Not sure if you have noticed through all of your hilarious rage, but the Tories have a front called “Nothing British” dedicated to lying and smearing the BNP, so they are not really friends!

Do you have anything to add to the great debate above or just more of this angry ranting and rule breaking? If you don’t like the rules here, and you are not desirous or capable of debate here why don’t you go and troll somewhere else?

Somewhere where threats to murder people with different opinions are welcome.

Perhaps a Muslim site, the UAF or the Labour party forums.

http://www.politicalgaming.com/

I have never seen the left able to honestly deal with these points without the usual recourse to “wacist”!

A brief response as I am quite busy and wasn’t really expecting any more sane and reasoned debate from this thread after that surreal nonsense earlier.

“Other observers include those who identify people as outsiders on the basis of religion or skin colour, or DNA. So my position is not that I am reading from you.”

I am not sure of the point being made here. Please elaborate.

“I’d blame the climate for this country being so attractive myself, but our ancestors undoubtedly contributed something.”

The climate of this country is in fact one of the major reasons people choose to leave this country for places like Spain and our ancestors didn’t just contribute “something” to this country, clearly they contributed everything to it. This country is a product of our ancestors.

“My query would be why the fact your ancestors made this country means that it is your birth right. Did they not have to work for their rights?”

My ancestors built this country for themselves and for their family and for both of their futures. The indigenous people are that family and are that future. My parents, grandparents and great grand parents alone, without the millennia preceding them, have contributed massively to the defence and wealth of this country as have pretty much every other indigenous Britons, and just as inheritance works through family ties so does birth right.

The past battles for rights were fought so we didn’t have to. So was the belief, tragically, in the Great War, “the war to end all wars.” Sadly, this has not been the case and the indigenous people are now facing so-called equality laws that allow them (and only them) to be discriminated against in their own land and face a demographic time bomb with the very real prospect of them becoming a disenfranchised minority in their own land.

“Last time I checked this country was attractive because of freedom and prosperity. Are those the result of indigenous peoples? Possibly”

Absolutely. Who else?

“…is it that you (and me I suppose) are superior because our ancestors lived in a state that produced freedom and prosperity, and therefore only we should possess this state?”

I made no call of superiority whatsoever.

And you have already made the point that freedom and prosperity were ‘rights’ fought for by the indigenous peoples of this country; they are not an automatic state as we know.

If peoples in foreign lands want these things then they should fight for them as we did.

If they choose not to do so and to leave their own country in a parlous state and enjoy benefits that our ancestors fought for instead, then they should certainly not come here and demand that we conform to their way of living and standards of freedom, as so many do.

In fact my right and ancient freedom of association on any grounds I choose has been removed because foreign peoples object to it and government has legislated against it.

“What I do know is that most African and quite a lot of Asian states are actually products of Europeans drawing lines on maps and conquering existing states”

That’s right. The British in particular. We have had the most profound impact on the world, its past and its future. And all from such a tiny populace from such a tiny island.

The indigenous people of this country are truly unique.

“States are not organic things”

Some are. This one is. Most islands are. Iceland is another one that comes to mind.

But essentially (and very abridged) nations form when people with distinct commonality bonded together.

“You cannot prove you (or I) built this country. You can prove that someone likely to be your (or my) ancestor was alive in this country in the past.”

As this country is a product of our ancestors it naturally follows (ergo) our ancestors built this country.

Whatever way you want to look at it, this country was built by the indigenous people.

“And you say you can prove that without you the country will become something that is not British. There is an obvious invitation here, but I will resist it.”

I am glad you did because that is not what I said, that I alone shape this country. I said it is the product of our ancestors, the indigenous Britons. And it is.

“But should a black or asian man whose family have been in Britain for 100 years, who feels and sounds British and partakes of British culture not also be considered as one of those who makes the country British”

Well that would a very rare case indeed as most immigrants here choose to live in ethnically centred areas and choose to practice their own customs and culture as testament to the thousands of Black / Asian / etc ‘cultural’ centres across the land as well as the thousands of Black / Asian etc specific organisations ranging in every conceivable area from health to music to police associations to Operation Black Vote.

“To be British is not to be white (sorry, I cannot accept indiginous as in your usage it is applied to a specific time-scale to sort your political views)”

To be ethnically British is, without doubt. Just as if I move to China, I may become civically Chinese but I will never become ethnically Chinese.

“I fully agree with you here, and have never challenged your right to express views I clearly disagree with and think are based on weak thinking”

Funnily enough, I feel exactly the same way about you, watchman!

It is not racist to develop a situation where racism flourishes. It is just stupid. Racism is simply discriminating against someone due to their race.

I hate multiculturalism with a passion, but I do not think the idiots who support it (if there are any left?) are racist. Just very very stupid.

That’s pretty much a textbook definition of racism. If the white “community” (notice how only white people don’t live in communities in the left wing lexicon) use their cutural/ethnic label of identity they would be branded as racists or worse. And if you really believe the (ghettosiation) effect was unitended then you are extremely naive, given that ghettosiation has happened in every place that multiculturalism has ever been tried.

Multiculturalism is just one strand of the “progressive” (i.e communist) agenda to undermine any sense of nationhood (except of course in favoured minorities who are actively encouraged to celebrate their origins in order to make them appear more numerous than they really are) leaving the way clear for everyones only identinty to be defined by the socialist state.

“You last statement sums up our position “It is up to us how we self-identify, not the government and not to other observers.””

Other observers include those who identify people as outsiders on the basis of religion or skin colour, or DNA. So my position is not that I am reading from you.

“We choose to associate and organise along lines that make sense to us. We know that we “exist” and that our ancestors are responsible for the making of this country into something that is so attractive millions want to come here. We know that we are the next link in this chain and that this country is our birth right, not just some debatable concept to be given away.”

I’d blame the climate for this country being so attractive myself, but our ancestors undoubtedly contributed something. My query would be why the fact your ancestors made this country means that it is your birth right. Did they not have to work for their rights? And debateable concept? It definitly exists you know – there are idiots who would rather it didn’t, true enough, but I don’t think denying the rather feudal ‘birth right’ argument means you do not believe in Britain. I think it means that you take people on their merit, not their appearance and ancestry.

“This country is precisely so attractive because it is a product of the indigenous peoples here. Without us there is no Britain. No country of choice for millions of immigrants. People come here for the very reason it is British and not their homeland. As I said, European peoples are not in Exodus to African and Asian states, which are the product of their indigenous peoples; it is pretty much all one way traffic.”

Last time I checked this country was attractive because of freedom and prosperity. Are those the result of indigenous peoples? Possibly, but I do not get the point you are making – is it that you (and me I suppose) are superior because our ancestors lived in a state that produced freedom and prosperity, and therefore only we should possess this state?

What I do know is that most African and quite a lot of Asian states are actually products of Europeans drawing lines on maps and conquering existing states, as indeed are most European states at some time or another. States are not organic things, but political creations that develop identities over time. They are certainly not unchanging folk communities, a concept that was challenged before the mid-nineteenth century!

“I am not sure why you think that Australians, Americans etc have to live in the UK by virtue of their DNA, that is not something I have said nor the BNP. All that has been intimated is that we are the indigenous peoples of these isles, we can prove that, we can prove that we built this country, we can prove that we are this country and that without us it will become something else. Something that is not British. ”

You cannot prove you (or I) built this country. You can prove that someone likely to be your (or my) ancestor was alive in this country in the past. But they may have been a royalist in the civil war, a plotter alongside Titus Oakes, a Catholic devotee against Henry VIII plans, a pacifist in World War II. You can’t prove they backed the narrative that actually built our country, only that they lived whilst it played out.

And you say you can prove that without you the country will become something that is not British. There is an obvious invitation here, but I will resist it. Rather you seem to think that British is related to ancestry. But should a black or asian man whose family have been in Britain for 100 years, who feels and sounds British and partakes of British culture not also be considered as one of those who makes the country British. To be British is not to be white (sorry, I cannot accept indiginous as in your usage it is applied to a specific time-scale to sort your political views), but to be British. It is a self-identifying identity, not a construct of race. Look at it another way: there are Scots, Welsh, Cornish and probably Men of Kent who want to be independent, not British. But they are equally ‘indiginous’ as you, just not claiming to be British.

“We have every right to our opinions and our democratic political process. You may not agree or see it our way. That is fine. Don’t vote for us.”

I fully agree with you here, and have never challenged your right to express views I clearly disagree with and think are based on weak thinking. It is not my right to supress your ability to state your beliefs, however silly I may think them. I suspect you would not be able to support my beliefs either, but that is the joy of democracy.

You need help. You really do.

But go on then, for the benefit of transparency and in the name of sanity I will ask you again, other then the word of a proven liar based upon God only knows what (distraction is my opinion) what single shred of evidence do you have that I am not John Smith (my real name) and am in fact someone called “sentinel” (whom I have never heard of)?

Go on, prove it you idiot. I know you can’t because it’s not true and you know you can’t for the same reason.

And that is why you seem to favour the absolutely bizarre hit-and-run approach of fictional smearing rather then address the reality of the disparity of your statements.

This is just one big surreal debate wrecking device and it firmly places you in breach of this sites comment policy and makes you a troll.

Pathetic and surreal.

Although do take care folks in your debates with him, he’s obsessed with the last word and if he don’t like you, he’ll call you a sex offender and a rapist, as well as using anti-Semitic insults and obscene sexual abuse directed towards your loved ones.

So it goes, some people have too much hate to give and not enough keyboard time.

In the comment above 10:29 am, March 12, 2010 he pompously claims:

“I err on the side of being kind, generous and supportive rather than cruel, distrustful and negative”

Unfortunately though, he starts off the comment with the complete antithesis of his rather disingenuous and glowing self-assessment on the subject of dissenting comments on contentious threads :

“they become full of BNP fans who vomit their bile everywhere”

Oh dear.

What a tenuous relationship with honesty, and what a dysfunctional attitude to diversity.

You last statement sums up our position “It is up to us how we self-identify, not the government and not to other observers.”

We choose to associate and organise along lines that make sense to us. We know that we “exist” and that our ancestors are responsible for the making of this country into something that is so attractive millions want to come here. We know that we are the next link in this chain and that this country is our birth right, not just some debatable concept to be given away.

This country is precisely so attractive because it is a product of the indigenous peoples here. Without us there is no Britain. No country of choice for millions of immigrants. People come here for the very reason it is British and not their homeland. As I said, European peoples are not in Exodus to African and Asian states, which are the product of their indigenous peoples; it is pretty much all one way traffic.

I am not sure why you think that Australians, Americans etc have to live in the UK by virtue of their DNA, that is not something I have said nor the BNP. All that has been intimated is that we are the indigenous peoples of these isles, we can prove that, we can prove that we built this country, we can prove that we are this country and that without us it will become something else. Something that is not British.

We have every right to our opinions and our democratic political process. You may not agree or see it our way. That is fine. Don’t vote for us.

Clearly this Hoffmann-Gill character is mentally deranged and making wild accusations to distract away from the fact that I caught him out lying and that he was then unable to confront that with honesty.

I have not even the remotest idea of what he is smearing me about and John Smith is my given name. It is quite a spectacular lie to make, but then I suppose given that he has already been proven as a liar it’s only a short step for him.

Of course you will notice that he offers not one scrap of evidence for his distracting nonsense (yet another who breaches this sites comment policy whilst screeching troll) and that pretty much says it all.

Fantastic nonsense from a deranged liar to distract away from the fact that he has been caught lying and clearly cannot handle it.

What an amazing way to wreck a debate. Hoffmann-Gill has been unable to address the facts and so resorts to this. Even if this “sentinel” had (some basis in existence?) and appeared here and pointed out his lies, they would have still remained his lies and he would still remain unable to address them. And that is all that remains here.

Take your meds, fella, and if you going to be a liar and you don’t have a good memory, at least check your last few comments first.

I’m sorry to hear about your expiriences with this “John Smith” or “Sentinel” as he is called.But it has nothing to do with me.I have no contact with any other commentators anywhere whatsoever.I’m strickly a one man show and not affilliated with any organisations of any kind.
I suppose thats partly the hazard of the occupation–as one might say.Or hazard of the internet.

“Good grief,is this what happens to BNP threads”

No Daniel.
Your crowd express the same horror over non-left commentators reactions to Liddle and Black crime rates,the E.U.,Islam,immigration,–or just about any of the major concerns of the general British public.
You always refer to it as “vomit their bile everywhere”no matter what the subject.

“I have no idea why you felt the need to direct a long missive at me? “.

I.m glad you asked.Its because over the last two years of my occasional forays over to L.C–depending on the subject under debate,I’ve noticed your habitual response consist of your standard hallmark typically short comments consisting of a few derogotary simplifications like “racist” or “loony”.
I may not agree with them,but I respect the fact that many commentators here display a scholarly quality and a willingness to put their opinions to the test of debate.
After all, the same people if given the opportunity could at some point in the future have the power to influence my life and that of my people and most likely not for the better.
As a matter of fact they most probably will.
When I saw there was a debate about the future of Britain(The BNP).
I thought to myself—”I wonder if “two-line,fuck-off racist–Daniel Hoffman Gill is there telling everybody that well worn crap about the Britain being nothing more than a kind of floating no-mans land, international train station waiting-room for any mug to pass through and pitch up a tent..,and calling bigot to anyone who disagreed.
And guess what–he was and he did.

I’m sure that you believe that you are fighting the good fight and strive to be a fair and decent human being.Don’t we all.
But if you want to sing the blues—you have to pay your dues—so your going to just have to accept that there are people out there who beg to differ.
Unfortunatley,as history never tires from reminding us–as often as not–the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I two would like to have your optimism—but I appear to have been mugged by reality.
You have the easier task because at the moment its invogue and with a well established school of ideology behind it.
I find myself on the rougher and lonlier road less travelled by.
I have much more rewarding and less depressing pastimes I would rather be engaged with and would gladly pay a hansome sum to be relieved of my concerns.
But that would be a cheap,hedonistic,egoistic,cop-out to my mind–leaving later generations to pay in full for our folly.
Such a dereliction I cannot find it in myself to do.

By the way-thanks for your reply.
You need not respond.

Regards
journeyman

I do think other groups can be racist – I’ve experienced it for a start. And seen it go the other way too, all equally unacceptable. How organising yourself into just another ghettoised community on the basis of an assumed identity deals with racism is beyond me though. Care to explain how that might work?

Anyway, to organise yourself by DNA is no different from organising yourself by say religion or skin colour or indeed football team. It is simply choosing one marker from many, and dividing people up by it. It is no different from opposing those who are not muslims, who are not black or who do not support Leeds.

And if you want DNA to stand for a claim to live somewhere, what the hell are we going to do with all the returning Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc whose DNA (in your view) indicates they have to live in Britain. Or does this logic only apply to white people?

Oh, and if you didn’t get the hint from my last posting, I’m firmly opposed to government using any sort of ethnic identifiers – we are all people, and need not be identified by government as white – English or whatever (for the record, I am a slightly pinky browny shade, rather than being made of alabaster). It is up to us how we self-identify, not the government and not to other observers.

Well,let me say first that I wanted to take things step by step.
Thats why I challenged Hoffmann Gill’s attempt to selectively delegitimise the British as a country without a truely indigenous ethnic group.
I percieve such propaganda as a form of racist psychological warfare with the ultimate aim of stripping them of their entire historical identity.
Its a form of cultural rape,which could lead within the next few generations to the original settlers being dispossed of their rights to remain as the majority culture and preserve self-determination in their homeland.

And as to your question.Well–I am not a member of the B.N.P.
But I can clearly see the dilemma.I wouldn’t assume for a minute that there are any easy answers or clear dividing lines.
There is the optimum ideal solution which could be the aim of reverting to 1948 or sometime when Britian was mostly culturally ,ethnically homogenous,but I don’t believe thats feasable,on both practical and moral grounds.
So lets imagine we exclude that extreme as a possible outcome.

The other extreme is of course if within this century,indigenous British people become a minority in their own country—and disenfranchised into the bargain–to the great joy,mirth and wonderment of the immigrant communities that any nation could have been suicidally dum enough to accept such self-destruction.(which no other non-white nation would ever remotley contemplate doing willingly in a million years.
The British will be rightly despised by them as a people for displaying such madness.
And they will be the laughing stock of the entire world.

To get closer to your question,I would suggest to the BNP that Britain should consider itself lucky if it does not end up as a quasi-balkanised enclave fragmented semi -Islamised state within the next decades—and after all illegal immigrants,criminals,extremists have been deported,and immigration cut to zero—-that a comprimise will have to be found.
Most non-muslim immigrants—blacks ect ect.appear to have less religious cultural baggage than muslims.
Sikhs,Hindus,Chinese ect either assimilate or are at least less of a threat.

This whole mess took fifty odd years to get into,and it may take fifty years or more to establish some kind of reasonable balance.
The greatest threat is (salami-slice)tactical incremental demographic Islamization.
Death of a thousand cuts.
One of the most difficult things to reverse or even stop are the effects of immigration,although the correct term would be colonization.
The demographic consequences–births rates ect are even more impossible to slow down or reverse.
What we have is nothing less than a runaway train,without breaks or a driver.
It was set in motion to satify the requirements of corporate global capital and is perpetuated by mercenary politcal careerist self-interest ,coupled with leftist anti-western revolutionary campus cafe rhetoric.
It could be much more ethically immoral to do nothing–than to do something.
If—-there does come a day when the whole of hell breaks loose and things begin to disintigrate–looking around for someone to blame will be bitter comfort.

Your question:”Should I join the BNP.”
I can’t answer that.I’m not the BNP or you.
And what would they make of you if you showed up at one of their meetings.
Its all a bit of a mess–isn’t it.
But I think the “law of unintended consequences” is going to have its fun.

Regards journeyman.

I recognise “John Smith” as BNP bloggerThe Sentinel, a chap currently trying and failing to smear me as a rapist, pedophile amongst a whole other long list of such things. He is also, as regular readers of Lib Con will know, responsible for pretending to be me and others here leaving offensive comments.

Not a pleasant chap at all and full details on him can be foundhere and also here.

Journeyman:

I have no idea why you felt the need to direct a long missive at me?

You have a fear of Islam and I do not.

You have a fear of some “new conformists” and I do not.

You have a fear of this imaginary left you have conjured and I do not.

You have a fear of an imagined overwhelming anti American—anti-British stance and I do not.

You equate the left with Stalin and I do not.

You equate a BNP government with being no worse than what is happening regarding your fictional, hypothesised Islamic invasion. Again, more fear.

You enquire regarding my ideas on Britain having an indigenous population, taking them all out of proportion and building a strawman the size of Jesus Christ atop a Rio de Janeiro hill. I think ideas of indigenous-ness are backward and divisive and as someone who is a composite of German Jew and Anglo-Saxon, in a long term relationship with a South African of Indian-Coloured descent with Namibian in the mix; I care more about mixing and of making something better than petty ideas race so others can be excluded.

I err on the side of being kind, generous and supportive rather than cruel, distrustful and negative.

Preserving blood lines is as pointless and reductive as those idiots who will not let their children marry out of their ethnic group.

Hopefully, over time, these ideas will melt away as we understand that such petty concerns are not worthy of humanity, bigger fish to be fried.

Your words are that of someone scared, frightened by the rapid changes of the modern world, that is fine, you can have your fear and all the negative off-shoots of that fear but me and many others will be looking forward, not back and seeking a better sense of unity, compassion and understanding.

I am not scared.

“In real life we do not choose between right and wrong,but between two evils”
George Orwell.

Although not being a member or having voted for the B.N.P.—I cannot claim that I either support everyone of their views,nor do I reject all of them.
There are people such as myself,who will support UkIP,Geert Wilders and various other organisations and individuals such as I.F.P.S, / Mark Steyn / and the views of certain anti-Islamization,nationalist entities.
Where they over lap with the B.N.P. is becoming irrelevant because althought the B.N.P are not as squeaky clean or untainted by past baggage as I would like them to be—present events such as the infiltration of European political parties,in particular Lib/Lab/Con by Islamist organisations in Britain and other institutions such as police ect.ect.have begun to eliminate the hedonistic moral luxury of prioritizing anti-Muslim xenophobia as a major threat to the nation or for that matter even classifying it as “racism”.
Just so you know were I stand.I believe the greatest threat the continuing existence to western civilization that ever stalked the Earth have been and are—-those who I describe as the Religious Left and specifically the 68 campus radical “new conformists”–although Orwell detected the roots of that trend in his critical essays,where he observed….

“certain portions of the British academic “intelligencia” placing Nazism and Communism on the same moral plain as Democracy”.End Quote.

That was until Hitler attacked Russia of course:Mmm…flirting with the enemy again I see.
He also noted their overwhelming anti American—anti-British stance.
The left have habitually by reflex taken the side of every anti-western genocidal dictator as a matter of principal.Mao and Stalin come to mind.

Any conceivable adverse effects that the B.N.P could have upon society are dwarfed by the 1.6 Billion Islamic population and its 30+million growing demographic and political influence in Europe.According to my perception,we have four or fives election cycles and 25 years maximum before reaching the point of unaviodable “civilizational compromise”at best ,and Lebanon style civil war as more likely–even without the existence or influence of the B.N.P.
It will be at that point where the “Left”will suddenly reprogram their computer chip,and recognising they have been complicit in the creation of a Frankenstein monster who is turning upon their creator having no need of him any longer and fight it or emigrate an masse in abject panic.

Are your views on the matter of indigenous peoples confined to British people,or do they include all Europeans,or perhaps all white people.?
Do you believe that North and South American Indians,Australian Aboriginies,Maori,Tibetans ,Chinese,Japanese,Scandanavians have no more right to claim indigenous status than Britons—or do you believe they have more right?
Do you believe any ethnicity,culture has a right to preserve its blood
-line,ancestory,history,traditions,culture and shared norms and values.
Do you believe that it is immoral or ignorant if one wishes to do so?
Do you believe that an indigenous and homogenous people can prevent the dilution and erradication of such things under all and any circumstances,including immigration into their midst by a vastly foreign culture?

Is “racism”—an adequate description of your ideology because your belief expresses overwhelmingly a contravention of the (United Nations Charter on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples— according to whose articles and criteria–the British people are an indigenous race,and also the changes taking place in British society due to immigration are in contravention of several of the Charters articles,which when applied to any culture would be a contravention of internation law.

This charter recognises race,blood-line,ancestory,geography,history,gene-pool and many other factors that contribute to a society over time evolving a recognisable homogenous identity.
It also recognises the universal benefit of a society to maintain this trait,and the destructive effects if not respected.,such as ghettoization,fragementation,balkanisation,cultural identity crisis,and civil war,which could create regional instablity.

This international institution does not agree with your assesment that:

“Nationalism is a basic,outmoded,corrupt idea,based on lines drawn in the sand,mostly by white people ,in recent history.”

And neither would anybody with a resonable grasp of history.
Because if one were to put that “meme”into practise,it would cause utter chaos, civil strife and war on a global scale.Such a philosophy is a theoretical,idealistic,utopian,projection,which is in contradiction with the socialogical sciences and conclusions.
You may not have been happy about the collapse of the U.S.S.R.But the Poles wanted to be Poles,and the Hungarians wanted to be Hungarians,and the Czeks wanted to be Czeks.Do you have some kind of issue with that.?

“based on lines drawn in the sand,mostly by white people in recent history”

It’s old whitey again its it.Is there anything he didn’t invent.Is there any crime he is not guilty of.?

The Chinese,the Middle East,the North Africans,and the peoples of the Indian sub-continent where forming nations based on race,ethnicity,blood-line,geography,religion and other factors when Europeans were still living in caves.
Ask any professional anthropological sociologist.Nationalism is not a primitive,outmoded,abstract,unnatural,concept.
It is an evolved,organic “Hard Wired” tribal instinct. A nation is a manifestation of the “Extended Family”.
Xerxes,Alexander the Great,Ceasar,Mohammed,Ghengis Khan,Napolean,Hitler,Stalin and yes…..the British,French and Spanish empires,had no more respect for the concept and integrity of national borders or indigenous communities than you do.

The danger of the wheeling out the “Holocaust”–as dreadful as it was–to the point where it is now on par with the Crucifixion as a religious icon representing a modern day version of collective guilt or “biblical mortal sin”—-whenever immigration into white societies is debated is dangerous to the point of criminal negligence.
It is dangerous because it enforces the belief that the concept of the “inferior other”
or “politicised xenophobia” is….

1)A concept invented by white civilization.

2)An emotion only white skinned people are capable of.

3)That it is an purely an abstract,intellectual concept and not instinctively hard-wired.

4)That if all white communities are reconditoned not to strive to preserve and indentify their culture as being an extension of their geography,history,myths,legends,blood-line,ancestory,religion,tradgedies,triumphs and shared norms and values…

……..that those other ethnic and religious entities will reciprocate.Or even that they are at a comparable level of self-reflective ,cultural sophistication that they would ever even be capable of doing so.
In other words.the danger is…through some form misplaced white guilt and atonement for past sins real or imaginary,that we will enact a form of “Unilatteral Cultural Disarament”.
And we will incrementally be hollowed out from within,one slice at a time.

I would be interested to know Daniel,when the rest of the non-white nations of the world and those ethnic/religious groups that live among us, will simultaneously fall in line and dump all these “outmoded artificial constructs.?
If not,some time this century,there may be a vacuum that you have aided and abetted in creating as a kind of legacy.And future generations may pay in blood for your idealistic perfectionist self-gratification.

And I thought a quote would clarify some things.

“But what is British ethnicity.Patriotism is more than just love of some particular countryside.It is a spiritual concept that recognises that each of us represents a link in a chain stretching into our past and leading to our future.
Acknowledging the struggle and sacrifice of previous generations,acts as a spur not only to safeguarding our achievements but to emulate them.
The “Lie” is that there is no racial basis for nationhood.Instead we will get the “inclusive”patriotism that declares that any featherless biped that happens to be born here and is capable of passing a citizenship test,is not just a citizen but totally British.
The phrase “Our Country” has a resonance that trandscends politics.
It means more than just regarding our nation as just a geographic piece of land with no more meaning or significance than any other.
It is a sense of belonging,a shared history,ancestory and common blood-line.
A feeling that we belong to a people who are special and unique.

You may not be able to comprehend or sympathise with the sentiments echoed in the above quote.But paradoxically,I believe most immigrants will be able to.

I–we, are not the keepers of our inheritance,we are the temporary custodians who are here to defend it and pass it on to future generations.

We defend our tribe—and the tribe is our family,our friends,our street,our village,our region,our nation,our past and our future.
It is the most natural thing in the world.

I think there are many who would say quite rightly—you want it,just try and take it.

Thanks for your attention.
Any thoughts would be welcome.

As pointed out above you called for the murder of someone with differing views.

Try and justify that how you like but “Dave” was not acting the instructions of the BNP and the BNP had liability whatsoever for him or his actions. Whereas you are responsible for your own actions and statements.

The left do have current responsibility for at least one illegal war and another ongoing one in which hundreds of thousands have died.

We could play those games all day long. It is not debate though and clearly you are not here for debate. You are here to troll and you are breaching the comments policy of this site, which clearly defines you as a troll.

The BNP’s support has doubled recently according to the Metro.

10 years ago the BNP had no elected officials whereas today it has over 100 councillors, 1 GLA seat, 2 MEP’s and is set to take over the council of Stoke and Dagenham as well as possibly gaining at least one MP.

A remarkable achievement by any standard within a decade, but more so when you consider the establishment parties unified hate as well as the unified NUJ lead media smear campaigns of unprecedented scale.

As for why have I commented here: Why not? Why shouldn’t I? Can you not handle debate? You post about the BNP but really expect no one from the BNP perspective to comment?

The comments policy of this blog doesn’t state anywhere that dissent is banned.

In fact quite the opposite “We believe in freedom of speech…we welcome constructive scrutiny of our views.”

So I think it is you who needs to revise your position on my right to comment and also consider this part of the policy that bans “abusive, sarcastic and troll-ish comments” with your friends call for the murder of people with differing opinions and the part of the policy that bans “off-topic, diversionary or trollish comments” and see how that applies to your rather ludicrous “are you pretending you don’t mind me not being white because I’m not a Muslim” emotive.