Please support The British Resistance and help keep this site running.
Use the Donate Button below to send your donation using either Paypal or Cards shown.
Or Subscribe to make regular payments via PayPal ONLY.
The Guardian has recently published an article by Daniel Trilling (left) entitled '10 Myths of the UK’s Far Right', a discussion of the false beliefs which (Trilling says) people hold about the rise of nationalist feeling. These ‘myths’ as described by Trilling are analysed in this article. But there is an enormously important additional myth which Trilling does not mention which needs to be disposed of first:-
There is nothing ‘Far’ about the ‘Far Right’ on Multiculti Matters
The so-called ‘Far Right’ is in fact very much mainstream when it comes to attitudes to other ethnicities.
According to the recent study by Matthew Goodwin of Manchester Univ, and Robert Ford of Nottingham Univ, between 31% and 45% of those taking part in their survey ‘shared the BNP's biological racism’ ie that, for example, black people are intellectually inferior to white people. (Guardian 13/09/2012).
Quite Possibly Half the White Population is Hard-Core ‘Racist’
That is, quite possibly not far under half of the white population of the country are realistic about racial differences, ie are what the ‘anti-racists’ like to think of as hard-line, core ‘racists’, even when they behave in a reasonable way towards those of other races. A goodly proportion of the rest of this population are, consciously or unconsciously, likely to have attitudes which, in practice if not in theory, favour those of their own ethnicity, because they are part of what it is to be human. This will very often be true even when individuals are expressly ‘anti- racist’. Hypocrisy, after all, is a defining vice of the English.
Overwhelminng Hostility to Islam
Nominally apart from racial attitudes, nearly 81% held strongly hostile attitudes to Islam. Attitudes to Islam are however, often a cover for hidden attitudes to race as well.
Attitudes shared by some 31%-45% or more and 81% of the Population are ‘Extreme’? Only according to the Trillings of the MSM Dreamworld
By what stretch of the imagination can attitudes which are shared by these proportions of the population be described as ‘far’ or ‘extreme’? Doesn’t this description show that thost who use such terms are coming from far to the left? And who is it who has the power to stigmatise such majority opinions in this way and consistently uses it to do so? Step forward news and opinion outlets like the Guardian and its broadcasting mouthpiece the BBC. These organisations reveal their gross political bias when they disparage in the way they do viewpoints held by these proportions of the population.
When have such proportions of opinion ever been represented on the ’unbiased’, ‘politically impartial’ and ‘even-handed’ BBC? Answer: Never.
In fact, apart from the sole exception of Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time with a heavily biased audience and panel of speakers, one would have to search a very long memory very hard to recall when opinions such as those of Enoch Powell have ever been heard on the BBC in any proportion whatsoever. In contexts which did not vilify them as ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or even ‘nazi’, that is.
In a nutshell, thie BBC has vilified and successfully excluded from public broadcastng for generations, views and attitudes which have been held to a greater or lesser extent by most people who have a view. And this organisation dares to call itself 'impartial'?
The only conclusion one can draw is that the BBC, which is far and away the most powerful media instrument in the country and which consistently portrays multiculturalism and multiracialism as unqualified, resounding successes, especially 'subliminally' in soaps and other drama, is merely a deliberately lying, leftist/liberal propaganda organisation rather than the disinterested public service it purports to be. And the same to a lesser extent is true of other Broadcasters who are not however like the BBC supported out of public taxes.
Myth: ‘The Threat has passed’
The threat in question appears to be the BNP. ‘Nick Griffin’s project has failed’ says Trilling. Trilling is right when he says that ‘the party never shook off its association with neo-nazism and violence’. The decline in the BNP’s fortunes can be dated from the Question Time programme which the BBC deliberately rigged to pillory Griffin who was personally wide open to accusations of these associations.
This was in sharp contrast to, for example, the BBC’s attitude to the Stalin-admiring Jack Straw who also appeared on the programme and to its treatment of the Gulag - excusing Marxist Historian, Eric Hobsbawm. The BBC broadcast a fawning interview of this apologist for communist mass murder with Simon Schama recently.
The BBC as Part of ‘the largest anti-fascist mobilisation the country has ever seen.’
Be that as it may, there can be little question that the BBC assault on Griffin was a prime mover in the successful, probably permanent stamping out of the BNP as a serious contender, which is what it was designed to do. The leftist media has successfully linked patriotism and the natural human love of one's own people to the Nazis and grossly inhuman treatment of other races, which the British people do not want to be associated with. This BBC assault was part and parcel of what Trilling calls ‘the largest anti-fascist mobilisation the country has ever seen.’
But as Trilling points out, whlle the BNP was severely damaged and its morale was smashed in the 2010 election, its support actually went up in terms of votes.
Searchlight’s Opinion Poll
The Searchlight Educational Trust, no friend to what might be termed patriotic Britain, found in an opinion poll of nearly 5,000 people conducted by Populus whose results were published in 2011 that 48 per cent of people are in favour of a new ‘far-right’ party if it avoids using “fascist imagery” and violence with 52 per cent directing their racist sentiments toward Muslims saying they “create problems in the UK”. (That 52% figure is likely to be hugely increased in view of the Goodwin and Ford figures noted above). The Lib Dems, the Cameroons, New Labour - these would think a voter base of half the country would be a rich harvest for the taking. And so it is.
Given such results including those of Goodwin and Ford’s survey, it is hardly surprising that there should remain support for an organisation - any organisation, even one as despised as the BNP - which puts forward some sort of nationalist programme.
All nationalists need is a reaper of its huge, waiting harvest, whom the population can respect.
Myth: ‘The BNP’s rise was the consequence of too much immigration’
According to Trilling, ‘immigration was the cause of the rise of the BNP, but it relied on the hugely distorted perception of immigrants (and immigrant descended people) created largely by inaccurate press coverage’.
Where on earth does Trilling get the ideas that perceptions of immigrants and immigration have been skewed by the media? If he thinks this, he should reflect that vastly more people watch TV soaps than buy newspapers and these soaps almost invariably portray immigrants in the best possible light in comparison to whites and immigration as an unmixed blessing.
In any case people can see what immigrant communities have done to the country and the effect it has had on theri own lives. They can see what immigrants and the immigrant-descended are like with their own eyes. They don’t have to be told by the media.
According to the Searchlight Poll:
Two out of three British people thought that immigration was damaging to the country.
63 per cent of white Britons, 43 per cent of Asians and 17 per cent of Blacks consider immigration a bad thing for Britain.
If two out of three people think that immigration is damaging Britain, the British Social Attitudes Survey reported (Daily Telegraph 7th September 2012) that In 1995, around 40% of those questioned thought that the number of immigrants should be reduced ‘a lot’, but by 2011 the figures had risen to 51%. The proportion of those who thought that the economic impact of immigration was ‘very bad’ rose from 11% in 2002 to 21% in 2011. The Daily Telegraph also reported that 70% of people wanted a limit on the numbers of students admitted to British Colleges and Universities.
Myth: ‘Racism only played a minor role in driving BNP support’
There is no disputing that what the left vilifies as ‘racism’ did drive the BNP’s support. The figure about what the native people of the country think of other races and Islam is surely a powerful indicator of this.
Oddly for one who is apparently a Jew, among whose own ‘community’ such motives are on prominent display, Trilling and those like him fail to grasp that it is entirely natural for people to want to be with those with whom they identify most strongly according to what matters most to them. This is for the overwhelming mass of humanity race, religion and culture.
Economic Resentment is Ethnic Resentment as well
Of course, as Trilling points out, inevitably economic resentment did come into it, but rather than being separate from the factor of ethnicity as Trilling seems to think, this resentment is in fact bound up with it. This is because there is an intimate relationship between race and economic expectation in this ancient land, a fact that Trilling misses entirely. The native British feel entitled to whatever the country has to offer economically because it is their native land, the one their forebears built and died for and passed to them for their inheritance. It is theirs and so are its economic opportunities.
Myth: ‘White People are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin’
Yes they are. If Trilling wants proof of this, he need only look at BBC Television. The plethora of ethnic faces he will find there demonstrates that better qualified and more able whites who might otherwise have got the jobs filled by these ethnics have been elbowed out of them for ‘equality’ purposes. And that is true wherever one looks in British society and economy.
Parliament is another readily visible example. Places are being filled by ethnics (and women) who would never have been accepted on grounds of ability. For example, why else does he suppose the greasy Keith Vaz, the effluent from a Yemeni Souk, is so prominent in Parliament?
‘Equality’ as practiced by our leftist political class presupposes that the races and sexes are identical in their abilities and inclinations. These presuppositions are based on wishful thinking and ideology, not the empirical facts.
Myth: ’Tough Talk keeps the far right at bay’
One must agree that it does not. The dismay of the British people over immigration will only be assuaged by tough action, not talk.
Myth: ‘Anti–racism has been imposed on the white working class by a politically correct elite’
That is exactly what has happened. Notwithstanding that there are leftist individuals who are in favour of immigrants and immigration, such as are cited by Trilling, the bald fact is if there had been genuine democracy in Britain; one where the mass of the people had real choice in the running of the country, the ’race’ problem would not now exist because there would have been no alien immigration to speak of.
Every black, brown and yellow face one sees in the streets is proof that it is the views of the political class which control the country, not the wishes of the people.
Myth: ‘The growth of the BNP and the emergence of the EDL indicate the failure of multiculturalism’
‘The idea that Britain is a nation divided by race and culture rather than wealth is false, says Trilling, citing work by Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson (‘Sleepwalking to Segregation’) because ‘ethnic minorities are spreading more evenly across Britain.’
Well so they might be. But that doesn’t mean that Britain isn’t divided by race and culture. All it means is that the immigrant population is expanding so rapidly that it is being forced to move out of its original areas and as elements of it grow in wealth they are now taking over more affluent ones. In any case as is pointed out elsewhere in this article, race, culture and wealth are in fact closely linked.
Immigrants spreading up the Central Line
One can see the process of the expansion of the immigrant population when going east on the Central Tube Line in London. Leafy places like Wanstead, South Woodford and Woodford Green, almost exclusively white a few decades ago are increasingly populated by Asians spreading out from the East End whilst less salubrious areas not so far out like Leyton and Leytonstone are increasingly populated by the less able and socio-economically successful blacks, especially Africans.
If a white person goes into a pub in Leytonstone, he or she is likely to be confronted by a sea of black, curious and vaguely hostile faces.
Of course, the original white inhabitants move out as the newcomers arrive, which is why there is room for these immigrant-descended people to move into in the first place.
Myth: ‘The BNP’s rise was Labour’s problem alone’
One can find no fault with Trilling’s argument that the Tory Party lost votes to the BNP as well as Labour but that the BNP did well in the Euro elections because Labour was the pits at the time.
Myth: ‘The BNP wasn’t a fascist organisation’
There is little point in arguing against Trilling’s assertion that the BNP was – is – fascist. ‘Fascist’ is now simply a leftist term of abuse. Odd, considering that fascism was a leftist movement. And if authoritarianism and total political control is a hallmark of fascism, does Trilling seriously deny that ‘liberal’ culturally marxist Britain today is more fascist than it has ever been in modern history? Well yes, he probably does, actually.
Myths: ‘It couldn’t happen here’
Oh yes it can, Trilling tells us. And who can dispute it? The rise of nationalism, or the ‘far right’ as he calls it, that is. He cites what are essentially economic reasons for this scenario. There is the fear of the future British workers feel in the greatest economic crisis in a century which ‘has inflamed tensions between a global market, a multinational EU and nation states which ‘still’ (as he puts it) count on patriotism as a social glue.’
With the crisis in the EU, and the ‘currency within mainstream discourse’ of Breivik’s message that cultural marxism is in charge of public institutions like the BBC, right wing populism has risen across Europe. Trilling’s message is clear: why should Britain be different?
Where Trilling goes wrong
There isn’t much here that a nationalist can quarrel with, as far as it goes. There is of course Trilling’s allusion to the fear engendered by the danger of a muslim takeover of Europe which is unfortunately merely glancing - strange given the overwhelming nature of the anti-islamic feeling noted above.
And then there is Trilling’s leftist appeal to socio–economic inequalities as ‘breeding grounds for racism and other vicious resentments.’ What these ‘other vicious resentments’ might be we are not told, but we can guess. But ‘racism’? Where does this come into this equation?
If Trilling is thinking of such resentments as those felt by the Germans against the Jews who made a killing during inflation-era Weimar Germany; this scenario does not apply to modern Britain - yet. Nevertheless it is good to see that even someone like Trilling implicitly acknowledges the inherent dangers of multiracial, multicultural societies which as Richard Lynn has demonstrated (The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide) inevitably result in racially-determined socio-economic hierarchies.
Trilling thinks that the coalition government is shifting public anger onto ‘convenient scapegoats’ perhaps because ‘we have had a taste of the anger that can arise at feeling locked out of the political system when students smashed the windows of the treasury in 2010’.
Isn’t it odd that Trilling hasn’t twigged that those who have truly been locked out of the political system for generations, at least since the time of Enoch Powell and largely because of the machinations of people like himself, are the patriotic right in this country, as noted earlier in our discussion about the BBC? What about the anger they feel?
Exploiting Economic condition to further political aims is not exclusively right wing.
Trilling thinks that the ‘Far Right’ exploit economic crises to further their cause. So they do, and why shouldn’t they. When they are in trouble, people look to those closest to them – the people they can most rely on - for help. And (this is what leftists and liberals, dreaming their utopian dreams, always forget or ignore or simply dismiss) – there always will be bad times, because that is the nature of human existence.
Turning Trilling’s arguments on its head, liberals and leftists exploit the good times to further their cause. That is how New Labour was able, after decisions made in secret, to smuggle millions of immigrants into this country contrary to its election promises. Such was the deadening effect of the good times engineered through Gordon Brown’s bubble economics and the laws passed in effect to outlaw or make exceedingly dangerous, protests against immigration, that people did not riot in the streets as they might have done in other circumstances. They were too busy racking up debts on their credit cards and spending on themselves.
Trilling’s greatest omission in his search for reasons for the rise of the Right.
But Trilling’s worst omission when, like a good marxist he searches for reasons for the rise of nationalism almost exclusively among economic factors, is the omission of the motive of pure love of one’s own, native land and one’s people and their ways which animates most people in ordinary circumstances.
The armies from Britain which marched out to defeat Hitler and Nazism didn’t do so for economic reasons.
They did not fight and die for a higher standard of living. They did it for King and for country - their country, their native land and their ancient freedoms and way of life.
Trilling, whose roots in this country are very shallow indeed, whose link by blood to the people of this country is for practical purposes non-existent and who has dedicated himself to the destruction of the freedom of the British people to be themselves in the land of their ancestors, should remember that.