There are few things guaranteed to get the knickers of the British ‘chattering classes’ in a twist more than the British National Party (BNP). It’s bad enough that they exist at all – that they are gaining significantly in electoral support in 21st Century Britain is simply unbelievable!
And now the BBC are considering having them on ‘Question Time’…how utterly disgraceful!!
People who vote BNP are clearly small-minded, uneducated, unthinking and immoral racists.
It’s a harmonic of the BLUE and GREEN vMEMES which condemns the BNP and which condemns those who vote for them. It’s a variant harmonic of these vMEMES which has led the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to take the BNP to court on the charge that the latter’s constitution is discriminatory as it does not allow membership to those of a non-white ethnicity. And it’s another variant harmonic of these vMEMES which has drawn up the forthcoming Equality Bill (2009).
The problem with these approaches is that, rather than understand what it is about the BNP that gains support from substantial numbers of people, they attempt to suppress the BNP. However, Nick Griffin and the top echelon of the BNP are smart characters. They have got a 7-week adjournment on the EHRC case; and Griffin is making it clear the BNP has to adapt, to find ways of complying with the inevitable tighter legal restrictions. In how ever the BNP changes, though, Griffin has made it clear they are not going to compromise their “core principles”.
We can legislate to make it more difficult for the BNP to do what they do; but that is not going to undermine their support. It may even increase it, as what they portray as ‘persecution of true Britons’ may well strengthen their sense of solidarity as a persecuted minority. By making out that they are being persecuted unjustly, the BNP are likely to draw in those who may be only slightly sympathetic to their stance on race and repatriation but will rally to their cause because of the perceived injustices. (From Griffin’s statement on the EHRC case, it would appear this is at least one route the BNP are going to go down.)
The problem is you can legislate against discrimination – speech and behaviour based on prejudice – but you can’t legislate against prejudice (biases) because people’s thoughts are their own private experience.
Is racism natural?
That’s the question one of my A-Level Psychology students asked me when the class was discussing Henri Tajfel & John Turner’s Social Identity Theory (1979) in relation to Prejudice & Discrimination. (See also: Is Racism Natural…?)
Tajfel (1970) showed that, as soon as you categorise people, they invest themselves in the identity and well-being of the group of people with whom they have been categorised, absorbing its values and norms. Because their selfplex – their sense of who they are – is tied up with that group, they need their in-group to be at least safe from and preferably superior to the out-group(s). What drives this investment in the in-group is the PURPLE vMEME’s need to find safety in belonging.
PURPLE needs to know how to identify which tribe it belongs to and who “is not of our tribe” – using markers such as nationality (English vs Scots), names (Singh vs Kahn), football scarves (Millwall vs West Ham), religion (Protestant vs Catholic) and, of course, colour of skin (black vs white).
So it’s not racism per se which is the problem, it’s PURPLE’s need to discriminate between members of the tribe and those who are not members of its tribe. And this is why ‘education’ is only partly successful in persuading people to turn away from the BNP. It’s not so much a ‘skills & knowledge thing’; it’s a ‘values & beliefs thing’. As Robert Dilts (1990) showed with his Neurological Levels model, Identity and Values & Beliefs influence Behaviour far more than Skills & Knowledge. You can tell me all you want about how unfair and evil racism is [knowledge]; but, when I hear about the ‘other tribe’ getting the few jobs going or getting better handouts, then what’s important to me is the survival of my tribe [values].
As Marilynn Brewer & Donald Campbell (1976) demonstrated, competition for essential resources will significantly increase hostility towards out-groups – effectively the formation of a BEIGE/PURPLE survival-of-the-tribe harmonic. Last year the more forward-thinking commentators did predict a rise in racial tension and support for the BNP as the recession bit. Where are the BNP at their strongest? In the towns and cities of the Midlands and the North of England where there are large immigrant communities and the decline of the traditional manufacturing industries has already resulted in high unemployment amongst unskilled and semi-skilled young males all full of testosterone and only too ready to defend their ‘turf’ against the out-group. All it needs is a RED-driven leader (Griffin) with a slight sheen of BLUE patriotism, telling people they are doing the right thing in defending ‘our turf’ to exploit that frustrated in-group angst and we have the kind of problem the BNP are facilitating.
A superordinate identity and common values are needed
Way back in 1954, in their famous Robbers Cave study, Muzafer Sherif et al (1961) showed that groups conflicted by identity and competition could be brought together if they needed each other to address common goals. Andrew Tyerman & Christopher Spencer (1983) found that shared goals and values actually made inter-group conflict more difficult to create in the first place.
Samuel Gaertner et al propose, in their Common In-Group Identity Model (1993), that it is possible to bring together conflicted groups by creating a common identity to fight a common out-group. Eg: English and Scots become Britons to fight Germans. Eg: Sunnis and Shi’ites become Muslims to defend Islam against Christians. PURPLE can expand to include all within a ‘super tribe’ to defend shared values. However, learning from Sherif et al and Tyerman & Spencer, it needn’t always be explicit threats that lead us to unite; but aspirations and opportunities can also lead us to a sense of common identity in a super tribe. Eg: Britons and Germans become Europeans in the pursuit of greater wealth for all their peoples.
GREEN’s fallacy is to assume that we can all be the same. We can’t. We have different traditions, norms and values. And even within each tribe, there are vastly different temperaments and intelligences.
What’s needed is not a top-down BLUE/GREEN suppression of organisations like the BNP and their riotous close cousins, the English Defence League – though carefully-considered legislation can place useful restrictions on the out-and-out extremists and education has a role too – eg: unrestrained Fascism led to the Holocaust.
What’s really needed is a bottom-up building of confidence and respect between the tribes, based on common needs, goals and aspirations, whilst acknowledging difference.
If it serves my purpose, I may even come to gain value from the difference. 50 years on from the first waves of immigration, millions of Britons, whose grandparents would have considered Asians and West Indians inferior species, eat in Indian and Jamaican restaurants because they enjoy the food so much. Racism died in part at least on the football terraces because so many good black footballers came through from the 80s on – after all, what white football fan is going to throw racial abuse at the black footballer who scores goals for his team? (Of course, as the Gravesian approach clearly demonstrates, values are all too often contextual. The white football fan who praises his team’s black goal scorer, may still vote BNP when he’s made redundant and the BNP tell him the government is forcing employers to take on more black workers.)
When it comes down to it, most members of most tribes want decent jobs with reasonable wages, good schooling for their children, freedom from the fear of crime, effective healthcare, etc, etc. So there are a large number of self-evident shared needs, goals and aspirations. What is needed is the belief that it is by working together, rather than fighting each other, that those needs, goals and aspirations can be achieved. Eg: unite to put pressure on the local health authority to improve maternity facilities. Eg: unite to set up neighbourhood watch schemes. Etc.
Ideally, this bringing together of the tribes should be structured as a MeshWORK, using 4Q/8L, to ensure that all the issues relevant to a locality are tackled together in a concerted way. This should enable all relevant points to be covered in a transparent manner, thus catching those half-hidden things that are often overlooked but emerge later to cause immense amounts of trouble.
Of course, there may not be enough dissonance in such a process to bring the out-and-out extremists to the point of change – especially if they are high in Psychoticism (as some of them do indeed appear to be); but, if the more moderately-minded come to trust the process, then it leaves only the true hardcore, still dangerous possibly but isolated and without any real powerbase any longer.
So should be BNP appear on ‘Question Time’?
The arguments will run from Margaret Thatcher’s ‘starve them of the oxygen of publicity’ stance – which led, in the 1980s, to the ridiculous situation of silhouetted actors reading out paraphrases of IRA statements – to the let-them-appear-in-all-their-full-nastiness-so-people-will-realise position.
In fact, it’s a tough one to call. When even China and Iran can’t keep news they would rather suppress from appearing all over the Internet, the ‘starve them of the oxygen of publicity’ stance clearly isn’t going to work. On the other hand, some people watching Nick Griffin on ‘Question Time’ will say to themselves: That guy makes a lot of sense – I’m going to vote BNP – because he’s appealed to their values.
In fact, it’s also a red herring. Think of when Tony Blair (1998) said: “Labour will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.” We can be tough on the BNP but we also need to be tough on the causes of BNP – and that means understanding the very real needs, goals and aspirations that BNP voters have and finding ways of meeting those legitimately through cross-cultural, common identity means.
Sunday, September 20th 2009 at 12:11
Keith,
“I think you’re letting your own prejudices blind you when you wrote….”
I don’t believe so, I think I was bang on the mark.
“How do you know I don’t mean to promote “indigenous culture and indigenous identity”?
Because you didn’t say so, I’m not a mind reader Keith. You speak of Empire as if that is what you believe is important to me, it is not. Neither is the Commonwealth, what matters to me Keith is the future of my people.
“But the idea of a fascist/Nazi state repatriating families who’ve been British citizens for 3 or more generations is equally unlikely to work.”
Well doesn’t that just show your level of ignorance. You haven’t got a clue what we’re about mate, I would attempt to enlighten you regarding our policies but I would be wasting my time. I suggest you need to do more studies.
Since you state that your purpose is to eradicate the need for the British National Party, the only party that stands up for the interests of my people ….I will bid you good day.
T’ra
Sunday, September 20th 2009 at 09:50
Hi Man of the Woods,
thanks for the feedback. I think this conversation is quite enlightening. My response might sound rather agressive but it really is not intended to be at all, I am simply wanting to explore your points in detail.
First the use of the word legitimately; I would say that you have misunderstood both the sentance that it was used in and the intent behind it. First, your definitions – I would say that it was intended in all of those ways. Except however, that definition two would be used where useful – it may in fact be useful to bring now ideas or patterns to break old ones where the old ones are confining or restrictive or counter productive. Over time changes might even lead to changes in the law too but that should of course be done in a careful and measured way. So, the use of the word legitimately on its own, in my opinion is perfectly reasonable. Its use is simply to ensure that the reader has no doubt that illegitimate means might be being proposed.
Further, the use of the word simply qualifies the methods proposed. It does not imply that there are no other legitimate methods available, simply that the ones being proposed should be legitimate.
Your response that “recognition of, promotion of and protection of indigenous culture and indigenous identity are not considered legitimate and therefore irrelevant” is therefore without cause in the original post. In fact, underlying th use of “cross cultural” means would be, by definition, a need to do exactly the things that you said were being denied. Without healthy cultural identity there cannot be healthy cross cultural interaction. The trick here is to have healthy cultural identity together WITH healthy common identities (we are all human) thus allowing for a healthier society at large.
It is in fact, the very need that you express to protect our national identity that is the first stage that is required but not to do so by building up barriers and direct antagonism between our national identity and others.
Perhaps we might not agree on the exact nature of our national identity and I suspect this is where the argument would lie. I would be quite progressive and inclusive in my view of what is British or English culture while i suspect, although i openly admit naivety here, that the BNP view would be much more closed on the race and immigration issue.
With regard to the use of the phrase “BNP voters” Keith uses it simply as a shorthand for people that vote BNP. By talking about the use of the word voters on its own you are referencing something that Keith did not at any time do. Use of the word voters to refer to people in general, I would agree with you, but as I say, that has not been done here. Your references to dehumanising etc are also therefore not appropriate in this context.
In the larger sense, I very much agree with you about lack of representation of people who do not vote.
I also agree with the need to devolve power to the appropriate levels. But, I also believe that we need to evolve powers at levels higher than those we see at the moment too. There should be more strength in global power structures for issues like international law and war crimes etc.
With the use of the word clever, I agree. My use of it without explanation was not good. I should have said something along the lines of intelligent enough and with the morals suitable to allow them to do it. We have similar sentiments on this kind of behaviour.
While I agree with you that modern politics has a massive element of doing whatever it takes for a vote I would still maintain that there is a large element of value system representation involved. Otherwise, why would we have political parties at all? Why would you feel a need to support the BNP?
“to keep one set of people with one ideology in power” – you are very much mistaken, this is not my objective at all. And, I am grateful for your support in not letting me do that but, somewhat concerned as to how you came to the conclusion that you would need to.
Jon
Saturday, September 19th 2009 at 23:30
O, Man of the Woods
I think you’re letting your own prejudices blind you when you wrote….
‘The use of the word “legitimately” in this context implies that any means other than “cross-cultural” and “common identity” are not legitimate. So meeting the very real needs, goals and aspirations of BNP voters through other means, such as recognition of, promotion of and protection of indigenous culture and indigenous identity are not considered legitimate and therefore irrelevant. Ergo we have “prejudice” and “self imposed limitations”.’
How do you know I don’t mean to promote “indigenous culture and indigenous identity”? If you’d have been there at the Regents College Summit – https://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/2009/britishness-at-the-royal-college-summit/- I think you’d have been pleasantly suprised at how much pride people took in being British and at what the British Empire had done for the world. One of the things we thought was hindering our aspirations as a British people was a kind of post-Empire Depression. What was just as amazing was that a number of brown-skinned Commonwealth cousins were present – whose grandfathers would most likely have been abused in the days of Empire. In the ambience we succeeded in creating was the revelation that they were totally uninterested in raking over the dark side of Empire but wanted to join with us in lifting Britain out of the doldrums.
One of the things that’s really come home to me in my 10 years as an NLP Master Practitioner is that people’s perceptions are their reality. And reality is ‘legitimate’. I don’t have to agree with your perceptions for me to understand they are legitimate for you.
If we are to do away with the BNP, then we have to do away with the need for the BNP. That means we have to find other ways (than the BNP’s more extreme ways) of meeting those needs…on a sustainable long term basis. Which doesn’t mean we can’t learn from the BNP.
Make no mistake, Man of the Woods, I’m about eradicating the need for the BNP. To do that, I have to understand and honour that need (those needs) and find sustainable ways of meeting it (them). So, of course, I want to understand you.
There’s no way a new and potent Britain, drawing on our glorious past to meet the challenges of the present and the future, can emerge if we don’t meet the core needs of the indigenous tribes. But we also have what we have – a sizeable influx of partly-integrated new tribes.
We now know the ‘multi-culti roller coaster’ doesn’t work – or, at least, doesn’t work the way it was sold to us. But the idea of a fascist/Nazi state repatriating families who’ve been British citizens for 3 or more generations is equally unlikely to work. Brits just won’t vote it in. Which means the BNP, on the one hand, is a vital source of drawing attention to issues the other parties are too PC to face up to and, on the other, a source of division and bitterness.
But the BNP does enable us to face upto key issues we might otherwise not until we were in far more trouble. So, what does all this tell us?
That we need something new. ‘Multi-culti’ doesn’t work. The BNP (and the EDL) can be a real load of trouble but they’re so unlikely to ever form a government, you can forget it. So waht we need is something new. And that’s what I and the Centre for Human Emergence UK are working on.
Saturday, September 19th 2009 at 19:03
Interesting to see how this conversation has developed.
I’ll try to respond to each of the commenters, as time allows and when relevant ….work-life balance ….so on an’ so forth.
jtwigge,
“I am really struggling to see where the man of the woods finds self imposed limitations and prejudice in this piece – for the life of me I can’t see anything of the sort here.”
Then allow me to make it clearer for you.
Keith, in his final paragraph, writes …
“… and that means understanding the very real needs, goals and aspirations that BNP voters have and finding ways of meeting those legitimately through cross-cultural, common identity means.”
Firstly,
legitimate – adjective
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable.
4. Authentic; genuine.
The use of the word “legitimately” in this context implies that any means other than “cross-cultural” and “common identity” are not legitimate. So meeting the very real needs, goals and aspirations of BNP voters through other means, such as recognition of, promotion of and protection of indigenous culture and indigenous identity are not considered legitimate and therefore irrelevant. Ergo we have “prejudice” and “self imposed limitations”.
I actually found that quite insulting, but didn’t feel the need to elaborate because I would have thought it was bloody obvious – somewhat naive of me I think.
Secondly,
It is a common mistake to refer to “people“ as “voters”, especially amongst those who are only really interested in “people” when they are “voting”. Being a “voter” is a behaviour expected of a “person” by other “people” in a civilised society.
I find the use of the word “voters” to describe “people” to be dehumanising. BNP voters are “people”, just like any other “people”. We have our own needs, goals and aspirations and describing us, or any other group, merely as “voters” helps politicians to ignore who “people” really are and therefore helps them ignore the needs, goals and aspirations of those “people”.
Additionally, describing “people“ as “voters” helps politicians to ignore the needs of those who do not “vote”, primarily out of a sense of apathy.
Hmmm, I seem to be repeating myself, I said the same thing on ConservativeHome over a year ago.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/05/behind-a-bnp-vo.html
If you want to learn a little more about me Keith (and I suspect that you do), then read my comment on that article.
“While we do indeed vote for politicians every few years we do not really end up with a democracy for the people, we end up with wild swings in policy from one set of special interest groups to another …”
And it gets worse when you have 500 million people voting. Power needs to be devolved to the lowest practical levels, as close as possible to the people; the parish in many cases, with district, county and regional representatives chosen by the parishes with the right to recall. An English parliament would also help reinvigorate democracy, again with the right to recall. But that’s a completely different debate.
“….(except for those clever enough to quietly support both sides).”
We have names for people like that ….and believe me, “clever” is not one of them.
“What we actually need is to recognise that all current political parties represent their own tribes ….”
No they don’t …..
The Labour Party represent anybody that will vote for them to keep them in power.
The Conservative Party represent anybody that will vote for them to get them back in power.
The Liberal Democrats represent anybody that will vote for them and help then retain what little power they have.
The British National Party represent the indigenous people of this country, the very people who have been crapped on from up on high by members of the other parties and their ilk, and that is why we are so often attacked from all quarters ….but we have thick skin.
“….and to go beyond this to support the common identity and cross cultural aspects to build a stronger and healthier British identity all round.”
You don’t get it do you, you can’t seem to get off the multi-culti roller coaster. It doesn’t work, perhaps in a few hundred years it will but it will do so by natural means. You are attempting to force the evolution of humankind, you are failing and you are destroying the indigenous culture of this land in the process.
“I don’t have an axe to grind but maybe there are too many trees in the wood”.
Yes you do and it is becoming clear as to why that is; to keep one set of people with one ideology in power, that is not democracy, that is an Oligarchy ….
….and we will not let you get away with it.
Thursday, September 10th 2009 at 08:43
Matthew makes some interesting points, many of which are easy to agree with.
We know that relationships are an important part of what makes people happy. These include close, personal relationships and they include more informal relationships, such as recognising a face in the Post Office and having a friendly chat.
If you’re looking out of your living room window and see someone you don’t know, someone whose purposes you don’t recognise, it can create a sense of distrust, fear even. Once you get to know them, that fear usually dissipates.
All forms of migration reduce relationships and, even if only temporarily, increase distrust. It can be a very positive experience to meet someone new, but when everyone is new and there is no opportunity to get to know the new people, we can become lost, despairing or even depressed. Migration can be between streets, towns or countries; the distance and is a roughly proportionate factor in the effort involved in replacing suspicion with friendship. Someone ought to commission a study but I’d expect the volume of people is proportionate to the square root of the effort (i.e. two people are four times harder to get to know than one person is.)
Conversely there are people who believe there should be no national borders at all, and that all migration should be decided on a purely economic basis. Valuing that ideal against the negative effects of migration becomes, I think, a matter of subjective judgement, and therefore one for argument between the liberal and nationalist elements of society. As a sovereign and democratic nation we find a middle ground. Who is to say which is correct? Left, middle or right? (Which reminds me Keith of something I want to discuss with you – the inadequate and one-dimensional nomenclature of politics – do ask me sometime!)
I suspect the reasons that people give up on trying to pin down British identity is because British identity is hard to pin down. By this I mean, that IS British identity. British people are who they are. Whatever that is. That’s the point about being British.
Not that I have much time for such nationalism. True freedom requires a life without boundaries.
Thursday, September 10th 2009 at 07:23
Very interesting comments, Matthew. Certainly made me sit up and think! Especially your line: “Surveys show that most people in the UK – of all parties, and all ethnic groups – also want an end to ongoing mass immigration (probably as it’s now rapidly changing the face of our society….”
As you rightly point out, none of the mainstream parties are really taking on this issue – almost certainly due the GREEN “PC/multiculturalism/postmodern relativism” you talk about. No wonder there’s disconnection between GREEN dominating political thinking on this issue and those areas where PURPLE tribalism dominates the local culture. No wonder the BNP, talking up the threat from the incoming ‘inferior tribes’, can capture so many votes on this issue.
You’ve added a significant element to my ongoing analysis of why the BNP are so successful in certain areas.
This means, though, that the BNP can’t be undermined purely on a area by area basis. There has to be some change in policy at a national level.
Thanks again
Keith
Monday, September 7th 2009 at 21:00
[cross-posted from Spiral Dynamics Integral e-list…]
You write:
“We can be tough on the BNP but we also need to be tough on the causes of BNP – and that means understanding the very real needs, goals and aspirations that BNP voters have and finding ways of meeting those legitimately through cross-cultural, common identity means.”
It’s going to be difficult to be ‘tough on the causes of the BNP’ I suspect.
Their main plank is that they are fed up with mass immigration, particularly by people that don’t assimilate well (they single out Muslims, these days, and have dropped their anti-Jewish antipathies, for now).
Surveys show that most people in the UK – of all parties, and all ethnic groups – also want an end to ongoing mass immigration (probably as it’s now rapidly changing the face of our society – leading to the Archbishop of Canterbury controversially saying we must accept parts of Sharia law, and Bishop John Sentamu claiming that there are now Muslim-controlled ‘no go’ areas in the UK, presumably akin to what seems to be happening in France.)
None of the main political parties seem particularly keen to act decisively on this issue, as the BNP would.
It’s a shame that a proud British identity is something that is promoted by the BNP more strongly than by others. When progressive people (including this Government) have sought to work out what British identity they can celebrate, they seem to find it inordinately difficult and give up on the task.
Wilber has talked about the effects of ‘Boomeritis’, and recent years of PC/multiculturalism/postmodern relativism – it’s not really a firm base on which to celebrate national identities (other than ‘victimised’ ones).
Basically, we’ve spent decades celebrating every fragmentary and ethnic identity, and undermining overarching national identities.
But plenty of people seem now to be wondering if we’ve actually gone rather wrong.
And not only the conservative-minded: I just got a copy of Andrew Anthony’s 2007 book ‘The Fallout – How a Guilty Liberal Lost his Innocence’ (I think he is a Guardian/Observer columnist, or suchlike).
Let’s hope we get towards some healthy outcomes before we regress back to blackshirts vs communists fighting in the streets…
Cheers,
Matthew
Sunday, September 6th 2009 at 23:28
This is a great overview Keith, it brings out the complexity of what we’re facing.
I was thinking more about following:
“What’s really needed is a bottom-up building of confidence and respect between the tribes, based on common needs, goals and aspirations, whilst acknowledging difference.”
I agree, and I also think that in order to create this we need a top-down approach inspired by wisdom beyond the fear-impulse that still drives everything from Purple to Green. That doesn’t mean everyone needs to be conscious of that, but to move beyond the whole mess of fear and need, some of us need to catch this fire of inspiration to get the whole thing moving at all levels.
That’s a tall but beautiful order. I think we’re living in a really exciting time.
Sunday, September 6th 2009 at 22:16
“If there is to be progress, then the rights of indigenous people’s must be recognised and respected by ALL ethnic and religious groups …only then can we begin to establish respect on all sides.”
Absolutely agree with you, Man of the Woods. It cannot work if it is only a one-way street. One of the things that the Centre of Human Emergence – see http://www.humanemergence.org.uk/ – is promoting is recovery of a sense of ‘Britishness’ and being proud of Britain. See my Blog ‘Britishness at the Regent’s College Summit’ – https://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/2009/britishness-at-the-royal-college-summit/
Where CHE-UK and the BNP would find themselves across an unbridgeable divide, I suspect, is that we believe a new sense of Britishness can be developed from our past glories in ways that align and incorporate the newer immigrant tribes. For that to work, as you rightly point out, the newer tribes have to respect our past and want to be part of our future. One of things that thrilled me about Regent’s College was the good handful of black Commonwealth citizens present who bore no grudge over the indignities of Empire heaped upon their parents and grandparents and seemed totally committed to helping CHE-UK acknowledge the many wonderful things about our heritage as a stepping stone to developing the new Britishness.
If you think about it, the fact that Chinese, Indian/Pakistani and increasingly, Jamaican, Thai and Nepalese restaurants and takeaways are an accepted part of our high streets is an indication that a de facto level of integration has already taken place. I’ve been to Finchley twice in the past 6 months, not having been to London in over 10 years, and was quite taken aback by how common black boy/white girl and white boy/black girl couples were. No one seemed to even pay that aspect any attention. (In my part of the UK it’s still relatively unusual and, therefore, likely to be commented on in some way.)
“The current rate of immigration is simply unsustainable, environmently, economically, socially and morally speaking.”
Immigration is a highly-emotive issue – especially when times are tough – and the indigenous tribes feel threatened by competition from the immigrant tribes. This is the BEIGE/PURPLE survival-of-the-tribe harmonic I wrote about in the main entry.
Different projections tell different stories. Some estimates anticipate 70 M in the kingdom by 2050 – much of the growth due to immigration and the larger families immigrants tend to have. However, I’ve also seen creditable sociological reports anticipating that the birth rate among the indigenous people of this country is getting so low that by 2050 the kingdom will not have enough white British births for us to repopulate. In which case, we might need the immigrant tribes just to keep the population at a viable level. (Most of the Western European and North American countries face a similar dilemma.)
It’s certainly a tricky one – and waiting to find out could easily find us sleepwalking into the wrong ‘solution’ Much more and better research is needed. And quickly!
“…we are currently seeing the natural evolution of a “Common Cause” in the fight against radical Islam .”
Interesting perpective. The challenge is going to be being dealing hard with the radicals whilst not alienating the moderates. To that end,we need to understand the moderates and look for the values buy-in that will enable us to engage with them so that they will side with our laws and way of life and work with us against the radicals. I’ve done a few tiny bits of desk research on the Qu’ran and some of the Hadiths to evidence my views on radical Islam for earlier Blogs and found it’s really helped me to gain a better understanding of motivation for Muslims, both radical and moderate.
Thank you, Man of the Woods, for entering into this dialogue. While its’ clear we have many differences,it’s also apparent that, in some respects, we do share some concerns.
Best
Keith
Sunday, September 6th 2009 at 20:25
Hi Keith,
Firstly, thank you for the invitation to the Pennine Submit. Sadly it is an invitation that I must decline but only because I do not currently have the means to get there; funds are low, pay-day is not until the end of the month, car is out of commission and the tax man is holding onto several thousand pounds of my money, some of which I could use to get the car fixed ….a long and incredibly boring story.
“But, short of bringing about a Fascist state – do you really want something like Nazi Germany?”
There are many within the ethno-nationalist, cultural-nationalist and libertarian communities who would say that we are already living in a fascist corporate state. Of course I don’t want something like Nazi Germany, that is not what the British National Party is about. What I want first and foremost is the passing into British law the articles laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples :-
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html
Following the adoption of the resolution by the United Nations in 2007, Karen Pierce, UK Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, speaking on behalf of the British Government “emphasised that the Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have any retroactive application on historical episodes. National minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied. The United Kingdom had, however, long provided political and financial support to the socio-economic and political development of indigenous peoples around the world.”
If you truly do understand my passion for our land and people, then you will understand why this issue is important to me and others like me. If there is to be progress, then the rights of indigenous people’s must be recognised and respected by ALL ethnic and religious groups …only then can we begin to establish respect on all sides.
Secondly, the issue of mass immigration. There is much that can be said on this subject, but put simply it has to end and it has to end now. The current rate of immigration is simply unsustainable, environmently, economically, socially and morally speaking.
If these two issues are not tackled, immediately and head-on, then this country can expect some dark times ahead.
On the subject of “Common Causes” – while I understand the motivation to do this, I believe that there is a flaw in the belief that one can simply “create” common causes – it is artifical and as such, short lived and fragile. Common causes are something than have the strongest impact on societies when they evolve naturally, not when they are simply created from above. And we are currently seeing the natural evolution of a “Common Cause” in the fight against radical Islam – this is bringing people from different communities and different ethnic groups together, it is a naturally evolved response to a danger situation created by the current government of this country.
Best of British Regards
Man of the Woods
Sunday, September 6th 2009 at 17:10
Hi, Man of the Woods. Just been on your Blog. The passion you demonstrate for our land is admirable – I truly mean that. Your reaching into the mythology of our ‘ancestral land’ really appeals to me. There are many things that are great about our kingdom and our history.
But, short of bringing about a Fascist state – do you really want something like Nazi Germany? – we have to live with what we’ve got. And what we’ve got is a land now full of very different tribes. And some of the immigrants are now into 3rd, 4th or even 5th generations. Many of them now really do feel they are English – if a perhaps a new kind of English.
What I’m saying in this Blog is that the PURPLE vMEME naturally differentiates via difference.
It could be Lancs vs Yorkies, southerners vs northeners, Scots vs English. The colour of your skin is a very easy differentiator. If there weren’t people of different colours in England, PURPLE would still find differentiators. It’s not the colour of someone’s skin that’s the problem. it’s PURPLE’s need to differentiate.
Our challenge then is to create common causes between our tribes.
Sunday, September 6th 2009 at 17:10
I am really struggling to see where the man of the woods finds self imposed limitations and prejudice in this piece – for the life of me I can’t see anything of the sort here. In fact, what i see is a rather refreshing and indeed quite exciting stepping out of any particular fixed cultural view and an opening up to understanding the different needs of different cultures combined with the intelligence to look for what can unite them.
While we do indeed vote for politicians every few years we do not relly end up with a democracy for the people, we end up with wild swings in policy from one set of special interest groups to another (except for those clever enough to quietly support both sides). What we actually need is to recognise that all current political parties represent their own tribes and to go beyond this to support the common identity and cross cultural aspects to build a stronger and healthier British identity all round. And that would not leave a lot of room for a BNP now would it.
I don’t have an axe to grind but maybe there are too many trees in the wood.
Sunday, September 6th 2009 at 16:22
I find you’re last paragraph the most interesting …
“…and that means understanding the very real needs, goals and aspirations that BNP voters have and finding ways of meeting those legitimately through cross-cultural, common identity means.”
Why “cross-“cultural?
Why “common” identity?
You will never be able to meet the very real needs, goals and aspirations of BNP voters because you have already decided to limit the means available for you to attempt to address those needs. In order to be successful you must first remove these self-imposed limitations and to do that you must first rid yourself of your own prejudice. How you go about that of course is is entirely up to you and nobody else.