|
U-Know! Forum » rightwing Dutch politician assassinated |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 08, 2002, 15:35
|
||
|
'I would like to hear you saying 'lets hear what they have to say' when the bastards are jackbooting down your street' Of course I wouldn't be doing that if they - or anyone else - were jackbooting down my street. (Incidentally, does anyone know what a jackboot is? I can't find out anything, except for it being the footwear of choice for those wanting to be tyrannical). What we're talking about is someone who was engaging in debate, who was prepared to put his ideas and reasons to discussion with all comers, and was not running any gangs of firebombers. There are anarchists who engage in discussion and there are those responsible for the deaths of random innocent people. Should we be glad if someone shots Noam Chomsky because other anarchists are repressive and violent? 'MLK is as relevant a comparison to this guy as Che Guevara is to Stalin' They are all relevant. I've not compared their *ideas* (which you imply I do), I'm saying that they were all seen as people espusing ideas that many people found dangerous, and they all knew there was a risk of them getting killed for it. You've said knowing the risks means we shouldn't have a problem with Pim Frtuyn getting killed. If you like him being killed because he said things you don't like, then say it. But saying 'he knew the risks' only applies to some people who knew the risks is nonsense.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 08, 2002, 15:42
|
||
|
>> (I'd fully agree with that, and >> chuck Judaism and Christianity >> into the bag too, btw.) >Too right ... but why didn't he do so? From what I saw it was partly that he was using the widespread islamophobia post 9-11, and partly cos that was the one the media focussed in on ino order to make god confrontational reporting. Did anyone see anyone ask him whether the thought this applied to other cultures? >> 'Have the police and the tories >> really killed more people than the >> Nazi’s? Of course they have. >Erm .... which Nazis are you refering to? That's not me, that's a quote from Necropolist's post (Tue 16:53) that I was replying to.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
May 08, 2002, 15:55
|
||
|
>> That's not me, that's a quote from >> Necropolist's post (Tue 16:53) >> that I was replying to I thought that was out of kilter for yourself ... sorry
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 08, 2002, 15:59
|
||
|
>violence the main threat used by the police? I don’t think it is actually. [snip] But on a day-to-day basis what they mainly use is the threat of removal of liberty. Yeah, and their threat to remove our liberty is a threat of violence! If we don't want our liberty removed (or to do something else that want of us) then they will use as much violence as it takes to do it. And we all know this and we all accept it. To the extent that they're rarely called upon to do it. >As for the distinction between fascism and nazism, I’m kind of amazed at your argument. From what you wrote, nazi’s are just the same as fascists, but more so. No, Nazism has far stronger emphasis on dictatorial principles and on the individual as being not so much an individual as a cell of the body of the State. Nazism is National Socialism. It will include far greater state provision and services than other forms of fascism (Nazi Germany's massive roadbuilding and infrastructure schemes, their introduction of the world's first proper natioanl health service, etc). This is distinct from, say Franco's Spain. >I DO think its important to define such terms well, and not bandy them about to freely as it demeans them. But when you see a nazi you call them a fucking nazi. Yeah, with you completely. But you have to be sure you're seeing a Nazi, and the BNP can readily prove they're not Nazis. This will make you look silly and thus stop people listening to all the important stuff you've got to say against the BNP. >Berlusconi/Fortuyn & fascism. From what I’ve read, neither of them, probably are out and out fascists. I do not believe in there supposed anti-statism tho. I'm prepared to believe it - they're into globalised freemarket capitalism. State controls are 'barriers to trade'. The real problem that we have is that globalisation is increasing the gap between rich and poor, as nations and within nations. The resultant insecurity leads people to lok for scapegoats. Although much work's been done to point the finger with the anti-capitalist/dropthe debt stuff, it still leaves a vague target. People like something more tangible, and few things are easier to scapegoat than an ethnic or cultural minority. The rise of the far right in Europe is directly due to insecurities brought on by freemarket capitalism; the low wages, the de-unionising, the removal of power from politicians to unelected bodies. Tackling the far right parties is essential work, and - like most of us here - i find myself torn on issues like freedom of speech and coming down hard on people with a definite answer one way or the other. But tackling the far right is dealing with symptoms. We gotta hit the causes if we're really going to stop it. >peace, love & revolution see ya there!
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
May 08, 2002, 16:04
|
||
|
Unbelievable! Why did an Eco-Activist shoot him? If of course he did do so .. innocent until proven and all that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1974000/1974453.stm
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
May 08, 2002, 16:13
|
||
|
Furthermore, one identifying attribute of textbook fascism is the willingness to use methods like assassination to enforce political belief. Also, if I'm not prepared to do something myself I'm certainly not prepared to "enjoy" the consequences of someone else doing it. The geezer that was offed was dead set against violence - when one of the local Imams in Rotterdam called for the death of homosexuals as they were "lower than pigs" his only complaint was against the incitement to violence rather than denying the guy's right to hold his opinion. It's funny that some armchair anarchists see "right wing politician murdered" and start rejoicing irrespective of his ideology or policies when on further analysis the geezer was no more right wing than most of the tory party. Or even our own dear home secretary. How about you put your money where your mouths are and go and start popping caps in MPs at Westminster? Thought not. I'll shut up now.
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 08, 2002, 16:38
|
||
Animal rightist rather than eco-activist I thought – and its because Fortuyn was against an anti-fur bill (oddly, one ground where he does definitely digress from most fascists!)
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 08, 2002, 16:39
|
||
|
you saying i'm out of kilter! i'm not even sure what it means you cheeky dog!
|
|||
|
spirit 182 posts |
May 08, 2002, 16:41
|
||
|
Did BBC get it wrong then when they said he was planning a bill to lift ban on fur farming? Or did I misread? xx spirit
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 08, 2002, 16:45
|
||
|
Sorry, Boy of Cancer, but c’mon, we’re all prepared to applaud people who do things we wouldn’t. Should we do them ourselves if we support them, well yes, but not being prepared to shouldn’t remove your freedom to support someone else who does. I don’t know if I’d have been prepared to spend 26 years in a South African jail (I’d like to think I would have, but I don’t honestly know), so can’t I support Nelson Mandela? >Yeah, and their threat to remove our liberty is a threat of violence! Sorry, Merrick, but no its not. It’s a threat to remove your liberty. As you say, behind it is a threat to violence, but it is BEHIND it. Thus their violence is not at the FRONT. In capitalist society, the ruling-class ultimately rules by force, but in order for it to do so effectively and efficiently it must put up a façade which pretends to be peaceful democratic and law-abiding. And that façade is what is at the forefront, even if we, and many many others, can see behind it. Franco’s Spain was a far far poorer country than Hitler’s Germany was and this is, I think, one of the main reasons why their state building was far less then Germany’s. Lets also not forget that it was a country in many ways isolated from much of the rest of the world due to its fascism. And what about Mussolini’s Italy? They certainly DID make massive investments in state provisions. And I still don’t get why you say the BNP can easily prove they are not Nazi’s. Not from anything by them I’ve seen. And from your description of Nazism, they seem to fit right in. As for the causes of the current wave of scapegoating, I’m absolutely with you there. As you have said (or at least implied) in your previous posts, capitalism is the main enemy, if only we could simply shoot that in the back of the head.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
