Thursday, June 04, 2009

Fisking the BNP's Economic Policy

I got this idea from that non-racist, non-conspiratorial, non-mental, not least bit lunatic fringe and certainly not a green ink nutter, Tim Ireland, so I thought I would help him out. So here we have the state position of the so-called "far right" BNP on how they would deal with the economy.
  • The nurturing and encouragement of new and existing British industries; - bland general statement which is totally meaningless
  • The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports; - Socialist protectionism, God they are so horribly right wing aren't they?
  • The promotion of domestic competition; - The promotion of a a commanded internal competition economy that is anti-free trade. Bukharin called that "Socialism in One Nation"
  • Increased taxes on companies which outsource work abroad; - punishing companies for acting in their interests whn they engage in global free trade and labour liberalisation? Who'd have thought such vicious right wingers could be so socialist?
  • The reintroduction of the married man’s allowance; - what about married women?
  • The raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million; - utterly meanigless given that the economic will be in the shit and no one will have that much to give away because of the socialist protectionism. A dog whistle policy that is total inconsistent with the socialism already laid out.
  • The encouragement of savings, investment, worker share-ownership and profit-sharing; - what's this? The workers owning things through state legislated share and profit owenrship? Marx and Engels would be turning in their grave at such rabid right wingism!
  • Halving council tax by centralising education costs and eliminating multiculturalism spending and unnecessary bureaucracy; - the authoritarian centralisation of education spending away from local people? God they're so right wing aren't they? No one on the Left would ever centralise education would they!
  • The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors. - Oh my, nationalisation!? These EVIL right wingers must be stopped! We can't possibly let these right wingnuts make the state own anything! Only the Left could stop this!

Please note that this post is laced with sarcasm and is largely directed at the idiots on the left who are so thick that they see "BNP" and scream "right wing" without actually reading what they say, and then go on to promote Maoists and Trotskyites instead as some sort of 'saner' alternative.

The facts are plain though. The BNP are ignorant white-power socialists who think the historical murder of millions of Jews is a lie and even it wasn't true it's not that bad. Meanwhile their most vehement critics are apologists for Maoists, Trotskyites and Stalinists, who's historical murder of millions of people in the name of socialism, is something to be quietly ignored because their ideology is pure and on the side of angels don't you know.

I'm not sure who is worse, the BNP for thier odious views on race and political oppression, or their hypocritical critics who fail to condemn with equal vigour the murder of millions in the name of their equally warped political ideologies.

70 comments:

Colonel Smedley said...

Lefties will always refer to the BNP as right-wing. It's a game of tainting the Tories by association.

It's rule no. 453 of the official Labour Party Book of Cheap Tricks.

Henry North London said...

Good fisking but most of this is left wing authoritarian stuff

John said...

Yes of course, it's the economics that everyone hates about the BNP isn't it!!

marvin said...

Spot on Dizzmeister.

dizzy said...

Henry, I know that, I was being sarcastic because idiots like Tim Ireland scream "right wing" whilst seemingly being unable to identitfy left wing policies when they're staying them in the face.

Henry North London said...

Well thats ok then!!

Have a fun day Take care for now

Anonymous said...

I don't see the point of this debate on whether the BNP belongs to the far right or far left. Does it matter? What defines them is their ideology of hate, rather than their idiotic "plat du jour" economic policies.

dizzy said...

"I don't see the point of this debate on whether the BNP belongs to the far right or far left. Does it matter?"

Actually it does because it's policy that matters and there is far more to the BNP's policies that place them firmly in agreement with the far Left than anything else. Their only difference is the ignorance about skin colour.

James Higham said...

Please note that this post is laced with sarcasm and is largely directed at the idiots on the left who are so thick that they see "BNP" and scream "right wing" without actually reading what they say, and then go to promote Maoists and Trotskyites instead as a saner alternative.

Precisely.

Tim said...

The BNP by their own admission wear these policies like a cloak. What matters to them most of all is race, and their approach to that is decidedly right wing. But thanks for your input.

Sue said...

I think everyone's current obsession with the BNP is quite pathetic..

I happen to agree with Ranting Stan on this one Are we opening the door to extremists?

dizzy said...

Tim, please explain how the issue of "race" is inherently right wing?

Tim said...

I didn't say that the issue of race was inherently right wing. I said that the BNP's approach to it was decidely right wing.

Are you trying to waste my time again?

dizzy said...

I look forward to you explaining to me how Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao's racism was right wing.

dizzy said...

"Are you trying to waste my time again?"

Not at all Tim. I want you to justify your assertion that the BNP's approach to race is decidely right wing. That will mean you will need to show what makes it right wing and hope to hell that I can't find you examples of similar approaches to race on the left - which is easy incidentally because they do whole units on such things in undergraduate sociology and politics degrees.

Tim said...

Sure, if you can keep your hair on for a bit.

dizzy said...

Bring it on. Justify your assertion that the approach to race of the BNP is decidely right wing. Please start by outlinging your defintion of "right wing".

Tim said...

Dictionary works for me; right wing = conservative or reactionary.

The only radical change they seek is a reversal of what they mostly imagine to be happening.

dizzy said...

Sorry can you provide a link for that because the first part copntradicts the second.

conservatism (small c) is not about reversal. Nor is radical, in fact it is the opposite of radical change.

You're conflating two concept here, radicalism and conservatism, they don't work together.

Can you please be a little more specific.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the left wing/right wing debate has any merit. Large government/small government is far more useful.
If you look at the parties that believe in big government, namely LibLabConBNP, you would see that any of them could use racism if it got them elected. We've seen this with Labour especially in this current campaign.
I have no doubt that the BNP will increase their vote as desperation sets in, after the economy collapses, but they will probably have their thunder stolen by the big 3 parties.

Tim said...

Well, if you're not trying to waste my time then you're not paying attention and wasting it anyway

I said very clearly that the only radical change they seek is a reversal of what they mostly imagine to be happening.

dizzy said...

Incidentally, I;m not being pedantic here, I just think its important that we not conflate opposites. You see "conservativism" has its roots in Greek Pyrrhonism, which is essentially sceptical towards change, and especially wary of radical change. It is not however about the regression of changes to a previous world.

In comparison, radicalism take an approach to change which is anything but conservative. In addition, reactionary needs to be defined as well, as currently it appears to be simply used a perjorative concept in the current context.

Anonymous said...

Dizzy, I think this 'extreme right wing / extreme left thing' is a load of bollocks.

In many parliaments, they are a 'horseshoe' shape to reflect the fact that 'extreme right' and 'extreme left' are not polar opposites, but kinda move towards each other 'behind the chair'..

So rather than being at diametrical opposites of the circle, they begin to inhabit the same quadrant of space.

So all these arguments about whether the BNP are extreme right or extreme left are fatuous in the extreme [pardon the pun] and about as relevant as a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Anonymous said...

The movement of 'National Socialism' from an identified "left wing" possition on the spectrum to a "right wing" one is an oddity of history bourne out of neccesity during WW2 and never put to rest.

Hitler's party were the National Socialists, an obviously nationalistic but equally socialist group. Stalin viewed Hitler as an ally, as did the Communist Party of GB, and the USSR invaded Poland in 1939 with Germany - Hitler and Stalin having carved up the map at an earlier meeting. After our Declaration of War on Germany many British socialist opposed the war, indeed the Communist Party of GB organised strikes to disrupt the effort against their ideological ally.

Of course National Socialist is spelt in German with a Z in it, and the name was deliberately shortened to Nazi to downplay the socialist connection to unite the country. It was also termed far-right at the same time for the same reason; to put it at odds with the growing level of socialist in Britain.

newsjunction.co.uk

dizzy said...

Well, if you're not trying to waste my time then you're not paying attention and wasting it anyway

Not at all, let's deal precisely with you just repeated,

"I said very clearly that the only radical change they seek is a reversal of what they mostly imagine to be happening."

This is problematic because it does not fit with your dictionary defintion of right wing. Firstly, you said that right wing means "conservative". The problem is that conservatives do not believe in radical change. What's more it is perfectly possible to be conservative but be on the Left.

Secondly, you are making the mistake of saying "right wing = reactionary" ergo it must follow that "reactionary = right wing". Therefore if you can find any example of reactionary attitude in the BNP it must be right wing. However, this presupposes that no reactionary approaches can exist on the Left. A quick look at the far left SWP will show you that in fact there is reactionary approaches to things, such as a reversal of the economy back towards nationalisation becaise of what they mostly imagine to be happening.

Given this I'm afraid thus far you're point does not show that their approach is right wing, this is because your defintion of what is right wing is too loose and can also encompass, evidentally, what is left wing.

Tim said...

The problem is that conservatives do not believe in radical change.

How can the BNP radically change something that isn't really there (like the 'voiceless white minority'? How can they reverse something that isn't really happening (like the 'Muslimification' of the UK)?

The BNP enthusing on the need for radical change is a front. It is a cloak they wear.

A green cloak does not make a Tory green inside, does it?

There's a point about extreme views/aims I'll happily acknowledge, though. Off the reservation is off the reservation, regardless of the path taken, and we each have our own paths to maintain. I contend that the BNP's currently skirts to the left, then doglegs hard right (and will continue to go to the right for as long as crap rolls off cliffs).

dizzy said...

How can the BNP radically change something that isn't really there (like the 'voiceless white minority'? How can they reverse something that isn't really happening (like the 'Muslimification' of the UK)?

Tim, I didn't say that it could; nor did I say that what it wants to change is or is not there. What I said was that your assertion that they want radical change does not confirm with the definition of right wing that you provided, and given that you're meant to be justifying the assertion that their approach to race is "decidely right wing" you've failed to do so.

The BNP enthusing on the need for radical change is a front. It is a cloak they wear.

That as maybe, but it bears no relevance to the argument and discussion we are meant to be having. You said that the BNPs approach to race was "decidely right wing". You then defined right wing as being conservative and reactionary, and then said that the BNP desire radical change back to a status quo (mythical or otherwise) therefore they are right wing within the terms you defined.

The problem, as I pointed out, is that your definition of right wing does not fit with what you say is evidence of the BNP's approach to race being right wing. Your definition refers to the quality of being "conservative", which is the complete opposite of "radical change".

Likewise, you have conflated reactionist attitudes to be inherent of the Right when in fact there are reactionaries on the Left also. Ergo it does not necessarily follow that the BNP's desire to return to an "all white paradise" (real or otherwsie) is a quality of the Right.

It's worth noting that I am not saying it follows in this case that if the approach to race in your defintional term is not of the Right it must be of the Left. In fact I have said many times on this blog that race and racism does not belong to any particular side as there are ignorants on both.

A green cloak does not make a Tory green inside, does it?

Again this is not relevant to what you said you would justify and have thus far failed to do so. Sorry.

I contend that the BNP's currently skirts to the left, then doglegs hard right (and will continue to go to the right for as long as crap rolls off cliffs).

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, if you are going to contend such things you're going to have to justfiy them in more than ad lapidem terms. You have still not successfully shown what in the BNPs approach to race is "decidely right wing".

As I said above, I would assert that their approach to race is neither right or left wing. It is simply racist, and racism can live anywhere on the political spectrum, as history shows us quite well.

Tim said...

What I said was that your assertion that they want radical change does not confirm (sic)...

I made no such assertion. I said that the only radical change they seek is a reversal of what they mostly imagine to be happening (or 'pretend' if we're to be less generous about intentions). There cannot be radical change if they reverse something imaginary, but you've been completely blind to that how many times now?

Deliberately or not, you are wasting my time. Goodbye.

john b said...

Talk about angel-head-pin-dancing...

Look: racism *is* inherently conservative, far more so than free-trade economics (which didn't exist meaningfully until the 18th-19th century).

The extent to which modern day conservative-identifying parties aren't racist, is the extent to which they've put their conservatism aside and embraced liberal values.

The BNP are a racist party. Hence, they're a conservative party - a more conservative party than the Tories or the UKIP.

dizzy said...

I made no such assertion. I said that the only radical change they seek is a reversal of what they mostly imagine to be happening (or 'pretend' if we're to be less generous about intentions). There cannot be radical change if they reverse something imaginary, but you've been completely blind to that how many times now?

This is not strictly true. You said they sought a "radical change" to something. It is irrelevant if that something is actually nothing. You still noted that they were radicals. All I did was note that your own defintion of right wing is not compatiable with radicalism, and given that you were trying to justify that their approach to race was "decidely right wing" your argument was flawed.

I have not been blind to anything. I have at no point said that there can or cannot actually be radical change. What I have said is that by you asserting that they desire radical ends (irrespective of whether those ends are possible or not because of flaws in their starting assumptions) you have flatly contradicted your own defintion of what is right wing and as such have failed to justify what you continue to contend.

Deliberately or not, you are wasting my time. Goodbye.

I never thought you'd be one to run away from an argument online. C'est la vie.

dizzy said...

@john_b

Two things:

1: Please define "conservativism" and how such a philosophical strategy is inherently racist.
2: Are you contending that the Kymer Rouge and Stalin were not Communists?

dizzy said...

Note to Tim should he read this. I see you're now contending that racism and conservatism are the same thing as well.

I strongly suggest you get yourself to a library and get yourself a copy of History of Western Philosophy, and/or a Dictionary of Political Philosophy.

Start with Plato and read your way through to Foucault and the Neo-Marxist. It will help you get a clue, seriously.

Anonymous said...

Ooh yummy, false continuums!

Larry Teabag said...

The Left aren't the only people who think the BNP are right-wing, you know.

The BNP also think that - very, very strongly indeed.

In fact the only people who don't think so, are free-trade types who believe, ridiculously, that economics is the only valid basis to decide these things.

Please try to understand that no-one (except apparently you) gives the slightest fuck about the BNP's economic policies. I don't, Nick Griffin doesn't, and nor does anyone voting for them, or campaigning against them. They are utterly unimportant, and as such not a sensible basis for rejecting the right-wing label that the BNP themselves embrace.

dizzy said...

For anyone reading this, Tim has left the thread and I'm guessing, seeing as he's resorted to calling me a tosser on Twitter isn't coming back.

So just to recap. Tim said above that the BNP'approach to race was decidely right wing. He gave a definition of right wing and then proceeded to say what the BNP would like to do after his definition.

I then pointed out that what he said was right wing did not match with what he then said about the BNP. In fact it was a complete contradiction in political philosophy terms. Tim did not like this and so tried to change the debate and went to essentially appeal to the little child argument of 'it is it is it is because I say so!'

When I pointed out again, quite calmly that he still failed to show how the approach to race by the BNP was inherently right wing within the terms of his own definition, he said I was wasting his time and went. This is called the 'its my ball and I'm going home' strategy.

Its worth noting as well of course that in no point have I said that the BNPs approach to race is not right wing. All I have done is ask Tim to back the statement up with argument, something that he failed to do. One thing is for sure though, the approach to race by the BNP is not conservative because it is radical.

Windsor Tripehound said...

Tim said...

Are you trying to waste my time again?


I think you'll find that you're wasting it unaided

dizzy said...

@larry

As I said with Tim. Show me how the BNP are right wing. Don't just say 'everyone including them think they are so they are'. Everyone used to think the world was flat but it didn't make it true.

Fine, let's put their socialist and decidely left wing policies aside. What is right wing about what is left. Remeber though that if you say racism then that must mean that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Marx and Engels were all right wing too.

Anonymous said...

Surely this is all the explanation needed...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif

Michael said...

Personally, I see the BNP as socially conservative (as the opposite to liberal), rather than economically.

Again when we talk left-right we are just talking economics, social conservatism has often been put with right-wing economics so people confuse that they must always go together, which is not the case in famous Fascist parties, all who were moderately centrist or to the side economically (apart from the obvious communist dictators).

Anonymous said...

Tim said"A green cloak does not make a Tory green inside, does it?"


Was it the BNP who, when referring to people of colour born in the UK, said "A dog born in a stable doesn't make it a horse"?

Anonymous said...

Tim, you should never have said that bit about Dizzy keeping his hair on. He was alright until then, but he gets a bit touchy about his thinning bonce.

dizzy said...

Huh? Was that meant to be a clever secondary reference to false continums?

Anonymous said...

Anon @18:37.

If they did they were plagiarising Wellington who said of himself being born in Ireland "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse".

Green Gordon said...

"Please note that this post is laced with sarcasm"

Hah!

Gotta love a disclaimer.

If you want to have a boring argument that's been done to death, why not start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_National_Party

AJ said...

I have never understood why people on the "left" assume that racism is a "right" wing thing. I have never found this to be a true statement.

Larry Teabag said...

The words "world" and "flat" have unambiguous meanings that everyone agrees on. The whole point is the words "left" and "right" don't - so either (a) you demand on your own definitions being used exclusively, even thought they're utterly out of sync with the language of the rest of the English-speaking world; or (b) you pay some attention to how people actually use these terms, according to which, resoundingly, the BNP are a right-wing organisation.

Psychopathic cunt said...

What is the exact definition of the word racist anyway?

Anonymous said...

Come to think of it, did Hitler even care? He just fucking hated Jews. It's no good really in trying to work out what Hitler would do in the UK today because he was a product of a specific set of circumstances.

I suppose what could happen if the BNP got powerful enough is that I could somehow be catapulted into a place where I would have a say on things....then you really would have something to fucking worry about.

john b said...

Err, Dizzy, do you know the derivation of right-wing? It's from the French pro-religion, pro-monarchy, pro-aristocracy (and, as a fairly minor afterthought, anti-free-trade) party in the Legislative Assembly of 1791, who sat to the King's right. The group who sat to his left were socially liberal and pro-free-markets.

(the concept of 'right wing' and 'pro-free-trade capitalism' being somehow definitionally similar barely existed pre-Thatcher, outside of the US at least)

On that most basic historical definition, which category do you think the BNP fall into? Right = socially reactionary, or left = liberal free-marketeers?

dizzy said...

Minor problems here. Firstly, on the "most basic historical definition" if we must use it, the BNP are anti-aristorcracy and anti-monarchy. So how that makes them like the French pro-monarchy pro-arsitocracy I shall not know.

Additionally you are making the same mistake as Tim, arguing along the lines of:

If "right" = "reactionary" then "reactionary" == "right". The problem is that there is reactionary attittude on the left. in fact, like racism, it spans the political spectrum.

Incidnetally, your historical definition is wrong. The "left"in France was not "pro-free trade only" it was both. The earlier social theorists of the French revolutionaries were certainly not on the reactionary side but on trade they were not free marketeers either.

I guess what I'm saying here is that your historical defintion is historically inaccurate and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny anyway because it is far to simplistic.

As I said, this is not about me saying they are not right wing per se, ratehr it is about me saying that you can be racist irrespective of where you sit on the political spetrum and, on the balance and addition of policy the BNP sit to the left, hence the tag "white power socialists".

Laughing at Gordon said...

Hilarious. Tim Ireland totally owned.

These days, 'right wing' and 'left wing' refer to your views on economics and how inclined you are towards the free market. 'Authoritarian' and 'libertarian' refer to your views on social issues such as how far you feel the state should interfere with your life. Issues such as racism don't enter into this - it's strictly a personal trait that the BNP (who are left-wing authoritarians, no question) have chosen to make a political issue. They're racist socialists - fact. Personal traits don't necessarily affect your wider political views. Those with longer memories may remember a BBC TV show from the 1970s called 'Love Thy Neighbour', where the character of a white, patriotic, working-class man made jokes at the expense of his black neighbours. Guess what? He was written as a socialist...

Tim J said...

They advertise themselves as "the Labour Party your parents voted for" and are making most of their gains in areas which ought to be Labour strongholds, so it's hardly ridiculous to describe them as left wing.

I wrote a post about this a few days ago, which generally posited that parties like the Nf and the BNP tend to do better under an unpopular Labour government than under the Tories, whether popular or not. My reasoning was that portions of the White working class feel that, if they stop supporting Labour there is no other mainstream party for them.

You're then stuck arguing that old Labour is right wing, or that the Bnp is a right wing party with prediminantly left wing voters or some such nonsense. The real position is that the BNP falls so far out of the mainstream that left and right are both inappropriate, and that the term right wing is used mainly to tag the Tories with guilty by association.

Carl said...

Shame that the AntiNaziLeague and the RockAgainstRacism lot didn't all come from the Right then Dizzy, eh? Unless you're saying that the Clash and Billy Bragg are actually Right-wniggers under all that blather about equality, etc.

Now, if the luvvies and the musos from your side of the fence decided to actually stand up and be counted, perhaps it wouldn't be such a struggle to argue that the BNP are actually a left wing party.

All through the 80s the right could hardly be heard criticising the NF or the BNP. How come?

dizzy said...

"All through the 80s the right could hardly be heard criticising the NF or the BNP. How come?"

I was no less than 5 and no more than 14?

Carl said...

I doubt you were the only member of the right in those days Dizzy, much as you like to place yourself in the centre of the universe.

I seem to recall some seething vixen from Grantham and her mate Tebbit, Parkinson et al.

Do us a favour and dig out their quotes decrying the evil of the NF/BNP, there's a good lad. I'm busy drowning kittens.

dizzy said...

I see, so because of the party I am in currently I am responsible for everything that party has ever said ever?

What complete and total wank of the highest order. What Thatcher or anyone else did or didn't say when i was five years old has fuck all to do with me and what I am saying now.

If you think it does have relvance then you're a retard.

Carl said...

Seeing as you regularly regard Ireland and others as responsible for everything ever said by the left ever ever ever...

Well, having your cake and eating it could suggest you've set the retard standard.

What ARE you saying now?

"this is not about me saying they are not right wing per se, ratehr it is about me saying that you can be racist irrespective of where you sit on the political spetrum and, on the balance and addition of policy the BNP sit to the left,"

Evidently, (because you don't want to include any history as you get upset at the concept of past faults being attributed to current members), you're only content with (and I paraphrase before you screech "where did I say that?") 'anyone can be a racist, but they're more likely to be from the left'....

Top fisking Diz. Want to come killing kittens to free up some of that tension?

dizzy said...

"Seeing as you regularly regard Ireland and others as responsible for everything ever said by the left ever ever ever..."

Actually I regularly regard Ireland as responsible for the shit that he comes out with and whenevr I reference him it is with reference to what he says.

As for the other bit, no I;m not saying that 'anyone can be a racist, but they're more likely to be from the left'. I;m saying anyone can be racist and whether they are right or left is not a kety factor in whether they are racist.

Carl said...

Fair point. Well made. 'Anyone can be a racist, and their politics isn't necessarily the cause of their racism.'

Now, could you comment on why, during the 80s, the only organisations/groups who appeared to speak out and target the BNP/NF were those from the left.

Or, to paraphrase 'if anyone can be a racist, how come it appears only the left are the anti-racists while the right just sit on their cushions at home'?

And, btw, I don't think it's an unfair or retarded question, so don't do your usual explosion of vitriol or expletives, eh? There could be kids watching this...

dizzy said...

"if anyone can be a racist, how come it appears only the left are the anti-racists while the right just sit on their cushions at home'?"

A preference towards postive liberty and a Volatairan attitude toward speech being free however offensive it may be to whatever group it might appear to segregate?

One could of course throw the question on its head and ask why it is that the Left think Che Guvara is an icon worth wearing on their chest?

Carl said...

That wasn't Voltaire. It wasn't even Cabaret Voltaire for that matter.

So, the right didn't oppose the BNP/NF because they thought that would be against free speech?

That's rather worrying in some respects, if it's not too infuriating for you to hear such a reactionary opinion. Are you sure the right were thinking "no, no, you go ahead and beat up the Paki's, because you're merely exercising your right to free speech and I applaud that sentiment to the death" or they just didn't give a toss?

Either way, they could've at least said, 'while I respect your view, and will defend it to the death, I do feel you're a bunch of racist cocks for your views of our coloured brethren'. I mean, they wouldn't even have had to get up from their leather armchair for that statement to The Times, would they?

The Che thing's easy to answer. Che on your chest looked cooler than Nixon or Ford. Kissinger however, would've looked cool because of his crazy hair and he was a chick-magnet.

I shouldn't have mentioned the hair thing, should I? Sorry.

dizzy said...

That wasn't Voltaire.

Yes I know, but it didn't make the response any less understandable

"So, the right didn't oppose the BNP/NF because they thought that would be against free speech?"

I don't know. You asked me a question and I responded with a possible reason with a question mark on the end?

Are you sure the right were thinking "no, no, you go ahead and beat up the Paki's, because you're merely exercising your right to free speech and I applaud that sentiment to the death" or they just didn't give a toss?"

As per the previous response, I didn't say I was sure of anything. You asked me why some people who were around when I was between five and 14 years old did something. I responded with a possible theory but ended it with a question mark.

Either way, they could've at least said, 'while I respect your view, and will defend it to the death, I do feel you're a bunch of racist cocks for your views of our coloured brethren'.

Yes they could've, whats the point you're making though.

The Che thing's easy to answer. Che on your chest looked cooler than Nixon or Ford. Kissinger however, would've looked cool because of his crazy hair and he was a chick-magnet.

I wasn't just talking about then, I was talking about now as well. It;s not just Che of course, but there is something worrying is there not that wearing a Nazi t-shirt is condemned, quite rightly, because of what it represnts, but wearing a Che Guvara, or hammer and sickle is not.

You'll note that in this post and other, I am consistent in saying the Communist and Nazis should bne despised with equal vigour.

Regarding the hair, I'm not sure I actually understand either (a) how its a dig, or (b) why. It used to be worse and I did out of choice.

Tim J said...

Because, Carl, the contest for the white working class's votes is between the parties of the left and the BNP/NF. The right oppose the BNP/NF in the same way that they oppose the SWP and the RCP - they aren't a relevant part of the political discourse. The vigour of the left in opposing the BNP is arguably evidence that the BNP is in direct competition with the parties of the left: civil wars are always more vicious.

Point at issue today for example. In one of the urban Derbyshire seats the Tories beat Labour, who were beaten into third place by the BNP. It looks as though there as a pretty much straight switch from Labour to BNP.

Ultimately my question remains: if the BNP are a right-wing party, why are they taking votes off Labour and not the Tories?

Carl said...

Okay then, the point I'm making is... I really don't think they did [speak out] because, deep down, they didn't really disagree with them.

And I think that's why people still hold the belief that the right supports or at least tolerates racism.

I know you may think that unfair, but that's what I really believe has happened.
Whether you think it's fair or right or not, the past has left an awful smudge on the Tories. I know Tories who aren't racists, but because of the silence from the right during the 80s race riots (or sometimes outright slurs against blacks and Asians by prominent Tory MPs during those riots) the thing has stuck and many of todays Tory's are upset at being tarred with that brush.

I think the T-shirt icon thing goes like this:
Che "represents" fighting the power, much like a black panther salute on a T-shirt. I'll not quibble or argue with you over what Che actually did or did not do, but note that it is a semantic issue - it's what the image represents. The Che image is "iconic". He has transcended the politics to represent an ideal of "freedom" etc. The hammer and sickle is much the same, as it represents old style Soviet collectivism, joining forces, the people power and all that malarky.

No, I'm not saying it's all good, I'm just pointing out that that's what it represents semantically to the wearers/readers, rather than in actuality, and thus makes a "cool" T-shirt image to that person. I'm sure some people also wear them because they really love every little bit of Che/Communism.

But then some people thought the little crocodile above their left breast meant they were cool and trendy. So there really is no accounting for taste.

But as I say, I think it's rather what the wearer thinks that image represents, not what they actually think about the intricacies of the person/organisation.

Nazi T-shirts don't really need to worry about subtle semantics... it's all there and frankly I don't think anyone really quibbles at what a Nazi symbol means. That's why it's so easily condemned. We ALL know exactly what the Nazis were and what they did. Not everyone knows all about Che, many just know a tiny trendy slice and that's the bit they wear with pride.

How's that?

Carl said...

c'mon Diz, it's been an hour, why haven't you approved my response?

Lord Snooty said...

Very good try, very good indeed. But you are wrong, Dizzy. The left has largely championed anti-racism, whilst the right has nurtured and harboured racists.

Your fisking of the BNP policy crap is entertaining but utterly bogus. People don't vote BNP in any expectation that Nick Griffin is going to become PM - they do it because they support the anti-immigration racist claptrap that is the BNP's central message. The other stuff is irrelevant.

dizzy said...

I'm not here at your beckon call I'm afraid. I left work for the day and did not check mail or comments until this morning when I would be in a position to respond to them.

I will respond fully to all tomorrow

Carl said...

never said you was Dizzy, so keep 'em on.

And response to my explanation...?

dizzy said...

Carl, I;m not sure what to say really, yes, you may have a point on how some Tories were racist, but to be perfectly honest I know plenty of Labour people who are too, I know of Councils where non-whites are "window dressing" but constantly excluded.

On the t-shirt part, what the image represents? The Che image, and the Hammer and Sickle do not represent fluffyness. They, like the Swastika, represent mass murder and political oppression of a global scale. Saying its "cool" is nonsense.

Bsod said...

"The left has largely championed anti-racism, whilst the right has nurtured and harboured racists. "

What garbage. The left has championed racism to the point of implementing laws designed to discriminate against people based specifically on their ethnicity, and also their gender. Not to mention the incessant race baiting used by left wing fuckwits whenever they feel they are losing an argument.

The political right moved on from such bigoted and primitive thinking decades ago.