Bnp

[tightbreeks]

The kennel club remind me of the bnp!

 

The bnp IT department might look at football forums to see if there is any potential weirdos.

[Ke1t]

 

Also, while an all-White Britain is neither desirable nor achievable, it is true that in many parts of the UK, immigration has been so out of control that there are large parts that resemble a Third World country. There is also a REAL problem with integration in many cases, ESPECIALLY from the Muslims, it has to be said. That each of us has the right to choose our own faith, is an unalienable human right in this country. However, Muslims often have a problem with separation of religion and state. They certainly don't agree with the country's tolerant view on gays and feminists, that's for sure. Not to mention their insistence on Halal butchery, in a country very sensitive to animal rights.

 

 

Halal is basically the same as Kosher... so far as I can tell, anyway.... no-one's bitching about the Jews.

 

As for integration, so long as Muslims observe, and are answerable to, British law... and they are... then it's no-one's business if the women wear the veil, or if the men grow their beards to their feet. Most people retain their culture when they move abroad, Muslims are no different. And if you happen to see just a whole shitload of people acting all Muslimy so what? How does that in any way impact you or I?

 

Incidentally, I've noticed that a large number of football fans aren't tolerant of gays, blacks, feminism or British law.

 

If the mainstream parties don't grow some balls, man up and do something about the failed utopian experiment they call "multiculturalism", they will only lose more and more votes to the far-right (and indeed far-left) and civil unrest will heighten.

 

This "failed multiculturalism" thing seems to be a pretty popular phrase with the right wing and gutter press, and the NF and BNP. It's also a completely meaningless phrase that has zero basis in any kind of reality.

 

People of different cultures live and work together each and every day on every part of the planet. If there were such a thing as a "multiculturalism experiment" and had it failed, then you'd be seeing rioting, rape, murder and pillage any time a Polish dude walked past someone from Peebles.

 

This "failed multiculturalism" expression is, in it's purest form, completely meaningless bollocks. It's a very short rhetorical step from talking about "failed multiculturalism" to chatting about sh*t like "racial purity" or "racial superiority".

 

 

As a side-note, I should point out that many members of our erstwhile and disastrous New Labour govt (and it's current leader and his brother) were members of the Communist Party. Given that far, FAR more have died under Communism than Fascism/Nazism combined, isn't it a little hypocritical to condemn the far-right, while condoning the far-LEFT?

 

Seriously?

 

You're actually arguing that Communism is essentially worse than Fascism because the likes of Stalin happened to be better at industrial scale genocide than the NAZIs? Even though they both gave it their best shot?

 

Incidentally, NAZI ideology was specifically about the separation of the races, and the enslavement or extermination of the "sub-races". You can check out their manifesto, where it actually details the separation of humanity into German and everybody else. The Communist ideology is that all people are equal.

 

Where Communism fell down wasn't its intent, but in its execution by a litany of maniacs.

 

NAZIism sets out to deliberately "build fences", separate people, and exclude individuals based on their ethnicity, religion or beliefs. Kinda sorta what the BNP/NF would like. And what happens when Jews or Gypsies don't want to be servants to the master race? Well, first you build them a ghetto to stay in, then later you build camps when the Ghettos fill up. Later on you find new and inventive ways of disposing of your uppity slave classes.

 

The intentions, if not the historic execution, of Communism are easily defensible.

 

Can't say as much for NAZIism.

[delta1red]

I think Nick Griffin is a C#NT. Would i be wrong in thinking that ?

[forbesz1903]

Gary Raikes by any chance?

 

Pretty sure he's the leader up here, and he's from Turriff....

 

He's also an idiot, forever writing sh*te into the local newspaper.

 

Last election the other parties refused to be alongside him on stage.

[Jocky Balboa]

Halal is basically the same as Kosher... so far as I can tell, anyway.... no-one's bitching about the Jews.

 

As for integration, so long as Muslims observe, and are answerable to, British law... and they are... then it's no-one's business if the women wear the veil, or if the men grow their beards to their feet. Most people retain their culture when they move abroad, Muslims are no different. And if you happen to see just a whole shitload of people acting all Muslimy so what? How does that in any way impact you or I?

 

I am against both Halal and Kosher butchery. As I said, in a country sensitive to animal rights, we cannot on one hand condemn fox hunting and horse racing, yet condone their practices. As for integration, you are clueless. I would happily lead you by the hand and show you around Rochdale, Oldham, Bradford and parts of Bolton, where you can see for yourself the delights of Muslim "integration".

 

This "failed multiculturalism" thing seems to be a pretty popular phrase with the right wing and gutter press, and the NF and BNP. It's also a completely meaningless phrase that has zero basis in any kind of reality.

 

It's also a phrase among Centrists like myself, who can see this social engineering for the epic fail that it really is. There has never been a truly multi-racial utopia anywhere in the world, for human nature is, for all our evolution, tribal in nature. I am well-travelled and enjoy "diversity" when observing different nations and their way of life. However, taken to it's conclusion, this multi-culti experiment would actually DESTROY the very diversity it claims to champion, for every country would become a divided, fractured mish-mash of all and sundry, with an open-door policy and no distinct identity of it's own.

 

People of different cultures live and work together each and every day on every part of the planet. If there were such a thing as a "multiculturalism experiment" and had it failed, then you'd be seeing rioting, rape, murder and pillage any time a Polish dude walked past someone from Peebles.

 

This "failed multiculturalism" expression is, in it's purest form, completely meaningless bollocks. It's a very short rhetorical step from talking about "failed multiculturalism" to chatting about sh*t like "racial purity" or "racial superiority".

 

Arguments like yours are exactly the problem, in that you are trying shut off all attempts to debate issues like these, not to mention smearing the name of anyone who dares go against popular rhetoric. In so doing, you only increase disillusionment among dissenters and strengthen the hand of clowns like Griffin and the EDL, NF, etc.

 

China is not multicultural. China is Chinese. Japan is Japanese. Nigeria is Nigerian. Tunisia is Tunisian, etc. etc. Does that make them all "racial supremacists"? Conversely, if the demographics of the NE of Scotland were comparable with Leicester or Rochdale, you can rest assured it would change the very face of the area and the unique character of Aberdeen and Shire. Moreover, you can bet your ass people would have something to say about it.

 

You're actually arguing that Communism is essentially worse than Fascism because the likes of Stalin happened to be better at industrial scale genocide than the NAZIs? Even though they both gave it their best shot?

 

The body count speaks for itself. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. were only one part of the picture. You neglect to mention Mao, the Khmer Rouge, etc. etc. All in all, Communism has killed far, FAR more people than Fascism and National Socialism combined.

 

Incidentally, NAZI ideology was specifically about the separation of the races, and the enslavement or extermination of the "sub-races". You can check out their manifesto, where it actually details the separation of humanity into German and everybody else.

 

You grossly underestimate my intelligence. Worst mistake you can make while debating with me. I already have checked it out. I own copies of both Mein Kampf AND The Communist Manifesto. They are indeed ideological polar opposites, yet are both extreme factions, neither of which I would want to live under, given the choice.

 

The Communist ideology is that all people are equal.

 

No. Epic fail. The basic thinking behind it is that "all are equal, but some are more equal than others." While the gullible out there think it makes for a great utopian bliss, there is always a ruling class on top, enforcing the doctrine. It was a great lie, created and enforced by Internationalist (largely Jewish) anti-Western, anti-Capitalists, who had nothing but disdain for traditional European values.

 

In short, Communism is a life-denying ideology, one that preaches blind obedience to the mass collective and seeks to destroy the whole ethos of individualism. The fact that Eastern Europe has never recovered, 20+ years since it's fall, is proof positive of it's failures.

 

NAZIism sets out to deliberately "build fences", separate people, and exclude individuals based on their ethnicity, religion or beliefs. Kinda sorta what the BNP/NF would like. And what happens when Jews or Gypsies don't want to be servants to the master race? Well, first you build them a ghetto to stay in, then later you build camps when the Ghettos fill up. Later on you find new and inventive ways of disposing of your uppity slave classes.

 

...and of course you neglect to mention the Soviet Gulags, the Cambodian Killing Fields, or Mao's "great leap forward" or the concrete jungles of Eastern Europe. And Communism DOES exclude people on the grounds of religion and throws people in jail due to their beliefs.

 

The intentions, if not the historic execution, of Communism are easily defensible.

 

Can't say as much for NAZIism.

 

Utter nonsense. They are both tools with which to control. While many point out the secularity of both ideologies, the fact is that, in reality, they are organised religions, in that they preach blind totalitarian obedience and pour scorn on individualism on all levels. I have nothing but contempt for them.

[athenaeum]

I'm no racist but ive just seen new neighbours(up the road)

 

She was wearing a burkha and hes got a long beard and is wearing a dress.

 

Their 6 kids looked normal enough like

[Ke1t]

I am against both Halal and Kosher butchery. As I said, in a country sensitive to animal rights, we cannot on one hand condemn fox hunting and horse racing, yet condone their practices. As for integration, you are clueless. I would happily lead you by the hand and show you around Rochdale, Oldham, Bradford and parts of Bolton, where you can see for yourself the delights of Muslim "integration".

 

 

 

It's also a phrase among Centrists like myself, who can see this social engineering for the epic fail that it really is. There has never been a truly multi-racial utopia anywhere in the world, for human nature is, for all our evolution, tribal in nature. I am well-travelled and enjoy "diversity" when observing different nations and their way of life. However, taken to it's conclusion, this multi-culti experiment would actually DESTROY the very diversity it claims to champion, for every country would become a divided, fractured mish-mash of all and sundry, with an open-door policy and no distinct identity of it's own.

 

Utopia?

 

No-one's talking about a Utopia. There isn't even a 'Utopia' in places where there's only overwhelmingly one race. There will always be malcontents, people who would complain even if they lived in some kind of paradise. Claiming that I, or anyone else, expects or believes in Utopia is simply a cheap strawman that does nothing but reduce any argument you might think you have.

 

I'm delighted that you think being 'well-travelled' is some kind of appeal to self-authority on the subject. I too am 'well-travelled' so now we're back to a zero sum in regards to the appeal to authority fallacy.

 

Shame that, eh?

 

As for centrists seeing "social engineering" in respect to integration, I don't think I would ever use the terminology except in a sarcastic fashion. I'm sure there are individuals from all points of the spectrum who might use that, and any other phrase you care to mention. My point stands that this is primarily the language of the right and the racist/xenophobe.

 

Arguments like yours are exactly the problem, in that you are trying shut off all attempts to debate issues like these, not to mention smearing the name of anyone who dares go against popular rhetoric. In so doing, you only increase disillusionment among dissenters and strengthen the hand of clowns like Griffin and the EDL, NF, etc.

 

I've little time to listen to the likes of Griffin, the BNP or the NF. I don't have any interest in 'closing down' debate, but at the same time I'm not going to give those idiots the time of day when they open their mouths and spout sh*t like "failed multiculturalism", or any other moronic buzzword they erroneously believe will strengthen their argument.

 

China is not multicultural. China is Chinese. Japan is Japanese. Nigeria is Nigerian. Tunisia is Tunisian, etc. etc. Does that make them all "racial supremacists"? Conversely, if the demographics of the NE of Scotland were comparable with Leicester or Rochdale, you can rest assured it would change the very face of the area and the unique character of Aberdeen and Shire. Moreover, you can bet your ass people would have something to say about it.

 

I was under the impression that China was far from a homogenous group of simply 'Chinese'. While the Han make up something like 90% of the population there are dozens of sub groups who live in their own regions, many with their own language and culture. hat's not even taking into account places like Tibet, where the Chinese government is VERY MUCH prosecuting a policy of racial and cultural supremacy. I take it you didn't get to Tibet in your well-travelled travels?

 

 

 

The body count speaks for itself. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. were only one part of the picture. You neglect to mention Mao, the Khmer Rouge, etc. etc. All in all, Communism has killed far, FAR more people than Fascism and National Socialism combined.

 

Absolute bollocks. You think mere body-count is a measure of worth? Charles Manson technically didn't kill anyone.. so you think his personal ethics are superior to those of a woman who kills an abusive husband, because she has killed more people than Manson?

 

The body count in Fascism v Communism is completely irrelevant. What separates the two ideologies is intent. As I have already pointed out.

[Ke1t]

You grossly underestimate my intelligence. Worst mistake you can make while debating with me.

 

I actually made NO assumptions regarding your intelligence. However, the fact that you felt the need to tell me how well-traveled and intelligent you are is quite interesting in itself.

 

 

I already have checked it out. I own copies of both Mein Kampf AND The Communist Manifesto. They are indeed ideological polar opposites, yet are both extreme factions, neither of which I would want to live under, given the choice.

 

Wow... big tick. Me too. I certainly wouldn't want to live under NAZIism, particularly if I wasn't ethnic German or Aryan, what with the lack of human rights at best and the thought of slavery or worse. What's the part of Communist ideology that bothers you most?

 

 

 

No. Epic fail. The basic thinking behind it is that "all are equal, but some are more equal than others."

 

Oh please. In virtually all government, Anarchist aside, there is going to be a governing level and a proletariat. If there were no governing level then the proletariat would be living in an Anarchy, not a Communist state.

 

While the gullible out there think it makes for a great utopian bliss, there is always a ruling class on top, enforcing the doctrine. It was a great lie, created and enforced by Internationalist (largely Jewish) anti-Western, anti-Capitalists, who had nothing but disdain for traditional European values.

 

Once again, you throw out the term 'Utopian' as though anyone actually believes that human society, any human society, can be considered Utopian. A weak, weak strawman of the very wost kind. I'm surprised that someone as 'intelligent' as yourself is even attempting the use of fallacious argument. I can't believe it's not deliberate.

 

 

In short, Communism is a life-denying ideology, one that preaches blind obedience to the mass collective and seeks to destroy the whole ethos of individualism. The fact that Eastern Europe has never recovered, 20+ years since it's fall, is proof positive of it's failures.

 

 

Communism does nothing to destroy individualism at all. You think commissars and KGB agents went house to house, collective to collective, removing any form of self-expression? I'm sorry, that sounds like the script to some bad Cold War movie. There's no denying the Soviet Union and former Soviet/Communist states were shitholes of oppression and misery, but that's primarily to do with those running the show, rather than the theorised economic/political model.

 

 

...and of course you neglect to mention the Soviet Gulags, the Cambodian Killing Fields, or Mao's "great leap forward" or the concrete jungles of Eastern Europe. And Communism DOES exclude people on the grounds of religion and throws people in jail due to their beliefs.

 

Oh, that wasn't any kind of a deliberate omission, regardless of whether or not you think I was being sly. I naturally assumed EVERYONE was aware of the Gulag system and collectivisation and the results of enforced civil engineering projects. I didn't think I would have to state what everyone was already aware of. Any particular reason why I should?

 

There's no denying Stalin rounded up, or 'proactively' executed, millions upon millions upon millions of political dissidents, military ranks, peasants.. Was that the result of the Communist manifesto or the result of Stalin being a bona fide, f**ked-in-the-head lunatic?

 

NAZIism, however, mandates the separation and subjegation of humanity, regardless of whether the guy at the top is mad or not.

 

As for Communism excluding religion....in practice, universally, no it doesn't. Stalin tried to curtail religion, true.... Marx alluded to the 'abolition of religion' ... but in practice, Communism doesn't particularly care. I recall you mentioned China earlier.... early attempts to stamp out religious worship were half-hearted, and for the last couple of decades China has actually been rebuilding most of the temples that were destroyed during the cultural revolution.

 

I'm sure in your many travels you've been to Russia or former Soviet states... the churches, vast, ornate edifices that were built at massive cost, while people were starving, remain untouched and thriving centres of worship. When I first walked into the Church of the Bleeding Saviour I was both awed at the architecture and disgusted by its ostentatiousness. But it's still there, it's still a world famous landmark, still used as a place of worship, despite communism.

 

I recall the western propaganda of my childhood, how Soviets and Communists weren't allowed to worship their gods, turns out that was largely untrue.

 

 

Utter nonsense. They [communism and fascism] are both tools with which to control. While many point out the secularity of both ideologies, the fact is that, in reality, they are organised religions, in that they preach blind totalitarian obedience and pour scorn on individualism on all levels. I have nothing but contempt for them.

 

 

ALL government, ALL political and most religious systems are tools by which to control the masses. Christianity, Islam, NAZIism, Communism.... all structured to control, collectively control, the masses. Do you honestly think that's some kind of revelation?

 

The only form of social individualism I can even think of, off the top of my head, would be Anarchism, and that in itself bring problems all of its own.

[Jocky Balboa]

I actually made NO assumptions regarding your intelligence. However, the fact that you felt the need to tell me how well-traveled and intelligent you are is quite interesting in itself.

 

Only because you were attempting to belittle it.

 

What's the part of Communist ideology that bothers you most?

 

Where do I start? There is no true equality for all. To attempt to implement such things would involve giving massive, undeserved privileges to the weak, while holding back the best of us. To even suggest that a Weegie minker who only works half as hard as an Aiberdeen loon that gives his pound of flesh day in day out, should enjoy the same standard of living, is ludicrous. As I also alluded to before, I believe that in most issues, the rights of the individual should take priority over the mass collective. Communism does not share that viewpoint. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is, Communism is a failed ideology that belongs on the scrapheap of history, along with Nazism, Fascism and other nonsense.

 

Oh please. In virtually all government, Anarchist aside, there is going to be a governing level and a proletariat. If there were no governing level then the proletariat would be living in an Anarchy, not a Communist state.

 

Agreed. But then, that belies the "everyone's equal" ethos, does it not? As I said, in practice, it is more like "all are equal, but some more equal than others". Communism looks good on paper, but is absolute garbage in practice. How many continents has it been tried out in, how many nations have tried - and failed - to implement it? Cuba? Don't make me laugh. A dictatorship where people are thrown in jail for so much as questioning the government, or reading George Orwell. China? Can anyone say that's a truly Communist state, given the amount of Capitalism in the big cities?

 

Communism does nothing to destroy individualism at all. You think commissars and KGB agents went house to house, collective to collective, removing any form of self-expression? I'm sorry, that sounds like the script to some bad Cold War movie. There's no denying the Soviet Union and former Soviet/Communist states were shitholes of oppression and misery, but that's primarily to do with those running the show, rather than the theorised economic/political model.

 

That first sentence is naive in the extreme. The very ideology preaches otherwise. It is a Collectivist ideology, one that therefore by it's very nature, is hostile to individualism.

 

As for Communism excluding religion....in practice, universally, no it doesn't. Stalin tried to curtail religion, true.... Marx alluded to the 'abolition of religion' ... but in practice, Communism doesn't particularly care. I recall you mentioned China earlier.... early attempts to stamp out religious worship were half-hearted, and for the last couple of decades China has actually been rebuilding most of the temples that were destroyed during the cultural revolution.

 

I'm sure in your many travels you've been to Russia or former Soviet states... the churches, vast, ornate edifices that were built at massive cost, while people were starving, remain untouched and thriving centres of worship. When I first walked into the Church of the Bleeding Saviour I was both awed at the architecture and disgusted by its ostentatiousness. But it's still there, it's still a world famous landmark, still used as a place of worship, despite communism.

 

I recall the western propaganda of my childhood, how Soviets and Communists weren't allowed to worship their gods, turns out that was largely untrue.

 

You're right, many DID continue to worship their religion, which made/makes them hypocrites. Do as we say, don't do as we do...

Marx DID say that dictatorship of the Proletariat was and would always be a necessary step after revolution.

 

ALL government, ALL political and most religious systems are tools by which to control the masses. Christianity, Islam, NAZIism, Communism.... all structured to control, collectively control, the masses. Do you honestly think that's some kind of revelation?

 

...which is why I distrust ANY country which has big government. Of course, Anarchy is not a viable option, given that human nature is a force that does need to be controlled TO SOME EXTENT (note the emphasis, for I acknowledge the need for rules and regulations. I only dispute the degree of control that should be exercised).

 

The only form of social individualism I can even think of, off the top of my head, would be Anarchism, and that in itself bring problems all of its own.

 

What about Objectivism? I'm not Ayn Rand's biggest fan (I believe she had a very flawed view of humanity, despite her intelligence and many good ideas) but Objectivists who follow her work (Atlas Shrugged being the most significant) can at least lay claim to being social individualists.

 

As for me, I may be overly idealistic here, but Thomas Jefferson et al had good ideas when they founded America. He himself stated that a government should be afraid of it's people, not the other way around. His vision of a moderately-governed, non-interventionist America was vastly different from what we see now, yet his Libertarian principles do seem more appealing today.

[daytripping]

I'm undecided at the moment, conservatives or bnp, probably go for the former but may yet be swayed.

[spamspamspam]

That's the thing, though.

 

The BNP/NF are racist organisations. Take that out of the equation and there is NO BNP or NF. Removing the xenophobia removes the entire reason for those organisations to exist.

 

Seriously, check out their manifesto.. it's almost entirely about fearmongering regarding minorities, gypsies, other Europeans, 'building fences'.

 

"DID YOU KNOW 8 MILLION GYPSIES ARE READY TO INVADE??!!??!!?? AND THE MUSLIMS!!! WE ARE CHRISTIANS!!!!"

 

They're NOT just another party. They're dedicated to segregation, xenophobia, sectarianism, and exclusion... and that's about it.

 

 

Kelt min

 

You take the word racist out of there and replace it with elitist and its the Tory party - they discriminate against the old, the disabled and the Jeremy Kyle Classes.

 

All UK politics is about discrimination of one sort or another. The Labour party discriminates against the British passport holders, the Tory's discriminate against all those that dont have large amounts of wedge, the Lib Dems discriminate against everyone equally...

 

Politics is discrimination, you will always be taking from one group and giving to another. Who decided discriminating against someone with black skin is any more acceptable than the discrimination your average middle class white man faces on a daily basis. With the way we are treated in this country I'm only surprised more people havent turned to Griffin and co. Thats not me saying I in any way support the BNP or any other exclusion party but I can see why they are beginning to gather momentum.

 

Personally I think wanting to be a politician in this day and age should be enough to ban you for life from ever becoming one.

[Bluto10]

I'm undecided at the moment, conservatives or bnp, probably go for the former but may yet be swayed.

 

your mental dayts.

[daytripping]

Instead of political parties it should all be down to independant people, no whips and party voting just 100 people debating any issue and voting on it.

 

You'd vote for the person who you like not what party he/she is in.

 

We have too many self serving chunts in power, cut the amount of them to 100 and pay them a small salary, they should be doing it for the good of the country not to line their pockets, build an hotel for them and feed them, give them a travel card for buses and railways, end expenses.

 

Job done.

[Bluto10]

i saw the mongs in the bnp party on the local aberdeen website.

 

absolutely hilarious.

 

i never realseid folk like that actually existed. well maybe in 1100 ad but not in the 21st century.

[Betty Swallicks]

Instead of political parties it should all be down to independant people, no whips and party voting just 100 people debating any issue and voting on it.

 

You'd vote for the person who you like not what party he/she is in.

 

We have too many self serving chunts in power, cut the amount of them to 100 and pay them a small salary, they should be doing it for the good of the country not to line their pockets, build an hotel for them and feed them, give them a travel card for buses and railways, end expenses.

 

Job done.

 

 

 

X Idol/Talent Factor Prime Minister.

 

Will Young or some Black "dancers" at the UK helm.

 

YAS! I'm in!

[Ke1t]

Only because you were attempting to belittle it.

 

Not at all. If you, or anyone else (myself included) finds themselves part of a group that's being generalised about, bear in mind that generalisation is simply a tool we're forced to utilise in order to communicate effectively.

 

Like, for example, Huns are c**ts.

 

It's entirely possible that there is, somewhere, a Hun who isn't a filthy c**t. But you can't take Huns on a case by case basis... there's just too many of them.

 

So it is with NF or BNP, there might, possibly, however remote the chance, be a BNP or NF supporter who isn't a knuckle-dragging scumball of the lowest order. But you can't take every BNP or NF supporter on a case by case basis. Ergo, you'll find me refer to BNP or NF supporters, in general, as knuckle-dragging scumballs ot the lowest order. Because we're forced to generalise.

 

So if you found yourself in in a group that I've previously derided, fret not... I'm merely generalising.

 

 

 

Where do I start? There is no true equality for all. To attempt to implement such things would involve giving massive, undeserved privileges to the weak, while holding back the best of us.

 

BINGO! However that's not a negative thing, I'm afraid. what you've just described is a COMMUNITY. Where people have the decency to take care of the weaker elements of THEIR community. Junkies, the uneducated, the stupid, the unemployable, the elderly, the disabled, the scumballs.... all are part of the community and are looked after. This doesn't mean that freeloading is acceptable. If there's a position available and someone is too lazy to work or benefit the community then the rule of law would come into effect, whatever that rule of law might be. If someone is a crackhead then that crackhead is rehabilitated. If the crackhead commits a crime then the rule of law would take effect.

 

There's a bizarre mindset amongst the right... and I'm generalising, so don't get sensitive... that socialism or communism somehow, by definition, must reward laziness. This notion, however, is... how to best put it.... pish.

 

 

To even suggest that a Weegie minker who only works half as hard as an Aiberdeen loon that gives his pound of flesh day in day out, should enjoy the same standard of living, is ludicrous.

 

Yeah, it is kinda stupid, isn't it. Luckily, as I've pointed out, that notion is... pish. I'm sure you don't think something dumb like that, though

 

As I also alluded to before, I believe that in most issues, the rights of the individual should take priority over the mass collective. Communism does not share that viewpoint.

 

The natural progression of an unregulate, laissez faire market economy is that wealth begins to be accumulated at a faster and faster rate within a smaller and smaller body of the people. This means that wealth is distributed at a ludicrous rate of something like 95% for the top few percent, while the other 5% of the wealth is distributed to the remaining 95% of the people.

 

An anecdote I liked was that three men were sitting at a table. One was super-rich, one was a trades unionist and the other was a non-Union schmoe. The waiter brings 100 cakes to the table, just for the sake of analogy, and the super rich dude takes 99 of the cakes to himself. There's one cake left, and the schmoe and the trade-unionist are looking at that one cake. The super rich dude leans over and says to the schmoe... "You know... the trades unionist is planning to steal your cake.

 

If you've read any history, you might want to look at the history of Rome, particularly just before the collapse of the Western Empire. What you had there was a laissez faire market reaching its inevitable conclusion.

 

It wasn't pretty.

 

I can go on and on, but the bottom line is, Communism is a failed ideology that belongs on the scrapheap of history, along with Nazism, Fascism and other nonsense.

 

Damn, but you like to deal in strawmen. I don't know if this is deliberate on your part or if you're just throwing it out there because you think no-one will notice?

 

Doesn't really matter, of course.

 

Communism isn't a failed system because it hasn't been properly observed. In all the popular 20th Century 'Communisms', china, Soviet Union, Cuba, Angola... what you have is a dictator running the show. Those were.... that's right... Dictatorships, with a splash of Communist government. But they weren't run for the benefit of the people, they were run for the benefit of either the Dictator or the Totalitarian Oligarchy.

 

Further to that, you can't called something 'failed' until, A/ It has been tested properly and B/ There's no more time in which to test it.

 

So, were we right now at the end of the world, and had any of the systems we called 'Communist' (but weren't) been tested exhaustively, then you could call Communism a failed system.

 

But since we can satisfy neither criteria A or B... what you've presented is a strawman.

 

You can apply this same logic to nonsense like 'failed multiculturalism'.

 

 

Cuba? Don't make me laugh. A dictatorship where people are thrown in jail for so much as questioning the government, or reading George Orwell. China? Can anyone say that's a truly Communist state, given the amount of Capitalism in the big cities?

 

Well now, here we are. You've just admitted that Cuba was a Dictatorship, not a Communist society. And now you're changing your mind and saying that China, the fastest growing major economy on the planet isn't Communist... despite using them as an example of Communism previously.

 

It's tricky, isn't it? Trying to use countries as examples of failed Communsim, but then later coming to the realisation that they weren't true Communisms at all.

 

Crazy stuff.

[Ke1t]

Ke1t, on 01 May 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

Communism does nothing to destroy individualism at all.

 

That first sentence is naive in the extreme. The very ideology preaches otherwise. It is a Collectivist ideology, one that therefore by it's very nature, is hostile to individualism.

 

Working for the common good and being your own person are not mutually exclusive. The Soviet Union had poets, musicians, artists... all the kind of stuff that we in the west had that allow people to express themselves. That successive dictators or Oligarchies threw certain 'dissidents' in jail is a reflection on those dictators and oligarchies who were running the show for their own benefit, not on the communist system.

 

 

You're right, many DID continue to worship their religion, which made/makes them hypocrites. Do as we say, don't do as we do...

Marx DID say that dictatorship of the Proletariat was and would always be a necessary step after revolution.

 

Whoa, just a second... who are the hypocrites? Those who continued to worship? I don't see how those people are hypocritical in any way at all. did they all sign a document denouncing or renouncing their faith? Or were they just people like you or I who weren't affiliated with the people running the show, but rather just proles with no say?

 

An extreme example would be if a government in Britain to take power, and their whole mandate was shitting on kittens? Would that make YOU a hypocrite if you refused to sh*t on kittens? Of course not. You're probably breaking the law by not shitting on kittens, potentially, but you're certainly not a hypocrite, since your particular ideology has always been to NOT sh*t on kittens.

 

I'm assuming you don't sh*t on kittens.... if you do then substitute kittens for something you don't firmly believe in shitting on.

 

 

 

...which is why I distrust ANY country which has big government. Of course, Anarchy is not a viable option, given that human nature is a force that does need to be controlled TO SOME EXTENT (note the emphasis, for I acknowledge the need for rules and regulations. I only dispute the degree of control that should be exercised).

 

Big or small, I doubt the number of departments in a government has much bearing on the corruption of those of a cabinet level or above. I dislike government based on the notion that the vast majority of them are f**ked, broken or corrupt to begin with.

 

 

What about Objectivism? I'm not Ayn Rand's biggest fan (I believe she had a very flawed view of humanity, despite her intelligence and many good ideas) but Objectivists who follow her work (Atlas Shrugged being the most significant) can at least lay claim to being social individualists.

 

I won't detail my opinion of Ayn Rand... suffice to say... it's not good.

 

As for me, I may be overly idealistic here, but Thomas Jefferson et al had good ideas when they founded America. He himself stated that a government should be afraid of it's people, not the other way around. His vision of a moderately-governed, non-interventionist America was vastly different from what we see now, yet his Libertarian principles do seem more appealing today.

 

I can't even remember America being some fluffy-bunny, despite the history books painting the founding fathers and early America in glowing terms.

 

I agree with much of what the founding fathers were about, and Americans (generally) hold the Constitution up like it's the holiest of holies, while at the very same time acting in a fashion completely at odds with its intent.

 

Its like Christians in America. They have this bizarre idea that they're the only moral people on the planet, because of the teachings of their alleged saviour, and yet if Christ ever had existed and if he were to return, he'd be pilloried by the very same people who claim to be Christians in America.

 

People will go to whatever rhetorical or mental extremes they need to justify or rationalise being c**ts to other people, however... and that's a maxim that will always be true.

 

Jesus advocated turning the other cheek.

 

Post 911, did Born Again Christian George Bush turn the other cheek or did he start a series of wars based primarily on greed and vengeance?

 

Born Again Christian, right there.

[Jocky Balboa]

@Kelt:

 

Firstly, let me assure you (since you called it into question) that I did not feel any special need to emphasise my intelligence, or the fact that my family and I are well-travelled. I simply added it because it was appropriate in context (i.e. mentioning my idea of "diversity", etc. and that my views are well thought-out from an intellectual, open-minded perspective) and it should not be misconstrued as a misguided call for a pissing contest. I simply enjoy a good debate, as do you, I can see. Long may it continue!

 

Your last 2 posts there find me actually agreeing more than disagreeing with you. However, when you (quite rightly) state that there has never, strictly speaking, been a TRUE Marxist state (at least, not one that has implemented the 3 stages of his grand plan) you bring me to the crux of my argument against it... As I said before, it is a life-denying ideology, much like the organised religions it came into mutual conflict with. Put simply, human nature is what it is: inherently and irrepairably flawed. It is also selfish at the best of times. Therefore it is foolish and naive to expect the greater portion of humanity to band together for the mass collective. The fact that said countries who attempted Communism through revolution did not do so peacefully and were even less tactful in their post-revolutionary implementation (or at least, their interpretation of it, right or wrong) of the Manifesto, is telling. Telling, in that it simply cannot be achieved without coercion at best and horrifying bloodshed at worst.

 

I await a country/cultural group who will prove me wrong on that front, but I won't hold my breath and stand firm in my view that Communism never has and never will work.

 

As for your views on laissez faire Capitalism, I couldn't agree more, which is why I made reference to Ayn Rand (herself one of it's most famous advocates). I find it somewhat ironic that while she held disdain for mass collectivism, her vision of a free market economy falls down because it relies on the very good of humanity that she herself claimed was either wrong/does not exist.

 

Feel free to add your take on it.

[Ke1t]

My own philosophy is that adherence to one single philosophy leads to investment in that philosophy. And when you become invested in one particular philosophy you'll find yourself so indoctrinated that you end up going to ridiculous lengths to defend your philosophy or to attack other philosophies. People act like retards when that happens.

 

Perfect example was a couple of nights ago when Obama sent Special forces to allegedly kill Bin Laden. One particular Republican supporter on another board posted to complain that Obama was tardy in announcing the news. For f**k's sake... they just killed their public enemy number one, but rather than praise Obama she chose to bitch about him being a little late to the podium.

 

Other examples would be Republicans being perfectly fine with torturing Iraqi civilians, or negating the Constitution they claim to love so much, because it was 'their' president who was doing it. Seriously, they were defending the suspension of Habeas Corpus, because it was 'their' president who did so. They're out of their f**king minds.

 

Adherence to the principle of an inflexible Centralised Economy or a Laissez Fair Capitalist economy is equally f**ked in the head.

 

With a Laissez Fair market economy you end up with people sitting on personal wealth in excess of some nations. That that kind of power can be wielded by unelected private citizens is outrageous. Bill Gates has 101 BILLION bucks as a personal fortune... meanwhile old people are freezing to death because their pension is either too small to afford heating or was wiped out because the company decided profit was more important than paying out the money people were entitled to.

 

f**k it, cap personal wealth at a Billion. Take that extra 100 Billion and save a few lives, get junkies off smack and back working as productive human beings, buy laptops for schools in impoverished areas. Leaving Gates with a Billion bucks... and if he can't have a f**king FANTASTIC life on a Billion bucks then there's something very wrong with him.

 

Spreading the wealth does NOT mean guys like Gates have to live at the same level as a family of 8 crackheads in Glasgow.... what it does mean is that the vast majority of wealth isn't locked up in the swiss banks of a small percentage of unbelievable wealthy people.

 

Systems like Capitalism and Communism should be merely a rule of thumb.... a better system would be sanity.

 

Take elements of Capitalism and Communism and merge them with rational, sustainable policies.

 

Arguing one over the other is the result of indoctrination.