If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But perhaps those who defend their twisted version of "tolerance" so passionately think WWII was a small price to pay for carrying out the principles of tolerance towards everything, including unspeakable evil.
During one such discussion, an African poster called into question the notion of tolerance as you have done, saying that he resented the idea of being seen as something to be 'endured'. I put forward my own idea of tolerance as not an objective in itself, but as a 'bridge to understanding'. That unless you make the effort to respect another culture, and get to know it for yourself, you will swallow wholesale a lot of unfounded rumours about it. Judge Islam, for example, on the basis of what muslims say, not spiteful cant spun by Christian fundamentalists. There may still be grounds for argument, but they'll be solid grounds, not a miasma of rumours.
'Tolerance' isn't bending over backwards, and it certainly isn't touching your toes and gritting your teeth in a false smile while fuming inside. It's just the basic recognition that we're all humans, however diverse our cultures may have become. Not every culture prizes tolerance as much as the next, but that's no reason, in my opinion, to become an intolerant culture.
Sent no such message I'm afraid. The actual message it sent was that the left were a bunch of thugs who weren't afraid to brick the police.
I believe we call it World War 2, of which most historians feel Cable Street wasn't part
Basically you have three choices. Tolerating the extemists and arguing against them.
Or you can do what you seem to suggest which is make bits illegal and claim your acting in a higher motive. Apart from the moral problems about state interference it also has the knock-on off actually increasing the support of normal people for them...
There is a third option - which I hope that you wouldn't consider but which sadly is probably the most effective if history tells us anything. That is to arrest and execute the leadership, send the normal members to stalags to die, torture any who show inclinations to turn to the right and refuse to hold any democratic elections just in case they don't go your way.
And to be honest I'm not absolutely sure that allowing catholic adoption agencies not to allow gays to adopt is going to lead to smoldering remains of burnt buildings...
Well personally I feel that anyone who takes up an armed revolt against the state whether that's Hitler or Chavez should spend the rest of their natural behind bars. But then tolerance to overthrow the state isn't really the type of thing I ( and I assume MoK or Kermit is talking about). And if the BNP or catholics get anywhere near doing so my stance may change (come to that as it will that we allow repulsive organisations on the left to exist as well if they come anywhere nearer to power than a few councillors and 1 MP).
Still nice straw man
I'd like to see where you got this from. I'd also recommend reading up about The 43 Group.
There was a fascist dictatorship in Europe until the 1970's.
Regardless of the battles with the police, it was a proud moment for all concerned. If only we showed the same backbone nowdays.
From Wikipedia:
"Nonetheless, membership fell to below 8,000 by the end of 1935. The government was sufficiently concerned, however, to pass the Public Order Act of 1936, which banned the wearing of political uniforms during marches, required police consent for political marches to go ahead, and effectively destroyed the movement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
So not only the Blackshirts went into delcine well before WWII, but it was popular action (and more significantly) action by the government that finished them off.
With flies nicely in the face of MoK and others' argument that by banning such people you make things worse.
It's not as simple as that though. For instance, we are already tolerating fascist parties to exist. That in my eyes is a great act of tolerance, given recent history and what those people advocate.
But a line can and must be drawn somewhere. Currently one such line is forbidding individuals from banning people from their premises because of the colour of their skin, ethnicality etc (and in a few weeks sexual orientation).
That is the way things have been in this country for years and I don't see any popular revolts or massive surge in support of racists because a few cunts are not allowed to put a sign outside their pub reading 'no ni ggers allowed'. So that theory that by banning such individuals from doing such things we're making things worse doesn't wash.
It seems to me that the immense majority of people in this country are happy with the current arrangements and that most of those who would like to allow individuals to ban anyone they want based on their ethnicity, race, gender or sexual orientation must be members of this forum. I certainly haven't come across any in real life.
Then perhaps most people in real life realise that if we were to allow such things, towns and cities would be in flames within weeks.
Not true. It showed that there was genuine working class resistance to fascism. I'm also put in mind of that quote from Hitler - something to do with if they'd been smashed on the streets they'd never have gained power. Can't remember it verbatim though.
Actually Mosley was again very active after WW2. The 43 Group played a big part in stopping them.
That's a really bizarre position.
So you're saying if a country gets taken over by a bunch of derange lunatic fascist murdereres (such as Pinochet's regime for instance) the people shouldn't revolt under any circumstances and that you wish any who did was sent to jail for life?
Why oh why would you think such a thing?????????
Why a straw man? It's a very valid argument.
I know the social circumstances were rather different but still:
Britain: fascists opposed, fought on the streets and then restricted by the government = movement dies
Germany: fascists allowed to exist and campaign freely= Third Reich
What really makes me laugh the most is that if the BNP were to win a general election all the precious, altruistic and noble sentiments of tolerance some of you praise so highly and which would have allowed the BNP to gain power in the first place would be thrown out of the window by the naziboys, and all our rights to be tolerated by others would be stomped on by their jackboots.
A better example of turkeys voting for Xmas I'm really hard pressed to think of.
However the BUF was destroyed once and for all on 3 Sept 1939, when the circumstances changed. At the same time we temporarily removed lots of other civil liberties - security becoming more important than freedom when there were German bombers overhead.
The fact that Oswald Mosely continued as a pretty marginal figure after the war doesn't change that fact.
The point is that it was pretty marginal in the grand scheme of things and had no chance. Whilst attempts were made to revive (under a different name) the it the holocaust and recent history of Britain gave it no chance and actions of organisations like the 43 group had a marginal impact.
Even some of its meetings were not really people in support of facism, but facism clinging onto the coatails of other policies. There were several big meetings, but these were more attended by people angered by what they saw as Jewish ingratitude in Palestine, when British troops were getting shot, than they were motivated by facism.
I'd say the holocaust and WW2 had a greater impact, but I suspect we'll argue until we're blue in the face and neither will change the other's mind
Which kind of disproves all these apocaliptic warnings about fomenting fascism (or racism, or any form of bigotry and hatred) by banning it. From looking practical cases around the world, the opposite appears to be true.
Main difference is that they won, and they won because they were far more popular, for various social and economic reasons.
So I am not sure whether street battling is really that important in describing the differing success of fascism in various countries...
I should have made clear I meant against democratic Govt eg Germany 1923 and Venuezla 1992.
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm
I guess it depends by what you mean by the word 'decline'.
The situation in 1939 was such that it was reasonable to take action which shouldn't be considered in peacetime (eg the banning of various political groups and the internment without trial of their members). Other liberties were also restricted, eg through rationing, blackouts restrictions, restrictions on the right to strike, identity cards, censorship of newspapers etc.
I would argue that the actions allowable when the entire state is under threat from an external aggression are not those which should even be contemplated in peacetime.
Of course its not the only factor, or even a major factor. It's a factor nonetheless.
What about Neville Chamberlain ?
He and his associates took up an armed revolt against the "democratic Govt. of Germany" in September 1939.
But one thing is certain in my mind. Without popular revolt against the fascists, by force if it comes to it, they are allowed to grow and flourish unchecked.
All these much repeated claims that it's best to leave the BNP say and do what they want because they expose themselves for what they are and it works against them has yet to prove the case. On the contrary- it benefits them. Like it or not, the more offensive racial-stirring hatred bullshit they are allowed to peddle the more people they will turn. And all under the noses of those who say 'let them be they'll only expose themselves for what they are ha ha ha'.
Until it's too late.
As I said before I don't have a problem with the BNP existing if the don't incite racial hatred and peddle bullshit and lies with the sole purpose of stirring shit socially. But letting them do it assuming it can only harm them is foolish in the extreme.
Hmm...sounds like a very fascist thing to do imo.
ETA:The BNP will never get big, let them be, always have and always will be the party who get tonnes of headlines for stupid, silly reasons.
What makes you say that?
Forcing people to stick "in line" with a certain ideology.
That's what fascism means is it?
No but it's a thing fascists do. If you're not part of the Volk then you can fuck off and die.
It's a thing human beings do.
I agree, so what's your problem?