Debate: - When is a fascist not a fascist? [Archive]

Chimpyang

06-10-2009, 00:43

Eggs, Shoes; same thing really.

Also, just because they are against the policies of a democraticly elected memeber of the European parliament, does not mean that they are in themselves against democracy. You can be in favour of democracy and against the policies of a party enough to lead to such actions. That guy who threw the egg at Prescott, was he a fascist? If I - as a democratically elected student officer of the music society is attacked by a competing music society on differences of viewpooint, does it make the other person a fascist?

Beskar

06-10-2009, 00:46

I think it is the fact BNP hates anything other than white is which is why they are labelled as fascist.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-10-2009, 00:46

PowerWizard

06-10-2009, 00:46

Some peeps need to look at the history books.

Certainly. Especially people who mix up socialism with fascism.

CountArach

06-10-2009, 00:53

Some peeps need to look at the history books.
You could start by opening one yourself.

InsaneApache

06-10-2009, 00:54

Certainly. Especially people who mix up socialism with fascism.

I take you didn't bother looking then.

An uncomfortable truth. Facism is the bastard child of the left. They are still left wing, look at the social policies. About as far away from the free arket as you could get.

Unlike socialist they only pick on certain sections of society, not all sections. Equally of course.

CountArach

06-10-2009, 00:57

An uncomfortable truth. Facism is the bastard child of the left. They are still left wing, look at the social policies. About as far away from the free arket as you could get.
So what you mean is that Fascism is Keynesian. Keynesianism is not Socialism by any means - Socialism is the centralisation of the modes of production in the hands of the working class. Fascists believed in state intervention for the benefit of Corporations - every Fascist regime in history has had Corporatist structures within it.

Further, Socialism is built around the use of trade unions - Fascism had always destroyed unions and replaced them with state-run organisations.

Beskar

06-10-2009, 00:59

He is probably in the opinion Stalin is actually a Communist as depicted in the Communist Manifesto.

In short - He isn't.

CountArach

06-10-2009, 01:02

He is probably in the opinion Stalin is actually a Communist as depicted in the Communist Manifesto.

In short - He isn't.
The same argument I've been making for at least 6 months in the Backroom. I'll get sick of repeating myself one day.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-10-2009, 01:02

He is probably in the opinion Stalin is actually a Communist as depicted in the Communist Manifesto.

In short - He isn't.

You think Stalin is a fascist? I would remind you, before you answer, that there is more than one variant of communism.

CountArach

06-10-2009, 01:04

You think Stalin is a fascist? I would remind you, before you answer, that there is more than one variant of communism.
Stalin was a Stalinist. Funny how these terms already exist, init?

InsaneApache

06-10-2009, 01:09

Hey guys. Try typng Benito into google. He was the author of the fascists after all. It's amazing how much you pick up from not reading history, isn't it?

Hosakawa Tito

06-10-2009, 01:10

Protesting is fine, assault is not. As distasteful as I find the BNP, for our democracy to be a democracy they unfortunately have to be granted the same rights as any other party. That includes being free from assault.

There ya go. Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic. Allow them their say and let the audience decide the merit of their ideology.

PowerWizard

06-10-2009, 01:15

I take you didn't bother looking then.

An uncomfortable truth. Facism is the bastard child of the left. They are still left wing, look at the social policies. About as far away from the free arket as you could get.

Unlike socialist they only pick on certain sections of society, not all sections. Equally of course.

To claim who's Fascist and who's not you have to
1./ define the characteristics of Fascism
2./ assign those characteristics to said person / movement / party with an utmost certainty that leaves no doubt it is a coincidence and not similarity

I'd bet 1,000 USD that no one in this thread will ever tackle these tasks.

I foretold it in the first reply, lol.

Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic.

Aw'some, so the people who revolted in France in 1789 against tyranny were fascists.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-10-2009, 01:19

Stalin was a Stalinist. Funny how these terms already exist, init?

And what is Stalinism? A variant of communism (or an interpretation of it, etc). I don't see your point with defining Stalin as Stalinist though. Is Marxism not a form of communism because it is Marxism?

InsaneApache

06-10-2009, 01:19

That's the best you can do? I told you so!

Very sad.

Papewaio

06-10-2009, 01:20

Aw'some, so the people who revolted in France in 1789 against tyranny were fascists.

Well how many of them were then executed by their fellow revoltees?

Its not like saying one is revolting for democracy makes one not a facist. Heck the most famous facists have quite happily played the democratic game.

CountArach

06-10-2009, 01:23

Hey guys. Try typng Benito into google. He was the author of the fascists after all. It's amazing how much you pick up from not reading history, isn't it?
Mussolini was indeed a former Socialist, however the nationalistic bastardisation he offered was thoroughly unsocialist. And to show I do know what I'm talking about I'm actually going to quote from *shock and horror* an historian. This is from Robert Paxton in "The Anatomy of Fascism", one of the most complete studies of the formation and policies of Fascism.

pp. 145-147:

In no domain did the proposals of early fascism differ more from what fascist regimes did in practice than in economc policy. This was the area where both fascist leaders conceded the most to their conervatiuve allies.
[...]
Fascism was not the first choice of most businessmen, but most of them preferred it to the alternatives that seemed likely in the special conditions of 1922 and 1933 - socialism or a dysfunctional market system. [...] Mussolini's famous corporatist economic organization, in particular, was run in practice by leading businessmen."

Peter Hayes puts it succinctly: the Nazi regime and business had "converging by not identical interests." Areas of agreement included disciplining workers, lucrative armaments contrats, and job-creation stimuli. Important areas of conflict involved government economic controls, limits on trade and the high cost of autarky
[...]
Fascists had to do something about the welfare state. In Germany, the welfare experiments of the Weimar Republic had proved too expensive after the Depression struck in 1929. The Nazis trimmed them and perverted them by racial forms of exclusion. But neither fascist reime tried to dismantle the welfare state (as mere reactionaries might have done).
I can't be bothered to type any more right now, but rest assured I know what I am talking about and the facts are on my side.

Hosakawa Tito

06-10-2009, 01:33

I foretold it in the first reply, lol.

Aw'some, so the people who revolted in France in 1789 against tyranny were fascists.

I know it can be a challenge, but try to stay on topic here. You are implying it is acceptable for those who are politically opposed to the BNP to use violence and the threat of violence to deny them the right to express their views. Do you feel the BNP has that same right to violently suppress the views of others?

InsaneApache

06-10-2009, 01:43

Thanks for that CA. It doesn't matter how many apologists you roll out though does it? The founder of fascism was a socialist.

You can dress it up like a christmas tree on the 24th december but that fact just wont go away will it?

Put it this way sunshine, he was hardly a tory, was he?

CountArach

06-10-2009, 01:47

Thanks for that CA. It doesn't matter how many apologists you roll out though does it? The founder of fascism was a socialist.
It is clear you have no interest in a serious argument, nor a leg to stand on.

Put it this way sunshine, he was hardly a tory, was he?
Neo-Liberal economics hadn't been invented yet, so no, no he wasn't. Was he a Socialist? No. His actions prove that.

PowerWizard

06-10-2009, 01:49

I know it can be a challenge, but try to stay on topic here. You are implying it is acceptable for those who are politically opposed to the BNP to use violence and the threat of violence to deny them the right to express their views. Do you feel the BNP has that same right to violently suppress the views of others?

No, you are not going to escape from explaining your statement: "There ya go. Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic." I pointed out a random example that counters the validity of your statement. But I could point out a thousand other random examples from history where violence or the threat of violence was used in politics. Sure, you haven't read The Prince, do you? Are you implying Machiavelli was the ideologue of fascism? Try to realize your statement was false, and violence or threat of violence existed long before Fascism.

And if egg throwing is violence, pushing a cake in someone's face is attempted murder. I'm not saying it's a good thing, actually it's quite ridiculous.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-10-2009, 01:59

And if egg throwing is violence, pushing a cake in someone's face is attempted murder.

Assault - a crime of violence against a person.
Violence - the expression of physical force against self or other.

Definitions from Wiki.

Egg throwing is, if not violence, completely unacceptable. Thing is though, it is violence. Pushing a cake into the face of an individual is also violence, but an egg is far more likely to cause physical harm.

Tribesman

06-10-2009, 02:00

The founder of fascism was a socialist.

No he wasn't , the founder of fascism was someone who had rejected socialism.

There ya go. Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic.
Jesus was a fascist then.

KarlXII

06-10-2009, 02:02

And what is Stalinism? A variant of communism (or an interpretation of it, etc). I don't see your point with defining Stalin as Stalinist though. Is Marxism not a form of communism because it is Marxism?

We have specific varieties of every umbrella political theory. Democracy can be Parliamentary, Republican, Representative, Direct. Monarchy can be Absolute, Constitutional.

Hosakawa Tito

06-10-2009, 02:08

Ah, the double standard and obfuscation on the actual topic at hand in action. There is no debate here, only inane hairsplitting on the real definition of "is". Time for a beer and less trivial pursuits.

Tribesman

06-10-2009, 02:14

The protesters were rubbish . They should have thrown a curry at him after he had given his speech, after all curry is the British national dish

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-10-2009, 02:15

We have specific varieties of every umbrella political theory. Democracy can be Parliamentary, Republican, Representative, Direct. Monarchy can be Absolute, Constitutional.

That was what I was arguing (to a certain extent). A square is a rectangle, though not all rectangles are squares.

LittleGrizzly

06-10-2009, 03:16

No one seemed to bothered when Prescott had an egg chucked at him... I have no doubt the BNP member was more deserving...

I don't advocate chucking eggs at BNP politicians or politicians in general but it happening once in a while isn't the end of the world...

I think IA summed it up quite nicely with something that went a little like this... some people need to look at the history books.... so please do rather than throw out the some disproven nonsense...

Fragony

06-10-2009, 06:31

If you have to resort to violence because you aren't intellectually on the same level as BNP muppets it's says a lot.

lol@egg
gah@BNP
meh@'anti'fascists

Banquo's Ghost

06-10-2009, 07:34

If you have to resort to violence because you aren't intellectually on the same level as BNP muppets it's says a lot.

lol@egg
gah@BNP
meh@'anti'fascists

This is the best point yet.

The sad thing about the protesters and their vow to hound Mr Griffen at every opportunity is that it denies the general populace the entertainment of hearing him speak.

Listening to the man tying himself in knots as he tries to avoid blatantly racist language is the funniest thing on radio. The man is pure comedy gold.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 10:29

Assault - a crime of violence against a person.
Violence - the expression of physical force against self or other.

Definitions from Wiki.

Egg throwing is, if not violence, completely unacceptable. Thing is though, it is violence. Pushing a cake into the face of an individual is also violence, but an egg is far more likely to cause physical harm.

Oh come on. Like you didn't applaud it when one of brown's ministers(name escapes me atm) got green sauce all over his face.

Throwing an egg is the same. Ie., not violence. It won't cause physical harm, it won't make anyone intimidated.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 10:38

intimidating it is though, it means you are on their list and that your life is in danger.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 10:45

intimidating it is though, it means you are on their list and that your life is in danger.

Nonsense.

His life is in danger? When have people like this ever killed someone?

Fragony

06-10-2009, 10:49

Nonsense.

His life is in danger? When have people like this ever killed someone?

kidding me? And it very much means just that.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 10:52

kidding me? And it very much means just that.

Again, nonsense. Nobody will kill him, and certainly not some youths throwing eggs.

Again I ask; When was the last time someone like these killed someone like Griffin?

EDIT: here's a fun exercise for you frags(and IA too); try searching for "anti fascist murder" on google. Compare how many are committed by fascists, and how many by anti-fascists....

Fragony

06-10-2009, 10:59

Again, nonsense. Nobody will kill him, and certainly not some youths throwing eggs.

Again I ask; When was the last time someone like these killed someone like Griffin?

Fortuyn for example a few years back. Squating/antifa movement aren't a bunch of hippies, they are ultra-violent scum, first an egg, if you still don't get it a burning cloth in your mail in the middle of the night, half the RAF is in it today, close ties to the FARC and the bio-jugend, dangerous folks who will kill you if they have the chance.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 11:03

Fortuyn for example a few years back. Squating/antifa movement aren't a bunch of hippies, they are ultra-violent scum, first an egg, if you still don't get it a burning cloth in your mail in the middle of the night, half the RAF is in it today, close ties to the FARC and the bio-jugend, dangerous folks who will kill you if they have the chance.

So.... They're "ultra-violent", that's why "they" have killed a total of just one guy....?

I'd say Griffin can sleep well at night.

Furunculus

06-10-2009, 11:09

Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic. Allow them their say and let the audience decide the merit of their ideology

Aw'some, so the people who revolted in France in 1789 against tyranny were fascists.

you are doing Hosakawa a grave dis-service by only partially quoting him.

the free dictionary to give but one example uses this definition: "a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"

using the above we can determine two things:
> you use of french revolutionaries is invalid as they were the suppressed in a non-representative system, not the dictatorial government itself.
> the BNP seen in this light are in opposition to government and being suppressed through terror and censorship (read: eggs and biased press).

Fragony

06-10-2009, 11:11

So.... They're "ultra-violent", that's why "they" have killed a total of just one guy....?

I'd say Griffin can sleep well at night.

The RAF not ultra violent? Old RAF-members are now in the antifa. They recruit for the FARC, FARC not violent? There was also an attempted murder on Janmaat (not that he wasn't a creep), and why do you think Wilders needs protection. Why do you think bankiers need protection. Because of ultra-violent extreme leftist scum, that's why.

why not google leftist terrorism.

Louis VI the Fat

06-10-2009, 11:14

lol@egg
gah@BNP
meh@'anti'fascists

Squating/antifa movement aren't a bunch of hippies, they are ultra-violent scum, first an egg, if you still don't get it a burning cloth in your mail in the middle of the night, half the RAF is in it today, close ties to the FARC and the bio-jugend, dangerous folks who will kill you if they have the chance.

Not interested in obfuscation on the actual topic at hand and inane hairsplitting on the real definition of 'is', I shall limit my contribution to this thread by once again expressing my admiration of Frag's keen understanding of these issues.

The first post is the E=mc2 of tiresome Euro fascist/anti-fascist debate. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon14.gif

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 11:15

The RAF not ultra violent? Old RAF-members are now in the antifa. They recruit for the FARC, FARC not violent? There was also an attempted murder on Janmaat (not that he wasn't a creep), and why do you think Wilders needs protection. Why do you think bankiers need protection. Because of ultra-violent extreme leftist scum, that's why.

why not google leftist terrorism.

So... That's why their total death count is a grand total of....1?

Yeah, sounds like a real threat.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 11:21

So... That's why their total death count is a grand total of....1?

Yeah, sounds like a real threat.

quite http://www.cepsr.com/clanek.php?ID=319

CountArach

06-10-2009, 11:40

quite http://www.cepsr.com/clanek.php?ID=319
"The European extreme left in its original strength and influence is now history. The activities of its successors are less violent overall. Unlike the brutal operations of Islamist terrorism which targets masses of civilians, the main tactic of extreme left terrorism is that of damaging property, with only isolated selective attacks on individuals. Weapons with greater damaging effects are very rarely used (as in Greece by the Revolutionary Struggle group)."
- Your article

Hosakawa Tito

06-10-2009, 11:44

This is the best point yet.

The sad thing about the protesters and their vow to hound Mr Griffen at every opportunity is that it denies the general populace the entertainment of hearing him speak.

Listening to the man tying himself in knots as he tries to avoid blatantly racist language is the funniest thing on radio. The man is pure comedy gold.

Ah, someone who does know how to carry a conversation instead of trying to blow smoke up my :daisy: with thread derailing "baffle 'em with road apples" off-topic obfuscation. How refreshing.

So, can anyone explain the justification, without waffling on about this & that, for the threat of violence & oppression of the political message of the BNP by their opponents?

Like BG, I believe it is better and right to allow them to present their views and remove all doubt for what they stand for.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 11:46

"The European extreme left in its original strength and influence is now history. The activities of its successors are less violent overall. Unlike the brutal operations of Islamist terrorism which targets masses of civilians, the main tactic of extreme left terrorism is that of damaging property, with only isolated selective attacks on individuals. Weapons with greater damaging effects are very rarely used (as in Greece by the Revolutionary Struggle group)."
- Your article

Less violent doesn't mean not violent. And let's not even start about mental terror, it must be quite harrowing to have pictures of your children mailed at you with a little note that they know which school they are going. Very harrowing if your car explodes, very harrowing if your house is set on fire in the middle of the night.

Husar

06-10-2009, 12:28

For a proper assault you need an assault rifle, not eggs.
It is however not nice to waste eggs like that while children in africa are hungry...

Louis VI the Fat

06-10-2009, 12:33

Why did the protesters only throw one egg?

...because one egg's un œuf!

Ba-boom-tish!!!

Rhyfelwyr

06-10-2009, 12:39

So... That's why their total death count is a grand total of....1?

Yeah, sounds like a real threat.

There's no point arguing whether fascits or anti-fascists kill more... at the end of the day, we all agree that fascists are nasty people, but it's kind of ironic when 'anti-fascists' start acting like fascists.

Andres

06-10-2009, 12:42

Hey, we do egg throwing at politicians here as well!

Belgian "egg throwing at politicians"- championship (http://www.daylife.com/photo/04WB5hweIe5Yp)

Damien Thierry (R), the mayor of the commune of Linkebeek, is protected by police after being hit by an egg on his head as he tried to put up a poster for the Union of Francophones in the Flemish town of Halle June 5, 2009. Thiery won a court ruling that he could put up a poster for the party despite the insistence of Flemish authorities that all electoral material must be in Dutch. The mayor of Halle chose to remove all electoral posters to avoid clashes between French-speakers and Flemish nationalists.

Eggcellent! Maybe we should organise a World Championship?

CountArach

06-10-2009, 12:47

Less violent doesn't mean not violent. And let's not even start about mental terror, it must be quite harrowing to have pictures of your children mailed at you with a little note that they know which school they are going. Very harrowing if your car explodes, very harrowing if your house is set on fire in the middle of the night.
Yes, because I'm sure social conservatives have never blown things up (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm).

Seamus Fermanagh

06-10-2009, 12:50

Why did the protesters only throw one egg?

...because one egg's un œuf!

Ba-boom-tish!!!

....ouch, just ouch.

<<heads off to consider whether he can toss a minor infraction point at Louis for the bilinguality of the pun.>>

Andres

06-10-2009, 12:53

....ouch, just ouch.

<<heads off to consider whether he can toss a minor infraction point at Louis for the bilinguality of the pun.>>

A pity moderators can't throw eggs :)

Fragony

06-10-2009, 12:59

Yes, because I'm sure social conservatives have never blown things up (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm).

Why do you find it so hard to come to terms with something such as leftist terrorism and ultra-violent leftist scum. It exists, I didn't invent it to annoy you. I would have picked the Oklahoma-bombing by the way.

Louis VI the Fat

06-10-2009, 13:05

....ouch, just ouch.

<<heads off to consider whether he can toss a minor infraction point at Louis for the bilinguality of the pun.>>Warning points? Send it to I.P. adress 44.44.47.19. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Yes, another bad French yoke.

44.44.47.19 = cot-cot-cot-cot-cot, c'est un œuf.

CountArach

06-10-2009, 13:05

Why do you find it so hard to come to terms with something such as leftist terrorism and ultra-violent leftist scum. It exists, I didn't invent it to annoy you. I would have picked the Oklahoma-bombing by the way.
Where did I deny its existance? I never did that - I hate it because I believe it discredits the movement as a whole. All I am saying is it is not a phenomenon of the left - the right has plenty of extremists as well.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 13:11

All I am saying is it is not a phenomenon of the left - the right has plenty of extremists as well.

As we all know, I guess we are just more vocal in our disaproval.

edit: and somebody explain me luigi's joke.

Husar

06-10-2009, 13:26

edit: and somebody explain me luigi's joke.

"un œuf" sounds like "enough" with a little phantasy I think.

Andres

06-10-2009, 13:39

edit: and somebody explain me luigi's joke.

44.44.47.19 = cot-cot-cot-cot-cot, c'est un œuf.

"quatre" (four) roughly sounds like "cot".

"Sept (seven) un (one) neuf (nine)" sounds exactly like "c'est un œuf" which means "it's an egg".

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 13:41

Why do you find it so hard to come to terms with something such as leftist terrorism and ultra-violent leftist scum.

I have absolutely no trouble "coming to terms with" leftist terrorism. Of course it exists, you think that "armed revolution"-thing is just talk, or what?

What I find troubling, is your rabid overstatement of the threat it poses(today, the threat is almost zero, not like the seventies anymore). Griffin should have no trouble sleeping over this. Just like our socialist finance minister shouldn't have any trouble sleeping(she got a cake in her face while walking down the street a week after she started), even though both left wing and right wing extremists have killed people.

EDIT: And do I need to remind you what you've been saying in the threads where I've talked about neo-nazi's and the threat presented by them...?

Kralizec

06-10-2009, 13:43

I wouldn't call throwing a single egg assault, anymore than I would call a slight push on the shoulder an assault. Breaking up political meetings of a rival party with an angry mob is something else though...what a novel idea! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownshirts)

So... That's why their total death count is a grand total of....1?

Yeah, sounds like a real threat.
...

Some peeps need to look at the history books.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 13:45

...

That's exactly it. The hey-day over leftie terrorism is over, it didn't survive the 80's. The religious nuts have the ball now...

Fragony

06-10-2009, 13:47

EDIT: And do I need to remind you what you've been saying in the threads where I've talked about neo-nazi's and the threat presented by them...?

sure why not.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 13:51

sure why not.

Let me give you a hint; it's the exact opposite of what you've been saying in this thread :yes:

CountArach

06-10-2009, 13:52

As we all know, I guess we are just more vocal in our disaproval.
Yes, but largely because it is more wide-spread. The need is there to be more vocal about it.

Anyway I think we've just about exhausted that line of discussion.

Kralizec

06-10-2009, 13:53

It's not as big as it used to be, but then again- neither is fascism.

I'll assume you know about the Animal Liberation Front. Some say it's not leftist but I disagree. It also targets people who they accuse of indirectly earning money from "animal slavery". For example their threats to stock exchanges or even terrorising construction workers who are hired to construct labs.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 13:56

Let me give you a hint; it's the exact opposite of what you've been saying in this thread :yes:

Let me give you an invitation, post it here

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 14:54

It's not as big as it used to be, but then again- neither is fascism.

Indeedy - neither of those are any real threat today.

I'll assume you know about the Animal Liberation Front. Some say it's not leftist but I disagree. It also targets people who they accuse of indirectly earning money from "animal slavery". For example their threats to stock exchanges or even terrorising construction workers who are hired to construct labs.

Animal rights groups, while often mixed with leftist groups, are not inherently leftist. That is, socialism doesn't gave a damn about animals, socialism is about the economic system. Ie., socialists are concerned with how money are being made from the animals, not the animals themselves. Time to face it, politics today are more diverse than simple left and right. Animal rights groups have nothing to do with either of those two, as neither of them gave a rats arse about animals.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 15:53

Animal rights groups have nothing to do with either of those two, as neither of them gave a rats arse about animals.

Sure they do, so many ideals such a lack of proletariat. And it looks like they won't have a voice of their own for a while.

Beskar

06-10-2009, 16:37

If I remember correctly, isn't there a song lyric that goes "You got egg on your face, you big disgrace!" maybe they were just wanting to recreate that but Nick Griffin declined the invitation to egg and soldiers breakfast at the cafe.

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 16:49

Sure they do, so many ideals such a lack of proletariat. And it looks like they won't have a voice of their own for a while.

Uhm...

No.

Fragony

06-10-2009, 16:56

No of course not, they are animals they can't speak you are so owned.

JAG

06-10-2009, 17:29

It is quite clear that the BNP are made up of Nazi sympathysers, racists and authoritarian members. The rights and freedom of speech which they claim are always abashed are the very same ones which they themselves would gladly get rid of not only to those in this this country who are not white, but to every single person who doesn't agree with them. Furthermore, the disgusting acts by their members over the years coupled with the disgusting things they say, means that not only should they have no platform but should be shown through logic, reason and downright common sense, to be the fascist extremists they are.

I dislike and abhore everything the BNP stand for and quite happily campaign against them, however this new group that has just been set up, 'Unite against facism' is not only counter productive, but plainly, stupid. It has been set up in haste by a random assortment of trade unions and left wing groups, which fail to see the big picture. Making the BNP seem somehow victims, making their supporters - hardened ones or not - feel somehow that this in itself shows exactly why they should vote BNP. You cannot stifle freedom of speech to save freedom of speech, it is complte lunacy of thought. Their continuing stupidity, by stating they will continue to hound the BNP, just goes to show how they need to be condemned by the major parties - just because they are anti BNP does not mean they shouldn't be held up to the light of reasonable behaviour.

There are many, many groups set up to counter the BNP in every area of politics and society, we do not need another one - especially one which does such idiotic things such as this. They mean well and want to 'take the fight' to the BNP, but by arms - eggs or otherwise - and intimidation, can never be the right way. Especially as we are talking about opposing a 'party' which uses these exact tactics. Things like this really get me pissed off and if any of you saw the channel 4 news interview with one of the founding members of the unite group, you could see as plain as day how idiotic his thought process was.

Anyway, things like this get my blood boil, stupid people ruining public perception and the ability of those really doing a good job against the BNP on the ground from being as effective as they can. But just one further point, IA, if you think a demonstration against fascism which uses intimidation and eggs means the people demonstrating are fascists, you not only have one very wrong impression of fascism but moreover a very narrow view when judging people's actions.

Kralizec

06-10-2009, 18:33

I dislike and abhore everything the BNP stand for and quite happily campaign against them, however this new group that has just been set up, 'Unite against facism' is not only counter productive, but plainly, stupid. It has been set up in haste by a random assortment of trade unions and left wing groups, which fail to see the big picture. Making the BNP seem somehow victims, making their supporters - hardened ones or not - feel somehow that this in itself shows exactly why they should vote BNP. You cannot stifle freedom of speech to save freedom of speech, it is complte lunacy of thought. Their continuing stupidity, by stating they will continue to hound the BNP, just goes to show how they need to be condemned by the major parties - just because they are anti BNP does not mean they shouldn't be held up to the light of reasonable behaviour.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-yes.gif

IA, if you think a demonstration against fascism which uses intimidation and eggs means the people demonstrating are fascists, you not only have one very wrong impression of fascism but moreover a very narrow view when judging people's actions.

People who equate these people with fascists don't care a lot about what ideas they claim to have. The Soviet Union was a lot closer than fascist Italy than the paradise it was on paper. While they would deny it, these anti-fascists are untolerant and against freedom of speech https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-juggle2.gif

Fragony

06-10-2009, 18:40

Iif you think a demonstration against fascism which uses intimidation and eggs means the people demonstrating are fascists, you not only have one very wrong impression of fascism but moreover a very narrow view when judging people's actions.

oh really, do I

HoreTore

06-10-2009, 18:46

People who equate these people with fascists don't care a lot about what ideas they claim to have. The Soviet Union was a lot closer than fascist Italy than the paradise it was on paper. While they would deny it, these anti-fascists are untolerant and against freedom of speech https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-juggle2.gif

But then again....

If someone could've shot Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Franco, Pol Pot, etc, before they got power, should it be done?

It would, after all, be a clear breach of freedom of speech and a number of other human rights.

Kralizec

06-10-2009, 19:11

But then again....

If someone could've shot Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Franco, Pol Pot, etc, before they got power, should it be done?

It would, after all, be a clear breach of freedom of speech and a number of other human rights.

That depends. I have enough faith in democracy to believe that we'd never end up with such people by election results. The notion that these anti-fascists are preventing another holocaust by pelting a bunch of losers with eggs is laughable.

In the case of Hitler, I'd argue that the Weimar republic never became a functional democracy and the "free election in" 1933 was a farce.
Before Stalin became a dictator he was already a powerful politician in a despotic government.
Mao and Franco were fighting civil wars, and the alternative in either case was nothing to be particulary cheerful about either.
And as for Pinochet: if you killed him before the coup, you either had the amazing ability of predicting the future or you were a simple terrorist.

Louis VI the Fat

06-10-2009, 19:16

The notion that these anti-fascists are preventing another holocaust by pelting a bunch of losers with eggs is laughable.To quote the great Fragony:
lol@Kralizec.
Kralizec>fascist and antifascists with too much spare time.

And as for Pinochet: if you killed him before the coup, you either had the amazing ability of predicting the future or you were a simple terrorist.Or you worked for the CIA and had quite a good idea of what was coming... :sinistersmilie:

Vladimir

06-10-2009, 20:42

For those too young to remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet (CIA helped him to power)

I hold him in the same regard as Ataturk. God bless them both.

Chile: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/CI.html

Kralizec

06-10-2009, 20:55

Or you worked for the CIA and had quite a good idea of what was coming... :sinistersmilie:

More likely the KGB, though...

LittleGrizzly

06-10-2009, 21:27

God bless them both.

May god bless him with a continual messy death in a football stadium. Then may god bless him with an inability to know what has ahppened to his nearest and dearest, may god bless him with the sorrow of not knowing where your son or daugyhter is, if they are dead if they are inprisoned if they are hurt and need help, if they scared... let god bless him with what he did to other people, death destruction and misery!

Even if we are to assume that BNP could become the next hitler would egg throwing really be the way to stop such a movement ?

I would also like to remind all the people having a dig at leftys lets us not forget the facists that hit prescott with an egg, damn facist farmers, the facists that covered blair in purple powder, damn facist fathers, and whatever group attacked mandelson for whatever reason... hopefully they start with an F as well...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-10-2009, 21:38

Oh come on. Like you didn't applaud it when one of brown's ministers(name escapes me atm) got green sauce all over his face.

I didn't hear about it in the first place, but no, I wouldn't applaud it. Every democratically elected minister, MP, or MEP deserves a certain amount of respect, no matter how distasteful I find their views.

Do you really think I would defend the BNP over Labour?

naut

06-11-2009, 00:16

The Sun's headline summed it up nicely: "Bad Egg Is Hit By Good Egg"

Tribesman

06-11-2009, 00:20

Hey, we do egg throwing at politicians here as well!

Egging politicians is quite common , though the hungarians recently put through a case that overturned previous rulings that throwing eggs was part of freedom of expression.
Surely it is traditional for britons to pelt food at peope who are rubbish, be they actors singers orators or politicians .
Since Griffin wants good old British values and customs then he must be in favour of throwing food at idiots .
Then again listening to him over the past few years its quite hard to be specific about what he sees as British, his latest attempts are hilarious . Apparently you can tell who is British just by looking at them , so if there is any doubt about who is a true brit all you have to do is look for a drunk sunburnt slob throwing his guts up in the canary islands who is wearing union jack shorts. Anyone not fitting that description will have to be banned from Britain or fenced inside the BNPs proposed segregation enclaves for non-real-british.

Every democratically elected minister, MP, or MEP deserves a certain amount of respect, no matter how distasteful I find their views.

Why?

KarlXII

06-12-2009, 00:32

Not surprised here. Though, reviewing Griffins states policies, I found something odd, that being the Gurkhas are allowed to live in Britain after serving the country for some odd years, a policy Griffin wishes to remove. I'm quite puzzled at why he wants this removed, surely, regardless if they are Ghurka or English, a soldier is allowed to live in the country they risked their lives to defend.

Beskar

06-12-2009, 00:40

He wants it removed because they are not white.

The reason is as fundamentality retarded as that. Racists don't use logic to justify their opinions, just the colour of your skin.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-12-2009, 00:51

Why?

Think about it. Take them down in debate (it seems easy enough with Griffin), don't egg them.

Furunculus

06-12-2009, 09:51

Aw'some, so the people who revolted in France in 1789 against tyranny were fascists.

But just one further point, IA, if you think a demonstration against fascism which uses intimidation and eggs means the people demonstrating are fascists, you not only have one very wrong impression of fascism but moreover a very narrow view when judging people's actions.

i don't know, against my dictionary definition of facism posted earlier it seems pretty apt.

regardless, the problem isn't the BNP itself, it's the fact that 2 million people voted for them.

this means that mainstream politics is no longer representing the plurality.

this is the fault AND the problem of the mainstream.

and i think we can posit that this lack of representation stems from immigration.

Tribesman

06-12-2009, 10:01

Think about it.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
The post you are responding to was a question about your statement regarding respect.
So Mars why do politicians deserve respect ?

Take them down in debate (it seems easy enough with Griffin), don't egg them.
Take them down in debate , then egg them .
Though in my experience over in Britain with these scum the practice is take them down in debate, wait for them to lose their heads and make the first move , then introduce their heads to the floor. Its easy as brainless muppets like these get frustrated very easily when trying to think and almost by default try and get violent. OK maybe its cruel to do such things to people so retarded....but its fun .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-12-2009, 21:40

So Mars why do politicians deserve respect ?

Respect as being free from being egged or assaulted. We live in a democracy, and as long as it remains a proper democracy, we can express our opinions through debate, dialogue, and the ballot box. We cannot assault people.

Tribesman

06-13-2009, 03:21

Respect as being free from being egged or assaulted.
No , most politicians deserve a damn good kicking

KukriKhan

06-13-2009, 16:02

There's a lot of support for this opinion over here too. I guess we ought to just include that in the job description:

WANTED: Decider, with colleagues, of funding and public policy issues. Length of contract varies by location. Duties include: constant fund-raising for reelection; intense scrutiny of past and present public and personal life, and that of family members; tolerance of personal assault and minor batteries. Perquisites include: free transport, free insurance, bribery, graft, and attendant personal compensation - provided such bennies are never disclosed publicly.

No wonder we get crap representation; what kinda fool applies for such a job?