# East london Bnp meeting disrupted



## danbreen (Oct 7, 2008)

Sunday.

News reaches us that the re-launch of the East London Bnp group got off to a
less than successful start today. After what can only be described as a
gathering of the Darby and Joan club, the assembled geriatrics met at the
Salmon and ball pub on the corner of Bethnal green road. This it turns out was
just the re-direction point as it soon became clear that the grey haired
security team we're shepherding the old folk a mere one hundred meters away to
a church hall opposite! Well done on the planning there people!

A quick call to the church uncovered that the poor old vicar had no idea his
hall was being used by the fascist filth as it had been booked by a 'book
club', that old chestnut! The 'Vic' assured the concerned caller that he had
spoken to the encamped knuckle draggers and told them that they would have to
leave as God was none too happy with their choice of politics. The police
arrived soon after and encouraged the somewhat downhearted oldies to leave as
they were no longer welcome. They had been inside for little over an hour
which
we believe would have given them very little time to re-launch their sad
little
group.

As the gaunt and the grey hoard Shuffled out from the hall in single file the
anti fascist gathering (that had by now swelled to twice the size) decided to
let the fascists know how welcome they really were. As one group followed the
main body of fascists up the road, closely followed by the police, a smaller
group went over to have a 'chat' with five or six 'men' still stood outside
the
hall. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were not wanted in East
London and that they would be hounded at every opportunity. The aryan brothers
were strangely quiet and the look on their faces said it all.

All in all a pretty good day for anti-fascists with plenty of photo
opportunities and a fascist meeting stopped! The old heads of the East London
Bnp including the likes of Derek Beacon and Richard Edmonds must tonight be
scratching their shiney domes wondering what went wrong. Maybe stick to taking
the old folk out to bingo in future eh chaps!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 7, 2008)

I've already read this on the antifa newswire. 

They can keep the fuck away from the Salmon and Ball too.


----------



## purves grundy (Oct 7, 2008)

top stuff, but is there really a need for the ageism?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 7, 2008)

while this is good news indeed i find it hard to believe this feeble attempt at a bnp's relaunch in this area is all they have got ..


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 7, 2008)

yeah I've heard about this anti-fa farce from elsewhere


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 8, 2008)

All disruption (of the fash) is good disruption.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 8, 2008)

Divisive Cotton said:


> yeah I've heard about this anti-fa farce from elsewhere



what?

what does that mean?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 8, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> while this is good news indeed i find it hard to believe this feeble attempt at a bnp's relaunch in this area is all they have got...



whats the experience here then? When the BNP plan to launch in an area what do they do first? Do they hold public meetings, private meetings, leaflettings?

It seems the tactic at the moment is to keep the low profile and just put names on the ballot - and i think they are correct in thinking that this is enough to get a sizeable number of votes in some areas. Their constituency is going to know who they are and what they stand for.

I think then, wherever they get the best showing they will start doing groundwork, like leafletting, canvassing and meetings to aim on actually winning seats the next time round.


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 8, 2008)

purves grundy said:


> top stuff, but is there really a need for the ageism?




i trust you're taking the piss?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 8, 2008)

purves grundy said:


> top stuff, but is there really a need for the ageism?



I just thought that as well.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2008)

Belushi said:


> I just thought that as well.



Exactly what I thought too.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2008)

It's also baldist and racist, by the way.


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 8, 2008)

jesus, what a boring bunch of dull fucks u are to be sure


----------



## Belushi (Oct 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> jesus, what a boring bunch of dull fucks u are to be sure



Ageism is nonetheless a real problem in our society, I'm not going to apologise if you find it boring.

Its not a big deal but I do think in a piece condemning the BNP the ageism in the post jars.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> jesus, what a boring bunch of dull fucks u are to be sure



Why did the article keep making references to their age, then?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2008)

To show that it's the old failed faces out of the woodwork and not a young thrusting group.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2008)

So, old = failed.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2008)

In the limited terms of getting new youthful recruits rather than the same old faces reappearing, yes.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2008)

It doesn't read to me like they are mocking the BNP people for being the same old faces. I reads to me like they are mocking them for being "old". The stereotypes it invokes - bingo-playing, Darby & Jones - seem to be mocking agedness rather than familiar-facedness.

Do new members have to be "youthful" in order to be counted as "thrusting"?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2008)

No, oh well.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> jesus, what a boring bunch of dull fucks u are to be sure



The implication seemed to be that being old was further ammo to use against them. I'm balding and grey, but I was protesting against the nazis 30 years ago in the days of the good old Auntie Nancy League. My old man is still alive and he fought against the bastards in Europe and Africa. Old people often feel left out of society and unfortunately end up supporting nutters like the bnp sometimes. Let's not alienate them.


----------



## purves grundy (Oct 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> i trust you're taking the piss?



Not in the slightest. I appreciate the point the OP is trying to get across, but the language employed does it no favours.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2008)

On reflection, fair point.


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 8, 2008)

yea, i know what you mean, and i DO agree with you 100% percent. personally i think the way this account is written up is a bit wanky and trying too hard to be funny and failing miserably, but the 'ageism' doesn't bother me cos it is clearly not written for 'popular'/populist consumption.

plus, i've seen NF/BNP dos where the first impression really is of a bunch old sex offenders out for a stroll with their demob suits out of mothballs for the day. the reserenced to edmunds (who looked about 60 when he was in his twenties!) and beacon just reinforces that. in fact i always thought the NF/BNP leadership may have done this deliberately in the mistaken belief that parading their albert steptoe and sidney cooke lookalikes at the front and flanks of a march added some 'credibility and 'respectability' to the rest of the boneheaded goons dragging their knuckles along the road. 

plus the NF/BNP themselves have always portrayed the likes of joe pearce/the young griffin, patrick 'the gay blade' harrington as 'young and thrusting' and probably do with that parrot nosed piss insect cotterill or whatever his name is now, so i also throught the 'ageism' of the piece was an admittedly rather clumsy attempt to counter that.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 8, 2008)

Result then.
Something to build upon.

I don't know if this excuses ageism, if it is indeed such, but I should imagine many people involved in anti-fascism are well into 'middle youth'+


----------



## Frampton (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm a member of the para-military wing of Age Concern and the subject of ageism is a regular topic at our meetings. Many of us think of ourselves still to be sharp-witted and "thrusting". It's just we have difficulty with things like mobiles, ipods, town centres at night, and words like "chill" or "cool". Even at the end of our warranty period we could still be used as human shields. Groovy.


----------



## geoff64 (Oct 8, 2008)

Incidentally, I had no idea this was going on (just down the road from me) and no idea that there was a counter-demo.

Can someone (p'bly Antifa) explain how the rest of us can be informed about this stuff so we can get involved?

Is this a stupid Q.

(BTW, I'm getting on a bit - am I precluded from this kind of shenanigans?  )


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 10, 2008)

Its front page of the East London Advertiser. 

I do like the line about Antifa waiting outside not wanting to upset the Vicar - times have changed since the Spanish Civil War!


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 10, 2008)

Paul Marsh said:


> Its front page of the East London Advertiser.
> 
> I do like the line about Antifa waiting outside not wanting to upset the Vicar - times have changed since the Spanish Civil War!




You got a link Paul?


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 10, 2008)

Yes - the web article oddly is slightly longer than the newspaper one. 

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED08 Oct 2008 14:43:36:693


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 10, 2008)

Paul Marsh said:


> Yes - the web article oddly is slightly longer than the newspaper one.
> 
> http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED08 Oct 2008 14:43:36:693



Cheers mate


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2008)

So: the "antifascists" reported the meting to the Vicar.

The Vicar asked the BNP to leave. They didn't.

The Vicar called the police.

The police asked the BNP to leave. They did.

So the "antifascists" started a fight with the police.

That makes perfect sense.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 10, 2008)

^ Why "antifascists", rather than antifascists? What? You reckon this was the work of the LibDem Hit Squad - pelt the fash with cakes and buns? 

You don't believe this was an antifa action?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2008)

Only because the sequence of events as described in the newspaper article suggests they were more interested in having a fight with someone, than preventing the BNP having their meeting.

Also - if you are claiming to be "antifascist" then to use violence to prevent the free speech of another seems a little contradictory.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Only because the sequence of events as described in the newspaper article suggests they were more interested in having a fight with someone, than preventing the BNP having their meeting.
> 
> Also - if you are claiming to be "antifascist" then to use violence to prevent the free speech of another seems a little contradictory.




...and here opens the gates to the debate that is direct action vs passive resistance.

There is no contradiction to antifascists using violence (afterall, it's tool of fascism and national socialism) to deny fascists the chance to congregate, organise or disseminate their message of hate. Just as they would deny you and I the right to free association etc if they came to power.

If you have a better answer, I'm all eyes/ears.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> There is no contradiction to antifascists using violence (afterall, it's tool of fascism and national socialism)



I don't see how that is not a contradiction.

If it's OK for the antifascists, then why is it not OK for the fascists?


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 10, 2008)

Chicken and egg, IMHO. Violence is a fascist 'tradition', so it's taking the tools of the enemy and using them against them.

Again - if you have a better, or more morally justifiable/convenient way of defeating fascism at a grass roots level I'd be pleased to discuss it, or learn of it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Chicken and egg, IMHO. Violence is a fascist 'tradition', so it's taking the tools of the enemy and using them against them.
> 
> Again - if you have a better, or more morally justifiable/convenient way of defeating fascism at a grass roots level I'd be pleased to discuss it, or learn of it.



It seems like a toddler argument to me - "but mummy he hit me first".

My suggestion is simply that you defeat it through reasoned debate. Present the other side of the argument to the people they are trying to recruit to their cause. Let those people decide what side they want to be on, on the basis of who presents the most convincing argument rather than on the basis of who is better at beating people up.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 10, 2008)

Ah. I can tell you've had little or no contact with serious fash on the street, or elsewhere. 

I won't be drawn in to the "toddler" argument - suffice to say, and to mangle metaphors, fight fire with fire or, deal with the fash in a language they understand ie violence.

If you have ever had dealings with a commited member of B&H, C18 or any of the other bonkers splinter groups, you wouldn't waste time advocating debate; reasoned or otherwise.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 10, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Chicken and egg, IMHO. Violence is a fascist 'tradition', so it's taking the tools of the enemy and using them against them.
> 
> Again - if you have a better, or more morally justifiable/convenient way of defeating fascism at a grass roots level I'd be pleased to discuss it, or learn of it.



That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.

Using violence against them only increases their support. It's debate and common sense that's kept the far right down in this country, let them speak and dig their own graves. Unfortunately some activists just like a good punch-up.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Ah. I can tell you've had little or no contact with serious fash on the street, or elsewhere.
> 
> I won't be drawn in to the "toddler" argument - suffice to say, and to mangle metaphors, fight fire with fire or, deal with the fash in a language they understand ie violence.
> 
> If you have ever had dealings with a commited member of B&H, C18 or any of the other bonkers splinter groups, you wouldn't waste time advocating debate; reasoned or otherwise.



Which is why I said that the persuasive arguments should be directed at the people they are trying to recruit to their cause.

There will always be some nutters whose opinions can't ever be changed by reason. Luckily, they are in the minority. Doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on the people who might be tempted to follow them?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2008)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.
> 
> Using violence against them only increases their support. It's debate and common sense that's kept the far right down in this country, let them speak and dig their own graves. Unfortunately some activists just like a good punch-up.



Agreed.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 10, 2008)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.



I must have missed that. And a sound argument can be twisted or hijacked by others for their own use. 

If you have a source for that ^, I'd be keen to read it, as I'm having a conversation about the legality of the Iraq war on another board.

Bless you and teuchter for your faith in the human race - I'm sure it's that which informs your comments, rather than complacency and naivety?


----------



## Rabidrodent (Oct 10, 2008)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.
> 
> Using violence against them only increases their support. It's debate and common sense that's kept the far right down in this country, let them speak and dig their own graves. Unfortunately some activists just like a good punch-up.



I know no 'activist' who 'just likes a good punch up'. If you think fighting some of these thugs is fun you live in la-la land.

Clearly you also have absolutely NO concept of the rise of the extreme right across so-called democratic Europe. Perhaps you should investigate. So much for 'debate' seeing them off...

No doubt you and 'teuchter' are a couple of these 'It'll never happen again' brigade. 

What a load of toss.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 15, 2008)

Paul Marsh said:


> Yes - the web article oddly is slightly longer than the newspaper one.
> 
> http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED08 Oct 2008 14:43:36:693



"BNP spokesman Simon Darby said speakers at Sunday's rally included former national organiser Richard EDMONDS, BARKING councillor Bob Bailey and author Jonathan Bowden."

Edomonds and Barking in the same sentence; what can you say

Can't really see the BNP turning back to street tactics at the moment, no confidence for one thing, or do you consider this to be naive.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Bless you and teuchter for your faith in the human race - I'm sure it's that which informs your comments, rather than complacency and naivety?



You think we are complacent and naive, because we are saying that there are better ways to challenge views you don't like than by using violence?

What makes you think this? How does one follow from the other?

Why do you make this statement instead of actually responding to the points that have been made?

Is your faith in the human race such that you believe that the majority of humans will only respond to violence?




Rabidrodent said:


> I know no 'activist' who 'just likes a good punch up'. If you think fighting some of these thugs is fun you live in la-la land.



Really? Why did the "activists" described in the article in the OP try to attack the police, who were doing what they wanted them to do - ie. break up the meeting?  



> Clearly you also have absolutely NO concept of the rise of the extreme right across so-called democratic Europe. Perhaps you should investigate. So much for 'debate' seeing them off...



What makes you think I am so ignorant? Can you be specific about exactly which groups you mean? For example, are you talking about groups like the Northern League in Italy or are you talking about more "extreme" groups than that?



> No doubt you and 'teuchter' are a couple of these 'It'll never happen again' brigade.



Again, what makes you think this, and, as per my comments to lightsoutlondon, why don't you respond to the points made instead of making assumptions about the persons?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 15, 2008)

Very well said teuchter. The fact that there are people here actually trying to defend political violence is sickening. Ironic behaviour for so called 'anti' fascists


----------



## Rabidrodent (Oct 16, 2008)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Very well said teuchter. The fact that there are people here actually trying to defend political violence is sickening. Ironic behaviour for so called 'anti' fascists



Previously...



Andrew Hertford said:


> The implication seemed to be that being old was further ammo to use against them. I'm balding and grey, but I was protesting against the nazis 30 years ago in the days of the good old Auntie Nancy League. My old man is still alive and he fought against the bastards in Europe and Africa. Old people often feel left out of society and unfortunately end up supporting nutters like the bnp sometimes. Let's not alienate them.


----------



## Zachor (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Only because the sequence of events as described in the newspaper article suggests they were more interested in having a fight with someone, than preventing the BNP having their meeting.
> 
> That was my impression as well.  Ignore the fash and concentrate on the real enemy - the police
> 
> Also - if you are claiming to be "antifascist" then to use violence to prevent the free speech of another seems a little contradictory.



I'm generally not in favour of no platforming as it allows the fash to present themselves as martyrs. There was justification in the methods and motivations of no platformers in the past such as the 43 Group but I've seen so many attempts at no platforming that have either been laughably inefficent or counterproductive that its not something I would generally support.   In this case the antifash have sadly given the bnp a propaganda victory.  The antifash are now going to be portrayed as the enemies of "old British people who have been forced by a cruel multiculturally biased elte into a position at the bottom of the social pile " The words in quotes are what I imagine how the fash will present this antifash debacle.  

Some people never learn.  Piss poor antifash activity handed the bnp three extra seats in Dagenham which they wouldn't otherwise have got.  

Anti fash activity has to be a grass roots thing.  If it is just a bunch of ex students and fantasists about violence as this group seem to be then its counterproductive.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Very well said teuchter. The fact that there are people here actually trying to defend political violence is sickening. Ironic behaviour for so called 'anti' fascists



Oh. Dear.

Look. Here's a plan for you and your la-la-land friend :

start gently. Go to a regular BNP meeting and try some reaoned debate. Then up the ante and try chatting to some friendly foot soldiers of say, B&H. Come back to me and let's carry on the 'reasoned debate and good argument' thing.
_
"Challenging views you don't like". _Priceless. 

Back to the JCR for tea and muffins and a good old debate with the Supremicists! Yah!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Oh. Dear.
> 
> Look. Here's a plan for you and your la-la-land friend :
> 
> ...




As I've already said and you keep ignoring:



teuchter said:


> Present the other side of the argument to the people they are trying to recruit to their cause. Let those people decide what side they want to be on, on the basis of who presents the most convincing argument rather than on the basis of who is better at beating people up.





teuchter said:


> Which is why I said that the persuasive arguments should be directed at the people they are trying to recruit to their cause.
> 
> There will always be some nutters whose opinions can't ever be changed by reason. Luckily, they are in the minority. Doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on the people who might be tempted to follow them?



Please explain to me exactly what going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is going to achieve.


----------



## peacepete (Oct 16, 2008)

talking about dealing with fascism always results in this debate.

it's hard not to notice that most people who advocate a completely non-violent approach rarely back it up with vast experience of when it has worked.

my limited experience of anti-fascist campaigning has taught me that no matter what approach you enter into it with, physical force becomes very relevant at some point or other. not surprising really when you think about what fascism is.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> As I've already said and you keep ignoring:
> 
> 
> Please explain to me exactly what going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is going to achieve.



*bangs head on desk*

You've kinda missed the point, eh? 

Perhaps a cursory reading of the arguments proposed by fascists and national socialists might offer you an answer, quicker than I can type on this board.


----------



## peacepete (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter - i don't think going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is a particularly good idea, but taking a principled non-violent stance is completely doomed to fail.


----------



## Zachor (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Please explain to me exactly what going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is going to achieve.



I'll tell you what it achieves.  It gives the fash martyrs and allows them to present the antifash as treasonous wankers who hate their own people.

I've lived amongst and had family members who were fash right back to the days of Mosley.  I do happen to know a little of how they will present things to their own members and those who are on the edge of supporting the fash.  

You can engage with bnp members as individuals and I've done so myself, but I've done it quietly and without jargon and slogans and I hope that I've helped some people to see there is more than one side to this issue.  Some of them are outright bigots who love the idea of a race war in which the Muslims and the Jews will be removed from the UK but there are others who join just because they have seen how badly shat upon they've been by the mainstream politicians.

Telling people to join up with their local lefty parachute artistes is not going to work and neither is handing the fash a propaganda victory which antifa seem to have done here.  

If you are going to have anti fash activity then it must be effective and must not leave hostages to fortune.

At some point in antifash work physical confrontation is sometimes required but such times should be chosen with care.


----------



## peacepete (Oct 16, 2008)

people seem to confuse

A: being opposed to a principled non-violent approach to fascism

with

B: being up for a fight


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I'll tell you what it achieves.  It gives the fash martyrs and allows them to present the antifash as treasonous wankers who hate their own people.
> 
> I've lived amongst and had family members who were fash right back to the days of Mosley.  I do happen to know a little of how they will present things to their own members and those who are on the edge of supporting the fash.
> 
> ...



Interesting post. And I'm not sure antifa handed the BNP a propaganda victory.




> Telling people to join up with their local lefty parachute artistes is not going to work



...and there's the rub. How or where or who else do you turn to to prevent fascists organising and meeting?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> *bangs head on desk*
> 
> You've kinda missed the point, eh?
> 
> Perhaps a cursory reading of the arguments proposed by fascists and national socialists might offer you an answer, quicker than I can type on this board.



I'm afraid you're not really winning me over with your attempts at being patronising and your refusal to respond to the points I am making or the questions I am asking.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2008)

peacepete said:


> but taking a principled non-violent stance is completely doomed to fail.



Can you explain more fully why you think this?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2008)

peacepete said:


> it's hard not to notice that most people who advocate a completely non-violent approach rarely back it up with vast experience of when it has worked.



Can you provide specific examples when it demonstrably hasn't worked, or, more importantly, when a violent approach _has_ worked?


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I'm afraid you're not really winning me over with your attempts at being patronising and your refusal to respond to the points I am making or the questions I am asking.



Because until you concede the nature of the 'enemy', there is little point in trying to have, erm, a resoned debate with you on this subject.

Other than personal anecdotal evidence, can you clearly demonstrate how your approach is best? can you show in anyway where debate has won the day?

I think where we disagree is the fundamental nature of the people and groups we're discussing; what they believe and what they think is acceptable to achieve those ends.

We're not discussing debating Europe and the EU with some mildly pissed-off Tories from the Home Counties.


----------



## Zachor (Oct 16, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Interesting post. And I'm not sure antifa handed the BNP a propaganda victory.




I  think they have.  They are very hot on support for elder (white) people and a mob of the great lefty unwashed harrassing vunerable old people is going to go down really well when they are canvassing and organising.  


lights.out.london said:


> ...and there's the rub. How or where or who else do you turn to to prevent fascists organising and meeting?



Its a difficult one.  I don't think that there is anything to be gained by getting groups such as ANL/AFA/LMHR or whatever alphabet soup the SWP and other left groups involved.  They are seen by many of the white working class in my experience as 'not being onside'. I don't think you can stop them meeting and organising especially if the area they are meeting in is depressed and receptive to their message.  The bnp are not doing the 'designed confrontation' policy of the NF back in the days when they deliberately met in areas that were Bengali / Jewish in order to provoke a reaction. 

 I personally would be in favour of letting them have their meetings and ignoring them or blanking them if they approach.  Far far more effective than giving them the oxygen of publicity which a big left sponsored demo would do.

Remember the left to all intents in purposes is as dead as the dodo in most working class white areas and the corpse is not going to be revived.  There needs to be some form of community org that is political in order to cut the fash off at the knees.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

Zachor said:


> Its a difficult one.  I don't think that there is anything to be gained by getting groups such as ANL/AFA/LMHR or whatever alphabet soup the SWP and other left groups involved.  They are seen by many of the white working class in my experience as 'not being onside'. I don't think you can stop them meeting and organising especially if the area they are meeting in is depressed and receptive to their message.  The bnp are not doing the 'designed confrontation' policy of the NF back in the days when they deliberately met in areas that were Bengali / Jewish in order to provoke a reaction.
> 
> I personally would be in favour of letting them have their meetings and ignoring them or blanking them if they approach.  Far far more effective than giving them the oxygen of publicity which a big left sponsored demo would do.
> 
> Remember the left to all intents in purposes is as dead as the dodo in most working class white areas and the corpse is not going to be revived.  There needs to be some form of community org that is political in order to cut the fash off at the knees.



^ you've included text in quoting me that isn't mine. Can you amend it please? Ta. 

e2a - thanks.


----------



## ajdown (Oct 16, 2008)

... or you could just allow freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly, and let them get on with it.


----------



## Zachor (Oct 16, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> ^ you've included text in quoting me that isn't mine. Can you amend it please? Ta.
> 
> e2a - thanks.



See post 62 I think I have corrected it.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I  think they have.  They are very hot on support for elder (white) people and a mob of the great lefty unwashed harrassing vunerable old people is going to go down really well when they are canvassing and organising.
> 
> 
> Its a difficult one.  I don't think that there is anything to be gained by getting groups such as ANL/AFA/LMHR or _*whatever alphabet soup the SWP and other left groups involved.  *_They are seen by many of the white working class in my experience as 'not being onside'. I don't think you can stop them meeting and organising especially if the area they are meeting in is depressed and receptive to their message.  The bnp are not doing the 'designed confrontation' policy of the NF back in the days when they deliberately met in areas that were Bengali / Jewish in order to provoke a reaction.
> ...




 SWP soup. 

I take your point about the perception being that some white working class people 'aren't onside', but to be honest - I've wasted hours and hours meeting and listening to well-meaning but clueless antifascist activists - I wonder if these (often) super-duper middle class do-gooders even like the white working classes...

You're last sentence is a good point.

I'm getting too old to ruck on the streets. I don't seem to fit with the usual anti-fascist direct action groups (my aftershave, probably) _but_ I'm prepared to put myself out (as are many many more braver than I) and take risks to my liberty and safety, because the alternative is abhorent.


----------



## peacepete (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can you explain more fully why you think this?



If you refuse to use violence in any situation then all fascists need to do is deploy their much practiced bullying violent tactics in the knowledge you won't defend yourselves. It is worth looking at the website redwatch, which you can find using a search engine, as an example of this.

Committed fascists will understand that they can use violence to empty the political arena of all other voices than their own.


----------



## peacepete (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can you provide specific examples when it demonstrably hasn't worked, or, more importantly, when a violent approach _has_ worked?



for the latter - cable street.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

peacepete said:


> Committed fascists will understand that they can use violence to empty the political arena of all other voices than their own.



Yes.

And be careful where you log-on to Redwatch from. I'd do it at a netcafe. Not at work, or a home PC.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 16, 2008)

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Corallary: there are those who must be fought, to the death if necessary, to defend our liberty.


----------



## Rabidrodent (Oct 16, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I  think they have.  They are very hot on support for elder (white) people and a mob of the *great lefty unwashed *harrassing vunerable old people is going to go down really well when they are canvassing and organising.



And there you have it, another seasoned wally on this thread with little or no knowledge of people involved in anti-fascism in the UK today. 

You're characterisation is somewhat out-of-date. 

But do carry on... I'll just tie up my dog with this ere string to this ere Special Brew can.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 16, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Corallary: there are those who must be fought, to the death if necessary, to defend our liberty.



You're dead right Jonti, but a small bnp meeting that the police have under control is hardly the same as Hitler marching across Europe


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Because until you concede the nature of the 'enemy', there is little point in trying to have, erm, a resoned debate with you on this subject.
> 
> Other than personal anecdotal evidence, can you clearly demonstrate how your approach is best? can you show in anyway where debate has won the day?
> 
> ...



In the context of this thread, we're discussing groups like the BNP.

I could argue that debate has won the day at present, as the BNP are not in government. Are you going to say that the only reason the BNP isn't in government is because their meetings are occasionally harassed by violent "activists"? I think they are not in government because not enough people vote for them. And that is so, because not enough people are convinced by their arguments.



peacepete said:


> If you refuse to use violence in any situation then all fascists need to do is deploy their much practiced bullying violent tactics in the knowledge you won't defend yourselves. It is worth looking at the website redwatch, which you can find using a search engine, as an example of this.
> 
> Committed fascists will understand that they can use violence to empty the political arena of all other voices than their own.



I can't say that violence is unacceptable in _any_ situation. I can see that it might be necessary as an absolute last resort in a desperate situation, a situation that we are nowhere near in the UK, or as a means of self defence if directly threatened with physical violence yourself. 

Even if I was the subject of harassment from a group such as Redwatch, I would not be in favour of any kind of physically violent retribution. These things should be dealt with properly by the law - that should be the manner in which you defend yourself against bullying tactics. Otherwise it is just a form of vigilanteism and inevitably feeding into a cycle of tit-for-tat violence.



Andrew Hertford said:


> small bnp meeting that the police have under control is hardly the same as Hitler marching across Europe



This.


----------



## ajdown (Oct 16, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think they are not in government because not enough people vote for them. And that is so, because not enough people are convinced by their arguments.



You'd probably find that a lot of people are in agreement with some of their viewpoints - the problem is that people are scared to vocalise or show that support, because of all the crap that would get thrown at them by those who feel threatened by the point of view, even though it's proveably right.

It doesn't take much to see that immigration into the UK is overwhelming the country, but it's "racist" to speak out in support of limiting immigration, for example.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You'd probably find that a lot of people are in agreement with some of their viewpoints - the problem is that people are scared to vocalise or show that support, because of all the crap that would get thrown at them by those who feel threatened by the point of view, even though it's proveably right.
> 
> It doesn't take much to see that immigration into the UK is overwhelming the country, but it's "racist" to speak out in support of limiting immigration, for example.



...and he's off.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You'd probably find that a lot of people are in agreement with some of their viewpoints - the problem is that people are scared to vocalise or show that support, because of all the crap that would get thrown at them by those who feel threatened by the point of view, even though it's proveably right.
> 
> It doesn't take much to see that immigration into the UK is overwhelming the country, but it's "racist" to speak out in support of limiting immigration, for example.



If you want to argue about whether or not the BNP are "proveably right" then please start another thread rather than derailing this one. The discussion here is about whether it is acceptable to use violence against people with whom you disagree (or even, against people threatening you yourself with violence). What are your views on that question?


----------



## ajdown (Oct 16, 2008)

Violence is _never_ an appropriate solution to any problem, except self defense when there are no other options.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 16, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Violence is _never_ an appropriate solution to any problem, except self defense when there are no other options.


Sometimes self defence means getting the first punch in before the forces of darkness has all of its opponents living in concentration camps.


----------



## Zachor (Oct 16, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Sometimes self defence means getting the first punch in before the forces of darkness has all of its opponents living in concentration camps.



I can most certainly agree with that.  However, antifash violence should above all be effective and not give the fash propaganda victories.


----------



## ajdown (Oct 16, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Sometimes self defence means getting the first punch in before the forces of darkness has all of its opponents living in concentration camps.



Overdramatise much?


----------



## Nigel (Oct 16, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Overdramatise much?


You have no fucking idea whatsoever do you.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 16, 2008)

On a serious note, what if the BNP don't want to play, you can't go on chasing groups of mentally handicapped pensioners like the BPP around forever.

The NF did well in the GLA elections and are more likely to revert to street tactics.

Other froms of protest and resistance could be intertwinned with 'direct action'
Back to this point, are the BNP likely to turn to street politics in the not too distant future.
If not, where for anti fascism.


----------



## Rabidrodent (Oct 16, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Overdramatise much?



Steady there Chamberlain, you might miss it..


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 16, 2008)

*^ to the naysayers re 'direct action'.*

Y'all seem to be firing with a shotgun. It's thugs, or the great lefty unwashed and it's not exactly the Waffen SS or the SD marching under Marble Arch, and it's violent (duh!) and it's the argument Bush/Blair used and, and , and.... 

I urge you, with all the earnestness at my command, to acquaint yourself qwith the enemy and then report back. 

Please. Go chat with the fash. Tell us how you get on. Start at a BNP meeting and work your way down the greasy filthpole.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> *^ to the naysayers re 'direct action'.*
> 
> Y'all seem to be firing with a shotgun. It's thugs, or the great lefty unwashed and it's not exactly the Waffen SS or the SD marching under Marble Arch, and it's violent (duh!) and it's the argument Bush/Blair used and, and , and....
> 
> ...



If I were to go and meet some of these people, and if I were to observe that they were, for example intimidating people with the threat of violence, then I would use my energies to make sure they were dealt with under the laws which we have in this country which are there to stop such things happening. 
If they were simply expressing opinions, then however much I might disagree with those opinions, I would respect their right to express them, as otherwise it would be illogical to expect anyone else to grant me the right to express my own. In this case I would concentrate my best efforts at persuading people that the views being expressed were not healthy or rational ones. As I've said at least three times already, if it became apparent that the instigators were not going to respond to reason, I would concentrate on those who they were trying to recruit to their cause.

In other words, no matter how thuggish or disgusting I might find these people, I see no reason to abandon my principle of not responding with violence. I have reasons for that principle, and those reasons are that to do so would be both hypocritical and counterproductive. If my objection to someone is that they are trying to make other people behave in a certain way through intimidation or violence, then I see absolutely no way in which I can justify using those very same methods myself. 

You seem to be suggesting that for some reason, presented with the reality of certain groups, I would abandon the principles I outline above. This implies you think that there is some kind of fault in my reasoning that would be exposed in such a situation, but you have made no attempt to explain what that is.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 17, 2008)

Time to stir this up;

I agree. We already have laws which cover racially-based threat and intimidation. As long as the BNP meet those laws, they should be allowed to go about their business.

OK, there are people here who say the fash killed millions of people. So did the Communists, if you accept the official version of history (in fact, probably even more if you include China as well) and yet I don't see any threads here saying that Maoists and *Tankies should be banned or threatened with violence. Yet it wasn't that long ago that Communists in the electricity unions, for example, were threatening their members and falsifying vote counts in the elections for union leader.

Why the double standard? Ken Livingstone has said that the bankers of the IMF asnd World Bank kill millions of people (and he's probably right) and yet we're allowed to vote for parties which support them.

Final point. I don't think most of the people who vote for the BNP are "fash." The leaders probably are (at least Nick Griffin might well be, and Mark Collett almost certainly is) but the rank and file are simply white people who feel they are getting a bum deal out of multiculturalism. Rather than go round beating them up, go and convince them they're wrong and they should welcome being part of a multicultural society.

* One of my best friends at uni was a tankie.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 17, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Time to stir this up;
> 
> I agree. We already have laws which cover racially-based threat and intimidation. As long as the BNP meet those laws, they should be allowed to go about their business.
> 
> OK, there are people here who *say the fash killed millions of people*. So did the Communists, *if you accept the official version of history *(in fact, probably even more if you include China as well)


are we to assume that you prefer a different version of history?
perhaps one in which the death camps were all a jewish plot perhaps?
or the gulags all capitalist propaganda?


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 17, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Time to stir this up;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's okay then, eh?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> That's okay then, eh?



If that's how they feel, that's how they feel.

The point is, the only way to change these people's opinions is to persuade them with your arguments about why they are mistaken. 

And going about beating up BNP leaders (or anyone else) is not exactly going to convince these people that you've got loads of really good arguments, is it?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2008)

barney_pig said:


> are we to assume that you prefer a different version of history?
> perhaps one in which the death camps were all a jewish plot perhaps?
> or the gulags all capitalist propaganda?



Don't be silly. That is not what he/she said at all.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 17, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> OK, there are people here who say the fash killed millions of people. So did the Communists,


 
The differences between the German concentration camps and the Russian Gulags are important for the understanding of this period in history and made very well in Anne Applebaum's superb book _Gulag._

Applebaum makes it clear that the 'crimes' that people were arrested, tried and sentenced for 'were nonsensical and the procedures by which people were investigated and convicted were absurd, even surreal'.



> In retrospect, this is one of the unique aspects of the Soviet camp system: it's inmates arrived, most of the time, via a legal system, if not always the ordinary judicial system. No one tried and sentenced the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe.


 
When people entered the Gulag system they never thought for a moment they were going to die and most didn't, unlike the systematic death camps of the Nazi's, which were built for the specific purpose of killing people.

The Gulag system saw complexes as large as whole cities, with workers being paid and their overlords with servants and maids. Bizarrely, during the 'great terror' many were 'relieved' at being arrested and sent to such camps.

Also, many communists were arrested, particularly foreign ones. The Comintern, the organisation dedicated to the fermenting of world revolution, had 394 members in 1936, only 171 remained in 1938. The rest had been shot or sent to camps.

Applebaum, states that 'in the end, Stalin killed more members of the pre-1933 German Communist Party Politburo than did Hitler: of the 68 German communist leaders who fled to the Soviet Union after the Nazi seizure of power, 41 died, by execution, or in camps'. According to one estimate, Stalin had 5,000 Polish communists executed in 1937.

I've yet to finish this book, but it is certainly one of the great untold stories from the 20th century.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 17, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Time to stir this up;
> 
> I agree. We already have laws which cover racially-based threat and intimidation. As long as the BNP meet those laws, they should be allowed to go about their business.
> 
> ...



Whatever tactic the BNP have these days with respectability and courting the middle classes, their message is still the same and would morally justify racial attacks as being 'natural' because of multiculturalism as a policy. same being for gay and lesbian people etc. etc.

I don't think anyone is illuded into thinking that the BNP will not return to street tactics once they have built a reasonable bas in areas and are confident to do so.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2008)

Nigel said:


> their message is still the same and would morally justify racial attacks as being 'natural' because of multiculturalism as a policy



I don't really understand what you mean here. Are you saying that their currently stated policy offers a moral justification for racial attacks?


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 20, 2008)

teuchter said:


> If that's how they feel, that's how they feel.
> 
> The point is, the only way to change these people's opinions is to persuade them with your arguments about why they are mistaken.
> 
> And going about beating up BNP leaders (or anyone else) is not exactly going to convince these people that you've got loads of really good arguments, is it?



With the very greatest of respect, teuchter; do you understand the underpinning tenants of fascism _vis-a-vis _the class war and class struggle? 

Do you have a firm handle on fascism: the military, Capital and big business and the organisation of workers _ie _ordinary folk?

Your writing on this thread suggests that as well as not having met too many 'out' fash, you don't.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> With the very greatest of respect, teuchter; do you understand the underpinning tenants of fascism _vis-a-vis _the class war and class struggle?
> 
> Do you have a firm handle on fascism: the military, Capital and big business and the organisation of workers _ie _ordinary folk?
> 
> Your writing on this thread suggests that as well as not having met too many 'out' fash, you don't.



The extent of my "understanding" of the above matters (and I suspect that for "understanding of" I should really read "familiarity with a certain school of thinking on") is kind of subjective. In any case I don't think it is relevant to the points I am making, which are fairly basic logical/moral ones.

You are still avoiding responding to those points. If you think that the fault in my reasoning has its roots in a lack of understanding of some of the things you list above, then you will need to explain to me why. I'm not just going to take your word for it.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm not sure we're necessarily discussing a 'moral' issue, and one's reading, or understanding of what is the true nature of fascism (noumenal for you Kantians) will inform one's 'logic'. Not sure either are relevant or necessary.

I've probably misunderstood you.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I'm not sure we're necessarily discussing a 'moral' issue, and one's reading, or understanding of what is the true nature of fascism (noumenal for you Kantians) will inform one's 'logic'. Not sure either are relevant or necessary.
> 
> I've probably misunderstood you.



So are you going to attempt to explain where you find fault in my reasoning outlined in my post no. 85 or not? I did not use the term "fascism" there, so it should not matter if our definitions of it differ.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 20, 2008)

*sigh*

No. Because your post clearly demonstrates you do not understand Fash 101.

It'd be like trying to debate black holes with someone who didn't understand the basic concept of gravity.

Belsen? Or perhaps a military prison? None have ensuite, amigo.



> _ see no reason to abandon my principle of not responding with violence._


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> *sigh*
> 
> No. Because your post clearly demonstrates you do not understand Fash 101.



If there's something you think I "don't understand" then tell me what it is for gawdsake. It's such a lazy way to get out of an argument - "you don't understand, I'm not listening lalalala".

It's really tempting to make some comment along the lines that I can see why you prefer thuggery to reason as a means of getting your point across, but that wouldn't be entirely fair.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 20, 2008)

teuchter said:


> If there's something you think I "don't understand" then tell me what it is for gawdsake. It's such a lazy way to get out of an argument - "you don't understand, I'm not listening lalalala".
> 
> It's really tempting to make some comment along the lines that I can see why you prefer thuggery to reason as a means of getting your point across, but that wouldn't be entirely fair.




Thuggery? Oh, such an emotive term.

Lazy? No. You're lazily promoting a Middle England-er's liberal nonsense; in _the Law and Establishment we trust_! Bizarre coming from someone with a name like yours.

Why not go and investigate the thuggery which is a fundamental tenant of fascism? Then report back. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, leslse you'd see the futility of handing round tea and biscuits to fash, and settling down for a nice cosy chat.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 20, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Do you have a firm handle on fascism: the military, Capital and big business and the organisation of workers ie ordinary folk?


 
Good programme here on how American big business helped Hitler to wage war - 44 minutes.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 20, 2008)

MC5 said:


> Good programme here on how American big business helped Hitler to wage war - 44 minutes.



 

Thanks. I'll check it out.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Thuggery? Oh, such an emotive term.
> 
> Lazy? No. You're lazily promoting a Middle England-er's liberal nonsense; in _the Law and Establishment we trust_! Bizarre coming from someone with a name like yours.
> 
> Why not go and investigate the thuggery which is a fundamental tenant of fascism? Then report back. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, leslse you'd see the futility of handing round tea and biscuits to fash, and settling down for a nice cosy chat.



You'd think that, if you were so sure that I was talking nonsense, you'd offer up some kind of explanation as to why you thought that, or make an attempt to counter the points that I keep making, and, which, based on the above, it seems you aren't even reading.

Oh well.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2008)

teuchter said:


> If that's how they feel, that's how they feel.
> 
> The point is, the only way to change these people's opinions is to persuade them with your arguments about why they are mistaken.
> 
> And going about beating up BNP leaders (or anyone else) is not exactly going to convince these people that you've got loads of really good arguments, is it?



I think one of the reasons people havent got around to a full repudiation of your "arguments " is just that they're so dull , so inane  and SO familiar to anyone who's been on this board for more than six months - 

maybe you could go google   "how the liberal / social democratic response / lack of  response to fascism helped pave the way to 6 m dead " - don't come back to me though, life's too short + hard already


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 20, 2008)

teuchter said:


> You'd think that, if you were so sure that I was talking nonsense, you'd offer up some kind of explanation as to why you thought that, or make an attempt to counter the points that I keep making, and, which, based on the above, it seems you aren't even reading.
> 
> Oh well.





The point is, we seem to fundamentally disagree about the nature of fascist doctrine and practice. I can't deal with your PoV if you deny the (formal) role of violence by the State in a fascist domain, as well as the role of (informal) street violence as the fash moves from agitator to ruler. 

You didn't pick up on, or perhaps chose to ignore the remark I made about Capital, corporates and the military and how that informs their wider view of society.

Fascism doesn't begin with gas chambers; it ends there. I'll fight to stop it ever happening again. Many, many more do much, much, much more than me, and I salute them.

Chatting with the fash hasn't had a great deal of success any way you look at it - ask 23 million Russians, and 7.5 million Germans. Well, you could if they were still about and not victims of a fascist war.


----------



## Stroppyoldgit (Oct 21, 2008)

Zachor said:


> If you are going to have anti fash activity then it must be effective and must not leave hostages to fortune.
> 
> At some point in antifash work physical confrontation is sometimes required but such times should be chosen with care.



That part of what Zachor says is dead right.  The account of events I've had from one of the 7 people arrested indicates it wasn't chosen with care in this case.  Our effectiveness and capacity to respond physically when it counts is actually reduced if it's just what we do predictably every time.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> The point is, we seem to fundamentally disagree about the nature of fascist doctrine and practice. I can't deal with your PoV if you deny the (formal) role of violence by the State in a fascist domain, as well as the role of (informal) street violence as the fash moves from agitator to ruler.



Do we disagree? I don't know because you refuse to state your point of view, All your posts are spent making patronising remarks about how I want to sit around having tea and cakes with "the fash" when I have said nothing of the sort.

I "deny the (formal) role of violence by the State in a fascist domain". Do I? Where did I say that? What does your sentence actually mean - a fascist state uses and relies on violence? Is that what you're saying? Well of course it does. Are you trying to say we are living in a fascist state? Are you capable of stating anything in a straightforward manner?



> You didn't pick up on, or perhaps chose to ignore the remark I made about Capital, corporates and the military and how that informs their wider view of society.



You didn't really make a remark, you asked me a question:



> Do you have a firm handle on fascism: the military, Capital and big business and the organisation of workers ie ordinary folk?



Your question is very unclear so I can't answer it - why the colon after fascism? Can you restate it in clearer English?



> Fascism doesn't begin with gas chambers; it ends there.



You don't say.



> Chatting with the fash hasn't had a great deal of success any way you look at it - ask 23 million Russians, and 7.5 million Germans. Well, you could if they were still about and not victims of a fascist war.



Well, the problem is, that all the times fascist wars haven't happened, by definition we don't know about them because they didn't happen, and we can't prove that the reason they didn't happen is because someone chose to persuade by reason rather than force, or vice versa.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 21, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Your question is very unclear so I can't answer it - why the colon after fascism? Can you restate it in clearer English?




And that's the level you're at, eh? Grammar.

I can't discuss potential strategies on how to opppose fascism, violently or otherwise, with someone who doesn't understand the doctrine they're 'against'. 

As I said - discussing fascism with you is like discussing black holes with someone who doesn't understand the basics of gravity.

My apologies if my grammar (the downside of a liberal education in the 70s and 80s) obscures some pretty obvious points from your myopic world view -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

may help you decipher my obscure posts.

Please. I really want to learn from your experience of chatting/debating with the fash and your success at converting them to the path of rightousness. Covince me you can do it, or it can be done at all, and I'll join you. I'll renounce direct and violent action on this issue.

Never had you down as a wishywashy liberal. Odd.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2008)

Fascism to me means: a system of centralised undemocratic control, where those in power exercise their control by suppressing free speech and opposition, by violent or militaristic means if necessary. And a system based strongly on racial or national unity, and which assumes whatever race or nation it claims to represent to be superior to others.

Fascism to me also means: a word, the definition of which, lots of people will forever argue about.


Perhaps you can try and explain in what way you fundamentally disagree with my understanding of the meaning of the term and how this is relevant to this thread, which started off being about whether it's acceptable or useful to engage in unprovoked physical violence against a group of BNP members (or the police, in the process of breaking up the BNP's meeting) in the UK in 2008.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Please. I really want to learn from your experience of chatting/debating with the fash and your success at converting them to the path of rightousness.



This bit by the way - do I have to have talked with someone who introduced themselves as "fascist" or will a bit of racism do?


----------



## Nixon (Oct 21, 2008)

fuck the fash


----------



## Zachor (Oct 21, 2008)

Nixon said:


> fuck the fash



I couldn't agree more but the actions against the fash  should be effictive which this anti fash action wasn't.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 21, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Please. I really want to learn from your experience of chatting/debating with the fash and your success at converting them to the path of rightousness. Covince me you can do it, or it can be done at all, and I'll join you. I'll renounce direct and violent action on this issue.



I've just come off StormFront and a (not overly pleasant) exchange with someone in SF Britain, so this is pretty much "off the cuff."

It probably can't be done at the moment, there's too much ill-feeling on both sides. Sooner or later though, it will have to be if we're not going to end up with wholesale bloodshed.

I think there needs to be a lot of buffering before this can happen, which is why I'm so keen on race debate on internet boards and would like to see it on a special subforum here. If not, our race debate forum Mootstormfront will be online again soon and you're all welcome to join.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 21, 2008)

teuchter said:


> This bit by the way - do I have to have talked with someone who introduced themselves as "fascist" or will a bit of racism do?



no because its quite possible (if rare) to be fascist but not racist and its very possible to be racist but not fascist


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 21, 2008)

I personally feel that anyone attending a 'peaceful' demonstration againt a fascist collective of any kind should go along prepared to engage in violence. My experience is that if the 'foot-soilders' within these groups come at you, then you've got to stand your ground and fight your corner. 

Therefore, my views are somewhere inbetween the arguments being played out here, but I would never expect to come face to face with fascists fooling myself that they wouldn't use violence to silence my voice.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 21, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I couldn't agree more but the actions against the fash  should be effictive which this anti fash action wasn't.



Hmm, whilst I agree with that i'm not sure i agree "this anti fash action wasn't": if we go by the East London Advertiser article, on the front page no less, the BNP's launch in east london was cut short after only an hour which we can assume was just the 'hello how are you' bit because they had LIED to the vicar about who they were and then ended in street confrontation with 30 antifascists. That's not really the kind of press they want, in fact it ticks all the boxes they do not - confrontation, having to lie, condemned by vicar. Whilst the BNP will reassure themselves this is in fact great press and they are democratic victims of New Labour fascist thugs (which is pretty much a direct quote) most people will see the press as confirming all their worst assumptions about the party. Then there is the possiblity that some of them actually got hurt or upset by the confrontation, and that vtwinned with having to cancel their event, may well discourage attendants from coming again or even being involved whatsoever. There is the chance it steels their dedication too, but that generally pushes them to their natural extremes - overt security, agressive image, some members pushed to criminality and nazism.

The downside is the arrests, but if those arrested are antifascists (whaich they may actually not be) i'm sure they would be pretty happy with what they have achieved: the BNP's relaunch in the East End was ruined, traditional style.

no?


----------



## Zachor (Oct 21, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Hmm, whilst I agree with that i'm not sure i agree "this anti fash action wasn't": if we go by the East London Advertiser article, on the front page no less, the BNP's launch in east london was cut short after only an hour which we can assume was just the 'hello how are you' bit because they had LIED to the vicar about who they were and then ended in street confrontation with 30 antifascists. That's not really the kind of press they want, in fact it ticks all the boxes they do not - confrontation, having to lie, condemned by vicar. Whilst the BNP will reassure themselves this is in fact great press and they are democratic victims of New Labour fascist thugs (which is pretty much a direct quote) most people will see the press as confirming all their worst assumptions about the party. Then there is the possiblity that some of them actually got hurt or upset by the confrontation, and that vtwinned with having to cancel their event, may well discourage attendants from coming again or even being involved whatsoever. There is the chance it steels their dedication too, but that generally pushes them to their natural extremes - overt security, agressive image, some members pushed to criminality and nazism.
> 
> The downside is the arrests, but if those arrested are antifascists (whaich they may actually not be) i'm sure they would be pretty happy with what they have achieved: the BNP's relaunch in the East End was ruined, traditional style.
> 
> no?



I do think that you have a point with regards to how this will negatively play with some of the bnp's target market for the reasons you have given above.

However, having lived in a borough with a lot of fash activity this will play or be spun as 'the unwashed left having a go at patriots again'.  Sadly enough supporters either committed or on the edge would lap it up.  

I don't think that the lying to the vicar bit will impact on this committed and core support.  It does make them look stupid in the eyes of those who would never think of voting or supporting the bnp.  Some of the bnp target audience would just see cheating the vicar as a blow against the state.  Small minds love little victories.

I think that the best way to deal with the fash is talk softly and carry a fucking big stick but think before you use it.

Unless you deal with the underlying causes of the rise in support for fash parties  then they will not go away.  This means looking at what is driving them where they appear successful.  Things like availability of social housing, employment, services, how demographic change is being managed etc etc.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 21, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I do think that you have a point with regards to how this will negatively play with some of the bnp's target market for the reasons you have given above.
> 
> However, having lived in a borough with a lot of fash activity this will play or be spun as 'the unwashed left having a go at patriots again'.  Sadly enough supporters either committed or on the edge would lap it up.
> 
> ...



I agree with this.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 21, 2008)

> I do think that you have a point with regards to how this will negatively play with some of the bnp's target market for the reasons you have given above.


Cheers, but then:


> However, having lived in a borough with a lot of fash activity this will play or be spun as 'the unwashed left having a go at patriots again'.  Sadly enough supporters either committed or on the edge would lap it up.


That's true and i kind of said that myself. It will certainly appeal to core supporters and may only convince fringe supporters even more - but the value of actually having _disrupted_ the meeting outweighs that, and also the value of the overall bad PR that you agree above affects 'some of their target market'. Now let's look at where they have a fairly entrenched presence, dagenham. Certainly if when they had first started organsing there and their meetings were disrupted it might have rallied more people to their cause. But if their first meeting, and others, were disrupted it also means they couldn't have organised further! It's important to remember that the East End is no longer a place where there IS much fash activity, afaik know, none whatsoever! Its also important to remember WHY this is, because as well as the huge racial shift it is also due to sustained antifascist activity. So whilst it's debatably not particularly worthwhile to try and disrupt the BNP in dagenham now that they have such a local presence and acceptance, in the East End they have no foothold yet. _Yet._



> I don't think that the lying to the vicar bit will impact on this committed and core support.


Like i say, no it won't: but if this core support _cannot meet_ to speak to fringe support, that doesn't matter tho. Nick Griffin will always be a fascist most likely. So what, i don't care. I care whether he can rally a mass movement behind him.



> Some of the bnp target audience would just see cheating the vicar as a blow against the state.  Small minds love little victories.


Hmmm, i think fringe supporters and voters would be pretty put off that there party of law and order, of common sense and national tradition, lied to vicars just to meet up. 



> I think that the best way to deal with the fash is talk softly and carry a fucking big stick but think before you use it.


well actually i think the best way is what you later say, deal with the wider issues; but anyway - why are we assuming this fracas in east london was not thought out? For the reasons i have gone into, it looks like they've done what they wanted to.



Zachor said:


> Unless you deal with the underlying causes of the rise in support for fash parties  then they will not go away.  This means looking at what is driving them where they appear successful.  Things like availability of social housing, employment, services, how demographic change is being managed etc etc.


Agreed, and well said. In any guise, from aggressive anarchists to UAF marchers, junkie rockstars to vigilant vicars, Antifascism will not wipe out fascism; at best it will hold it at bay.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 22, 2008)

*All Colours British*



teuchter said:


> I don't really understand what you mean here. Are you saying that their currently stated policy offers a moral justification for racial attacks?


Yes.
At a  minimal level, BNP policy is that there are racial &/or ethnic cultural groups that are incompatable to Britain, and violence between these groups happens inevitably: BNP stands in the interests of the British people(to them almost all white anglo saxon), physically if 'necessary': for instance, Bradford 2001
There is quite a lot of this by them on the internet, but some people on hear are a bit touchy in putting up stuff by Far Right.
Plenty for you to find yourself.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 22, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Yes.
> At a  minimal level, BNP policy is that there are racial &/or ethnic cultural groups that are incompatable to Britain, and violence between these groups happens inevitably: BNP stands in the interests of the British people(to them almost all white anglo saxon), physically if 'necessary': for instance, Bradford 2001
> There is quite a lot of this by them on the internet, but some people on hear are a bit touchy in putting up stuff by Far Right.
> Plenty for you to find yourself.



er...

Make  better case for that with quotesa from BNP policy or positions. Think we should be careful when we say things like 'BNP responsible for race attacks'.

I think the statement can be proved, but not having the evidence to hand or mind, i don't say it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Yes.
> At a  minimal level, BNP policy is that there are racial &/or ethnic cultural groups that are incompatable to Britain, and violence between these groups happens inevitably: BNP stands in the interests of the British people(to them almost all white anglo saxon), physically if 'necessary': for instance, Bradford 2001
> There is quite a lot of this by them on the internet, but some people on hear are a bit touchy in putting up stuff by Far Right.
> Plenty for you to find yourself.



I think I would want to see a link to the relevant bit of their currently stated policy rather than taking your word for it.

Saying that something happens inevitably (if that's what they say) isn't quite the same as saying it is morally justified.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 22, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think I would want to see a link to the relevant bit of their currently stated policy rather than taking your word for it.
> 
> Saying that something happens inevitably (if that's what they say) isn't quite the same as saying it is morally justified.



i'm with teuchter on this - i think we have to be very accurate when making thse claims, though i don't doubt you are right


----------



## Stroppyoldgit (Oct 24, 2008)

*The fault is...*



teuchter said:


> If I were to go and meet some of these people, and if I were to observe that they were, for example intimidating people with the threat of violence, then I would use my energies to make sure they were dealt with under the laws which we have in this country which are there to stop such things happening.
> ....
> 
> If my objection to someone is that they are trying to make other people behave in a certain way through intimidation or violence, then I see absolutely no way in which I can justify using those very same methods myself.
> ...



The fault in your reasoning is that it's purely theoretical complacent liberalism with no application or relevance to real life at all.

The laws you're so chuffed about don't seem to be very effective, do they?  *They're not stopping it happening*.  I doubt that you're a transexual from Lurgan or a black person in Lincoln.  If you were, you'd know how pathetic and unrealistic your suggestion is.  Even if they operated consistently and effectively (hah!), the laws you refer to don't stop things happening.  They are designed to take revenge on behalf of the state _after_ the event.  That could mean after you've been killed or maimed.

And what if the law (i.e. its agents, the police or judiciary) are hand-in-glove with the fash or share their hatred and bigotry?  Membership of the BNP and NF was banned in the police only recently because there were cops being blatant about it, wearing badges etc.  So they go slightly underground when at the nick or the Super is within earshot.  So what?  They can still be members as long as they keep quiet about it.  Anyway all that's banned is having the party card etc., which doesn't stop cops being racists or homophobes.  Just a couple of weeks ago the organisational culture and practice of the Met was found to be _*still*_ "institutionally racist", 10 years after they were supposed to have seen the light and promised to be good in future.

The most ludicrous part of your head-in-the-comfy-clouds argument is the suggestion that fascists engage in intimidation and violence "to make other people behave in a certain way".  *No they don't!* They do it out of twisted, psychopathic hatred.  They do it purely to injure, kill if they can, and cause as much pain and suffering as possible.  They don't make nail bombs (as recently exposed again) or place them in gay pubs (not very long ago) to persuade people of their point of view, do they?  They do it for blood.

As others have said, it doesn't look like you've ever encountered the "soldiers" of C18 or B&H, have you?  A little more respect for the experience of those who have, and especially for those who live in fear, would be in order from your safe liberal fastness.

None of which means I think the shenannigans in Bethnal Green were well thought out or tactically wise.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2008)

Let's take the London nail bombings as an example, then.

Yes, the police and the laws we have didn't stop that from happening. Neither did anything else, including violent anti-fascist direct action, stop it from happening. Obviously, because it happened.

Of course, there may well be lots of ways in which you might suggest the police or the law could have been more effective in stopping that happening.

The legal system did, at least, find and prosecute the bomber who as far as I know is now serving life imprisonment which one would hope might act as some degree of deterrent to anyone considering doing something in the future.

But what I would be interested to hear is, in exactly what way you think some kind of direct violent action against someone could have stopped the nail bombings happening. In practical rather than theoretical terms, as that is what you seem keen on.


----------



## Stroppyoldgit (Oct 25, 2008)

*What deterrent?*

Why do you think the possibility of a long prison sentence is a deterrent to the sort of person we're talking about?  That's what elevates them to the status of martyr / hero in their own sick circles.  They become "somebody" and an otherwise empty, embittered life gains what they regard as validity.  People who plant nail bombs always have a high liklihood of being nicked and sent down for a long time in the end anyway, and they obviously know that. In other words, end achieved!

If I'd known the bastard in question was on the way to Brixton or the pub with a nail bomb, what would I have done?  Well, not called the cops as long as I was near enough to try to prevent it myself, obviously needing to get others to help and trying to force him into open space by shouting, accusing and attracting as much attention as possible.

If I called the cops I could well be calling the bomber's fellow travellers.  I just wouldn't know, nor would I know how they would react on arrival, as they're unpredictable and would behave according to their stereotype of me (which would probably be "toerag", to adopt police-speak).  That's assuming they'd even get there before the bomb went off, which they quite possibly wouldn't.  Even if they did get there in time, they'd be highly likely to waste the time hassling or arresting me.  At worst, they might try to fit me up for planting the bomb, trying to make out I was just using the real bomber as cover.

"There is no problem so bad that the presence of a policeman will not make it worse"
Brendan Behan

You're placing your faith in theories, people of straw, and corrupt systems, Teuchter.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 25, 2008)

Stroppyoldgit said:


> If I'd known the bastard in question was on the way to Brixton or the pub with a nail bomb, what would I have done?  Well, not called the cops as long as I was near enough to try to prevent it myself, obviously needing to get others to help and trying to force him into open space by shouting, accusing and attracting as much attention as possible.
> 
> If I called the cops I could well be calling the bomber's fellow travellers.  I just wouldn't know, nor would I know how they would react on arrival, as they're unpredictable and would behave according to their stereotype of me (which would probably be "toerag", to adopt police-speak).  That's assuming they'd even get there before the bomb went off, which they quite possibly wouldn't.  Even if they did get there in time, they'd be highly likely to waste the time hassling or arresting me.  At worst, they might try to fit me up for planting the bomb, trying to make out I was just using the real bomber as cover.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nigel (Oct 26, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think I would want to see a link to the relevant bit of their currently stated policy rather than taking your word for it.
> 
> Saying that something happens inevitably (if that's what they say) isn't quite the same as saying it is morally justified.



Like I said, there is plenty on the internet and other sources to confirm my position, however the policy of U75 is not to put up far right sights; for obvious reasons: My hands are tied on this one.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Like I said, there is plenty on the internet and other sources to confirm my position, however the policy of U75 is not to put up far right sights; for obvious reasons: My hands are tied on this one.



I don't see anything about that in the FAQ. I don't see what the problem would be as long as you break the link.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2008)

Perhaps you could explain what you think would be a deterrent to these people? If you think that nothing has a deterrent effect on them, then what are you saying - once we identify someone that might be likely to commit some kind of atrocity, we should lock them up? Or execute them? In which case, presumably you would prefer that either of those actions were carried out by private individuals rather than the state?

I'm not sure why you devote most of your post to explaining what you would do in the instance of knowing "the bastard in question was on the way to Brixton or the pub with a nail bomb" ... I don't quite know how you'd find yourself in such a situation. 

My question really was in what way direct violent action in general, could help stop such a situation arising in the first place. Because most people seem to be arguing for such action being taken in situations that aren't the highly unlikely one you describe. 

Even in the situation you describe, I think I'd quite definitely prefer to call the police. Not so much as a matter of principle but just to be sensible, really. Your Behan quote is, essentially, nonsense. But it's clear you've got a general grudge against the police that you're not going to change your mind on, so there's not much point trying to argue with you about that.










Stroppyoldgit said:


> Why do you think the possibility of a long prison sentence is a deterrent to the sort of person we're talking about?  That's what elevates them to the status of martyr / hero in their own sick circles.  They become "somebody" and an otherwise empty, embittered life gains what they regard as validity.  People who plant nail bombs always have a high liklihood of being nicked and sent down for a long time in the end anyway, and they obviously know that. In other words, end achieved!
> 
> If I'd known the bastard in question was on the way to Brixton or the pub with a nail bomb, what would I have done?  Well, not called the cops as long as I was near enough to try to prevent it myself, obviously needing to get others to help and trying to force him into open space by shouting, accusing and attracting as much attention as possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 28, 2008)

Just wondering if you've yet had the chance to open discussions or debates with any far-righters, teuchter?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Just wondering if you've yet had the chance to open discussions or debates with any far-righters, teuchter?



I'm still waiting for you to respond to my posts nos. 109 and 110.

One of which was seeking clarification on what you mean by "far-righters".


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 28, 2008)

Thought not. Another liberal in his/her safe European home.

Gawd bless ya!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Thought not. Another liberal in his/her safe European home.
> 
> Gawd bless ya!



Aha! Clever, what you did there!

Trying to have a useful discussion with you is like trying to have one with a watered-down version of Attica.

The only arguments you seem able to come up with, other than making silly comments like the one above, are:

1. I have not met these mysterious types which you refuse to define, but if I did, I would change my views. But you are unable to tell me in what way meeting these people would change my views.

2. We disagree fundamentally on the nature of "fascism". But you refuse to explain in what way, why this is relevant, or respond to my attempt to explain what it means to me.

And that is it.

I could tell you about the time I met the guy who said that we shouldn't send any food to Africa because they'll get too strong and come over here and invade us, and that we should invent a genetic disease to wipe out all the Arabs, amongst other things. But I don't know what the point would be, because he might not fit your undisclosed criteria for the kind of people I have to meet before I am allowed to have an opinion about whether or not political violence is an acceptable thing. And even in the unlikely event that he did, you would most likely ignore my post and continue to make sneery remarks about my being a wishy-washy liberal, or eating tea and cakes with Tories, or some other such attempt to avoid defending your position.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 28, 2008)

S'cool. I'll do your shit work for you, whilst you ponder on those nasty wuff misguided types who have a Hitler fetish wrapped in a cheap suit and BNP colours.

Everything you need to answer your questions is here in this thread; posted by me, and others. Unlike Attica, I'm not keen enough, or evangelical enough to keep on pointing out the bloody obvious.

Take your blinkers off. Get out on the street and find your own answers. Better to do something to protect our communities, better to try something, than sit around playing games many of us left behind when we left sixth form.

Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person, teuchter. Give my love to the Highlands and Islands, where the fash threat is minimal.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 28, 2008)

Could always play this.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 28, 2008)

MC5 said:


> Could always play this.



But what's the producer's motivation? Can we engage in a discussion before playing it... Will it change anything... _ad nauseum_


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2008)

At least you are consistent in your "no discussion" stance to disagreement.

It's clear I'm not going to gain any better understanding of why you think the way you do, so I'll just leave you alone to bask in your own superciliousness.



lights.out.london said:


> S'cool. I'll do your shit work for you, whilst you ponder on those nasty wuff misguided types who have a Hitler fetish wrapped in a cheap suit and BNP colours.
> 
> Everything you need to answer your questions is here in this thread; posted by me, and others. Unlike Attica, I'm not keen enough, or evangelical enough to keep on pointing out the bloody obvious.
> 
> ...


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 29, 2008)

Ta.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 29, 2008)

Many groups on the Far Right have pushed for discussion with the left(Freedom Press & SPGB only ones that have done this.)

This could be very true with the political soldier wing and their latter day manifestations. Remember group called National Action Party doing this. Using physical intimidation to force an platformed debate with Labour/Leftists/Liberals.
e.g. Roy Hatersely speaking in early 1980's(when he apparentely was quoted being supportive of arranged marriages?) 

In copies of fighting talk(AFA) articles claiming that the BNP were happy to allow middle class members of ANL(II) into their meetings, because they were harmless, rather than AFA.

If some idiots on the liberal left allow these people this sort of Oxygen, they could gain more confidence in other areas of political activity.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Many groups on the Far Right have pushed for discussion with the left(Freedom Press & SPGB only ones that have done this.)
> 
> This could be very true with the political soldier wing and their latter day manifestations. Remember group called National Action Party doing this. Using physical intimidation to force an platformed debate with Labour/Leftists/Liberals.
> e.g. Roy Hatersely speaking in early 1980's(when he apparentely was quoted being supportive of arranged marriages?)
> ...



e.g. the Oxford University young Tory who decisively broke 40 years of No Platform by 'debating' Nick Griffin. A blow for free speech! Take that fascist liberals!


----------



## Nigel (Oct 29, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> e.g. the Oxford University young Tory who decisively broke 40 years of No Platform by 'debating' Nick Griffin. A blow for free speech! Take that fascist liberals!


I don't think there's much liberal about that character!


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 29, 2008)

^ lol. Too tue.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2008)

Nigel said:


> I don't think there's much liberal about that character!



we-eeeell... It was very much a liberal argument and he was championed as being liberal in the press. He was a tory but he could easily have been any colour of liberal, misguided leftist included - as you point out.


----------



## Stroppyoldgit (Oct 29, 2008)

teuchter said:


> The only arguments you seem able to come up with, other than making silly comments like the one above, are:
> 
> 1. I have not met these mysterious types which you refuse to define, but if I did, I would change my views. But you are unable to tell me in what way meeting these people would change my views.


As a Teuchter you'd not be likely to meet them amongst the hills and glens, would you?  Not a large nazi presence in Altnahara, nor even in the metropoles of Lairg or Brora, as far as I know.  There did use to be one -just one- rather dim and spotty one in Thurso, but he moved away to find some fellow Hitler groupies in England a couple of years after leaving school. 

The answer to your question is that the extremity and malevolence of their violence would (if and when you had recovered, as many have not) convince you of the futility of attempting to convince them of your point of view.  In your case, you'd probably have to express that point of view to trigger the violence.  For others, their race, sexuality or appearance would be enough without any "point of view" entering into it. It's their fists, boots and weapons which would change your view.

As for my alleged "grudge" against the cops -it is based on a lifetime's experience of them.  Brendan Behan's aphorism was based on that, too, and rings absolutely true to my own experience.

It's not a "grudge" I have, it's a reasonable fear, based on experience, for my liberty and personal safety.  The police are nothing more than violent gangsters given licence to run a very lucrative protection racket.  I remember, in the 1960s, reading the words of an East End pub landlord about the Kray brothers:

"They said if I paid them the money they'd make sure I didn't have any trouble.  But the only people I ever had trouble with was them."

Exactly!  That's true of every protection racket and the only difference between the "officials" and the "provisionals" is that in the former case the money is extracted via income tax, VAT, etc.  As a late (and not vegan) friend used to say "same meat, different gravy".


----------



## Nixon (Oct 29, 2008)

i like your posts stroppy one


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2008)

Stroppyoldgit said:


> The answer to your question is that the extremity and malevolence of their violence would (if and when you had recovered, as many have not) convince you of the futility of attempting to convince them of your point of view.  In your case, you'd probably have to express that point of view to trigger the violence.  For others, their race, sexuality or appearance would be enough without any "point of view" entering into it. It's their fists, boots and weapons which would change your view.



The point is, though, as I keep saying, that I accept that there are some people, whose views I wouldn't be able to change through reason. It's other people, the people that might be tempted to follow them, that have to be convinced through argument.
Do you think I would change their views through violence? I don't think so. I just don't see what is achieved by using violence against them. Unless you are talking about actually injuring them so severely that they are physically incapable of carrying on with their activities. Is that what you are suggesting? And do you not agree that all that is going to lead to is a cycle of retribution?


----------



## Nigel (Oct 31, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> we-eeeell... It was very much a liberal argument and he was championed as being liberal in the press. He was a tory but he could easily have been any colour of liberal, misguided leftist included - as you point out.


Coming to the end of that particular event, I tapped on the window of David Irvines lift to discuss his analysis of History, being asked to leave by the police. This individual kept on shouting something like, on his posh tory twat voice, "I hope you're going to arrest this gentleman."
If anyone wants a reason why you should hate the British Establishment, I suggest you go for a drink in the Oxford Union when their local conservative clubs meets there.


----------



## Stroppyoldgit (Oct 31, 2008)

*Have some respect*



teuchter said:


> I just don't see what is achieved by using violence against them. Unless you are talking about actually injuring them so severely that they are physically incapable of carrying on with their activities. Is that what you are suggesting?



It's self-defence I'm talking about.  OK, Teuchter, you go and reason with the people who're not nazis but tempted to vote for the BNP because they're justifiably pissed off and have been given bullshit explanations for their predicament.  Worth doing*.  Try Barnsley, Burnley or Bradford, just to mention some of the Bs.  Then the boot boys come for you, mob handed.  You'll be on your own, of course, and you don't believe in self-defence anyway.  By-eee!

Now, scale that up to the level of whole communities which are under threat and need to defend themselves.  What's your alternative?  Call the cops and get beaten up by them instead?  Or as well?

You really don't have any respect for other people's experience, or the ways others have to resolve their problems, do you?  You remind me of those condemning the plane-crash survivors who were isolated and given up for dead on a mountain.  In the end, they had to eat the flesh of others who'd died in order to survive themselves.  They did what they had to.  How dare anyone else who wasn't there, who was never in their dire predicament, start moralising and condemning!  

I could easily sit here with the benefit of hindsight and a different political perspective and say those working class men, and then women, who thought the way out of oppression lay in the vote and parliamentary representation, and fought for it over three centuries, were barking up the wrong tree.  I could say "Look where that got us.  Didn't do any good, did it?  Oh, and those Levellers only demanded votes for men, anyway."  But I'm not going to, even thought I do think it was a blind alley.  The Levellers, Chartists, Suffragettes and many others struggled in their time, their society and their circumstances according to what they thought were the best available tactics.  I wasn't there.  I'm here now and it's a lot more constructive to help build on their experience, rather than to scorn it.

Similarly, you're where your are now, and that's not round where I live, is it? As I said, have some respect.  Consider that others have very different problems, pressures and threats against them than exist in your life (if any) before you pontificate from afar.

Here endeth the sermon.  I can't be bothered with this any more, Teuchter, so go on, have the last word.  I know you will.

*  As long as you can do it safely.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 31, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Coming to the end of that particular event, I tapped on the window of David Irvines lift to discuss his analysis of History, being asked to leave by the police. This individual kept on shouting something like, on his posh tory twat voice, "I hope you're going to arrest this gentleman."
> If anyone wants a reason why you should hate the British Establishment, I suggest you go for a drink in the Oxford Union when their local conservative clubs meets there.



Walking through kensington does it for me. 

Every fucking time.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 31, 2008)

Stroppyoldgit said:


> Try Barnsley, Burnley or Bradford, just to mention some of the Bs.



Is barnsley really lost to the BNP as bad as the others you mention 

I missed that if so.


----------



## TomPaine (Oct 31, 2008)

> If anyone wants a reason why you should hate the British Establishment,  I suggest you go for a drink in the Oxford Union when their local conservative clubs meets there.



Yeah but the establishment these days is the fucking Labour party isn't it? For the best part of the last 11 years the establishment was twats like Prescott, not really a toff was he.
It's all great bashing the Tories, but for god sake Labour have been just as bad at the end of the day. I feel sorry for my folks and grandfolks who supported the Labour party through the winter of discontent, miners strike, my old man being made redundant in the early 90's recession etc. to see them get into power and destory more then the Tories could have dreamed of....

TomPaine


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 31, 2008)

TomPaine said:


> Yeah but the establishment these days is the fucking Labour party isn't it? For the best part of the last 11 years the establishment was twats like Prescott, not really a toff was he.
> It's all great bashing the Tories, but for god sake Labour have been just as bad at the end of the day. I feel sorry for my folks and grandfolks who supported the Labour party through the winter of discontent, miners strike, my old man being made redundant in the early 90's recession etc. to see them get into power and destory more then the Tories could have dreamed of....
> 
> TomPaine



sortov, and sortovnot.

The labour party has been the public face of the establishment, or established system, with some amount of legislative power all of its own, for 11 years. But 'the establishment' in normal parlance refers to the people who *are* the establishment, not its political wing - and this still has remarkable number of straight up toffs in it. This is because land ownership (which many of them have had in their family since 1066) is still a hugely profitable and powerful asset. It is also because large amounts of money rarely dissipates, it concentrates - so people who were rich in the past will have descendents who are even richer now - and they'll also inherit the accompanying culture.

This is all largely irrelevant, its a systemic problem, not a case of cruel aristo's Disney-style.

But they still fuck me off.


----------



## TomPaine (Oct 31, 2008)

I agree about the artisto twats, but to be honest these days whilst they may be minted and fuck off to the Alps skiing every year or whatever, the sort of New Labour trendy muppets who seem to work in Media, along with the party itself have fucked up more in this country then the sort of toff types in the Tories could have dreamed of. 
I could never vote Labour now, ever. Total scum.

TomPaine


----------



## Nigel (Nov 1, 2008)

TomPaine said:


> Yeah but the establishment these days is the fucking Labour party isn't it? For the best part of the last 11 years the establishment was twats like Prescott, not really a toff was he.
> It's all great bashing the Tories, but for god sake Labour have been just as bad at the end of the day. I feel sorry for my folks and grandfolks who supported the Labour party through the winter of discontent, miners strike, my old man being made redundant in the early 90's recession etc. to see them get into power and destory more then the Tories could have dreamed of....
> 
> TomPaine


Did'nt Prescott go to Oxford, same college I went to.
I have sympathy with what you are saying its just one big game to them and lots of ole' boys clubs to highten their careers in the despotic & nepotistic manner they have for centuries. However the history of the Labour Party is distinctly different the that of Conservatives, many good grass root socialists involved (and still) in Labour.
Misguided in my opinion.


----------



## Stroppyoldgit (Nov 2, 2008)

*Not yet*



Taxamo Welf said:


> Is barnsley really lost to the BNP as bad as the others you mention
> 
> I missed that if so.



OK, Barnsley isn't yet, but it's certainly fertile territory for them.  It's the sort of mainly white town where they are extending their influence at present, unlike the other two.  Dagenham was the first example.  Stoke on Trent and places nearby are more recent ones.  

It's in areas like these with loads of what might be called "upper" working class white people, living in mortgaged homes, driving cars, heavily in debt but able to keep jogging along and consuming as long as they have reasonably well paid jobs, that the recession is just beginning to hit with a huge wallop. Barnsley and its satellites have substantial areas like this.  Not all ex-miners on the bones of their arse and their kids on scag, you know! (Though there are areas like that too.)

We need to be thinking about these places and how to make sure the BNP's racism and facile "solutions" don't wash amongst people who're seeing much that they took for granted going down the toilet.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2008)

Stroppyoldgit said:


> It's self-defence I'm talking about.  OK, Teuchter, you go and reason with the people who're not nazis but tempted to vote for the BNP because they're justifiably pissed off and have been given bullshit explanations for their predicament.  Worth doing*.  Try Barnsley, Burnley or Bradford, just to mention some of the Bs.  Then the boot boys come for you, mob handed.  You'll be on your own, of course, and you don't believe in self-defence anyway.  By-eee!



Please read my post no. 73 on this thread where I quite explicitly say that one of the situations in which I can see physical violence being justified is in self-defence.



Stroppyoldgit said:


> Now, scale that up to the level of whole communities which are under threat and need to defend themselves.  What's your alternative?  Call the cops and get beaten up by them instead?  Or as well?



This is based on an assumption that, if I were to call the police and say that I am being threatened with or have been subject to physical violence, this would get beaten up by them. This I believe to be a false assumption. Can you give me an example of people, or "whole communities" being "beaten up" by police as a result of reporting intimidation or violence?



> You really don't have any respect for other people's experience, or the ways others have to resolve their problems, do you?  You remind me of those condemning the plane-crash survivors who were isolated and given up for dead on a mountain.  In the end, they had to eat the flesh of others who'd died in order to survive themselves.  They did what they had to.  How dare anyone else who wasn't there, who was never in their dire predicament, start moralising and condemning!
> 
> I could easily sit here with the benefit of hindsight and a different political perspective and say those working class men, and then women, who thought the way out of oppression lay in the vote and parliamentary representation, and fought for it over three centuries, were barking up the wrong tree.  I could say "Look where that got us.  Didn't do any good, did it?  Oh, and those Levellers only demanded votes for men, anyway."  But I'm not going to, even thought I do think it was a blind alley.  The Levellers, Chartists, Suffragettes and many others struggled in their time, their society and their circumstances according to what they thought were the best available tactics.  I wasn't there.  I'm here now and it's a lot more constructive to help build on their experience, rather than to scorn it.
> 
> ...



Of course others have different experiences, pressures and problems to mine. But I am not buying your suggestion that this disallows me to question or comment on their actions, or even that doing so indicates a lack of respect.

I'm sure you don't have any opinions on anything except those things which you have directly experienced yourself. Your thoughts on policing, and your belief that every policeman is a violent gangster, are no doubt based on your time serving in the police force. And I'm sure you have never commented on the actions of a politician, unless of course you have also served time as a member of parliament, in which case doing so would not represent a lack of respect.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 7, 2008)

Self-Defense ARA stylee.


----------

