Friday, 16 October 2009

How the BNP is dealing with their new membership policy

The British National Party has agreed to accept non-white members rather than be deemed illegal under a revised Race Relations Act.

This is part of a speech made to the party faithful by Arthur Kemp, BNP Foreign Affairs spokesman (and author of March of the Titans: a history of the White Race):

“There are those who will say that the party will now be ‘flooded with ethnics’ and taken over. This will not happen for two reasons. Firstly, if the enemy was going to do something like that, they would have done it ages ago with white members. That never happened and there is no reason to think it will happen with ethnics. Secondly, even if this unlikely scenario ever happens, we will just all leave and start a new party. People vote for the principles of the party, and not the name. We will do that again and again and even if we end up with something called the Ying Tong Tiddle I Po party, we will still be here."

Not that they're a bunch of paranoid racist dickheads or anything.

Actually, I shouldn't call them "racist" - they don't like that term because they think it was invented by the Jews. Perhaps "racially obsessed" would be an acceptable alternative.

But damn, I would really like to see them become the "Ying Tong Tiddle I Po Party".

5 comments:

rewboss said...

If they want to draw attention to the fact that they're nothing more than a bunch of goons, they should at least get the words right. It's "Ying Tong Iddle I Po".

Alternatively, of course, it could be "Ping Pong Piddle-High Po", which is the answer to the question: "What do you get if you cross a table-tennis ball with a very tall chamber-pot?"

Boom-boom.

Mike Booth said...

You missed "And an alcoholic writer of scary stories".

rewboss said...

Incidentally, you might get a kick out of this one. I'll paraphrase this to a ludicrous degree, but I think I've got it essentially right.

Nutcase #1: Read the BNP manifesto and learn something.

Me: I have. It makes no sense. How much will it cost to repatriate everyone voluntarily, and how do we restaff our hospitals?

Nutcase #1: It won't cost anything. It will save us benefits. For every Brit that qualifies as a nurse, we send back one immigrant.

Me: But the BNP says they won't forcibly repatriate anyone. How do we persuade a nurse to go back to Zimbabwe?

Nutcase #1: (silence)

Nutcase #2: We have so many lazy scroungers that just need a kick up the arse.

Me: I want to be operated on by a doctor, not a lazy scrounger.

Nutcase #2: Why don't you ask the BNP directly?

Me: I don't have to. That's what TV interviews are for. The answers they give are the same as Nutcase #1's. They make no sense.

Nutcase #2: Oh, so you believe everything you see on TV, do you?

Me: Are you accusing the BNP of lying in interviews?

Nutcase #2: Well, no. But you have no answers! Do you want to live in a country where immigration is out of control?

Me: Immigration isn't out of control.

Nutcase #2: 'Tis!

Me: 'Tisn't. Here are the figures to prove it.

Nutcase #2: Everyone knows Europe is being islamified.

Me: In case you're referring to the video I think you're referring to, most of the figures are completely made up or distorted beyond measure.

Nutcase #2: (silence)

You know, the BNP do serve a useful purpose. They make political debate really easy. All you do is take up the opposite position and you know you're right.

Mike Booth said...

Right in actual, provable reality, maybe - but I feel that reality matters less and less these days.

The tabloids have been running the "Out of control immigration is the cause of all problems" lie for so long that for many people, that IS reality - and they're going to vote (or worse, take more direct action) based on their belief in the alternative reality they inhabit. And take us with them.

Or maybe that's just my fatalism talking.

rewboss said...

Well, call me a mindless optimist, but I don't see any sudden groundswell of support for the BNP or any other extremist party. I see the BNP getting a lot of headlines, I see them benefitting from voter apathy, and I see them using the internet as their soapbox; but I don't see a lot of voters, even those concerned about immigration, considering the BNP as a viable solution.

There always have been problems and there always will be. There will always be a section of society that thinks immigration is out of control. In "Made in America", Bill Bryson puts it like this:

"If one attitude can be said to characterize America's regard for immigration over the past two hundred years it is the belief that while immigration was unquestionably a wise and prescient thing in the case of one's parents or grandparents, it really ought to stop now. For two hundred years succeeding generations of Americans have persuaded themselves that the country faced imminent social dislocation, and eventual ruin, at the hands of the grasping foreign hordes pouring through her ports."

You could probably say the same about Britain. I imagine 17th-century Londoners saying, "Those Huguenots, coming over here with their fancy foreign weaving and their fancy foreign silk..."

We've been through all this before, but I predict it won't amount to much, just as it hasn't amounted to much before aside from some riots, some casual racism and some attacks on individuals (not that that's good, but it's not genocide). We have a stable form of government which, even if we're not terribly happy with it, does keep most of us fed and housed; we haven't recently suffered any national humiliation worse than losing the Ashes; we have nothing really huge to blame on ethnic groups (everyone blames either politicians or bankers for the economic crisis)... I don't see there's actually much for the BNP to exploit except the perceived "threat" of immigration, and I don't think that's enough to convince anyone who's not already convinced.

If you imagine a sort of English Goebbels saying, "The Muslims have stabbed us in the back! It's their fault that we, er... have lots of Muslims in the country. Yeah, that's it. So who's for total war, then?"