Archive for January, 2008

Quotes of the week

Posted in Hysteria and lies, Quote of the week with tags on January 26, 2008 by redandwhitestripes
The BNP consists of thugs, rapists and terrorists. There’s nothing valid (or coincidental) about that.

Someone called Adam Marks, giving a typical demonstration of the groundless libel that can appear on the internet.

Oxford Union debate would have been exactly when the BNP don’t kick off. When the cameras are rolling and when they are outnumbered.

Ben (“you idiots”) forgetting the UAF managed to commit acts of violence at Oxford Union while BNP members behaved impeccably under severe provocation. Read the full “debate” with Ben here.

Advertisements

Quote of the week

Posted in Quote of the week on January 20, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

“It’s no more undemocratic than a pub landlord asking a few rowdy guys to drink up and leave”

Some guy called Laurence Whiteside explaining his support for a certain group that lobbies against free speech for all. Laurence apparently forgot that forceful entry of a private debating club and blatant threats and intimidation of private guests is slightly different to a “pub landlord”

What is “far left”?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , on January 16, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

After a reasonably thorough definition of Fascism, I figured now is the time to identify what I mean by “far left”. This will not be an in depth discussion, rather a quick analogy.

One thing to say from the off is that by “far left” I do not mean anyone to the left of me. In fact, I will show that your humble blogger is considerably less extreme right than you may think.

The problem with assessing the left/right political spectrum is that – like defining “fascism” – it is essentially subjective and semantic. The most consistently effective tool for defining a person’s political values is by use of a political spectrum. However – as I teach my students – even these systems have a great number of fallacies. The traditional left/right horizontal spectrum has its uses but is limited. For example, both Communism and Anarchism are extreme left, yet one is highly authoritarian and the other is, in theory, completely un-authoritarian.

Several other versions of the spectrum have been developed some seek to highlight the authoritarian factor, others seek to stress the typically directly inverse relationship between the values of political freedom and economic libertarianism.

Terminology such as “ultra leftist” is also open to anachronistic misinterpretation. During the Cold War or the Second World War, the term “far left” would have had very different connotations to those which it has today. Back then, Communism was a mainstream ideology and in some circles would have been considered “central”. Now however, it is a fringe ideology and is widely considered as extreme.

So when we speak of the “far left” which group are we referring to? The Anarchists or the Communists? The political libertarians or the  FTA fanatics? The Bolsheviks or the modern Socialist Workers Party?

Well, one way of identifying the left would be to use my listed characteristics. However, a more mainstream definition would seek different criteria.

The key to defining the extreme left as opposed to simply “the left” is the radical or reformist element of their views. Some key traits of left political voters are: opposition to class differences, resistance to state control or authority (such as the ID cards debate in Britain) , opposition to economic liberalism , support for ‘multiculturalism’ and the reformation of criminals rather than punishment.

Of course, many of these policies are mainstream idelogies (some appeal to me) but the radical left support more extreme measures.

For example, five years ago in London ,and Anarchist group rioted and vandalised a statue of Churchill (graffiti spraying “fascist pig” on the statue) and attacked a McDonald’s restaurant. This was a show of opposition to capitalism.

Many members of the extreme left do not support the concept of nationality or borders, to them, abolition of such borders are the next logical step in multiculturalism.

Ultra leftists tend to be highly liberal in terms of jurisprudence. Some extreme groups in the UK support reduction in the age of sexual consent to twelve or fourteen years of age.

Many extreme liberals support a huge reduction in criminal punishments, some radicals go as far as supporting the release of paedophiles or violent offenders to simply serve community service.

Clearly some of these policies are highly contentious but the importance of them here is in understanding the radical element in them. The differentiation between “left” and “far left” is the desire for reform so great it could be considered revolutionary.  This is what determines their position on the political spectrum. What makes some of them dangerous and obnoxious is the characteristics of their group behaviour.

I highly recommend the Chris Lightfoot political survey to any British readers. The survey provides a detailed breakdown of the surveyed’s political viewpoints. Readers might be surprised to find that I lie “just right of centre” compared to all surveyed and that I was “less right” than sixty eight percent of those who voted for the same party as me in the last election! (I happen to support gay rights and aid to countries wrecked by civil war).

Signs of change?

Posted in Free speech with tags , , on January 15, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Britain’s media reflects the national psyche. That psyche at present is very much left wing. This is not by coincidence. Many people are unaware of just how conditioned their thought process can become by the “reality” built by the media and those controlling it. This is not conspiracy talk, it’s just a fact.

The Conservative, royalist right wing mentality of most Thais is the result of decade upon decade of fastidious construction of the King’s image as being a revered, almost Buddhist like figure who is full of perfect wisdom. This image is conveyed by the media (Thailand has strict lese majeste laws) and over time it has shaped the national psyche.

Britain’s liberal environment is not conducive to nationalism. Right wing parties have become ostracised and anathematised in the mainstream media while David Cameron’s Tories slide towards Labour in the middle, the two political juggernauts almost indistinguishable in their rhetoric and hypocrisy.

But there are signs of change. Over the last two years, immigration has finally become an approachable subject. Concerns voiced by the BNP years ago – naturally they were roundly harangued for voicing them – have become mainstream palaver. A small yet highly significant step.

Now things have gone one step further.  A prominent bishop has warned of “no go areas” in England that are controlled by Muslims. Needless, to say, the story has been denied, criticised and shouted down. However these reactions have lacked their usual ferocity and the left cannot apply their favoured muzzles of “racist” “Nazi” and “censor him!”. Why? Because Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali happens to be from Pakistan.

Could it be that Rev. Nazir-Ali is a leading figure of a tidal change in public opinion? Such changes in mentality and political climate tend to be undergone in stages, with the initial catalysts being small, minor events such as this.

Another requirement for a change in political climate is an undercurrent or repressed concern or discontent. Certainly Britain has such emotions right now, mainly caused by the oppression of opinions on the topics of Islam and immigration by the media. Lionheart is just one example.

Quote of the week

Posted in Quote of the week with tags on January 11, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Should it be OK to use violence to stop the British National Party (BNP)?

I have personally taken part in violence against the BNP in my Town, they should be banned and run out of our Towns and Cities. They should not be allowed to stand in elections.

From here.
One of the most common misconceptions of the BNP is that they use violence. This myth is often spread in a pernicious tone of: “They send thugs out at night”. In reality, the extreme left are far more prone to violence.
Violence is never an acceptable means of doing politics.

Fascism for dummies (part 3)

Posted in fascism, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , , on January 7, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

 After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements.
(17) The war was revolutionary, in the sense that with streams of blood it did away with the century of Democracy, the century of number, the century of majorities and of quantities

Musolini
“Victory by the ballet box is morally and legally correct”
Nick Griffin

Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist  State  – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14)
Mussolini 

“The second you deny freedom of speech, you turn on this hideous totalitarian mentality”
Nick Griffin

Definition of Fascism taken from an essay by Chip Bertlett:

*   Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

* Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
Absolutely none in the BNP

* Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

Contrary to popular belief, this does not happen in the BNP (more than any other party). You will hear many stories of it, but there will be little or no evidence. When you hear this claim, ask for verifiable proof. There is, however, evidence for this.

* Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

BNP are a legal party.

* Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

That would be no. Griffin was challenged for the leadership about a year ago.

* Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

* Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission–often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

There is no metaphysical, spiritual (that Mussolini pushed so hard) struggle in the BNP. genuine extreme ideologies – especially on the right – carry these traits. The BNP do not.

* Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy–seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

The BNP are bound by common law which would block any actions such as this. Our uninformed friend classed the BNP as Holocaust deniers. I think this person would have the authority to tell him he is wrong.

* The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

* Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

* Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

The BNP are a nationalist party, and spend time defining 21st century British nationalism. There is a driving ideology, just as there is for most parties.

“Demonising the practice of fascism, especially the terror and horrors of Nazism, without understanding the different routes by which people could be attracted to fascism is a serious intellectual error.”

Roger Eatwell

And those who use the term as a slur without understanding or investigating what it means are guilty of belittling the many who died under fascism and the ultimate hypocrisy of being fascists themselves.

The persecution of a blogger

Posted in Free speech with tags on January 5, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Some bloggers are talking about closing their blogs for forty eights hours or more after the assault on Lionheart’s freedom of speech. Personally, I think that’s pointless. If somebody wants to oppress your right to free speech, they’ll do it regardless.

So I will continue to blog. I will continue to discuss my feelings my politics and my concerns over immigration. I may also discuss my displeasure at Muhammad marrying an eight year old girl when he was in his fifties.

I urge anyone to support Lionheart. It doesn’t matter if you love him or hate him, if you think his blog is magnificent, mediocre or miserable. It only matters than he is a victim of persecution and if it happens to him, it could happen to anyone. Yes, I would feel the same if a UAF member was charged.