Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Dave Coull
|
Leaflet distributed at Thursday night's protestMy wife has passed on to me the text of a leaflet which she got sent from somebody else, a leaflet which was distributed amongst the crowd demonstrating against Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. I don't know which group distributed this leaflet, and I don't know whether I would agree with their stances on other things (probably not - there has never been any organised group that I fully agreed with) but I agree with quite a lot of (but no, perhaps not all) what they say here .
******************************************************
Leaflet for tonight's demo against Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time
- Labour and Tory anti-fascism is a con
- Support migrant-worker organising: no borders
- For workers' action against racist propaganda
strawprison
The recent row over the British National Party's appearance on BBC Question Time displays the level of anger at the rise of the far-right party. All of us have turned out today because we oppose Nick Griffin's racist effort to blame immigrants for all of society's ills, including the economic crisis, and do not want his rubbish to gain more of an audience. But given the level of establishment racism, a campaign to defend immigrants must not stop at mere anti-BNPism, nor can the growth of the far-right be stopped by appealing to the existing authorities to silence them.
The rise of the BNP
The BNP's electoral support has rocketed in recent years-in the last decade its European Election vote has increased ten-fold, achieving nearly one million votes in this June's poll. Much greater in number than the fascist core leaders of the party, BNP voters are typically identified as working-class former Labour voters who no longer feel that they have a `voice' with the open pro-business turn of that party. The BNP does not simply advocate its racist ideology, but also plays on very real concerns like poor housing, underfunded public services, and the economic crisis, to win support for their effort to scapegoat immigrants for these same problems. With all the main ruling class parties agreeing to the `austerity consensus' that working-class people have to suffer because of the crisis, for some voters the BNP seem like an alternative.
Ruling class anti-fascism
For this very reason it is mistaken to believe that the Labour and Conservative parties are allies in efforts to stop the growth of the BNP, as Unite Against Fascism does. UAF platforms often feature establishment politicians like Peter Hain, or even Sir Teddy Taylor, one of the most right-wing leaders of the Tories, because they are `anti-fascist', and yet these are exactly the people at fault for the rise in the BNP vote. It is no good to accept the behaviour of the existing parties and keep silent about their racism and their capitalist `austerity and cuts' consensus. This was shown when UAF's Weyman Bennett, a member of the Socialist Workers Party, debated the BNP's Simon Darby on the radio, steadfastly remaining `apolitical' and saying nothing as Darby attacked bankers and ree-market capitalism for causing the crisis - making it look as if the BNP were the only alternative on offer. This is a dead end both in terms of stopping people turning to the BNP, and stopping the media and political onslaught against immigrants.
Moreover, although the Tory and Labour politicians who have alienated their voter base routinely denounce the despicable racist ideas of the BNP, they do so not because of sincere concern for immigrants, but rather for fear of a challenge to their support. They themselves rail against `illegal' immigrants even more than against the far-right. And these politicians are not just speechifying: for some, this support for racist borders poses a very real life-and-death risk. In 2000, when Jack Straw, who is opposing Griffin on Question Time tonight, was Home Secretary, 58 Chinese migrants died in a truck as they were smuggled into the UK: the direct result of `Fortress Britain's' borders. Day after day we hear of more police raids on workplaces - such as SOAS or the Willis insurance office in the City of London-where unregularised migrants had spoken out against low wages and long hours. The workers were arrested, imprisoned and then flown to their countries of origin, where they face poverty and violence from paramilitaries. Just last Friday the UK Borders Agency carried out its first mass forcible deportation to Baghdad since the 2003 invasion. Disgustingly, the Daily Express congratulated them, arguing that the Iraqis threatened to bring Sharia law and mass female circumcision to the streets of Britain. These sentiments are not just coming from the BNP - they reflect a racism running deep in British society.
Freedom of speech?
This conservatism of mainstream anti-fascism is also reflected in its tactics, with UAF lobbying the great and good of the BBC as well as the state to silence the BNP. They argue that the BNP is not a `legitimate' party and the state should silence it: yet surely, in the state's eyes, the radical left, the anti-war movement and militant workers' struggles are also not `legitimate'? We must have no trust in state bans or state censorship: we need only look at its use of `anti-terrorism' laws to silence protests, and its demands on migrants seeking regularisation to show their `loyalty', with a ban on taking part in anti-war demos. The idea of `legitimate' politics, as defined by the existing ruling class, is a total dead end.
Yet that does not mean we want Nick Griffin on Question Time, and we look to a force which can challenge the BNP's anti-immigrant propaganda: not the courts, not the Labour Party, but the collective action of organised workers. Much like the Sun workers who in 1984 blanked that papers' lying front page during the Miners' Strike, media workers should use their power to stop racist views getting an audience - from the BNP, or anyone else. Our support for free speech in terms of opposing state censorship by no means implies passivity to the BNP finding more and more of a platform. This debate does however pose the question of who changes society: the state intervening to curb the worst excesses of the worst parties, or collectively organised action by workers?
Migrant worker organising
Most centrally, we must challenge the underlying racism in society and insist that everyone has the right to live and work where they please and on equal terms. Only if we determinedly make the argument for this basic democratic right can we even begin to try and push back the atmosphere where Labour, Tories and the BNP trade blows over who can best sort out the `problem' of immigration. Anti-racism and anti-BNPism should not be a propagandist effort separated from the existing struggles of unregularised migrants, which are usually in direct conflict with Labour.
Here we can look to migrant - worker cleaners in the City of London and on the Tube as excellent examples of how to resist the recession. These workers, many of them without papers and living in a perilous unregularised status, have refused to accept management bullying and being paid peanuts. They show the whole working class that we do not have to knuckle under and accept the Labour-Tory consensus that the working class has to suffer because of the capitalist crisis: such community and workplace resistance is the real alternative, not the BNP.
Borders, national identity and `legal' and `illegal' status have long been used by our rulers to divide the working class and bulldoze through their attacks. The answer is not to line up with Labour and the Tories, congratulating them on being less hostile to immigrants than the BNP are, but rather to build links between migrant workers' struggles, resistance to the recession like the Royal Mail strikes, and anti-fascism resting on the power of organised workers rather than state censorship.
|
landg
|
a shower of deluded half wits and sums up the stupidity and facism of thursday's proteesters.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters. |
Fascism is a word used quite a lot without folk bothering to define what they mean by it. Fortunately, right here on this forum, Rinty took the trouble to provide a definition, and to explain why it applies to the BNP. I then commented on Rinty's definition, and added the one essential element he hadn't mentioned, the belief in the need to follow a Strong Leader. So, "landg", would you care to go through the definition provided by Rinty, with the addition of Fuehrership, as pointed out by me, and show how it applies to everybody who protests against the BNP? Or, alternatively, if you are incapable of doing that, would you care to show in what way the definition provided by Rinty, with the addition of "a Strong Leader", is wrong? Would you care to provide your own definition if you think the one already given is wrong? To help you, here is the definition which has already been given. | Quote: | | Rinty wrote: | | fascism is a term that is used so loosely nowadays that it is often used on the wrong people, but Griffin and the BNP certainly fit the bill. A party based on a national identity defined by race |
That "defined by race" is important. The Scottish National Party is obviously quite keen on Scottish identity, but it encourages multi-ethnicity and it formed "New Scots For Independence" with the intention of showing that you can be an immigrant and play a full part in Scottish political life. By contrast, the BNP has whites-only membership rules and is only thinking about maybe changing them now because they've been told they aren't a legal party if they don't. Given the BNP's history, any change will be purely cosmetic, and, in view of the BNP's blatant racism, they are unlikely to attract much non-white support. | Quote: | | who believe in an authoritarian mono-culture |
Again, this certainly applies to the BNP. So far as they are concerned, only one hundred percent red-white-and-blue Britishness should be tolerated. If the BNP ever got anywhere near power, they would act against the SNP and Plaid Cymru as well as against muslims, jews, socialists, liberals, and just about anybody who didn't fit in with their authoritarian mono-culture. In fact some of their activists can't wait for power, and already do this in an "unofficial" sort of way.An un-scientific belief which Darwin himself, and most scientists following in his footsteps, would have found repellent | Quote: | | and linked to national religions and/or mythology would fit the bill, the BNP are all of that. |
Yes. The only thing I think you missed out is the fascist belief in a Strong Leader. It was Mussolini's party in Italy which first used the term "fascist", and they saw Mussolini as their Strong Leader. Sir Oswald Mosley followed Mussolini's example, with his British Union of Fascists, as did Adolf Hitler in Germany. |
|
Rinty
|
From what I know of the protests I can see basolutely zero evidence of fascism. This is very much what I was referring to when I mentioned it being 'loosely' used.
|
landg
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism
granted it is wikipedia but it quite nicely the point i'm amaking about the facists who were demonstarting on thursday night.
|
mairead
|
Didn't think any fascist would demononstrate aginst their own kind.
|
landg
|
| mairead wrote: | | Didn't think any fascist would demononstrate aginst their own kind. |
they are of the same kind but have different perspectives but both are intolerant, violent, irrational and absolutist.
|
Stevie
|
The word you're looking for is not fascist but righteous.
Whenever you get some git or other who thinks they're right no matter what, they become filled with righteous indignation and they are fascist in their lack of tolerance.
Beware the righteous "man for he shall make a desert of his home and of yours".
|
landg
|
| Stevie wrote: |
Whenever you get some git or other who thinks they're right no matter what, they become filled xith righteous indignation and they are fascist in their lack of tolerance.
. |
yep thats another good way to back up my point.
|
Dave Coull
|
I'm against authoritarianism. I'm also against fascism. However, while I am against both of these things, I understand the distinction between the two terms. All fascism is authoritarian, but it is not true that anything authoritarian is automatically fascist. Also, it is true that fascism tends to be violent, but it is not true that all violence is fascism. There are instances of every political and religious ideology using violence - just look at how the forces of democracy bombed and blasted their way from the Normandy beaches to the heartland of Germany. Communists, conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, even Buddhists, all use violence. So neither authoritarianism nor violence is a DEFINING characteristic of fascism.
True defining characteristics of fascism, which apply to ALL of the original fascist organisations (Mussolini's fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the German Nazis) would include that it is based on a national identity DEFINED BY RACE, it is linked with a mythological national destiny (a new Roman Empire in the case of Mussolini, lebensraum for the superior Aryans in the case of Germany), it involves a desire to impose an authoritarian mono-culture, it involves social darwinism, and, of course, it involves a belief in a Strong Leader. Loads of different political and religious movements have SOME of these characteristics. Only fascism has them all.
Trying to back up his nonsensical claim that those who demonstrate AGAINST the BNP are "fascist", "landg" wrote that they areIf a few football fans get arrested at a match, do you therefore dismiss ALL football fans as "violent"? That would be a prejudiced thing to do. The majority of protesters on Thursday night were not violent. In any case, violence is not a defining characteristic of fascism.There were a lot of protesters, with a lot of different beliefs. In any case, while I think it is irrational to believe that God created the world and all the living creatures in it just six thousand years ago, when there is so much evidence to the contrary, millions of people do believe this, and believing this does NOT make someone a fascist. Yes, I think fascism is irrational, but irrationality is not a defining characteristic of fascism.I have no doubt it's possible that SOME (though most certainly not all) of the protesters on Thursday night did hold absolutist beliefs. However, even if this were true of a minority of the demonstrators, being absolutist doesn't automatically make somebody a fascist. What it makes them is a supporter of some absolutist system, but not necessarily a fascist absolutist system.Yes, the demonstrators were intolerant of fascism. So were the armies which fought their way from the Normandy beaches to the heartland of Germany. To understand why, I suggest you read the Herald article "We cannot grant the BNP the rights it wouldn't grant us". http://www.heraldscotland.com/com...ts-it-would-not-grant-us-1.927461 Being intolerant of fascism is not a defining characteristic of fascism.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | I'm against authoritarianism. I'm also against fascism. However, while I am against both of these things, I understand the distinction between the two terms. All fascism is authoritarian, but it is not true that anything authoritarian is automatically fascist. Also, it is true that fascism tends to be violent, but it is not true that all violence is fascism. There are instances of every political and religious ideology using violence - just look at how the forces of democracy bombed and blasted their way from the Normandy beaches to the heartland of Germany. Communists, conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, even Buddhists, all use violence. So neither authoritarianism nor violence is a DEFINING characteristic of fascism.
True defining characteristics of fascism, which apply to ALL of the original fascist organisations (Mussolini's fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the German Nazis) would include that it is based on a national identity DEFINED BY RACE, it is linked with a mythological national destiny (a new Roman Empire in the case of Mussolini, lebensraum for the superior Aryans in the case of Germany), it involves a desire to impose an authoritarian mono-culture, it involves social darwinism, and, of course, it involves a belief in a Strong Leader. Loads of different political and religious movements have SOME of these characteristics. Only fascism has them all.
Trying to back up his nonsensical claim that those who demonstrate AGAINST the BNP are "fascist", "landg" wrote that they areIf a few football fans get arrested at a match, do you therefore dismiss ALL football fans as "violent"? That would be a prejudiced thing to do. The majority of protesters on Thursday night were not violent. In any case, violence is not a defining characteristic of fascism.There were a lot of protesters, with a lot of different beliefs. In any case, while I think it is irrational to believe that God created the world and all the living creatures in it just six thousand years ago, when there is so much evidence to the contrary, millions of people do believe this, and believing this does NOT make someone a fascist. Yes, I think fascism is irrational, but irrationality is not a defining characteristic of fascism.I have no doubt it's possible that SOME (though most certainly not all) of the protesters on Thursday night did hold absolutist beliefs. However, even if this were true of a minority of the demonstrators, being absolutist doesn't automatically make somebody a fascist. What it makes them is a supporter of some absolutist system, but not necessarily a fascist absolutist system.Yes, the demonstrators were intolerant of fascism. So were the armies which fought their way from the Normandy beaches to the heartland of Germany. To understand why, I suggest you read the Herald article "We cannot grant the BNP the rights it wouldn't grant us". http://www.heraldscotland.com/com...ts-it-would-not-grant-us-1.927461 Being intolerant of fascism is not a defining characteristic of fascism. |
you are doing a pretty good job of argueing that bnp members are not facists when you braek down the defintion like that.
you can't have it all ways i'm afraid the bnp are facist's if you use the definition of facists. you cannot however argue against the defintion that suits you when the term is used against something else.
those facists last thursday night weredisplaying all the negative extreme's we rightly accuse the bnp of having. irrational, violent, absolutist and intolerant.
it's a 2 way street.
|
Dave Coull
|
In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter claimed "words mean whatever I want them to mean". Landg acted on the same crazy principle in claiming that those who demonstrated against the BNP on Thursday night were "fascist". There is no evidence that most of the demonstrators believe in having a "Strong Leader", in fact, quite the opposite, there is evidence that many of them have no desire to be "strongly led" by anybody. Also, there is clear evidence that most of the demonstrators did NOT act out of a sense of national identity DEFINED BY RACE. | landg wrote: | | you are doing a pretty good job of argueing that bnp members are not facists |
The BNP meet the historical meaning of the term "fascist". Defining characteristics of fascism, which apply to ALL of the original fascist organisations (Mussolini's fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the German Nazis) would include that it is based on a national identity DEFINED BY RACE - that applies to the BNP. Fascism is linked with national myths - the crap which Griffin spouted on Thursday about the English being "aborigines" certainly qualifies. Fascism involves the desire to impose an authoritarian mono-culture, and the BNP's intolerance of anything but their own version of red-white-and-blue-Britishness is undeniable. And of course the members of the BNP certainly do believe in having a Strong Leader. Some of them may be wondering whether Griffin fits the bill. Coups against the leaders of fascist parties do happen. Griffin staged a coup against the leader just 4 years after joining the BNP. Hitler came to lead the NSDAP through a coup against its previous leader. Later, Adolf instigated the Night Of The Long Knives against many of his fellow Nazi party members, when he believed they were plotting to make Ernst Rohm the Fuehrer, instead of him. But the point is, whoever the actual leader may be, the fascist BELIEF in having a Strong Leader..
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter claimed "words mean whatever I want them to mean"... |
and in dave cool in wonderland 'words mean whatever i want them to mean'.
2 way street davie boy, 2 way street.
|
Stevie
|
| Stevie wrote: | | "man for he shall make a desert of his home and of yours". |
Somewhat disappointed no-one wondered where the quote originated from.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | dave cool in wonderland 'words mean whatever i want them to mean'. |
No.
The meaning which both Rinty and myself have ascribed to the word "fascism" is not just something we thought up, it is based on the historical reality of what the word was first used to describe. The first Fascists were members of Mussolini's Fascist party in Italy. Sir Oswald Mosley formed a British party based on Mussolini's example, and called it the British Union of Fascists. Although Hitler's NSDAP didn't use the word "fascist" in its title, it is generally accepted that Adolf and co did in fact follow the Italian example.
There are certain things that the Fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the Nazis, all had in common, things specific to fascism and not just applicable to bad behavior in general or to generalised authoritarianism, and these can be taken as being defining characteristics of fascism. It has been explained to you what these things are. Furthermore, at twenty past eleven in the morning on Sunday the 25th of October I specifically asked you | Quote: | | Would you care to provide your own definition if you think the one already given is wrong? |
and you have proved quite incapable of providing a coherent definition. You use the word "fascism" extremely loosely, to mean "something I don't like". YOU are the one indulging in "words mean whatever i want them to mean". Rinty and myself, on the other hand, have tried to provide a reasonably coherent account of what have, historically speaking, been the defining characteristics of fascism.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | dave cool in wonderland 'words mean whatever i want them to mean'. |
No.
The meaning which both Rinty and myself have ascribed to the word "fascism" is not just something we thought up, it is based on the historical reality of what the word was first used to describe. The first Fascists were members of Mussolini's Fascist party in Italy. Sir Oswald Mosley formed a British party based on Mussolini's example, and called it the British Union of Fascists. Although Hitler's NSDAP didn't use the word "fascist" in its title, it is generally accepted that Adolf and co did in fact follow the Italian example.
There are certain things that the Fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the Nazis, all had in common, things specific to fascism and not just applicable to bad behavior in general or to generalised authoritarianism, and these can be taken as being defining characteristics of fascism. It has been explained to you what these things are. Furthermore, at twenty past eleven in the morning on Sunday the 25th of October I specifically asked you | Quote: | | Would you care to provide your own definition if you think the one already given is wrong? |
and you have proved quite incapable of providing a coherent definition. You use the word "fascism" extremely loosely, to mean "something I don't like". YOU are the one indulging in "words mean whatever i want them to mean". Rinty and myself, on the other hand, have tried to provide a reasonably coherent account of what have, historically speaking, been the defining characteristics of fascism. |
i'm not terribly interested in your historical wittering about facism. look up the word facism, read it, memorise it, and tell me that was not in evidence on thursday night. polar opposties and enemies can stiil both be facists.
i'm sure you are well read enough to know that there is right wing facism and left wing facism. why the denial that left wing facism was on display on thursday.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | enemies can stiil both be facists |
Indeed they can. At one point, Mussolini and Hitler nearly went to war with each other, over the border between Italy and Austria, in the Alps. Hitler, who himself came from Austria, was very reluctant to recognise Italy's claim, but in the end he agreed to do so, despite this meaning that there would always be a German-speaking minority in northern Italy. But at one point the two fascist dictators really were making warlike noises to each other. However, note that what led to this clash was their rival, expansionist, right-wing nationalisms. | landg wrote: | | look up the word facism |
| The Oxford Dictionary wrote: | Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government
origin - 1920s (with reference to Mussolini's regime in Italy) |
| landg wrote: | | tell me that was not in evidence on thursday night |
Support for an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government certainly was in evidence on Thursday night, from Nick Griffin, in the BBC studio. As for the protesters outside the BBC, I have no doubt they did include some quite authoritarian left wingers (as well as some of more libertarian views), but no, I don't think they included any supporters of "an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government". So I would say there were no fascists amongst the protesters.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | look up the word facism |
| The Oxford Dictionary wrote: | Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government
origin - 1920s (with reference to Mussolini's regime in Italy) |
and, having given the Oxford definition, I thought I would check to see what Cambridge has to say | The Cambridge Dictionary wrote: | | Fascism : a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and being extremely proud of country AND RACE, and in which political opposition is not allowed |
Now, you could argue that at least SOME (not all) of Thursday night's protesters probably wouldn't allow political opposition if they had half a chance; but, if true, that would mean that SOME (not all) of the protesters were authoritarian, a word whose meaning is not the same as "fascist". And since the protesters were specifically anti-racist, you can't say they were "extremely proud of their race" (one of the defining characteristics of fascism, according to Cambridge). Plus, there is absolutely no evidence at all that they believe in a "very powerful leader", so these two things alone rule out accurately describing them as "fascists".
Both the Oxford and the Cambridge definitions show that both Rinty and myself were on the right track with the historical defining characteristics of fascism.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | look up the word facism |
| The Oxford Dictionary wrote: | Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government
origin - 1920s (with reference to Mussolini's regime in Italy) |
and, having given the Oxford definition, I thought I would check to see what Cambridge has to say | The Cambridge Dictionary wrote: | | Fascism : a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and being extremely proud of country AND RACE, and in which political opposition is not allowed |
Now, you could argue that at least SOME (not all) of Thursday night's protesters probably wouldn't allow political opposition if they had half a chance; but, if true, that would mean that SOME (not all) of the protesters were authoritarian, a word whose meaning is not the same as "fascist". And since the protesters were specifically anti-racist, you can't say they were "extremely proud of their race" (one of the defining characteristics of fascism, according to Cambridge). Plus, there is absolutely no evidence at all that they believe in a "very powerful leader", so these two things alone rule out accurately describing them as "fascists".
Both the Oxford and the Cambridge definitions show that both Rinty and myself were on the right track with the historical defining characteristics of fascism. |
looks like we have all been wrong in calling the bnp facists then.thanks for clearing that up wavey davey.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters. |
| Rinty wrote: | | fascism is a term that is used so loosely nowadays that it is often used on the wrong people |
and it has now been shown that "landg" was clearly using the word both loosely and wrongly in ascribing it to those protesting against the BNP | Rinty wrote: | | but Griffin and the BNP certainly fit the bill |
another thing now shown beyond reasonable doubt | landg wrote: | | looks like we have all been wrong |
You don't speak for "all". You just speak for yourself. As has been shown from both the historical character of fascism and from dictionary definitions YOU were wrong in calling those protesting against the BNP "fascist". However, like Rinty said, the BNP certainly fit the bill. Like the original fascists in Italy they believe in having a Strong Leader (the actual performance of Mussolini or Griffin is beside the point, it's the belief that counts), and they are extreme Nationalists (Italian Nationalism in Mussolini's case, British Nationalism in the case of the BNP) of a racist type (the BNP's offical ban on non-white membership is undeniably racist). The BNP are fascists.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters. |
| Rinty wrote: | | fascism is a term that is used so loosely nowadays that it is often used on the wrong people |
and it has now been shown that "landg" was clearly using the word both loosely and wrongly in ascribing it to those protesting against the BNP | Rinty wrote: | | but Griffin and the BNP certainly fit the bill |
another thing now shown beyond reasonable doubt | landg wrote: | | looks like we have all been wrong |
You don't speak for "all". You just speak for yourself. As has been shown from both the historical character of fascism and from dictionary definitions YOU were wrong in calling those protesting against the BNP "fascist". However, like Rinty said, the BNP certainly fit the bill. Like the original fascists in Italy they believe in having a Strong Leader (the actual performance of Mussolini or Griffin is beside the point, it's the belief that counts), and they are extreme Nationalists (Italian Nationalism in Mussolini's case, British Nationalism in the case of the BNP) of a racist type (the BNP's offical ban on non-white membership is undeniably racist). The BNP are fascists. |
no, you are wrong. facist behavior and views were there to be seen on thursday night.
and if we use your chosen definitions of facism then then the bnp are not a facist party.
|
Dave Coull
|
I can understand that some folk might not like the behavior of some of those who protest against fascism. Okay, then say you think the behavior of some of them is violent, say you think the behavior of some of them is counter-productive, say you think the behavior of some of them is authoritarian, say you think the behavior of some of them is unacceptable, say you think some of them behave like hooligans, or whatever, but using the word "fascist" to apply to people actively opposing fascism...........you might as well say that the allied troops who landed on the Normandy beaches on D-Day were fascists, because they were violently intolerant of fascism. It's a mis-use of language. But "landg" continues to imitate the Mad Hatter and assert "words mean whatever I want them to mean".
There were a few people who continued to chose to believe that the Earth was flat even after Magellan's sailors had sailed right around the globe. However, the effect of these few people on subsequent events was virtually non-existent. | landg wrote: | | then the bnp are not a facist party |
Of course they are. Since your unreasonable belief is unlikely to have any effect on subsequent events, you can continue to believe whatever you like. As far as reasonable folk are concerned, that the BNP is a fascist party is beyond reasonable doubt and needs no further proof. | landg wrote: | | look up the word facism |
So I did, and found the Oxford Dictionary referring to the "nationalistic right wing" and giving the same historical reference I'd given "origin - 1920s (with reference to Mussolini's regime in Italy)", and the Cambridge dictionary referring to a politics involving "a very powerful leader" and "being extremely proud of country AND RACE". | landg wrote: | | if we use your chosen definitions of facism |
It's not me "choosing" a definition. I talked about the historical origins of the word, about what it had always meant. You said I was wrong. You told me to look it up. I did. Both Oxford and Cambridge suggest I was right. | landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters. |
| Rinty wrote: | | fascism is a term that is used so loosely nowadays that it is often used on the wrong people |
and it has been clearly shown, both on historical grounds, and on the grounds of dictionary definitions as provided from Oxford and Cambridge, that "landg" was using the word both loosely and wrongly in ascribing it to those protesting against the BNP.
|
landg
|
dave.dave,dave.you do go a bit.
it would appear there are lots of diferetn but broadly similar definitons as to what facism means including the terms, absolutist,intolerant,irrational and violent. there is, as we knowm right and left wing facism.
facists were out in number that thursday night displaying the above noted.
just because you also dislike what they 'protest' about does not mean they are not facists.
dave, get over it and stop digging yourself into a hole.
i'm sure we would agree thet the prtesters are just noisy and aggressive idiots.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | it would appear there are lots of diferetn but broadly similar definitons as to what facism means |
No reputable historian and no reputable dictionary defines it as you would like. | landg wrote: | | including the terms, absolutist,intolerant,irrational and violent |
WRONG.
Neither the Oxford nor the Cambridge definition mentioned violence, and the chances are that other reputable dictionaries don't mention violence either. They don't mention it for a very simple reason - because this is not a defining characteristic of fascism. Yes, of course fascists do tend to be violent, but so do a lot of other folk. Therefore it's not a defining characteristic. You added something made up by yourself to the meaning of the word - and yet you deliberately leave out things which are generally agreed, for instance, those defining characteristics given by the Cambridge Dictionary, a belief in having a very powerful leader, and being extremely proud of country AND RACE. The reason you added in a bit of your own invention, while deliberately leaving out things generally agreed on, was so you could do your usual Mad Hatter "words mean whatever I say they mean" trick. | landg wrote: | | right and left wing facism |
As political description, "right wing" and "left wing" arose from the seating arrangements in the French parliament before the Revolution. The ones against any kind of change at all tended to sit on the right, while the ones in favour of some sort of change tended to sit on the left. These terms referring to French seating arrangements aren't really very useful. You use them to try to say that anybody who demonstrates against the BNP must be a "left wing facist". Why? Why must they? | landg wrote: | | i'm sure we would agree thet the prtesters are just noisy and aggressive idiots |
I most certainly don't agree. I think they could have made their protest in a more effective way, but that doesn't make them "idiots". If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see the text of a long leaflet, correctly spelled and coherently constructed, which was produced and distributed by some of Thursday night's protesters. Since you, "landg", can't spell, and have great difficulty in constructing anything remotely resembling a coherent argument, you are hardly in any position to go calling such folk "idiots".
|
landg
|
Neither the Oxford nor the Cambridge definition mentioned violence, and the chances are that other reputable dictionaries don't mention violence either. They don't mention it for a very simple reason - because this is not a defining characteristic of fascism. Yes, of course fascists do tend to be violent, but so do a lot of other folk. Therefore it's not a defining characteristic. You added something made up by yourself to the meaning of the word - and yet you deliberately leave out things which are generally agreed, for instance, those defining characteristics given by the Cambridge Dictionary, a belief in having a very powerful leader
thank you wavey davey. now you begin to understand it.
|
Dave Coull
|
Generally speaking, in the English language, the time when there is more natural light usually gets called "daytime", and the time when it naturally gets darker tends to be called "night". There has to be a certain amount of agreement about what words mean, otherwise communication becomes impossible. | landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters |
and it has been clearly shown on both historical and dictionary grounds that it's nonsense to describe those anti-fascist protesters as "facist" | landg wrote: | | the bnp are not a facist party |
and it has been clearly shown on both historical and dictionary grounds that the BNP does indeed meet the description "fascist". | landg wrote: | | you begin to understand |
I always have understood that the BNP are fascist. "Landg" is, apparently, just too thick to grasp the meanings of words. The only reason for arguing with him was to set things out clearly for other folk who might be reading this. There is no longer any point in doing that. If "landg" just wants to have the last word, he can go ahead and have it. If anybody else wants to discuss the original topic of this thread, the arguments put forward in the leaflet that was distributed at last Thursday's protest, I would be interested. Otherwise, I've said what I had to say in this particular thread.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | Generally speaking, in the English language, the time when there is more natural light usually gets called "daytime", and the time when it naturally gets darker tends to be called "night". There has to be a certain amount of agreement about what words mean, otherwise communication becomes impossible. | landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters |
and it has been clearly shown on both historical and dictionary grounds that it's nonsense to describe those anti-fascist protesters as "facist" | landg wrote: | | the bnp are not a facist party |
and it has been clearly shown on both historical and dictionary grounds that the BNP does indeed meet the description "fascist". | landg wrote: | | you begin to understand |
I always have understood that the BNP are fascist. "Landg" is, apparently, just too thick to grasp the meanings of words. The only reason for arguing with him was to set things out clearly for other folk who might be reading this. There is no longer any point in doing that. If "landg" just wants to have the last word, he can go ahead and have it. If anybody else wants to discuss the original topic of this thread, the arguments put forward in the leaflet that was distributed at last Thursday's protest, I would be interested. Otherwise, I've said what I had to say in this particular thread. |
ehm, no dave,i clearly showed that facism was evident on several counts on thursday night because you disagree does not make it so.
and when you start using insulting language to make your point it's clear you are struggling with what is being said.
'it's the belief that counts' you said it daveyboy.
when bnp memebrs are violent they are called facist.
when bnp members are absoulutist they are called facist.
when the bnp are intolerant they are called facist.
when deranged lefties are all of the above outside the bbc hq, they are not facist.hmmmmmmmmmmmm aye,good.
|
Dave Coull
|
I had said that if anybody | Quote: | | wants to discuss the original topic of this thread, the arguments put forward in the leaflet that was distributed at last Thursday's protest, I would be interested. Otherwise, I've said what I had to say in this particular thread. |
But the trouble with that is, it just encourages those spouting irrational nonsense to increase their output of even more irrational nonsense. So I will comment, but try to bring discussion back to the original topic, "LEAFLET DISTRIBUTED AT THURSDAY NIGHT'S PROTEST". | landg wrote: | | when bnp memebrs are violent they are called facist. |
I call them fascist whether they are being violent or not. They often are violent, but this is not a defining characteristic of fascism. | landg wrote: | | when bnp members are absoulutist they are called facist |
Monarchy can be absolutist, religion is often absolutist, yet it is not necessarily the case that all monarchists and all religious people are fascist. Fascism and absolutism obviously overlap, but they are not one and the same thing. | landg wrote: | | when the bnp are intolerant they are called facist |
I call them fascist regardless of whether they are currently, right at that minute, displaying their intolerance or not. Intolerance is not a defining characteristic of fascism. Trotskyists, for instance, can be intolerant, but, as they believe in an international authoritarian communist revolution, rather than in being (to quote the Cambridge dictionary definition of fascism) | Quote: | | extremely proud of country AND RACE |
it would be inaccurate to call them "fascist".
You have been told what the defining characteristics of fascism are. You have been given both historical and dictionary justification for these defining characteristics of fascism. You just choose to ignore both history and dictionary and insist, like the Mad Hatter, that words mean whatever you say they mean. | landg wrote: | | i clearly showed that facism was evident on several counts on thursday night |
The fascism that was evident on Thursday night was being put forward by Nick Griffin in the BBC studio. You have tried to say the opposite, that those opposed to the BNP are fascists. The only way you can do that is by applying your Mad Hatter principle of "words mean whatever I say they mean". Yes, some of the protesters were quite aggressive; but that is not a defining characteristic of fascism, not according to the Oxford dictionary, not according to the Cambridge dictionary. | landg wrote: | | 'it's the belief that counts' |
So far as a "Strong Leader" is concerned, yes, the BELIEF in this is one of the defining characteristics of fascism, regardless of the actual performance of any particular individual. The BNP does have such a belief. But did last Thursday night's protesters against the BNP have such a belief? Fortunately, we do have one clear example of their thinking. We have the leaflet which is the topic of this thread, a leaflet produced and distributed by people who were protesting against the BNP on Thursday night. Go back to the beginning of the thread, read the leaflet that the entire thread was supposed to be about, and QUOTE, exactly, word for word, any part of it that you think indicates a belief in having a Strong Leader.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | I had said that if anybody | Quote: | | wants to discuss the original topic of this thread, the arguments put forward in the leaflet that was distributed at last Thursday's protest, I would be interested. Otherwise, I've said what I had to say in this particular thread. |
But the trouble with that is, it just encourages those spouting irrational nonsense to increase their output of even more irrational nonsense. So I will comment, but try to bring discussion back to the original topic, "LEAFLET DISTRIBUTED AT THURSDAY NIGHT'S PROTEST". | landg wrote: | | when bnp memebrs are violent they are called facist. |
I call them fascist whether they are being violent or not. They often are violent, but this is not a defining characteristic of fascism. | landg wrote: | | when bnp members are absoulutist they are called facist |
Monarchy can be absolutist, religion is often absolutist, yet it is not necessarily the case that all monarchists and all religious people are fascist. Fascism and absolutism obviously overlap, but they are not one and the same thing. | landg wrote: | | when the bnp are intolerant they are called facist |
I call them fascist regardless of whether they are currently, right at that minute, displaying their intolerance or not. Intolerance is not a defining characteristic of fascism. Trotskyists, for instance, can be intolerant, but, as they believe in an international authoritarian communist revolution, rather than in being (to quote the Cambridge dictionary definition of fascism) | Quote: | | extremely proud of country AND RACE |
it would be inaccurate to call them "fascist".
You have been told what the defining characteristics of fascism are. You have been given both historical and dictionary justification for these defining characteristics of fascism. You just choose to ignore both history and dictionary and insist, like the Mad Hatter, that words mean whatever you say they mean. | landg wrote: | | i clearly showed that facism was evident on several counts on thursday night |
The fascism that was evident on Thursday night was being put forward by Nick Griffin in the BBC studio. You have tried to say the opposite, that those opposed to the BNP are fascists. The only way you can do that is by applying your Mad Hatter principle of "words mean whatever I say they mean". Yes, some of the protesters were quite aggressive; but that is not a defining characteristic of fascism, not according to the Oxford dictionary, not according to the Cambridge dictionary. | landg wrote: | | 'it's the belief that counts' |
So far as a "Strong Leader" is concerned, yes, the BELIEF in this is one of the defining characteristics of fascism, regardless of the actual performance of any particular individual. The BNP does have such a belief. But did last Thursday night's protesters against the BNP have such a belief? Fortunately, we do have one clear example of their thinking. We have the leaflet which is the topic of this thread, a leaflet produced and distributed by people who were protesting against the BNP on Thursday night. Go back to the beginning of the thread, read the leaflet that the entire thread was supposed to be about, and QUOTE, exactly, word for word, any part of it that you think indicates a belief in having a Strong Leader. |
davey,davey,davey.come on now, your getting mixed up.
1. i did not say nick griffin is not a facist (you allude to this by suggesting i said only the demon stators are facist not the idiot griffin). griffin is, as is the bnp, however in one of your many quotes you use it presents the argument that the bnp ARE NOT facist. your quote davey, not mine.
2. some of the protestors were 'quite agressive' gbh and assault and throwing missiles and breaking through te cordon and into the hq. 'quite agressive'!!!!!!!?????????deary me davey.
3, i'm not interested in that leaflet, there were a number of groups demonstraing, some peacefully, some not, some displaying facist behaviour and beliefs, some not.
4. facism and absolutism do indeed overlap.there's hope for you yet daveylad.your on the cusp of understanding.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | facism and absolutism do indeed overlap |
That's what I've always said. UNLIKE you. You say they are the same thing.
| landg wrote: | | in one of your many quotes you use it presents the argument that the bnp ARE NOT facist. your quote davey, not mine |
You're a liar.
It's not the first time you've lied, you've told quite deliberate lies here on this Our Scotland forum before. It's not true that I've ever presented any argument suggesting the BNP are not fascist. I have consistently stated that they are, and have produced both historical and dictionary evidence to support that view.
|
Dave Coull
|
Last Thursday night's protests against the BNP would have happened even if there had been no groups or organisations involved at all, and even if nobody had "called for" a demonstration. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television,and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have made their way to the BBC studios to protest. A lot of folk did make their way there individually. And some turned up in groups. Like the group (I don't know their name) who produced the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion. | landg wrote: | | i'm not interested in that leaflet |
That leaflet is the subject of this discussion. If you don't want to discuss the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion, there is another discussion here on Our Scotland which deals with "The BNP - fascist or what?" | landg wrote: | | there were a number of groups demonstraing |
You've suddenly changed your tune! Up until now, you have been claiming that all of those protesting against the BNP were identical, and they were all "facist". | landg wrote: | | some peacefully |
Like I said, a sudden change of tune from you | landg wrote: | | some displaying facist behaviour |
No, that is what you have totally failed to show. You claim that some of the protesters were violent. Even if that was true - so what? If you are saying that all violence is fascist, then you are saying the anti-fascist forces which landed on the Normandy beaches on the 6th of June 1944 were a bunch of fascists. Your claim just doesn't make sense There are dozens of leaflets and statements from the BNP which show their fascist beliefs, but, again, you have totally failed to produce a single leaflet or statement from any of the protesters to back up your claim that they have "fascist" beliefs. I have produced here the text of one leaflet from some of Thursday's protesters, you say you're not interested. You dismiss the only actual evidence which has been produced, you refuse to produce any evidence to back up your own lying claim, and yet you continue to make that lying claim. You are doing what Dr Goebbels advised - continuing to repeat a lie over and over again in the hope that people will begin to believe it through sheer repitition.
| landg wrote: | | some of the protestors were 'quite agressive' gbh and assault and throwing missiles and breaking through te cordon and into the hq. 'quite agressive'!!!!!!!????????? |
So what? We're not arguing about whether some of the protesters were violent or not. We're not even arguing about HOW violent they were. That is beside the point. Apparently some of them were arrested and charged and it will be up to a court to decide whether these individuals were guilty as charged, or not guilty. But that has got absolutely nothing to do with what we were arguing about. What we were arguing about was whether or not they could be described as "fascist". If you are saying that EVERY use of force/violence is automatically fascism, then you are saying that the police FORCE forcibly policing the demonstration are fascist. If you are saying that EVERY use of force/violence is automatically fascism, then you are saying that all prison guards are fascist. If you are saying that EVERY use of force/violence is automatically fascism, then you are saying that all border guards and all immigration officers are fascist. And since I know for a fact that you support the existence of police, and prisons, and border guards, and immigration officers, that would make you, by your own definition, a fascist. It is STUPID to claim that all use of force, all violence, is fascist. The only person who could consistently make such a claim would be a total pacifist, who would never resort to the use of force in any circumstances whatsoever, and would never call for protection from the police or from any other group which uses force/violence. And, while at least being consistent, they would also be wrong, because they, like you, would be indulging in the Mad Hatter's mistake of claiming that "words mean whatever I say they mean".
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | I'm against authoritarianism. I'm also against fascism. However, while I am against both of these things, I understand the distinction between the two terms. All fascism is authoritarian, but it is not true that anything authoritarian is automatically fascist. Also, it is true that fascism tends to be violent, but it is not true that all violence is fascism. There are instances of every political and religious ideology using violence - just look at how the forces of democracy bombed and blasted their way from the Normandy beaches to the heartland of Germany. Communists, conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, even Buddhists, all use violence. So neither authoritarianism nor violence is a DEFINING characteristic of fascism.
True defining characteristics of fascism, which apply to ALL of the original fascist organisations (Mussolini's fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the German Nazis) would include that it is based on a national identity DEFINED BY RACE, it is linked with a mythological national destiny (a new Roman Empire in the case of Mussolini, lebensraum for the superior Aryans in the case of Germany), it involves a desire to impose an authoritarian mono-culture, it involves social darwinism, and, of course, it involves a belief in a Strong Leader. Loads of different political and religious movements have SOME of these characteristics. Only fascism has them all.
Trying to back up his nonsensical claim that those who demonstrate AGAINST the BNP are "fascist", "landg" wrote that they areIf a few football fans get arrested at a match, do you therefore dismiss ALL football fans as "violent"? That would be a prejudiced thing to do. The majority of protesters on Thursday night were not violent. In any case, violence is not a defining characteristic of fascism.There were a lot of protesters, with a lot of different beliefs. In any case, while I think it is irrational to believe that God created the world and all the living creatures in it just six thousand years ago, when there is so much evidence to the contrary, millions of people do believe this, and believing this does NOT make someone a fascist. Yes, I think fascism is irrational, but irrationality is not a defining characteristic of fascism.I have no doubt it's possible that SOME (though most certainly not all) of the protesters on Thursday night did hold absolutist beliefs. However, even if this were true of a minority of the demonstrators, being absolutist doesn't automatically make somebody a fascist. What it makes them is a supporter of some absolutist system, but not necessarily a fascist absolutist system.Yes, the demonstrators were intolerant of fascism. So were the armies which fought their way from the Normandy beaches to the heartland of Germany. To understand why, I suggest you read the Herald article "We cannot grant the BNP the rights it wouldn't grant us". http://www.heraldscotland.com/com...ts-it-would-not-grant-us-1.927461 Being intolerant of fascism is not a defining characteristic of fascism. |
davieboy, your actually arguing with yourself, as i pointed out earlier this exhasting post (which you made) puts up a decent argumentthat the bnp are not facist as you decalre that being all these things does not make you facist. the bnp are all these things and by your reasoning could argue they are not facist.thanks to you.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | Last Thursday night's protests against the BNP would have happened even if there had been no groups or organisations involved at all, and even if nobody had "called for" a demonstration. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television,and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have made their way to the BBC studios to protest. A lot of folk did make their way there individually. And some turned up in groups. Like the group (I don't know their name) who produced the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion. | landg wrote: | | i'm not interested in that leaflet |
That leaflet is the subject of this discussion. If you don't want to discuss the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion, there is another discussion here on Our Scotland which deals with "The BNP - fascist or what?" | landg wrote: | | there were a number of groups demonstraing |
You've suddenly changed your tune! Up until now, you have been claiming that all of those protesting against the BNP were identical, and they were all "facist". | landg wrote: | | some peacefully |
Like I said, a sudden change of tune from you | landg wrote: | | some displaying facist behaviour |
No, that is what you have totally failed to show. You claim that some of the protesters were violent. Even if that was true - so what? If you are saying that all violence is fascist, then you are saying the anti-fascist forces which landed on the Normandy beaches on the 6th of June 1944 were a bunch of fascists. Your claim just doesn't make sense There are dozens of leaflets and statements from the BNP which show their fascist beliefs, but, again, you have totally failed to produce a single leaflet or statement from any of the protesters to back up your claim that they have "fascist" beliefs. I have produced here the text of one leaflet from some of Thursday's protesters, you say you're not interested. You dismiss the only actual evidence which has been produced, you refuse to produce any evidence to back up your own lying claim, and yet you continue to make that lying claim. You are doing what Dr Goebbels advised - continuing to repeat a lie over and over again in the hope that people will begin to believe it through sheer repitition.
| landg wrote: | | some of the protestors were 'quite agressive' gbh and assault and throwing missiles and breaking through te cordon and into the hq. 'quite agressive'!!!!!!!????????? |
So what? We're not arguing about whether some of the protesters were violent or not. We're not even arguing about HOW violent they were. That is beside the point. Apparently some of them were arrested and charged and it will be up to a court to decide whether these individuals were guilty as charged, or not guilty. But that has got absolutely nothing to do with what we were arguing about. What we were arguing about was whether or not they could be described as "fascist". If you are saying that EVERY use of force/violence is automatically fascism, then you are saying that the police FORCE forcibly policing the demonstration are fascist. If you are saying that EVERY use of force/violence is automatically fascism, then you are saying that all prison guards are fascist. If you are saying that EVERY use of force/violence is automatically fascism, then you are saying that all border guards and all immigration officers are fascist. And since I know for a fact that you support the existence of police, and prisons, and border guards, and immigration officers, that would make you, by your own definition, a fascist. It is STUPID to claim that all use of force, all violence, is fascist. The only person who could consistently make such a claim would be a total pacifist, who would never resort to the use of force in any circumstances whatsoever, and would never call for protection from the police or from any other group which uses force/violence. And, while at least being consistent, they would also be wrong, because they, like you, would be indulging in the Mad Hatter's mistake of claiming that "words mean whatever I say they mean". |
i'm not in court you know, the facist ranting and behavior of these protesters may stiill be on the bbc iplayer or youtube or something. go find it yourself. some of it is 'quite violent'.
of course violence in itself is not facist but violence, absolutism,intolerance of others, denying freedom of speech andirriationality nicely add up to facism.
|
Dave Coull
|
I wrote | Quote: | | True defining characteristics of fascism, which apply to ALL of the original fascist organisations (Mussolini's fascists in Italy, the British Union of Fascists, and the German Nazis) would include that it is based on a national identity DEFINED BY RACE, it is linked with a mythological national destiny (a new Roman Empire in the case of Mussolini, lebensraum for the superior Aryans in the case of Germany), it involves a desire to impose an authoritarian mono-culture, it involves social darwinism, and, of course, it involves a belief in a Strong Leader. Loads of different political and religious movements have SOME of these characteristics. Only fascism has them all. |
| landg wrote: | | you decalre that being all these things does not make you facist. |
Another downright lie from the habitual liar who uses the false name "landg". I clearly stated that a belief in national identity DEFINED BY RACE, plus a belief in a Strong Leader, etc, DOES make you a fascist. On the other hand, somebody who wants an international communist revolution, for example, could be described as an authoritarian, or a would-be dictator, but, without the belief in national identity DEFINED BY RACE, not as a fascist. The BNP does believe in having a Strong Leader, and it most certainly DOES have a belief in national identity DEFINED BY RACE, therefore, it is a fascist organisation.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | facism of thursday's proteesters. |
And, despite being repeatedly asked to produce any evidence that the people demonstrating against fascism were "facist", landg produces no evidence, but continues to repeat his lie, presumably on the Dr Goebbels principle of telling as big a lie as possible and endlessly repeating it. | landg wrote: | | violence, absolutism, intolerance of others, denying freedom of speech and irriationality nicely add up to facism. |
(1) you have been unable to produce any actual evidence linking the majority of last Thursday's protesters with these things. The only actual evidence so far was the leaflet produced by some of the protesters, and forwarded here by me. And in any case, (2) Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary, they don't. And not according to Cambridge, either. And, most importantly, not according to history. You are, quite deliberately, leaving out of your list some of the DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS of fascism. Two very important things which you quite deliberately left out of your list were a belief in national identity DEFINED BY RACE, plus belief in having a Strong Leader. The reason you deliberately left these things out was because you knew perfectly well you couldn't apply them to those who protest AGAINST the BNP. | landg wrote: | | facist ranting and behavior of these protesters |
The Oxford dictionary defines "ranting" as "shouting at length in an impassioned way". Ranting is a feature of democracy, not of fascism. You can find "ranting" by people at almost any demonstration about anything. By definition, if they're taking part in a demonstration about something, they feel "impassioned" about it. The only exceptions to this rule about finding ranting at almost any demonstration are when you have some very authoritarian organisation controlling the demonstration. May Day parades in Moscow under Joseph Stalin were very disciplined affairs, and so are many fascist demonstrations. Woe betide the participant who shouts something out of place. So we can ignore what you say about "ranting", as it is irrelevant. All you are really saying, yet again, is "facist". And yet again you produce absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.
|
Dave Coull
|
I wrote | Quote: | | The Oxford dictionary defines "ranting" as "shouting at length in an impassioned way". Ranting is a feature of democracy, not of fascism. You can find "ranting" by people at almost any demonstration about anything. By definition, if they're taking part in a demonstration about something, they feel "impassioned" about it. The only exceptions to this rule about finding ranting at almost any demonstration are when you have some very authoritarian organisation controlling the demonstration. May Day parades in Moscow under Joseph Stalin were very disciplined affairs, and so are many fascist demonstrations. Woe betide the participant who shouts something out of place. |
But of course there is such a thing as "fascist ranting". Fascist ranting is ranting by a Strong Leader, with his followers just supposed to shut up and listen. You got this kind of ranting by all the original fascists, by Mussolini, by Sir Oswald Mosely, and by Hitler. But there was absolutely no evidence of that kind of ranting amongst the protesters against the BNP. What you got from last Thursday night's protesters was healthy, democratic, chaotic, each-person-do-their-own-rant, un-disciplined ranting, the complete opposite of the fascist type of ranting.
|
landg
|
not for the first time david you resort to persoanl insults and lies when someone disagree's with you, probably best for your blood pressure that this thread is locked. landg is not a 'false' name it is a mix of my wife nd my own first names. it's not 'false'.
anyway, i have given plenty of evidence that the facism was alive and well amongst the 'protesters', of course not all though.
landg wrote:
violence, absolutism, intolerance of others, denying freedom of speech and irriationality nicely add up to facism.
(1) you have been unable to produce any actual evidence linking the majority of last Thursday's protesters with these things.
david, i don't know what newspapaers you read or news shows you watch but all of the above was in clear evidence on thursday night.
and see wheni say i've had enough of this and cannot be bothered anymore. i stick by that.
aye, i've had enough of this. go tell it to the news of the world.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | not for the first time david you resort to persoanl insults and lies |
A hypocritical comment given that it was, of course, YOU who started with the personal insults. Having said that, of course it wouldn't be the first time I've insulted somebody. But it's not true that I tell "lies". Everything I say is what I honestly believe to be the truth. You, on the other hand, have lied, here on this forum. From memory I would say you have lied, on this forum, on at least three separate occasions. | landg wrote: | | i don't know what newspapers you read or news shows you watch |
Probably the same ones as you. The difference is that, unlike you, I can distinguish between what a reporter is saying ABOUT the protesters, and what the protesters themselves are saying. | landg wrote: | | i have given plenty of evidence that the facism was alive and well amongst the 'protesters' |
No you haven't. You have produced absolutely ZERO evidence for your claim. I'm pretty sure you are basing your "facist protesters" claim entirely on some noisy behavior by folk who were being forcibly (violently) dragged from the BBC building at the time the footage was filmed. You have not quoted one single thing that any of them said, you have not quoted one single thing that any of them wrote, to indicate your claim of "facist belief". I, on the other hand, started this thread off by quoting, in full, a long leaflet produced by some of the protesters, which contains no evidence of "facism" on their part, but plenty of evidence of their OPPOSITION to fascism.
|
Stevie
|
I think we're bickering boys.
Agree to disagree.
|
Holebender
|
I agree that landg's abuse of the language is entirely disagreeable. Words need to have accepted meanings otherwise communications break down and fail. A fascist isn't a fascist because one person says so, a fascist is a fascist because he or she meets the accepted criteria which define a fascist.
|
Alasdair
|
| Stevie wrote: | | I think we're bickering boys. |
Seems to be a recurring theme on this forum at the moment, it's dreadfully dull.
|
Ultra
|
| landg wrote: | | a shower of deluded half wits and sums up the stupidity and facism of thursday's proteesters. |
And funny that these leftie extremist groups are funded by the Labour Party and Unions.
If theses folk ain't striking, they are out protesting. 
I see the UAF attacked some more police officers today in Leeds.
|
Dave Coull
|
Some years ago some media hack invented the expression "rentamob". It was always complete nonsense. Over the decades from the Sixties to the 2000s I've taken part in many protests, and in a couple of riots, but always as an individual. Nobody "rented" the mobs I was part of, they just happened, spontaneously, because enough folk felt strongly enough about an issue for them to happen. The same is true of the protest at the BBC about the BNP. That protest would have happened anyway, even if there had been no groups or organisations involved at all, and even if nobody at all had "called for" a demonstration. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television, and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have made their way to the BBC studios to protest. A lot of folk did make their way there individually. Yes, there were also some who turned up in groups. Like the group who produced the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion. | Ultra wrote: | | these leftie extremist groups |
Which leftie extremist groups? | Ultra wrote: | | are funded by the Labour Party |
Rubbish. The idea that protesters need "funding" in order to protest is a complete myth, and the idea that the Labour Party would fund folk who blame the Labour Party for creating conditions favourable to the BNP, folk who despise the Labour Party almost as much as they despise the BNP, is just plain daft.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | Some years ago some media hack invented the expression "rentamob". It was always complete nonsense. Over the decades from the Sixties to the 2000s I've taken part in many protests, and in a couple of riots, but always as an individual. Nobody "rented" the mobs I was part of, they just happened, spontaneously, because enough folk felt strongly enough about an issue for them to happen. The same is true of the protest at the BBC about the BNP. That protest would have happened anyway, even if there had been no groups or organisations involved at all, and even if nobody at all had "called for" a demonstration. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television, and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have made their way to the BBC studios to protest. A lot of folk did make their way there individually. Yes, there were also some who turned up in groups. Like the group who produced the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion. | Ultra wrote: | | these leftie extremist groups |
Which leftie extremist groups? | Ultra wrote: | | are funded by the Labour Party |
Rubbish. The idea that protesters need "funding" in order to protest is a complete myth, and the idea that the Labour Party would fund folk who blame the Labour Party for creating conditions favourable to the BNP, folk who despise the Labour Party almost as much as they despise the BNP, is just plain daft. |
Dave it's a well known fact that UAF get funding from the Labour Party and it was the same groups who were bussing students into television centre for the Question Time protest from several London uni's.
So who pays for the buses Dave?
Just because you weren't 'rented' doesn't mean jack.
It was widely reported in the media too by several different sources about what the UAF were up to and who funded them.
Next you will be telling us that it wasn't these left wing groups who attacked police and put a few of them in hospital?
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | it's a well known fact |
Just repeating something over and over may be enough to turn it into a "well known fact" for the more easily led.
Me, I demand proof.Just one of the groups involved in last Thursday's protests | Ultra wrote: | | get funding from the Labour Party |
Evidence? | Ultra wrote: | | who pays for the buses Dave? |
In my extremely wide experience of taking part in all sorts of protests - anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-poll-tax, etc etc etc - the individual protesters pay for the buses. A couple of days ago I received the following e-mail | Quote: | The People's G20, 7 November 2009, St Andrews
Finance ministers from the twenty richest nations in the world will meet in St Andrews to decide on solutions to the global financial and climate crises. Make sure that they know that business-as-usual is not an option. As the Finance Ministers meet, ensure that they hear your voice, and not just the voices of banks and big business |
And then details of the bus to St Andrews, and the "fare" that each individual protester would be expected to pay for the bus. This is normal practice. It always happens. I'm not sure if I'm going to go on that bus, if I go to that protest I might make my own way there, but, if I do go on the bus, I expect to have to pay. Sometimes, some folk want to go who really don't have any money, and the organisers might let them on the bus anyway (if it's not full up), to keep up the numbers. And what happens then is that they take an extra collection from the rest of the folk on the bus to try to make up any shortfall.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | it's a well known fact |
Just repeating something over and over may be enough to turn it into a "well known fact" for the more easily led.
Me, I demand proof.Just one of the groups involved in last Thursday's protests | Ultra wrote: | | get funding from the Labour Party |
Evidence? | Ultra wrote: | | who pays for the buses Dave? |
In my extremely wide experience of taking part in all sorts of protests - anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-poll-tax, etc etc etc - the individual protesters pay for the buses. A couple of days ago I received the following e-mail | Quote: | The People's G20, 7 November 2009, St Andrews
Finance ministers from the twenty richest nations in the world will meet in St Andrews to decide on solutions to the global financial and climate crises. Make sure that they know that business-as-usual is not an option. As the Finance Ministers meet, ensure that they hear your voice, and not just the voices of banks and big business |
And then details of the bus to St Andrews, and the "fare" that each individual protester would be expected to pay for the bus. This is normal practice. It always happens. I'm not sure if I'm going to go on that bus, if I go to that protest I might make my own way there, but, if I do go on the bus, I expect to have to pay. Sometimes, some folk want to go who really don't have any money, and the organisers might let them on the bus anyway (if it's not full up), to keep up the numbers. And what happens then is that they take an extra collection from the rest of the folk on the bus to try to make up any shortfall. |
See instead of talking crap Dave, I suggest you go and read a few of the UAF websites which tells you exactly who they are sponsored by and the newsletters they put out explaining where to get picked up by the buses.
The UAF and other left wing groups have not disputed anything I have said in the media.
Pretty much what you do is repeat the same thing over and over again only with multiple cut and pastes for effect. Your comments aren't any more valid than the next persons on here.
It just makes the threads look tedious when really you only have your own experiences to go by and don't take anyone elses comments into consideration.
You would just dispute any evidence provided anyways which is usual for you.
It was well reported in the media that the UAF and other left wing groups are funded by the Labour Party and Unions. It says so on their website under sponsors.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | you only have your own experiences to go by |
My experiences are relevant. For instance, you asked "Who pays for buses to protests?", and I was able to answer that one from my own wide experience of this. | Ultra wrote: | | I suggest you go and read a few of the UAF websites which tells you exactly who they are sponsored by |
I just did. I see from their official website that they are asking people to become members, and that membership of UAF costs £10. I also saw that they have a "Fighting Fund" to which they are asking people to contribute, with facilities for making individual donations on-line. In other words, they get money from their members and from sympathisers. | Ultra wrote: | | It was well reported in the media that the UAF and other left wing groups are funded by the Labour Party and Unions. |
Even if this was true, it would only be true about one of the groups who took part in last Thursday's protests, and not about all of the other groups and individuals who took part. But in any case, I repeat, produce the evidence. You say this was "well reported in the media". In that case, give a website connection to some relevant media article | Ultra wrote: | | It says so on their website under sponsors. |
No it doesn't.
I've just checked.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | you only have your own experiences to go by |
My experiences are relevant. For instance, you asked "Who pays for buses to protests?", and I was able to answer that one from my own wide experience of this. | Ultra wrote: | | I suggest you go and read a few of the UAF websites which tells you exactly who they are sponsored by |
I just did. I see from their official website that they are asking people to become members, and that membership of UAF costs £10. I also saw that they have a "Fighting Fund" to which they are asking people to contribute, with facilities for making individual donations on-line. In other words, they get money from their members and from sympathisers. | Ultra wrote: | | It was well reported in the media that the UAF and other left wing groups are funded by the Labour Party and Unions. |
Even if this was true, it would only be true about one of the groups who took part in last Thursday's protests, and not about all of the other groups and individuals who took part. But in any case, I repeat, produce the evidence. You say this was "well reported in the media". In that case, give a website connection to some relevant media article | Ultra wrote: | | It says so on their website under sponsors. |
No it doesn't.
I've just checked. |
Most people know, if they have hired a bus, they are paid up front or on the day when hired. So if not very many people turn up the buses still have to be paid for. I am not disputing that people on the day contribute. However, I am talking about UAF demos and clearly on the newsletters there is no mention of people 'paying on the day'. Clearly since you are bringing other demos into the topic you are deliberately trying to take this off topic as you don't like what is being said or create confusion. Please stay on topic.
Oh no Dave.....
Doesn't mention anything about bus payments here does it? Just turn up.
http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0907Codnor_coaches_list.pdf
I am sure people on here are quite capable of going and looking at a few left wing websites all by themselves or googling on UAF or AFL.
As for sponsors and supporters.... So it doesn't have a list of MP's and unions on the UAF website?
More bullshit from Dave.....
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=6
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Feel free to cut and paste this 40 times now. I know you have nothing to do now because X Factor is finished and George Galloway isn't on until 10.
The more I read this stuff, the more I wonder who the 'rent a mobs' really are and which groups are inciting violence.
|
Stevie
|
Ultra, you seem to be sure about so many things...
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | you have nothing to do now because X Factor is finished and George Galloway isn't on until 10 |
Never watch either of them, and you obviously know more about when GG is on than I do, should I take it you're a fan of his? | Ultra wrote: | | sponsors and supporters.... So it doesn't have a list of MP's and unions on the UAF website? |
IRRELEVANT.
When Holebender acted as the main "sponsor" of a petition to the Scottish Parliament, all this meant was he put his name forward publicly as identifying with the petition. It didn't mean he paid any money for it! You claimed that the UAF is | Quote: | | FUNDED by the Labour Party |
and you claimed that | Quote: | | it says so on their website |
That claim wasn't true.
It says no such thing.
They certainly have quite a few individual Labour MPs sponsoring them. I wouldn't want to be associated with that lot, so, despite being anti-fascist, I wouldn't join something like UAF. But the point is, it's not true what YOU said about them being "funded by the Labour Party". | Ultra wrote: | | Please stay on topic |
YOU were the one who asked who pays for buses to protests! I answered this from my own wide and relevant personal experience. | Ultra wrote: | | I am talking about UAF demos |
the topic of this thread is "Leaflet distributed at Thursday night's protest". If you go back to the start of the thread, you will find the leaflet the thread is about, which was produced and distributed by folk who took part in the protest against the BNP. If you read the leaflet, you will see that it is extremely critical of the UAF. Therefore, that is proof there were protesters taking part who were not connected with the UAF, therefore it was not just a "UAF demo". Like I said | Quote: | | Last Thursday night's protests against the BNP would have happened even if there had been no groups or organisations involved at all, and even if nobody had "called for" a demonstration. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television,and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have made their way to the BBC studios to protest. |
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | you have nothing to do now because X Factor is finished and George Galloway isn't on until 10 |
Never watch either of them, and you obviously know more about when GG is on than I do, should I take it you're a fan of his? | Ultra wrote: | | sponsors and supporters.... So it doesn't have a list of MP's and unions on the UAF website? |
IRRELEVANT.
When Holebender acted as the main "sponsor" of a petition to the Scottish Parliament, all this meant was he put his name forward publicly as identifying with the petition. It didn't mean he paid any money for it! You claimed that the UAF is | Quote: | | FUNDED by the Labour Party |
and you claimed that | Quote: | | it says so on their website |
That claim wasn't true.
It says no such thing.
They certainly have quite a few individual Labour MPs sponsoring them. I wouldn't want to be associated with that lot, so, despite being anti-fascist, I wouldn't join something like UAF. But the point is, it's not true what YOU said about them being "funded by the Labour Party". | Ultra wrote: | | Please stay on topic |
YOU were the one who asked who pays for buses to protests! I answered this from my own wide and relevant personal experience. | Ultra wrote: | | I am talking about UAF demos |
the topic of this thread is "Leaflet distributed at Thursday night's protest". If you go back to the start of the thread, you will find the leaflet the thread is about, which was produced and distributed by folk who took part in the protest against the BNP. If you read the leaflet, you will see that it is extremely critical of the UAF. Therefore, that is proof there were protesters taking part who were not connected with the UAF, therefore it was not just a "UAF demo". Like I said | Quote: | | Last Thursday night's protests against the BNP would have happened even if there had been no groups or organisations involved at all, and even if nobody had "called for" a demonstration. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television,and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have made their way to the BBC studios to protest. |
|
Can't be bothered reading the same thing over and over again. It's irrelevent, pointless, and tedious to the thread.
So you admit now Labour MP's are listed but aren't sponsors or provide funding? Because you don't like them. Doesn't change the facts or evidence does it that they do sponsor and provide funding in the shape of sponsorship? I wonder how many are connected to one of the unions listed?
I bet Holebenders petition cost nothing except time to create and submit on line. Hardly a comparision to hiring a bus, printing leaflets, arranging for a few hundred people to be transported to a demostration. Organizaing a demo.
I haven't said a demostration would not happen. Is this your pathetic attempt to take it off topic or cloud the topic?
I bet if people were not bussed in and there wasn't a on line campaign it would have been far less of a demostration and no police would have been injured by left wing thugs through weight of numbers.
|
Stevie
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Because you don't like them. |
I certainly don't like them.
|
Dave Coull
|
In the very first post in this topic, I spoke approvingly about a leaflet which was highly critical of UAF. | Ultra wrote: | | you admit now Labour MP's are listed |
By saying "you admit now" you're trying to make out I denied this before, and have changed my mind. I didn't, and I haven't. But regardless of what I think of that particular group, you claimed they were | Quote: | | FUNDED by the Labour Party |
and you have been completely unable to substantiate that claim.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | In the very first post in this topic, I spoke approvingly about a leaflet which was highly critical of UAF. | Ultra wrote: | | you admit now Labour MP's are listed |
By saying "you admit now" you're trying to make out I denied this before, and have changed my mind. I didn't, and I haven't. But regardless of what I think of that particular group, you claimed they were | Quote: | | FUNDED by the Labour Party |
and you have been completely unable to substantiate that claim. |
Goodbye. Like I said people can make up their own minds based on the MP's listed and sponsors listed on ther UAF site.
Really pointless spending time going round in circles with someone like you who lies and when presented with evidence you asked for completely dismisses it or tries to twist it to suit your agenda.
You seem quite determined to put a spin on UAF organizing these demos.
So when I go into Glasgow in a few weeks time to check out the SDL/UAF demos, it will be all random flash mob types who just happened to meet up and be carrying printed banners? All bussed in from different areas on Scotland on free buses?
What a fundamentalist figure of fun you are.
|
Stevie
|
Dave does not lie and is seldom wrong (if ever) or inaccurate.
|
Alasdair
|
| Ultra wrote: | | So you admit now Labour MP's are listed but aren't sponsors or provide funding? Because you don't like them. Doesn't change the facts or evidence does it that they do sponsor and provide funding in the shape of sponsorship? I wonder how many are connected to one of the unions listed? |
And yet this doesn't mean that the unions themselves or the Labour Party itself funds the organisation. You really must try and seperate individuals from the organisations they're a member of.
|
Holebender
|
I can see if your only experience of sponsoring something is paying someone to wear your company logo on his football shirt you'd think it means paying for something.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | when I go into Glasgow in a few weeks time to check out the SDL/UAF demos, it will be all random flash mob types who just happened to meet up and be carrying printed banners? |
I've been at anti-poll-tax demos, anti-war demos, anti-fascist demos, etc, and for a lot of those demos the Socialist Workers Party produced printed posters. In fact, the only demos I can think of for which the SWP did NOT produce posters were demonstrations in favour of independence for Scotland. But the fact that the SWP will latch on to most protests and produce posters for them doesn't mean these protests are "run" by the SWP. | Ultra wrote: | | You seem quite determined to put a spin on UAF organizing these demos |
You're obsessed with this group UAF. I had never even heard of "UAF" until last week. Of course I assumed there would be groups organising against fascism, and I assumed the SWP would be involved in one of them, but I'd never heard the name "UAF", I'm not a member of UAF, I'm not a member of any political party, and all I have done is to state the truth as I see it. Let's try to imagine, just for a minute, the hypothetical situation where UAF had decided NOT to organise a demonstration. Let's try to imagine, just for a minute, UAF had decided it would be counter-productive to protest. Let's try to imagine they had decided that protesting would only help the BNP. Would that have meant there would have been no protest at the BBC? Of course it wouldn't. A protest at the BBC would have happened anyway. Just the fact that the BNP were going to be on BBC television, and that this was widely known in advance, would have ensured that individuals would have decided they wanted to make a protest. And yes, of course, in practice there would have been groups involved. Like the group (not UAF, in fact highly critical of UAF) who produced the leaflet which is the subject of this discussion. And somebody , or rather some group, would have sought to organise transport to get protesters to the BBC. It just wouldn't have been the UAF. The reason you can't accept that obvious truth is that you are obsessed with trying to "prove" your daft conspiracy theory that protests against the BNP are "funded by the Labour Party".
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who lies |
My name is Dave Coull. That's the truth. Your name is not Ultra. That's the truth. If you weren't making your false allegations while hiding behind a false name, you could be sued for defamation. If you weren't hiding behind a false name, you might have to try to come up with some real evidence of your defamatory statement about a real person, "someone like you who lies". You would be unable to do so.
|
Fidget
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who lies |
My name is Dave Coull. |
Prove it.
|
Shagpile
|
| Fidget wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who lies |
My name is Dave Coull. |
Prove it. |
Prove your name is Fidget. An excellent adjective for you, probably an excellent noun. But Prove it.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who lies |
I wrote | Quote: | | My name is Dave Coull. That's the truth. Your name is not Ultra. That's the truth. If you weren't making your false allegations while hiding behind a false name, you could be sued for defamation. If you weren't hiding behind a false name, you might have to try to come up with some real evidence of your defamatory statement about a real person, "someone like you who lies". You would be unable to do so. |
Now some nonentity (it may or may not be the same nonentity as "ultra", it's difficult to tell one nonentity from another) wonders if I can prove I'm Dave Coull. Yes, if I ever get the opportunity to sue the fake "ultra" for calling me a liar, I can prove conclusively, to the court's satisfaction, that I am indeed the Dave Coull who has been defamed. I can show the court masses of documentary evidence to prove this. But so far as this forum is concerned, there is no need for me to produce birth certificates etc etc etc. For practical purposes, there is already enough proof publicly available, most folk on here already know it's true, and quite a few of the folk on here have met me in person, so there's no need for me to prove it to them. As for you, you fidgeting nonentity, you want more? First, give your OWN real name, and some genuine details about yourself.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who lies |
My name is Dave Coull. That's the truth. Your name is not Ultra. That's the truth. If you weren't making your false allegations while hiding behind a false name, you could be sued for defamation. If you weren't hiding behind a false name, you might have to try to come up with some real evidence of your defamatory statement about a real person, "someone like you who lies". You would be unable to do so. |
Prove my name or nickname is not Ultra? Prove you are infact Dave Coull?
Yeah Dave. It's all lies I have put up in the links straight from UAF websites listing sponsors as requested by you and individuals who happen to be Labour MP's or organization who fund the Labour Party.  You said there was no sponsors connected to the Labour Party and I proved to you there was. So who is telling the truth? Now you are back peddling because you have been caught out tells lies. Oh dear.
No conspiracy theories needed and I don't really care who funds the UAF as it's pretty clear who is funding who by association to anyone who cares to look into the UAF a bit more and also by attending fundraisers and demos as MP's. Just because you haven't heard of them suggests to me that you either do not read the media or know not alot about what you spout. Or there is in fact some other sinister reason for dis-associating yourself with that group. Which one is it?
As for your rubbish about the SWP printing up posters and not being responsible for them. What a load of old tosh that is. The SWP print and publish posters and leaflets and distribute them at demos and even you admit to the SWP arranging transport to such demos. So because it's the SWP it's not a 'rent a mob'?
Why don't you go back and read exactly what I have put because you seem to have missed the parts were I agree with you about demos still taking place with regards to Question Time but the fact is if the UAF were not bussing these people in from London Uni's or organizing a campaign on line, would the vast majority bother to turn up? I doubt it.
So you are not a member of any political party but you go and associate with alot of SWP (Socialist Workers Party) types on demos organized by them and know alot about the goings on? Sounds like you support their causes to me.
Instead of spouting your rubbish about people being 'nonentities' when you know nothing about them, and do a really good job all by yourself of contridaciting what you yourself have written, why don't you stick to the facts and truth which is pretty clear instead of concrete thinking denying all knowledge and cutting and pasting things out of context to try and make a point long since lost by you.
You are nothing more than a smoke screen Dave. You continually try to move threads off topic when you don't like what is being said or resort to discussions on peoples characters you know nothing about.
|
Fidget
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Fidget wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who lies |
My name is Dave Coull. |
Prove it. |
Prove your name is Fidget. An excellent adjective for you, probably an excellent noun. But Prove it. |
I can't. That was the whole point.  Fidget isn't my name btw.. but it is -what was - my schooldays nickname. I can't prove that either though.
|
Shagpile
|
| Fidget wrote: | | I can't. That was the whole point. Fidget isn't my name btw.. but it is -what was - my schooldays nickname. I can't prove that either though. |
Better answer than the post preceeding yours.
|
Fidget
|
I'll take that as a complement.
|
Dave Coull
|
"Ultra" said that I | Quote: | | resort to discussions on peoples characters |
As a matter of fact, "ultra", you were making personal attacks on MY character before I pointed out the simple truth that "ultra" is a non-entity. Regarding your earlier personal attacks on me, to take just one example out of many, you called me | Quote: | | someone like you who lies |
to which I quite reasonably responded | Quote: | | My name is Dave Coull. That's the truth. Your name is not Ultra. That's the truth. If you weren't making your false allegations while hiding behind a false name, you could be sued for defamation. |
| Ultra wrote: | | Dave. You continually try to move threads off topic |
The topic of this particular thread is "LEAFLET distributed at Thursday night's protest". I have tried harder than yourself to discuss the content of that leaflet, therefore, on this particular thread, I made more effort to stick to the topic than you did. And no, I don't "continually try to move threads off topic". I will sometimes make a comment which some folk think "off topic" but which I consider relevant. However, "sometimes" isn't the same thing as "continually", and, in any case, on this particular topic, YOU have been more "off-topic" than I have. | Ultra wrote: | | So you are not a member of any political party but you go and associate with a lot of SWP |
No, they associate with me. I was involved in the campaign of non-payment of the poll-tax right from the very start. The SWP were actually a bit late and a bit reluctant about getting involved in that. So, in that case, it was a case of the SWP associating with me, rather than the other way round. | Ultra wrote: | | Sounds like you support their causes |
No, but in some cases they support MY causes. Not in every case. They don't support independence for Scotland, for example. | Ultra wrote: | | your rubbish about the SWP printing up posters and not being responsible for them |
OF COURSE the SWP are responsible for the posters they print! I never said they weren't! | Ultra wrote: | | sinister reason for dis-associating yourself with that group |
I'm not "dis-associating" myself, I'm just stating the fact that I'm not a member of UAF. So far as I can make out, it's just the latest in a long line of organisations involving both the Socialist Workers Party and some folk in the Labour Party. I didn't join its predecessors, and I won't be joining this one. But that doesn't mean I will let pro-fascist skitters pass without comment. | Ultra wrote: | | You said there was no sponsors connected to the Labour Party |
What I actually said is a matter of public record, right here on this forum, and, if anybody cares to check, it certainly wasn't "there are no sponsors connected to the Labour Party". Your claim wasn't just that some Labour MPs support UAF, you claimed UAF was "FUNDED by THE LABOUR PARTY" - which is a very different matter. I said prove it. You failed to do so. Individual MPs agreeing to allow their names to be used as supporting UAF is not the same thing as the Labour Party, as an organisation, providing financial support.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | "Ultra" said that I | Quote: | | resort to discussions on peoples characters |
As a matter of fact, "ultra", you were making personal attacks on MY character before I pointed out the simple truth that "ultra" is a non-entity. Regarding your earlier personal attacks on me, to take just one example out of many, you called me | Quote: | | someone like you who lies |
to which I quite reasonably responded | Quote: | | My name is Dave Coull. That's the truth. Your name is not Ultra. That's the truth. If you weren't making your false allegations while hiding behind a false name, you could be sued for defamation. |
| Ultra wrote: | | Dave. You continually try to move threads off topic |
The topic of this particular thread is "LEAFLET distributed at Thursday night's protest". I have tried harder than yourself to discuss the content of that leaflet, therefore, on this particular thread, I made more effort to stick to the topic than you did. And no, I don't "continually try to move threads off topic". I will sometimes make a comment which some folk think "off topic" but which I consider relevant. However, "sometimes" isn't the same thing as "continually", and, in any case, on this particular topic, YOU have been more "off-topic" than I have. | Ultra wrote: | | So you are not a member of any political party but you go and associate with a lot of SWP |
No, they associate with me. I was involved in the campaign of non-payment of the poll-tax right from the very start. The SWP were actually a bit late and a bit reluctant about getting involved in that. So, in that case, it was a case of the SWP associating with me, rather than the other way round. | Ultra wrote: | | Sounds like you support their causes |
No, but in some cases they support MY causes. Not in every case. They don't support independence for Scotland, for example. | Ultra wrote: | | your rubbish about the SWP printing up posters and not being responsible for them |
OF COURSE the SWP are responsible for the posters they print! I never said they weren't! | Ultra wrote: | | sinister reason for dis-associating yourself with that group |
I'm not "dis-associating" myself, I'm just stating the fact that I'm not a member of UAF. So far as I can make out, it's just the latest in a long line of organisations involving both the Socialist Workers Party and some folk in the Labour Party. I didn't join its predecessors, and I won't be joining this one. But that doesn't mean I will let pro-fascist skitters pass without comment. | Ultra wrote: | | You said there was no sponsors connected to the Labour Party |
What I actually said is a matter of public record, right here on this forum, and, if anybody cares to check, it certainly wasn't "there are no sponsors connected to the Labour Party". Your claim wasn't just that some Labour MPs support UAF, you claimed UAF was "FUNDED by THE LABOUR PARTY" - which is a very different matter. I said prove it. You failed to do so. Individual MPs agreeing to allow their names to be used as supporting UAF is not the same thing as the Labour Party, as an organisation, providing financial support. |
Ultra said this. Dave says he said something else. What Dave really meant to say was... And so it goes on and on in the world of Dave's selective cutting and pasting.... On dear Mr Smokescreen.
So now it's the SWP who are associated with you and not the other way around?
So now you are trying to tell us Labour MP's do not represent the Labour Party? Labour Party MP's contribute to the funding of UAF. Why do you think they are mentioned on the website Dave as sponsors? Do tell?
By using the Labour MP's name to sponsor an organization the association is there along with many unions who also contribute funds to the Labour Party and UAF. Brand association mean anything to you?
Why don't you post up something from the Labour Party which says they don't financially contribute in any way via the Labour Party or it's MP's to left wing groups like UAF?
Yes Dave. By continually playing the martyr and coming across all mock offended on most threads and calling people non entities and making some sort of issue out of why people use user name instead of their real names you are casting aspersions on peoples character. How many times do you want to bring up the whole user name thing and on how many threads? Funny how you do this when you lose the argument and plot.
Infact, don't bother. The people on here can make up their own mind if they can be bothered to read through the UAF website and many contradictions you have posted all by yourself.
All without prejudice of course.
Only a joke figure would threaten legal action over an internet forum.
Next you will be resigning from 'Oor Scotland'
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: Leaflet distributed at Thursday night's protest | Ultra wrote: | | you will be resgining from 'Oor Scotland' |
No chance. But I will continue to point out that your personal accusations against me, made from behind a false identity, are both cowardly and lying.
In the very first post on this topic, I wrote | Quote: | | My wife has passed on to me the text of a leaflet which she got sent from somebody else, a leaflet which was distributed amongst the crowd demonstrating against Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. I don't know which group distributed this leaflet, and I don't know whether I would agree with their stances on other things (probably not - there has never been any organised group that I fully agreed with) but I agree with quite a lot of (but no, perhaps not all) what they say here. |
I then gave the text of that leaflet, which, as well as being totally opposed to the BNP, was also highly critical of the "Unite Against Fascism" strategy for opposing it | Quote: | | They argue that the BNP is not a `legitimate' party and the state should silence it: yet surely, in the state's eyes, the radical left, the anti-war movement and militant workers' struggles are also not `legitimate'? We must have no trust in state bans or state censorship..........The idea of `legitimate' politics, as defined by the existing ruling class, is a total dead end. |
As well as cricitising UAF's ineffective strategy for opposing fascism, that leaflet also specifically criticised a prominent member of the SWP | Quote: | | UAF's Weyman Bennett, a member of the Socialist Workers Party, debated the BNP's Simon Darby on the radio, steadfastly remaining `apolitical' and saying nothing as Darby attacked bankers and free-market capitalism for causing the crisis |
That is, indeed, a ridiculous position for a supposedly "revolutionary" socialist to get into, keeping quiet in order to try to preserve a "United Front", while allowing the BNP to make the running in attacking bankers and capitalism. As for me, I'm certainly not going to defend either Labour MPs or the SWP. But what I WILL defend is the truth. "Ultra" claimed the UAF was | Quote: | | FUNDED by THE LABOUR PARTY |
and that simply isn't true. Regarding Labour MPs, | Ultra wrote: | | Why do you think they are mentioned on the website Dave as sponsors? |
Because the UAF group believe (even though I think they are wrong) that this will make other people more likely to support their organisation. | Ultra wrote: | | What Dave really meant to say was... |
What Dave really meant to say was exactly what Dave did say, which is not the same thing as what "ultra" claims Dave said, as anybody can verify for themselves, because it's all here on this Our Scotland forum.
|
Ultra
|
Re: Leaflet distributed at Thursday night's protest | Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | you will be resgining from 'Oor Scotland' |
No chance. But I will continue to point out that your personal accusations against me, made from behind a false identity, are both cowardly and lying.
In the very first post on this topic, I wrote | Quote: | | My wife has passed on to me the text of a leaflet which she got sent from somebody else, a leaflet which was distributed amongst the crowd demonstrating against Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. I don't know which group distributed this leaflet, and I don't know whether I would agree with their stances on other things (probably not - there has never been any organised group that I fully agreed with) but I agree with quite a lot of (but no, perhaps not all) what they say here. |
I then gave the text of that leaflet, which, as well as being totally opposed to the BNP, was also highly critical of the "Unite Against Fascism" strategy for opposing it | Quote: | | They argue that the BNP is not a `legitimate' party and the state should silence it: yet surely, in the state's eyes, the radical left, the anti-war movement and militant workers' struggles are also not `legitimate'? We must have no trust in state bans or state censorship..........The idea of `legitimate' politics, as defined by the existing ruling class, is a total dead end. |
As well as cricitising UAF's ineffective strategy for opposing fascism, that leaflet also specifically criticised a prominent member of the SWP | Quote: | | UAF's Weyman Bennett, a member of the Socialist Workers Party, debated the BNP's Simon Darby on the radio, steadfastly remaining `apolitical' and saying nothing as Darby attacked bankers and free-market capitalism for causing the crisis |
That is, indeed, a ridiculous position for a supposedly "revolutionary" socialist to get into, keeping quiet in order to try to preserve a "United Front", while allowing the BNP to make the running in attacking bankers and capitalism. As for me, I'm certainly not going to defend either Labour MPs or the SWP. But what I WILL defend is the truth. "Ultra" claimed the UAF was | Quote: | | FUNDED by THE LABOUR PARTY |
and that simply isn't true. Regarding Labour MPs, | Ultra wrote: | | Why do you think they are mentioned on the website Dave as sponsors? |
Because the UAF group believe (even though I think they are wrong) that this will make other people more likely to support their organisation. | Ultra wrote: | | What Dave really meant to say was... |
What Dave really meant to say was exactly what Dave did say, which is not the same thing as what "ultra" claims Dave said, as anybody can verify for themselves, because it's all here on this Our Scotland forum. |
Yes they can Dave. No need for you to continually cut and paste the same rubbish you came out with earlier in the thread when it's been proved by way of the UAF website who is sponsoring this particular left wing group.
I notice you cannot answer why prominent Labour MP's would feature as sponsors if they are not contributing in some way nor disproved the connection between Labour MP's, Unions, and why they are heavily featured on the UAF site.
You also have not provided any evidence from anyone in the UAF or Labour Party saying that they do not fund the UAF in any way. Merely tried to direct the topic off to the poll tax demos and SWP. When was the poll tax in Scotland? Over a decade ago? Hardly relevent is it?
You also have not agreed that I did indeed state that there would be some sort of demo for Question Time but it would not have reached anywhere as near the number of people if they were not being bussed in from London Uni's and elsewhere.
I am sure most people on here are capable enough to read all this for themsleves and draw their own conclusion. No need for you to cut and paste more nonsense and confusion whether you agree with one group or disagree with another. You seem to be able to recalled who emailed you or provided you with leaflets and posters when it suits you.
I rest my case
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | When was the poll tax in Scotland? Over a decade ago? Hardly relevent is it? |
YOU made it relevant when you sought to imply I follow the SWP (a party with which, as a matter of fact, I have very profound disagreements). I mentioned the anti-poll-tax campaign because, in that case, THEY ended up, reluctantly and late, following in MY footsteps. | Ultra wrote: | | I notice you cannot answer why prominent Labour MP's would feature as sponsors if they are not contributing in some way |
Yes I did: | Quote: | | Because the UAF group believe (even though I think they are wrong) that this will make other people more likely to support their organisation. |
That's the answer! | Ultra wrote: | | You also have not provided any evidence from anyone in the UAF or Labour Party |
Why should I? I'm not the one trying to prove something. YOU are. In a post you sent to this thread at 6.58pm on Saturday the 31st of October, with specific reference to those who protested at the BBC on Thursday 22nd October, you claimed that | Quote: | | these leftie extremist groups |
(that is, the people protesting against the BNP) | Quote: | | are FUNDED by THE LABOUR PARTY |
You were asked for proof of that claim, and you have completely failed to show that the Labour Party as an organisation financially supports the UAF as an organisation, or any other "leftie extremist group" which protests against the BNP.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | When was the poll tax in Scotland? Over a decade ago? Hardly relevent is it? |
YOU made it relevant when you sought to imply I follow the SWP (a party with which, as a matter of fact, I have very profound disagreements). I mentioned the anti-poll-tax campaign because, in that case, THEY ended up, reluctantly and late, following in MY footsteps. | Ultra wrote: | | I notice you cannot answer why prominent Labour MP's would feature as sponsors if they are not contributing in some way |
Yes I did: | Quote: | | Because the UAF group believe (even though I think they are wrong) that this will make other people more likely to support their organisation. |
That's the answer! | Ultra wrote: | | You also have not provided any evidence from anyone in the UAF or Labour Party |
Why should I? I'm not the one trying to prove something. YOU are. In a post you sent to this thread at 6.58pm on Saturday the 31st of October, with specific reference to those who protested at the BBC on Thursday 22nd October, you claimed that | Quote: | | these leftie extremist groups |
(that is, the people protesting against the BNP) | Quote: | | are FUNDED by THE LABOUR PARTY |
You were asked for proof of that claim, and you have completely failed to show that the Labour Party as an organisation financially supports the UAF as an organisation, or any other "leftie extremist group" which protests against the BNP. |
More spin than a washing machine
|
magister ludi
|
I'm not inclined to worry very much about the BNP and their racist policies.
.
It's not because I support their racism, far from it, it's just because I think they are an irrelevance; they are marginal and on the fringes of politics.
Nor am I inclined to give much time or thought to "organisations" that emerge to oppose the BNP. At best they too are an irrelevance. At worst however they are far from irrelevant because they form a necessary part of a focus of equating fascism with racism.
Fascism is far more than racism. It's also far more than a "leader cult".
Fascism is about economics: it's about control of resources, its about control of wealth, its about control of labour.
Now, here's the paranoid "tin foil hat" bit: they (that is the real fascists) are quite happy to perpetuate the diversionary smokescreen of an apparent opposition to fascism as long as that opposition is restricted or largely focused on race issues, colour, immigration and of course on a demonised hate figure.
If you define fascism in economic terms ( here's one extended definition to kick things off.... http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html), I think you'll understand ( although perhaps not agree with) my position.
|
Fidget
|
| magister ludi wrote: |
Now, here's the paranoid "tin foil hat" bit: they (that is the real fascists) are quite happy to perpetuate the diversionary smokescreen of an apparent opposition to fascism as long as that opposition is restricted or largely focused on race issues, colour, immigration and of course on a demonised hate figure. |
Now that, aptly sums up the BNP protestors at the BBC the other week when Griffin was on QT.
|
Rinty
|
Of course, Ludi, there are organisations that are racist but not fascist, I dont think the BNP are one of those, their whole ideology is fascist from any definition that I can see.
As for the other debate I have probably more experience of the SWP than most. They are at the fore-front of UAF and it is 'run' by SWP members in many areas. Other groups, most notably the unions outside of the Labour Party such as PCS, RMT etc, are prominent and some brances and parts of other parties. But UAF are NOT funded by the Labour Party and the SWP are not allies of the Labour Party.
As for this BNP myth of 'bussing people in' which is also used by some of the SWPs opponents on the left, it is a nonsense.
What they do is oprganise busses to big national demos, they advertise this and people, SWP members or not, PAY to take these busses to and from demos.
In Scotland this will only happen, usually, when it is what the SWP call 'national' demos (i.e. UK national or London demos). They are the main people who do this in Scotland as most of the Scotish left consider the equivalent demo up here to be the 'national' demo.
But there is no rent-a-mob and no paying people to go. There is no 'bussing in' as a tactic, just as a covenient way of people travelling to a demo together and sharing costs.
|
Ultra
|
| Rinty wrote: | Of course, Ludi, there are organisations that are racist but not fascist, I dont think the BNP are one of those, their whole ideology is fascist from any definition that I can see.
As for the other debate I have probably more experience of the SWP than most. They are at the fore-front of UAF and it is 'run' by SWP members in many areas. Other groups, most notably the unions outside of the Labour Party such as PCS, RMT etc, are prominent and some brances and parts of other parties. But UAF are NOT funded by the Labour Party and the SWP are not allies of the Labour Party.
As for this BNP myth of 'bussing people in' which is also used by some of the SWPs opponents on the left, it is a nonsense.
What they do is oprganise busses to big national demos, they advertise this and people, SWP members or not, PAY to take these busses to and from demos.
In Scotland this will only happen, usually, when it is what the SWP call 'national' demos (i.e. UK national or London demos). They are the main people who do this in Scotland as most of the Scotish left consider the equivalent demo up here to be the 'national' demo.
But there is no rent-a-mob and no paying people to go. There is no 'bussing in' as a tactic, just as a covenient way of people travelling to a demo together and sharing costs. |
So whats the difference between organizing buses to demo's and bussing people into demo's Rinty?
Interesting as well that nobody has mentioned anything about paying people to attend demos or bussing in was any sort of tactic.
|
landg
|
my feeling was that 'rentamob' was more of a state of mind. there are half-wits, to the left and right in terms of their views that just find just about anything objectionable and thus lets make it 'demonstratable'.
probably more of a student thing where you are immature, misguided and don't really know the world or your place in it but god don't you just love a good demo to help you define yourself. all part of growing up i suppose.
never fell for it myse;f mind you.
|
Dave Coull
|
| magister ludi wrote: | | Fascism is far more than racism. It's also far more than a "leader cult". |
True, it's not JUST racism, and true, it's not JUST a "leader cult". Nevertheless, historically speaking, if we consider the origins of fascism (Mussolini's fascisti, Mosely's British Union of Fascists, Hitler's NSDAP etc) it is undeniable that both racism and a "leader cult" are bound up with fascism. | magister ludi wrote: | | Fascism is about economics |
Fascism certainly has both an economic basis and an economic purpose, but the fascist approach to economics is inextricably bound up with both racist attitudes and a "leader cult". | magister ludi wrote: | | If you define fascism in economic terms |
It is certainly very useful to consider fascism in economic terms, but I don't think you can "define" fascism in exclusively economic terms. | magister ludi wrote: | | here's one extended definition |
I have carefully read the link you gave to the "Library of Economics and Liberty". It has some interesting things to say, but I would say it's a "contribution" to the subject, rather than a "definition". The author, the unfortunately named S. RichMan, is a staunch defender of free market capitalism, and an opponent of all government "interference", who sees attempts at health reforms by President Obama, for example, as verging on fascism. Well, maybe. His article has to be read as a political statement from a particular point of view, rather than a "definition".
|
|
|
|