There is, these days, considerable hysteria about 'fighting the BNP'. They have two MEPs, to which I have to say 'so what?' Why is that even remotely scary? The SNP have, I think, three faces in Westmonster and a few MEPs and nobody ever hears about them at all, except for Alex Salmond's pie shop bill. Three in Westmonster can achieve nothing. Two MEPs are irrelevant. Brussels takes no notice of any of them anway, they just make up the laws without troubling the MEPs, who are left to sign in and then go home, producing considerable quantites of carbon emissions and then charging it to someone else. Do they really have to sign in every day? What a chore that must be. I never have to sign in at all. I just have to work for a living.
So having two BNP MEP's doesn't scare me in the slightest. And yes, I know who they are and their histories. I've had a run-in or two with Nicky's shaven-headed DENSA boys in decades gone by. They were far more scary than a couple of suited guys sitting in a room full of suited guys, many of whom are much more effective totalitarians than the BNP could ever aspire to be.
Yet on and on it goes. 'The BNP are going to take over the country'. No they're not. Not unless a great many more people vote for them to take over, in which case they'll have been voted in, not 'taken over'. 'The BNP are dangerous'. No they're not. Skinheads were dangerous. The BNP are not dangerous. They are guys in suits shouting out things I don't agree with at all. Just like the three main parties.
In order to stop people voting for the BNP, what do our government do? Well, they shout 'racist' a lot. That's had the effect of increasing the BNP vote to around a million. Then there's the hammer attack. That boosted the BNP vote further. They have groups like Searchlight to keep reminding people of who the BNP are and to keep their profile high. Labour and Tories mention the BNP at every opportunity, and what do they say? That the BNP will stop immigration.
Well... that's a vote winner for sure. Unfortunately it's a vote winner for the BNP.
Because people read things like this and shout 'Stop it!' but nobody is listening. All these people hear from politicians is how evil the BNP are because they will stop foreigners flooding here. Well, you know, that's what an awful lot of people want. So telling them who to vote for to get what they want, when it's clearly not you, isn't that great an idea.
We hear that the BNP, when they are elected, are ineffective. Not so. They have achieved their aim, which is to raise the party's profile and publicity. At this stage, they need do no more than that. All the BNP need do is to demonstrate that they are a legal party, picked on by the bigger parties, and the votes will increase. The big parties are happy to oblige by refusing to work with BNP councillors (thereby destroying their claim that the BNP are ineffective, because everything they try to do is blocked, and the BNP can demonstrate it). They try using legislation to slap down a legal party, and people see it that way.
And now, they are going to introduce restrictions on BNP MEPs that will apply to them, and them alone. Imagine the mileage they'll get out of that! They won't have to do anything, they'll be stopped from trying so the public will never see what the BNP really want to do.
There is only one effective way to fight the BNP, and that is to have more appealing policies than them. Never mind about immigration, it doesn't really matter. There is no need to stop anyone coming here. What we need to do is to stop paying them to come. Then, those who come here to work will be able to do so, those who wish merely to scrounge can try their luck elsewhere. Our home-grown scroungers can go with them.
The BNP will not dismantle the surveillance state. They will not close down databases. They will have big government and deep control. Worse than Labour? Worse than the Tories? Well, probably not, but if, like me, you have friends who aren't white then some things will indeed be worse than now. Aside from that, nothing else will change.
Let's leave the racism part aside. It's a distraction. It's not as central and vital as people like to make out, it's only one aspect of the story.
One reason so many people are voting BNP is that they are told the BNP are 'Nazis'. Well, Nazis demand you carry ID at all times and produce it on request. They seek to control everything, all the time, and they increase that control daily. People can get arrested for anything, any time, whether it's illegal or not. Nazis arrest people by kicking in their doors at dawn. People are expected to conform to State-dictated 'norms' in every aspect of their lives. Nazis set up pseudo-police and let them claim authority they don't have. So people are saying 'Would that part be any different from what we have now?'
No. It wouldn't. That's why I won't vote BNP.
That's why the other parties concentrate on the racism aspect and ignore the rest of the BNP manifesto. Because once you take the racism out, what's left is much the same as the three main parties, aside from their stance on the EU and that might change. Seriously. UKIP want to get us out, they say, but once they had a taste of the gravy train, it became a much longer-winded process all of a sudden.
What I'm looking for is something different.
Something that isn't racist, not towards anyone, whatever their colour. Something that gives no preference to anyone, no matter what their skin colour or origins or gender or religion. Something that genuinely wants to get us out of the EU and won't mess about with MEPs and gravy trains while doing it. Something that does not reward failure and does not seek to build a client base of dependents. Something that does not seek to control how much I smoke and drink and how much salt and fat I choose to eat. Something that isn't interested in where I go, who I speak to or what I do as long as I don't break the law.
This looks like the best bet to me.
Now that they're being labelled xenophobic and far right, and compared to the BNP, they have arrived for sure. Those insults are unjustified and probably libellous, but it doesn't matter. When our politicians can't find a real argument, they resort to the 'racist-Nazi-bigot' line and hope people will believe them.
Well, that worked well for 'fighting' the BNP, didn't it? They really do have a core policy of booting out immigrants and the 'racist' jibe has had no effect at all. The Libertarians have no policies based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. None of that matters, and none of it should if we are to stand any chance of real equality some day. So the 'racist' jibe can't stick. The Libertarians have no intention of watching your every move. No 'database of everyone', no ID cards, no reason to even meet with any authorities unless you break the law. The real law, not some made-up-on-the-spot law that a pseudoplod, council official or park keeper thinks would be a good idea. So the 'Nazi' jibe can't stick.
If there's a Libertarian candidate here at the next election, I'll vote for them. They are the only party, as far as I can see, offering anything credible that's different from what we have now.
And what we have now, let's face it, isn't very good at all.
Badges.
Page Summary
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
swissbob : Morning [+0] - (Anonymous) : A nation of do-as-you-likeys [+2]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+5]
- (Anonymous) : Why I won't view BNP [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+3]
- (Anonymous) : Nazis kick down doors at dawn & arrest people? [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
Libertarian a good vote, my father after years as a consrvative has decided to vote UKIP, I guess on the basis that it's the most effective. The Tories will have to be careful their vote isn't split as Labour will with the BNP. As long as Labour go I don't care.
I have frequently asked them the question "what will prevent libertarianism descending into libertinism?" and have never got a decent answer. The usual reply is "the rule of law" - but as I point out, we have the rule of law now, but that hasn't prevented increasing numbers of people increasingly doing things that are illegal. I don't think the answer is just to make more things legal! (or rather - not illegal).
As a counter to that I would point out that Britain was a far more law-abiding place fifty years ago than it is today - why was that? We were, in some ways, more libertarian while in others we were more restrictive - but we were undoubtedly more law-abiding. The reason why is that we were still constrained by a common morality that definded what was right and wrong - a common morality that doesn't exist anymore. Now, as a Christian, I believe that Christianity is by far the best common morality to have in place (but no, that does not mean that I believe everyone should be compelled to worship God), but I don't believe it is the only one. What I am saying is that unless you do have something in place before you go down the libertarian route you are opening yourself up for absolute anarchy.
The response of modern governments is to replace that common morality with ever increasing levels of surveillance and more and more powers to the police and authorities to check what we are doing. In other words, in the absence of an omnipresent God the only alternative is an omnipresent state.
The "as long as it doesn't harm others" argument also fails as who is to decide what constitutes harm? The state? An individual? And once again - how do you check and monitor that?
I'm all for Britain becoming more libertarian - or rather, going back to the principle that everything is permitted unless explicitly prohibited - but it is naive to think that can happen while we live in a world where common morality is absent.
1. The justice system is entirely clogged; justice is effectively being rationed. Criminals do not routinely face prison when convicted of acquisitive crimes - assaults are generally rewarded with confinement, but most muggings and robberies take place without violence being necessary. Acquisitive crime is fuelled virtually entirely by drugs which would really be quite cheap if they weren't so illegal.
2. The benefits system encourages and rewards large and distributed families - or, to be concise, it rewards the production of large numbers of children in disruptive conditions. Parental sanctions are therefore absent or largely reduced.
3. People in general are not as community-oriented. They don't all work in the same factories, or the same farms, or even in the same towns. There's less 'village' sanctions in play.
A libertarian system would remove largely 1 and 2, and 3 would probably be encouraged when people realise they have to fit in to society (or at least be passably social) if they're not going to starve.
People in general are not stupid - they know right from wrong. The majority of the population manage just fine, it is a small minority which is insulated and indeed protected from having to learn right from wrong by a system which guarantees them food, clothing and housing regardless of their own behaviour.
People are also generally inclined to follow laws or directions which make sense - this has been studied over and over again, and the results are always the same. Stupid laws are routinely ignored. When the morality of the population (most people don't see anything wrong with smoking weed) becomes too distant from the legal framework, other, more sensible laws, are broken as a result of the general disconnect which occurs.
I don't think you need a common morality - the limited law there is can define harm - yes it is the state that does that. However you do need a good dollop of what we were once famed for but are now notoriously missing - common sense.
What we have now is a lack of consequences. Thousands of rules, but few of them enforced. Look at the problem of drunken violence in town centres. Drunk and disorderly has been a crime for a long time, as have all kinds of violent assault. Instead of enforcing the existing rules, Government makes up new rules and doesn't enforce them either. Someone caught with one can of beer on the Tube is far more likely to be stopped by authorities than a gang of violent thugs. Quotas are filled with soft targets.
The real problem isn't addressed. There are no real consequences for the truly out of control. The 'Do-as-you-likey' world is here and now.
The paradox is, Libertarianism would address that. Sure, do what you want but you take the consequences. Get as drunk as you please, nobody minds. Cause trouble and off you go to pokey. No excuses.
I'll try to articulate my take on it in a post.
We can point to this and that, but the decline of Christianity is the main problem and things stem from this fact.
It helps explain this growing problem with lack of consequences. Christians are at least aware that you do unto others as you'd have them do unto you (such as in the parable of the Good Samaritan) and that there are also eternal consequences for sins unrepented of.
Fulfilling quotas the easy way is another problem, but that's the government replacing common sense and human policing with the black uniformed form-fillers who increase arrests in the last week of the month to meet targets.
Of course, when we cast off our Christianity, darkness enters in. Children no longer get taught the real right from wrong, but are subjected to what the government wants them to believe is right and wrong in order to have a greater level of control over them. See sexual ethics for a good example.
Stewart - realstreet.co.uk
By 'see sexual ethics for a good example' can you actually clarify what you mean, because, to be fair, you could mean virtually anything.
Hello. The 'do unto others' is widespread, but is that not because it is taught? What are youngsters being taught now? How to get without consequence - but what they're not told is that you reap what you sow.
I think my own blog gives a hint to what I mean about sexual ethics.
Stewart
I don't actually have time to read your whole blog and look for relevant articles; can you not come up with one paragraph which clarifies what you mean with regard to 'sexual ethics?'
I understand your viewpoint. However, I've just voted BNP in the EU elections & will probably vote for them again in the GE unless I can find a viable alternative, which has a chance of getting elected.
I'm not racist & I don't hate foreigners - in fact I'm a foreigner here myself. However, what I do object to is foreigners landing here & immediately being welcomed onto the State Gravy Train & getting benefits that are denied to the majority of people who have worked, paid their taxes & contributed to the country. When a party considers changes to that, I'll consider changing my vote.
Good post though - I blogged about the problem about democracy and the powers-that-be today (http://simbits.blogspot.com/2009/07/democracy.html)
Simontm
So nothing surprising there then!
I don't think the Government (or the rest of the political class) are scared of the BNP. If they were, there would be "a law against it". Which would receive, I suspect, fairly widespread public support. What they want is us to be afraid of the BNP, therefore keeping voting for them like the apathetic sheep they think we are.
No surreptitious_e.
That is not the fraud they are hoping to uncover. The scandal they are hoping to uncover concerns the massive sell off of our UK infrastructure, and the backhanders and machinations of successive UK governments and individuals who have sold our country down the river. It will make the current expenses scandal appear like kiddies nicking toffees from the sweet shop in comparison.
Brown will stay in power until the Lisbon treaty has been ratified. Once that is achieved parties like the BNP WILL be banned. Not by our government - but by the EU!
UK diplomats shun BNP officials in Europe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/09/diplomats-shun-nick-griffin-bnp-europe)
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2
Picky I know, but Nazis do not 'request' ID, they demand it.
Further we are liable to arrest for no reason, so that the police can populate their DNA database with yours with no come back for false arrest and pseudo-plods in many guises already invoke non-existent 'authority', notably on drinking in public and photographing anything within sight of a police officer.
The 'ausorities' already make the law up as they go, and you now have to prove your innocence after you've been punished. Except, of course, when you are dead.
Winston Smith
Exactly! And why? because the rule of law no longer exists in any real sense - but the LPUK believe that the rule of law is sufficient to restore law and order to a nation with fewer laws. How?
"The paradox is, Libertarianism would address that. Sure, do what you want but you take the consequences. Get as drunk as you please, nobody minds. Cause trouble and off you go to pokey. No excuses."
But suppose someone gets as drunk as they like and vomits in a shop doorway? No one sees them do it - so they don't go to pokey. And is that wrong anyway?
As I keep saying - in the absence of an omnipresent God the ONLY alternative is an omnipresent state. It doesn't matter if the government is libertarian or communist - the only way they will know someone has done wrong is if they catch them doing wrong - and that means watching, tracking and monitoring every thing that everyone does.
I'm obviously not very good at articulating my point because no one seems to understand it - it's not about what laws we have or how many - it's about how you prevent someone doing something wrong when they know they are unlikely to ever be caught or punished for it.