 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we're bickering boys.
Agree to disagree.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
