Can The BNP Reform and should they?

[Neo2012]

During the dark ages, it was the Monasteries that had the wealth of information - The faith kept the knowledge alive during the dark ages.
More knowledge was returned to us through the Christian Crusades.

Remember, that is was the monks and other holy men who were the ones with literacy and who wrote books.

completely the opposite is true. It was Christianity which burned the books of virtually all the great Greek philosophers mathematicians and scientists etc.. If it hadn't been for the Islamic world, they would have been lost for ever. That is why it is called the dark ages.

Not only that, the Islamic world developed European philosophy, science and mathematics etc,. Much of which was castigated as heresey by christanity. It was only a with the sidelining of the 'god' mafia by the renaissance, that science etc. began to flourish again in parts of Europe, and then spread through all Europe.

[LA]

completely the opposite is true. It was Christianity which burned the books of virtually all the great Greek philosophers mathematicians and scientists etc.. If it hadn't been for the Islamic world, they would have been lost for ever. That is why it is called the dark ages.

Not only that, the Islamic world developed European philosophy, science and mathematics etc,. Much of which was castigated as heresey by christanity. It was only a with the sidelining of the 'god' mafia by the renaissance, that science etc. began to flourish again in parts of Europe, and then spread through all Europe.

Medieval monasteries in England

The relevant part:

Throughout the Dark Ages and Medieval period the monasteries were practically the only repository of scholarship and learning. The monks were by far the best educated mermbers of society - often they were the only educated members of society. Monasteries acted as libraries for ancient manuscripts, and many monks were occupied with laboriously copying sacred texts (generally in a room called the scriptorium).

As I said before, Monasteries kept alive old knowledge and it was the monks who were the educated in society.

The Christian Crusades against the Middle East brought back further knowledge which had not been saved by the monasteries or had been further developed by the scholars of the Middle East.

[Neo2012]

Medieval monasteries in England

The relevant part:


As I said before, Monasteries kept alive old knowledge and it was the monks who were the educated in society.

The Christian Crusades against the Middle East brought back further knowledge which had not been destroyed by the monasteries or had been further developed by the scholars of the Middle East.

God LA! Why do you think they called it the Dark Ages? Why do you think people play such importance upon the renaissance?

[LA]

God LA! Why do you think they called it the Dark Ages? Why do you think people play such importance upon the renaissance?

Because, and as I say again, only the monasteries had this information.
Only the monks had access to knowledge and literacy.

The normal average Joe did not, and disease was rampant.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Yes the Muslims great contribution to the world was 800 years ago, but the Greeks great contribution to the world was 2000 years ago. We celebrate the Greeks, while revileing the Muslims contribution. I cannot help feeling this has something to do with the subtle racism of Europe.

I imagine our admiration for ancient Greece and Rome for that matter is has something to do with us being able to trace our democracy, buildings and history to them. You may be correct concerning subtle racism, but remember that for many, many years Muslims (in the form of the Ottomans and Moors) were the implacible enemies of Christian Europe. Indeed, if Vienna had fallen, much of Europe would be Muslim and not Christian. This might well account for the difference in attitude.

However. I agree, freedom, democracy and tolerance is much more advanced in Britain, than it is in such as Saudi Arabia. That's why I think we should try very hard to resist calls from such as the fascist to start mimicking the Saudi Arabians intolerance.

As I said earlier, I am not in any way trying to denigrate the Europeans, all Im expressing is the reality, "we see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants". Muslims, Greeks Chinese and many others are among those giants. I suppose the Americans now stand on our shoulders. Great civilisations come and ago, that is the way of the world.

True, but there is a danger of you giving the impression that racism is a white problem, it is not, it is a human problem but one the left often seem to beat the rest of us with.

two things.
1. How many English Kings can you name? I think Britain/Europe has always been a multicultural/mongrel, the phenomena has very beneficial for Europeans. That there has been constant communication, and cross fertilisation, and trade etc. Those countries which had been pedigree, culturally and genetically isolated ie Australia, America, sub Saharan Africa, have not been the producers of the highest form of human civilisation, capitalism.
2. Can you name any period in British history when there wasn't disunity, division, inequality, tension and violence?

I think you have found the word mongrel offensive, wrongly in my opinion. I cannot think of any great imperialist empire that hasn't been multicultural/mongrel. Can you?

1. I can name quite a lot of English kinds, a Scottish one, a Dutch one and some French too. Of course there may well have been a degree of multiculturalism, but essentially amongst Northern European cultures which are marked more by their simularities than by their differences, a situation somewhat different from that we face today.

2. No, but those negative attributes have never been caused by incomers who refuse to integrate with the majority of the population.

I have no problem with the use of the term mongrel, but I think it is something of a smokescreen used by the left to attempt to deny that the British are a unique people in the same way the Germans, French, Irish, etc are.

[Neo2012]

Technically they were Judeans but we won't go there...

SPLITTER!!!

[Neo2012]

I imagine our admiration for ancient Greece and Rome for that matter is has something to do with us being able to trace our democracy, buildings and history to them. You may be correct concerning subtle racism, but remember that for many, many years Muslims (in the form of the Ottomans and Moors) were the implacible enemies of Christian Europe. Indeed, if Vienna had fallen, much of Europe would be Muslim and not Christian. This might well account for the difference in attitude.

Yup. Not JUST racism, I agree. But, how could a Baku believe his race is innately superior in this fashion?

Question - Are white countries further developed than black countries

Answer - Yes

I think this subject can now can come to an end !!

I don’t think you can just ignore racism, the pseudo scientific belief that races have innate characteristics of inferiority and superiority, was invented by the plantation owners, and has been A major factor for 200 years in the development of British Empire.

This is the subtle nature of British racism. It isn’t overt like the deep south in America. Being a kid in the 1960’s, I cannot remember an old documentary, where black adults we’re not displayed as laughing children, confirming that the excuse for empire “black people, are the white man’s burden”? Remember?

Racism has been institutionalised in Britain for 200 years. That large efforts have been made since the 1970s to remove this institutionalised racism, is to be applauded.

True, but there is a danger of you giving the impression that racism is a white problem, it is not, it is a human problem but one the left often seem to beat the rest of us with.

I think you misrepresent the left. After all, you cannot be beaten with a stick that doesn’t exist. And if racism does exist, why shouldn’t it be challenged?

1. I can name quite a lot of English kinds, a Scottish one, a Dutch one and some French too. Of course there may well have been a degree of multiculturalism, but essentially amongst Northern European cultures which are marked more by their simularities than by their differences, a situation somewhat different from that we face today.

English, really? Can only think 2.

Yes and no. World 'culture' is becoming globally homogenous, more by the forces of economics and utilitarianism, imho. If we survive the real problems, religious fundamentalists of any kind, will have little influence, in the long run, seduced by democracy and freedom.

2. No, but those negative attributes have never been caused by incomers who refuse to integrate with the majority of the population.

the Irish in the 19th century, the Jews in the 1930s, the blacks in the 1970s, and the Muslims today, may beg to differ that there has never been such scapegoats before?

I have no problem with the use of the term mongrel, but I think it is something of a smokescreen used by the left to attempt to deny that the British are a unique people in the same way the Germans, French, Irish, etc are.

The scientist’s don’t believe it’s a smokescreen, they believe it’s fact. That may change with new evidence, but at this moment that is what most peer reviewed scientific papers would agree with.

[DavidRose]

I don’t think you can just ignore racism, the pseudo scientific belief that races have innate characteristics of inferiority and superiority, was invented by the plantation owners,

Racism never existed during slavery. It was a term invented in the 20th century to describe values which rejected multiracial societies.

According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word "racism" in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American "fascist", Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism.

Link.

It's sometimes frightening the extent to which our views are shaped by the media. Even though you may find it hard to believe, your opinions on this matter are not your own, they are entirely created and spread by the establishment.

Long before slavery began, European, Asian and Arab explorers were commenting on the savagery of what was known as the 'Dark Continent' and it's people.

Many explorers felt that it was their duty to introduce Western civilisation and Christianity to "savage" black African peoples, and hence exploration was seen by most people during the post-Renaissance era as a useful expenditure of energy.

Even today it is the same. Just this week there is a program on child witches in Africa.

[sarasara]

When I hear Nick Griffin I support a lot of what he says but when I look at his supporters they are so racist that unless Nick takes serious action to cleanse the party of some of them and get the message to others to keep their personal views to themselves, griffin will never get the support from non-Caucasians that he will need to win power.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Yup. Not JUST racism, I agree. But, how could a Baku believe his race is innately superior in this fashion?

Eh? The problem with the left and racism is that they constantly give the impression that racism is a white problem, that only whites are racist - isn't this a racist standpoint though?

I don’t think you can just ignore racism, the pseudo scientific belief that races have innate characteristics of inferiority and superiority, was invented by the plantation owners, and has been A major factor for 200 years in the development of British Empire.

This is the subtle nature of British racism. It isn’t overt like the deep south in America. Being a kid in the 1960’s, I cannot remember an old documentary, where black adults we’re not displayed as laughing children, confirming that the excuse for empire “black people, are the white man’s burden”? Remember?

Racism has been institutionalised in Britain for 200 years. That large efforts have been made since the 1970s to remove this institutionalised racism, is to be applauded.

Sorry, but I do ignore racism and, as I believe Northern European culture is superior to those of say the Arabic culture or the culture of the taliban, then I am a racist as well, even though I believe that culture has little to do with race?

As for real racism, have a look at certain black African countries, tribal conflicts, mass slaughter, genocide, that is real racism and we hear oh so little of it from our friends on the left.

The PC crud enforced upon us since the 1970s has done nothing but created division, treat people as people rather than endlessly going on about race. As for institutionalised racism, I have had the misfortune to study the Lawrence Inquiry; there is no evidence whatsoever of institutionalised racism and I defy anyone to show me where there is. Labels, labels, labels. I guess if you say it enough, people will eventually believe.

I think you misrepresent the left. After all, you cannot be beaten with a stick that doesn’t exist. And if racism does exist, why shouldn’t it be challenged?

No misrepresentation at all, it the left wants to challenge racism, challenge all racism, not just that from white people.

English, really? Can only think 2.

Yes and no. World 'culture' is becoming globally homogenous, more by the forces of economics and utilitarianism, imho. If we survive the real problems, religious fundamentalists of any kind, will have little influence, in the long run, seduced by democracy and freedom.

As for Kings, depends on your definition (and lets face it, the left do seem obsessed with race and racial origin); I'm English but my father is from Northern Ireland. Am I English in your eyes?

To state that culture is becoming globally homogenous is far from the truth, sure there are pressures from big business (which doesn't give a monkey's about culture or society) and the left to engender such a culture with 1,000s of sub-cultures based on ethnic and cultural grounds, but more and more indiginous people are aware of and are defending their culture.

The scientist’s don’t believe it’s a smokescreen, they believe it’s fact. That may change with new evidence, but at this moment that is what most peer reviewed scientific papers would agree with.

Until recently scientists stated that, scientifically bumble bees couldn't fly.....I have degrees in social science and am well aware of what total BS academics can come out with.

Essentially you are arguing that the English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, French, Germans, Poles, Danes, Czechs, Latvians, etc., etc., don't actually exist? Hmmm, those bumble bees again.......

[Opinionated]

Eh? The problem with the left and racism is that they constantly give the impression that racism is a white problem, that only whites are racist - isn't this a racist standpoint though?

It only seems like that because for the last 500 years (? a long time anyway) it has been the white man who had dominion over every other human being, so obviously the institutions that he built will be scewed in favour of the white man's interest (hence the term institutional racism); therefore those oppressed by it have naturally drawn lines against white people, making it appear that only white people are racist. Obviously this is not the case as anyone of any colour or creed can believe they are superior by virtue of those to another.

Sorry, but I do ignore racism and, as I believe Northern European culture is superior to those of say the Arabic culture or the culture of the taliban, then I am a racist as well, even though I believe that culture has little to do with race?

If you believe that your own culture is inherently superior to anothers then yes you are. And as an aside, superior? Without those backward Arabic people do you have any idea how much "heretical" poetry, science and maths would have been lost to the zealousness of the early church? As bad as the Taliban undoubtedly are, it is really not that long ago that our Western forefathers were behaving in exactly the same way!

As for real racism, have a look at certain black African countries, tribal conflicts, mass slaughter, genocide, that is real racism and we hear oh so little of it from our friends on the left.

Yes lets, because it's not like the left have been campaigning for the government to take human rights abuses in Mozambique, Iraq, Afgahnistan, Burma, the Sudan, Chile, China even (should I go on?) seriously for the last thirty plus years, whilst the right steadfastly ignored the problem due to the knowledge perhaps that we would be obligated to provide protection for these people and that goes down so well with the non-racist white population!

The PC crud enforced upon us since the 1970s has done nothing but created division, treat people as people rather than endlessly going on about race. As for institutionalised racism, I have had the misfortune to study the Lawrence Inquiry; there is no evidence whatsoever of institutionalism racism and I defy anyone to show me where there is. Labels, labels, labels. I guess if you say it enough, people will eventually believe.

How much more likely are you to be stopped by a policeman in this country if you are black? Black men aged 18-25 are ten times more likely!

No misrepresentation at all, it the left wants to challenge racism, challenge all racism, not just that from white people.

You have to start somewhere though don't you and as we have agreed (I hope) that it is the white man who has held all the power for so long then it had to start there. I am sorry that you happen to belong to that hitherto priveleged group and that it scares you so much to feel the tide turning. Incidently I too am white (not that it matters), but was not (until the last forty years or so) part of the priveleged group by virtue of gender, the same "pc crud" helped reverse that stupidity also!

As for Kings, depends on your definition (and lets face it, the left do seem obsessed with race and racial origin); I'm English but my father is from Northern Ireland. Am I English in your eyes?

Why does it matter, it's just a mass of land?

To state that culture is becoming globally homogenous is far from the truth, sure there are pressures from big business (which doesn't give a monkey's about culture or society) and the left to engender such a culture with 1,000s of sub-cultures based on ethnic and cultural grounds, but more and more indiginous people are aware of and are defending their culture.

The highlighted are such natural partners after all! How exactly are more and more people defending their culture and please define for me what is culture? The truth is it's time to grow up and learn to share with the others and the thought scares the living crap out of some people, shock horror there may even be a black President one day !

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

It only seems like that because for the last 500 years (? a long time anyway) it has been the white man who had dominion over every other human being, so obviously the institutions that he built will be scewed in favour of the white man's interest (hence the term institutional racism); therefore those oppressed by it have naturally drawn lines against white people, making it appear that only white people are racist. Obviously this is not the case as anyone of any colour or creed can believe they are superior by virtue of those to another.

The cultural institutions of this nation, like those of other nations, have developed over time and are the result of cultural and social norms and values. It is clearly understandable, and in no way racist, for certain individuals at some times to be placed at a slight disadvantage, i.e if they do not speak English.

If you go to France, there are cultural norms that are reflected in their institutions and undoubtedly the same applies in India, Sudan, Japan or wherever - these are not 'institutionally' (or in any other way racist). Institutional racism is yet another social construct created by the pc / racism obsessed left.

If you believe that your own culture is inherently superior to anothers then yes you are. And as an aside, superior? Without those backward Arabic people do you have any idea how much "heretical" poetry, science and maths would have been lost to the zealousness of the early church? As bad as the Taliban undoubtedly are, it is really not that long ago that our Western forefathers were behaving in exactly the same way!

Thank you, you have eloquently demonstrated the utter, utter lunacy of the left's position here: our British culture is not superior to that of the Taliban and to state that it is makes one a racist.

By the way, the past 300-400 hundred years might have passed you by, you know, many of us now believe in womens' rights, universal healthcare, the protection of children and aren't too keen on stonings, flogging for women who have been gang-raped or having heads removed via a sharp knife. How racist of me to even mention this.

Yes lets, because it's not like the left have been campaigning for the government to take human rights abuses in Mozambique, Iraq, Afgahnistan, Burma, the Sudan, Chile, China even (should I go on?) seriously for the last thirty plus years, whilst the right steadfastly ignored the problem due to the knowledge perhaps that we would be obligated to provide protection for these people and that goes down so well with the non-racist white population!

I recall going through Amnesty Internation Report (I forget which year but it would have been within the past 10 years); I recall numerous pages slating Britain and about 2 pages on Zimbabwe.

How much more likely are you to be stopped by a policeman in this country if you are black? Black men aged 18 to 24 ten times more likely. Black men aged 18-25 are ten times more likely!

Hmm, you are seemingly on firm ground here, until you start considering a few facts that tend to be omitted by a number of researchers:

1. The democraphics of the area; and

2. The nature of the offences the Police conduct stop and searches for (many crimes do have racial profiles, both black and white with a high percentage of burglaries being committed by white young men whilst a high percentage of street crime being committed by young black men);

3. The sub-cultural practices of some racial or cultural groups.

I recall many years ago reading a study on why so many black men were sectioned under mental health legislation in comparison with white men. Leftist and black rights groups campaigned against this clear institutionalsed racism. The response was for a team of psychiatrists being drafted in and going over the case papers will all references or clues to racial identity removed, the result? Precisely the same number of sectionings - the left's response was to cite that the higher rates must be due to racism the black men in question experienced. Heads you win, tails they lose....if you are on the left.

You have to start somewhwere though don't you and as we have agreed (I hope) that it is the white man who has held all the power for so long then it had to start there. I am sorry that you happen to belong to that hitherto priveleged group and that it scares you so much to feel the tide turning. Incidently I too am white (not that it matters), but was not (until the last forty years or so) part of the priveleged group by virtue of gender, the same "pc crud" helped reverse that stupidity also!

30 years ago it was, socially, quite acceptable to drink and drive; is it down to political correctness that drink drive attitudes have changed.....it couldn't be that social attitudes evolve and change over time without the need for marxist inspired polite fascism?

Oh, I'm sorry I was born white, please accept my apologies for not feeling bad about it, in fact I don't even think about it. How shameful.

Why does it matter, it's just a mass of land?

I don't know, it doesn't bother me but then I didn't ask the question about naming English Kings.

The highlighted are such natural partners after all! How exactly are more and more people defending their culture and please define for me what is culture? The truth is it's time to grow up and learn to share with the others and the thought scares the living crap out of some people, shock horror there may even be a black President one day !

So they're not natural partners, your point is?

What is culture? Er, if you don't know by now there probably isn't much point is getting involved in this one or are you trying to go down the 'culture is nothing but a social construct' route?

The truth is, racism isn't the reason sub-saharan Africa is in a mess, it isn't the reason why China isn't a democracy, it isn't the reason for differences in IQ, it isn't even the reason why 7 out of the 8 G8 nations have a shared Northern European heritage. Read Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Outliers' and see how important culture, not race, is.

Personally, I couldn't give a rats about which race the US President is, nor indeed the British Prime Minister or the next Pope, but then thats because I do not believe that race is of any great importance, culture is, but then you think I'm a racist so what's the point.

[Opinionated]

The cultural institutions of this nation, like those of other nations, have developed over time and are the result of cultural and social norms and values. It is clearly understandable, and in no way racist, for certain individuals at some times to be placed at a slight disadvantage, i.e if they do not speak English.

Yes totally natural and social darwinism in action, but it doesn't therefore automatically follow it is not racist does it? If people are naturally racist as a direct result of our suspicion of strangers then it is going to be reflected in our laws and institutions is all I'm saying and that once one accepts that and is enlightened enough to realise it is unfair, one can accept it needs changing.

If you go to France, there are cultural norms that are reflected in their institutions and undoubtedly the same applies in India, Sudan, Japan or wherever - these are not 'institutionally' (or in any other way racist). Institutional racism is yet another social construct created by the pc / racism obsessed left.

So the same applies to France, yes it does that's true and Germany and the USA and whoever was in the majority when those State's institutions were founded would have made them favour there own race. India is slightly different given many of it's institutions were founded by white men, but this is not a thread on India!

Thank you, you have eloquently demonstrated the utter, utter lunacy of the left's position here: our British culture is not superior to that of the Taliban and to state that it is makes one a racist.

Trying to look at it dispassionately, that rather depends on the value judgement you place on a culture doesn't it - I would argue however that the Taliban is an institution designed to supress culture and not a culture in itself!

By the way, the past 300-400 hundred years might have passed you by, you know, many of us now believe in womens' rights, universal healthcare, the protection of children and aren't too keen on stonings, flogging for women who have been gang-raped or having heads removed via a sharp knife. How racist of me to even mention this.

yes and all advancements made despite the same protests from predominently white men that it was soft hearted liberal idiots letting their hearts rule their heads and would see the destruction of Great Britain! You miss the next sentence where I said that as a woman I was glad of the pc push for equal rights?

I recall going through Amnesty Internation Report (I forget which year but it would have been within the past 10 years); I recall numerous pages slating Britain and about 2 pages on Zimbabwe.

Here you go 39 pages of reports going all the way back to 1970!Couldn't possibly be because they think members of the public have a right to know what abuses are carried out in their own country by their own government?

Hmm, you are seemingly on firm ground here, until you start considering a few facts that tend to be omitted by a number of researchers:

1. The democraphics of the area; and

London and black men don't outnumber white men ten to one!

2. The nature of the offences the Police conduct stop and searches for (many crimes do have racial profiles, both black and white with a high percentage of burglaries being committed by white young men whilst a high percentage of street crime being committed by young black men);

Don't want to discuss racial profiling any further if that's OK with you, but you are not more likely to be questioned as a white young man in connection with a burglary.

3. The sub-cultural practices of some racial or cultural groups.

I don't understand this points relevence.

30 years ago it was, socially, quite acceptable to drink and drive; is it down to political correctness that drink drive attitudes have changed.....it couldn't be that social attitudes evolve and change over time without the need for marxist inspired polite fascism?

Yes partly it is down to "pc", had the campaigns to stop drink driving not happened I doubt that it would have caught on. I seem to remember a fair amount of fuss at the time that it was an afront to people's freedom of choice. I'm having another thick moment obviously but how the hell is any political correctness inspired by Marx?

Oh, I'm sorry I was born white, please accept my apologies for not feeling bad about it, in fact I don't even think about it. How shameful.

Don't be so silly! But how lucky you are to be in a position where you aren't reminded daily of any difference which might keep you from fulfilling your potential!

So they're not natural partners, your point is?

That as conspiracies go, the fact that it would require the co-operation of such discrepant groups would make it seem even more unlikely!

What is culture? Er, if you don't know by now there probably isn't much point is getting involved in this one or are you trying to go down the 'culture is nothing but a social construct' route?

I was thinking about it yes, but also because I need you to explain to me why you think race and culture are so easily seperated.

The truth is, racism isn't the reason sub-saharan Africa is in a mess, it isn't the reason why China isn't a democracy, it isn't the reason for differences in IQ, it isn't even the reason why 7 out of the 8 G8 nations have a shared Northern European heritage. Read Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Outliers' and see how important culture, not race, is.

Not the only reason certainly but part of motivation for keeping the current first world / third world status quo most definately.

Personally, I couldn't give a rats about which race the US President is, nor indeed the British Prime Minister or the next Pope, but then thats because I do not believe that race is of any great importance, culture is, but then you think I'm a racist so what's the point.

You see I won't know if this point is in any way valid until I know what you understand as "culture". I think everyone's racist, I think I'm racist, I think it's perfectly natural to be racist, I also think we should strive not to be as it's incredibly unjust and unenlightened!

[DC]

Cultural superiority is mostly subjective, while you may argue that feminism and secularism are hallmarks of a superior or more advanced culture, a radical Muslim would not. The differences arise when one culture is superior to another because of a cause or consequence of that culture. For example nobody would argue against 18th Century Britain becoming superior to other nations as a direct result of various parts of its culture. While in contrast an adherence to strict tribalism in Africa has led to a collapse in society. Arguably liberal ideas either result in or are caused by an advancing society and superior nation, which is why the West is very liberal in comparison to Africa, the middle east, etc. While the culture itself may not be superior, its effects result in a stronger, wealthier, healthier and more productive society, ergo; that culture, or parts of it, are superior to another.

On the issue of race, firstly,of course there are genetic differences, both physical and psychological, this would be expected of any two or more populations which are separated over many generations. However any differences are far to small to count at an individual level, and instead manifest on a much larger socio-political scale. Secondly ignoring race as an issue and treating it as if it wasn't there is of course wrong. Black are more likely to be arrested or pulled up by a police officer, this is not a result of institutionalised racism in the police, rather young black men are simply more likely to have committed a crime (statistically).

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Yes totally natural and social darwinism in action, but it doesn't therefore automatically follow it is not racist does it? If people are naturally racist as a direct result of our suspicion of strangers then it is going to be reflected in our laws and institutions is all I'm saying and that once one accepts that and is enlightened enough to realise it is unfair, one can accept it needs changing.

It is common sense that laws will be made that reflect the predominant culture (even in a mono-ethnic culture there will be sub-cultures), this does not make those laws racist. The law on theft was written, predominantly, by men; is the law on theft therefore sexist, does it somehow disadvantage women in how it was drafted and particular aspects defined? Clearly not I would argue.

If certain cultural groups (again, I believe race is something of a red herring here) find themselves slightly disadvantaged by laws developed with the majority culture in mind, well, is that racism or evidence that some cultural compromise is necessary on their part - and to a limited extent on the part of the majority culture?

So the same applies to France, yes it does that's true and Germany and the USA and whoever was in the majority when those State's institutions were founded would have made them favour there own race. India is slightly different given many of it's institutions were founded by white men, but this is not a thread on India!

I do not accept your premise that, if I understand your point correctly, that laws framed by the majority racial group disadvantage minority racial groups. I fully accept that there will be some disadvantages for those from a minority cultural group, given (as I have written earlier) laws were framed in the context of one particular cultural group, its history, social rules and codes.

As for India, the world's largest democracy, stable in a region of relative instability and an emerging industrial powerhouse; clearly exposure to the British culture must have paid some form of dividend, no matter how limited.

Trying to look at it dispassionately, that rather depends on the value judgement you place on a culture doesn't it - I would argue however that the Taliban is an institution designed to supress culture and not a culture in itself!

Oh come off it, the Taliban have a clear Islamo-Fundamentalist based culture, which whilst values honesty and is far from corrupt, is by our cultural standards barbarous and misogynistic. Clearly Northern European Cultures are more advanced, civilised and far, far better.

The argument you and (the left generally) assert is that to make a value judgement on cultures, particularly where you believe your own to be better, is inherently racist. I find this a frankly ridiculous argument, of course one can make a value judgement: I find many aspects of Dutch, Danish and Swedish culture to be far better than the British culture. Does that really make me a racist? By your definition, yes.

yes and all advancements made despite the same protests from predominently white men that it was soft hearted liberal idiots letting their hearts rule their heads and would see the destruction of Great Britain! You miss the next sentence where I said that as a woman I was glad of the pc push for equal rights?

Yes, there were protests from white men, but also white women. Of course before women's sufferage Britain had the largest Empire even seen, was industrially and militarily the most powerful nation on Earth - now look at us !

Jesting aside, I would argue that the push for womens' rights had nothing to do with political correctness; not every positive step made is due to marxist-pc you know!

Here you go 39 pages of reports going all the way back to 1970!Couldn't possibly be because they think members of the public have a right to know what abuses are carried out in their own country by their own government?

I have no problem with the Country knowing about what abuses are conducted in their country. I think if the population were aware of how awful are police service is and the extent to which they are ignorant of or unwilling to follow criminal procedural law, there would be complete uproar. My point, as I am sure you well knew, was that Amnesty spent more time commenting upon what in the great scheme of things are pretty minor infringements (if that) whilst glossing over the numerous gross criminal infringements of a non-white government. Hardly seems equitable does it?

That as conspiracies go, the fact that it would require the co-operation of such discrepant groups would make it seem even more unlikely!

My mind goes back to Greenham Common: both the far left and the far right wanted USA cruise missiles off our shores, was that a conspiracy? It is well known that the left want to enforce a multi-cultural society upon us for political reasons, whilst big business is keen to have as wide a pool of talent and/or cheap labour as possible. Whilst they have differing reasons, the net effect is the same.

London and black men don't outnumber white men ten to one!

Not yet! No, I think you need to break the numbers down to relatively small geographical / demographical areas and consider matters such as popular types of criminalty, etc.

Don't want to discuss racial profiling any further if that's OK with you, but you are not more likely to be questioned as a white young man in connection with a burglary.

No probs on not going into the racial profiling bit, other than (a) agreeing with you about burglary being almost exclusively a crime committed by young white men and (b) that members from certain cultures appear to have a greater affinity for one crime than for another, the explanations for this being cultural, not racial.

I don't understand this points relevence.

An example, it is a cultural practice amongst some young black men with a West Indian cultural Heritage to 'hang out' in public, and far moreso than their white friends with a traditional British cultural heritage. As we all know, large groups of youths attract more concerns from residents and more interest from the police.

Not the only reason certainly but part of motivation for keeping the current first world / third world status quo most definately.

Isn't the desire to keep the economic status quo more down to the developed nations personal concerns (or selfishness if you will) rather than some internalised racist desire to 'hold the black man down' per se?

You see I won't know if this point is in any way valid until I know what you understand as "culture". I think everyone's racist, I think I'm racist, I think it's perfectly natural to be racist, I also think we should strive not to be as it's incredibly unjust and unenlightened!

For me culture, is the national psyche, our general values (i.e. a deep committment to fairness and due process in the criminal law, the social bonds and rules developed by and in some way unique to the nation in question, our committment representative democracy, our cultural practices and traits, I could go on. Culture was best defined to me by a friend who told me that when you go to France you notice loads of differences - that's their culture.

I think it is natural to be prejudiced rather than overtly racist. I also believe that we prefer to live amongst people with whom we believe share our own values and way of living - in this respect class is probably way, way more important than race.

[Neo2012]

When I hear Nick Griffin I support a lot of what he says but when I look at his supporters they are so racist that unless Nick takes serious action to cleanse the party of some of them and get the message to others to keep their personal views to themselves, griffin will never get the support from non-Caucasians that he will need to win power.

not much chance of that.


British National Party Now led by Griffin whose body guard was;

up to 2006 was Mick Holmes.
Former leader John Tyndall
bnp was a split from National Front at one point led by Arthur K. Chesterton [see below].
nf was a split Greater Britain Movement
GBR split from National Socialist Movement
GBR was a split from British National Party (1960)
BNP was formed from a merger of the National Labour Party and the White Defence League, which two political splinter groups from the League of Empire Loyalists led by Arthur K. Chesterton, a former leading figure in the British Union of Fascists, who had served under Oswald Mosley.

[British]

You may notice that many followers from way back in the days of Box Brownies actually hate Mr Griffin and the members of the British National Party as they see them as selling out.
Yes, BNP used to be a spin off from the National Front with all their short falls. But they have changed. And as such are gaining a sizable following.

[Neo2012]

Eh? The problem with the left and racism is that they constantly give the impression that racism is a white problem, that only whites are racist - isn't this a racist standpoint though?

depends on your definition

Sorry, but I do ignore racism and, as I believe Northern European culture is superior to those of say the Arabic culture or the culture of the taliban, then I am a racist as well, even though I believe that culture has little to do with race?

no.

As for real racism, have a look at certain black African countries, tribal conflicts, mass slaughter, genocide, that is real racism and we hear oh so little of it from our friends on the left.

you haven't read the many left articles on the racism and sectarianism, and it's roots?

The PC crud enforced upon us since the 1970s has done nothing but created division, treat people as people rather than endlessly going on about race. As for institutionalised racism, I have had the misfortune to study the Lawrence Inquiry; there is no evidence whatsoever of institutionalised racism and I defy anyone to show me where there is. Labels, labels, labels. I guess if you say it enough, people will eventually believe

You think it pc to ban "No Blacks. No Irish. No Dogs." signs at guest houses. the division was already there long before pc. I think PC is just a mythical stick which the right used to beat the left. Can you name it anybody who who acknowledges they are the fully paid up member of the politicaly correct brigade?

No misrepresentation at all, it the left wants to challenge racism, challenge all racism, not just that from white people.

from what I can see, they do.

As for Kings, depends on your definition (and lets face it, the left do seem obsessed with race and racial origin); I'm English but my father is from Northern Ireland. Am I English in your eyes?

the left believes there is only one race, the human race. the racial origins of Kings and Queens etc., is only pointed out to those that want to whitewash Britain's multicultural and multiracial history.

To state that culture is becoming globally homogenous is far from the truth, sure there are pressures from big business (which doesn't give a monkey's about culture or society)

yes I agree with you

and the left to engender such a culture with 1,000s of sub-cultures based on ethnic and cultural grounds, but more and more indiginous people are aware of and are defending their culture.

sorry, I don't understand what that means about the left.

But I also think there is some utilitarianism. Why else would English be the most adopted language in the world?

Would you say the global culture has become more homogenous, or less homogenous in the last 100 years?

Until recently scientists stated that, scientifically bumble bees couldn't fly.....I have degrees in social science and am well aware of what total BS academics can come out with.

Essentially you are arguing that the English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, French, Germans, Poles, Danes, Czechs, Latvians, etc., etc., don't actually exist? Hmmm, those bumble bees again.......

the exist as a social construct, only, the vast majority of peer reviewed evidence on DNA etc suggests. If you look at the BNP's constitution, even that accepts you can only realistically talk about Europeans.

[Neo2012]

You may notice that many followers from way back in the days of Box Brownies actually hate Mr Griffin and the members of the British National Party as they see them as selling out.
Yes, BNP used to be a spin off from the National Front with all their short falls. But they have changed. And as such are gaining a sizable following.

Well according to nick Griffin, he isn't "selling out" the ideas the BNP were founded upon;

Nick Griffin says "There is a difference between selling out your ideas, and selling your ideas. And the British National party is not about selling out our ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. That means using the saleable words, freedom, security, identity, democracy,,, [.......] Where we control the media, perhaps then the British people will say " every last one must go". [....] Instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity."

[Neo2012]

Mr. Ripley and opinionated, I think you are arguing at cross purposes. Originally Mr. Ripley did not say brit culture was inherently superior. And not all the left agree or Mr. Ripley. i think marx saw french and british society, capitalism, as superior/more advanced to others. also i've just found out lenin would have supported a british victory over the ottaman empire, for the same reason.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

depends on your definitionno.
you haven't read the many left articles on the racism and sectarianism, and it's roots?
You think it pc to ban "No Blacks. No Irish. No Dogs." signs at guest houses. the division was already there long before pc. I think PC is just a mythical stick which the right used to beat the left. Can you name it anybody who who acknowledges they are the fully paid up member of the politicaly correct brigade? from what I can see, they do.
the left believes there is only one race, the human race. the racial origins of Kings and Queens etc., is only pointed out to those that want to whitewash Britain's multicultural and multiracial history.

No I do not believe it is purely pc to ban discrimination, but from what I have seen and experienced of pc it is certainly far from being a mythical stick.

Those I know who profess pc values from every pore on their body would no doubt come up with a different explanation for their values and views, is there something inherently shameful about admitting to being thoroughly pc?

Regarding race, the left is clearly incorrect, racial differences do exist (not just in terms of looks, there are some genetic differences too), whether such differences should really matter is another question entirely.

Britain does have a history of immigration and cultural evolution, but generally the changes to British culture have been experienced over centuries with the majority of the incomers originating from cultures that are broadly similar. The mass immigration witnessed since the end of the British empire is completely different to that previously experienced, not least due to the great cultural differences of the immigrants and how their cultures are expected to be given equal status.

But I also think there is some utilitarianism. Why else would English be the most adopted language in the world?

Would you say the global culture has become more homogenous, or less homogenous in the last 100 years?

I imagine that English is the most adopted language as for over 100 years Britain was the greatest world power with business and other interests on every continent and since WWII the allegedly English speaking Americans have taken that mantle.

In many ways global culture has become more homogenous, in other ways less so.

the exist as a social construct, only, the vast majority of peer reviewed evidence on DNA etc suggests. If you look at the BNP's constitution, even that accepts you can only realistically talk about Europeans.

Yes, it is virtually impossible to show DNA differences between say an Englishman and a German (or at least currently it is), however, I would argue that being English or German is more about culture, history and membership of a societal group, albeit I do believe that there is an element of racial identity.

I imagine that what attracts many to the BNP is implicit within their constitution; they wish to keep the traditional cultural nature of Britain (albeit that message is somewhat obscured by a load of old hogwash regarding race).

What, imo, the left seems to ignore is that many in Britain wish to have a debate or at least a say on how their culture and society develops, and that having the process of cultural evoluation changed to something that can be best described as cultural revolution is a matter of profound concern. Sure there is a racial element here but for many of us this is a fundamental question of our culture, our society and the direction in which it is moving.

Generally, I suspect that with some BNP supporters you will find that they are Hitler loving Nazis (just as I suspect their are members of the Labour party who are out and out Marxists), but equally I suspect that many, many more are simply concerned with the direction unchecked mass immigration is taking the country in. Blindly attacking the BNP without addressing or even seeking to understand the primary reason for their growing support is a foolhardy strategy and one destined to failure.

[Opinionated]

...I imagine that what attracts many to the BNP is implicit within their constitution; they wish to keep the traditional cultural nature of Britain (albeit that message is somewhat obscured by a load of old hogwash regarding race).

This is what's so frustrating though (watch me try and bring this back on topic "can the BNP reform" - actually I might edit the title slightly to reflect the interesting direction it has taken), what exactly is "traditional" British culture? It only seems to be defined by what it's not (which hardly seems worth protecting) and don't give me nonsense about a sense of fair play and supporting the underdog etc, because whilst that may be perceived national characteristic, do we really only share non-tangibles in common? If so how is anyone supposed to "sign up" to supporting them?

What, imo, the left seems to ignore is that many in Britain wish to have a debate or at least a say on how their culture and society develops, and that having the process of cultural evoluation changed to something that can be best described as cultural revolution is a matter of profound concern. Sure there is a racial element here but for many of us this is a fundamental question of our culture, our society and the direction in which it is moving.

I am still not convinced that pc is a creation of the left, you use terms such as "marxist inspired", what the hell has political correctness got to do with Marxism? Nothing really has it, Marxists are more concerned with the exploitation of the workers than trying to encourage people to be nice to each other! I think you're right though, the often misplaced yet fundamentally well meaning "pc brigade" (although I far from accept there is any such cohesive group)have ended up stiffling debate which is wrong (I do not think that was anybody's intention). The best way to deal with this is still imo a codified bill of rights protecting everybody's right to be as vile to each other as they wish within the reasonable limits of the law!

Generally, I suspect that with some BNP supporters you will find that they are Hitler loving Nazis (just as I suspect their are members of the Labour party who are out and out Marxists), but equally I suspect that many, many more are simply concerned with the direction unchecked mass immigration is taking the country in. Blindly attacking the BNP without addressing or even seeking to understand the primary reason for their growing support is a foolhardy strategy and one destined to failure.

You seriously think there is one Marxist left in the Labour Party? Having been to conference a few times in the past I think "the Trots" outside the hall might disagree as would all those militants expeled in the eighties! I do agree with your last two sentences.

[sarasara]

There seems to be no sign so far from the party itself that it is being refomed. Nick Griffin makes the right noises but when you look at the party itself you have senior members putting out racist and anti-Semitic videos or posting official BNP videos from at least one Holocaust denyer website.

Griffin seems totally unable to control his party at the top level. But we shall see how Griffin speaks about non-white and other members joining.

[paradigmshift]

The BNP will not reform as long as it remains a small party.

But if a future general election becomes a referendum on immigration in which a vote for the BNP is not really a vote for Griffin or a vote for the BNP but simply a vote for less immigration, the BNP will probably become more moderate.

Why? If a few BNP MPs got elected and they ranted and raved like loonies they'd be out at the next election. If they become sensible (e.g. let's get on with people legally here but significantly cut immigration in the future) then people might vote for them again.

It's self regulating. The British people will never vote into power a bunch of loonie Fascists, but they might vote in a sensible party pledging to radically cut immigration who just happen to be called the BNP and who happened to have dodgy origins.

If you had said in the 1970s that Sinn Fein/IRA would ever be in Government you would have been thought bonkers. If Sinn Fein/IRA can transform into an electable party there is no reason why the BNP can't. I don't think they will, but it is possible.

[sarasara]

There seems to be no sign so far from the party itself that it is being refomed. Nick Griffin makes the right noises but when you look at the party itself you have senior members putting out racist and anti-Semitic videos or posting official BNP videos from at least one Holocaust denyer website.

Griffin seems totally unable to control his party at the top level. But we shall see how Griffin speaks about non-white and other members joining.

I have to retract that post as my investigations into the BNP now show me at any rate that Nick Griffin really is reforming but he has yet to impose the discipline he needs to on some of the old party warhorses.

Check his interviews with Andrew Marr and Adam Boulton both on You Tube.

[sarasara]

The BNP will not reform as long as it remains a small party.

But if a future general election becomes a referendum on immigration in which a vote for the BNP is not really a vote for Griffin or a vote for the BNP but simply a vote for less immigration, the BNP will probably become more moderate.

Why? If a few BNP MPs got elected and they ranted and raved like loonies they'd be out at the next election. If they become sensible (e.g. let's get on with people legally here but significantly cut immigration in the future) then people might vote for them again.

It's self regulating. The British people will never vote into power a bunch of loonie Fascists, but they might vote in a sensible party pledging to radically cut immigration who just happen to be called the BNP and who happened to have dodgy origins.

If you had said in the 1970s that Sinn Fein/IRA would ever be in Government you would have been thought bonkers. If Sinn Fein/IRA can transform into an electable party there is no reason why the BNP can't. I don't think they will, but it is possible.

I believe that it is happening now, I have been communicating with senior members and am very hopeful. It would be a tragedy if Griffin could not save Britain.

[sarasara]

not much chance of that.


British National Party Now led by Griffin whose body guard was;

up to 2006 was Mick Holmes.
Former leader John Tyndall
bnp was a split from National Front at one point led by Arthur K. Chesterton [see below].
nf was a split Greater Britain Movement
GBR split from National Socialist Movement
GBR was a split from British National Party (1960)
BNP was formed from a merger of the National Labour Party and the White Defence League, which two political splinter groups from the League of Empire Loyalists led by Arthur K. Chesterton, a former leading figure in the British Union of Fascists, who had served under Oswald Mosley.

So what's you point?

[paradigmshift]

I believe that it is happening now, I have been communicating with senior members and am very hopeful. It would be a tragedy if Griffin could not save Britain.

Interesting comment. In your view, what "needs to be done" to save Britain?

If you mean the virtual stopping of non-EU immigration, then a future Conservative government might go a long way down that route. So do we need the BNP? (By the way, those who like multi-culturalism and diversity don't worry: even if immigration stopped tomorrow there'd still be plenty of multi-culturalism and diversity for you to enjoy.)

If you mean expelling large numbers of people who are legitimately here, well, that is never going to happen. Quite apart from the impracticality and the fact we'd become a pariah state, the British people would never vote for it and there would be civil war if a government started rounding people up and shipping them out.

So what is the point of the BNP? I'll tell you. If they become respectable - which means that middle class people will vote for them and admit they have voted for them - that will put huge pressure on mainstream parties to radically cut immigration - actually do it rather than waffle about it. So the BNP would be like a magnet, drawing the centre ground of politics towards a very low immigration stance.

Now, if, reader, you are someone in favour of current levels of immigration and you believe a majority of the country shares your view, you have nothing to fear from the BNP: if you are in the majority the BNP will never get that many votes and a party standing for the current level of immigration, or even more immigration, (let's call it Labour) will win support for its pro-immigration stance, and win power. Democracy in action.

Should UK immigration policy be designed for the benefit of this country or should our immigration policy be for the benefit of people in other countries who would like to come here?

Being tough on immigration is not the same as being tough on immigrants. Very tough on immigration might mean virtually zero immigration. At the same time you can be very nice indeed (as you should) to immigrants: immigrants being people who live here. These two things often get confused in people's minds - they equate stopping immigration with being nasty to people who are here. Two quite separate things.

Trouble with the BNP, at least some of them anyway, is that they want to do both: stop immigration AND not be very nice to people who live here but who were not born here. If they changed and became a party wanting to stop immigration and be nice to people already here then they might be deemed "respectable".