ukip is it just another bnp [Archive]

DaCuBaN

8th June 2004, 21:08

If the BNP is only talking "rubbish", then it is the duty of those who see it as rubbish, to PROVE it. If you can't prove it to be rubbish, then maybe it actually isn't rubbish. What happened to putting your faith in the masses anyway?

You assert quite correctly that we shouldn't be restricting their right to speak, but showing what absolute fools these people are - how their ideas do not serve the goal which they say they seek and why they will do more harm than good.

Again, I must say this is not a difficult thing to prove.

Of course you can. It depends on what you mean by democracy, if you only see the (empty) bourgios form of democracy as the only correct one you of course can't. But the bourgiosie has shown many times that they only belive in that when it suites them.
It is still insane in my oppinion to talk about giving free speech to a group that wants to terrorise you

Democracy, rule of the people, has nothing to do with the right to speak. Either you are a socialist who is in favour of the right to speak or you are a socialist who is not. It's an elementary argument. The link between the two are a disguise put in place by bourgious 'democracy' to make us think what we have is a real democracy.

That said, the right to free speech is a good one, and one I believe after the revolution we should keep - even if it means expending a little extra effort to show the world what an absurdity things like nationalism are.

James

8th June 2004, 21:21

Of course you can. It depends on what you mean by democracy, if you only see the (empty) bourgios form of democracy as the only correct one you of course can't. But the bourgiosie has shown many times that they only belive in that when it suites them.
It is still insane in my oppinion to talk about giving free speech to a group that wants to terrorise you

I assume you are refering to some crude majoritarian system - if so, then i suppose you could make that "argument". Such systems are extremely undemocratic however - as they are in reality dictatorships of the majority. Which of course is fine and dandy when you are in that majority - but you should remember one crucial point: chances are, you won't always be in the majority.

And in reference to your language - "the bourgiosie": did you mean to imply that another "class" didn't/doesn't/won't do this? I think you are very naive if you believe that.

And by the way, you seem to ignore my point which was if they are "wrong", then it is easy to prove them so. Unless of course you believe "the masses" are easily influenced by "incorrect" emotional concepts and arguments: thus need to be "looked after" (i.e. "you" need to control what "they" see/read/hear etc).

Louis Pio

8th June 2004, 21:54

And in reference to your language - "the bourgiosie": did you mean to imply that another "class" didn't/doesn't/won't do this? I think you are very naive if you believe that.

The bourgiosie is the easiest way to define the ruling class in english so that's why I use the word. Yes of course another class can do this, but the whole point was that you simplisticly tried to say that denieng one group free speech is fascism. Very very simplistic...

And by the way, you seem to ignore my point which was if they are "wrong", then it is easy to prove them so. Unless of course you believe "the masses" are easily influenced by "incorrect" emotional concepts and arguments: thus need to be "looked after" (i.e. "you" need to control what "they" see/read/hear etc).

Do you actually belive that we should let a group doing terror continue? Now that's what's called naive. Of course you can prove a group wrong but without control of the mass media that's a quite big task.
Not something we archive by *****ing and patronising people on a discussionboard...

James

8th June 2004, 22:06

It is fascism to rule out a groups freedom of speech. You may think it right, but that doesn't really change the fact that you are in effect "rulling out" beliefs which alot of people hold.

Personally, i think thats the wrong path to go down.

actually belive that we should let a group doing terror continue? Now that's what's called naive. Of course you can prove a group wrong but without control of the mass media that's a quite big task.
Not something we archive by *****ing and patronising people on a discussionboard...

Well "doing terror" is a little imprecise...
BNP should be arrested when they actually physically try to infringe on someone elses rights. As should any group/individual.

True the mass media is an important weapon - but one doesn't need to "control" it, to use it.
The mass media is as it stands VERY anti BNP anyway - thus you can freely contribute to their cause.
I also suggest fighting the BNP on a local basis; and most importantly - working with other groups of people. Be united in your opposition.

And i agree - personally i find the mere suggestion that the UKIP and BNP are comparable patronising. If not incredibly stupid.

Funky Monk

8th June 2004, 22:08

How can you claim democracy when the people's choices are restricted? Surely all potential representatives should have the same opportunites to express their views?

katie mccready

16th June 2004, 13:30

because in this "moden" world there is no need for racsism

h&s

16th June 2004, 13:53

Surely banning a TV commercial isn't stopping free speach, its just what the broadcasters choose to do.
Stopping BNP demonstrations (however tempting) would be stopping free speach.

Have you thought that stopping a group that wants to take democratic rights away from ethnic minorities would actually be a quite a democratic thing to do?
I'm not advocating it though.

monkeydust

16th June 2004, 20:56

It is fascism to rule out a groups freedom of speech. You may think it right, but that doesn't really change the fact that you are in effect "rulling out" beliefs which alot of people hold.

Personally, i think thats the wrong path to go down.

Funny..........

People held those very same opinions in the 1920's and early 1930's in Germany. Many believed it 'democratic' to give the Nazis a chance to voice their views and gain support accordingly.

And look what happened!

How can you claim democracy when the people's choices are restricted? Surely all potential representatives should have the same opportunites to express their views?

You're effectively saying that "We should give free speech to those who want to abolish free speech".

Kez

16th June 2004, 21:00

There is no way in which we should ever allow fascists a platform, no revolutionary has in the past, and no revolutionary will ever do so.

How can you (as Left said) give freedom of speech to those who a) want to get rid of it b)want to kill communists c) want to smash the workers movement.

You must be serioulsy deluded to think we can give such scum a platform.

RedAnarchist

16th June 2004, 21:08

Giving Fascist's free speech is like giving psychopaths machine guns and endless ammunition!

Saint-Just

16th June 2004, 21:40

Free Speech is irrelevent because any particular society is a class dictatorship and the ideas of the ruling class pervade society. We can also identify many different ideas that are reactionary or progressive, therefore we must preclude certain ideas as to change society and make a new class the ruling class. Perhaps there is scope for free speech once working-class ideas pervade society, however it is not necessary assuming we have reached the pinnacle of ideological development. And the former is so, socialism is the sum total of the development human ideas and will be so forever.

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th June 2004, 17:47

We can allow anyone free speech and give parties their democratic right to promote themselves so long as it is within the law.

BNP policy is to "make Britain white again". Thus, it exludes British ethnic minorities from the future of the country, even resorting to banishing them from the country. This, by definition, is racist policy. Racism is illegal. Thus, the BNP are an illegal party and should not be allowed to broadcast their views.

It is basically a party promoting crime. Just like if Labour were to promote burgulary.

Kez

18th June 2004, 17:59

it is illegal for workers to arm themselves and take over the factories, does this mean we shouldnt?

Bourgeoise law and our ideas of what law should be are very different

BNP should be allowed to have a platform because theyre fascists. end of.

Socialsmo o Muerte

21st June 2004, 01:20

That's completely hypocritical.

Fascism, as much as I disagree and oppose it, is a political ideology. Fascism does not incorporate a policy of racial discrimination or racial hatred. The Nazis and the BNP incorporate racism in their policy. That is why the BNP should not be allowed a say, because racism is illegal, its immoral and its unacceptable. Fascism, though followed only by idiots, does not incorporate illegal, immoral and unacceptable policies. Obviously to us on the left their policies seem that way, but they are allowed policy. Nobody is allowed racism.

And are you saying that it is only "bourgeois law" that racism and racists be outlawed, illegal and punished?

Kez

21st June 2004, 08:35

Racism under bourgeoise law is not punished. If call someone a paki, nothing gets done. However if you damage this persons property, then THIS becomes illegal and punished.

This is the difference between their morals and ours.

"Fascism does not incorporate a policy of racial discrimination or racial hatred"
-Fascism uses divide and conquer, using minorities, such a races, hence it automatically uses racist hatred.

Racism thrives under capitalism, therefore no prick in government is gonna solve it, one solution, revolution...

h&s

21st June 2004, 09:29

If call someone a paki, nothing gets done.
George Bu$h would know about that.....

Socialsmo o Muerte

21st June 2004, 18:34

And Prince Phillip! Who also referred to a Japanese minister of some kind as 2ol' slitty eyes".

Conghaileach

21st June 2004, 18:49

James, were the postal workers of the CWU who refused to distribute BNP material fascist?

Conghaileach

21st June 2004, 18:55

I think that the left today need to take the position that was taken 20 years ago, that fascists need to be beaten off the streets. Instead of waving the SWP's little Anti-Nazi League placards and letting them spew their filth, we should act to actually stop them.

As for those who would whinge about their rights, well what about the rights of minorities who these bastards would have deported, or worse.

Consider that in the US, the 1st amendment (free speech) doesn't count in cases where people's lives are put at risk. For instance, it's illegal to run into a packed building screaming "Fire!"

The real fascists are those who advocate violence against whichever minority group they've chosen to scapegoat. The rights of these minorities to live in peace is paramount to a fascist's right to free speech.

Daymare17

21st June 2004, 19:15

I notice 2 main trends here: The "mild democrats", who will give freedom to the fascists until the fascists take away their freedom, and the totalitarian Maoists, who are in favor of restricting free speech for all members of the population for an unspecified amount of time ;)

The Marxist standpoint is neither.

Every genuine Marxist is not in favor of 'democracy' but of PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP. The government will be elected from each workplace. The bourgeoisie could easily be excluded from suffrage. If the bourgeoisie and its lapdogs fight against the new power, it goes without saying that the proletarian state will restrict their freedoms, and possibly terrorise them. This doesn't mean that the proletarian power will not be democratic to the extreme in its internal workings, much more so than bourgeois democracy.

Fascism seeks to destroy all workers' organisations that exist in capitalism, and generally terrorise the workers into obedience. If they organise and attack, it is the duty of every proletarian democrat to organise workers' self-defence. Rather than being allowed to build up their forces in peace, the fascists must be smashed to smithereens by the power of the organised working class. Whoever preaches democracy in the face of fascism is either a betrayer or a hopelessly ignorant person. Bourgeois democratic principles presuppose equality of the electorate. This doesn't exist today and thus there is no such thing as democracy. There are two powers, two 'electorates': the workers and the capitalists, who are engaged in continual warfare with one another.

Conghaileach

21st June 2004, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:15 PM
Rather than being allowed to build up their forces in peace, the fascists must be smashed to smithereens by the power of the organised working class.
Isn't this what the so-called "totalitarian Maoists" were advocating?

James

21st June 2004, 20:49

Do you really think the BNP is going to take over the country? :S

If you can't prove them wrong with argument; then maybe you arn't trying hard enough (no need to resort to violence) or maybe they are right.

Daymare17

21st June 2004, 21:16

Do you really think the BNP is going to take over the country? :S

Well there's only a small chance as the British working class is comparatively huge and fascism has its base in the middle class. However only a gibbering idiot would rule out a fascist victory. And anyway, so long as they exist, they are a terrorist threat to workers and must be annihilated in self-defense.

Isn't this what the so-called "totalitarian Maoists" were advocating?

Not really, Chairman Mao wrote:

"Perhaps there is scope for free speech once working-class ideas pervade society, however it is not necessary assuming we have reached the pinnacle of ideological development."

Notice the immense faith this man has in the working class :blink:

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd June 2004, 03:01

Firstly, Daymare, who said we were all "Marxists" anyway? You can't argue that point because I'd say that not all of us are Marxists and arguing with a Marxist point isn't going to have any value to those who aren't so.

Although I'm not quite sure whether you were saying "you're wrong, because Marx said this.." or whether you were just pointing out the Marxist perspective. If it was the latter, then Ignore what I've written completely!

James, the BNP are not going to take over the country. But in areas where they have seats on councils, it is dangerous for the people in those areas. And I agree with you, violence is not needed when any other party left from the BNP has policy and argument which can put there's down so much that they are not even worth arguing with any longer. Even the Tories can do that. So such violence is not needed at all. That's getting to their level.

Daymare17

22nd June 2004, 14:55

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 22 2004, 03:01 AM
Firstly, Daymare, who said we were all "Marxists" anyway? You can't argue that point because I'd say that not all of us are Marxists and arguing with a Marxist point isn't going to have any value to those who aren't so.

Although I'm not quite sure whether you were saying "you're wrong, because Marx said this.." or whether you were just pointing out the Marxist perspective. If it was the latter, then Ignore what I've written completely!
It was the latter so no fuss :D

However, I think that the pacifist, democratic position is really dangerous.

James

22nd June 2004, 15:18

James, the BNP are not going to take over the country. But in areas where they have seats on councils, it is dangerous for the people in those areas. And I agree with you, violence is not needed when any other party left from the BNP has policy and argument which can put there's down so much that they are not even worth arguing with any longer. Even the Tories can do that. So such violence is not needed at all. That's getting to their level.

Bang on.

I imagine as with most movements a violent and non-violent wing is needed; the violent being nice and underground; unidentifiable. Otherwise there are huge risks of the non-violent wing imploding over the issue.

Personally though, i think you have "given in" if you think the BNP can only be stopped by violence. If anything i think they would beat the crap out of you! But come on, what would you achieve? Giving them a mandate as a "targetted" party "denied democratic rights". Which of course would make their followers come to reason and leave the party...
....I am of course being sarcastic (alot of our american friends don't seem to get sarcasim :P)

No. Violence won't achieve anything. Except maybe underminding "our" credibility. Thus i ask of you, don't do anything stupid in "our name". Do it in your own. Claim you are crazy or something. Or "The Free People's of the England Revolutionary Forward MArxist Movement". Or something.

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd June 2004, 17:20

Very similar to the "Islamic" extremists doing it in the name of Islam when the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with it.

An interesting parrallel.

But don't let that divert the topic.

Kez

22nd June 2004, 17:26

We of course must be as flexible as possible in our methods (our methods only, no flexibility with our theory).

We must stop fascism with any method we can.

Literature, campaigning in unions, using activists etc.

However, to say violence wont help, let us not forget the event that ended the British fascist movement pre WW2 was the battle of cable street, which was a battle between the fascists and Jews & trade unionists.

So, we must use all methods we can. But we must not cower from the use of violence, if this is what it will take. REmember if the fascists start to be beaten back in popularity, there will remain a hard core centre of fascists who will fight, and we cant exactly throw leaflets at them to stop them smashing houses and shops can we?

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd June 2004, 17:30

I think neither of us is doubting that violence can be a weapon against an enemy.

However, our point, (well my point, which I think is shared by James) is that with the BNP, there is no need for violence as anyones arguments against them can defeat them. There's no need to use violence where it is not necessary, and I don't feel it is against the BNP as they are such a ridicuolously idiotic party that it is not needed. Anyone from the Tory party to the left of the Communist Party would be able to argue them into a hole so there is no need to use force.

Admittedly, against a more convincing, powerful Fascist party, maybe words alone will not defeat them and violence would be called for. However there isn't one in existence in Britain now.

T_SP

22nd June 2004, 17:33

Admittedly, against a more convincing, powerful Fascist party, maybe words alone will not defeat them and violence would be called for. However there isn't one in existence in Britain now.

You don't believe that the BNP is fascist then?

Kez

22nd June 2004, 17:36

I think your underestimating the BNP comrade, where they go, racial violence increases 300%.

what im saying is we shouldnt have a fixed idea that "we shouldnt use violence". Im saying we have to use anything we can.

In Oldham in the riots, what should we have done? given out leaflets while molotov cocktails were being thrown across us?

What we should have done was:

+ Had meetings with all community on what fascism is
+ Organised and agitated within unions
+ Leafleting through the day
+ Marches WITH STEWARDS ARMED WITH BATS throughout town to route out fascism
+ Used to armed pickets to organise and fight fascists on the street at night, with community defence at the homes and at the workplace.

T_SP

22nd June 2004, 17:41

Absolutely Kez, if the community is not directly involved there is no way they can understand the threat of the BNP and they also cannot understand there lies and hate policies.

James

22nd June 2004, 18:04

However, to say violence wont help, let us not forget the event that ended the British fascist movement pre WW2 was the battle of cable street, which was a battle between the fascists and Jews & trade unionists.

After experiancing the police reaction to the manchester student strike march (peacfull!) - ouch my head - i think times have "moved on" from then. It just wouldn't happen.

+ + +

However, our point, (well my point, which I think is shared by James) is that with the BNP, there is no need for violence as anyones arguments against them can defeat them. There's no need to use violence where it is not necessary, and I don't feel it is against the BNP as they are such a ridicuolously idiotic party that it is not needed. Anyone from the Tory party to the left of the Communist Party would be able to argue them into a hole so there is no need to use force.

Bang on: especially because they are trying to foster an image of "the credible political party telling people the truth".
Just prove it isn't the truth.

I think we all remember the guardian article from the other month, which interviewed Griffon's daughter shortly after she helped with the welsh broadcast.

We shall speak the truth comrades - and they shall know it!

+ + +

What we should have done was:

+ Had meetings with all community on what fascism is
+ Organised and agitated within unions
+ Leafleting through the day
+ Marches WITH STEWARDS ARMED WITH BATS throughout town to route out fascism
+ Used to armed pickets to organise and fight fascists on the street at night, with community defence at the homes and at the workplace.

+ Yes!
+ Yes!
+ Yes! And engaged people in conversation
+ yes - but not with bats. It should be PEACFULL. What we should do is inform the media; take our own cameras. Most importantly - have strict discipline.
"Not a hair on any head should be harmed"
Agitation yes. But peacful. Then switch on the camera's to show how credible the BNP are.
+ yes, but peacful. No weapons. Injuries on our side would be ammunition.

Kez

22nd June 2004, 21:16

the stewards are for defence only.
then once you have masses onside, together go batter the nazis.

not only that, but the media are not gonna support us, whatever the truth is, i think you dont appreciate with which class the police are allied with

in response to our manchester demo, where we were both there, are you suggesting we shouldnt fight? fuck that

James

24th June 2004, 17:11

So the media are pro-BNP?? They are INCREDIBLY anti BNP. Your marxist sayings are blinding you from the actual reality.

Manchestr - my point was that the police will kick anyones ass. Did you "experiance" their tactical response unit? My god they are nasty!

Socialsmo o Muerte

24th June 2004, 18:05

You don't believe that the BNP is fascist then?

Trostkyist, that was not my point. I said untill a POWERFUL and more organised Fascist party is in existence, we don't need violence. The BNP have no credibility at all. As it works out, the BNP got 1.26% of the electorate vote at the Euros. Which, themselves, are a protest election. If you call that powerful, them you really need to check out the word's definition in a dictionary.

As for the other point, the media are going to support neither the BNP or the far left. If either use violence, they are going to slaughter them, so violence against the BNP is not, in my opinion needed. Why embarass the left wing by using violence against a party which has gained 1.26% of the electorates vote as a disgruntled protest? It's stupid.

Daymare17

24th June 2004, 18:16

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 24 2004, 06:05 PM
Trostkyist, that was not my point. I said untill a POWERFUL and more organised Fascist party is in existence, we don't need violence.
Where do you think this powerful fascist party will come from? Not from the 'weak' BNP? It will drop from the skies then?

Kez

24th June 2004, 18:32

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 24 2004, 06:05 PM
Trostkyist, that was not my point. I said untill a POWERFUL and more organised Fascist party is in existence, we don't need violence.
ah, so when someone gets cancerthey should wait for it to be much more POWERFUL before they act?

James

24th June 2004, 19:31

ah, so when someone gets cancerthey should wait for it to be much more POWERFUL before they act?

No thats not what was said at all. Was it kamo?
I think you made a mistake - misread the post?

Specifically said "violence": not "act".
So your crap comparison is actually, when put into the proper context, more along the lines of doctors should just operate anything and everything, simply because their is a vauge possibility an operation may be needed far in the future. Of course thankfully, you arn't a doctor. They can help you in many ways kamo.
When you have a chest infection they can treat it - they don't have to cut your lungs out.

The media would love the opportunity to film to BNP beating up old and young, innocent, defenceless people, who arn't in any way violent. Would sell very well.

Non violent protest is extremely effective in such cases. Read up on Martin Luther King in Birmingham.

Socialsmo o Muerte

25th June 2004, 04:17

A quite excellent reply to Kez's quite appalling analogy.

And Daymare, I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say. But to answer your question anyway, which is the most I can do due to my lack of understanding of your point, I don't think a powerful Fascist party will drop out of the sky, no.

However, I do think you have made the same mistake that Kez made which was so cuttingly highlighted. I didn't say we shouldn't act. I said there was no need for violence untill a powerful Fascist opposition arises.

People need to read posts before seeing the red mist.

Kez

25th June 2004, 09:04

The point is the BNP is a fascist party.

We know what they would do if they got into power. The difference now and if they do get into power is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one.

For example in essex, the BNP have ethnically cleansed a whole area where travellers lived for 20 years.

And my analogy still remains, the point was before THEY acted, not us.i dont think you read it correctly ironically.

what bout when LePen was here? should we have fannied about? No, it was the correct decision to take a violent approach, now the BNP know they cant hold anything openly,they must retreat to their luxurious villas in the middle of nowhere Wales to do anything.
If it was just leafleting they would do it in the middle of towns.

There is no difference in the BNP now and if they were to be in power.

Your methods are dogmatic, in that you rule a method out, and restrict yourself.

As for your critique of the analogy, which completely missed the point, i would like to know when a Doctor doesnt act on a cancer...my analogy didnt include chest infections...anyway, lets not divert the thread.

Daymare17

25th June 2004, 09:52

That's right Kez it's not just about physically destroying them but also demoralising them.

In my country many of the Nazis now just sit at home, take drugs and shoot themselves. Why? Because we have been vigilant in kicking their asses.

h&s

25th June 2004, 09:59

So the media are pro-BNP?? They are INCREDIBLY anti BNP. Your marxist sayings are blinding you from the actual reality
Sorry to interupt, but have you never read the Daily Mail?

Kez

25th June 2004, 10:02

very correct hammer

the media is not anti-BNP.

Anti BNP is when you show them up for teh scum they are

The express and Mail have simply sang in tune for the BNP.

Dont forget it was the Daily Mail who was writing Pro-Mosley articles in the 20's30's.

James

25th June 2004, 10:41

OMG!
I suggest you guys actually read the papers you talked about. The express was the most anti BNP paper out there. I know! i delivered them!!!

The daily mail sings their tune?
Ok lets have some actual proof old boy.

The media would jump on the opportunity to film a really horrible fight - where one side is completely innocent. Think about it - its a black and white issue. Sells very well.

Now you are just arguing otherwise to be "radical"!

How would you, kamo, and maybe some other 14 year olds - take on the BNP? They would destroy you! and they would say you attacked them!

RedAnarchist

25th June 2004, 10:44

There are many ways we can destroy the BNP -

- Vote. Apathy is the fascist's friend
- Protest.
- Infiltrate the BNP and get proof of their true views, rather than the sugar-caoted crap they use to brainwash twats who dont realize that the BNP are fascist, white supremacist animals.
- If a newspaper writes anything in support of the bnp, attack that newspaper. Buy loads of copies and burn them, get the respective unions to strike - printing union, journalist union and so on - vandalise the places they print the papers etc etc.
- Show the ethnic minorities the true values and beliefs of Communism and how it can benefit them and not the middle-class and their fascist friends.

Kez

25th June 2004, 10:44

its not about 14 year olds taking them on, its about the working class as a whole taking them on.

Which papers constantly drum up bollocks about asylum seekers?

James

25th June 2004, 11:00

Oh i see. Well i agree - and that we should all get along blah blah blah. But thats not realistic, at this moment in time.
A violent attack would end in disaster - and would thus put people off from opposing the BNP; BNP would get more confidence; and would boost support as the party attacked by "the far left".

No: its far easier and effective to do what i said.

The papers are anti BNP - they constantly publish anti BNP articles.
Thus would jump on such tactics which i early explained.

James

25th June 2004, 11:01

may i ask why you are so against peacful protest, and manipulation of the media - apart from your belief that all the popular press would ignore what i described (which is laughable btw)?

Kez

25th June 2004, 11:07

Were the anti-Le Pen protests not violent? Were they not a success?

"may i ask why you are so against peacful protest"
i get fucked off when people dont read what is posted. I said we must not rule out violence.

I think your idea of somehow getting images of old blacks being beaten as the way to progress is fuckin wierd.
The bourgeoise wont do fuck all for us, we gotta take our own action.

I dont think u understand the class nature of society today.

Fascism is capitalism in decay, it is not a seperate ideology. The capitalist class(as it has in the past) support fascism against socialism, your methods of playing with the capitalist class are absurd.

BNP always get police protection on demos, remember what happened to us on the Manchester demo? we got teeth knocked out.

The press is capitalist press, when push comes to shove, they wont support us, not even ur beloved guardian.

h&s

25th June 2004, 12:29

James is right, the Express is anti-BNP.

The daily mail sings their tune?
Ok lets have some actual proof old boy.

I don't have any proof (as I don't memorise every last thing I read), but I read the Mail on Sunday every week, and it is clear who they support.
If you read Peter Hitchen's articles, you will see this.

James

25th June 2004, 13:58

Were the anti-Le Pen protests not violent? Were they not a success?

Now this is a different kettle of fish.
Le Pen is an old man, who didn't have lots of people with him (although he did have some BNP with him, which, supporting my earlier point, were very keen to get violent): the two arn't comparable in the context of what i was advocating. True they are both fascists, but thats not what the non-violent approach was based upon.

It was based upon reactions. Le Pen wouldn't have got out of his car and kicked the shit out of kids and the elderly with signs . Like i said - read up on Martin Luther King in Birmingham. Following the massive press reaction the police (who MLK was targeting, replace police with BNP) were very careful not to use violence; thus it didn't work.
This is a flexible strategy - it would have made sense to use it against the BNP in Oldham.

i get fucked off when people dont read what is posted. I said we must not rule out violence.

We all said this!
But you said we should have used it in oldham.

I think your idea of somehow getting images of old blacks being beaten as the way to progress is fuckin wierd.

Thats because you clearly are trying your hardest NOt to understand.
Blacks - i think you got this from my historical comparison with black civil rights campaign in America
Old - yes: get old people out! we need innocent looking people for this to work. The more harmless, the better!
Beaten - yes: capture it on camera's. If enough numbers are involved (and a few significant injuries) - not hard; then the media can't ignore it.
Progress - yes, the BNP is trying to look respectable. Beating up old ladies is not respectable.

The bourgeoise wont do fuck all for us, we gotta take our own action.

I dont think u understand the class nature of society today.

Fascism is capitalism in decay, it is not a seperate ideology. The capitalist class(as it has in the past) support fascism against socialism, your methods of playing with the capitalist class are absurd.

True, i'm not a dogmatic marxist. If you are what passes for one, i thank God for letting me see properly.
You say fascism is capitalist because you are anti capitalist. Equally, the capitalists say fascism is extreme politics (left and right). You are blaming "each other".

The english bourgeoise does not want the BNP to take over; contary to left wing scare-mongering. It would be interesting to see who actually supports them - again you blame the middle classes; and the middle classes blame the working classes, and the upper class blame's everyone. It seems though they get protest votes, old labour votes, and white working and middle class votes. Its not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I'm not playing up to the capitalist class - i'm suggesting we play up to the media: which are always eager for a big story, something to boost the ratings.
Why else did the mirror accept such dodgy photo's? Surely this goes against your theory.

BNP always get police protection on demos,

Its two folded. They are there to keep order - that means protecting them and their right to a demonstration, and also preventing them from getting out of order. The BNP arn't stupid, they know all they have to do is show up, and just wait for the young eager leftists to come and attack them. Its in their interests to do so. Its their strategy. It gets the coverage of the poor party which is attacked by the left. This is a double edged sword. Not only does it make them look respectable, it makes "us" look pathetic, violent, illogical and anti-democratic.

Thats the reality.

remember what happened to us on the Manchester demo? we got teeth knocked out.

I remember us participating in a march which hadn't been cleared, and us being VERY disruptive to the centre of manchester for the whole day. I remember they were scared of us bringing the city to a stand still at rush hour (as we had done earlier). I remember that thats why they boxed us in. I remember also being in the front line when we charged the horses to break out. I remember helping to bring down a policeman - and then i remember them bringing out their riot police.

But you also raise an interesting point. Why do you advocate violence when you just said that
A) the BNP always protected by the police, who...
B) always knock our teeth out.

What you are actually advocating is that we go along with BNP tactics, and help them win more and more elections, so that they get more and more power.
Who's side are you on again?

Kez

25th June 2004, 14:44

what the fuck you bambling about?

your saying our strategy is get battered so that media can portray BNP is bad light?
just clear that up b4 we continue

James

25th June 2004, 15:16

I suppose so

Kez

25th June 2004, 15:25

end of debate.

or actually, i propose we send u into one of the BNP pubs and to talk bout marxism, i'll take pictures ok?

James

25th June 2004, 15:34

No you are right kamo - how stupid of me.
I'll phone up the working class tomorrow and you, me, and them can go down to Griffon's house and throw them all out.
Then maybe we can have a revolution, and all live happily ever after.

Louis Pio

25th June 2004, 15:53

Then maybe we can have a revolution, and all live happily ever after.

It seems you don't even belive the political work you are doing yourself makes a difference. Or else we wouldn't see all those disillusioned remarks

James

25th June 2004, 16:06

No, i recognise however that change is going to be slow.
I'm not a revolutionary.
I get frustrated with alot of revolutionaries - to me, most of them are philosophically detached, who don't try to actually address the current situation realistically.

Peacful protest would be the most effective weapon against the BNP. I assume you noticed that Kamo ignored all my points. This is rather typical. Next i'll be called enemy of the people, ****, wanker, middle class, or something along those lines.
:)

Kez

25th June 2004, 16:09

what fucking points. You talk bollocks. You have the idea that the best way to fight fascism is to get beaten up, pray that the capitalist media will print the pictures and make up a story against the BNP, and hopefully people will dislike the BNP. You are an idiot

First off, the BNP has already attacked many people and incited racial hatred...i dont see no change in attitude towards them.

You dont even think fascism is a branch of capitalism.

What are your points, i look forward to answering them.

Socialsmo o Muerte

26th June 2004, 03:23

Firstly I want to say how annoyed I am that I missed this whole chunk of the debate because I was working for mr fucking argos all day today.

Kez, you are dramatically simplifying James' personal policy for dealing with the BNP. From what he has written, I did not get: "get beaten up, pray that the capitalist media will print the pictures and make up a story against the BNP, and hopefully people will dislike the BNP." So how you did is beyond me.

The BNP is not a powerful enough force to use violence against and humiliate the left wing within the peoples' minds. I know that over half the country don't bother voting etc. but people are aware that the BNP are NOT a threatening force as yet and if the left was to start violently attacking them, we would get branded as brutal, violent, reactionary, ignorant....the list could go on. Ok, in your eyes, that may not be why you are fighting them, but to the straightly thinking person, it is. The BNP can be exposed and have their power lessened even more through peaceful means, which will also give the left more credibility in the peoples eyes. Don't forget, it is the people who the left wing seek to serve, and them who the left wing must seek to impress. And you may say "we dont need to impress anyone blah blah blah" but let's face it, we do. That's politics.

Like James, people who call themselves "revolutionaries", and think it is brave and heroic to talk about bringing down the establushment, annoy me also. It is totally irrational and is not going to be successful in Britain in 2004.

I'd also appreciate it, as a studying historian, if you'd put Lenin's "fascism is capitalism in decay" in the appropriate speech marks and not try and pass it off as your own line. That is the one thing that annoysmemost when people do it on here.

I'm not actually sure if you have been reading our posts. All along, myself and James have maintained that violence is a weapon against an enemy, however we don't think it is neccessary against the BNP at this point in time. You posted earlier, "i get fucked off when people dont read what is posted. I said we must not rule out violence"

"then once you have masses onside, together go batter the nazis" I'm not sure if I misread that, but from that I, for some reason, took that you wanted to use violence against out topic of conversation, the BNP. And in response to that, I said it isnt neccessary yet and non-violent means were sufficient. Then you used your "analogy" to say I didn't want to act against the BNP.......

.....I think, Kez, that if you get "fucked off" when people don't read your posts, you should then assume that people feel the same when you don't read their's. Maybe it will help you.

XPhile, your last contribution suggested the BNP hide their attitudes. You said we must expose them. Nick Griffin said in an interview with the BBC at the last local elections, "We want a white Britain." He also said, after the Euros, again for the BBC, "We don't want people coming from foreign countries to Britain. Everyone in Britain should be white and British."

Now I despise of the BNP as much as anyone, but you can't suggest they "sugar-coat" their policy.

Finally, again for Kez. You said, "First off, the BNP has already attacked many people and incited racial hatred...i dont see no change in attitude towards them." Well, politics isn't reported on nearly enough in Britain today, so that is one reason. However, I think you must have avoided even the little politics they do often report. As I have often heard and read from Sky News, BBC News, The Sun and The Times about how extremist and sickening the BNP are when it comes to racism. Indeed, the guy who hosts Question Time (I forget his name) went red with rage when arguing against the BNP's sickening policy and saying how they can and have contributed to racial marginalisation and racial disintegration in more than a couple of localities.

Where exactly do you look for your news to come up with such statements?

Kez

26th June 2004, 08:47

I got an exam on monday, tuesday and thursday, so i cant post long comrade, i will have to postpone this interesting debate this later.

However i will say concerning the news, did you know that they ethnically cleansed an area in Essex of travellers? Had you read that in the news? I only heard about it from a Lefty comrade.

h&s

26th June 2004, 12:51

Travellers seem to be ethnically cleansed from everywhere :( , so although the BNP support this, they are not isolated in doing so.
In my area they put up massive rock boulders on greens once they move the trevellers out, to stop them from returning.

Kez

26th June 2004, 13:03

the point is this was a council decision, because the council had BNP members on it.

but obviously according to our friends Muerto and James, the BNP arent a threat are they...

isnt there a poem which goes along the lines of "first they came after the jews, but i wasnt a jew..."?

Socialsmo o Muerte

26th June 2004, 14:04

How fitting. I know that poem by heart after studying it in History last year in A Level. Though I don't read poetry or anything, this is one I took a prticular liking to. By Martin Niemoller. In full, it reads:

First they came for the Jews
but I did not speak out-
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
but I did not speak out-
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
but I did not speak out-
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me

A wonderful poem. However such a great poem has no place in your pitiful argument.

Firstly, the BNP goes after families of immigrants who they say are "stealing" the jobs of the "British people". But I fit into that section of society.

Then they go after the internationalists and the Communists who go against their vehement nationalism. But I fit into that section of society also.

Then, with their narrow-minded racism, they attack the ethnic minorities for the sheer reason that they are ethnic minorities. But wait, I fit into that section of society also.

Then they go after those who want to come to our country to share in our culture. But there are currently 5 of my cousins wanting to come to the country who are applying for entry now.

Add to that that I DO speak out, I DO campaign against the BNP and I want to continue doing so do ensure they get noplace in British politics.

I don't like using personal arguments when debating but comparing me to Martin Niemoller's confessional self in his poem insults me and offends me.

Just because I don't want to use violence becasue I don't see it fit, it does not mean I don't want to rid our country of a group of racist nationalists trying to interfere with progress of humanity.

Kez

26th June 2004, 14:23

i also fit into all those categories u named also, great.

Your post was correct, however, the issue is of methods.

Your saying we should use violence
im saying we shouldnt rule it out.

I think if the travellers and local community fought together, then no fascist could set foot in the town again.

the reason i used that poem was because i believe that you havent seen violence used against ur own group, but u wrote of the travellers episode because maybe you think its a distant thing, and they wudnt try this on your (and my) kind, false, right now, today, if they could, theyd kick fuck out of both of us.

Imsaying if the opportunity arises, we should do it first.

Socialsmo o Muerte

26th June 2004, 14:55

Firstly, I mentioned nothing about the travellers. I have never heard the story and don't have a clue what it's about. Which is why I haven't used it in my argument.

If what you say about them is true, then I still don't think we need to fight fire with fire. I know most people on this site will disagree as too many people on here want to be too much like Che, blindly disregarding what the world and our country is like now and all trying to be heroes by fighting the power. (However, I don't put you into the "Che wannabe" category because I seem to remember you saying you've read little about him, maybe I'm wrong though)

Of course, I'd have to know what actually happened with these travellers to make a real conclusion of what to do in respone to that particular issue. However I'm talking about fighting against the BNP, period. We have to try and get rid of them, we all know that, but untill they strike us, we don't strike them. We cannot be the first ones to start with violent protesting and violent attacks for reputation and credibility will be sevrely tarnished.

Untill then, we must protest and campaign peacefully.

Kez

26th June 2004, 15:35

are you denying the fact they will turn violent?

If not, who do you suggest to be beaten up first, because im not prepared to see myself, or any other comrade (including your goodself) to be beaten up as though they were a sitting duck.

James

26th June 2004, 15:47

That is because you don't understand in the slightest what we are saying.

Do you agree that the BNP are trying to look "respectable"?

Kez

26th June 2004, 16:12

nope.
But this is a superficial covering, which is irrelevant.

what you need to consider is what they really are, fascists, the same kind which gassed 6million jews, killed and persecuteed millions of communists, socialists, tradee unions, gays, gypsies, and led to the war which claimed the lives of 40 million, and yet you claim we should let them hit us first, genius.

James

26th June 2004, 16:25

You deny that the BNP is trying to look respectable??

Kez

26th June 2004, 16:30

no, hence why i wrote "nope." <_<

James

26th June 2004, 16:36

Then you really do not understand the actual situation.
I suggest you re-read the posts for the past 2/3 pages.

Does anyone else think that the BNP is not trying to foster an image of respectability?

Kez

26th June 2004, 16:37

i dont get it

i think the BNP is trying to gain respectibility....or rather, an image of

James

26th June 2004, 19:19

Sorry i had misread your post - i tried to edit it but aol kicked me off.

Right - so you agree, they are trying to foster an image of respectability. This is the key to BNP success in elections: people don't feel bad about voting for them. They arn't thugs after all! they are just given a bad press because they "tell the truth".

Don't you see? Destroying their image of respectability will seriously harm their electability. And that, as you pointed out, is how the BNP are dangerous. Once they get into power, they cause havoc.

Attacking them physically will thus strengthen their position, as it will give them ammunition. It will reinforce what they have been "saying all along". Don't you see?

I think, by the way, what you said before was shameless.
I'm well aware what fascism can do - I do not "claim we should let them hit us first", implying i suggest we allow them to do what they want. What i was actually proposing was confrontational non-violence.

are you denying the fact they will turn violent?

No. That's my point!!! They will turn violent!!!
What is VITAL though, is that WE DON'T. We take it like men - and make sure the world see's what the respectable, democratic, "peacfull", non-violent, credible BNP party really are!

The media would love it mate. I think you are completely wrong in suggesting they wouldn't be interested. Even the Le Pen stuff got wide coverage - why?

Now imagine what the masses would think if they turned on their TV tomorrow night, and saw images of the BNP attacking peaceful innocents! Hurting the elderly!

im not prepared to see myself, or any other comrade (including your goodself) to be beaten up as though they were a sitting duck.

Then close your eyes friend.

Daymare17

26th June 2004, 19:55

Lol James, your attitude reminds me of the Suicide Squad from the end of Life Of Brian :rolleyes:

James

26th June 2004, 20:16

lol

not quite....

Kez

26th June 2004, 20:43

You say correctly that theyre trying to look respectable.
Fine, we agree.

However, who are they trying to look respectable to?
The people, im sure we agree. good.

When i say violence should not be ruled out, i dont think i made myself clear, as i thought (incorrectly) that it would be obvious.
This violence would be done by the people, the working class. If the working class is fighting the fascists, does it matter if the BNP still look respeectable?

The people the BNP would be trying convince would be fighting them!
We must convince the workers before the BNP do, or, if they believe the shit the BNP come out with, show it to be false, and win them over.

Any "defence" by these fascists would simply invoke greater support for violence against fascism.

what u think?

James

26th June 2004, 21:34

true, i agree that if the working classes turned on the BNP - then of course they should literally throw them out like the rubbish they are.

Sadly though, this isn't the case at the moment. Of course this doesn't mean i think that we shouldn't work towards this end - my point is that this isn't the situation at the moment. More precisely we were discussing what we should have done in oldham. In oldham we should have used non-violent, confrontational tactics, to demonstrate to the ignorant and fooled, that the BNP is not a respectable, legitamate political party.

I think this applies the same, as to what i'd suggest we do if a situation arose for a demonstration tomorrow, or in the near future.

That is why at the moment, i advocate non violent, confrontatial politics with the BNP.

Kez

26th June 2004, 21:39

would you agree tho what we should be doing at the moement is working to get the working class with us, so we CAN get into a position where force can be used? at the same time as the leafleting (which in my opinion would be used to win over the working class anyway)

In oldham, what we shouldhave done was get all union members together, not a single fash could have raised his/her ugly face.

James

26th June 2004, 22:04

I personally think that "my strategy" does this kamo. I'm sure more of all classes would unite against the BNP if they saw them for what they really are.
To me, this can be best achieved by provoking them into violence, whilst remaining non-violent ourselves. When both sides are fighting - it doesn't really damage one side particular: the BNP would just argue they were acting in self defence.

They can't argue this if the front page of every news paper in Britain has a front page picture on the BNP thumping an old woman in the face.

Think of the outrage kamo? Our ranks would swell!
And then - we could all throw out the BNP - together, as one.

Kez

26th June 2004, 22:48

fascism thrives on the middle classes.

Griffin and his dad are both oxbridge fellas, this is a class issue.

Remember, fascism works to divide the working class, making it weak.

The only way to truly defeat fascism is to have a clear class perspective,and you cant do this with middle class muppets.

For example, we as marxists would explain, racism, fascism, are a result of capitalism, and the only way to end it, is to end capitalism, how can you say this with a bunch of capitlaism with u?

what u think?

Also, im quite disturbed at how prepared u are to allow "an old woman" to be bashed, just to get the media to publish it, assuming the meedia are there, and assuming the media will give a shit.

James

26th June 2004, 22:52

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. Personally, i think the tactic i have described is the only real hope we have against the BNP at the moment.

roddes

27th June 2004, 12:50

i once read some were that the ukip wouldnt run for a part of london because there was to meny gays there

Kez

27th June 2004, 15:17

can u find a source for that?

Socialsmo o Muerte

27th June 2004, 20:09

How can you say we can't defeat Fascism with the help of the middle classes?

It is too many peoples assumptionon here that the middle classes are all yuppies who have no care for fellow man. You don't think the middle classes would want to help rid thecountry of the BNP if they saw them acting violently against innocent, peacefully protesting people? Well I am, theoretically, in the middle class due to my parents' professions, does this mean that we are exempt from your "plan" to rid Britain of the BNP? If what you say is right, I am one of those "muppets" who doesn't have a place in your struggle because, in your working class glory, "what we should be doing at the moement is working to get the working class with us"

"how can you say this with a bunch of capitlaism with u?" It is an extreme sweeping generalisation to suggest the whole of the middle class population are "capitalists". It is simply not true. After all, we all know Che Guevara was born into middle class prosperity. Yeh, what a great Communist and "muppet" he was who didn't have any worth in the fight against facism and for communism.

Everyone with a sane mind would reject the BNP and their principles if they were to attack a peaceful protest like James suggests. How did Gandhi win over India? You wait for the "untrue enemy" to attack you, thus discrediting him. How did MLK and Malcolm X expose the brutality of the white police during their struggles? You wait to be struck and expose them for what they really are. Then, once the enemy is discredited by the people, you have the option of striking back or, again, sitting back and letting them do it again if necessary. Personally, I would chose the first method however I wouldn't resent someone who chooses the second option.

In attacking, we on the left would be slaughtered by the media and discredited in the people's eyes. It is of course, the people who theleft fights to represent; what good is it if they have no trust in us. In waiting, and retaliating if necessary, we both show up the enemy and also take more credit from more corners of society.

As for roddes' contribution; don't you love new members! They have no idea how much they will get put down for saying something stupid like that!

Kez

27th June 2004, 21:04

apologies, when i refer to middle class, i mean the middle class, not in the cpaitalist definition, which includes people who are actually in the working class.

The petit bourgeoise are those who openly will use fascism to keep the workers down.

I really do find it disturbing, that you and james have this notion we should sacrifice members of the working class to brutality, so then the CAPITALIST media will somehow find out how brutal they are.

You say this so people will see how bad fascism is...right.

So why dont you show people how bad they are in the first placee? Through the unions, through the workers parties, through student organisations?

If you want to win people over, u dont pray to see if the capitalists will do it for you!

In anycase, i would like to see the day when the guardian says that racism is caused by capitalism, and the only way to end racism is to overthrow capitalism.

Only through class independence can anything be achieved!

Socialsmo o Muerte

27th June 2004, 21:36

"So why dont you show people how bad they are in the first placee? Through the unions, through the workers parties, through student organisations?"

WE WANT TO AND WE DO!

This is what we are saying. We are not dispelling the need to act, we are just, for now, saying violence is not needed.

"apologies, when i refer to middle class, i mean the middle class, not in the cpaitalist definition, which includes people who are actually in the working class."

I fail to understand that. What is your definition of "working class"?

Kez

27th June 2004, 22:16

those who dont own the means of production and must sell their labour in exchange for money ie wage slaves.

I dont see why if we have the people on oursided, and we convince them of the need to take force against fascists, then why we shouldnt.

Socialsmo o Muerte

27th June 2004, 23:32

Because I believe it is basic human principle to not use violence unless it is absolutly necessary. If you can acheive a goal without resorting to physical violence, then do so. And I believe the BNP, at this present moment, can be defeated without violence.

Kez

28th June 2004, 12:07

well who is doing it?
when is it gonna start?
when has this ever worked?

Fascism only comes up when capitalism is in decline, its not a mainstream ideeology,therefore u cant use mainstream tactics against them, theyre a different bunch of people,and at this time, the workers are also different, in how they embrace alternative ideologies.

T_SP

28th June 2004, 17:35

But Kez, the BNP are marketing themselves as a mainstream party.

Kez

28th June 2004, 17:46

so?

by mainstream i mean regular.

The BNP dont succeed in regular times do they?

James

28th June 2004, 18:03

The petit bourgeoise are those who openly will use fascism to keep the workers down.

Well thats not as bad as you were making it out to be - i thought you were partly against it because the capitalist middleclass are for the BNP (which is what i couldn't understand).
You are quite right though kamo, the normal middle class is actually "our" friend in this fight. That is an awful lot of people, potential leadership, funds, and organisational skills (and respectablity).

really do find it disturbing, that you and james have this notion we should sacrifice members of the working class to brutality, so then the CAPITALIST media will somehow find out how brutal they are.

Its not as if we hit them over the head, bundle them into the back of a white van, and drive off with them and film them getting beaten up by BNP people at some quite farm yard in the middle of no-where.

Anyway - don't you consider it your method a sacrifice? I personally don't think you can win: all it will achieve is discrediting the left; strengthening the right; and the sacrifice of some brave comrades.

Our sacrifices will only be initial - and will be of far more worth.

well who is doing it?
when is it gonna start?
when has this ever worked?

Its a proposed tactic
Its proposed.. but really the best op is at the next BNP big event/presence
Its worked in India and america. Other places too - but those are the most famous which are easy to read up on.

Kez

28th June 2004, 18:06

discrediting the left? in whose eyes? the workers? its the fuckin workers who are doing it!

and India nor America have progressed.
The indian ruling class has simply taken over the british, end result for indian workers? they get fucked over by people the same colour skin. great.

America wasnt even peaceful, u call the riots peaceful?

Socialsmo o Muerte

28th June 2004, 18:57

I agree that India still has problems, but to say it has not progressed is just ridicuolous. Gaining independance from colonial Britain was monumental in the progression of India. It is unmeasurable how much of an impact that had. To say, just because India has problems that it has not progressed is not just wrong, it's ignorant and one of the most absurd claims you've made.

Also, we weren't saying the American Civil Rights riots were all peaceful. But the blacks waited to be struck before they attacked back. Which is our point exactly.

But that is straying from the point.

What it proves is that mine and James' preferred method HAS worked in more one instance in recent history.

And your plan discredits the left in anyones eyes who is not directly taking part in the action. The information services will send such a story out and the people will not like it. The public doesn't like an aggressor, but it does respect one who defends himself against an enemy.

Kez

28th June 2004, 19:06

yey, lets get linched.
ive had it, if anyone can be arsed too continue, i'll chip in, but ive said the same fuckin thing bout 3 times over, get it into your fucking skulls.

Bourgeoise media shouldnt be trusted
You cant crush fascism (metaphorically) within confines of capitalism
Class action is needed
Your a disgrace for being content for seeing somebody being beaten up, so then the media can take pity, you gotsomething wrong upstairs mate

Kouros

28th June 2004, 21:25

Originally posted by katie [email protected] 8 2004, 01:50 PM
i dont quite know what there about it seems to me there just another bnp

ps:they shoudnt have showed the party election broadcast for bnp
You gotta let them shw their thing in a democratic world. All we can do is hope people aren't that stupid but if we stoop down to their level we are as bad as them.

Secondly, Ukip-Are they even a political party? technically, yes. but i see them more as a pressure group. They know they can't get ever win power. So thei plan is to mess up British politics and effectively annoy Blair into committing any further EU integration. But my god, Kilroy annoys me!

Socialsmo o Muerte

29th June 2004, 02:14

"Bourgeoise media shouldnt be trusted"

Who said they should?

"You cant crush fascism (metaphorically) within confines of capitalism"

Your saying our method, which you claim is in the "confines of capitalism" is not within the confines of any other system or ideology? The method of peaceful and humane resistance? You're saying the method of political argument we should use is unprovoked act of force? In your "ideal world" they way to gain recognition and shift a political adversary out is by attacking them physically? Human intelligence is way beyond that and, consequently, beyond you.

Unprovoked force against political enemies? Hmmm, Italy 1922? Germany 1930's?

Who is more Fascist therefore my friend; you or us?

"Class action is needed"

Who said it wasn't? This argument was about the unprovoked use of force.

"Your a disgrace for being content for seeing somebody being beaten up, so then the media can take pity, you gotsomething wrong upstairs mate"

We said we wanted to see someone beat up? I must've missed that page. Neither of us said we wanted anyone to get beat up. We'd both rather rid of the BNP with no use of violence at all and by political pressure. We'd like to think they would fight back in the same way. If they don't, then we take the action to get them back for what they did. Why have you conjured up this notion that we're looking forward to some protesting left-winger to get the shit kicked out of him? Your turning our arguments into things which aren't actually our arguments.

Socialsmo o Muerte

15th July 2004, 05:27

And how great it was that I picked up my early edition of the paper on my way home from work this morning to have Kez COMPLETELY proven wrong about how the media won't show up the BNP enough.

Front page, best selling tabloid in the country.

Who said not to trust the bourgeois media on this one? Who said they weren't sensitive to this?

It's always great when hard evidence proves your own argument right against someone elses.

I recommend you buy today's Sun newspaper and watch BBC One at 9pm tonight.

Although you probably won't want to as it proves you so inexplicably wrong that it sends a shiver down my spine. The BBC and the Sun. Can't get more mainstream than that.

Kez:

"the media are not gonna support us, whatever the truth is, i think you dont appreciate with which class the police are allied with"

"the media is not anti-BNP. Anti BNP is when you show them up for teh scum they are"

"The press is capitalist press, when push comes to shove, they wont support us"

"pray that the capitalist media will print the pictures and make up a story against the BNP, and hopefully people will dislike the BNP. You are an idiot"

"assuming the media will give a shit."

Excuse me, but I like revelling in triumph. Will you accept that you were wrong? Probably not, but this is enough evidence for anyone.

And I'm so glad it was the Sun and the BBC who did this. You cannot even argue that they're not mainstream enough to support mine and James' argument.

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th July 2004, 15:53

I have noticed that Kez (not suprisingly) hasn't bothered replying to the last post. But then I suppose, when you are proven so gloriously incorrect, it is hard to answer.

Just to add to the argument set forth by myself and James, I'd like Kez and anyone else to check this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1263304,00.html

It was passed to me by James who can't post here for some reason.

I also offer you this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...equestid=154116 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=P4M0N4L12VROZQFIQMGSNAGAVCBQW JVC?xml=/opinion/2004/07/16/do1601.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=154116)

If you don't want to go to it, I will explain to you that it denounces the BNP and goes a strep further, saying there was no need for the BBC documentary because it seemed inconceivable to this Telegraph reporter that people didn't know how disgraceful the BNP is. It also compares Nick Griffin to Julius Streicher and Mosely.

So now, Kez, we have The Sun, BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian and Barclays Bank joining the fight against the BNP. I also saw an article in The News of the World today condemning the BNP and Griffin for thei beliefs and saying it is time for the government to act against them.

So that adds up to:

- TWO of the biggest selling tabloids in Britain
- The BBC
- The country's third biggest bank
- TWO of the biggest selling broadsheets in Britain, one of which is vehemently Conservative.

What this all means is that, with impeccable timing in relation to this thread, the "mainstream" and "capitalist" folk of Britain IS denouncing the BNP and IS joining the fight against them.

I've never seen a thread decided so firmly with such hard evidence.

James

18th July 2004, 22:10

In the words of Kez...

"the media is not anti-BNP.

Anti BNP is when you show them up for teh scum they are

The express and Mail have simply sang in tune for the BNP."

I hope we can all agree that kamo's posts can, and should, be ignored in future.

Socialsmo o Muerte

19th July 2004, 03:04

The evidence is damning.

T_SP

20th July 2004, 18:31

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 15 2004, 06:27 AM

I recommend you buy today's Sun newspaper
I wouldn't wipe my fuckin' arse with it! That paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who, stands for everything that is wrong with this world and by the sound of it you regularly line his pockets, you make me sick! I can't believe you actually read that trash! Little John is one of the most trash talking bastards my eyes have ever had the misfortune to read, this paper represents complete mindless drones interspersed with images of tits and asses! What an intellectual read that must be! I'll read it if I find a copy lying around ( Just to get the otherside) but not for long and only the opinion page normally. But honestly, the SUN!! The Mirror at a push! But not the Fucking Sun how right wing and anti-working class can you get?

Socialsmo o Muerte

20th July 2004, 19:13

HAHAHA.

I love it. When you "radicals" jump to the defence of the "free world" and everything that is right at every opportunity. Any mention of anything you regard as "right-wing" or "capitalist" and you get on your soap boxes and shout blue murder.

Get a grip.

When people mention "The Sun", it doesn't mean they think it is the most respectable paper. It doesn't mean they read it. It just means they are using it as a source of information and a source for their argument. Even so, I wouldn't usually choose to use the Sun as I don't regard it as very reliable. However in this instance and for this case, are you denying it's truth? I don't actually buy that nespaper, but walking into the newsagent and seeing such a massive headline about politics on the front page shocked me and I had to read it as no other papers reported it yet.

The Sun reported that the BBC uncovered the truth about the BNP. Is that a lie?

No.

Did any other paper report this on their front page?

No.

Therefore, is it really worth getting on your little rant about the paper?

No.

Why have you written that little post of yours without any mention about the actual post or the actual issue?

You may also notice that in the very quote you used, I said,

"I recommend you buy today's Sun newspaper"

Note: The use of the word "today". Not "everyday".

You've paid no attention to the post, no attention to why I've used the Sun as my source and no attention to any of the thickel intelligence you seem to have.

What a ridiculous post and what a dick you've made of yourself.

Especially as, in the process, you've admitted to buying the Mirror "at a push". I'd rather fall into a river "at a push" than have the Daily Mirror waiting at the end of a push.

If you don't have something intelligent to add, don't add.

Invader Zim

20th July 2004, 22:09

Though it hurts to say, I'm in agreement with Kez, the BNP and toehr racist parties determined to damage the rights of workers, based soley on something as meaningless as skin colour, are in my view something to be silenced. They are, IMO, scum and they should have no position to spread their filth and lies.

Fuck the BNP.

Socialsmo o Muerte

21st July 2004, 01:29

None of us were saying we think the BNP are legitimate and should be able to spread their ideas.

The argument was about how to stop them. We were arguing over the means to the end which we all agreed needed reaching.

Kez was arguing we need violence whilst me and James argued we let them destroy themselves as that wouldn't take long. Also people wouldn't need to be put at risk and the Left wouldn't need to be construed as aligning themselves with such groups who think it necessary to fight people to get power.

Kez said the media wouldn't care if the BNP did anything wrong.

As it happened, about two weeks later, the media DOES react to the BNP wrongdoings. Infact, it didn't just react to their wrongdoings, it sent one of their people in to investigate their wrongdoings. They came out with the evidence about how disgraceful the BNP are and the rest of the mainstream media reacted in disgust.

You have this debate confused. But I must thank you for giving me another oppurutnity to bask in glory.

T_SP

21st July 2004, 05:27

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 20 2004, 08:13 PM
HAHAHA.

I love it. When you "radicals" jump to the defence of the "free world" and everything that is right at every opportunity. Any mention of anything you regard as "right-wing" or "capitalist" and you get on your soap boxes and shout blue murder.

Get a grip.

When people mention "The Sun", it doesn't mean they think it is the most respectable paper. It doesn't mean they read it. It just means they are using it as a source of information and a source for their argument. Even so, I wouldn't usually choose to use the Sun as I don't regard it as very reliable. However in this instance and for this case, are you denying it's truth? I don't actually buy that nespaper, but walking into the newsagent and seeing such a massive headline about politics on the front page shocked me and I had to read it as no other papers reported it yet.

The Sun reported that the BBC uncovered the truth about the BNP. Is that a lie?

No.

Did any other paper report this on their front page?

No.

Therefore, is it really worth getting on your little rant about the paper?

No.

Why have you written that little post of yours without any mention about the actual post or the actual issue?

You may also notice that in the very quote you used, I said,

"I recommend you buy today's Sun newspaper"

Note: The use of the word "today". Not "everyday".

You've paid no attention to the post, no attention to why I've used the Sun as my source and no attention to any of the thickel intelligence you seem to have.

What a ridiculous post and what a dick you've made of yourself.

Especially as, in the process, you've admitted to buying the Mirror "at a push". I'd rather fall into a river "at a push" than have the Daily Mirror waiting at the end of a push.

If you don't have something intelligent to add, don't add.
Get fucked! It seems to me you talk out of your ass anyway! You talk about intelligence and yet seem to have none! The thread is stale and old even Kez has had enough of it all, you are still banging on about the same old shit that you were 6 pages previously this thread needs to progress or be locked and left!

Socialsmo o Muerte

21st July 2004, 13:40

What the hell are you talking about. You CLEARLY haven't even bothered to read the thread despite being shown up to be a complete idiot.

"this thread needs to progress or be locked and left"

IT HAS PROGRESSED! That's the fucking point. It's progressed in thelargest possible way. Present day evidence has come through to progress the post and answer arguments. THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT.

Why are some people on here such fucking idiots. A week after the last post on here, the BBC released their footage....THAT LEADS TO A PROGRESSION OF THIS DEBATE.

Do you know why? BECAUSE NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT.

WHY CAN'T YOU THINK ABOUT THINGS BEFORE YOU WRITE THEM!

The thread is stale and old even Kez has had enough of it all

NO. NO. NO. You absolute freak.

He hasn't "had enough of it all", he has just been proven so fucking wrong that even he has nothing to argue against. His points have been ripped up, chewed and swallowed by, of all institutions, The Sun, BBC, The Guardian, Barclays Bank and The Times.

Would YOU have the balls to re-enter a debate after being proven so gloriously wrong by those institutions?

James

21st July 2004, 15:31

trot;
I think the sun is worth a mentioning, because regardless of its political bias: it is the "newspaper" with the largest circulation. The working class make up alot of its audience.

Therefore it is important on two counts.
1. its wide spread circulation makes it "the newspaper"
2. a significant proportion of the working class read it (a fact which should not be ignored)

Also the fact that it is right wing makes it important for a 3rd reason - possibly the most important:
3. the right wing press are obvioulsy not friends of the BNP.

This was "our" point several pages back, a point which kamo said was not true. But obviously is - this is why Socialsmo o Muerte suggested purchasing the sun: simply because of this debate.

Anyway, we won :)
so its all ok.

Kez

23rd July 2004, 04:01

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 21 2004, 01:40 PM
The thread is stale and old even Kez has had enough of it all

NO. NO. NO. You absolute freak.

He hasn't "had enough of it all", he has just been proven so fucking wrong that even he has nothing to argue against. His points have been ripped up, chewed and swallowed by, of all institutions, The Sun, BBC, The Guardian, Barclays Bank and The Times.

Would YOU have the balls to re-enter a debate after being proven so gloriously wrong by those institutions?
nah mate, im on holiday, and your still very wrong.

If you cant admit that the mail spouts the most racist shit out every day u need your head checkin mate.

Now piss off and read the Sun.

James

23rd July 2004, 09:56

But kamo... you were proved wrong, by the sun!
You couldn't have been more wrong old boy.

Socialsmo o Muerte

23rd July 2004, 14:35

Firstly, I don't ever remember saying the Daily Mail didn't "spout racist shit". So I don't know where you got that from. I know that the Daily Mail is a vehemently COnservative newspaper whose articles I often disagree about. Indeed, I once sent an article written in the Mail that I saw to Lord Ahmed of Rotherham. It was prior to the Iraq invasion and suggested the Mecca pilgrimage was used as a "breeding ground" for Terrorists. Lord Ahmed duly reported the awful attitude of this paper in the House during a debate about racism and race policy.

More to the point, the Mail, which you say "spouts racist shit" was another one of those papers which proved you so wrong! Even The Daily Mail reported the disgusting acts of the BNP in condemnation. It reported on the Conservatives' policy to tackle the BNP and supported such action. Thus, adding two more institutions to the list which proved you so wrong, and what a two they are;

- The Daily Mail
- The Conservative Party

Wonderful.

"The British National Party are a loathsome development in modern British politics," were the words of a Tory minister in that article; words which were subsequently supported by the reporter.

Secondly...

On holiday eh?

Well, just after I posted originally about the BBC documentary, I checked up on your CheLives.com whereabouts. Oh, I was worried. "Why would Kez not reply on such a hard fought debate?" I thought.

I made my original post in the very early hours of July 15th after arriving home from work, giving you all day that day also to reply.

I then noticed you'd made two posts on that day: One in "Commie Club Members" and one in "Commie Club Security".

You also then made 4 posts the next day, the 16th.

Admittedly you haven't made any others since, but two whole days to make a post in this thread which you would have been duly informed about by e-mail, I presume, or would've seen reappear at the top of the Politics list.

Hmmmm.

And finally, I don't know if you bothered reading the previous posts, but I'd just like to reiterate to you, just as I did to Trotskyist, that I do not read The Sun on a regular basis. I picked it up that day as I was shocked to see politics hitting the front page. And if you are discrediting the Sun as a source, I suggest you read James' last but one post (made on the 21st July) to see why you are so silly in doing so. If you must know, I am an every day reader of the Morning Star, a regular donator to the Star Fund and also campainged my University Students Union enough to get them to stock the Morning Star in all of the University stores because they refused to previously due to it's "political bias". I'm happy to report that the three stores in our Union building as well as all of the stores in the various residence campuses now all stock and sell the Morning Star.

So don't bother with the same "go read The Sun" comeback, as it is not my everyday paper eventhough I sometimes buy it as well as my daily. I don't know if you know, but people should try to read around the political spectrum so it is healthy to pick up a Daily Mail, Sun, Times or Telegraph in addition to the Morning Star every day. Otherwise you develop a very narrow mind.

UKJohn

24th July 2004, 20:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:08 PM
Giving Fascist's free speech is like giving psychopaths machine guns and endless ammunition!
how can you call the bnp fascists when you are the ones trying to deny the bnp freedom of speech all you are is a hypocrite talking bullshit!

808,200 is a lucky number :D

Invader Zim

24th July 2004, 22:37

Having just read part of this thread, I have to say I found my self chuckling. Old Kez has certainly taken quite a beating, though one must say that is not an irregular occurrence, he is after all a prime idiot.

But like I said before the bnp should be silenced. Though I openly admit this to be undemocratic, the BNP (as the BBC has proven) has many members who wish to openly destroy democracy. A direct parallel can be drawn between this and the actions of Hitler when he took power in Germany. After a failure to gain power by force, he used the established democratic system and a pretence to have "new respect" for it. Of course we all know what happened there, which is a prime reason why extremist right wing racist parties like the BNP should not be able to partake in democracy, an institution they despise. Would you allow someone to enter your club if they had previously vowed to do all in their power to destroy it? Especially if you knew that in similar circumstances another group had been destroyed?

how can you call the bnp fascists when you are the ones trying to deny the bnp freedom of speech all you are is a hypocrite talking bullshit!

Do you live in a fascist society? Do you think that the modern politicians are all fascists? You see that is what you are saying, by equating free speech with democracy you are branding our current system as fascist. You see freedom of speech is not a granted right in this country. The government is quite open on this, and has a number of laws to limit freedom of speech, for example at a political rally one cannot legally make racist remarks, as they may insight violence and racial discrimination. We also have the official secrets act, directly to limit the freedom of speech.

Here's some advice... get a clue.

The bourgiosie is the easiest way to define the ruling class in english so that's why I use the word.

Actually the word "Bourgeoisie" is French.... a French term to describe a specific part of the French middle class of the 19th century.

Vote. Apathy is the fascist's friend

Bullshit anti-democratic rhetoric is the idiots friend.

On to Kez, you seem only to happy to criticise James but what do you suggest?

Should we run into Nick Griffins House dance around with cans of petrol and burn his material possessions? Should we take to the streets with our revolution of 13 people and a dog, to fight the BNP? Give no quarter! Fight to the end? Dulce et decorum est?

You know what the BNP would do? Nothing, they would go up to the public and say "see we a respectable party are being attacked by the leftwing, yet we don’t retaliate." This would simply further go to improve their already successful policy to try and gain a little more power and influence. What you suggest is as usual idiocy.

The way to silence the BNP is to ridicule their ideals from a peaceful platform. A good example is the massive damage done to the BNP from the BBC undercover investigation. No one was hurt yet the BNP has lost much of the respectable image they were attempting to foster. What support they may have gained is gone, they have been proved to be liars and racists. This has done far more damage to them then any number of Molotov cocktails could ever hope to achieve.

Saint-Just

24th July 2004, 23:59

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 23 2004, 02:35 PM
Firstly, I don't ever remember saying the Daily Mail didn't "spout racist shit". So I don't know where you got that from. I know that the Daily Mail is a vehemently COnservative newspaper whose articles I often disagree about. Indeed, I once sent an article written in the Mail that I saw to Lord Ahmed of Rotherham. It was prior to the Iraq invasion and suggested the Mecca pilgrimage was used as a "breeding ground" for Terrorists. Lord Ahmed duly reported the awful attitude of this paper in the House during a debate about racism and race policy.

More to the point, the Mail, which you say "spouts racist shit" was another one of those papers which proved you so wrong! Even The Daily Mail reported the disgusting acts of the BNP in condemnation. It reported on the Conservatives' policy to tackle the BNP and supported such action. Thus, adding two more institutions to the list which proved you so wrong, and what a two they are;

- The Daily Mail
- The Conservative Party
This is true. All socialist must realise that capitalism is about making money for a few people. Racism does not make money. So, no newspapers are not overtly racist. If racism made money then these bastards would be happy to holocaust a billion people.