Indiscernible Immigration

By DeusExMacintosh


British National Party (BNP) chairman Nick Griffin has defended a party leaflet which says that black Britons and Asian Britons “do not exist”.

The BNP’s “Language and Concepts Discipline Manual” says the term used should be “racial foreigners”.

In a BBC interview, Mr Griffin said to call such people British was a sort of “bloodless genocide” because it denied indigenous people their own identity.

Mr Griffin is standing in the European Parliament elections in June…

The manual describes the BNP’s “ultimate aim” as the “lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK”.

BBC News


  1. Posey
    Posted May 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    ‘To fly about this obscure world of anguish, this black world of pain!. For me there will always be the struggle to escape the darkness. I reached for …. I wanted with wild, wild abandon, with a surging, defiant, emboldened desire. I wanted the extreme – the exultation, the passion and the moment, the fire, the light. I reached for …. In hope. Hope. Everlasting hope.”


  2. Posey
    Posted May 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Actually, it was the last para of “Presumed Innocent” by seriously hunky lawyer-writer Scott Turow though it could just as well been an uttering of the equally magnetic ventriloquist, Milan Kundera.

  3. Posey
    Posted May 8, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    LE, I’ve read that all of Turow’s subsequent novels are very good but not quite the masterpiece that was this one, his first.

    Legal eagles, criminal prosecutors rave about its accuracy. I read it once ages ago and remember it vividly and know its final para off by heart.

    I love the fact that a male lawyer could write that flawed character, that unreliable witness so viscerally, convincingly, empathetically, in the first person.

  4. Posted May 8, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Fascism isn’t over. It’s waiting in the wings. It is and will be an extension of neoliberalism or its equivalent.

    I’ve always felt that the panic over the ‘far-right’ is overstated by the left. It’s what ended a brief fling I had with the Greens in the UK (their national policies were sensible but on the ground they turned out to be all ex-socialist alliance types).

    To my mind there will ALWAYS be activity at both extremes of the political spectrum (sorry, I’ve always thought the right-wing-bad, left-wing-good is a crock) but like any population distribution, numbers at the extremes tend to be very small and their influence proportional.

    On the rare occasions they manage to pinpoint a grass-roots issue that might boost their following, their political teeth are inevitably pulled by mainstream parties eventually appropriating their policy (as Howard’s Liberals did with One Nation).

    Our society has ample protection for personal liberty already entrenched in law so it would require an electoral tsunami to sweep an extremist party into office with enough power to change this (which is why I don’t expect that “black flag of Islam” to be flying over Downing Street anytime soon). Historically this only tends to happen when mainstream politics has been fatally compromised by gross economic incompetence or institutionalised corruption.

    Actively banning parties at the extreme, as is still done in Germany for example, undermines any claim to democratic credentials.

  5. klaus k
    Posted May 8, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    I think Posey’s point was that there is the potential for something like fascism sitting right in the centre of the political spectrum, out in the open as it were. For mine, I think the ‘f’ word may be misleading in discussions like this, but vigilance in important.

    The only place I’d put a question mark over your remarks, DEM is this: “ample protection for personal liberty”. I don’t know about elsewhere, but there were some fairly extreme changes in Australia recently to limit those protections in certain situations, not all of which have been reversed. What some call the ‘state of exception’ may, at any time, be sufficient to bring out the extremity of the moderates.

  6. Posted May 9, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    When the world goes FUBAR fascism results. Technocracy + untrammeled human nature = Fascism. It’s Stupid Monkey time, head, club – donk.

  7. John Greenfield
    Posted May 11, 2009 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    There is absolutely no threat of fascism, so long as we keep the socialists at bay. And for the last time, there is no such thibng as “neoliberalism”.

  8. Posted May 11, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    so long as we keep the socialists at bay.
    Fascism doesn’t rewuire socialism. It’s routed in ancient structures of tribe, love of war and obedience to leaders. It’s a monkey thing.
    And for the last time, there is no such thibng as “neoliberalism”.
    Not anymore. 🙂
    But there never was?

  9. John Greenfield
    Posted May 12, 2009 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Actually Adrien, if you look at the relatively small number of fascist irruptions, they are always a response to Socialist imperialism.

  10. Posted May 14, 2009 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    I think it’s time to realise that both facism and socialism/communism were both authoritarian movements that were very much of their economic and political times – and as JG points out, often reactions to each other – which we will in fact, never see again.

    Conditions may recurr in which government authoritarianism will increase (Klaus, you’ll probably agree this may already be happening with the various anti-terror measures already implemented in the West – Skepticlawyer has a neat argument about the financial punishment of smokers to pay for the wider societal and health costs of their freely-chosen habit) but authoritarianism occurs completely independently of political affiliation.

    Legalise neo-nazis today and give David Irving a chat show but we will NOT see another Nazi government arise. We may see governments that share some of their authoritanian attributes – not because they are neo-liberal, libertarian, neoconservative or even green, but because they feel authoritarian tools are necessary to implement their political, social or financial agenda. The only requirement for it to happen is that the wider public is either largely in agreement with their goals or unable to prevent it.

  11. Posted May 14, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    authoritarianism occurs completely independently of political affiliation.
    One of the most authoritarian people I ever met was a hippie anarchist.
    but because they feel authoritarian tools are necessary to implement their political, social or financial agenda.
    And for fun.

  12. Posted May 14, 2009 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Well, no… No one actually likes authoritarianism any more than they like torture (no ‘decent’ person would) but they need some sort of real or manufactured emergency to provide a publicly acceptable excuse for having to bring it in and support the inevitable “ends justify the means” argument.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *