[Democracy]

(Original post by Fated)
Again, the Left must use out-dated images to prove their point.

The above photo is of John Tyndall (top right I believe), who is dead. He formed the original BNP in the 1960s, and lost leadership of the party to Nick Griffin, who has, since 1998, been involved in a process of modernisation and moderation.

Today, the BNP is nothing like the old party, much like "New Labour" is unlike "Old Labour". However, the Left choose to ignore this fact, as they can make political gain by simply using abhorrent slander.

The BNP was never founded in the 1960s. And lulz a core of racism and neo nazism is still extremely prevalent in your party. Doesn't this sound familiar?
“Mein Kampf is my bible” John Tyndall, BNP founder and former leader.


“The sick minds who would have us believe that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz are completely twisted.” Tony Lecomber, number two in the BNP.


“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat…I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria.” Nick Griffin, BNP leader.


"I'm going to level with you. I'd never say this on camera, yeah, and you can say this to whoever you want, 'cos it's true. The Jews have been thrown out of every country, including England. There's not a single European country the Jews have not been thrown out of. And let's face it, David, when it happens that many times it's not just persecution. There's no smoke without fire." Mark Collet

They don't even want the Gurkhas to stay in Britain, so much for your nationalism.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-21354308/

Your party's just the same as it always was. You've just lost your skinheads and put on a suit and tie.

(Original post by Regina George)
All your uneducated, feeble little mind seems capable of conjuring up is this infantile 'neo Nazi' mantra whenever you step foot within a BNP thread.

Keep the purposeless hole in your face as silent as possible, if you are unable to provide anything credible.

I really don't care for what the likes of you, a noob troll, has to say about anything. Bye!

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
You're actually a bigger idiot than I thought. For one, your first point is essentially clutching at straws, when it's obvious that I meant those pubs which typically cater for "white (and black) working class men"...who are generally cynical towards liberalism.

Given that working class people have traditionally voted Labour (i.e. a liberal party) I don't know where you'e going with this.

I doubt a few mildly antagonistic comments are half as juvenile as spreading ridiculous misconceptions that a legitimate political party - with views that in any other period of history would be considered reasonably moderate - are neo-Nazis.

What an absolutely ***** argument. For most of history sexism and homophobia have been commonplace and accepted. Does that mean we should continue to accept them?

You're actually insulting those who suffered under real Nazism by saying such things you know.

Actually those who suffered under the nazis are the ones who are least likely to want the BNP

[Melancholy]

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
I find it very defensive and rather pathetic that if anyone supports the BNP's right to exist they're immediately accused of such things.

Oh, I doubt many on here have questioned their "right" to exist. I certainly do not question that. They have the freedom to think and speak on their own private property; but likewise, the site owners have a right to do what it wants with their own site - including making political points (which, incidentally, they didn't do, since there are numerous BNP threads). And I don't blame them for trying to disassociate themselves from a group which traditionally represents a political philosophy of forcing everybody to adopt a rather narrow view of "Britishness" against their will. As far as I'm concerned, people should be free to assign whatever value they desire to one's race, but a party (e.g like the British National Party) which seeks to emphasise a value of Britishness and enforce it upon everyone isn't on solid, legitimate nor justifiable grounds.

I shan't go through all the other incorrect posts, but this one stood out when I was looking back over the thread.

[necessarily benevolent]

(Original post by Melancholy)
It has been claimed to be the case, most certainly. History can be examined in terms of class and racial struggles, yet there's yet to exist a moral argument for excluding a person's right to land based upon race, or even to acknowledge that race should be an indication of how we treat people as individuals. Whereas class, wealth and income are changeable, race remains veritably unchangeable. So your point, whilst common, is weak.

Morals are a product of today's society. I find it difficult to believe not only that there are moral absolutes, but also that people believe that such moral absolutes exist. In fact, there may well be a univeral moral argument condoning racial segregation. I don't know what that is...but you can hardly claim that the apparent morals we harbour today are universally valid (and applicable) simply due to the fact that they've developed for reasons that are prescriptive...and that they offer deviation from the general trend anyway.

(Original post by Melancholy)
I judge moral arguments on their worth in reasoning, not in their order of appearance in history. If you can offer a decent moral argument against homosexual, I'd be most willing to hear it. As Chomsky said, we once legitimised slavery, but it did not make it morally acceptable.

You fail to understand that your 'reasoning' is tainted by what today is presented to us as what is right and wrong. Morals are a product of society. They're not intuitive. Thus, I don't feel the need to provide any moral argument against homosexuals because anything I say will be tainted anyway. I'd even go as far as saying that morals don't exist at all. They're simply conditional opiates. The Chomsky quote is thus also invalid...as determining whether or not something is "morally acceptable" is based on absolutely nothing. You develop a society which specifies that 'legitimate slavery' is 'morally acceptable' then it would be to a citizen of that society.

(Original post by Melancholy)
Britain is composed of nations such as England. You must be an exceedingly poor historian if you can't accept that the composition of England was no purely black and white. Indeed, even in medieval times, what were Normans could equally be considered Lombards (Italians) due to the amount of travelling existing on the continent. Defining Britishness (especially nowadays) is an almost impossible task, which is why many white nationalists (not you, I grant) merely make the distinction between white europeans and the rest of the world, not simply as narrow as "the British".

I wasn't saying that. What I was saying is that the BNP take the standpoint that they consider those who are British to be those who were British when what is commonly regarded as being "Great Britain" was treated as that. There's no precise date for this. It's typically considered to be around the 18th/19th century. Quite arbitrary I know...but I wasn't trying to support their standpoint anyway. You just decided to drag it from the air in a traditional "BNP bash". The likes of which we've all heard before.

(Original post by Melancholy)
Actually, I'll draw you back to the documentary on the youth BNP with Mark Collett - people hoping for a "racial civil war". I see no likeable aspects in the BNP. Perhaps a few have been misled by the new image? That doesn't change the sort of people attracted to their ideals.

Mark Collett is a bigoted, nonsensical fool...and I'm sure I read somewhere that he was demoted. With regards to the types of "people" you're referring to. The BNP is a party of thousands. Many of the lower echelons who would have connections with the likes of Combat 18, skinheads etc. It's just as valid to claim that the likes of them were misled by their old image. You can be quite certain that these types are a minority in the party these days.

(Original post by Melancholy)
This is an invalid argument. If we extend your logic, anybody with an opinion on anything can not be considered sincerely. I'd rather judge arguments on their own merit.

Yes. But you selected it and blew it out of proportion anyway. Considering it was about 1am I don't really enjoy having a comment being scrutinised to that degree.

(Original post by Melancholy)
Actually, I'd never seen you post that answer directly at me. In which case my response would be that there are other options available. But go on, dismiss my other "attacks" if it's easier.

There are no other - indeed more moderate - options. Any others would consist of the likes of N9S and the NF. Far more radical groups than the BNP are. The BNP are a party of nationalists, with views on a range wide of issues (not just immigration). That's why the NF and N9S wouldn't gain as much support. Who else do you propose then?

(Original post by Democracy)
Given that working class people have traditionally voted Labour (i.e. a liberal party) I don't know where you'e going with this.

That means absolutely nothing when 'Liberalism' these days consists of subsidising for everyone except them. Traditionally, the Labour Party - yes, a Liberalist party - defended the white working class. Since now, liberalism has shifted its appeal to others contempt and cynicism has grown.You evidently have no experience anyway so let's leave it at that.

(Original post by Democracy)
What an absolutely ***** argument. For most of history sexism and homophobia have been commonplace and accepted. Does that mean we should continue to accept them?

See above. The only reason you're commanding this mindset of "do we have to accept them?" is because of societal conditioning.

(Original post by Democracy)
Actually those who suffered under the nazis are the ones who are least likely to want the BNP

That's totally predicated on your blind, fallacious, and tainted delusion that the BNP are Nazis - which they are not. The BNP has attracted an abundance of WWII veterans. You have no evidence at all to back up anything you've said apart from, as Yuffie said, your intolerant, prejudicial and foolish assertions.

[Democracy]

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
That means absolutely nothing when 'Liberalism' these days consists of subsidising for everyone except them. Traditionally, the Labour Party - yes, a Liberalist party - defended the white working class. Since now, liberalism has shifted its appeal to others contempt and cynicism has grown.You evidently have no experience anyway so let's leave it at that.

Load of ********. Do you know anything about the history of the Labour Party? Labour were the party which passed the Race Relation acts in the 1960s to widespread opposition from the Tories. Members and voters of the Labour Party fought along side immigrants in the East End in the Battle of Cable Street to repel the fascists.

You want to study history, do you? Too bad you don't know much about it

See above. The only reason you're commanding this mindset of "do we have to accept them?" is because of societal conditioning.

What? No, I think not. I don't think "society" has made me not dislike immigrants

That's totally predicated on your blind, fallacious, and tainted delusion that the BNP are Nazis - which they are not. The BNP has attracted an abundance of WWII veterans. You have no evidence at all to back up anything you've said apart from, as Yuffie said, your intolerant, prejudicial and foolish assertions.

The BNP are neo Nazis (neo means "new" by the way). I think a party which advocates kicking out non whites, that has a history of homophobia, and is filled with racists, homophobes and anti Semites (which is precisely what the Nazis were), deserves to be called neo Nazi, because that's what it is.

Yuffie's views on the BNP are not something I want to get in to. Suffise to say, I don't give a damn what she says about the BNP, her opinon is irrelevant to me.

[necessarily benevolent]

(Original post by Democracy)
Load of ********. Do you know anything about the history of the Labour Party? Labour were the party which passed the Race Relation acts in the 1960s to widespread opposition from the Tories. Members and voters of the Labour Party fought along side immigrants in the East End in the Battle of Cable Street to repel the fascists.

You want to study history, do you? Too bad you don't know much about it

Do you choose to be ignorant or does it just come naturally? You've just completely inverted my point. And your lack of temporal considerations are so laughable I even pity you. That was my whole point you bafoon. The Labour Party's stance towards the white working class has shifted considerably (as is made evident by the Race Relation acts). Also, I'm looking forward to how exactly you think the Race Relation acts are evidence for the typical white working class 'bloke' not having cynicism towards liberalism. And your point of the Battle of Cable Street is foolish for two reasons. You're ignoring the temporal distinctions between the small-ish minority Jewish populous of then and the greater minority of blacks and Asians today. You're going off the point so much I can barely believe what you're saying. Not one of your arguments has had any substance. And when they have they've been anachronistic and off the point.

Also, your final point reaks of insecurity and ad hominem in fact. I can assure you that I - and the vast majority of people on this forum - are considerably more intelligent than you.

(Original post by Democracy)
What? No, I think not. I don't think "society" has made me not dislike immigrants

That wasn't even the point.

(Original post by Democracy)
The BNP are neo Nazis (neo means "new" by the way). I think a party which advocates kicking out non whites, that has a history of homophobia, and is filled with racists, homophobes and anti Semites (which is precisely what the Nazis were), deserves to be called neo Nazi, because that's what it is.

Yuffie's views on the BNP are not something I want to get in to. Suffise to say, I don't give a damn what she says about the BNP, her opinon is irrelevant to me.

It's "suffice" by the way.

I can't even see the point in even "arguing" with you, as your points are so easy to refute. You just use emotive, condescending and personal language with every point you make...and obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You conveniently ignore points I make. Such as the obvious fact that a history of acts never entails what you get today. Also, if you think that a few personal attacks mean you "win" the debate you're hideously misleaden. It simply points to the obvious fact that you have no good points to make and can't even stick to the original points. At least Melancholy can actually debate (with a brain). You're just a turnip.

[Melancholy]

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
Morals are a product of today's society. I find it difficult to believe not only that there are moral absolutes, but also that people believe that such moral absolutes exist. In fact, there may well be a univeral moral argument condoning racial segregation. I don't know what that is...but you can hardly claim that the apparent morals we harbour today are universally valid (and applicable) simply due to the fact that they've developed for reasons that are prescriptive...and that they offer deviation from the general trend anyway.

Morals may be a product of today's society, but that statement really is quite irrelevant. If anything, it rather offers some superior value to the sentiment that homophobia is wrong. Initially, given the choice between the morals of 16th century Jew-hating Britain and the morals from a more enlightened time (on the back of various great thinkers involved in moral and epistemological philosophy), I'd be much comfortable assigning myself a chair at the table of contemporary morality, rather than the old and abandoned table of medieval Britain where, for example, women had little choice in whom they could marry.

You can hide behind your moral relativism for as long as you want; but I think there are reasonable grounds and arguments on which to form your own philosophy concerning ethics. I'm not a moral absolutist. I daresay I doubt the majority of people are moral absolutists (bar the odd religious character). Yet for the same reason that denying the existence of God doesn't discredit the idea of something being more "desirable" and "moral" without such an absolute authority, you can't just fling your hands up and say: "I don't know what is moral". Indeed, even Schopenhauer, a "devout" atheist, pessimist and relativist, makes judgements on morality in his "On the suffering of the world".

By hiding behind your moral relativist argument, you're essentially saying that Stalin's purges were of no moral significance - which seems odd; and it should be worrying for you if you're ever going to develop a solid and stable world view.

I think it's reasonable to ask why the BNP hates gay people. Yes, I perceive state discrimination against gay people to be profoundly immoral. However, the burden is not on me to explain why it isn't immoral (but I will later on), but rather you to explain what's immoral about it. As you should know, proving a negative is hardly the tradition. However if you fail to deliver one justification for allowing the state to harm (i.e. negatively affect/infringe upon somebody elses' liberty) a homosexual by discriminating against his orientation, then one can only say that you're (or rather, the BNP) are being unnecessarily cruel. Which is condemnable. Would I say that being "unnecessarily cruel" is immoral? I think it's self-evidently a "yes".

The idea that the BNP are being "unnecessarily cruel" is universally valid. Thus that they're being "immoral" (if we are to call "unnecessarily cruel" deed to be "immoral") is a universally valid judgement.

Yet let's move away from "morality" is morals are a problematic area for you (and you concede that it is!)... The question really comes down to whether it's justifiable, necessary and, more importantly, desirable to restrict the liberty of people to assign their own value to the colour of other people's skins. What possible reason is there to tell people who they can and can't associate with on their own private property?

Moreover, if you want to abandon the moral arguments altogether and move a bit away from the matter of political philosophies, what about the economic implications of the BNP's protectionist policies? I think you only need to look at 19th century and early 20th century Spain to see the failures of protectionist economic policies. You'll notice that protectionism isn't even popular amongst the economic left these days (the economic right have never favoured such poor economic policy). If we want to define "immorality" as "a bad and destructive occurrence", then their economic policy is "immoral".

You fail to understand that your 'reasoning' is tainted by what today is presented to us as what is right and wrong. Morals are a product of society. They're not intuitive. Thus, I don't feel the need to provide any moral argument against homosexuals because anything I say will be tainted anyway. I'd even go as far as saying that morals don't exist at all. They're simply conditional opiates. The Chomsky quote is thus also invalid...as determining whether or not something is "morally acceptable" is based on absolutely nothing. You develop a society which specifies that 'legitimate slavery' is 'morally acceptable' then it would be to a citizen of that society.

This is more of the same argument which you've trotted out against my otherwise decent points. You can't hide behind a rather weak argument which merely cites "moral relativism" as an answer to avoid any examinations into the moral worth of policies. I invite you to suggest why the BNP are decent. I can assure you that nobody is merely saying that they dislike the BNP because "racism is wrong". I've directly and explicitly presented precisely why racism is wrong insofar as you're stating that people shouldn't be free to decide for themselves what worth they put on the colour of one's skin. I put it to you that it is most ironic that you started the thread with such a banal and predictable "free speech" message, yet the BNP is against the liberty of free individuals (regardless of race).

I wasn't saying that. What I was saying is that the BNP take the standpoint that they consider those who are British to be those who were British when what is commonly regarded as being "Great Britain" was treated as that. There's no precise date for this. It's typically considered to be around the 18th/19th century. Quite arbitrary I know...but I wasn't trying to support their standpoint anyway. You just decided to drag it from the air in a traditional "BNP bash". The likes of which we've all heard before.

So you're/they're arbitrarily declaring when Britishness came into being? Right... You seem to think that I'm "bashing the BNP" just because it's popular. You would be, however, missing out a step in your logic. It's only popular because it's arguably right to bash the BNP. I'd like to think it's popular to condemn a party that hates homosexuals and ethnic minorities. Perhaps more fundamentally, I dislike the BNP because it conflicts with my own political philosophy which preserves the right of individuals to put their own value on people - be it based on race (for racists) or mutual interests (for the most rational amongst us).

Mark Collett is a bigoted, nonsensical fool...and I'm sure I read somewhere that he was demoted. With regards to the types of "people" you're referring to. The BNP is a party of thousands. Many of the lower echelons who would have connections with the likes of Combat 18, skinheads etc. It's just as valid to claim that the likes of them were misled by their old image. You can be quite certain that these types are a minority in the party these days.

Man, you just couldn't make this stuff up! You're actually categorically wrong. He was sacked from his role initially just because the BNP needed to be electable and bee seen to support him. However now Mark Collett, if anything, was eventually promoted, now parading as Director of Publicity for the Party. Indeed, just two years after his dismissal, he was Griffin's right-hand man during his trials.

This is the man who considered AIDS a “friendly disease because blacks, drug users and gays have it". Ae you suggesting that these figures have changed their views within the last three years? That's a veritable rofflecopter and a half.

Yes. But you selected it and blew it out of proportion anyway. Considering it was about 1am I don't really enjoy having a comment being scrutinised to that degree.

I wasn't being pedantic there. You can't just reply to somebody's argument by saying: "Ah well...well... you're just biased". I'll reiterate what I stated earlier: "I don’t pretend to provide balance, or some sort of attempt at schizophrenic dialectic. I write what I think and what I mean." There is no other conceivable way to offer an opinion on an argument.

There are no other - indeed more moderate - options. Any others would consist of the likes of N9S and the NF. Far more radical groups than the BNP are. The BNP are a party of nationalists, with views on a range wide of issues (not just immigration). That's why the NF and N9S wouldn't gain as much support. Who else do you propose then?

UKIP, the Greens, Lib Dems... or even the Tories and Labour. You can check for yourself what parties are on offer, but the above five are, one assumes, much better candidats.

edit: Furthermore, even if you are going to stick to the moral relativism argument throughout (conceding that Stalin's purges could have been moral), then it is not even desirable to support the BNP, because they don't allow people to make their own "moral" judgements for themselves. If morality does not exist (though I dispute it and say that there certainly is something which is meaningfully "more right" than another agent), then the social democrat's position is arguably more preferable, at the very least, because you essentially say to people: "choose your own morals, for mine are no more superior to yours." The way you employ the "moral relativism" argument is most regrettable and intellectually lazy. It does not engage with any of my points, because you can merely say that 'XYZ' could be moral/immoral then make no further explanation. That approach is flawed because you need to accompany your judgement with as rationale before you can assign it with any moral worth. So... why is homosexuality "immoral"? Moral relativism does not suffice.

[Democracy]

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
Do you choose to be ignorant or does it just come naturally? You've just completely inverted my point. And your lack of temporal considerations are so laughable I even pity you. That was my whole point you bafoon.

It's "buffoon" FYI

The Labour Party's stance towards the white working class has shifted considerably (as is made evident by the Race Relation acts).

Actually I think that that was always their party line. They've never been a racist, whites only party.

Also, I'm looking forward to how exactly you think the Race Relation acts are evidence for the typical white working class 'bloke' not having cynicism towards liberalism.

I don't, however, it refutes your point that "Labour traditionally fought for white working classes", which is wrong, as Labour didn't give a damn about skin colour.

Incidentally I think the "typical white working class" person is still going to vote Labour (i.e. for a liberal party). I'm sick of dragging myself down to your (low) intellectual level, so I'll simply let the statistics do the talking:

In 2005, 93% of voters were white, and 48% male, and 69% had education only to A level standard. That satisfied "white, male" and probably precludes the possibility of "not being working class". Yet Labour won, and they won well. "White working class men" are not so averse to liberalism or inclusiveness as you puport.

http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec...rt%20final.pdf

And your point of the Battle of Cable Street is foolish for two reasons. You're ignoring the temporal distinctions between the small-ish minority Jewish populous of then and the greater minority of blacks and Asians today. You're going off the point so much I can barely believe what you're saying. Not one of your arguments has had any substance. And when they have they've been anachronistic and off the point.

Erm, back in the day the Jewish population of the East of London was in fact very large and prominent. My point is that, along with the Irish and (white) members of the Labour party they fought against the fascists, which flies in the face of all your nonsense about the Labour party only figting for the whites.

Also, your final point reaks of insecurity and ad hominem in fact. I can assure you that I - and the vast majority of people on this forum - are considerably more intelligent than you.

****ing roll on, don't be so hypocritical, you're the person who's been warned for ad hom insults, so kindly don't have a go

I can't even see the point in even "arguing" with you, as your points are so easy to refute. You just use emotive, condescending and personal language with every point you make...and obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You conveniently ignore points I make. Such as the obvious fact that a history of acts never entails what you get today.

Ladies and gents, I give you our future historian...who believes history has no relevance to the present.

Also, if you think that a few personal attacks mean you "win" the debate you're hideously misleaden. It simply points to the obvious fact that you have no good points to make and can't even stick to the original points. At least Melancholy can actually debate (with a brain).

Who's got warning's for insults? That would be you, not me. Cheers.

You're just a turnip.

A turnip? What a closer! How can I ever recover from such a devestating attack?!

You CARROT!

[necessarily benevolent]

(Original post by Democracy)
Actually I think that that was always their party line. They've never been a racist, whites only party.

That wasn't even the point. Where did I mention that they ever were a "racist, whites only party"? I didn't. It was completely incidental. Nonetheless, the perception (as that is what this is all about) is that liberalism has shifted from a support for the working classes (which just happened to be generally white - undoubtedly), to the likes of immigrants, single-parents, homosexuals etc. It's not an issue of what actually happened, it's the perception of that.

(Original post by Democracy)
I don't, however, it refutes your point that "Labour traditionally fought for white working classes", which is wrong, as Labour didn't give a damn about skin colour.

See above.

(Original post by Democracy)
Incidentally I think the "typical white working class" person is still going to vote Labour (i.e. for a liberal party). I'm sick of dragging myself down to your (low) intellectual level, so I'll simply let the statistics do the talking:

In 2005, 93% of voters were white, and 48% male, and 69% had education only to A level standard. That satisfied "white, male" and probably precludes the possibility of "not being working class". Yet Labour won, and they won well. "White working class men" are not so averse to liberalism or inclusiveness as you puport.

http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec...rt%20final.pdf

Only the obvious fact remains that Labour are increasingly deviating from their liberalist standpoint...and even so, they are perceivedly not being supportive of the white working class also. They may still hold a monopoly over this segment, but the increase in BNP support recently is certainly a pointer to how perceptions are changing. Did you even know that this was about perceptions btw?

And as for the "your (low) intellectual level" comment. Haha...you go to QMUL.

(Original post by Democracy)
Erm, back in the day the Jewish population of the East of London was in fact very large and prominent. My point is that, along with the Irish and (white) members of the Labour party they fought against the fascists, which flies in the face of all your nonsense about the Labour party only figting for the whites.

Again, I didn't say that. See you've (again) been very selective with regards to what you want to argue against. Come on please. What are you, some sort of Politics or IR student? If so:

(Original post by Democracy)
****ing roll on, don't be so hypocritical, you're the person who's been warned for ad hom insults, so kindly don't have a go

I take it you know what 'Tu Quoque' is?

(Original post by Democracy)
Ladies and gents, I give you our future historian...who believes history has no relevance to the present.

Seriously, do you ever get sick of 'Straw Man-ing'?

(Original post by Democracy)
Who's got warning's for insults? That would be you, not me. Cheers.

(Original post by Democracy)
A turnip? What a closer! How can I ever recover from such a devestating attack?!

You CARROT!

Fail

[Democracy]

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
That wasn't even the point. Where did I mention that they ever were a "racist, whites only party"? I didn't. It was completely incidental. Nonetheless, the perception (as that is what this is all about) is that liberalism has shifted from a support for the working classes (which just happened to be generally white - undoubtedly), to the likes of immigrants, single-parents, homosexuals etc. It's not an issue of what actually happened, it's the perception of that.

No, it was the point. Your nonsense about Labour deviating from defending the "white working class men" who are now "sceptical of liberalism" was WRONG. Deal with it, get over it, and move on.

Only the obvious fact remains that Labour are increasingly deviating from their liberalist standpoint...and even so, they are perceivedly not being supportive of the white working class also. They may still hold a monopoly over this segment, but the increase in BNP support recently is certainly a pointer to how perceptions are changing. Did you even know that this was about perceptions btw?

Perceptions, are, alas, not the best things to base your arguments (or YOUR implications that they are FACT) on. No, I didn't. You present your views as the gospel truth and irrefutable fact. Next time stop faffing about make yourself clearer.

And as for the "your (low) intellectual level" comment. Haha...you go to QMUL.

I know. I go to an excellent university and I do an excellent course. And I'm an exceedingly clever chap

Again, I didn't say that. See you've (again) been very selective with regards to what you want to argue against. Come on please.

No I haven't. I have replied very specifically to what YOU'VE said.

What are you, some sort of Politics or IR student? If so:

Nope. Even if I was, I'd still have schooled you.

[necessarily benevolent]

(Original post by Democracy)
No, it was the point. Your nonsense about Labour deviating from defending the "white working class men" who are now "sceptical of liberalism" was WRONG. Deal with it, get over it, and move on.

No it was not. Your use of the word "defending" there is where the problem lies. I never once claimed that liberals/Old Labour deliberately "defended" the white-working class for racist reasons. I said that the working class used to generally be white, which incidentally coincided with liberalism's support for them (simply because, by its very nature, liberalism is inclined to support those lowest in the social hierarchy). Since then, this apparent "lowest in the social hierarchy" has shifted from the working class which used to generally be white to immigrants, homosexuals, single parents etc. which has left the current white working class who used to be supported by liberalism and Old Labour scorning ('perception' again) them and, in turn, moving to parties like the BNP.

Perceptions, are, alas, not the best things to base your arguments (or YOUR implications that they are FACT) on. No, I didn't. You present your views as the gospel truth and irrefutable fact. Next time stop faffing about make yourself clearer.

Any reasonably intelligent person would realise that this current strand of "argument" was entirely based on perception anyway. How it ended up being that I stated that liberalism in traditional pubs (I guess that's a metonym in a way) goes down badly. There's nothing else to it.

(Original post by Democracy)
I know. I go to an excellent university and I do an excellent course. And I'm an exceedingly clever chap

Evidently not

(Original post by Democracy)
No I haven't. I have replied very specifically to what YOU'VE said.

Yes...but you've been selective. Where's your argument against the temporal differences between the Battle of Cable Street and today's society. Just for once admit you were wrong.

(Original post by Democracy)
Nope. Even if I was, I'd still have schooled you.

Evidently not.

[Dalimyr]

Turnips? Carrots? What the hell?!?!?! You bloody potato heads






Anyway, the argument was basically answered in the first reply:

(Original post by RightSaidJames)
Either way, the thread would have been removed because it had turned into a flame war, not because of the OP.

In our capacity as moderators we have no interest in your political views and you can (and most likely do, for all I know) spout as much crap about them as you wish. I for one can't abide politics...however, there is an unfortunate tendency with BNP threads for them to turn into pointless flame wars where BNP supporters are accused of being racist bastards and stuff, and they dole out flames to anyone who's anti-BNP in retaliation. As such, BNP threads do tend to disappear because they almost invariably collapse into nothing but flaming. I don't know about D&D, but that's usually what happens from my experience of threads in GD.

Now, to stop THIS thread continuing on in a rather silly argument, thread closed. Go and eat your horrible veggies (well, you can throw away the turnips, for all I care. Carrots are nice, though)