Archive for July, 2008

Talk about yourself

Posted in Uncategorized on July 30, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

I’m curious to know what inspires people to a particular viewpoint or party, so I’d like to invite anyone to discuss how they came to the politics they hold.

Did your parents have the same views?

Have you changed your views over time?

Was there a particular event or issue that changed you?

For me, I was not interested in politics much until my twenties (my colleagues often assume I studied Politics for my Bachelor’s, but actually I studied Business Administration before realising I’m not really a businessman!). I voted Labour when Blair first took over because Labour seemed fashionable back then.

My parents were traditional Tory voters but I think my mum was an occasional Lib Dem defector and my I think dad has now lost faith with the Tories and switched to UKIP.

I began to take an interest in the BNP when I saw first hand the change in my home town and the behaviour of some ethnic groups. I don’t mean that in a wholly negative sense either, I noticed that some ethnic groups worked very hard and contributed massively to society. I always had a feeling that the media were not telling us the full story about immigration and its affects. In fact I had that hunch even before I took an interest in politics. Likewise, I always feel unsure about Islam though I had (and still have) Muslim friends. For a long time I resisted joining the BNP because I knew vaguely that there was a stigma attached to them. But over the course of about five years I became a more frequent visitor to the site and a sequence of events: the Mandela statue in London, 9/11, the London Bombings and my study of The Quran bought me to take the plunge.

But I realise what’s right for one person is not for everyone. My travels have shown me that a person’s upbringing can have a huge affect on the way they see the world, even when two people are viewing the same events, they can see things very differently. The political fighting in Thailand is a perfect example of that.

So out of curiosity, I’d like to invite anyone to talk about themselves. I’ll read the replies later, I’m off to play with my son and – after he goes to sleep – my xbox 360 :-)


About National Socialism and “BNP socialism”

Posted in Uncategorized on July 29, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

In this short piece I’ll be looking to answer a few questions:

1) What is National Socialism? Is it equivalent to being both Nationalist and Socialist?

2) Is National Socialism inherently evil? Is it unworkable?

3) Are there any modern parties that use or hold a National Socialist ideology?

I will use the terms “National Socialism” “Nazism” and “NS” interchangeably.

What is National Socialism? Is it equivalent to being both Nationalist and Socialist?

Wordweb defines National Socialism as:
“a form of Socialism featuring racism and expansionism”. A search on ‘google scholar’ reveals that almost every paper, every book and every encyclopaedia entry on National Socialism references to the Nazis.

The roots of NS almost entirely originate from Germany, mostly with the intellectual doctrines of late nineteenth century figures such as the composer Richard Wagner who encouraged the militant type Socialism of some European states and espoused what would now be considered a vile form of “master race” type psychology.

However the separate ideologies of “Nationalism” and “Socialism” existed a long time before such political evolution occurred. In any case, a cursory search of the internet should be enough to confirm that “National Socialism” is now epitomised by Nazism and vice versa.

So while “Nazism” is a portmanteau of “Nationalist Socialist” (in German), a study of political timelines shows us that NS should be considered an entirely separate and unique ideology in its own right. National Socialism is not simply a loose term for any party or ideology that happens to have elements of both Nationalism and Socialism. The later two ideologies can and do exist entirely as entirely different entities from NS.

So what is NS? National Socialism has several defining characteristics. It is dictatorial and therefore anti democratic. It is expansionist. It is anti-economic liberalism but also anti-Communist. It is militant and, of course, nationalistic.

This is a total contrast to the separate ideologies of Socialism and Nationalism. Socialism – in brief – believes in greater distribution of income and resources in a struggle to lower the class gaps in society. Nationalism – also in brief – seeks to place the role of the state or nation at the forefront of society in order to make people aware of their culture and identity. There are many separate forms of Nationalism including civic Nationalism and ethnic Nationalism.

It should therefore be apparent that NS is not at all equivalent to being “Nationalist” or “Socialist”. Modern Socialist parties in the UK would heavily oppose many of the aforementioned aspects of NS and crucially, they would go through the democratic channels, which is against a core concept of Nazism.

Is National Socialism inherently evil? Is it unworkable?

It should be equally apparent that while Nazism was an evil and unworkable ideology, it is certainly not evil to hold an ideology of Socialism, Nationalism, or an ideology that combines elements of both.

Are there any modern parties that use or hold a National Socialist ideology?

Apparently, yes. I have heard of fringe groups that follow Hitler or employ Nazi ideology. These fringe groups will never be anything more than a small bunch of misguided people. In the mainstream, there are no such parties. Whilst some people have accused the British National Party of being “Nazis” or “Fascists”, these are groundless, almost comical accusations. Certainly the BNP is a Nationalist party which contains elements of Socialism in its political manifesto but – as we have seen – like any other serious party the BNP has core values that are polar opposites of Nazism. The BNP is a party committed to the democratic process. It also supports a policy of non-intervention in foreign conflicts and affairs, which is a total contrast to the expansionist zeal of Nazism. Anyone who accuses the BNP of Nazism clearly has no understanding of history or politics.

Nazism is, essentially, a horrid ideology that is now firmly rooted in history and may it always stay there. It has no relevance to many of the modern, progressive parties in the UK that follow the democratic process and employ elements of both Nationalism and Socialism when needed.



Sources for definitions of Nazism:

Nelson Mandela

Posted in Factual information on July 27, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. He supported anti-government guerilla tactics for years. The ANC were famous for “necking” the idea of setting a tire around someone’s neck, dousing it with fuel and setting it alight.

Mandela also encouraged bombings, including the Church Street Massacre.

On a personal level, Mandela also inadvertently pushed me to join the BNP. The BNP website carried an article about a statue of Mandela to be erected in London. I emailed the council in complaint and they responded telling me “The statue is designed to celebrate diversity”.

That’s when I realised the BNP were telling the truth and Britain has gone way too far down the liberal line.

Apartheid was evil and should have been resisted to the the max peacefully, but fighting evil with evil does not make good.
A man who encouraged brutal murder was being celebrated with statues and fundraising concerts and nobody bats an eyelid. A legal political party that complains is hounded and harassed. It makes me sick. (singing “kill the whites”)

True Fascism: The Iraq War

Posted in Factual information, fascism, Hysteria and lies on July 26, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

There is a political party in our mist that supports Fascism. The leaders of the group have a plan – we might even call it a conspiracy – to inflict terror, ethnic cleansing, murder and dictatorship upon The World. This is not hysteria, embellished storytelling or any of the political mind games I discussed recently, this whole campaign is documented, recorded and reported.

It is the Iraqi war as waged by The Labour Party.

Make no mistake, Blair and Brown knew what the deal was from the first day their US comrade George W Bush took office.

  • Bush and his security team purposely fabricated evidence for Iraq’s WMD’s. Their main witness, codename “curveball” was a fraud. What’s more, the White House knew he was a fraud and ignored this fact.
  • Meanwhile, Cheney meet with Big Oil executives to discuss a plan for invading Iraq.
  • While he was doing this, Bush Jr orchestrated a media whitewash that was so vast, most people still don’t realise how extensive it was. Conferences were filled with planted questions, FOX and the other channels were fed with falsified information and dissenters were harassed and intimidated.
  • The US State Department drew up a document that planned to smash OPEC by declaring state ownership (as in, owned by the US puppet government) of Iraq’s oil, the same document also explained how Iraq assets would be sold off to international companies and copyright backpayments would be slapped on all media.
  • UN weapons inspectors confirmed the WMD’s were not there, but Bush and co. continued to shout and scream about “nuclear weapons” and “terrorism” at every opportunity.
  • The James Baker 3 institute drew up their own, pro-OPEC plan for Iraq that also included ownership of the oil (for purposes of withholding it this time) and sale of Iraq assets.
  • Paul Wolfwitz appeared on US national TV and told his countrymen that Iraq could pay for its own renovation. He stated that Iraq could pump “six million barrels a day” to pay for itself.
  • After the invasion began, Bush employed a team to plan his victory speech in meticulous detail. It had to be that way, since he was never a great pilot and faces very strong accusations that he ducked service during his time in the Air Force.
  • And when it all started to go wrong, it was undoubtedly due to military blunders such as de-Baathification and lack of communication between coalition forces. US and UK generals repeatedly told their leaders they simply did not have enough troops, but the requests were ignored.
  • But the US had its own squabble between the State Department and JB3I. Ahmed Chalibi – the neocon’s  choice for PM – was arrested on suspicion of espionage. The JBI team got their man in his place. Meanwhile general Jay Garner was withdrawn from the field. His crime? Ordering an election before the oil had been secured.
  • And of course, the insurgency and murder continues.

Blair and Brown knew all this. Blair gave the approval for our boys to go and die over these lies. Brown signed off a budget of billions to pay for it. The total cost currently stands at over seven billion pounds.

Iraq has the potential to be the second biggest oil producer in OPEC. Yet is has a fraction of its wells dug in comparison to Saudi Arabia. Today, just as has been done so many times in its short history, Iraq has been conquered not to bring liberty to its people but to suppress its oil production.

Again, this is not hysteria or a conspiracy theory. This is a documented, citible, provable fact.

Let me ask you, which political party has caused more misery, hatred, horror, murder, Facism, rape of liberty and religious genocide in modern UK history?

The answer is none.

Innocent people continue to die over a war that was based on lies and nothing more. FOX News recently run a story concerning the rock/rap/metal group ‘Rage Against The Machine’ and their observations on the crimes of GWB. FOX quoted lead singer Zack as saying “[George Bush] should be shot” and portrayed Zack as a crackpot.

Actually Zack’s full quote was:

“A good friend of ours [Noam Chomsky] once said that if the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II […] every single one of them, every last rich white one of them from Truman on, would have been hung to death and shot—and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be.”

And this is true. GWB is guilty and therefore Blair and Brown are aides to a massive crime against humanity. That is not an exaggeration. Moreover, they have fed you and lies as they took our tax money to spend on their war. They spat in the face of democracy and insulted the intelligence of each and every citizen who objected to a war that never had a democratic mandate in the first place.

In the time it has taken you to read this, it is likely that another innocent person has died in Iraq.What has happened in Iraq is a travesty and if you care about it, then you can at least ensure Labour get the message. Vote them out.

But don’t vote them out for a weak, sell out party that would have done exactly the same thing, vote them out for a party that said all along that it was wrong to be involved. Vote for the BNP.


“Armed Madhouse” by Greg Palast
The State Department and JBI plans for Iraq and the scheme to withold the oil, the Wolfowitz quote.

“Fiasco: The American military asdventure in Iraq” by Thomas E. Ricks
The military blunders, Jay Garner and government properganda.

“The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina” Frank Rich
The shocking extent of the White House’s media manipulation
The cost of the war to the UK taxpayer.

Frogs in pots and Islam in the UK

Posted in Factual information with tags on July 20, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

One of the hardest concepts that I try to explain to my students is the “frog in a boiling pot” concept. It’s not the actual analogy that is difficult : if you place a frog in a pot of water on a stove and suddenly turn the heat full blast, the frog will jump out. If you turn the temperature up slowly in minuscule fractions, the rise will be so slow that by the time the frog realises what is happening, he’s being served up in some French restaurant.

No, the hard part is actually getting students to understand how this concept can be, and certainly is, used in so many parts of Sociology. The theory is also known as “creeping normalcy” and another example might be cutting down trees on an island. Do it in one fell swoop and you’ll create havoc, do it a few trees per day, you’ll encounter far less resistance.

And this creeping normalcy is hitting us in the UK right now. what’s more, those who are aware of it and raise it as an issue are demonised and screamed down. But that does not change the fact: Britain is becoming increasingly Muslim.

Now of course the usual counter argument here is: “It’s only three percent of UK residents who are Muslim” , which is true. But let’s look at some trends.

The exact number and growth of UK Muslims is hard to track due to the fact that, previously, the UK census did not ask about religion, now it is an optional question. However the most recent ‘official’ figure seems to be around one point six million, though that is most likely higher now. Quite an increase from 10,000 before 1925, no? The number of Mosques has increased proportionately from four in 1960 to 618 (source).

But what is the evidence that this trend will increase? There are two absolutely crucial factors. First, one third of the Muslim population is under sixteen. This means that with the Islamic culture of multiple marriages for men, a population boom can be expected to come. Secondly, the Muslim birthrate – though not always as high as reported – is still far higher than the native birth rate which is dropping alarmingly. Muhammad is now the second most popular name for baby boys born in the UK.

The facts do not lie in this case. Don’t take my word for it, have a look at the data provided by a Princeton professor.

Now, if you are a multicultralist then you are probably jumping for joy at this news. But the rise of UK Islam should be a cause for concern. The two cultures involved here are considerably different, which is why – asides from the obvious – we have problems with arranged marriages, incest, support for stoning and beating and many, many more. And don’t tell us it’s a tiny minority that support terror, it may be a minority but it isn’t tiny.

Whether you are a multicultralist, a civic nationalist or an ethnic nationalist, Muslim, Christian or Atheist, immigrant, migrant or native, the fact is that these trends will certainly present social problems and challenges. We must deal with them peacefully but we must deal with them. While those raising objections are screamed down as being “racists” (read: ‘spawn of the devil’ in PC Britain) and “hate mongers” , etc. the problem will simply escalate.

As we ponder this problem I have another modicum of thought – why do we not see this kind of problem developing in Muslim nations? The answer is that foreigners in these nations are welcomed and tolerated as long as they accept local customs, rules and cultures. Most importantly, the identity of these nations is never threatened by catastrophic increases that threaten to irreversibly change the makeup of the nation and the culture and history that comes with it.

“You can hide from reality but you cannot hide from the consequences of hiding from reality”.

Elementary Mathematics

Posted in Factual information with tags on July 20, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Now there’s a very good reason why I’m not a Mathematics teacher (though I did well in Maths at school), but I’d like to offer a few basic guidelines for dealing with people who, perhaps, have been reading this book.

If a party has a massive increase in net votes in an election (regardless of seats won) , that party’s support has increased. In a truly democratic (i.e. proportional representation system) government, it could mean a large increase in seats.

If a party’s number of council seats has increased from zero to fifty six in fifteen years, with an (obvious)  overall trend of growth during that period, it is growing.

If a party contest four seats that were not theirs anyway – and did not win any of the seats – it is not a decrease. It is simply a failure to gain any of those four seats. If the Tories did not win all the seats either, it doesn’t mean their (almost guaranteed) forthcoming general election victory must be doomed!

That’s the basics of it. The growth of the BNP has not been – as one BNP exec described it – the “mushroom cloud” success of the likes of the Referendum or UKIP Party. It has been slow, steady and sure. When people state otherwise, you can borrow the above lesson.

Political mind games

Posted in Factual information, Hysteria and lies with tags on July 14, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Politicians have always been experts not just at outright lies, but also at clever mind games such as push polling , straw man arguments , weasel words ( want some examples?) and the politics of fear. It’s important to be aware of these methods as awareness and understanding of how they work is the best way to defend against them.

However, one method that works particularly well – a method related to the politics of fear – is very simple: opinion presented as fact (OPAF).

OPAF is rampant in politics. Often the claims can be subtle or malicious enough to seem true, and a favourite trick is to use exaggerated or embellished evidence that seems to corroborate the claim. In other cases however, the accusation or observation is simply based on strong dislike or even hatred.

It ever ceases to amaze me that people take some outrageous claims for granted.

Let’s take one random example of a ridiculous claim.

“The XYZ party is a party of drunk drivers”.

The chances are such an OPAF is being stated because of one or two news items about members of the XYZ party being arrested for DUI. However, with liberal media being what it is and psychological elements such as the belief confirmation bias , people often lose perspective of quantity. They can begin to truly believe that the actions of two people can represent the actions of two thousand people.

The antidote is simple – ask for genuine evidence that the majority or even a significant portion of the party have been caught DUI. When such evidence cannot be presented, ask why somebody is stereotyping a whole party for the actions of a tiny fraction. In short, simply point out the truth – the accuser is using OPAF.

So how can we take a moral high ground and rise above OPAF? Simple, use citeable, credible evidence whenever making factual claims. Of course, not everything on the net is reliable evidence for use in a debate. However, the wealth of information is such that a credible source relating to almost any topic can be found if the user looks hard enough. Government sources (despite their obvious vested agenda) , the Election Commission web site , broadsheets or Berliners such as The Times or The Telegraph (though again, there is an NUJ vested interest) and scholarly papers are just some examples of credible sources that can be used. Credible sources such as these add value and respectability well over OPAF to any educated person.

Of course many other sites – such as my own here – are not neutral. But some non-neutral sites can offer useful links or at least present logical arguments against OPAF. A cognisant person should be able to detect the difference and discriminate accordingly.

Don’t forget to cite your sources. At the very least, a mention of the web site (not just a link, but an actual sentence stating the site’s name and source) should be used when copying chunks of text or any other situation where the writer could even risk being seen as using plagarism or simply when sources are likely to be scrutinised or queried. For citing academic works such as books, use one of these styles.

Again, a simple link with no description is not enough and would be considered very poor taste.

Using such evidence should help you wade through the murky swamps of politics, but take heart!  At least we have a swamp to wade in. Less than half The World’s nations live in a democracy and fewer still have a democracy as mature as ours. For all its many faults, the UK political system remains one of the best.