Nick Griffin

[Foggy]

Excellent debate lads. On the subject of Capital punishment,surely if the evidence is beyond doubt ie Peter Sutcliffe,Dennis Neilson,Ian Brady,Ian Huntley then Capital Punishment is an acceptable sentence ? these people have deep mental problems that border on complete insanity and are beyond and IMHO worthiness of rehabilitation,How much does it cost the keep these people each year ? Money that could be spent on the NHS and more worthy causes.
             As for Nick Griffin, i think there is very little doubt that he and his party are racist,They are Thugs in suits. I agree with Control on immigration but he is extreme beyond belief.

[lumpimynci]

who ever proved facism is bad?

ER? I think Hitler, Frano and Mussolini managed that quite well.

Tell me, do you seriously think you'd be allowed to have this sort of forum, and have this sort of debate in a fascist country?

Did you do history at school?

[Batch]

Excellent debate lads. On the subject of Capital punishment,surely if the evidence is beyond doubt ie Peter Sutcliffe,Dennis Neilson,Ian Brady,Ian Huntley then Capital Punishment is an acceptable sentence ?

I see your point, but personally I'd let lock the scum up for life.
By life I mean until they die. By lock up I mean full prison treatment with slopping out, bare minimum food, etc.

Unfortunately the PC human rights actavists and legislation doesn't allow this.

[McLovin]

Yes i did, i also got an A-Level . The fundamental idea of facism doesnt require censorship and killing Jews.  In it's purest form, it's just a series of beliefs and policies that could be beneficial to a country and its inhabitants.  

I agree Adolf and Beni kinda gave it a bad name.

[pauld]

Yes i did, i also got an A-Level . The fundamental idea of facism doesnt require censorship and killing Jews.  In it's purest form, it's just a series of beliefs and policies that could be beneficial to a country and its inhabitants.  

I agree Adolf and Beni kinda gave it a bad name.

OK, so aside from the racism then you're pretty much into secret police, locking up, "disappearing" and torturing political opponents, abolishing any form of political rights or free speech, political murders, corruption etc. Nice.

And while you may be right that fascism doesn't "require" racism in theory, in practice the two always go together. And that's not just "Adolf and Beni" , that's Franco, Pinochet, the Greek Colonels, the Croatian Ustashe, Milosevic - there hasn't been a fascist regime that isn't racist. And murderous. What do they teach at A-level these days? No wonder the country's going to hell ;-)

[lumpimynci]

The fundamental idea of facism doesnt require censorship and killing Jews. In it's purest form, it's just a series of beliefs and policies that could be beneficial to a country and its inhabitants.

Certainly doesn't require the latter. The Italians and Spanish weren't nearly as keen on the racist/ anti-semetic bit as the Nazi's, didn't stop them being fascists.

Does kinda need the former though. Fundamentally fascism IS about dictatorship, see my previous post on page 3. Fascism just does equal totalitarian repression, it's kind of a stated aim to end liberal democratic institutions and replace them with a "strong leader".

......and that's not good!

[McLovin]

Erm, ok. I am being shot down with proof and stuff. Time to bail out!

For some reason, i just have this belief that Facism could be implemented to an extent without all the negative points you quite rightly point out. Maybe i'm just fooling myself in my hungover haze.

[RobertT]

Erm, ok. I am being shot down with proof and stuff. Time to bail out!

For some reason, i just have this belief that Facism could be implemented to an extent without all the negative points you quite rightly point out. Maybe i'm just fooling myself in my hungover haze.

If you are hungover it might be that you are confusing Facism and Fishing?  The two are distinctly different perspectives on life but can sound a lot like each other after 10 pints.

[McLovin]

I'd sooner kill some non-aryans than sit around waiting for some barbel all day in the cold and wet...

[RobertT]

I'd sooner kill some non-aryans than sit around waiting for some barbel all day in the cold and wet...

I must say I tend to agree.

[Simon Pieman]

DB has a point (ducks for cover).

Political systems such as facism and communism are ideals, ideals which have never been followed. There has never, for instance, been a true communist state. In practice these political ideals haven't worked, and in my opinion probably never will. If they were followed very stringently who's to say they would be bad? In my opinion they would be, because I prefer a democratic state and freedom of speech, but who's to say that is right?

Fuck I've gotten all philisophical in my old age  

[strooood]

Yes i did, i also got an A-Level . The fundamental idea of facism doesnt require censorship and killing Jews.  In it's purest form, it's just a series of beliefs and policies that could be beneficial to a country and its inhabitants.  

I agree Adolf and Beni kinda gave it a bad name.

OK, so aside from the racism then you're pretty much into secret police, locking up, "disappearing" and torturing political opponents, abolishing any form of political rights or free speech, political murders, corruption etc. Nice.

And while you may be right that fascism doesn't "require" racism in theory, in practice the two always go together. And that's not just "Adolf and Beni" , that's Franco, Pinochet, the Greek Colonels, the Croatian Ustashe, Milosevic - there hasn't been a fascist regime that isn't racist. And murderous. What do they teach at A-level these days? No wonder the country's going to hell ;-)

to be honest, like someone mentioned, the political scale is round, and if either policy is extreme enough- they are not very far apart. be it communist, facist or fisherman.
the Bolsheviks proved this. a wholely communist party, that were almost as dreadful as the Nazis to their own people (particularly the kulaks) the difference being, Lenin and his homeboys were ultimately revolutionaries. This meant they could not carry out their aims of opression like the Nazis could, because simply, they didnt know how.

extreme anything is going to lead in an opressive government- right or left

[Asher]

Dex - your just scared cos when griffin gets in his followers will ransack your house and chuck your family out of your new found lanan d.  Back to rice for supper by summer for you.....

Can you play sunday?

[pauld]

DB has a point (ducks for cover).

Political systems such as facism and communism are ideals, ideals which have never been followed. There has never, for instance, been a true communist state. In practice these political ideals haven't worked, and in my opinion probably never will. If they were followed very stringently who's to say they would be bad?

Well, no. As lumpimynci pointed out, "Fascism just does equal  totalitarian repression, it's kind of a stated aim to end liberal democratic institutions and replace them with a "strong leader"". So in fascism, the repression, dictatorship etc are not a perversion of the original ideal, they are the ideal. Which, incidentally, doesn't mean that communism is any less oppressive in practice or any more desirable. But to say that Hitler for example was somehow perverting the ideal of fascism is missing the point - Hitler is the ideal of fascism, other than possibly the true idealist fascist might regard as having betrayed the ideal by having been defeated.

[lumpimynci]

I don't want to repeat everything I've already posted but this " the political spectrum is a big circle and the extremes of left and right meet up in the middle" is just way too fucking simplistic. It's a pat response given, sorry to offend anyone, generally by people who haven't read to much about politics or political history.

And it's what those with pretty fucking large interest in the status quo would like, to reduce politics to - a four yearly coice between one bunch pf cunts that don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and another bunch who are exactly the same on every fucking point but wear a different coloured badges.

The one basic point I'll stress again is this:

Every fascist government was intended to be a dictatorship from the outset. Adolf, Benito, Franco; strong leaders taking absolute power.

The Bolsheviks on the other hand set out with some rather admirable democratic intents. They wanted a true functioning, participative democracy, that involved everyone having a forum to express their views. But they failed absolutely.

Almost inevitably in a country as backward as Russia in 1917, the state was force to rely on a small group of individuals, drawn from the political leadership and from the old Tsarist regime, bascially because they were the only people that could read. the majority of the population were uneducated peasants, illiteracy rates were over 90%.

Obviously it didn't take long for a power base to develop and solidify these people into a cast of bureaucrats, which then operated to protect their own interests, and soon enough a nasty totalitarianist regime at least as bad as Hitler's.

But there's still a difference.

Good intentions with poor execution leading to tyranny is one thing, setting out to have a one party state and a thousand year empire to rule the world is another.


Incidently - The original bolshevik political theorists Lenin and Trotsky, never expected the 1917 revolution to be successful. It was anticipated that the new workers state would fall pretty quickly, due to the underdeveoped nature of Russia, the comparitive weakness of its industrial working class etc.

The intent was not so much to take power in Russia but too trigger off the revolutions in the more developed Western Europe, which would then be able to help modernise Russia. Which all went a bit pear-shaped when Karl L and Rosa L made a bit of bollock of the German revolution in 1918 and the whole SDLP leadership ended up a bit dead.


Never mind eh.