racial

Serving justice

EBFBlogger Britain First, Jayda Fransen, Paul Golding , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last month Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, Leader and Deputy leader of Britain First were issued with an interim injunction in the High Court. This forbade them from doing various things including inciting racial or religious hatred and distributing material by electronic or other means likely to incite such hatred.

They have continued to do exactly that,in spite of the injunction.

EBF imprison Paul Golding Jayda Fransen

Ignoring the ruling of the High Court is a very serious offence. It can result in several years imprisonment.

Exposing Britain First believes that the time has come. These neonazis have been inciting racial and religious hatred, radicalising ordinary Brits and generally causing unrest and division within our society for years. Now the time has come to stop them.

We call upon the courts to send a message to Britain First and other neonazi groups by handing out the sentence that these two so richly deserve.

Send them down!

Paul Golding Jayda Fransen prison bars jail

The ‘not racist’ myth

EBFBlogger Britain First, Far right myths, Fascist, Islam, Nazi, Racism , , , , , ,

Britain First’s Biffers love to shout about not being racist. The argument goes something like this…

Islam is a religion. Religions are choices people make. Choices don’t depend upon race. Opposing Islam isn’t racism.

To an extent they’re right. Religions do cross racial boundaries and many non-racists oppose religions for a host of ideological reasons. Many of our own, EBF supporters have made no secret of their opposition to religion, often on the grounds that some religions are themselves quite discriminatory. So it’s certainly true that one can oppose any or all religions without being racist. But….

Opposing religion is one thing. Opposing the people who follow (often are simply born into) a particular religion is quite another.

EBF BF Nazi dehumanisation

This is more than an ideological objection – it’s a form of discrimination. Whether that discrimination is based upon race or religion is less significant than the fact that it is discrimination.

image

The most obvious example of this is the Nazi holocaust against Jews (on both religious grounds and in relation to physical, ‘racial’ characteristics) but there are many others. The atrocities committed both by Muslims and Christians in the former Yugoslavia, the Catholic versus Protestant ‘troubles’ in N. Ireland and the Buddhist persecutions across the Far East are all good examples, not to mention the Christian right’s atrocities in the US and continental Europe. Discrimination and persecution are inexcusable whatever label you choose to give their different ‘flavours’.
image

So if discrimination on religious grounds is just as bad, why do we insist on calling the Biffers racists? The answer to that is easy…. Because they are racists.

Britain First has made it a matter of principle to conflate skin colour and religion. In their world view all Muslims are brown and all brown people are Muslims. It’s a crass over-simplification but it serves their purpose well.

In the above images we saw Biffers advocating the same atrocities committed by the Nazis in Germany and across occupied Europe. In the images below we see the extent of their racism, not only against Asians but against anyone who isn’t both white and Christian.

image

image

To imagine that Britain First isn’t motivated by both religious and racial bigotry is to be very naive indeed.

image

The ‘white genocide’ myth

EBFBlogger Britain First, Fact-checking, Far right myths, Immigration, Propaganda, Racism , , , , , , ,

EBF BF white genocideBritain First are far from alone in perpetuating this particular myth. It’s a myth based upon the fact that most people know next to nothing about genetics and the interaction of dominant and recessive genes to define heritable characteristics and racial types. We don’t plan to lecture anyone on genetics here but it is worth making a few basic points.

Racial type isn’t an all or nothing situation. Each individual physical trait is decided via complex interactions of genes resulting in a range of characteristics. That’s  why children of any couple tend to get ‘their mother’s nose’ or ‘their father’s eyes’, rather than something halfway between the two. Each genetic ‘choice’ is ‘all or nothing’ (like the electoral ‘first past the post’ system) but the number of gene pairs involved is so great that the resulting set of characteristics is almost impossible to predict.

Skin colour is a little different in that there are many different genes that determine pigmentation but it’s still essentially the same idea. Many different gene pairs interact to create the familiar range of colours we see in the modern world. But each gene remains in the gene pool and can resurface in future generations – making the concept of racial genocide via interbreeding a scientific nonsense. To put it another way – it won’t happen. Advantageous genes repeat in the gene pool. In the Northern hemisphere light skins are advantageous and so those genes will persist in those areas of the world (including here in the UK).

But that’s not all that’s wrong about this particular ‘white genocide’ myth. Even though it’s not going to happen. let’s consider the implications of ‘White genocide’ by inter-breeding, just for the sake of argument.

Inter-racial mixing has continued for many hundreds and thousands of years. Ever since Homo sapiens first migrated out of Africa (yes – Africa), the ancestral home of every single modern human, we have evolved, diversified and interbred. Each slight change, each successful evolutionary adaptation has remained in the gene pool only because it was advantageous to the individuals who carried it and by extension to our species as a whole. Just as we wouldn’t feel bad because early Homo neandertalis might lament the fact that very few of their physical characteristics remain in the modern gene pool, why on earth should future generations care if they benefit from subsequent evolution?

Or should we all start protesting about men without unusually broad brow ridges and jutting jaws or refuse to marry women who don’t have even more impractically angled (and potentially fatal) birth canals?

Let’s just put this rubbish in perspective…

Any future improvement in human evolution will be no concern of ours. Just as we don’t care that our brains are bigger than the Neanderthals’, future generations won’t care that a few misguided modern Nazis would prefer them not to have evolved either.