The Constitution of the BNP

Originally Posted by Unionist:
Who do you mean, Bear?

For my part, I was just pointing out a few facts about the accounts of the parties mentioned here. I have no allegiance to any of them.

As an aside, I don't see why it is necessary to post a ritualistic "As much as I detest the BNP..." before every post that mentions them. If I did, I would also feel compelled to mention my abhorrence of UKIP's immigration policy or the Greens' rejection of free trade. I get the feeling sometimes that people can come out with any old racist dogma as long as they declare in advance their hatred for the BNP. That makes everything they say acceptable, apparently. :-)

I mean that if people are so stupid, misguided, naďve, or simply into bondage as to fail to see just what the BNP is all about then they deserve all they get from being members of it.

What I will say is that as much as I detest the BNP I do pity the poor suckers who can’t see the hook in the worm that is dangled in front of them.

Or maybe that should read “ ... can’t see the worm that is dangling the hook in front of them”.

What the latter lacks in imagery is made up for in accuracy.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
Only because your Muslim mates stubbornly and steadfastly vote Labour. The loyaly towards Labour by (ethnic) Muslims is yet another reason why they are so loathed and despised by an increasing number of native British people.

The proposition that religious affiliation affects the voting habits of an individual is, frankly, preposterous. I'm Muslim and I've never voted Labour in my life, so that puts paid to your theory.

If you had made a less extreme statement like "the majority of Muslims vote Labour" then I might have been inclined to agree, but to assert that all Muslims vote Labour is ridiculous.

Muslims make up 3.5% of the population in total. How many Muslims do you think are of voting age, and could you provide a more detailed analysis of how they might have any effect in general elections?

What about Atheists? Do they form a single voting block? They make up around 15% of the population, so surely they would have a bigger impact than Muslims.... Who do Atheists all vote for? I assume no Atheist would vote for the BNP because the BNP is quite steadfast about Christian values, is it not?

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
Without ethnic Muslims the Labour party would be planning its funeral.

Please define what an 'ethnic' Muslim is.

Again, I say that Muslims total 3.5% of the total population of the United Kingdom. I fail to see that even if all Muslims of voting age decided to vote Labour (which, patently they do not, unless you are suggesting that all Muslims vote Labour all the time, in which case, how can you explain those Muslims who do not vote at all?) it would have such a great effect anyway.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
I assume from the average wage figures calculated in the posts above that those for UKIP and the BNP relate to the total number of individuals employed whereas the figure for the Greens (i.e., 4.6) is for full-time equivalents - a much better way of presenting the information. It does not make much sense to compare average wages without reference to whether they are full-time or part-time.

All the figures I took for calculating staff where taken from the detailed notes of the accounts to those parties. I had assumed that all the figures given were full-time equivalents as that would make sense to me.

The fact that the BNP is alone in all the accounts I looked at in naming a different number of "key permanent staff" than the actual staff quoted in the detailed noted is enough for me to ask why that would be so?

My point was that the BNP with more than double the full time staff than the Greens, cannot deliver the same results at the ballot box.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
All the figures I took for calculating staff were taken from the detailed notes of the accounts to those parties. I had assumed that all the figures given were full-time equivalents as that would make sense to me.

It would normally be logical to assume full-time equivalents but people are lazy about stats and I don't think these are full-time equivalents in this case. Taking into account all staff costs (including employer's national insurance) it would mean that they were being paid significantly below the national minimum wage (at least below the adult rate).

That would be true even if they were all paid exactly the same, but don't forget also that the 13 staff on the BNP books include Mr Griffin himself. If he was paid even a modestly respectable salary (say, Ł25,000), it would push down the average of the others even further.

For this reason I don't think the figures can possibly refer to full-time equivalents and that is why the average rate given is meaningless.

[Rep]

I am interested to see who you would vote for whypatcondellisntfun and how much you donate to that party. Luckily the success of parties does not completely rely on how many members or wealth the party has.

As a Muslim do you believe liberal government interference of Muslim states was justified and do you believe Muslim interference in Britain is justified?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
It only takes a handful of people to totally disrupt a Party. Tony Bliar and his cronies have managed to bring a once proud Party to its knees and all but bankrupt it. That should be enough proof that two or three people can, with a bit of effort, cause disruption at a high level, enough to distract the rest of the Party from the issues that really matter.

Just read the posts in the UKIP section for an idea of what I mean.

It only takes a handful of people to totally disrupt a Party. Nick Griffin and his cronies have managed to bring a once proud Party to its knees and all but bankrupt it. That should be enough proof that two or three people can, with a bit of effort, cause disruption at a high level, enough to distract the rest of the Party from the issues that really matter.

Just read the posts in the UKIP section for an idea of what I mean.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
The proposition that religious affiliation affects the voting habits of an individual is, frankly, preposterous. I'm Muslim and I've never voted Labour in my life, so that puts paid to your theory.

If you had made a less extreme statement like "the majority of Muslims vote Labour" then I might have been inclined to agree, but to assert that all Muslims vote Labour is ridiculous.

Muslims make up 3.5% of the population in total. How many Muslims do you think are of voting age, and could you provide a more detailed analysis of how they might have any effect in general elections?

What about Atheists? Do they form a single voting block? They make up around 15% of the population, so surely they would have a bigger impact than Muslims.... Who do Atheists all vote for? I assume no Atheist would vote for the BNP because the BNP is quite steadfast about Christian values, is it not?

Please define what an 'ethnic' Muslim is.

Again, I say that Muslims total 3.5% of the total population of the United Kingdom. I fail to see that even if all Muslims of voting age decided to vote Labour (which, patently they do not, unless you are suggesting that all Muslims vote Labour all the time, in which case, how can you explain those Muslims who do not vote at all?) it would have such a great effect anyway.

So you are seriously proposing that their is no link between religious affiliation and voting preference?

Once again you employ your standard faulty reasoning. Because there is no one hundred percent correlation between X and Y you argue that there is no correlation between X and Y.

Most people understand that patterns and trends are useful in analyzing behaviors, this is because they can successfully make predictions the hallmark of all successful theories. So we can say that smoking increases the likelihood of dying of respiratory disease. Not everyone who smokes chokes on their own lungs but more do than none smokers. Of course some people will argue that this is not the case, usually because they stand to gain from knowingly lying one way or the other or because the truth of the matter is not comfortable for them (they smoke).

So far you have used this disingenuous defense to try and absolve the Islamic community of all their well known predilections from voting Labour to blowing things up. Of course not all Muslims vote Labour and not all Muslim's think Semtex is an acceptable political tool (indeed maybe a considerable majority, particularly those who stand to be blown up, don't) however a significant minority do, a far higher instance than in any given sample of civilized people. We can debate why these trends and patterns exist but it can not be sensibly denied.

NB It's remarkable the extent to which this nonsensical attitude has penetrated into the intellectual world. For example it is no longer acceptable to "racially profile" for certain crimes for exactly this reason. Despite the fact that there is an undeniable correlation between certain races and certain crimes, (poor African heritage people are more likely to stab you, rich indigenous people are more likely to rob your pension fund). And yet we pretend that this is not the case. Another example of the retreat of reason.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
So you are seriously proposing that their is no link between religious affiliation and voting preference?

You obviously didn't read what I said. Let me quote myself:-

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
If you had made a less extreme statement like "the majority of Muslims vote Labour" then I might have been inclined to agree, but to assert that all Muslims vote Labour is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
So far you have used this disingenuous defense to try and absolve the Islamic community of all their well known predilections from voting Labour to blowing things up.

I do not deny that some Muslims vote Labour. I do not deny that some Muslims blow things up. I do not deny that some Muslims smoke gamble and drink. Perhaps those admissions will make you happy.

My point is, and always has been, that one cannot draw conclusions about an entire population of people from the actions of a minority.

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
Of course not all Muslims vote Labour

That was my point. The original poster made this statment:

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
The loyaly towards Labour by (ethnic) Muslims is yet another reason why they are so loathed and despised by an increasing number of native British people. Without ethnic Muslims the Labour party would be planning its funeral.

Which is clearly statistically very improbable given the puny 3.5% of the population that Muslims make up of the UK.

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
...and not all Muslim's think Semtex is an acceptable political tool (indeed maybe a considerable majority, particularly those who stand to be blown up, don't)

Funny how Muslims stand just as much chance as any one else to get blown up in an indiscriminate bombing? You make it sound like a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
however a significant minority do, a far higher instance than in any given sample of civilized people. We can debate why these trends and patterns exist but it can not be sensibly denied.

Are you saying that the underlying reasons why trends exist are not worth debate?

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
NB It's remarkable the extent to which this nonsensical attitude has penetrated into the intellectual world. For example it is no longer acceptable to "racially profile" for certain crimes for exactly this reason. Despite the fact that there is an undeniable correlation between certain races and certain crimes, (poor African heritage people are more likely to stab you, rich indigenous people are more likely to rob your pension fund). And yet we pretend that this is not the case. Another example of the retreat of reason.

Who do you mean when you say 'we pretend this is not the case'? You are simply regurgitating my own logic back to me. I refer you to a post I made on 30/07:

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
I've judged Dissident Congress on his personal actions, not by narrow-mindedly extrapolating the actions of the worst examples of nationalists and applying them all to him. That would be plain stupid, wouldn't it?

... However, to take the above facts and extrapolate from them that all blacks are knife wielding nutters and all foreigners are criminals is lunacy and displays an ignorance of the underlying reasons for that facts. Is it simply because of the colour of their skin that "the black community has greater involvement in knife attacks" or could it be due to other educational, social or economic factors? To accept crime figures as fact as truth but not ask the simple question "why?" is no way to decide race relations. I'd hazard a guess that high-value business fraud is mostly carried out by white men, that isn't racist is it? It would just reflect the different opportunity for crime available to a white man.

The point I make above is just as valid in this case. I judged Dissident Congress not on his relationship with Nationalism, or extrapolating a view of the majority of Nationalists by looking at the worst examples of the minority, but from the actions of Dissident Congress himeself. Likewise with you W-TIP, you are a Nationalist, but I do not think you are the same breed of Nationalist as, say, Griffin, (I've made this point to you before, I'm sure).

[Rep]