Thread: Casual Nazism

...And this from the Guardian. Hugh Muir's diary | Politics | The Guardian

Minorities – apply to the BNP now and avoid the rush ... just like the mysterious Daniel
Hugh Muir The Guardian, Tuesday 16 February 2010

The first thing to be said about Daniel Muranbuti is that he was quick off the mark. No sooner had the BNP voted to change its *constitution and allow non-whites to become members than Daniel, from London, appeared on the party's website.

"I am a young and laid-back kinda guy. I like reggae and poetry and I fully support your aim to keep Britain British. Now I know you ain't racist and against my People [sic]. We are all on the same side, and I just know it won't be long before we can celebrate together like the *Americans do with their black *president," he said.

Thus did a significant decision yield instant results. Or at least that seemed to be the case. But if you look for Daniel's entry now, you won't find it. Because after a few checks were made by activists at the anti-far right group Lancaster Unity, it appeared that the picture of supportive Daniel posted on the BNP site was in fact that of Oscar Grant, a young black man shot in the back on New Year's Day by transport police in Oakland, California and thus featured on Wikipedia.

And we know that Oscar didn't rush to join the BNP, because he died in hospital a few hours after the shooting. So what of Daniel Muranbuti? He may exist, he may not, but just to be safe he has been excised from the party's website. And if you do exist, Daniel, and are keen to join up, good luck with that.

Originally Posted by hansvonhealing

As a matter of interest, the EDL give guidance to service personel regarding involvement with the EDL, here:
Armed Forces Defence League

It seems the MOD have a different viewpoint on the 'non-political' claims of the EDL...
"We accept that the English Defence League (EDL) classes itself as a

non-political organisation. Notwithstanding this, the Army considers an

organisation that seeks to effect change to the laws of this country, or to

Government policy, to be a ³political party or movement², as referred to in

The Queen¹s Regulations for the Army. Therefore, on this basis, the Army

classes the EDL as a political organisation.

So the MOD accepts the the EDL classes itself as a non-political organisation. But the army says it is, tell us, since when does the army dictate to civvies whether or not they are political?
What the army means is that is doesnt want its soldiers joining a group of people that doesnt like extreme Muslims because that would be bad press.

Originally Posted by hansvonhealing

...And this from the Guardian. Hugh Muir's diary | Politics | The Guardian

Minorities – apply to the BNP now and avoid the rush ... just like the mysterious Daniel
Hugh Muir The Guardian, Tuesday 16 February 2010

The first thing to be said about Daniel Muranbuti is that he was quick off the mark. No sooner had the BNP voted to change its *constitution and allow non-whites to become members than Daniel, from London, appeared on the party's website.

"I am a young and laid-back kinda guy. I like reggae and poetry and I fully support your aim to keep Britain British. Now I know you ain't racist and against my People [sic]. We are all on the same side, and I just know it won't be long before we can celebrate together like the *Americans do with their black *president," he said.

Thus did a significant decision yield instant results. Or at least that seemed to be the case. But if you look for Daniel's entry now, you won't find it. Because after a few checks were made by activists at the anti-far right group Lancaster Unity, it appeared that the picture of supportive Daniel posted on the BNP site was in fact that of Oscar Grant, a young black man shot in the back on New Year's Day by transport police in Oakland, California and thus featured on Wikipedia.

And we know that Oscar didn't rush to join the BNP, because he died in hospital a few hours after the shooting. So what of Daniel Muranbuti? He may exist, he may not, but just to be safe he has been excised from the party's website. And if you do exist, Daniel, and are keen to join up, good luck with that.

Do you actually read what you post? The Guardian are hinting the BNP made it up.

Originally Posted by hansvonhealing

You should have looked at the authors next article, here:
New Statesman - BNP finds non-white member

BNP finds non-white member
Posted by James Macintyre - 16 February 2010 11:33

But there's a catch.

The "trickle" has started. Following the British National Party's renunciation of its whites-only membership policy, to which I referred yesterday, it appears that a non-white aspirant member has indeed been found.

He is Rajinder Singh, a 78-year-old Sikh gentleman who is fired up about "Islam" and has praised Nick Griffin for "taking on the whole storm of lefties" over "multiculturalism".

The only catch? Singh, who emigrated to Britain from India in 1967, wouldn't be able to join the BNP if the BNP itself had its way. Not even with the party's new non-whites policy; he wouldn't be here at all.

And that makes him tame does it? Not someone who just hates Muslims?

Do the BNP and the EDL set traps for minorities out in the wild? Then house train them? So they are "tame" or perhaps, just perhaps some minorities in the UK don't like other minorities? Or is all down to the nasty BNP?

I can respond to Stackers three replies with one post,

1. The MOD is clearly stating that it doesn't want service personnel involved in the EDL's activities. Stacker appears to suggest that this statement is accompanied by a wink ("That would be bad press"). Do you have any experience to support this belief Stacker?

2. I think the Guardian is more than hinting that the BNP made up this membership. I posted it because it shows quite clearly how such organisations can use 'people of colour' for publicity purposes. So far, I have only come across two such people within the EDL. One, called 'Kermit' by Paul Ray, the ex-leader of the EDL, who discribes him in this way:
"Kermit should also be removed, and someone better suited to the position of giving speeches should be found, as there is absolutely no way anyone should be giving speeches on behalf of you and the English cause whilst drunk and drugged up out of their minds. Just because he is from an ethnic minority doesn’t mean he can do what he likes"
The other is the gentleman that Stacker highlighted in a photograph.

3. Stacker should be careful of talking about "someone who just hates Muslims". The EDL are more careful and talk only of 'extremist Muslims'.

Of course, Stacker fully understands what I'm getting at but can't admit it, as this would suggest that the BNP and the EDL share more than just members.

Originally Posted by hansvonhealing

I can respond to Stackers three replies with one post,

1. The MOD is clearly stating that it doesn't want service personnel involved in the EDL's activities. Stacker appears to suggest that this statement is accompanied by a wink ("That would be bad press"). Do you have any experience to support this belief Stacker?

2. I think the Guardian is more than hinting that the BNP made up this membership. I posted it because it shows quite clearly how such organisations can use 'people of colour' for publicity purposes. So far, I have only come across two such people within the EDL. One, called 'Kermit' by Paul Ray, the ex-leader of the EDL, who discribes him in this way:
"Kermit should also be removed, and someone better suited to the position of giving speeches should be found, as there is absolutely no way anyone should be giving speeches on behalf of you and the English cause whilst drunk and drugged up out of their minds. Just because he is from an ethnic minority doesn’t mean he can do what he likes"
The other is the gentleman that Stacker highlighted in a photograph.

3. Stacker should be careful of talking about "someone who just hates Muslims". The EDL are more careful and talk only of 'extremist Muslims'.

Of course, Stacker fully understands what I'm getting at but can't admit it, as this would suggest that the BNP and the EDL share more than just members.

Interesting that you put it this way in that we are continually told by various Islamic "experts" that the outrages committed in the name of Islam are only done by such "extremists."

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Interesting that you put it this way in that we are continually told by various Islamic "experts" that the outrages committed in the name of Islam are only done by such "extremists."

Isn't the committing of an outrage a pretty good definition of 'extreme'? And contrariwise, if you have never committed an outrage do you really deserve the label?

apprantly the lunatic fringe are planning an annual march in brighton deep joy.
sussex police start planning what your going to do with your days double pay :(
so we get up to 50 nationlists .
about 5 times that number of professional protestors and anyone else who isn't impressed with the wannabe facists plus hordes of riot police to keep the brave aryan warriors from being lynched.

the facists can't even get a decent crowd together as hardly any darkies to annoy and the last time a skinhead appeared on the seafront got chatted up by a couple of bears

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Isn't the committing of an outrage a pretty good definition of 'extreme'? And contrariwise, if you have never committed an outrage do you really deserve the label?

As an example there are those who consider the halal method of killing an outrage, but rather a lot of Muslims subscribe to it and "extreme" is one of those terms which loses its meaning if you lump too many people into it.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Zulu

As an example there are those who consider the halal method of killing an outrage, but rather a lot of Muslims subscribe to it and "extreme" is one of those terms which loses its meaning if you lump too many people into it.

True enough. There are those on here who'd consider wearing a pair of army surplus desert combats an outrage. Would that pass the standard 'reasonable' test in UK law?

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

True enough. There are those on here who'd consider wearing a pair of army surplus desert combats an outrage. Would that pass the standard 'reasonable' test in UK law?

Video yourself stabbing an animal in the throat and see what the RSPCA do.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Zulu

Video yourself stabbing an animal in the throat and see what the RSPCA do.

The RSPCA will do f*ck all if I'm a muslim.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Zulu

Video yourself stabbing an animal in the throat and see what the RSPCA do.

They'd probably prosecute me. We still cling in this country to the idea that if you do something on a whim then it's different to if you do it from religious motivations.

A Muslim killing animals in halal fashion is the latter as would a Jew killing in kosher fashion; I'd be the former as I have no religious foundation for my actions. The 'reasonable' test isn't about whether the action is reasonable, just what a reasonable person thinks of the action.

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Thanks for the history lesson. My point is that such terms do not enjoy universal meaning and are also the subject of purposeful abuse when needed to suit one's argument, whatever it may be.

Asinine twat. The term as described is fully understood in the UK and this is a site that is read in the main by UK educated people with a practical experience of UK media and politics. You are, as usual, whining because you are an arrogant tosser with a god complex who is upset because we don't speak 'murcan and fall in line with what you, a SPAM, believe to be the right and only way to understand a concept.

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Isn't the committing of an outrage a pretty good definition of 'extreme'? And contrariwise, if you have never committed an outrage do you really deserve the label?

I think you are oversimplifying this a bit. First of all, as is evident from much of the world media following various "incidents," like "beauty" whether the "incident" is viewed an "outrage" very much depends on the "eyes" of the beholder(s). For example one might consider the cheering on many middle eastern streets on September 12, 2001, regarding that slight unpleasantness in New York City the day before. Apparently, those giddy celebrants did not see an outrage whereas some others, no doubt due to their callous perspectives as infidels that prevented them from lack of appreciating for the nuances of the acts involved, considered them as "outrageous."

As to your second point, there are myriad situations where one could be reasonably considered "extreme," while not directly participating in the "outrageous" act due to their active aiding, abetting or otherwise supporting, or even in some contexts, passively supporting or later defending or justifying those who actually perform the outrage.