Saturday, 12 January 2008

The new grass roots far right?

Update: 'I feel like an alien in my home town' : Do 'no-go' zones for non-Muslims exist in Britain, as the Bishop of Rochester claims? Olga Craig reports from some of Yorkshire's Asian-dominated areas


The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, has spoke of no-go areas in Britain for non-Muslims.

Whilst there are certainly areas many would consider as no-go, in Britain, it seems to me that race is a bigger factor than religion in certain where we have an ethnic and religious mix.

The BBC report Estate with an ethnic majority interviews some people in the street where the brutal racist attack by Sodrul Islam, Delwar Hussain, and Mamoon Hussain on John Payne with a machete and claw hammer. Here's the local postman:

A postman pushes his mail trolley near the estate's only community centre, a small, nondescript single-storey building.

He says that as a black man he has not experienced trouble himself, but that his white colleagues on their rounds have been abused and sometimes attacked.

Abu Izzadeen seemed to think there were Muslim no-go areas, when he shouted "How dare you come to a Muslim area!" at the then defence secretary John Reid.

The rise of the National Front in the 70's meant that certain areas were no-go areas for non-whites. People with the same kind of mentality as Abu Izzadeen, albeit with shaven heads, jack boots and union jacks.

We already know of the middle class far-right. So, the question is, are we seeing the rise of a new grass roots far-right, with the thugs in the street carrying out, consciously or unconsciously, the wishes and deeds of prominent fascist voices?

The usual canaries in the mine, the Jews, are the most likely group for it's population size to be attacked. The Torygraph reported that Jews were four times more likely to be attacked than Muslims, which is perhaps surprising considering the 7/7 bombings and subsequent terror attempts by self-declared Muslims. Rabbi Alex Chapper explains an attack in the street:

Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi", which means Jew in Arabic. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you", before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle.
Israel's war with Hizbollah resulted in a wave of anti-semitic attacks according to the Times.

Ms Cohen, 34, said: “They asked if it was a Jewish restaurant. They said they were going to kill me and called me a ‘dirty Jew’, a ‘stinking Jew’. One of them had a knife. A colleague came out. They started punching him and throwing chairs.”

Doesn't sound like a theological dispute to me.

7 comments:

judiciousoversight said...

The usual canaries in the mine, the Jews,

No, Jews aren't the canaries in the mine: unlike the white majority, they fully supported mass immigration and the race laws and if they're suffering a little now, they've only themselves to blame.

are the most likely group for it's population size to be attacked.

No, they're not: whites are. Name a single Jew murdered by non-whites, let alone as horrifically as Kriss Donald, Mary-Ann Leneghan, Charlene Downes et al. Whites are suffering far more than Jews, but whites aren't important: they aren't funding politicians like Bliar, Brown and Hain.

marvin said...

Name a single Jew murdered by non-whites

I assume you've got this the wrong way round. Although hard facts are hard to get in this potential mine field, it seems that a very significant portion of these attacks on Jews are by Muslims. The rest by neo-nazis.

No, Jews aren't the canaries in the mine: unlike the white majority, they fully supported mass immigration and the race laws and if they're suffering a little now, they've only themselves to blame.

You could say the same about the whites.

are the most likely group for it's population size to be attacked. No, they're not: whites are.

This is not true.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2449490_2,00.html

"Figures recently published under the Freedom of Information Act seem to support such fears: of the 58 people killed because of the colour of their skin between 1995 and 2004, almost half were described as white."

Whilst racist attacks against whites are under-reported and under-acknowledged, you are still more likely to be the victim of a race attack if you are non-white. Simple maths.

If you start saying Jews only have themselves to blame, and they not suffering, only whites are, then you are clearly not in possession of the facts. It also sounds really quite anti-Semitic. This kind of thinking about the Jews is very reminiscent of what the Islamic extremists say.

judiciousoversight said...

I assume you've got this the wrong way round. Although hard facts are hard to get in this potential mine field, it seems that a very significant portion of these attacks on Jews are by Muslims. The rest by neo-nazis.

So you can't name a Jew murdered by non-whites (or neo-nazis), and yet you tell me I've got it the wrong way around. How? I don't deny that Muslims are attacking Jews, but as I pointed out: Jews supported mass immigration and the race laws, ensuring that Muslims would enter the UK in such large numbers. Jews have contributed hugely to the present disaster.

Whilst racist attacks against whites are under-reported and under-acknowledged, you are still more likely to be the victim of a race attack if you are non-white. Simple maths.

You're not more likely taking population into account. If all groups were of equal size, many more whites would be attacked than members of any other group. As it is, if Jews are more likely than whites to be attacked because of their race, please produce some Jewish victims. There are lots of whites like Kriss Donald (murdered) and John Payne (seriously wounded), so where are the Jewish victims? If you can't produce any, my case is proven.

marvin said...

jdo

There are 50 million whites, and 300,000 Jews. So if there were equal number of racist murders as a % of population, then there would be 166 white murders for every 1 Jewish murder.

I can't name a racist murder of a Jew, but they are attacked and persecuted. mostly by angry young Muslim men, and some white neo-nazis.

This is a fact. Your blaming of the Jews for the state of this multicultural mess we are in is in very bad taste, and in very bad judgement.

If you have no compassion for any one except whites, then please just fuck off. It's a primitive, tribalistic argument that I don't have time for. And one that is devoid of nobility and and decent values.

judiciousoversight said...

There are 50 million whites, and 300,000 Jews. So if there were equal number of racist murders as a % of population, then there would be 166 white murders for every 1 Jewish murder.

You obviously don't understand the maths. A minority should suffer more than the majority, because there should be far more attackers in the majority. So where are the murdered Jews? Why can't you produce any if Jews in Britain are, as you claim, the "canaries in the coalmine"? Perhaps you don't understand the metaphor: you see, canaries (=Jews) should be dying before the miners (=non-Jews). In reality -- and yes, I know liberals like you have difficulties with reality -- it's the other way around.

I can't name a racist murder of a Jew, but they are attacked and persecuted. Mostly by angry young Muslim men, and some white neo-nazis.

They are not attacked and persecuted anywhere near as much as whites are, as is proved by your inability to produce any Jewish victims of race murder, despite the fact that Jews are far outnumbered by Muslims.

This is a fact. Your blaming of the Jews for the state of this multicultural mess we are in is in very bad taste, and in very bad judgement.

Typical liberal response: "It's bad taste, I find it offensive." And it's not at all bad judgement: Jews support mass immigration and the race laws and have contributed hugely to the present disaster.

If you have no compassion for any one except whites, then please just fuck off.

Again, typically liberal: put words in your opponents' mouth. I feel sorry for all victims of race crime, white or ethnic, but I feel most sorry for the ones who are suffering most and who did not want mass immigration: the whites.

It's a primitive, tribalistic argument that I don't have time for.

I don't care whether it's primitive or tribalistic: I care whether it's true. As a liberal, you don't care about the truth, you just care about looking good.

And one that is devoid of nobility and and decent values.

Typical liberal narcissism. You can't produce a single Jewish victim of race murder, while I can produce numerous white victims, some of whom suffered horrendously, but you're claiming your argument is more noble and decent. Ignoring the facts is noble and decent, is it?

Probably better to delete this rather than produce more ad homs, but I'll leave it up to you.

marvin said...

Well if I'm called a liberal by a BNP supporter than I must be doing something right!

You seem obssesed with Jews, and 'proving' there's no anti-semitism in this country. Very telling....

How is the BNP anyway? I heard they've had a major split?

I think you need to do some reading on anti-semitism.

judiciousoversight said...

So you decided to take the ad hom route. Trust me, deletion is safer when you're losing the argument so badly.

Well if I'm called a liberal by a BNP supporter than I must be doing something right!

I'm not in the BNP and would hate to see them in power. As a liberal, you aren't concerned with my arguments, only with labelling them as you've been trained to by the media.

You seem obssesed with Jews,

Typical liberal line, but you should remember that you yourself are "obsessed" with Muslims. That is, you think -- and I agree -- that they are bad for the UK.

and 'proving' there's no anti-semitism in this country. Very telling....

Can you please point out where I try to "prove" there's no anti-semitism in this country? There's a great deal, particularly among Muslims. That's why I said this:

"They [Jews] are not attacked and persecuted anywhere near as much as whites are, as is proved by your inability to produce any Jewish victims of race murder, despite the fact that Jews are far outnumbered by Muslims."

See? Does it sink in on a second reading? But anti-white racism is a much serious problem here than anti-semitism, as is proved by the fact that whites get murdered because of their race and Jews don't.

How is the BNP anyway? I heard they've had a major split?

Do you really think that constitutes an argument? If you do, I feel sorry for you.

I think you need to do some reading on anti-semitism.

I've done a lot already. Here's a quote from your link:

Gardner said four of the incidents last year were potentially life-threatening. A Jewish man was stabbed in London, others were beaten with metal bars and broken bottles.

So, a grand total of four "potentially life-threatening" incidents for the canaries in the coalmine. As I said, you don't seem to understand the metaphor. Whites are dying -- you know, dying: literally losing their lives -- at the hands of Muslims and other ethnic minorities in the UK, often in horrific ways. Jews, so far, are not. Nor are Jews being attacked at anywhere near the same rate as whites are. Can you please either a) explain to me how that makes Jews the canaries in the coalmine; or b) admit that you were just bleating slogans without bothering to think for yourself?

You'll do neither, of course. So it's one of three: more ad homs; deletion; silence. I advise deletion.