|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BNP make a good point?
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is it that everyone in the country must either hate racists or be one themselves?
Because racism is an evil sin condemned by God and the Church. If you don't hate it, you condone it
There are, of course, many who would use those exact arguments about other issues of the day. Jack Chick, for example.
How does refusing to pour as much vitriol as I can upon someone equate to condoning their beliefs? I don't scream abuse at Hamas press releases either - does that mean I condone suicide bombings?
The BNP promote hatred. I find it ironic that those who oppose them because of that also promote hatred, just in a different direction. "When is hate acceptable and to be encouraged" - what a question for a Social Science essay!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
[tangential]
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Ambrose of Milan's opposition to anti-Jewish pogroms is an excellent early example of Christian 'anti-racism'.
Actually, Ambrose spoke out in support of an anti-Jewish pogrom.
He took up the case of some monks who burnt down a synagogue (in the city of Callinicum, AD388) and petitioned with the emperor Theodosius for them to be spared from reprisals.
His case was rambling and extremely anti-Semitic by any modern sense of the word. He argued that if Theodosius allowed the synagogue to be rebuilt and the monks punished, he would "not be a good Christian"; he went on to say that if Theodosius took up the side of the Jews, he would be taking on the role of a persecutor of Christianity.
Theodosius initially refused to listen, but apparently relented after Ambrose delivered what was a sermon in some accounts, a petition in another in the church at Milan.
Either way, Ambrose can hardly be said to be in opposition to this pogrom in particular.
[from the horse's mouth: Ambrose, Epistolae Extra Collectionem 1a [40]; ibid. 1 [41]]
[/tangent]
[ 12. January 2004, 11:49: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Wood: I am not opposed to a dismantling of society (being anarchist) but I don't believe that any one race is more qualified to rule than any other. I don't believe any person is more qualified than any other. I don't believe we should be ruled. Guided, perhaps, but not forced.
But you see the racist agenda implicit in the rope thing, right?
quote:
Alan: The way most people here seem to define "racist" is in the context of hate, so I try to refrain from expressing my views in words that mean a particular thing to a particular group of people. I've tried offering dictionary definitions, but that just gets people more vicious in their rebuttals.
There are racists who are seperatists but do not hate.
There are liberals who are racist out of pity, because they don't believe that a particular minority can assimilate and advance on their own. These are the most dangerous kind because their attitudes are more easily accepted on a broad scale.
Then there are racist that hate.
I suspect it's not your definition of racism that most people here disagree with - certainly, I'm in agreement that all the people you mention are racist.
But.
I suspect that some might take issue with you on your definition of "hate".
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
In which case my Dictionary of Saints is a whitewash job! Thanks for the correction.
[ 12. January 2004, 11:56: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
(PS. Am I the only one thinking that 'The Holy Men of Manchester' would be an excellent 'Lesser Festival' for inclusion in the next edition of Common Worship?!)
That is kind of cool. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
(PS. Am I the only one thinking that 'The Holy Men of Manchester' would be an excellent 'Lesser Festival' for inclusion in the next edition of Common Worship?!)
That is kind of cool.
Don't they have to be martyred first?
Or at least dead?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
I gues, NP, you're saying we should give individuals the benefit of the doubt, no matter their membership in an organization. I agree- to a point.
But look at it this way. The BNP reserves a particular antipathy for what it calls "race mixing". It has a peculiar hatred for mixed race couples and regards mixed race children as mongrels. My children are mixed race. I have a recurring nightmare that I and they stumble into a train carriage or a pub filled with BNP supporters on their way back from a rally or maybe just out for a quiet social evening. Now, hey, maybe they'd just ignore us. Maybe they'd even think my kids were cute. But I wouldn't bet my life, or the lives of my children on it. I would not give these hypothetical BNPers the benefit of the doubt. I'd get away from them as fast as possible.
I take this further. One day, I'll return to the UK. I see the BNP as making the UK unsafe for families like mine. Individual BNP members might be wonderful human beings, but again, I'm not going to bet my life on it. I want the BNP stopped. I want them shut down, denied freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and sufficiently intimidated that they are afraid to harass, threaten, or assault anybody. Supposing they have a mind to. The fact that the party's links to violence are "unprovable" in the 100% terms you require does not matter to me. I have to make a judgement call on what is known and understood about them by most people in the UK. What I'm saying is: as a group, they are my enemies. I wish it were not so. I am required to pray for them. I'd be a fool not to resist them and support efforts in the UK to curtail their activities, legal or illegal.
All of which takes us far, far away from the OP, for which I apologize.
[ 12. January 2004, 12:39: Message edited by: Peppone ]
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
There are racists who are seperatists but do not hate.
That's right. They are the infant racists who have not yet matured. They start simply disgusted by the differences between themselves and the group with which they refuse to mix. The disgust may never grow to hatred that manifests itself with outward violence, but it can't help but grow to dislike. It can't help but gain tolerance for abuse toward the "outside" group. That was why it was pronounced illegal in the US, and segregation was outlawed. It is much, much, worse than "misguided." Does NP think it was wrong for the US courts to end segregation because people have the right to be "misguided"?
quote:
When whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed.
Look at the above BNP party quote. Notice the word "destroyed." This is not a neutral term. The black blood has "destroyed" the white family line. Is there any doubt that the writer "hates" black blood? Is there any possibility that if he were counselling a white person not to marry and have children with a black one, that he would tell the white person, "you are wasting your white blood" rather than "you are destroying a perfectly good black line that stretches back to the beginning of time? And yet the writer claims that he has no hatred for blacks; he simply wants them to be "separate" and equal.
NP claims to have met KKK members who simply are for separatism and who hold no hatred for blacks. I'd like to talk to them myself. The only ones I met were very polite and civil in public and scathing in private. He told us an anecdote about a misunderstood motorcycle gang. What of his personal experience with the KKK? There are KKK members with a loving feeling of brotherhood for blacks, with a desire for their daughters not to sully pure black blood lines back to the beginning of time with white blood? Really?
I wonder after all this discussion and evidence if NP sees Nick Griffin, head of the BNP, and the BNP itself as "misguided and without hatred" or "hatefully racist, lying about their level of hate, and promoting hatred?" This thread after all is about the BNP.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally hissed, Gollum-like, by Nick Griffin, on his little website:
We don’t hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will.
Man, that sends a shiver down my spine. And the BNP is standing a candidate in the town just a few miles from my home in the UK.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
quote:
Originally hissed, Gollum-like, by Nick Griffin, on his little website:
We don’t hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will.
Gollum would never have said that. Saruman or Wormtongue might, or just possibly the Voice of Sauron.
Evil, evil, evil.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I don't know who 'we' are in Nick Griffin's mind (sic), but the lovely folks at Redwatch seem to be sympathetic to his party, and seem perfectly capable of hatred.
[Please see my warning below on the indemnity required from those who access this site.]
[ 13. January 2004, 07:08: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Whatever one thinks of the BNP - and there are several perfectly legitimate views - I would venture to suggest that it has gained council seats in the areas where it has, precisely because it is decisive about what it believes in and is prepared to tackle honestly issues such as immigration which are close to people's hearts. That's what I think, anyway!
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
They are responding to real alienation and a feeling of 'being forgotten' by mainstream politics, I agree. And, I would argue, the rise of the far Right is an indictment of the British Left. I think, and hope, that 'immigration' is a red-herring. A lot of people are superficially anti-immigrant, because they are looking for some explanation for their own plight, but if you bother to argue with them a lot of people will change their minds, that has been my experience. Classic case of scapegoating - why do I have to wait for my hip operation? 'Because billions of pounds are being spent on asylum seekers.' (lol) Why can't my daughter get a council flat? 'Because immigrants get them.' (I heard this latter argument used in a virtually all-white area with no asylum-seeker population.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Wasn't it Shaw who described anti-semitism as the socialism of fools?
Replace "anti-semitism" with "prejudice against asylum seekers" and very little has changed.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
Well, Okay - BNP policy makers do sound villianously racist. And perhaps the few KKK members I have met have just been "nice" around me because I wasn't a member. Yet as Marvin(?) pointed out (sorta) everybody hates somebody for some reason, and its generally based on percieved differences (culture, philosophy, religion, etc).
I'm curious as to how many of you who throw around the "racist" lable so easily have ever applied it to a minority race. I've never seen a discussion here in which the Nation of Islam or similar group has been accused of racism. Its always "white" organizations.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I don't know who 'we' are in Nick Griffin's mind (sic), but the lovely folks at Redwatch seem to be sympathetic to his party, and seem perfectly capable of hatred.
WARNING
Please be warned that the links to the site concerned require any person entering the site ie you to give various warranties and an indemnity to the publishers etc of Redwatch with respect to any legal liability resulting to them from the download of material by you from the site. It appears to contain material whose exact legal status is unclear and which the sites' own publishers themselves regard as potentially inflammatory.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
[Edited my own post to add a bit]
[ 13. January 2004, 07:07: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I'm curious as to how many of you who throw around the "racist" lable so easily have ever applied it to a minority race.
So easily?! Read my lips: Nick Griffin was convicted of inciting racial violence in open court by a multi-racial jury. Who throws the word "racist" around "so easily?" It's the other way around: you refuse to allow it to be used when you are utterly ignorant of the facts, like you claimed to be on the Strom Thurmond thread and ably demonstrated here regarding Nick Griffin.
By the way, I have been a registered Republican since 1972 and have never voted for a Democratic candidate except Jimmy Carter. That was just a protest for Ford giving a pre-emptive pardon to Nixon, who I thought should have gone to jail. You and I have never discussed Howard Dean on any thread. I think you may be developing a prejudice that I'm a "liberal."
For someone who supposedly hates "exhaggerations" you sure seem fond of them. Saying that people on this thread and the Strom thread were too quick to use the term "racist" is one exaggeration.
Here's another:
quote:
The attitude seems to be that any rumor or innuendo will do for a conviction of the BNP, but one must present irrefutable, hard boiled, cast iron, stainless steel, dyed in the wool, card carrying, Grade A, 100% truth when speaking against the Catholic church, especially if you want to accuse them of having erred in the past 30 years.
You spewed that out pretty quickly, obviously not having a clue what you were talking about, and I think it turned out to be just a *tad* over the top.
Here's another:
quote:
The fact is that the Vatican is more of a political organization than a religious one.
Note the word "more." I don't suppose you'd care to supply a link that establishes this "fact" would you? I mean something provable like we gave you.
I'll talk about racist black supremacy groups when you back off the "Shipmates are liberals who over-use the term 'racist.'" I've heard enough of that.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Well, Okay - BNP policy makers do sound villainously racist.
Jim - this is Clint admitting that we've given enough evidence to satisfy him that it's not all innuendo.
quote:
I'm curious as to how many of you who throw around the "racist" lable so easily have ever applied it to a minority race. I've never seen a discussion here in which the Nation of Islam or similar group has been accused of racism. Its always "white" organizations.
As you've pointed out yourself, racism is about more than simple resentment.
With that in mind, can members of ethnic groups really be technically racist?
(I've recently become part of the school of thought that suspects they can't, in case you haven't noticed.)
The Nation of Islam is a pretty good example. They're a more or less a hate group, right? Are they racist? That all depends on what your definition of racism is.
Is it:
a) a system of prejudice perpetrated against minorities by the majority due to ethnic concerns;
or is it:
b) contempt for others based on the colour of their skin?
They're both valid, but we have to be clear which of these we mean.
Thing is, Clint, you've discounted the second in one of your own posts on this thread.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
So easily?! Read my lips: Nick Griffin was convicted of inciting racial violence in open court by a multi-racial jury. Who throws the word "racist" around "so easily?" It's the other way around: you refuse to allow it to be used when you are utterly ignorant of the facts, like you claimed to be on the Strom Thurmond thread and ably demonstrated here regarding Nick Griffin.
Ignorant of the facts? Okay Jim, lets talk about the facts of interracial violence.
It is a fact that if you are the victim of a race based murder you are significantly more likely to be white, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Where is the outrage and the 6 month run of news articles in the paper? Oh thats right, in the interest of fairness, we've quit reporting the race of the offender in print - that is, if the offender is a minority.
The fact is that I knew very little to nothing of BNP and was not willing to take some obviously biased information and use it to form an opinion. Since then Wood (the "we" you must be referring to) provided me with an abundance of reputable links to use as a basis for forming an intellectual rather than emotional opinion.
The fact is that, as admitted in my previous post, I agreed that they do sound "villianously racist". I also agreed that with you that the KKK members I met may have just been putting on a show for my benefit.
As for Dean, I specifically mentioned that "at least I think it was you".
The fact is that the Strom thread was settled. I never said that people were too quick to call Stromm a racist. I suggested that as a result of his daughter's revelations perhaps we need to re-evaluate our view of him. But God forbid anyone forgive a "racist", or even talk about it. What the hell was I thinking?
I don't care if you are a republican, democrat or socialist, because none of those lables sum up who you are, what you think, or what kind of person I think you are.
The quote about attitude was based on the posts prior to that quote. Until then, no one had shown me anything ressembling unprejudiced, hard fact. Also, the paragraph started off with the qualifier "Some of you are...", which does not mean "all Ship mates". A dictionary might help if you don't understand the meaning of the word "some".
Okay -now we have some statistics to talk about on the other side of racist crime. So I'll put a foot forward and say All shipmates are not liberals who overuse the word "racist".
Your turn Jim. Tell me about Black supremecists. Explain to me how 2300 white and 500 blacks are charged with hate crimes every year, but blacks kill 2-3 times as many white people as whites kill blacks? Yet the media perception, and from what I have gleened from SOME (note the word and double check the definition) individuals on the ship is that the only racist hate groups worth talking about are the "white" ones - which is in itself racist, isn't it? When someone says "racist", you immediately think of a white guy. I know you do, you know you do. Thats a fact.
As for the Catholic Church/Vatican: Are they not represented at the UN? Are they not considered permanent members of the UN? Haven't they always been willing to change their religion to suit the political climate? Find your own links. Google "Vatican politics" and you'll have a boatload.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:
quote:
Haven't they always been willing to change their religion to suit the political climate?
No.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I'm not sure exactly what NP is looking for, but if it sounds like s/he wants someone to say "Black/Asian/Latino people can be racist to, you know", which is of course true, from the treatment of Asians in East Africa to African Asians fighting with white regimes against Black Africans, from some of the wackier theories of Black origins and Whites and Jews being lesser races to the oppression of the Karen peoples in central Asia. There's the phenomenon amongst parts of Black South African communities where lighter skinned people are regarded as more marriable than darker skinned ones. To think otherwise is to be highly naive.
I remember reading an article in the Daily Express (leading British exponent of enlightened liberalism, if "enlightend liberalism" was defined as pandering to the lowest common denominator prejudices of white Britain) that they had discovered that in Africa, some Black people treated other Black people with contempt because they were "more" Black. The underlying tenor of the article was, "See?! It's not jsut white people who are racist! They do it too!" and the impression that this made it alright: we, as white people, do not need to be examining uor practices and social structures, because Black people are mean too.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
With that in mind, can members of ethnic groups really be technically racist?
(I've recently become part of the school of thought that suspects they can't, in case you haven't noticed.)
The Nation of Islam is a pretty good example. They're a more or less a hate group, right? Are they racist? That all depends on what your definition of racism is.
Is it:
a) a system of prejudice perpetrated against minorities by the majority due to ethnic concerns;
or is it:
b) contempt for others based on the colour of their skin?
They're both valid, but we have to be clear which of these we mean.
B. Definitely B. Whether the victim is in a minority in the country where the incident takes place is irrelevant.
Just to be sure, I looked it up in the dictionary:
quote:
rac·ism
n.
1- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
racist adj. & n.
Discrimination against any race is racism, therefore the Nation of Islam is a racist group.
I firmly believe that anyone who says only white people can be racist (or for that matter, only men can be sexist, etc) is severely mistaken.
[Edited in italics]
[ 14. January 2004, 00:29: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
It is a fact that if you are the victim of a race based murder you are significantly more likely to be white, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Where is the outrage and the 6 month run of news articles in the paper? Oh thats right, in the interest of fairness, we've quit reporting the race of the offender in print - that is, if the offender is a minority.
These are not race-based murders. They are just murders where the victim and offender happen to have different-coloured skin. Naturally, black on black crime dwarfs this- if African americans were consumed with hate towards whites, why is there so little black-killing-white murder compared to black-killing-black?
Are you saying that every time a white person is killed by a black person it is a race crime? (Before you start, the "liberal media" does not say every instance of black people killing white people is a race crime.) Isn't it more likely that most of these killings are for more mundane reasons? A hate crime is when race, religion etc. can be shown to be a factor, and most cases of these are perpetrated by white people against black people. The fact that the total number of white people killed by black people exceeds the total number of black people killed by white people* does not affect this.
None of this should be taken to mean African Americans are a race of murderers- after all, there is more white-killing-white murder in the last three years of your list than black-killing-black. In fact, I hope the media in your country is diligent in informing white americans that they are over 5½ times more likely to be killed by a white person than a black person. After all, knowledge is power.
When I go to America, I'll hang out in the "hood" (or whatever it is called these days). These white Americans sound bloody dangerous. In fact, can I apologise to any and all white Americans I may have offended in the past on this board? Please don't kill me, I meant no harm.
Lurker
who only signs long posts
*We're talking murder here. If I was to include African Americans dying from pollution, poverty, fighting unjust wars, inadequate healthcare, etc. it may be a different story.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 'Lurker':
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
It is a fact that if you are the victim of a race based murder you are significantly more likely to be white, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Where is the outrage and the 6 month run of news articles in the paper? Oh thats right, in the interest of fairness, we've quit reporting the race of the offender in print - that is, if the offender is a minority.
These are not race-based murders. They are just murders where the victim and offender happen to have different-coloured skin. Naturally, black on black crime dwarfs this- if African americans were consumed with hate towards whites, why is there so little black-killing-white murder compared to black-killing-black?
*We're talking murder here. If I was to include African Americans dying from pollution, poverty, fighting unjust wars, inadequate healthcare, etc. it may be a different story.
Take a look at those statistics again. The white-on-white homicides and the black-on-black homicides are roughly the same number. There are 284 million people in the US, 34 million (or so) are black. Now ratio that out and tell me you would still feel safer in the "hood".
...I will give you credit though - I should have said "inter-racial homicide" rather than "race based homicide". The latter does make it sound as if I am talking about hate crimes.
In the '90s the media often talked about the increasing interracial violence and followed it with news stories about white racists. Even I was under the impression that radical white supremecy was on the rise and minorities were in ever increasing danger. The statistics, which they never quoted in full, tell a different story entirely. Yes, interracial violence was at an all time high in the '90s, but the rates of whites being murdered by blacks was still double or more.
According to the Disaster center the death rate is 906 per 100,000 for whites (regardless of age and sex) and 842 per 100,000 for blacks. Read the technical notes: quote:
Rates in this report are on an annual basis and, except for infant
and maternal mortality rates, are per 100,000 estimated population in a specified group or area.
That includes poverty, pollution, inadequate health care and fighting "unjust" wars (no, I didn't miss that anti-Bu$hism).
[tangent] I am less of Bush supporter than I was before, partially because of things I've been exposed to on the ship. But then my support of Bush was largely based on the fact that he was not a Clinton Democrat. Its only recently that I've learned there are non-Clinton Democrats.[/tangent]
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
With that in mind, can members of ethnic groups really be technically racist?
(I've recently become part of the school of thought that suspects they can't, in case you haven't noticed.)
There was, back in the 1980s, a use of jargon which distinguished the word "racism" from "racialism".
One was used to mean something like "thinking that the world is divided into distinct races with very different characteristics and that this distinction is very important and probably biological in origin" (i.e. what another generation of lefties called "scientific racism" - we could call it "racism type 1")
The other meant "not liking people of other races (however defined)" (i.e. what others called "racial prejudice" - call it "racism 2")
The trouble was no-one could rememember which was which unless they had had their Ideological Soundness top-up injections.
And then along came what some called "systematic" or "structural" racism (I could call it "racism 3") and some people used one or the other of words to mean that, and two almost identical words were being used to cover three quite different things (all of whch exist, and all of which are morally bad)
Which just goes to show that whatever the human failing that leads us to fight wars over the difference between homoiousiousand homoousious it isn't confined to Early Church Fathers.
I remember having a drink after a fringe meeting at one of the early 80s Labour Party conferences (in the Quadrant in Brighton, a wonderful pub with great beer ) with Russell Profitt (later a candidate for one of the Lewisham parliamentary seats, which he almost certainly lost only because he is black) and someone else who I forget, who were explaining to a poor confused and white conference delegate who was insisting that he couldn't be a racist because his wife and children weren't white, that he was a racist but he wasn't a racialist. Or perhaps it was the other way round?
And apparently black people could be racialists but could not be racists. Pr maybe the other way round. According to a slightly different technical use of the word "racist". Or maybe "racialist".
But back on the point if we call these racism(1) racism(2) and racism(3), it is certainly possible to say that members of minority ethnic groups in whatever country can't commit racism(3), but that almost anyone now and again does racism(2).
And that it is possible to be a member of an organisation that propagates racism(3) without personally doing either racism(1) or racism(2).
Or something like that.
NonProfiteer was claiming that his KKK friends, like those nice Afrikaaners one hears about (Oom Paul was always polite to his poor black neighbours, or so we are told) do racism(1) but not racism(2). I don't believe it of course.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There was, back in the 1980s, a use of jargon which distinguished the word "racism" from "racialism".
One was used to mean something like "thinking that the world is divided into distinct races with very different characteristics and that this distinction is very important and probably biological in origin" (i.e. what another generation of lefties called "scientific racism" - we could call it "racism type 1")
The other meant "not liking people of other races (however defined)" (i.e. what others called "racial prejudice" - call it "racism 2")
Or something like that.
NonProfiteer was claiming that his KKK friends, like those nice Afrikaaners one hears about (Oom Paul was always polite to his poor black neighbours, or so we are told) do racism(1) but not racism(2). I don't believe it of course.
You seem to be defining "racism" as "hating a darker colored race". Is it beyond comprehension that black people, or any other race could hate white people simply because of their color? You may not be saying that, but your post confused the hell out of me. I'll re-read it after I get some sleep.
I never claimed to have friends in the KKK. You may be getting confused from the fact that I said I went a party with friends, that was sponsored by the Southern Brotherhood. I have no friends (TMK) that are members of any racist organization. Though I do know an 18 year old kid that loves hip-hop, is learning to rap, and wears all the FUBU gear he can find yet still claims to hate black people. That is beyond comprehension for me.
...and it seems to me that if the 80 or so thousand members of the various white supremecy groups all hated, we would see a significant increase of white-on-black homicide.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
if the 80 or so thousand members of the various white supremecy groups all hated, we would see a significant increase of white-on-black homicide.
Why? Why does hate have to manifested in homicidal violence? Hatred can be manifested in the smallest act of unfriendliness.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
You seem to be defining "racism" as "hating a darker colored race". Is it beyond comprehension that black people, or any other race could hate white people simply because of their color? You may not be saying that, but your post confused the hell out of me. I'll re-read it after I get some sleep.
How can you re-read something that you never read in the first place?
And why do you think that people who hate people always kill them?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How can you re-read something that you never read in the first place?
And why do you think that people who hate people always kill them?
Perhaps I define hatred differently. Not liking someone, for whatever reason, is one thing. Hating someone is: [a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING]. To me, "intense hostility" doesn't include talking about someone behind their back, or whispering slurs or telling offensive jokes. Hence my problem with always equating "racism" with "hate". Maybe I am more a man of action than some people - if I hate something or someone, I am outspoken about it and take whatever action I can to be rid of it.
How broadly or narrowly do you define hate? And remember, the broader you define it, the more it applies to you.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Me, yesterday:
I suspect it's not your definition of racism that most people here disagree with - certainly, I'm in agreement that all the people you mention are racist.
But.
I suspect that some might take issue with you on your definition of "hate".
I do sometimes wonder if people see that woody avatar and just go and skip to the next post.
Anyway.
quote:
Posted by John Wayne: Perhaps I define hatred differently. Not liking someone, for whatever reason, is one thing. Hating someone is: [a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING]. To me, "intense hostility" doesn't include talking about someone behind their back, or whispering slurs or telling offensive jokes. Hence my problem with always equating "racism" with "hate". Maybe I am more a man of action than some people - if I hate something or someone, I am outspoken about it and take whatever action I can to be rid of it.
How broadly or narrowly do you define hate? And remember, the broader you define it, the more it applies to you.
Are you really saying that you define hate as "enough antipathy to cause one to seriously consider violence"?
Really? If this is the case, I am sure that I will not be alone in saying:
Yikes.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
NP,
Just to have a clear statement from a so-called liberal (even though I'm actually a left-libertarian):
I think the Nation of Islam is unquestionably racist, inciting hatred against whites, hispanics and especially against Jews. There is never any excuse for racism. Ever. By any group. No matter how "oppressed" they may have been. If the Christian religion is clear on anything, it's clear on this.
Laura
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The fact is that I knew very little to nothing of BNP and was not willing to take some obviously biased information and use it to form an opinion.
It is also a fact that you were not willing to do even a modest amount of research to see why people were so upset. Maybe they had a good reason to be upset? Oh no, that can't be. They are Shipmates. But Nick Griffin? Innocent until proven guilty. That's my point. Nick Griffin gets the benefit of the doubt. Strom Thurmond gets the benefit of the doubt. Shipmates get... doubt.
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Your turn Jim. Tell me about Black supremecists. Explain to me how 2300 white and 500 blacks are charged with hate crimes every year, but blacks kill 2-3 times as many white people as whites kill blacks?
That's easy. There are far more whites than blacks. If both groups kill without regard to race, you are going to see whites killing a small population of blacks and blacks killing a large population of whites. Even if statistics showed that blacks killed more whites, it would not prove that it was racially motivated. It may be that whites have the money and both black and white criminals are looking for money. Money for drugs perhaps.
Case in point. I was mugged by a black guy with a gun and three of his friends had a gun on me in a car. Had I given them an ounce of crap, they would have shot me. It wasn't a hate crime. The police knew the guys and said they were crack addicts. They just wanted my money. So they drove to a white neighborhood and rolled me.
Had they shot me, they would not have left a sign on me painted in blood saying, "death to all white honkies." That's racially-motivated murder. The rest is violent crime with the most populous group showing up in greater numbers as victims.
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
When someone says "racist", you immediately think of a white guy. I know you do, you know you do. Thats a fact.
That happens not to be a fact. I was the target of Black Muslim intimidation in the 70's when I was a student at Cornell. I still have part of a copy of the newspaper they slipped under my door. If I can find it, I'll scan a hilarious picture for you of a young white kid under a Christmas tree with a shotgun. I really do think of Black Muslims along with a blur of others when I hear the word "racist." That's a fact.
Even if it were true that I immediately thought of "white" racists firsts, it might only reflect that there are more whites than blacks and I am naturally going to envision a "white" anything. When someone says, "income tax evasion" I think of a white person, but they could as easily be black. Even if you could come up with something where I think of a black person first, it demonstrates either that I have a "prejudice" or that there is a real difference. A black person is probably more likely to file a suit alleging racial discrimination and they might pop into my head first. It does not necessarily mean that the media have launched a systematic, racially motivated campaign to brainwash me into thinking that blacks are inferior to whites in some way and that I have swollowed it.
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
As for the Catholic Church/Vatican: Are they not represented at the UN? Are they not considered permanent members of the UN? Haven't they always been willing to change their religion to suit the political climate? Find your own links. Google "Vatican politics" and you'll have a boatload.
I think you missed the word "more" in your post. "More political than religious" is what you said, paraphrasing. I can't seem to find any links demonstrating that "fact." Nor am I going to look. Your assertion, your burden of proof.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Are you really saying that you define hate as "enough antipathy to cause one to seriously consider violence"?
Really? If this is the case, I am sure that I will not be alone in saying:
Yikes.
"Hate" is a very strong word. As NP says, it doesn't mean "dislike", "disagree with" or "have objections to". For example, I dislike, disagree with and have objections to socialism, but I don't hate it.
I can't think of anything I genuinely hate. The word really does have violent overtones now that I think about it...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT
[opening tangent]
Reading this thread, I am even more convinced that vitriolic counterattacks are a sign of trying to hide something.
[/end opening tangent]
This is aimed squarely at me, right?
As I have said several times before, a group of BNP yobs once threw bricks, stones, bottles etc at my mother and she is lucky not to have been seriously injured or even killed.
As I have not said before, I have another friend who was beaten up by the BNP for being black and for being gay.
I was brought up to hate racism and the BNP are racists. and you are right, I was vitriolic and I do hate the BNP quite intensely. I am not alone in this. A relative of mine espouses views which are close to the BNP's, and I love him but hate his views. He has special circumstances also which mean that I can't get all that angry to his face and so I sometimes do over-state my case against the BNP on these boards. I should not have used a hellish tone in purg and have already apologised for this.
[ 13. January 2004, 16:35: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
It is also a fact that you were not willing to do even a modest amount of research to see why people were so upset. Maybe they had a good reason to be upset? Oh no, that can't be. They are Shipmates. But Nick Griffin? Innocent until proven guilty. That's my point. Nick Griffin gets the benefit of the doubt. Strom Thurmond gets the benefit of the doubt. Shipmates get... doubt.
The doubt came from the OP, which was posted by a shipmate. I also know that SOME people tend to only go to web sites that are biased towards what they believe anyway (as was shown). I also know that when a person or organization gets branded as racist baby-seal-loving, environmentally aware, socially oriented, radical "free" thinkers tend to attach that lable with superglue and never ever forget the accusation. I also know that in todays society you often only need someone's word to brand someone or an organization as racist.
I have done some research into the BNP, and it seems that they are an organization that is trying to change. Perhaps not in the way YOU or some of the other people here want them to change, but they have either developed a strategy to seriously change their public image, or the body isn't quite as racist as the head so management is changing to suit their members.
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are, but they are at least trying to become a "kinder, gentler" racist.
The thing is, I don't care if someone dislikes (or even 'hates' if we are using your broad definition) someone else for whatever reason. The only thing I care about is what they do as a result of their feelings.
If someone hates black people, but never takes any overt action to harm a black person or people, then more power to him. I do not believe in saying its okay to hate someone simply because they hate someone else, nor to punish them for actions they have not taken. Those who hate a person because of the way they think are just as bad as those who hate because of a skin color.
And for the record, I don't get the impression that there are too many like that aboard ship, but there are some.
I'm not going to argue catholics with you on this thread. I'll withdraw the comment since you seem so focused on the "more", but if you would like to start a thread, I've got plenty I protestant lies and exhaggerations I could post.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
The BNP are trying to change? The phrase refers to testes and rhymes with 'rollocks'.
What we see in the current BNP is an electoral tactic used in the past by the ultra-left, the maximum-minimum programme. On the one hand an 'acceptable face' is presented to the electorate. On the other hand a more explicit fascism exists amongst activists, and those most enthused by the electoral activities will be drawn into this 'inner core'.
Let's be clear, there is absolutely no way that the BNP are going to change face, New Labour style, solely in the pursuit of electoral gains. Their controlling ideology rejects liberal democracy as an unnatural incursion into proper social hierarchy, an afront to leadership and a drain on the nation's strength.
I recommend Searchlight magazine, which is available online, for those wanting to find out about the BNP.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
No Papio, my tangent was not about you. You were the one I was hoping NP might have given some benefit of doubt to. I certainly gave you the benefit of the doubt. Notice that my first post was immediately after your apology. Knowing and respecting you, I figured that if you showed such hatred there must be something to it, so I checked into it and started posting in such a way to lend support as to why you would boil over. That's what got me posting on this thread.
What I was referring to was NP quoting Hitler, demanding links proving BNP racism because he knew nothing about it, complaining about Shipmates "attitudes" and finishing with a blistering attack on the Catholic Church. It's all in his post of 11-Jan at 13:20.
I'm not Catholic and I don't think every Shipmate is a saint. But quoting Hitler, complaining about Shipmates' attitudes, and blistering a church is not the way to go on a fact-finding mission on whether the BNP is in a good position to make a point about the hypocrisy of religion, which is the subject of this thread.
I can see the Catholic church being in a weak position to criticise a country club for letting blacks play on the golf course but not them eat in the dining room given its stance on closed communion. I can see the Catholic church being in a weak position to criticise homosexual advocacy groups on the basis that they promote and protect pedophiles. That I can handle. But any religious group is in a position to tell its members not to vote for the BNP because it is divisive.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Double cross-post. What DOD said.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I have done some research into the BNP, and it seems that they are an organization that is trying to change. Perhaps not in the way YOU or some of the other people here want them to change, but they have either developed a strategy to seriously change their public image, or the body isn't quite as racist as the head so management is changing to suit their members.
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are, but they are at least trying to become a "kinder, gentler" racist.
It is not like me to triple-post, but after seeing the locked thread on homosexuality in the news, I had to come back here and comment on this. NP is saying over and over not to be duped into swallowing media hype. But it looks like that is happening here. Given the links and the personal experience of people here who are much closer to the issue, I'm not buying any media hype about the "softening" of the BNP. My suspicion is that they really do have ties to hate groups advocating violence and are protecting those ties while they try to clean up their public image. I hope that NP is open to the possibility that the BNP still actively promotes physical violence behind the scenes while they clean up their public image to get elected. Doesn't that make more sense than assuming they've turned over a new leaf?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
If someone hates black people, but never takes any overt action to harm a black person or people, then more power to him.
Such a person is sick and wrong. The illness that infests his mind and heart has severe negative consequences for that person, regardless of what overt harmful action they avoid taking. And there is no telling the damage he does with covert action to harm black people. I am glad if such a twisted person refrains from overtly harmful expressions of the hatred he harbors, but I cannot say "more power to him."I would rather wish that he would find or be granted the eyes to see things as they are, and be freed from his hateful feelings.
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I do not believe in saying its okay to hate someone simply because they hate someone else, nor to punish them for actions they have not taken.
But you never know that someone has racist feelings unless they have taken some action, even if they are only acts of speech.
I once worked with a man who used to tell me gleefully about his large akita and how much it hated black people. He regaled me with stories about how his dog would strain at the leash trying to bite black people who happened to cross his path. He would finish each of these stories by smiling at me in a nasty way and telling me how much he loved that dog. He also took every opportunity to tell the all white studio in which we worked nasty jokes about the non-white employees of that company. He was unfailingly polite to all the non-white employees who had occaision to visit the studio and it was clear that he had successfully completely masked his feelings from them. I hated him and hated coming to work knowing that I would have to hear his insidious banter. The minute my contractual obligation was up, I left and never returned to that company. I regret that you think it was somehow wrong of me to hate someone who was venting hatred for people I love at every opportunity, but I think either your idea of "actions taken" is too limited, or you are imagining an impossible hypothetical scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Those who hate a person because of the way they think are just as bad as those who hate because of a skin color.
No, that's bullshit.
Going back to Wood's definitions (Jan 13, 07:56) A & B, I have some sympathy for the distinction being drawn by people who go with definition A, but I am firmly in the B camp: all contempt for others based on skin color or other racial characteristics is racism. And it's all evil and destructive.
There is a great deal more that I would like to say on this topic, but I find working through it emotionally draining, and can't, at this moment, muster more energy than it took to get through those points.
I remember some black racist backers of Wood's definition A who came to speak at Columbia University. Their argument came down to: it's OK for us to be racist because we are not in power... Sorry, but no. I rather enjoyed the classroom discussion the next day when a PC white student was doing his best to justify this pernicious doctrine and was challenged by a south asian student who had been showered with racist abused by the same visiting black racists... The ideological house of cards collapsed rather quickly.
I wish that someone who is more detached would take up the argument that the attempts by racists to adopt a kinder public face (and avoid paraiah status by eschewing the label "racist") in order to promote racist ideology is not a good thing.
JimT has already touched on this but it's a bigger issue.
[grammar!]
[ 14. January 2004, 00:55: Message edited by: Jerry Boam ]
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Cheers JimT
I'll second that. Thanks, Jim, for making reasonable arguments when some of us were reduced to silent pain.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
NP, you are prepared to imagine that the BNP is ready to change. There's another interpretation of their actions: that they are playing a tactical game but trying to keep their more extremist supporters from breaking off into yet another right wing splinter group. Take a look at this, from their own website, from their own party leader.
Griffin reassures his members that he is not going soft on race:
quote:
New Labour is working very hard to steal the BNP’s best-known clothes. This presents both the need and the opportunity for us to clarify our position on the crucial subject of race.
Here Nick returns to the pet hate of the hard core racist- race mixing. From here on through the article, he hammers this point home, making it clear that the mixed race are not welcome in his future Britain:
quote:
Nor even does it mean that we think that it is a good thing for even a single person of European stock to have so much as one child with a Japanese or Chinese.
Here he points out that he is aware of the problem of street level members being soft on race- supporting teams with black players!- but that for the moemnt he will tolerate this:
quote:
At a more basic level there can be little doubt that virtually every one of our voters and a majority of our activists are compromised by some aspect of the ‘multi-culti’ experiment, whether it be supporting sports teams which include non-whites, buying ‘ethnic’ take-aways, or getting on perfectly well with a few individual members of ethnic minorities
Speaking of the BNP's long term goals, he explains why he is no longer aiming for the expulsion of every non-white from the UK (just most):
quote:
many people would rather see a totally all-white Britain, this less than perfect arrangement is the price our children will have to pay for the treason of our Masters and the fact that the United States of America is under the control of multi-racist fanatics who would bomb this country back into the Stone Age if we gave them the excuse by evicting the last non-whites at gunpoint.
Here he introduces the new "caring" approach to mongrel children. (I'm imagining my kids attending a school that teaches them their parents were perverts and their mixed-racedness is unnatural):
quote:
There are a hundred ways in which miscegenation could be discouraged – having TV soaps portray the problems it really can cause rather than presenting a fantasy picture of how wonderful it is supposed to be would be just one. Best of all, however, would be an education system that teaches children of different races to have pride in their own people and to understand the essentially unnatural and destructive nature of miscegenation. We will replace promotion with rejection, but we cannot introduce persecution.
And finally he explains what attitude to take if you have to make hard, personal decisions on race mixing:
quote:
Do I regard someone with half-caste grandchildren as a suitable member or candidate for the BNP? Yes, if that individual personally believes in and adheres to our principles. That doesn’t for one moment mean that we approve of their circumstances, but the wrong-headed decision of their grown-up offspring is something over which they have no control. I would ask them not to bring those grandchildren, despite their probable love for them as individuals, to BNP events because they must understand that, to many of our people, the British National Party is the only respite we have from an otherwise endless diet of force-fed multi-racism.
I've probably quoted far too much here, but maybe you can see where I'm coming from. He wants a UK where people don't even eat Indian food or watch black sportsmen! What is this but a careful reassurance to his core membership that the BNP remains racist (his term is "racial realist") and still has a racist agenda?
I hope you can also see why I, for one, would have to regard the BNP as my enemy. No benefit of the doubt. If they have even moderate electoral success, they will make life hard for people like me and my kids in the areas they influence. That's why I don't want to see them on school boards, parish councils, local councils, or in Parliament. That's why I want the BNP suppressed...by any means necessary...call me a bigot...
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Perhaps not in the way YOU or some of the other people here want them to change, but they have either developed a strategy to seriously change their public image, or the body isn't quite as racist as the head so management is changing to suit their members.
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,
Perhaps you missed that part.
The only person I've heard from here that has some kind of "right" to "hate" the BNP is Papio - having suffered abuse from its members. As for hate, aren't we supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner? I don't hate Strom or Nick for being racists, or anyone else for that matter. Racism is bad, no doubt about it. But so is casual sex with multiple partners, breaking the speed limit, running a stop sign, or dialing your cellphone on the freeway.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I hope that NP is open to the possibility that the BNP still actively promotes physical violence behind the scenes while they clean up their public image to get elected. Doesn't that make more sense than assuming they've turned over a new leaf?
And you missed this point, NP. You really believe the BNP? Why?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,
Obviously, you missed that part twice. See what I mean about being blinded by anger and hate?
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,
Obviously, you missed that part twice. See what I mean about being blinded by anger and hate?
Hosting
That's enough, nonpropheteer and JimT. If you want to fight - take it to Hell.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,
Obviously, you missed that part twice. See what I mean about being blinded by anger and hate?
I thought you were saying that they still are racist because they still are segregationist. I thought the whole point of your post was that they were softening and no longer promoted violence. Otherwise your statement about them being "kinder and gentler" makes no sense and this makes no sense:
quote:
If someone hates black people, but never takes any overt action to harm a black person or people, then more power to him.
Do you think the BNP takes overt action to harm racial minorities? Do you think that they encourage other organizations to take overt action to harm racial minorities? Do you think they knowingly welcome people into their organization that take overt action to harm racial minorities? Or do you see the BNP as basically a group of silent and harmless haters and segregationists? Sorry if I missed your point.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I crossposted with the Host's warning. If NP is done, so am I.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The only person I've heard from here that has some kind of "right" to "hate" the BNP is Papio - having suffered abuse from its members.
What "right" to hate? I'm talking about a reason to take or support action against them.
I don't hate them. I recognize them as an enemy. It's different.
Anyway, whatever.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
