With the recent success of the BNP in EU elections and after reading some of the comments on this YouTube video. I was left with the question, who qualifies as British in the eyes of the BNP? Seeking an answer, I visited the primary source of information about the BNP and it’s policies, their official website. There, in the most current version of the BNP Constitution (9th Edition, September 2005), I found this paragraph (Section 1, 2b):

“The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic
character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial
integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed
to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by
legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the
British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.”

Based purely on this text, which is quoted verbatim, the following statements are true:

1. The national and ethnic character of British people must be preserved.
2. Racial integration between British and non-European people is prohibited.
3. Non-white people who have only lived in Britain since 1948 do not belong in Britain because of their impact on 1.

Using those statements we can deduce that the following people are not welcome to migrate to Britain:

• Non-Europeans
• Non-white Europeans

Examples:

• George Lucas
• Theirry Henry

We can also deduce that the following people are not welcome to stay in Britain if they currently reside here:

• Non-white people who were not living in Britain before 1948

Examples:

• Theo Walcott
• Lewis Hamilton

An example of how this system might be called into dispute:

• Greg Rusedski can stay in Britain, but Frank Bruno can’t.
• Adolf Hitler could have migrated to Britain, but Barack Obama wouldn’t be permitted.

I had a wonderful discussion about religion and faith yesterday with some friends which was followed by my listening to a radio show phone-in about fate and whether people believed in fate. For some reason this sparked a few neurons in my brain to contemplate my thoughts on those issues. I’ve always had issues with free will and my own need to feel absolutely in control on my own life, but it’s not something I’ve thought about in a long time.

In my musing, I have come to the following conclusion regarding free will and it’s impact on fate and the future. I believe that at any given point in time, the same events/actions will always take place. My reason for believing this is hopefully based on the logical assumption that two components define any resultant event/action. The first is history and the second is the environment.

If I work on the assumption of a simple equation where, history + environment = action, then in my mind, there is no possibility of free will. We may have the intelligence to make decisions for ourselves, but those decisions are based on our personal history and universal history and take into account current environmental conditions at the time. Which leads me to believe that any individual will always make the same conscious and subconscious decisions at any given point in time. Obviously I could never even begin to prove such a theory, but it makes sense to me on a logical level.

When I look back at moments in my life, I may muse to myself that I wish I’d done something different at a given point in time, but logic suggests that I wouldn’t. I made a choice based on all available data at the time and unless there is some mysterious random element to life there is nothing to suggest I would have made a different choice. If everything in life can be explained by science (eventually), then I am led to believe that everything can be broken down to the same base energy/matter/particles and they have set behaviours. So no matter the vast amount of those components in the universe, it all has a set behaviour and therefore is predictable in any size combination.

The natural conclusion of this thinking is that free will is an illusion, that the future will always follow a single path and that there is such a thing as fate. Although referring to future events as fate all seems very supernatural and I’d rather stay grounded in science. In addition, I think time travel is impossible, but that it may be possible to freeze yourself and reawaken in the future, thus effectively travelling forwards through time.

What follows is a discussion I had on facebook with a friend regarding the recent Muslim protests in Britain against returning troops from Iraq. I should state up front that I firmly believe the Iraq war is illegal, that the British government lied to take us to war and that we have used torture during the war to gain intelligence. The real meat of this (lengthy) discussion boils down to how we should treat our soldiers and more generally freedom of choice.

Me - I have no problem with the Muslim anti-war protests. They have a right to free speech, the Iraq war is illegal and we torture prisoners.

Friend - Yes...but those soldiers and those before them are the reason why free speech continues to exist. I don't think those very soldiers deserved to be verbally berated for doing the job they're asked to do. If they wanted to protest, do it outside the Houses of Parliament.

Me – I think it comes down to choice. Every man and woman on this planet is free to choose. Sometimes those choices are unbelievably difficult and in the military's case, it's a society that conditions those within it not to make choices, just to follow orders (which I acknowledge is necessary for a strong military). However, I don't believe that just because the our military is that way, that we should absolve those individuals of blame for their actions even when in many cases those actions are ordered. A soldier isn't a hero just because he wears a uniform, he earns the right to be called a hero through his actions and he should accept that if he is ordered to fight when fighting is wrong, people are well within their rights to label him a villain.

Friend - A soldier can't question his orders... he must do them. Otherwise it'd be anarchy. If nobody chose to be a soldier, where would we be? You could say ALL fighting is wrong but is absolutely necessary to keep order. You'd hardly label soldiers fighting in WWII 'villains' so the same should always apply to any soldier, regardless of which battle they're fighting. If there were a national call-up called today and you were ordered to fight, would you appreciate the reaction we're talking about here?

I think it's very easy for us to sit behind our comfy monitors and point fingers, naysay and blame but the reality is a lot more harsh than we might want to believe. We have no idea what those particular soldiers have seen, done or been through so to suggest that it's alright to call them villains is a tad hurtful.

Me - I don't believe it'd be anarchy, I do believe it would result in a much weaker military if soldiers were allowed to choose their fights. There would still be a military though. I will agree that with a much weaker military we may well have lost previous wars and I am grateful we didn't, but if I were German I would label those that fought for me in WW1 and 2 villains. In that war we were on the right side and can justly call our military heroes (although there were likely some villains among them) and laud them for it. Equally, should our military not be on the right side I believe we should be free to show our disdain for them.

If we cheer them when they fight for what is right, we should be free to boo them when they fight for what is wrong.

If I were called up, I would want proof our fight was right and just else I would gladly take my cell in the nearest prison.

Friend - I think you're inadvertently blurring the lines between military and government. The military don't choose their battles... the government does. They are in essence a neutral unit told to do whatever their job is. If my boss tells me to do something I have to do it, even if I might not feel like it.
Therefore anyone to be booed for a war is the government, not the individuals only doing the job asked of them.

Me - If a military unit is neutral, why do we cheer them when they do good things? Why don't we stand outside parliament cheering? Why do we have remembrance day for all our soldiers, when we should actually only have remembrance for all our politicians. If the only people who carry any responsibility our are government, they should be the only ones who receive any praise or any vitriol.

A soldier is not a robot, he's not a tool, he's an individual with free will and morals, he knows right from wrong. You either praise him when he's right and despise him when he's wrong or you do neither. To do one without the other is just pure hypocrisy.

Friend - You are correct it's somewhat hypocritical to cheer but not allowed to boo... But how often do we actually cheer our soldiers these days? They seem to get shit from all sides and rarely appreciated for the job they do. They're treated like shit by the government (lack of tools to do their job), have a hellish experience in battle... and then come back to face more shit.

In the military whilst the soldier is an individual he has to think as part of a unit, for the good of the unit. Soldiers are broken down and built back up for precisely this reason. He doesn't really choose the right or wrong on an individual basis. And whilst you can again say the hypocrisy of praise exists, these are people who choose to do a job for the good of their country which can cost them their lives - and at the least a very unpleasant experience. You could argue it's their choice to be a soldier but again, if nobody chose to do it where would we be...

Me - You could argue that anyone that has signed up since 2002 knows exactly the kind of job they're going to be doing, the crap standard of tools they're going to be using and the illegality of the wars they're fighting. They still choose to sign up though. Those that have been there longer than that can ask for a discharge, but they choose to stay under these conditions. If they're prepared to accept them, they get no sympathy from me.

When a soldier is out on operations I fully expect him to do his best to protect his unit. I would never expect someone to choose to endanger his friends. The choice I refer to is about choosing not to go where you're assigned (and face military prison) or if you have the chance, to choose discharge. Once you're there, protecting yourself and those you're with is priority.

To be continued…

I’m a Twitter addict (after being a complete naysayer). I tweet at least 10 times a day, but usually it’s far more than that. I use it mainly for personal interest and communication, which is where I came across http://twitter.com/twitchhiker

twitchhiker is a guy in the North of England who starts a global journey on Monday to see how far he can travel around the world in 30 days using nothing but offers of assistance from Twitter users. He’s doing it all for charity:water and already has travel from Newcastle to Amsterdam sorted out. He’s actually in the process of planning where to go from there. So far he’s getting plenty of offers of assistance and I think it’s a wonderful example of the power of twitter as a real-time social communications tool.

As more people follow him, more people will likely offer to help. If he’s ever in trouble, no doubt there will be people who can instantly come to his aid. It’s quite possibly something that could not be achieved to such a degree of success without a tool like Twitter. That’s not to say he won’t fall flat on his face and end up stuck in Kazakhstan, but so far it’s looking very promising.

Knowing how helpful people are, I thought I should try and raise awareness of what this guy is trying to achieve in case any of you kind folks would like to offer him assistance at any point during his journey. At the very least I’m sure you’ll all enjoy tracking his progress.

http://twitchhiker.wordpress.com/