No mention of the following on the main web site of the British National Party. When Griffin was charged with incitement to racial hatred he demanded full support from the party's members and he got it. But when it's one of the 'poor bloody infantry' in the frame he just turns a blind eye. Typical Griffin: one rule for him, another for everyone else. If you look up the term pious fraud in the dictionary it says: see Griffin.
Lincoln BNP candidate arrested over 'racist images' on Facebook page
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Echo Newsdesk
A British National Party candidate in Lincoln has been arrested over allegations of racist content on his Facebook page.
It was reported that anti-Islamic and other racist images and slogans appeared on the site of Dean Lowther, who is standing in Bracebridge ward in the city council elections.
Lincolnshire Police spokesman James Newall said: "Police have reviewed the material in question and a 45-year-old local man was arrested on suspicion of producing material inciting racial hatred in the south of the city this morning."
He has now been released on bail pending further enquiries until June 11.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Saturday, 7 April 2012
When I use a word it means what I want it to mean
The Origins of "Racism"
by Sam Francis
American Renaissance
May 1999
The curious beginnings of a useless word
The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship's most remarkable achievements - the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as "historical principles". Unlike most dictionaries, the OED also provides information on the first historical appearance and use of words. The range of the erudition in the OED is often astounding, but for AR readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word "racism".
According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known use of the word racism in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American "fascist", Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second use of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 - Racism - by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis' book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word racism [?]. In the case of the word racist as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known use to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about "racism"?
Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as "sexology" -- the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual "liberation". His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on "sexology" as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject.
It is fair to say that his works were intended to send a message – that traditional Christian and bourgeois sexual morality was repressive, irrational, and hypocritical, and that emancipation would be a major step forward. His admiring translators, Eden and Cedar Paul, in their introduction to Racism, write of his "unwearying championship of the cause of persons who, because their sexual hormonic functioning is of an unusual type, are persecuted by their more fortunate fellow-mortals." Long before the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, Magnus Hirschfeld was crusading for the "normalization" of homosexuality and other abnormal sexual behavior.
Hirschfeld was the founder of an Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and helped organize "sexology" on an international scale. In 1922, he was physically attacked and almost killed by anti-Semites in Munich. In May, 1933, the Nazis closed down his "Institute of Sexual Science" and Hirschfeld fled to France, where he lived until his death in 1935.
Racism is largely devoted to a highly polemical "refutation" of some of the main racial ideologies and theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. The writers whom Hirschfeld criticized, aside from his favorite target of the National Socialists themselves, were figures like Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and others generally denounced today as "pseudo-scientists". In fact, that is an inappropriate term. Some of them were not trying to write as scientists at all but rather as political theorists, while others are better described as pre-scientific writers on race who worked with inadequate information, concepts, methodology, and terminology. While Hirschfeld may have been correct in rejecting their more egregious errors, his sneering at them for these mistakes is rather like ridiculing Copernicus and Kepler because they continued to accept some erroneous ideas from medieval astronomy.
Even when Hirschfeld is right in his critique of the early race theorists, it is often because he has chosen easy targets. His "refutation" of "racism" is largely centered on irrelevant common-places that even extreme exponents of racial differences might readily acknowledge – that all human beings are part of the same species and can interbreed, that blood transfusions can take place between races, that "there is no such thing as a pure race," that the races are identical in the vast majority of physical characteristics, that cephalic index is not a meaningful measurement of intelligence or character, etc. Yet his "scientific" evidence is often merely anecdotal or simply his own opinion asserted as unquestioned truth.
In another section, he recounts the names of those he considers the 70 most outstanding figures in world history and announces that "all such lists, when made without bias, will show that persons of genius and persons of outstanding talent are not set apart from the ruck by any colour of their eyes, by a peculiar shape of the skull or the nose, by any 'ethnological' characteristics whatever. What is decisive in human beings is not race but individuality." It does not seem to occur to Hirschfeld that all but about 8 or 9 of the 70 world-historical figures on his list are white Europeans. There are no Negroes and only two Asians (Confucius and Sun Yat Sen). [Perhaps, then, Hirschfeld was a 'racist'].
It is interesting that for all his contempt for "racism", Hirschfeld never once mentions IQ studies or the considerable psychometric evidence about race and intelligence that was already available even in the 1930s. Most of Hirschfeld's polemic is aimed at the proponents of intra-European racial differences (Nordics, Alpines, Mediterraneans, Dinarics, etc.) and not at differences between whites and other major races (though he steadfastly denies such differences as well). Curiously, he never cites the work of Franz Boas and his disciples against "racism", though that work was available in Europe at the time, nor does he invoke the ideas of the Frankfurt School, though Hirschfeld's own claim that "racism" is rooted in fear, loss of self-esteem, and other social and psychological pathologies resembles the ideas the Frankfurt School was formulating.
Nor, despite Hirschfeld's own Jewish background and the Nazi threat to Jews, does he seem preoccupied with anti-Semitism; in one or two passages he criticizes Jews themselves for their own ethnocentrism and faults Zionism for having created a new "race hatred" between Jews and Arabs. Moreover, Hirschfeld is a stout defender of eugenics, though not on racial lines, and he even has a brief chapter exploring a distinction he calls "Gobinism or Galtonism" – that is, attacking the ideas of French "racist" Arthur de Gobineau and defending those of Francis Galton, who coined the word eugenics and pioneered its development. Today most critics of "racism" would lump Galton and Gobineau together rather than distinguish between them.
As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld's book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word racism and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.
Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as "Pan-Humanism," a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, "we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left. . . . [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution."
In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of "Pan-Humanism": "The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship–that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race." With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: "Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia." Later, he informs us, "It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe" [ie, Stalin's Russia].
Racism, therefore, is a term originating on the left [?], and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents' ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.
But understanding the origins of the word racism in Hirschfeld's polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas "racism" and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.
It is clear that Magnus Hirschfeld himself harbored deep ideological, professional, and personal animosities against those to whom he applied the word, and those animosities may have extended to the entire society that throughout his career he associated with sexual repression and which he wanted replaced by a kind of global communism under the label of "Pan-Humanism". Whatever the flaws or virtues of his polemic against "racism", his own opposition to racial consciousness was neither entirely rational nor disinterested. It is time that the enemies of racial, national, and cultural consciousness like Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School cease to be able to claim a monopoly on rationality and sanity and that the obsessions and motivations that seem to shape their own ideologies and political behavior be subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to the societies and peoples whom their thinking could destroy.
by Sam Francis
American Renaissance
May 1999
The curious beginnings of a useless word
The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship's most remarkable achievements - the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as "historical principles". Unlike most dictionaries, the OED also provides information on the first historical appearance and use of words. The range of the erudition in the OED is often astounding, but for AR readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word "racism".
According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known use of the word racism in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American "fascist", Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second use of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 - Racism - by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis' book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word racism [?]. In the case of the word racist as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known use to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about "racism"?
Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as "sexology" -- the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual "liberation". His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on "sexology" as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject.
It is fair to say that his works were intended to send a message – that traditional Christian and bourgeois sexual morality was repressive, irrational, and hypocritical, and that emancipation would be a major step forward. His admiring translators, Eden and Cedar Paul, in their introduction to Racism, write of his "unwearying championship of the cause of persons who, because their sexual hormonic functioning is of an unusual type, are persecuted by their more fortunate fellow-mortals." Long before the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, Magnus Hirschfeld was crusading for the "normalization" of homosexuality and other abnormal sexual behavior.
Hirschfeld was the founder of an Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and helped organize "sexology" on an international scale. In 1922, he was physically attacked and almost killed by anti-Semites in Munich. In May, 1933, the Nazis closed down his "Institute of Sexual Science" and Hirschfeld fled to France, where he lived until his death in 1935.
Racism is largely devoted to a highly polemical "refutation" of some of the main racial ideologies and theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. The writers whom Hirschfeld criticized, aside from his favorite target of the National Socialists themselves, were figures like Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and others generally denounced today as "pseudo-scientists". In fact, that is an inappropriate term. Some of them were not trying to write as scientists at all but rather as political theorists, while others are better described as pre-scientific writers on race who worked with inadequate information, concepts, methodology, and terminology. While Hirschfeld may have been correct in rejecting their more egregious errors, his sneering at them for these mistakes is rather like ridiculing Copernicus and Kepler because they continued to accept some erroneous ideas from medieval astronomy.
Even when Hirschfeld is right in his critique of the early race theorists, it is often because he has chosen easy targets. His "refutation" of "racism" is largely centered on irrelevant common-places that even extreme exponents of racial differences might readily acknowledge – that all human beings are part of the same species and can interbreed, that blood transfusions can take place between races, that "there is no such thing as a pure race," that the races are identical in the vast majority of physical characteristics, that cephalic index is not a meaningful measurement of intelligence or character, etc. Yet his "scientific" evidence is often merely anecdotal or simply his own opinion asserted as unquestioned truth.
In another section, he recounts the names of those he considers the 70 most outstanding figures in world history and announces that "all such lists, when made without bias, will show that persons of genius and persons of outstanding talent are not set apart from the ruck by any colour of their eyes, by a peculiar shape of the skull or the nose, by any 'ethnological' characteristics whatever. What is decisive in human beings is not race but individuality." It does not seem to occur to Hirschfeld that all but about 8 or 9 of the 70 world-historical figures on his list are white Europeans. There are no Negroes and only two Asians (Confucius and Sun Yat Sen). [Perhaps, then, Hirschfeld was a 'racist'].
It is interesting that for all his contempt for "racism", Hirschfeld never once mentions IQ studies or the considerable psychometric evidence about race and intelligence that was already available even in the 1930s. Most of Hirschfeld's polemic is aimed at the proponents of intra-European racial differences (Nordics, Alpines, Mediterraneans, Dinarics, etc.) and not at differences between whites and other major races (though he steadfastly denies such differences as well). Curiously, he never cites the work of Franz Boas and his disciples against "racism", though that work was available in Europe at the time, nor does he invoke the ideas of the Frankfurt School, though Hirschfeld's own claim that "racism" is rooted in fear, loss of self-esteem, and other social and psychological pathologies resembles the ideas the Frankfurt School was formulating.
Nor, despite Hirschfeld's own Jewish background and the Nazi threat to Jews, does he seem preoccupied with anti-Semitism; in one or two passages he criticizes Jews themselves for their own ethnocentrism and faults Zionism for having created a new "race hatred" between Jews and Arabs. Moreover, Hirschfeld is a stout defender of eugenics, though not on racial lines, and he even has a brief chapter exploring a distinction he calls "Gobinism or Galtonism" – that is, attacking the ideas of French "racist" Arthur de Gobineau and defending those of Francis Galton, who coined the word eugenics and pioneered its development. Today most critics of "racism" would lump Galton and Gobineau together rather than distinguish between them.
As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld's book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word racism and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.
Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as "Pan-Humanism," a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, "we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left. . . . [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution."
In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of "Pan-Humanism": "The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship–that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race." With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: "Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia." Later, he informs us, "It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe" [ie, Stalin's Russia].
Racism, therefore, is a term originating on the left [?], and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents' ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.
But understanding the origins of the word racism in Hirschfeld's polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas "racism" and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.
It is clear that Magnus Hirschfeld himself harbored deep ideological, professional, and personal animosities against those to whom he applied the word, and those animosities may have extended to the entire society that throughout his career he associated with sexual repression and which he wanted replaced by a kind of global communism under the label of "Pan-Humanism". Whatever the flaws or virtues of his polemic against "racism", his own opposition to racial consciousness was neither entirely rational nor disinterested. It is time that the enemies of racial, national, and cultural consciousness like Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School cease to be able to claim a monopoly on rationality and sanity and that the obsessions and motivations that seem to shape their own ideologies and political behavior be subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to the societies and peoples whom their thinking could destroy.
Publicly funded political indoctrination
Dear All, feel free to publish the correspondence below.
You may be interested in this correspondence that has arisen as a result of my standing in the current London GLA election.
David Landau, of the Redbridge Equalities and Community Council - no less - is inviting all those candidates standing in the Borough of Redbridge in the current GLA election, publicly to condemn "Hatred" and "discrimination based on gender identity; race, skin colour, etc., etc., etc." All those candidates who refuse to endorse his condemnation of "Hatred" and "Discrimination", etc, etc, Mr David Landau threatens publicly to name and - presumably, 'shame'. In anticipation of this publicity, I have sent a copy of my letter to all the local media in the London Borough of Redbridge, together with my election leaflet, Tess's election leaflet, and her superb "Racism" - a word invented by the communist Leon Trotsky - leaflet. We will see what happens.
Richard
Letter from Richard Edmonds
date: 4th April, 2012
to: Mr David Landau, Senior Caseworker/ Project Co-ordinator
Redbridge Equalities and Community Council
Dear Sir
In your letter to me of the 2nd April, 2012, you invite me to condemn “hatred” and “discrimination”.
Now “hatred” can under some circumstances be absolutely, indeed vitally, justified. Hatred and Love can be opposite sides of the same coin: as somebody loves, so they would hate - and in equal measure - to see the object of their love in danger. This is the emotion that galvanizes a mother, when she sees her child in danger, of running into the road, for example: clearly she would hate to see her child injured.
As for “discrimination”: discrimination is the very essence of life, for example, when we choose our friends.
As for “Equality”: Yes, all men are equal in the eyes of God; and all men are equal, or should be, before the Law. However the political process that introduced the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which I note funds your organization, introduced a monstrous thing into our civic life. I refer to their definition of a “Hate Crime”:
“A hate crime or incident is ANY behaviour that SOMEONE believes was caused by hostility, prejudice or hatred of disability; gender identity; race, skin colour, nationality, ethnicity or heritage; religion, faith or belief; or sexual orientation.” (My emphasis).
So by this definition, a “hate crime" “is ANY behaviour that SOMEONE believes...". On one level, this definition is meaningless: it could cover literally anything. On another level, it is a wicked, open invitation to ANYBODY to denounce ANYBODY ELSE.
Given that your Compact and your Declaration are redolent of, and indeed clearly based on, the definition of a “Hate Crime” that is promoted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, I hereby decline my support.
Sincerely
Richard Edmonds, National Front candidate, Havering & Redbridge
You may be interested in this correspondence that has arisen as a result of my standing in the current London GLA election.
David Landau, of the Redbridge Equalities and Community Council - no less - is inviting all those candidates standing in the Borough of Redbridge in the current GLA election, publicly to condemn "Hatred" and "discrimination based on gender identity; race, skin colour, etc., etc., etc." All those candidates who refuse to endorse his condemnation of "Hatred" and "Discrimination", etc, etc, Mr David Landau threatens publicly to name and - presumably, 'shame'. In anticipation of this publicity, I have sent a copy of my letter to all the local media in the London Borough of Redbridge, together with my election leaflet, Tess's election leaflet, and her superb "Racism" - a word invented by the communist Leon Trotsky - leaflet. We will see what happens.
Richard
Letter from Richard Edmonds
date: 4th April, 2012
to: Mr David Landau, Senior Caseworker/ Project Co-ordinator
Redbridge Equalities and Community Council
Dear Sir
In your letter to me of the 2nd April, 2012, you invite me to condemn “hatred” and “discrimination”.
Now “hatred” can under some circumstances be absolutely, indeed vitally, justified. Hatred and Love can be opposite sides of the same coin: as somebody loves, so they would hate - and in equal measure - to see the object of their love in danger. This is the emotion that galvanizes a mother, when she sees her child in danger, of running into the road, for example: clearly she would hate to see her child injured.
As for “discrimination”: discrimination is the very essence of life, for example, when we choose our friends.
As for “Equality”: Yes, all men are equal in the eyes of God; and all men are equal, or should be, before the Law. However the political process that introduced the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which I note funds your organization, introduced a monstrous thing into our civic life. I refer to their definition of a “Hate Crime”:
“A hate crime or incident is ANY behaviour that SOMEONE believes was caused by hostility, prejudice or hatred of disability; gender identity; race, skin colour, nationality, ethnicity or heritage; religion, faith or belief; or sexual orientation.” (My emphasis).
So by this definition, a “hate crime" “is ANY behaviour that SOMEONE believes...". On one level, this definition is meaningless: it could cover literally anything. On another level, it is a wicked, open invitation to ANYBODY to denounce ANYBODY ELSE.
Given that your Compact and your Declaration are redolent of, and indeed clearly based on, the definition of a “Hate Crime” that is promoted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, I hereby decline my support.
Sincerely
Richard Edmonds, National Front candidate, Havering & Redbridge
We demand equal treatment for the ethnic majority
WE REMEMBER
Credit: the Birmingham Patriot
The forgotten Britons, clockwise from top left: Gavin Hopley, 19, murdered by racist Muslims in Oldham in 2002; Charlene Downes, 14, 'groomed' by Muslim paedophiles and almost certainly murdered, in Blackpool in 2003; Richard Everitt, 15, murdered by racist Muslims in north London in 1994; Ross Parker, 17, murdered by racist Muslims in Peterborough in 2001; Kriss Donald, 15, murdered by racist Muslims in Glasgow in 2004.
Credit: the Birmingham Patriot
Friday, 6 April 2012
BNP fields fewer than 150 candidates
Round-up of nationalist (and quasi-nationalist) party candidates in the English, Welsh and Scottish local elections* on 3 May 2012
4 BP = Britannica Party
6 BFP = British Freedom Party
128 BNP = British National Party
1 BPP = British People's Party
4 DN = Democratic Nationalists
1 EFP = England First Party
86 EDP = English Democrats
33 NF = National Front
East Midlands
Amber Valley BNP 5, NF 1
Daventry EDP 2
Derby BNP 3
Lincoln BNP 1
East of England
Basildon BFP 1, EDP 1, NF 1
Brentwood EDP 1
Epping Forest BNP 2, EDP 2
Maldon BNP 3
North Herts EDP 2
Rochford EDP 4
Peterborough EDP 1
Southend 10 EDP, NF 1
St Albans EDP 1
Three Rivers EDP 2
Thurrock NF 4, BNP 1
North East
Gateshead NF 1
Hartlepool BNP 1
Newcastle BNP 2
North Tyneside NF 1
South Tyneside BNP 8
Sunderland NF 1
North West
Bolton EDP 3, BNP 1
Blackburn BNP 2
Burnley BNP 6
Bury EDP 2
Carlisle BNP 1
Knowsley NF 1
Liverpool BFP 5, EDP 5, BNP 2
Pendle BNP 4, EDP 1, DN 1
Preston EFP 1
Rochdale NF 1, EDP 1
Rossendale NF 1
Salford BNP 8
Stockport BNP 7
Tameside EDP 3, BNP 2
Wigan BNP 5
Wirral BNP 1
South East
Crawley BNP 1
Eastleigh EDP 2
Gosport BNP 1
Hastings BNP 2
Maidstone NF 1
South West
None
West Midlands
Birmingham BNP 18, NF 4, EDP 1
Cannock Chase BNP 1
Coventry BNP 11
Nuneaton BNP 8, EDP 1
Sandwell BNP 2 NF 1
Solihull EDP 5, BNP 1
Walsall EDP 3, BNP 2
Wolverhampton BNP 3
Yorkshire
Barnsley EDP 12, BNP 4
Bradford DN 2, BNP 1
Calderdale BPP 1
Doncaster EDP 7, DN 1
Hull NF 4
Kirklees EDP 1
Leeds EDP 11, BNP 1
Rotherham BNP 5
Sheffield EDP 1
Wakefield EDP 1
Scotland
Aberdeen NF 6
Glasgow BP 4
West Lothian NF 2
Wales
Blaenau Gwent BNP 1
Bridgend NF 1
Swansea NF 1
Wrexham BNP 1
* Greater London excluded: see Wikipedia article on mayoral and London Assembly elections for details of parties and candidates.
Source: Hope not hate [sic]
4 BP = Britannica Party
6 BFP = British Freedom Party
128 BNP = British National Party
1 BPP = British People's Party
4 DN = Democratic Nationalists
1 EFP = England First Party
86 EDP = English Democrats
33 NF = National Front
East Midlands
Amber Valley BNP 5, NF 1
Daventry EDP 2
Derby BNP 3
Lincoln BNP 1
East of England
Basildon BFP 1, EDP 1, NF 1
Brentwood EDP 1
Epping Forest BNP 2, EDP 2
Maldon BNP 3
North Herts EDP 2
Rochford EDP 4
Peterborough EDP 1
Southend 10 EDP, NF 1
St Albans EDP 1
Three Rivers EDP 2
Thurrock NF 4, BNP 1
North East
Gateshead NF 1
Hartlepool BNP 1
Newcastle BNP 2
North Tyneside NF 1
South Tyneside BNP 8
Sunderland NF 1
North West
Bolton EDP 3, BNP 1
Blackburn BNP 2
Burnley BNP 6
Bury EDP 2
Carlisle BNP 1
Knowsley NF 1
Liverpool BFP 5, EDP 5, BNP 2
Pendle BNP 4, EDP 1, DN 1
Preston EFP 1
Rochdale NF 1, EDP 1
Rossendale NF 1
Salford BNP 8
Stockport BNP 7
Tameside EDP 3, BNP 2
Wigan BNP 5
Wirral BNP 1
South East
Crawley BNP 1
Eastleigh EDP 2
Gosport BNP 1
Hastings BNP 2
Maidstone NF 1
South West
None
West Midlands
Birmingham BNP 18, NF 4, EDP 1
Cannock Chase BNP 1
Coventry BNP 11
Nuneaton BNP 8, EDP 1
Sandwell BNP 2 NF 1
Solihull EDP 5, BNP 1
Walsall EDP 3, BNP 2
Wolverhampton BNP 3
Yorkshire
Barnsley EDP 12, BNP 4
Bradford DN 2, BNP 1
Calderdale BPP 1
Doncaster EDP 7, DN 1
Hull NF 4
Kirklees EDP 1
Leeds EDP 11, BNP 1
Rotherham BNP 5
Sheffield EDP 1
Wakefield EDP 1
Scotland
Aberdeen NF 6
Glasgow BP 4
West Lothian NF 2
Wales
Blaenau Gwent BNP 1
Bridgend NF 1
Swansea NF 1
Wrexham BNP 1
* Greater London excluded: see Wikipedia article on mayoral and London Assembly elections for details of parties and candidates.
Source: Hope not hate [sic]
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Solidarity uses 'agitprop'
Agitprop
Agitprop ( /ˈædʒɨtprɒp/; from Russian: агитпроп [ɐɡʲɪtˈprop]) is derived from agitation and propaganda,[1] and describes stage plays, pamphlets, motion pictures and other art forms with an explicitly political message.
The term originated in Soviet Russia (the future USSR), as a shortened form of отдел агитации и пропаганды (otdel agitatsii i propagandy), i.e., Department for Agitation and Propaganda, which was part of the Central and regional committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The department was later renamed the Ideological Department.
The term propaganda in the Russian language did not bear any negative connotation at the time. It simply meant "dissemination of ideas". In the case of agitprop, the ideas to be disseminated were those of communism, including explanations of the policy of the Communist Party and the Soviet state. In other contexts, propaganda could mean dissemination of any kind of beneficial knowledge, e.g., of new methods in agriculture. Agitation meant urging people to do what Soviet leaders expected them to do; again, at various levels. In other words, propaganda was supposed to act on the mind, while agitation acted on emotions, although both usually went together, thus giving rise to the cliché "propaganda and agitation".
The term agitprop gave rise to agitprop theatre, a highly-politicized leftist theatre originating in 1920s Europe and spreading to America, the plays of Bertolt Brecht being a notable example.[2] Russian agitprop theatre was noted for its cardboard characters of perfect virtue and complete evil, and its coarse ridicule.[3] Gradually the term agitprop came to describe any kind of highly politicized art.
In the Western world, agitprop has a negative connotation. In the United Kingdom during the 1980s, for example, socialist elements of the political scene were often accused of using agitprop to convey an extreme left-wing message via television programmes or theatre.
After the October Revolution of 1917, an agitprop train toured the country, with artists and actors performing simple plays and broadcasting propaganda.[4] It had a printing press on board the train to allow posters to be reproduced and thrown out of the windows as it passed through villages.
Wikipedia
Agitprop ( /ˈædʒɨtprɒp/; from Russian: агитпроп [ɐɡʲɪtˈprop]) is derived from agitation and propaganda,[1] and describes stage plays, pamphlets, motion pictures and other art forms with an explicitly political message.
The term originated in Soviet Russia (the future USSR), as a shortened form of отдел агитации и пропаганды (otdel agitatsii i propagandy), i.e., Department for Agitation and Propaganda, which was part of the Central and regional committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The department was later renamed the Ideological Department.
The term propaganda in the Russian language did not bear any negative connotation at the time. It simply meant "dissemination of ideas". In the case of agitprop, the ideas to be disseminated were those of communism, including explanations of the policy of the Communist Party and the Soviet state. In other contexts, propaganda could mean dissemination of any kind of beneficial knowledge, e.g., of new methods in agriculture. Agitation meant urging people to do what Soviet leaders expected them to do; again, at various levels. In other words, propaganda was supposed to act on the mind, while agitation acted on emotions, although both usually went together, thus giving rise to the cliché "propaganda and agitation".
The term agitprop gave rise to agitprop theatre, a highly-politicized leftist theatre originating in 1920s Europe and spreading to America, the plays of Bertolt Brecht being a notable example.[2] Russian agitprop theatre was noted for its cardboard characters of perfect virtue and complete evil, and its coarse ridicule.[3] Gradually the term agitprop came to describe any kind of highly politicized art.
In the Western world, agitprop has a negative connotation. In the United Kingdom during the 1980s, for example, socialist elements of the political scene were often accused of using agitprop to convey an extreme left-wing message via television programmes or theatre.
After the October Revolution of 1917, an agitprop train toured the country, with artists and actors performing simple plays and broadcasting propaganda.[4] It had a printing press on board the train to allow posters to be reproduced and thrown out of the windows as it passed through villages.
Wikipedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
