Archbishops unite against the BNP
The BBC’s lead
says: “The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have urged voters not to let anger over the expenses scandal drive them to vote for the BNP in next month’s elections.”
Hippie intellectual and John Sentamu
On the right we have an African—a better man than most of his fellow Anglican clerics, but still an African, in Britain as a result of the suicidal 1948 Nationality Act and subsequent laws which insanely gave all residents of all British colonies the right to reside in Britain. On the left we have the most decadent, deteriorated human being I’ve ever seen. Imagine the moral state of a country that appointed this creature to be the leader of its state Church.
Are an African, and Rowan Williams, to be Britain’s moral authorities on its politics and national future?
Their warning against the BNP is a convincing reason to vote FOR the BNP!
I hope the BNP wins every election it’s contesting and breaks DEAD BRITAIN into pieces.
Then, perhaps, there will be a hope for life.
- end of initial entry -
Jeff in England writes:
Larry, I’m disappointed in you.
I can’t believe you are actually urging people to vote for the bunch of nasty thugs known as the BNP.
C’mon, man, deep down you know these people are not representative of your Judaeo-Christian ideals. Just because they happen to agree with you on certain issues should not mean that you want these not terribly nice and not terribly bright “shmucks” (I’m breaking my code of not using insulting adjectives) to actually rule the UK.
They do not reflect the fabric or represent the soul of the amazing British people.
Clever as you are, Larry, you are also naive about certain things and this is one of them.
Do not be fooled by their newly found surface tolerance of Jews, many of these people (especially the higher ups in their party) are Jew haters.
And “haters” in general.
We may oppose Muslims being in Britain but we do not HATE Muslims.
We may oppose various other Third World immigrants being in Britain but we do not HATE them.
That is what Jesus taught and that is what guides me (though I am not a “Christian”).
Undercover conversations exposed to the public have shown the BNP for what it is. A party of hate, nastiness and moronity.
A party of thugs masquerading as a party for white working class people.
By the way, it is a leftist party too, far to the left of the Democratic Party in the U.S.
Nor are they a morally traditionalist bunch either.
As I said, liberal moral traditionalists like Shmuely Boteach are closer to your moral and anti-liberated-self ideals than the likes of the BNP.
Their leader is the same Nick Griffin who appeared with the Ku Klux Klan not too long ago.
With unlimited immigration continuing, the financial crisis showing the hypocrisy of many bankers, financiers and politicians, it’s tempting to turn to parties like the BNP.
Personally I think it demeans you and loses you credibility with all but your most dedicated followers.
I say this as your friend and dare I say it, conscience.
LA replies:
I’m posting your insulting e-mail to expose how silly, overwrought, and hysterical your position is, and how unfounded are your fears.
Let’s assume you are correct that the BNP are bad people. This is an election for the European parliament and local councils. If by some amazing happenstance the BNP came in first in the European parliament election, with, say, 26.7 percent of the vote (which is what the conservatives got in 2004), then they would have 26.7 percent of Britain’s 72 seats in the EP, a small minority of one country’s seats in the EP. That wouldn’t give them any actual power to do anything, except to help advance the idea of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, which of course I support.
Britain has 20,000 local council seats. I don’t know how many of them the BNP is contesting, but assuming they’re running in all the council elections and assuming again some wild happenstance in which BNP was successful in every election it contested, they would have power in local councils. This would not give BNP any power over national affairs in Britain.
What, then would be the result of such an election? It would send the revolutionary message that the British voters so oppose the Labor and Conservative parties that they are willing to vote for a bunch of thugs to show their displeasure. This would shake things up. It would discredit the present ruling ideology of Britain, which is exactly what needs to happen. It would mightily damage the Labor and Conservative parties, which is exactly what needs to happen. It would lead to the rise of new leaders in the mainstream parties (or, even better, to the collapse of the mainstream parties and their replacement by new mainstream parties) who would be more responsive to Britain’s real needs re crime, law and order, immigration, Islam, nanny state, anti-discrimination laws, anti-hate speech laws, EU membership.
So, what would be the result of the success of the thuggish BNP that you so fear? The appearance of non-thuggish, mainstream parties that actually represented Britain.
And what will be the result if the British voters heed the hysterical warnings of the likes of you, Peter Hitchens, and Melanie Phillips that the BNP must be rejected at all costs? The continuation of British politics exactly as they are.
Jeff replies:
Calling me names is not going to get you anywhere. I wasn’t insulting you in any way shape or form. Your constant accusations when I disagree with you that I am insulting or being self-righteous to you are tedious to say the least.
Shaking things up short term is not as important as helping create a long term positive vision of things Yes Jesus shook things up. But look at what he stood for and his lasting well deserved legacy. Do the BNP reflect that legacy one iota? In that broader deeper picture you have to provide or support alternatives which have dignity and integrity to them. The BNP have neither.
I honestly feel you can do better than supporting the BNP (even if they stir things up). Why not consider supporting UKIP if you want to shake things up? They are an anti-immigration party tough on crime party as well. But they are not thugs or out and out racists.
LA replies:
I didn’t call you names. I said that your e-mail was insulting, and then I proceeded to reply to it. If you like, I’ll amend “insulting” to “patronizing and condescending,” as when you told me that you’re disappointed in me and that you’re my conscience.
I’m not impressed by UKIP, I don’t think they stand for very much. I’m not aware of their having any kind of serious position on immigration
Joe Catechissimo writes:
Jeff in England exhibits a lack of honest and thorough analysis which unfortunately prevails throughout the West. If I were a clear thinking Jew—either leftwing or rightwing—I would have more to fear from the growing Islamization of Britain than from the allegedly increasing power of the Far Right. In any event, at least one can reason with members of the Far Right on a variety of topics, including defending Christianity. One need simply compare the postings found here and at Vdare and Council of Conservative Citizens with the lunatic preachings and frequent demonstrations of the jihadists.
Edward D. writes:
I love the pictures the BBC selected of the Archbishops. Nothing says, “Don’t listen to what these people have to say,” or “the BNP is right,” better than a brain-dead-looking hippie and a sinister and hostile-looking African. Archbishop Williams is just missing a bandana, tie-dye, and a marijuana joint. And the scowl Archbishop Sentamu makes it look like he’s about ten seconds away from beating unconscious someone who stepped on his shoe.
LA replies:
I had the same thought: if you want people to vote against the BNP, do you bring on the man who is widely known as a dhimmi and as the very symbol of British deterioration to urge people to do that? If you want to advance a cause, the last thing you want is Rowan Williams as its spokesman.
From: Jeff in England
Subject: WELL, HE’LL CATCH YOU WHEN YOU’RE HOPING FOR A GLIMPSE OF NO FURTHER IMMIGRA-SHUN
I remember Altamont, the Stones brought in the Hell’s Angels to deal with any people hassling or even threatening them from the audience. The Angels turned out to be worse than the people they were protecting the Stones from.
If you are desperate to win the argument you can blame my views on my subconscious liberalism. Or conscious liberalism. You haven’t come out with that one for a while!
Ironically, the BNP here have little real support, much of it is being hyped up by not only the media but the mainstream parties.
I forgot to say that UKIP is broadly speaking far to the right of the BNP. The BNP are trying to out Labour, Labour. Doesn’t that bother you?
The subject line is a paraphrase from MAN OF PEACE.
LA replies:
Jeff’s Dylan paraphrase made me laugh aloud. (A sense of humor covers many sins.) He is paraphrasing the 1983 Dylan song about the anti-Christ (lyrics here, recording here), in which the relevant verse goes:
Well, he’ll catch you when you’re hoping
For a glimpse of the sun,
Catch you when your troubles
Feel like they weigh a ton.
He could be standing next to you,
The person that you’d notice least.
I hear that sometimes Satan
Comes as a man of peace.
However, Jeff’s analogy to Nick Griffin doesn’t really work, since Griffin is obviously not at all “the great humanitian, the great philanthropist” of Dylan’s song, the loving person, the man of peace who turns out to the anti-Christ, but is already seen as a dangerous extremist and is loathed by many people.
Richard H. writes:
I shook my head reading the letter from your reader urging people to oppose the BNP. It seemed like something more fit for an internal memo of some Stalinist human rights commission than View from the Right. He didn’t list a single thing that he would disagree with that the BNP would actually do but did the equivalent of call them a bunch of meanies.
Look at Richard Lynn’s article.
Looks like Britain is right behind America on it’s way towards becoming a white minority nation. And Jeff in England complains that the only party unapologetically opposing this bloodless genocide and calling it what it is, sometimes says mean things about immigrants in private conversation?
“Better dead than mean” should be the slogan of these so-called conservatives.
LA replies:
For the record, Jeff does not call himself a conservative. He’s a former hard leftist, reformed in many ways, sympathetic with trad issues, aware of race differences, against further Muslim immigration, but also still liberal in lots of ways.
James N. writes:
Why does Jeff in England follow Jesus’ teachings, although, as Jeff says, he is not a “Christian”?
Why is Jeff guided by a man who said, “apart from me, you can do nothing”?
Why would you follow a man who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father except through me” if you thought he was a liar, or delusional?
The pathetic modern formulation, “I follow Jesus because he was a great teacher” is hopelessly deficient. No great teacher speaks the way Jesus did. Either he was crazy, or an evil deceiver, or he was who he said he was.
Which is it, Jeff? Crazy? Evil deceiver? Or God made flesh?
May 25
Stephen T. writes:
If Jeff in England thinks the BNP is full of hatred, wait until the Muslims and Third-World immigrants he “opposes”—but so fastidiously does not hate—reach their fast-approaching majority. He’ll have a lot of non-hating to do then, when Sharia law plus the corrosive chaos of the Third World is his daily experience. Only difference is, the new boss WON’T be same as the old boss, to alter the old lyric by The Who. Jeff’s new masters won’t be nearly so persnickety as Jeff (a follower of Christ who is, somehow, not a Christian) about avoiding the H-word. Read what they’re already saying about you, Jeff. And continue being careful to avoid all hate. Keep “opposing” in a genteel, gentlemanly fashion, carry on feeling slightly miffed, and maybe once in a while even allow yourself some positively peeved notions about the forced expungement of you and your ancestor’s country, culture and traditions by a foreign occupation. Just don’t say it out loud. Because by then, there’ll be a law against it. (Make sure you tell the judge you don’t hate him—he’ll be the one with the long beard, wearing a headwrap.)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 24, 2009 02:06 AM | Send