More of their Myths

In I’m a racist no more and Myths of Oppression I wondered just how much of the nonsense written by ‘anti-racist’ academics they themselves believe. Consider these quotes from an essay by Bob Carter, Clive Harris and Shirley Joshi, ‘The 1951-1955 Conservative Government and the Racialization of Black Immigration’ -- is it plausible that they really do not see that their justifications for exonerating Black immigrants of the charges laid against them by certain natives are bogus?

On welfare ‘scrounging’:

The attempt to portray higher levels of black unemployment as evidence of welfare ‘scrounging’ was scotched by the National Assistance Board Working Party representative. She pointed out that though some of the recent Caribbean migrants were , like sixty thousand Irish workers, in receipt of national assistance this was because of their ineligibility for unemployment benefits.

(Got that? ‘Welfare scroungers’ are people who receive welfare benefit x, not welfare benefit y. Really?)

On crime:

The undesirability of black migrants on grounds of a ‘racial’ predisposition to criminality had been a longstanding concern of government departments and Parliament. In the House of Commons in November 1954, secretary of state for the colonies Alex Lennox-Boyd was asked by Sir Jocelyn Lucas ‘what machinery exists to ascertain the proportion of Jamaican immigrants who have police or criminal records’. Hansard is studded with questions of this nature. Likewise in the questionnaire sent to Ministry of Labour regional offices area officers were asked: ‘Can any distinction be drawn between the coloured workers who come here as fare-paying passengers and those who come as stowaways or deserters?’

The general tenor of responses was: Not enough evidence to make a judgement. Behind this question lies a clear assumption that the manner in which the stowaway came to Britain was a confirmation of a criminal proclivity. No attention was given to the way in which increasingly stringent administrative measures introduced by Labour and Conservative governments criminalized the stowaway.

(Brilliant. Quite apart from denying the validity both of concern about the criminal record of immigrants and the notion that Blacks are predisposed to high crime levels, they would have us believe that a demonstrated willingness to resort to crime is not a reliable indicator of ‘criminal proclivity’).

The essay ‘The 1951-1955 Conservative Government and the Racialization of Black Immigration’ appears in Winston James and Clive Harris (eds), Inside Babylon: The Caribbean Diaspora in Britain (London: Verso, 1993). The title of that book - ‘Inside Babylon’ - again calls attention to the way we are asked to believe something transparently absurd, that Britain is both a place of hostility and oppression for Caribbean Blacks, yet also a place they voluntarily came and come to.

Gabbing about the BNP

At Vdare Sean Gabb posted a libertarian defence of the BNP’s right to be White.

On Monday, August 24th 2009, the British Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) began legal proceedings against the British National Party (BNP). Its cause of action is that the BNP restricts membership to white people…

This is a politically-motivated prosecution. The BNP has long upset the people who now rule Britain. Its denunciations of mass-immigration and of multiculturalism disrupt what would otherwise be an almost smooth wall of praise—or at least of caution—by the other parties.

Despite universal condemnation in the media, the BNP has made considerable gains during the past few years in local elections, and managed to win two seats in June this year to the European Parliament. It may win a seat in the British Parliament at the next general election. Stopping the BNP is high on the agenda of the powers that be.

All well and good, and support from all quarters is welcome, but I take issue with some of Dr Gabb’s subsequent comments:

This being said, shutting down a political party simply because it dissents from the established multicultural faith is not something that is yet done in Britain. It is too openly an attack on freedom of speech… [The] authorities are frightened to make a direct attack on freedom of speech. Instead, they are relying on laws that abolish freedom of association.

Doesn’t this imply, contrary to Dr Gabb’s claim, that ‘freedom of speech’ is not so fundamental an issue as freedom of association? Good luck winning your right to free-speech from a hostile state if it only permits you to act individually.

There are no white equivalents of Operation Black Vote or other ethnic advocacy groups.

This should be fleshed out a bit, it is the very reason for this attack on the BNP: the regime cannot allow a collective public voice to Whites as a whole or the native Britons specifically because our settled opinion is “No more race-replacement please!” How would the regime respond to such a demand on our behalf from the BNP? “But your race-replacement is necessary because ...” -- Because what? The BNP must be silenced because the establishment cannot justify its programs the BNP opposes.

The next Conservative Government will fail to reverse the disasters that Labour has brought on the country. This is because the Conservatives do not even intend to try for a counter-revolution. When the failure has become manifest, people will turn to the only alternative party that has forthrightly denounced the Labour revolution and has an existing electoral base. This will be the BNP... I fear that the BNP will, by default, become the only viable champion of counter-revolution… I can easily imagine how the BNP might replace the useless Conservatives as main opponents to what has been done to this country.

Become? Replace? The BNP already IS the only viable champion of counter-revolution. So why doesn’t Dr Gabb get behind them now? He explains:

The problem is that the BNP and much of its leading personnel used to be national socialists. There are too many published statements in praise of Hitler or denouncing the Jews...

Of course, people change their opinions over time. Middle-aged men are not necessarily to be judged on what they said or wrote in their late teens. That excuse has been made and accepted for the Ministers in the Labour Government. Many of these in their younger days were Trotskyite street bullies. Peter Mandelson, who is effectively deputy Prime Minister, joined the Young Communist League three years after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and used to sell the Communist Morning Star. John Reid, who was a Home Secretary in the Blair Government, was a member of the Communist Party in his late twenties, and was noted for his admiration of Josef Stalin...

A man can deny the Soviet holocaust—or even admit that it happened but try to justify it—and remain in good standing with the media and educational Establishments. The slightest whisper of approval for the lesser horrors of National Socialism, and a man is tainted for life… I can also imagine how the movement then led by the BNP might be smeared and discredited out of existence.

This is an absurd excuse for not backing the BNP. Dr Gabb is way too savvy to think it makes sense. The double standard does not enforce itself for its own ends. It is a tool of human agents pursuing their own ends thereby. Enoch Powell could not credibly be labelled a Nazi or former Nazi but after the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech his career was smeared and discredited out of existence. Dr Gabb is right that for many people this strategy puts nationalism beyond the pale, but our response should not be to wait until the regime stops doing it -- it won’t -- the answer is to defy their smears and threats and get wholeheartedly behind the most prominent public champions of counter-revolution: the BNP.

Freedom come / Freedom go

In Gang-Raping Liberian Arraigned in Arizona Courtroom, Brenda Walker questions the compatibility of Liberians with America:

In addition, the refugees’ home cultures may be incompatible with our values; for example, Liberia made rape illegal only three years ago and the crime is still endemic there. Of all the people we could invite into the national community, surely Liberians would fall at the bottom of the list of desirables.

True enough, but I would also have thought that life in America is incompatible with fundamental Liberian values, isn’t that why Liberia exists?.

The same thoughts occurred when I saw Rastafarian Benjamin Zephaniah interrogating the BNP’s Rev. Robert West and Andrew Brons on ‘The Big Questions’ a couple of months ago - what is this guy even doing in Britain? Quite apart from the general problem I have with people like him living in my country, how does a Rastafarian square his religion with his presence here? My Hutchinson Encyclopaedia defines Rastafarianism as being

based on the ideas of Marcus Garvey who preached that the only way for black people to escape their poverty and oppression was to return to Africa. (my emphasis)

It seems odd that no matter how racist, exploitative, and oppressive we are these people just won’t leave.

I’m a racist no more...

From the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World, Eds. Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember and Ian Skoggard (Springer, New York and HRAF, Yale, 2005):

[South Asian Diaspora, p.293]

The South Asian population is clustered in pockets and sharply segmented along religious and ethnic lines in London, southeast England, and the West Midlands in a region known as the ‘Asian corridor.’ Thus, Wembley has a greater concentration of Gujarati Hindus, while Southall is largely Sikh. Bradford and Birmingham are known for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim concentrations. Entire Sikh and Gujarati villages are imported into England replete with local politics. South Asians in Britain resist cultural homogenization and even maintain caste affiliations through their marriage traditions. Religion is the central organizing force for many British South Asians, with mosques, gurdwaras (Sikh places of worship), and temples functioning not only as centers of social life, but also of political protest. This adherence to religious and cultural identity and homeland politics has been a double-edged sword, keeping South Asians ghettoized on one hand, but also helping them cope with the stresses of living in a racist, European-dominated society. Racism is a daily reality in Britain, reinforced and institutionalized by entrenched patterns of residential accommodation and employment practices.

****

We nationalists often gripe about being called ‘racists’ - here’s the answer. Ditch the ‘racism’ and follow the example of the gentle Asian colonists: self-segregation on ethnic lines; active resistance to cultural homogenisation; adherence to religious and cultural identity; and top it all off with a bit of homeland politics. Easy!

They are bright people who write and edit encyclopaedias for prestigious academic publishers, normally anyway, so how did the writer of this entry and his editor fail to see the inconsistency? How do so many intelligent people fail to see so many inconsistencies?

Still, nice to have an authoritative source for the claim that whole villages from South Asia have been ‘imported’ into Britain. I’ve seen that called ‘paranoid fantasy’ before.

Oh, boy, is the Devil in the Detail...

Methodists banned from joining BNP

Revd Sylvester Deigh, who proposed the Notice of Motion, said; “We must be clear that racism is a denial of the gospel. An openness to all people, regardless of nationality, is at the heart of Methodist identity.”

The principle of open-ness cannot be at the heart of identity, because open-ness unavoidably replaces the characteristics which supplied identity in the first place with random characteristics from outside, and because it’s a principle goes on doing this eternally. Methodists would be suicidal to impose this nihilistic anti-morality on themselves, the attempt to impose it on ethnic groups - which ultimately this amounts to - is genocidal.

There is a picture of the Revd. Deigh at Sarah’s.

The Devil is in the Detail

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says that loyalty to our propositional state over terrorists and wartime enemies is required of all. He forgets that Gordon Brown has identified political freedom as the most important element in the proposition. When political freedom is an essential part of the proposition loyalty is not owed to a propositional state. A state which cannot reasonably demand its citizens side with it against enemies will not long survive as enemies multiply like rabbits within and without.

They need us to be bad...

Anti-nationalists need to believe we’re bad to justify their hatred of us.

In response to ‘Jew with a View’ - a redundancy there? - and her urging that the ‘mainstream,’ i.e. anti-British, parties should ‘act now on immigration’ to ensure the BNP (‘vile wannabe Hitlers’) don’t get into power and act on their ‘desperate’ desire to ‘cleanse Britain’ of ‘Jews and Asians and Muslims and Black people,’ I wrote:

The main reason people vote for the BNP is the belief that the native Britons have the right to control our own country. The ‘mainstream’ parties you would have us vote for all agree on the rights of non-European peoples to enjoy this advantage, and you will be aware that they are most vocal about this right when discussing your people and its state, the much promoted ‘right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state’. And the BNP agrees with ’em.

The difference between the BNP and the others is over the right of Euros to control our homelands, this means the BNP is exceptional because it is not anti-White, not because of its views about non-Whites.

Oh, and far from being anti-Semitic as you imply, the BNP agrees that Jews are entitled to their own country and so may reasonably pursue immigration policies which discriminate against all other peoples including the English, Welsh and Scots, but insists that the English, Welsh and Scots in our countries should not discriminate against Jews for the same purposes. This is a minor double standard telling in favour of Jews, thus making the BNP just a tad anti-British in relation to one particular people.


The comment stood for a short while at her blog before ‘Tabatha’ found my plea that she allow us something close to equality - not even equality! - too much ‘hate’ to handle and deleted it.

Kenya for the Kenyans!

In July 1923, the British government issued a White Paper stating that

Primarily Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty’s Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if and when these interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail. As in the Uganda Protectorate, so in the Kenya Colony, the principle of Trusteeship for the Natives, no less than in the Mandated Territory of Tanganyika, is unassailable.

Indians in Kenya Memorandum (HMSO, London, 1923), p. 6.