January 13, 2007


The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia. We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe. The migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations.

This is the most appalling mission statement I’ve ever read. And it’s not even the message I’m concerned about (at least not now).

our homeland for millennia
In the first sentence, the BNP refers to its members having had a homeland for millennia. In my mind, millennia implies at least 2000 years, so a BNP member would have some Celtic or possibly Roman blood through his or her veins.

The second sentence is spent denying everything that is stated in the first. Since no one can actually claim to descend from the Romans or the Celts, they thought it easier to go back only a few centuries and set the bar at those who fought in the Wars of the Roses. Those were the true Brits!

closely related kindred peoples
Now what does this actually mean? Isn’t kindred the same as related? Or are they talking about inbreeding here?

The issue

Maybe not the issue, but my issue with current day right wing politics and its focus on immigrants is: lucky you. Lucky you for being born in this country that lets you speak your mind. Lucky you that your ancestors were on the right side of the border when some kings and noblemen drew lines on maps. Or that they were in a position where they were allowed to enter this country. Lucky you.

My issue is that migration is natural. As the BNP even recognizes in its mission statement, it is what made Britain great. Then why do they fail to realize its importance? What is it that makes them say: “Thanks for your help, but we’re a thriving nation now, we can do without you”?

With this in mind, the South East could follow the Californian dream and draw another line on the map and close its border for the rest of what’s left of so-called Britain. I’m sure it’s possibly to describe the “people of South East England” in a BNP-like manner, thus justifying such a break up. “You all have got silly accents anyway. But please save us some water in the summer!

I’m not British enough to make this entry really work, but the migration issue stands. Who decided who lives where? Do the people define the country, or does the country define the people? Thank goodness for Britain your right wingers lack the charismatic leaders found on the continent. And they lack the common sense to write a proper mission statement. Let’s hope it stays that way!

- 65 comments by 3 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. JTS

    What’s appalling about it? Aren’t white people allowed to be racially conscious and concerned for their future, like other races are?

    The BNP are referring to white, northern Europeans when they talk about their indigenous people. The small numbers of other whites that have entered Britain over the centuries were ethnically closely related. Loosely speaking, British is white, northern European with British ancestry.

    >>My issue is that migration is natural. As the BNP even recognizes in its mission statement, it is what made Britain great. Then why do they fail to realize its importance? What is it that makes them say: “Thanks for your help, but we’re a thriving nation now, we can do without you”?<<

    Post-war immigration levels are way too high, and the immigrant composition is very different to previous waves of immigration. Recent immigration is pushing native whites from their cities and towns, forming ethnic ghettos and creating new social tensions. Native white communities have been wrecked, while Britain’s biggest cities face imminent white minority status. Comparing massive, current non-white immigration with earlier immigration is utterly ridiculous. It’s like comparing internal native-American migrations with the arrival of Columbus and pretending there’s no difference.

    No-one really believes that third-world immigration is beneficial. If it was, the Left would demand that all asylum seekers be redirected to the poorer nations of the world.

    And so what if Britain refuses more immigrants now that they are a “thriving nation”? Aren’t they allowed to act in their own best interests? And because immigration may have been beneficial in the past, it doesn’t mean it always will be. Japan has propsered without mass immigration. Current immigration into the West seems to be for the sole purpose of diluting whites and cheap labour.

    By the way, I don’t blame any immigrant for trying their luck and looking for a better life. I would do the same. I DO blame well-paid, white politicians for not putting their own people first.

    13 Jan 2007, 05:56

  2. From what I’ve seen and heard the BNP do distinguish in their negative way amongst whites, being a Catholic, or gay, or even female will get you bad points from some. Of course they are curently more obsessed with non-whites but if they ever got rid of those then there would be a neat shift to going after the rights of these groups, I’m sure. Also the fact is that many non-white immigrants are genuinely fleeing from desperate poverty or oppression whereas none of the white immigrants who come here (at least half a million Irish, probably not many fewer Antipodeans, plenty of Americans, Scandanavians, etc) are not fleeing anything more than not being able to get the job they really wanted or wanting to come to a new country, in other words the dreaded economic migrants. Yes, some will have skills which we have a shortage in, but this is also the case with non-white immigrants.

    The idea of white people, or indeed anyone, being racially conscious is absurd. We are all the same race. We can all interbreed, all have children with anyone of any colour, size or shape. If we are talking cultural consciousness then as a historian I can assure you the British culture is both perenially shifting and incredibly static at the same time. Lots of it is built on previous migration. Your point about the country being full would preclude the continuation of the past (and thus change British culture quite considerably) but it overlooks some things – the surprisingly large amount of emigration from this country and western birthrates falling the world over. The only reason we are not in the same panic as Spain, Italy and, yes, Japan* about aging populations and no one to do the work unless immigrants keep coming is that the immigrants are doing just that. And believe me, those countries are not happy about their demographic crash. Of course I bet the BNP’s solution would be to try and get white to breed more, whether they want to or not, which is not at all reminiscent of other fascist parties of the past [/sarcasm].

    The answer is, and has always been, to help people at home first. But seeing as the west doesn’t really want to help most people in the third world, it looks like we have to cope with the problems on our doorstep as they are. Unfettered immigration is not ideal, but dealing with it in racial terms will not create a sensible and helpful debate, nor a stable country. Thus whilst I am all in favour of a debate on immigration, I think uninformed voices with uterior motives like the BNP should really keep out unless they are more open about their racist tendencies (which people would then rightfully turn their noses at anyway).

    *Which in any case does have large numbers of Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Brazilian immigrants who have come across more and more recently, especially during Japan’s 1990s boom time. Also Japan’s cultural purity has been challenged by historians recently despite members of the conservative factions in the country trying to hide it. It is not the homogenuous island everyone thinks it is.

    13 Jan 2007, 10:59

  3. JTS

    “From what I’ve seen and heard the BNP do distinguish in their negative way amongst whites, being a Catholic, or gay, or even female will get you bad points from some.”

    Completely untrue. Sounds like you’ve been reading Searchlight propaganda or some grubby UAF clone (BBC and Guardian included). Show me where the BNP have said this.

    “Also the fact is that many non-white immigrants are genuinely fleeing from desperate poverty or oppression.”

    Britain and the West cannot take these massive numbers. There are a billion Indians fleeing poverty and >one billion Chinese fleeing oppression. Can we take even a fraction of these? Tell me, if your life was really in immediate danger, would you wait until you had the cash to reach GB or the next safest country instead? Britain’s government has an obligation to it’s own people first. We can help the third world other ways.

    “The idea of white people, or indeed anyone, being racially conscious is absurd. We are all the same race.”

    So other native peoples are absurd for being racially conscious? Does that go for Native Americans and Australian Aborigines? African Americans? Inuuit? We are NOT all the same race. Organ transplants are matched with like ethnic groups and police can narrow DNA to ethnic groups. People within ethnic groups are more closely related than those that aren’t, which is why they generally gravitate towards their own kind. You’re getting ‘race’ mixed up with ‘species’. Rottweillers and poodles are all dogs and can interbreed – are they the same?

    “the surprisingly large amount of emigration from this country”
    Many of them are fleeing the results of third-world immigration – this is how ghettos form.

    Falling birthrates cannot be propped up by importing immigrants (it doesn’t even work long term). It will be catastrophic for Britain’s whites if they allow themselves to be outnumbered. People are not just another commoditiy like coal or steel, to be imported to make up a shortfall. Japan has recently recorded a rise in birthrate, and their immigrants are ethnically similar to themselves. Their Brazillian immigrants were descendents of Japanese emmigrants. Britain’s immigrants suffer very high unemployment levels already – why aren’t THEY doing the jobs?

    “and believe me, those countries are not happy about their demographic crash.”
    Believe me – they’ll be a lot less happy when they’re a minority. When was the last race riot in Japan? Take a look at the Britain’s white minority areas – would you live there? Why aren’t whites moving to non-white areas? The west can work through their demographic problems in time without mass immigration. You don’t commit national suicide for short-term gain.

    “Of course I bet the BNP’s solution would be to try and get white to breed more, whether they want to or not, which is not at all reminiscent of other fascist parties of the past [/sarcasm].”
    Now, explain carefully why the BNP is fascist. Nick Griffin was recently on trial for comments made at a private meeting. BNP members are not allowed to join the police. Trevor Phillips now wants them banned from the public service altogther. That’s under a ‘mainstream’ government’. Your comment about forced breeding is baseless, hysterical rubbish.

    “dealing with it in racial terms will not create a sensible and helpful debate, nor a stable country.”
    How on earth would you know this? Tell me, when was the last time you witnessed a debate on race? Why does the CRE bother to exist if race is not important? Are France and Holland stable as a result of their past colourblind immigration policies? Dealing with race is ESSENTIAL to start to build a stable country. Stable countries are built on commonality – not ‘diversity’.

    13 Jan 2007, 15:58

  4. Chris May


    There are a billion Indians fleeing poverty and one billion Chinese fleeing oppression. Can we take even a fraction of these?

    The population of india is only 1.1 billion. I hardly think they’re all “fleeing”. And what “fraction” are we talking about, anyway? I’m pretty sure a hundred-millionth wouldn’t make too much difference one way or another…

    When was the last race riot in Japan?

    Ten seconds with google revealed that there was one in Tokyo in September 2005. Probably there have been more since.

    With rhetoric like yours, I don’t think the far right are going to make too much of an impact on the UK political scene for a while…

    13 Jan 2007, 17:06

  5. Where to start…

    Homophobia is too easy and long running a target to attack the BNP on. Whilst I’m sure you’ll merely denouce all I say as UAF propaganda, the most recent case I can think of is the abuse levelled at Greg Barker, the Bexhill MP, but there are a wash of other cases.

    With regard to absorbing massive numbers, do you know where the majority of those fleeing poverty go? Clue: it’s not here. Pakistan has the largest refugee community in the world and there are other countries who take more then we do. Most of the poorest cannot flee further than a few miles, so to suggest all the “billion” fleeing India or China (which is a accusation anyway as those countries don’t have high emigration levels) will end up here is not a legitimate complaint. Did these nations pop into your head because there are already Indians and Chinese here, and if so, why is this a problem? Racism?

    So other native peoples are absurd for being racially conscious?

    To a degree yes. We have different cultures but race is a political tool, not a biological one. It has been shown often enough in the past by scientists that you can have more genetic variation between people of the same colour (which is how we so tenuously divide the races) than two people of different colours.

    You’re speaking for yourself (and tellingly so) when you so say that people gravitate to others based on them being of the same race. Personally I gravitate to people with similar interests, compatible personalities and suchlike. Race is irrelevant.

    Many of them are fleeing the results of third-world immigration – this is how ghettos form.

    I’ve written about the jawdropping hypocrisy of such people before. How they can flee foreigners coming and forming ghettos by going abroad and forming ghettos themselves smacks me of a total lack of awareness. Most are fleeing to America (melting pot of many nations), Australia (ditto), and southern Spain (where there’s long been a powerful Arab influence and there is currently high third world immigration).

    It will be catastrophic for Britain’s whites if they allow themselves to be outnumbered.

    Why? Speaking as someone with whiter skin than 99% of most other ‘white’ people, what makes us (me) so damn wonderful?

    Japan has recently recorded a rise in birthrate

    Japan recorded its first drop in population last year. It was in the paper today.

    Britain’s immigrants suffer very high unemployment levels already – why aren’t THEY doing the jobs?

    Apart from the illegal workers (who are a problem as they are being exploited and are allowing unscrupulous employers to bypass laws like the minimum wage) most asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work. On the other hand I know a lot of immigrants who do have jobs. Guess it depends on how we’re defining them.

    Take a look at the Britain’s white minority areas – would you live there? Why aren’t whites moving to non-white areas?

    Because those that exist are economic black spots caused by a variety of social factors. The dissolution of these areas should be a priority. Whites aren’t moving there because of economic factors, not for racial reasons. I’d be happy to live in places like Rusholme and the like where it’s economically better off and there happen to be lots of non-whites.

    13 Jan 2007, 18:59

  6. How on earth would you know this?

    Because I’m white and the child of immigrants. Because my family know what it is like to see national newspapers (Mail, Express) printing article upon article railing against them, calling for their return to their country of origin, calling them economic drains and criticising their ghettos. I’ve had relatives watched in case they were terrorists (despite being anti-those terrorists). I’ve seen the racial abuse people like my family were subjected to in the past, the hatred poured on their religion which scared the hell out of the British. And I’ve not experienced it myself. Why? Because people accept things. People come to change their views when forced to live with someone they thought was different who turns out not to be. Because those who fear the “other” found things which were more foreign and decided to hate them instead. We’ve “flooded” into “your” country for so long that second generation children of these immigrants number in the millions. But no one cares.

    Stable countries are built on commonality – not ‘diversity’.


    Our problems are deprivation and poverty, not race. I can take you hundreds of places where white youths cause havoc for the want of something to do.

    13 Jan 2007, 18:59

  7. And just another comment on Japan, you might say a lot of their immigrants are racially similar but there are those in Japan (a diminishing number, like racism here over the last century) who would dispute this and claim that Koreans and Chinese are ethnically very different and inferior. Does this sound absurd to you? It sounds a lot like the talk of racists here to me.

    13 Jan 2007, 19:02

  8. Loosely speaking, British is white, northern European with British ancestry.

    That is, white, and one of your ancestors must have lived in Britain some time before WWII. By referring to northern European you are already ignoring the Spanish, French, and Portuguese, who are genetically closer related to the English than any Scandinavian people (see here) and have a look at the map).

    Post-war immigration levels are way too high

    Too high in relation to what? Is this in absolute figures or relatively speaking?

    ...the immigrant composition is very different to previous waves of immigration

    Different in which perspective? Ethnicity or reason for migration?

    13 Jan 2007, 20:38

  9. Some countries in which per capita net immigration is lower then Britain’s level http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate:
    Italy, Austria, Belgium, Spain, France (less then a third of the British level), Pakistan.

    13 Jan 2007, 21:55

  10. Listen to Holly, she is the voice of reason. Can we please, just get everyone together in one place and have a lovely party. I’ll bring snacks.

    14 Jan 2007, 00:47

  11. I thought I’d read up on extreme right parties in the Netherlands. Though I only spent 2 minutes on it… The most extreme right-wing party in parliament is the PVV (Partij Voor de Vrijheid, “Freedom Party”) and owes its fortune to a surprisingly charismatic leader, and the general extremist tendencies in the country (the left-extremist Socialist Party being the other winners in the November 2006 elections). Its most discriminating suggestion is to allow immigration, but only to citizens from westernized countries.

    More interestingly, we’ve had two extreme parties in the 1980s-90s in parliament, which dwindled into in existence due to the better economy (less unemployment, so less people blaming minorities for stealing their jobs – I actually saw a great SouthPark episode on this, but I digress). Both parties – CP’86, (“Centrum Party”) and CD (“Central Democrats”) – had members prosecuted by the Dutch courts, after being accused of racism, or xenophobia. The CP’86 were even ordered to dissolve and were marked as a criminal organisation. In the Netherlands, the government is not allowed to accept discriminating policies. Moreover, public laws state it is a crime to insult people by discrimination, or to incite hatred towards minorities of any kind, or to participate in rallies where discrimination is advocated, or to support these rallies financially. Penalties are imprisonment of up to a year or two or a severe fine. I’m not sure how strict these laws have been upheld with the rise of subtle and not so subtle islamophobia.

    Anyway – this comment was inspired by Mat’s entry where he mentions we live “in a society where everyone’s view can be heard and publicised”, and I was wondering if this is actually true.

    14 Jan 2007, 01:35

  12. great SouthPark episode

    they terk err jerrbbs!

    14 Jan 2007, 02:05

  13. Some countries in which per capita net immigration is lower then Britain’s level
    Italy, Austria, Belgium, Spain, France (less then a third of the British level), Pakistan.

    Sean, what were you trying to say with this statement? I’m unclear. If you were trying to show that the UK is being “swamped” by high per-capita immigration, you didn’t read your source very well and have disproved your point. The UK is country number 91 in that list (out of 170); countries with a significantly or far higher immigration rate than Britain’s include:

    Liberia, Canada, Ireland, Azerbaijan, Mexico, Australia, Bulgaria, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, USA.

    USA is the lowest on the list out of that little selection, 20 places above the UK (so still outside the top 70) and has 46% more immigrants per capita than Britain.

    14 Jan 2007, 09:15

  14. Racial purity being the road to peace? Ask any Ulsterman – clearly the Protestants & Catholics are different races! Consider any civil war.

    The 1914-18 Great War was termed the European civil war by Indian nationalists.

    Race is like superstition. Once people stop believing in it, it has no effect on anyone.

    14 Jan 2007, 12:30

  15. Simon,

    Holly said earlier ‘With regard to absorbing massive numbers, do you know where the majority of those fleeing poverty go? Clue: it’s not here. Pakistan has the largest refugee community in the world and there are other countries who take more then we do.’ I was motivated into posting the post to clear up the Pakistan point. Plus I put the other countries in just because a lot of people (including myself a few months ago) normally get quite surprised when they realise how many more immigrants we take in then some other European countries.

    Plus your American counter-argument isn’t particularly strong as they are currently being swamped. Take California. Currently 50% of their population is white, and 35% Hispanic. By 2040 it’s predicted [by the US department of health and human services http://www.hrsa.gov/reimbursement/bridging-cultures/figure2.htm ] that the figures will be 32% white and 50% Hispanic. Plus you need to remember that America (like Ireland, Australia and Canada) all have loads of land to take in immigrants, the current housing crisis in England seems to suggest that we don’t.

    14 Jan 2007, 14:19

  16. Mathew Mannion

    Currently 50% of their population is white, and 35% Hispanic. By 2040 it’s predicted [by the US department of health and human services http://www.hrsa.gov/reimbursement/bridging-cultures/figure2.htm ] that the figures will be 32% white and 50% Hispanic.

    Excuse me for a bout of unmitigated rage, but SO THE FUCK WHAT!?

    14 Jan 2007, 14:41

  17. Excused Mr. Mannion, for now.

    On the website: I accept the need for statistics, but this seems the most obscure list I have encountered. The explanation doesn’t make sense, and it isn’t immediately clear whether countries provide similar data. Basically, I don’t believe any of it ;-)

    On the US percentages: Again, I haven’t read the whole thing, but isn’t part of this change due to different reproduction rates between ethnic groups and emigration of white people? Also, [fallacy] in line with the BNP argument [controversy] it only seems a just development, seeing that most of Californian towns have Spanish names reminiscent of its history as (part of) a Spanish colony [/fallacy] [/controversy].

    I’ve just found out (again, I apologize, through Wikipedia) that the Anglo-Saxon swamping of Britain in the Dark Ages has been hugely overestimated. Instead, it is thought that the indigenous population of about 3 million was joined by a mere 10-20 thousand continentals. Its their cultural and political influence that dominated and still lives on, blurring people’s ideas of what “English” really is.

    My apologies for scattered argumentation.

    14 Jan 2007, 16:23

  18. It’s true, most English people are more genetically Celtic than anything else (insofar as the Celts were the people who happened to live in England at the time rather than a genetically distinctive race, I’m guessing this is a debate in which precise semantics are important).

    14 Jan 2007, 17:02

  19. After doing a bit more research I realised that I had a totally wrong impression of the history of California and I mistook the possible importance of differences in birth rates for explaining the population changes. Thanks Thorweld for elaborating more on both these points.

    Matthew. You are not excused. No one has a right to act like a tyrannical bully just because in their heads they think that they have truth/justice/God on their side.

    14 Jan 2007, 17:17

  20. Mathew Mannion

    I apologise if you feel I acted like a tyrannical bully, that certainly was not my intention – I just got a little worked up at your point as (in my mind) it is completely irrelevant

    14 Jan 2007, 18:06

  21. To say a country or state is being “swamped” is a strong claim, Sean, and certainly not one which has any logical link with the racial make-up of an area. Even if that growth had come mainly from short-term migration rather than a difference in birth rate, so what? Most of those Hispanic families have jobs and pay taxes – the only proof of “swamping” is if the infrastructure of the area is completely incapable of coping with the extra demand with the extra income received. Stating a ratio of ethnicities does not attempt to prove that, but merely implies that a higher ratio of non-whites is a bad thing. Hence Mat’s anger.

    You can prove almost anything with statistics. Pakistan has lower net per-capita immigration than the UK… so what? It doesn’t disprove Holly’s statement that Pakistan has the largest refugee community in the world, and I doubt said refugees spread themselves evenly across the country, which a per-capita measurement disregards. And again: Britain takes in more immigrants per capita than some European countries; so what? It is a more prosperous nation than – I would guess – all five European countries you nominated above, and other European nations (Greece, Denmark, Holland, Ireland, etc.) take in more than Britain, per capita.

    The “housing crisis” in England is not so much to do with bloody foreigners taking all our jobs and houses as traditionally London-centric governmental policies and development efforts, combined with buy-to-let being such a huge investment market for those who can afford to buy in to it.

    14 Jan 2007, 18:52

  22. Bit of a cheek those English speaking Americans complaining about Spanish speakers going to places with names like San Francisco, Los Angles, El Paso etc.

    Also many English speaking Americans don’t have very white skins. Those with a bit of slave blood in them for example.

    Don’t many of the Spanish speaking people in the Americas have more “blood from the indigenous population” than the Englsih speakers?

    14 Jan 2007, 19:48

  23. Mathew Mannion

    I know this is a weird point – because of the immigration in 50s – 70s but Birmingham will be a city with whites as a minority in about 5-10 years.

    Actually, I don’t think this is true, just FUD. According to Wikipedia, Birmingham’s demographics are as follows:

    70.4% White
    2.9% Mixed
    19.5% S.Asian
    6.1% Black
    0.5% Chinese
    0.6% Other

    (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham)

    My home city, Leicester, has a lower percentage of white people than Birmingham by some margin:

    63.9% White
    29.9% S.Asian
    3.1% Afro-Carib
    2.3% Mixed
    0.8% Chinese.

    (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester)

    With the levels of immigration that we have at the moment, I think it would take a very, very long time before white people became a minority in either Birmingham or Leicester. What is a shame about Leicester more than anything else is the segregation between the white and South Asian populations in the city – they don’t live together at all really :( Traditionally, that would conjure up images of lower-class ghettos for the immigrant population, but, in Leicester at least, that isn’t the case in my experience.

    It should be noted that Birmingham has a population of over 1 million, whilst Leicester’s is just over a quarter of that.

    15 Jan 2007, 14:51

  24. According to wiki:

    Warwickshire: 95.6% “White” 2.8% S.Asian
    Coventry 78.0% “White” 11.3% S.Asian 7.8% Afro-Carib.

    Rural, suburban & small town areas are “whiter” than cities

    But ethnicity isn’t the problem, it’s making a big thing about it that is.

    At most ethnicity is about people comming from different countries. What’s that compared to gender:
    “Men are from Mars and women from Venus”
    according to the title of a best-selling book a few years back

    15 Jan 2007, 17:57

  25. I like these stats… Ireland has higher immigration per capita than lots of countries, Ireland has one of the highest GPD per capita in the world. Ireland – beacon of wonderfulness! Dublin is now one of the most multicultural cities going, and the house prices have gone through the roof (hence my aunt selling up and moving to Spain with wads of cash in lovely profit). Oh Danny boy…

    I also liked the idea of a billion Indians fleeing India, leaving just about a million left in one of the largest countries in the world. As soon as they’re all done fleeing, I’m buying up some land!

    22 Jan 2007, 13:50

  26. John Russell

    Huge topic.A million facets to it.But if we start with a widely shared value-democracy,there was never a democratic mandate from the British people for the policy of immigration to which they have been subjected.And there still has not been an open debate,and a referendum.The people were simply ignored.
    Things like this don’t happen by accident.It’s like the war on Iraq,enforced for reasons of power politics.By all means trot out that it’s for the benefit of the people of Iraq.But sooner or later,you’ll wake up to the fact that you’ve been mugged off.And the innocents suffer.Compile your own records of whites murdered,mugged,raped,or hit and run by immigrants.You won’t hear a fraction as much about them as you hear about Stephen Lawrence of course;but this is no surprise given our political/media establisment’s obsession with ‘fighting racism’.Their deaths will not attract senior politicians queueing up to condemn those reponsible;there will be no memorial or recreation centre built at public expense,and no anniverary lecture.The number of these crimes massively exceed those against immigrants by the host population,despite the sizes of the two populations-don’t believe me,and don’t believe the establishment-compile your own data.
    When the chance has come I’ve often asked people whose
    generation fought the Second World War,would they have done so if they’d known that the immigration was to follow.
    I’ve yet to meet one who said ‘yes’.Try it.But reassure them that you won’t chant ‘Racist’ at them,that you want to know their real feelings.So if you say you love all this immigrationface up to the fact that it was based on a non democratically supported, imposed policy.
    On a definition of terms to define the extent to which the country’s population has or has not been altered by immigration,I find it strange that anyone can object to the term ‘swamped’,when your capital city is 50-60% immigrant,or of immigrant stock.By all means approve of this situation;but you’ve been swamped buddy.Or if this makes you feel uneasy,try ‘Invaded’.It has been widely accepted that Blair and Bush invaded Iraq with 250,000 troops.That places beyond debate that Uk with its uncounted millions of immigrants,has been invaded.
    The degree to which many people have been propagandised on this issue can be seen by their unwillingness to actually debate it-”no platform” is the rant.
    We’re so obviously right and morally superior to any opponents of immigration,that we must not give them the credibility of reasoned debate.Well,some of you are in for a huge shock over the next 5 years,because there are many who are getting off their knees,and determined to take their country back.But unlike you we can tolerate differing opinions.

    13 Mar 2007, 23:04

  27. I find it strange that anyone can object to the term ‘swamped’,when your capital city is 50-60% immigrant,or of immigrant stock.

    Yeah and Hitler always hated Berlin for being too cosmopolitan

    14 Mar 2007, 11:18

  28. I’ve often asked people whose generation fought the Second World War,would they have done so if they’d known that the immigration was to follow.

    So fighting nice Mr. Hitler was a bad mistake?

    14 Mar 2007, 11:21

  29. I find it strange that anyone can object to the term ‘swamped’,when your capital city is 50-60% immigrant,or of immigrant stock.

    Since this was aimed at me, I feel obliged to reply. I’d first point out that you should look up the meaning of the term – it’s synonymous with overwhelmed, i.e. (as I said earlier) “the only proof of “swamping” is if the infrastructure of the area is completely incapable of coping with the extra demand [despite] the extra income received”. To continue quoting myself, from the same paragraph, “Stating a ratio of ethnicities does not attempt to prove [that an area is being overwhelmed], but merely implies that a higher ratio of non-whites is a bad thing”.

    It’s also worth noting that it’s probably something more like 95% of London’s population which is “immigrant or of immigrant stock”. Population flow has been going on forever, limited chiefly by transportation’s technology and availability. Hence it was the Romans that people were complaining about 1,950 years ago, Vikings a few hundred years later, the Irish in the 1800s, Caribbean ethnicities in the 1950s, etc., etc.

    But unlike you we can tolerate differing opinions.

    ...as long as they are voiced by people with white skin and British grandparents, I presume? Your polar division of people into “whites” and “immigrants”, and mention of people being “of immigrant stock”, suggests you’ve got a very limited definition of “British” which goes far beyond your suggested aim of protecting the comforts afforded to British citizens over accommodation made for those who come to Britain. You mention Steven Lawrence as an example of the media pandering to immigrant causes, but Lawrence was British.

    You are also extremely broad with your definition of “immigrant”. You draw no distinction between second-generation Indian doctors serving the NHS, fourth-generation black Britons on council estates playing happily alongside white kids, Eastern Europeans who have recently come over to work and contribute to the British economy, African nationals who have fled here in the face of political persecution, the Bulgarian/Russian/Italian mafia (safe to say these are not a majority of all those you consider “immigrants”), ...

    there was never a democratic mandate from the British people for the policy of immigration to which they have been subjected.And there still has not been an open debate,and a referendum.

    There are hundreds of aspects of daily life which have never been subject to a referendum, which does not mean they do not enjoy democratic support. Like all active democratic nations I can think of, Britain is a representative democracy, not a fully participatory one (thank goodness). Successive goverments of all parties since the war (and before) have been elected by the public to govern the country, and as part of this role have acted as stewards over the flux of immigrants and emigrants. In many cases, such as in the 1950s in the West Indies and nowadays in a variety of countries, governments have actively recruited to increase the workforce – the NHS being a prime beneficiary in both cases.

    14 Mar 2007, 13:52

  30. Well,some of you are in for a huge shock over the next 5 years,because there are many who are getting off their knees,and determined to take their country back.But unlike you we can tolerate differing opinions.

    Well make sure you give me a little warning when you rise up, take your country back and throw those nasty immigrants out. By your definitions I seem to count as an immigrant so would appreciate a little time to collect my things before my eviction from the country I was born in, grew up in, and have a lot of affection for. At least you’ll have some respect for my opinions as I get chucked out. Please don’t let the whiteness of my skin (which I can almost guarantee will be whiter than yours) put you off, though I fear it might.


    14 Mar 2007, 18:16

  31. john russell

    To George Riches .Thanx for your response.Unfortunately I feel that it’s an indicator of the propaganda to which you and I
    have been subjected,that when one of your own countrymen offers the opinion that ,in the 21 st century,he’d like the opportunity to vote against more of the mass immigration that has been forced on him,you immediately reach for the bogeyman figure that’s been erected for just such a use as this.Let’s not evaluate the feelings of these many people,who in the face of abuse and criminalisation,are making themselves heard.Let’s go with guilt by association;it’s so much easier.
    “Nice Mr.Hitler?”-Your words George.I never mentioned him.
    I did mention World War 2,where Britain declared war on Germany,not the other way round as is usally implied in the media.There were alternative foreign policies propounded at the time,aimed at retaining Britain’s strength,and keeping Germany as a buffer against the threat from Soviet Russia.But the war was fought,it destroyed Germany,impoverished Britain and much of the rest of europe,and our country lived for the next 45 years under Russian nuclear threat.It can be difficult to consider situations like this when we know the eventual outcome,but
    as with Iraq,the power elite beats the drum for war,and anyone trying to look at past events and find Britain’s best way through the situation, such as the 2 million on the Peace March are ignored and marginalised.And,as I said, many around today who fought in the war,feel they were fooled,as do the many squaddies returning from Iraq and going AWOL.
    I do respect your view George and feel sure that it’s as sincerely held as my own .All I want is the right to think and vote outside the envelope of the 3 main parties’ closed shop,since I consider their policies to be disasterous.

    20 Mar 2007, 22:11

  32. john russell

    Simon Young and Holly Cruise.Glad you came back at me.
    Can I try to answer the points you raise,just asap ? But must say Holly I think you did me an injustice ,implying that I’d seek to ‘throw those nasty immigrants out.’Your words not mine. I do want full on debate,and the right to vote outside the constraints of the 3 main parties.And I’d cheerfully empty Britain’s prisons of every immigrant criminal back to their country of of origin.But then would want the country to find a way forward,based on better thinking than unending mass immigration ,and demonisation of anyone who objects.

    20 Mar 2007, 22:34

  33. Re comment 31. Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939. The UK stated that if Germany wasn’t prepared to withdraw, it would declare war. Hitler would not agree to a retreat, so war was declared.

    Why is it so easy to connect the current BNP with its past, with the Empire Loyalists and the British Union of Fascists?

    Is there a single leading member of the BNP who doesn’t trot out the line that all Hitler wanted to do was smash Stalin? Which begs the question of what Hitler, had he carved out an empire in Eastern Europe, would have done to the Slavic peoples?

    21 Mar 2007, 15:27

  34. john russell

    Re-comment 33.
    Christ enough with the Hitler obsession already. I’m concerned about my rights, and what’s being done to my country’s democratic traditions now, rather than some Hitler-centric embargo on what people think is or isn’t appropriate. However, Hitler didn’t invade Poland. Germany did. Nor was it the Nazis. That would
    be like saying that New Labour invaded Iraq.The question
    is, why did Britain deliver its ultimatum to Germany and why did it subsequently declare war? It had no significant interests there, and no land forces with which to influence events there,as the events of the next 3 years made clear. I’d suggest that a questioning rather than an accusative stance might take us closer to answers;eg.rather than spend time worrying about how closely one can place ’ leading BNP
    members ’ to Hitler (presumably after you’ve asked them yet another of your H-related questions) we could ask who did have interests in pre-war Poland that might have needed defending?This might take us nearer to an understanding of Britain’s involvement.
    Rather than speculate on “H’s” plans ‘for the slavic peoples’ when he’d “carved out an empire in (1940’s) eastern europe ”,which to be honest, at this remove, I couldn’t give a toss about,would it be worth asking ourselves if we’ve taken the trouble to get a balanced historical view of the period that you reference, to counteract the Spieleberg school of history that we’re all bombarded with day in ,year out?
    But more importantly for me, why is it that Britain has been subjected to mass-immigration without the consent of its people, something you appear to justify in some peculiar way by making reference to the events of the World War 2 period.

    24 Mar 2007, 15:17

  35. You were the one who bought up the 2nd World War not anyone else. See comment 26

    See also this

    As for voting – who voted for the destruction of British manufacturing? These things happen due to people acting in their own interest under the law.

    The BNP would like to change the laws to bring in some sort of apartheid, with people having few rights or even fewer rights according to their skin colour.

    24 Mar 2007, 19:01

  36. why is it that Britain has been subjected to mass-immigration without the consent of its people

    Who are the British people? Most of the descendents of the original Britons now live in Ireland (you can tell them from their pale skins, pale eyes and black or ginger hair) or are intermarried with the immgrants. Like the Romans. The Vikings. The Angles and Saxons. And that’s just before 800AD. Should I and my family have the ultimate say in who gets let in as, historically speaking, we were here first? Britain is, and always has been, an island of immigrants, immigration and emigration.

    When we ask the British citizens who they want in the country are we going to consult the 10% of British citizens who don’t even live here? We’re as prone to emigration as most countries, perhaps more so than a lot considering our weather. A sensible debate on how many people an island can support is not an unreasonable request. But Japan packs many many times more people into a smaller area (much of that country is mountainous and unihabitable) and the debate here seems to be so often couched in racial terms which are not acceptable for the majority of people who can see that skin colour and cultural differences are relative, and so often a hell of a lot less than the bigoted minority would like people to think.

    25 Mar 2007, 23:12

  37. John Russell

    Simon Young.Re-Comment 29.
    it’s you who needs to look up the word ‘swamped’.I used the term in normal English useage.What you put forward from your racially adjusted manual was a didactic statement of what is permissable,by those accepting of said manual.By all means though, do keep quoting yourself if it makes you feel good, but I wouldn’t expect it to carry much weight with people in the ballot box as they realise they have a choice.But it does mean that, if you’re thrown from a moving train, by ” local youngsters”,as happened to a white man recently (funny that we haven’t heard any more about that case isn’t it?) you’ll be able to tell them that you’re an anti-racism warrior, and that at no time have you felt swamped.
    You say that 95% of London’s population is immigrant.Quite. We weren’t consulted then, and we’re not now. I feel that we should be; you feel that we shouldn’t.And thanks for teasing out for the rest of us that “population flow has been going on forever”-now who’d have thought it aye? Yes,and whenever population has flowed it has been for the benefit of those doing the flowing, whether it’s been the British going to India or the Indians going to Britain;like Ghandi, I’d like a say.
    On Stephen Lawrence; to me he was an afro who happened to be born here. I imagine he’d have called himself black.I refer to people as being immigrants when they are immigrants in any meaningful sense. If i’d happened to be born in China, I wouldn’t have been Chinese and I
    don’t imagine many sensible Chinese would have wasted time telling each other that I was. You then lapse into value-loaded claptrap eg.”second generation Indian doctors serving the NHS.” Assuming you watch the news media at all, you’ll have seen the hundreds of cases where Asian doctors have sexually assaulted their patients. Re-”black Britons playing happily with white kids ”
    if you look at school exclusions,drug dealing, knife/gun-crime, muggings, the racial mix in the prison systems, or riots in Tottenham, Liverpool, Birmingham,and you’ll get a factual picture.Your views on east europeans coming here are very touching, but unlikely to be shared by the British girl drugged and gang raped by 6 poles two weeks ago.
    There are as you point out “hundreds of aspects of everyday life, which have not been subject to a referendum”.Who suggested that there weren’t? But big decisions like the admission of millions of aliens to the country, are cases where a debate and referendum would be appropriate.
    I’m amused by your repectful attitude to the successive Governments “of all parties” (no choice for you plebs) and your disrespectful attitude towards your fellow citizens, who aren’t to be allowed a direct say in their government “thank goodness,”
    but should be happy to cast a non-secret ballot,in an election where they have no choice,since all the parties are in a pact, and where the Government will be elected without even a simple majority of the electorate;and where the parties are all corrupt as well as bankrupt. In fact, if they were not political parties, and therefore in charge, with the approval of people like you, they’d have been wound up and the party leaders disbarred from acting as company directors. And why are they all skint? Because they have no popular support. Their memberships have collapsed. And this is what you defend ? Fortunately, the voters who you despise, and in particular their forefathers, were better men than you,and knew that they’d get what they fought for. Which is why you have a vote at all, and why you’re enjoying the education that you are. Whatever happened to the rebellious,questioning undergraduate?
    We’ll have to differ on this Simon. I’d suggest that you print off some of you posts. And look at them again in 5 years .I think you’ll be embarrassed, and agree with me than you were worked one.Anyway, I wish you the best.

    26 Mar 2007, 23:43

  38. John Russell

    George Riches.Re-Comment 35.
    Yes, I mentioned the war in the context of the debate on the BNP, because it is widely regarded as having being fought to prevent Britain being invaded, the point being that if you got back from the war to find your country being invaded by a much bigger force than the germans could have sent,you may well have felt that you’d been mugged over.And as I said, I’ve met a number of WW2 veterans who feel that way.
    You, on the other hand, refer to Hitler as your touchstone,in your efforts to smear the BNP eg.if Hitler felt that there were more immigrants in his capital city than he felt was acceptable, anyone with the same concern must be demonstrably wicked.
    Re-Point on decline of British manufacturing, to be honest this is so far off the subject, and your point so unclear,that I don’t feel I need to answer in detail,but there are certainly
    parallels with today’s short-termist management, lack of training and investment, willingness to despise your home workforce, while continuing to screw the home market in the spivvy economy we see today.
    And anyway,you leave points you can’t answer just hanging,so why should I bother detailing this when I need a large Scotch?
    Your last point about the ” BNP’s policy,” is I’m afraid, total fiction, put about by those interests who don’t think you and I should have a say on Britain’s immigration policy;and of course all this claptrap is paid for by you and I. My experience of the BNP, of which I am not a member, but which I would expect to support at May Local Elections, is that it’s made up of people just like you and I,who have realised that they have been pressured into a counter intuitive oposition on immigration, which they do not believe to be in their interests.I hope we can keep battering at each other on this from time to time.

    27 Mar 2007, 00:21

  39. In comment 36 I said:

    the debate here seems to be so often couched in racial terms

    Comment 37 beautifully illustrated exactly what I meant. I have not read such a pile of shortsighted racist rubbish in a while. People are people and sometimes do bad things no matter what their colour or origin. You can cherrypick all the cases of non-’Brits’ committing crimes you want, what of all the white crimes? You only see these cases you cite because you want to see them and want to find evidence of non-whites being evil but in this you overlook the crimes of the whites. I’m as horrified as anyone that six Polish men raped a girl, but are you as outraged as me at the rape and murder of a Polish girl in Scotland, for which a native Scot is on trial? And as for “hundreds of cases where Asian doctors have sexually assaulted their patients” well where’s the evidence? I really think the papers might have noticed hundreds of such cases, rather than the handful (and indeed all the times white doctors have done such things). They certainly noticed when a doctor killed a couple of hundred of his elderly patients… but hang on, you can’t think about him because he was white!

    It’s too easy to pick out the racism in what you say, and thus is impossible to take what you say seriously. Like with the soldiers of WWII, whom you idolise. They were brave men who fought in far off places to help the people there, not just to protect Britain (which a little WWII history would show you could have lived peacefully and without invasion had it given into the Nazi ideology, so it was never about defence against invasion, more about defence against Nazism and its racism). I know this because my grandfather, a prisoner of war for four years, told me so. He was shot and saw a ridiculous amount of horror, but fought bravely and was lucky not to be killed by his captors, such was the disruption and multiple escapes he was involved in when he was a prisoner.

    But you’d struggle to reconcile his bravery with his origins. Like so many British soldiers and heroes, he too is an immigrant. Guess things ain’t as black and white as some people would wish.

    27 Mar 2007, 12:21

  40. Re comment 35.

    the (2nd World) war [..] is widely regarded as having being fought to prevent Britain being invaded, the point being that if you got back from the war to find your country being invaded by a much bigger force than the germans could have sent,you may well have felt that you’d been mugged over.

    It’s very telling that you think current situation in this country is somehow worse than what would have happened if Hitler and his British friends had taken over in 1940.

    As soon as Hitler took control in Germany, long before any wartime emergency, there were massive restrictions on individual rights.

    Anyone making jokes about the Great Leader or suggesting that he was mistaken would be arrested by the secret police. Anyone organising opposition would be sent to a concentration camp. In the early years, people sometimes left those camps alive.

    By the late 1930’s race laws had been brought in. Any “Aryan” woman convicted of having sex with a Jewish man would be imprisoned, while the Jew would be executed. German Jews were banned from driving and had to wear identification marks on their clothing.

    Compare that to Britain today. What have the English to complain about? Small grocery shops owned by Indians? Taxis driven by Moslems? Polish plumbers under cutting lazy, incompetent & over-priced English ones?

    27 Mar 2007, 12:56

  41. That should have been “Re comment 38” not “Re comment 35”

    27 Mar 2007, 13:01

  42. John, this may sound like a trite argumentative device, but I genuinely feel a bit sorry for you. It’s sad that you feel afraid if you find yourself in a train carriage with a group of black lads; that you fear for your sister/girlfriend/daughter when you hear a male voice speaking a in foreign language; and that you’re worried if you have to take your mother to a doctor who happens to have been born in another part of the world.

    What a depressing way to live your life.

    If you’re talking about being “worked one” by a media conspiracy, I suggest it is you who should change the balance of the media you choose to take at face value.

    On Stephen Lawrence… I imagine he’d have called himself black.

    I imagine he would, given he was black… and I never said he wasn’t. I said he was British. I call myself white (I am) and I call myself British (I am; well, depending how far back up the family tree you go). Neither statement implies or precludes the other.

    27 Mar 2007, 14:14

  43. John Russell

    Holly Cruise.Re-comment 39.
    I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to reply to your points.
    Short-sighted? Short-sighted is blindly accepting the establishment’s guff of an immigration-policy consisting of the abandonment of our borders, and watching like idiots as successive waves of mass immigration flood into our land,
    and imagining that this is somehow good and enlightened. It isn’t. And with your consent or without it, it will be aband-
    oned.It has already been abandoned, as has debate, by the
    7/7 bombers on the one hand, and the Notting Hill bomber on the other. But never mind; you go on putting your ‘racist’ label on things. It’s so much easier than thinking more deeply about difficult issues isn’t it. I mean, the Blair govt. wouldn’t mislead you would they?
    Factually, you are completely wrong in your ‘What about all the white crimes?’ arguement. Crimes committed by the immigrant and immigrant stock sections of the population far outweigh those of the host population, quite apart from the
    comparative population sizes. This is something that I’ve done a lot of work on, and there’s no reason why you should have this sort of data to hand as I have; but if you take a good look at the racial balance of a prison scene next time you see one on the news, you won’t be far wrong, although I realise you’ll have a million reasons, relating to instsitutional racism etc.,to excuse their ‘falling foul of the
    criminal justice system.’ But as I see it, you’ve been propagandised to switch back to auto-pilot when faced with unpalletable facts. And you do it perfectly. So by all means go ahead and duck the issue by chanting the party line on why these poor victims have ‘done bad things’ as you put it,
    because as you say, ‘people are people’. But do the debate a favour would you, and don’t deny that they actually do them.
    On the poles raping or being murdered here, it’s your policy that puts them here, not mine;you’re responsible,not me.
    On asian doctors, you ask ‘Where is the evidence?’ I research all my own stuff, and I have the evidence to support all my claims. Turning to your assertion that the papers certainly noticed when a ‘white’ doctor murdered
    ‘a couple of hundred of his patients’, sadly you are completely wrong. Doctor Harold Shipman was Jewish. It’s very difficult to get at this information, but to the best of my knowledge, none of his victims was Jewish. Did you read that in the papers? Did anyone suggest that there might have been a racial element to this massive crime? Did the political/media establishment which doesn’t let a day go by without condemning ‘anti-Semitism’, think to advise you that
    this might be a dreadful example of ‘anti-Gentilism?’
    I have no feelings towards WW2 soldiers, far from idolising them. I consider most people in the forces, now or then,
    to be fairly ignorant, and misled by politicians with a power-
    political agenda. I would certainly respect your grandfather’s
    enormous courage, Holly; but don’t feel the need to reconcile that with anything. I’m more interested in working
    for today’s soldiers to be safely at home with their families, protecting our borders, rather than killing innocent foreigners in their own countries, and making enemies for our children.

    02 Apr 2007, 22:57

  44. John Russell

    Simon Young.Re Comment 42.
    Thanks for your concern, when you say you feel sorry for me.
    I’m not being sarcastic. I take it as I’m sure it was meant.But
    I can assure you, your concern is misplaced. I’m more than comfortably off, have a lovely wife and family, and far from ‘feeling scared’ in the situations you mention, I can promise you that I have put my mark on anyone who has ever offered me violence, and have no criminal record. But I am scared for my country in the general sense, and in the more specific way for the guy thrown from the train, and for the old lady left isolated in her own home area, which has now been taken over by immigrants. And I think you should be too, rather than be persuaded by the establishment to fret about people who, quite naturally, couldn’t give a cuss whether you live or die, whatever the bullshit.
    The red-herring about definitions/tracing back racial origins I leave to the propaganda peddlers. Both you and I, and the immigrants know who the immigrants are, so you pretend you don’t if you like; but don’t expect it to interest anybody else.

    02 Apr 2007, 23:20

  45. John Russell

    George Riches.Re-Comment 40.
    Hitler again!!!!Again, not my problem;you be as obsessed as you wish; I’m pushing for an open debate on the millions flooding into my country against my wishes, and will not be deflected from this by a pro-establishment Hitler scam to shoo us away from the subject.
    So any idea that I favour the idea that ‘Hitler and his British friends’ having taken over in 1939, is your own invention. What I do know is that more could have been done to find ways of keeping Britain out of the war, and the promotion of British interests could have been more to the fore. Instead of which, as now with Sadam and the Iranian leader, a bogeyman style of analysis is applied, to infuriate the mug in the street, and the British squaddie piles in again, to kill and be killed, to wreck our economy, create more problems for the future, and see the country invaded by other aliens;but no-one’s allowed to so much as mention this. And through it all, the humble soldier doing the fighting wouldn’t know the names of one of the power brokers pulling the strings, and is kept in ignorance as to the real power-political agenda.
    And I consider your closing comments about English plumbers to be racist. Do brace yourself for the changing political climate old chap. The Hitler rant is a busted flush.Bet you enjoyed that poll they did in Germany a couple of years ago on who was the most popular-ever German. They had to exclude Hitler because preliminary reseach suggested he’d win.

    02 Apr 2007, 23:53

  46. And I consider your closing comments about English plumbers to be racist.

    That’s only because John Russell thinks a insult to one Englishman is an insult to all, that somehow a person’s nationality is more important than anything else. That a plumber’s skill is all about their nationality and not about how they wield a spanner.

    Germany in the Nazi time is only the most notorious example of BNP type racial policies in action. In the early 1990’s there was Yugoslavia which lead to the inclusion of a new phrase in the English language “ethnic cleansing”. Then there was Rwanda where 800,000 were killed in three months

    04 Apr 2007, 10:04

  47. John Russell

    George Riches.Re-Comment 46.
    Actually, dear boy, I was being ironic. Do you see me resorting to allegations of racism? I’ll leave that to you. And you did so,using the negative racial stereotypes you accuse others of.I feel that Polish plumbers should generally plumb in Poland, and Brits in Britain.Everyone is happier, migration should be on a small, human scale, as through marriage;not as a racket for criminals, nodded through by you and your ilke, but subject to the democratic control you’re so disapproving of.British people should go on holiday to Spain if Spain is happy to have them, spend their money and bugger off home again; the idea of dodgie Brits buying up all the best cliff-top locations in Spain must be abhorent to any Spanish person worth the name. This doesn’t make them “racist”,whatever that is.
    Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia and the rest were the result of large scale immigration/invasion against the wishes of the host population, who were told by the power elite,that everything was fine. People like you were stupid enough to swallow this. In the end, of course, this nonsense was rejected, sadly in those cases,by violent means. It has taken 600 years for the Scottish people to be able to reassert their sovereignty, and I hope that they continue to do so over the next 10 years. The world will not end and the sky will not fall, if Scotland separates from England. Similarly, if the remaining parts of UK develop new looser relationships to allow for resurgent Welsh and Irish identities, it can be nothing but good for all concerned, especially if England can be rid of the many foreign criminals which it currently harbours, starting with Blair and Brown.

    04 Apr 2007, 11:47

  48. As an ethnic cockney living in Coventry, I’d better watch out.

    06 Apr 2007, 10:32

  49. John Russell

    George Riches.Re-Comment 48.

    Nice one George. Hope you have a good Easter Holiday.

    06 Apr 2007, 15:09

  50. I just can’t be bothered with arguing here anymore. Sure, you’ll crow you’ve won and all that but I truly believe you are a racist whose logic is twisted by a form of ‘Englishness’ which I don’t recognise in the English people I know, who views all non-WASPs to be a form of evil which I cannot find in any of the non-WASPs I have met. There’s no arguing with you as you will only find spurious ‘facts’ (Shipman’s religion, an unproven claim of yours and a tiny minority of others) and use racial factors to explain things which have other, more logical reasonings (poor people go to jail, for a massive number of historical reasons this includes a lot of non-WASPs).

    Feel free to sit there dreaming of a race war. It won’t happen. The British are a lot nicer than you seem to think.

    06 Apr 2007, 21:02

  51. John Russell

    I’m not surprised you can’t be bothered to argue Holly because,with respect I don’t think that you know much about the subject. You’re just imprinted with the stock attitudes. And you think anyone who thinks outside that tosh isn’t “nice”.A nice fashionable little set of postings where everyone agrees-fine.Someone doesn’t accept the conventional view,and we’ll revert to personal abuse.Seems a bit of a cop out.
    You raise the issue of a murdering doctor by giving him a ‘white’ designation, and when you’re informed that he was of an ethnic minority, you imply that I’m making it up, rather than checking it out, and acknowledging that Shipman was evidence for my arguement, not as you said, yours.
    Actually its me who’s trying to prevent racial conflict, by acknowledging that many people want representatives to voice their concerns on immigration, not sit and pretend that everyone’s happy with this mess.I think you’ll find that lots of your ‘nicer’ people will be quietly voting BNP over the next 10 years.Anyway, good luck in what you’re doing Holly

    07 Apr 2007, 17:46

  52. Racism would be a big joke if it didn’t lead to such horrific results.

    07 Apr 2007, 18:09

  53. Where’s the evidence that Shipman was Jewish?
    Wiki writes…
    “The only person I’m aware of who has raised Shipman’s alleged Jewish background is Abu Hamza al-Masri who, during his 2004 trial for incitement to murder, claimed in court that the British Foreign Office, money supply, and media are controlled by Jews, offering by way of evidence that Harold Shipman’s Jewish background had been suppressed by journalists.”

    07 Apr 2007, 18:14

  54. John Russell

    George Riches. Re-Comments 52 and 53.

    Where’s the evidence that ‘Racism would be a big joke if it didn’t lead to such horrific results’ George? I learned that Shipman was Jewish from an article in a Jewish publication which I read shortly after his conviction. I still have it, if you’d like to see it. I was unaware of the court claims that you’ve come across. I don’t use Wikipedia, and don’t know how reliable it is. I’d point out that Holly made reference to Shipman, and I clarified the facts of the situation, as I understand them. There are certainly loads of excellent Jewish doctors, including my own, and Shipman was a horrible abhoration,who could have come out of any community. Without having any data, I form the impression that most serial killers and paedophiles are white. I have no objection to anyone discussing this, yet the assertion that most muggers are black, draws flak. So what exactly are you saying? Are you disputing that Shipman was Jewish? Or are you conceeding that there would be significance, if he was? And looking to your own source, if we establish that he was Jewish, would we then agree that this has been surpressed by the media. Or if he wasn’t, wouldn’t this have been established in court, since I assume Hamza was using this as an example of Jewish influence on the press? You say that Hamza alleged Jewish influence on British foreign policy.The issue isn’t even in doubt, but is never discussed, and the voter in the street is left in the dark as usual. Do you query that the Foreign Secretary at time of the first war on Iraq was Rifkind;that this time it was Straw; that Blair’s Foreign policy adviser was Manning, now replaced by Scheinwald; that ‘our’
    ambassador to USA was Meyer(now replaced by Manning) and that the Attorney General who decided it was legal to attack Iraq was Goldsmith, with Blair’s personal envoy to Mid East (and Fundraiser) being Levy. Do you recall the media discussing that these people have may have a loyalty to a country other than Britain? The last Head of BBC was Dyke who was replaced by Grade, now at head of ITV; replaced at BBC by Sir Michael Lyons. The other 2 candidates I heard talked up for that post were Liz Forgan and Lord Puttnam. I’ m listening to ‘Start The Week’ at the moment;the guests were Norman Lebrecht,Reith lecturer Sachs and Gary Kasparov and Barbara Erinreich. When I watch Newsnight, I’ll see Paxman hand over to Grossman or Urban!!! Does anyone express concern over this racial imbalance? Has this been ‘surpressed by journalists?’ Is our media so selective and biased in what it tells us, that we’ve come to rely on an extremist islamic hater’s court reports to tell us what the press should be telling us?

    09 Apr 2007, 22:49

  55. There’s plenty of evidence that these racial theories are a big joke. And plenty of evidence that they lead to great suffering.
    Your list of “jewish” media people is a joke. E.g.
    Jeremy Paxman got his surname from his 14th-century ancestor, a Suffolk politician, Roger Packsman, who changed his name to Paxman (“man of peace”) to impress the electorate.

    Should Nick Griffin change his name to Manny Goldstien to show the changed nature of the BNP?

    10 Apr 2007, 09:48

  56. John Russell

    George Riches.Re-Comment 55.

    I find it disappointing that you keep shifting your ground. You answer or ignore points as it suits you, and raise some other issue in a vaguely accusative way, which I pay the debate the courtesy of answering, only to see you disappearing off in the direction of another point, or labelling something I’ve said, in an unfair and intellectually inappropriate way.
    For example, you refer to ‘these racial theories’ as if i’ve propounded one such, when as you know, I haven’t. What I have done is mention, in response to an allegation made by an ethnic who shouldn’t even be in my country IMO, raised by you, that there is disproportionate Jewish influence at the highest levels in UK, in every important area. You’re obviously aware of this; hence you try to divert attention from debating the point, by one of your little labels ie.’a joke’. The joke is that ‘the list’ as you refer to it, is so extensive, and so well known in influential circles, and so worthy of debate in any democracy, and yet is hushed up, and abuse is heaped on the head of anyone who raises it. As I’ve said, if whites tend to be the worst sort of murderers in our society, it merits analysis.Similarly, I feel that if the corridors of power, close to this country’s decision to wage war on Iraq, just to take one example, are populated with people with a loyalty to a state neighbouring that country, voters should be informed enough to be able to discuss this. You oppose this. Fine. Similarly, you oppose the voter having a choice about immigration into his country, Fine; let’s see what happens over the next 5 years. Incidently George, I think I’m right in saying that several Jewish people have chosen to join the BNP. If this is the case, I’d imagine that they are happy with the racial mix in Britain, and don’t wish to see this massively altered, and are happy with the place that Jews occupy in Britain. I would welcome this, but would have to check this out,because I’m not sure of my facts.

    10 Apr 2007, 13:36

  57. The notion that a Jewish race exists is a racial theory, as is the notion of an ethnic. In English ethnic is an adjective not a noun.

    The BNP proposes “firm but voluntary incentives” to remove non-Whites from the UK, advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to “Indigenous Caucasians.”
    Which is wierd as there are very few people in the UK from the Caucasus. Although the BNP does admit to having someone with an Armenian grandfather and Armenia is in the Caucasus.

    Do you support forcible repatriation?

    10 Apr 2007, 18:28

  58. John Russell

    I’m not responsible for what you do or don’t wish to pretend to understand. By all means worry about whether you’re happy with the normal English useage of terms. And by all means believe that we’re not going to discuss the running of our country until you’re happy with the definitions involved.
    I’m asserting the right of the BNP and others to debate immigration and to have a real choice at the ballot box. And to jolt people like you who live in your bubble where no one challenges your purile multi-cultural clap trap, that millions reject the dictation of the establishment, and that this is going to become apparent over the next 10 years. So do enjoy watching your shitty little political model go down the toilet won’t you, with all the cosy assumptions you’ve always been able to make, about your position in it. As strange as it may seem to you, I don’t care to bandy words with you about the details of future BNP policy developments. But I think you can rest assured that they won’t be to your taste.

    10 Apr 2007, 19:20

  59. Ah so forcible repatriation is a future BNP policy development.

    Not to my taste nor to 99.9% of the British people’s tastes either.

    10 Apr 2007, 20:03

  60. John Russell

    George Riches. Re-Comment 59.

    You’re such an idiot it’s not even funny. You asked what policy I supported re-repatriation. I couldn’t be bothered to run through it, because I’d already outlined it in an earlier post which you’re obviously incapable of retaining.However,for the record,I favour returning foreign criminals to their country of origin;but would make all other immigrants welcome. You then confuse your (incorrect) guess as to my favoured policy with your(pointless, hostile and irrelevent) guess at future policy of a party which you know sod all about. But I have enjoyed watching you shift your ground from total denial about the party to discussion of it’s policies.
    And the oracle, the teeming mind of George Riches, claims that one tenth of one percent of the British people approve of the BNP! Quite how that squares with the facts, I’m not sure, since 900,000 voted BNP at the last election, despite all the abuse and obstruction, the trumped up court cases, the Government attempting to thwart voters by introducing postal only votes-guess where?-Yep! just in the areas where the BNP had previously done well or were predicted to do well.(Hail hail democracy) And despite the widespread electoral fraud perpetrated by asian groups, some aimed at the BNP and some at other parties. And despite the NUJ’s anti-BNP censorship policy;and despite the fact that it was only possible to vote BNP in a small section of the country. How does it square with the BNP’s site getting more hits than the 3 old parties put together; our being supported by this tiny number must be why we’re growing and solvent when the big 3 are all hopelessly in debt and are faced with collapsing memberships. We’ll see in May how accurate your assessment is;and so on for the next 10 years, until people all over the country can vote BNP if they wish to do so, against a rational news reportage.

    11 Apr 2007, 14:19

  61. You wrote

    (I) would make all other immigrants welcome.

    How does that square with the 2005 BNP manifesto

    We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land’s population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home.

    How “voluntary” would those incentives be given that the BNP would legalise racial discrimination?

    11 Apr 2007, 16:08

  62. John Russell

    George Riches.Re-Comment 61.

    I’ve had the courtesy to answer enough of your stupid questions.You must answer why you’re not a democrat and why British people should forgo their right to freedom of speech, because a moron like you has bought into some punk-philosophical concept you call ‘Racism’. You obviously know that you’re on a loser. Naturally you fail to address your totally false assessment of BNP support,along with the many other issues you’ve been totally wrong about.Enjoy watching your political judgement shown to be shite over the next 10 years.

    11 Apr 2007, 19:09

  63. I suppose I will have to answer the question myself

    I think the BNP wants to abolish laws against racial discrimination in order to encourage racism. That is to get people to identify with things called “races” and fight against other people, those believed to belong to other “races”. This will lead, the BNP hopes, to ethnic cleansing scenes such as those seen in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the early 1990’s. To name but two examples out of many the world over.

    John Russell seems to be “not the sharpest pencil in the pack”. Another Teppichfresser. He doesn’t realise that I’m only continuing this to demonstrate to anyone who happens to stumble onto this blog what the BNP is all about. Condemed by their own words.

    11 Apr 2007, 19:53

  64. john russell

    Course you are moron. There you were, having your little rhetorical conversations with like minded people, and now you’re discussing your analysis of BNP policies, which is as inaccurate as your assessment of the party’s support, a handy reference point for anyone wanting to assess our relative capacities.(Hello, I’m George Riches, and I can’t add up.) I look forward to keeping you pouring out your out of date, propaganda-derived political tosh in the future, as you’re overtaken by events, and look just as stupid as you are.

    12 Apr 2007, 13:34

  65. John Russell

    To George Riches. Re comment 63.

    So much for you ‘continuing this’ debate, chicken shit. Since you struggle so lamentably with your adding and taking away, thought you might like a recent local by-election result from the midlands, where you said you lived.Nuneaton & Bedworth (Feb result)-Labour 658
    -BNP 546 (31.2%)
    -Cons 301
    -Lib Dems 119
    -Eng Dems 75
    -Save Our NHS 43
    -UKIP 8

    -Turnout 36%.

    Not very close to George Riches statement that BNP support stands at 0.5%.Finger well on the pulse there bozo.
    Try meeting people outside your immediate circle. Every day there are more of us, who oppose immigration and reject the name-calling/bogey-man political anaysis pumped out by the political/media establishment, and less of you people who have yakked up this up. Actually, it sounds a bit like this blog.Once your cosy little consensus is challenged, it collapses.

    18 Apr 2007, 13:26

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • Nice banner meht! by on this entry
  • Now if only they could convict the show's directors for that annoying countdown and excessive editin… by on this entry
  • Whatever by Sue on this entry
  • i have to say your are handsome!!even if i dont know you your pics are catchy and full of questions … by sab on this entry
  • 1. Fact: I used to work as a security guard in the National Portrait Gallery in Wales. I loved it, s… by Hayley on this entry
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder