ZX3...

[Zero]

Originally posted by "ZX3"
haha, I'm surprised the bnp let her stand.
http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=291

that is one ugly mug - any one know if the rumour that she used to be a "leftie" is true? Apparently she was in greenpeace but I have no verification of this.

It is probably true. You folks on the Left seem oblivious to the fact that "neo-nazism" or "neo-fascism" is spawned from the Left, not the Right.[/b][/quote]

I just found this post by a guy who calls himself ZX3, and I'd like to ask you something... (I'd post in the Anti-Fascism forum where this post was, but he was restricted.)

Since when does a man who origionates from one party, gets expelled, and forms his own ideology "spawn" from the previous ideology? Mussolini was at one point affiliated with a leftist party (I think it was a Trot one? Not sure atm.) thats true. However as far as my Italian history serves me, he was expelled from it for powerful and continuing nationalism. This is not a leftist ideology, and was deeply rooted in the fellow to the extent that he thought Italians were fundamentally better people then the rest of the world.

Because someone was part of a party doesn't mean that they believe in the ideology.

[Rollo]

GG ZX3. Nice post zero I love the way they have the most pathetic arguments.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zero+Aug 22 2006, 04:50 AM--> (Zero @ Aug 22 2006, 04:50 AM)
"ZX3"
haha, I'm surprised the bnp let her stand.
http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=291

that is one ugly mug - any one know if the rumour that she used to be a "leftie" is true? Apparently she was in greenpeace but I have no verification of this.

It is probably true. You folks on the Left seem oblivious to the fact that "neo-nazism" or "neo-fascism" is spawned from the Left, not the Right.[/b]

I just found this post by a guy who calls himself ZX3, and I'd like to ask you something... (I'd post in the Anti-Fascism forum where this post was, but he was restricted.)

Since when does a man who origionates from one party, gets expelled, and forms his own ideology "spawn" from the previous ideology? Mussolini was at one point affiliated with a leftist party (I think it was a Trot one? Not sure atm.) thats true. However as far as my Italian history serves me, he was expelled from it for powerful and continuing nationalism. This is not a leftist ideology, and was deeply rooted in the fellow to the extent that he thought Italians were fundamentally better people then the rest of the world.

Because someone was part of a party doesn't mean that they believe in the ideology.[/b][/quote]
[QUOTE]

My comment referred to the BNP counclilperson who was expelled, and the unanswered question as to whether she had been a member of Greenpeace. I have no knowledge one way or the other, but I would not be surprised if it was so, nor would I be surprised if a more detailed examination of her biography revealed her involvement in other "progressive" causes. Because that is the general rule of BNP members. Its also the case that that party tends to find their political strength at the expense of the Labor Party. And that is not unusual either, considering the "neo-fascist" parties of Europe seem to arise out of areas that have been dominated by the mainstream socialist parties, and win votes at the expense of those parties. In other words, its not the conserrvative base which has been flocking to, or at least toying, with the "neo-fascists" but rather the socialist base. Nor is such a state of affairs historically unprecedented.

With respect to Mussolini, he was not merely "affiliated" with a left wing party, he was a member of the Italian Socialist Party. And he was considered a rising star within that socialist party. Nor did he ever reject, the ideals, goals, and opinions of socialism. He fully embraced that legacy, and the absolute need for a socialism to lay out the groundwork (Hitler said the same thing). His objection became one of tactics, and not believing that the socialist parties, as currently structured, could bring about the new world. Italy, so close to falling to Communism in the early 20s, were swamped by the Fascists quite easily- the workers left the Communists and backed Mussolini. The most pro-fascist regions of Italy were Roma and tuscanny, which had been the most pro-communist regions (and after 1945, Tuscans and Romans went back to voting for the Communists. Their ideologies did not change three times in a quarter of a century- they simply chose a different vessel to achieve that ideology). The same sort of thing was seen in Germany where german communist voters flocked to the nazis after 1933, and hamburg (the communist base) became quite a pro-nazi town.

If we were talking about one person leaving greenpeace and joining a "right wing" party, yes, the question asked would be valid. But we are not. And the rule of thumb is that fascism arises from the Left, not the Right.

[cormacobear]

ZX3

It is probably true. You folks on the Left seem oblivious to the fact that "neo-nazism" or "neo-fascism" is spawned from the Left, not the Right.

Fascism and Nazism are simply the attempt by the wealthy to make themselves masters in a new feudalism. Feudalism existed long before there was a left.

Control of political and economic power by the few for the benefit of the few is not a leftwing ideology it is the basis of the right and that's where nazism and fascism originate.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:47 AM
other "progressive" causes. Because that is the general rule of BNP members. Its also the case that that party tends to find their political strength at the expense of the Labor Party. And that is not unusual either, considering the "neo-fascist" parties of Europe seem to arise out of areas that have been dominated by the mainstream socialist parties, and win votes at the expense of those parties.

With respect to Mussolini, he was not merely "affiliated" with a left wing party, he was a member of the Italian Socialist Party. And he was considered a rising star within that socialist party. Nor did he ever reject, the ideals, goals, and opinions of socialism. He fully embraced that legacy, and the absolute need for a socialism to lay out the groundwork (Hitler said the same thing). His objection became one of tactics, and not believing that the socialist parties, as currently structured, could bring about the new world. Italy, so close to falling to Communism in the early 20s, were swamped by the Fascists quite easily- the workers left the Communists and backed Mussolini.
There's nothing 'progressive in the entire BNP platform.

If you're going to make a statement like most BNP members came from leftist parties you should provide proof.

Hitler had the word socialism in his party name that didn't make them socialists, just ask the leftists he had executed

yes mousilini did have large support from the working class but those most poorly educated are most susceptible to propaghanda and the lies of the right.

If he never rejected socialist goals it would have been a socialist government not a fascist one.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:46 PM
ZX3

It is probably true. You folks on the Left seem oblivious to the fact that "neo-nazism" or "neo-fascism" is spawned from the Left, not the Right.

Fascism and Nazism are simply the attempt by the wealthy to make themselves masters in a new feudalism. Feudalism existed long before there was a left.

Control of political and economic power by the few for the benefit of the few is not a leftwing ideology it is the basis of the right and that's where nazism and fascism originate.
[QUOTE]

Except this is not an accurate description of fascism.

[ZX3]

There's nothing 'progressive in the entire BNP platform.

If you're going to make a statement like most BNP members came from leftist parties you should provide proof.

Hitler had the word socialism in his party name that didn't make them socialists, just ask the leftists he had executed

yes mousilini did have large support from the working class but those most poorly educated are most susceptible to propaghanda and the lies of the right.

If he never rejected socialist goals it would have been a socialist government not a fascist one.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]

Read it one day.


Fair enough. All I can say though is that one needs to read about them, biographies ect. that will appear in newspapers from time to time.



In 1945, german SPD and KPD crawled out of the German prison system and eventually assumed governing roles in the future West and east germany. But where were the conservatives of 1933? The catholic Center members? The Nationalist party? Long since executed. The Right was always the enemy to Hitler.


Now this is an intersting argument: The Italian communist workers who went over to Mussolinni were idiots and uneducated. Leaving aside it was the vast majority who went over to Mussolinni, how effective is an argument that supposes your own BASE are idiots and morons? Seems to me such an argument, not only being somewhat "unsocialist" leaves you open to countercharges of being a fraud. I mean, workers can either rule themselves both politically and economically or they can't. If they can, and you choose to smear workers who do not vote the way you wish them to, it seems clear that you are really just using them for your own ends (incidently, this is EXACTLY what both Mussolini and Hitler said. Its not an effective argument that will convince anyone).

[Phugebrins]

In the First (West) German Federal Election in 1949, we see the groups you mention represented. The Centre Party gained 10 seats, though the CSU has since absorbed most of that vote. The Nationalists were represented - the German Party (after various name changes) were the DNVP's successors, while the German Empire Party also returned for a while.

Hugenburg and Papen both survived WWII, indeed, I can't find any right-wing politician who was executed by the Nazis.

And as for "The Right was always the enemy to Hitler", it strongly begs the question "Why did the right side with Hitler in the first place?"