BUF flags out and Britain Firsts antics

Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
There are of course reasons for this and it's not a conscious decision to disadvantage the native poor. However, what a great recruitment opportunity for the BUF - if they step into the void with a hot bowl of soup and a dry place to sleep they can prey upon the victims of this unfairness. It all comes back to the old Tony Benn thing - if we have the money to bomb people, we have the money to help people.
Click to expand...
So what's the solution then? Tony Benn, someone whos ideas have grown on me the older I have gotten.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
There are of course reasons for this and it's not a conscious decision to disadvantage the native poor. However, what a great recruitment opportunity for the BUF - if they step into the void with a hot bowl of soup and a dry place to sleep they can prey upon the victims of this unfairness. It all comes back to the old Tony Benn thing - if we have the money to bomb people, we have the money to help people.
Click to expand...

Its classic virtue signalling for no other purpose than political gain.

Its the age we now live in unfortunately.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
None of us can be happy with the homeless situation in Manchester and other cities. I watched the programme Manctopia a couple of days ago and it highlighted the plight of people trying to get a house and the frustrating points bidding system they have to use to do so. It also highlighted the fantastic work done by the lady who provides a soup kitchen to homeless people and who lost her place in the city. We've all seen despate homeless people in thd City centre. The question I have is, is it wrong for our society and government to ignore peoples housing problems in Manchester and other cities and not provide suitable housing and funds for shelters and soup kitchens while at the same time putting up hundreds of migrants in posh hotels across the country at huge cost. Both sets of people are homeless yet we are prioritising one over the other?
Click to expand...


You are aware homeless people have been being put up in hotels during the pandemic in fact the one on debdale park was seconded for that use solely till last month.

Plus equating the two issues is simplistic.


I also when watching manctopia was annoyed at the councik and mayors cop out regarding the danzic st refuge, as there are empty restraunts particularry the italian and thai ones on portland st that have sat empty for years that if willing our leaders could have found a way to be used to facilitate this charity on a temperary basis.
 
Homelessness will never be solved or go away because even with the political will to end it, human beings being what they are, some will always fall by the wayside and no matter the help available, will end up in a world of drink, drugs, sofa surfing, on the streets.

I've lived through Tory and Labour governments and not one of them has ever solved the homeless crises and no future government will either.

Sad but there it is.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
None of us can be happy with the homeless situation in Manchester and other cities. I watched the programme Manctopia a couple of days ago and it highlighted the plight of people trying to get a house and the frustrating points bidding system they have to use to do so. It also highlighted the fantastic work done by the lady who provides a soup kitchen to homeless people and who lost her place in the city. We've all seen despate homeless people in thd City centre. The question I have is, is it wrong for our society and government to ignore peoples housing problems in Manchester and other cities and not provide suitable housing and funds for shelters and soup kitchens while at the same time putting up hundreds of migrants in posh hotels across the country at huge cost. Both sets of people are homeless yet we are prioritising one over the other?
Click to expand...




FFS ..... there is International legislation surrounding the treatment of Asylum seekers. The UK does the bare minimum (bearing in mind we wrote the UN legislation) they get £37 a week , cannot work and have to be supported whilst their application for asylum is heard.

Perhaps .... If the Government actually built asylum centres ... speeded up the application process ... we wouldn't have to utilise hotels .

We could perhaps even consider a ban on weapons sales


Or maybe ... just maybe ..... the Tories allowed Asylum applications to be made in British Consulates abroad ... we could actually grant asylum before they arrived.


Instead of forcing them to try and cross the channel on nothing more than a fuckin lilo.
 
blueinsa said:
Homelessness will never be solved or go away because even with the political will to end it, human beings being what they are, some will always fall by the wayside and no matter the help available, will end up in a world of drink, drugs, sofa surfing, on the streets.

I've lived through Tory and Labour governments and not one of them has ever solved the homeless crises and no future government will either.

Sad but there it is.
Click to expand...



The Harold Shipman Defence again
 
blueinsa said:
I've reported both posts. We get told time and time again they never lump all brexit voters in. Its a figment of our imagination we get told. Posts get removed and we then get asked for evidence.

Fucking tiresome.
Click to expand...
I'm not bothered tbh, just genuinely interested in how these extreme views and the demonisation of such a large swathe of the population come about. It seems similar to the mechanism of sectarianism and other forms of online radicalisation.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
So back to the question ..... name one factual known benefit of Brexit other than the ending of free movement.
Click to expand...
Just checked back over the thread and this question has at no point been raised, so how can we go back to it? I think you need the brexit thread mate.
 
Last edited:
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
FFS ..... there is International legislation surrounding the treatment of Asylum seekers. The UK does the bare minimum (bearing in mind we wrote the UN legislation) they get £37 a week , cannot work and have to be supported whilst their application for asylum is heard.

Perhaps .... If the Government actually built asylum centres ... speeded up the application process ... we wouldn't have to utilise hotels .

We could perhaps even consider a ban on weapons sales


Or maybe ... just maybe ..... the Tories allowed Asylum applications to be made in British Consulates abroad ... we could actually grant asylum before they arrived.


Instead of forcing them to try and cross the channel on nothing more than a fuckin lilo.
Click to expand...
It would be good if you eased off your usual hyperbole, my post was a fair reaction. I don't like seeing people without a home but clearly our government are prioritising some homeless people more than others. I assume you don't think that is a fair reflection, we shouldn't have homeless people in 21st century Britain. But the wealth and aid distributed by this government and its predecessors is clearly not balanced.

There is a clear pattern emerging from you. You object to things for the sake of objecting sometimes to the detriment of fairness. If its left wing opinion then you assume it is correct and that you have some sort of moral high ground where you have a right to then deride all other opinions.
You did precisely that in your response above to my post. There was nothing remotely unfair or unreasonable in what I posted. I don't have a problem with people claiming asylum in this country you just assumed in your usual pompous way that I did. I put my post out there for debate sadly for you debate is particularly challenging, as you only like agreement with your own narrow viewpoint. Imo the shouting down of opinion and free speech is a growing problem in this world.
 
Last edited:
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Just checked back over the thread and this question has at no point been raised, so how can we go back to it? I think you need the brexit thread mate.
Click to expand...


Its all linked .... the rise of the BUF / Brexit / anti immigration rhetoric / suppression of an independent judiciary / voter suppression ... its all linked
 
urban genie said:
You are aware homeless people have been being put up in hotels during the pandemic in fact the one on debdale park was seconded for that use solely till last month.

Plus equating the two issues is simplistic.


I also when watching manctopia was annoyed at the councik and mayors cop out regarding the danzic st refuge, as there are empty restraunts particularry the italian and thai ones on portland st that have sat empty for years that if willing our leaders could have found a way to be used to facilitate this charity on a temperary basis.
Click to expand...
Simplistic, really? You do realise its the same pot of money don't you? I don't really care how they do it, any governments priority should be the welfare of its people under its care, be it asylum seekers or native homeless people.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
It would be good if you eased off your usual hyperbole, my post was a fair reaction. I don't like seeing people without a home but clearly our government are prioritising some homeless people more than others. I assume you don't think that is a fair reflection, we shouldn't have homeless people in 21st century Britain. But the wealth and aid distributed by this government and its predecessors is clearly not balanced.

There is a clear pattern emerging from you. You object to things for the sake of objecting sometimes to the detriment of fairness. If its left wing opinion then you assume it is correct and that you have some sort of moral high ground where you have a right to then deride all other opinions.
You did precisely that in your response above to my post. There was nothing remotely unfair or unreasonable in what I posted. I don't have a problem with people claiming asylum in this country you just assumed in your usual pompous way that I did. I put my post out there for debate sadly for you debate is particularly challenging, as you only like agreement with your own narrow viewpoint. Imo the shouting down of opinion and free speech is a growing problem problem in this world.
Click to expand...


The point I was trying to make was .... the Government could solve the homelessness problem (as they did during the pandemic for a while) but choose not to. But with Asylum seekers they do the bare minimum and gaslight everyone into


you know what gets blamed..... the asylum seekers .



We are better than this .
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
The point I was trying to make was .... the Government could solve the homelessness problem (as they did during the pandemic for a while) but choose not to. But with Asylum seekers they do the bare minimum and gaslight everyone into


you know what gets blamed..... the asylum seekers .



We are better than this .
Click to expand...
You seemed to blame me in your usual way. You put words and sentiments into my mouth which clearly wernt there. Imo you continually come across as a particularly unpleasant and unbalanced person.
Mazerelli is right you need help.
 
Fame Monster said:
What's more concerning and more dangerous are the fascists in anti-fascist clothing that are becoming very mainstream in society.
Click to expand...

Trumpian rhetoric, it shows a distinct lack of knowledge of what fascism is and how it has been traditionally been enabled.

It is not the left, the Trade Unions, the Socialists, the Communists and/or other minority groups that enable fasism, it is the liberal middle classes and the capitalist class who have traditionally enabled Fascism, because Fascism is the failing of capitalism and those with means seek to keep those means by allying with the Fascists.

Those in Anti-Fascist clothing, come from leftist groups, Trade Unions, the working class and even the Communists, because Fascism is an affront to the working class.

You know the poem by Niemoller, a German Lutheran pastor who self identified as a National Conservative

First they came for.

Who were the first people the fascists came for


Umberto Eco layed out fascism into 14 points

  1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
  2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
  4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
  5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
  6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  7. The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
  8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
  9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
  10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
  11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
  12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
  13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning
If you really think that Anti-Fascists identify with any of Eco's points then I would love to why. The use of the word fascist has become to widespread and it hides the real Fascists from view. Not liking words is not fascism, it is illiberalism, which is ironic as its mostly the liberal centrists who are illiberal,
 
Rascal said:
Trumpian rhetoric, it shows a distinct lack of knowledge of what fascism is and how it has been traditionally been enabled.

It is not the left, the Trade Unions, the Socialists, the Communists and/or other minority groups that enable fasism, it is the liberal middle classes and the capitalist class who have traditionally enabled Fascism, because Fascism is the failing of capitalism and those with means seek to keep those means by allying with the Fascists.

Those in Anti-Fascist clothing, come from leftist groups, Trade Unions, the working class and even the Communists, because Fascism is an affront to the working class.

You know the poem by Niemoller, a German Lutheran pastor who self identified as a National Conservative

First they came for.

Who were the first people the fascists came for


Umberto Eco layed out fascism into 14 points

  1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
  2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
  4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
  5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
  6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  7. The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
  8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
  9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
  10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
  11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
  12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
  13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning
If you really think that Anti-Fascists identify with any of Eco's points then I would love to why. The use of the word fascist has become to widespread and it hides the real Fascists from view. Not liking words is not fascism, it is illiberalism, which is ironic as its mostly the liberal centrists who are illiberal,
Click to expand...

We have this debate all the time and you always say fascism has nothing to do with the left.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler all had anti-capitalist views and believed in the strong control or abolition of capitalism. They were also fascists who believed in the control of speech, widespread cleansing of culture, and the censorship of political opponents.

If I look at the people doing that today, it's not your free-marketeers or anti-maskers who most closely share them views, it's many of the people parading as anti-fascists.
 
Fame Monster said:
We have this debate all the time and you always say fascism has nothing to do with the left.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler all had anti-capitalist views and believed in the strong control or abolition of capitalism. They were also fascists who believed in the control of speech, widespread cleansing of culture, and the censorship of political opponents.

If I look at the people doing that today, it's not your free-marketeers or anti-maskers who most closely share them views, it's many of the people parading as anti-fascists.
Click to expand...

You are confusing authoritarianism with illiberalism now.
 
Rascal said:
You are confusing authoritarianism with illiberalism now.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you call it - illiberalism, fascism, authoritarianism - the common ground they all have is an extreme intolerance for other people's views.

Do you think if you've just been beaten up by a mob outside a restaurant because you've not raised your fist in support of their cause that you'll be splitting hairs over whether they were authoritarian or illiberal or whether Stalin was on the left or not?

The bottom line is that these are dangerous people with dangerous views and want to create a dangerous society.

The one thing we should have learnt from history is not to underestimate or mistake people like that just because they call themselves 'anti-fascists' or 'socialists' or 'republicans' or any other kind of label.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top