Racists!

“Racist” is a term used to demonise and dehumanise BNP members as well as intimidate and bully anyone who is considering voting for the party.

I want to explain in more detail how to deal with it.

The problem is that the “BNP are racist” slur is so prejudiced and flippant in itself that it takes a little thinking and patience to show why it is nonsense. Both time and patience are qualities the far left are lacking in, so this argument might best be saved for people worth the effort. Use it with ‘would be’ BNP voters who are scared of being demonised.

Ok so the first line might go like this:

1)   “The BNP are racist”

Ask the person “What is your specific definition of racism?” and wait for a reply or simply give them your own definition, such as this one from my dictionary:

“Discriminatory or abusive behaviour towards members of another race”

and say “Yes I am a racist but so are you and so is everyone else”. When the other person gets defensive, ask then a question such as this:

“You are about to meet three people. You know one is African, one is Chinese and one is Jewish. Which one do you expect to be physically strong? Which one do you expect to talk loudly and smoke? Which one do you expect to be from a rich family?”

We all know the answers any honest person will give. If the other side gets defensive and points out that physical traits are based on scientific fact, then tell them that that is your point! Most prejudices are based on some reality – that is how they get formed in the first place – and we all have prejudices. It’s human nature to form schemas of people and groups, including racial groups. It’s how our brain makes sense of the world around us.

Now you will probably get this follow up:

2)    “But the BNP only allow white people to join. That’s racist.”

Give the person this list:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2007/12/23/is-the-bnp-racist/

and ask them “Why don’t you blame these groups for being racist? Why do people not hate them, protest against them and try to censor them?”

You could get any range of answers, but the truth is that people get more angry about ‘white only’ groups than any other discriminatory group. That in itself is racist. Point this out to the other person. They might try and deny it but they know it’s true, and they know YOU know it’s true!

Reasonable people by now might be convinced, but a loony leftist might give a classic far left follow up:

3)       “The BNP incite racial hate, they increase racial violence, they are Holocaust                               deniers and they are [insert disgusting crime here]”

You could start by being pedantic and pointing out that this is nothing to do with the definition of “racist”.

Then calmly point out that in any civilised country, the law states that credible, verifiable evidence of such claims must be made or the charges are slander and lies.

Ask them for a single shred of statistical evidence that BNP presence increases racial assault. They will not be able to do so (because it’s a lie), and then point out that you CAN prove that racial assaults decreased in Braking and Dagenham after the BNP won a bunch of seats on the council:

When Holocaust denial is mentioned, give them this URL of my blog or just get the facts and supply them yourself:

https://farleftwatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/holocaust-deniel/

Also mention how sad it is that people use such a terrible event and lie about it to score a few points.

If the “Supremacist” charge comes up, again ask for evidence and point out that the real “supremacists” are those who demonise anyone who talks about race or suggests that races are even remotely different. There is no racial supremacy in the BNP constitution, manifesto or membership. Period.

At this point the argument should be over. There is no logical or credible road for the opposition to go down. You have proven the fallacy and hypocrisy of calling the BNP ‘racist’ in the strict definition of the term or the flippant one.

However, hardcore reds will start to foam at the mouth at this stage. Often they will descend into drivel about how they or their friend was attacked by a BNP member (they use this guilt trip because they know it cannot be disproven) , waffle about C18 and ‘Blood and Honour’ and spout general verbosity about “You can say what you want but we know the truth”.

They also like to present the viral list of supposed BNP members who committed violent crimes and also quotes from the BBC’s “BNP: under the skin” pages.

To deal with the list of “crooks” simply point out it’s less than one percent of the party (our membership is way over two thousand people) and ask “Are you such a prejudiced bigot that you would smear an entire group of good people for the actions of less than one percent? Isn’t that very, very, fascist?”

Also use this blog:

http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.com/

or this list:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/LABOUR~39~S_HIDDEN_SCANDAL__-70243.page

and offer to give them the name of one mainstream politician for every BNP name they give you. (If they protest that there are far more members of the mainstream parties and therefore far higher chances of a criminal in the ranks, tell them that if the ratio of BNP crime is as high as they claim, it should make no difference!)

When dealing with the Griffin quotes from the BBC website, simply state “If the BNP are as bad as you say, why is it that the best you can produce is a list of quotes over ten years old that have been frequently retracted? Where is your solid, genuine, verifiable evidence that BNP members are [insert whatever accusation was made here]?”

The nonsense about attacks on friends and B+H can again be dealt with by requests of evidence.

That should be all.

The later points we have discussed should only be required when dealing with fanatics, and remember, it’s not worth time trying to convince the unconvincibles such as the UAF. They are already too lost in hatred and hysteria to see reason so I suggest only debating with them if you really have to. (I must admit though, I am one of the worst offenders in this area though I’m trying to drop the habit!)

These points are best used when dealing with reasonable people and especially “undecided” voters. They are actually worth the time and effort and discussions with them should be done far more amicably.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: