← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Dan Dare
Thread ID: 4597 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2003-01-24
2003-01-24 17:24 | User Profile
Yesterday the BNP won its fifth local council seat in the North of England:
[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,635-553533,00.html]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,63...-553533,00.html[/url]
BNP wins council seat as Blunkett spells out fears By Helen Studd and Philip Webster, Political Editor
DAVID BLUNKETTââ¬â¢S fears about a rise in support for the far Right appeared to have been borne out last night as the British National Party won a council by-election. The Home Secretary is one of a number of senior ministers to have voiced concern about the way in which recent controversies over asylum-seekers could boost support for the extreme Right.
The BNP took its tally of council seats to five by overturning a Labour majority in Mixenden ward on Calderdale council in West Yorkshire.
Adrian Marsden, 42, a father of seven, won the by-election after the dismissal of the former Labour group leader, Andy Metcalfe, who failed to attend enough council meetings because of ill health.
The ward was the first seat to be fought by the BNP since its win in Blackburn in November. The party also has three councillors in Burnley.
Civic leaders including the Mayor of Calderdale, Patrick Phillips, members of the Fire Brigades Union and medical staff signed a petition in a local newspaper calling for voters to say no to racism and fascism.
But the BNP polled 679 votes. The Liberal Democrats came second with 651. Labour was beaten into third place with 641 and the Tories polled 214. An independent candidate picked up 142 votes.
Mr Blunkett gave an outspoken warning yesterday of a backlash against asylum- seekers, declaring that society was like a ââ¬Åcoiled springââ¬Â.
He appealed to newspapers and politicians not to inflame tensions, saying that he had concerns about people taking the law into their own hands. ââ¬ÅI am worried about tension and frustration spilling over into the disintegration of community relations and social cohesion,ââ¬Â he said.
Mr Blunkettââ¬â¢s warning reflected the growing anxiety of Cabinet ministers that concerns over asylum have become intermingled with fears about terrorism, and that this could prompt vigilantism.
Interviewed by the New Statesman, Mr Blunkett said that he had no intention of attacking individual newspapers.
He said: ââ¬ÅI want the debate in the open. I want peopleââ¬â¢s fears to be genuinely reflected. I want to be able to ensure they know the facts, and get the information on which they can make a judgment.ââ¬Â
He described Abu Hamza al-Masri, the leader of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, as a big mouth. He said: ââ¬ÅThe big mouths are damaging and dangerous to race relations, social cohesion and understanding, but it isnââ¬â¢t the big mouths who are the most dangerous. Itââ¬â¢s the ones you cannot see and do not hear.ââ¬Â
The Tory MP Kenneth Clarke accused Mr Blunkett of using nasty language. He told Question Time on BBC One: ââ¬ÅI think our race relations are comparatively good.
ââ¬ÅWe are a reasonably tolerant nation, particularly the younger generation. I have been Home Secretary. You mustnââ¬â¢t use ill-judged language on this subject. It is not his job to go round using loaded phrases
2003-01-24 18:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Dan Dare@Jan 24 2003, 11:24 ** The Tory MP Kenneth Clarke accused Mr Blunkett of using nasty language. He told Question Time on BBC One: ââ¬ÅI think our race relations are comparatively good.
ââ¬ÅWe are a reasonably tolerant nation, particularly the younger generation. I have been Home Secretary. You mustnââ¬â¢t use ill-judged language on this subject. It is not his job to go round using loaded phrases **
Typical. The GOP - er, Tory - leadership is heaping charges of intolerance and insensitivity on others. It's like the wise man once said: in order to avoid criticisms, start leveling them yourself.
THen they wonder why fringe groups begin.
-Jay
2003-01-24 18:33 | User Profile
Great post, Dan. Thank you.
Exactly what we're looking for here in this forum. Hopefully we can draw from the successes or failures of groups like the BNP here in our homeland.
2003-01-24 18:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Dan Dare@Jan 24 2003, 12:24 **The Tory MP Kenneth Clarke accused Mr Blunkett of using nasty language. He told Question Time on BBC One: ââ¬ÅI think our race relations are comparatively good.
ââ¬ÅWe are a reasonably tolerant nation, particularly the younger generation. I have been Home Secretary. ** You mustnââ¬â¢t use ill-judged language on this subject. It is not his job to go round using loaded phrases.****
Is that because your country, just like the USA, has a very fragile "peace" amongst the multicultural hordes of muds where if the Whites stop giving over $$$ and neighborhoods to Muslims and Africans---people start warring??? Isn't that really why Mr Blunkett should stop using his "nasty" language, Sir?? Are you so afraid Mr Clarke that British Whites will lose the scales from their eyes and see that Britain is sinking in multicultural sewage due to your governments' atrocious and despicable policies? Yea, we've already heard it all before here in the Colonies Mr Clarke from our own set of gov't traitors, so shut up Ken!
2003-01-25 01:45 | User Profile
The BNP is, in the words of its leader, "a socialist party." The cause of our race cannot be advanced by appealing to the greed of the rich. The rich need to be hung for their treason. Racially concious american whites need to dump all this capitalist, conservative and religious crap if we are ever to make any headway. We are white nationalists, not "the real conservatives" or "the real christians." The people voting for the BNP and other nationalist parties in europe are coming over from the left. In the U.K. they are working class former labor supporters who are angry that Blair has adopted "thatcherite" economic policies. In France, they are ex communists. That's why LePen's strong showing in the last presidential election hurt the socialist candiate more the the equally evil conservative candidate. If american whites were serious about imitating their successful european counterparts, they would have to change ALMOST EVERYTHING that they do and believe.
2003-01-25 15:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@Jan 24 2003, 19:45 ** The cause of our race cannot be advanced by appealing to the greed of the rich. The rich need to be hung for their treason. Racially concious american whites need to dump all this capitalist, conservative and religious crap if we are ever to make any headway **
I disagree. The issues - capitalism & racial consiousness - are not mutually exclusive. If they were, America would have gone under in 1800 instead of 1965.
Capitalism creates competition which creates lower costs which creates greater consumption/availabilty of all goods. THe last thing I want are fat-&-happy lazy unionites demanding handouts while I work/save/achieve to bring them cheaper goods.
Anyway, If you think the AMerican wealthy are evil, consider what the wealthy communists or monarchs have done thru history.
-Jay
2003-01-26 13:26 | User Profile
Good points about the left WRITOS. I believe the BNP are distributionists rather than state socialists (i.e. widely distributed private ownership rather than state ownership). They don't make much noise about it though.
The idea of whites having enough of a sense of themselves to oppose immigration should transcend economic issues. If you want a more minimal state, only a relatively homogenous nation can support it. This is equally true of a more redistributive one. While a particular economic ideal might be correct or tactically astute, this should be a secondary argument within a broad church, important though it is. After all, if a homogenous nation screws up economically, at least it can recover in a way that a balkanised nation cannot.
2003-01-26 13:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Jan 24 2003, 18:48 ** > Originally posted by Dan Dare@Jan 24 2003, 12:24 **The Tory MP Kenneth Clarke accused Mr Blunkett of using nasty language. He told Question Time on BBC One: ââ¬ÅI think our race relations are comparatively good.
ââ¬ÅWe are a reasonably tolerant nation, particularly the younger generation. I have been Home Secretary. ** You mustnââ¬â¢t use ill-judged language on this subject. It is not his job to go round using loaded phrases.****
Is that because your country, just like the USA, has a very fragile "peace" amongst the multicultural hordes of muds where if the Whites stop giving over $$$ and neighborhoods to Muslims and Africans---people start warring??? Isn't that really why Mr Blunkett should stop using his "nasty" language, Sir?? Are you so afraid Mr Clarke that British Whites will lose the scales from their eyes and see that Britain is sinking in multicultural sewage due to your governments' atrocious and despicable policies? Yea, we've already heard it all before here in the Colonies Mr Clarke from our own set of gov't traitors, so shut up Ken! **
You've got Clarke down right xmh. He's the BBC's idea of a moderate, partly because he's the main voice for Britain to join the Euro in what passes for the conservative party. A completely amoral careerist all in all.
2003-01-26 17:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 26 2003, 07:26 ** If you want a more minimal state, only a relatively homogenous nation can support it. **
I don't see why this should be so. Libertarian ideals go together very well with situations of shared territory, but separate cultural environments.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose immigration without bringing in libertarian ideals. Libertarianism is, as a theory, largely neutral on the question of immigration.
2003-01-26 19:43 | User Profile
> QUOTE (Leveller @ Jan 26 2003, 07:26 ) If you want a more minimal state, only a relatively homogenous nation can support it. **
I don't see why this should be so. Libertarian ideals go together very well with situations of shared territory, but separate cultural environments.**
Darkeddy - can you please elaborate and also cite an example of such a shared territory where libertarian ideals have been successfully applied. Thanks.
2003-01-27 05:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Jan 25 2003, 09:15 ** > Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@Jan 24 2003, 19:45 ** The cause of our race cannot be advanced by appealing to the greed of the rich. The rich need to be hung for their treason. Racially concious american whites need to dump all this capitalist, conservative and religious crap if we are ever to make any headway **
I disagree. The issues - capitalism & racial consiousness - are not mutually exclusive. If they were, America would have gone under in 1800 instead of 1965.
Capitalism creates competition which creates lower costs which creates greater consumption/availabilty of all goods. THe last thing I want are fat-&-happy lazy unionites demanding handouts while I work/save/achieve to bring them cheaper goods.
Anyway, If you think the AMerican wealthy are evil, consider what the wealthy communists or monarchs have done thru history.
-Jay **
Jay, don't think of economics in philosophical terms. The question is what must we do to gain power without sacraficing our CORE principals. Forget this crap about "capitalism is a more effecient system..." Maybe so, but what good does that do us? Once we have defined our fundamental beliefs and goals, our positions on all other matters should be conditional. And never insult the people whose support you need to win. We have to be advocates for our people.
2003-04-26 19:11 | User Profile
Excellent news.
2003-04-27 15:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Jan 25 2003, 09:15 ** > Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@Jan 24 2003, 19:45 ** The cause of our race cannot be advanced by appealing to the greed of the rich.ÃÂ The rich need to be hung for their treason.ÃÂ Racially concious american whites need to dump all this capitalist, conservative and religious crap if we are ever to make any headway **
I disagree. The issues - capitalism & racial consiousness - are not mutually exclusive. If they were, America would have gone under in 1800 instead of 1965.
Capitalism creates competition which creates lower costs which creates greater consumption/availabilty of all goods. THe last thing I want are fat-&-happy lazy unionites demanding handouts while I work/save/achieve to bring them cheaper goods.
Anyway, If you think the AMerican wealthy are evil, consider what the wealthy communists or monarchs have done thru history.
-Jay **
Well Jay, it is true that most anti-immigrant organizations in Europe are increasingly using socialist rhetoric. It might also be a shabby strategy to bring Europe back to civilizational survival not by appealing to cultural ideals but by simply trying to outbribe the socialists with more state goodies. It might also be that socialism is keeping European growth rates lower than those of America. Furthermore the increase in state bureaucracy both on the national and the European level is further choking freedom. But one must keep certain things in mind. The rigth wing populists like the Northern League, the Austrian Freedom Party, Pim Fortuyn, the Danish nationalists and the Swiss People Party adhere to a political program of anti-immigration, anti EU and economic deregulation and small government. Most of these parties failed. The Austrian Freedom Party dropped from 30% of the vote to 10%. The Northern League is losing votes to Berlosconi and the Pim Fortuyn party is finished. What did happen? The people who voted for Jörg Haider were in Vienna's working class neighbourhoods, the people who cast their vote for Pim Fortuyn came from the working class districts of Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Why did these people who are the bedrock of Social Democracy turning to right wing parties? Immigration into Europe went full speed in the 50s and 60s when there was a labour shortage across Europe. Most of the migrants ended up in the heavy industry districts like Germany's Ruhr pocket area, the British Midlands, Rotterdam, the coal areas in Belqium, the big cities of France. The jobs in the heavy industries are gone. Britain's Midlands, once the cradle of the industrial age, are crumbling. Germany's Ruhr pocket is losing population, the last steal mill of Dortmund has been shiped to China last year, Berlin, once Germany's biggest industrial city, is bankrupt. The same pattern goes for the rest of Europe. Wallonia, Belqium's industrial area and one of the oldest industrial landscape of Europe, is heavily dependent on state subsidiaries squeezed out of more prosperous Flanders. The industry is gone. The migrants remain, breeding, bringing in family relatives, changing culture. One hundred years ago the peasantry of France was on the march to Paris, looking for jobs in that biggest city of the West. The Paris bourgoisie was terrified at the prospect that rural France was taking over the City of Lights. What did they do. They invented something that is still France' social burden, the banlieue, or suburb. The working class was kept out of Paris. The inner city of Paris is a conservative bastion, the mayor of Paris is usually a conservative candidate. What about the suburbs? They have been the core of communist France. Paris was a city besieged by a communist fringe. The communist party ruled the suburbs, 40% of France voted communist after the second world war. Where is the French communist party of today? I guess they got 3% percent of the vote last year. Where have the French communist voters gone to? To the Socialists, the Trotzkists, the Greens or the Social Democrats?. No, the suburbs of Paris, the working class city of Marseilles, the old socialist working class districts of the coal fields in Lille, the steal towns of Alsace Loreine, the Pied Noir expatriat Algerian Frenchmen voted, just guess, for Jean Marie Le Pen. Hard to get into the brain of an anticommunist American Archie Bunker that the reds of yesterday are the fascists of today. Just an accident? Do you realise that whereever the BNP gets in, Labour gets out, Greece's socialists, the political left of Portugal, the social democrats of welfare Scandinavia get the biggest blow whereever the nationalists show up. How does that come? Well who votes for the socialists in Europe. Radical college students, hippies, drug addicts or feminists? They vote Green, the Green party is open border, but not enthusiastically pro welfare state. So who votes for the socialists? The peasants of Prussia who moved to the steal towns of the Ruhr pocket one hundred years ago, the peasants of France profonde who moved to the outskirts of Paris one hundred years ago, the Czech, Hungarian and Polish peasants who flocked to the industrial areas of Vienna one hundred years ago. The proletariat that Marx envisioned as the army of revolutionary struggle. But Marx is dead. But Adorno and Horkheimer still rule. What is their revolutionary army? Migrants, women, homosexuals, self described victim groups. Where does the revolutionary army of third world immigrants live? In college towns like Marburg, Freiburg or Göttingen? In the southern suburbs of Berlin, where the "better society" resides. In the uniform, American style suburbs of the outskirts of German cities where the middle class resides whose connection to the inner city is just the Autobahn? Well no, Germany's middle class multicultural dogooders keep their new pets at a distance. A mosque in Berlin Wedding? No problem, let the proles have diversity. A mosque in Berlin Schöneberg, oh no, not that we have something against Muslims, but a Mosque destroys the traditional landscape, furthermore we don't want our tranquility being disturbed. The migrants settle down where rents and real estate prices are the lowest. Just guess where that is? Right, the crumbling high rise towers of the social democratic utopia of "social living" in the housing project areas. In the old working class districts with its street corner pubs turned into Turkish take out restaurants. Well there you have the situation that dozens of nationalities live on very densily populated real estate. An American TV consumer is fed up with 2Pac and Snoop Doggy Dog, well just switch the channel, the inner city is far away. But what do you do when you live in one of these European concrete bunkers with an Arab family butchering a goat on the balcony, while the nice Turkish family is having a family party right up to five o'clock in the morning and you need a pocket of sleep. What do you do with neighbours who burn women alive because they do not dress the islamic way, or you live with guys who have a different idea of hygene and believe that someone else is picking up the garbage. What if your child comes home and speaks fluent Turkish because none of the classmates speak German anymore and you cannot just sent your kid to another school because in Europe the bureaucracy knows better what is good for your child than you yourself. Do you want to know who the guys are whose cars are being burned and whose daughters are out for a gang rape date in France' suburbs. Just ordinary middle class guys who shrug their shoulders when their property is trashed, or just a poor fellow to whom a car is a luxury investment? The right wing has cashed in the votes of an angry working class that does not like Blairism, that mix of Thatcherism, multiculturism, interventionalism, globalism and Europeanism. Well but you do not keep the trust of a working class if you tell them that you care more for them than the social democrats do while persueing an economic policy to the detriment of the people you pretend to represent. Why does the BNP and the FN use socialist rhetoric? Maybe because they know where the votes are coming from. If you want to have capitalism, you have to appeal to the middle class. But where does the middle class stand on nationalism? Just attend the next anti racism teach in at a German university and you will find a whole bunch of sons and daughters of architects, laywers, teachers and physicians who just want to save the world. The point is, Muslim leaders in Europe are at odds with secular law. More and more concessions will be made. The constitution rules? Ha, that is not compatible with Coranic law. What happens? A different law for every ethnic group? Sounds like a blueprint of success for an industrial society where law gets balkanized. How long will peace last? As long as there is at least a pro forma Christian majority. Will France be majority Christian in twenty years? Demographers are not sure, even today the number of professing Muslims is already outnumbering professing Christians in France and the Netherlands. What will happen to the paintings of Leonardo DaVinci and the Cathedrals of Europe once demographics resemble the Kosovo? Well the Taleban looted the Kabul museum of history and threw out thousands of years of Afghan history. What did the dwellers of Saddam City do with 7 thousand years of Mesopotamiam history? Do you think that a people that doesn't honor its own history give some respect to the pagan art of the infidels? How fast is the clock ticking? White majorities in British cities: done away in the next years. French majorties in the south of France: the cities are already lost. German majorities in western German urban areas: lost in ten years from now. German majorty in Germany: say goodbye in 30 years Belqium, the capital of Europe: muslim births account over 50% of all birth, ha ha ha Bella Italia, la famiglia e le bambini. What, Dove sono le bambini? The middle class will sell out Europe for a handful of dollars. If you want to keep Europe, appeal to the working class. Well this means you have to include socialism into the package. Multicult capitalism isn't going to work like Singapore, finally these East Asians have a more pragmatist understanding of religion than the monotheistic religions in the West.
Islam or socialism, that is the question. I do really like neither, but finally in life you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Make your decision.
2003-04-28 03:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by jamestown@Apr 27 2003, 09:50 ** The right wing has cashed in the votes of an angry working class that does not like Blairism, that mix of Thatcherism, multiculturism, interventionalism, globalism and Europeanism. Well but you do not keep the trust of a working class if you tell them that you care more for them than the social democrats do while persueing an economic policy to the detriment of the people you pretend to represent. **
Jamestown, your analysis really nails the situation.
One thing, in defense of left-wing intellectuals: :) You are right about the majority Iôm afraid, but there are some of us who do not care for abstract Marxism, let alone Adorno, but for justice as such, and the tangible good of actual working-class people.
Now, the only reason why those of us of this persuasion do not generally support nationalist movements is the very fact that they are (rightfully, in most cases) being associated with capitalist economic policies.
Would we make a difference? You bet. B)
There is nothing, to repeat this crucial point, that would keep me, personally, from joining a nationalist faction, other than that I do not quite trust them not to backstab the working class, once they come to power (which is what the Nationalsocialists did, imo). Honestly: Can you blame me for this scepticism? :)
Finding a way for Nationalists, Christians and the Left to merge -not just ally, merge!- is my own pet project. Is it possible? Time will tell.
As I see it, there are only two factors in all, that limit the Nationalist appeal: The Nietzschean Superman rhetoric, which annoys Christians no end, and the right-wing economy. Drop these, and youôve made it, Iôd say. B)
York and Lancaster are no longer struggling, so the possibility of reconciliation between former enemies is there.
2003-04-28 21:12 | User Profile
Generally speaking, ideological differences had been pretty low between the political fractions in my country. The christian democrats had tradionally been pro welfare. They are in the tradition of the christian social movement of the 1850s as a response to industrialisatio and are actually older than the social democrats. The trade unions are tied to both political fractions although in recent years they have increasingly sided with the left. Germany's pension system was introduced in 1957 under a conservative administration. The same goes for the introduction of the nursing insurance in the 1990s. The current social democrat administration is proposing massive cuts into the social security system. The welfare state is at stake anyway no matter what political block is in power. The trade surplus is at record heights so the economic worries are less a result of lacking competiveness but are wholly domestic. The Euro is particularly harming the country more than other European states as exchange rates towards the Mark were too high when the Euro was introduced. Furthermore the European Central Bank is exercising a too restrictive monetary policy for Germany on the brink of recession but has to stay that way as it has to consider the economic situation of Europe as a whole and not a single member state. The Euroland countries have surrendered their monetary power to Brussels, so on the economic field, it doesn't really matter who runs the country. All that can be done is to stabilize the state budget to meet the common currency agreements. But strict fiscal discipline is harmful in times of recession. Another burden having nothing to do with globalization is the failed unification with the GDR, the biggest economic disaster in recent history. Taking in a territory 50% the size of the old country and 30% of the old population with an industrial infrastructure stuck in the 1960s will burden the country for the next 30 years. Just imagine merging the US with Mexico. Furthermore, and that is the most significant point, is demographics. An aging population already swamped with consumer goods and a population loss of 200000 annually (an average German city) due to death surpluses cannot grow like America. America's growth rates are twice that of Western Europe, but remember that in 1950 the population of the US was 130 million against 70 million in Germany. Today it is 280 million versus 80 million, in 2050 it will be 400 million verses 65 million (given static immigration and birth rates). With a failed demographic homework, the country relied on the extensive diaspora. But the century old communities in Transilvania, The Banat, Wolga Germany and the Ex-Eastern Territories, demographic reserves are rare. Southern Europe does not contribute much of immigration any longer. The last demographic reserves are the future EU member states in Central Eastern Europe. But demographic trends there are already more in disarray than in the West. Spain tries to attract its diaspora from Argentina, as does Italy. But this will buy time only for a few more years. The problem with immigration is that it only works as long as you have a strong host culture absorbing them. Furthermore there are civilizational barriers. Some ethnic groups fit in more easily than others. In urban areas there is now some tipping point where newcomers just end up in a kind of nowhere land. Generally class rooms can handly a 20% foreign element. Once that is surpassed, neither the immigrants nor the natives can achieve educational standards. The country is at a turning point right now. First of all immigration must favor groups more likely to assimilate. Second, the educational system must provide that process. Immigration from societies hostile to ours must be restricted. The native birth rate must be boosted from currently 1.35 children to at least 1.6 children postponing the demographic implosion from 20 years from now to 40 years from now, buying time. To come back to the issue of the welfare state, it was designed in the 50s and 60s when there was full employment. Recipients of funds were considered an exception rather than the rule. The tragedy of it is that the welfare cost is primarily levied on labour making it more expensive thus leading to the increase in unemployment. As with the National Socialist, they betrayed the working class by dismembering the trade unions. On the other hand the tax code was pretty fair, largely exempting the lower incomes. Hilmar Schacht was Germany's financial minister until 1937 and already served in the Weimar repuplic, thus the economic policy was just a continuation from that time and not something completely new. On the other hand inflation was handled pretty fairly, the currency remained stable throughout the war. Only in 1948 when the Americans were pushing for currency reform the money got devatuated.