British Fascist Society

[British Fascist Society]

British Fascist Society

British Fascism
Party Website All Party Information and videos Can Be Found Here.
http://www.dnsp.co.uk/

Join our Yahoo Group Page
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/britishfascistsociety/

Myspace page
http://www.myspace.com/britishfascistsociety

Chat and Contact with members and others
Cant link to other forums



Some of the British Fascist Society Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlMu5YSaO8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAkNqsiuv20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYTO3PkLKVo

[quirk]

For legal reasons we are not allowed links to other forums so I had to remove it. I am sure if anyone wants to find it it will be linked from the main page.

[Gareth]

oooh if more right wing came on it'd be a great right vs left debate :)

[quirk]

I think we have a few right wing posters now which will make for better debate and a better forum.

[An Céachta Dearg]

oooh if more right wing came on it'd be a great right vs left debate :)

Lol Gareth where would that leave you?? refereeing? lol only joking mate

Good point though I'am looking forward to debating with my idealogical nemises

[donquixote99]

I watched half of the third video. Mildly interesting propaganda. Usual testosterone-charged nazifacist stuff. The third video's theme was the fascists aren't Nazis, but Nazis are racists, while fascists are statists. From the middle of it (as far as I got), I pluck this statement:

Fascists have no strong opinion on the question of race, as the future of the spirit of nation and its citizens are what matters.


First, the writer was bending back a bit to avoid offending racists--no strong opinion indeed. Second, WTF is the 'spirit of nation?' Ans: propagandistic garbage, of the sort known as 'glittering generality.' Sounds good, actually refers to nothing real whatsoever.

Third, I see no important difference between nationalism and racism. The nation is just the clan writ large. Writ so large that the genetic relationship of the clan may be totally, obviously lost, but we seem able to emotionally ignore that....

All politics is emotional.

[quirk]

You should have watched the last part of the video where they attacked immigrants.

By the way anyone know what DNSP stands for?

[Enver]

British Fascist Society

British Fascism
Party Website All Party Information and videos Can Be Found Here.
http://www.dnsp.co.uk/

Join our Yahoo Group Page
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/britishfascistsociety/

Myspace page
http://www.myspace.com/britishfascistsociety

Chat and Contact with members and others
Cant link to other forums



Some of the British Fascist Society Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlMu5YSaO8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAkNqsiuv20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYTO3PkLKVo

I would welcome you to the forum but since you're a Nazi wanker you can f*ck off and die.

[An Céachta Dearg]

I would welcome you to the forum but since you're a Nazi wanker you can f*ck off and die.

haha You could have been a bit more mature but since its out there

I agree

[Enver]

haha You could have been a bit more mature but since its out there

I agree

There's nothing immature about it, I sincerely mean what I said.

Why should there be any cordiality shown to fascists?

[quirk]

There's nothing immature about it, I sincerely mean what I said.

Why should there be any cordiality shown to fascists?

Exactly. Doubt we would get much cordiality from them if they ever got into power.

[An Céachta Dearg]

There's nothing immature about it, I sincerely mean what I said.

Why should there be any cordiality shown to fascists?

Their should be none. I agree they are idealogical enemies.

[donquixote99]

Why should there be any cordiality shown to fascists?

Depends on context & behavior of the fascists. A fascist willing to debate civily and honestly should be welcomed on a forum. A free marketplace of ideas is MUCH better than any alternative.

Back in my college days some socialists had a slogan: 'no free speech for fascists.' This was used to justify them shouting down more or less anyone they wanted to. I don't think any cordiality should be shown to socialists when they act like that.

[Viv]

Depends on context & behavior of the fascists. A fascist willing to debate civily and honestly should be welcomed on a forum. A free marketplace of ideas is MUCH better than any alternative.

Back in my college days some socialists had a slogan: 'no free speech for fascists.' This was used to justify them shouting down more or less anyone they wanted to. I don't think any cordiality should be shown to socialists when they act like that.

I agree, freedom of speech is important. And we are here to debate different views within forum rules.

Did he post any comment though, looks to be just spam?

[donquixote99]

Did he post any comment though, looks to be just spam?

Only spam so far in this instance, true.

[Gareth]

I think they have a right to have their say as much as far leftists do.

[quirk]

I think they have a right to have their say as much as far leftists do.

If they are spewing hate (which is basically what their politics is) then they dont.

[Gareth]

If they can express their anti-immigration policies, without deeming an entire race to the grave, they should be allowed to do so.

[Enver]

I think they have a right to have their say as much as far leftists do.

No they don't. Communism and Anarchism are coherent political philosophies. Fascism is a perversion based entirely on hatred due to individual and collective insecurity. They must be stopped by whatever means necessary; be it battering Neo-Nazis in the street or organising broad-based anti-racism campaigns.

[Oregon Elephant]

This poster reminds me of ism1922 from other forums that I'm on. He always came and posted links to the BNP and than left. Only on one forum did he actually stay to debate it for a while (about 3 pages, not much, but more than most do).

[Oregon Elephant]

No they don't. Communism and Anarchism are coherent political philosophies. Fascism is a perversion based entirely on hatred due to individual and collective insecurity. They must be stopped by whatever means necessary; be it battering Neo-Nazis in the street or organising broad-based anti-racism campaigns.

I hope he does stay and debate, as it would appear that you don't know much about fascism at all, other than far left hate propaganda of it.

Fascism and Nazism are two very seperate things (Fascism is the political ideaology, Nazism is it mixed with nationalism and taken to a crazy extreme).

[Viv]

This poster reminds me of ism1922 from other forums that I'm on. He always came and posted links to the BNP and than left. Only on one forum did he actually stay to debate it for a while (about 3 pages, not much, but more than most do).

I said the same. An agenda poster, just spams and runs. I suppose he knows that if questioned his affiliations will not stand up to scrutiny and he cannot defend them.

[Oregon Elephant]

Well, it has yet to be a full day. Maybe he'll come back, maybe not.

[Enver]

I hope he does stay and debate, as it would appear that you don't know much about fascism at all, other than far left hate propaganda of it.

Fascism and Nazism are two very seperate things (Fascism is the political ideaology, Nazism is it mixed with nationalism and taken to a crazy extreme).

Oh really?

Enlighten me so.

[Oregon Elephant]

Oh really?

Enlighten me so.

http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~manzano/Writing/essays/history/fascism.html

This essay compares and contrasts communism, fascism, and nazism. It is a good, quick read.

"Nazis believed in the superiority of a race above all other...Fascists, on the other hand attempted to create a new man through education, and persuasion."

Here are some other things throughout numerous websites and essays on the subject.

"The political ideology of fascism can be briefly decribed as a right-wing dictatorship. However, when spelled as "Fascism" with a capital F, it refers to the specific regime in 20th century Italy under Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Nazism, which was the predominant ideology in Germany from the 1930's to the 1940's, can be viewed as a more specific type of fascism (with a lower-case f). Not all fascists are Nazi's, but it would be all but required to support fascist ideology in order to be a true Nazi. Fascists are not necessarily racist, which is contrary to the anti-semetic doctrines which are at the core of Nazi ideology."

"Fascists were tamer versions of Nazis...They were less anti-semitic" (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html)



"Originally there was no racism in Italian fascism. Due to Hitler's influence this unfortunately changed toward the end of Mussolini's regime."

"when the West lashed out against fascists, they meant Mussolini's Italians, but when the Soviets expressed anger against the fascists, they meant Hitler's Germans. Communists in other countries followed the Soviet-established political vocabulary, using the word "fascist" when they actually meant "Nazi"."

"When discussing historical WWII events during the post-war years, you could easily tell if the speaker or writer was inspired by communism. If he or she talked about Nazis as "fascists", then the argument or point of view had in all probability originated in communist circles."

"To the Nazis the Italian fascists were soft and ineffectual sissies."

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Fascism%20vs.%20Nazism

"Nazism is a rather extreme example of racial fascism in this guise...Fascism, the pursuit of goals by uniting humanity into one common cause, is not particularly evil in itself. Nor is taking an evolutionary approach to selective breeding, believing in the betterment of the whole at the expense of the minority, particularly revolting as far as ideologies go - in fact, I'd say sacrificing the freedoms of the population is inherent to almost every conception of government...What mark Nazism out was the zeal with which it pursued its objectives, and the lengths it was willing to go to."

There are plenty more sites and stuff on the issue. But fascism and nazism are two different things, and to hate fascism because you think it is the same as nazism is faulty. fascism can be hated based on it's own merits.

[Enver]

There are plenty more sites and stuff on the issue. But fascism and nazism are two different things, and to hate fascism because you think it is the same as nazism is faulty. fascism can be hated based on it's own merits.

Fair enough, point taken.

[donquixote99]

Enver, I am not a fascist, and I'm completely in favor of all sorts of race-mixing. Nonetheless, I'm pretty definately anti-communist, since I think these revolution things always get you Stalin or Pol Pot, and a Nomenklatura, whether you want them or not.

Also, when people say 'property is theft,' I tend to reply 'free exchange is no robbery.'

Now, must I be stopped by any means necessary?

[Enver]

Enver, I am not a fascist, and I'm completely in favor of all sorts of race-mixing. Nonetheless, I'm pretty definately anti-communist, since I think these revolution things always get you Stalin or Pol Pot, and a Nomenklatura, whether you want them or not.

Also, when people say 'property is theft,' I tend to reply 'free exchange is no robbery.'

Now, must I be stopped by any means necessary?

Nope, not unless you stand in the way of workers control.

[donquixote99]

Nope, not unless you stand in the way of workers control.

But I assure you I do. I think this claim of privlege for workers is quite as unjust as the claim of privlege for capital-owners. 'Control' should be shared, and no one should get the whole surplus by default. Profit-sharing, that's the ticket.

[Enver]

I think this claim of privlege for workers is quite as unjust as the claim of privlege for capital-owners. 'Control' should be shared, and no one should get the whole surplus by default.

Yes, just like a woman who is raped should share her body with the rapist.

[quirk]

The workers create everything and the capitalists nothing. How is it fair to share it at all never mind the situation we are in today where the capitalists take almost all of it?

[donquixote99]

The workers create everything and the capitalists nothing. How is it fair to share it at all never mind the situation we are in today where the capitalists take almost all of it?

A rape metaphor, Enver? It's my own saying that 'all politics are emotional,' but did you have to go so far so fast?

Quirk, let's say Maynard the worker digs clams. He can dig about 100 clams a day. Joe the blacksmith proposes to rent Maynard this thing he just made, that he calls a 'shovel.' With it Maynard can dig 200 clams a day. Joe wants 50 clams a day for the use of his shovel.

Is Joe exploiting Maynard? If so, how do you propose to arrange things so Joe has some motivation to make shovels?

[Enver]

A rape metaphor, Enver? It's my own saying that 'all politics are emotional,' but did you have to go so far so fast?

It's a perfect metaphor. Do you think the vast majority of people living in poverty is a good thing? There's nothing remotely fair about capitalism. So I guess I'll have to go back on my original answer; middle and upper class people who stand against any workers revolution should be eradicated, that's if they can't be absorbed into the new democracy of course.

[donquixote99]

It's the perfect metaphor if you want to justify killing someone. But it all starts with the anger over poverty, and the desire to find an enemy and kill them that comes from anger, doesn't it? That is, it seems to me the desire to kill precedes the theory.

If I'm wrong, explain to me why I should think that Joe is exploiting Maynard.

[donquixote99]

No response? Then no one thinks they can show that Joe who expects to get something for designing and providing useful capital equipment is an evil exploiter? Bah. What is left of communism then but anger and the greedy desire to expropriate?

A system that gives total privlege to 'workers' is no better that a system that gives total privlege to 'capitalists.' The problem is concentration of power, no mater what sort of stories are told to 'justify' it.

[Enver]

A system that gives total privlege to 'workers' is no better that a system that gives total privlege to 'capitalists.'

You're right; making sure people have enough to eat, a roof over their heads, a decent job and a say in how society should be organised is exactly the same as a minute elite controlling the vast majority of resources and trampling on the rights of everyone else. So basically you're saying Socialism and capitalism are virtually the same as regards the amount of people who are 'privileged'.

[Enver]

It's the perfect metaphor if you want to justify killing someone.

Are you seriously suggesting that there isn't horrific exploitation in the world and that this is a daily reality for the majority of the people living on this planet? I have to say you're argument is new to me. Most capitalist-apologists recognise the destructive and exploitive nature of capitalism but feel there is no viable solution or they just couldn't be bothered. You seem to want society to remain undemocratic so as to protect the privileges of the elite; anything else would just be oppression and despotism.

But it all starts with the anger over poverty, and the desire to find an enemy and kill them that comes from anger, doesn't it? That is, it seems to me the desire to kill precedes the theory.

Yes; you're absolutely right. My social conscience is derived from a desire to kill and maim, particularly small children and women. Perhaps even a bit of violation and molestation when the mood takes me.

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1663077_414pxIsthistomorrow.jpg

If I'm wrong, explain to me why I should think that Joe is exploiting Maynard.

The scenario you described reads a lot like bartering through the exchange of services; not the exchange of capital. I would consider this to be an alternative to the monetary system as it would inhibit one's ability to accumulate wealth.

[donquixote99]

You're right; making sure people have enough to eat, a roof over their heads, a decent job and a say in how society should be organised is exactly the same as a minute elite controlling the vast majority of resources and trampling on the rights of everyone else. So basically you're saying Socialism and capitalism are virtually the same as regards the amount of people who are 'privileged'.

Well, an elite might control the vast majority of resources without trampling on the rights of everyone else. But I agree that there may be a problem there. We can discuss that, and look for possible solutions, depending on what we find....

Maybe the number of 'privleged' is larger under socialism, maybe it isn't. Historical attempts at it seem to have produced their own privleged classes that excluded most. In any case, I think we both agree that the problem isn't how does one maximize the count of the 'privleged,' but how one makes a 'good' life possible for just about everyone. If we surely don't want the rich tying everything up as 'their property' and starving the masses, it may still be an overreaction to think the masses will be best-off if we abolish property altogether.

[donquixote99]

Are you seriously suggesting that there isn't horrific exploitation in the world and that this is a daily reality for the majority of the people living on this planet? I have to say you're argument is new to me. Most capitalist-apologists recognise the destructive and exploitive nature of capitalism but feel there is no viable solution or they just couldn't be bothered. You seem to want society to remain undemocratic so as to protect the privileges of the elite; anything else would just be oppression and despotism.

I certainly don't think most of what I seem to think to you. I am convinced that capitalism has had some good effects. Life for the most part is pretty OK in the first world, for everyone not in the underclass, which is most. What got us from feudalism to now is capitalism, isn't it? Were the masses better-off as serfs? I point out that the current accepted notion that all humans have a right to life (let alone anything else) is very post-feudal. I'm not sure the current lifestyles of the rich and famous oppress anyone--surely not as much as being a serf did.

As I said, I'm williing to discuss the idea that the upper class is hogging things too much now, and that there need to be adjustments for the welfare of everyone else. Anything can be taken too far. Capitalism, unrestrained, would literally have markets in human flesh--indeed, there are recent reports from India....

Yes; you're absolutely right. My social conscience is derived from a desire to kill and maim, particularly small children and women. Perhaps even a bit of violation and molestation when the mood takes me.

You said it, I didn't. You'd previous expressed a policy of eradication of those who stood against what you are for. I must say you've now elaborated it in an unexpected way....

The anti-communist poster certainy is laffably lurid and demoogogic, but just as propaganda doesn't validly justify itself, it also doesn't justify it's opposite.

The scenario you described reads a lot like bartering through the exchange of services; not the exchange of capital. I would consider this to be an alternative to the monetary system as it would inhibit one's ability to accumulate wealth.

Sounds then like the problem isn't really capital, or money. The real problem is the accumulation of too much wealth and power by some. Since I see uses to capital and money, I think a less radical solution to the real problem might be a better idea.

[Enver]

I certainly don't think most of what I seem to think to you. I am convinced that capitalism has had some good effects. Life for the most part is pretty OK in the first world, for everyone not in the underclass, which is most. What got us from feudalism to now is capitalism, isn't it? Were the masses better-off as serfs? I point out that the current accepted notion that all humans have a right to life (let alone anything else) is very post-feudal. I'm not sure the current lifestyles of the rich and famous oppress anyone--surely not as much as being a serf did.

Of course capitalism is better than feudalism. Society is always evolving and socialists would contend that socialism, and then communism, are the next stages of human societal development. Again you are correct in pointing out that in the 1st world the standard of living has been greatly improved. There is also a better understanding of human rights and an expectation that a person's rights be upheld. All of this is actually quite heartening and gives one hope that society can take further steps to better itself.


You said it, I didn't. You'd previous expressed a policy of eradication of those who stood against what you are for.

Perhaps I didn't express myself particularly well and used unnecessarily strong language. What I mean by 'eradication' is simply that the illegitimate concentration of power by certain elite elements within society must be removed. I'm not talking about the extermination of thousands or millions of people. In fact; I believe that any revolutionary change in the 1st world will probably have to come about peacefully. Given the extremity of social inequalities in the 3rd world; I still think armed struggle will probably be necessary to achieve democracy (although conflicts, however just they may be, tend to throw up the wrong kind of people).

The anti-communist poster certainy is laffably lurid and demoogogic, but just as propaganda doesn't validly justify itself, it also doesn't justify it's opposite.

Aye, it's called a joke.

Sounds then like the problem isn't really capital, or money. The real problem is the accumulation of too much wealth and power by some. Since I see uses to capital and money, I think a less radical solution to the real problem might be a better idea.

Again I agree, to a certain extent. The centralisation of power would appear to be an inherently corruptible way of organising society and that is why I have moved away from Marxism-Leninism and embraced Left Communism or Anarchism. I still think, however, that we could do without a monetary system.

Here's a decent video that relates to our discussion....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

[BlackBaron]

I think we have a few right wing posters now which will make for better debate and a better forum.

Is fascism right wing?

Actually Mussolini was originally a Socialist Party deputy. Oswald Mosely was the greatest leader the Labour party never had....And one of the few English MPs who spoke out aganist the Black and Tans reign of terror in Ireland. His book on the "Irish Question" is probably one of the best ever written on the subject.

The roots of Fascism are in modernity, in the French revolution more than they are in the traditional Christian order.

What does right wing actually mean?

Are the PDs right wing?

[Oregon Elephant]

'Right wing' is kind of an odd term, as the political spectrum is 2-D and not just a line. Yes, fascism is right of center and so is capitalism, but the two are very different and it would be an inaccuracy to try to label as them similiar. Fascism is right a bit, but very totalitarian (in the form of authoritarian), which is uncharacteristic of capitalism or libertarianism (most of whom lean right).

[Vox Populi]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qzfo4txaQJA

[Enver]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qzfo4txaQJA

:D:D:D:D

[LARKIN32]

:(:mad::o:rolleyes::D
:p

[donquixote99]

NO NO NO THIS IS INCORRECT THEORY!

The more sex the less talking, no?