Friday, October 23, 2009

BBC commissions the Nick Griffin Show

He has already been signed to succeed Jonathan Ross. That will save the corporation (or rather the licence fee payer) £18 million, for Nick Griffin comes at a bargain price (free) and his views are not quite so offensive. And, as far as Cranmer knows, Mr Griffin has never verbally assaulted a pensioner or made obscene phone calls. But he has managed to boost the Question Time audience to record levels. The show usually trundles along with 2.5 million anoraks transfixed by tedious partisan posturing in the presence of the occasional pseudo-celebrity. But last night’s viewing figures smashed the previous Question Time record, when 4 million tuned in to hear Margaret Beckett and Sir Menzies Campbell drone on about moats and duck houses. Other previous highs have included Will Young (3.2 million) and the Iraq war (3.3 million).

But Nick Griffin has dwarfed all of them, attracting a colossal 7.9 million viewers. Ultimately, television is as much about viewing figures as the newspaper business is about selling copy.

There has been much criticism of the BBC for inviting the leader of the BNP on to its flagship political platform: they were besieged by a baying mob and have been inundated with complaints: Ofcom will doubtless be a little busier today.

But Cranmer would like to say how poor the performances were of all three representatives of the main political parties. Jack Straw stammered his way through some ill-prepared tales from Blackburn; Sayeeda Warsi was purposely chosen for her skin colour and religion, yet simply repeated ad hominem attacks ad nauseam; and Chris Huhne, like all Liberal Democrats, had nothing specific to say about anything. All three gave distinctly unmemorable performances, and failed miserably either to expose Mr Griffin’s odious beliefs or the BNP’s sinister strategy.

Last night was one of the few Question Times in which the observations and political contributions of the ‘token celebrity’ outshone those of the ‘professional’ politicians. Bonnie Greer is a playwright and deputy director of the British Museum, but if she were to stand for Parliament, she would get a landslide: she has something of the Obama factor about her. She alone held her cool, and (more importantly) exposed Nick Griffin’s intellectual inadequacies and the absurdities of the BNP. In fact, she came out with the most memorable challenge of the programme. On the subject of the BNP’s plans to change its constitution to permit ethnic minorities to join the party, she said to Nick Griffin: “You can laugh all you want, but if I was a BNP member, I'd be scared.”

She not only charmed, she did so intelligently, rising above the partisan bickering on immigration which beset the other three. While they were arguing among themselves about which party has the best policy and who voted for what, Bonnie Greer was eloquently upholding the right to freedom of speech, and telling Nick Griffin that she had brought books for him – to enlighten him on the true history of the British Isles; to challenge some of his beliefs and prejudices; in short, she offered to educate him.

Who else has offered to do that for the self-styled ‘most loathed man in Britain’?

And that was why she towered above the political posturing and the unseemly fringe behaviour of the politicians. Each time Mr Griffin tried to persuade the British people that he was thinking what they were thinking about Winston Churchill, patriotism, Islam, homosexuality and immigration, Jack Straw spoke about his Jewish antecedents, Sayeeda Warsi said he was ‘disgusting’, and Chris Huhne said... err, Cranmer cannot recall. But Bonnie Greer offered him an education.

How else can one enlighten the ignorant? How else should one challenge the bigot? How else may one inculcate values, develop maturity or instil morality?

And Mr Griffin should accept her kind offer, for he even admitted that he could not himself explain his own past views and actions, or why he believed what he believed. While he denigrated Islam, he lauded the Klu Klux Klan (in the presence of a black American). He contradicted himself over holocaust denial, and implied that ‘indigenous people of Britain’ were victims of genocide but were not necessarily white because, to him, skin colour is irrelevant. He appeared not only not to know himself, but he could not explain how or why he knows what he claims to know.

Mr Griffin would benefit enormously from studying for an A-level in Critical Thinking, a BTEC in epistemology, or even just a few hours of ‘Citizenship’.

In many ways his performance was a disappointment: it was certainly a wasted opportunity. Although he attempted to present himself as the BNP’s Tony Blair – a political saviour who is challenging his party’s ‘Clause IV’ and modernising its constitution to make it suitable for modern Britain – he struggled throughout to articulate anything coherent: he was reactive and defensive.

But his mere presence on the British political scene ought to be a constant reminder of the manifest failings of all of the main parties. The rise of the BNP is a direct consequence of 12 years of New Labour’s immigration policy, their diminution of our liberties and an unprecedented assault on the Christian faith – all of which have alienated millions of its core voters. A vote for the BNP is now the most high-profile protest vote in the history of political sects and dangerous cults. And it is not that their supporters are necessarily racist; it is that they can tune in to the BBC and watch the ‘professional’ politicians receive the kicking and verbal assault that the ballot box can only ever imply.

95 Comments:

Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2009 at 09:41  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I'd concur with your analysis of the 3 usual suspects. Straw was particularly poor & nauseating - all the more damning for him considering he is the most politically experienced & media coached.

However, was Bonnie Greer really the shining star you seem to have painted her as? She did remain calmer & more collected than the others but her "arguments" weren't that much stronger than Mr Griffen's if you ask me.

Griffen did waste his opportunity quite a bit, but that's a bit like saying the Christians wasted their opportunity to preach to the crowds watching them get fed to the lions!

At one point it looked like there was almost going to be an intersting debate about immigration but it soon degenerated into BNP bashing ... rather than the NuLabour bashing it should have been.

There are few (any?) Christian leaders I know who would dare to say the Islam is evil; that homosexuality is a sin; that sexual indoctrination (sorry 'education') of our children is corrupting. What a shame it has to come from the tarnished mouth of someone like Nick Griffen.

For me it was the main 3 parties that were on trial not the BNP. None of them convinced me that mainstream politics has anything to offer anymore. The BNP will probably still get my vote.

23 October 2009 at 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"he struggled throughout to articulate anything coherent: he was reactive and defensive."
And so would you, your Grace, if you were thrown into a den of lions (a hostile audience).Might I even go so far as to suggest you would even recant, albeit temporarily.

23 October 2009 at 10:22  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Incidentally Your Grace, what did you think of Ms Greer's 'argument' that Churchill was probably 25% american redskin so wouldn't be eligible for BNP membership?!!!

Or what about her argument that in order to discover what an indigneous population is you need to go back to the ice-age?!

Do you consider these all part of the 'charmin', 'intelligent', 'education' she was offering?

23 October 2009 at 10:57  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

I was charmed by Bonnie Greer and I thought that Baroness Warsi wasn't too bad either. But I wonder why she got her peerage. Her biog shows she's done very little. I wonder whether as your Grace implies, its something to do with race and religion.

Griffin came out with the most hilarious comment of the evening when accused of consorting with the KKK he said that was OK because they were non violent ones.
(A non violent Klanner seems as likely as a vegetarian cannibal).

But Straw got away with saying how right it was that Immigrants could bring their families over into the UK. Nobody challenged him on that - probably because of the mayhem going on.

Betcha that if Patrick Magee the Brighton bomber had been on the panel, he would have been allowed to say his piece and listened to with liberal respect.

By the Way, Your Grace, good to see that you are back in the ring, with your intelligent and incisive cuts and thrusts.

23 October 2009 at 11:01  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

Welcome back to proper blogging, YG.

I didn't watch the show. I don't need to. My interest is in the public reaction and the aftermath, which I believe will set the whole episode in some kind of historical context.

In a word, this was a watershed. Pandora's Box, call it what you will it has turned the tide.

The analogy that springs to mind, and it is going to be a controversial one, is the rise of Thatcher and Thatcherism. I was there, right in the middle of it, in the loop, in the thick of it and directly affected by the period before and after. I even met the blessed lady and had a proper conversation with her.

I was working free-lance for a government department. It was heavily dominated by overtly left-wing civil servants. They held sway in the dying days of the Callaghan period. When Thatcher got in the mood changed, more or less overnight. The feeling was palpable, and all of a sudden those who had voted Conservative emerged, blinking, into the light.

I remember a well-known member of the department at the time, shouting out, "Am I right wing, or am I right wing!" (He also appeared in a TV role as Basil Brush's straight man.)

Elsewhere the unions were mobilising support from the ranks of those who put violence and intimidation first. Unless you were working in an industry that was hidebound by the unions in those days, it is impossible to understand how tyrannical they were.

Today that tyranny is history. Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions to undermine the country for what was a most ignoble cause - greed and lazyness.

The benefits of the Thatcher period can be seen in the emasculated Royal Mail, having one last go at defending the indefensible. They will lose - thanks to Thatcher.

Thatcher was a change catalyst, not an agent of change. Change on that level requires public consent, and even though a noisy minority made it look like a confrontation with ordinary people, in reality, ordinary people breathed a quiet sigh of relief.

I believe they shall do the same this time as the issues that the BNP campaign on are discussed openly, democratically and without fear or hindrance. I believe Griffin may be a catalyst in that respect.

23 October 2009 at 11:08  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Is there such a thing as an aboriginal Englishman? This from Wiki:

In 1996, Bryan Sykes of Oxford University first sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of Cheddar Man, with DNA extracted from one of Cheddar Man's molars. Cheddar Man was determined to have belonged to Haplogroup U5a, a branch of mitochondrial haplogroup U. U5a, the specific haplogroup of Cheddar Man, is known to be the oldest truly modern human (not Neanderthal) mtDNA haplogroup in Europe.

Bryan Sykes' research into Cheddar Man was filmed as he performed it. As a means of connecting Cheddar Man to the living residents of Cheddar village, he compared mitochondrial DNA taken from twenty living residents of the village to that extracted from Cheddar Man’s molar. It produced two exact matches and one match with a single mutation. The two exact matches were schoolchildren, and their names were not released. The close match was a history teacher named Adrian Targett.

Sykes argued that this modern connection to Cheddar Man (who died at least three thousand years before agriculture began in Britain) makes credible the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle Eastern migratory farmers, but rather modern Britons are descended from ancient European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer tribes who much later on adopted farming.

Mitochondrial DNA comes only from the female line, so it appears that white Englishmen are descended from an Eve who was also white. How does this tie in with succesive waves of invaders (Cheddar man dates from 7150 BC)? They raped or married English girls.

23 October 2009 at 11:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most irritating thing about Griffins appearance on Question Time is that it will be used by the Jihadist/Leftist alliance to bolster their ongoing campaign to label anyone criticising Islam as 'racist'.

Islam is not a race and criticism of Islam is not a racial matter. Unfortunately, because of the BNP, anyone who cherishes freedom of speech, freedom or belief and equality of rights of all people before the law will be unfairly accused of racism, hatred and bigotry for criticising Islam.

23 October 2009 at 11:18  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

What particularly struck me about last night's edition of Question Time was the manifest lack of preparation by Griffin. Surely he knew that questions of his holocaust denail, his ambiguous definition of "indigenous", would come up. So why did he not sufficiently articulate responses?

That aside, I agree that the three party representatives were poor. Griffin was never going to come on and promulgate his deepest, darkest racist projections for Britain, and so it was always going to be down to the other panelists to draw him out of his comfort zone and strike. There were few occasions in which this was achieved, and quite frankly I believe Griffin got off lightly.

The final point I would raise, however, concerns impartiality. The public may lambast and denigrate, and the panelists may execute arguments in accordance with what is proper for the programme. But it is the BBC host's job to uphold a modicum of impartiality; for at least the first half of the show (and other parts too) he failed in this duty. Question after question was pinpointed at Griffin, whilst Dimbleby seemed to have a vast artillery of quotations to fire at the BNP leader.

That's all well and fine, but if a show justifies his inclusion as being in accordance with the corporation's impartiality, it is hypocritical to impart with this virtue for the purposes of attaining viewing figures.

23 October 2009 at 11:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh McKenzie, class, class!

No one could have more working class antecedents than I. Even born and grew up on a feudal type estate -yet who helped my mother when widowed -not the labour government of the time who tried to deny her any benefits at all.

When working I was in contact with two MPs one up from the people, one a peer -who did the most for the disenfranchised, who was humble and loving -not the man of the people who was totally focussed on his position and 'do you know who I am'..

Which PM, privately educated, sought to prevent others spending their money on their children, which MPs send their children to private schools whilst stopping others. Which PM lied to take us to war whilst his own children are safe -one who should be working for the people not George Bush!

MPs shout class whilst defrauding the very people they say the are working for.

The original labour MPs -great our debt to them is enormous and they truly brought better conditions to the working classes. This lot, the only one I admire is Frank Field!

23 October 2009 at 11:30  
Anonymous Paul B said...

Agree with all hour comments, especially those regarding Bonnie Greer. She was was charming,cool and succinct. I believe Grffin warmed to her, he struggled all night to keep his hands of her. Now what does his party have to say about mixed relationships?

23 October 2009 at 11:30  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2009 at 11:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Part 1

Your Grace,

You state that:

‘The rise of the BNP is a direct consequence of 12 years of New Labour’s immigration policy, their diminution of our liberties and an unprecedented assault on the Christian faith…’

I would say that the assault, combined with the retreat of the Church, is older than 12 years.

The assault has been supported by Left-liberal academics writing and teaching at our universities (for example, the Marxist historian’s work, E.P. Thompson’s, ‘A History of The Making of the English Working-Class), culminating in a cultural revolution in the thinking of our elites, and a legal revolution.

In my view Bishop Robinson with his book ‘Honest to God’ sowed doubts amongst the clergy about God’s existence and was a factor that contributed to the undermining of the Christian faith in this country and at the same time gave succour to the Left-liberal politicians. Christian values began the flight from the public square. The vacuum created was filled with the Left-liberal conception of ‘rights’ (without responsibilities).

For example, if a ‘right’ exists, it must be someone’s duty (the State’s) to fulfil that ‘right’. In such a situation the State intercepts nearly all aspects of private and civic life.

On immigration the right-of-Centre has failed to construct a moral narrative. However, a range of opportunities are opening up. The Geneva Convention on Refugees and Asylum Seekers was designed to address the situation that prevailed in the aftermath of a worn torn Europe. The argument about the pressures on the social and economic infrastructures needs to be expressed: social housing; access to health care; education and community cohesion. It needs to accepted and argued that immigration cannot be divorced from membership of the federal European Union. Britain’s borders stretch from Dublin in the West, to Bucharest in the East, Helsinki in the North to Athens in the South. When the French dismantled the asylum seeker and refugee camp at Calais and said that they are ‘processing’ the former tenants; that meant issuing them with EU passports, so that they could arrive legally in Britain. In fact what is the point of claiming asylum in Britain when one could go to Bulgaria and buy an EU passport?

The suppressing of our Judaeo-Christian liberties is in fact a combined legal assault from two legal authorities: the European Convention on Human Rights 1951 and Directives from the European Union (the European Convention on Human Rights is a non-EU instrument; Russia is a signatory and it is not a member of the EU – yet).

23 October 2009 at 11:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Part 2

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Starmer, told us in a speech yesterday that ‘human rights’ cannot be magically made to disappear. He believes they are universal (somewhere out there). However, when people like Mr Starmer is asked the question, where do these ‘rights’ come from back comes the Left-liberal answer: they just are. In other words the Left-liberals make them up as they go along. They use the British Human Rights Act 1998 (largely incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights) to support, legitimise and enforce Left-liberal values. For example, Mr Starmer told us that we, men and women, have the ‘right’ to get married. This ‘right’ in fact existed prior to the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. He said that ‘rights’ have ‘no boundary’. What he means by that is that Left-liberals have the ‘right’ to manufacture any ‘right’ they like and use State power to enforce that right. For example, they could state a ‘right’ that permits a brother and sister to get married. They could deny that a ‘right’ exists for two elderly sisters, who are not in a civil partnership, to avoid paying inheritance tax.

Given that the European Convention on Human Rights is a non-EU instrument, what happens when a ‘right’ in the Convention clashes with an EU legal ‘right’? I suggest that EU law will triumph one way or another. No superstate, like the EU, can have two supreme courts: the EU’s supreme court, the European Court of Justice based in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg.

In reality, the European Court of Human Rights avoids clashes with EU law in its judgments. How exquisite then the irony is that Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights is remarkably similar to Article 34 of the 1977 Constitution of the former USSR.

This country is locked into a permanent Left-liberal revolution – unless Cameron is transformed over-night into a radical Tory.

23 October 2009 at 11:34  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Griffin struggled because he is not a professional TV performer, hasn't had extensive media coaching, has no experience of that kind of forum, was ill-prepared, and was constantly shouted down -- rarely allowed to complete any point.

He missed some open goals: when ridiculed for having 'changed his mind' (not a happy phrase), he might have asked Jack Straw if he had changed his mind about his early Marxism.

When it was suggested that BNP supporters were all 'racists', he might have mentioned that every political party is a coalition and that internal disagreements abound in all of them -- none is a totally consistent bloc. The BNP supports cpatial punishment; what other party can people vote for who strongly hold that view and regard it as a priority?

When it was put to him that he was trying to find smooth words to lull the electorate before he could, when in power, come out with the truth about his real intentions, he might have replied that no political party does differently, citing Margaret Thatcher's first manifesto.

I think he is a very poor performer, and that he lacks the intelligence and poise to think on his feet. Also, some of his views are ridiculous and others odious (if we are being told the truth about them).

But he wasn't really given sufficient chance to destroy himself yesterday, as the baying mob (including the panel and the chairman, who even criticised Griffin's facial expression, for goodness' sake) prevented him from developing anything. Huhne, Straw, et al, were all listened to in polite silence. Griffin was heckled and subjected to indecent personal attack.

I wasn't impressed by Greer. I was, however, impressed by an Afro-Caribbean (not 'African Caribbean, as that mad woman insisted, who didn't understand the English rules for the combination of words; would she have got in a huff about 'Judaeo-Christian'?) gentleman in a striped suit who argued persuasively and calmly that there is a real problem about immigration that is simply not being addressed by the main parties.

It was a no-score draw.

23 October 2009 at 11:36  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, I enjoyed Ms Greer's performance last night but I hope she isn't trying to educate Griffin on prehistoric Britain. Her knowledge of that era appears to be as woeful as Griffin's grip on the truth.

Maybe Ms Greer could educate herself by visiting the British Museum's collection of Neanderthal remains and checking out the fact that they've been extinct for approximately 30,000 plus years. That's at least 20,000 years before the end of the last glaciation.

Of course, Ms Greer could have been speaking mischievously tongue in cheek, comparing Griffin to a Neanderthal. If this is so then I should point out that Neanderthals were a highly successful species of the genus Homo whereas Griffin, if his dire performance was anything to go by, is possibly not.

As far as the foaming at the mouth and ranting "anti-fascist" mob was concerned (both inside and outside), their ignorance and/or naivety of what free speech actualy entails was breathtaking. They saw nothing wrong in denying the rights of those opposing them to have any kind of publicly debated opinion. Only their own opinions were valid. Maybe they should rename themselves the Jaqui Appreciation Society, Jaqas for short.

I was amused to see an anti-nuclear placard being waved around on one of the many news items. Either the gentleman was confused as to what leftie bandwagon had hijacked the national news or he'd turned up to the wrong protest. Either way he was a rather endearing sight.

23 October 2009 at 11:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was entirely expected that QT would serve as a platform to Get Griffin in order to expose the dark side of the BNP but it was an unedifying spectacle.

WRT one of the points that arose, I find it hypocritical and illogical to deny the existence of an indigneous population whilst acknowledging the existence of 'ethnic minorities'. It's also politically disingenuous. I'm afraid that Griffin's remark about Maoris will have scored him some brownie points.

(Good to aee you back, YG).

Jay

23 October 2009 at 11:48  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Did you ever watch Eisenstein's film 'Ivan the Terrible'?

Towards the end of Part I, Ivan bowed down with the cares of state suffers the black dog and retreats to a monastery outside Moscow.

The final shot of the film shows Ivan in profile, bristling eyebrows, slightly stooped in contemplation, staff in hand, black beard jutting out, while the people in a long line winding across the snow all the way to Moscow urge him to come back...

Sound familiar? Have you got a jutty black beard, Your Grace?

23 October 2009 at 11:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come now, Rebel Saint: Bonnie Greer suggested there were "a few Mohawks" somewhere back in Churchill's mother's line, not that he was 25% redskin, and she ridiculed rather than supported Griffin's use of the last ice age to define Britain's indigenous population.

That Griffin's views are shallow and obnoxious was made plain for all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The concern must be that this dying Government has created and will leave a vacuum in which those who have neither will multiply. It's not the one that should concern us but the million that are already following.

23 October 2009 at 11:52  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2009 at 12:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

While he denigrated Islam, he lauded the Klu Klux Klan

I think you may need a new TV antenna. My signal relayed the fact that when questioned about David Duke he explained that David Duke ran a chapter of the KKK that was uniquely 'non-violent'.

I cannot recall if he coupled this comment with a condemnation of the KKK as an organisation because Bonnie Greer interrupted.

I subscribe to the view that 'Facts are sacred. Opinion is free'

I hope I am not alone in this belief

23 October 2009 at 12:19  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

Thanks to your grace for the (characteristically) best summary of last night's fisticuffs, for which I was necessarily somewhere else.

And a health to your grace in your most welcome return. Time to start all the clocks again, reconnect the telephone, and encourage the dog to resume barking at various juicy bones...

23 October 2009 at 12:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally I was disgusted with the way Griffin invoked Christianity and Christian values to justify his vile hate. Hopefully people will realise hein no way speaks for the church of God.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

23 October 2009 at 12:45  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Yet Christians are constantly harried by the accusation that the Bible supports slavery. Chief among the abolitionists were evangelical Christians who believed that every word of the Bible was true. But then they had actually read the Bible, something its critics have seldom done.

23 October 2009 at 12:49  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2009 at 12:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dreams Old and Nascent
by D.H. Lawrence

Old

I have opened the window to warm my hands on the sill
Where the sunlight soaks in the stone: the afternoon
Is full of dreams, my love, the boys are all still
In a wistful dream of Lorna Doone.

The clink of the shunting engines is sharp and fine,
Like savage music striking far off, and there
On the great, uplifted blue palace, lights stir and shine
Where the glass is domed in the blue, soft air.

There lies the world, my darling, full of wonder and wistfulness and strange
Recognition and greetings of half-acquaint things, as I greet the cloud
Of blue palace aloft there, among misty indefinite dreams that range
At the back of my life's horizon, where the dreamings of past lives crowd.

Over the nearness of Norwood Hill, through the mellow veil
Of the afternoon glows to me the old romance of David and Dora,
With the old, sweet, soothing tears, and laughter that shakes the sail
Of the ship of the soul over seas where dreamed dreams lure the unoceaned explorer.

All the bygone, hushed years
Streaming back where the mist distils
Into forgetfulness: soft-sailing waters where fears
No longer shake, where the silk sail fills
With an unfelt breeze that ebbs over the seas, where the storm
Of living has passed, on and on
Through the coloured iridescence that swims in the warm
Wake of the tumult now spent and gone,
Drifts my boat, wistfully lapsing after
The mists of vanishing tears and the echo of laughter.

Nascent

My world is a painted fresco, where coloured shapes
Of old, ineffectual lives linger blurred and warm;
An endless tapestry the past has women drapes
The halls of my life, compelling my soul to conform.

The surface of dreams is broken,
The picture of the past is shaken and scattered.
Fluent, active figures of men pass along the railway, and I am woken
From the dreams that the distance flattered.

Along the railway, active figures of men.
They have a secret that stirs in their limbs as they move
Out of the distance, nearer, commanding my dreamy world.

Here in the subtle, rounded flesh
Beats the active ecstasy.
In the sudden lifting my eyes, it is clearer,
The fascination of the quick, restless Creator moving through the mesh
Of men, vibrating in ecstasy through the rounded flesh.

Oh my boys, bending over your books,
In you is trembling and fusing
The creation of a new-patterned dream, dream of a generation:
And I watch to see the Creator, the power that patterns the dream.

The old dreams are beautiful, beloved, soft-toned, and sure,
But the dream-stuff is molten and moving mysteriously,
Alluring my eyes; for I, am I not also dream-stuff,
Am I not quickening, diffusing myself in the pattern, shaping and shapen?

Here in my class is the answer for the great yearning:
Eyes where I can watch the swim of old dreams reflected on the molten metal of dreams,
Watch the stir which is rhythmic and moves them all as a heart-beat moves the blood,
Here in the swelling flesh the great activity working,
Visible there in the change of eyes and the mobile features.

Oh the great mystery and fascination of the unseen Shaper,
The power of the melting, fusing Force--heat, light, all in one,
Everything great and mysterious in one, swelling and shaping the dream in the flesh,
As it swells and shapes a bud into blossom.

Oh the terrible ecstasy of the consciousness that I am life!
Oh the miracle of the whole, the widespread, labouring concentration
Swelling mankind like one bud to bring forth the fruit of a dream,
Oh the terror of lifting the innermost I out of the sweep of the impulse of life,
And watching the great Thing labouring through the whole round flesh of the world;
And striving to catch a glimpse of the shape of the coming dream,
As it quickens within the labouring, white-hot metal,
Catch the scent and the colour of the coming dream,
Then to fall back exhausted into the unconscious, molten life!

23 October 2009 at 13:28  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

It was boring really. If you do a bit of research then what were broadcast yesterday was 'standard' BNP views. The show really confirmed people's prejudices about this party, one way or the other.

I have to say, I didn't quite understand why the programme was purely asking questions about the BNP's view. It would have been better to have treated this as a 'normal' QT -e.g. hasn't the nation got better topics to discuss than whether or not the BNP use Churchill on their campaigns? Also I didn't get the Churchill as a Mohawk argument, can some one elaborate on this?

23 October 2009 at 13:29  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

Whether one agrees with the arguments put forward or no, Griffin has achieved his objective - which is to raise the profile of the BNP. Either way he would have done so. Had he been refused the platform that would have had precisely the same effect. The reality, ugly though it may be, is that the BNP has acquired support and success at the ballot box. It matters little whether that support is misguided.

An hour on a knockabout TV show has enabled Griffin to pose as a victim, beset with what amounted to a hired claque and entirely predisposed interlocutors. This was by no means a reasoned debate, it was simply a piece of theatre. Only one message comes out of this, and that is that the BNP continues to effectively raise its profile.

Now, perhaps we should consider exactly why that is. What is/are the cause/causes of this move to the BNP?

23 October 2009 at 14:01  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

The whole thing was an absolute bloody circus from last week all the way up to last nights frankly ridiculous Question Time.

It was nothing more than a witch hunt.

Now don't take me the wrong way, I don't agree with most of what the BNP stand for, there are some of their points that may hold water here and there. Like his comments about Islam. But generally they aren't a nice bunch to lump your lot in with.

However I think the mainstream politicians came off worse than Griffin did. They all clearly had their soundbites and speeches ready long before the show aired and regardless of whether their reply actually answered the question asked of them they used almost every question as a prompt to somehow turn round and use to abuse Nick Griffin and the BNP.

They would have presented themselves far better if the whole thing was treated as any other Question Time.

23 October 2009 at 14:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The causes of the rise of the BNP are well known: the failure of the main parties to address those causes.

The chief question is: will the BNP increase in popularity?

Undoubtedly it will because the idea of ‘British identity’ is degraded. This degradation is going to get worse through the combined effects of human rights and EU law.

Under human rights law there is no such thing as ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’. There are at least two parties within each case. One party has to win and the other loses.

Under EU federal law the federal structure is superior, and the national structure inferior. When there is no such thing as ‘national sovereignty’ then people will sub-divide into ‘identity tribes’.

As Bernard Connolly wrote in his outstanding essay, ‘Circle of Barbed Wire’:

The philosophical root of Marxism is found in Hegel. So is the philosophical root of racism, and so too is the root of totalitarian nationalism. If the EU/NSU bans the nation-state, it risks leading either to the anarchy, the gangsterdom, of class, race, tribal, linguistic, or religious self-interest or to the authoritarian imposition of empire. (The scenarios presented at a seminar a couple of years ago by the EU Commission's Forward-Planning Unit all envisage some variant of chaos followed by the imposition of authoritarian "European" rule.) "Classes," in all countries, and races, in many countries, interact with each other on a daily basis. If there is class or racial conflict it is immanent. Nations are, in contrast, geographically distinct from each other. The whole point of the nation-state is to maintain at least some aspects of separateness from other countries while creating a national community that minimizes the risk of class or race conflict within the nation. That is, a nation-state is defined by the willingness of its citizens to say, "We, and only we, will make the laws that govern us, and only us."

23 October 2009 at 14:38  
Anonymous Metrodeco said...

We're a small tea shop in Brighton – so you might wonder why we’d be interested in the rise and rise of the odious BNP. Read about our recent experience of Nick Griffin and our take on his Question Time appearance: http://tiny.cc/21i1c

23 October 2009 at 14:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick Griffin did not come into my Brighton Tea Shop, and he is in the BNP, and there are members of the BNP in Brighton. Astounding breakthrough into reality!

Nice Tea Shop by the way!

23 October 2009 at 14:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a first for me, to see a struggling politician embarrassingly deny and refuse statements and quotes evidently recorded in various mediums and video tape being one of them. If I was a supporter of Nick Griffin (and to confirm I’m not), I would be seriously worried with his quick change of direction. But what people don’t seem to understand is that Nick Griffin is in fact a racist and a real Nazi.

Nick Griffin needs to wake up and put to the rest his Adolf Hitler’s views about creating a pure white society. We live in a fast moving and evolving world, we live on trade and out economy is depended on trade, oil and resources from Asia and Middle East. Nations like India, China, UAE are fast development societies and they economy turn over is the fasted growing and is to take over in the next decade. If Nick Griffin got his way (which I know is never possible) then the UK economy would not survive long.

The beautiful aspect of United Kingdom is that it has the power to deal with problems as and when they surface, sure immigration is large problem but it’s a problem that can be rectified, no one has a working method on how to tackle immigration but people only have their methods and assumptions.

Lets not let people like Nick Griffin poison the minds of our people or the new generation, We are the English and we don’t need to take side of a racist nazi loving part to correct a mistake.

23 October 2009 at 15:17  
Blogger Causer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2009 at 15:25  
Blogger Causer said...

Completely disagree about Warsi, thought she gave a strong performance with an understanding of the BNP and a strong attack on open door immigration.

http://takeonpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/question-time-verdict/

23 October 2009 at 15:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

And so the Left-liberal elite chunters on and on and on:

‘We live in a fast moving and evolving world, we live on trade and out economy is depended on trade, oil and resources from Asia and Middle East. Nations like India, China, UAE are fast development societies and they economy turn over is the fasted growing and is to take over in the next decade.

In other words we need to be members of the EU because we’re sacred of the big emerging economic power blocs.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland can sign free trade treaties with other nations that do not compromise our status as a nation-state.

‘The beautiful aspect of United Kingdom is that it has the power to deal with problems as and when they surface, sure immigration is large problem but it’s a problem that can be rectified, no one has a working method on how to tackle immigration but people only have their methods and assumptions.’

No.

The power over immigration law has been surrendered to the EU.

23 October 2009 at 15:31  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
The answer to the question is plain to see, our national identity is being eroded, (the South Coast will soon be classified as "Manche", Brussels will be our Parliament Blair will be our "President" the Euro will be our currency, The Pope will presume to be our spiritual leader, with a little help from Sharia & Islam, the Archbishop of Canterbury will have retired to scrutinise Druidism & the Porkers in Whitehall having drained us dry will be heading for Mussels & chips across the Channel. In the light of all this, is it any wonder that a desperate democratic people will vote for Anyone who offers an alternative to outright civil unrest?.

23 October 2009 at 15:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The ironies are exquisite.

The BNP does not want the EU and yet the EU’s federal actions through Directives are, indirectly, assisting the rise of the BNP.

The Left-liberal elite wrings its hands over racism and yet wants the EU – which risks conflict on the basis of ‘tribal identities’ (and assists the BNP).

23 October 2009 at 15:59  
Blogger William Tweed said...

... bu have we learned nothing? I urge you to read Christopher Marlowe's 'The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus.'

23 October 2009 at 15:59  
Blogger ukipwebmaster said...

Bonnie was the Star, no doubt about that.

23 October 2009 at 16:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

That only applies to those who follow Jesus Christ.......the rest as they say are cinders

23 October 2009 at 17:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

That only applies to those who follow Jesus Christ.......the rest as they say are cinders

23 October 2009 at 17:01  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Try Tim Keller's take on Hell. No-one goes there who doesn't want to. Heaven is the constant presence of God; Hell is to be without it. Those in Hell have rejected the presence of God and want to do things their way. CS Lewis says something similar in "The Great Divorce". No-one in Hell would actually want to go to Heaven.

23 October 2009 at 17:05  
Anonymous southwood said...

This was one of the most one sided discussions I have ever seen. Almost everyone was bashing Griffin. But for all that, Huhne, Warsi and Straw were pathetic. Straw is such an utter hypocrite. It is he and his NL colleagues who have sewn racial tension in the UK with their insane immigration policies (he want even more in the madman !) and politically correct diversity garbage. Griffin came across as unclear in his ideas but he was courageous enough to attack Islam and homosexuality. Bonnie Greer was a light weight and out of her depth. The audience were a bunch of self righteous lefties for the most part. It just about summed up the whole sad state of British politics.

23 October 2009 at 17:41  
Blogger Ginro said...

Strangely enough, fundamentalist Islam teaches far worse than anything that the BNP appears to say, and yet, and yet...deafening silence.

I also find it absurd to hear people deny Nick Griffin his right to describe himself as indigenous.

The Germanic peoples, of which the English are one, were some of the first people to populate Northern Europe after the last Ice Age. Northern Europe is the Germanic peoples home.

Or shall we stop calling the American Indians (or First Nations) indigenous as well? After all, they've only been in America for about 10,000 - 15,000 years. And they most certainly were not the first there.

Shall we deny the Japanese their country? After all, several thousand years ago they displaced the Ainu in those islands.

How about African-Americans? Why do they describe themselves as such? Born and raised in America but of African heritage. Which part of Africa? Who knows for sure but it's a huge place.

And anyone that wants to start spouting about genetics (the ones that do usually haven't a clue), make sure you know the subject, and please, pleeeeease do not quote Wikipedia as your source!

Let's not forget that Jack Straw declared several years ago that to be English was an automatic declaration to being a racist. Well, thank you for that Mr Straw-man.

It seems to me that the major political parties, the MSM, and many others are having a little competition - which one will get the prize for denouncing the BNP louder than everyone else.

I wish that people in positions of influence would denounce the Islamic fundamentalists (far more of a danger to this country) and their supporters as loudly and fanatically as they have the BNP. I'd hold my breath waiting but I'd probably suffocate before that would happen.

By the way, I am not a BNP supporter, but I believe in free speech, he is a legally elected representative and his voice should be heard without having to shout over all the people trying to drown his voice out. Additionally, he has raised questions that most certainly need honest answers (and solutions) to. Again, I won't hold my breath.

23 October 2009 at 18:02  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

I am a disillusioned Tory who cannot believe that Cameron will bring about any significant change in emigration policy. So to whom do I turn to when I vote? I would certainly not wish to see the BNP in power, but as happened in Austria and Holland, the election of a few "extremists" seems to scare the living daylights out of the main-stream politicians who don't know how to respond.
As I understand it, Hitler got to power in a large part due to the failure of the ruling elite at a time of massive inflation, and it is the failure of our main stream political parties that have lead to the rise in the BNP. Judging by their responses last night, if they don't change their thinking, the BNP will continue to gain votes (even if they don't gain real support) because to many people there is no alternative.
I don't think the BNP will lose from last night's programme; most true British have a sense of fair-play, and are capable of recognising a "stitch-up" when they see one!

23 October 2009 at 18:13  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

I quoted genetics because I am Professor of Medicine and genetics is one of my specialist areas. In this case Wikipedia is a pretty accurate sourse and very convenient.

23 October 2009 at 18:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it more or less impossible to argue any Christian side into BNP membership, but at the same time it sickens me to see any other political party attempt the same level of hypocrisy by suggesting they have a Christian side to their behaviour.

So I sacrifice any Christian face that I could ever hope to have by inviting the devil into the kitchen. After a while though I have learnt that it makes no difference; I was going to say, so long as the end result is the same, but I have no idea where any of this is going, "but neither do they", I think to my self.

There is an interesting piece in the Times today by Frank Skinner. I liked the part where he talks of atheism being in vogue, and how it seems dreadfully intellectual to be saying the same things as Dawkins et al. I wonder how far this sort of delusion is effecting the immigration non debate. There was lots of multicultural intellectuals on QT last night who did sneer at the panel and hiss and spit and sit back very self satisfyingly in the knowledge that they are now officially members of the club.

As for the hysteria that was taking place outside, it just seems strange to me that war, death and murder didn't stir this level of emotion - instead they react like savage animals to someone whos politics they disagree with (nearly said simply disagree with). What strange things we are.

23 October 2009 at 18:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

aren't we a funny lot.
We tolerate everything except intolerance.
Whatever happened to free speech?

And welcome back your grace

23 October 2009 at 19:06  
Blogger Ginro said...

Genetics is one of my specialist areas too and I would never quote Wikipedia.
Different standards.

23 October 2009 at 19:21  
Blogger Alfred of Wessex said...

Whatever anyone's views about the BNP and its leader, Mr Griffin, in my opinion the BBC, with their "we know what's best for you, the great unwashed" Metropolitan multi-culti mindset, scored an enormous own goal.

By packing the audience with people of their own persuasion, with non-white people apparently in the majority (no attempt to reflect the balance of races on the overall UK population there), they handed Mr Griffin the status of "victim, 1st class" on a plate.

The last time I recall the BBC packing the audience on this scale was after 9/11, when they filled the studio with young, mainly Muslim, "students" who attacked the American Ambassador with such sustained viciousness that it almost reduced the man to tears.

Question Time last night was not so much a debate, as an exercise in bear-baiting.

However, Nick Griffin did himself no favours - he seemed totally out of his depth. For one, he did not mention the open goal given him by Jack Straw, the man who is on record as saying “The English are not worth saving as a race”.

23 October 2009 at 19:29  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Wiki is variable. Sometimes odd, sometimes superficial, sometimes accurate, sometimes convenient. Never say never.

23 October 2009 at 19:45  
Blogger Ginro said...

Well, for now I think I'll pass thanks, lol. And apologies if I offended you.

23 October 2009 at 20:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Brian E should read up more. German Inflation existed until 1925. A Hitler became German Chancellor in January 1933 after a period of Deflation at a time when it was either A Hitler or a Military Junta.

The situation in Britain may be similar having lost a war in Iraq and having huge reparations to pay to the EU; having been invaded and occupied as Germany was in 1923 - which incidentally created the Great Inflation - and probably because Britain like Germany then faced a Communist takeover threat.

The fact that Hitler was Austrian and Nick Griffin is Welsh probably completes the picture.

Now that the film script is possible, can we return to reality and stop being obsessed with GCSE History taught in Schools as Propaganda ?

23 October 2009 at 20:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alfred of Wessex

It was a highly multicultural audience (if audience is the correct term). I have found a tendency for such a group to share a common fear. What politics may never be able to explain is our ineffable fear of the alien among us, a fear which often drives us not to search for understanding but to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate; to obscure the truth, not only from others but from ourselves (a projection of my own fears maybe), but it is no longer clear who is the alien.

I heard someone say something today with reference to the interaction between religion and the news:

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a profound truth maybe another profound truth, and nowhere is this more profoundly true than in religion - As it is often said of the Church of England, if you do not know what you are doing, someone else does."

23 October 2009 at 20:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Let's take a look at a statistically-representative audience for Question Time and work out how the BBC skewed the result:


So random that Beth Mellington-Pritchard could bring her civil partner along......and Andy Shovel could bring his girlfriend plus two other friends along.

Thus 2 guests add 4 friends to the audience......and 7.8 million viewers get an awful programme with a very skewed audience supposedly representative of themselves



Beth Mellington-Pritchard


Andy Shovel

23 October 2009 at 21:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Audience Question Time

Application

Audience Selection

23 October 2009 at 21:28  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Terry Hamblin and Ginro - I believe Wiki is inaccurate on this. I have Sykes to hand and will cite a supporting quote later tonight.

Meanwhile ~~ the Neolithics ['Atlantic Celts'] arrived after the end of the Younger Dryas, which had caused the seas to rise and separate Britain from euroland. [Deo Gratias]

Sykes, as I recall, concludes that although a few Mesolithics remained thereafter, the numbers of Neolithics were greater; and the basis of our DNA is predominantly theirs. In the north and northeast we have a 'germanic overlay,' which Sykes calculates to be Viking. This is probably because the Vikings and their Norman brethren, of 1066 and 1069, killed off the Anglo-Saxons (the 'English').

Personally, I tend to think all this 'class' nastiness is something developed by the Norman scum who subsequently floated about on top: having appropriated everything that belonged to the enslaved Celts! In order to Divide and keep us Celts Conquered, Normans (cf Geoffrey of Monmouth) blamed all ills on the [dead] 'English' .. The method was, therefore, 'racist' from the beginning!!

I suspect its present-day manifestation to be the Marxist doctrine of "deep class hatred" (socio-economic envy) - which the Franco-German commies have incited through Unionism. This is why I'm suspicious that the Griffin Charade and new rashes of unionism and strikes have irrupted simultaneously ... for the delectation of our quarrelsome nature! [The irony of their socio-economic petard - well that's another story :))]

The irruptions, I suggest, also coincide with the need to divide us again. In order to stop us from uniting against the euSSR, our masters and their mouthpieces resort to 'racism' and classify Griffin supporters as "working classes."

Our politicians are plainly the henchmen of the euros - and their role in the scenario closely follows the dynamics outlined by the Marxist theorist Freire in his description of Cultural Invasion. I have cited that before on these pages.

And yes - Faustus too. Marlowe had it so right; but as long as we denigrate our unique literary heritage, and accept distorted versions of our history and culture ... hey, we can't be expected to learn from it, can we?

23 October 2009 at 21:52  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Welcome back Your Grace - and with such a post, too!

I couldn't watch the programme, but the BBC World Service this morning broadcast a soundbite that made me question the newspaper reports! Yours is the best response I've read. Thank you.

23 October 2009 at 22:02  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

what amazes me is that the majority of people can no see that the purpose of mass immigration is precisely to eradicate the Nation state, to destroy Identity so aiding the EUSSR.....So who are the real Racists, Griffin was right, this is Genocide, pure and simple.

23 October 2009 at 22:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Former adviser to Tony Blair suggests that Labour encouraged mass immigration for political reasons:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6417906/One-in-four-would-consider-voting-BNP.html

Jay

23 October 2009 at 22:51  
Anonymous Lord of the Ring said...

I see Labour introduced us to mass immigration and multiculturalism in order to piss off the right wing. How very New Labour.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do

23 October 2009 at 23:17  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 October 2009 at 00:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

no nonny

The Younger Dryas was a sudden reglaciation after a period of warming just before the end of the last ice age that lasted around 1200 - 1300 years. People wouldn't have been able to live through it and would have either perished or retreated south. The end of the Younger Dryas brought about a rapid change in climate with rises in temperature of ~7C. Basically the type of figure that gives today's warmists wet dreams. Some experts believe the Younger Dryas brought about the extinction of mammoths, wooly rhinos, sabretoothed cats, dire wolves etc.

The Mesolithic hunter gatherers were the first to re-populate Britain as the last ice sheet retreated about 10,500 BP (before present). They crossed the land bridge that existed between Britain and Europe before the inundation of the North Sea, a result of the melting ice sheet. Dogger Bank was, before the inundation, an area of high ground.

The Neolithic farmers began to migrate, using boats, around 6,000BP and around 4,000BP we saw the onset of the Bronze Age. Celts (Iron Agers) didn't arrive at our shores until around 700BC.

Next we have the Romans, then the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (Germanic tribes), Irish raiders then the Vikings (Nordic) and then the Normans.

Many would have inter-married. The Normans didn't kill the Saxons off, they merely dispossessed them of rulership.

There is some suggestion that anyone carrying the Rhesus O Negative gene has been around this particular part of the world for a very long time. This suggests that unless Nick Griffin is Rh O -ve then he's an immigrant just like 84% of the UK population. I'm quite happy to be one of the remaining 16%. However, unlike Mr. Griffin, I don't have a problem sharing.

Sorry to be so pedantic but I hate to see my chosen field mangled.

24 October 2009 at 00:27  
Anonymous no nonny said...

"the Younger Dryas, which had caused the seas to rise and separate Britain from euroland." Then, Gnostic, we agree on what caused the archipelago to form.

"Sykes, as I recall, concludes that although a few Mesolithics remained thereafter [...]" Though I understand there's room for disagreement, I don't think this is mangling. There seems to be evidence that a few Mesolithics could have hung on, and Sykes refers to them.

We agree as to the arrival of the Neolithics, "the Neolithics ['Atlantic Celts'] arrived after the end of the Younger Dryas" and I intended to post the dates later: thanks for saving me the trouble. A recent spinal fusion precludes sitting up for long stretches at the moment.

We appear to disagree on the definition of 'Celtic,' though perhaps, as an expert, you will concede that even experts disagree there. I don't believe I can be far wrong in relying on both Cunliffe (Oxford Celticist) and Sykes (Oxford geneticist), who maintain that the Bronze Age Hallstat and La Tene type Celts were only one kind ... and not the same as the 'Atlantic' ones who were already here.

I've yet to look up Sykes on the low percentage of Roman, Anglo-Saxon etc. evidenced in his research of our DNA - but will do so and cite it for you - you can then take up the argument with him instead of me.

I'm not sure if he's counting Nordic as a type of Germanic, but will check. He certainly counts the Picts as Celts. The Irish are undoubtedly Celtic; and in their case other disciplines - such as manuscript studies; archaeology; art history, and even linguistics - suggest that they intermarried not only with their Viking invaders, but also did so at the various times they themselves invaded Scotland, Wales, and north-west England. They had a strong presence in the north-east, too, during the Lindisfarne, Monkwearmouth-Jarrow ascendancy - though that might have been largely monastic.

I'll also check on the destruction of the Anglo-Saxons - however several sources suggest that Billy massacred all around Hastings; and the later Harrying of the North went up through the east, travelled west, and then went back south. Northumbria - both Viking and Anglian - was demolished; and so were its leaders, or there'd have been less point to it. One source for this was himself a northerner - but Collingwood is somewhat derided these days. However, I'll provide later support for this claim.

The Normans (men of the North) were largely the descendants of the Vikings who sailed up the Seine with Hrolf (Rollo) of Norway in AD 911 - which is why I call them Viking brethren.

Sorry to stand up for myself so soon after His Grace's return - but I also have a chosen field.

Anyway - whatever we are, we're not immediate descendants of Africans, nor are we Arabs, Indians, or Asians. So I think poor Griffin has a valid point.
And I think we ought to hang on to our islands and the heritage we nurtured and developed for so long. I haven't seen anything better anywhere: and yes, I have travelled widely.

24 October 2009 at 02:49  
Anonymous tim baxter said...

If ever there should be a doubt that Cranmer has a place in this world, this post would surely show that doubt to be a folly! Mr Griffin is, without a doubt, an ass. It is also true that the more his ass (or indeed his ignorance) is exposed the more his views become devalued. Shouting down people is a poor substitute for arguement. If only the "anti fascists" would comprehend that.
I have never advocated the burning of anyone. What a shame the "anti-fascist" did.

24 October 2009 at 04:36  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

So everyone can have an identity but Indigenous European peoples.

24 October 2009 at 04:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the panel (including the bias ref), and the audience accused Griffin of, was how they, themselves behaved! It was a disgusting show of hostility, bullying, and hypocrisy! Is this democracy? This is what we've come to get used to in British politics. Griffin wasn't allowed to speak. It was obvious from the get go that the questions along with the audience were hand picked. I'm amazed that anyone could fall for this debacle. The show was disgusting from start to finish. The lynch mob and Dimbleby should be ashamed of themselves. Ah but who do we vote for that is the question? When all are so evidently corrupt. All are saying only what PC allows for fear of losing their jobs or being treated how Nick Griffin was treated. Disgusting!

24 October 2009 at 06:04  
Blogger Thud said...

I kept reading this post in hope of a snappy punchline regarding greer...I'm still waiting,her ignorance is staggering.

24 October 2009 at 06:49  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Yes, Anonymous at 06:04 - that's what Cultural Invasion is all about. It closes down dialogue, by evasion, lies, rigid rules (PC)-and all the things they did on the programme. It oppresses the invadee into inferiority. To those ends it also uses such things as education, social engineering, and re-inscription of history, and the principle of divide and rule.

The 'mediators' (our 'politicians' and their media) are weak, however, because they are both oppressed by the invader (eu) and serve as Oppressors of the People. They therefore fear that we will re-assert ourselves, re-discover our creativity and power, re-claim our heritage, and re-claim our rights. That's why they have to treat Griffin as they do --- he's dangerous.

My paraphrase of the method is from Freire, Paulo. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed." Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. Introduction by Donaldo Macedo. New York: Continuum, 2003; 141-167.

24 October 2009 at 06:55  
Anonymous len said...

I agree with your Grace, Nick Griffins success is a direct consequence of Labours immigration policies and the undermining of our liberties.
I suspect many people do not agree with Nick Griffin or his policies but are using the B N P to voice their protest.

24 October 2009 at 09:12  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

My premise that invaders did not replace but integrated by marrying indigenous women seems to be established. The arguments over when it happened after the end of the last age are beside the point. The point should not be about race, but culture.

Question Time featured an audience of many hues, but what was noticable was how many of those carrying African or Asian genes had integrated into English culture. I have no problem at all with the colour of a fellow's skin; our heritage is colour-blind. What I am upset by is an attempt to change our way of life. Our Law has grown over centuries and cannot accomodate the stoning of adulterers or cutting off the hands of thieves or female circumcision, any more than it can accomodate the prosecuting/investigating magistrate as envisaged by the current DPP. Indeed one might say the biggest threat to our culture is not Islam, which is obvious overt and easily rejected, but Europe which is crafty, insidious and occult.

24 October 2009 at 09:27  
Anonymous len said...

Ginro has a valid point!
Fundamentalist Islam has more extreme views than the B N P .How about question time having a debate about this!. Not.
Political correctness( the new Religion of the masses) seems to be curiously selective!.

I am not a B N P supporter and never will be but I believe in open discussion and debate where I believe true motives will be exposed.

24 October 2009 at 09:37  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 October 2009 at 09:47  
Anonymous chris r said...

It alarms me how many of us believe, accept, or are moved by the prevailing cultural ideology without thinking.

And we become blind to the fallacies of reasoning that are used to support or undermine case.

What an appalling show this Question Time was.

We find Greer and others attributing beliefs to Griffin that he is hardly permitted to deny or affirm. Ad hominem attacks. Guilt by association. Heckling. Even Dimbleby stoops to attributing evil motives to him on account of his smile!


The same 'mob' mentality prevailed during Jesus arrest and trial (not that I am comparing Griffin to Jesus!) and I suspect it will not be long before we see christians who stand for traditional moral values and Truth vilified by the BBC in similar fashion.

24 October 2009 at 10:30  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Yes that is the idea,confront someone who stands for the rights of the indigenous people with a bunch of ignorant immigrant failures,how is it that these foreigners are so very clever once they have invaded our country,and helped themselves to our resources,and yet thier own countries are in such an appauling condition and would have benefitted immensely from the superiour intellect of thier emigres,perhaps telling us that we have no right to a country covers up the fact that they have no right to be here with out the approval of the the indigenous population as a whole.The programme could never be anything but what it turned out to be,that the communists can not debate,it is thier view or nothing,as a true born Englishman i support the BNP,for there is no other party that does not wish to see me as just another mongrel tribe in my own country,subject to the primitive ignorance of these foreign failures,and sooner or later you are all going to have fight for your very existence and all these pretty words will then avail you nothing,for your enemies will not extend any of these niceties ,that you so frequently demand of others ,toward you.

24 October 2009 at 11:05  
Anonymous Bethel said...

This show-and it is only a show for ratings -would only have been worth putting on if they had provided a heavy weight panel. They didn't. They gave us Mr Bumble, Mr Bumble Hopefully in Waiting, Ms Goody 2 Shoes and Baroness Smoothie. And The man with the Asymmetric Face. Can we all have some licence fee money back please?
But glad you're back, YG

24 October 2009 at 11:39  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Hi no nonny,
You're making me polish up my rusty quaternary knowledge! :D

Spinal fusion? Ouch! I hope you recover soon.

I'm neither a geomorphologist nor a Quaternary geologist but I have a rough basic smattering. I'll briefly explain the terms as I go along for those who haven't fallen asleep. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


The Scandinavian ice sheet began to retreat during the warm Allerod period which, if I remember correctly, started the onset of North Sea inundation. This continued throughout the much colder Younger Dryas period, a sort of last ice age blast (renewed glaciation) and the rising sea levels fell sharply towards the end of the YD before once more rising again. Britain was finally isolated from the continent around 6,000 BC according to geologists.

So yes, we are in agreement on the isolation of the British Isles.

I presume that the Sykes you refer to is Bryan Sykes, the genetic archaeologist. He is the type of scientist whose theories and professional insights make bog standard archaeology fascinating. It also explains why I viewed your earlier post as "mangled" because, being a (lapsed) bog standard archaeologist, I view British Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age peoples as cultures, not genetic diversities. So yes, I believe we can agree on our differences because we are viewing the archaeology from different platforms, influenced by different "experts". As we both know, conventional wisdom changes all the time as new discoveries and techniques come to light. Look how the analysis of Otzi the Ice Man rewrote the prehistory books! :)

Conventional knowledge indicates that Neolithic people began arriving some 3,000 years after the Mesolithic hunter gatherers did. I would not describe NW European Neolithics, culturally, as Atlantic Celts although I know that many people do. But that's just me. The Indo-European diaspora (Celtic migration) didn't take place until much later. Anyway, I digress, the deforestation of Britain began with the arrival of the Neolithic farmers which would have displaced the hunter gatherers, perhaps moving them further north and westward as the Neolithic culture spread. The Mesolithic people might have died out, existed in small pockets or inter-married with the new culture. No one knows for sure. Although I'm hardly an expert on archaeo-genetics I'm willing to bet there's still one or two Mesolithic genes floating about in our pool.

Halstatt was an early Celtic culture whose various phases straddled late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. La Tene was a later Celtic Iron Age culture (think along the lines of Medieval and Renaissance) . Interestingly their beautiful artwork may have been influenced by contemporary Greek art suggesting that long distances did not impede evolving cultural ideas. And yes, the Celts, just like we are today, were diverse in their crafts, achievements and knowledge.

Again, I am speaking culturally when describing Nordic (Viking) and Germanic (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) influences. I wouldn't be surprised to find that their genetic make-up is similar from a Sykesian point of view. Yep, the Normans were of Viking origin.

The truth is, there have been so many different migrations over the millennia it is hard to say who and what we Brits are. For white supremacists to use it as an argumentative foundation for racial purity is very stupid.

My interest in British history is of the prehistoric variety so my knowledge of post-Roman Britain is basically what I learned in school and read about over the years. I look forward to more of your thoughts on genetic diversity because it's a discipline that I need to take more of an interest in. Please stand up more often because I live to learn and you have actually made me think and return to my books after too many years (I suffered a spinal injury in 1992 which effectively ended my career). It's always good to meet a fellow traveller so thank you for your intelligent insight. :D

24 October 2009 at 12:06  
Anonymous David A said...

Welcome back your Grace!

On Question Time's Righteous-Socialist bash at Nick Griffin, he was accused of sharing a platform with a supporter of the odious Left-wing Ku Klux Klan. I looked up the Ku Klux Klan on the Internet.

The following is taken from:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=134

Quote: "The original [nasty Right-wing; my comment] Republican platform in 1856 had only nine planks-" six of which were dedicated to ending slavery and securing equal rights for African-Americans. The [sweet loveable Left-wing; my comment] Democratic platform of that year took an opposite position and defended slavery, even warning that "all efforts of the abolitionists [those opposed to slavery]. . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and . . . diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union."

The next Democratic platform (1860) endorsed both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision; Democrats even distributed copies of the Dred Scott ruling to justify their anti-black positions.

...During the time when most southern Democrats had not yet signed the oath of fidelity to the United States and therefore could not vote, they still found ways to intimidate and keep blacks from voting. For example, in 1865-1866,
the Ku Klux Klan was formed by DEMOCRATS [my emphasis] to overthrow REPUBLICANS [my emphasis] and pave the way for DEMOCRATS to regain control...

Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective. Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 persons were lynched-" 3,446 blacks and 1,297 WHITES [my emphasis]. Why were so many more blacks lynched than whites?

According to African-American Representative John R. Lynch (Republican from SC), "More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party."

Nick Griffin could also have mentioned, in passing, that Martin Luther King Jnr was a [nasty Right-wing] Republican.
..............................................................................................................

24 October 2009 at 13:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The same 'mob' mentality prevailed during Jesus arrest and trial

Ah...you mean to reference Andrei Vyshinsky and Roland Freisler....

Vyshinsky did such a good job for Stalin in the 1930s "Show Trials" he was given the lead USSR Prosecution role at Nuremberg.....Roland Freisler ran the Volksgerichtshof with all the impartiality someone like Jon Snow could manage

24 October 2009 at 13:24  
Anonymous David A said...

On Question Time's Righteous-Socialist bash at Nick Griffin, the "rivers of blood" speech by Enoch Powell was mentioned. Enoch Powell did not actually use the words "rivers of blood", but Harriet Harman's "hero of the Left", Ernesto 'Che' Guevara certainly did.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara's (1966) Message to the Tricontinental Conference in Havana:-

"Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent ... hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him a violent and cold-blooded killing machine. ... We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish SOCIALISM, RIVERS OF BLOOD [my emphasis] must flow! ... We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies' very home, to his places of work and recreation. We must never give him a minute of peace or tranquility. We'll attack him wherever we find him. The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we'll destroy him! These hyenas (Americans) are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!"

What a nice (far Left, or should that be hard Left?) Socialist. Thank goodness Enoch Powell didn't say that!

“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. The contempt and poverty unites them in the daily struggle, but the different way of dealing with life separates them completely; the black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink..."

"The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent... We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the Cuban revolution. By which I mean: NOTHING!"

Thank goodness Enoch Powell didn't say that! Could it possibly be that Harriet Harman's "hero of the Left" was a raaaaacist? Heaven forfend!

In the Hollywood revisionist movie fantasy, 'The Motorcycle Diaries' the Leftists whitewash all of these 'inconvenient truths'. As Lord Cecil Acton observed: "All villains are followed by a sophist with a sponge."

24 October 2009 at 13:33  
Anonymous David A said...

Outside Orwellian House (the den of the revisionist-history British Brainwashing Corporation) there were placards being held up by the far LEFT-wing Socialist Workers' Party. The message on some was: "SOCIALIST WORKER 'THE BNP IS A NAZI PARTY - SMASH THE BNP'." This seems somewhat ironic to me as 'NAZI' translates into English as 'national SOCIALIST german WORKERS party'.

As Adolf Hitler put it: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly valuation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306).


"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

Yup. Sounds remarkably like a far Left-wing socialist to me.

24 October 2009 at 13:38  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Gnostic - thank you for your kind words. Yes, I first injured my back in the mid '60s - so we are fellow travellers!!

My main sources are:
Davies, John. "A History of Wales." London: Penguin, 1994. (First Published in Welsh as Hanes Cymru, by Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, 1990.)
Rollason, David. "Northumbria, 500-1100: Creation and Destruction of a Kingdom." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Sykes, Bryan. "Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of our Tribal History." London: Bantam, 2006.
My dates, as you'll understand, are approximate partly because of variation in scholarly conventions!

I show:
Sykes believes it possible that some of our maternal DNA could extend back "to the very first Palaeolithic and Mesolithic settlers who reached our islands around 10,000 years ago," (279/80).
7,500 - 4,500 years ago -‘Atlantic' Celts (yes, from Turkey, via the Balkans) migrated through the Mediterranean and Iberia, and also to Ireland (see Sykes 141/2 and 156). Based on genetic analysis, Sykes suggests of these "Irish Celts": "They joined the Mesolithics who were already here, having reached the Isles either by the same maritime route or overland from Europe before the Isles were cut off by the rising sea," (282).
BC 2400-1400 - Early Bronze Age: Davies suggests that "Wales had received the bulk of its original stock of people by about 2000 BC," (13). The Beaker People had also arrived in Britain.
BC 1400-400 - Later Bronze Age ->Iron Age (as you note): Sykes considers the Celts of western Britain unrelated to those "who spread south and east to Italy, Greece and Turkey from the heartlands of Hallstadt and La Tene [...] during the first millennium BC," (281).

From pages 279-288, Sykes summarizes the other findings I mentioned. The Romans left few genetic traces; northern Germans and Scandinavians are genetically similar. Oh - and btw - he did find a few exotic traces like African. He concludes on the Germanic front, overall, that analysis "hints at a partially male-driven settlement with some elimination or displacement of the indigenous males. But the slaughter, if slaughter there was, was not total and still there are far more people with Celtic ancestry in England, even in the far east, than can claim to be of Saxon or Danish descent" (286).

There may have been a low ratio of Saxon invaders to natives (260); but about their destruction - Sykes is one who notes the massacre of all Harold's men (265-6); Rollason discusses various opinions on the ‘harrying of the north' - extending from mine to yours!(284 ff); and W. G. Collingwood's idea can be found at "Angles, Danes and Norse in the District of Huddersfield" http://www.huddersfield1.co.uk/huddersfield/tolson/angles_danes/domesday_book.htm
For more on Vikings, I find handy reference in Davis, Wendy, ed. From the Vikings to the Normans. Short Oxford History of the British Isles. Oxford: OUP, 2003.

Actually - you've done me a good turn by getting me up and back to the books. I needed to do that, so thanks!!

24 October 2009 at 13:52  
Blogger Gnostic said...

No Nonny

Your understanding of the subject under discussion is encapsulated within current conventional parameters and certainly well above average. In the case of genetic diversity I suspect you are more informed than I am. It's not often I come across someone so knowledgable outside of my own circle. Most people switch off when I begin enthusing. I think our shared interests makes us officially geeks. At least, today I am more geeky than I have been for some considerable time.

Hail and well met!

:D

24 October 2009 at 14:30  
Anonymous martin said...

The BNP would not exist if the other three parties were prepared to take action on asylum, immigration, "human rights" & the Islamicization of large areas of our cities.

The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomes Sharia Law.

Who does a patriotic Briton turn to ?

In my case it's UKIP, but I fear the BNP is better organized.

24 October 2009 at 18:34  
Blogger Pavlov's Cat said...

Your Grace, I beg to differ on the topic of Greer's performance. I thought her arguments about Churchill's "Mohawk" bloodline and pronouncements that the idea of "indigenous British" doesn't exist was quite self contradictory - As if she wanted to believe that ethnic distinctions exist only for some politically correct parties and not for others.

I fear that where you found her charming and witty, I found her malicious and arrogant, contributing nothing of value apart from poking Griffin in the eye with a stick; "If I was a BNP member, I'd be scared."

Ironic considering that a BNP supporter was "Hit in the head" by a UAF protestors that evening; an action condoned by Martin Smith, the organiser. Not to say they're affiliated of course, but that the same card can be played in reverse, and it's this fear that the BNP thrives off.

On another note, the topic seems to have taken off about genetic roots; Neal Stephenson observed through his novel The Diamond Age that although people may be radically genetically different and belong to a vast array of races, what truly matters is cultural belonging. The debate needs to progress from race and instead become a question of cultural identity, the British one in particular having been fed to the dogs by New Labour. For example, would a hardworking family man of dark skin and christian faith who, say, cherished the London Underground map as a piece of "Britishness", be willing to put a cross in the box for the BNP in defence of the idea of Englishness?

Either way, new material has come to light about Labour's original intentions with mass immigration in the past day, with a former speechwriter revealing new information to the telegraph about how Ministers wanted to "Rub the Right's noses in diversity."

I look forward to hearing Your Grace's thoughts on the matter.

24 October 2009 at 19:19  
Blogger Conservative Vision said...

Griffin was a nervous wreck and barely managed a cogent argument all night.

24 October 2009 at 19:20  
Blogger Alfred of Wessex said...

Now I know why Bliar & Co. repealed the Treason Statues. Fortunately, Treason is still a crime under English Common Law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html


Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former
Government adviser has revealed.

By Tom Whitehead http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tom-whitehead/, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the /Evening Standard/, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."

24 October 2009 at 21:00  
Blogger jailhouselawyer said...

Your a man after my own heart.

24 October 2009 at 23:42  
Blogger jailhouselawyer said...

You're even.

24 October 2009 at 23:43  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

So as we all suspected, it's a planned Genocide, they knew when they set up the EU that the Indigenous would not surrender Sovereignty, it's human nature after all.
So they decided to go for a Cultural Revolution, hoping they could manage our minds with laws and PC to get us to go along with their agenda.
This is also going on in the US.

Fall of the Republic

25 October 2009 at 03:10  
Anonymous Another Spineless feminized Pussy whipped Brit Male said...

I watched Question time the other night, but I'm not racist, I just wanted to make that clear.

25 October 2009 at 03:42  
Blogger Ginro said...

Apparently 'racist' now has to be spelt 'Raaaaacist', lol.

25 October 2009 at 18:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The difference betwen griffin and varsi is that one is elected and the other isnt. Greer was probably the star but did not understand griffins mantion of the indigenous people, he was also right when he mentioned they would not dare ridicule the maori as indigenous nor the red indian of north america.

25 October 2009 at 18:39  
Anonymous no nonny said...

"The debate needs to progress from race and instead become a question of cultural identity ... "

I'd argue for an interim step of defining what we mean by culture - and perhaps noting also what the commies mean by it. T. S. Eliot wrote a whole book on the subject, so it's not necessarily simpler than establishing that the 'English' qualify as indigenous Celts!

If I begin with the suggestion that cultures manifest the values of groups of people - especially races - then we still need to identify what values have contributed to an integrated British culture, who developed them, and how and why they did so. That is, if we want to do more than make PC noises and weave some grotty fabric from artificial fibres.

Previous integration of cultures in Britain has taken devotion, time, and work; and it never really stopped. As I suggested earlier, the process has been disrupted by various groups who have dominated easily invaded lands of the 'English,' and then practiced divide and conquer. If we are to avoid annihilation by the latest practitioners of the art, I agree we need to develop the discussion.

Once dialogue begins, if integration with any of the present invaders is to succeed I say we need to arm ourselves with an honest and informed understanding. And I say we should proceed in conditions of freedom -- not theirs, of oppression. And we need to invite all indigenes to participate in the discussion, so that we can adjust where and if necesssary, and unite against those who conspire to destroy us.

But we need a party that's not been compromised; and we need a leader.

Well - that's my take on it, anyway!

w.v. 'supping.' No, I'm not!!

25 October 2009 at 23:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older