“Do you agree that not dealing with immigration sensibly plays into the bnps hands? Will Cameron sort it out in your opinion?”

While I gave an answer explaining why I believe there is no immigration issue, and that Cameron’s plans will further isolate the country, increase nationalism, and therefore hatred, there’s a more serious implication. It’s the assumption implicit in the question that the BNP are the party dealing with immigration sensibly. Sure, the person asking is extremely unlikely to subscribe to the BNP’s opinions on most subjects, but it unquestionably suggests that dealing with immigration “sensibly” (whatever that might be) will placate the BNP. i.e. If we would only employ the BNP’s immigration policies, we would take away power from that dangerous party.

This view is terrifyingly common. Perhaps with no analysis whatsoever it makes sense to people. If we deal with the apparent immigration problems, then the BNP would no longer have that platform on which to speak, and thus people would be less attracted to the party. Never mind that this once again suggests that every member of the BNP is an innocent victim confused by feeling let down by Labour, etc (I talk about that here), but far more seriously is says:

“Let’s implement the BNP’s policies on immigration to make the BNP go away.”

Yeah, there’s a small problem here.

I’m frightened by often I’m hearing this, either directly or heavily implied. There must be an “immigration problem” because we keep being told there is, by every politician, newspaper, and media outlet. Even if they’re not directly stating there’s a problem, they’re reporting on how others are saying there is, or stating how others are going to deal with this problem. No one states what the problem is with evidence to support it. Instead we’re told the number of immigrants or asylum seekers “flooding in” each year because it looks quite big without explanation or context. Or, even more spuriously, we’re given completely unsubstantiated “facts” like, “There’s just not enough room”, “They’re taking all our jobs”, or my current favourite, “Britain’s population is about to reach 70,000,000!” As if that’s the number at which we will burst like a balloon stuffed with too much custard, splattering messily all over the Channel.

Britain has had a high volume of immigration for decades. Britain’s doing just fine, you know. The claims of evidence for otherwise are hilariously specific incidents, one-off situations where someone from another country claimed an awful lot in benefits, or someone struggled to get a job that a Pole was more qualified for. Or they’re wildly general, making claims about the NHS not being able to cope (this would be the NHS that would have collapsed multiple times were it not for its reliance on immigration to be staffed, from cleaners to doctors).

But despite our not being able to identify exactly what the problem is, it’s still a problem we have to deal with. And since we have to deal with it, why not kill two birds with one stone and take power away from the BNP by implementing their policies on the matter? It’s very concerning.

So, here’s hopefully a quick reminder of what a BNP member looks like. They’re not disenfranchised voters, depressed that none of the major parties are dealing with the imaginary issues that concern them the most. They’re not disgruntled rebels, refusing to let Europe tell them what to do. They’re wretched bigots, whose opinions are terrifying. They’re Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, xenophobes and conspiracists. They’re also deeply, frighteningly stupid. These are the people whose policies politicians keep saying we should “listen to” so as to re-enfranchise them once again. Here’s the comment from “james” on my earlier post:

“I am a BNP, member, it dosnt make any differance what people say or dont say on this site, 1, with in 2020 2090 war will take place between the degenerate west and Islam,2 it will begin with virus attacks against the soft under belly of europe , and the so called liberal USA.3 the people of the book jews and christains will find out soon enought, as to the true nature of islam, this 1600 year old form of the 3d reich, if hitler had ruled for 1600 years ,then people would bow down to Germania, and wear berkas, to insure racial purity as, as dos the 6th reich, Islam dos. THIS IS YOUR FUTURE ?”

That’s what the BNP looks like. Could we stop idealising the members, and idolising their opinions on immigration?

First and briefly, there’s the most obvious point. As anyone who gives any thought to the matter will ask and has asked repeatedly, to just when exactly in Britain’s past do these people wish to retreat? Should we go pre-Angles? Before the Saxons? Perhaps it’s the Roman invasion that muddied our British gene pool? Or is the problem Britain’s own dirty foray with mainland Europe until 9000 years ago, when it was so disgustingly physically joined onto the continent? Something that allowed those Africans to just walk into OUR country and settle its first human population 500,000 years ago. Why can’t we just go back to those pre-Homo heidelbergensis days, when this country understood proper Christian values?

The idiocy of taking any position that argues there’s anything inherently “British” is inescapable. You cannot reason or rationalise with people who are unequipped to recognise that fighting to preserve some sense of British purity is patent nonsense. But of course what they really mean is “white”. They want a return to the earlier 20th century, before we so desperately needed immigration in order to maintain the country’s infrastructure after two world wars. There’s a brief window of perceived perfection, post industrial-revolution, pre-1950s, that contains this magical Britishness, this value, this predominantly white nation where those of other skin-tones knew their place in subjugation. European invasions are perfectly acceptable because their melanin levels were acceptably low. It’s only ever about race, no matter how it’s worded.

Second is this idea of a traditional Christianity. This is another phrase so nonsensical as to be almost impossible to argue with. (Similarly the BNP are of course amongst those who rally against “global warming”, pointing out that it’s just madness to claim this when it’s snowing in April! Somewhat ignoring the part where no scientist is talking about “global warming”, but rather “global climate change”, what with it snowing in April and all. When people argue with pure nonsense, they are unwittingly cleverly defended against arguments.) It’s based on an idea that’s disturbingly prevalent amongst many Christian clans – that there was a period of Christianity, generally chosen to be between the 11th and 16th century, when Christianity was being done right, and thus that becomes “traditional Christianity”. This is of course at a time when Christianity was being used as a banner of war to fight against armies of other colours, against Muslim nations, against any who would not agree to its subjugation. This culminates in the King James Bible, a translation of the Bible used to endorse oppression and used as a weapon of control. This is, of course, the translation used and endorsed by those who campaign for “traditional Christianity”. The “thee”s and the “thou”s today make it sound powerful, frightening, unknowable. It’s “proper”.

(Any who deliberately use ancient dialects to communicate the Gospel have only one intention: to make it inaccessible. In its inaccessibility, they take power. They are in control. Those who wrote the contents of the Bible, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, did so to communicate. It has been updated, corrupted, fixed, re-imagined, mutated, mutilated, and restored countless times, each new generation in each country re-translating it into a form in which people can understand. Like a church that preaches in Latin, those that use the KJV publicly (privately it’s generally to pretentiously boast the value of its poetry) have no desire for communication with those outside. But I digress.)

In Griffin’s statement about the new central role Christianity will play in his party, explaining that all BNP leaflets and information will carry a Christian cross after the election, he dives headfirst into the custard of nonsense that is this mystical version of traditional Christianity. In case there’s any confusion Griffin defines his terms:

“I do not mean the gut-wrenching politically correct quasi-Marxist nonsense spewing forth from the treacherous leaders of the modern Anglican Church. I mean the traditional, upright, decent and honest Christianity that defended Europe from Islamic conquest, the Christianity of the Crusades and the Christianity of our forefathers.”

This isn’t plucked unfairly out of context. Throughout the short piece Griffin exclusively refers to Christianity as something that reaches back as far as the 10th century. He literally talks about its existence as only coming into being at the point it reached Britain.

“No, the Christianity of our forefathers was about honesty, family, patriotism, sacrifice, loyalty, king and country. For over 1,000 years Christianity held our people together and guided us through the centuries. If Christianity had not existed Europe would have been conquered by Islam centuries ago.”

This statement is so broken, so devoid of meaning, so completely unfathomable, that it becomes immediately obvious that Griffin is in no way referring to Christianity. Because if he were, well, he’d be in something of a pickle, wouldn’t he?

For Griffin to espouse these beliefs, he needs to abandon any meaning behind them, because otherwise Christianity is somewhat problematic. It’s (let’s all whisper now) foreign. It’s from one of those… brown countries. Jesus – a name Griffin does not use in his article – he wasn’t white! Not only that – he was a Jew! And the BNP are not big fans of Jews. For Griffin to use the name of Christianity, he has to abandon any notion of Christ. And when it comes to “traditional Christianity”, that’s, well, the version Jesus lived. It’s not a version that very helpfully ties into a belief system that’s about race exclusion, anti-Semitism, and other Nazi values. Hence Griffin’s need to have Christianity begin 1000 years ago, not 2000.

For the BNP, Christianity belongs to these mystical “forefathers”, these heroic figures who saw off the hordes of non-white people from Britain, and, er, their own nations. The Crusades become a time to aspire to, rather than a period of dark shame for those using the name of Christianity.

“The British National Party is the only political organisation in Britain that wants to keep this country fundamentally Christian, with Christian values, traditions and culture.”

What Griffin and the BNP are doing is re-writing the meaning of “Christian”, such that it renders it entirely detached from Christ. A man whom they would not wish to be a member of their own party. A dark-skinned anti-establishment Jew. A politically correct liberal-left quasi-Marxist olive-coloured Semite scoundrel who promoted radical and unquestioning love. The son of God who sacrificed his life for all of humanity in an act of absolute humility. In other words: trouble.

In making such an argument I can now be considered amongst those whom the BNP would label as the “politically correct liberal-left scoundrels”. I find myself in excellent company.

PS. Griffin’s muddled understanding of the faith he wishes to put at the centre of his party might have something to do with this.

Many are arguing that giving the BNP a voice on a respected BBC programme legitimises them, and will increase their popularity. Others counter this by saying his views will be exposed and people will become more aware of the party’s racist and fascist nature. Each likes to accuse the other of patronising the population. But the point where everyone gets caught up is in the figure of 900,000 people who democratically voted for them.

One side likes to argue that these 900,000 people are confused about who the BNP really are, and would not vote for them if they really knew their bigoted values and opinions. Another side likes to argue these 900,000 people want a party who’s willing to stand up for Britain against Europe, or bring in real change, and they’re resorting to the BNP in desperation. What almost no one seems to suggest is the possibility that there are 900,000 hateful racist bigots who voted for a hateful racist party.

This determination that people are either confused or moderate is peculiar in the extreme. They’re bigots, and there’s a political party who shares their views. So they vote for them. It isn’t very complicated. There are racist people. Lots of them. They’re everywhere. Our deranged need to pretend that everyone is just misguided or under-informed prevents us from recognising an important reality. Britain has lots and lots of racist people living in it, and the BNP very adequately represents them.

There’s no ambiguity about the BNP. They’ve made some very haphazard attempts to spin themselves to be an anti-Europe party, who just happen to want immigrants to go back to where they came from and hate the Jews. But you don’t even need to scrape the surface to find their views – they aren’t embarrassed by them, and don’t try to hide them. Andrew Brons, who recently won a seat on the European Parliament, was a member of the Nazi-formed National Socialist Movement in the 60s, and by the 70s was high ranking in the National Front. There’s no secrets in this party – they’re openly, boastfully racists. They’re Nazi-affiliated, if not outright members of neo-Nazi organisations, they’re Holocaust deniers, they believe in white supremacy. I can’t stress enough how out in the open this is. Let’s pluck a ridiculous example. The record label that publishes their racist songs is called Great White Records. No one’s confused.

If someone has problems with Europe, and doesn’t feel like the Tories are going to address it, they’ll vote UKIP or Veritas. (Of course here you can have the fun of hunting for relationships with less savoury roots.) If someone votes for the BNP it’s because they’re a racist.

So here’s the pickle: We’ve got a sort-of-democracy in this country, and with that comes our requirement to allow people to freely vote for whomever they wish. When one party receives almost a million votes, wins council seats and positions as MEPs, we as a nation have welcomed them in.

The BBC is a public service broadcaster. They’re required by law to be non-partisan. But I believe they have discretion and editorial control of a programme like Question Time, and clearly they could have refused to invite Griffin. It’s unquestionably a ratings and attention-gaining coup to make this move, but I have no idea which is their motivation. However, the problem with Question Time as a format for this is quite what a hideous programme it is without a BNP member on the panel.

Born of Radio 4′s Any Questions, both shows follow the same format. A panel of politicians and public figures take unknown questions from the audience. Of course the boast that the panel are not forewarned of the questions is meaningless – whatever the four or five main news stories of the week might have been will be the questions asked, and the panel will have been appropriately prepared for receiving them. The only unknowable is the light-hearted question at the end, where in a week where a politician had been on a fancy holiday they might be asked, “If you could go on holiday with one politician, who would it be and where would you go?” Here they stumble and murmur a confused reply, unsure what their team of advisers would have liked them to say, and the farcical nature of the programme is lit up for all to see. “Um, well, I suppose I’d like to go with David Cameron and his lovely wife, and we’d go to, um, a good British resort to boost our local economy?” Yuck. Neither presenter, brothers Jonathan and David Dimbleby, as it happens, has the wit or gumption to challenge scripted responses, nor force guests to actively debate with or respond to opposing views given. Instead they allow the panellists to take it in turns to say their pre-prepared piece, and then another chance to say it again instead of answering a direct question.

But what makes both Question Time and Any Answers so remarkably revolting is the audience. Pre-selected based on their political views, they bray and jeer like disease-infected cattle whenever someone says the binary opposite of their pre-defined positions on a matter, and then clap as if they’re trying to mash their hands into a bloodied pulp whenever someone says something they agree with. Should the audience be divided on a subject then their wire-frame opinions are voiced in a battle to see who can clap the loudest when their representative repeats their asinine position once more. Anything sophisticated or nuanced is ignored or literally shouted down by these fetid idiots.

Tonight’s episode is going to be this times a million. The BBC have allowed a few BNP supporters to be in the studio, and the programme will be dominated by the two audience groups trying to shout each other down, or beat each other on some imaginary clapometer from hell. (Add to that the inevitability of some anti-fascist protesters who will be in there – I can’t help feeling a little confused as I watch the footage of anti-fascist protesters campaigning against free speech. It just doesn’t seem to quite work as a concept.)

My guess about the panel is a lazy display of people trying to outdo each other about how much they’re against Griffin. They’ll each make it their goal to prove that their political party is best at not agreeing with racist opinions, and each will try to get Griffin to say something offensive. I fear that Griffin will have the sense to refuse to address any of these subjects, but instead incessantly bring up matters such as education, the financial crisis, and Europe, and of course immigration. He will talk a lot about how Britons are fed up of immigration. He will state that all the main parties have failed to address these key issues, and it’s time for a party who’s willing to listen to the people, and so on. And of course never even have to suggest what his own solutions will be, because no one will ask him – they’ll be too busy telling him how they hate him more than the others.

Of course I could be wildly wrong. I do hope so. I hope that Griffin exposes himself as the despicable human being he is, and the rest of the panel eloquently rebut his remarks and educate the audience with original and smart thoughts. Although even if this is the case, I doubt they’ll be heard over the frenzied mooing of the audience.

Whatever happens, we need to snap out of our denial about how many racist bigots live in this country, and start working out how we respond to them now they have a political voice.

PS. For anyone not convinced that BNP voters know and understand the party for which they vote, have a fun look through the Have Your Say responses on the BBC this evening.