Glenn Beck can’t define white culture


by Sunny
25th September, 2009 at 6:32 pm    

Actually this isn’t very uncommon. When people say that ‘British culture’ or ‘native culture’ is under attack from the ‘multi-culturalists’ – they can never define what they’re supposedly trying to protect, nor give solid examples of what they mean.

I wish someone here put Nick Griffin, or even Richard Littlejohn, on the same spot.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Media,United States






188 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6008


  2. James Graham

    Glen Beck: what a gobsmacking fucktard http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6008


  3. Mark X

    RT @uponnothing: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture http://viigo.im/0ZNq [Alt title: Glenn Beck's a cockend who can't back up his lies.]


  4. Laura Davies

    RT @jamesgraham: Glen Beck: what a gobsmacking ******** http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6008


  5. Naadir Jeewa

    @glennbeck you really fail this time. can’t even define "white culture" http://bit.ly/ndnyB




  1. Frank — on 25th September, 2009 at 6:46 pm  

    I’ll bet you can’t define black or muslim culture either.

  2. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 6:58 pm  

    Never wanted to… or protect them.

  3. Roger — on 25th September, 2009 at 7:02 pm  

    Muslim culture can be defined to a large extent by the injunctions on behaviour imposed by the quran, hadith and traditional interpretations of them. However, British culture would only be a subset of white culture, if such a thing exists, and only if British culture is exclusively white. That obviously isn’t true- the music of the Rolling Stones, strongly influenced by black American musicians, probably is a more important aspect of contemporary British culture than traditional British folksong, presumably almost entirely Caucasian in its origins.

  4. douglas clark — on 25th September, 2009 at 7:03 pm  

    Frank @ 1,

    No, you probably can’t. I am white, and I’ve thought about this a lot, and I haven’t a scooby what constitutes an inclusive British culture.

    I have come to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist.

  5. Left Outside — on 25th September, 2009 at 7:11 pm  

    Queueing? That’s pretty British…

  6. douglas clark — on 25th September, 2009 at 7:23 pm  

    Left Outside,

    That is really sad. It’s like accusing Germans of claiming all the loungers on holiday, which they obviously do.

    See the Brits at a sale, when the politesse becomes a distant memory…

  7. Jai — on 25th September, 2009 at 7:42 pm  

    Muslim culture can be defined to a large extent by the injunctions on behaviour imposed by the quran, hadith and traditional interpretations of them.

    Not always. If you’re referring to the “culture of Muslims” as opposed to “culture originating specifically in Islam”, then the two aren’t necessarily synonymous.

    The culture of Pathans is as heavily influenced by what is known as “Pashtoonwali” as it is by their interpretation of Islam, for example.

    And the historical culture of many Muslims in northern India and some parts of neighbouring Pakistan is heavily influenced by Sufism, which (in those regions) was in turn frequently influenced by centuries of cultural and religious interaction with non-Muslims in the subcontinent, and also often had a very different position when it came to the Hadith, Shariah etc.

    Not to mention various aspects of “Indian Muslim culture” (especially those of aristocratic origin) which were specifically influenced by elements of Persian culture rather than directly by the Quran, the Hadith, and traditional interpretations of them.

    I appreciate Roger’s basic point, and as a broad generalisaiton it’s a relevant one, but from a historical and geographical perspective it’s a lot more complicated than that, especially when you add local traditions & practices (often either pre-Islamic, non-Islamic, or “not-exclusively-Islamic”), cultural and religious syncresis, and various other localised and foreign cultural influences to the mix.

    However, I agree completely with the rest of Roger’s post #3, ie:

    However, British culture would only be a subset of white culture, if such a thing exists, and only if British culture is exclusively white. That obviously isn’t true- the music of the Rolling Stones, strongly influenced by black American musicians, probably is a more important aspect of contemporary British culture than traditional British folksong, presumably almost entirely Caucasian in its origins.

  8. dave bones — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:19 pm  

    That is brilliant. Who ever let that guy on TV deserves a gold star

  9. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:20 pm  

    Anyone else reminded of that scene in Magnolia where Tom Cruise loses it ?

  10. Jai — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:30 pm  

    Let me put it in a more succinct way. If you ask an Indian (or someone of Indian origin) to define “Muslim culture”, in many aspects the description you will get will probably be very different to the response from an Arab person, for example. Beyond the basic religious trappings involving the Quran, Mohammad as a prophet etc, of course.

    It’s one of the dangers of attempting to “define” geographically widespread and numerically very large populations, especially if the reference point is religious affiliation. An accurate analogy would be using the term “Catholic culture”; beyond commonalities involving the Pope, the Bible, Jesus and the Virgin Mary, the actual real-life, on-the-ground culture of the people involved will frequently be very diverse in relation to Catholics from Dublin, Rome, or Rio respectively.

    *******************************

    …..and taking this back to the main article, it goes without saying that “British culture” in 2009 is in many ways very different to what it was in 1909, especially the huge American influence in recent times. Unless someone wants to claim that “British culture” is fundamentally what it was prior to the increase in American influence from the mid-20th century onwards (and it appears to have accelerated during the past few decades)…..but even that would be inaccurate, because Britain was not exactly isolated from the rest of the world at the time and it also makes the false assumption that, historically, British culture was static prior to that point.

  11. Dave Weeden — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:54 pm  

    It’s all very simple. Algebra was invented (discovered?) in India. No one likes algebra, it’s hard. Beck is agin it. The Egyptians built the pyramids. Construction is difficult, dangerous, and physical! Look at Beck, would he work in construction? It’s not what he’s _for_, white culture is what’s left after you take out what he’s against! Repeat…

  12. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:27 pm  

    Yeah, but then calculus was invented by a white German.

  13. douglas clark — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:29 pm  

    Jai @ 10,

    …..and taking this back to the main article, it goes without saying that “British culture” in 2009 is in many ways very different to what it was in 1909, especially the huge American influence in recent times. Unless someone wants to claim that “British culture” is fundamentally what it was prior to the increase in American influence from the mid-20th century onwards (and it appears to have accelerated during the past few decades)…..but even that would be inaccurate, because Britain was not exactly isolated from the rest of the world at the time and it also makes the false assumption that, historically, British culture was static prior to that point.

    Heh, we are the minority, us white folk…

  14. soru — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:16 pm  

    I kind of suspect any Brit who really doesn’t know what British culture is has either never spent 30 minutes in the company of someone from another culture (an American or German will do, even a Canadian at a pinch) or has some kind of crippling social dysfunction that means they are oblivious to 90% of human communication.

    Race and religion has relatively little to do with it: just try talking to someone who doesn’t know the word ‘snog’, waits for a waitress to bring them a drink, doesn’t have an opinion about Amy Whitehouse, or doesn’t get the self-evident fact that a progress meeting (or a firefight) is a perfectly appropriate opportunity to tell a bad joke.

    The exceptions, genuinely different cultural minorities, would be stuff like Romani ‘gypsies’, some of the more hard-core bearded Jews, Welsh speakers (maybe), and _perhaps_ some people right at the centre of the northern Pakistani-origin subcultures.

  15. grapesoda — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:18 pm  

    video is priceless and this guy Glen beck is supposedly the new poster boy of the right wing in america, and one simple question makes him look more of an idiot than he already is!

  16. douglas clark — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:43 pm  

    Soru @ 14,

    Bravo! You have spelt out your opinion, at last!

    I kind of suspect any Brit who really doesn’t know what British culture is has either never spent 30 minutes in the company of someone from another culture (an American or German will do, even a Canadian at a pinch) or has some kind of crippling social dysfunction that means they are oblivious to 90% of human communication.

    Pish.

    Race and religion has relatively little to do with it: just try talking to someone who doesn’t know the word ’snog’, waits for a waitress to bring them a drink, doesn’t have an opinion about Amy Whitehouse, or doesn’t get the self-evident fact that a progress meeting (or a firefight) is a perfectly appropriate opportunity to tell a bad joke.

    I haven’t a clue what you are talking about, do you?

    Thought not.

    The exceptions, genuinely different cultural minorities, would be stuff like Romani ‘gypsies’, some of the more hard-core bearded Jews, Welsh speakers (maybe), and _perhaps_ some people right at the centre of the northern Pakistani-origin subcultures.

    Maybe. But that collective would just show up your prejudices, wouldn’t it?

  17. douglas clark — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:56 pm  

    That is so messed up, as a consequence of your messed up ideas about grammar, or some such, that the idea I wanted to express has become a joke.

  18. douglas clark — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:58 pm  

    Well, who the heck fixed it?

  19. Splintered Sunrise — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:49 pm  

    Or, as Melanie Phillips might say, those damn Muslims want to destroy all the things I hate about Britain.

  20. inders — on 26th September, 2009 at 5:14 am  

    Dangerous game, Sunny.

    There are a small number of British cultures which deserve the respect of admitting they exist even if you don’t believe they need protecting.

    There is British Culture. There is British Culture. There is British Culture. And its not dying and its not static. And its my inheritance as much as much as its any white persons.

    Why does it pain a progressive liberal to admit British achievements in the past? Are you liberal or are you Moaist ?

    As for you exceptionists… those who point to exceptions to ‘prove’ there is no British culture. If you took your reasoning to China or India, or Japan or the United States, or any country on the planet then you’d find that none of them had a culture by your definition. Maybe your definition is wrong.

  21. damon — on 26th September, 2009 at 5:28 am  

    Douglas, I thought Soru made a pretty good case.

    And talking about his ”prejudices” because he talked of Roma, Hasidic Jews, Welsh speakers and some people right at the centre of the northern Pakistani-origin subcultures was completely unfounded I thought. (Though I think that Welsh speakers in Wales are typically British in their culture).

    Why did Americans need to remake the tv show The Office? for an American audience?

    As for Glenn Beck – I don’t know why he bottled it.

    Would it have been so hard to just give examples of ”white American culture” or where it might be said to exist?

    How about in the rural south? Rural anywhere really.
    And remember the culture of the guys in The Deer Hunter? That was a white American culture (of Russian heriatage).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_L3dRWiNlA&feature=related

    Same maybe in Minesota and it’s Scandinavian and German origin farming communities.
    Like in the fictional town of Lake Wobegon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

    Or how about the culture at a Green Bay Packers home game in the middle of winter? Is that a white culture?
    Half of the players are black, but it’s a very white part of the country.

  22. douglas clark — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:48 am  

    damon,

    Soru always makes a very good case. And, half the time I agree with him. I really have thought a great deal about the subject of white culture in the UK, or what it means to be British. And, sadly, whilst you make arguements about the US, they don’t interchange very well across the pond. Indeed we have become so colonised by Americana that that might be the closest we can get to a definition of British culture. Certainly at a political level we haven’t got a foreign policy much beyond ‘do what the Yanks tell us’.

    If you look at the Megrahi case, the more sensational reporting said stuff like ‘UK condemned by world opinion’ when a more accurate headline would have been ‘a few Americans outraged, no-one else cares’.

    Final point on this. It probably is the case that there are things that could be said to be British culture, much like your Green Bay Packers comparator. But there are very few football fans that are completely neutral, so, whilst a Liverpool supporter is also a football fan, he has nowt in common with a Manchester United fan. If it exists – British culture I mean – it exists at a completely fragmented level, where you pick and choose what you want it to be. It seems pretty obvious to me that tolerance of others and intolerance of others are both British traits, so choosing one over the other defines you, it does not define British culture. I happen to be in favour of the EU, Scottish Independence, the UN Declaration on Human Rights and stringing climate change denialists from the nearest lampost. I doubt there is one other person in this country that agrees completely with me on that agenda.

  23. soru — on 26th September, 2009 at 9:09 am  

    ‘whilst a Liverpool supporter is also a football fan, he has nowt in common with a Manchester United fan’

    In which case, I think you have some utterly bizarre definition of the world ‘culture’. Maybe you should back out some of the thinking you have done on this topic and get back to a bit of common sense?

    ‘I happen to be in favour of the EU, Scottish Independence, the UN Declaration on Human Rights and stringing climate change denialists from the nearest lampost.’

    Assuming you are not too literal about the lamposts, those are all pretty mainstream positions in the UK, with majority or large-minority support.

    If you were actually from a different culture, then your politics would be largely based on events, declarations and plans the rest of us had barely heard of, using arguments that didn’t resonate, and immediately struck everyone here as idiotic.

    Sort of like Glenn Beck…

  24. Ravi Naik — on 26th September, 2009 at 10:17 am  

    Yeah, but then calculus was invented by a white German.

    Leibniz contributed immensely to the field of calculus, but there was a massive body of work presented to him that traced all the way to the Indians, including his credited binary system. It would be far more impressive if he had done all those advanced with Latin numbers, if you know what I mean. ;)

  25. Ravi Naik — on 26th September, 2009 at 10:49 am  

    I think there are 3 issues at hand.

    1) Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the BNP and others like them use the word “culture” as an euphemism for “race”. When they say they are against multiculturism and that they want to preserve their cultural identity, what they are really saying is that they are against miscegenation and any sort of measure that puts non-whites in equal standing with whites.

    So, Glenn Beck is not saying that Obama hates white culture… he is saying Obama hates white people.

    2) We know that there is a Chinese culture, an Indian culture, a British culture, a Spanish culture and multiple variants according to local regions. When you have people living together in relatively isolated places, people start talking the same language, producing distinct types of art, having similar customs and values.

    We can define culture in broad terms (language, arts, customs, values), but it doesn’t mean that every individual abide by those parameters.

    3) The real kick though, is preserving culture. You would always need an entity – let’s call it a fascist party – that would be in charge of deciding and enforcing what is part of the culture, and what is not. Tea – and curry – are clearly part of British culture, but they are not indigenous.

    On the subject of Glenn Beck, here is a hilarious video by Stephen Colbert.

  26. chairwoman — on 26th September, 2009 at 11:15 am  

    I am a Jewish Londoner. The Chairman was a (lapsed) Catholic Scouser.

    We found that greater cultural differences were regional rather than religious. 200 miles were greater than 2000 years :) .

  27. Lee John Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 11:48 am  

    If you need to be told what British Culture is then you aint British.

    If you need to define White Culture, or to be correct European Culture, and you cant then you are an idiot.

    If you reject that British Culture exists you aint British.

    If you can say that there are no diffences between Jewish religious culture and Catholic religious culture, you are lying.

    A lapsed catholic has no catholic culture.

    The idea that the British cuppa is the same as the Japanese Tea ritual is total bollocks, and the Curry that we have in Britain, the balti and others, are a result of the British cultural influence on Indian cooking during the Raj – they are uniquely British Cultural variants of Indian cooking. The British went to India and changed Indian cooking and then brought that variant of British Indian cuisine back with them.

    Football is not culture, it is sport.

    Those that define football as culture are idiots.

    The BNP do not use culture as a way to address race, we understand that Race and Culture are different, though linked in that a race produces a culture (NATURE) and that culture impacts on the way the people act and think (NURTURE) within society – change the racial make up of a people by importing in culturally and racially different colonists and you change the culture, and the moment a culture changes via immigration then that cultural distortion undermines the racial and cultural cohesion of the racial group that established the original culture.

  28. PP reader — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:17 pm  

    Lee John Barnes LLB (hons)

    This website’s audience is still waiting for you to clarify your alleged ‘legal credentials’, as per these questions recently presented to you on a previous thread:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177451

    Are you a lawyer?

    Are you gainfully employed?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177411

    Are you a qualified – you don’t seem to be on the roll with the Law Soc?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177472

    You havent answered why you are not on the roll of the Law Society as all qualified solicitors have to be listed. If you are not I am fairly sure that it means

    a) you are not a qualified solicitor or
    b) you have been struck off by the Law Society

    Either answer begs the question as to why you are giving legal advice to the BNP?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177491

    I take it from the lack of response to a simple question of being adequately qualified to do a job that the BNP were not able to recruit any half way decent qualified solicitor to be their legal adviser.

    It begs the question why not.

    It also negates any credibilty of the so called reportededly “legal adviser”

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177493

    Lee John Barnes, Legal Adviser to the BNP

    To add to the post @ 32 as to a few other reasons why a person may not be admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society:

    - no law firm has employed you successfully as a trainee solicitor AND you have not passed the Legal Practice Course (an academic qualification such as a BA in Law or LLB does not suffice though in some few cases you may have worked for a substantial time in a relevant role)

    - activity or background that conflicts with being a solicitor eg criminal activity

    - mental issues

    - conflict with professonal rules of conduct for eg Rule 6 is pertinent here see http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/216.article#r6-01

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177495

    Use of the term Legal Adviser to the BNP:

    Reported references to Lee Jone Barnes as the legal adviser to the BNP is misleading but is used when the person is not a solicitor, barrister or lawyer. The majority of jo public commonly mistake the term legal adviser as meaning that a person is a fully qualified solicitor or lawyer or someone in the legal profession but that is not the case.

    The Law Society watchdog (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) give the following explanantion of which terms can be used:

    1. Lawyer

    Means a member of one of the following professions, entitled to practise as such:

    a) the profession of solicitor, barrister or advocate of the UK;

    b) a profession whose members are authorised to practise by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

    © an Establishment Directive profession other than a UK profession;

    d) a legal profession which has been approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the purpose of recognised bodies in England and Wales; or

    e) any other regulated legal profession which is recognised as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

    2. Lawyer of England and Wales;

    Means a solicitor with a current practising certificate or an individual who is authorised to practise in England and Wales by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but excludes a member of an Establishment Directive profession registered with the Bar Standards Board under the Establishment Directive;

    3. Legal profession – means a profession whose members are lawyers as defined in this rule

    From the above rules (of the country you espouse to be a true member of) you are not even in the legal profession but have to use the term legal adviser to get around that fact. I wonder if BNP members & wider public know that very important distinction?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177496

    ” The day I submit my blog postings as case arguments to a court is the day I will worry about spelling mistakes.”

    Thats not the only thing you, the BNP & members need to worry about.

    Under what regulator/authority are you submitting case arguments in Court? Are you also conducting (unqualified) advocacy for the BNP? What about ‘legal’ advice given behind closed doors? The latter is a nebulous area & may depend on your word against Nick’s – am sure he can be trusted to do the right thing in such a predicament

    I hope the BNP have kept up to date with their Professional Indemnity insurance premiums … that is if the cover includes advice by a non legal professional … if not that may mean members fees may have to cover litigation costs

  29. KS — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:32 pm  

    Lee John Barnes LLB (hons)

    This website’s audience is still waiting for you to clarify your alleged ‘legal credentials’, as per these questions recently presented to you on a previous thread:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177451

    Are you a lawyer?

    Are you gainfully employed?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177411

    Are you a qualified – you don’t seem to be on the roll with the Law Soc?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177472

    You havent answered why you are not on the roll of the Law Society as all qualified solicitors have to be listed. If you are not I am fairly sure that it means

    a) you are not a qualified solicitor or
    b) you have been struck off by the Law Society

    Either answer begs the question as to why you are giving legal advice to the BNP?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177491

    I take it from the lack of response to a simple question of being adequately qualified to do a job that the BNP were not able to recruit any half way decent qualified solicitor to be their legal adviser.

    It begs the question why not.

    It also negates any credibilty of the so called reportededly “legal adviser”

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177493

    Lee John Barnes, Legal Adviser to the BNP

    To add to the post @ 32 as to a few other reasons why a person may not be admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society:

    - no law firm has employed you successfully as a trainee solicitor AND you have not passed the Legal Practice Course (an academic qualification such as a BA in Law or LLB does not suffice though in some few cases you may have worked for a substantial time in a relevant role)

    - activity or background that conflicts with being a solicitor eg criminal activity

    - mental issues

    - conflict with professonal rules of conduct for eg Rule 6 is pertinent here see http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/216.article#r6-01

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177495

    Use of the term Legal Adviser to the BNP:

    Reported references to Lee Jone Barnes as the legal adviser to the BNP is misleading but is used when the person is not a solicitor, barrister or lawyer. The majority of jo public commonly mistake the term legal adviser as meaning that a person is a fully qualified solicitor or lawyer or someone in the legal profession but that is not the case.

    The Law Society watchdog (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) give the following explanantion of which terms can be used:

    1. Lawyer

    Means a member of one of the following professions, entitled to practise as such:

    a) the profession of solicitor, barrister or advocate of the UK;

    b) a profession whose members are authorised to practise by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

    © an Establishment Directive profession other than a UK profession;

    d) a legal profession which has been approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the purpose of recognised bodies in England and Wales; or

    e) any other regulated legal profession which is recognised as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

    2. Lawyer of England and Wales;

    Means a solicitor with a current practising certificate or an individual who is authorised to practise in England and Wales by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but excludes a member of an Establishment Directive profession registered with the Bar Standards Board under the Establishment Directive;

    3. Legal profession – means a profession whose members are lawyers as defined in this rule

    From the above rules (of the country you espouse to be a true member of) you are not even in the legal profession but have to use the term legal adviser to get around that fact. I wonder if BNP members & wider public know that very important distinction?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177496

    ” The day I submit my blog postings as case arguments to a court is the day I will worry about spelling mistakes.”

    Thats not the only thing you, the BNP & members need to worry about.

    Under what regulator/authority are you submitting case arguments in Court? Are you also conducting (unqualified) advocacy for the BNP? What about ‘legal’ advice given behind closed doors? The latter is a nebulous area & may depend on your word against Nick’s – am sure he can be trusted to do the right thing in such a predicament

    I hope the BNP have kept up to date with their Professional Indemnity insurance premiums … that is if the cover includes advice by a non legal professional … if not that may mean members fees may have to cover litigation costs

  30. D-Notice — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:37 pm  

    If you need to be told what British Culture is then you aint British.

    On my dad’s side, my family have lived in Lancashire for about 200 years. However, nobody in my family is able to define or even give examples as to what can be classed as “British Culture”.

    Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that I or someone like me is not British? Really?!

  31. Anas — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:40 pm  

    newton invented calculus!

  32. mindthegap — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

    british culture is so diverse and different no one can pin it down and say right that’s the template for british culture.

  33. chairwoman — on 26th September, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

    “If you can say that there are no diffences between Jewish religious culture and Catholic religious culture, you are lying.”

    “A lapsed catholic has no catholic culture.”

    Did you actually read what I said? I said that geographical differences were greater than the religious ones.

    Because one has rejected the practice of a religion it does not strip one of the culture, particularly when educated by monks for 7 years.

  34. Sim-O — on 26th September, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

    Ok, Lee.

    Just humour me, but what is ‘white culture’? What is ‘British culture’?

    I would like to know so I can join in. It sounds great fun.

  35. David O'Keefe — on 26th September, 2009 at 1:38 pm  

    Ravi- I think Beck made that point perfectly clear when he stated that Obama was a racist and “Hates white people”.

    As for race and culture there is no link. Culture does not remain fixed and permanent it is constantly evolving and changing thanks to communications, trade and the new ideas and people they bring together.

  36. Lee John Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:16 pm  

    Lee John Barnes LLB (hons)

    This website’s audience is still waiting for you to clarify your alleged ‘legal credentials’, as per these questions recently presented to you on a previous thread:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177451

    Are you a lawyer?

    Are you gainfully employed?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177411

    Are you a qualified – you don’t seem to be on the roll with the Law Soc?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177472

    You havent answered why you are not on the roll of the Law Society as all qualified solicitors have to be listed. If you are not I am fairly sure that it means

    a) you are not a qualified solicitor or
    b) you have been struck off by the Law Society

    Either answer begs the question as to why you are giving legal advice to the BNP?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177491

    I take it from the lack of response to a simple question of being adequately qualified to do a job that the BNP were not able to recruit any half way decent qualified solicitor to be their legal adviser.

    It begs the question why not.

    It also negates any credibilty of the so called reportededly “legal adviser”

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177493

    Lee John Barnes, Legal Adviser to the BNP

    To add to the post @ 32 as to a few other reasons why a person may not be admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society:

    - no law firm has employed you successfully as a trainee solicitor AND you have not passed the Legal Practice Course (an academic qualification such as a BA in Law or LLB does not suffice though in some few cases you may have worked for a substantial time in a relevant role)

    - activity or background that conflicts with being a solicitor eg criminal activity

    - mental issues

    - conflict with professonal rules of conduct for eg Rule 6 is pertinent here see http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/216.article#r6-01

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177495

    Use of the term Legal Adviser to the BNP:

    Reported references to Lee Jone Barnes as the legal adviser to the BNP is misleading but is used when the person is not a solicitor, barrister or lawyer. The majority of jo public commonly mistake the term legal adviser as meaning that a person is a fully qualified solicitor or lawyer or someone in the legal profession but that is not the case.

    The Law Society watchdog (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) give the following explanantion of which terms can be used:

    1. Lawyer

    Means a member of one of the following professions, entitled to practise as such:

    a) the profession of solicitor, barrister or advocate of the UK;

    b) a profession whose members are authorised to practise by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

    © an Establishment Directive profession other than a UK profession;

    d) a legal profession which has been approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the purpose of recognised bodies in England and Wales; or

    e) any other regulated legal profession which is recognised as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

    2. Lawyer of England and Wales;

    Means a solicitor with a current practising certificate or an individual who is authorised to practise in England and Wales by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but excludes a member of an Establishment Directive profession registered with the Bar Standards Board under the Establishment Directive;

    3. Legal profession – means a profession whose members are lawyers as defined in this rule

    From the above rules (of the country you espouse to be a true member of) you are not even in the legal profession but have to use the term legal adviser to get around that fact. I wonder if BNP members & wider public know that very important distinction?

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#comment-177496

    ” The day I submit my blog postings as case arguments to a court is the day I will worry about spelling mistakes.”

    Thats not the only thing you, the BNP & members need to worry about.

    Under what regulator/authority are you submitting case arguments in Court? Are you also conducting (unqualified) advocacy for the BNP? What about ‘legal’ advice given behind closed doors? The latter is a nebulous area & may depend on your word against Nick’s – am sure he can be trusted to do the right thing in such a predicament

    I hope the BNP have kept up to date with their Professional Indemnity insurance premiums … that is if the cover includes advice by a non legal professional … if not that may mean members fees may have to cover litigation costs

    What are you – a fucking stalker.

    Mind your own business you nosy twat.

    Who are you ?

    Where do you live ?

    Where do you work ?

  37. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:24 pm  

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/songbirdculture/

    Culture is innate. One wonders where indigenous cultures came from in the first place, such as the peoples in the rainforest, if they dont originate within the genes of those people.

    The idea that Communication, trade and new ideas bring people together is liberal delusion, globalisation causes tribalism.

    One wonders what planet you are living on.

  38. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

    Ok, Lee.

    Just humour me, but what is ‘white culture’? What is ‘British culture’?

    I would like to know so I can join in. It sounds great fun.

    If you need to ask you dont need to know, and we arent interested in inviting you in to it.

    Stick to being a TV baby suckling on the tit of consumerism and fashion, theres a good metrosexual.

  39. Ravi Naik — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

    Ravi- I think Beck made that point perfectly clear when he stated that Obama was a racist and “Hates white people”.

    You are right, David. My point was that when Glenn Beck said that “Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white culture”, he meant race. Which is why ended up calling Obama racist.

    If you need to define White Culture, or to be correct European Culture, and you cant then you are an idiot.

    We would not need to define “White culture” if the BNP was not so keen in preserving it. So let’s have a definition.

    …and the Curry that we have in Britain, the balti and others, are a result of the British cultural influence on Indian cooking during the Raj

    How amusing, and what exactly is the influence of British cooking in India? Do Indians have their version of steak and kidney pie with hot spices? Even tikka massala, which was introduced by Indian cooks in the UK, cannot be found in India. This is a clear case of reverse acculturation: the colonisers adopted elements of the culture from the colonies.

    The British went to India and changed Indian cooking and then brought that variant of British Indian cuisine back with them.

    Did you just say British Indian? I thought the BNP had banned those “horrifying” terms. :)

    The BNP do not use culture as a way to address race,

    Oh, yes it does. The BNP never says: we are against multi-racial societies. Instead, they talk about preserving their identity and against multiculturism. I am sure it is not the French culture or the Scandinavian cultures they are worried about.
    Nick Griffin himself said in a private event in the US that they need to soften their language, and that the use of “race” is off-putting to people, so they need to find alternatives.

  40. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

    “If you need to be told what British Culture is then you aint British.”

    On my dad’s side, my family have lived in Lancashire for about 200 years. However, nobody in my family is able to define or even give examples as to what can be classed as “British Culture”.

    Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that I or someone like me is not British? Really?!

    You and your dad are British.

    The problem is that you are also both thick.

    I blame the education system.

    This is the only country in the world that despises its own culture and denies its own children an identity.

    And you, and your dad, are the result.

    Brain dead Drones.

  41. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    Did you actually read what I said? I said that geographical differences were greater than the religious ones.

    Because one has rejected the practice of a religion it does not strip one of the culture, particularly when educated by monks for 7 years.

    Go to Jerusalem and say that to an Arab Christian, an Arab Muslim, an Israeli Jew and an American Zionist all living in that same city.

    Spare me your idiocy.

  42. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:33 pm  

    british culture is so diverse and different no one can pin it down and say right that’s the template for british culture.

    You dont even know what British culture is you idiot, because the teachers in your retarded schools didnt teach you it and thats why you cant define it.

    You are a drone – a cipher inculcated with the transient cultural toxins of consumerism and globalism.

  43. Ravi Naik — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:39 pm  

    You dont even know what British culture is you idiot, because the teachers in your retarded schools didnt teach you it and thats why you cant define it.

    Define it, Mr. Barnes. And “you just know it” is not an answer.

  44. Sim-O — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:40 pm  

    So this ‘British culture’, thing? Invite only now, is it? Who controls the invites? Are they plus 1′s?

    What, exactly, are you supposed to be defending? What do you think is under threat? Morris Dancing? Aunt Sally? what is it that we are about to lose?

  45. Anas — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:42 pm  

    You are a drone – a cipher inculcated with the transient cultural toxins of consumerism and globalism.

    Oo-er what charm school did you go to Lee?

  46. Ravi Naik — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:46 pm  

    The BNP wants to preserve British identity: what exactly do you want to preserve, Mr. Barnes? Since you say it is not about race or racism, and it is all about culture… then let’s have some answers.

    …and the Curry that we have in Britain, the balti and others, are a result of the British cultural influence on Indian cooking during the Raj

    How amusing, and what exactly is the influence of British cooking in India? Do Indians have their version of steak and kidney pie with hot spices? Even tikka massala, which was introduced by Indian cooks in the UK, cannot be found in India. This is a clear case of reverse acculturation: the colonisers adopted elements of the culture from the colonies.

    The British went to India and changed Indian cooking and then brought that variant of British Indian cuisine back with them.

    Didn’t your masters forbid you to use terms like “British Indian”?

  47. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:50 pm  

    Lee Barnes, comment 35:

    “Culture is innate. One wonders where indigenous cultures came from in the first place, such as the peoples in the rainforest, if they dont originate within the genes of those people.”

    Lee Barnes, comment 39:

    “You dont even know what British culture is you idiot, because the teachers in your retarded schools didnt teach you it and thats why you cant define it.”

    Culture is either innate and originates in the genes or you have to be taught it. It can’t be both.

    You’re not very good at this.

  48. chairwoman — on 26th September, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

    Anas @ 42 – Tut, tut. Surely you can’t possibly think that this gentleman, this product of centuries of British culture would need the good offices of a charm school.

  49. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

    Culture is either innate and originates in the genes or you have to be taught it. It can’t be both.

    You’re not very good at this.

    You really are thick arent you.

    The INNATE culture of Britain has been replaced by GLOBALISM AND CONSUMERISM and alien cultures – that is why the INDIGENOUS cultures of Britain need to be taught to our kids so they have a British cultural identity rather than the one where they have now which is a plastic liberal cultural identity where the consumer tribes of reebok and nike listen to american rap and talk in a fake jamaican patois.

    British kids of all races are denied a British identity, and thats why so many are total ‘Ali G’ type wankers and Vicki Pollard type sluts in our country, innit man ya nowz wat I iz sayin.

  50. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

    Surely you can’t possibly think that this gentleman, this product of centuries of British culture would need the good offices of a charm school.

    I was raised on a working class council estate, went to a comprehensive school in the 1980′s run by NUT lefty wankers and was taught nothing about British culture – though lots about slavery, civil rights struggle in America, the evil Nazis and taught to have white guilt and self loathing for being white.

    What do you expect.

    I dont do charm – I do the truth.

    Spare me your middle class, chin wobbling, liberal appeasing, white self loathing shit.

  51. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

    Whose genes do “GLOBALISM AND CONSUMERISM” (is there any reason we need to shout these?) come from?

    “that is why the INDIGENOUS cultures of Britain need to be taught to our kids so they have a British cultural identity rather than the one where they have now which is a plastic liberal cultural identity where the consumer tribes of reebok and nike listen to american rap and talk in a fake jamaican patois.”

    If Britsh culture was innate (when you say ‘British’, you mean ‘white’, right?), kids wouldn’t be doing this stuff would they? They’d be having singalong knees-ups round the piano and troughing jellied eels because that’s what’s hardwired in their genes. Except it isn’t.

    And you’re assessment of what kids get up to is a rubbish caricature anyway. Some kids act like that, others don’t.

  52. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:17 pm  

    The BNP wants to preserve British identity: what exactly do you want to preserve, Mr. Barnes? Since you say it is not about race or racism, and it is all about culture… then let’s have some answers.

    …and the Curry that we have in Britain, the balti and others, are a result of the British cultural influence on Indian cooking during the Raj

    How amusing, and what exactly is the influence of British cooking in India? Do Indians have their version of steak and kidney pie with hot spices? Even tikka massala, which was introduced by Indian cooks in the UK, cannot be found in India. This is a clear case of reverse acculturation: the colonisers adopted elements of the culture from the colonies.

    The British went to India and changed Indian cooking and then brought that variant of British Indian cuisine back with them.

    Didn’t your masters forbid you to use terms like “British Indian”?

    You really are brainwashed arent you.

    The word ‘Curry’ is a TAMIL word not an Indian word for a start.

    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080903134741AA1Hfe5

    The other theory is that Curry is named after a British general in the Raj ;

    http://www.greatbritishkitchen.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=52

    The adding of spices to stop the taste of rancid meat to make a ‘curry’ was due to British soldiers in the Raj ;

    Goan food is based on the Portugese influence ;

    http://www.indianetzone.com/39/portuguese_influence_on_indian_food.htm

    You people really do need to read more.

    Chicken Tikka Masala is a British dish, not an Indian dish ;

    http://www.menumagazine.co.uk/book/tikkamasala.html

    So is a Tandoori.

    So Is Butter Chicken.

  53. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:23 pm  

    Even if you’re right, and all Indian cuisine is the way it is because of British or Portuguese influence – then we’ve changed that culture, haven’t we? Which would prove that culture isn’t innate, wouldn’t it?

  54. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:23 pm  

    If Britsh culture was innate, kids wouldn’t be doing this stuff would they? They’d be having singalong knees-ups round the piano and troughing jellied eels because that’s what’s hardwired in their genes. Except it isn’t. And you’re assessment is a rubbish caricature anyway. Some kids act like that, others don’t.

    Listen idiot – if this country hadnt shipped in millions of colonists who have culturally contaminated our society and also globalism and consumerism had not added to the breakdown of indigenous British culture, then yeah – they probably would be sitting around the piano and eating jellied eels in the East End.

    Instead the East End is now a colony of Pakistan and they sit around talking in Urdu, wearing Pakistan national dress and going to the mosque whilst marrying their cousins back in Pakistan. There are virtually no indigenous British left in the East End and virtually no British culture.

    How very British.

  55. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:26 pm  

    Christ almighty its like debating with 5 year olds.

    ” Even if you’re right, and all Indian cuisine is the way it is because of British or Portuguese influence – then we’ve changed that culture, haven’t we? Which would prove that culture isn’t innate, wouldn’t it? ”

    The presence of British people and British culture changed India and Indian culture – the innate Indian culture was changed – and the same thing is happening in the UK today.

    The innate culture of India was warped by the presence of the British Empire.

    The innate culture of Britain has been, and is being, warped by the presence of immigrants into the country.

  56. inders — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:27 pm  

    TAMIL is spoken by the TAMIL people who live and originated in India and spread to Sri Lanka and Singapore.

  57. inders — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    Spice has been heading west long before soldiers went east to secure it. Your culinary version of history is not convincing.

    You do not mention the effect upon British Culture by the British being in India and coming back. Read White Mughals.

    Also your vision of culture as being a monolith structure, fixed and immovable is laughable. You talk as if the Victorian / Swinging 20s / post war consensus / Modern 50s / Swinging 60s / Glam 70s eras would have lasted forever if no immigrants had arrived. The largest mover of modern British culture have not been immigrants at all. Whose food, dress, films, books, news, history, festivals, words do we all ingest/consume/ape today ?

  58. Sim-O — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    “The innate culture of Britain has been, and is being, warped by the presence of immigrants into the country.”

    And what exactly are these immigrants stopping you doing? What bits of ‘British culture’ can you not enjoy because of the presence of these people?

  59. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    .

    Multi-culturalism has destroyed British culture.

    Rather than assimilation, multi-culturalism allowed colonisation.

    At the same time, in order to ensure the indigenous British were unable to resist this process of colonisation and de-culturalisation it used the rhetoric of racism and stopped teaching kids about British culture and stopped giving our kids a sense of British identity. This left them defenceless and unable to organise a community to resist this process of multi-culturaism and mass immigration.

    These were crimes against humanity – the deliberate displacement of an indigenous people via immigration and the deliberate destruction of our national cultural identity.

    You people are the fascists – not us.

  60. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

    Spice has been heading west long before soldiers went east to secure it. Your culinary version of history is not convincing.

    ###### Its not my history you moron – its history.

    You do not mention the effect upon British Culture by the British being in India and coming back. Read White Mughals.

    ###### thats bloody obvious isnt it. We should never have had an Empire. I have never supported Empire, primarily as my ancestors were left to rot in slums in Ireland and the East End whilst the Raj built palaces for potentates. I have never defended Empire. I am a NATIONALIST.

    Also your vision of culture as being a monolith structure, fixed and immovable is laughable. You talk as if the Victorian / Swinging 20s / post war consensus / Modern 50s / Swinging 60s / Glam 70s eras would have lasted forever if no immigrants had arrived. The largest mover of modern British culture have not been immigrants at all. Whose food, dress, films, books, news, history, festivals, words do we all ingest/consume/ape today ?

    === Of course culture progresses – but they were all BRITISH evolutions of British culture, endogenous cultural growth as opposed to exogenous cultural contamination.

    There has been little immigration = but there has been plenty of COLONISATION.

    The fact is that films are from hollywood. the books published by global corporations. the history peddled by leftists and liberals fixated with PC and multi-culturalism. Festivals run for profit by corporations. These are all cultural poisons ingested by our people. There has been technological progress but cultural contamination.

    If we had demanded immigrants assimilate into British culture, rather than allowing them to colonise this country at the same time as destroying our own culture and denying our own people their culture, then that would have been far better.

    Multi-culturalism has been a total disaster.

  61. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 3:59 pm  

    Lee, you need to read up on what innate means and what it means for things to be hardwired in the genes. Seriously – that’s not just a snarky quip.

    “The presence of British people and British culture changed India and Indian culture – the innate Indian culture was changed – and the same thing is happening in the UK today.”

    If ‘Indian culture’ was changed by the presence of British culture then it cannot have originated in the genetic make up of the people. If culture has genetic origins, the only way to alter it is to alter the genes in which it originates. The only way your argument would work is to argue that the presence of British culture in India, or GLOBALISM AND CONSUMERISM in Britain has actually altered people’s genetic make-up.

    Stupid, no?

    The trouble is, you and the BNP want to have two mutually exclusive things at once. Which is just one reason why your arguments don’t withstand scrutiny.

  62. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    The innate culture of Britain has been, and is being, warped by the presence of immigrants into the country.”

    And what exactly are these immigrants stopping you doing? What bits of ‘British culture’ can you not enjoy because of the presence of these people?

    The removal of the right to free speech in case of ‘racism’.

    I can no longer say what I want to say in my own country.

    The colonisation of vast swathes of this country where indigenous British people are a persecuted minority.

    The imposition of political correctness.

    The tyranny of Multi-culturalism.

    The slow death of a thousand cuts every day by new laws to remove British rights and liberties.

    Terrorism.

    Islamist violence.

    Suicide bombings.

    The importation of diseases such as TB and aids.

    Foreign crime gangs and immigrant crime.

    Immigrant crime, gun crime etc.

    Drug importation. Opium isnt grown in the UK nor cocaine.

    Colonisation has turned Britain into a hell hole.

    We can no longer be British in our own country.

    And to be honest the unassimilated colonists are not the problem, they are merely a symptom – the real problem are the white liberal and leftist scum that created the problems in the first place by opening the borders and inviting the colonists in.

    Colonisation is merely a symptom of a disease, liberalism and multi-culturalism, which are spread primarily by white British liberals.

  63. inders — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

    Now you’re just ranting.

    In a debate its polite to answer the points of the person you’re debating.

    Spice was heading west before soldiers came east. Fact.

    You have not stated the ‘obvious’ changes in culture of Britain influenced by foreign subjects of the crown during the imperial era 1612 to 1953. Would you like me to ?

    The modern period of immigration cannot be in any way termed as colonisation by any known definition of the word colony. How and why are you using the word colonisation?

    Jazz, free love, rock and roll, are not British endogenous cultural growth. I state again hoping for recognition of point and/or rebuttal by argument. The largest mover of modern British culture has not been immigration.

  64. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

    If ‘Indian culture’ was changed by the presence of British culture then it cannot have originated in the genetic make up of the people. If culture has genetic origins, the only way to alter it is to alter the genes in which it originates. The only way your argument would work is to argue that the presence of British culture in India, or GLOBALISM AND CONSUMERISM in Britain has actually altered people’s genetic make-up.

    Stupid, no?

    The trouble is, you and the BNP want to have two mutually exclusive things at once. Which is just one reason why your arguments don’t withstand scrutiny.

    Are you really this thick ?

    Culture originates in the genes (NATURE) but is also influenced by social factors that influence a nation and a people eg immigration which imports a new culture into the nation and therefore spreads new cultural ideas into wider society and which change the nature of society (NURTURE). This is because the original culture of the indigenous people is then warped by the presence of a new people who impose their culture in that nation. Then the presence of the two peoples creates a cultural clash – as the presence of a new culture impacts upon the original culture.

    Culture arises in a people, but it evolves in relation to the cultural and social influences within that nation and culture.

    Culture is a dynamic, for we are influenced not just by nature but also by nurture.

    Therefore those in an evolving endogenous culture, if they encounter a new culture, then are influenced by it – nurture – in many ways.

    Culture is natural, but may be influenced by nurture eg education, multi-culturalism, propaganda etc etc.

    Who we are is influenced by what we are taught.

    A multi-cultaral society transmits cultural values which warp the indigenous culture, and as people are able to be influenced by nurture as well as nature, then a change in the nature of the culture changes the nature of the people – not on a genetic level, though miscegination has a massive effect, but on a cultural level.

  65. inders — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:22 pm  

    Belief that race dictates behaviour or culture = racism.

  66. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:28 pm  

    You have not stated the ‘obvious’ changes in culture of Britain influenced by foreign subjects of the crown during the imperial era 1612 to 1953. Would you like me to ?

    ### where have I ever said that I have supported any foreign influence. I am a nationalist, not an internationalist. I have stated I regard Empire as a disaster. Any such influences I regard as pernicious.

    The modern period of immigration cannot be in any way termed as colonisation by any known definition of the word colony. How and why are you using the word colonisation?

    #### are you kidding. The movement of millions of foreign immigrant populations into the UK who have retained their original culture and identity and who have created mono-ethnic colonies in our territory by displacing the indigenous inhabitants whilst retaining cultural links to their home nations. COLONISATION.

    Jazz, free love, rock and roll, are not British endogenous cultural growth. I state again hoping for recognition of point and/or rebuttal by argument. The largest mover of modern British culture has not been immigration.

    ########## are you kidding. Why the hell would I support jazz, free love and rock and roll. They are alien and degenerate cultural forms, symptoms of a dying British culture. They are cultural poisons. Immigration combined with multi-culturalism = colonisation. Technology in an endogenous culture creates a progressive British culture. Technology in a multi-culutural society and colonisation equate to the death of Britain and British culture.

  67. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

    Belief that race dictates behaviour or culture = racism.

    I WIN.

    I CLAIM VICTORY UNDER GODWINS LAW.

    The use of the word Nazi, or its little sisters Racist or Racism, all apply equally in relation to Godwins Law.

    Another defintion of racism just been invented eh. Idiot.

    Belief that race dictates behaviour or culture = reality.

    Belief that nurture influences behaviour of culture = reality.

    Nature and Nurture both influence Culture.

  68. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 4:58 pm  

    Godwins Law should be expanded to include a new variant – The Racist Variant.

    The Racist Variant is based on an individual calling another person a racist or accusing them of racism.

    Whilst Godwins Law applies to the words Nazi or Hitler, The Racist Variant should apply to the use of the terms racism or racist when in a similar online debate scenario.

    I suggest that the use of the Racist Variant be thus – when accused of being a racist / racism the person so accused states first that Godwins Law is now in effect and then that the Racist Variant has been brought into play.

    This would allow Godwins Law to evolve, and to allow the Racist Variant to be used to define an increasing tendency to avoid the use of the word ‘nazi’ or Hitler precisely due to the effect on popular consciousness of Godwins Law.

    Perversely Godwins Law has ensured that the use of words ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ has been reduced and therefore has allowed in the abuse of the words Racist / Racism in online debates as a way to avoid the problem of falling foul of Godwins Law.

    The Racist Variant therefore is an organic growth of Godwins Law reflecting the fact that it has undergone evolution and that Godwins Law has had an effect on popular culture.

  69. Don — on 26th September, 2009 at 5:09 pm  

    Lee,

    #65

    That was a genuinely interesting insight into your thinking.

  70. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    “The use of the word Nazi, or its little sisters Racist or Racism, all apply equally in relation to Godwins Law. ”

    Another definition of Godwin’s Law has just been invented, eh?

    Not a new definition of racism though. From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

    “racism

    • noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.”

    You seem to want to diallow references to racism in relation to behaviour that actually meets the dictionary definition. Political correctness gone mad.

  71. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

    Lee @65:

    We can’t proceed any further unless you define what you think British culture is, and what elements of it you think are genetic.

    Spouting rubbish about needing a definition meaning you’re not British or something is nothing more than a lame dodge.

  72. Don — on 26th September, 2009 at 5:25 pm  

    Lee,

    You say that British Culture should be taught, so at least sketch out in broad terms what you think that curriculum would involve.

    If it’s anything like the old ‘This is Britain’ piffle I used to have to push at the British Council years ago it will likely be a flop. Perhaps you have a more viable definition.

    If you do, you seem shy of giving it.

  73. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

    British culture is defined as much by what it is as what it isnt.

    It isnt the EU, UN, WTO consumerism, Islamism, German culture etc etc ad infinitum.

    So what is British culture ;

    British culture is the sum total of the organic, endogenous folk cultures of the folk nations of the British Isles. Culture derives from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate ” therefore signifying that culture is an organic manifestation of the inner nature of the people who inhabit the British nation and who create British culture. British Culture is therefore the outward manifestation of the inner nature of the British peoples. British Culture and British ethnicity are linked.

    It is also the set of shared British attitudes, common values, shared goals, the common ways of life and social and community practices of the British people and the British Nation.

    By Nation I refer to the concept of a nation as a body of people, the indigenous British peoples, who share a common history, culture, language, racial and ethnic origin and who have inhabited the British Isles for thousands of years.

    British culture incorporates the indigenous Folk cultures and ancestral traditions of Britain – Welsh, Scottish, Anglo-Irish, Anglo-Saxon English

    It also includes ;

    The British Constitution

    The British legal system

    British Art

    British History

    The English language and indigenous languages

    Architecture from Stonehenge to St.Pauls Cathedral

    Druidism, Odinism, the traditionalist Church of England and Celtic Christianity

    British inventions and technology

    This is not an exhaustive list.

    I do not define culture as ‘high’ or ‘low’, working class or aristocratic – I see British Culture as a totality not as a set of social divisions.

    It is the consciousness of the self as a component of the nation, an organic connection to the past and ancestors and a sense of a shared destiny in the future as regards the evolution of the nation.

  74. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    Multi-culturalism should be scrapped and assimilation made compulsory.

    Those who are Naturalised British Citizens must surrender their dual nationality status, if they have it, and assimilate totally into British culture.

    Those loyal to other nations, and not totally loyal to the UK eg Zionists, must be deported.

    All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

    The fact that we allow colonists to live in our nation on the basis of Separate Development, such as during Apartheid, is shameful.

    Assimilate or leave.

    All British children must become culturally British.

    All British children have a consciousness of being culturally British that transcends religion, class, race or ethnicity.

    Ethnic British children must be as culturally British as Naturalised British children.

    Immigrants must come into Britain to assimilate, not to colonise or impose their minority demands on the majority.

    Personal loyalty to religions etc will become secondary to loyalty to Britain and British culture.

    To be allowed to come into this nation and join our national community is a great honour, and therefore we expect those into invited into our national community to honour Britain and respect British culture.

    They gain the benefits of Britain and being British – a welfare state, the NHS, British liberties, legal rights, the rule of law, democracy etc – things that are the basis of personal freedom and which are sadly missing across most of the world.

  75. MaidMarian — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:05 pm  

    Lee Barnes – Or to cut down on the windbaggery.

    I think that what you are saying is that ‘Britons’ are white, ‘British’ may be other than white. But – of course you assiduously avoid terms like, ‘not white’ and make a very clever use of non-race terms. Every credit to you for that.

    You want to ram your a priori moral condemnations of the ‘others’ down the collective throat. To hell with what anyone not Lee Barnes thinks.

    Presumably, this is your, ‘British liberties, legal rights, the rule of law, democracy.’

    That’s what you are getting at – right?

  76. Ravi Naik — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:09 pm  

    All British children must become culturally British. All British children have a consciousness of being culturally British that transcends religion, class, race or ethnicity.

    Why do you need to distinguish between indigenous and non-indigenous… if all that matters is British culture?

  77. Don — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:13 pm  

    Culture derives from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate ” therefore signifying that culture is … Etymological origins are a notoriously bad starting point for defining current concepts.

    British history, art and architecture should certainly be taught. I’m less sure that Odinism is any part of a British culture that I recognise. Druidism is pseudo-culture at its most ridiculous. That you would seriously present these as key components of British culture weakens your case.

    shared British attitudes, common values, shared goals You would need to show what these are and how they are distinct from those of any other country.

    I’m as British as you are, Lee. (I’m also as British as Jai, Ravi, Faisal, Douglas and Chairwoman but I can see how that would not sit right with you.) But what goals and values do we share that I don’t share with my counterpart in anywhere else you care to name?

    an organic connection to the past

    I’ll grant you that. I can look at a landscape and know that my ancestors shaped it, enter an ancient church and know (atheist though I am) that distant family worshipped there and celebrated birth and death in its precincts, I can see tattered banners hanging and know that my ancestors fought beneath them. I can know that and value it.

    I just don’t think anyone is trying to take that away from me. And if some of those who fought beneath those banners or who are buried in that landscape are not ‘indigenous’ then I don’t feel they are diminishing anything about myself or my culture.

  78. MaidMarian — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    Ravi – I think he means, ‘non-indigenous,’ as code for, ‘non-white.’

    Every credit to the man – he is a master of euphemism.

  79. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:42 pm  

    Why do you need to distinguish between indigenous and non-indigenous… if all that matters is British culture?

    Because the basis of multi-culturalism is the awarding of privileges to the non-indigenous, and removing the rights of the indigenous in order to accommodate the demands of the non-indigenous.

  80. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 7:49 pm  

    I think that what you are saying is that ‘Britons’ are white, ‘British’ may be other than white.

    ##### being white is incidental to being British. Eastern Europeans are white, but they are not British. Whiteness is an irrelevance to the issue of indigenous, just as blackness is incidental to indigenous africans.

    But – of course you assiduously avoid terms like, ‘not white’ and make a very clever use of non-race terms. Every credit to you for that.

    #### There are many ethnic groups of many nations who are white – they are not indigenous British, therefore your fixation with ‘white’ reveals more about you than what I think.

    You want to ram your a priori moral condemnations of the ‘others’ down the collective throat. To hell with what anyone not Lee Barnes thinks.

    ###### When did multi-culturalism ever care what I think. Therefore as the interests of my national community were secondary to the interests of the multi-culturalists, and the colonists that took advantage of multi-culturalism, then why should I care what they think or want. They shall reap the same intolerance as they have expressed to me and my fellow nationalists.

    Presumably, this is your, ‘British liberties, legal rights, the rule of law, democracy.’

    ##### Everything we do will be done in accord with a democratic vote and the rule of law. Ever heard of Parliamentary sovereignity. We intend to enact a nationalist counter revolution to reverse the multi-cultural revolution.

    That’s what you are getting at – right?

    #### Read whats written, dont project your delusions onto me.

  81. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:03 pm  

    Culture derives from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate ” therefore signifying that culture is … Etymological origins are a notoriously bad starting point for defining current concepts.

    ###### without the logical basis of etymological origins, a concept has no meaning.

    British history, art and architecture should certainly be taught. I’m less sure that Odinism is any part of a British culture that I recognise. Druidism is pseudo-culture at its most ridiculous. That you would seriously present these as key components of British culture weakens your case.

    #### I never said teach them, I said accept them as manifestations of British culture. Contemporary British culture regards Islamaphobia as a crime, yet doesnt even recognise the existence of the indigenous folk religions of Britain. That is wrong.

    shared British attitudes, common values, shared goals You would need to show what these are and how they are distinct from those of any other country.

    ### Sure, but to do so would take an inordinate amount of time. so cant do that now.

    I’m as British as you are, Lee. (I’m also as British as Jai, Ravi, Faisal, Douglas and Chairwoman but I can see how that would not sit right with you.) But what goals and values do we share that I don’t share with my counterpart in anywhere else you care to name?

    ######## How about an awareness of the reality that to be British means abandoning multi-culturalism and their ancestral cultures in order to preserve British culture – are they prepared to sacrifice their ancestral cultures to save British culture, and if they arent then how can they call themselves British ?

    an organic connection to the past

    I’ll grant you that. I can look at a landscape and know that my ancestors shaped it, enter an ancient church and know (atheist though I am) that distant family worshipped there and celebrated birth and death in its precincts, I can see tattered banners hanging and know that my ancestors fought beneath them. I can know that and value it.

    I just don’t think anyone is trying to take that away from me.

    ####### If you think that, then you really havent been paying attention to what multi-culturalism has been doing. You see the world through the lens of liberalis, a soft fuzzy world of liberal pre-conceptions, take them off. See Britain as it is and as it is becoming, not as you are taught or wish it to be.

    And if some of those who fought beneath those banners or who are buried in that landscape are not ‘indigenous’ then I don’t feel they are diminishing anything about myself or my culture.

    ###### The tiny number of immigrants mainly from the British Commonwealth, British by culture, Christian by religion, who came here because they loved the mother country and wanted to defend it are numbered in around a hundred thousand, such as the Jamaicans who came here during the 1950′s. They came here to assimilate and because they loved Britain and British culture. You cannot compare them to the colonists, the Islamists, the criminals and the economic migrants who have been allowed to enter this nation over the last three decades.

    To compare the latter to the former is not just factually false but also grossly insulting to them.

  82. PP reader — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:10 pm  

    If you do, you seem shy of giving it.

    Lee John Barnes certainly seems very shy about clarifying the specifics of his alleged legal credentials and explaining the reasons that he is not registered with the Law Society, as indicated by his conspicuous silence in response to the series of questions by Don and Persephone which were quoted in comment 28.

  83. Roger — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:17 pm  

    “I think that what you are saying is that ‘Britons’ are white, ‘British’ may be other than white.”
    Britons were white. Britons were also Celtic. There have been no Britons for over a thousand years. British is a very different thing.

    “If you ask an Indian (or someone of Indian origin) to define “Muslim culture”, in many aspects the description you will get will probably be very different to the response from an Arab person, for example. Beyond the basic religious trappings involving the Quran, Mohammad as a prophet etc, of course.”
    It is precisely the basic religious trappings and behaviour I’m talking about, Jai. Muslim culture is what remains when the various aspects of cultures of muslims that muslims don’t have in common with other muslims have been taken away. I should have made it plain that I don’t think there is such a thing as an exclusively muslim culture, but i think that what is characteristically muslim to every muslim culture is more easily recognised and restricted than christian culture, even when you include the innovators/post-islamic variants like Ismailis, bahaihs and ahmadiyyas within it.

  84. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:33 pm  

    Lee John Barnes certainly seems very shy about clarifying the specifics of his alleged legal credentials and explaining the reasons that he is not registered with the Law Society, as indicated by his conspicuous silence in response to the series of questions by Don and Persephone which were quoted in comment 28.

    1) Whats your name

    2) Where do you work

    3) Where do you live

    4) Whats your job

    If your not prepared to answer those questions, then just shut the fuck up you boring gobshite cunt.

  85. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:34 pm  

    Lee,

    You use so many words, and say so little. It’s still impossible to know what you mean by British culture, because you’re all over the place. Saying British culture includes British art tells us precisely nothing, because it’s the ‘British’ we’re asking about. How can it include Christianity? Most of your argument is little more than an extended No True Scotsman fallacy.

    Also, nothing on your list has a genetic origin.

    You contradict yourself right, left and centre. My favourite one is in your comment at 73. You say:

    Those who are Naturalised British Citizens must surrender their dual nationality status, if they have it, and assimilate totally into British culture.

    Those loyal to other nations, and not totally loyal to the UK eg Zionists, must be deported.

    All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

    The fact that we allow colonists to live in our nation on the basis of Separate Development, such as during Apartheid, is shameful.

    Assimilate or leave.

    And then, you finish off with saying that the benefits of being British are “things that are the basis of personal freedom and which are sadly missing across most of the world.”

    Don’t you understand that saying that at the end of a long list of ways in which you would restrict personal freedom makes you look a bit, well, un-British?

    And I ‘endogenous’ doesn’t mean what I suspect you think it does.

  86. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:36 pm  

    It is precisely the basic religious trappings and behaviour I’m talking about, Jai. Muslim culture is what remains when the various aspects of cultures of muslims that muslims don’t have in common with other muslims have been taken away. I should have made it plain that I don’t think there is such a thing as an exclusively muslim culture, but i think that what is characteristically muslim to every muslim culture is more easily recognised and restricted than christian culture, even when you include the innovators/post-islamic variants like Ismailis, bahaihs and ahmadiyyas within it.

    So Islam is more important to Muslims than Britain, being British and British culture.

    Yes or no.

    Loaylty to Islam supersedes British citizenship, correct ?

  87. Ian Appleby — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:36 pm  

    This is fascinating stuff, Lee. Out of interest, how far back do we need to look in order to find this British culture you mention that hasn’t been corrupted by the twin demons of globalism and consumerism (apologies if I haven’t done full justice to your rhetoric)?

    Also, while I’m on, are national cultures monolithic, or is there scope for heterogeneity within British (for example) culture?

  88. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:44 pm  

    Lee,

    You use so many words, and say so little. It’s still impossible to know what you mean by British culture, because you’re all over the place. Saying British culture includes British art tells us precisely nothing, because it’s the ‘British’ we’re asking about. How can it include Christianity?

    Also, nothing on your list has a genetic origin.

    You contradict yourself right, left and centre. My favourite one is in your comment at 73. You say:

    Those who are Naturalised British Citizens must surrender their dual nationality status, if they have it, and assimilate totally into British culture.

    Those loyal to other nations, and not totally loyal to the UK eg Zionists, must be deported.

    All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

    The fact that we allow colonists to live in our nation on the basis of Separate Development, such as during Apartheid, is shameful.

    Assimilate or leave.

    And then, you finish off with saying that the benefits of being British are “things that are the basis of personal freedom and which are sadly missing across most of the world.”

    Don’t you understand that saying that at the end of a long list of ways in which you would restrict personal freedom makes you look a bit, well, un-British?

    And I ‘endogenous’ doesn’t mean what I suspect you think it does.

    —————————————————–

    No, you are an idiot,

    At least Dan has a brain.

    Frankly debating with you is a waste of time.

    Endogenous means “proceeding from within”, the opposite of exogenous, and I mean it as the organic unfolding of a culture. Thats what I mean.

    I blame the education system.

    Does your name, 5 cc, relate to the volume of your skull and brain size ?

  89. Lee Barnes — on 26th September, 2009 at 8:53 pm  

    This is fascinating stuff, Lee. Out of interest, how far back do we need to look in order to find this British culture you mention that hasn’t been corrupted by the twin demons of globalism and consumerism (apologies if I haven’t done full justice to your rhetoric)?

    ##### As I have stated British culture evolves, but the rot started when mass immigration from outside the commonwealth into the UK began, the EU and globalism and consumerism began to impact – I would say 1970 onwards. Sure British culture had been impacted upon by various external influences, but at least the effects of those external influences had not affected British culture to the extent that multi-culturalism has since then. And by the way drop the asinine sarcasm chum. I aint interested in persuading you, your a liberal retard, I am interested only making you realise you are talking shit.

    Also, while I’m on, are national cultures monolithic, or is there scope for heterogeneity within British (for example) culture?

    #### Monolothic relates to something static, as I have stated culture evolves. Therefore to use the word monolithic in relation to culture is idiotic. And I have already stated that British culture is heterogenous, as it incoporates the folk cultures of the folk nations of the British Isles. Did you read that bit or just needed me to explain it you again.

    Would you like me to use a crayon and big letters to make sure you understand it ?

  90. Roger — on 26th September, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

    “So Islam is more important to Muslims than Britain, being British and British culture.

    Yes or no.

    Loaylty to Islam supersedes British citizenship, correct ?”

    Incorrect.
    In fact, it is a British citizen who is admired for saying “Patriotism is not enough.”

    Muslim culture is not exclusive, any more than British culture is- if that can be isolated, as I think muslim or to a less precise degree christian culture- can. There are fixed aspects to muslim culture that there are not to British culture. One of the virtues of British culture for a very long time was that nobody spent their time worrying about what was British culture but just got on with practising british culture. Culture is like prose: you’re much better at it if you don’t know you’re doing it.

  91. 5cc — on 26th September, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

    Lee,

    Using an agressive and insulting persona to distract from the content of other people’s arguments gets boring pretty quickly, and isn’t that convincing. Everyone can see you’ve skipped over everything I’ve said except the thing about the meaning of ‘endogenous’.

    The reason I suspected you didn’t know what the word meant is that you seem to include things that don’t emanate from the British Isles, like Christianity, although you use qualifiers. Does that mean that British rock and roll bands count as part of British culture? How about other bands like UB40 or Cornershop, or artists like Apache Indian?

  92. inders — on 26th September, 2009 at 9:13 pm  

    I think we can all see that 5cc. But let him this opportunity to rant. He unites his enemies with every post.

    People of colour.
    Jews.
    Relgious people.

    All we need to get him on is Jevohahs witnesses, socialists and homosexuals and I believe I can call FULL HOUSE on the entire nazi set.

  93. Ian Appleby — on 26th September, 2009 at 9:27 pm  

    I’m glad to see that good old British politeness isn’t dead, at any rate. I’m not sure I dare ask any more questions, now. Oh, go on then: what’s the difference between persuading me and making me realise, I wonder?

    There’s an interesting debate to be had about nationalism and who acts as the arbiters of authenticity, but you’re clearly much more interested in hurling abuse. So, yeah, if you do respond to this, would you mind using a crayon? That way I won’t worry so much about you doing yourself a mischief.

  94. douglas clark — on 26th September, 2009 at 10:42 pm  

    Lee Barnes,

    I’d like to see any cite whatsoever for culture having a genetic basis. According to this rather interesting article, it can’t even be used to define races, so where does that leave one of the main planks of your arguement?

    http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/a-conversation-about-race/culture/2009/08/confusing-race-and-genetics-no-genetic-basis-for-race/

  95. douglas clark — on 26th September, 2009 at 10:50 pm  

    Lee Barnes,

    Just to save anyone the bother, it was in your post @ 63. Here is what you said:

    Culture originates in the genes (NATURE) but is also influenced by social factors that influence a nation and a people eg immigration which imports a new culture into the nation and therefore spreads new cultural ideas into wider society and which change the nature of society (NURTURE).

  96. damon — on 26th September, 2009 at 11:11 pm  

    Left Outside @ 5

    ”Queueing? That’s pretty British…”

    People in Britain don’t queue so well any more.
    Even in the 1970′s it was a mass bundle to get on the bus outside my school.

    A few years ago at a large Hong Kong bus station in the evening rush hour, I was amazed to see queues for the buses that people might have had to wait three or so busses before they got to the head of the queue. They were so long and orderly that I had to stand and watch.

  97. MaidMarian — on 27th September, 2009 at 12:44 am  

    Lee Barnes – ‘When did multi-culturalism ever care what I think.[sic] Therefore as the interests of my national community were secondary to the interests of the multi-culturalists’

    I honestly don’t know. You will have to ask, ‘multiculturalism,’ about that. I’m not a multiculturalist, regardless of what label you would like to attach to me. I believe that diversity and integration are not exclusive, if that’s what you mean.

    Presumably you are not just trying to smear eveyone who disputes you with the politicised tag of, ‘multiculturalist.’

    You are cleverer than that and have more than such a one dimensional argument, surely? If you want to share it with the group…

    All I know is this: I do not give the product of a gorilla’s vomiting what you think. I’d be grateful if you didn’t project your delusions of your ‘national community’ (whatever that means) onto me though.

    I realise that you don’t care about my gratitude.

    ‘Loaylty to Islam supersedes British citizenship, correct?’ Not always and everywhere – no.

    I have answered your questions – will you answer one for me? Do you masturbate furiously over this website? I just wonder why you put so many words on here.

  98. Dr Anonymous — on 27th September, 2009 at 2:52 am  

    Lee, why do you object more to working class people who have different ideas of their culture than you do to upper class British people are robbing people of all genders, sexualities, ethnicities, and classes except their own, including ‘indigenous’ White British people?

  99. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 2:53 am  

    MaidMarian,

    Just a very late night thought. By putting up with Lee John Barnes here, we are probably performing a public good, in the sense that he is only annoying a small group of people and not the world at large. And, in any case, apart from the insulting stuff, he falls apart under the spotlight. Which is quite amusing. So no high office of state for him then.

    I have a few more questions for him if he wants to hang around, but I’ll leave that for much later on today. There are interesting questions on the subject of lactose tolerance, common linguistic heritage and stuff. However these are not the questions I’d like an answer to.

    Though I would like a reply to my earlier question about genetics and culture, to which Mr Lee John Barnes has singularily failed to reply.

    It is a bit of a gaping hole in his arguement.

  100. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 3:06 am  

    Dr Anonymous,

    Is it coz they is white?

  101. halima — on 27th September, 2009 at 5:55 am  

    “Muslim culture is not exclusive, any more than British culture is- if that can be isolated, as I think muslim or to a less precise degree christian culture- can. There are fixed aspects to muslim culture that there are not to British culture. One of the virtues of British culture for a very long time was that nobody spent their time worrying about what was British culture but just got on with practising british culture. Culture is like prose: you’re much better at it if you don’t know you’re doing it.”

    Quite nicely put i thought. I don’t really see the point of defining any culture in a fixed way – cultures evolve all the time, they’re dynamic, that’s how societies grow. Is it Asian Dubb Foundation that said ‘Culture is always on the move, like migrants walking across the globe’ and I quite liked it, that actually all these migrants moving around the globe enriches our cultures. That’s how all societies have grown i am guessing. It’s not a particularly ‘multiculturalist’ point of view, it’s more a statement about people, society and the way the globe has evolved.

    Still – the reason why we haven’t spent a long time worrying about what British culture is because it’s always been quiet and strong – even if we don’t define it, and that’s the priviledge of cultures that are strong and dominant, they don’t pretty much concerns themselves with self-definition because all other cultures are defined in relation to it.

    Someone famous ( was it Toynbee?) once said culture is the most difficult word in the English dictionary to define – and I hope it stays this way.

  102. Jai — on 27th September, 2009 at 10:35 am  

    The INNATE culture of Britain has been replaced by GLOBALISM AND CONSUMERISM and alien cultures – that is why the INDIGENOUS cultures of Britain need to be taught to our kids so they have a British cultural identity rather than the one where they have now which is a plastic liberal cultural identity where the consumer tribes of reebok and nike listen to american rap and talk in a fake jamaican patois.

    The fact is that films are from hollywood. the books published by global corporations. the history peddled by leftists and liberals fixated with PC and multi-culturalism. Festivals run for profit by corporations. These are all cultural poisons ingested by our people. There has been technological progress but cultural contamination.

    Why the hell would I support jazz, free love and rock and roll. They are alien and degenerate cultural forms, symptoms of a dying British culture. They are cultural poisons. Immigration combined with multi-culturalism = colonisation. Technology in an endogenous culture creates a progressive British culture. Technology in a multi-culutural society and colonisation equate to the death of Britain and British culture.

    Multi-culturalism should be scrapped and assimilation made compulsory…..Those who are Naturalised British Citizens must surrender their dual nationality status, if they have it, and assimilate totally into British culture…..

    All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

    Assimilate or leave……All British children must become culturally British.

    All British children have a consciousness of being culturally British that transcends religion, class, race or ethnicity…..Ethnic British children must be as culturally British as Naturalised British children.

    These statements by Lee John Barnes are relevant to the following questions, especially questions 65-73.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4850

    Social and legal impact of a BNP government (cont…)

    55. What percentage of a non-white British citizen’s legal testimony will be deemed equal to the testimony of one white/Caucasian British citizen?

    56. Will non-white British citizens have the legal right to prosecute white/Caucasian British citizens, and if so, under what specific conditions/restrictions?

    57. Will non-white British citizens have the legal right to defend themselves against prosecution by white/Caucasian British citizens, and if so, under what specific conditions/restrictions?

    58. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian candidates over non-white candidates for job vacancies in the private sector?

    59. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian employees over non-white employees when individuals are being assessed for promotion, team composition, or workload assignment in the private sector?

    60. Exactly how would a BNP government ensure the continued viability and competitiveness of British private companies nationally and (subject to global sanctions and trade embargoes) internationally if the primary criteria in relation to points 58 and 59 is race, rather than qualifications, background, skillset and performance?

    61. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian clients/customers over non-white clients/customers when professional services are being provided by individuals and companies in the private sector?

    62. Exactly how would a BNP government ensure the continued viability and competitiveness of British private companies nationally and (subject to global sanctions and trade embargoes) internationally if the primary criteria in relation to point 61 is race, rather than business & financial benefit?

    63. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian patients over non-white patients in relation to healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, dentists and pharmacists) in both the public and private sectors ?

    64. What level of formal & informal monitoring and direct involvement by a BNP government would be required in order to facilitate and enforce the policies referenced in points 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63?

    65. Upon the election of a BNP government, exactly what kind of formal, organised nationwide protocols does the BNP have planned in order to manage the severe impact on British popular culture as a result of the United States terminating and prohibiting the transmission or import of any American services or products pertaining to the American media or entertainment industries?

    66. Correspondingly, will a BNP government impose a pre-emptive or retaliatory ban on the viewing, import or acquisition of any literature, films, music, or other media from the United States and other countries hostile to the BNP’s policies and ideology?

    67. Will a BNP government ban members of the British public from reading, viewing or listening to any literature, films, music, or other media involving and/or produced by non-white people in Britain, the United States, or any other countries?

    68. If the answers to points 66 & 67 are “Yes”, exactly what level of government involvement in the private lives of British citizens does the BNP foresee in order to enforce these prohibitions?

    69. Upon the election of a BNP government, will any existing material in the private possession of British citizens which falls within the categories described in points 66 & 67 need to be compulsorily surrendered to the government and related authorities?

    70. Will a BNP government destroy any existing material currently in the public & private spheres and/or archived documents, artefacts and/or evidence if the aforementioned items are deemed to contradict or undermine the BNP’s policies and ideology?

    71. Will a BNP government re-write any historical, academic and/or scientific material deemed to contradict or undermine the BNP’s policies and ideology, specifically in relation to a) British, European and global history during the recent, medieval, classical and ancient periods, b) race, and c) genetics?

    72. Will a BNP government declare any literary, artistic, journalistic, academic, scientific, or corporate material produced by non-white people in Britain, the United States or other countries prior to the election of a BNP government as being intrinsically without merit in its respective fields, and if the answer is “Yes”, will this material subsequently be destroyed?

    73. Exactly how will a BNP government implement and enforce the huge levels of surveillance and intervention which will be required in order to prevent any kind of electronic communication domestically or (especially) with counterparties based in international locations involving British civilians which potentially involves discussions and/or the transmission of material contradictory to the BNP’s policies and ideology?

  103. Lee Barnes — on 27th September, 2009 at 11:11 am  

    The reason I suspected you didn’t know what the word meant is that you seem to include things that don’t emanate from the British Isles, like Christianity, although you use qualifiers. Does that mean that British rock and roll bands count as part of British culture? How about other bands like UB40 or Cornershop, or artists like Apache Indian?

    ######## here we see the last desperate card of the liberal argument – they cant play the ‘curry card’ any more as I have showed you that chicken tikka masal is British ( re jack straw) so we get UB40, cornershop and Apache Indian, amongst the most shit bands in the history of music as evidence of the superiority of multi-culturalism. Christ, you must be desperate. I see your Apache Indian and raise you suicide bombings, honour killings, muti murders, child exorcism murders and female gential mutilations.

    As I have stated the christianity of Britain is Celtic Christianity and the Church of England, both unique indigenous variants of the Christian faith – are you really as thick as you seem Mr. 5cc skull volume ?

    I have answered your questions – will you answer one for me? Do you masturbate furiously over this website? I just wonder why you put so many words on here.

    ########## what are you a pervert ? Do you get off imagining me knocking one out, you sick wench.

    Lee, why do you object more to working class people who have different ideas of their culture than you do to upper class British people are robbing people of all genders, sexualities, ethnicities, and classes except their own, including ‘indigenous’ White British people?

    ####### It appears that once again we have someone projecting their own views rather than reading mine. I object to the erosion of British culture and cultural relativism. In this country British culture comes first. You want to live in a Muslim culture, then move to a Muslim nation. There are liberal idiots in all classes, not just the posh and the poor.

    Though I would like a reply to my earlier question about genetics and culture, to which Mr Lee John Barnes has singularily (sic) failed to reply.

    ####### I have answered previous questions re genetic and culture. I have read your posts and not one asks a question, as you assert, about genetics and culture (unless you are douglas clark as well as maid marian) Can you read the previous posts or are you having on of your onanist fantasies again ?

    Also please do not encourage Jai by responding to his questions, as he obviously has some mental health issues and suffers from ‘BNP Autism’ and therefore replying to his endless lists of questions( re Dustin Hoffman in Rainman) merely encourages him to continue.

  104. Jai — on 27th September, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    Druidism, Odinism, the traditionalist Church of England and Celtic Christianity

    As I have stated the christianity of Britain is Celtic Christianity and the Church of England, both unique indigenous variants of the Christian faith

    All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported……

    Assimilate or leave…..All British children must become culturally British.

    The statements above by Lee John Barnes are relevant to the following questions:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4869

    Religious impact of a BNP government

    74. During an interview on Sky News with Adam Boulton in June 2009 shortly after the relevant elections, Nick Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, upon the election of a BNP government, will it be legal to build new non-Christian places of worship?

    75. Will it be legal to maintain existing non-Christian places of worship or will they be a) allowed to fall into disrepair or b) destroyed?

    76. What will be the official BNP policy towards non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens who have adopted other religions (eg. Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or any others) or are the children of such individuals?

    77. Will the individuals described in point 76 be “encouraged” to re-convert to Christianity or will they be subject to either voluntary or compulsory repatriation?

    78. If the answer to the first question in 77 is “Yes”, exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “encourage” non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens to re-convert to Christianity?

    79. What will be the official BNP policy towards Christian, agnostic or atheist white/Caucasian British citizens who wish to convert to a non-Christian religion – will this be explicitly prohibited or “discouraged”?

    80. Exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “discourage” conversion to non-Christian religions amongst the individuals described in point 79?

    81. Under a BNP government, exactly what will be the punishment for apostasy amongst Christian white/Caucasian British citizens?

    82. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by Queen Elizabeth II or (upon her death) her successor in her/his formal capacity of Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith?

    83. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by any members of the clergy comprising the Church of England?

  105. Jai — on 27th September, 2009 at 11:45 am  

    Druidism, Odinism, the traditionalist Church of England and Celtic Christianity

    All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

    Assimilate or leave……All British children must become culturally British.

    As I have stated the christianity of Britain is Celtic Christianity and the Church of England, both unique indigenous variants of the Christian faith

    The statements above by Lee John Barnes in relation to the BNP’s stance on religion are relevant to the following questions:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4869

    Religious impact of a BNP government

    74. During an interview on Sky News with Adam Boulton in June 2009 shortly after the relevant elections, Nick Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, upon the election of a BNP government, will it be legal to build new non-Christian places of worship?

    75. Will it be legal to maintain existing non-Christian places of worship or will they be a) allowed to fall into disrepair or b) destroyed?

    76. What will be the official BNP policy towards non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens who have adopted other religions (eg. Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or any others) or are the children of such individuals?

    77. Will the individuals described in point 76 be “encouraged” to re-convert to Christianity or will they be subject to either voluntary or compulsory repatriation?

    78. If the answer to the first question in 77 is “Yes”, exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “encourage” non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens to re-convert to Christianity?

    79. What will be the official BNP policy towards Christian, agnostic or atheist white/Caucasian British citizens who wish to convert to a non-Christian religion – will this be explicitly prohibited or “discouraged”?

    80. Exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “discourage” conversion to non-Christian religions amongst the individuals described in point 79?

    81. Under a BNP government, exactly what will be the punishment for apostasy amongst Christian white/Caucasian British citizens?

    82. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by Queen Elizabeth II or (upon her death) her successor in her/his formal capacity of Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith?

    83. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by any members of the clergy comprising the Church of England?

  106. soru — on 27th September, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

    You seem to want to diallow references to racism in relation to behaviour that actually meets the dictionary definition.

    http://xkcd.com/261/

    As the the general discussion: the culture of a fascist britain that, in the style of some third world dictatorships, was obsessed with concepts of ‘organic, endogenous folk cultures’ would be a pretty interesting thing, if it existed.

    It would naturally be so very different from current British culture, though presumably it would retain some features. It would take a genius sc-fi novelist to even portray convincingly what such a thing would be like, let alone how it could possibly come into place.

    No doubt it would suck to live there.

  107. Ravi Naik — on 27th September, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

    here we see the last desperate card of the liberal argument – they cant play the ‘curry card’ any more as I have showed you that chicken tikka masal is British… As I have stated the christianity of Britain is Celtic Christianity and the Church of England,

    Your arguments are truly self-defeating. You claim that culture has innate qualities produced by genetics, and yet we know that “tikka massala” and Christianity are not indigenous, but were brought to England by foreign people. Both Christianity and tea originated from non-European cultures and from non-Europeans, and become ingrained in British culture and its history. The fact is that those ancient indigenous people that the BNP keeps talking as a reference, didn’t grow tea plantations, didn’t have spices to make curries, nor did they pray to a Semite God. Isn’t that right, Mr. Barnes?

  108. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 1:28 pm  

    Lee Barnes.

    You haven’t provided anything other than your own assertions. It is your assertion specifically about the relationship of genetics to culture that I have asked you to provide evidence for. I’d like to see some links to something other than your own opinion on the subject.

  109. Lee Barnes — on 27th September, 2009 at 2:20 pm  

    As the the general discussion: the culture of a fascist britain that, in the style of some third world dictatorships, was obsessed with concepts of ‘organic, endogenous folk cultures’ would be a pretty interesting thing, if it existed.

    It would naturally be so very different from current British culture, though presumably it would retain some features. It would take a genius sc-fi novelist to even portray convincingly what such a thing would be like, let alone how it could possibly come into place.

    No doubt it would suck to live there.

    ##### Actually it sucks to live in this nation at the moment under the jackboot of political correctness, multi-culturalism and cultural relativism.

    Britain doesnt have a culture, at the moment – it has an ‘Anti-Culture’.

  110. Lee Barnes — on 27th September, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

    Your arguments are truly self-defeating. You claim that culture has innate qualities produced by genetics, and yet we know that “tikka massala” and Christianity are not indigenous, but were brought to England by foreign people.

    #### well thats a start. That must have hurt admitting that eh.

    Both Christianity and tea originated from non-European cultures and from non-Europeans, and become ingrained in British culture and its history.

    ##### correct. But the British dont wear Kimono’s and undertake hour long tea rituals like the Japanese do they you idiot, and both the Japanese and British drink tea. Both the Japanese and British have evolved their own unique cultural versions of how to use tea. The point I have been making all along is that Britain has evolved its own culturally British variants of these things, in a uniquely British way. The creed of the Church of England is not what Christ taught and nor did Christ set up the Church of England – did you know that ?

    The fact is that those ancient indigenous people that the BNP keeps talking as a reference, didn’t grow tea plantations, didn’t have spices to make curries, nor did they pray to a Semite God. Isn’t that right, Mr. Barnes?

    #### Ravi, you obviously arent clever enough to get the point that each culture, when faced with something new eg tea or indian spices, will evolve its own cultural manifestation of that new thing eg the British cuppa as opposed to the Japanese tea ritual and the chicken tikka masala as opposed to the Indian cuisine – an endogenous culture absorbs new forms and makes them uniquely British.

    Multi-culturalism has killed British culture and therefore it now allows immigrants to impose their alien cultures as alien cultures in our nation – and that colonisation and British de-culturalisation process must be resisted.

  111. Lee Barnes — on 27th September, 2009 at 2:33 pm  

    Lee Barnes.

    You haven’t provided anything other than your own assertions. It is your assertion specifically about the relationship of genetics to culture that I have asked you to provide evidence for. I’d like to see some links to something other than your own opinion on the subject.

    Did the German resistance movement allow Hitler to define what they believed.

    Did the soviet dissidents in the Soviet Union allow the Communists to define what they believed.

    Why should I allow the apologists, proponents and slaves of the present system define what I think ?

    I think for myself and define what I think for myself, I dont need the validation of traitors or whores to tell mewhat I think or whether what I think is acceptable.

  112. D-Notice — on 27th September, 2009 at 3:06 pm  

    You haven’t provided anything other than your own assertions. It is your assertion specifically about the relationship of genetics to culture that I have asked you to provide evidence for. I’d like to see some links to something other than your own opinion on the subject.

    Did the German resistance movement allow Hitler to define what they believed.

    Now THAT’s a Godwin, Lee!

  113. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 3:24 pm  

    Lee Barnes @ 108,

    Thank you for clarifying your position.

    I think for myself and define what I think for myself, I dont need the validation of traitors or whores to tell mewhat I think or whether what I think is acceptable.

    Fascinating. This gives you the complete freedom to say absolutely anything about anything whatsoever, without evidence, without logic, without sense to be honest. It would therefore be impossible to discuss anything with you ’cause you’d just make stuff up on the spur of the moment.

    This is no way to conduct a debate Lee Barnes. As far as I am concerned, absent evidence to the contrary, at least one of the major ‘pillars’ of your philosophy is unsupportable. Kind of makes the foundations wobble, doesn’t it?

    As far as I can tell no-one has established a link between genes and culture. Fortunately, looking into this was a useful way of spending a few hours.

  114. Lee Barnes — on 27th September, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

    As far as I can tell no-one has established a link between genes and culture. Fortunately, looking into this was a useful way of spending a few hours.

    As far as YOU can tell, oh well thats it then I quit nationalism and will become a multi-culturalist.

    I am convinced.

    I think simple reality proves that culture arises as a result of genes. Heres a thought experiment.

    A ship is wrecked on an island. The adults all die. Only small children survive.

    Would they develop no culture, or would a culture arise as a result of their genes ?

    If not as a result of their genes, how else would culture arise ?

    Would that culture be similar to the one they left if the environment was the same as the one they left ?

    I posit it would. Not exactly, but similar.

    You can take the European out of Europe, but not the European genes – they remain the same wherever he is.

    Our genes define us, so why not our culture as well ?

    You are correct I have breached Godwins Law.

    But as I had too, my mea culpa is forgiveable.

  115. Lee Barnes — on 27th September, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

    This is no way to conduct a debate Lee Barnes. As far as I am concerned, absent evidence to the contrary, at least one of the major ‘pillars’ of your philosophy is unsupportable. Kind of makes the foundations wobble, doesn’t it?

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    just as ten years ago the notion of racial differences was repudiated – and then capitalists discovered a whole new economy – pharmacogenomics – and all of a sudden race exists and racial differences are valid science.

    I guess the lefty and liberals just aint looked for the link yet, because they dont want to find one.

  116. Dr Anonymous — on 27th September, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    ####### It appears that once again we have someone projecting their own views rather than reading mine. I object to the erosion of British culture and cultural relativism. In this country British culture comes first. You want to live in a Muslim culture, then move to a Muslim nation. There are liberal idiots in all classes, not just the posh and the poor.

    Well that last sentence is worth discussing because it’s almost true. I’m just wondering why you’re not a social democratic or socialist idiot rather than a communal fascist idiot. There are multiple responses to liberal idiocy, if that’s what you think it is (I happen to think multiculturalism without a class analysis is kind of dumb).

    For example, one could support all kinds of White British cultural elements of all classes and at the same time promote tolerance and pluralism of different kind of people. It’s not rocket science, but it does involve acknowledging that difference is important but at the same time recognising that people are equal.

    of course none of this is going to sink in because your racism is more important to you than other people’s lives – both White british and nonWhite british. And that is the greatest failing of far right politics and why it’s so useful to people who want to keep people who are struggling to make ends meet divided and focused on things like whether chicken tikka masala is ‘British’ or ‘Indian’ rather than whether they have enough money to pay their bills at the end of the month.

  117. Dr Anonymous — on 27th September, 2009 at 4:58 pm  

    Our genes define us, so why not our culture as well ?

    Why do identical twins differ from each other despite having the same genes?

  118. soru — on 27th September, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

    A ship is wrecked on an island. The adults all die. Only small children survive.

    Would they develop no culture, or would a culture arise as a result of their genes ?

    That’s rather like the plot of Terry Pratchett’s Nation

    The answer he provides is that the survivors would remember some things, import some techniques, reinterpret some myths, rediscover some others, and just plain make some stuff up. Which is different only in degree from what happens every generation.

    Later historians would presumably see an unusually big and fast cultural change at that point, and maybe deduce that was the result of either a natural disaster or extremist political regime.

    One thing to understand is, that when Lee is talking about ‘genes’, he very likely doesn’t mean what a scientist would understand by the term, but some kind of mystical organic Reichian life force energy. Not a morally neutral arrangement of amino acids, but something that adds up to an anthromorphic National Soul.

    Apparently, in his case, Britannia likes curry and hates jazz. But impressions of a non-existent entity do tend to quite a lot between observers: the parable of the elephant and the 5 blind men has nothing on the story of the 5 men who just made shit up…

  119. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 5:20 pm  

    Lee Barnes,

    It is you that is making the extraordinary claims, not me. What is it again? “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? Yes, I think that’s it.

    I’ve at least had a shufty around to see if there was anything to support your hypothesis. There doesn’t appear to me to be. And you haven’t provided anything whatsoever to back it up either. So, unless you can show me something, I’d have to say that is, kind of, a classic fail.

    Ré your desert island scenario, I believe William Golding has tackled that in ‘Lord of the Flies’. Whether he is right or wrong about that I do not know, but he seems to suggest that the most that could be expected is savagery. They would group around the strong and the weak would die. Which seems about right to me.

    How could the environment that they entered, devoid of adult mentoring, be in any way whatsoever the same as the one they had left behind? There would be no prospect of education, no prospect of health care, etc, etc. Come to think of it, there is a pretty good chance that they’d all die off.

    Whilst leftys and liberals might not want to find it, it would be completely wrong to assume that the whole of science and big pharma constitute leftys and liberals. If there was a case to be made for your position, there would be someone wishing to exploit it. That’s capitalism for you!

  120. Roger — on 27th September, 2009 at 6:25 pm  

    “Why do identical twins differ from each other despite having the same genes?”
    They don’t have the same genes, though; they begin with the same genetic potential, but in the course of embryonic development different spontaneous mutations appear in the genes of every child.

  121. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 7:01 pm  

    soru @ 116,

    Ré Lee’s ideas and Wilhelm Reich, I think you are right.

    Apparently, in his case, Britannia likes curry and hates jazz. But impressions of a non-existent entity do tend to quite a lot between observers: the parable of the elephant and the 5 blind men has nothing on the story of the 5 men who just made shit up…

    Heh!

  122. Don — on 27th September, 2009 at 7:05 pm  

    I agree. Very astute point, soru.

  123. Ian Appleby — on 27th September, 2009 at 7:49 pm  

    I think simple reality proves that culture arises as a result of genes. Heres a thought experiment. and some talk of the existence or otherwise of evidence, among many dubious assertions.

    Lee, you are aware that the phenomenon of nationalism has been studied quite closely, aren’t you? That, as well as your, ahem, “thought experiment,” there has been considerable detailed research, which has presented plenty of evidence to suggest that you are plain wrong to argue for the sort of primordial national characteristics you describe. Indeed, for any primordial national characteristics.

    Of course, you’ll no doubt claim the get-out that authors such as Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm are all lefty academics and so aren’t worth engaging with, but their stuff follows the same peer-reviewed scientific research methodology that has resulted in, inter alia, the internet you are currently crayoning all over. Go take a look at their writing (Anthony D. Smith is also worth a look) and then come back to us. Asinine sarcasm aside, I’m genuinely interested what you would make of this.

  124. KB Player — on 27th September, 2009 at 8:54 pm  

    Ré your desert island scenario, I believe William Golding has tackled that in ‘Lord of the Flies’. Whether he is right or wrong about that I do not know, but he seems to suggest that the most that could be expected is savagery. They would group around the strong and the weak would die. Which seems about right to me.

    Lord of the Flies is ridiculous as a study of humankind. There weren’t any girls there or babies, and a big part of humankind is mating and bringing up children, which demands co-operation. All that was shown was that public school boys can act in a very nasty way, which is true enough, and which a hundred biographies have told us anyway.

  125. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 9:46 pm  

    KB Player,

    The whole scenario, as outlined by Lee Barnes, is ridiculous.

    The Lord of the Flies may be ridiculous too.

    But without adult mentoring what is your best idea of the outcome, even with pre-pubescent girls and babies added into the mix?

    I stand by what I said. Everyone dead.

  126. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 9:55 pm  

    I am, of course willing to stand corrected. Has there ever been a real world example of the Famous Five, or something like them, being stranded on a desert island, living together in harmony and producing a high level civilisation to rival Atlantis?

    I’ll await any input.

  127. KB Player — on 27th September, 2009 at 10:15 pm  

    I didn’t read Lee’s “culture in the genes” schtick, so missed the context. There was a Scottish king, James IV, who isolated a couple of kids to see what language they would speak if they heard no-one speak, so were left to make up a language of their own. Probably the poor brats ended up as those feral wolf children you hear about, but a courtier told the king that they spoke Hebrew!

  128. 5cc — on 27th September, 2009 at 10:47 pm  

    Lee,

    “ere we see the last desperate card of the liberal argument – they cant play the ‘curry card’ any more as I have showed you that chicken tikka masal is British ( re jack straw) so we get UB40, cornershop and Apache Indian, amongst the most shit bands in the history of music as evidence of the superiority of multi-culturalism. Christ, you must be desperate. I see your Apache Indian and raise you suicide bombings, honour killings, muti murders, child exorcism murders and female gential mutilations.”

    Massive, massive strawman. I didn’t offer any of these bands as evidence of the superiority of anything. I asked if they qualified as part of British culture. A question you dodged. You seem to like doing that.

    You’re still dodging the point about how all your arguments are nothing but a big No True Scotsman fallacy, and where I point out that you claim that personal freedom is a result of British culture below a massive list of personal freedoms your party would restrict were they to gain power. You’ve also never offered any evidence for your claim about culture having genetic origins. Because it’s rubbish.

    If you can have Church of England Christianity or Celtic Christianity – whatever that is – as evidence of British culture (just to be clear – ‘Church of England’ doesn’t mean Jesus was English) then all those bands you hate are part of British culture, since they’re endogenous to the British Isles and so on, even if their influences originate from outside. But you seem to be defining them as products of Multiculturalism rather than British culture. Here is a definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    All the attempts to distract and dodge with schoolboy insults – not working, I’m afraid.

  129. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 10:49 pm  

    KB Player,

    Yes, thanks for reminding me about that story. I had completely forgotten it.

  130. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2009 at 11:08 pm  

    5cc,

    The cultural influences on what and how we eat have been enormously beneficial over the last fifty years or so. I’d argue, but I’d stand to be corrected, that less than 1% of the population of this country had the faintest idea what garam masala was back then. Or had even a vague accquaintance with Thai cuisine. Or really had an appreciation of Chinese food.

    That is only one sense, taste, that has massively benefited from multiculturalism.

    —————————————

    I have difficulty in understanding what he means about Celtic Christianity too. Perhaps he would like to explain?

    If not, my best guess is that he means Roman Catholicism.

    As nearly everyone in the UK is demonstrably not religious in any meaningful sense, I cannot see how that helps the BNP get votes. Still, you’ve got to believe in something, else they will deport you. I am now the subject of a Lee John Barnes deportation order. It would be fascinating to know who’d be daft enough to take me.

  131. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:48 am  

    #35 “What are you – a fucking stalker.” and “ Mind your own business you nosy twat.”

    PP Reader is within his/her rights to ask and as a member of the public it is his/her business to know. Qualified solicitors in the UK have to be listed on the Law Society website since they are performing a very public role and need to be identified as a solicitor for a number of reasons – one being that the public can check if anyone citing themselves as a lawyer is in effect a bona fide lawyer. You get so many charlatans you see.

    Does LLB (Hons) stand for Limited Legal Brain (Honest)

  132. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 1:05 am  

    All this talk of curry and ‘innate’ culture/behaviour brought to mind Pavlov and how he changed innate responses through conditioning.

    Pavlov proved that he could condition an innate response to food if he associated a particlar stimulus to cause a conditioned response ie dogs began to salivate in the presence of the lab technician who normally fed them. From this observation he predicted that, if a particular stimulus in the dog’s surroundings were present when the dog was presented with meat powder, then this stimulus would become associated with food and cause salivation on its own. In his initial experiment, Pavlov used a metronome to call the dogs to their food and, after a few repetitions, the dogs started to salivate in response to the metronome.

    Don’t know what race or culture the dogs were.

  133. soru — on 28th September, 2009 at 1:17 am  

    In history, Celtic Christianity is pre-Roman Catholic, the religion of St Alban, St Patrick and so on.

    Use of that history has been interesting: these days it is generally code for ‘holds neo-pagan beliefs about life force magic and so forth, but doesn’t want to come over as as much of a wierdo as that would make them sound’.

  134. Boyo — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:05 am  

    Arriving late at this thread, shame – like an invitation…

    If there is no such thing as culture Sunny, why is there multi-culturalism?

    What is Sikh culture?

    What is Indian, Chinese, German, etc? Is there no such thing as French or American culture?

    Did Christian, or Islamic, civilisations never exist? Or was it all just our imagination?!

    The only thing there is definitely not, however, is “white” culture.

    Why do I sometimes think I’m the only non-racist here? ;-)

  135. Boyo — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:17 am  

    What’s interesting of course is the way we mistake attributes for essentials, or symptoms for the disease if you like.

    This was exactly the mistake of multi-culturalism which commonly envisaged the UK as a wonderful synergy of food, colour and clothes without understanding it was always about ideas, which is what made it inherently racist incidentally – the underlying assumption was that “they” would provide the colour in otherwise drab Britain, but “their” culture was plainly inferior so would fit in.

    Culture is really about ideas. The UK has a particular culture shaped by language and history, which meant the specific evolution of Christianity on these Isles toward Calvinism and non-conformism, which sparked the Civil War etc, the consequences of which shaped the way we see the world. The English, for example, have a very different relationship with the law than say the Italians, a new nation oft colonised.

    All these things and more shape British culture, just as different things shape different cultures. One of these is of course complacency, borne from such tremendous success – avoiding invasion for 1000 years and ruling the world on and off. This complacency (along with much else, not least something of an unconscious class conspiracy, another British trait) led us to forget we even had a culture and spawned an industry devoted to its denial.

  136. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 10:41 am  

    “I have difficulty in understanding what he means about Celtic Christianity too. Perhaps he would like to explain?”

    All those hermits and other holy men and women who lived in caves next to Holy Springs and Wayside Shrines, or chose to be walled up, perhaps?

  137. Reza — on 28th September, 2009 at 10:43 am  

    Of course culture exists, and all closely related peoples share, on average, some common national characteristics, cultural traits and values. To say otherwise is stupid.

    But there is no such thing as ‘white’ culture, just as there is no such thing as ‘black’ culture. Unlike those ‘nasty’ racists such as the BNP and those ‘nice’ racists that support multiculturalism, I don’t accept that one’s culture must necessarily be defined by one’s race.

    The difficulty we have defining the indigenous culture of this country is created by the denomination ‘British’, which itself is meaningless.

    There is no such thing as a ‘British’ people just as there is no such thing as ‘British Culture’. The term ‘British’ is an administrative moniker, to describe people who hold a British Passport. At one time, a third of the world was ‘British’.

    But there are English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish peoples and cultures.

    Just as there are Pakistani, Indian, Chinese and Iranian peoples and cultures.

    Within each of these nations, you will have common national characteristics. And yes, those will be broad. But if you took 1000 Ethnic Pakistanis and 1000 white Englishmen living in Yorkshire and compare their average cultural traits and values, you’d find them to be, on average, quite different.

    The self-loathing white Uncle Tom’s of the multiculturalist movement, the far left internationalist socialists and the immigrant communities living on these islands have wittingly and unwittingly made a concerted effort to eradicate the concept of an indigenous culture as a way of furthering their ideological or practical ends.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn understood this process. He wrote: “To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots”.

    I can think of nothing more vile, nothing more offensive, than saying that the rich and spectacular history of the indigenous nations of these Islands has resulted in no definable culture.

  138. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2009 at 10:48 am  

    Ravi, you obviously arent clever enough to get the point that each culture, when faced with something new eg tea or indian spices, will evolve its own cultural manifestation of that new thing…

    Multi-culturalism has killed British culture and therefore it now allows immigrants to impose their alien cultures as alien cultures in our nation

    You admit that part of the “indigenous” British culture (which includes spices, tea, and Christianity) is based on non-European cultures. It did evolve to something that is distinctly British, yes, but it would not have evolve to that stage, if Britain would have been isolated from other cultures and peoples… and then in the second paragraph, you claim that British culture – a product of European and non-European cultures – is under attack by non-British cultures.

    The BNP narrative – and nationalism – is flawed to the core, because it assumes that identity, culture and even race is immutable. And you can’t protect identity, because identity is a collective expression of individuals. Identity is not what it should be, but what is it is in a single point of time and place.

    Christianity was not part of British identity at one point of time, and became one afterwards, Mr. Barnes. And like it or not, British Asians and Blacks are now part of Britain’s identity, even if they weren’t some decades ago.

  139. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2009 at 10:59 am  

    Multi-culturalism has killed British culture and therefore it now allows immigrants to impose their alien cultures as alien cultures in our nation

    Can you give me a single example in which an alien culture is imposed on you? I am sure you are not forced to engage in any culture that it isn’t your own.

  140. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:10 am  

    I like last night of the Poms.
    The Beeb camera searches out any non white face to show how they too are enjoying the last night.

    This is great British Culture and feels like that Christmas at Stalingrad with whitey gathered round singing hymns and thinking of homeland.

    One day I take Mrs Abdul along.

    Peace be upon me.

  141. douglas clark — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:12 am  

    Reza,

    can think of nothing more vile, nothing more offensive, than saying that the rich and spectacular history of the indigenous nations of these Islands has resulted in no definable culture.

    Well, define it then.

    This is something that is so hard to define it would be better seen as a belief rather than anything measureable.

  142. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:36 am  

    Well, define it then.

    Well I often think of the great Bede, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, The wondrous Battle of Maldon, Chaucer and Shakespeare not to mention Dickens Thackeray Trollope and many others.

    Mrs Abdul and I make our beloved children read and memorise every last word when they are not working in one of my businesses that is.

    Be ashamed to say there is no culture. This is why I uproot myself and Mrs A to come here.

    Such talk is no better than rantings of BNP and perhaps a lot worse.

  143. douglas clark — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:42 am  

    Abdul,

    Indeed, how could I have ever have forgotten the great Bede. Game, set and match to you sir!

  144. Rumbold — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:50 am  

    Not the ‘great’, the ‘venerable’. Sorry.

  145. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:50 am  

    I’m going to have a shot at defining British Culture, it probably won’t work, and it will be a list :)

    The Copper Family of Rottingdean, Sussex, singing songs passed down from one generation to another.
    Thatched Cottages
    Gardens planted with native perennial plants and flowers
    Mott and Bailey moated and castellated castles
    Elgar’s Allegro for strings
    Cumberland sausages
    Yorkshire pudding
    Horseradish with roast beef
    Fields separated by hedgerows
    Village greens
    Xenophobia
    Estates with no-go areas
    Benefit culture
    Under-age single mums
    Strikes that achieve nothing but hurt everyone
    Losing gracefully
    NIMBYism
    Jobsworths
    Thinking educated people are ‘stupid’ and/or ‘snobs’
    Milk deliveries
    Cream teas
    Women’s Institute
    Brass Bands
    Legal system
    The Queen

    And it is most certainly incomplete!

  146. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:53 am  

    Damn it Rumbold, I was jut going to say that :)

  147. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:24 pm  

    141
    Mr Clark

    And peace be upon you.

  148. Rumbold — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:26 pm  

    Well, you were too busy dreaming about eating Yorkshire puds on village greens.

  149. douglas clark — on 28th September, 2009 at 1:05 pm  

    OK, Okay!

    Rumbold and Chairwoman,

    I shall now admit to a little fib at 141. It was not that I had forgotten, it was that I never knew in the first place!

    The complete shame of the cultural outsider :-)

  150. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    But would the BNP approve of Bede?

    Bede was a medieval spin-doctor, casting the ‘English’ in a righteous, Catholic Christian role, while the (Celtic Christian) Britons were portrayed as faithless, cowardly and vindictive. Bede is not thought to have held a significant ecclesiastical position or travelled any great distance, he may have never left Northumbria.

    In an overtly nationalistic book in 2002, Peter Ackroyd : “There is clear evidence that the concept of Englishness – the ‘Englishness’ of the Anglo-Saxons, as opposed to the ‘Britishness’ of the Celts – circulated widely in the Anglo-Saxon world. Bede composed Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People), where the ‘Gens Anglorum’ were deemed to be a specific and identifiable race sprung out of Saxon and Old English roots. In Bede’s history, ‘the English were God’s new “chosen” nation elected to replace the sin-stained Briton in the promised land of Britain’.”

    Moffat (2001)thought the transformation of Britain (in part) into England was a lengthy process, during which ‘oral culture became gradually discredited and was replaced with the perceived greater certainties of ink and paper.’ Anglo-Saxon historians such as Bede committed the English version of history to writing. This gave it permanence and authority – an authority that we would rarely give to a book today – and, moreover, ‘the engines of government also came to depend on signed, witnessed and dated texts.’

    And Bede’s approach reminds me of someones elses current tactics as identified by others:

    John (1996): “He shows intimate familiarity with the world of high politics – especially as regards what it was expedient to ignore.” and “The History is in many ways a parochial book, reticent to the point of dishonesty. Bede is a master of the art of conveying a wholly misleading impression without actually telling a lie.

    Within a generation of Bede’s death his writings had been taken en masse to the Continent by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries, and his influence on what was to become Carolingian Francia was immense. In England Bede came into his own with the monastic revival of the tenth century: in the process he ceased to be a Northumbrian writer and became an English one.”

    Bede’s popularity appears to derive from the mere recording of fact (or myth?) and creation of a coherent ‘history’.

  151. Reza — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:47 pm  

    chairwoman @ 143

    What do you think of this ‘list’ for Pakistani culture?

    Curries
    Islam
    Dirty, overcrowded houses
    Wife-beating
    Forced marriage
    Loads of kids
    Voluntary social exclusion
    Low educational achievement
    High unemployment
    Welfare dependancy
    Sense of entitlement
    Victim mentality

    I’ll stop now because that is not a list of Pakistani culture. Mainly, it’s a list of the very worst aspects of Pakistani culture.

    And it’s offensive. As was your list.

  152. Adnan — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:16 pm  

    Reza: Clearly, that list is based upon your opinions or perhaps from those of your decent (“you’re alright Reza, but…”) BNP-supporting employees. It must be so embarrassing for “well-integrated” person like you. Of course you were trying to make a clever point.

    Low educational achievement
    Sense of entitlement
    Victim mentality

    Are these *really* cultural ? They (especially the latter two) certainly apply to many of the BNP folks who visit here.

  153. Azam — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    Reza

    The self-loathing white Uncle Tom’s of the multiculturalist movement, the far left internationalist socialists and the immigrant communities living on these islands have wittingly and unwittingly made a concerted effort to eradicate the concept of an indigenous culture as a way of furthering their ideological or practical ends.

    Since your name is Reza you are clearly of immigrant stock unless you are in fact a ” self-loathing white Uncle Tom”. Actually its clear that you are a white BNP supporter so why on earth are you calling yourself Reza? Just make you look an idiot. Or an Iranian wannabee. Reza is a Persian corruption of an Arabic name. Then again since Iranians are Aryans guess thats cool with you BNP types.

    And you obviously dont know Pakistani culture. If you did you wouldnt have put “Islam” so high up on the list ;)

  154. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:49 pm  

    Reza – there was plenty of good stuff in there as well, or are you one of those people who looks for the worst in everything?

    And 9 of those would be applicable to British culture too. Thanks for jogging my memory.

  155. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:03 pm  

    “And 9 of those would be applicable to British culture too. Thanks for jogging my memory.”

    That was 9 from your list BTW

  156. Inders — on 28th September, 2009 at 9:34 pm  

    The architecture. The music. The art. The poetry. The bill of rights. The Luddites and the trade unionists. The corn laws and their repeal. The magna carter. The cheese. The fish. The language. King Arthur. Robin Hood. The mythologies. The castles. The welfare state and the NHS. The television. David Attenburgh. The plays. The PAYE system of taxation. The charity and the volunteer. The unassuming, tolerant faith. The football. The traveling fair. Speakers corner. Real documentaries and real journalism. The pub quiz. St Pauls Cathedral. Oxford. Bath. The all male choir. The bag pipes. Rugby. Cricket. Custard. The legal system. The police. Brick houses. Double Glazing. National Parks. Woodlands. Nature reserves. Social housing. Stone henge. The sandwich. The pastie. The school uniform. Free education. The defeat of the Armada. The battle of Britain. Blitz spirit. The ease of travel. North Sea Gas. The minimum wage….

    Thats what Britain means to me. A collection of events, things, ways, stories. Culture.

  157. Reza — on 29th September, 2009 at 1:07 pm  

    Inders

    “Thats what Britain means to me. A collection of events, things, ways, stories. Culture.”

    I believe you have it. All these various, sometimes intangible factors combine to create average behaviours or national characteristics. A ‘feel’.

    My wife is from central Europe. My family is Iranian. The ‘feel’ one gets in those societies differs to the ‘feel’ one gets here.

    In central Europe people are, on the whole, more reserved than the English. Iranians are more fiery; on the whole. Yes, there are plenty of extrovert central Europeans and introvert Iranians, but on average, each society has a different ‘feel’.

    Some of the differences in behaviour may seem trivial. For example queuing. The English queue and get cross when someone tries to push in. Iranians don’t queue, and in any bank you will simply see a mass of bodies pushing to the front. No one minds because no one expects anyone to queue.

    However, such a minor cultural difference highlights a major difference in the national characteristic, a difference which carries through to every aspect of that nations common behaviours.

    English culture is a high trust culture. Altruism, following rules and the law is seen as a virtue. Iranian culture is a low trust culture. Following rules and the law is seen as a weakness. Nepotism is a virtue. Your own very close family come first. Other people don’t matter so much.

    So for example, if I mentioned to a group of English friends that I deliberately avoided paying any tax, the chances are those people would be pissed off with me. I’m breaking the rules.

    But in Iran, I would evoke ‘admiration’ because getting away with breaking rules is seen as ‘clever’ in that culture.

    Take the handshake. When doing business with English businessmen a handshake usually means we have a deal. In Iran it means no such thing. The deal is always negotiable until money changes hands.

    It may seem that I’ve been a bit negative about Iranian culture, and on the examples I’ve given, I prefer the English way.

    But there are other ways that Iranian culture is preferable, for example the strong emphasis on family, demonstrating affection to children, respect for old people etc.

    However, all closely related peoples have a culture and on definable average national characteristics. These make a difference to the way that societies function. It is very to create a list of ‘culture’. But anyone who has travelled will understand what I mean when I talk about getting a ‘feel’ for a people.

    That’s culture.

  158. chairwoman — on 29th September, 2009 at 2:00 pm  

    Reza that was a very sweet post, but I am afraid you are looking at the British through rose colourfed glasses.

    I am in my sixties, born here as were my parents and my father’s parents. The England (I include the rest of the UK in that word for speed and ease) that you talk about is one that I grew up in that, I am sorry to say, doesn’t exist any more.

    I laughed when you talked about Brits being upset if you didn’t pay your taxes. Let’s be honest, most people only pay their taxes ‘properly’ because of PAYE. If they had the opportunity to ‘fiddle the taxman’ they would. The majority of Benefit cheats and spongers are indiginous British. It is they who binge drink, have several children by different fathers, and make the streets feel unsafe at night.

    I wish the England you talk about still existed. It was the one I loved and grew up in that I sorely miss. But try as certain political parties do to blame immigrants for these change, these traits have not been picked up from immigrants. The British grew them all by themselves.

  159. douglas clark — on 29th September, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

    Though, it also has to be said, we appear to have hugely beneficial tax arrangements for billionaires who come here…

  160. chairwoman — on 29th September, 2009 at 2:35 pm  

    Don’t we just?

  161. Reza — on 29th September, 2009 at 3:37 pm  

    “I wish the England you talk about still existed. It was the one I loved and grew up in that I sorely miss. But try as certain political parties do to blame immigrants for these change, these traits have not been picked up from immigrants. The British grew them all by themselves.”

    Of course these “traits have not been picked up by immigrants”. But mass immigration, multiculturalism, moral equivalence, anti nationalism and political correctness have all helped eradicate any notion of a British identity.

    These events, with selfish Thatcherism and the internationalist Socialist ideologies infecting the British establishment have eradicated the pride and sense of history and belonging necessary for a society to function.

    People like you, who claim that ‘British’ (I would say English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish) culture doesn’t even exist are contributing to that.

    Britain has transformed from being a nation into being a collection of coexisting ghettos.

    And if that wasn’t enough, the dysgenic affects of welfarism, where the worst parents financially rewarded for having the most children have compounded the problem.

    The indigenous peoples of this country are in distress. Their identity, history, culture and values have been ruthlessly undermined.

    Push a people enough and yes, eventually they fall over.

    But unlike my fellow immigrants here and the self-loathing ‘white’ multiculturalists, I don’t gloat triumphantly about it. I think it’s a tragedy.

    And I know exactly who is to blame.

    Do you ever travel out of our ‘culturally enriched’ metropolitan areas into those rural ‘white flight’ communities?

    You’d be surprised how English culture continues to survive.

    It can be brought back. There is still an English nation. It has a culture, history and values.

    And that culture, that history, those values must permeate throughout our entire social establishment.

  162. douglas clark — on 29th September, 2009 at 4:36 pm  

    Reza,

    You can hardly say that Chairwoman hasn’t attempted to define English culture when it was she who started this idea of a list with her ideas (@ 143, I believe).

    What I find almost poignant about these lists is that they hardly overlap at all. And that they centre around different aspects.

    For you it seems to be about mutual respect, which I obviously admire. But, given that you know someone, it is an almost universal Western European trait, and for all I know respected even further afield, Japan for instance. (I have various apocryphal stories to back that up, though not the latter.)

    Chairwoman largely seems to go with the senses, things that are functions of landscape, up to and including roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. There is nothing wrong with that, I happen to love it too, although not too often thanks! Peppered, obviously, with a dystopian vision of sink estates and single mothers. Is a righteous haarumph! a sense? Well, no, it is an emotion based on a sense.

    Inders, whose list I love, could have bought into any nation on Earth. For all of that stuff is the fabric that we live in, there is nothing essentialist about it. (S)he may, for instance, admire the cheese, and I will surrender to no-one on the idea that mature cheddar is the best in the world, but beyond that I buy Feta (Greek) and, when I can get it, lumps of Parmesan. So, cheese is kind of International, and turophiles, (cheese lovers – I do the work so you don’t have to) are unlikely to see the English Channel as a realistic barrier. What I am saying to Inders is, yes, but…

    It would only be fair for me to put up a list of what I think British culture is all about, but it would be so localist, so personal and so completely at odds with what you think it would be pointless.

    I would say one thing in the defence of all three of you. The tail does seem to be wagging the dog.

    But I put that down to loss of Empire, so there you go.

    “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
    But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

  163. Reza — on 29th September, 2009 at 5:17 pm  

    Culture is not about cheese.

    It is about values and characteristics. It’s about behaviours.

    When I’ve been swimming in central Europe with my children when men and women have thought nothing of undressing in front of their lockers in the communal areas. Their concept of nudity differs to the English concept. In certain Muslim countries, a woman is shorts is offensive to many people. And here, seeing a woman in a niqab is unsettling to many people.

    Saying there is no definable culture or that all cultures and values are ‘universal’ or the same is really stupid. No one who has travelled extensively or spent time in other countries could say such a thing.

    Yes, there are ‘universal’ commonsense values. Don’t steal. Don’t rape. So if we all share these does that mean we’re all exactly the same?

    I was trying to highlight the subtleties that make a people function differently.

    Societies are the result of their culture. The reason that some groups of closely related peoples do better or worse in certain areas is a result of their culture, isn’t it?

  164. douglas clark — on 29th September, 2009 at 5:20 pm  

    And, just in general, but when I go out these days, I see kids of different races, walking to school, holding hands, and their mothers walking behind them, chatting. And if I happen to wander through the town of an evening, I see adolescents of different races holding hands, and looking into each others eyes. And if I stay out a bit later, you’d see adults doing the same. None of this was because I was looking for it. It is just there, obvious to one and all. It is just fucking obvious.

    And no-one was harrassing them.

    It suggests to me that the barriers that all groups want to erect (huh!) are being dismantled as we speak. By people that do not give a monkeys about the barriers anyone else wants to erect (huh!)

    I would find it quite surprising if my city was in any way in the lead on this.

    I’d be interested in anyone else’s view.

    What say you?

  165. douglas clark — on 29th September, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

    Reza,

    Yes, there are ‘universal’ commonsense values. Don’t steal. Don’t rape. So if we all share these does that mean we’re all exactly the same?

    Well, I kind of think that subscribing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is sort of the fundamental minimum. I’d really like folk to subscribe to the European Declaration of Human Rights too.

    That extends, quite a bit, beyond the relativistic viewpoint. It is a declaration! It is a belief!

    It certainly says that there is no moral relativism available. You either stand up for Muslim women that are being butchered by FGM, or you don’t.

    I happen to think that FGM is a crime against sex. I happen to think the bastards that do it ought to be arrested and put in jail. I am no moral relativist.

    But neither does the world hit your button, Reza. It is not the planet you think you inhabit. It is leaving you far behind.

    Thankfully.

  166. Don — on 29th September, 2009 at 6:17 pm  
  167. douglas clark — on 30th September, 2009 at 2:08 am  

    Don,

    Absolutely right. Love that song.

  168. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 4:50 pm  

    Not suprising they can’t define ‘white culture’ – you can’t ‘define’ such things, its a project doomed to failure. For similar reasons, (take note please Sunny) trying to define ‘Britishness’ is just as much doomed to failure.

    You can’t “define” culture – full stop. Though many keep trying. (in the name of ‘holding’ together the group) Its slippery, and it slips out of your grasp. Waste of time. and in the process, one risks becoming community authoritarians.

  169. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    of course the interesting thing is really that what people who go on about britishness really mean is they want to tell the aunties and the community elders to embrace ‘britishness’ . and to stop telling their kids that being british is about ‘white culture’ and that they should stay away from ‘this’ undefined ‘alien other’ thing.

    Yeah sure there has to be some way to combat this forced & crazy brain-washing ‘you are not truly belonging to this country we chose to bring you up in!) – its ridiculous and internalises racial superiority/inferiority complexes – it doesn’t even give the kid a chance to fit into the society it finds itself.

    i’d say instead of “re”-defining britishness to satisfy the aunties, its more useful to get people to be more comfortable to not have this obsessive need to define the group in a tight way. Of course, with Indian aunties obsessed with tight groups, this might be difficult, but that’s the crux of the matter.

  170. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:01 pm  

    Some of you seem to be using the terms ‘white culture’ and British culture interchangeably..do you realise this?

    I suppose this is what gives ammunition to the ‘we need to redefine’ Britishness brigade, sigh!

    fact is though, the people who shout about ‘their’ culture, wanting to ‘enshrine’ “their culture (look at India) are at some level obsessed with trying to assert cultural superiority/cultural ‘distinction’. the people who talk about muslim culture as if there is any such thing, want You to think there is Muslim culture and that They will tell you what it is. this is all very dangerous authoritarian stuff. Bollocks to all of it.

    anyway, this is a very fruitless discussion. Culture changes constantly and can be simply thought of as a bunch of norms. If you go somewhere, and don’t want to stick out like a sore thumb, basic human social psychology means you’ll start behaving in line with those norms. these norms will change over time anyway. people queue here who never would do anywhere else.

    there’s nothing ‘ingrained’ about any of this – its socialisation.

  171. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:08 pm  

    Point is – many such ‘norms’ need to be challenged. When a set of norms have been ‘enshrined’ to belong to some particular group’s “cultural” identity, it becomes very hard to challenge them. As well we know, it becomes hard because people insist you are attacking their cultural identity.

    (When that’s rubbish, what one is challenging is the set of behaviours.)

    remember this people.

  172. douglas clark — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:11 pm  

    Well,

    Y’all will find it next to incredible that I agree with Sonia….

    Well said.

  173. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:25 pm  

    Thank you Douglas.
    well said in 163.

    142 – rumbold – good one :-)

    anyway i don’t know why everyone is making a fuss. Everyone is different and unique and everyone added up together constitutes ‘culture’ – point is it is amorphous and shifts over time, by the time you have put your finger on it, it has changed, prob. because the constituent individuals ‘adding up’ to it have changed. its simply like liquid ink. what’s the big bloody deal?

    of course the problem is when one group wants to assert ‘its’ idea of ‘its’ culture, yet wants to deny/acknowledge other groups are up to the Same Thing. that’s really what we are witnessing here.

    What people fail to realise (and this is not surprising, it takes a lot of self-insight ) is that everyone is unique, and we all have the capacity to do awful things, and great wonderful things and we are not defined by our behaviours, but we can be. We don’t need to have a ‘group’ that limits our behaviours to those ‘enshrined’ by the Group – we need to determine what is right and wrong for our own selves. Duh, that is so obvious. But people are obsesssed with groups aren’t they. by golly

  174. Reza — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:32 pm  

    douglas clark

    Okay. Now I understand your vision for the future. And yes, it sounds nice.

    Over time, we’re all going to mix together as a happy-clappy coffee-coloured nation, all sharing similar values and identity. Sounds lovely.

    Couple of problems. How long do you think it will take for say, the Muslim population to assimilate. 50 years? 500 years? 1000 years?

    Can you think of a single instance both historically and currently where this has happened? Well in over 1000 years Muslims in India haven’t ‘assimilated’. Look at the sh*t that’s caused for that society. What makes you think it will be different here?

    And the second problem is this. While the British are becoming a lovely mixed up coffee coloured nation, is the same going to be happening in Africa? Or the Middle East? Or Pakistan? Of course it won’t. Those countries will remain ethnically and culturally homogenous.

    And what if the migration to Britain from those areas continues? It’s a fact that the more immigrants we have, the more difficult it will be to close our ‘open borders’ to further immigration.

    Our lovely coffee coloured nation will continue to change and change and our society, culture and values will more and more resemble the third world cultures and values of the countries from which immigrants pour in.

    I don’t want that to happen. If you look at any recent opinion poll you’ll see that the majority of British people don’t want that to happen. (I’ll provide the evidence; just ask).

    Yet arrogant, selfish multiculturalists, the left and ethnic communities themselves are preventing the British majority from stopping mass immigration.

    Is it any wonder that support for the far right is growing?

  175. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

    So reza, what do you want to happen then? the point is a bit wider (and more worrying) than you may realise.

    Frankly, thanks to global climate change, this island (among others) is going under water – so unless everyone in London is going to head up to the Penines or high ground, you may well find the shoe is on the other foot. i.e. you need to leave Britain for another State to find shelter. Good luck to you when that happens. (bet that possibility never occurred to you eh?) Ooh britain is as safe as houses! And will always stay that way. Sure honey. luckily for British citizens they might find their movement is less restricted than those others of less fortunate nationality

    This is something globally WE ALL need to address collectively, not just ‘within’ nation-states. The more of an environmental crisis we have, the more people will want to hold on to what they have and not let anyone else in. IF this isn’t recipe for global chaos and disaster, I don’t know what is.

    We need to Wake up and smell the coffee.

    We think our nations are so cosy, so safe. Our only concern is – keep the unlucky ones out! Well – like i said, one day, roles might well be reversed.

  176. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:57 pm  

    But i daresay the short-termist ‘keep our heads in the sand’ lot don’t really want to consider that. Instead, bleat on about culture.

    Mamma mia, what is the world coming to????!

  177. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

    P.S. Reza dear, “Africa” is not a nation and Most Certainly not culturally homogeneous. Neither is the Middle East!

    “While the British are becoming a lovely mixed up coffee coloured nation, is the same going to be happening in Africa? Or the Middle East? Or Pakistan? Of course it won’t. Those countries will remain ethnically and culturally homogenous.”

    I think you might have a point somewhere but you really need to make it in a clearer way. Instead of just a random comparison. What you’re talking about happens more in America – that great bastion of patriotism and conformity – than here. People turn up here and stand up for their rights, so therefore get the point of the idea of a liberal democracy which protects their human rights. That’s something isn’t it – because they didn’t do that in their own countries.

  178. Jai — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:02 pm  

    Well in over 1000 years Muslims in India haven’t ‘assimilated’.

    Apart from the fact that the majority of Muslims in modern-day India are descendents of Indians as opposed to immigrants from outside the subcontinent, implying that those Muslims whose roots lay elsewhere (both amongst the aristocracy and amongst the masses) were not influenced by various aspects of Indian society and culture, and that there was little or no cultural syncretism and assimilation during the course of the last 1000 years, betrays an astonishing level of ignorance of both historical & contemporary Indian Muslim culture and the history of the subcontinent itself.

    Or Pakistan? Of course it won’t. Those countries will remain ethnically and culturally homogenous.

    I expect the residents of the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir, Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier respectively might disagree with being described as “ethnically and [particularly] culturally homogenous”. To say the least.

    As would anyone else with a familiarity with Pakistan.

    In fact, given the proximity of Iran with the subcontinent, and the extensive cultural and historical links between the two regions during the past thousand years, especially from the Mughal era onwards (involving most of northern India and Hyderabad in particular in the south), someone whose origins apparently lie in Iran should be well aware of all this.

  179. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:05 pm  

    Anyway Reza why are you such an alarmist creature? vague discussion of changing “culture” of individuals in a group – is quite different to legal frameworks and institutional structures in place in a country.

    You may well worry about those structures changing for the worse – and it has happened, happens all the time with whichever government is in place – and this is quite distinct i assure you from a bunch of ‘immigrants’ turning up.

    Possibly you’re not sure which battle to fight/where the ‘threat’ is coming from.

  180. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:08 pm  

    Jai – good points! reza’s comments are quite amusing – who is he monolithically referring to as ‘Muslims’ anyway is not clear.

  181. douglas clark — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:10 pm  

    Reza,

    I quite like you.

    And that is on the basis of, what?

    Testing you out on the internet maybe?

    I would have no problem if you moved in next door to me.

    I have said here and there on this internet thingy that I do believe that sex beats religion beats culture, a sort of scissors, paper, string game.

    I have seen nothing that suggests I am wrong about that.

    It is an absolute certainty that our society will evolve. It is what societies do. Stuff old codgers like you and I see as fundamental will be overturned. (Where did you, or I, get our views so widely promulgated, before this internet thingy?)

    The point being that proximity, the fact that you and I can discuss stuff, is likely to lead to us both parting company. It is the nature of the beast. For, if it were not down to the availability of the media, you, and I, would be cocooned in our own, very separate, identities.

    They would not to be up to challenge. They would be open to an immediate and personal reversal.

    I have learned a lot from hanging around here. Not all of which has been comfortable, from my point of view. But it has been a learning process for me, and I respect it as such.

  182. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:13 pm  

    The point about those attracted to the far -right – anway – yes is that they don’t realise how stupid they have been, that they have allowed themselves to be badly governed and not stood up for their rights. That they let ‘class’ get to them and keep them down. So now, sure they’re pissed. And they don’t know who to blame! because most likely they still respect the toffs who were their masters, they have to turn on someone else.

    all they need is a bit of self-esteem really. Not ‘enforced narcissism’. You don’t get self-esteem through making other people look bad, and shouting about how great you are and you were here before, and why haven’t you got anything? you just get over what other people say about you.

    Seriously, Reza, go talk to the far right and tell them this. Ironically of course, the young ‘muslims who won’t assimilate’ have much the same sort of problem. they’re looking to the far-right Islamist crew to sort them out, and some are looking to the BNp.

    bunch of fools the lot of them.

  183. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

    179 – douglas, :-) well said.

    Reza – (like most other humans) seems to suffer from Ontological insecurity. he needs to know that there is something he can do about the direction society ‘appears’ to be going. He simply needs to be aware that this is bigger than ‘what happens in Britain’

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.