When is a fascist not a fascist?

A democratically elected member of the Eurpoean Parliament was today physically assaulted by anti-democractic fascist extreamists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm

Discuss.

To say that expressing your political opinion in form of egg-throwing is physical assault, is exaggeration.

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.

Last time I looked hitting someone was an assault.

As for the merits of socialism/fascism. Two cheeks of the same arse.

So who decides what can be said and by whom?

Socialism and Fascism are different principles.

Don't distort what Socialism is.

Meh, throwing eggs is part of liberal democracy, politicians have to live with that.

Quote:

---

As for the merits of socialism/fascism.

---

You meant communism, I presume.

Some peeps need to look at the history books.

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Some peeps need to look at the history books.

---

Certainly. Especially people who mix up socialism with fascism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Some peeps need to look at the history books.

---

You could start by opening one yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

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

In short - He isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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?

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

Very sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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.

Quote:

---

The founder of fascism was a socialist.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Jesus was a fascist then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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.

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nonsense.

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

---

kidding me? And it very much means just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

"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.

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...

Why did the protesters only throw one egg?

...because one egg's un œuf!



Ba-boom-tish!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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

Belgian "egg throwing at politicians"- championship

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.>>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

....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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yes, because I'm sure social conservatives have never blown things up.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

....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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

edit: and somebody explain me luigi's joke.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freggony

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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...?

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Yeah, sounds like a real threat.

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Some peeps need to look at the history books.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

...

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

sure why not.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

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/image.../gc/gc-yes.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

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/image...gc-juggle2.gif