Marmite sponsors BNP broadcast

[hibsbollah]

YouTube - BNP Marmite Sponsors General Election Broadcast 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFxWpdJVWyM)

Unbelievable:faf:

[ballengeich]

Unilever who produce marmite threatened the BNP with legal action for using their product without permission. I believe the ad's now off the BNP site.

[hibsbollah]

Crazy decision, you'd think someone in the BNP would have realised you cant put a product in a political broadcast...Unless they welcome the publicity and figure being sued is unlikely:hmmm:

[Beefster]

A picture of Winston Churchill and a frame of medals in the background. What a shower of absolute c**** Griffin and the BNP are.

[Phil D. Rolls]

A picture of Winston Churchill and a frame of medals in the background. What a shower of absolute c**** Griffin and the BNP are.

:agree: Apealing to generations of wasters who have contributed nothing to our society. Instead they have sat back and expected the fact that they were born in this country to be all they need to get something from life.

[GlesgaeHibby]

A picture of Winston Churchill and a frame of medals in the background. What a shower of absolute c**** Griffin and the BNP are.


:agree: Apealing to generations of wasters who have contributed nothing to our society. Instead they have sat back and expected the fact that they were born in this country to be all they need to get something from life.

:agree:

I hate the line being trotted out about cutting foreign aid too. We've got it so well in this country, it's only right that we do what we can to help those in many parts of the World that are a lot less well off than us.

[JimBHibees]

A picture of Winston Churchill and a frame of medals in the background. What a shower of absolute c**** Griffin and the BNP are.

Couldnt have put it better.

[hibsbollah]

A picture of Winston Churchill and a frame of medals in the background. What a shower of absolute c**** Griffin and the BNP are.

:agree:Interesting how fascists like to have heroes who arent alive anymore and able to confirm that they'd like to be a fascist hero. Churchill was a broadminded Liberal through much of his political career and had as little time for the far right as he did for socialists. And St George was a black man from Turkey. Its easy to feel sorry for the English fascist, theyve got no real heroes of their own:wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

:agree:Interesting how fascists like to have heroes who arent alive anymore and able to confirm that they'd like to be a fascist hero. Churchill was a broadminded Liberal through much of his political career and had as little time for the far right as he did for socialists. And St George was a black man from Turkey. Its easy to feel sorry for the English fascist, theyve got no real heroes of their own:wink:

Well, that's not entirely true. He had quite a lot of time for both Hitler and, especially, Mussolini prior to the war.

[hibsbollah]

Well, that's not entirely true. He had quite a lot of time for both Hitler and, especially, Mussolini prior to the war.

Way before the war, in the 20s mostly, he said some things in support of both of them, as did many people including Lloyd George and people in the British Labour movement. By the time the realities of fascism in those countries became apparent he had changed his mind.

If you take his career as a whole its hard to make any argument that he was anything other than an enemy of the farright, and would be appalled by the modern BNP. Roy Jenkins biography of him is excellent evidence of this.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Way before the war, in the 20s mostly, he said some things in support of both of them, as did many people including Lloyd George and people in the British Labour movement. By the time the realities of fascism in those countries became apparent he had changed his mind.

If you take his career as a whole its hard to make any argument that he was anything other than an enemy of the farright, and would be appalled by the modern BNP. Roy Jenkins biography of him is excellent evidence of this.

He was still broadly supportive of Mussolini up until around 1937, his sympathy for Hitler was dropped somewhat sooner. He supported the Axis side in pretty much every precursor to the war-proper; Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Abyssinia and, to a lesser extent, the Falange during the Spanish Civil War.

Although, of course, none of this diminishes his successes during the war; but this characterisation of him as a die-hard anti-fascist is pretty wide of the mark.

[Phil D. Rolls]

He was still broadly supportive of Mussolini up until around 1937, his sympathy for Hitler was dropped somewhat sooner. He supported the Axis side in pretty much every precursor to the war-proper; Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Abyssinia and, to a lesser extent, the Falange during the Spanish Civil War.

Although, of course, none of this diminishes his successes during the war; but this characterisation of him as a die-hard anti-fascist is pretty wide of the mark.

:agree: His behaviour during the General Strike was hardly that of an anti fascist.

[hibsbollah]

He was still broadly supportive of Mussolini up until around 1937, his sympathy for Hitler was dropped somewhat sooner. He supported the Axis side in pretty much every precursor to the war-proper; Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Abyssinia and, to a lesser extent, the Falange during the Spanish Civil War.

Although, of course, none of this diminishes his successes during the war; but this characterisation of him as a die-hard anti-fascist is pretty wide of the mark.

I didnt suggest he was a 'die hard anti-fascist', I suggested that he disliked both political extremes (as he saw them) equally, and any notion that the BNP and him are ideologically close is laughable.

[khib70]

I didnt suggest he was a 'die hard anti-fascist', I suggested that he disliked both political extremes (as he saw them) equally, and any notion that the BNP and him are ideologically close is laughable.
Absolutely. Churchill like many others (including left wingers like our own Hugh McDiarmid) was initially seduced by Italian fascism. He quickly realised what lay beneath and passionately opposed the appeasement policies of the British Tory party and aristocracy. It took the British Communist party a lot longer to discover the evils of Nazism. They actively opposed the war against Hitler, until the invasion of the Soviet Union.

It's interesting that media darling Nick Clegg was ludicrously touted as "the new Churchill" in some quarters when he is the embodiment of the currently fashionable "appease everyone" tendency.

[heretoday]

What a strange and comical figure Griffin cuts in the video. His hair looks like a Hitler wig!

The obvious references in evidence in the background could only influence the most bone-headed of people.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What a strange and comical figure Griffin cuts in the video. His hair looks like a Hitler wig!

The obvious references in evidence in the background could only influence the most bone-headed of people.

And your point is....:cool2:

[ginger_rice]

A picture of Winston Churchill and a frame of medals in the background. What a shower of absolute c**** Griffin and the BNP are.

The only thing missing was an arial shot of Ibrox. :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

:agree: His behaviour during the General Strike was hardly that of an anti fascist.


Yes but Marxism, which is a pretty incredible frame of reference for trying to explain political events, is still less reliable for explaining history.

Churchill was never pro-fascist. He was an English or British patriot and imperialist who recognised the right of other imperial interests to explore and engage with their own spheres of interest. At best you could describe him as having sympathy with authoritarianism. None of these things are the same as fascism and to confuse the two is just wrong.

Incidentally Mussolini was a socialist long before he founded Italian fascism. There is a pretty persuasive school of thought that says his move to fascism was prompted by his frustration with the self-interested elements within the Italian socialist movement who were more interested in talking about delivering social change than they were in actually doing so. A kind of Lentillista tendency just as visible today on the modern left as it was back then. They tend 'not to accept your paradigm', but then they can usually afford not to.

[heretoday]

And your point is....:cool2:

That the BNP is a comedy party. Dangerous though.

[sadtom]

He was still broadly supportive of Mussolini up until around 1937, his sympathy for Hitler was dropped somewhat sooner. He supported the Axis side in pretty much every precursor to the war-proper; Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Abyssinia and, to a lesser extent, the Falange during the Spanish Civil War.

Although, of course, none of this diminishes his successes during the war; but this characterisation of him as a die-hard anti-fascist is pretty wide of the mark.

:agree:
An known anti semite, who even after he knew of the concentration camps refused requests to bomb the rail links and or the camps.

Saddam gets hanged primarily on the charge of gassing the Kurds.
Churchill gets voted greatest ever Brit when he did exactly the same.

You couldn't make that $h1t up.
We wonder why lots of people all over the world think we are bullying hypocritical barstewards!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes but Marxism, which is a pretty incredible frame of reference for trying to explain political events, is still less reliable for explaining history.

Churchill was never pro-fascist. He was an English or British patriot and imperialist who recognised the right of other imperial interests to explore and engage with their own spheres of interest. At best you could describe him as having sympathy with authoritarianism. None of these things are the same as fascism and to confuse the two is just wrong.

Incidentally Mussolini was a socialist long before he founded Italian fascism. There is a pretty persuasive school of thought that says his move to fascism was prompted by his frustration with the self-interested elements within the Italian socialist movement who were more interested in talking about delivering social change than they were in actually doing so. A kind of Lentillista tendency just as visible today on the modern left as it was back then. They tend 'not to accept your paradigm', but then they can usually afford not to.

I would call his willingness to use force to suppress the strike is a tactic that many fascist regimes would be familiar with. I realise that is also what happened in totalitarian socialist regimes.

To me, the use of the law, and apparatus of state to suppress the rights of the individual is fascist, or at least a tool of facism.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------


That the BNP is a comedy party. Dangerous though.

One that would only appeal to the sort of clowns who would identify with the imagery displayed in the video in fact. :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yes but Marxism, which is a pretty incredible frame of reference for trying to explain political events, is still less reliable for explaining history.

Where do you find it lacking, out of interest?


Churchill was never pro-fascist. He was an English or British patriot and imperialist who recognised the right of other imperial interests to explore and engage with their own spheres of interest. At best you could describe him as having sympathy with authoritarianism. None of these things are the same as fascism and to confuse the two is just wrong.

Incidentally Mussolini was a socialist long before he founded Italian fascism. There is a pretty persuasive school of thought that says his move to fascism was prompted by his frustration with the self-interested elements within the Italian socialist movement who were more interested in talking about delivering social change than they were in actually doing so. A kind of Lentillista tendency just as visible today on the modern left as it was back then. They tend 'not to accept your paradigm', but then they can usually afford not to.

Now, who on earth could that be aimed at!?

[One Day Soon]

Where do you find it lacking, out of interest? Wherever it is used to try to explain actual rather than theoretical political events.




Now, who on earth could that be aimed at!? Well Liverpool, I laid that jewel upon the table for the benefit of anyone who wishes to pick it up.

[One Day Soon]

I would call his willingness to use force to suppress the strike is a tactic that many fascist regimes would be familiar with. I realise that is also what happened in totalitarian socialist regimes.

To me, the use of the law, and apparatus of state to suppress the rights of the individual is fascist, or at least a tool of facism.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------



One that would only appeal to the sort of clowns who would identify with the imagery displayed in the video in fact. :agree:

That is to misuse the term 'fascist'. Your definition would make just about every state in the world fascist in one way and another. By doing that you dilute the meaning of the term so that true fascist regimes aren't sufficiently distinguished to receive the opprobrium or adulation they deserve.

Anyone who describes Churchill as a fascist either does not know their history and politics or is pursuing a political agenda of their own.

The video is just surreal. Everything on the set appears to wobble when he moves. And the wee Union Jack on the desk looks like something you might find in a car showroom rather than the sort of grand nationalist symbolism you would expect from a pukka, puffed-up raver.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Wherever it is used to try to explain actual rather than theoretical political events.

That's not much of an answer. I meant in what sense do you find it lacking rather than in what areas do you find it lacking - which would be a pretty boring question to ask.


Well Liverpool, I laid that jewel upon the table for the benefit of anyone who wishes to pick it up.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as 'jewel'...

[One Day Soon]

That's not much of an answer. I meant in what sense do you find it lacking rather than in what areas do you find it lacking - which would be a pretty boring question to ask.





I'm not sure I'd go as far as 'jewel'...

In the sense that it fails to meaningfully answer any of the questions one might hope to have answered when they are posed. For example in the recent/ongoing debate around British politics and neo-liberalism.


Is 'jewel' too capitalist a concept for you to be comfortable with?

[LiverpoolHibs]

In the sense that it fails to meaningfully answer any of the questions one might hope to have answered when they are posed. For example in the recent/ongoing debate around British politics and neo-liberalism.

This is like trying to get water from a stone. In what sense does a Marxist analysis of neoliberalism fail?


Is 'jewel' too capitalist a concept for you to be comfortable with?

I don't know what that means.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That is to misuse the term 'fascist'. Your definition would make just about every state in the world fascist in one way and another. By doing that you dilute the meaning of the term so that true fascist regimes aren't sufficiently distinguished to receive the opprobrium or adulation they deserve.

Anyone who describes Churchill as a fascist either does not know their history and politics or is pursuing a political agenda of their own.

The video is just surreal. Everything on the set appears to wobble when he moves. And the wee Union Jack on the desk looks like something you might find in a car showroom rather than the sort of grand nationalist symbolism you would expect from a pukka, puffed-up raver.

Fair's fair, I personally have a problem with the state taking control over individual freedom - but that is another debate.

I see fascism as the apparatus of the state being used to control individual freedoms in favour of the capitalists. Churchill didn't recognise the right of people to say what terms they would live life on. They refused to work for the wage offered and were to be compelled to do so by the use of the army and the police.

[LiverpoolHibs]

That is to misuse the term 'fascist'. Your definition would make just about every state in the world fascist in one way and another. By doing that you dilute the meaning of the term so that true fascist regimes aren't sufficiently distinguished to receive the opprobrium or adulation they deserve.

Anyone who describes Churchill as a fascist either does not know their history and politics or is pursuing a political agenda of their own.

That's possibly the first time I've ever agreed with anything you've said. I'm concerned.

[hibsbollah]

That is to misuse the term 'fascist'. Your definition would make just about every state in the world fascist in one way and another. By doing that you dilute the meaning of the term so that true fascist regimes aren't sufficiently distinguished to receive the opprobrium or adulation they deserve.

Anyone who describes Churchill as a fascist either does not know their history and politics or is pursuing a political agenda of their own.

The video is just surreal. Everything on the set appears to wobble when he moves. And the wee Union Jack on the desk looks like something you might find in a car showroom rather than the sort of grand nationalist symbolism you would expect from a pukka, puffed-up raver.

Quite right:agree:

[One Day Soon]

That's possibly the first time I've ever agreed with anything you've said. I'm concerned.

Not as much as I am.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is like trying to get water from a stone. In what sense does a Marxist analysis of neoliberalism fail?

Sorry to nag, but any chance of an answer to this? I'm genuinely interested.

I mean, even the likes of Niall Ferguson have been singing the praises of Bukharin's 'stamocap' theory in relation to neoliberalism recently.

[hibiedude]

Well you know what they say....you eighter love or hate marmite

But with nazi Nick Griffin there is only one choice :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

So, if we can say what it isn't, what is fascism? Does there have to be an element of patriotism involved?

[LiverpoolHibs]

So, if we can say what it isn't, what is fascism? Does there have to be an element of patriotism involved?

The fact that it's quite difficult to define is one of its most telling features. It doesn't have a particularly coherent or set ideology, tends to scavenge from others and tailors its beliefs to certain national circumstances; hence you can have the anti-clericalism of Hitler and Mussolini alongside the orthodox Catholicism of Franco and Petain or the virulent anti-semitism of the Nazis, the Iron Guard et. al. and the near complete absence of such sentiment in Italian fascism.

Robert Paxton probably has the best definition.

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Fascism is/was an outgrowth from (or radicalisation of) a traditional European colonialist ideology of which Churchill was a whole-hearted subscriber. So while it's not surprising there are some elements of similarity, you could never properly call him a fascist.

[Leicester Fan]

Fascism is/was an outgrowth from (or radicalisation of) a traditional European colonialist ideology of which Churchill was a whole-hearted subscriber. So while it's not surprising there are some elements of similarity, you could never properly call him a fascist.

Bull****. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism. The Nazis (national socialists) were a working class movement that fought for full employment. Nothing like old fashioned conservatism or any other jargonised description you can come up with.

[One Day Soon]

Bull****. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism. The Nazis (national socialists) were a working class movement that fought for full employment. Nothing like old fashioned conservatism or any other jargonised description you can come up with.



Oh this should be good.....

[Phil D. Rolls]

Bull****. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism. The Nazis (national socialists) were a working class movement that fought for full employment. Nothing like old fashioned conservatism or any other jargonised description you can come up with.

Is the main difference the fact that one faction was supported by the owners of capital, and the other wanted to become the owners?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Bull****. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism. The Nazis (national socialists) were a working class movement that fought for full employment. Nothing like old fashioned conservatism or any other jargonised description you can come up with.

Where's the jargon? And you're talking absolute nonsense.

If we're going to talk specifically about Nazism, its main ideological referents are 19th century bourgeoise Romantic nationalism and Bismarck's Unified German colonialism. These were then radicalised/accelerated by biological racism and Nietzsche's theory of the Superman.

As I've already mentioned, fascism's syncretism (jargon, sorry) means that it's perfectly willing to adopt certain beliefs that 'fit' with the national circumstances. Hence Otto Spengler was able to introduce an element of his bizarre version of non-class-based pseudo-socialism out of the rampant unemployment of inter-war Germany, that's all. And hence there was no such accomodation of a pseudo-socialism in Spain, for example, because it didn't fit those specific circumstances

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------


Sorry to nag, but any chance of an answer to this? I'm genuinely interested.

I mean, even the likes of Niall Ferguson have been singing the praises of Bukharin's 'stamocap' theory in relation to neoliberalism recently.


Oh this should be good.....

Cough, cough...

[Leicester Fan]

Where's the jargon? And you're talking absolute nonsense.

If we're going to talk specifically about Nazism, its main ideological referents are 19th century bourgeoise Romantic nationalism and Bismarck's Unified German colonialism. These were then radicalised/accelerated by biological racism and Nietzsche's theory of the Superman.

As I've already mentioned, fascism's syncretism (jargon, sorry) means that it's perfectly willing to adopt certain beliefs that 'fit' with the national circumstances. Hence Otto Spengler was able to introduce an element of his bizarre version of non-class-based pseudo-socialism out of the rampant unemployment of inter-war Germany, that's all. And hence there was no such accomodation of a pseudo-socialism in Spain, for example, because it didn't fit those specific circumstances
.

Stop trying to sound clever and just speak English.

Not the best source,[/URL][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29 ) but a fair summary.

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party)) ruled Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) from 1933 until 1945. The party was originally formed as the German Workers' Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party) under the leadership of Anton Drexler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Drexler), and espoused a combination of racialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism) völkisch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_movement) nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) and socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) that rejected the conditions imposed on Germany after World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I). The party accused international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_%28politics%29) capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) of being Jewish-dominated, and denounced capitalists for war profiteering in World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I)

[One Day Soon]

Where's the jargon? And you're talking absolute nonsense.

If we're going to talk specifically about Nazism, its main ideological referents are 19th century bourgeoise Romantic nationalism and Bismarck's Unified German colonialism. These were then radicalised/accelerated by biological racism and Nietzsche's theory of the Superman.

As I've already mentioned, fascism's syncretism (jargon, sorry) means that it's perfectly willing to adopt certain beliefs that 'fit' with the national circumstances. Hence Otto Spengler was able to introduce an element of his bizarre version of non-class-based pseudo-socialism out of the rampant unemployment of inter-war Germany, that's all. And hence there was no such accomodation of a pseudo-socialism in Spain, for example, because it didn't fit those specific circumstances

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------


Cough, cough...


He's not talking absolute nonsense. In fact in strict chronological, party political evolutionary terms he's pretty much spot on. There are as many different interpretations as to the genesis of fascism as you like. Apart from anything else Italian fascism is different from nazism which it pre-dates.

There are varying political and the philosophical interpretations and few of them agree. What is certain is that almost all of the key protagonists were closely associated with socialist movements and beliefs at one stage or another before moving on to fascism.

You can cough all you like. If you choose to decline requests to give specific examples when challenged in one thread then don't be surprised if you don't get a litany of answers to your requests for similar in another thread.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Stop trying to sound clever and just speak English.

Not the best source,[/URL][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29 ) but a fair summary.

I'm fairly sure that was English and I'm not trying to sound clever.

Just posting up an over-simplified wikipedia definition that doesn't really contradict anything I've said doesn't prove anything.

[LiverpoolHibs]

He's not talking absolute nonsense. In fact in strict chronological, party political evolutionary terms he's pretty much spot on. There are as many different interpretations as to the genesis of fascism as you like. Apart from anything else Italian fascism is different from nazism which it pre-dates.

There are varying political and the philosophical interpretations and few of them agree. What is certain is that almost all of the key protagonists were closely associated with socialist movements and beliefs at one stage or another before moving on to fascism.

You can cough all you like. If you choose to decline requests to give specific examples when challenged in one thread then don't be surprised if you don't get a litany of answers to your requests for similar in another thread.

Sorry, where was this?

[One Day Soon]

Sorry, where was this?

Back in Labour and neo-liberalism, but in the words of Airplane that's not important right now. Now we're into the origins of Fascism and that's MUCH more interesting.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Back in Labour and neo-liberalism, but in the words of Airplane that's not important right now. Now we're into the origins of Fascism and that's MUCH more interesting.

I don't think I declined to give specific examples of anything in that thread.

If you don't want to/can't answer the question just say so. It doesn't really matter.

Incidentally, and in the interests of clarification, I didn't say that fascism was an outgrowth from 'old fashioned conservatism', I said that it was an outgrowth from the ideas and beliefs surrounding European colonialism. Which I really should have said as soon as 'Leicester Fan' said that.

[Leicester Fan]

Incidentally, and in the interests of clarification, I didn't say that fascism was an outgrowth from 'old fashioned conservatism', I said that it was an outgrowth from the ideas and beliefs surrounding European colonialism. Which I really should have said as soon as 'Leicester Fan' said that.

You said Winston Churchill was sympathetic to fascism. In other words he was an anti-capitalist, anti Semite. There is absolutely no evidence of that, in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You said Winston Churchill was sympathetic to fascism. In other words he was an anti-capitalist, anti Semite. There is absolutely no evidence of that, in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Firstly, fascism isn't in any way anti-capitalist. Most of its varieties tend to have an antipathy to finance capital (especially so in the case of Nazism) but none of them have/had any sort of concerted commitment to anti-capitalism – as is fairly plain from the economic policies of fascist regimes which actually existed; maintaining the primary role of the State in economic affairs isn't anti-capitalist.

Secondly, fascism isn't necessarily inherently anti-Semitic. As I've said, it was completely absent from Italian fascism until the influence of Hitler and Nazism changed that.

So there's nothing about his sympathy with fascism (which, at certain points in time and as with many other statesmen of the period, are undeniable - even if they were repudiated later on) that would necessitate him holding anti-capitalist or anti-Semitic beliefs.

Your objection came from completely altering what I said about fascism having much of its origin in the ideologies built up around European colonialism, to something about 'old fashioned conservatism'.

[Since90+2]

Stop trying to sound clever and just speak English.

Not the best source,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29 ) but a fair summary.

Nae question the best post on this thread!

[hibsbollah]

Nae question the best post on this thread!

Not really.

[Leicester Fan]

Your objection came from completely altering what I said about fascism having much of its origin in the ideologies built up around European colonialism, to something about 'old fashioned conservatism'.

Winston Churchill was a conservative and this was 70 years ago which makes it old fashioned.

[(((Fergus)))]

Interesting postscript to the Marmite incident

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/05/05/bnp-campaign-descends-into-chaos-on-eve-of-election/
(BNP campaign descends into chaos on eve of election)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Nae question the best post on this thread!

It's better than your one anyway. :rolleyes: