Jan 152011

Disliking someone who is different from you is a very native, hard-wired aspect of our animalistic past. We are social creatures, born from small familial groups – from which, we instinctively see that foreign “other” as untrustworthy and (potentially) dangerous. It is a natural phenomena; as natural as every other naturalistic, animalistic personality trait that a civilised society needs to disabuse itself from. Unless, of course, you believe that society should embrace rape, violent patriarchy and, well… watch a David Attenborough piece on chimpanzees (or any other familial-social animal), if you want to find others.

Following on from my previous post about indigenous Brits, another followup position from Nick Griffin (and those who think like him) is that Britain is in danger of becoming an Islamified state. Hauling his chimpanzee arse off the ground, he attempts a territorial warble that a zoologist would describe as “they are not like us” accompanied by “get rid of foreigners”. Of course, for Griffin, this is just the current trend to be employed for the furthering of his far-reaching goal; that every foreigner be removed from Britain. The recent vogue of Islamic terrorism has been a great boost for British racism. Hating Muslims can be seen as a justifiable act of patriotism, allowing people to unleash their inner racist so that they can concentrate on their Muslim foes… and, when all the brown people are gone, they can concentrate on the black ones.

If you hate all Muslisms, then every Islamic fundamentalist who has purged the world of himself (and as many innocents as he could) will have beaten you. He wins. You lose. Why will he have won? Islamic fundamentalists want war… an old war of one faith against another; two opposing factions of the same deity’s believers. They want an Islamic Crusade, with you as a bit-part actor. In order to achieve such a thing, they desire a deep hatred between all Muslims and all non-Muslims; from both directions. Your hatred for all Muslims is a stepping-stone across a small stream… a stream that has very nasty things happening, on the other side of it. If you hate the extremists, without hating everyone who has a moderate affiliation with the religion (i.e. all non-extremist Muslims) then the stepping-stone disappears. The terrorists will have failed.

Join me, in beating the terrorists; hug the next Muslim you meet…

…and remember; each time you hate a Muslim, Osama bin Laden smiles.

Unless, of course, you buy the stories about Britain becoming an Islamic state, where the urban landscape is dotted with minarets over big-domed mosques. Well, I view such a picture with the same level of acridity as our landscape being dotted with church spires over large vaulted canopies of worship. Especially when the worship is being done to the same deity as is worshipped in the mosques. Same deity; different flavour. Whether it is a minaret or a church spire, my degree of irritation is consistently the same. The important fight is against the loss of secularism, not the loss of one religion against another, or which shape popping above the house-roof is a religious ornament. And if an Islamified Britain threatened Britain’s secularism, I’d share a degree of empathy with Islamophobes. Except, that isn’t going to happen.

Britain is an increasingly secular nation. This is a good thing. It isn’t, however, devoid of non-secular influences. Our head of state is also the head of the church. Our upper house of parliament is populated by unelected church leaders – giving the church a political voice. Our weekly diary is dictated to us out of church requirements; Sunday must remain a special day, with limited opening times and awful faith-based TV (the BBC are contractually required to screen it). Our medical practices are influenced by the premise that a fertilised egg has an immortal God-given soul; witness the delays and impediments concerning stem-cell research… or repeated requests to ignore foetal viability as the benchmark for legal abortions.

If those same measures were made in the name of Islam, rather than Christianity, I’d be equally annoyed. Other than an increase in religious political power, I have no reason to fear Britain becoming Islamified. Not that it is likely to happen. I mean, there are those who want to make you believe that it will happen, one day. But that is only one possible future along with many other possible futures – like one where Switzerland announces that its history of neutrality was a smoke-screen, used to quietly build a world-conquering military force, as they take over the world. I mean, it could happen… but there are stop-gaps and pressure-points in the system that mean that it is highly unlikely to happen.

In Britain, our secularisation was (mostly) born 300 years ago during the Enlightenment, when radical materialist thinking gained a new confidence – with powerful rationalist voices to make sure that the confidence was shared. Britain gave Darwin to the world, explaining how life evolved by means of a mechanism he didn’t fully understand; Cambridge University gave us Watson & Crick’s explanation of Darwin’s mechanism. Whether through its rationalists, or its scientists, Britain has given itself good grounds to call itself a secular nation.

Some clocks simply can’t be turned back. Those 300 years won’t be eradicated because of a newly-arrived minority population. Every Muslim who settles in Britain will have children raised in a secularised country. Those children will be aware of the freedoms that have evolved (and been fought for) over so many years. They will have no reason to submerge into the extremities of Islamic fundamentalism.

Unless you give them good grounds, and treat them with undisguised hatred.

That should about do it.

If you read newspaper articles about a Muslim getting a lenient sentence, or even having committed a crime – stop and ask yourself how many offences are reported in the news about people who were described as Christians, agnostics or atheists. I mean, these people do commit crimes, but I don’t recall their faith being a newsworthy item, shared to all. If an owner of a media corporation became gingerphobic, he could highlight the crimes of all ginger people, their hair-colour announced to all. Any crimes committed by blondes,  brunettes, or the folically-challenged would be reported without any mention of their hair-colour. Over time, you’d be sickened at all of the crimes committed by ginger people.

Stop letting other people do your thinking (and decision-making) for you. Especially when those people own newspapers and/or TV stations.

Stop reading shitty “news” articles that deliberately alienate Muslims from the rest of society. Keep in mind that some Muslims are good – and some Muslims are bad. Pretty much, you know, the same as with every other group of human beings on the planet.

Stop calling yourself a Christian, in some feeble attempt at showing a united, patriotic anti-Muslim front. The last time you were in a church, it was for a wedding (possibly your own) and if you were asked to recite the names of Christ’s disciples, you’d struggle not to slip in the names of some of The Beatles.

Stop letting the Islamic terrorist have the winning hand.

Stop acting on xenophobic, animalistic fear-patterns.

Stop judging the many, based on the few.

Stop being a racist fuck.

Jan 132011

In 2010, Nick Griffin made an appearance on BBC’s Question Time. Among many of his ridiculous claims, he said that the BNP was not a racist political party and that his interests were in the protection of (what he called) indigenous Brits. Now, it is easy to mock the arrogance and ignorance of one bigoted man, but his views are shared by many. So let’s have a look at what it means to be indigenous to Britain.

Migration Stage 1 – Nomads

Back when Great Britain became isolated from the rest of mainland Europe, there were no people on the continent; the series of migrations from Africa didn’t come until much later. When our ancestors were, eventually, moving throughout Europe, Britain remained a no-go area to a species that hadn’t invented boats. With successive ice ages, however, the falling sea levels allowed for foot traffic across (what we describe today as) the English Channel. People lived, hunted and populated that sometimes-undersea landscape and some of them will have found themselves on the island, itself. Let’s call these variously-timed first inhabitants members of an era called Migration Stage 1.

Migration Stage 2 – Celts

Over an extended period of time, largely unknown (due to the absence of written records) with any great detail, other than that provided by archaeology, people (and their cultures) moved across the navigable world. The island of Great Britain became populated by a group of people who can loosely be described as Celts. The traditions, practices, beliefs and artwork were shared by a larger Celtic society that extended across the rest of Europe. They must, then, have shared origins. These were what we can confidently describe as boat-builders; moving to (and populating) Great Britain. The timeframe is unknown, but it would have been an extensive one involving many different migrations. For simplicity, let’s group them all together and describe them as Migration Stage 2.

Migration Stage 3 – Romans

We can become more confident about timeframes when the first users of a written language moved to these islands. The Romans, in expanding their governance around the Mediterranean (and neighbouring European regions) arrived first as merchants and then as conquerors. Despite the easy conclusion that Britain was invaded by rampaging Italians, Rome offered citizenship to those they conquered. The legions that controlled Britain were made up of groups from many potential geographical regions. The seed of much of Europe (and Asia and Africa) lived and breathed on British soil for the better part of 400 years. Britain’s Celts still existed… but, whichever set of migrants you looked at, you would be very hard-pressed to find one which was guaranteed to be free of Rome’s genetic influence. Let’s call the Romans (and every merchant immigrant that arrived before and during this period) Migration Stage 3.

Migration Stage 4 – Anglo-Saxons

Following the breakdown of Rome’s Empire in the west, Britain’s local leaders found themselves in need of mercenary help, and they called on the help of Germanic tribes to fight for them. Those newly-arrived migrants soon decided that their military strength (in a land denuded of such things during the Roman conquest) allowed them to take the place for themselves. Britain became the home of Angles, Saxons and Jutes (with a side-serving of Frissians and Franks). The previous inhabitants (Romano-British) were still on the scene and were referred to as native Britons. The scene, however, was far from being a simple one. The whole island was a hotch-potch of variously-distributed ethnicities and cultures. Britain was an Anglo-Saxon island, by conquest. All of them were natives. Let’s call them Migration Stage 4.

Migration Stage 5 – Vikings

In the more northerly regions of Scandanavia, a warrior mentality saw profit in taking the property, livestock and (eventually) land of their neighbours. It was a more viable income source than the repeated father-to-son division of limited arable land. Their targets were the more southerly stretches of Europe and their means of transportation was the sea. These islands were a particularly popular stopping-off point for looting, pillaging and (importantly) rape. Whether they stayed (and many did) or they left, Viking seed became deeply impenetrated (‘scuse the pun) in the genetic makeup of the British Isles. This extended period of genetic influx can be called Migration Stage 5.

Migration Stage 6 – Normans

These islands weren’t the only places populated by Viking blood in this timeframe. On the west coast of France, one group of Norsemen became very well established. Over time, a (very) slightly more civilised version of these warmongers would eventually find political reasons for claiming Kingship over England. When politics failed, war quickly took its place and the final, largescale, war-based invasion of these islands took place. The Anglo-Saxons, already genetically familiar with Norse blood, were dominated by a more powerful breed of Norse men who intended on staying – and the Normans did exactly that. We will call them Migration Stage 6.

Migration Stage 7 – Mercantile

With no more full-scale invasion forces to mention since 1066, it is less easy to give clearly delineated stages of migration over the subsequent 1000 years. Migration certainly took place, though. As well as a pan-European mixing pot of royal marriages (and royal influences) opening up trade routes, with a mercantile class that was built upon the trading posts of cities and ports – smaller (but continuous) migrations took place. Other than the arrival of new (to these islands) religious beliefs, such as Jewish communities, the movement of people cannot easily be documented. People moved where the trade of goods moved them and Europe was an open-plan region of legally-understood borders, with no legally-understood passport control. The only barriers were the ability to move – and the ability to communicate. It is a process which, largely, still continues into modern times, but to isolate it from the last (important) stage of migration, I’m going to pull those thousand years together into a loose affliation which can be called Migration Stage 7.

Migration Stage 8 – Empire

The mercantile expansion of Britain would, in time, move from purely commercial into commercial-political. Britain produced the largest (and shortest-lived) empire that the world has seen – before or since. In each of the colonial states of that empire, Britain was portrayed as the Mother Country. The hopes and ideals that were established and imprinted upon those people, was that their countries should be as prosperous and “civilised” as the nation that was building theirs. Unsurprisingly, this made Britain an idealised place to move to for those seeking prosperity and betterment. Particularly in the latter stages of the old empire, Britain saw an influx of new migrants. After World War 2, with a depleted (male) workforce, the immigration from the old empire was a given an important necessitation. A land that had been familiarly white-faced for so many years, was now seeing a migration of melanin, not just a migration of cultures across a pan-European landscape.

And it is this most recent migration stage that most discomforts Nick Griffin and those who think like him, as he rampages against ongoing migration in a period that someone, some day, might call Migration Stage 9. As he seeks to panic his followers about the potential of the Islamification of Britain, he offers “voluntary” repatriation so that existing “non-indigenous” Brits can return whence they first came. Even if it was their parents, grandparents or great grandparents who originally arrived on the boat from some far-flung branch of the old British empire.

If we pretend (for a moment) that Nick Griffin, the BNP and every mouth-breathing xenophobe who parrots the same bigoted shite… aren’t (in fact) racist… could we, perhaps, look back at the history of Britain and ask how an indigenous Brit can be identified? Which Migration Stage should we be talking about? Nick Griffin, magicked up the number of 17,000 years – which would have involved the nomads of Migration Stage 1. Yes, that’s right… Gypsie-hating Griffin describes the idealised aboriginal Brit as a descendent of a travelling population.

Sometimes, irony is just too delicious for words.

I challenge Griffin (and his “indigenous” kith and kin) to find a single living person in Britain who has descended those 17,000 years without ever having a family member that migrated here during stages 2 to 8. Including Griffin, himself.

Every single person in this country is either an immigrant or directly descended from an immigrant. The beauty of it is, most of that migration was done without legal consent.

Every last one of us is the spawn of illegal immigrants.