Counterpoint on UKIP

Wayne Brittenden’s profile of UKIP, the United Kingdom Independence Party, (Radio NZ Sunday Counterpoint, 1 June 2014) was irredeemably negative.  While five minutes doesn’t offer much scope for detail, there was room for hints of subtlety and nuance, but there were none.

He didn’t mention democracy, for instance, but it’s the one form of governance which takes into account changing societal attitudes.  That UKIP is successful in representing a section of the populace that considers its governance is off-track is firstly a sign of a healthy democracy, and secondly an indication of the direction which major parties need to take. 

UKIP is a party with a narrow platform, so it is unlikely to outlast its original purpose.  But Mr Brittenden’s polemic goes too far in stating that its supporters are wishing “to preserve a mythical Britishness” along with his blatant ad hominem description of them and the party itself. 

Let me add a bit of objective balance. 

People with a knowledge of history, the arc of Islamic expansion, and an awareness of current affairs have realised that the Islamic conquest of Europe is a virtual fait accompli.  Prominent in the background is the sort of extremism which even now is rewriting history in the Middle East across to India, western China, North Africa and the vast sub-Saharan region.  Even in Avondale we see their destructive influence.  In Europe this has led to a burgeoning sector which has no intention of integrating in the way that non-Muslim immigrants from anywhere else in the world manage to do.  Given the manifest inability of Islam to create a society that people actually want to stay in, it is hardly any wonder that European natives have no wish for this to be recreated in Europe.

UKIP is the only party that offers a policy which may go some way to mitigate the rapid changes which are deeply discomfiting to citizens who had experienced relative tranquillity since the Second World War, and this is the reason for its success.  It may delay but not otherwise affect the progress and consequences of Islam’s conquest, which are likely to be as great as the Industrial Revolution’s with none of the benefits.  It’s not “purity of British culture” that is under threat.  It is four hundred years of European culture, by far the greatest the world has ever seen in depth and breadth, which is terminally imperilled.  Voting for UKIP does not involve criticism of race; it can be a vote to maintain a successful culture in the face of a takeover by a savage one.  Some people find a choice like that easy to justify.

Since New Zealand has experienced this period with no serious disruption, the solipsistic insularity that Mr Brittenden exhibits is perhaps excusable, but not for a journalist.  His presentation was unacceptably shallow for a premium broadcasting slot.  Discerning listeners will not have a problem with his polemics per se, but this example of Mr Brittenden’s has no saving graces.  It could have been phoned in by a tabloid journalist in his cups.  Counterpoint’s role is to present “a fresh attitude on current affairs” but clearly there are areas in which Mr Brittenden’s comprehension is limited, and it is incumbent on Sunday’s producer to guide him away from these.  For the most part his commentaries are quite acceptable.