Archive for December, 2007

Fascism for dummies (part 2)

Posted in fascism, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , , on December 28, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

Today’s definition of fascism comes from Kevin Passmore and his bookFascism: A Very Short Introduction” published by Oxford University Press. I can’t wait to hear the far left argue this one.

“Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.”

So far, IMHO this is an apt description of the BNP. Keep reading though….

“Fascist nationalism…………..”

Stop right there. The words used by Passmore here are not a portmanteau. Passmore is talking about an extreme branch of nationalism and defining that extremity as “fascist”. In other words, what’s coming is not a description of nationalism; it’s a description of fascism…..

“….is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation.”

Feminism is mentioned a couple of times in this definition. The problem there is that our semantics of the word “feminism” have changed over the course of time. To give an accurate analysis of feminism and the BNP would take a lot of explanation. All we need to say now is that the BNP has no objection to female members, female voters or women’s rights. Indeed, it encourages them, and objects to female circumcision as used by some orthodox Muslims.

This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party.

There is no “elite” in the BNP and all political leaders can be charismatic. There is no militarisation in the BNP. No uniforms, not salutes, no indoctrination. Nothing.

“Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests – family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service – where the interests of the nation are considered to require it.”

The BNP manifesto is compromised of values for family, Christian traditions, etc. It is these values that make British nationalism. These are the core values for the BNP and this is what defines nationalism for them. Therefore, there can be no overriding factor.

“Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women’s movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority.”

This could be a description of any reformist manifesto.

“Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers’ and women’s interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual’s national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are diffused with ultranationalism.”

Unfortunately the author finishes his definition with the undefined term “ultranationalism”. The BNP do not favour trade unions or workers based upon national characteristics, their manifesto clearly states minorities can stay in Britain but will not receive favorable treatment and should abide by British culture. This is the norm in many countries, yet it is viewed with contempt by some in the UK.

So ends Mister Passmore’s definition, however it should be not that preceding this definition, the author states:

“The British National Party and the French National Front are certainly part of the extreme right but are not fascist.”

So there you have it again. This time it came from a history lecturer at Cardiff University. The book itself is a good read and I recommend it to anyone. Once you’ve read it, you can use it to smack a leftist round the head next time you hear the “BNP are fascists” line.

If you are still not convinced, keep visiting this site. Another analogy will be along shortly…..


On freedom of speech

Posted in Uncategorized on December 27, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

So many people seem to think “freedom of speech” simply means freedom to be abusive. Others – like our friends on the left – think it means freedom to say anything, as long as they agree with it.

I think a lot of people don’t respect FOS, because we take it for granted. In reality, FOS is something that millions of people will never truly experience. In most
civilisations it has been won over by century upon century of struggle intertwined with torture, suffering, ridicule and combat. The monks in Burma are going through these stages right now, and they probably won’t see the end results in their lifetime.


For me, FOS is more than just a licence to be abusive. It is absolutely crucial to progress and development. I can give a perfect example. In my other home of Thailand (no I’m not half Thai, I just work here) there is a strictly enforced Lese Majeste law. Under the first law of the constitution, nobody can criticise The King.


Last year The King began to profuse his theories on sufficiency economy. It is a theory that is loosely defined and simply does not work in any country for this day and age. But, because nobody can criticise the king, this idea cannot be removed. Now Thailand’s economists have to a least pretend to be advocating sufficiency economy.

The point is, it’s not what’s best for the country, and people are suffering from restrictions on their free speech.

This of course is just a mild example. I’m sure we can think of some far more horrific ones.


What about restrictions on free speech? Well, I thought the best summary came from Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union.


To paraphrase Nick: “Common Law is just about acceptable because it is based on experience. Some restrictions are unavoidable ….my right to swing my fist ends where this man’s bloody nose starts. These are unavoidable but we must accept Common Law and not one step further.”

This line from Griffin (it was a brilliant, stirring argument by the way) exposes two of the hypocritical lines from the left. First, the line: “BNP should be censored because they incite hate”. If this was true, we could be punished by law. Yet, how often does someone touting this line go to a police station and register a complaint? They don’t do that because they know what they say isn’t true. The real sentiment behind this line is that the far left hate the fact that they do not get to decide what is “hate speech”. They cannot accept the rule of common law overrides their own bigotry.


The second line I hear a lot is: “Ah, but would you allow Al Queda free speech”? This nonsense makes me laugh. Most AQ members don’t live here and those that do are (usually) smart enough to keep their mouths shut. If they did speak, they would expose hate that would be instantly punishable by Common Law, like our friend Abu Hamza al-Masri.


When people start to talk about “banning” and “censorship” for anything above Common Law, I start to wonder why. It nearly always boils down to fear, either fear that their own myths or opinions are under threat or fear that someone will say something that scares them. We all feel like this sometimes but it doesn’t give us the right to muzzle others. That is simply the reaction of an animal: attack and silence what you fear.


Censorship is part of a totalitarian mentality. It is nearly always enforced by an unelected elite or political mob – often under indirect control of the state – as a tool of oppression. Ultimately it is a form of thought control, and it is a very, very dangerous weapon to be handed to anyone, let alone a group of unelected, self appointed thought police.


We have many faults in Britain, but our systems of democracy and free speech protected by common law are far over and above those of many other countries in the world. It is a precious, wonderful gift and the day we hand that gift over to a screaming, hate filled hypocritical mob will be a sad day indeed.


No platform must forever stay no more.







If at first you can’t succeed, lie, lie again….

Posted in Hysteria and lies with tags , on December 26, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

I’ve received a reply to my “Open challenge” debate. The person seemingly wanted to be anonymous but I can see the e-mail address is “socialist red” so I’ll call him/her ‘SR’.

Since I argue for free speech, it’s only fair I ask you to read my article and the reply in full before I get to fisking SR.

OK, now you’ve read it, so……….

“You idiots”

Even the heading is wrong. I am “idiot”, singular. See here.

1) So is Al Queda to be given free speech? I’ll wager your answer is no.

You wager wrong. Al Queda should have their freedom to talk like anyone else under common law. Our common law prevents incitement or invitation to violence. So quotes such as this one from the late Zarqawi would be punishable by this law. (Yeh, it’s a pain when the other side actually uses evidence, huh?).

Lone fascists aren’t a problem. It is organisations that need to be restricted.

I agree. And if you paid attention, you’ll know the BNP are not fascist.

The BNP as an organisation should be punished for their violence.

Anyone should be punished for violence. So since you claim we use violence, please go to your nearest police station and make a complaint. Oh by the way, the police function on this crazy system that actually requires evidence for claims.

2) Bollocks.

Ahhh British education, you can’t beat it can you? (Yes, SR is in England).

The BNP are the hypocrites. They argue for freedom of speech at the same time as having the desire to disenfranchise large sections of the population.

OK let’s make a deal. You show me one shred of adducible, verifiable proof that that statement is true and I’ll accept you win the whole argument. If you can’t (because it’s not true) you accept you lied. Deal?

Not only that but they use violence to achieve their aims as stated by Griffin himself.

I refer you to the first word in your second paragraph. This “If you can’t win an argument, make stuff up” line is becoming very frequent from our opponents. It seems to be all they have left.

Why would you pass up a chance to use such a damning quote? Because you can’t repeat a quote that was never real, that’s why.

3) Perhaps. However, the BNP are not simply nationalists. They are fascists.

This argument has been dealt with via an authoritative source (a scholar and author) here. What’s more, I will be repeating the exercise with two other works of authority in future. You really do discredit yourself, don’t you?

Race need not come into your assessment of society if you are a nationalist, for the BNP, you aren’t British if you aren’t white.

If you can’t win an argument, make stuff up” part three.

As reflected by numerous statements and their stated aim of an all-white Britain.

If you can’t win an argument, make stuff up” part four. Actually what the BNP want is fairness to the indigenous Brits and foreigners in Britain to abide and respect our laws and culture, just the same as Thais do in Thailand.

4) No it isn’t. Scapegoating immigrants and particular religions for a society’s ills however is.

Agreed. Thanks for accepting we are right on that one.

Remember my article “Characteristics of the far left“? Notice its presence in SR’s comments. He supports censorship (point 2 in SCFL). He can’t resist slapping the ‘fascist’ tag around even though that has been completely rubbished (points 1 and 6) , and is desperate to use tags of any kind (point 1).

So thanks for the reply SR, but to be honest, I’ve had more mature and informed discussions with my seventh graders. Still, you did jog me to expand my far left characteristics to seven points (coming soon) and write a new article. So thank you. Do call again.

Remember people, don’t take my word for anything. Take the time to research and find the truth for yourselves. And for anyone else who wants to debate (come on, you can’t do any worse can you!?) remember we don’t have to do it here. We can do it at any agreeable site. See here. I’ve only been harsh with SR because of his aggression.

The PC Christmas message

Posted in Uncategorized on December 21, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

“Happy Holidays” and other Festive Greetings to You and All : Please accept (without any obligation whatsoever, either implied or implicit, attaching thereunto) my very best wishes for an environmentally-conscious, non-polluting, socially-responsible, non-addictive, gender-neutral and fully inclusive celebration of the Winter solstice holiday, practiced with or without the secular practices of your choice, or traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, (whilst respecting the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their reasonable choice not to practice any religious or secular traditions at all); as well as a fiscally-successful, personally-fulfilling, and medically-uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year “2008”, but not without due respect shown for the calendars of choice of cultures whose cultural contributions and enrichments of British society by way of the present unprecedented flow of immigration is working to make Britain great (which is not to imply that Britain is necessarily “greater” than any other country or region, or those countries or regions from which any cultural groups or individuals of such groups may or may not have emigrated), and without regard to the race, creed, colour, height, weight, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual orientation of the wisher.

This wish is limited to the customary and usual good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. “Holiday” is not intended to, nor shall it be considered to be, limited to the usual Christian religious celebrations or observances, or to the activities of any other organised, or ad hoc, religious community, group, or individual.

Please Note : That by accepting this greeting, you are accepting the following terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. This greeting is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. This greeting implies no promise by the wisher actually to implement any of the wishes for the wisher her/himself or others, or responsibility for the consequences which may arise from the implementation or non-implementation of same. This greeting is void where prohibited by law.

With my sincerest best wishes,

Your Licenced Authorised Religious Representative.

Facebook fascists

Posted in UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , on December 19, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

I’m a big fan of Facebook but one downside is that the nature of the site is a haven for pseudo-antifascists.

There are so many “Ban BNP” or “stop racism” type groups that appeal to the misguided or impetuous. It gives them the feeling that for the sake of one mouse click, they can join a “good” group and fight the bad guys. It’s a cheap way to get a little moral high ground.

Of course it’s all BS. Nobody takes the time to dig up the facts or actually offer evidence for the claims they make. Such garbage is ideally suited for UAF and its petitions. Their group for “Ban BNP” claims BNP have violated facebook group rules, though of course there is not one single stated reason as to which rule they have broken and how.

Then on “The wall”, group moderator Joshua made a superb claim in response to a comment about Communism:

Communists don’t systematically kill sections of society. In our countries they are certainly not responsible for murders in our countries now like the racist murders that follow the BNP.

Just as I was going to teach Joshua about the biggest killer of all time (Mao) Stalin and Pol Pot as well as call him out on his insane “murder” slur, he nipped in with a typical UAF style psychotic rant

How many times will the BNP have to transgress the norms of regular political parties. How many activists from my organisation will have to be beaten up, how many of them need to be found with bombs how many of them need to deny the holocaust, how many cars need to be firebombed before you say hang on guys these guys are different they break the law they don’t deserve to be given another chance to try to kill millions of people.”

It was just too tempting so I had to reply:

Or the hundreds of thousand tortured under Pol Pot’s Communist regime?

Or how about Mao’s “great leap forward that made him THE BIGGEST KILLER OF ALL TIME!?

Looks like you need to check your history Josh.

And as for “murders that follow the BNP” that’s just hysterical nonsense.

This is the danger of letting people from groups like this tout censorship. It’s ignorance breeding ignorance from people who have lost the argument.

How many crimes against grammar will you commit in one message?

How many borderline paranoid schizophrenic made up claims will you spout off before the medication kicks in?

And you are right, fascists do not discuss things openly. That is why UAF and their affiliates are the most anti-debate, pro-censorship , “no platform” bullies I have ever dealt with. I’ll bet you delete this post. Go ahead, it proves my point….

Now the students who have been paying attention will know what happens next? Can you guess? That’s right! My comments were deleted!!! Yep, Josh and his friends hate debate, they hate to be told the truth and they hate anyone who disappears with their views. So off my comments went and silenced I was…….

But hey Josh!!!! Guess what???!!! Before you deleted my comments I took a screen shot and posted it right here for the entire world to see!!! Ain’t freedom of speech a swine, eh?


Fascism for dummies (and guess who they are?)

Posted in ANL (Anti Nazi League), Searchlight, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , , on December 17, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

What is Fascism, really? Ask most about it and they’ll talk vaguely about Hitler and the Jews or Mussolini or – in the case of our friends on the extreme left – the BNP. They are not ashamed to compare law abiding honest nationalists to mass murderers, it’s all done for hysteria gains.

But to compare somebody to something, to talk about something as serious as racism and mass murder, shouldn’t we get the facts first? Shouldn’t we rely on more than hyperbole? Shouldn’t we actually take some time to really learn what we are talking about?

Over the next few days I will guide us through three scholarly definitions of Fascism. Then we will decide who or what can reasonably be declared fascist.

Today I’ll be using: S. Hunt (1992) ‘Fascism and the Race Issue’, Talking Politics, The Journal of the Politics Association” as my analysis tool.

Hunt defines Fascism as having eight core components:

1) Aggressive Nationalism. Fascists expect all citizens to be fiercely patriotic.

Yes. Hmmm, you’d get the BNP on this one. That’s score one. Note though that Nationalism alone is not equal to Fascism any more than liberalism is equal to Anarchism.

2) Militaristic culture. Fascists are military minded and expect to defend their country with force.

No. Well, the BNP advocate compulsory service but it can be civil or military. They are no more military than any other party.

3) Racism. Contemporary fascists support whites only in their nation.
No. Contrary to popular belief, the BNP do not advocate expulsion of all other races. They do request that everybody respects and conforms to British culture, including free speech and freedom of choice. Some people define “racism” as not being politically correct, in which case the BNP are guilty. But if you mean genuine discrimination, then no.

4) Absolute and charismatic leaders. Fascists go for strong leaders.

No. The BNP have party leader elections like any other party.

5) Fascists uphold the importance of the state over the individual.

Yes, but most right wing parties uphold the importance of the state. It does not mean a restriction on rights or liberties, it simply means the group should have preference over the individual.

6) A hatred of Marxism and class conflict.

No. The BNP dislike Communists sure (as do most western democracies). They also represent the working man of Britain.

7) Opposition to parliamentary rule (as it favours the individual over the state).

No. The BNP are a democratic party.

8) Irrationality and mysticism. Most fascists utilise supernatural iconography or rituals in their doctrine.

No. None in the BNP, unless you count mainstream religion.

So of the eight core components, six of them are not applicable to the BNP.

Next time a UAF, ANL or Searchlight activist talks about the BNP or Fascism, ask them to actually define Fascism. Chances are good they can’t do it. In any case, explain the above to them and explain why the BNP are not Fascist. Watch their eyes fill up with confusion or rage. Then watch as they start frothing at the mouth and sounding off about racism, and how one BNP member may have been a Nazi twenty years ago and so.

Look in their eyes and see the blind, irrational rage of the left extremists. That’s why they hate debate.

Animal Farm

Posted in UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , , , on December 15, 2007 by redandwhitestripes

There is no greater giveaway of the zealot-like, truly psychoneurotic nature of some elements of the far left than a cursory look at the comments section on any one of their popular (by their standards) blogs.

Lancaster UAF is the epitome of such borderline psychosis. Main blogger Ketlan is actually a reasonable writer, though of course she has become mentally confined to the point where she cannot even comment on anything BNP without putting a hate filled adjective beforehand. However, the comments section of the blog is always full of abusive, hate filled, badly written, often purposely lying, hysterical nonsense.

Paradoxically, I find it highly revealing that the vast majority of comments are anonymous.

Take a look at the hysterical comments and conspiracy crack theories on this blog entry, which concerns recent unease in the BNP.  Let me give you some highlights (sorry I could not be bothered to correct all the spelling and grammar mistakes):


F*ck off back to which ever dole scrounging hole you come from with your nazi chums. W@NKER!

Looks like Darby is in a bit of a panic…HEEEAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAA!!!

he bnp hadn’t won a single council seat since Derek Beakon. Then, along comes 9/11 and the War On Terror.

Surely, it’s simple to believe how leftwing activists could be kept kept occupied by organised racism, to reduce the numbers of activists protesting about the war in iraq.

LeComber, who secretly lurked like a “butthole surfer” around Griffin’s smelly arse long after he was supposed to have got the sack.

Fuck off Griffin you cheating cunt!



I could go on but I’m sure you’ve seen enough. Some of the conspiracy nuts on the site suggested there is a pro – BNP media conspiracy because they “….do not expose the bnp’s actions that would turn the public off“. Of course, by “BNP ‘s actions” the poster means the made up stories by the UAF.

Towards the end of the page, we see a string of anonymous remarks disguised as comments from disgruntled BNP members. Do take the time to read them. It is hilarious to think that someone – presumably an adult – actually thought it was worth the minimal effort or that anyone would believe them.

I posted my replies that were censored as usual but you can read them here and here.

So there you have it. You can almost imagine these people with the froth coming out of their mouths as they type. Hysteria, conspiracy theories , censorship, hate, poor communication and lies. These are the people who have gone full circle. Like the pigs on Animal Farm, they have become what they profess to hate….fascists.