BNP Members List online

[total dude]

Chuckle at this.

I know, I know, privacy wah wah wah. But who cares, sifting through this thing is far too fun.

I think the St Andrews student who is a fee-paying BNP member should probably put some privacy settings on his facebook though.

[Guest]

I think he's graduated now.. still... wouldn't want to be in his shoes... or anyone elses on that list to be honest.

[Unreg Bob]

I am a strong BNP supporter and am offended by such comments as 'wouldn't like to be in his shoes'. At least someone has an opinion and puts their name against it - more than most of you pathetic Anon voters.

[househunter]

I am a strong BNP supporter and am offended by such comments as 'wouldn't like to be in his shoes'. At least someone has an opinion and puts their name against it - more than most of you pathetic Anon voters.

Good choice of Uni. Bet you must hate this town, or is it just black people you don't like?

[Unreg Bob]

Good choice of Uni. Bet you must hate this town, or is it just black people you don't like?

Why would I hate this town?! I love it! This Uni must have the lowest percentage of black and Indian students out of all the Unis in the UK. It's a BNP haven!!

[Power Metal Dom]

I smell a troll.

Also, http://wikileaks.org/leak/bnp-membership-list.txt

[munchingfoo]

Whilst I dislike casual racists, I think I dislike people who would like to inhibit another's freedom of speech and right to vote any way they choose in a democracy even more.

The BNP got 0.9% of the popular vote in the last national election making it the 8th largest political party in the UK. In the last local elections in England and Wales it became the 5th largest party in England and Wales. They continue to be an accepted (legally) political party, and until such time as they are not I will continue to believe that some of the people on this thread are worse than than some of the people who vote for the BNP.

Currently I think it is possible to vote for the BNP without being a racist. A couple of their policies have my backing - but not enough to get me to vote for them.

[househunter]

Good choice of Uni. Bet you must hate this town, or is it just black people you don't like?

Why would I hate this town?! I love it! This Uni must have the lowest percentage of black and Indian students out of all the Unis in the UK. It's a BNP haven!!

There's more than the colour of skin when it comes to foreign people.

[La Jouissance]

Does anyone else find it funny that one of the people listed has the following job description:

Former policeman. Lecturer in human rights/data protection.

I'm guessing they might be wanting to give him a ring pretty shortly...

[RedCelt69]

I agree. Whilst I hate and despise everything that the BNP stand for (along with those who find themselves in agreement with their core policies) democracy means everyone gets a say.

Something which McArthy and his followers would have done well to remember. America: Land of the Free. So long as you aren't a communist.

I laughed out loud when I heard one American commentator on the night of the recent election saying that there were finally no barriers to achieving the highest office in the country. Yeah? Really? How long before we see a homosexual US president. There probably already has been one... but *openly* gay? And if you think that day is a long way off, imagine how much longer still before there's an atheist in the whitehouse. Again, there probably already has been one...

To get into the whitehouse you have to wrap yourself in the twin religions of Christianity and patriotism.

I tend to be colourblind when it comes to race. I'll notice someone's skin colour much as I notice someone's hair-colour; a reference point, something to identify them. Yet, our cerebrally-challenged poster is quite right; St Andrews *is* remarkably poorly represented by non-whites... and not just the students.

I don't point that out as being a good thing. Nor, for that matter, a bad thing. It's just a fact borne of observation. St Andrews itself isn't unusual. Scotland has a low black/asian population relative to England. Yet that shouldn't necessarily be reflected in the student (nor staff) population. After all, what proportion of the students and staff are actually Scots?

[LonelyPilgrim]

You know, I've always been a proponent of free speech, but lately I've been reconsidering my views. Not changing them, at least not yet, mind you, just questioning them. For example, RedCelt, would you agree that the basic premise of free political speech is that any given faction has the right to try to convince the people of the correctness of their program? I certainly think that's the idea... everyone can make their case, and the electorate can then choose. The system assumes that the electorate is intelligent enough to choose the wisest course.

What do you do when given a political programme like the Communist Party has traditionally held? I apologise if this seems like a personal attack, but the CP is a prime candidate for my point. The CP lies. It says that, given power, it will usher in a worker's paradise... a land overflowing with milk and honey for the proletariat. Sounds good, no? But it fails to mention all the things that go along with that... the forced labour camps, the execution of dissenters, the liquidation of the middle class, the regimentation of society, and the complete eradication of personal liberty. Oh, and the fact that it doesn't actually provide a paradise of any sort, or at least has utterly failed to do so in any place it's tried so far.

Also consider that the CP muzzles its own members... demanding that every member adhere to the party line about every issue, essentially eradicating freedom of speech or dissent in its own ranks. Do we, as a liberal society based on personal rights, owe free speech to an organisation that denies its members the right of free speech and, if given power, would eradicate not only that right but all the other rights that we hold dear? More to point, an organisation that lies, outright, about its aims and its possible achievements. An organisation that does its best to deny the voters the ability to make an informed decision, and would dispense with voting all together if it could?

In short, to what extent does a liberal society need to extend its rights to organised movements that are themselves hostile to those rights? That individuals have a right to free speech, I won't deny. But when those individuals are speaking not as themselves, but as a mouthpiece for a movement, ought we to extend the same unlimited right? Is there a difference in moral status between someone speaking for themselves and someone speaking for some other entity? And if so, is there a legal distinction in regard to rights?

Forgive me if I've misconstrued modern communism... but I've lately been reading a lot about the CP in post-war France, from the viewpoint of a sympathetic leftist writer, no less. Perhaps my assumptions are outdated, but I doubt that Marxist-Leninism has changed all that much in its ideology, goals, or organising principles and I think its effects, when given power, have been proven again and again in Russia, China, Cuba. It depends too much on human beings rejecting their humanity, and like all such ideologies it's doomed to fall prey to the very worst in us.

[munchingfoo]

You make a fair point LP - but you just need to ask yourself one thing to rid yourself of that view point entirely.

Who gets to choose which political stances are allowed and which are not?


I don't believe you can answer that question in a fully democratic society without using the answer - 'no one'.


In answer to one of your individual points, "they lie", show me one British political party capable of running the entire country that hasn't lied at least once at every single general election and they can have my vote!

[LonelyPilgrim]

You make a fair point LP - but you just need to ask yourself one thing to rid yourself of that view point entirely.

Who gets to choose which political stances are allowed and which are not?
I don't believe you can answer that question in a fully democratic society without using the answer - 'no one'.

I don't believe so. I think a clear line can be drawn between political parties that advocate change in policies and those that advocate for a radical change in form. In short, parties such as the Communists or the Nazis who advocate for a totalitarian reworking of the structure of government and society, who are clearly and openly hostile to democratic government and liberal freedoms.

Also, in a fully democratic society, you could just put it to a vote. Which is actually more terrifying than letting a bueacracy decide. That's the problem with the idea of 'full' democracy, you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

In answer to one of your individual points, "they lie", show me one British political party capable of running the entire country that hasn't lied at least once at every single general election and they can have my vote!

Well, I think there is a pretty clear difference in scale. "We'll cut taxes!" and then not doing it is clearly in a different league from "We'll institute paradise on earth!" and then going and murdering 20 million people and enslaving the rest. Again, a distinction between policy and form, I think.

I detest Communism with the totality of my soul. The funny thing is, I don't think Marx's critique of the dynamics of capitalism was fundamentally wrong. I think he overstated his case a bit, and underestimated the ability of capitalist societies to periodically self-correct, but the basic premise that capital will inevitably exploit labour in a worsening cycle of social injustice seems fairly believable these days, particularly in the US. I just think the solutions proposed by the Communists and many other Leftist movements are overly idealistic, nonsensical, and dare I say evil. I also don't buy into historical or economic determinism. I have no sympathy for utopia-peddling con-artists posing as revolutionary do-gooders with murder and hate in their hearts.

[Haunted]

It's tempting to say that a population deserves the government it votes for.
But that would unnecessarily cruel to the ignorant who perhaps aren't to blame for falling for the same old trick of voting in a fascist/communist/whatnot.

Is it plausible to suggest that perhaps not every individual above a certain age is capable of the shouldering the responsibility of voting?

I would like to see a system of government that both Thomas Jefferson and Ghengis Khan believed in.
Meritocracy.

[RedCelt69]

It's a big subject to cover neatly in a short reply, but time's limited this morning.

Basically, either a society is democratic or it isn't. It is ridiculous to advocate a political system by the people, of the people, for the people... if you then limit which people you're referring to.

We don't have to look far for an example of this hypocrisy at work. The Palestinians *democratically* elected a Hamas leader. The US (along with much of the EU), who claim to want nothing more than democracy across the entirety of the Middle East, said.... yeah... but no, but... yeah.... that isn't what we meant. We're having nothing more to do with you until you use demcracy the way we want democracy to be used.

Much the same headache in post-regime-change Iraq.

The thing is, if you believe in democracy, you have to accept what the majority of the people want. If they want their country to become a communist state, then that's what will happen. If they want it to be run by Hamas, then that's what will happen. If they want their country to be run by Mullahs then guess what...?

As someone once said; we get the government we deserve.

LP, you shouldn't mistake the theory of communism as envisaged by Marx & Engels with the communism that the world has since seen. There's been no true communistic state. True communism can't work because human nature won't allow it to work. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a perfectly valid place in a democratic society. Eradicate communism and everything that looks or smells like communism then you're going to have a very ugly society with very few rights for those who most need them.

At this point, I'd like to state that I, personally, can't abide democracy. It is the "least worst" form of government... but that isn't a good reason not to look for something better. As a misanthrope I don't believe that the people are intelligent enough to choose for themselves. People are sheep, following the herd - else marketing (whether of soap powder or political leaders) wouldn't be such big business.

Benign dictatorship FTW. Now, if we could only find someone who wouldn't let the power go to their head.... <sigh>

[Senethro]

lollin at dis

Fun to read the comments on right wing blogs. Good times.

[Haunted]

Benign dictatorship FTW. Now, if we could only find someone who wouldn't let the power go to their head.... <sigh>

Perhaps you could pick such a person on merit?

[theshadowhost]

There seem to be quite a few from buckinghamshire on here (my home county), at least 3 from my home town with one guy who's name i recognise seeing how he has graffitti'd it all over every fucking bus stop and bridge in the town from what i have heard about him it isn't suprising he is a member.

I was quite surprised to hear that the police are banned from joining.

[Anon.]

Who gets to choose which political stances are allowed and which are not?
I don't believe you can answer that question in a fully democratic society without using the answer - 'no one'.

I don't believe so. I think a clear line can be drawn between political parties that advocate change in policies and those that advocate for a radical change in form.

But then who gets to choose what the original form is, and what makes them more competent to judge than the political parties that want to radically change it?

Basically, either a society is democratic or it isn't. It is ridiculous to advocate a political system by the people, of the people, for the people... if you then limit which people you're referring to.

We don't have to look far for an example of this hypocrisy at work. The Palestinians *democratically* elected a Hamas leader. The US (along with much of the EU), who claim to want nothing more than democracy across the entirety of the Middle East, said.... yeah... but no, but... yeah.... that isn't what we meant. We're having nothing more to do with you until you use demcracy the way we want democracy to be used.

I totally agree.

Benign dictatorship FTW.

Don't they have that - or at least, the non-elected monarch has a lot of power - in Liechtenstein? And they seem to do pretty well.

[theshadowhost]

This isnt a link to the details but a link to the map
http://spod.cx/bnp_members_list.shtml