Tuesday, 1 September 2009

Freedom and Discrimination

By Tim Heydon
‘ It’s a free Country , isn’t it?’

‘No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain. I welcome the action.’ – ‘Equality’ Minister Harriet Harman

‘It’s a free Country, isn’t it?’ One used to hear that said a lot when I was young, many years ago. People would say it when someone else said or did something which others didn’t agree with or found rude, annoying, or even plain offensive without it being classified as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

They said it because they meant it; because they knew it was true. Britain was indeed a free country. People could say or did what they wanted according to their personal references and others accepted that they could. It is years though since I heard anyone say those words. People know it is no longer true. Britain is no longer free or even a country. Say or do something that people then accepted as your right as a free person and nowadays in the new improved politically correct Britain one is likely to find oneself reported to the authorities under some discrimination or ‘hate’ law.

So what is the key freedom for any civilised society to be truly free? It is the right to equality under the law and to democracy, isn’t it, - one person one vote? Highly important though these be, the answer must be no.

Britain was a civilised place, a great nation, and most people had far more actual freedom to say and do what they wanted in their daily lives than they do now, when only men had the vote and indeed when only certain limited classes of men had it.

It must be Freedom of Speech, then - the freedom our ancestors struggled for? Well no again. Freedom of speech is certainly of towering importance, but Freedom of Speech is a secondary freedom; there is a more fundamental freedom still, without which Freedom of Speech is itself sure to be curtailed and pretty much not worth having, some may think. That more fundamental freedom is Freedom of Association: the freedom to congregate with, to be with the people we prefer.

Freedom of Association
is essential for true freedom, because above all others it is the freedom which reaches to the very core of our humanity. For this is the freedom which has to do with who and what we are in ourselves, our very person-hood, in a way that other freedoms do not. Who we want to associate with is a function of our deepest – felt emotions: our loves, our affections, our preferences.

To be with those we love best reaches from those whom we take as sexual or life partners to clubs and associations which we want to join, including political parties, to the nation itself. For the state to interfere in a gross way with this right is to interfere with the very foundation of a free society, which can only truly be social when one is willingly together with others. When one is not willingly together with others, one is not in a true society, one is in a prison.

Which brings me to Harriet Harman. Harman and her gang have tried but failed to dismiss human love as the well-spring of morality in the interests of their false, imposed morality of equality, dictated by reason – their reason, that is.

Human love, these progressives say, is mere ‘prejudice’ and we now know that what people prefer is merely the product of stone -age human development. It is progressive for these ‘primitive’ impulses to be ignored and for ‘scientific’ reason to take over instead.

So we must submit to an anti-human ethic of showing no particular affection for our own, our ethnic nation – even, some demand, our own children (which belong to society - ‘the village’) and our parents. This is too much to ask of human beings. Jesus Christ does not ask us to do that. He said that ‘greater love has no man than this, that he lays down his life for his friends’ and he sought to defend and to heal the ethnic nation of Israel.

But Harriet Harman ask it of us. So the party that expresses the very human desire for true human love to be the basis of ethics must be destroyed and its right to select its own membership on this basis must be attacked.

Since they are trying to undermine some of the deepest motivations that human beings are capable of, these progressives, as generally happens with their policies, are doing so by necessarily oppressive measures.

Seeing everything in terms of economics and power, they are attacking the ethic of love by attacking heterosexual marriage and the loving family as the basis of society, because they see it as the arena of male heterosexual domination and thus sexual inequality.

So, never minding what is best for both sexes emotionally and what is best for children they have tried to stripp males of their bread-winning role, transferred it as far as possible to women and to the state and have done their best to wrest the upbringing of children from parents in favour of the state.

And they have stripped us of our freedoms to associate with whom we please, at every level from the local to the widest level of the nation so that the nation can be destroyed.

The grim joke though is that Harman and her ilk, who accuse the BNP of apartheid in their membership policies are actually creating Apartheid in Britain. They think they are helping to create the progressive Utopia of One World, but as so often happens with progressive policies, they are achieving the reverse.

The Harvard sociologist Robert D Putnam who was awarded the Johan Skytte prize, the social science equivalent of the Nobel prize for his work has shown in his 2007 study of 41 communities across America which involved some 30,000 interviews over five years, that the more diverse a social setting is, the more people distrust not only those of other races and ethnicities but also members of their own ethnicity. In other words the progressive, liberal ‘contact’ theory’ that people will homogenise when they get to know each better is nonsense. People withdraw into themselves and become isolated and miserable.

It takes little imagination to see that people hate living in diverse areas and long to escape from them to where they feel comfortable and at home – amongst people of their own ethnicity. And in the USA, escape they do. William Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan has noted that, ‘For every immigrant who arrives (in large metropolitan area) a white person leaves.’ (Quoted by Pat Buchanan; ‘State of Emergency’). They are moving not to the suburbs as before but to other states and regions in search of white destinations.

And what is true of the USA is also true of Britain. At a conference on race organised by the committee of Racial Equality in 2006, Trevor Phillips its Chairman spoke of a crisis as white minorities bolt from ethnic areas, and warned of the emergence of separate and isolated communities.

Few want a country where people of different ethnicities travel in separate seats on buses or who use different public facilities and so on. And few want to live in a country where people feel they are forced to live Apartheid style in different areas. But that is the country that Harriet Harman and her ilk are creating with their fatuous, anti –human, oppressive and evil ‘Progressive’ policies of ‘reason.’

The BNP is realistic about race and ethnicity in a way that Liberal progressives of whatever party can never be because their whole ideology is based on the Marxoid illusion that we can and will treat people who are totally different from us racially, culturally and religiously in the same way as those we share these things with and whom inevitably we love better as a result. And it is in the end kind, not cruel, to be realistic.

Technorati Tags: , , ,