What does the BNP's popularity mean for Britain?

There's a country-wide caterwaul emerging from Britain, in response to the British Nationalist Party making substantial inroads into legitimate British politics.

[The British Nationalist Party, for the benefit of foreign readers, are a populist movement that emerged from the World War II era British Union of Fascists. They're unashamedly neo-Nazi in policy and practice, barring membership to all but 'ethnically British' Christians and pledging a populist manifesto that includes banning non-white immigration, reintroducing the death penalty and reincorporating Ireland into the United Kingdom. - Editorial Bear]

Thanks to intense dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties, the British Nationalist Party managed to secure two seats in the recent European Parliamentary elections - and found positions on local councils for former MEP Andrew Brons and party chairman Nick Griffin.

Labor and the Conservatives joined together in solemn head-shaking at the news, issuing statements that the BNP's victory was a 'sad moment.' Meanwhile, activists pelted Griffin and Brons with eggs as they attempted to hold their first press conference.

But, for the most part, the British public has been united in blaming the people who didn't vote for what happened. (This rather petulantly ignores the ones who did vote, for the BNP, who are really to blame for this debacle.)

One political pundit on Facebook declared: "This emotional response to their election is right and proper, but it needs to be directed at those who didn't vote. It's largely their fault that the BNP got elected. When only one in three vote this sort of thing will happen."

Unfortunately, when it came to the pathetic state of British politics, not voting in this election might have been a legitimate political statement. Politics should be about choosing leaders, not sifting through the pile to pick the 'least unelectable.'

But blaming poor voter turnout ignores the obvious. Take a look at recent history - the 2006 and 2007 local elections in the UK - as far back as early 1997. The BNP have continued to make consistent gains across the country for over a decade now; something you can't blame on a single turnout in a single election.

In truth is this: In twelve years, the BNP have doubled the number of votes they receive three times over. It appears the British Nationalist Party - racist, fascist, populist movement that they are - give out a message that resonates with a growing number of people.

That terrifies me, but it doesn't surprise me.

In 2006, Sky News held of survey of British voters and found that 59% of people agreed with BNP's general policies - as long as, that is, they weren't told beforehand that the policies they were considering were those of the BNP.

The British Nationalist Party's biggest obstacle, it appears, isn't their racist rhetoric or fascist policies. People are already on board with all that. The BNP does dismally in elections simply because they're them. It's a branding problem. They need to hire Saatchi and Saatchi!

That branding issue aside, it means the ideological battle has already been won. If Sky News is right, people apparently support many of the BNP's aims already. The only reason they're not a legitimate political presence is because people are still too ashamed to tick the 'BNP' box on the voting slip.

Thank Goodness.

But if the elections were any indication, that might be changing.

There's a reason for this, of course: People in Britain are quite simply getting pissed off.

It's a certain class of 'person' who's upset - and they're upset for reasons that us polite, politically correct middle-class types don't want to talk about:

'Reasons' like how two Christian church workers handing out leaflets in a Muslim district of Birmingham were recently accused of hate speech by a 'Community Support Officer' - while our government simultaneously condoned an Islamic school in Acton that used textbooks referring to Jews as 'apes' and Christians as 'pigs.'

'Reasons' like a London council erecting roadsigns in Polish to cater to the influx of immigrants.

As far as people like me are concerned, it's not polite to talk about 'reasons' like these, because criticizing Islam is 'Islamophobic' and picking on Polish people is 'Xenophobic.'

However, people who haven't bought into the middle-class, BBC-watching, politically correct mindset like I have are upset at the disparity between how 'us' (the white, English speaking Christian) and 'them' (anybody with an accent and a beard) are treated.

The BNP successfully tap into popular opinion that I would diplomatically label as 'unevolved' - the simmering, lager-fueled resentment at those who come to this country and 'don't speak English,' or don't celebrate Christmas (a holiday that they already claim is 'under attack.)

The BNP thrives on tackling these issues because the rest of us simply don't want to acknowledge them. We 'civilized' people, who support the Labor Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, consider ourselves above pandering to populist opinion that's arguably racist and ignorant - but that ignores the fact that this opinion still exists.

The longer the mainstream political parties ignore these 'problems,' the more supporters the likes of the BNP are going to pick up.

The fact is, the only way the mainstream parties in Britain are going to stop the gradual build up of support for the BNP is by opening a dialogue with the people who are tempted to support them. Talk on their level, about issues that matter to them.

Maybe then, we can engage them as voters - and steal them away from the BNP.

I don't think that's impossible. Deep down, I still have faith that British people don't want an 'all-white England' or a country in which immigrants and foreigners aren't welcome. Britain's rich multicultural heritage is a beautiful thing and I believe most British people are proud of it. Their votes for the BNP were a protest, not an endorsement.

Think about it... Some of our most indisputably, quintessentially British celebrities (like newsreader Trevor MacDonald, Conservative politician Derek Laud and dreadlocked show-jumper Oliver Skeete) are people the BNP would condemn as 'not ethnically British.' Hell, our national dish has become curry, not fish and chips!

So we shouldn't misinterpret the BNPs success as 'the shape of things to come.' But nor should we do what the British press and pundits have been doing - trying to downplay the significance of the fascist's growing popularity and ignore the 'uncomfortable' issues.

But eclipsing even the smoldering nationalism of the BNPs supporters is a bigger problem - and one Labor and Conservatives are equally inadequate in tackling: How British people feel like they simply don't have a voice any more.

It seems opinions polls and government policy have never been more disjointed. To a huge extent, the mainstream parties simply don't offer a choice between them any more. That's why extremists like the BNP are winning favor.

Just look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Back then, Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored public opinion (and more than 2 million protesters) to support the American-led invasion of Iraq. In contrast (or rather, not) the opposition party, the Conservatives, supported exactly the same thing.

It's a similar situation with the European Union. If we held a referendum tomorrow, the British people would probably vote to sever ties with the continent immediately. That means when the government rubber stamps European dictates - like supporting the adoption of the so-called 'European Constitution' - it's understandable for voters are going to feel disenfranchised.

Britain's politicians sit within the vaulted walls of the Houses of Parliament and decide 'what's best' for Britain without ever asking what Britain actually wants.

The BNP's success in the elections is nothing less than a harsh wake up call. It's a message to our representatives in Parliament that they're simply not doing their job.

They've got to stop thinking about what's 'best' for Britain and start thinking about what Britain wants. Because, after all, that is supposed to be how democracy works.

We shouldn't misinterpret the BNPs success as 'the shape of things to come.' But nor should we do what the British press and pundits have been doing - trying to downplay the significance of the fascist's growing popularity. The increasing number of votes the British Nationalists are receiving isn't the problem. It's a symptom.

Unless we address what's really wrong with Britain, it's a 'symptom' that's going to be more and more prevalent on the ballot rolls.

Quit flashing the 'racism' card at Prince Harry

Prince Harry has hit the headlines again, being accused of racism for a couple of remarks he made during a clandestinely-filmed video leaked by his 'friends' to the media. Full story HERE.

The accusations are centered around two terms he used: In one scene, he refers to an Asian solider as 'Paki' (in Britain, considered a very derogatory term for anybody of Pakistani or Indian descent.) In another scene, he comments that the headgear a (white) solider is wearing makes him look like a 'raghead.'

The BBC, amongst others, have wheeled out the usual crew to condemn Harry and demand an apology; which was duly given. After Harry uttered a sincere apology, the furor inevitably continued as more cheerily self-righteous 'journalists' lambasted the third in line to the throne.

Personally, I think it's a load of hot air.

Sure, Prince Harry seems to have adopted his grandfather's 'robust' sense of humor (Prince Phillip once warned a British diplomat that spending too much time in China would give him squinty eyes.)

However, this video is very different to Harry's previous fall from grace, in which he stupidly dressed as a Nazi officer to a fancy dress party (that made for some great tabloid front pages, I can tell you.)

This time? Yawn.

Out of the 'raghead' and 'Paki' comment, I would agree that 'Paki' is an offensive, derogatory term and out of context, I'd be the first to agree that it's use was shocking. However, it's been confirmed that the solider Harry was talking about was actually nick-named 'Paki' by his friends - in much the same way Harry is nick-named 'Ginge' (because, of course, it's entirely appropriate to make fun of redheads in England.)

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The 'Paki' comment was understandable, in the circumstances, and it's pretty pathetic that the media have grabbed it and tried to run with that at the center of their manufactured 'scandal.'

As for the 'raghead' comment?

Again: Yawn.

I own a racoon skin hat and when I wear it (it's about that time) I often get accused of looking like a 'canook' or some other slang term for a Canadian. My sister in law is Chilean - and to get her goat, family members sometimes joke about her being confused for a Mexican. Like it or not, cultural jokes are a pretty accepted part of culture in America and the UK (find an Englishman who doesn't refer to the French as 'frogs' - I dare you.)

The only scandal with the 'raghead' comment was that OH, GOSH, NO, it was referring to people of a particular sect of Islam who wear scarves on their heads. You know, the one the BBC and all media in general are willing to appease by aquisencing to pretty much any of their demands.

This particular sect, you will probably be aware, is the same sect that's protesting in the streets of London right now with signs reading 'Death to all Jews' (or, 'juice' in one instance.)

Personally, 'raghead' is an inocuous and inoffensive statement - especially compared to signs held aloft in London reading 'Behead those who insult Islam.'

Besides, I don't know that many military types, but those I do know frequently refer to Iraqis and Afghans as 'towelheads' or 'ragheads.' I'm not saying it's appropriate or acceptable, but I see no reason why Prince Harry should be held to a higher standard than every other member of the US and UK armed forces.

Currently, America and the UK are in the grip of a 'whining mentality,' that screams 'offensive' or 'racist' to pretty much anything. It's stupid - it's desensitizing all of us to when something happens that truly is offensive. When something truly despicable happens, I imagine most of Britain will view it the same way I look at the Prince Harry crisis: Yawn.

Besides - Prince Harry is a ginger, much like myself. Even as the third in line for the throne, I've witnessed him be the target of Britain's 'good natured' campaign against redheads. Find a single tabloid article about him that doesn't mention the word 'ginger' and I'll give you a quid.

Part of the reason my blog's called 'Militant Ginger' - and part of the reason I left the United Kingdom in the first place - was that the very same television networks and newspapers that lead the 'politically correct' crusade tended to fill their pages with 'amusing' jokes, insults and jibes aimed at gingers (who, along with fat people, are the only acceptable targets for discrimination these days.)

When the Sun and the Daily Mirror expect me to jump on the politically correct bandwagon, all I can think of saying is: "Bugger you, you bunch of hypocrits!"

Prince Harry, proving to everybody that he is a sober, responsible character.

Biden on Barack

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

So said Joe Biden of Barack Obama a few months ago. That was before Barack Obama selected him as Vice Presidential candidate for the upcoming election.

The choice of Joe Biden is an interesting one. Politically, Biden and Obama have a lot of common ground - but at the risk of mixing metaphors, there's also been a lot of water under that bridge of 'common ground.'

The problem is that Joe Biden himself stood for election - so he ruthlessly attacked Obama during that campaign. It's now very difficult for him to stand and deliver convincing support when his past words can be dredged up and used against him.

I mean, why does Joe Biden think Obama won the Democratic candidacy in the first place?

“...you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The wail of anguish you just heard was every racially sensitive person in America. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, both one-time African-American cabinet members and pretty much the definition of 'mainstream,' probably resent the implication that they're inarticulate, dumb, dirty and ugly.

But even if Biden is resentful of Obama's victory and insensitive about his race, at least the Senator for Delaware is in support of his policies and plans. Or is he?

"I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

Well, perhaps Joe Biden at least will be unified with Obama in teaming up against their rival, Republican senator John McCain.

“John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with... ...John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

YIKES.

Yes, Joe Biden is a risky selection for Vice President. Although history has shown that the VP nomination generally doesn't influence the voter's final decision, it's certainly not going to reinforce Obama's campaign like he'd perhaps hoped. McCain will be using his inopportune quotes with glee abandon.

[Oh... Another gripe with Biden? Back in the 1988 presidential election, when he stood for nomination for the first time, he tried to rally his core supporters in the coal-mining heartland of Pennsylvania with a rousing speech. A speech he'd plagiarized from no less than Welsh-windbag Neil Kinnock. - Editorial Bear.]

Bastante es bastante!

Okay, it's time America cut this Spanish-language appeasement crap.

I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of the fact that Bank of America sends me my credit-card statements in Spanish (despite four complaints I've made) and I'm sick of every sign, leaflet, document and television program having Spanish translations or subtitles.

America is an English speaking country. American-English, to be precise, and if you're expecting to live here, you damn well ought to make a stab at speaking it.

It was Mr Noah Webster, following American Independence, who defined 'American English.' He wrote the essential American dictionary, the Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language.

If I've got to sacrifice my British idioms to fit in here (saying gas instead of petrol, 'zee' instead of 'zed') I don't see why my fellow immigrants feel compelled to demand that Americans accommodate their ignorance of English.

I worked in Paris for four years - and certainly didn't expect to get business done in any language other than French while I was there. When I arrived, I barely spoke a word - but I made the effort to learn. These days, I might not be the most graceful linguist, but I certainly know enough to get complex things done.

Not so our Spanish-speaking friends in America! Vile nationalist organisations like La Raza are promoting the idea that not accommodating Spanish-speakers is racist. What rubbish! By that logic, tourists in New York are being discriminated against daily because signs aren't in French, German or Japanese.

What really gets my goat is the attitude some pro-Spanish speakers have. After gently explaining to one fellow immigrant that I didn't speak a word of Spanish, she snootily responded: 'I think it's rather ignorant not to learn a second language, no?'

Her smile soon faded when I explained my fluency in French - and a basic grasp of German I still vaguely remember.

The fact is, American English defines the United States as much as the Stars and Stripes or Declaration of Independence. When Noah Webster established the spelling and grammar that differentiated American English from it's British cousin, he set a precedent.

"The appropriate standard for the American language," argued Webster, "is the same republican principles as American civil constitutions."

In this belief, Webster created 'Americanized' English, replacing "colour" with "color", substituting "wagon" for "waggon" and printing "center" instead of "centre." He also added newly invented American words, like "skunk" and "squash", that didn't appear in British dictionaries.

He created a new language to suit the newly created American Republic.

In the United States, we rightly celebrate our differences and enjoy an enormous amount of freedom to live the way we choose to. What makes us truly American, however, are not the differences, but the few things we have in common. The English language (or the American version of it) is one of them.

By refusing to learn American English - and demanding that the country accommodate their own language - millions of immigrants are taking the opportunities and freedoms given to them by American society, but refusing to consider themselves a part of it.