Turn on thread page Beta

BNP successfully leaves past behind; transforms into credible political party watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    The way you mock the BNP shows very little respect in itself.
    He's not claiming he's respectable, while the BNP tries to.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    You're wrong about eugenics. It was largely a socialist movement to eradicate poverty, crime, and feeble-mindedness.

    despicable, distasteful, suspiciously, suspect...the guillotine blade keeps falling but you're beginning to slice just air. Find something you're informed about enough to write posts with solid statements, then try some debate and discussion.

    (I don't remember you, I don't know if that's worse than you misremembering my eugenic obsession!)

    http://www.democracyfortheworld.org/democracy_map.htm
    I suggest you read 'War against the weak' by Edwin Black for a true summary of eugenics, seeing as you are so keen to tell others to inform themselves.

    I never once said that you have a eugenics obsession. My original quote was:

    Views such as yours, little more than early 20th century eugenics, are outdated and incorrect at best.
    This is a comparison between the science of eugenics and the views of the BNP, with which you concur.

    I'm not suprised you don't remember me if you can forget what is written under an hour ago.

    And on that democracy map, both Botswana and India are free societies, whilst Northern Ireland, apparently, is not. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    I never once said that you have a eugenics obsession. My original quote was:
    Views such as yours, little more than early 20th century eugenics, are outdated and incorrect at best.

    This is a comparison between the science of eugenics and the views of the BNP, with which you concur.

    I'm not suprised you don't remember me if you can forget what is written under an hour ago.

    And on that democracy map, both Botswana and India are free societies, whilst Northern Ireland, apparently, is not. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
    Yea, I know you never said obsession. :rolleyes:

    You don't know (you've admitted) what the BNP think of eugenics, you don't know what I think of the BNP's views (clearly), and you are stuck like a bust CD on eugenics and ethnic-nationalism - a disc no-one else is playing or listening to. They 'aint the same!

    There are more plusses for you than Botswana and India, and other minusses besides N.Ireland, but they change nothing: "sustain. Thus far, but..." I wish them well.

    I'm abed now. I have quite a few books on eugenics in word.docs, I'll post a few extracts in the next few days. 'Night Johnboy!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Yea, I know you never said obsession. :rolleyes:

    You don't know (you've admitted) what the BNP think of eugenics, you don't know what I think of the BNP's views (clearly), and you are stuck like a bust CD on eugenics and ethnic-nationalism - a disc no-one else is playing or listening to. They 'aint the same!

    There are more plusses for you than Botswana and India, and other minusses besides N.Ireland, but they change nothing: "sustain. Thus far, but..." I wish them well.

    I'm abed now. I have quite a few books on eugenics in word.docs, I'll post a few extracts in the next few days. 'Night Johnboy!
    Botswana has been a stable democracy since 1966 - 40 years. Quite a bit longer than, say, Spain. Face it you are incorrect and mis-informed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Freedoms and rights that you would deny others of course, based merely on their racial background, but yeh just gloss right over that point, because if you deny others those freedoms and rights you enjoy (simply because you happen to be in the majority) you destroy the democracy anyway, n'est ce pas?
    I didn't spot this.

    No, Johnny. It;s the multi-racial states which need to quota and dole out rights and freedoms according to race.

    http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rb/index.htm
    http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-03.htm
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    I didn't spot this.

    No, Johnny. It;s the multi-racial states which need to quota and dole out rights and freedoms according to race.

    http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rb/index.htm
    http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-03.htm
    Good wriggling, but sadly not enough.

    A bit of rephrasing in banal terms: a democracy that you purport to love, would be destroyed by the inequality that you propose.

    So don't play high-handed with me.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Good wriggling, but sadly not enough.

    A bit of rephrasing in banal terms: a democracy that you purport to love, would be destroyed by the inequality that you propose.

    So don't play high-handed with me.
    I don't propse any inequality Johnny.

    You get everything wrong. You'll continue to get everything wrong if you claim that reality fits your unfounded prejudices and your prejudices are so way-off. Who's your guru - Person?

    The jiggery-pokery that govts must do across the globe to manage fractious multi-ethnic states is a permanent symptom of multiculti. And it destroys freedoms, equaltiy of opportunity , and econimies. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030...lance&n=283155
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Botswana has been a stable democracy since 1966 - 40 years. Quite a bit longer than, say, Spain. Face it you are incorrect and mis-informed.
    Botswana may be the monkey which typed the works of Shakespeare, or may be the result of being very mich more ethnically hoimogemous than other carved up colonies, or may be a result of windfall and unearned mineral wealth mined and managed by westerners with western technology, but it's looming AIDS crisis may make the "sustain" element of the equation untenable.

    Maintaining social peace alongside a disease which is decimating the population and subsequently the national identity as migrant workers come to fill the jobs might be the end for Botswana as Africa's (let's include Haiti too) sole success story. Ever. Hopefully not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    Did you ask this in regards to us pointing out that not all of the Stormfronters who made comments about the BNP are actually BNP members?
    I don't know about that, google works wonders.
    You can soon find the original quotes, and soon work out the peoples real identities.
    Seems like a number of those quotes come from a council candidate in the up coming elections, and they seem to be speaking on behalf of half their region.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinm)
    Oh, whoops! Not this century! When push comes to shove, they're as racist as they ever were.

    Bolded sections are my emphasis.
    I notice that you conveniently didn't bold this so I'll do it for you: BNP spokesman Phil Edwards said those members who refused to accept the candidacy had no place in the party.

    Do you normally base your generalizations on the opinion of individual members who happen to be in no position of authority and ignore policies as put forward by a spokesman with jurisdiction to speak? Or do you just reserve this technique for convenient moments?

    Quite honestly I know plenty of Tory voters (and Labor ones for that matter) who would be non-plussed to have an ethnic candidate standing for their constituency. Would you be so hasty to say they (the Tory or Labour Party) are as racist as ever? Even if a spokesperson for those parties insisted that they (the complainants) had no place in the party?

    Lo dudo mucho.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Quite honestly I know plenty of Tory voters (and Labor ones for that matter) who would be non-plussed to have an ethnic candidate standing for their constituency.
    How can you even suggest such a thing?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4896956.stm
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EastMidlander)
    How can you even suggest such a thing?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4896956.stm
    You evidently havn't met my grandmother or the 1000's of others of doddering old colostomy-bag-wearing farts that vote Tory.......its "coons this, bloody wogs & wops that....."
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Johnny, although you raised the subject of eugenics in quite a bizarre fashion, I did say I'd give you a little evidence for my claim that you were mistaken in characterising Eugenics as primarily a movement of corporate interests and with racial motives.

    From Clean Living Movements: American Cycles of Health Reform, Ruth Clifford Engs, Praeger, 2000.
    Chapter 9, Eugenics, Purity and Brith Control

    p.138
    In the United States, the ideology became an underlying influence for several health campaigns of the second Clean Living Movement. Mark Haller (1963, 5) points out that "eugenics at first was closely related to the other reform movements of the Progressive era and drew its early supporters from many of the same persons. It began as a scientific reform in an age of reform." Unlike other health crusades of this era, such as prohibition and tuberculosis, the eugenics movement never became popular among the masses. Eugenics largely remained a movement of the upper middle class. It was a kind of secular religion for academics, social workers, and criminologists, who dreamed of a society in which each child might be born endowed with vigorous health and an agile mind. Opponents considered eugenics "a religious cult" or a "panacea for all human ills." Some religious organizations, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, were against eugenic reforms (Bruehl 1928, 52-53, 183; Haller 1963, 3-5, 177; Hague 1914, xxix-xxx; Pickens 1968, 4, 36).
    (Note the Progressive movement was against corporate interests more than anything else: http://www.answers.com/topic/progressivism)

    p.149 Summary:
    The eugenics movement became intertwined with many other movements of the progressive era...The birth-control movement emerged as a rebellion against strict Victorian morality and laws.
    (Part of a broader leftist, modernising movement which attacked traditional morality and religious belief.)

    THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY:

    Eugenics, Democracy, and Social Policy in Britain c.1870-1959
    MATHEW THOMSON
    CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD 1998

    p.40
    The Liberal Government's support needs to be understood in the context of its broader programme of welfare reform between 1906 and 1914 and an ideological shift towards 'collectivism' which was epitomized by the 'New Liberalism'. It was gradually being accepted within the Liberal Party that the liberty of the individual sometimes had to take second place to the good of the community. Liberal MP C. A. McCurdy was attracted to the Mental Deficiency (Act) as one of the first real attempts to deal with social evil through a scientific approach, and argued that this type of subject should be more important to the Party than the old Liberal campaigns over Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment:
    It is not by building up temples of liberty and by polishing and repolishing political constitutions that the people can grow up to proper manhood and healthy national life.... The new century has brought new social problems, and it is with one of these problems this Bill makes a courageous effort to deal.
    To McCurdy, and an increasing proportion of those in his party, it was wrong to be unduly deterred by worries about protecting the liberty of the subject:
    there was a danger of making a fetish of the word 'liberty', and of attempting to deprive these children in the name of a useless liberty, of what I believe under the Act will be the care and guardianship of the State, exercised for their interests, and for their interests alone.
    As the Liberal Westminster Gazette put it: 'It would, indeed, be the last crime in the name of liberty if we were prevented, by some fanciful or superstitious regard for our own personal freedom, from applying a rational treatment to these unfortunate beings.' Because New Liberals placed so much emphasis on the importance of character, they could adopt surprisingly draconian policies towards mental defectives, who, by definition, had a biological lack of character, and who threatened to disrupt social policies which were designed for those citizens who did.
    p.43
    The silence or support of the majority of Labour MPs suggests that they did not regard the Mental Deficiency Act as anti-working class. They were not even swayed by Josiah Wedgwood's jibe that the proposed definition of mental defect would be used to put away people like Keir Hardie. The most prominent Labour supporter was Will Crooks, who had experience of the subject of institutional care in both a professional sense, through his work on the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and in a personal sense, having been placed in a workhouse as a boy of 8. Nevertheless, Crooks scorned the 'liberty of the subject' argument, arguing: 'There is talk of liberty of the subject. I sometimes feel inclined to prosecute the fathers and mothers of those children for not allowing them to be cared for.' As far as Crooks was concerned, the bill was a humane and Christian measure which was greeted by the working class themselves.
    p.44:
    And it may well be the case that Labour MPs, who were usually drawn from the 'respectable working class', supported the Act as a way to ensure control over members of the 'profligate and unrespectable poor'. Crooks, for instance, though keen for a humane reform of the poor law system, had a harsh attitude towards the 'unemployable', and it seems that this influenced his attitude towards the mental defectives: with considerable distaste, he explained that many of the unemployable,
    "were formerly mentally defective children who had been allowed to drift about the world, and to become absolutely useless. There is only one fitting description; they are almost like human vermin. They crawl about, doing absolutely nothing, except polluting and corrupting everything they touch".
    p.44
    The remarks of Mrs Nevitt, of the Manchester District Co-operative Guild, quoted in the parliamentary debate; again reveal the often harsh attitudes of representatives of the working class towards mental defectives:
    Our women also feel very keenly at the present time that there is no restraint on this class of people perpetuating their race. We find that the working-class people at the present time are restricting their families--that I am absolutely certain of--because they feel they cannot bring their children up in the manner they would like to do. Yet at the same time they have to keep, or help to so, this class of person, and there is no restraint whatever put on their bringing families into the world. We feel very strongly that we are populating the country with the wrong class, and the people who are worthy citizens have to restrict their own families.
    Any subsequent racist/genocidal approach to Eugenics can be sourced to Marx and Engels as can most of the evils of the c.20 th: Marx & Engels, "The German Ideology", Chap. 3:
    He has not the slightest idea that the ability of children to develop depends on the development of their parents and that all this crippling under existing social relations has arisen historically, and in the same way can be abolished again in the course of historical development. Even naturally evolved differences within the species, such as racial differences, etc., which Sancho does not mention at all, can and must be abolished in the course of historical development. Sancho — who in this connection casts a stealthy glance at zoology and so makes the discovery that “innate limited intellects” form the most numerous class not only among sheep and oxen, but also among polyps and infusoria, which have no heads at all — has perhaps heard that it is possible to improve races of animals and by cross-breeding to create entirely new, more perfect varieties both for human enjoyment and for their own self-enjoyment.. “Why should not” Sancho be able to draw a conclusion from this in relation to people as well?" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch03n.htm
    and
    "In January 1849, months before he migrated to London, Karl Marx published an article by Friedrich Engels in Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung announcing that in Central Europe only Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress. The rest must go. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

    Genocide arose out of Marx's master-theory of history -- feudalism giving place inevitably to capitalism, capitalism to socialism. The lesser races of Europe -- Basques, Serbs, Bretons and others -- being sunk in feudalism, were counter-revolutionary; having failed to develop a bourgeoisie, they would be two steps behind in the historical process. Engels dismissed them as left-overs and ethnic trash (Voelkerabfall), and called for their extinction.

    So genocide was born as a doctrine in the German Rhineland in January 1849, in a Europe still reeling from the revolutions of 1848. It was to become the beacon light of socialism, proudly held and proudly proclaimed."
    http://web.archive.org/web/199909092...es/lostlit.htm
    I'd also recommend this article about leftist Eugenics: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=10004
    In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century were the "Progressives". As it says here:


    A significant number of Progressives -- including David Starr Jordan, Robert Latham Owen, William Allen Wilson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Robert Latou Dickinson, Katherine Bement Davis, and Virginia Gildersleeve--were deeply involved with the eugenics movement.
    And as we read further here:


    The second stage in the development of the eugenics movement extended from 1905 to 1930, when eugenics entered its period of greatest influence. More and more progressive reformers became convinced that a good proportion of the social ills in the United States lay in hereditary factors....

    An educator, biologist, and leader of the American peace movement, Jordan's main contribution as a major architect of American eugenics was to bridge the gap between eugenics and other reform groups. Like other progressives, Jordan subscribed to the Populist-Progressive criticism of laissez-faire capitalism.
    ----------
    And in Great Britain, too, the leftists of the first half of the 20th century were outspokenly in favor of eugenics. As just one instance, that famous philosopher, peacenik and anti-nuclear camapaigner, Bertrand Russell spoke in favor of it. Writing in "Icarus Or the Future of Science" in 1924 he clearly approved of it, though he did voice doubts about its being employed for the wrong purposes. In a letter to his first wife, feminist Alys Pearsall Smith, about socialism and "the woman question," he wrote of eugenics in words that could well have been Hitler's -- even echoing Hitler's bad grammar:

    "Thee might observe incidentally that if the state paid for child-bearing it might and ought to require a medical certificate that the parents were such as to give a reasonable result of a healthy child -- this would afford a very good inducement to some sort of care for the race, and gradually as public opinion became educated by the law, it might react on the law and make that more stringent, until one got to some state of things in which there would be a little genuine care for the race, instead of the present haphazard higgledy-piggledy ways."
    ------------
    And are feminists conservative? Hardly. And feminists are hardly a new phenomenon either. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, they played an active and prominent role in the USA in the first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. For her energetic championing of eugenics, Margaret Sanger won a public admirer in no less a figure than Hitler himself. Naturally, the American eugenicists were virulently racist, desiring to reduce the black population. They shared Hitler's view that Jews were genetically inferior, opposing moves to allow Jews fleeing from Hitler into the United States. If Hitler's eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were leftists and feminists, and their opponents were conservatives.
    ---------------
    The few real critics of eugenics in the early 20th century were mainly conservatives and Christians like G.K. Chesterton who saw eugenic planning as just another arm of the wider campaign to impose a "scientific" socialist planning. In fact Chesterton subtitled his anti-eugenics tract "Eugenics and Other Evils" as: "An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State."
    And this review points out some inaccuracies in Black's book which you mentioned. They are important enough to raise concerns about the accuracy of the work altogether. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to be prefectly honest, any polotocal party in the UK that can offer better change and reform than either the labour or the tories is good in my book

    at the end of the day nothing that serious will ever be changed because of british opposition

    i think they need power just so we can have a jiggle about with things
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.