Archive for April, 2008

It’s show time!

Posted in Uncategorized on April 30, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

It’s show time.

Do you live in London? If so, get out and vote?

Do you have any friends or family in London? Even if they don’t normally vote BNP, do what you can! Every vote counts in the London Elections as the GLA seats are awarded on a proportional representation basis.

It should be clear what is wrong with the UK and time is running out to fix it.

No more ‘softly softly’ for criminals!

No more oppression of free speech!

No more corporate conglomerate governors!

No more corruption!

No more appeasement of terrorists and Islamic extremists!

Vote Richard Barnbrook!

No 1 on your vote card! (literally and figuratively!)

Vote BNP!


What do the BNP and global warming have in common?

Posted in Hysteria and lies with tags , on April 27, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

I was walking through a shopping mall yesterday to be confronted by yet another “Stop Global Warming” performance. This one happened to involve three MC’s, six massive speakers, video screens and a raffle. What it actually did to help I don’t know, but as a convenient aside it served as excellent promotion for a local radio station that had their name plastered all over the stage.

Meanwhile, local supermarkets are selling T-shirts that say “Green please” and offer bags that degrade over a year or so. Again, quite how this helps to reverse the effects of CO2 emission I have no idea, but it doesn’t harm sales for the supermarket.

Let’s face it people, we all know what this comes down to. It’s about letting ourselves off the hook. Convincing ourselves that we are good, caring, conscious people in the cheapest and easiest way possible.

Let’s look at our choices. To really do something to fight CO2 we can start by investing huge amounts in solar panels like Al Gore or – if that is too expensive – we can reduce our electricity consumption by never using a home computer to log on to Facebook, never watching TV or playing music at home again.

But of course when we say “we care” it’s important to understand that we mean: “I care, as long as it doesn’t create the slightest inconvenience for me” kind of “care”, right?

So what’s the solution? Simple, we pay lip service. We attend a rock concert filled with performers who honestly just want to stop global warming, the extra publicity and chic appeal has nothing to do with it. We shop at “green” supermarkets run by corporate conglomerates who have suddenly had a huge change of heart and put environmental concerns over and above profits, and as such they will use degradable bags to save the world. Finally, of course, we all give ourselves the cheapest possible karma hit possible: we click a button and join a facebook group called “Stop global warming! Save the polar bears!” because by clicking that button on a mouse we become honourable people!

OK, so China and India are still destroying an iceberg a day making goods that are cheap enough for us to import, but we’ve done our bit to help…….

So that’s the environmental section covered, but what about morals? What can we do to give ourselves a cheap and easy way to hold our head high, tell grandma Edna how good their grandchildren have been and make sure everyone at work knows just how moral and wholesome we are?

That’s easy, just join a group to bash the BNP! I mean, the BNP are racist aren’t they? They must be evil! I mean, didn’t you see that Griffin guy talking on Newsnight? He said Islam wasn’t a peaceful religion! What a racist bunch of pigs they are! (I know, I know, Islam isn’t a race but nobody will notice!)

So if you want a really easy, cheap, totally effortless way to make sure everyone knows you are a good person, then bash the BNP. You can do it in all the same ways you do with the ‘global warming’ thing. Go to a concert with a heroin addict and cheating boyfriend as headliner, click a button on Facebook, or join a group like the UAF. The latter is particularly fun because you get to scream hate, disrupt other people’s lives and occasionally even assault someone and it’s all OK because you are doing it with justification!

Getting the press involved is another good one. When it comes to the BNP, the tabloid press love to show that they care about people, truth and integrity by running down the BNP. If you’re lucky, you might even get a back slap from Gordon “Billions of pounds to invade Iraq over a pack of lies” Brown, who will tell you what a guardian of liberty you are.

You can call them anything you want to get your point across, you can describe them as “Scum of the Earth“, “The barrel scrapings of humanity” (copyright Jeremy Jackson, who has disappeared from our debate half way through) , “evil” etc. It really doesn’t matter as long as you make the point you are better than them. You can also bring up the “violence” thing, it actually accounts for less than one percent of the group but that’s enough to make the point isn’t it? Anyway, who cares? They’re just a bunch of prejudiced bigots!

So roll on down and get your cheap karma shot. There will still be paedophiles, muggers, rapists, murderers, terrorists and drug dealers roaming the streets (and actually the BNP really want to do something about all those people and they even have a sensible global warming policy)  but that’s not your problem. You joined a group that said “Stop the BNP” , and you even left a message saying how bad they were. You’re a truly moral person and you should feel good about yourself. And whoever thought it would be so easy?

Fitna – full, orginal and English.

Posted in Uncategorized on April 25, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

It’s come to my attention that there are few, if any, full original English versions of Fitna available for download or viewing anywhere. So I made one myself. Here are a couple of links. The format is given as .wmv but if that doesn’t work, just change the extension to .mp4

Link one

Link two

Posted in Uncategorized on April 21, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Pigdog fucker has responded to my post by pointing out he did publish my comment. He also responded to my debate challenge, albeit half heartedly but respect to him for that nonetheless. I will be responding soon.

Meanwhile, I’ve actually found a UAF site worth visiting.

One in the eye for PDF

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on April 20, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

The work of the pedant often uses controversy as a straw man. That was my first thought when I stumbled across the blog known as “pigdogfucker” with the even smarter sub header: “Fuck you in the arse and the eye“.

The blog is clearly attempting to mark itself as a liberal version of “Devil’s Kitchen“. The problem is that DK gets away with its profanity – and probably is more poplar for it – because it has the style and finesse to match. You could say that DK is the political blogger’s answer to Eddie Murphy. PDF on the other hand, is more like Roy Chubby Brown. The abuse and profanity is crass, designed to garner attention and paper over the frequent lack of reason, logic or articulation.

As just one example, PDF decries the “BNP fuckwits” who, he claims, were spreading the rumours that the late Charlene Downes (my heart goes out to her mother) had been murdered and used for kebab meat by her killers. PDF then trumps the fact that the case was dropped as it was riddled with lies, and cites this as a failure of BNP propaganda.

Just one problem, the BNP web site had no article that even mentioned the case except an update until the day after PDF’s post and even then it was only to confirm the case had been dropped. There was no more “myth” spreading by the BNP than there was by the BBC.

The BNP meanwhile. were busy trying to investigate the only too real cases of child grooming by some (and only some) sections of the Muslim community, as recently highlighted by BBC’s Panorama.

Needless to say, my comment on his blog pointing this out did not appear,

Who’s the “fuckwit” now PDF? The BNP, or the liar with a badly named blog?

I won’t be holding my breath for PDF to take up my challenge.

The immigration issue

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , on April 10, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

There has been so much talk about immigration across the UK and in most political circles recently. I’d like to offer my take on the situation, especially since BNP members are frequently accused of not stating a clear case concerning objections to immigration.

What it is

Immigration can be defined as “Migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there)” according to one popular dictionary. The important emphasis here should be on the intention to stay in the new country for a lengthy period of time.

It’s important to note that most people have a naturally prejudiced schema when they think of immigration. Until ten years ago, most indigenous British people would probably think of an Asian person when they hear the word “immigration” , while Americans would most likely think of Mexicans or other Hispanics. I believe few people can claim to be utterly unprejudiced on the immigration issue, it flies against human nature.

How many?

The number of immigrants into the UK is a matter of much debate. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, there is more than one type of immigrant. We have “legal” immigrants who are either from EU member states or hold pre-approved working visas, we also have “illegal” immigrants who enter the UK without prior Home Office (HO) approval, and finally asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are a legal grey area, as they are technically illegal immigrants but are granted temporary stay and paperwork whilst their case is being considered.

(I worked at a tax office several years ago and the number of *pending* refugee applications was striking. Each pending applicant is granted a six year passport and NI card, free of charge to the applicant).

Secondly, the official body for immigration statistics is the Office for National Statistics. The ONS is technically independent but in reality is directly reportable to the government. Therefore, to believe the statistics of the ONS is to believe that the existing government is honest enough to avoid any self serving interference with ONS statistics at a time when the opposition is pressing the case of immigration.

So where can we get accurate figures? The short answer is here:

Migration Watch is often branded as “biased” and “racist” from those who disagree with their views or statistics. What is always lacking in these criticisms however, is credible reasons why or reliable statistical evidence that MW is wrong. The sources used by MW include credible publications and data. MW also quote from a Home Office email released under the Freedom of Information Act act that states:

“I have made this point many times before but can we please stop saying that MW migration forecasts are wrong. I have pointed out before that MW assumptions are often below the government actuary’s department’s high migration scenario.”

The affects

The true controversy of immigration lies in the conflicting arguments of its pros and cons. As this is my take on the immigration issue, I will state my viewpoints.

I will consider the arguments and counter arguments used by Journalist (and now guest lecturer) Philippe Lerain in his book: “Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them”.
(In fairness I have not finished this book yet so I may have to refine my argument later).

The benefit as seen by some:

“Immigrants bring down costs and benefit the economy”

Cui bono? Unskilled immigrants accept lower wages, for sure. This is, in essence, a form of exploitation equivalent to outsourcing jobs for UK businesses and the same type of cheap labour exploitation that the left scream about when it happens in China or the Philippines.

Where do the rest of us feel the benefits of these “lower costs”? Have our taxes decreased? Has public spending increased over the rate of inflation? The reality is that the lower wages are to the benefit of the rich elite and the government.

This is not even going into the costs that each citizen brings in public services, pensions, crime etc.

A recent report by the House of Lords exposed the true lack in benefits of immigration.

The benefit as seen by some:

“Immigrants do the jobs our lazy white people don’t want to do.”

So then, how did we manage for so long before the influx? There will always be lazy people and scroungers, but there will also always be more than enough native people to do the lower skilled jobs. All that is needed is the right incentives – be they negative or positive – to motivate the work force.

The benefit as seen by some:

“Now that the baby boomers are getting old, we need immigrants to aid our aging workforce.”

Two problems with this argument. First, the bare logic of the fact is that everyone gets old, including immigrants. Unless we welcome all immigrants with the specific understanding that they return home in a set space of time, we cannot ever logically bring them in to replace our aging workers. We would simply be adding Semtex to the time bomb.

Secondly, as pointed out by migration watch , the UK without a single further migrant would continue to keep its levels of working youth at the present trend until 2027, and that’s with a conservative extrapolation of population growth rates.

Anti – all immigration?

It’s a common misconception (perhaps a voluntary misconception) from some critics that the BNP oppose all immigration, that everyone would be sent home immediately, the economy would instantly collapse and we would enter some kind of sinister, Khymer Rouge style utopian nightmare. It’s all nonsense.

My own views on managed immigration are very close to the official BNP policy. We maintain a managed system of skilled immigration. If we are short on doctors, we invite trained doctors from overseas to plug the gap temporarily. If there was to be a genuine dip in the numbers of able young workers, we would invite as many as we need to work here for that duration

The moral issue

Another charge levelled at opponents of immigration is that they are cold hearted, and ignorant of our moral obligations to help fellow human beings who in may cases have a genuine case for asylum. Again, this is totally unfounded.

A human being is a human being. Nobody in their right mind wants to turn away a suffering mother and child who have fled from a war torn country in genuine fear for their children’s lives.

However there is a problem: while we strive to meet our humanistic concerns, other nations do not. Many asylum seekers have travelled across a whole host of other safe countries to reach the borders of our tiny island? Why?

Many others – as sown in the BBC Panorama series – also highlighted a significant group of bogus asylum seekers who seek to exploit our generosity.

If we truly care about our fellow humans we should do two things. One, we should put a great deal of pressure on our friend nations to fulfil their own obligation to house asylum seekers. Two, we should be very sure we send out the message that we will accept only genuine cases, and that bogus asylum seekers will not only be turned away but formally charged and extradited.

One more moral argument exists – if we truly want to help other nations, why are we poaching their nurses, doctors, etc? Would they not be able to benefit their own people?

My own personal view is that we should take in asylum seekers who have reason to feel in fear of their lives, have not crossed other safe countries and can present a genuine case, or have some kind of exceptional circumstances that brings them to the UK first. We should also pressure our allies to be equally receptive.

What is the problem?

So what is it about immigration that is actually a problem? When does it go from being a benefit to a problem?

I have a short response to answer both these questions in one: when it irreversibly changes the landscape, identity and prospects of the nation.

Landscape – because of the population crisis. At this ear’s budget, Gordon Brown announced a project to build three million new homes. That’s almost half of London to be duplicated in a series of what will surely become the tower blocks of the new century. It’s a statistical fact that if we dealt with immigration, wouldn’t have to do this.

We live on a small island, an island that is lucky enough to have some breathtakingly beautiful landscapes. The more houses we build, the quicker we destroy that.

That of course, is yet another oxymoron from the left. They support the preservation of greenery, but they also accuse of us of living in the past when we object to globalisation and globalism.

Identity – The popular argument being that immigrants make up a tiny portion of the population, so we are being paranoid, there is no threat.

This charge is usually from the same group that would brand us myopic.

The hard facts are this – a significant proportion of first, second and even third generation immigrants are from the Islamic community. The Islamic community tends to produce more children from a younger age. Islamic birthrates are already substantially higher than local birthrates. Again, an elementary Math equation can tell us that – as with many parts of Europe – Islamic families could outnumber indigenous families within fifty years……

Which brings me to the issue of prospects.“Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis ” by Bat Ye-or provides a great summary of this risk. And it is a “risk” because however quixotically we like to look at the world, the reality is that Islam is incompatible with occidental culture. It’s not about race, it’s not about one group of humans being better than another, it is simply the reality that these two deeply rooted and heartfelt culture are too different to coexist in an area as small as the UK. What we have seen in the last few years is just an inkling of what could happen in the near future, especially if we experience a serious economic downturn, where foreign communities risk being demonised. I can go into more detail if requested.

Who is to blame?

Simple: the politicos who used this cheap option without ever consulting the people or even revealing the true nature of intent. Also the elite businessmen who exploit immigration to line their own pockets. By no means to blame are any honest immigrants who came to make an honest living for themselves or their children.

How do we solve the problem?

Vote BNP.

Why ‘no platform’ is no good

Posted in Free speech, Hysteria and lies, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags on April 4, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

“No platform”” is the mantra used by far left groups to describe their policy towards the BNP and other parties. The idiom is derived from the days when politicians would give their speeches on a platform (often specially designed) rather than the modern method of Internet and TV debate and speeches.

In theory at least, the practise of NP is simply that various groups such as students and unions actively work to deny “Fascists” an opportunity to speak in public. Various justifications are supplied by supporters of NP of their actions. A typical manifestation of this would be “Everybody has the right to believe what they want, but some views are so heinous that we must work to deny them a platform”. In other words (though less spoken by NP groups) you can think whatever you want, but don’t say it if we don’t like it.

The system is usually enforced by lobbying of various forms. Most often it comes in the form of protest threats and pledges of negative publicity. Whilst the NP crowd would have us believe the non sequitur that this is proof of the power of democracy, the reality is that many institutions and organisations cave in to the intimidation simply because they fear the violence from and ostentatious publicity for the far left groups.

But the events at Oxford Union last year provided a blueprint for the failings – both logical and practical – of the ‘no platform’ policy. When Nick Griffin and David Irving were invited to Oxford Union to debate the topic of “Free Speech”, various far left groups immediately placed public pressure on Oxford Union to reverse their decision. The board of the Union – which is a private club – held a meeting to discuss the issue. In the most democratic manner possible, they voted to go ahead with the debate. The NP advocates were incensed that their will had been denied.

With some very public resignations preceding, the night of the debate began in high tensions. Nick Griffin had to arrive at the Union several hours early in prescience of attempts by NP groups to block his entry. He was correct. The NP masses, some dressed in black face masks, others barely dressed at all, arrived and displayed their passion for democracy by chanting abuse and blocking students from entering the club. One large group of fifty or so stormed the Union and staged a ‘sit in’ protest. It didn’t work. The night went ahead – albeit split into two separate areas – and a great debate was held.

Lancaster UAF lamented their sorrow that the students of Oxford simply hadn’t seen the folly of their ways and had made a terrible mistake. (In other words, the students of one of Britain’s greatest universities were so stupid, they had not bowed to the intimidation from UAF).

But ‘no platform’ is fallacious in every sense. It is neither practical, logical, or morally correct. Let me tell you why:

1) It is outrageously hypocritical.

NP is a concept introduced and enforced by people who have absolutely no legal power or democratic mandate. Groups such as UAF and ‘Hope Not Hate’ do not stand for election. Therefore, these people take it on themselves to spit in the face of democracy and decide in their pseudo-elitist, unelected groups as to whom the rest of the population are permitted to hear and whom they are not. Needless to say, those whom the world are forbidden to hear are those who disagree with far left politics.

Such a policy is enforced phsically on regular occasions. Can you imagine anything more hypocritical than such actions from a group that claims to oppose Fascism?

2) It is counterproductive.

Westerners are raised in a cultural and academic environment that encourages critical thinking and questioning of authority. If I tell you right now: “Don’t you dare read the rest of this text!” you will have two reactions. One of them will be “Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can’t read?!” and the other would be “Wow! I wonder what it is in this text that I can’t see! Must be good!”. You will become twice as determined to read it.

So when the UAF and their ilk attempt to enforce their rules on people, a sizeable number of them will have their curiosity tweaked and will dislike the UAF.

3) It is unprogressive.

There was a time when it was sacrilege to believe that The Earth orbited The Sun. There was a time when it was abominable to believe that women should have the right to vote. If we allow self declared thought police to control what sacred cows we can and can’t discuss, who is to say that this will not be a serious liability to our development?

4) It creates hysteria, lies and corruption.

Last week I was in a “debate” with a UAF supporter (you know who you are!) on Facebook who had requested (and been denied) that I was banned from a certain group (or as he put it: “Can we adopt no platform?”). He went on to say that “racial assaults have soared in Barking and Dagenham where the BNP have seats. When the BNP get confident, they get vicious.”

I immediately stepped in to show him a police report that specifically showed racial assaults had dropped in the area. If this UAF member had his way, his lies would have been allowed to spread because I would have been banned.

And lies eminate far more frequently from political groups who have no opposition to balance them. They believe in their own power, they become arrogant and they become dishonest. There are examples of this around the world.

5) It is unnecessary.

We already have the only restriction on free speech that is ever required. It is called Common Law. Common Law is apolitical (in theory) and has evolved over the hundreds of years that we Brits have striven towards democracy. As such it is not designed from the whims of any self important extremists, it is not so vulnerable to fashionable thought of one short period and it is democratic. Common Law provides the protection we need from those who would incite others to do us harm, or violate our civil rights. Many people have died struggling for Common Law to protect us all, and it should never be overruled by a mob.

I don’t doubt that there are many good people who mistakenly believe that ‘no platform’ is the answer. They are wrong, and they are lending themselves to one of the most hypocritical practices of the modern age.