below even Nazism) since even Nazis don’t attack they’re own co-operative people.
In addition I dislike the way political correctness disrupts analysis of the truth; and feel sorry for the way it’s totalitarian nature distorts many well meanings peoples perception of reality.
However I still advise against BNP membership; especially in a less than free society (of a type we are as many members of ATS have noticed).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit on 21/1108/08 by neformore]

I'm sorry but I have to agree with me old mate neformore on this one. You seem to have cornered the market in making racism seem almost acceptable! Some of what you say is true, to a point. When black officers found they couldn't join, or were refused, admittance to the police federation they should have sued their arse off, but since when has the court ever went against the upper ranks of the police force?
The BNP are racist. . . If you can't see that, refuse to accept it or perhaps agree with it's philosophy then that's up to you. As far as I'm concerned it's a big fat no-no!

reply to post by Liberal1984

---

I would say the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of what she says is why the video is wrong?

If "non-whites" were treated equally in the first place, there would be no need for a black police organization or any other organization focused on one race.

She says "if i stood up and said i wanted a white police force i would be deemed racist" (or whatever she says).... ridiculous.

The police force is already "white" and probably the most racist organization/group going.

Also people that have a problem with not being able to use certain words or call non-whites certain things or moan that PC has gone too far....
What exactly do they want to say?

Makes you think huh?


I say you should join.... i think you'd like it

You are also forgetting the European element

The BNP are the only credible anti-EU party ...with an electorate desperate for a voice on EU integration ....this is an an incendiary combination that may prove a winner for the BNP ...remember people vote differently at EU/UK/local levels

The British public have begun to realise that you do not have to subscribe to BNP core beliefs -------just one

A tactical % vote for the BNP at next years Euro elections would deliver a devastating punch to the EU (more than a vote for the flimsy UKIP) ..with no chance of the BNP getting "into power" as it were at Westminster

It is the impending threat of the mother of all protest votes that has Liebour running for cover

What the hell is an "anti-racist"?

1. Originally posted by neoforme


I don't argue whether they need our culture or not, just that much of their poverty (past and present) is routed in their own. And (in a kind of double think) many politically correct people seem to ignore that the continuation of the advantages brought by westernisation is a compensation for the wrongs of the past.

These advantages after all include…
A. Greater security against starvation as has been shown by population growth sustained by Western agriculture techniques.
B. The end of constant tribal wars in order to provide victims for practices such as cannibalism or human sacrifice, or just to compete over perpetually stressed hunting territories.
C. Metal pots and pans seemed to go down well at the time, as today has electricity the motor cars, industry ect.
D. It’s developed-is developing something called “democracy” and “human rights”. I.e. its made enslavement (even by fellow Africans) illegal (as it is in South Africa today, and has brought prisons, courts justice, as opposed to always harsh sentences like the death penalty at the hands of a village meeting.
E. It’s caused a massive increase in life expectancy (except in those areas which remain un-westernised either because of war or corruption).
F. And enabled a consumer based economy.

But regarding you’re question of whether they want or need westernisation; just ask those who will hide for weeks inside cargo containers even from some relatively prosperous African countries.
If you look at e.g. South Africa today you have people living in air conditioned flats, without having to travel for miles to find water, and an economic future of prosperity greater than perhaps any nation except China. It’s obviously a huge improvement from the lives of their ancestors because otherwise you wouldn’t have so many people striving (from the beginning) to ours up.

Personally the only time I readily agree with “self-pity brigades” about Africa’s Westernisation being a bad thing is when they speak of its effects on African warfare, i.e. through intensifying the casualty list.
However its one big disadvantage against many bigger advantages; so don’t believe it overrides the (overall) benefits of Africa’s-Western contact.

After all the truth is that pre-Westernisation much of Africa was at war (probably even more often than today). E.g. the Zulu (Africa largest ethnic group) had a tradition of excluding their teenage males for over a year where they would have to fend for themselves often by stealing-fighting other tribes. Only after a year (when many had obviously died) were the survivors welcomed back and welcomed as men.

It’s also worth pointing out that evil arms sales are usually conducted by either international criminals or rogue nations who violate U.N resolutions, that the U.N is headed by 5 of the worlds most Westernised nations, and that they do lots of good in helping keep opposing sides apart.
I would summarise that the (admittedly) mainly incidental advantages brought by ancestors is itself one form of compensation; but that the modern attitude of realising it’s in our interests that they be successful so that we can trade with them, is an even greater compensation. Somehow (barring something unforeseen and drastic) there is no reason why it will not stretch endlessly into our future.

2. Originally posted by Mintwithahole

Well I'm someone who believes all beliefs are acceptable (presuming all respect democratic convention). Because given that there are intelligent people on all sides of practically any opinion imaginable, a bad arguments will only win, when it’s the opposition who is at fault inadequate (something that can always be corrected).


Well there’s this recent case…
A. www.personneltoday.com...
B. And a number of enquiries: The Scarman Report of 1981 which came out strongly against the police news.bbc.co.uk...
C. Stephen Lawrence Case: en.wikipedia.org...

And no doubt much more if you key in the right words!!!

3. Originally posted by blupblup


That’s not logical. Race organisations make sense for many reasons…
A. It’s politically easy-popular to get the disadvantaged to blame their problems on others (to the point where it’s almost inevitable someone will).
B. It can act as a conspiracy, a form of tribalism or freemanship where membership of the group is itself a benefit because of what the group denies those who aren’t.
C. There are many social benefits, as there are with al, groups.

So even if (hypothetically) we get rid of all white description over night these groups will continue to exist, it’s just not in human nature to do otherwise.

Worryingly since it’s quite obvious (in national statistics) that ethnic minorities are more likely to be economically deprived than non-minority people; one would have thought the first two (very negative reasons) would be particularly potent.
And that’s quite problematic when you realise there are plenty of non-racial reasons for ethnic minorities being more likely to be economically deprived!!!
For example: The absence of family wealth due to being relatively new arrivals to the country, or language-educational problems being extremely new to the country, not to mention cultural problems like denying you’re women the right to work as is the case in fundamentalist Islam, or praying too much (for economic productivity) as is the case with many other religions.


I'm not surprised when (for the like reasons above) such a noticeable amount of crime is disproportionately committed by minorities.

A stranger once said to me “you can always tell when an area is going down hill when ethnic minorities start turning up” it holds true. For one reason the housing is usually cheap (it’s kind of attractive if you’ve only just started of life in this country!!!)


Give me a brake! I don’t (bye the way) subscribe to the view that one race can ever be all this or that. Reality contradicts it, although I do subscribe to the view that there are subtle differences on average (and reality supports that): www.arthurhu.com...
Or just Google: “Racial differences in intelligence”

4. dj howls You’re quite right. If I ever voted for the BNP it would be as tactical vote. Not because I want to be forced to join the army, and fight our evil wars.

5. Originally posted by Irish M1ck

I'm really sorry but I don’t feel like teaching you the English language. Why not ask a year 1 teacher? I'm sure they’ll explain much better than me!

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

When I lived in London (I'm american) it was common knowledge among my friends that immigration was created in order to keep the UK working class weak and underpaid.

Wasn't there a strike by the cleaning women at Westminster in the late 50's?

That is the real motivation of most british nationalists I think. To reclaim the simple order that prevailed before the immigration started.

That is not racist at all. It is the elite who gain by dividing everyone below them and making people fight to survive.

The same thing is happening here( the US) with workers from south of the border.

People have every right to look after their own kind.

Oh My are You an idiot or what .... Europe outlawed slavery way before it was even adopted in the colonies. You people need to get over this crap.. IF anything the only slaves in Britian were white "Indentured Servants".. So take Your hate else where and stop creating the big white bogey man every where You go. As a matter of fact I am tired of always hearing about slavery here and how some people deserve a free lunch because one of their ancestors was a slave. News flash the Romans had slaves and 90% of the were white so does that mean I get a cookie too. You get all upset over slavery in the past but You turn a blind eye to slavery in africa which is doing really well right now. So if You want to bitch well end slavery and get off your rumps and do something about it like in Darfor. Seems like You just want a free cookie to me.

Are you insane? Your little rant has taken my statements and terribly mangled them. I am in no way vilifying whites (to do so would be idiotic, as I am about as white as they come) or suggesting that anyone "deserves a free lunch because one of their ancestors was a slave". And regarding your history of slavery, I suggest you hit the books again--you're woefully incorrect.

I appreciate your creative skewing of my words, but your perception of my opinions is horribly off base. As far as my "turning a blind eye to slavery in africa"--how ****ing presumptuous of you, you little twit! From a paragraph on a website in which I mention nothing about my feelings or actions toward the modern African continent, you assume to know what I am and am not doing to help out? Shame on you.

I realize that feverish work is needed to make the BNP platform seem legitimate, but this isn't the best place to do it. Most of us are quite firmly opposed to the xenophobic, exclusionary rhetoric of the party, and your imbecilic rantings aren't likely to sway many minds. You'll find more success with likeminded fools who'll rabidly embrace the call of "White Power!".

reply to post by Irish M1ck

---

An intelligent human being!

reply to post by Liberal1984

---

Well I'm someone who believes all beliefs are acceptable (presuming all respect democratic convention). Because given that there are intelligent people on all sides of practically any opinion imaginable, a bad arguments will only win, when it’s the opposition who is at fault inadequate (something that can always be corrected)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don't believe all beliefs are acceptable, not even those that respect democratic conventions. When you're wrong you're wrong. Saying that all the despots in the world only managed to inflict pain and death on their victims because the opposition weren't strong enough to stand up to them and stop them is to just talk rot. I understand your argument but I just don't go along with it.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole

Of course, but saying every belief is acceptable isn’t the same as saying every belief is correct. Therefore you’re point isn't directly relevant (if you understand what I say).

And speaking of dictatorship it’s a common feature in every dictator, of every description that has have walked the earth that: they believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, because they believe they are right.

The problem with human intelligence is that two of the worlds most intelligent men can completely disagree over a simple question like: “Is the death penalty for murder (of the first degree) right or wrong?”

Therefore the one thing you and I should know is that no human being ever knows anything.
You can eliminate the possibilities of a simple question like “Am I (right now) in this room or not?” but you can never be certain. Because you could actually be e.g... asleep in you’re bed, sectioned in a lunatic asylum, or in a different area of the building you thought you were in.
Pretending to know something is pure fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is not fit for human beings, it is (if it’s fit for anyone) reserved for the Gods.

So that’s why I hold the view that all beliefs are acceptable, because frankly no one knows anything, yet in democratic debate two brains are better than one, especially when they’re not talking from the same hymen sheet.

Likewise if I'm reincarnated as a black activists I could be horrified at what I’ve believed before, and the same would no doubt be true of you if you ended up a Neo-Nazi.
My point is that it doesn’t take reincarnation to make my point; just the realisation that opposing views can come from equally intelligent brains, almost identical in design, and observing exactly the same physical world.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Firstly, she makes a few good points.

But...

These are issues every party faces, and most parties would agree on the facts of education, social issues and such. That is not what makes the BNP different.

Every party wishes to increase security, improve education and medical care, social responsibility and criminal justice etc... It's a easier said than done. Don't you think that if they could do it and it was as easy as this woman thinks they would have done it all by now?

The BNP is so different because of the severe patriotism (which IS dangerous in every nation on Earth), the blatant racism expressed by many members and leadership, the history of party leaders DENYING THE HOLOCAUST and their desires to move us away from other nations who we rely on for many things.

They are naive, undereducated, xenophobic and dangerous for our country.

But well done on finding one BNP member who can express herself so eloquently. I'm certain that the majority of them cannot.

Support the BNP if you wish. But be aware that this support also entitles you to some of the blame for how that party behaves.
You cannot support "just a few" ideas of a party and deny the rest. If you support the BNP, you accept that their leader denies that the holocaust happened.

And for that reason alone, my view of you as a reasonable and compassionate human is lessened.

As for being denied employment in positions of social responsibility, rightly so!
I wouldn't want my child educated by a miscreant who denies that the Jews were murdered. I wouldn't want a homophobic BNP member policing my gay pride event.

By being a BNP member, you are stamping your seal of approval on their opinions and beliefs, rather than having your own but not feeling obliged to show your support.

That's a pretty bold statement.

What exactly do you base that on?

reply to post by Liberal1984

---

"Likewise if I'm reincarnated as a black activists I could be horrified at what I’ve believed before, and the same would no doubt be true of you if you ended up a Neo-Nazi.
My point is that it doesn’t take reincarnation to make my point; just the realisation that opposing views can come from equally intelligent brains, almost identical in design, and observing exactly the same physical world. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently old Adolf Hitler was a very intelligent man yet his politics and his treatment of the Jews was abhorent. In your argument you would give him the right to peddle his racist ideals and not step in and stop him? I do understand what you're saying but I don't think it's about intelligence more about morality! Many of us, at times, have moments of madness; those times when we entertain certain ideals which we consciously know are wrong and go against all that we usually believe in. In most of us those moments of sheer madness are soon erased by our moral and ethical values for those around us.It seems to me that BNP members don't have that ability to see just how wrong their beliefs are because they dress it up as national pride.