Lets face it I wasnt invited on to the show so that Melanie Phillips (Rabid Zionist and anti-BNP), Kenan Malik (ex-Anti Nazi League and Revolutionary Communist Party and anti-BNP) and Michael Portillo (son of spanish immigrant fleeing from Falangist Spain and Tory MP also anti-BNP) could all be nice to me - I was invited on to the show for good kicking.
I think they thought it would be the equivalent of a midget standing up to Mike Tyson, Lou Ferringo and Arnold Schwarzeneger.
Hopefully I gave as good as I got.
It wasnt about me winning the debate, as I could not do that with the entire panel and adjudicator all being rabid anti-BNP - it simply was about showing we wont put up with being kicked around anymore.
Thi sort of radio is called ' Train Wreck Radio'.
The producer seemed very happy - as I walked out of the studio he came bowling over and shook my hand like firemen in the past used to pump a water faucet when fighting a fire.
Enjoy. Hopefully they wont think we just a bunch of thickos anymore.
P.s. No hard feelings Melanie - perhaps one night we can have a nice meal over a glass of muscatel and have a civil debate and then share a few Ferrero Rochers together ( the ambassador eats them dontcha know ) .
Caio baby.
33 comments:
What gets me, is the way they twist "removing the politically correct strait jacket" into picking on black people ..
Great stuff Lee.
Lee the first feedback i got for your appearence from a friend was this -
"He's really tearing them a new arsehole"
'nuff said!
I think you acquitted yourself very well, Lee.
If I am totally honest with you, I find your blog interesting and I am an avid reader, but I was uneasy about you acting as a spokesman for the party. However you did very well!
I imagine MI5 etc have a list of members, or could have if they wanted, but would they release it into the public domain?'
Yes. It is a way of intimidating our membership and those that have considered joining us. This message has been reinforced by the media coverage.
Politicians and members of the establishment have articulated their concerns about the growth of the BNP, and in today's financial climate they are particularly worried - hence a time for drastic action.
I particularly liked the following (paraphrased):
racism equals prejudice plus power - the BNP have no power and therefore cannot be racist!
"Hopefully I gave as good as I got."
You certainly did, Lee. An excellent performance, well done.
I have just listened to Portillo and have to say he was quite fair, Lee. He described your performance as a witness was 'competent'.
Excellent stuff, Lee, I really enjoyed that. I've never heard you before and I was pleasantly surprised. I think the panel were impressed too, especially Portillo.
Portillo also pointed out that the BN only really want to throw out the new arrivals, I thought that was very good when all else seemed to just want to call us racist!
Michael Buerk stated that BNP could not be in the Army. False?
The Egalitarian Fiction appeared to be implicit across the panel.
Chris Kates stated that racism divides society ignoring the fact that Diversity divides society.
Buerk was neither a Berk nor a Turk and so he will presumably soon be promoted to a Diversity free zone lest the Electorate awake.
In my considered opinion, based wholly and exclusively on ignorance, supposition and wild speculation, Lee John Barnes had an ember of a hope of a reasoned debate which he knew full well would be swamped in a deluge of noise from certain panellists as soon as he spoke.
In my opinion the summing up of the panellists was nonetheless generally agreeable to the position of Lee John Barnes and I would hazard a guess that Lee John Barnes and Melanie Phillips would have few differences if she were not a paid columnist. On this latter assertion, presumably she would take the Fifth?
Links to the other appearances of Lee John Barnes on the wireless?
Might make a change if a police officer was sacked for being a BNP member, and took it to the European couer of human rights.
One of the few people to benefit from the human rights act that hasn't been convicted of any crime.
innocent people using the court of human rights would be the only reason to keep the act.
Well done Lee, I think you done a great job. And considering how daunting it must be entering the heart of darkness, where most people are automatically hostile to you before you even say anything, you expressed yourself brilliantly and assertively! They definitely did not give you a kicking, you landed all the blows!
I think the closing comments about your performance by Portillo were surprising positive and receptive to our message - I would say he and Malik were the most open minded. Melanie Phillips just launched into a preprepared and typical tirade against you without actually listening to what you was saying, so in that sort of situation it's very difficult to get a point across but you managed it. As for the other guy on the panel (not Malik), he would seemingly be happy that anyone who disagrees with his politcally correct views be imprisoned - and they call us the Fascists!
Activity like this actually lets people listen to our message undistorted by the media lie-machine, and I know you will have generated some interest. And I know for definite, in the minds of many listeners, you will have caused some bewilderment - knuckle-draggers aren't supposed to be intelligent and articulate, you will have confused them.
Oh and I love the line by Portillo that you can't find any racist material on our website - that's because we are NOT racists!!!
Excellent job and all the best.
If they bought out a political version of X Factor, you'd have won it on that performance!
The public at large crave politicians and a political party that can deliver results with passion, honesty, integrity, thought and intelligence but without spin or bullshit.
The public need look no further than the British National Party and Lee John Barnes.
Well bloody done Lee, you gave them a proper mauling!
Lee, darling, you left me panting ....
.... and I adore muscatel, dontcha know XXXX
I was impressed by the way you carried this off. Well done!
I'm not a member of any political party and certainly not a regular listener to the Moral Maze (can't stand listening to the Philips woman for starters)
You did well, Lee. Attacked them like a bulldog.
And more rational that the rest put together.
That woman on first from the teacher's union. God, what a div.
Portillo's assessment was pretty fair.
Excellent ! Delivered with passion and honestly, unlike the other guests, no wonder they have the 'no platform' for the BNP, common sense will always win through, i liked they way you answered the questions, i could really feel them trying to gang up on you, but you were strong enough to not let them, and didn't allow yourself to be intimidated, think they got a shock, well done Lee!
I heard about your discussion over at Lancaster UAF so I decided to listen. Surprisingly to me, you didn't appear intimidated by multiple opposition. Most people tend to avoid such debates. If I'm not mistaken, you said that the definition of racism includes having the power to implement it (racism)? Thus, the BNP isn't racist (as you say) because they do not have power. If so, wouldn't that mean the kkk or similar groups aren't racist because they lack power? Do you also agree that blacks cannot be racist because they lack the necessary power?
I believe that whites can be victims of social racism but not institutionalized racism...especially not in the UK as it is a traditionally white nation. I know of British born blacks who claim that the upper tiers of various fields tend to be overwhelmingly white. If such Inst. racism exists, wouldn't that be reflected throughout the business world, housing, education, etc?
It's called train wreck radio because they invited a train wreck onto the programme.
If you had worked out what you were going to say and then said it without losing your temper you'd have made a better impression.
L.O.
heard the programme as a result of being trapped in the tailbacks on our motorway network !
One thing I would like to say. The last panellist tried (and miserably failed) to twist the constitutional requirement that a Westminster MP attend to the pleas of all their constituents regardless of the political allegiance into a villification of the BNP for not doing so as a party.
Whilst your rebuttal that the Tories don't represent your views and New Labour don't represent the views of many who voted for Blair in 1997 was good, it did not go far enough.
I think You should have stressed the deceit in the question. You see, Leanne Wood a Plaid Cymru Welsh Assembly Member DID instruct her fellow AM's to IGNORE any matters raised by any constituent UNLESS to take up the matter would further the interests of the party. So in many ways the final panellist that had a go at you should have been told that it was not YOUR Nationalist Party to which these allegations should be leveleld, but to another who have already committed the sin and not been brought to book for it.
Just my 2p worth.
By the way did you see Michael Portillo with Diane Abbott on 'This Week' with Andrew Neil the day after 'the list' was put on the net. Abbott (a staunch supporter of u-know-who) said it was a very good thing that the list was out there, for everyone should be told where your members live.
I have a recording of that if you want it ....
Thanks for the comments folks,
appreciate them all - even the ones which say I am useless etc etc LOL
I will respond to a few points ;
1) Lormarie the KKK are racists - but they are unable to RACIALLY DISCRIMINATE. Racial discrmination is the application of POWER in order to disadvantage someone because of their race - the KKK are as far as I know choose to have ZERO contact with blacks etc and therefore they cannot USE ANY POWER they may possess to discrminate against anyone - as they simply do not associate with them.
If a black person has power, such as the president,and uses that power to discrminate against whites he will be a racist as much as the vice versa position.
2) good point about diversity dividing society - what is diversity but diferent racial groups living together in a multi-cultural society = ghettoisation.
3) Interesting comments about diane abbot and good point about the constitutional requirement - I will remember that one.
Thanks for the tips and ideas folks - they will all go into the memory box.
lormarie wrote ... I know of British born blacks who claim that the upper tiers of various fields tend to be overwhelmingly white. If such Inst. racism exists, wouldn't that be reflected throughout the business world, housing, education, etc? ...
Thomas Sowell, the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution has written an essay Affirmative Action around the World
The whole essay is well worth reading. Firstly, it is a succinct summary of his book on the subject and secondly because it employs empirical evidence which demonstrates the lack of success of the Egalitarian/Diversity dogma.
It's so easy for people to critise and say Lee shouldn't have lost his temper - well I would like to see how any of these people dishing out such comments would react when they face multiple opposition, and furthermore an opposition which lies and peddles deception.
As for the childish comment about "trainwreck" that is exactly the immature and facile comments one expects of the lunatic leftist idiots - and it should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Lormaire says: "I believe that whites can be victims of social racism but not institutionalized racism...especially not in the UK as it is a traditionally white nation." - what does that confused statement mean exactly? Would you not say it is discrimination that organisations such as the Black Police Association can exist, yet whites cannot have similar representation? Would that not be called "Institutional Racism"?
Also, lormarie seems to be under the bizarre idea that because the UK is "traditionally" a white nation it naturally follows that anti-white racism cannot really exist on the simple fact that the UK is traditionally a white nation... er, what?! South Africa is "traditionally" a black nation, therefore, following her own logic, if one were in South Africa it would therefore be very difficult to be racist towards blacks! What sort of confused thinking is this? That of the UAF of course.
For your performance to be described as "competent" by Portillo, well in political speak from these kind of people that means "outsanding"...And it was an outstanding performance.
Well done Lee, from all at Merseyside BNP.
If you`re gonna take wing-nut out for a meal don`t order pork or shellfish, I think she has an allergy... or something!
I have to fully agree with Peters remark 3.19 about Portillo's remark.
When i heard how many you would be up against i knew it was a monumental challenge and most would have run, especially in the witch hunt climate that we face.
But you never buckled - not so much as a flintch, you took on their best and gave them something to think about.
You made us all proud Lee,
Thank you.
Lormarie the KKK are racists - but they are unable to RACIALLY DISCRIMINATE. Racial discrmination is the application of POWER in order to disadvantage someone because of their race - the KKK are as far as I know choose to have ZERO contact with blacks etc and therefore they cannot USE ANY POWER they may possess to discrminate against anyone - as they simply do not associate with them.--DOL
Exactly, which is why I believe that no one has to possess power to be a racist. The inclusion of power in the definition is often used here in the US for those who believe that blacks can't be racist. The racist label is applied by many to the BNP whether right or wrong.
If a black person has power, such as the president,and uses that power to discrminate against whites he will be a racist as much as the vice versa position.--DOL
So much for the president being controlled by the shadow government...(smile). Hypothetically you would be correct. The problem is, that's not how it works here. We've got a system of checks and balances here in the US that would never allow a president that much power. Therefore, racism=power wouldn't really work out in such a case as a president really can't do anything without approval.
secondly because it employs empirical evidence which demonstrates the lack of success of the Egalitarian/Diversity dogma.--Bert Rustle
For the record, I'm not in favor of AA nor anything similar. At the same time, I don't believe that institutionalized racism exists against whites in the west. I'm somewhat familiar with Thomas Sowell so I'll check out the essay down the road.
Also, lormarie seems to be under the bizarre idea that because the UK is "traditionally" a white nation it naturally follows that anti-white racism cannot really exist on the simple fact that the UK is traditionally a white nation...--Andastre
First of all that's NOT what I said. I said that I don't believe inst. racism exists against whites in the west. Not all forms of racism are inst. Re your last comment, we weren't discussing anti-black racism. The dynamics of anti-black racism are completely different. Whatever the case, my point still stands. I don't believe that a race of people can suffer from institutionalized racism if they are in a country controlled by them. What you are essentially saying is that whites are racist against whites.
Whatever the case, when I see proof that whites suffer from that type of racism, I'll believe it.
"First of all that's NOT what I said. I said that I don't believe inst. racism exists against whites in the west. Not all forms of racism are inst. Re your last comment, we weren't discussing anti-black racism. The dynamics of anti-black racism are completely different. Whatever the case, my point still stands. I don't believe that a race of people can suffer from institutionalized racism if they are in a country controlled by them. What you are essentially saying is that whites are racist against whites." - Lormarie
Ok then, put it like this, what would you say if I, as a white person, got a job in an African country as a police officer then, along with other whites, set up an organisation called the White Police Association (WPA) which was exclusively for whites (blacks not allowed) and the main purpose of the WPA was to actively further my own opportunites, and those of other whites, and the WPA also denied the rights of the indigenous blacks a similar organisation.
You would be screaming from the rooftops that such an organisation is racist. And yet it is exactly what we have in the UK with the Black Police Association, and many other such organisations. Yet, by the most appalling double standards and hypocrisy we, indigenous whites, are attacked and labeled the racists!
lormarie does not believe that institutional racism against "whites" exists in the West.
Lormarie,
All Third World population transfers into England since 1948 evince institutional racism - in fact, Establishment racism - against the English working man and woman.
My people have been given no opportunity to protest the aggression against our living space and our resources. Every voice that has been raised among us has been quickly silenced. More than that, we have been lied to. We have been demonised.
We have been actively discriminated against by the passing of laws and the imposition of thought and behavioural codes that have no place in the Western legal tradition.
Racism in England, as in all of Western Europe, is a crime against humanity. It has to be brought to a very firm stop.
Interesting Lee, I was quite riviteted by your radio 4 broadcast appearance. I am sure being pugnacious was fine and you put Mr Longley ,the old woman in his place.
Just as an aside to the debate on racism and power, are there " race laws" in any other countries than western European? ( I suspect there might be some in South Africa). Second question has any white European won a "Race case" for discrimination in any non white country?
just listened to it on youtube. brilliant mate. there should be more voices like yours hitting mainstream media
Ok then, put it like this, what would you say if I, as a white person, got a job in an African country as a police officer then, along with other whites, set up an organisation called the White Police Association (WPA) which was exclusively for whites (blacks not allowed) and the main purpose of the WPA was to actively further my own opportunites, and those of other whites, and the WPA also denied the rights of the indigenous blacks a similar organisation.
You would be screaming from the rooftops that such an organisation is racist.--Andastre
Andastre,
You asked me a question and then answered it for me. If you lived in an African nation and suffered racism, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED in forming a white police officers association in order to look out for you interests. If the blacks in power decided to make a black police officers association, that would be overkill. One does not need a special interest group if they have all or most of the power. A group fighting for the interests of those in power is in fact racist. On the other hand, if the Black Police officers association in England releases anti-white literature, they are racist as well. There is a difference between looking out for your interests and denying others their own "basic human rights" as mentioned in the clip.
All Third World population transfers into England since 1948 evince institutional racism - in fact, Establishment racism - against the English working man and woman.--Guessedworker
So If I'm understanding you, the simple existence of nonwhites in your country leads to institutional racism against whites. Not nonwhite criminals, or illegals, not some, but ALL nonwhites in Britain are a problem for the "indigenous" population. Statements like that are what leads others to be cautious of groups and political parties.
Lormaire - "One does not need a special interest group if they have all or most of the power."
Thank you, you have made my point for me.
Firstly, as Lee Barnes said, the Labour Party, and the other corrupt establishment parties do not represent him, and I would agree, so would all BNP members and supporters. Therefore they do not represent us collectively as the indigenous whites.
Therefore, by your logic, we, indigenous whites, who are not represented by the establishment and have no power, are therefore justified to create a special interest group, and this would NOT make us racist. Again, this is following your logic. How can we be racist if we do not have any power?
Furthermore, you will see there are many high ranking black, Asian officers but none from the BNP - therefore it is fair to say that the BNP (as a special interest group) has even less power and influence than organisations such as the Black Police Association, therefore making our interests even more critical and in need of greater advocacy. You will find many thousands of groups that work for the interests of other races, which receive grants, etc. I would class this as institutional anti-white racism; meaning that the establishment advocates and supports special interest groups for other races, yet there is no group allowed to represent the interests of the white indigenous population – in fact any group, such as the BNP, which does state it is working for such will be condemned as racist and viciously attacked.
Lormaire - "A group fighting for the interests of those in power is in fact racist."
Further proof, again using your logic that means that the BNP are NOT racist. Would you say that we are “fighting for the interests of those in power”? – Take a look at our website for minute and you will soon discover that there is no way we are fighting for the interest of those corrupt, self-serving, egotistical, petty despots.
Everyone knows we are fighting against "those in power" and as such we suffer persecution for it, and those in power openly state they are fighting against us on the one-hand and on the other will state support for organisations such as the Black Police Association. Therefore, anyone objectively looking at this situation would conclude that the BNP have no power and organisations such as BPA have power, which is granted from the establishment. Therefore the BPA are fighting for the interests of those in power – therefore making them racist – again, to make this easy for you, I am using your own logic to baby-walk you through this.
Those in power like to state, like some sort of politically correct mantra, that they do not in any way agree with anything the BNP represents – further proof that we are not represented in anyway by the establishment, i.e. “power”.
Loramire - "So If I'm understanding you, the simple existence of nonwhites in your country leads to institutional racism against whites. Not nonwhite criminals, or illegals, not some, but ALL nonwhites in Britain are a problem for the "indigenous" population."
I think if you read my comments, you will see I am not saying that. The existence of non-whites does not constitute institutional racism, it is how their interests are representing and supported by the establishment that constitutes racism against whites. You seem to be desperate to pin the tail on the donkey, but there ain’t no donkey. I would state, as does the BNP, that the problem is not non-whites – it is the establishment (power) and how it assigns power to the groups which operates for the interests of non-whites, yet persecuting groups which exist for the interests of indigenous whites.
Lormaire - "One does not need a special interest group if they have all or most of the power."
Thank you, you have made my point for me.
Firstly, as Lee Barnes said, the Labour Party, and the other corrupt establishment parties do not represent him, and I would agree, so would all BNP members and supporters. Therefore they do not represent us collectively as the indigenous whites.
Therefore, by your logic, we, indigenous whites, who are not represented by the establishment and have no power, are therefore justified to create a special interest group, and this would NOT make us racist. Again, this is following your logic. How can we be racist if we do not have any power?--Andastre
Andastre,
Do you recall when I posted the comment below:
"Exactly, which is why I believe that no one has to possess power to be a racist."
I was actually referring to the notion that blacks cannot be racist, but it can also be an answer to your claim above. The BNP itself may not have power but each of its members have power. That power is called white privilege. How many institutions in England are controlled by nonwhites? Is it 5%? 20%? 50%? If most are controlled by whites, then they are the only group who can practice institutional racism. In other words, the interests of white Britons are being looked out for.
Everyone knows we are fighting against "those in power" and as such we suffer persecution--Andastre
Persecution? Like Iraqis under Saddam? Blacks in the Sudan? persecution is a very strong word.
Therefore the BPA are fighting for the interests of those in power – therefore making them racist – again, to make this easy for you, I am using your own logic to baby-walk you through this.--Andastre
I have only heard of the BPA from blogs and cannot say if they are racist or not. What I have not seen are examples of inst. racism against whites. In other word, are whites routinely denied adequate health care because they are white? Are they systematically denied jobs in favor of nonwhites less qualified? Is this reflected in hard numbers? I asked an English expat if he thought England would ever elect an "Obama." He danced around the issue implying that it would never happen because of the way things are. Why not? Because the system is set up as such that whites retain power. Therefore, there can be no inst. racism against whites.
If you'd like to baby walk me through anything, please do it among the evidence that such a form of racism exists.
Lastly, I've visited the BNP website before and it appears to have preservation as the goal and anti-white racism as the symptom.
Post a Comment