Archive for the Free speech Category

Sean Gabb

Posted in Factual information, Free speech on August 10, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

On Friday, whilst searching for a different file on my laptop, I discovered a PDF of a book called :”Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back” by Sean Gabb.

I had no recollection of seeing the download, the book or the author but I’m very glad I discovered it.

Sean Gabb is apparently leader of the UK Libertarian Alliance and a true conservative. The book is short and highly readable and Gabb astutely dissects a very clever form of thought control, cultural conditioning and creeping normalcy used by the UK government. By analysing usage of Orwellian terminology such as “Far right” (Thereby allowing the media to label anyone as “right wing” as being measurably close to the evils of Hitler), “progressive” and “modernisation” , Gabb demonstrates a rule that’s importance had been lost on me ever since I learnt it in A-Level psychology: the vocabulary available to us affects and conditions the thoughts available to us.

Another area where Gabb and I agree – though Gabb is far more articulate – is the attack on one of the most exploited, ambiguous, demonised and overused words in the English language: “racist”. As Gabb points out, a ‘racist’ can be a doctor who conducts a scientific test that shows Hispanics have a higher IQ than Asians, it can mean a difference of values between two groups of people or simply a preference for one’s own people and values.

I detest the word ‘racism’ and so does Gabb, apparently. (Genuine hostility, harm or maltreatment of somebody based purely on their race is racial discrimination).

Gabb has a range of books, articles and media clips available on his web site including the aforementioned book utterly free of charge. If you like it, please send him a donation. I sent a tenner myself, a bargain for the books on offer. There are few academics who take a stand against the nonsense pervading our society in this day and age, but Gabb seems to be one of the brave ones.


Rock on at the RWB

Posted in Free speech, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , on June 13, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

The fact that this year’s RWB festival has been denied a licence by Derbyshire police due to threats of violence from our lovely “anti” fascist friends could actually work well in our favour.

This year’s festival will almost certainly be the BNP’s biggest ever, with our increasing popularity. Due to those threatening violence in order to bully Derbyshire police into refusing a licence for the festival, the attendees will have to bring their own music and booze. Fine, that will just encourage people to be resourceful and inventive. It may very well also develop a strong team spirit.

The bullying may very well increase sympathy and support for the BNP and add to what already promises to be a great event.

I’m gutted I can’t be there but I hope my BNP colleagues will have lots of fun, record some speeches and share some photos.

The BNP quiet revolution goes on.

New blog by the man himself

Posted in Free speech on May 28, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Richard Barnbrook, the GLA member representing the BNP has a new blog here.

Quote of the week

Posted in Free speech, Quote of the week with tags , on May 3, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

“Like rats leaving a sinking ship”.

Richard Barnbrook, our new GLA member, as other politicians walk off stage when he enters.

“I promise every Londoner that walks, regardless of race, religion or creed, if you need someone to listen to you, I am here. All you have to do is accept the identity of this great city”.

Richard Barnbrook. A politician who tells the truth.

The BNP have arrived.

See the great speech here

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.

Quote of the week

Posted in Free speech on April 2, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

“Some people say the movie has caused us to falsely equate Islam with violence, which is a bit like falsely equating Walt Disney with Mickey Mouse”.

Pat Condell (on Fitna)

Posted in Free speech on March 24, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Far right Dutch politician Geert Wilder is preparing to release a short movie called “Fitna”, which details the violent side of Islam. The movie has already caused a stir and is not even released yet. It’s likely to exacerbate tensions between the Islamic world and Europe.

Personally, I support the right of Geert to make the movie. If it was a critique of Christianity, there would be no complaints. So why should we live in fear of insulting one religion?
What do you think?