The norway massacre: the right shows its true colours.

I remember the kids program 'Pipkins' when I was young and wondering why all the characters spoke so slow, at the time I thought it was part of the act, of course I know better now.

(OO-ER!) or OO ARH

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

So the chicken was going to the pharmacy for some laxative?

and what of the foul, fetid UAF, even more nasty, Unite Against Fascism, joke! They're the biggest bunch of Jew and homosexual hating bigots there are. And don't forget, Hitler was extreme LEFT not right. Socialist Workers' Party ring any bells? Get your facts right.

What about the BNP or UKIP, or do they not count as foul and fetid because they are right wing?
Hitler was a fascist, he hated Communism
Pinnochet was a fascist, he hated Communism,
Any bells ring now?
Read up on your history before misplacing Socialism in the context you describe,

Posted on 30 May 2012 17:00:40 BDT
doctor_jeep says:
We're still suffering from a fundamental failure to define "The Right" ... the mainstream media have a bad habit of defining everyone who fails to agree with the left/liberal consensus as "Far right" unless they are undeniably a communist or visibly non-white. As a result we have a huge number of unconnected causes lazily lumped together in an undefined heap - the original left right divide (based on seating in the French Estates-General) was between aristocratic oligarchs and populist democrats, then there was the wierd, early twentieth century one that tried to make communist and fascism opposites and place everyone else on a spectrum between them ... which was then crudely patched into a free market/planned economy axis, and now we've got the modern distinction between big and small government agendas. None of these corrolate to anything in particular and this continuing, lazy use of the term "right wing" only serves to confuse matters.

I will try and broadly explain The Main agenda of the true "Far Right" by this I no not refer to BNP who are NOT Far Right, but a watered down slightly right of Centre, The only True "Right Wing" Party as far as the voters are concerned is the "British Peoples Party".
Another common mistake made by the media is "EDL" (English Defence League) are Far Right, they are NOT, very far from it, as they have many ethnic members in there ranks.
The TRUE Groups of the so called Far Right; Are Combat-18; Blood & Honour; Racist Volunteer Force; British Freedom Fighters; and the Aryan Strike Force; The Broad agenda of all these groups is to 1; Stop Islamic take over of the UK, 2; reverse immigration from Non white country's.
3; Create a National Socialist one party state based on 1930s Germany. There is a lot more, Change by the ballot box has been tried, So a more general approach using Force/Violence Is being tried. Don't Panic Real Far Right numbers are small, and new laws are being passed almost daily to make our job harder all the time, You may think this is a good thing, you may not.
If only everyone had listened to Enoch Powell all this may well have been avoided.

Don't worry no ones panicking, everyone here knows you are either a troll or a loon.

Either way good luck on your endeavours, hopefully you will be getting help with whatever problems you suffer from.

I live in Cornwall, and so far, I've never heard anyone say OOH-AHR. They do say "Proper Job" a lot when something's good. Apparently I have been warned if you ask someone to do something here, and they reply "I'll do that directly", it means that it will never get done?

I believe Scrumpy is actually a Zomerset/Devon cider, and very nice it is too! HIC!

Hitler was a national socialist (the Fascists were specifically the Italian branch of national socialism), but the fact that he hated communism doesn't mean that he was somehow right wing - the national socialists and communists hated each other specifically because they were rivals for the same political territory, not because they were somehow opposed.
In much the same way the BNP and UAF are pretty much birds of a feather - moronic racist thugs, situated firmly on the left who hate each other at least partially because they are so similar.

What, exactly, is foul or fetid about UKIP?

Why the hell would anyone want a nation based on 1930s Germany?
Likewise racism - actual racism that is rather than imaginary racism - seems to be a symptom of stupidity. Speaking personally I know more white people who are a waste of space than I know non-white people total ... if I were stupid enough to draw conclusions from that I'd probably be in the UAF. Luckily I'm not.
I thoroughly reject your "true far right"'s claim to any stake in right wing politics at all - racism is not a policy, and the rest of the politics you describe belongs on the left. Oh, and the Aryans? Not white.

I do, however, agree that Enoch Powell was right - mass immigration was a disaster and continues to be, but that is at least as much about culture as it is about race: Islamisation is a case in point. Compare, for example, the record of Hindu or Sikh communities, who are generally a positive influence on their area to those of pretty much any mohammedan community you care to name (with the exception of the small, heavily anglicised group that arrived from Uganda following the Amin expulsions), who are generally a blight. And the blame for that lies far more with our indigenous politicians as it does with the immigrants themselves.

While on the one hand you chastise someone for being racist you make an equal folly in making a sweeping generalisation of the Muslim (the correct term, though I suspect you knew that and wish to put a label that is not welcome by Muslims intentionally) community as being generally a blight.

You are as bad as valley lad

Jeep,
The whole German economy under the Nazis was run for the benefit of the state by private industrialists who operated their own little fiefdoms and in essence were capitalists serving a one party state. It was pretty much noticeable that German big business in Germany and the conquered territories were more than happy to comply with Hitler's demands for armaments especially as they were given free labour and therefore profited handsomely from this arrangement. In addition the whole regime was as we know was totally intolerant of other races and religions. This is pretty much the criteria for a Fascist right wing dictatorship run along Capitalist lines.
As regards your other question the UKIP's whole strategy is based around the philosophy that the British are somehow superior to other races and as a yardstick their xenophobic views are not even tolerated in the mainstream Tory party - which takes some beating.
A further example of their extremity is a proposal by one of their rising young stars (Alexandra Swann) to abolish the right to vote for the unemployed and give additional votes to the rich. The former because they do not contribute towards tax revenues and the latter because apparently they contribute far more than anyone else. The BNP incidentally has been putting out feelers to the UKIP after their drubbing in the local elections so I don't know where you get the idea that they are left wing from.

Yeah, UKIP are not bigots, they just want us to say no to euro. I agree.

You are quite right about my use of the term mohammedan - although I use it more as a rejection of mohammed's attempts to re-designate all of the Judaic and Christian heritage that preceeded him as imperfect islam.
And I see no evidence that there is any folly at all in suggesting that almost all of the mohammedan immigrant communities in the UK are a blight.
The comparison between the behaviour of immigrant mohammedans and that of non-mohammedans of nearly identical racial and geographic origin says to me that the problem is entirely cultural and nothing to do with race.

Thank you for your analysis ... although I rather think the national socialist economic platform fits closer to syndicalism or some of the outlying forms of coroporatism than it does to capitalism. I would still maintian that their platform of revolutionary proletarian collectivism puts them closer to left than right (assuming we continue to fix 'left' on communism ... which seems a point of general consensus).

I have seen no evidence that UKIP follow the strategy that you report, and am ill prepared to accept rejection by Cameron's "tories" as a condemnation of anyone. As to the matter of withdrawing franchise from the economically inactive ... so what? That hardly seems to be a policy that should rule a party out of contention - I seem to recall Trade Unions used to withdraw voting rights from those who didn't pay their subs up to date or who were considered idlers ... but that, admittedly, was a long time ago.

And so what if the BNP think UKIP might be prepared to work with them? If the two have a mutual goal of preserving British sovereignty from the EU then it's a logical alliance for them to consider. That the two parties disagree on a great deal else (try reading their literature - you might then understand where they both lie on the political spectrum) is a matter for later debates. You'll recall all sorts of people joined the national government last time there was a concerted attempt to unify Europe ... and waited until the post war election to raise their differences.

Jeep,
People can debate until the cows come home as to whereabouts `Hitler's Germany' was positioned on the political spectrum. It is all down to an individual's interpretation of history during that period.
I find your casual dismissal of the right to vote for the unemployed an indication of how out of touch you must be. In fact I find it quite frightening that there are supposedly sane intelligent people who can think this way! This country has moved on since the days of serfs and squires and the right to vote is a fundamental pre requisite of any democracy regardless of who you are or what political persuasion you maybe.
To be honest you haven't put any credible points across to support your main argument other than people were stopped from voting in Trade Union matters because they hadn't paid their subs. Does that mean David Cameron will be barred from voting next election because he may not have kept his golf club membership up to date? If you have wasted your time studying the literature of the BNP and UKIP then perhaps you may be able to eventually put a sound viewpoint across about the UKIP at least, other than 'so what?'.

Well your ignorance and arrogance has led you to believe that the attempt was to redesignate the judao-christian heritage as imperfect islam. His message was the 'completion' of religion as islam.

You perhaps are blinded by your own self worth not to see the hypocrisy in calling someone else a racist and then calling all immigrant Muslims a blight.

Your so called evidence, of which we have no source or even description, if we are to accept as gospel is also most likely flawed because one suspects you were not looking at the whole picture evenly seeing as there are more Muslim immigrants then there are non Muslim immigrants, numerically speaking you would have more Muslim 'blighters'.

Let me bring you back from cloud cuckoo land, there are more indigenous people in this country who are also in the blighters category then there are Muslim immigrant ones, pray tell what are your opinions on them?

You appear to have constructed a strawman for yourself to beat.
I have not advanced the argument that the unemployed should have their voting withdrawn - merely refused to accept that advancing that argument qualifies someone as a bad person.
However, since you seem determined to charge off on this particular tangent...
The question raised seems to be one of citizenship and touches directly on the "bread and circuses" dilemma: should someone who is not pulling their weight as part of the community have a say in how it is governed? This is a perfectly legitimate question, although we can certainly argue about what constitutes "pulling your weight" ... as framed the assumption seems to be that those who pay into the public purse should have a say on how it is spent, and those who don't, shouldn't. Now explain wh you find that position repugnant.
The citation of early union rules was merely to demonstrate that it wasn't "teh evull ryteez" position ... when it comes to social security, the early union and co-operative schemes were actually far less forgiving of free-loading that the state system that replaced them.
The Clam might not be barred from voting in the next election because his golf club dues are not paid up to date ... but I'd not be at all surprised if he had to pay up before he got a vote in the club committee ballot. Can you not see the analogy? If you belong to a society and expect a say in how it is governed, is it unfair to expect you to help pay for it? And if that society is currently carrying you, why is it morally wrong for it to insist that whilst you are being carried, you don't get to decide how things are run?

The "so what?" concerning UKIP was not a summary of the party itself, merely a dismissal of your grounds for rejecting them.

A very small distinction with even less difference.

And you still insist on treat mohammedan as a race, when you are well aware it isn't and have no right to brand an objection to it as racist. I do not suffer from white guilt and that particular dog-whistle will not help you.

I am also reasonably sure that the majority of immigrants to this country are not mohammedans - I grant you that I have no figures to support this - but those immigrant communities generating blight appear to be disproportionately mohammedan.
And I am well aware that we have a good many disfunctional members of the indigenous community who are quite capable of generating their own blight ... I blame the same politicians and policies that have allowed mohammedan blight.

I think you can't smell the BS because you are typing.

When you say immigrants of the islamic faith, you are labeling an ethnic minority or minorities, which IS racist. Secondly I did not ask you to treat Muslims as a race, but I would extend that your thinly veiled attack on Muslims, which inadvertantly became racist, is called faith hate, something that is equally as deplorable as racism.

Your third paragraph blatently shows your prejudice and the fact that you don't know your elbow from your ar$e because without any figures to back up your claim you say Muslims are disproportionately generating blight lol, go and learn what a proportion is.

You are a member of the indigenous community generating blight or specifically bile here on this forum, go back to school and get some GCSE's in english and maths and if you can logic.

Tripe. Pure, unadulterated tripe.
As you clearly demonstrate - again - by referring to mohammedans as an ethnic minority. Not a race. Not ethnic. Likewise, you attribute opposition to hatred - which says more about your own motivations than mine.

Also, I acknowledge that my position is based on hearsay and am prepared to change it if presented with evidence - and note I say evidence, not assertion. Until convinced otherwise I will rely on the subjective evidence that I have encountered so far.

Failing to agree with you does not constitute blight - you are entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to have everyone else agree with you. If you can't adjust to that, I suggest you give up arguing with people on the internet. Or, indeed, anywhere else.

Jeep,
I will take you back to your original question,

`What, exactly, is foul or fetid about UKIP?'

I answered your question with the reasons listed in a previous post,
You replied that you thought people who do not contribute to society should not have the right to vote, this was reiterated in your latest post which was just a recycled hash of your previous post. There is no forthcoming explanation from you about why you are championing the UKIP in your own words,

`The "so what?" concerning UKIP was not a summary of the party itself, merely a dismissal of your grounds for rejecting them'.

Eventually a person realises that they are banging their head against a brick wall as you are either too lazy or have no knowledge of the subject to construct a decent reply of why you didn't like the fact that I thought the UKIP was foul and fetid.
Your idea of a society where the weak the disabled the old and the poor are excluded from having a say in how society is run because they are unable to contribute belongs in the pages of some fictional dystopian horror story. Thankfully you are in a small minority and along with your action man friend Valley Lad will always be confined to the lunatic fringes. At least VL could give reasons of why he had his views, with you it is like looking into a dark pit of what society could become if things went really bad, at least you have dropped the `so what' though.

lol, as you clearly fail to see, I mentioned hating of Muslims is faith hate, attributing an undesirable comment TO 'immigrants' of the Muslim faith IS racist.

You are so in love with yourself that you don't see the error in saying that your assertions are based on 'heresay', that is the same as me saying you are into kiddie fiddling and I will only change my mind when presented with evidence otherwise.

It is not the failing to agree with me that I am alleging as bile, but the fact that it does not stand to reason and facts that has led me to that conclusion, again if logic and facts don't compute book yourself into school for some GCSE's

Molly: Scrumpy is both refreshing and mind-blowing. =) Do not take offence at my jokes concerning other nations, races and cultures. Feel free to make fun of my home-planet, Vulcan. =) All seriousness aside, I have read that Cornwall is the most impoverished and economically deprived area in Britain. Why is that so? I spent about a year in St Austell, and found the place to quite unique and pleasurable precisely because of its distance from the main capitalism of the UK.