[Deleted by Amazon on 28 Aug 2009 17:57 BST]

Sorry I think I missed out on the previous history for this discussion. Do I take it that friendly input regarding the BNP has gone down the Memory Hole? Poor old Winstone Smith. Under Nova Sovietski Labour he is forever forced into working overtime suppressing resistance to the New World Order.
All Power to the State Appartchiki as Comrade Brownoseski says....

Presumably the original discussion referred to was the Nova Sovietski State apparatchiki deciding that a political party cannot make its own rules as to who it wants for members as reported by the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6081294/BNP-facing-legal-action-over-membership-rules.html

The State has given power to this organisation and vehicle of Politically Correct conformity powers to make a voluntary organisation conform to its diktats or else.

We all know that really the Nova Sovietski Labour (and the "BlueLabour "opposition") want to ban the BNP and are constantly looking at ways to arrest and imprison its leadership (which they have had 2 goes already courtesy of that Stasi spying outfit, the BBC, which under the masquerade of "undercover reporting" sent in spies to gather material to stitch-up BNP activists) but despite rigging the rules by disposing of the need to prove "intent" still could not obtain a conviction when they put Griffin et al on trial for supposedly encouraging "religious harassment" at a private gathering by criticising the Moslem religion.
As Nova Sovietski Labour are not yet in a position to impose an outright ban they intend to cripple the BNP financially and to consume its political resources in a futile attempt to fend off these bureaucratic-legalistic attacks by the State subsided Apparatchiki (Yes abusing the funds of the taxpayer, something Nova Sovietski Labour do so well)

As someone who came to maturity during the late 60's and early 70's I well remember that as a then committed leftist and CP member that such organisations were treated as subversive but times change and now the people who were subject to State investigation are now the rule makers.
Political Correctness with all its iron fisted approach to dissent is the offspring of these types (which sadly I ridiculously considered as wanting to extend the boundaries of freedom) so that Trotskyism and assorted leftists brands fit well into the fold of PCdom but nationalism and freedom of association are considered as alien to this New Order crew.

As said above indirect ways other than outright banning are initially used to seek to crush dissent. Threats to those who speak out in terms of continued employment, the restriction of "allowed" language which is continually impoverished into a repetition of cloned-correct speak which PCdom seeks to impose and the continued rigging of the rules/laws to make it difficult and to frustrate, if not to made it impossible for organisations which don't "fit in" to operate in a lawful legitimate way.

The oppressive rules/laws immanant in the bowels of Nova Sovietski Labour is the diarrhetic signature tune of these psychopathic control freaks so sadly for the fate of freedom they have been and will continue to be constantly in motion and the end result of that will be pretty crappy on those beneath.....

Another thought of Leftism which I have had as a result of Jonathan Steele's article in The Guardian denying the equivalence of Stalin and Hitlers crimes:
I am surprised the JS did not go down the normal route whereby all crimes committed by the Left are deniable as they don't represent the "true" nature of Leftism so are not their responsibility to defend but somehow all the crimes the Right commit are an indelible mark of Nationalism and so all ideas and those who defend them in the present day are immediately discredited. Neat, don't you know....

Honestly, this is really pathetic. The BNP is a fascist organisation. Fascism is essentially about trying to divide people and set them against each other in as murderous a fashion as possible. 'PCdom' is the target of nationalists and fascists of all colours because it essentially calls for people to respect and accept each other. The crimes of Leftism are crimes committed out of an attempt to improve the world. The crimes of Rightism are committed out of hatred. It as difference which cannot be ignored or wished away.

The crimes of Stalin and co were committed to improve the world? Or Pol Pot? Stalin murdered 120,000,000 people; i suppose you think that tried to improve the world by reducing population? Stalins only competitors in murder are the black death, the catholic church and the USA and thankfully none of them even came close, although the USA policy of arming half the developing world probably has come fairly close.
The crimes of leftism are committed with an attempt at justification for the greater good in some cases i will admit but the crimes of rightism are equally committed for the greater good of what ever society they are committed in the name of one is as bad as the other

Genuine 'left' political views are about our having respect for each other and a degree of egalitarianism. Genuine 'right' political views are about inequality and Darwinian competitiveness; by its very nature such ideas CAN and often tragically do lead to the horrors that stain world history so disturbingly. Neat? No, just a reflection of the nature and possible outcome of belief.

You allege that the BNP is "a fascist organisation". Those opposed to individual freedom and choice have made this claim since the modern BNP was founded in 1982. It has taken almost three decades, but at last many Britons no longer accept the lies that the "BNP is fascist or nazi" that have been repeated ad nauseam over the years. It is due to the growing realisation that the BNP is a democratic, nationalist political party that it now has dozens of elected councillors, and 2 MEPs.

[Deleted by Amazon on 1 Sep 2009 01:02 BST]

The BNP is an admission of despair at the inability of the British political system to provide a viable civic society in the face of globalisation. I can see that the BNP has a role in local politics but only to demonstrate that the main political parties in this blighted country have broken faith with the ordinary people who feel unrepresented. However blaming our failures on immigrants or looking to simplistic longings for a past when there really was a 'great' in Great Britain is not the answer. The 'other' is actually within all of us. When we deny it, it festers and becomes something nasty. All extremist parties of whatever shade have a seed of truth but they always lose it by proclaiming it too often. I tend to the view that I would not wish to be a member of any club (or political party!) that would have me as a member.

The bottom line is this....how 'English' are our Royal Family?? Come on...use your heads..

Wow! I think I would have to start reading David Icke books to hear anything as mind bogglingly stupid as P Thompson's comment. A crime is a crime, regardless of self delusional motive. As the subsequent poster noted Stalin and Pol Pot's crimes dwarfed those of Hitler or the Bush administration. Also 'PCdom' is about as Facist as it gets; make sure you use 'right-speak' lest you get carted off for 're-education'. Since their rise to power the forces of PC have very effeciently sown racial division, hatred and mistrust where there was none, in a way the thugs of the BNP could only dream off.
There is nothing in conservatism (note the small c) that precludes compassion and social justice, what it does not include is discrimination against people under the guise of affirmative action. What is wrong with a society that encourages the individual to better themselves and doesn't treat minorities as somehow weak and in need of special assistance?

I would also be interested to know just what is wrong with 'Darwinian competitiveness' Without it we would still be scrabbling around on all fours, eating our own young and flinging faeces at each other. The mollycoddling of our current culture has led to a weak society where no one takes personal responsibility for anything.

[Deleted by the author on 4 Sep 2009 20:07 BST]

B. Smith - I think you have missed the point of Social Darwinism - this is an individualistic concept which ties in with the neo-liberalistic political model - basically , it means, leave society alone - regulate as little as possible and the cream will rise to the surface. The poor? The old? Forget about them - it's their own fault. However, as we've been seeing over the last few years (well,when I say seeing, I mean it has become socially acceptable to point it out) is that the cream most certainly does not rise to the top in all cases. More often the brown stuff.

And, William J. Reid. Don't make me laugh mate! Not fascist? Not Nazi? Christ, the name British NATIONAL party gives the game away! And I don't care if they DO have politicians etc., I'd like to see at least 20 of the, ahem, politicians police records - please show me the ones WITHOUT race related crimes on them. Not all the British public believes the rubbish which comes through their front doors! I've heard some of the frankly ignorant comments made by BNP bigwigs - one of them being that women should enjoy rape as it's like being forcefed chocolate. They ARE Nazis AND fascist. Remember, Hitler's Nazis were also 'respectable' politicians.

Stalin's communists were also 'respectable' politicians.

Mr A.G. Pilgrim - I totally agree with you. However, I was discussing the BNP - the Left is a whoooooole other discussion.

Peace Lilly, thanks for that insightful observation about the use of the word nationalist. Given that USSR stood for the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, are we therefore to assume that all socialists are ardent comunists? I think you'll find that all Americans are encouraged to be nationalistic (noun:national(ist)), as indeed are the French for that matter; think 4th of July and Bastille day. Are we to assume therefore that all French people that celebrate Bastille day are in fact raging NAZI's in disguise? France being of course a considerably more socialist state than the UK this seems a bit unlikely.
Even beyond that NAZI is simply a loose abbreviation for nationalist socialist party. So according to your irrefutable logic all members of the Socialist Workers Party are in fact swastika tattooed raging anti-semetics?
No. This is why the english language has a thing called a 'vocabulary' and why political science , like most faculties of knowledge, has defined terms for different things. Hitlers' Reich was a FASCIST state, somewhat different to a nationalist state, but rather more extreme. Rather like a communist state is an extreme of a socialist state, but not the same thing. It is rather an extreme, hence the terms right and left used in politics.
I could get a little more complex and talk about how the line is in fact a circle and there are few differences between the extreme right and extreme left, but with a name like 'peace lilly', i think i'll keep it simple.
Just to be nice i have started a thread about the extreme left too. You'll notice the overlaps if it really gets going. Have a nice day.

L. Anderson Porter - wow! Thanks for clearing that up for me. And here's me with my dictionary too trying to make out your big words!! Lol

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you (did you not read on to the bit where I made the distinction - Nazi and Fascist)- EXTREME socialism in whatever guise it comes in IS as bad as (and just to make it clear so's you understand!!) EXTREME Nationalism/fascism, whatever you want to call it (see what I did there? Thats a biiiiiiig word 'nationalism'...are you keeping up here?).However, as you finally realised I think that my point was in discussion about the BNP and not a comparison between left and right. I am fully aware that Stalin murdered more than Hitler. Oh, and funnily enough, I know the difference between fascist and nationalist. But, tbh apart from an initial difference in political ideology, the results are usually the same - murder, intolerance - all those other big words wot I can't say(here's one - Guantanamo Bay - just to satisfy your American Nationalist comment). However, as I'm not writing a full political essay here, I leave it to people to read between the lines!!!!

Just to explain something to you too, this is a 'discussion' - your trolling comments about my name add nothing whatsoever to that discussion - don't 'assume' anything about anyone - I may have a fluffy name - that doesn't make me thick!

Have a nice day to you too.

astonishing! and who do you think Andrew Brons (MEP) has been an apologist for all these years since he was celebrating Hitler's birthday with Colin Jordan??? If BNP is not Nazi or fascist, its MEP surely has a lot of explaining to do!

[Deleted by the author on 5 Sep 2009 20:49 BST]

''PCdom' is about as Facist as it gets; make sure you use 'right-speak' lest you get carted off for 're-education'."
You are joking, right??? BUt even in the most unlikely event that you get carted off for re-education, you will at least be spared the gas chamber.

I cannot see the problem with the BNP membership rules, after all, Afro-Caribbean Clubs and the Black Police Association are race-based.

"after all, Afro-Caribbean Clubs and the Black Police Association are race-based."

Disabled groups are disability based as well. Wouldn't make much sense for a membership based on those who are able-bodied if the issues are about social disabilities and discrimination based on said disabilities.

Ethnic people are still treated differently based on their ethnicity and these issues are important for anyone of an ethnic background. What would be the point in having (white) members of society being members of these Afro-Caribbean and Black Police Associations? That would be just as logical as having non-stamp collectors being members of the philately society.

Mr Slater, you rather miss the point. If i decided to open a 'whites only' pub with a sign over the door that said 'no blacks welcome' i would be prosecuted for discrimination. Same for a 'white police officers association'. What is the distinction?#
In fact i would be brought off for 'reeducation, under the terms of newspeak'. After all the sad little liberals had relieved me off my assets for the good of the public purse. Now surely that is a prime example of the pc/police state.

120 million?! Where did you get this figure?
Even loony anti-communists like Robert Conquest cite 'only' 30 million or so.
Or are you blaming Stalin, not Hitler, for starting World War Two? That would be an eccentric view, shared only with Goebbels & his colleagues.
Data from the recently opened Russian archives prove that anti-communists like Conquest, Charles Maier and Alexander Solzhenitsyn hugely inflated figures for deaths and deportations in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

As Professor Richard Overy, Professor of History at King's College London, writes, "For years the figures circulating in the West for Soviet repression were greatly inflated. ... The archive shows a very different picture." (The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Allen Lane, 2004, page 194.) The archive shows that the total executed between 1930 and 1953 was 776,074. (The figure published in 1990 was 786,098.) The number of those sentenced to prison in those years was 3.85 million. Gabor Rittersporn agreed that Alexander Solzhenitsyn's figures for deportations during the 1930s in the Soviet Union were `grossly exaggerated'.

Too many writers on the subject have relied not on the archives, but on Conquest's estimates. But Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, has explained how Conquest reached his figures: "Robert Conquest's The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror Famine (New York, 1986) argues that the `dekulakization' of the early 1930s led to the deaths of 6,500,000 people. But this estimate is arrived at by extremely dubious methods, ranging from reliance on hearsay evidence through double counting to the consistent employment of the highest possible figures in estimates made by other historians." The true figure for the 1930s is about 300,000 deaths.

Professor R. W. Davies wrote, "The archival data are entirely incompatible with such very high figures, which continue to be cited as firm fact in both the Russian and the Western media." (Soviet history in the Yeltsin era, Macmillan, 1997, page 172.)

Awkward things, facts! They tend to get in the way of foolish prejudices and ill-informed accusations.

Isn't it a wonder your not referred to as a holocaust denier? How many Russians died on the western front, but more importantly how many were starved to death?