Neo-fascist website targets York ex-students and staff
A UNIVERSITY of York Professor and several ex-York students have been targeted by a far right fascist website with links to the British National Party (BNP) and violent neo-Nazi groups.
The website, Redwatch, whose slogan is “Remember places, traitors’ faces, they’ll all pay for their crimes” posts personal information such as addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses on alleged socialists, anti-fascists and peace campaigners.
A photograph taken of Senior Politics Lecturer Dr Simon Parker at a demonstration in York against the war in Lebanon this summer, has been placed on the Redwatch website. Of this, Dr Parker said “They tend to use fear-and-scare tactics to intimidate their opponents so I am loathe to give them more publicity by giving you a personal reaction to these photographs.”
Anti-BNP protest in York
Redwatch, which urges its supporters to “hit back against the unwashed scum of the Marxist left and their allies,” also names Chris Jones, YUSU President 2003-2004, and Ceredig Jamieson-Ball, former student and now Liberal Democrat Councillor for Heslington Ward, as targets. Both were founding members of the York city group Unite Against Fascism. Jones said, “Redwatch is absolutely disgusting and given that the BNP, who are synonymous with Redwatch, crow about freedom of speech, their attempts to silence their critics are hypocritical.”
Redwatch has recently been in the national headlines and was debated in Parliament when in May 2006 Alan McFadden, a Liverpool Trade Union Congress (TUC) leader, was seriously wounded in a knife attack by a Redwatch supporter. McFadden was almost blinded in front of his two young daughters.
The BNP denies having any links with Redwatch, though the internet website is registered in the name of Simon Sheppard who in 1999 was a BNP organiser in Hull and was jailed for producing anti-Semitic literature. As well as this, investigations by the TUC have shown substantial links between BNP organisers and Redwatch.
Speaking on behalf of Vernon Coaker MP, Home Office Minister for Internet Crime, a spokesman condemned Redwatch, saying “The Government understands that the presence of Redwatch and other extremist websites on the internet is a cause of concern and frustration for many people.
We are committed to taking action against any website which commits or incites criminal offences, and we are clear that it is unacceptable for any extremist group to use the Internet as a means to harass, intimidate or threaten individuals in an illegal manner.” He added, “Although there have been calls for Redwatch to be simply closed down and removed from the internet, we do not believe this is the best way to tackle the criminality of the website.”
However, Ben Drake, the current chair of York Unite Against Fascism, who was YUSU President 1992-1993 said “sites like Redwatch simply exist to intimidate people, they are a strong incitement to violence and they should be shut down as they clearly go beyond the boundaries of public order.”
BNP activity in York has increased in the last few weeks as the party prepares to contest several seats in the May local elections, with a leafleting campaign which does not exclude student areas. A York expert on far right groups said “The BNP are a very nasty organisation and I am aware that they have been targeting York for a number of years now.”
Connor Cooling, a third year Economics student responded to receiving a BNP leaflet saying “it’s disgusting that a fascist party are targeting York, their leaflet was just plain racist.” At a recent talk, MP Ann Cryer, who defeated the BNP leader Nick Griffin in her constituency of Keighley and Ilkely in the 2005 general election told attending students that “they should fight the BNP all the way, because they are a racist party who preach poison and you have to prove that.”
>> COMMENT: ‘Watching the Redwatchers’.
Andy
Critics of the BNP have been attacked in Yorkshire after being listed on Redwatch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6129184.stm)
“Remember places, traitors’ faces, they’ll all pay for their crimes”. What about the documented crimes of BNP supporter’s and activists - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/advisory/criminal.stm
john winston beatson
the B.N.P. are the only British political party who has the welfare British working class people.
stop all these lies about them, if any one has any proof about any criminal activity in the B.N.P. ranks or policies then expose them to the law enforces.
if you don’t like them or their policies then stand against them at the polls
as an ex steelworker/lorrydriver of Sheffield i joined them because i believe in them to secure a future for the British Nation
tom
None of this is lies: a very high proportion of the BNP’s candidates, councillors and representatives have recent convictions for violent or threatening behaviour, including racial violence, the threatening of pensioners and an attack on a Jewish solicitor. Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, lost an eye while attempting to make a home-made bomb. The purpetrator of the London nail-bombings declared that he acted to ’cause a racial war and encourage people to vote BNP’. This is to say nothing of its ordinary members, or those who have not been convicted (in some cases due to witnesses being, unsurprisingly, afraid to speak out in court). For more details visit www.uaf.org.uk.
One thing you’ve said is true though: if we do not like the BNP; if we do not like racism, violence and fascism; if we do not want a party that praises the likes of Hitler, we must oppose them at the polls! It is our responsibility, regardless of background or political allegience, to use our votes in the upcoming council elections in May to make sure we don’t end up with a BNP concillor.
Every vote against them shows that we will not stand for their lies.
Jack
I have an intense dislike towards the pseudo-liberal elite that oppress patriotism and freedom of expression in Britain, however, as an educated person I do like to acquaint myself with the facts as objectively as I can before forming an opinion.
I went to look at this “Redwatch” site, and at best I found it silly; rather like when I happened upon a “Green Nazi” site that made me laugh out loud.
If this is so-called anti-fascists idea of a threat to freedom in Britain, then they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel; even with all their superlative language.
What I find is that the climate as displayed in the biased media has swung from being a little too right wing, to being a little too left wing over the last 40 years.
You may be able to threaten people with economic sanctions (getting the sack); access to education sanctions; and social sanctions, but you can’t control what people think and feel in their gut.
Resistance to immigration is a natural human response. What seems to have happened in this country is that people are being made to feel wrong for having this response. Go to any other country, Japan, Switzerland, the USA, and you’re allowed to (in Japan) exclude people from citizenship on the basis of ethnicity; demand that would-be immigrants study your language, culture, history for years; and respect it; and express your patriotism without slur.
In this country, we’re told that we have no culture or that we’re “multicultural” to excuse people from the onerous task of fitting in; we’re told that the ethnic name we use to describe ourselves (i.e.: English, Scottish; Welsh) now has to include people of other ethnicities (!); and we are silenced by myriad means from expressing dissent other than by white flight.
What’s it all for? Is it collective middle-class guilt for being better off that millions in the developing world? Is it middle-class avarice requiring that, in rather neo-colonialist fashion, workers be harvested to here where the wages can be kept low to keep the NHS hobbling along without a hike in tax and M&S strawberries kept on the shelves all-year round at knock-down prices?
The sort of people who control the media; the political/civil service; and access to higher education; are of the same type who print sensationalist articles like this in student newspapers.
If one takes the time to read the BNP’s manifesto objectively, you will not find any Fascism therein.
Mind you, who among you knows what Fascism really is whilst you inadvertently perpatrate something akin to it?
If you look in a dictionary too see what words like “bigotry”, “prejudice” and “Fascism” mean, you will find that these words are not the possession of the pseudo-liberal elite; rather they accurately describe them.
Take the “no-platform” policy towards the BNP at university - which totally contravenes university regulations for discriminating against students on the basis of their political beliefs.
The fact that they have to publicise their enemy so much by banning them, demonstrates how weak and indefensible their general cause is.
All I see is a disingenuous and active campaign to polarise people and to feed off that tension to further careers and agendas.
Even the way the NUS in it’s literature describes all non-white people as black, is inadvertantly racist to white people: a. because it promoting racial harmony, inclusion and unity they are seeking to divide on the basis of race; and b. because they are assuming that racism is only something that white people do to non-white people.
This “Redwatch” site is a silly, insignificant little internet hole like millions of others. Nouse is simply inflating it to some undeserved level of importance so as to help justify it’s existence as a campaigning force, when there’s nothing really to campaign about.
Nobody cares about some podgy splenetic middle-aged gnomes having a rant on t’inter; what people do care about is the fact that York is going to become a seaside resort in the next few years, and Nouse should be showing a little more imagination, and start campainging on that, rather than bullying harmless, innocent patriots.
Someone who is frightened of just about everyone else who comments on this site
How is York going to become a seaside resort?! Are the Council planning on towing it away?
Malcolm
No, I don’t understand the seaside resort comment at all…in fact I don’t understand much of Jack’s comment. Perhaps it’s all the spelling mistakes…or the circumlocutionary right wing chauvinism…I would suggest that our friend, before recommending that we look up Fascism in a dictionary, treats himself to a copy of ‘A Dictionary for the Right Wing’ available at all good retail outlets. Just a thought.
Jack
To the first respondant - have you not aware of global warming? Or the fact that York lies on a large floodplain?
The point, of course, is that this article is:
1. Sensationalist
2. Prejudiced
3. Lazy
The point, of course, is that there are so many more important things to be writing about than shrieking about one of countless irrelevant little websites, global warming being an example.
To Malcolm.
1. I’m dyslexic, so I’m sure you’re generous enough to excuse the one spelling mistake at the end (campainging), and the deliberate regionalism (t’inter); of course, this is just posturing on your part.
2. Rather than deploy Argumentum Ad Hominem (by assuming that I haven’t read anything you have), why not actually address the points?
I expect at least some students at York to have the perceptiveness to see what the whole response is about, rather than carelessly exposing their prejudices against people who challenge lazy sensationalist articles ostensibly about the BNP by disingenuously cherry-picking irrelevant snippets.
If you truly have taken the time to read through the whole post in order to point out spelling errors, you should be aware that I do not espouse either the Redwatch site or the BNP.
I simply observe the rabid prejudice against them: the BNP is not “Fascist”: it may be Nationalist; and you may not like it; but “Facism” is something different, which you would realise if you actually studied them objectively. My comments only appear right-wing when viewed from a socially far-left perspective.
If you don’t understand my comments then this is what they are about: that the bubble world of far-left middle-class university culture that extends to the world of the media; that is utterly detached from the world of the white working class, is the weird warped world from which this kind of prejudiced bigoted hysterical far-left diatribe issues.
It’s time that the sort of attitudes that lead to this kind of article being published; the sort of prejudices that lead to accusations of being a “right-wing chauvinist” and worse, simply for challenging these people, are challenged.
Malcolm
To Jack. Lol, perhaps I admit to being a disingenuous cherry-picker. But really you lay yourself open to these kinds of comments through the inflated nature of your rhetoric. You talk about diatribes - have you noticed how long your post is compared to those of other people? Although you claim not to espouse the cause of the BNP, it is surely far more disingenuous to dismiss something like Redwatch as merely ’silly’ when it is aimed as a means of intimidation, however ineffective you may believe it to be. Perhaps, as you said, you believe that people should be talking more about global warming - but political issues are not an ‘either/or’ proposition. I happen to care very much about global warming, but why should this stop me from arguing about the BNP? My doing so takes nothing away from the battle against climate change as far as I’m aware. Throwing that into the mix was purely an exercise in misdirection. Ultimately I remain bemused by your aggressive attitude towards the left and the media as well as your clear disrespect for the culture of this University, which I don’t feel that you even attempted to justify in your either of your posts.
Jamie Martin
The problem with stories like this in the student press is that they don’t bother to look into the sensible policies the BNP advocate!
Emma
What exactly are these ’sensible policies’ that the BNP advocate? Enlighten us.
Jack
enlighten yourself… read!
I mean, surely that’s what you’re at university to do? To read objectively; to think critically and logically; and to present well-considered arguments based on evidence.
All that these articles serve to do is to perpetuate prejudice against the BNP and the significant numbers of people who are sympathetic to their policies.
Ostracising people whose views you suspect you don’t like does not make them go away; and only serves to polarise views and heighten tensions when your suspicions are based on peer pressure; hearsay; fashion; or plain prejudice; as is the case with views relating to the BNP.
Only by engaging with people fairly and without prejudice can you resolve issues; only by reading and listening objectively to what the BNP has to say, can you understand what they and their sympathisers are truly about.
Here’s a manifesto
http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/man_menu.htm
Note that whilst I don’t necessarily support the BNP; I certainly understand where they’re coming from, and some policies are completely on the nail. If they had a little more sophistication and shrewdness about their arguments they might actually be a force to be reckoned with.
Many millions of people - white working class people - are naturally disposed towards the BNP, but don’t vote because they feel that voting is a waste of time.
Jack
To Malcolm.
Well you could also say, that the posts of others were pointlessly short and offered nothing.
I don’t have a lot to spend on the internet, so I’d rather keep it condensed.
I totally reject the accusation of me being disingenuous - I’m not pretending to think that Redwatch is an irrelevance; I’m merely observing that it is.
Redwatch is a silly little site that no-one’s ever heard of, unless they spend too much time on the internet searching google for microscopic organisations set up “as a means of intimidation”. Any tit can set up a page like that in half an hour, and they are best ignored or directed to the nearest onanism website to relieve themselves.
In sense I’m making the “terrorism” argument - you respond to them, and you give them legitimacy etc..
Further, If you respond to them, knowing that they’ll respond back, then you’re fishing for legitimacy for yourself for “standing up to them”.
Come on, grow up.
“political issues are not an ‘either/or’ proposition”.
You know full well that it’s a matter of priorities.
Let’s be honest, picking on one lonely hate-filled tit with a half-arse website is relatively easy; and makes you feel powerful.
Global warming is a much bigger harder issue; and one that makes you feel powerless in the face of.
“I remain bemused by your aggressive attitude towards the left and the media as well as your clear disrespect for the culture of this University”
Wow. Where do I start, you’ll have to be a little more specific, unless you’re tryingto coax out something along the lines of “the left is the aggressor; the left is the oppressor; the media is its blackshirts; and the left-wing extremism inculcated in university is it’s hitler youth.” etc… That kind of bandy-legged fist-ringing get us nowhere.
What on earth do you mean by “clear disrespect for the culture of this University” - Do you mean “how dare I stand up to the righteous religion of Leftism?!”
Do you mean the culture of this university? or the culture of YUSU/NUS? They are not the same organisations.
If you want to digress onto the NUS: I object to the NUS enforcing far-left political campaigns on students, and falsly claiming it has a mandate to do so. (I’m not alone either: http://no2nus.susu.org/).
I object to the parts of the constitution that are in direct conflict with university regulations - did I somehow forget to give any details in my acres of rambling babble earlier? (I doubt it).
Anyway, don’t you dare try to make this a playground “us versus you alone” thing - this is not YOUR university with YOUR values that I differ from; this is OUR university, that has to be inclusive of both our views.
In a sense this goes to the core of the issue with the BNP… this is not the Left’s society, with the Left’s views that a “tiny minority” of thought criminals are disrupting - this is OUR society, that has to include ALL of us; and it doesn’t - many millions of white working class people feel that their country has been stolen from them… neo-colonialist immigration without their consent to keep their wages down in the NHS etc…
I think the truth is, your bemused because few so-called “right-wingers” have been able to suss out the Left, and beat them at their own game.
Views like mine, don’t come from sitting in a bedroom draped in swastikas chanting backwards to Satan; they come from the simpl, calm application of logic and reason.
Jack
(trubble with dyslexia, is you keep thinking you’ve written something, when you haven’t)
I think the truth is, your bemused because few so-called “right-wingers” have been able to suss out the Left, and beat them at their own game… and consequently you get to hear any thought-through attacks or challenges made against them using the same gay (in the northern colloquial sense) language.
Many feel it’s a waste of time, as the LEft controls the media, the public servies and the education system; but I’ve just had enough, and can’t keep it in any more, I’ve got to speak my mind.
Jack
…you DON’T get to hear…
(gimme a break here!)
Jason
Where to start, Jack. Leaving aside the NUS (I dont really care), I think a few things need to be cleared up about the BNP and their policies.
The problem with “listening objectively to what the BNP have to say” is that, under Mr Griffin, the BNP have attempted to disguise the nature of their beliefs in order to gain power. Under the previous leader John Tyndall, the BNP supported compulsory repatriation of ethnic minorities, and Mr Griffin claims that he personally supports this policy, but has dropped it as it is a vote-loser.
Now, if you consider that this is not illegal immigrants that Griffin is refering to, but ethnic minorities, regardless of how many generations their families have been resident in this country, I think that the extent to which the BNP are a racist organisation that have attempted to win support with a glossy manifesto becomes clearer.
Even a cursory glance at their manifesto, however gives evidence of discriminatory viewpoints. The section dealing with crime would appear to state that people of other ethnicities are inherently more criminal.
The party has recently attempted to cover up its previously prominent anti-semiticism and replace it with the currently more acceptable Islamophobia. Griffin has a history of holocaust denial and as tom has pointed out, violence.
I understand that you consider that Redwatch is not significant , but its use of intimidation against people who attempt to put across the truth about the BNP is symptomatic of the network of shady, organisations that are linked to the party, even if the party leadership deny it. Combat 18, for example, an explicitly neo-nazi group, was originally set up as the ‘enforcement arm’ of the party, and I’d be very surprised if it’s membership didnt contain party members.
The reason it is more important than ever to stand up to the BNP is precisely because it is attempting to adopt semi-reasonable policies (although I think that even that is stretching the term somewhat). The true nature of the Party is still fascist, so it is important to make sure that people understand this, and take their votes elsewhere.
The parties stance on other important issues such as women’s rights and homosexuality reflects their generaly noxious nature, incidently
Neo-colonialist immigration without their consent to keep wages down in the NHS?!?!? What planet are you living on?! surely it is self evident that our health service could not possibly exist without the thousands of doctors and nurses of immigrant origin working in it?
Finally
“this is not the Left’s society, with the Left’s views that a “tiny minority” of thought criminals are disrupting - this is OUR society, that has to include ALL of us; and it doesn’t”
Ye-es it has to include ALL of us, that’s exactly our point. All of us regardless of the place of our birth, or our parents place of birth, or our grandparents place of birth.
A couple of sources for you. I know you think that the media has a left wing bias, but I suggest that you examine the quotations that Griffin, Collet and others have been accredited with. Enless you believe that the following news agencies have put words in their mouths I suggest that you ought to reconsider your position on this matter.
I would suggest that it is you and not those who oppose the BNP who, “as an educated person” should “acquaint [your]self with the facts as objectively as [you] can before forming an opinion.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/roots/1998.stm
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/young_nazi_proud.html
Jason
btw, I could have gone on in this vein for some time.
Jason
And I don’t think the anti-facist journalist who got stabbed thought that Redwatch was particularly insignificant.
Jack
“nder Mr Griffin, the BNP have attempted to disguise the nature of their beliefs in order to gain power”
That’s your prejudice.
“Mr Griffin claims that he personally supports this policy, but has dropped it as it is a vote-loser.”
Many people support this, but the pseudo-liberal controlled establishment would give people hell for supporting it openly… people are too afraid of losing their jobs to express what they really feel openly.
“the extent to which the BNP are a racist organisation that have attempted to win support with a glossy manifesto becomes clearer.”
Depends what you mean by racism; it used to have a precise meaning, now it encompasses everything from mild mockery of a regional accent to objecting to people prescriptive (relgious) beliefs.
“Even a cursory glance at their manifesto, however gives evidence of discriminatory viewpoints.”
Your prejudice again.
“Redwatch is not significant , but its use of intimidation against people who attempt to put across the truth about the BNP is symptomatic of the network of shady, organisations that are linked to the party, even if the party leadership deny it. Combat 18, for example, an explicitly neo-nazi group,”
See, there you go, conflating different groups into convenient mass for you to hate.
“I’d be very surprised if it’s membership didnt contain party members.”
Your prejudice again.
“The true nature of the Party is still fascist”
It is not Fascist, Fascism is something else. You are simply prejudiced against and bigoted towards Nationalists, or rather patriots.
It is more important than ever to stand up against people like you who are the true fascists (to misuse the word as you do).
YOU (plural) are the bigots, YOU are the aggressors, YOU are the haters.
I’m sure you believe that the misinformation you pump out is true, but it simply doesn’t pass muster.
The unethical pseudo-liberal elite has wilfully fostered a situation where nobody can get funding to objectively research and establish whether sexual deviency is a mental illness or behavioural disorder… they simply push past rigorous analysis and difficult questions to force our children to be taught that it’s normal to indulge in same-sex liaisons; not satisfied with legalising it; they want to take on the trappings of marriage. Leaving the question, well why can’t any number of people with any type of relationship “marry” - you either have a rule (based on a connection with biological reality) or none at all.
The relentless unethical assault on the family, and this cult of individualism, is doing appalling damage to this country - evident almost everywhere you look.
Operations to make people who are mentally ill enough to believe that they are a member of the opposite sex is unethical and appaling - these people need proper support and help, no sex change operation can change the physiology of your body!
“surely it is self evident that our health service could not possibly exist without the thousands of doctors and nurses of immigrant origin working in it?”
I’m living on planet “market economics” mate.
This is one of the classic logically fallacious arguments that need publicly destroying once and for all: it’s a false premise.
Let me tell you what would happen without immigrants being harvested to work in the NHS - the market would force wages up to meet the demand.
The true (incessantly unsustainable) cost of the NHS has always been concealed by politicians with short-term interests deliberatly importing labour from the developing world because they will obviously be grateful for a lower wage (that is neo-colonialism - exploit people from the developing world over here rather than in their own countries and sod the mayhem it causes).
What planet do you live on? Planet “pay foreigners lower wages so that British people can’t get hired”?!
Immigration is wrong. It wrong for the immigrants; wrong for the people who are forced against their will to accept them.
Economic development should take place in the developing world, so that people are not driven to leave all they know to end up in a place where they are not welcome.
The working classes of Britain should not be faced with a steady stream of foreigners who are of alien: ethnicity, culture/religion, values, language, happy to work for less.
This situation only suits those who are already affluent and helps keep their bills down - they don’t have to live in diversity shitholes facing the aggression of immigrants, they can rant safely in their leafy suburban semis; and can happily move away.
In this country, university is dominated by the middle classes, I’ve seen figures of around 85% of students being described as middle class; less then 5% working class. Naturally graduates more often than not end up running things in the world of work; but they are totally disconnected from the massive white-working classes in terms of their views; yet because of their privilege and power, the views of the middle classes (the pseudo-liberal views) dominate; and they have ruined this country. Essentially they politically oppress the white working classes with their rabid determination to increase the immigrant population; to legitimise sexual deviency; and to inflict Orwellian thought control through the media; public services; and education system.
You want to know why the BNP is rising? Go and live among the white working classes; acquaint yourself with their obscene primal grunting.
“All of us regardless of the place of our birth, or our parents place of birth, or our grandparents place of birth.”
No.
this whole “multicultural” evil was designed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You’ve attacked the whole notion of nationhood.
“white” people have had their ethnic identities robbed from them… we are not allowed to be called English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish, we are assigned the meaningless moniker of “white”.
The whole basis of a country is ethnic and biological.
Families, forming into groups/communties of families, into settled mono-ethno-cultural settled states.
Immigrants are not going to ever be part of that; they shall always be foriegn, unless of course they intermarry, and interbreed.
Where you are born does not determine either your ethnicity or nationality.
(There are plenty of native British people born in places like India).
Immigration must be stopped and reversed.
This is not “racist” in the kind of free-form shape-shifting definition morons like you perpetuate.
My child is half British, and half white, his ethnicity is defined by his blood - he has two.
However, Africans and Asians transplanted into this country are always going to be foreign. We can “include” them, but there is absolutely no justification for giving out citizenship and pretending that they are one of us, they aren’t and are quite happy not to be in my experience.
If I wanted to “immigrate” to a place like Korea, no matter what I do, I shall always be an immigrant. Giving me Korean citizenship and a Korean name, and all the rest of it is not going to make me Korean, any more than having a sex change operation is going to make a man into a woman: it’s dangerous delusion.
This is racial reality; not hate or bile. (http://racialreality.blogspot.com/).
Soit’s about time people started standing up to people like you and the sort of ignorant prejudiced crap you propagate.
“And I don’t think the anti-facist journalist who got stabbed thought that Redwatch was particularly insignificant.”
Well, you choose to insinuate that a sinister organisation stabbed him if you want to; i’ll stick to the facts: a bloke who you think is a Fascist stabbed a journalist who you think is “anti-fascist”.
Well I’m anti-fascist too, that’s why I will keep attacking those who deliberately spread incendiary propaganda against patriots.
“btw, I could have gone on in this vein for some time”
You think I couldn’t?
Accreditations are not facts by the way, they are evidence. You seemed to have missed the point that far-left media outlets like C4, and the left-wing afflicted BBC have open agendas to attack the BNP and anything resembling them. Any sniff of anything to the right of the Lib Dems sets alarmbells ringing in their offices.
I know you’re going to feel like launching a tirade against me for some of things I say. Let’s just remember that this whole collection of issues is very much more complex than it is made out to be.
In your world, the things I say will doubtless seem like fluent Martian; but in my world, it’s crystal clear truth.
Perhaps the real issue is not the minutiae of the differences of opinion; but the huge gulfs in our society in values. However much I’d like a revolution; I can see that we still have to live with people like you; and so we have to find a way to tolerate you and bring you round to reason.
Nick
The BNP sent us a lovely flyer recently. Their non-right-wing manifesto includes banning Muslims from studying, well, most subjects, at University. Lovely. Nice to know they’re not the right-wing bastards of old…
Jack
post it, let’s have a look; don’t be shy.
Let’s be honest though Nick, do you want to move into a nice 2-up 2-down on Tempest Road in Beeston, south Leeds? somehow, I doubt it.
Have a go by all means, but save it until you’ve actually lived amongst and “celibrated, a diverse multicultural community”.
Read, learn, and experience before launching your flaccid torpedos.
Jason
Firstly with regard to the stabbing of the anti-fascist journalist, the point I was trying to make is that a website that exists solely to enable the intimidation and harrassment of specific groups (regardless of how you wish to label them), and that leads to the stabbing of one member of such a group, is not something that can be accepted or ignored. There is evidence to support the claim that the publication of details on Redwatch has led to such campaigns of intimidation and attacks through the use of such details by smaller organisations.
This was taken from the site of a group called the Mole Intelligence Bureau.
“Redwatch has accumulated many names and addresses along with pictures of the targets, many of whom have had nothing done to them. Now’s the time to start a proper campaign of violence and intimidation towards those who seek to see us silenced or imprisoned for our beliefs.”
Teachers who had attended a protest against the BNP in leeds have had their car firebombed after their details were posted on the site. There are other examples, too. Your allegation is that it is those who oppose the BNP and related organisations who are the aggressors and haters, but its these organisations that have repeatedly used violence.
I imagine that I will be accused of conflation again here, but the fact that redwatch specifically target those who have taken a stand against the BNP I believe speaks volumes. Those involved in redwatch are clearly alligned with BNP ideologically.
Furthermore, redwatch is run by combat 18. The truth is there are strong historical links between the this group and the BNP. Combat 18 was set up as a group to provide stewards for BNP rallies. While it may be that the two have and had a measure of operational independence, they are linked both historically and through people such as Andrew Marsden, a BNP counciller who had previously had his house searched during police raids on combat 18 members. Such links, however, are not the main grounds for taking a stand against the BNP, they merely provide additional jusitifications.
With regard to the term “fascist”, I appreciate that this label is often used as a general label for things we find unpleasant, I believe that in the case of the BNP the label fascism is not misplaced.
“Fascism is a political ideology and mass movement 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.”
Admittedly this definition is taken from Wikipedia, but I believe that this primary focus on national identity defined biologically and culturally is a pretty neat fit for the BNP.
I find it staggering that you claim it is a matter of my own prejudice that a) there is a difference between the stated, manifesto aims of the BNP and the expressed views of its leaders and members, as exposed by various journalistic accounts, b) this is an attempt to make the party seem more politically acceptable, and c)that the party’s discourse is tacitly based on racial grounds. The party only repudated racism under Griffin, before that they were openly neo-Nazi. “When asked in 1993 if the BNP was racist, its deputy leader Richard Edmonds said, “We are 100 per cent racist, yes”. Founder John Tyndall proclaimed that “Mein Kampf is my bible”.” (from wikipedia again, im afraid)
You claim
“The whole basis of a country is ethnic and biological.
Families, forming into groups/communties of families, into settled mono-ethno-cultural settled states.
Immigrants are not going to ever be part of that; they shall always be foriegn, unless of course they intermarry, and interbreed.”
Ethnicity and nationhood are largely social constructions that do not justify the ‘otherising’ of immigrants in the way you suggest. Your comments provoke a stream of questions. What does it mean to say that I am part of this mono-ethnic-cultural entity that you describe? Do we really have a single ‘culture’ within this country that is not accessible to immigrants? What part of our biological and ethnic hertitage means that we can be a part of this society and those who don’t share it cannot? Why are ‘blood ties’ and intermarriage significant? Furthermore, the history of this ‘nation’ has been one of repeated intake of foreign populations during various periods (Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, various continental Europeans, Irish, Afro-Carribean, Indian etc). At which point is the line drawn dividing those population influxes that contributed to the building of out nation and those which are alien immigration, and are there any rational grounds for this demarcation? I realise that you have added the rider of interbreeding/marrying, but, really, why? Does being related to each other confer a common identity? The idea that society should be based on kin is surely nonsense unless I can prove kinship with everyone else in this society.
Economically, I find your argument rather startling and idiosyncratic. I believe I misunderstood You believe, if I understand correctly, that the ‘liberal elite’ encourages immigration in order to to keep wages and prices down, and in order to perpetuate the NHS, which would be unsustainable without such immigration. Furthermore, you claim that that this leads to unemployment in the white working class.
As I understand it, long term unemployment in this country is not at a particularly high level, and it is higher amongst ethnic minority populations than in the white working class. (i have no specific figures to support this at present). Furthermore, the health of our economy at a time were the percentage of the population at working age is shrinking depends upon immigrant labour. The services the NHS provides are more important to the working classes than to the liberal elite (who can pay for private care). I think that claiming that the situation of the working classes is due to immigration is just plain silly. The working classes have been oppressed by the more affluent throughout the industrial history of the country, regardless of immigration.
The idea of orwellian thought control in the media legitimising immigration amuses me. Surely the tabloids in general are hardly friendly to immigrants?
Your views on ’sexual deviance’, as you term it, are frankly neanderthal. Society has no right to determine norms for sexual relationships between people. Hysterical proclamations over the decline of the family and its link to societal ills are dubious at best, but attempting to link this to homosexual relationships are completely wide of the mark in my opinion, and is merely scapegoating (if there is such a term). How exactly do civil partnerships cause any problems to this society?
finally i dont believe nick made any claim to experiencing living in leeds (although maybe he does), he just pointed out that the BNP advocate the barring of people from university courses on grounds of religion, which is surely discrimination whichever way you look at it!
I should do some work now…
Don
I thought YUSU had a no platform policy for the BNP?
Allowing BNP members and supporters to post on this website surely breaks that policy as Nouse is a part of YUSU?
Does this mean Nouse can lose funding?
RS
to Don the BNP-censorship dude
1. I am not a BNP member or supporter and never have been, and if you’d like to try and prove I am, by phoning them up to ask, you will find that to be true. As I’m not a member, I don’t have their number - you’re going to have to research that yourself.
2. The university constitution states that it is forbidden to discriminate against a member of the university on the basis of their political beliefs.
If anyone does try and disciminate against me for my beliefs I will have them hauled up before the Academic Registrar before they can even start sweating.
3. If anyone slanders or libels me, I will sue and I will win, and the perpetrator will be expelled from the university, and will have to explain to their parents why they have to sell their house to pay my legel expenses.
Got that?
I mean, what are you, the end-of-level baddie?
education is about debate - you can’t have censorship at a university - it’s an oxymoron - a bit like you really, but without the Oxy…
Author: Jason
Comment:
“Firstly with regard to the stabbing of the anti-fascist journalist, the point I was trying to make is that a website that exists solely to enable the intimidation and harrassment of specific groups (regardless of how you wish to label them), and that leads to the stabbing of one member of such a group, is not something that can be accepted or ignored. There is evidence to support the claim that the publication of details on Redwatch has led to such campaigns of intimidation and attacks through the use of such details by smaller organisations.
This was taken from the site of a group called the Mole Intelligence Bureau.”
>so post a link, let’s see it… but if these are just people like >the ANL, then you’d surely accept me posting an “accreditted >source” from a “white power” website in reciprocity?
“Redwatch has accumulated many names and addresses along with pictures of the targets, many of whom have had nothing done to them. Now’s the time to start a proper campaign of violence and intimidation towards those who seek to see us silenced or imprisoned for our beliefs.”
Teachers who had attended a protest against the BNP in leeds have had their car firebombed after their details were posted on the site. There are other examples, too. Your allegation is that it is those who oppose the BNP and related organisations who are the aggressors and haters, but its these organisations that have repeatedly used violence.
organisations or people?
>If this so cut and dry, why are you not taking this to the police?
I imagine that I will be accused of conflation again here, but the fact that redwatch specifically target those who have taken a stand against the BNP I believe speaks volumes. Those involved in redwatch are clearly alligned with BNP ideologically.
>So you’re already conceding that you’re proving shoddy evidence, why >bother posting it?
Furthermore, redwatch is run by combat 18.
The truth is there are strong historical links between the this group and the BNP. Combat 18 was set up as a group to provide stewards for BNP rallies. While it may be that the two have and had a measure of operational independence, they are linked both historically and through people such as Andrew Marsden, a BNP counciller who had previously had his house searched during police raids on combat 18 members. Such links, however, are not the main grounds for taking a stand against the BNP, they merely provide additional jusitifications.
>evidence please - or are you asking me to accept hearsay?
With regard to the term “fascist”, I appreciate that this label is often used as a general label for things we find unpleasant, I believe that in the case of the BNP the label fascism is not misplaced.
“Fascism is a political ideology and mass movement 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.”
Admittedly this definition is taken from Wikipedia, but I believe that this primary focus on national identity defined biologically and culturally is a pretty neat fit for the BNP.
>Well that definition MAY fit the BNP, but it’s not the correct >definition of Fascism
>
>In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by >Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is >described as a system in which “The State not only is authority >that governs and moulds individual wills with laws and values of >spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail >abroad. …For the Fascist, everything is within the State and … >neither individuals or groups are outside the State. …For >Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or >groups are only relative.”
>
>Source: http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/fascism.htm
>
>Fascism’s association with race is coincidental - Fascism is >Statism - race doesn’t have to come into it. (Please read).
>
>I won’t inflict Wikipedia articles on you as “evidence”, so by all >means present a credible alternative source, I’m all ears.
I find it staggering that you claim it is a matter of my own prejudice that
a) there is a difference between the stated, manifesto aims of the BNP and the expressed views of its leaders and members, as exposed by various journalistic accounts,
>Clearly, I’m questioning the legitimacy of the journalistic >accounts;
>I don’t see anything in the manifesto that matches even these >supposedly credible accounts
b) this is an attempt to make the party seem more politically acceptable, and
>Unfortunatley for you, the party is already politically acceptable >to a lot of people, no “attempts” are necessary… your challenge >is how do win hearts and minds? Doubtless not by castigation.
c)that the party’s discourse is tacitly based on racial grounds. The party only repudated racism under Griffin, before that they were openly neo-Nazi. “When asked in 1993 if the BNP was racist, its deputy leader Richard Edmonds said, “We are 100 per cent racist, yes”. Founder John Tyndall proclaimed that “Mein Kampf is my bible”.” (from wikipedia again, im afraid)
>The problem here clearly, is the definition of the term “racism” >and “racist”; and in fact, related terms “racialism” ..
>I would suggest that either you are aware that they are applying a >different and stricter definition of the term than their opponents >would, and that this is a semantic quesion.
>NB, Tyndall and Griffin are complete opponents and do not share >the same principles - you should know that, or are you being >disingenuous and conflatory again?
>
>My understanding of racism is:
>”hating people because of their ethnic phenotype; and believing >that people are somehow inferior because of that”
>In practice “refusing to socialise or mix in any way with other >races, and regarding them and the things they touch as somehow >contaminated”
>I don’t see any reference to that in any BNP material… that sort >of thing seems to be in the sphere of the NF and Tyndall, and as >far as I understand is the reason why the aforementioned are so >opposed to each other.
>
> (It goes without saying that being opposed to immigration, has no >connection with how you feel about the race of the immigrants >themselves).
>
>no doubt you’re going to raise some Holocaust denial quote.
>I’d like to just introduce the notion that part of the cause of >anti-semitism is that the holocaust is jewish-comandeered thing >that is used by the israeli government to persecute Arabs (who are >also Semites ironically).
>I want to see the 13 million Chinese holocaust (WW2); the 1.5 >million Armenians (WW1); the 800,000 Rwandans; the 1m plus >Cambodians; Bosnians; Tibetans; Karens; etc ad nauseam >commemorated.
>There is a sense that the jews and others who were murdered in WW2 >are deserving of some special status that others mentioned are >not… ALL genocide should be commemorated as equally horrible.
You claim
“The whole basis of a country is ethnic and biological.
Families, forming into groups/communties of families, into settled mono-ethno-cultural settled states.
Immigrants are not going to ever be part of that; they shall always be foriegn, unless of course they intermarry, and interbreed.”
Ethnicity and nationhood are largely social constructions that do not justify the ‘otherising’ of immigrants in the way you suggest.
>Is this semantics again?
>We have to have a word for describing the social units that are >defined by racial phenotypes… these are organic and not >artificial like “countries”
>I don’t know in what sense you are using the word “nation” either, >but there ought to be a distinction made between a cohesive >>(ethnic or “tribal”) unit
>I would choose to make a distinction between a nation and a state:
>a nation being an ethnic unit, like a tribe.
>a state being a political one that can comprise nations, as in the >UK.
>
Your comments provoke a stream of questions. What does it mean to say that I am part of this mono-ethnic-cultural entity that you describe? Do we really have a single ‘culture’ within this country
that is not accessible to immigrants?
>I’ll stop you there and simplify it - I’m talking about >qualification for citizenship
What part of our biological and ethnic hertitage means that we can be a part of this society and those who don’t share it cannot?
Why are ‘blood ties’ and intermarriage significant?
>When two people of different ethnocultural backgrounds marry one >culture dominates. I know this from experience. This is by >definition integration. It simply doesn’t happen when you >transplant whole families from one culture into the midst of >another.
Furthermore, the history of this ‘nation’ has been one of repeated intake of foreign populations during various periods (Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, various continental Europeans, Irish, Afro-Carribean, Indian etc). At which point is the line drawn dividing those population influxes that contributed to the building of out nation and those which are alien immigration, and are there any rational grounds for this demarcation?
>Yes, this is another one of the “classic” arguments. Firstly, when >you examine the history of immigration, you notice a number of >things:
>1. a gap between post industrial immigration, and pre-industrial >immigration
>2. a gap between the scale & speed of post WW2 immigration and pre->WW2 immigration
>3. a difference in ethnocultural background between pre and post >WW2 immigratio
>4. a difference in the terms and motivation between pre and post >industrial and prea nd post WW2 immigration
>5. a huge acceleration in all this disparities since the mid-90s, >where the non-white population has doubled in a decade; the number >of immigrants including migrant workers having tripled near >enough.
>
>from the Celts to Normans, we have conquest and overlordship - >small numbers of people in real terms
>from the Normans to the Hugenots, we have fleeing from religious >persecution, and again in very small numbers.
>The commonality is that they all came and assimilated, and were in >such small numbers; and of such similar ethno-cultural backgrounds >that assimilation was easy.
>Intermarraige happened rapidly, hence their decendents were >absorbed into to greater ethnic mass… this is not happening so >much now.
>
>Logically my argument means that I must regard mixed race people as
>ethnically British; certainly, I’m yet to meet a mixed race person
>with whom I do not share cultural affinity.
>
I realise that you have added the rider of interbreeding/marrying, but, really, why? Does being related to each other confer a common identity? The idea that society should be based on kin is surely nonsense unless I can prove kinship with everyone else in this society.
>see earlier
Economically, I find your argument rather startling and idiosyncratic. I believe I misunderstood You believe, if I understand correctly, that the ‘liberal elite’ encourages immigration in order to to keep wages and prices down, and in order to perpetuate the NHS, which would be unsustainable without such immigration. Furthermore, you claim that that this leads to unemployment in the white working class.
>I never actually used the term “liberal elite”.
>I presented an oversimplification to stimulate a more in-depth >discussion.
>Are you suggesting that wages are not being kept low when workers >of various descriptions:
>Drs & Nurses in the NHS; migrant farmworkers; east european >laborours; Asian software engineering graduates; and engineers >from all over are invited to come and work here?
>
>Have you never listed to what people on the ground are saying? >REcently there was a thing about the plumbing industry needing >30,000 new workers, and suddenly there was a rush on to get onto .
>plumbing courses all over the country. Plumbers wages were going> >up and up due to the demand… wages up to 60,000 in parts of >London
>Then, the following year, the floodgates opened to 300,000 eastern >european workers, who found it very easy to undercut the wages, as >they are happy to live in shared rented accommodation.
>The consequences are clear.
>A chance for less academic people to enjoy a good wage and respect >devastated in an instant.
>
>The same happens all over the country… you will find cheap >rented houses >filled with migrant workers, double figures to a >house… human slaves encouraged over to work in jobs that pay too >little for working class natives to survive on.
>
>The argument goes “They do the jobs we don’t want to do” - this is >deviously disingenuous, the true argument goes “They accept the >wages and terms we can’t afford to”.
>And why can’t we afford to? because a huge number of council >houses were sold off by Thatcher in the 80s, housing was >commoditised, and now there is a new rentier class, pushing up >rents higher and higher to pay mortgages they can’t really afford >and intereste rates edge up as personal debt spirals out of >control. What choice do the burbery capped trackie wearing hoi >polloi have but to breed at 16 to try and get a council flat… >except when they run out, who are they going to blame?
>It’s a tinderbox.
>
>I can’t blame all unemployment on immigrantion, but the immense >pressure it causes is palpable.
>
As I understand it, long term unemployment in this country is not at a particularly high level,
>Yes, and what kind of jobs are these… not full-time high paying >ones.. I know, I’ve lived it.
>and it is higher amongst ethnic minority populations than in the >white working class. (i have no specific figures to support this >at present)
>Ethnic minority populations work differently: for Pakistanis & >Bengalis within their monoethnic enclaves, money comes from >developing-world style client relationships.
>in afro areas, sadly Jamaican and black-American culture has >turned too many of them to crime.
. Furthermore, the health of our economy at a time were the percentage of the population at working age is shrinking depends upon immigrant labour.
>
>That is the problem - it’s unsustainable… it’s a charter for slow
>ethnic cleansing of the British Isles and even western Europe.
>It’s an unsustainable economic model, and the culture has to change
>So that the traditional family relationships support us in our old
>age. Is that hysterical enough for you?
>
The services the NHS provides are more important to the working classes than to the liberal elite (who can pay for private care).
>
>True, but all members of society regularly use the NHS dont they?
>Including the middleclasses, because it’s cheaper.
>The NHS is also a tool for keeping workers at work; working in jobs
>that support the middle classes… it’s more complex than you imply
>
I think that claiming that the situation of the working classes is due to immigration is just plain silly. The working classes have been oppressed by the more affluent throughout the industrial history of the country, regardless of immigration.
>
>True, and immigration is a step backwards, and makes it worse for
>both the working classes and the immigrants (detailed below)
>
The idea of orwellian thought control in the media legitimising immigration amuses me. Surely the tabloids in general are hardly friendly to immigrants?
>
>The tabloids aren’t friendly to anyone, and theyre are as fickle >as the wind. For every “anti-immigrant” story you care to present, >I bet I can show you a contradictory one from the same paper.
>
>Of course, I’m not just talking about the tabloids am i.
>It’s Orwellian when every single news report has carefully loaded >adjectives and adverbs to prefix every target thought criminal who >they report on. When they wheel on useless opponents to characture >the opposition.
>e.g.: a debate on sexual devients will always have inarticulate >religous elderly people and vicars on rather than articulate >educated researchers. - it’s a characture, and transparent cynical
>propagandist ploy.
>
Your views on ’sexual deviance’, as you term it, are frankly neanderthal.
>
>sorry, if mine are “neanderthal”, then yours are “prokaryotic”.
>It’s not good enough to just wheel out a lazy subjective throwaway >remark - that’s not analysis or debate.
>Are suggesting that there’s something wrong with objective >scientific analysis, investigation, challenge, and research?
>Without this there’s no evidence to debate, and there’s no way you >can win or lose an argument.
>I want to know the truth, not someone’s opinion.
>Especially when it comes to the introduction of laws that would >see it being perfectly legal for middle-aged men to seduce >impressionable 16-year-old children.
>
Society has no right to determine norms for sexual relationships .between people.
>
>So why does it then?
>Why can I not form a civil partnership with two of my friends >without kissing and fondling them?
>Why is love legislated against in this way - there are so many >categories of love? Why can’t sisters marry? Why can’t I marry a >teapot?
>If we are adults, then the idea that you can say have gay marriage >between two who’ve only known each other a few months, but two >lifelong mates can’t “marry” unless they start indulgiing in >bumfoolery is utterley ridiculous!
>
Hysterical proclamations over the decline of the family and its link to societal ills are dubious at best,
>
>Are you joking? There’s nothing hysterical about it… there are >too many statics to post about the damage being wreaked by the >assault on the family and cult of famism/individuality… the >results of this far-left experimentation are now bearing rotten >fruit.
>
but attempting to link this to homosexual relationships are completely wide of the mark in my opinion,
>
>How is not linked then? The cult of individuality is all about >hedonism (and I know I sound religious, but I’m not), and the >seven deadly sins really (look ‘em up).
>
and is merely scapegoating (if there is such a term). How exactly do civil partnerships cause any problems to this society?
>
>If you ever come to have children, or ever have any experience of >homes broken by drugs and alcoholism, you might rephrase your >question a fair bit.
>The effects on children of fractured relationsships are profound >and the wounds deep.
>Children require a mummy and a daddy; those who don’t have harder >lives, and we know this.
>This biological instinct; it’s nature; deny it all you will.
>The over-sexualisation of children already makes the UK the global >leader in childhood pregnancy; single parenthood; and family >breakdown; and consequent mental illness; drug addiction; >alcholism figures aren’t particularly cheering either.
>Despite the far-left prejudice and bigotry against doing research >into the effects of sexual deviency, some research has been done .
>that shows how poorly children from same-sex couples do interms of >outcomes.
>
>http://www.narth.com/
>http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf
> http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2004/june/samesex.aspx?ComponentId=2071&SourcePageId=1405
>
>Ultimately children are forced to grow up too quickly, and to have >confusing relationships with the world. By all means let a coupld >of harmless old queens live together, but don’t start pretending >that they are a man and woman and let them start roleplaying the >male and female roles (as they seem to) and have this ludicrous >pretend nuclear family simulation..
>
>It’s almost like the far-left have a dystopic plan to have us an >United States of Europe battery farm with our brains in jars >connected to computers operated by immigrants watching big brother >24hrs a day whilst cohabiting homosexually; and breeding by test->tube?!
>
> (is that an accurate enough summary of my position for you?)
finally i dont believe nick made any claim to experiencing living in leeds (although maybe he does), he just pointed out that the BNP advocate the barring of people from university courses on grounds of religion, which is surely discrimination whichever way you look at it!
>
>I know, but my point was that it’s alright preaching about >something if you’ve lived it.
>Advocates of immigraiton and multiculturalism don’t seem to have >any experience of living in these places that they campaign so >hard to create - I have.
>And again, publish your evidence, otherwise it’s just hearsay.
>To be perfectly honest I believe that ALL religion does not belong >in ANY educational environment, save for a anthopological and >historical study purposes.
>These are just unsubstantiated ideas and superstitions and deserve >no special status or protection, any more than the Flat Earth >Society would.
>The reason why we have school uniforms is to equalise people amd >disguise differences in affluence, that might otherwise stir up >division and hostility; the same MUST apply to religion - it’s a >hobby, do it in your own time.
>
>Putting aside for one moment the fact that I don’t know how >accurate your interpretation of this policy is, if it is true it’s >sort of unworkable policy that makes the BNP unsupportable. You >can’t legislate against people’s opinions or ideas even through >attempting to brainwash them in schools and through the media; >only their actions after they’ve done them.
>
I should do some work now…
>me too - but it’s good to find someone who’s willing and able to >have a debate about this stuff properly.
Anonymous
The 2002 Communications Act states that all poltical parties (of which sadly the BNP is one) have the right to reply, see the case of the Leeds Student Television interview with BNP leader Nick Griffin. The interviews was first banned under No Platform but later went ahead.
Also as far as I understand No Platform refers to public speaking events or dedicated interviews. Anyway No Platform is a counter productive policy, the best way to beat the BNP to take them in public and expose them as the fascists they really are.
Jack
…and I am not a BNP member; or a Fascist.
“No Platform refers to public speaking events or dedicated interviews. Anyway No Platform is a counter productive policy, the best way to beat the BNP to take them in public and expose them as the fascists they really are.”
The No Platform policy is an example of Fascism.
Fascism:
In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which “The State not only is authority that governs and moulds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. …For the Fascist, everything is within the State and … neither individuals or groups are outside the State. …For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative.”
Source: http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/fascism.htm
substitute the word “state” for “NUS” or “Pseudoliberal Elite”, and you have an accurate description of what the No Platform policy is all about: censorship.
Voltaire would turn in his grave.
It seems illogical to call the BNP Fascist, when they allegedly want to separate and repatriate people; Fascism states that “neither individuals or groups are outside the State”, so how can a mono-ethnicist be a Fascist?
(If you want to learn more about the history of immigration to this country before launching into a self-righteous tirade, here’s a referenced description:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/immig.html)
The truth is, that those who want to silence the BNP are the true Fascists, according to the original definition of the term.
It is they who must have their lies, bigotry, prejudice, neanderthalic chauvinism, exposed for all to see.
The logically fallacious flaccid “arguments” of the far left must be exposed and kicked into touch in public debate, and the far left exposed as the Fascists they really are.
John Hall
I think Don meant john winston.
John Winston did say on January 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm, “as an ex steelworker/lorrydriver of Sheffield i joined them because…”
Therefore this breaks YUSU’s no platform to the BNP policy as Nouse is funded by and is a part of YUSU.
Jack
“this” as in what?
Where are the BNP comments then?
It’s also fundamentally absurd, as clearly you don’t have to be associated with the BNP to express identical views.
Avon
The BNP is a fascist, or rather Neo-Nazi, organisation.
Much of its core personnel were involved in the NF or Third Positionist groups in the 1970s and 1980s, being influenced by Italian neo-fascists like Roberto Fiore. These groups were openly neo-nazi.
But don’t take my word for it, take theirs:
- “I’d never say this on camera, the Jews have been thrown out of every country including England. It’s not just persecution. There’s no smoke without fire.” (Mark Collett, their Youth leader, here: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/young_nazi_proud.html )
- “The TV footage of dozens of ‘gay’ demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive.” Nick Griffen after the bombing of the Admiral Duncan in Soho (Spearhead magazine, June 1999, p364)
He also wrote a rather nauseating pamphlet called ‘Who are the Mindbenders?’ in which he argued the British media was controlled by Jews.
The party until a few years ago had a policy of ‘forced repatriation of ethnic minorities’, that is, expelling non-white people from the country. It has been recentley instead suggesting ‘voluntary repatriation’, but this is (as recent investigations by the Guardian revealed) part of their strategy of concealing their ideological commitment to further their electoral ambitions (with the ulitmate aim of having a strong political base in place for a crisis period).
Ah, but I imagine the party’s fellow travellers here are already reaching for their keyboards - these don’t match the definition of fascism offered!
Well, Gentile’s definition is not sufficient; fascism has a statist aspect, but that definition omits large swathes of Fascist ideology and political practice, not least because it was written in..um.. *1932*, that is a year before the Nazi’s came to power in Germany. That is rather convinient, since much of the BNP’s biological racism is more traceable to the Nazis than Italian fascism, and the Nazis had a similiar approach of part-concealing their ideological goals for electoral gain (those goals including genocide). The concept of an organic nation, with ‘aliens’ constructed as threatening Other to it is also a feature of Fascism.
The definition offered also ignores that right from the beginning Fascism in Italy and Germany recieved support from major industrialists; industrial capital was a major force backing the movement. You repeatedly refer to the BNP’s support for the “White Working Classes”, rather neglecting the significant point that all Fascist movements have consistently and systematically eliminated labour & trade union movements upon assuming power - hardly looking out for the working class, but then Nazi’s believe in an indivisible organic nation organised hierarchically, not class equality.
You discuss ‘nations’ or ethnic units as if these were some kind of discrete categories. These concepts are in fact social constructions, articulated socially between human beings. Archaic notions like ‘bloodlines’ are irrelevant to social life, and your crude use of the term ‘Phenotype’ and biological categorisation ignores that 1. Genetic variation across the world is, geography permitting, gradual not discrete but more importantly 2. All human beings are individuals with consciousness - crude notions of ‘racial characteristics’ or differences arising from where and to who someone is born deny that person’s agency.
Perhaps rather than treating socially constructed categorisations such as race, ethnicity, nation as objective and determining you should recognise that all people are human beings, no matter where they are by chance born on the earth, and hatred or fear of constructed ‘Others’ is irrational, stupid and when acted upon, evil.
If you care about people in your community, work to advance their material condition and defend them from the predations and exploitation of the powerful - big business and the state - not from their equally preyed upon neighbours.
John Hall
Jack,
“this” as in allowing Nouse to place :
“john winston beatson Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
the B.N.P. are the only British political party who has the welfare British working class people.
stop all these lies about them, if any one has any proof about any criminal activity in the B.N.P. ranks or policies then expose them to the law enforces.
if you don’t like them or their policies then stand against them at the polls
as an ex steelworker/lorrydriver of Sheffield i joined them because i believe in them to secure a future for the British Nation”
on it’s website breaks YUSU’s no platform policy as it gives a voice to a BNP member.
I agree you can have identical views to the BNP and not be associated - but these are scummy views if one is associated or not.
I believe this not because of what the media has told me, but what the BNP has told me through their campaigning methods. The BNP like to stir up racial tensions for political gain - this is how they electorally operate and I disagree with this.
Jack
Avon,
I’ll be happy to respond to your very selective, very subjective, prescriptive diatribe and point out the flaws when I have more time.
However, I don’t think you have any reasonable grounds to accuse me of hatred, other than hatred of censorship, and of disingenuous misrepresentation.
There is nothing to be gained by pushing these issues underground: whatever position you take on this debate, it is in everybody’s interests that it is brought out into the open and resolved, lest it fester and lead to an unpleasant future.
“If you care about people in your community, work to advance their material condition and defend them from the predations and exploitation of the powerful - big business and the state - not from their equally preyed upon neighbours.”
What is a community? A socially constructed categorisation. Who is part of my community? Who decides is is part of my community? Who decides what I am allowed to think, say, and discuss?
John Hall.
1. You don’t know that these are BNP members even if they say they are.
2. It doesn’t actually break YUSU’s No Platform policy, as was explained to you.
3. YUSU’s No Platform policy is in direct contravention of University policy; and thus is invalid, and must be challenged in the interests of free speech.
It is actually, not so much the BNP that stirs up racial tension, but ironically, the NUS (to which YUSU is affiliated), who deliberately characature the BNP as a bogeyman and indulge in ethnically divisive campaigns in order to boost their legitimacy as a political organisation, e.g.: the “black student campaign”, http://www.nusonline.co.uk/campaigns/blackstudentscampaign/ classifies south and east and west asians (caucasian Arabs) as “black” and apparently excludes “white” students. This is divisive and polarising, and fundamentally racist; the implicit inferration is that racism is something that is done by “white” people to non-white people, which divisive and polarising on the basis of ethnicity.
Ben
Surely squabbling over the definition of Fascism is going to take this argument nowhere; it affects the position of the BNP in exactly the same way as labeling other groups ‘pseudo-liberal’ or, by extension ‘islamofascist’. Whether we believe that a group of people can be arranged under one name or another does not really affect their aims. It is much better to stick to the facts.
Would a nationalist party like the BNP be good (or better) for Britain?
Probably, as they have the best interests of their definition of ‘Britain’ at the center of their political stance. The repatriation of immigrants is to return jobs and benefits to the ‘British’ people, they also plan to stop all foreign aid until the NHS has enough staff and beds to cater for everyone, and to only reinstate aid to countries that help with the repatriation policy. This would presumably end with the complete withdrawal of all aid, as the success of the policy would mean no more repatriation.
Further benefits would come from the limiting of foreign goods imported into the country, and the increase in volume of food produced by British farmers for British people (with an emphasis on quality over quantity).
As much as ‘jumping on bandwagons’ is concerned with promises about a country “free of pollution in all its forms”, improvements in public transport with simultaneous drops in fuel duty and speed camera numbers, this is surely only the same kind of rose-tinted promise made by any political party, and the result of democracy where the idea is a citizen will vote for the party most closely aligned with their beliefs.
However, the nationalist policies of cutting Britain off from foreign aid agreements, import and export agreements, and “peacekeeping activities” in foreign countries, with an aim to a British state of ‘armed neutrality’ are surely outdated and shortsighted.
The reduction of cheap imported goods to the benefit of British production would increase prices, as would a move to replace ‘efficient’ farming techniques (Britain produces about 60% of food needs with less than 2% of the labor force https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/uk.html) with less quantity but better quality techniques (as the law of supply and demand states that a lower quantity means that demands, and thus price, will increase). The reduction of imports would also harm international relations with trading partners, for instance Germany (from which, incidentally, the BNP would remove “all troops”) is both our largest import partner (at 12.8% of imports) and our second largest export partner (at 10.5% of exports). Other European nations such as France, the Netherlands and Belgium feature in the top 7 of both our import and export partners. Alongside withdrawal from the EU, it is hard to see how the BNP would keep its promise of a Europe “free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial” when it is hoping to drastically cut imports. Finally, the rise of China as a superpower means that Britain needs all the global competitiveness it can muster to stay afloat. An bullishly uncooperative trade policy would not help anyone.
Finally, the nationalist state that the BNP proposes is unworkable alongside their, and Jack’s, stances on Global Warming and the environment. This is possibly the biggest problem ever faced by humanity, and it needs the complete cooperation of all nations. Developing countries are increasing their CO2 output rapidly, and the abolishment of the systems of aid, a British presence and import agreements in these countries can only hinder the relations that are needed to combat the environmental impact of development. In a more striking example, the Kyoto protocol that is in place to help combat CO2 emissions was formed by the United Nations, a group concerned with international cooperation and human rights, issues which the BNP, with its nationalist aims and policies to bring back corporal and capital punishment, is directly opposed to. This kind of agreement, and any future agreements necessary to combat ecological disaster, are not possible with the politics esposed by a strongly nationalist party.
Ben
Oh, sorry, I forgot to give a source for my BNP facts, they’re all from their website: http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm
Jason
Jack,
I feel that your obsession with the ‘pseudo-liberal elite’ (i hope i got the quote right this time!) and the far left borders on delusional paranoia. Certainly, members of the far left wouldn’t consider either the BBC or Channel 4 as representative of their views. I feel that ‘Macarthyism’ is almost a sufficient label for your views: you see reds where there are no reds! This country has not ever had a government that could be described as far left, and I would contend that the far left (or even the left generaly since Attlee) has never had any significant influence on British policy making.
Surely it is the job of any free press to investigate political parties and identify where there programme for power (ie the manifesto) differs from their publicly stated viewpoints. It is absurd to suggest, as you have, that the BBC and channel 4 are acting illegitimately by filming senior members of the BNP making comments that are clearly racist in nature. The whole point of an independent free press is that they do this. Would you argue that it was illegitimate for the BBC to expose the extremely suspect evidence that Labour provided for the Iraq war? Or that Channel four shouldnt question ministers on the fact that large amounts of money have been spent on the NHS with questionable results? It is nonsense to claim that it is not legitimate for independent media broadcasters to investigate political parties. Regardless of the bias of the media, if there is actual footage of the BNP making racist comments, how is that explained by the ‘far left’ bias of the media? Surely if Griffin makes comments claiming “Islam is a wicked religion” or whatever it was that he said (I’d like to point out that these quotes have been conspicuously paraded in my own personal experience by members of his own party at BNP rallies, and was repeated by him during his trial) then this is evidence enough that he is racist (or prejudiced against all the followers of a specific religion, or however it pleases you to phrase it). You repeatedly refer to the BNP manifesto as a reliable source for their strategic thinking, and yet you claim that the ‘pseudo-liberal elite’ encourage immigration in order to oppress the working class. Was this in the labour manifesto? I certainly don’t remember reading it. I don’t think it would have been much of a vote winner!
The idea Islam is a wicked religion is Clearly Bollocks (CB as I would like to phrase it). I am an Atheist, and deplore the involvement of religion in politics, but to claim that Islam is any worse than any other religion is CB. The BNP claim themselves as champions of Christian values dont forget! Whilst Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ (an extremely dodgy term in itself) has been associated with violence due to recent events, the same conclusion about Christianity could easily be reached by following the claims by Bush that god told him to invade Iraq, and by Blair that god will judge him on the invasion. Violence in the name of the religion is nothing new (see the crusades!), and Islam can in fact offer much to the international community.
Iran is a case in point. Despite the demonising of Mr Ahmedinejad (who is not a nice man) Iran has repeatedly reached out to the US in order to reach a peaceable agreement. Indeed, part of the reason the Ahmedinejad came to power was the failure of the previous president, Mr Khatami, a reformist who believed in the neccessity of a civil society, to fulfill his promises over rapprochement (sp?) with the west. The Americans rejected his overtures because of the legacy of the 1979 revolution, in which Us business interests were damaged. The current spiritual leader of the revolution, mr Khamenei (I think I’ve spelt that roughly right) condemns Nuclear weapons as un-Islamic, and has criticised Ahmedinejad for provoking the West. This contrasts with our current government, which is intent on retaining nuclear weapons for itself. The current furore over the Iran supplying weapons to the Shia militias in Iraq is a clear example of self righteous American hypocracy. If it is true that these weapons where provided by the Iranian government (which is not certain), then this is certainly not unexpected. The US has been unrelentingly hostile to Iran since 1979, and supplied Sadam Hussien’s Iraq with Chemical weapons in order to try and defeat them in the 1980-88 war. The Iranian government would not be unjustified in considering itself in an undeclared war with the US. It is crucial for the West to realise that Iran society is not monolithic and doest not consist solely of Ahmedinijads. There is a a huge movement towards reform that is especially popular with the young. (I realise this may have strayed from the point somewhat but nevermind)
With regards to the holocaust denial business – the idea had not occurred to me, but surely you must see that that your argument is pathetically weak here. I would be among the first to claim that the massacre of Armenians by the young turk regime constituted genocide, and that the cleansing of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda was an atrocity. Furthermore, I do not believe that the fact of the murder of 6 million Jews under Hitler’s regime means that the Israeli state should be given carte blanche on Palestinian territory, but that makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the BNP have denied the holocaust as a justification for their own anti-semitism. (the term semites refers to a much larger group of people including Arabs, but this is irrelevant. I use the term anti-semitism to refer specifically to discrimination against jews).
Thank you for Avon for putting the point of the socially constructed nature of ethnicity and nationhood far more cogently than I could ever manage. You have it spot on! Poverty and deprivation in this country is best tackled by measures that address the distribution of wealth, tackle crime in a meaningful and constructive way (not by just banging everyone in jail until our prisons are full) and by correcting people’s prejudices. Your approach seems to be to blame everything on immigrants and homosexuals and kick them out. To me this is CB.
With regards to your diatribe on sexual relations, in my opinion you are welcome to marry a teapot if you wish, but I doubt that a significant percentage of the population of our society share such desires. You may notice that I specified ’sexual relationships’ and so the question of you marrying your friends does not come into the equation. Whether you accept it or not some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and this is not some sort of illness. I stand by my remarks on the absurdity of declaring the decline of the family is responsible for societal ills, especially with regards to homosexual couples, because the phenomenon of gay couples adopting of children is recent and small scale and so cannot be held responsible for problems in our society. The idea that society is falling apart because people are gay is, to me, CB. Would you claim that heterosexual relationships are wrong because in many cases domestic violence is present? This can clearly have negative effects on children.
I suggest that you take your nose out of people’s personal relationships.
This is the absolutely the last post I will make on this subject, but I would like to point out that at no point have advocated the silencing or banning of the BNP. I believe that they are an obnoxious, hateful and racist organisation that discriminate against people purely on the basis of the colour of their skin or the religion they adhere to, and they adopt tactics of violence and intimidation where it suits them. However I believe that they can and should be defeated at the ballot box. When and where party members have broken the law they should be brought to justice through the proper procedures, but otherwise their hateful policies should be defeated through revealing the truth of the party’s racial discrimination.
I realise that I have been low on sources throughout this piece, but it took me long enough to write the damn thing without trawling the internet for sources I know exist! Watch the secret agent for gods sake. And your criticism of peer-reviewed sources like wikipedia is somewhat discredited when you yourself have referenced sovereignity.org, or whatever it was, which was clearly ideologically inclined towards a fierce defense of nationalism and anti-europeanism. (Let alone immigration from elsewhere).
The term fascist is obviously contested, but if you object to this label for the BNP then a simpler one will do: Racist.
Ben
Surely squabbling over the definition of Fascism is going to take this argument nowhere; it affects the position of the BNP in exactly the same way as labelling other groups ‘pseudo-liberal’ or, by extension ‘islamofascist’. Whether we believe that a group of people can be arranged under one name or another does not really affect their aims. It is much better to stick to the facts.
Would a nationalist party like the BNP be good (or better) for Britain?
Probably, as they have the best interests of their definition of ‘Britain’ at the centre of their political stance. The repatriation of immigrants is to return jobs and benefits to the ‘British’ people, they also plan to stop all foreign aid until the NHS has enough staff and beds to cater for everyone, and to only reinstate aid to countries that help with the repatriation policy. This would presumably end with the complete withdrawal of all aid, as the success of the policy would mean no more repatriation.
Further benefits would come from the limiting of foreign goods imported into the country, and the increase in volume of food produced by British farmers for British people (with an emphasis on quality over quantity).
As much as ‘jumping on bandwagons’ is concerned with promises about a country “free of pollution in all its forms”, improvements in public transport with simultaneous drops in fuel duty and speed camera numbers, this is surely only the same kind of rose-tinted promise made by any political party, and the result of democracy where the idea is a citizen will vote for the party most closely aligned with their beliefs.
However, the nationalist policies of cutting Britain off from foreign aid agreements, import and export agreements, and “peacekeeping activities” in foreign countries, with an aim to a British state of ‘armed neutrality’ are surely outdated and shortsighted.
The reduction of cheap imported goods to the benefit of British production would increase prices, as would a move to replace ‘efficient’ farming techniques (Britain produces about 60% of food needs with less than 2% of the labor force https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/uk.html) with less quantity but better quality techniques (as the law of supply and demand states that a lower quantity means that demands, and thus price, will increase). The reduction of imports would also harm international relations with trading partners, for instance Germany (from which, incidentally, the BNP would remove “all troops”) is both our largest import partner (at 12.8% of imports) and our second largest export partner (at 10.5% of exports). Other European nations such as France, the Netherlands and Belgium feature in the top 7 of both our import and export partners. Alongside withdrawal from the EU, it is hard to see how the BNP would keep its promise of a Europe “free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial” when it is hoping to drastically cut imports. Finally, the rise of China as a superpower means that Britain needs all the global competitiveness it can muster to stay afloat. An bullishly uncooperative trade policy would not help anyone.
Finally, the nationalist state that the BNP proposes is unworkable alongside their, and Jack’s, stances on Global Warming and the environment. This is possibly the biggest problem ever faced by humanity, and it needs the complete cooperation of all nations. Developing countries are increasing their CO2 output rapidly, and the abolishment of the systems of aid, a British presence and import agreements in these countries can only hinder the relations that are needed to combat the environmental impact of development. In a more striking example, the Kyoto protocol that is in place to help combat CO2 emissions was formed by the United Nations, a group concerned with international cooperation and human rights, issues which the BNP, with its nationalist aims and policies to bring back corporal and capital punishment, is directly opposed to. This kind of agreement, and any future agreements necessary to combat ecological disaster, are not possible with the politics espoused by a nationalist party.
Jack
Right, firstly I’ve got too much work on to respond at any length or detail at the moment - maybe on the weekend.
what I will say is that:
“Ben part 1″
1. the definitions of things do matter. if you’ve read my definition of “racism”, then please either link your evidence to my definition if you agree with it; or explain how and why you think it’s incorrect.
It doesn’t give your argument any more potency to use one contested incendiary term in place of another.
2. I don’t argue for the policies of the BNP, but I do argue against misrepresentation of them. They strike me as containing a fair bit of economically “left-wing” stuff. Being opposed to immigration is not by definition racist either by the way.
“Jason”
“obsession, delusion, paranoia” - this is Argumentum ad Hominem again - a logically fallacious tactic to divert attention from a challenge.
“Poisioning the Well” and “Loaded Language” and common rhetorical ploys used by those who are incapable of arguing cogently. You’ve managed to include a Red Herring as well.
You have no grounds to depict me as anti-Communist, you are simple guessing, you have no idea about my political persuasion beyond the specific issues.
If anything you yourself are McCarthyist, with your clumsy hysterical and emotional language, and consistent lack of logic, making links between things that aren’t there. Your “reds under the bed” are the BNP members you are so determined to see everywhere.
I use the term far left for those who use the term far right, as it’s obviously relative to your position. If someone calls you far right, then they are sure identifying themselves as far left from their position.
“evidence enough that he is racist (or prejudiced against all the followers of a specific religion, or however it pleases you to phrase it)”
!
I think this says it all about you really. You are conceding that racist is not a truly accurate term; if it had been he might have been convicted of something. You know exactly what the truth is, but you struggle to get past your prejudices. As said before, definitions do matter don’t they.
Sorry, may arguement that the 13 million Chinese, 1.5 million Armenians, 1 million Camnbodians, 800,000 Rwandans etc should be equally commemorated with the Jews is “pathetically weak”?! what kind of of disgusting twisted inhuman monster are you?
I never defend holocaust deniers whichever holocaust they choose to deny.
I sincerely hope you are not one of these miserable creatures.
Avon’s Social Constructionist argument is highly flawed, and highly contested, I will go into this later. there is also utter hypocrisy in saying attacking me for relying on social constructions and then instructing me to become part of a social construction that Avon has decreed is permitted! laughable!
Needless to say, the family is not a complete social construction, we all have the same biological origin that we have no choicein, and we all feel a powerful connection to that that defines a large part of our identity.
I will go into detail about instinct and human nature and evolution and identity later.
I and will present the evidence for the damage done by the attack on the family and the inculcaiton of the cult of individuality… I mean haven’t you read the UNICEF report on children 2007 yet and what it has to say about the UK?
Wikipedia is rubbish, and the article you posted is contested anyway.
the Sovereignty article is fully sourced with book references, and you are showing your hysterical prejudice again, I doubt you know anything about that site. Take your American-English and sloppy arguments elsewhere.
“Ben Part 2″
“Finally, the nationalist state that the BNP proposes is unworkable alongside their, and Jack’s, stances on Global Warming and the environment.”
Excuse me, the BNP’s policy is not my policy, I am not a BNP su
Ben
Jack, firstly, I made no attempt to replace the long-running (at least on this site) attempts to pin down a concise meaning for fascism with an attempt to use another label, ‘racism’. This was Jason’s argument. I was arguing that, at least in this case, these labels are not important and it is, as you say, the accurate representation of the BNP that is important, regardless of any emotively charged words anyone would like to use to describe them.
Secondly, I was not saying that you have any affiliation with the BNP, but rather, as someone who has defended the BNP, you have expressed a view on Global Warming (January 28th, 2007 at 1:02 am) that is similar to the BNP’s, and I think most people’s view on that subject. What I was drawing attention to was that your defense of BNP policies could conflict greatly with your stance on the environment, in the same way that the enactment of the BNP’s policies would conflict with their aims on the environment, for the reasons I gave above.
This is just one of the many reasons I gave for the unworkability of BNP policies, including rising prices and the shortsightedness of withdrawal from international bodies such as the UN. I will state again, this is not a time in the history of the human race as a whole that selfish policies of “looking-after-number-one” are sensible or noble.
Jack
Jason, I think the definitions do matter; but I’m glad you see the importance of accuracy.
Again, I’m not defending the policies of the BNP; but their right to express them; and trying to stress the importance of understanding them.
I happen to think that it is important that we release ourselves from energy dependency on bad regimes, and develop our renewable infrastructure.
I’m sure you recognise that the motives for this are to “lead the way” (because you have to practice what you preach); and also to economically “punish” bad regimes.
This is not the selfish policy it appears; I recognise that this is a global issue; but I also studied in university in China, and am aware of their attitudes, and how they need a carrot and stick, which means we have to lead by example or be called hypocrites; and refuse to buy products that are produced at the expense of the earth.
This, on the surface seems like an isolationist policy; but it’s actually not when you look at the big picture; it also bears some similarity to Green Party policy.
I’m afraid, the UN has not really got much credibility anymore, but I’m not going to go into any digressive detail on that.
Nor am I going to discuss BNP policies; any more than I’m going to be associated with them.
Putting aside all the usual flowery ranting (the logical fallacy of loaded language), what this debate seems to boil down to is:
Groups
My premise is: only logical and objective thinking can resolve the emerging crisis of identity that is fracturing British society.
The subtext of the whole debate that includes patriotism vs immigrationism, the family vs cult of individuality, is fundamentally that of group conflict.
One group, (I call it the far left,) appears to dominate the discourse by virtue of it’s dominant presence in channels of discourse: the education system; the media; the public services of the state.
This group, whatever we agree to call it, wishes to restrict the behaviour of another group (you might call it the far right,) whose values it doesn’t appear to understand.
This naturally fosters resentment, and this is being increasingly manifested in growth of support for the BNP. Condemning people who feel this way rather than engaging with them with an open mind, shall only exacerbate the situation.
It is perfectly logical for a group to oppose incomers; this is a basic evolutionary instinct. To depict it as some kind of abnormal response is not only illogical, but also either criminally disingenuous, or evidence of a lack of intelligence and sensitivity.
So why are the far left group trying to encourage immigration – it must logically suit them in some evolutionary way: to lower the cost of living is pretty evident motivation; to acquire information about competitor states could be another (whether it’s cuisine or military intelligence).
The Family
The logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Crumenam (“blinding with science”) reared it’s head with claims that the family and the nation are social constructions, and by implication were of no importance; whilst in the same breath we were instructed to work for the benefit of all an ambiguous social construction called a “community”, in place of working for the benefit of the family; and to accept social constructions such as “evil”.
It is inconsistent to argue that social constructions should be ignored; and then to decree a new set of social constructions for us to accept.
The family is not a social construction, but an evolutional reality; it is illogical to state otherwise.
Whereas same-sex relationships are social constructions.
We don’t agree as biological units to form parent-child groups; their existence is a result of procreation. When it comes to forming alternative arrangements, they can only be defined as social constructions, as they have no logical purpose.
It’s also logical for us as humans to feel a powerful connection (love) to our biological origin (our family, our parents). It’s part of our identity.
By trying to denigrate the family to the level of being a mere invention, you are denying humans’ observable sense of connection to their origins as they experience them.
The knock-on effect is that by attacking the family, the whole social construct of nation starts to disintegrate; the destructive results are observed by the recent UNICEF report on children.
You may retort that “love isn’t logical”; well I’m afraid it is. The existence of life is utterly defined by procreation and survival. Everything done between a male and a female in our species towards the achievement of the objective of procreation and species survival is logically consistent; consequently, any simulated activity between members of the same sex in our species is simply complex, ritualised, masturbation. This is not a moral judgement, but a logical statement of fact. It’s well known that some of the activity between same sex couples is damaging to health; and this is not a crude “the bottom is only made for one-way traffic” remark, it’s a well-evidenced fact.
The point, of course, is that we must tell the truth about this things, and not dress up this behaviour as something that it’s not. We must not sell our children the lie that this is an option that is as legitimate as the procreational model; the evident norm.
To be anti-procreational, is illogical, and hence it is a minority behaviour.
Patriotism
Patriotism, or nationalism, is merely a form of groupism, and is entirely consistent and logical with achieving the evolutional objective of survival.
The biological family forms the basis of social constructions that work towards this end: small communities; large communities; and the ethnic state, (or nation).
It is therefore logical to be patriotic, because by being patriotic, you are demonstrating allegiance to your ethnic group, in much the same way as colonies of termites; or herds of gnus; shoals of mackerel; flocks of birds; prides of lions. It’s logical, and evolutionarily consistent.
To be anti-patriotic, is illogical, and hence it is a minority behaviour.
Definitions
The reason humans have groups is so that we can trust; assess; and remember the meanings we give to words the ideas they convey and to confirm our experience of reality; [read Wittgenstein’s critique of private language].
Conflict between groups emerges when conflicting conclusions over what abstract nouns like “freedom” mean. The only way to resolve such conflicts is to extract emotion, and apply logic.
Putting a Mr Spock hat on again for a moment:
Racism: hating of denigrating people because of their “race” is illogical. Whether it’s immoral is irrelevant, as morality is largely subjective, and related to the values of a group as a whole.
The problem with the concept of Racism, is that research has demonstrated that race is an illusion. On that basis, it is illogical to describe anyone as racist. The truth is that we realise that there are other things going on, and that most people are not able to articulate what they instinctively feel.
Consequently, it comes as little surprise that it was not possible to secure a conviction of the BNP leader recently on a racism charge.
Usage of the term “racial phenotype” does not ignore genetic gradiation, on the contrary it recognises it; where as terms like “race” fail to.
Phenotype more or less equates to the genotype plus the environment.
The genotype is the specific set of DNA instructions that produce the phenotype. The racial phenotype is what we look like; and most of us agree that we are not simply “individual organisms”, but fall into categories of specific collections of racial phenotypes. Human brains like to categorise things; our eyes are designed to perceive differences and boundaries.
Racial phenotypes may serve an evolutionary purpose, being to help us recognise a member of our group or another group; though some phenotypes are determined by environment (chemical component of soil; climate; geography) over long periods.
We can all observe these collections of differences in terms of eyes, hair, noses, skull shape etc…that are grouped together to define particular ethnic groups. Using this to describe the polygenic inheritance we see is not completely denying an individual’s agency: the choices we make are independent of our biological ethnic origin, though always entirely free of our cultural ethnic origin.
Fascism: seeing individuals as cells of a national body; totalitarian anti-democracy; anti-dissent.
It has nothing intrinsically to do with “race” or ethnicity in itself; it’s about restrictions on individual freedom and debate.
The date of the definition of Fascism is of no consequence.
the definition of Communism is from the mid-19th century; democracy even earlier.
Clearly a dictionary-sized definition can’t include everything.
Ethno-fascism, is a conflation of “racism” and fascism; it’s not the same definition.
The problem with describing the BNP as fascist is illustrated by the difference in attitudes towards the white working-classes as was described earlier.
Any inference that some evolutional link exists from Fascism to the BNP requires evidence, and logical argument.
A BNP member can say that he thinks Hitler was ace, and call himself a fascist, but that does not equate to evidence that either the BNP as whole is represented by his views (that’s a smoke & fire fallacy); or that he is actually correct in calling himself a Fascist (he may not actually know what it means - like his accuser).
Essentially what you are doing is attempting to append, stretch and edit the definition to suit your argument.
You want to extend it to include things that are not part of the definition.
The motive is to assign the same negative connotations the word has to others political views that you don’t like.
Similarly, you want to use the word Nazi, when you know full well it has a specific and different meaning to what you are using it to describe.
This is clear attempt at laying the foundations for a “genetic fallacy”; whereby you focus on argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad metum whilst ignoring the actual content of the argument, because subconsciously you feel unable to refute it.
You surely understand the baggage that comes with an adjectival name in a range of contexts:
republican - American? Irish? what?
nationalist - SNP, plaid cymru, BNP, what?
The definition is what it is; if it’s not convenient; tough.
The only fascists, by definition, are the pseudoliberal elite, because you want to suppress dissent and debate with your “No Platform” policies; and victimise dissenters as being “abnormal”; you are only happy with “democracy” if you control the discourse.
Clearly dissent is an impo