Monday, 26 November 2007

Free Speech for Unpopular People

Have the BNP really hired the UAF to give them all this publicity over a little debate in the Oxford Union about free speech?

10 coaches full of "anti-fascist" protestors converging on Oxford! Is it all quite necessary? Do the UAF really think the British people are going to turn into genocidal maniacs the moment Irving or Griffin finish speaking?

Am I naive and too trusting in believing that they will not?

All these references to Hitler bemuse me. Hitler, may I remind you, was elected under a democracy. Shall we suppress democracy too? If I remember aright, Hitler came into power after the middle classes were ruined during the hyperinflation during the term of a weak and effete Weimar Republic. Basically, they wanted a scapegoat - a concept as old as the, er, Old Testament - and Hitler gave them one.

Why not enquire into the causes of uncontrolled immigration and why both the Labour and Conservative Party wish to suppress intelligent and honest debate over this?

Being over-run by foreigners is not just a peculiarly British phenomenon, if you look at the US and the rest of the EU. People have been complaining about foreigners ever since people had legs to move around with. Neither are foreigners necessarily people of a different hue - merely people from somewhere else who are now with you whom you may wish would stay away. Perhaps this is just the human equivalent of insects being attracted to uncovered food on a sunny summer's day. The simple solution would be of course to cover the food, but below are some possible reasons why this is not done:

  • political correctness
  • an unacknowledged addiction to cheaper, more willing and skilled foreign labour
  • the existence of a Sacred Cow cradle to grave welfare state that discourages a work ethic
  • a state education system that does not educate adequately
  • a declining birth rate of legitimate productive citizens caused by
  • the unfair burden on working and married parents and
  • the increase in working and single motherhood
  • five-yearly elections which give short-termist politicians a reason to avoid dealing with problems that need medium to long-term solutions, eg education and transport

BUT MOST OF ALL, perhaps ...

  • the refusal to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with a corrupt and corrupting system of indiscriminate universal suffrage, which allows politicians to bribe the voters who take in welfare with the money of those who give in taxes ...
Vote: Should citizens who are not taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Wednesday, 21 November 2007

"The Keyboard Army of the BNP"

UAF (United Against Fascism) claims is the "Keyboard Army of the BNP". They are apparently boycotting it on that ground despite repeated invitations to "join The Party" and vote. The poll on whether David Irving and Nick Griffin should be allowed to participate in the OU debate on free speech at the OU is currently 100% in favour.

Why will the UAF not participate? Is it because they know even non-BNP supporters are more likely to want to hear what Messrs Irving and Griffin have to say in greater numbers than those who would wish to suppress them altogether?

On Friday 23 November, the OU will vote on whether to cancel their debate on Monday 26 November debate. Cowardice, intimidation as well as spurious but predictable "elf n sifety"/public order policing excuses will no doubt be among the reasons cited for any cancellation.

The BNP Blackpool Conference last weekend - 16-18 November - went ahead despite a UAF demonstration 200 strong. Could it be that a Kiss Me Quick seaside resort will have a more principled belief in free speech and is less likely to be intimidated by the UAF than the privileged few who presume to inhabit the dreaming spires of Oxford yet cannot grasp either in theory or in practice the principle of free speech?

If it is cancelled, we will know precisely what kind of a country we live in, and what sort of "cream" the British "education" system has produced, won't we?

"It ain't democracy if it ain't direct democracy!"

Friday, 16 November 2007

Is an admission of racial inferiority also "racist"?

This was the rather interesting question asked by Independent Councillor Chris Cook at in our regular debates on race and Islam who is, like me, independently-minded and prefers the a la carte method of ordering our political dishes (as demonstrated at rather than the limited fare that is the set menu offered by the Big 3 political parties. He is currently having trouble with the UAF (United Against Fascism) brigade who believe that BNP supporters and sympathisers should be silenced and removed rather than defeated by argument. (Although generally sympathetic to the BNP and saying that they should remain an all-white party, Chris who was one of the founder members of the SDP, is in fact dead against the death penalty, one of the staples of the BNP policy "diet".)

Like most people, I agree with some BNP policies and abjure the others. How could one not, for instance, support their intention to raise the threshold for paying income tax to £15,000 per annum, whatever race or religion one might be??

When I attended the anti-Iraq war march in 2003 at Hyde Park I noticed to my surprise that the BNP were represented as were the Muslims. That there were and are in fact more people and parties against the war than were for it I am cerrtain. That this country was nevertheless dragged into it just because dimwit sheep-like Conservatives like Boris Johnson and David Cameron were also bamboozled into supporting it, is infuriating to say the least. From this surprising revelation came the seeds of - an opinion-polling direct democracy website that makes the most of our agreement rather than allows it to be diluted under the irrational and oligarchical multi-party system led by "leaders" who do not seem to be displaying prudence, principle, talent or any understanding of realpolitik.

But I digress.

As I was saying, Chris wondered whether it would in fact be racist to make an admission of racial inferiority. If it is racist to regard one's race as better than all the others, surely the converse is also "racist"? After all, one cannot logically have superior races without inferior races.

I wonder what would happen if the BNP started saying more loudly: "We the white indigenous British are as a rule indolent, illegitimate, innumerate, illiterate, racially inferior and have very weak cultural traditions. We therefore need state protection from the better-organised, more family-orientated and better-educated foreign hordes who are now taking over our land and taking the bread from our mouths."

Actually, that is what some of them have been saying, who clamour for minority status and ask for whites-only council housing. This can only be described as the English urban equivalent of territorial reservations for the Australian Aborigines and Native Americans. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this display of defeatism in the English saddening and embarrassing.

The answer is "yes" - it is also "racist" to claim the converse of racial inferiority. There you go: the BNP are racist through and through - surprise, surprise! On the one hand, some of them feel superior to foreigners yet on the other hand claim that crafty better-organised foreigners exploit their political system better than they do.

However, it is still legal to have a sincerely-held beliefs and opinions in this country, however irrational, such as Feng Shui, numerology, astrology, the belief that Christ is Son of God, witchcraft, homeopathic medicine, etc.

But for how much longer?

Racism and what it really means

Racism is our understandable wish to think we can judge a book by its cover. It is lazy thinking and the desire to embrace lazy generalisations.

"They/You are all the same" is a manifestation of this.

"You always do X (eg leave the toilet seat up)" is another.

"You are always being X (eg late)" is yet another.

It might be generally true but is not true all the time. A good example is the selecting of a spouse on the basis of his or her probable racial characteristics. On the other hand, they are not to be entirely discounted either.

We tread the thin line of a tightrope but would like a more secure and well-trodden path. For these reasons, we embrace broad generalisations and racial prejudice as a kind of comfort blanket, thinking that these rules will guide us in our assessment of the likely behaviour of a particular person or a group of people.

It amused me no end to see a cleaning agency proudly calling itself "Polish Cleaners" as if being Polish were a guarantee of quality, service and a keen price.

The point is that it is, as yet, NOT illegal to be racist, only to act on racially discriminatory reasons (which may be rational or irrational and have a happy or unhappy outcome).

Powell was dead against the Race Relations Act 1976 outlawing racial discrimination.

Being a Libertarian, I am dead against all anti-discrimination legislation, which are examples of totalitarian liberal legislation fulfilling all the conditions of "thoughtcrime".

Meddling with Musharraf

Am I the only one a little puzzled about the hypocrisy the West has been displaying over Musharraf's Declaration of a State of Emergency?

He seems an OK sort of chap - Westernised and speaking excellent English, reasonable, good with words and not without some personal charm. Something about his appearance reminds me of Badger in Wind in the Willows.

His people are Muslim and mutinous because he is perceived to be the lapdog of America and Britain.

He has been tolerant enough of dissent to allow that trouble-maker Benazir Bhutto back into the country.

She is also a woman, and a Westernised woman, to boot. How is such a woman supposed to command the allegiance of a people steeped in medieval Muslim practices?

Ordinary people who were asked if they wanted a general election said they thought it would be a waste of time and didn't think a jumped-up Oxford educated female president whose family have a bad track record of getting into government and staying there.

Why, then, are we interfering with Musharraf's handling of his country and his people and telling him to step down as Head of the Army, conduct elections, end Martial Law when things are clearly now hanging precariously?

He asked quite pertinently: "What do you want? Some bogus form of democracy which will bring none of you any good or your country governed someone who knows what he is doing? What choice have you got anyway? Now shut up and go away." (I paraphrase, you understand.)

What the hell do we know about governing a country like Pakistan?

If he is the West's only hope and ally in that region, why are they asking him to loosen the reins of his dangerously frightened country, step down as Head of the Army when he has militants on the Afghan border to deal with, an unsympathetic and unco-operative legal establishment and Benny Bhutto stirring up trouble and clearly incapable of containing it herself when it blows up in her face?

God only knows.

Thursday, 15 November 2007

Comment submitted to Nigel Hastilow's blog

"I'm sorry that the "Enoch was right" hoo-ha has so quickly turned into yesterday's news despite my best attempts to keep it live. You should have waited for the Tories to sack you, Nigel, and embarrassed the Cowardly Camoroners for as long as you possibly could, and highlighted the issue of Free Speech and Immigration for a bit longer than just a long weekend!

The latest post on my blog today 15 November is evidence of my continuing interest in your political career:

"Let us not allow Nigel Hastilow to become yesterday's news! He may yet be the prospective parliamentary candidate for UKIP or the BNP.

POLL 1: Should Nigel Hastilow have said "Enoch was right"?

POLL 2: Should Nigel Hastilow have stood by his comments and waited to be sacked (thereby prolonging media attention on the issue of free speech and immigration), instead of resigning so soon?

POLL 3: Should Nigel Hastilow remain loyal to the Conservative Party that sacked him as its Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for saying "Enoch was right"?

POLL 4: Should Nigel Hastilow join UKIP?

POLL 5: Should Nigel Hastilow join the BNP?"

Those who want to vote should go to my blog to get the clickable links to
those polls on the 15 November entry.

The BNP/UKIP candidature question is of course a bit of a contest of competency on Internet-savviness.

Do Netphobes and Net- incompetents deserve to win anything when we all know that the future of political activism is online?

Does the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest and most adaptable to change apply to political ideologies and the quality of its practitioners?

I quote:

"The quality of the membership of any party depends on the degree of struggle there is. Success merely leads to softening and poor quality membership. Strife breeds toughness, keenness and alertness."

And I quote again:

"A man of good character without necessarily great insight into things is always better than an intelligent man without much character."

And I quote yet again:

"Politics turns more on character than intelligence: it is courage that conquers the world!"

Nigel Hastilow's future career

Let us not allow Nigel Hastilow to become yesterday's news! He may yet be the prospective parliamentary candidate for UKIP or the BNP.
Vote: Should Nigel Hastilow have said "Enoch was right"?
Vote: Should Nigel Hastilow have stood by his comments and waited to be sacked (thereby prolonging media attention on the issue of free speech and immigration), instead of resigning so soon?
Vote: Should Nigel Hastilow remain loyal to the Conservative Party that sacked him as its Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for saying "Enoch was right"?
Vote: Should Nigel Hastilow join UKIP?
Vote: Should Nigel Hastilow join the BNP?

PC Xmas Joke

Father Christmas has been advised by the more extremist elements of the Politically Correct Brigade not to say: "Ho, ho, ho!" on the grounds that it might offend some women.