Monday, June 08, 2009

Labour lose to the Conservatives, UKIP and the BNP

In the English local elections held last Thursday, the Conservatives won around 38% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats 28% and Labour 23%.

That was poor enough for the ruling party.

But Labour's share of the vote at the European elections has slumped to just 15.3 per cent – worse than that worst any Labour MP had hoped and prayed for. In fact, it was a worse collapse than the Conservatives ever endured, even at their lowest ebb. Across Scotland the SNP secured 29 per cent of the vote to Labour's 21 per cent. They also lost in Wales for the first time since 1918, and the Conservative Party came top in quite a magnificent achievement. Nationally, Gordon Brown has delivered Labour its worst post-war election result as the party was beaten into third place by a very impressive performance by UKIP which gained 17.4 per cent of the vote.

Of course, the story of the night was the victory of the BNP, the ‘non-racist’ and ‘Christian’ party which won its first seats in a national election, and now sends two MEPs to Brussels to represent the United Kingdom.

The main parties at Westminster have no-one to blame but themselves.

Cranmer does not wish to comment further on this, other than to say how profoundly saddened he was to hear Nick Griffin, sporting a cross in his lapel, assert on national television that he is a Christian but defend an overtly racist party membership policy. Nick Griffin said his party was ‘the most demonised and lied-about party in British politics’, yet Cranmer heard the racistm from Mr Griffin’s own lips. He referred to the support his party receives from Asian Sikhs, but they are not permitted to join. While the Gospel of Jesus Christ admits all, irrespective of ethnicity, only the ‘indigenous’ may join the BNP. For Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek: all are one. For the BNP, there is white Anglo-Saxon and alien: a supremacist creed antithetical to every fundamental teaching of the New Testament.

The results have sent shockwaves through UK politics. This is Gordon Brown’s Judgement Day. In two English regions, the South-East and South-West, the Green Party beat Labour into fifth place. Nationally, his party languishes in third place, beaten not only by a fairly static Conservative Party but a much mocked a derided ‘fringe’ party of ‘fruitcakes and loons’.

Labour MPs blame the expenses scandal, they blame the recession. They probably blame the weather and Margaret Thatcher as well.

Cranmer agrees with Daniel Hannan that the country needs a political catharsis. The 12-year dominance of New Labour has come to an end. The Government lacks legitimacy, and this parliament has no moral authority.

It is time for a General Election.


Blogger peter_dtm said...

and if you listen/watch the BBC you'd think that Labour had almost won !

and none of the main parties seems to get what my friends & colleagues tell me - the BNP vote is NOT anti labour

it is ANTI EU and ANTI Immigration.

8 June 2009 at 09:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

New Labour is in terminal decline.

The Conservatives, much as I would like, cannot be sure of achieving a good, solid, working majority.

There are a number of reasons for this.

The first is that voters reject the EU in a more radical way than Cameron and hague do.

The second reason is bound up with the first. Britain’s borders stretch from Dublin in the West to Bucharest in the East; and from Helsinki in the North to Athens in the South.

In other words, when a nation-state loses control of its borders it also begins to lose its identity. Britain is a member of a trans-national super-state.

In terms of destroying national identity, two issues acted like a pincer movement: devolution and ‘ever closer union’.

Neither mainstream party can speak about loss of control over our borders because they have lost the moral vocabulary to do so.

If you want to put the high moral case for regaining control of our borders and attack ‘ever closer union’ simultaneously, then you need to study carefully Roger Scruton’s ‘England – and the Need for Nartions’.

8 June 2009 at 09:46  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I'm pleased that Daniel Hannan will continue the fight. I am not so sure that the Tory victory was a victory for the UK though. Cameron is a Europhile no matter what he tries to tell us to the contrary.

That's not good.

He's also bought into the AGW scam. His party, the so called opposition, sleep-walked through Miliband's Energy bullsh*t and signed us up to an economically suicidal carbon credits deal that, if carried out, will make us more vulnerable than at any time since WWII. At least during the war we were energy self-sufficient.

That's not only not good it's disastrous.

Someone suggested that Glasgow be taken off the grid and allowed to be powered by the new Whitehill wind farm without taxpayer subsidy (with certain exceptions such as hospitals but NOT government offices). The Glaswegians and the country would quickly learn that sustainable wind energy is anything but sustainable when the wind fails to blow.

The highlight for me last night was Harpy being verbally slapped by YouGov for accusing them of something they didn't do while trying to convince anyone watching that Brown was the only man for the job; blah blah blah.

Heh heh.

Oh and way to go UKIP!

8 June 2009 at 09:57  
Blogger Paul said...

Does Your Grace find it interesting that the people of the United Kingdom prefer racists to Christians, going by the European voting?

8 June 2009 at 09:58  
Anonymous Billy Shake-Spear said...

The Hemicycle is a stage, a farce where actors play. I think I see the scene:-

Act 1: Gruppenfuhrer Griffin harangues Germanic cousins for failure to uphold the inglorious traditions of their Aryan forefathers.

Act 2: Ageing Stormtrooper tramples the sensitivities of “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

Act 3: Battered BNP bolstered by vicious Vikings, gangster Goths and assorted belligerent Barbarians.

Act 4: Desperate Dan Hannan takes the initiative with both feet - debate goes nuclear – Nigel Farage makes Unilateral Declaration of Independence and UKIP head for Dunkirk.

Act 5: Verbal Armageddon – EUSSR vaporised in multilingual fireball!

Ah, alas, tis but a foolish dream.

8 June 2009 at 10:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Paul,

The reality is that very many Christians reject the whole concept of a 'Christian' party. While committed racists may be inclined to vote for the BNP (though doubtless not all of its supporters are racist), the majority of committed Christiand prefer to be salt and light in the world.

8 June 2009 at 10:02  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"For Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek".

Oh come on Your Grace. Is that the same Jesus who basically called a Syro-phonecian woman a bitch, and who told his disciples not to go to the gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel? And isn't the whole OT basically a racist, nationalistic book?

And the "there is neither Jew nor Greek" quote is - as usual - used out of context. That passage is talking about SALVATION not about national politics for which there is most obviously nationals & non-nationals, males & females (as St Paul knew full well when he took advantage of his Roman citizenship to get himself acquitted).

Despite explicit calls & campaigns NOT to vote for them from every other political party, from all the major church denominations, from celebrities & non-celebrities alike; And despite all the scorn, name-calling, smearing & vitriol directed towards them & their supporters from every single media outlet they have seen councillors & MEP's elected.

The idea that people don't know they have a racist membership policy is ridiculous. It's just that people don't care. They hate the EU and they hate the Islamification of their country & they hate multiculturalism more than they hate racism.

It is all of no consequence anyway. It'll be business as usual at the EU.

8 June 2009 at 10:06  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

Well how can Christians help it if certain races insist on being Moslem in a Christian country? Beyond that, though, they insist on trying to turn the same Christian country Moslem; on making Christians second class citizens; and on trying to impose Moslem Law on Christians...

If refusing to go along with that lot makes me a racist, then so be it. I wasn't one until that happened.

I don't understand though - what are all these Anti-euros going to do in brussels?

8 June 2009 at 10:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Well how can Christians help it if certain races insist on being Moslem in a Christian country?’

There are two difficulties with that view.

The first is that people have freedom to be of any faith or none at all; and the second is Christianity cannot be imposed at the point of a sword as it were. Conversion requires the Holy Spirit to convict the unrepentant heart of wrong-doing and asking Jesus to forgive our sins for He alone bore the penalty.

In my opinion, paradoxically, the collapse of Judaeo-Christianity in this country (replaced by moral relativism) caused an identity crisis within British Islam.

Why did radical Islam not arise in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s when it is clear that there was more racism?

British Left-liberalism swept away Judaeo-Christianity in this country (supported by legislation) and realised that it would have to invent a new ethics.

I am sure that CS Lewis once wrote that you cannot invent a new ethics anymore than you can invent a new solar system. In other words, the invention of a new ethics (socialism-humanism) would have dire consequences.

Once Judaeo-Christianity collapsed British Muslims did not have a dominant religion from which to define them in contra-distinction. That impelled them to search the Koran to discover who they were.

Unless there is a Judaeo-Christian revival in this country further social fragmentation is inevitable. Another paradox is that the social fragmentation (created by the collapse of Judaeo-Christianity) is now revealing itself in voting patterns and both main parties are suffering. They are suffering because there is no national consensus on values. They have brought this upon their own heads.

8 June 2009 at 11:14  
Anonymous McKenzie said...

It's a mess isn't it. When we are angry we are cable of things that do not necessarily reflect the greater part of who we want to be.

The salt has lost its saltiness, OBVIOUSLY. I will be the first to admit that it saddens me. But salt thrown into a wound is also another issue. I keep repeating myself in the vain hope that someone will start to listen. I refuse to believe that we have thousands of racists in this country (yet). But if we continue along the present road towards moral degeneration, then what remains will be ugly.

I think it was Paul who said that salt which loses its saltiness is worthless, useless. So by all means continue in your quest to be salt of the earth, but the present tasteless brand will garnish very different flavours to what would be representative of Christ.

There is only one message in all of this: Continue to ignore people's concerns, and continue to throw salt in the wounds, and it will continue to get worse.

What happens when you call these people names is this, they go out of their way to address each accusation, and with the determination of Gordon Brown, they invest ever increasing degrees of futile energy into trying to prove the respectability of the BNP. But with each surge of energy, the party advances step by step.

The Conservatives will take the reins at the next election. Are there any signs that they are going to address any of the concerns which have brought us this far down a dark and twisted road? None that I have seen or heard.

We need to get some fresh salt I think, and use it in the manner for which it was intended.

We all have a responsibility in this. I would not waste my own breath trying to tell these people that they are wrong though. I live in a cosy rural town, and would not even dream of living in Dagenham or Barking, it would overwhelm me, I would be far out of my comfort zone. And if in the space of a few years, the same thing took place here where I live, I would be equally angry. I would want to engage in some serious protesting. Such behaviour then becomes an obsession, and the more determined you become, the harder it becomes to rationalise.

To make things worse still, we had foreign ideology blowing the crap out of us in our cities; plotting against us; insulting demonstrations that demanded our heads and telling our police to go to hell, and all in our face when we know that such behaviour would never be tolerated from our own. And suddenly, the salt of the earth is shocked that such an event as last night could ever be possible.

What part of the story is so hard to understand? If you plant weeds, and water them, nurture them, and even fertilse them, they will out-grow everything else in the entire garden. Deny the oxygen of publicity, pretend that the weeds are not there, and then continue to cultivate them.....perfect, absolute bloody genius.

8 June 2009 at 11:47  
Blogger ooberLib said...

yes indeed, these are angry people. If we want them back then the next government is going to have to win them over. How the hell this will be possible I do not know, given the economic situation and the predicted moratorium which lies ahead.

It's going to take a lot of salt. Old Enoch's prophesy of rivers of blood may not have come about, but his words are a getting harder to chew by the day. There is an obvious fact staring us in the face here, and it is that people are not comfortable with high levels of immigration in their towns and cities. This is not just the UK saying this.

It is very obvious to me that to continue with such a policy is DANGEROUS. Things have far exceed the warning sign level, and if there is no will to address the truth now, then ignore this at your own peril.

It was dam foolishness. Everything works its way out in the wash so to speak, but there should have been much more sensitivity and consideration. My concern now is that Europe is going to divide in a process of mitosis and descend into a war of insults and fighting between the varying cells. I can see the beginnings of it already as everyone is jumping into clusters and circling the wagons.

God help us. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that it is all somebody else's problem, and that it will get sorted. "All I need to do is condemn it"

8 June 2009 at 12:16  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

I have read some excellent comments esp Mckenzie and Singh. I think the summary of them is that the powers that be are NOT LISTENING to the concerns of the British people. I do fear for the future if this continues.

8 June 2009 at 12:44  
Blogger FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

The election of the BNP MEPs should be welcomed by lovers of democracy everywhere.
Hopefully, this will make the mainstream parties realise why this has happened.
It has come about from the disconnect they have from the voters.
Both Labour and the Tories have over the years become too PC, too Pro-Europe and too soft on immigration.
The main parties and Liabour especially have also become extremely undemocratic and corrupt.
To defeat the BNP, the main parties need to listen to their voters, adopt policies more in tune with their thinking and become honest and accountable.
Today's success for the BNP was democracy in action.
I said as much on my blogs this morning.

8 June 2009 at 12:45  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...


Not Paul but Jesus: "You are like salt for the whole human race. But if salt loses its saltiness, there is no way to make it salty again. It has become worthless, so it is thrown out and people trample on it" (Matt. 5:13)

8 June 2009 at 13:00  
Blogger ooberLib said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 June 2009 at 13:20  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Hank P

Thank you. I have a feeling that His Grace was expecting this one to come back anyway. I rather like to think so anyway.

8 June 2009 at 13:23  
Anonymous chris r said...

Rebel Saint,

"Oh come on Your Grace. Is that the same Jesus who basically called a Syro-phonecian woman a bitch, and who told his disciples not to go to the gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel? And isn't the whole OT basically a racist, nationalistic book?"

1) Jesus healed the Syro-phonecian woman and commended her faith.
2) The gospel was to be preached to all nations after the jews had opportunity to hear.
3) Jesus had more time for men of faith (such as the Roman centurion) than he did for the faithless of his own nationality.
4) The ot is nationalistic because God originally chose Abraham and his descendents. The nt invites "all who are thirsty" to come and drink, whether jew, greek, gay, straight, male or female - only He requires a change of heart and lifestyle from whoever accepts the invitation ...

8 June 2009 at 13:25  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

I was not at all surprised by the results last night.
For many people in my part of the realm the events at Luton where our soldiers were verbally abused for freeing Iraq and establishing democracy was the last straw. The perpetrators of that outrage went well beyond the conventions of “free speech” and should have been immediately arrested for incitement and treason. They were not.
Well done politicians, police, and officialdom in general; your impotence managed to stoke the fires of discontent and now we have the elevation of Herr Griffin.
A triumph of democracy? or judgement on our ruling elite for trying to turn us into Europeans through deliberate policies of ethnic dilution and cultural mutation?
Either way the unrest about immigration in general and aliens from planet Islam in particular is not confined to to “this precious stone set in a silver sea.” They wanted a united Europe. Well it looks like they're going to get it, one with the indigenous proletariat in uproar!

8 June 2009 at 13:26  
Anonymous Fran said...

Rebel Saint

'Oh come on Your Grace. Is that the same Jesus who basically called a Syro-phonecian woman a bitch, and who told his disciples not to go to the gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel? And isn't the whole OT basically a racist, nationalistic book?'

Answer: No. The Hebrew Scriptures relate the story of how the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob chooses a people through whom He wishes to bless the world, and whose own blessing depends upon their fulfilling that mission.

'The idea that people don't know they have a racist membership policy is ridiculous. It's just that people don't care. They hate the EU and they hate the Islamification of their country & they hate multiculturalism more than they hate racism.'

Spot on!

8 June 2009 at 14:07  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Puritan Preacher

No they did not go "well beyond the conventions of “free speech”.

The moment you apply any caveats to the idea of free speach it instantly ceases to become free speech. There is no discussion to be had about that, that is an unshakeable absolute fact.

That doesn't mean for one second what they said should remain unchallenged.

But it should be challenged by an equal amount of free speech coming from the other viewpoint and as such nobody should be stopped from saying anything, whether what they say is right or wrong in the common public view is not the question.

To paraphrase:

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will die to protect your right to say it."

And the other problem with the caveats added to the idea of free speech, who is adding them, what gives them the right to choose them and who do the caveats benefit becuase by their very inclusion they must be made against some party in which case this is discriminatory towards that group/party's/person's right to "free speech".

8 June 2009 at 14:08  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

What Puritan Preacher said (today at 13:26). Could those "Muslim" protestors in Luton have been BNP agents provocateurs in disguise?

8 June 2009 at 14:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Stage 1: Cranmer and his fellow woolly-minded, tolerant liberals convince themselves that Nick Griffin MEP is Adolf Hitler's personal representative on earth.

Stage 2: Cranmer and his nice band of liberals feel really superior when they vote for any party except the BNP.

Stage 3: Cranmer's parish church becomes a mosque, and his descendants live under Sharia law.

8 June 2009 at 14:50  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Christ said explicitly that he did not come to abolish any part of the Old Testament law. The Lord God created nations (groups of people) and assigned each a place to live in the Old Testament. These ordinances still stand. It is only when we think that we can successfully build the Tower of Babel that we begin massive migrations of peoples.

The Christian Gospel is for all people, but that does not mean that all people are to live in the same place, cheek by jowl. They are to live in harmony, cooperating, trading, living together in the world in their separate lands. Nation states are God's creation, and we foolishly do wrong when we think that we will improve on God's design.

The BNP is the only party that appears to be supporting what God Himself has put in place. Be glad that they have won a place at the table to speak for the the UK in the hope that disaster may be averted.

8 June 2009 at 15:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HoHoHo......touche !

8 June 2009 at 15:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dr D

I take it then that the Apostle Paul or any one else should not have begun their missionary journeys to spread the gospel?

I take it that the journey of Christianity from Jerusalem to Athens, to Rome and finally to Canterbury was a waste of time?

8 June 2009 at 16:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


"Nation states are God's creation"

No, nation states are man's creation.

How can the grouping together of tribes, which turn in to villages, which turn into towns, which turn into counties, which turn into countries which turn into nations possibly be attributed to god (regardless of whether I or anyone else believes in him or not).

Nations are the product of groups of people with the same beliefs, politics, traditions, geographical locations etc. Built up over thousands of years.

8 June 2009 at 16:05  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Your Grace is , of course , correct in stating that exclusion on the grounds of ethnicity is non-Christian , even anti-Christian .

However , is not the hatred of racial enemies morally identical to the socialist concept of hereditary class enemies ?

If it is , why are socialist parties regarded as "mainstream" or moderate , while watered-down National Socialists are regarded with aggressive contempt ?

8 June 2009 at 16:48  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Chris r -

I'm not too sure about The Lord , as revealed in His Word , using the modish , soft-Marxist definitions of "gay or straight".

Certainly it's not in my Authorised Version .

Perhaps it's such blatant , politicised falsehoods , said with a sanctimoniously straight face , which provoke some people into extreme reactions ?

I think the appeal of the far-right lies therein .

8 June 2009 at 16:58  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@The Young Oligarch

Your post was probably meant as rhetorical. But if it wasn't (and feel free to disagree)

But other socialist parties are regarded as mainstream because (as I mentioned earlier) of the caveats applied to the idea of free speech. Their ideals, morals, stance, political ideas (whatever you want to call it) don't strongly challenge the status quo or those in power (which are the ones that have the authority to decide what is allowed by the term "free speech" and ironically what isn't). However the BNP's stance is in direct conflict with the liberal Politically Correct laws which have been eroding the right of true free speech for the past decade and more.

While I don't agree with most of what the BNP say I do agree with some parts of it, this doesn't make me a racist but I am quite sure that the arguments that most people would use against agreeing with any part of the BNP's manifesto and certainly it has been done already by the major political parties is that anyone that agrees must therefore be racist then their thoughts can be dismissed rather than trying to understand why people have began to swing towards these types of parties and fix the problem which the major parties themselves have caused.

8 June 2009 at 17:01  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...


I respect your opinion, indeed I agree with most of it but:
“In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on hate speech.” (source Wikipedia)

No one in Britain is free to say everything hateful or threatening so I don't think my comment was unreasonable.

8 June 2009 at 17:02  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Puritan Preacher
Thanks for your reply.

But this is exactly my point. free speech with any barriers is therefore by it's very definition no longer free speech.

It becomes limited speech.

And when someone has the ability to alter the limits of speech that doesn't agree with your opinions then you are being opressed and discriminated against.

Yes people aren't free to say anything they want, but the question is why not?

Why can a group of radical muslims stand at a homecoming parade and cite religous hatred and violence but Geert Wilders cannot peacefully enter athe country and calmly debate his opinion and points? This is the point I am trying to make.

All speech should be free and everyone else should be free to challenge every opinion with equally free speech or choose to just ignore it.

8 June 2009 at 17:18  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...


It was rhetorical to a certain extent , but I was looking to see if anyone could respond .

The root of this whole problem is , I think , that for 50 years the left/liberal elite (including the Tories , but not the Conservatives) has wilfully ignored the deep feelings of the electorate .

They have tried to introduce a new secular morality , based on Marxist principles by pretending that problems do not exist or , if they do acknowledge them , they say the people are a shower of bigots who must be silent .

This new elite is as totalitarian in mind-set as the Nazis or the Bolsheviks .
They have kept us down with their accusations of -isms and -phobias for far too long . The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of this position is becoming evident to more and more people every day . Their time is up !

And , no , I didn't vote BNP . I'm violently opposed to their totalitarianism as well .

8 June 2009 at 17:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

For Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek: all are one.

Really ? So Jesus was equivocal between those who Believed and those who Rejected ?

I had though Him to be a Torah-observant Jew whose goal was to uphold The Torah. I did not realise he was simply a latterday Episcopalian ready to embrace all and sundry so long as they contributed towards Church funds.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53)

I had not seen this syncretic creed and had not imagined Jesus to be All Things to All Men. Islam is not compatible with Christianity nor is Atheism, nor is Marxism....nor seemingly is Party Politics

8 June 2009 at 17:25  
Anonymous eeyore said...

"For Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek ..." Your Grace will correct me, but I don't recall a single Greek disciple among the Twelve Apostles. Indeed, as there were great numbers of Greeks in first-century Palestine, their absence from Jesus's chief followers is puzzling. Could it be prima facie evidence of His entertaining a prejudice against them? Let us speculate further: not only did he spurn Greeks, He did not call a Roman, Arab, Persian, Syrian, Nabataean, Spaniard, German, Briton, Egyptian or any other ethnic immigrant either. In fact, on the balance of the evidence, is it not more likely that Jesus held what could be described as a racist animus against immigrants, than that by chance alone He omitted to appoint one or two to his band? So the BNP's position, while ostensibly unsound, and clearly regrettable, is not utterly without theological merit.

Even worse, as Jesus is Son of God and through the Holy Trinity a partaker in the Godhead, can we not discern in His actions a divine and Biblical sanction for anti-immigrant racism?

These are not happy conclusions, but intellectual rigour demands that we follow the evidence wherever it leads. The wind bloweth where IT listeth, after all. The Church has burnt heretics, witches and homosexuals on less authority than this.

Nor is the point trivial even today, as an important argument against ordination of women was that Jesus appointed no women to the Twelve. Indeed, I have sometimes thought that, if Jesus's example were to be followed scrupulously, all Christian priests should really be Jewish. Which would, of course, have ruled Your Grace out.

8 June 2009 at 18:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I have sometimes thought that, if Jesus's example were to be followed scrupulously, all Christian priests should really be Jewish.

Surely the professional priesthood is a product of Leviticus. There was Aaron given the right to live on the labours of others and dedicate himself to God.....funny that a professional priesthood today wants to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds

8 June 2009 at 19:08  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

I am shocked, horrified, and amazed at all this shock, horror, and amazement. My reaction works on the same principle as the one I have every year, when it snows.

8 June 2009 at 19:20  
OpenID jamestheless said...

I humbly suggest His Grace would have been wiser to use the Old Testament argument for human equality, starting from Genesis 1:26-27 ("And God said, Let us make man in our own image...").

The Jewish tradition understood this to apply to all humans, meaning that everyone, Jewish or Gentile, has certain rights by virtue of their human nature, which is made in the likeness of God. To deny these rights would be tantamount to denying God. This tradition was inherited by Christianity and even (in a perverted form) by Socialism.

Of course, as the chosen people, the Jews were given certain privileges and responsibilities; the new covenant in Christ opens the Kingdom of God to all.

8 June 2009 at 19:36  
Blogger Dave said...

I consider myself a christian (note the small c.)I've reached the point in mys spiritual journey where I believe that one's faith should have no bearing on one's political beliefs. This is self evident when both the Labour and Conservative movements can claim christian roots, and people of all political persuasions can point to a passage in their bible that appears to rubberstamp their claims.
I voted UKIP, not as a protest, but because I believe that the UK would be better off out of Europe. I voted Tory at the County Council election because I believe they'd do a better job than Labour.
I believe that I, like all of us will have to stand before God and be judged, and that Jesus will put in a good word for me.After all, I claim that he died on the Cross and took my punishment in my place.

I very much doubt that God will take any notice of my politics or my voting history. And the same goes for Nick Griffin.

8 June 2009 at 19:41  
Anonymous ulster man said...

Is it not totally hypocritical of all the mainstream UK parties to object to the democratic election of 2 BNP MEP's? after all these are the same parties that allowed active terrorists into the government of N.Ireland? I don't for one second support the BNP but it does seem to me that any moral outrage at their election is a bit cheap...?

8 June 2009 at 19:42  
OpenID jamestheless said...

D. Singh,

Interesting points about Islam filling an ethical void in the West. I suspect there are more pieces in the jigsaw: for example, the increased self-confidence of the Muslim world following the Yom Kippur war of 1973 and the resulting oil shock, and then the Iranian revolution of 1979.

The Glovner,

"But this is exactly my point. free speech with any barriers is therefore by it's very definition no longer free speech."

But, by this definition, free speech is impossible. The cliched example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema - challenging this with equally free speech or ignoring it will not prevent a potentially deadly stampede.

8 June 2009 at 19:49  
Blogger ProudGeordie said...

I have not read all of the comments but does the bible not say we are divided into nations to prevent us from fighting? God and His son Jesus Christ gave us all a place to be ourselves and determine our own path. The Marxist Multicultural experiment is the most anti-christian political ideology ever spawned!

Dan Hannan is the ONLY Tory with any semblance of humanity or indeed, intelligence. If the Conservatives wish to go back to conservatism, instead of the faux opposition they have become, a mere illusionary tool of the EU, he should be leading them!

8 June 2009 at 20:04  
OpenID jamestheless said...


Jesus chose the apostles from the people immediately around him (some of whom were related to him), so they would naturally have been Jewish. Besides, weren't the Twelve supposed to represent the twelve tribes of Israel? It would have made no sense to have a Gentile.

Your mischievous question about priests being Jewish is actually quite a good one. The best answer I can immediately think of is that, ecclesiastically speaking, bishops are the successors to the apostles and priests are deputies for bishops. The apostles appointed bishops who were Gentiles, but they did not appoint any female bishops. Hence, apostolic churches have male bishops and priests who are non-Jewish (except for the occasional convert, or - if you mean ethnically Jewish - descendants of converts).

8 June 2009 at 20:21  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

jamestheless -

What if the theatre was on fire and you were forbidden , on pain of imprisonment , from warning your fellow theatre-goers ?

Would that be legitimate restriction ?

8 June 2009 at 20:30  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace was regrettably wholly correct when he suggested some days ago that the captive peoples of the eu would be able to awake this morning secure in the knowledge that their new government was exactly the same as the old one.

QED (thus it is so proven)

Doubtless it is very much business as usual today in Brussels, as all the unelected continue in their governance, with a slight superior smile on their faces along the lines of 'well, if it keeps them happy' and 'let them play, whilst we get on with the grown-up stuff'

It would be nice to think that UKIP could make a difference to this status quo, but since the eu parliament is virtually powerless, our hard fought democratic vote will not actually change anything....the directives will continue rolling, power will continue to gravitate to Brussels and closer integration will gather in speed.

Distressing, really. Have a good day.

8 June 2009 at 20:39  
OpenID jamestheless said...

The Young Oligarch,

"What if the theatre was on fire and you were forbidden , on pain of imprisonment , from warning your fellow theatre-goers ?

Would that be legitimate restriction ?"

No. I also think that it's wrong to asssume that every person who warns about a fire must be an arsonist.

8 June 2009 at 20:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


The main difference in your point is this:

"will not prevent a potentially deadly stampede."

If the speech caused a deadly stampede or even a potentially deadly stampede then this is the point you would be tried on, not the shouting of the word "fire" but the effects the shouting of the word would cause.

Now someone telling everyone to go out and attack a minority group because of their opinion would not be a correct comparison to make, because the people know what is acceptable in society and would make their own choice to break the laws the person saying go out and attack cannot be held acountable for someone who is not under their control commiting a crime.

However the people can choose to challenge the calls being made to attack minority groups with the same level of freedom allowed in their speech.

It comes down to why should it be legislated who I can like and who I can hate?

8 June 2009 at 21:00  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8 June 2009 at 22:10  
Blogger William Cobbett said...

Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Paul,

The reality is that very many Christians reject the whole concept of a 'Christian' party. While committed racists may be inclined to vote for the BNP (though doubtless not all of its supporters are racist), the majority of committed Christiand prefer to be salt and light in the world.

08 June 2009 10:02

And there, Your Grace is your problem.

God delivers us from dictatorship from the absolutist Monarch, through his works using both Cromwell and William III, and the modern Christian spews over the God given democracy he is given.

Christian men have not had to deal with violence and barbarism from non-Christians in 500 years - Bloody Mary and her papist playmates - and before that, from 800 AD when the last of the godless were converted.

Griffin represents something that Christians fail to.

Whether you like it or not, many vote for Griffin because he is unafraid to publicly stand for, well, at least something , facing up to the truly Antichrist communist-liberal media.

For the want of good men, evil triumphs. Good godly men are too gutless weak and scared of the consequences to stand up, or merely offer weak and vacuous platititudes. Nature, as they say, abhors a vacuum.

However without a strong belief in the Lord, without a faith in the true path - the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible - and without a true statement of faith - the Thirty Nine articles - and a through going rejection of the heresy of Christian Zionism , along with the presently accepted communistic theological trash, Christians are powerless.

Dear oh dear. Look to the plank in your own eyes, commenters, before you worry about the splinter in Griffin's.

8 June 2009 at 22:26  
Blogger Dave J said...

"In two English regions, the South-East and South-West, the Green Party beat Labour into fifth place."

In the Southwest, didn't Mebyn Kernow, the Cornish Nationalists, actually beat Labour into SIXTH place?

8 June 2009 at 22:32  
OpenID jamestheless said...

The Glovner,

"If the speech caused a deadly stampede or even a potentially deadly stampede then this is the point you would be tried on, not the shouting of the word "fire" but the effects the shouting of the word would cause."

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this is correct. For example, if a drunken driver causes an accident, he will be tried for driving while drunk rather than causing an accident (although, depending on the circumstances, he could be tried for the accident as well).

It's unlikely that someone would be prosecuted for shouting "fire" when nothing happens, but that doesn't make it legal (any more than getting away with drunken driving makes it legal).

The reason why I said this was a cliché was that it often comes up in discussions of the US Constitution. As I understand it, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not "protected speech" under the constitution, even if there are no consequences.

(word verification: mytories)

8 June 2009 at 22:39  
Blogger ooberLib said...

God moves in mysterious ways.

I love the Gospels. I love the Bible. I love Christianity and the whole debate. I am on the road and it goes here, it goes there, it goes every bloody where, but I am on this road and I am on this road. Amen

8 June 2009 at 23:18  
Blogger Paul said...

Thank you for your reply, your Grace. You are of course, quite right in your diagnosis of why racists get more votes than a separate 'Christian ' party.

While I am most grateful to the many Christians actively involved in mainstream political parties, as I understand, our Lord, the only-begotten Son of the Father never suggested that to be salt and light either required or banned belonging to a mainstream political party.

In a proportional representation system, one votes for a party, not a candidate. By what means could any Christian voter in a PR system ensure that their vote didn't elect such a creature as Evan Harris?

The Christian Party/CPA is far from perfect, but it does, to an extent, solve that problem better than anyone else.

8 June 2009 at 23:20  
Anonymous Got the Guts to wear God said...


I don't think it's about being racist. I think it's about fear. As D. Singh commented, “Britain has lost control of it's borders.”

Worse, it has lost control of it's identity. People are fed up of the EU. They were forced into it. There was no referendum this makes it a dictatorship. It can't work. There are too many different mentalities in Europe for a 'one rule for all' fits ALL. People are also fed up with aggressive immigration. It's brought the infrastructure to its knees. Even our established immigrants are saying that it has to stop. It's common sense. Britain is a small island. It is full up. Labour, Con, and Lib don't care. They are about money, power and greed. I also agree with young oligarch: "They have kept us down with their accusations of -isms and -phobias for far too long."

All these isms are nothing more than governments. Any ism is designed to stop you asking questions of a dictating government. You have to know yourself, in your own heart regardless of what 'ism' another may try to control you with. And what happened to good will to all men? It seems the BNP for the most part, are ostracised, criminalised, and vilified by the media and politicians alike. And are we to believe them when the behaviour from both is disgraceful? Do any of them have their hands clean?

9 June 2009 at 04:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does New Labour stand for? Well, how about handing out money to the work shy? How about handing out money to the vast army of Guardian Civil Servants ranging from the low paid dole worker up to the highest Quangocat? How about the MPs with their hands in the till? How about the Bankers and their utterly deserved bonuses? Or the way they rode the bubble relentlessly?
Now the money is all used up and we ourselves face the dole queue. But still people from all round the world come here to take even more of what we no longer have got.
A state, like ours, that depends on that kind of reasoning is bound to fail whatever it believes.

9 June 2009 at 07:45  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


I suppose the other difference with your example is that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is a blatent proveable lie if there is no fire.

Where as the points you are comparing it to are opinion. You can't have the opinion that there is a fire when there is not.

And the reason driving while drunk is illeagl is because of the outcome that is caused in doing so. If accidents were not caused regularly by people being drunk whilst driving there wouldn't be a law against it, this is really comparing apples and oranges though, being in control of a ton of fast moving steel whilst being unable to control it in a satisfactory manner is not the same as speaking your mind or voicing your opinion.

9 June 2009 at 08:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace, I rather think that the C of E has scored somewhat of an own goal. Archbishops and bishops have lined up to tell their few parishioners, and anyone else that might still listen to them, not to vote for the British National Party. This, of course, only a few months after General Synod voted to ban clergy from membership of the said political party. A very elderly acquaintance, and a lifelong and devout C of E churchgoer in the Diocese of York said, after attending a recent Sunday service, “The church is really going downhill.” Why did she say this? It transpires the reason was that, following the example of the Archbishop of York, the clergy conducting the service had begged them not to vote for the BNP. I’ve no idea whether or not this particular churchgoer had intended to vote, or which party she may have voted for. One thing was clear, she had now become aware that the C of E was political and she very much resented being told who she should, and should not, vote for.

9 June 2009 at 09:24  
OpenID jamestheless said...

The Glovner,

Consider this hypothetical scenario. A theatre burns down, causing many fatalities. After a few days, the other theatre in the town re-opens. Just as the curtain is about to go up, and people are still taking their seats, someone shouts "fire", in a panic-stricken voice, when they know that there is no fire. Is this an acceptable use of free speech?

"And the reason driving while drunk is illeagl is because of the outcome that is caused in doing so. If accidents were not caused regularly by people being drunk whilst driving there wouldn't be a law against it, this is really comparing apples and oranges though, being in control of a ton of fast moving steel whilst being unable to control it in a satisfactory manner is not the same as speaking your mind or voicing your opinion."

Several points here:

Driving while drunk does not always result in accidents, any more than shouting "fire" in crowded theatres always results in fatal stampedes.

The weight of the vehicle is not a factor (it is illegal to cycle while drunk).

Being unable to control the car is not a factor: drunken driving is illegal even if the driver is in perfect control of the vehicle.

Drunkenness is not a factor: the offence is based on the proportion of alcohol in the bloodstream, with a threshold well below the levels associated with drunkenness.

As for apples and oranges, I would claim that it is a very relevant comparison: the law restricts a freedom (to drive after consuming some alcohol or to say certain things in certain situations) because of the potential consequences. Whether or not these consequences actually happen makes no difference.

9 June 2009 at 09:58  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


But it comes back to the same point, your voice alone cannot cause physical harm.

Someone may be upset by your views but it should be their right to have equally opposing views to which you would not agree. To put any caveat on free speech causes it to no longer be free speech. I still maintain the "Fire" scenario is not comparable due to the fact that there is a blatent lie in the equation, if there was no fire to shout the words fire and cause potential physical harm is one thing and if you were to shout fire and there was a fire and lives were saved then it is completely different scenario.

The difference being whether they were shouting a lie or shouting a fact, which is comepletely different to shouting an opinion. You would not have an opinion there was a fire (unless perhaps you were unhinged from reality and imagined it but that opens up a whole different channel of thought).

9 June 2009 at 10:50  
OpenID jamestheless said...

"To put any caveat on free speech causes it to no longer be free speech"

And, as I said before, free speech, as described by this statement, cannot exist in a free society.

There are always some caveats - there is no freedom to libel, to give another example.

The only people who have absolute freedom of speech are despots and dictators.

In a society which respects the rule of law, there can be no such thing as absolute freedom of speech or of any other freedom. Everyone gives up some of their freedoms to the legal system in order to protect the freedoms of others; in exchange, the rest of their freedoms are protected by the legal system.

9 June 2009 at 12:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


But bringing libel laws into the equation muddies the waters.

I may be wrong but I am not going to spend all my time checking the law books so feel free to correct me if I am.

But a libel statement would have to be untrue? Which brings us back to the previous point that if something can be proven as false then to claim otherwise is not an opinion (without any proof to counteract the opposing stance) but a falsehood.

If I was to say all knife crime in London was done by black immigrants (which isn't my real thought but the analogy serves a purpose) then I am not being racist and should not be looked down upon because of this statement. This statement is based on the mainstream media and how the portray the situation to the masses, is doesn't mean I have anything against people who have moved to London with black skin but you can bet that said to the wrong person that opinion based on the eveidence used to reach it would be considered racist and tried as such by groups of the country and that is wrong.

On the flipside, if a black person happened to comment that all blue collar crime was commited by white people (which a large proportion probably is and certainly it is shown that way in the country's mainstream press) this would not be taken to be a racist statement even though it has all the same components as the previous statement on black knife crime.

And that is my problem with the free speech given in this country and why there should be no such caveats as to have them there is discriminatory against at least one group and as such they committ the very offence that they are introduced to combat against.

There is even a law being introduced currently in Scotland that if you attack someone that is a homosexual (physical attack I should point out) you would be given a tougher sentence than had he not been a homosexual. I know some homosexual people and even they are outraged by that as the motivation for the attack should make no difference to the sentence, they don't want different laws or rights, they just want the same laws and rights and that is how things should be in a fair free society.

Once again I reiterate, words alone do not hurt people which is why speech (all speech) should be completely free, if someone says something that disgusts general society they will be treated in a manner fitting, shunned by their once friends, challenged by others with speech as equally free, whatever, as long as no physical crime is committed then there should be no problem with speaking your mind.

To put it into persepctive after all that, if a priest should not get into any trouble for standing on a street corner shouting that gays will burn in hell (I am not debating whether that is what exactly happened or not, I don't have th facts so can only comment on what I am aware of as it has been told to me) then you must give equal right to someone to stand on the opposite corner shouting that all preists fuck children.

Not because either of these people is wrong or right but because they must have their (if you will pardon the pun) "god given right" to be right or wrong.

9 June 2009 at 13:37  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

jamestheless -

The new law in Scotland will criminalise criticism of homosexual behaviour and is intended to .

It is based on the law making sectarian aggravation of a crime a more serious offence .

In practice this has meant a large number of people being arrested and convicted of "breach of the peace" for uttering the words "Fenian b*****d" or "Orange b*****d" when it suits a policeman to make an arrest .

Unpleasant words , but why is it a more serious offence than merely hurling profanities ?

This is direct criminalisation of political opinion .
So it will be with the new "Homobhobia" laws (which , incidentally , the Scottish Conservatives voted for , despite speaking initially against).

The left believe , in their twisted Marxist way , that if they control our speech , they control our minds .

9 June 2009 at 13:52  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Ok . That should be "Homophobia".

Just testing .

9 June 2009 at 13:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The Young Oligarch

‘The left believe, in their twisted Marxist way, that if they control our speech, they control our minds.’

You are exceptionally close to the mark.

There are senior civil servants, in key positions, who believe in the American cross-cultural psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg’s thesis: in the absence of a coherent personal morality, law acts as a moral reference-point.

His thesis, supported by research, has never been seriously challenged.

9 June 2009 at 14:12  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Very interesting D. Singh .

Does this give an explanation for the quasi-official encouragement of personal immorality in the past 50 years ?
I mean specifically the idea attributed to Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary " The permissive society is the civilised society " .
Was there more to this than wooly liberalism ?

9 June 2009 at 14:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Does this give an explanation for the quasi-official encouragement of personal immorality in the past 50 years?'

Look for my dead friend Francis A. Schaeffer.

9 June 2009 at 14:52  
OpenID jamestheless said...

"But a libel statement would have to be untrue?"

From a very brief bit of research: not necessarily. Rather bizarrely, the courts assume by default that allegedly libellous statements are false, which is why so much attention is paid the truth in libel cases. But truth in itself is not enough; there has to be a legitimate reason for making the statement which justifies the alleged damage. (The heart of a libel is the damage done to someone's reputation, not making false statements).

"Which brings us back to the previous point that if something can be proven as false then to claim otherwise is not an opinion (without any proof to counteract the opposing stance) but a falsehood."

What about speech that does not involve falsehoods or opinions? Threats of violence or incitement to murder, for example?

"If I was to say all knife crime in London was done by black immigrants [...] then I am not being racist"

I agree - assuming of course that you are not a judge presiding over a case in which a black immigrant is accused on very flimsy evidence of stabbing someone! (Sorry, I seem to be in rather a perverse mood today).

"words alone do not hurt people"

but the pen is mightier than the sword, is it not?

I think I may have read too much into your statement that I jumped on. I thought you were arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they like, without any consequences, but I now realise that doesn't seem to be your position. So this conversation has probably been at cross-purposes.

For the record, I strongly dislike restrictions on speech and believe they should be kept to a minimum, although it's not possible to completely avoid them. Returning to the original subject (almost), I believe that the mainstream parties should be debating the BNP head-on, not looking down their noses and trying to pretend they don't exist.

I have lived in countries where denying the Holocaust is illegal, which I think is wrong. (Perhaps I should also add that I have no time for the BNP or Holocaust deniers).

As for the new Scottish homophobia laws, it sounds like more of the same thought crime legislation we've had imposed on us for the last 12 years.

(word verification "arsings": very similar to the expression I used when I realised that we've still got another 12 months of Hard Labour ahead of us)

9 June 2009 at 20:17  
Anonymous James C said...

It is not "racist" (a word coined by the left) to be anti-Islamist.
Islam is not a race.
It is racist to be a member of the Association of Black Police Officers, which excludes whites.
Since the ABPO exists, I see no problem with the BNP also existing.

9 June 2009 at 20:36  
Anonymous would-be mouse said...

Back in the day - when England was imperfect but free to improve itself - we used to say that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," for breaking the law.

But back then the law was in clear English and the people could understand it. Nowadays, it seems, the law is such a maze of philosophies, newfangledness, and foreign-ness that practically nobody can understand it - let alone afford to pay a solicitor to make a sufficiently convoluted argument to win a suit!!

That situation would make us all ignorant of the law. In such circumstances, surely it is the LAWMAKERS who have no excuse? ...And I'd add that the intention to make Britain into a Neu Alcatraz is hardly an excuse.

Of course - that's all about the law of man. And a place where that law is disconnecting with God's Law.

9 June 2009 at 21:43  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I'm not racist but, I did mee someone once who had actually looked at the BNP website.
Naturally once I found out I ended the Relationship, it wasn't that sort of relationship I should add.

Not that I've got anything against people in those sorts of relationships you understand.

Somebody somewhere is having a good old laugh at our expense I think.

9 June 2009 at 21:56  
Blogger gatesofvienna said...

Why do elected politicians across the board support and employ anti white racist thugs?

killings); institutionalised anti-white racism; the preponderance of anti-white racist violence; political corruption (the organised use of

electoral fraud, political funding); the growth of political intimidation and violence; the insidious use of political correctness (thought

It supports the criminalisation of dissent,

of ‘speech crime’, and promotes ‘no platform’ policies against its political opponents. It is also a racist organisation – it indulges in inciting

hatred only against political parties and movements that represent the interests of the white, indigenous community. The UAF is a Marxist

organisation that uses Nazi methods to pursue its purpose.

The UAF targets individuals – it attacks their personal reputation and content of character, and deliberately misrepresents the beliefs held by

those individuals. It indulges in the fiction of a latent tendency for neo-Fascist, neo-Nazi behaviour within the indigenous community – and

uses this to create false stereotypes for attacking (exclusively) members of the white community.

The UAF wallows in a cultural of denial – a refusal to accept the wretched failure of multiculturalism and hyper-diversity. It denies the

reality of racist violence in the UK – of the hugely disproportionate number of white victims (including white victims of racist and interracial

homicide). The UAF pursues a policy of ‘shoot the messenger’, and therefore enjoys widespread support from the ‘mainstream’ political


The UAF exists for a particular purpose – to incite hatred against targeted members of the white community. It continually manufactures new

opportunities to continue with that hatred, and thereby provide justification for its continuing existence. It enjoys the patronage of the rich

and powerful elite, including many MPs, union leaders and political pressure groups31. The UAF promotes hatred – and feeds upon its


14th December 2008 UAF_report_1.doc [6 page document


11 June 2009 at 16:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older