Saturday, September 12, 2009

Melanie Phillips openly endorsed by BNP

Mail columnist book now officially on sale on far-right online shop as 'recommended reading'.

This should come as no surprise. For years now, at least twice a week, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips has been banging on about immigration and what some people refer to as the "Islamification of Britain".

So here we are. For all the Daily Mail's disclaimers that they're anti-BNP (often recited as foreword to some virulently anti-immigration "opinion column"), the consonance is so striking that the BNP website is now selling Melanie Phillips' own book Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within, along with right-wing nut classics such as Vienna 1683: Christian Europe Repels the Ottomans.

Quoting several paragraphs from her book, the BNP site refers to it as "recommended reading" as well as "a revealing insight into the Islamist threat facing Britain".

So, as some citizens begin to connect years of tabloid headlines lashing out at the same target and the recent surge in far-right demonstrations across Britain (for a small but representative selection, please see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this), here comes the BNP's official endorsement of one of the Daily Mail's star columnists.

Melanie Phillips can now be proud: a bunch of white supremacists, sexists, homophobes and holocaust deniers are now officially amongst her biggest fans.

28 comments:

diplomaticimpunity said...

Not only the Daily Mail, but the Spectator too, where you can read her blogging paranoid conspiracy theories about Obama's heritage, the "Islamification" of Britain, and how anti-semitism guides this government's every action.

Anyway, the thing for me is, anyone who is reasonably well informed knows the BNP are willing to use fears about Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia in general to push their party line, or at the very least shift the terms of public debate much further to the right. Which means, if someone is spreading rumours through media publications about Muslims, Islamic terrorism etc is aiding the BNP in their goal. Mad Mel is delusional and a crank, but I don't think she is stupid. Which means she either doesn't care her work is helping promote a fascist party's ideology, or even tacitly approves of it. Either way, its pretty damning.

Paul said...

It's more than a bit ironic that Melanie Phillip's work is being supported by an anti-Semitic group the BNP. That said I found nothing whatsoever in this post that in any way contradicts what Phillips herself has said Re multiculturalism and Islamification.

It's slightly worrying that you can condemn an individual without actually arguing that they are wrong. It's a bit like saying 'she should not be allowed to say that'. Whatever Melanie Phillips is or is not, I would take her over an Islamist any day of the week. Or for that matter a left wing apologist for Islam (Galloway etc).

socialist sam said...

paul,
ms phillips'a crank. She's a nutjob. Half her rants are based on stuff she blows out of proportion or on thinks that are untrue. I still recall a scattergun column the day after that stuff about Alfie dad at 13 on the Sun. The insults she threw at liberals, welfare state, DWP, you name it. Then it turned out the Alfie thing was 100% false. She never mentioned that though.
I read Londonistan and as soon as you start agreeing on certain bits then she starts going off on one about our christian values and how we should be more christian. fuck right off, mel.
She's inflammatory. She should know better. The fact that the fascists of the BNP (do you take them over Galloway as well, paul?) find her so inspiring is an indication of how much she's lost touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

Where ever Islam brushes up against other cultures communal violence and social tensions arise. Consider the communal violence against - Hindus in India (Gujarat), Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in the Phillipines, communists in China, Christians in southern Russia, Christians in Nigeria the list goes on and on and the common theme - Islam. Why might this be?? Of course criticism of Islam is unacceptable in west and anyone raising valid concerns with questionable elements of Islam is branded a facist.

claude said...

Anonymous,
there are extreme elements within Islam that are questionable. No doubt about that. Look no further than 7/7 for evidence. Look no further than women that aren't allowed to work or leave their home by themselves. Look no further than their misogyny and homophobia. This blog's talked about it in the past.

But I find it a bit rich that those criticisng and calling for 'democracy' are the same fascists who made a political career out of denying the holocaust, battering homosexuals(and blowing up their pubs), and by the same oiks who would throw bananas at non-white players on football pitches.

I may even agree with some criticism of extreme Islam -which is basically a fascist ideology in itself. But a world run by the BNP, the NF and its supporters is something I abhorr and dont forget that our grandparents and greatgrandparents fought to rid Britain of those.

As far as Mel Phillips is concerned, I'm with socialist sam. Her constant going on about "US AND THEM" is vile and dangerous.

To her credit, she is not alone. It's the whole tabloid system in the UK that is fucked up.

Now, if I was a Muslim born or living in Britain, even a totally secular one, I'd be extremely pissed off that every single day there's an article designed to make me feel like an alien. Max Hastings in yesterday's Daily Mail, for instance, with his vile rant against the fact that lots of people are called Mohammed and that "soom the Muslims are going to outnumber the whites". How would you feel?

Anonymous said...

Claude
The stated policies of the BNP as opposed to the nonsense that the liberal elite claim are the policies fo the BNP are not particularly extreme when viewed from a global perspective. They are much the same for example as the Thai Rak Thai party in Thailand - why is nobody ranting about facism in Thailand ?? Why is it not possible to have a rational debate about the valid concerns of the ingideous population?

claude said...

"The stated policies of the BNP as opposed to the nonsense that the liberal elite claim are the policies fo the BNP are not particularly extreme when viewed from a global perspective".

Oh my god! So because the BNP are not as bad as Pol Pot or don't endorse cannibalism or machete-driven ethnic cleansing then we should think "they're not particularly extreme"???!

"Why is it not possible to have a rational debate about the valid concerns of the ingideous population?"
No probs. I think it should be possible. But when it comes from people who see no wrong in doing Nazi salutes and bashing gays then I'm afraid there's little to be debated.

In fact, if I may say, the BNP's and NF's fundamental ideologies aren't miles away from fundamentalist Islam. The focus on patriarchal society, male-dominated society, family values to the extreme, women in the kitchen, no queers, no drugs, intolerance of different opinion, strong religious allegiance, belief in supremacy... get the picture or shall I continue?

Anonymous said...

Claude
I see it is not possible to have a rational debate - at least not with you. The Thai Rak Thai party were elected by a majority of Thais and have nothing to do with Pol Pot?? I don't really understand why you refer to Pol Pot? It is like linking a western socialist party to Stalin. Disappointing that is is not possible for informed and rational discussion to take place.

claude said...

"it is not possible to have a rational debate - at least not with you."
We agree on one thing then.

"The Thai Rak Thai party were elected by a majority of Thais and have nothing to do with Pol Pot?? I don't really understand why you refer to Pol Pot?"

Well, why did you refer to The Thai Rak Thai party in the first place?
I'll try one more time. The fact that 'extreme' ideas, however you wanna call them, exist elsewhere (hence mentioning Pol Pot) does not exonerate the BNP, the NF and mates.

You don't have to go as far as Thailand. You have a fine example of contemporary fascism in Berlusconi's Italy which is also dmemocratically elected government. That doesnt make it any less repugnant.

"why is nobody ranting about facism in Thailand ??
Because we're talking about the British National Party. So at the moment we're on about Britain which is where we vote.

So, Anonymous, as you're clearly a BNP supporter, would you kindly answer this question for me.

When you say:
"Why is it not possible to have a rational debate about the valid concerns of the ingideous population??"-

Who exactly is "indigenous" in Britain? Is someone of Irish descent indigenous? Someone with an Italian grandparent? Someone whose Jewish ancentors fled from persecution and moved to the East End? A person with Indian extraction? Jamaican? Who is indigenous?

Anonymous said...

Claude
The point I am making is that if you travel widely you will learn that nationalist parties - political parties that campaign from a platform of putting the indigenous population first are the norm outside of western europe. I could refer to many such parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India are another example.

Your final para asking "who are the indigenous population of Britain" is very telling. We don't know who we are anymore following decades of uncontrolled immigration and the blind promotion of multiculturism by the ruling liberal elite.

Why is multiculturalism held up as something sacred and beyong criticism - have you ever been to Japan? Societies that have rejected multiculturalism such as Japan are very much more coherent than western Europe which is descending in communalism and violence.

claude said...

"We don't know who we are anymore following decades of uncontrolled immigration and the blind promotion of multiculturism by the ruling liberal elite."

I see you can't even answer my questions. If you got rid of all the "multiculturism" then where do we go back to? What is your idea of an "indigenous" population?

Also, you go on about "liberal elites". Have you ever thought that all of Britain's tabloids -all of them but maybe the Mirror- go on about this immigration stuff everyday? It's hardly like a fringe element of the debate! Every single fuckin day stuff about "the immigrants", non-stop!

Finally, why do the BNP have a "white-only" policy? Isn't that pure and simple racism? Are you going to answer or will you quote some Thai movement to sidestep the question?

Ceri said...

Here we go again. The BNP and their supporters have spent so long in the shadows that they really don't know what to do in the limelight. Claude starts a debate, and they shout about how no-one will debate the issues.

These issues are being 'debated' everyday in most newspapers- that's why the BNP has made the gains it has.

As for indigenous, it's telling that anonymous doesn't actually try to tell us what this means, simply that we don't know who we are? Go on anonymous, give us a clue, tell us who is indigenous to the UK.

Anonymous said...

Claude
The BNPs policy is no more "racist" than the black police officer's association policy. The forthcoming prosecution of the BNP will highlight the double standards.

We cannot get rid of multiculturalism - it is here to stay with its positives and negatives. But what concerns me, and I am not a crazy nazi hooligan, I am a mild mannered educated middle class professional englishman, is that the British people were never consulted whether we wanted mass immigration and our towns and cities changed beyond recognition. It is not unreasonable to question what is the future for social cohesion in Britain's cities.

As for media coverage - you can't be serious? The BBCs coverage of anyone or any party that questions the sacred cow of multiculturalism is shocking.

Emma said...

Anonymous, do us (and yourself) a favour and answer the question that was initially asked:

"What is your idea of an "indigenous" population?"

Funny how you criticise Claude for not wanting to debate the issues, yet you cannot answer a straightforward question.

We're waiting.

claude said...

Anonymous,
"and our towns and cities changed beyond recognition"
Compared to when exactly? At what point do you think "The Real Great Britain" ceased to exist?
1951? 1968? Or was it even earlier?

"the British people were never consulted whether we wanted mass immigration"
Have you ever wondered, Anonymous, if the Indians, the Pakistani, the Irish, (and so forth...long list) were ever consulted as to whether they wanted mass colonisation?

"It is not unreasonable to question what is the future for social cohesion in Britain's cities."
Rest assured it's being questioned everyday. If you read the papers, that is. And what are people the EDL, demonstrating against specific ethnic groups, going to achieve for social cohesion?

Also, on another level, you do know that the Tory governments of the 60s (in particular) encouraged people from the colonies to come over and fill the jobs that the "locals" wouldn't touch? You do remember the vile thing with Uganda, where people from India were forced by the British to go and work there, and were then kicked out and had nowhere to go? Just look past your nose for once. Question things. It isn't all black and white.

But here's the thing. You started out saying you have an issue with Islam. Then you moved on to immigration as a whole. Is it a race issue you have by any chance? Do you think people are 'good' or 'bad' according to their skin hue? Because that's daft, you do know that, don't you?

There are people making a mint out there and you're doing exactly what they want. They want ordinary people, workers like me and you, like us, to split and quibble over stuff such as 'skin colour' and 'place of birth' while we should be channelling our energy towards higher wages, better working conditions, affordable transport, better housing policies, a cap on stupid profits etc...

"The BNPs policy is no more "racist" than the black police officer's association policy"
You've got to come back with something better than that. You're not talking to idiots. At least have the guts to stand up for what you believe in.

Anonymous said...

Claude
Taking the paragraphs in turn-
-Of course society does change over time but the change since the 1960s even you must admit has been dramatic and injurious for social cohesion.
-19th century colonisation is not relevant, I don't understand how this can be an argument in support of multiculturalism. Are you suggesting we are repaying a debt? very odd.
-Gangs of racist thugs have been provoked by political islamism. Of course I don't support violence of any sort.
-1960s Uganda is hardly relevant?
-Policital islam and the associated violence has brought the issue of immigration and multiculturalism back onto the agenda. It is the liberal elites policy of mass immigration and multiculturalism that has lead us to the communal violence and social disintergretion we are now suffering. Of course I do not see skin colour as indicating good or bad. I have spent many years travelling and working in Asia and my experiences in Asia have informed my views.
-I stand by my final paragraph. Why should it be illegal for one ethnic group to form a group to support their interests?

One additional point - why don't you go and read up on the racist regime in Malaysia ??? Where the "sons of the soil" ethnic Malays occupy a privileged status compared to ethnic Indians and Chinese. Why does nobody in the western elite challenge this? Educate yourself and be a free thinker rather than brainwashed like the majority. I won't go and stand in Speakers Corner shouting BNP slogons - I will go and shout that I want to see a similar policy to immigration here in the UK to that existing in Japan and watch the confused and ignorant faces.

claude said...

Anonymous (wouldnt it be handier if you left a moniker to talk to. The name 'Anonymous' is like an online burqa, isnt it?),

let's see:
"Gangs of racist thugs have been provoked by political islamism".
Are you sure?
Because racist thugs have always existed. And it's the same breed as always.
You can't pretend you don't know this, but only ten or twenty years ago, the same racists who now use Islam as an excuse would routinely lash out against black people or the Jews. I mentioned yesterday bananas th

rown on football pitches in the 1980s. That wasn't unusual at all. There was an England v Brazil friendly match in 1985. It was notorious that John Barnes' goal "didn't count" in the opinion of some of those dickheads because Barnes isn't white.

These are the neanderthals we're talking about.

I don't buy their current 'victimhood' because they've always picked on some groups and caused tension and violence.

And this is relevant, because if it's not "the Islamists" then it's the Irish, then it's the gays, then it's the Jews. These racists live their lives shrouded in paranoia and end up stirring up trouble and undermining social cohesion as much as (if not more) as the fundamentalist Islamists we both condemn.

"why don't you go and read up on the racist regime in Malaysia ???"
I'll do that. But only if you go and read up on the history of the BNP, the NF and neo-fascism across Europe, which is directly relevant to our history now.

When you say:
"-1960s Uganda is hardly relevant?"
It goes to show...because 20th century history is relevant. Colonial history is directly related to post WWII immigration - I mean, I'm stating the obvious here. Go look at France and the Netherlands. You invade countries in the name of "superiority". You wreak havoc and stir division (India and Pakistan anyone?) You deal with the consequences.

"It is the liberal elites policy of mass immigration and multiculturalism that has lead us to the communal violence and social disintergretion we are now suffering."
You don't think tabloids like the Mail, the Express and the Sun ramming the point in everyday that non-white Britons are aliens is contributing to tension and disintegration? Seriously?

That said, and I've written it before, I think the British government should stop funding faith schools (all faiths) and be more like the French in the way secular values are promoted, so that you dont end up having separate religious blocks since primary school.

But I maintain, rhetoric means a lot. Stop singling out single ethnic groups tarring them all with the same brush (i.e. "terrorists") because that's just going to stoke the flames.

"but the change since the 1960s even you must admit has been dramatic and injurious for social cohesion.
I think the worst moments have coincided with a surge in right-wing extremism. Look at the 1970s and the NF. Everyone remembers the racial tension back then. Look at the tabloid-induced hysteria of the past 10 years. That's reaping the harvest right now.

Oh. One more thing. Mass immigration. Would you happily take back the 760,000 Britons who've invaded Spain since the late 1990s and havent picked up a single word of the local language?

Paul said...

'I read Londonistan and as soon as you start agreeing on certain bits then she starts going off on one about our christian values and how we should be more christian.'

I read Londonistan and to a point would agree with that comment Sam. However I would not go so far as to say that whilst some of Phillips's points are baloney, her whole thesis is wrong. Britain is endangered by the mass immigration of unintegrated groups. The answer is not to make Britain more Christian, but IMHO to solidify a secular democracy with a formal constitution like the USA. Anyone not liking that can be shown the door. I mean the current policy sees welfare payments being doled out to people like Anjem Choudhary and his ilk. That means the non-Muslim tax payer funding their eventual subjugation.


'The fact that the fascists of the BNP (do you take them over Galloway as well, paul?) find her so inspiring is an indication of how much she's lost touch with reality.' That is cheap and not worth a response concerning either Phillips or myself.

Seems to be a debate on here about BNP policies. The fact is like Hitler's National Socialists they are espouse a racialised extreme left wing ideology. They want British people to nationalise and thus control British assets. It is incorrect to call them right wing. Surely correct to call them racist however.

Good debate anyhow, if however instead of the BNP 'endorsing' Phillips she had endorsed them, the Observer et al would be in over drive this morning.

Jamie Sport said...

Vacuous soudbite bollocks from the unsurprisingly Anonymous BNP racist fool.

You're not even worth engaging with spouting unfounded, opinionated crap like "criticism of Islam is unacceptable in west" (really? What about Mel? And everybody writing for the Mail, Express, Star and the Sun?), "Why is it not possible to have a rational debate about immigration" (it is you moron, it's discussed with nauseating frequency in the press, on TV, radio, and the blogosphere), "The BNPs policy is no more "racist" than the black police officer's association policy" (the BPOA allows non-black membership, which the BNP doesn't and BNP policy is consistently racist), and "multiculturalism...with its positives and negatives" (negatives? what are they? can you demonstrate objectively, and find evidence to show, that they are negative?).

You're all the same. You claim not to be a "crazy Nazi hooligan", and perhaps on the surface you are not, but inside you're exactly the same. Scared, ignorant, deluded, unable to form coherant arguments, but overly vocal about how much you're being persecuted and censored as a white member of the "indigenous population" (the what?).

I've tried to reason with BNP supporters before, and been naive enough to think that they might respond sensibly when engaged with rationally. They don't. Instead of proper debate, there's just the same interminable rehashing of oft-disproved arguments and an utter unwillingness to reason or compromise. Myths, non-sequiteurs, dodgy statistics, anecdotes and prejudices all raise their heads and refuse to go away, destroying any chance of debate or discussion. It's just not worth bothering with.

Go back to Stormfront.

Anonymous said...

Claude
I haven't been using a moniker simply because I couldn't be bothered to sign up. I rarely use the internet and I came across this site by accident. I thought it might be amusing to see how you responded to being awoken to the reality of how nationalist politics is the norm globally and is in fact not "extreme" at all.

I have just had a glance at your "about us" section - I may be wrong but I fear I may have stumbled across a load of naive political science students? It is not my intention to be offensive but this is my perception.

You refer to the promotion of left wing politics in your "about us". The terms "left wing" and "right wing" are so restrictive as to make them effectively meaningless - especially when we are talking about the politics of race and immigration. Without doubt the most racist country I have ever been to is China. The belief in racial superiority in China is universal and so is the belief that ethnic Han chinese have evolved from an entirely separate branch to other humans. To a Han Chinese the thought of being related to a european would be enough to make them sick and as for an african well....
These totally wrong racial purity beliefs have been promoted by the communist authorities and are still promoted to this day.

I suggest you go to communist China and experience yourself first hand widespread racism and zenophopia.

One last point on immigration - over half of all babies born in London are born to foreign mothers. Instinctively anyone with any sense would know this is matter of concern in terms future social cohesion.

Jamie Sport said...

Marvellous - an argument based entirely on an hilariously skewed Daily Mail article: over half of all babies born in London are born to foreign mothers

I take it you're ignoring the findings (from the same report that article is based on) that immigration has fallen 44% year on year, that net foreign emigration has risen, and net British-born immigration has risen 50%.

I also assume you're ignoring the fact that, nationally, only 24% of births are to non-British born mothers.

You say: "Instinctively anyone with any sense would know this is matter of concern"

No, Anonymouse, this is a matter of concern only for bigots such as yourself. Unfortunately for you and your pals at the BNP, this isn't a problem for most people. Perhaps it's time you woke up.

(or just went back under your rock)

Anonymous said...

Jamie
"Racist fool", "moron" - touched a nerve with you - good. Presumably you are only used to receiving comments that support your narrow minded and shallow world view? My heretical comments upset your school lesson preparations?

The whole theme of my chain of comments has been to link the politics of race and immigration in the UK to positions of Asian governments - not one of the comments in response to mine has dealt with this - I am confident that I have left you all quite at a loss.

Okay this is enough baiting of the ignorant. I wish you and your website all the best.

Peter

Jamie Sport said...

This isn't my website, Peter, you daft racist. It's testament to your powers of research and reason that you'd think it is though.

Anyway, glad you've had enough. Bye now!

claude said...

Good god. What an anonymous moron.

He's so obsessed with Asian governments as a "model" to imitate that perhaps he would like Europe to turn into Pol Pot's Cambodia, or mass-murdering China or Indonesia.

He may also like to know that the old USSR was incredibly strict on those who could come in.

There you have it then. This is the type of people and political ideas we're talking about.

As for the 'anti-student' rant, anonymouse, I ceased to be a student over eight years ago. Either way I didn't think being a student was a crime! At least you learn how to spell "Indigenous" and "Xenophobic".

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why you are so offensive - such closed minds to ideas different to yours.

The reference again to Pol Pot I think you know is simply silly.

Okay I really do need to go now - I have to go and pick up my Japanese wife.

Emma said...

"The whole theme of my chain of comments has been to link the politics of race and immigration in the UK to positions of Asian governments - not one of the comments in response to mine has dealt with this - I am confident that I have left you all quite at a loss."

You child.

And, Ha! Quite pathetic when you consider the fact you've been completely unable to answer ANY of the questions posed to you regarding this so-called 'indigenous population' you keep prattling on about. Not to mention this rather baffling obsession you have with Asia. Most odd, especially since it has sod all to with what we've been discussing. You seem to believe all that crap backs up your argument, but what it really does is prove how out of touch you are.

As for being naive political science students, no we aren't actually. Don't tell me you're one of those 'University of Life' knobends, are you Anonymous? And since when has being called a Politics student been offensive?

In short, you may think that just because you don't have a skinhead, wear Ben Sherman shirts and chant 'We want our country back' in town centres you aren't a hooligan, but really, you spew the same disgusting drivel as they do. Hide behind the 'middle class, educated' facade you think you have, but you are the same. If you don't see that, you clearly haven't been 'educated' enough.

If immigration disgusts you so much, why don't you bugger off back to the Anglo Saxon period. But then you'd most definitely be moaning about Vikings and Celts coming and building farms and stealing your identity, wouldn't you?

Bog off, love.

Emma said...

"Okay I really do need to go now - I have to go and pick up my Japanese wife"

How dare you bring non-white, non-Anglo Saxons into this country!

danivon said...

Why all the fuss about people being born to 'non-British mothers'?

Who is widely acknowledged to be one of the UK's greatest Prime Ministers? Leader in wartime, defeater of the Nazis, and now adopted by the far right as someone they claim would support their views today?

Why, it's old Winston Churchill who was born to a foreign mother.

Anyone would thing, reading the right wing press, that "we don't want his sort around here". Humph!