[Amon.]

(Original post by JonathanH)
"Stalin: good or bad?", eh?
Don't you know that that's still pretty much an open debate at Al-Grauniad?

"For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment."

Ah, the good things Stalin did...

Anyone who thinks that Stalin was good is just an absolute idiot.

Like with the BNP you have to know about it to think the right thing. If you know about the BNP you realise they're good. If you know about Stalin you realise it wasn't all happy flowers and peaceful communism but was actually the deaths of millions and decades of oppression.


"communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment."

No it didn't. East Germany? Poland? Most of Russia? ****ing destroyed the economy and the country.

[FunnyBones]

(Original post by Eidothea)
The BNPs want a "clean and white Britain" and are not only deeply anti - Islam, but also anti-Semitic and other ethnic minorities. It is good that they are opening the government's eyes to racial tension and illegal immigration, but they're too right-winged.

I don't think the BNP are anymore anti-anything than their equivalents in, say, Israel. And there's about half a dozen parties (if not all) in Israel that support a very structured immigration policy based, essentially, on a preference for "people like us". Naturally this involves a good eye for demographics another thing the BNP seems keen on.

So if it good enough for, say, Likud, Labor, Kadima, Yisrael Beytenu, HaIchud HaLeumi-Mafdal, and even the Pensioners Party (who show no enthusiasm for immigration reform at all) well why not the BNP and a host of others?

NL

[OakBeans]

That's odd, the BNP's views on democracy seem very heathy to me:

'We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.'

Most people have never spoken to a BNP candidate and have learned everything they know about the BNP parrot-fashion from the hostile mass media which is largely owned and run by foreign internationalists who vote for internationalist parties. The reason the newspapers hate them so is because they are a threat to the 'power without responsiility' the media moguls have enjoyed for so long, one inbred group of liberal meeeja elites can make an entire nation adopt it's views of a political party, as this poll proves. Compare the half-stories in the media to the BNP's actual policies and you start to biases so obvious they would make an Eastern European newspaper editor blush. The BNP stands for more democracy and less top down control.

[Johnny]

(Original post by Amon.)
Anyone who thinks that Stalin was good is just an absolute idiot.

Like with the BNP you have to know about it to think the right thing. If you know about the BNP you realise they're good. If you know about Stalin you realise it wasn't all happy flowers and peaceful communism but was actually the deaths of millions and decades of oppression.


"communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment."

No it didn't. East Germany? Poland? Most of Russia? ****ing destroyed the economy and the country.

But that quote from the Guardian ("For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.) is without any fault.

It doesn't even mention Stalin anyway, or the purges, or the gulags. So I don't know what JonothanH is on about.

It just says that communism allowed the rapid industrial development of Russia at a large human cost, which is true.

[Amon.]

(Original post by Johnny)
But that quote from the Guardian ("For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.) is without any fault.

It doesn't even mention Stalin anyway, or the purges, or the gulags. So I don't know what JonothanH is on about.

It just says that communism allowed the rapid industrial development of Russia at a large human cost, which is true.

it didn't cause rapid industrial development of most of Russia though! Some big cities benefitted, but most of the place had widespread hunger, poverty and unemployment. Even in the countrys that were taken over by communism (against what the people wanted) the place was a mess - more mass unemployment, hunger, poor education and poverty. Compair East Germany with West Germany, the East is only catching up now 15 years later.

[Johnny]

(Original post by Amon.)
it didn't cause rapid industrial development of most of Russia though! Some big cities benefitted, but most of the place had widespread hunger, poverty and unemployment. Even in the countrys that were taken over by communism (against what the people wanted) the place was a mess - more mass unemployment, hunger, poor education and poverty. Compair East Germany with West Germany, the East is only catching up now 15 years later.

The mobilization of resources by state planning augmented the country's industrial base. From 1928 to 1932, pig iron output, necessary for development of nonexistent industrial infrastructure rose from 3.3 million to 10 million tons per year. Coal, the integral product fueling modern economies and Stalinist industrialization, successfully rose from 35.4 million to 75 million tons, and output of iron ore rose from 5.7 million to 19 million tons. A number of industrial complexes such as Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk, the Moscow and Gorky automobile plants, the Urals and Kramatorsk heavy machinery plants, and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Cheliabinsk tractor plants had been built or were under construction.

But since you're such an expert, tell me: how is the situation in post-communist Russia vis-a-vis "mass unemployment, hunger, poor education and poverty."

PS. I think we should make our own thread on this rather than hi-jacking this one. Please feel free.

[Amon.]

(Original post by Johnny)
But since you're such an expert, tell me: how is the situation in post-communist Russia vis-a-vis "mass unemployment, hunger, poor education and poverty."

PS. I think we should make our own thread on this rather than hi-jacking this one. Please feel free.

"vis-a-vis" ?

I didn't say post-communist Russia so that is irrelevant (but still true - ok Moscow is nice, and St Petersburg but most of Russia is still full of poor peasants). Also, I said:

"Some big cities benefitted, but most of the place had widespread hunger, poverty and unemployment."

The data you give relates to the increased prosperity in some cities but still in most places it was horrible (I notice you ignore what Stalin did to Poland and East Germany - feel free to compair how well East Germany did under communism with how well WEst Germany did without).

[Johnny]

(Original post by Amon.)
"vis-a-vis" ?

I didn't say post-communist Russia so that is irrelevant (but still true - ok Moscow is nice, and St Petersburg but most of Russia is still full of poor peasants). Also, I said:

"Some big cities benefitted, but most of the place had widespread hunger, poverty and unemployment."

The data you give relates to the increased prosperity in some cities but still in most places it was horrible (I notice you ignore what Stalin did to Poland and East Germany - feel free to compair how well East Germany did under communism with how well WEst Germany did without).

Start a new thread, because we'll just annoy everyone if we continue this discussion here.

"Vis-a-vis" means "as regards"

[Anthony Arundel]

You might as well continue this discussion here, there is already a wealth of BNP threads out there in the bowels of TSR.

(Original post by Flux)
Not really, if they got into power that would mean they had the support of the majority of the nation.

Yes, which would be a travesty. It would show just how badly things had gone in Britain, and how widespread and prevalent racial tensions had become in one of the countries that should lead the world in terms of liberalism and cosmpolitanism.

The BNP is racist - there's no getting around it. Why do its members/leaders dance around that fact? We all know that "Britain first," in this context, means "white people first."

[$ 3 >< '-| ( |-| |2 ! $]

BNP are ****ing aweful. They have the wrong ideas on what should be done and are no better than the nazi's were the b*****ds

[Agent Smith]

(Original post by Amon.)
it didn't cause rapid industrial development of most of Russia though! Some big cities benefitted, but most of the place had widespread hunger, poverty and unemployment. Even in the countrys that were taken over by communism (against what the people wanted) the place was a mess - more mass unemployment, hunger, poor education and poverty. Compair East Germany with West Germany, the East is only catching up now 15 years later.

That's because of the shock caused by its re-entry into capitalist economics. All the Soviet State-controlled economies suffered the same problem of readjustment. That's not a flaw in either system, it's the consequences of switching between systems.

[Agent Smith]

(Original post by Flux)
Not really, if they got into power that would mean they had the support of the majority of the nation.

Not necessarily. If they got into power democratically under normal circumstances then yes, it would be reasonable to assume majority support. However, if they gained power through a coup or by violent "reaction voting" immediately following some catastrophic event, it wouldn't necessarily follow that a majority of Brits supported them.

[poltroon]

(Original post by Agent Smith)
Not necessarily. If they got into power democratically under normal circumstances then yes, it would be reasonable to assume majority support. However, if they gained power through a coup or by violent "reaction voting" immediately following some catastrophic event, it wouldn't necessarily follow that a majority of Brits supported them.

It would be rare for a political party to be in power with real majority support.

[Paul Bedford]

(Original post by Amon.)
Like with the BNP you have to know about it to think the right thing. If you know about the BNP you realise they're good.

So you are saying that 99.3% of the population is just stupid, and that's the only reason they don't vote for them, and not because they see them as a bunch of nazi playing children that never grew up?
Interesting theory.
So prove it to me, explain what is good about the bnp.
I've been and read their manifesto, and quite frankly, racist or multiracist, I wouldn't vote for these people if the only other candidate was the village idiot, as their non-racist policies suck too.
So explain the reason why you think they are good.

[Amon.]

(Original post by EastMidlander)
So you are saying that 99.3% of the population is just stupid, and that's the only reason they don't vote for them, and not because they see them as a bunch of nazi playing children that never grew up?
Interesting theory.
So prove it to me, explain what is good about the bnp.
I've been and read their manifesto, and quite frankly, racist or multiracist, I wouldn't vote for these people if the only other candidate was the village idiot, as their non-racist policies suck too.
So explain the reason why you think they are good.

I would say that majority of the population is ignorant and doesn't realise what's wrong. BNP got 4% of the vote at the Europeans elections, your figure of 99.3% is wrong.

so what exactly is wrong with the manifesto you read?

I'm a nationalist so I support other countries nationalist parties, theres nothing wrong with the BNP, they realise what is wrong and they have the courage to stand out and say it. NL and conservatives are the same, liberal democrates are a joke. They're the reason that Britain is in the mess it's in now.

[Paul Bedford]

(Original post by Amon.)
BNP got 4% of the vote at the Europeans elections, your figure of 99.3% is wrong.

They got 0.7% of the vote at the general election, my figure is right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2...scoreboard.stm

so what exactly is wrong with the manifesto you read?

What is right with it?
You said we just needed to know, I asked you to show us, so show us.

I'm a nationalist so I support other countries nationalist parties, theres nothing wrong with the BNP

There is nothing wrong with the BNP?
So lying, cheating, illegal activities, attempting to blow things up, late presented accounts, thuggery, pushing dog crap through letter boxes, trying to hire people to kill senior people in society, making up fake stories about assasinations, incitement to commit hatred, etc. are all right?
Thats before we examine the fact that they are a bunch of amateur politicans who are a complete joke.
So perhaps this time you might try with an explanation, instead of wasting breath trying to discredit my accurate figures, and telling me there is nothing wrong with these comedians, when I clearly know there is?
If they are so hot you should be able to convince people, or is it actually the fact that 99.3% of the population is right, and knows the truth, and it's the 7% who are idiots?

[Amon.]

(Original post by EastMidlander)
They got 0.7% of the vote at the general election, my figure is right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2...scoreboard.stm

No, I said the EUROPEAN ELECTIONS where they got 4%. The General election is different. Also they will have lower scores in the GE because there won't be BNP members in some areas for people to vote for because they are much smaller, that explains partly the lower vote. Also they had a tiny amount of money to spend on the GE compaired to lib-lab-con.

(Original post by EastMidlander)
What is right with it?
You said we just needed to know, I asked you to show us, so show us.

There is nothing wrong with the BNP?
So lying, cheating, illegal activities, attempting to blow things up, late presented accounts, thuggery, pushing dog crap through letter boxes, trying to hire people to kill senior people in society, making up fake stories about assasinations, incitement to commit hatred, etc. are all right?
Thats before we examine the fact that they are a bunch of amateur politicans who are a complete joke.
So perhaps this time you might try with an explanation, instead of wasting breath trying to discredit my accurate figures, and telling me there is nothing wrong with these comedians, when I clearly know there is?
If they are so hot you should be able to convince people, or is it actually the fact that 99.3% of the population is right, and knows the truth, and it's the 7% who are idiots?

The BNP has these problems because people who are not allowed in other parties are attracted to the BNP instead as a last resort. You can't say that every member acts in that way. NL has it's share of "scandels" and so do the liberal democrats and Cons but because they're much bigger it doesn't get out so much. The image of the bnp is not a good one which also makes these kind of people join the party which makes the image worse - like a circle it's hard to get out of this.


"trying to hire people to kill senior people in society"
Lecomber shouldn't be in the party.


I can't convince people because:
1. your including muslims and other immigrants in your figure - they are not goingto vote BNP.
2. most people are too ignorant/stupid/brainwashed to know whats good for them
3. the general view of the bnp is not good because of victimisation by the news groups and by the labour party.

[Paul Bedford]

(Original post by Amon.)
No, I said the EUROPEAN ELECTIONS where they got 4%. The General election is different.

Yes, the general election is different, in that it is our main election, and we don't have people making protest votes.
It's also our most recent election, and shows that currently 0.7% of the population votes bnp, as I originally stated.

The BNP has these problems because people who are not allowed in other parties are attracted to the BNP instead as a last resort. You can't say that every member acts in that way.

They are senior figures I'm talking about, like the leader, and his deputies.
It's not just fringe lunatics on the edges, it's the main people.

NL has it's share of "scandels" and so do the liberal democrats and Cons but because they're much bigger it doesn't get out so much.

Actually it gets out more, because people give a damn about them.
They are bigger, so their mistakes, and crimes, get reported a lot more.
Which story have you read more about recently, in the press, dodgy donations to NL and the Tories, or the senior member of the bnp who tried to hire someone to kill senior people in society?
The bnp actually have an easy ride at present because no one takes them seriously.

The image of the bnp is not a good one which also makes these kind of people join the party which makes the image worse - like a circle it's hard to get out of this.

It is when we are talking about the top people, the leaders.
But if the bnp members are decent people they would either get rid of these losers, or leave the party.
Which are they doing?

"trying to hire people to kill senior people in society"
Lecomber shouldn't be in the party.

So the question is why is he?
Only one man can dismiss him, and should do publicly, and immediately.
In any other party he'd be gone by now, the bnp keep him active, and pay him a wage.
That is not good, that is not professional, and there are no excuses for it.
It shows the rot goes right the way to the top.

I can't convince people because:
1. your including muslims and other immigrants in your figure - they are not goingto vote BNP.

Muslims make up about 2.7% of our population.
Even if you removed them all the bnp would still be about the 12th smallest party in our nation, and a joke.

2. most people are too ignorant/stupid/brainwashed to know whats good for them

I know what's good for me, I'm not ignorant, stupid or brainwashed, and wouldn't touch the bnp with a barge pole.

3. the general view of the bnp is not good because of victimisation by the news groups and by the labour party.

They are not victimised, they are a joke.
If labour and the media wanted to victimise them they'd be gone now.
Just throw the lecomber stories on page one, bring in some new legislation, and the bnp would be closed for good.
When they were late with their accounts they could have been closed, but they were not.
The reason why they are not victimised is because they are insignificant, and incapable of being a realistic threat at the ballot box.
There only value in this country is to act as cartoon nazis for the powers to be to point at everytime they want to bring in some new legislation.
The bnp, and muslim terrorists, if they didn't exist New Labour would have to invent them.

[LH]

(Original post by Amon.)
No, I said the EUROPEAN ELECTIONS where they got 4%.

But only about 10 people vote in European elections, and they're the hardcore voters (ie those with a real interest in politics and equally those who vote for minority parties who need as much help as they can get (eg BNP)) so this data's no where near as useful as General Election figures.

[LH]

From the BNP manifesto:

"We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment and the government bodies associated with enforcing them."

"A Clause 28-style proscription against the promotion of racial integration in schools and the media would be introduced."

"...we will also seek to emphasise the importance of the prior status of the aboriginal people. This would be a national extension of the ‘Sons and Daughters' policy in priority on housing and school places lists which BNP councils seek to implement at local level."

"Different groups can live side-by-side and at peace for generations. They can even enjoy each other's cultures, but they must stick to their own, or ‘diversity' will be but a short-lived stepping stone to nothingness." (my embolding)