Archive for the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) Category

“Anti” Fascist backs down

Posted in Hysteria and lies, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , on June 22, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

A certain group have opened a new web forum. It calls itself “anti-fascism for adults”. Next to this header is a “news” flash: “Lee Barnes gets himself pregnant”.

I made the following challenge to Ketlan, who deleted it within minutes. As usual, Ketlan shows himself as someone who cannot handle or accept any form of logical debate, factual discussion or countering opinions. I know why this is, and so does he.

I challenge Ketlan to a debate.

The topic is simple: I say the BNP are not a Fascist party.

A sensible, one on one adult debate. No petty or personal insults. No anonymous name calling morons. No deletion of posts. No hysteria.

Can you handle that Ketlan?

Of course, you can delete my post and allow anonymous posters to fill this up with insults if it makes you feel secure. But deep down you would still know the truth and so would I. You cannot face logical debate.

Advertisements

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.

UAF lies

Posted in UAF (Unite Against Fascism) with tags , , on May 11, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

Nowadays I don’t usually publicise or link to UAF lies and hysteria as it gives them unwarranted attention.

However, I will make just one exception to serve as an example of the lies.

This article….

****://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2008/05/lee-barnes-lays-down-law-to-challengers.html

(replace the stars with “http”, I don’t want to generate links for the Fascists)

……discusses a fake email. Now look at the comments on the article. Note they are nearly all anonymous, full of lies, slander, hatred and nonsense and basically saying the same thing one hundred times over. And yet, Ketlan never publishes a comment from yours truly when it is civil and simply critical.

So, I will publish it here instead. This is the comment I sent Ketlan today:

What I find hilarious is that you refuse to accept comments that criticise you, Ketlan, or your articles and yet you happily publish anonymous comments full of brazen, blatant lies and hysteria such as your “Griffins a tosser” comment. It shows quite clearly that you have zero respect for free speech and only care for hatred and hysteria. And you have the nerve to call yourself an anti-Fascist.

Your side link articles are just as pathetic. “Why the BNP are Fascist” contains no definition of Fascism – scholarly or otherwise – despite the fact it is notoriously hard to define. It is simply a collection of isolated incidents presented as some kind of proof of a doctrine the writer clearly is ignorant of and, in reality, wishes to use a label to intimidate a party he hates.

You know and I know you won’t publish this comment (though I will) or you’ll publish it with a hysterical rebuttal and then refuse me a reply. It doesn’t matter. You know I’m right.

A minor result

Posted in Hysteria and lies, Quote of the week, UAF (Unite Against Fascism) on May 8, 2008 by redandwhitestripes

So finally, I get my first (almost) direct on line shout out from the UAF. The UAF sites (with the exception of Barnsley UAF) are a bunch of cowardly, hate filled, hysterical yet usually anonymous bloggers who have no life of their own and therefore spend all their time blogging not about politics or the party they support, but an undemocratic hate group known as UAF.

Anyway Lee John Barnes of the BNP has his own stalker blogger who is actually sad enough to shout me in the profile section: (I also declare this quote of the week):

Also, we’d like to hear from any BNP members living in Thailand with mixed race children in contravention of the BNP’s opposition to mixed-race relationships and the resultant offspring. So, do drop us an email on how you resolve such a dilemma and yet retain membership of the BNP. Many thanks.

Great! Well, LJB’s obsessive stalker, your question is a valid one but is also none of your business. However, I do have something I wish to say to you, Ketlan (who I actually thought was female) and all the other Fascists. It is something I could never say better than Kyle Bristow did to another leftie so allow me to quote precocious young Kyle:

I read your email about how you are disappointed with my alleged hatred and racism. I cannot adequately write to express how thrilled I am to hear this. It always is great to be told that I irk the left-wing scum of my country who yearn to destroy Western civilization.

If there is anything else I can do to cause pain and suffering for liberals, please let me know. My goal in life is to piss off liberals so much that steam starts coming out of their ears, their heads rotate a full 360 degrees around, they vomit pea soup, and their heads explode.

Cordially,

I trust Kyle doesn’t mind my copying, since he knows it’s in a good cause.

See you when I get elected, LJB stalker.

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.

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.

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…..