RayC

To repeat one last time. Yes, Mussolini was a socialist. Mussolini then rejected socialism and embraced a 'new philosophy' which was referred to as fascism. Fascism is a different ideology to socialism. Why is this so difficult for you to understand.

I am neither dishonest nor am I trying to rewrite history. You are desperate. This is unsurprising given that you have backed yourself into a corner with your illogical argument.

I note that you avoided answering my question regarding the meaning of, "It was a symbol of collectivist government authority and is widely used to symbolize". I will be generous and assume that - with the benefit of hindsight - you now realise that the sentence in question is utter gibberish. I did not falsely claim anything. I provided you with a quote which defined fascism, and characterized it as being right-wing (ideology). It may have escaped your notice, but it is common in political discussion to portray fascism as 'right-wing' and communism as 'left wing'. Given I am unwilling to pay you to "educate" me - a laughable proposition in itself as you have consistently proven yourself incapable of engaging in rational argument - I assume that this is the end of this exchange. Small mercies.

You are the one claiming that "...we don't need more unskilled people (immigrants) bringing with them anti-semitic, misogynistic, intolerant belief systems." In the first instance, it is up to you to provide evidence to support that contention not to me to disprove it.

Ok I now know what you are referring to. And your point is?

What does that even mean? Is "It" fascism? Widely used to symbolise what? I'm pleased that you find this discussion easy. Although it is extremely simple to provide counter arguments and point out the flaws in your overly simplistic analyses, trying to get you to engage in any meaningful discussion seems futile. Anyway, Glastonbury's just finished on the TV so I'm off to bed. Good morning/afternoon/ evening.

What is the 1920 definition of Fascism? Mussolini fought socialists and crushed the unions. As I previously pointed out different political ideologies can share some attributes. This does not mean that the ideologies are identical. Again please take your own advice. Also please try to view things in a multi-faceted way.

Fascism and socialism are two different political ideologies. I suggest that you take your own advice.

The fact that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist does not "prove" that socialism founded fascism and/or that all socialists are fascists. I have shown the logical fallacy in your argument previously. I can only conclude that you are either 1) trolling and/or 2) incapable/ unwilling to understand counter arguments.

Another definition for you: Socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Notice the difference between this definition and the previous one of fascism; in particular, who should control the means of production? While most (all?) political ideologies share some attributes, it is the differences that distinguish them. Fascism is widely accepted to have gained prominence in Italy in the late 19th/ early 20th century. While some socialists became fascists, fascism was not "founded" by socialists as you claim. In general, your arguments seem to be akin to: All dogs are mammals. All cats are mammals. therefore All dogs are cats. It's sad that you cannot see the fallacy present here and think that your conclusions are logically sound.

You clearly do not understand that the concept of social responsibility.

Here's a pretty good definition of Fascism: "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." (Wikipedia) Germany (2024) does not have any one of those attributes.

If the intention of the film and video makers was to incite people to commit a crime then yes.

Even if that ultimately leads to murder?

Germany is not a totalitarian state. You seem to be arguing in favour of absolute Freedom of Speech? What about a scenario whereby Person A states, "All Jews are evil. Evil has no place in our country". Clearly this is factually incorrect as all Jews are not evil. However, Person B kills a Jew and when questioned states that he did so because he wanted to rid the country of evil and was influenced by Person A's words. Obviously, Person B is guilty of a crime but what about Person A? Should they be absolved of all responsibility and accountability? Are crimes which are a direct by-product of a person's words to be considered an acceptable price to pay for absolute Freedom of Speech?

I have no idea what you are referring to?

I imagine that Thatcher would have reacted exactly the same way as the vast majority of us at the fraudulent 'bounceback loans', the unused and wasted PPE and the £37 billion spent on an unnecessary 'track and trace' system: With outrage and incredulity. Personally, I am more understanding of the government's other decisions - including the furlough payments - during the initial COVID period. I was less convinced of their responses during the second and third phases.

You should widen the scope of your reading to include sites other than those dedicated to conspiracy theories.

Nothing to do with the point in question but never mind. To be clear I think that overall Wikileaks serves a useful purpose. For example, highlighting war crimes is imo in the public interest. However, this does not mean that the leaking of all classified material is justified. Imo there are occasions where a government has the right (and duty) to keep information secret e.g. in order to protect its' citizens: There have been instances where Wikileaks has published unredacted material which has put lives at risk. This is irresponsible.

If only the lawyers on both sides could have had the opportunity to lay out their respective cases in front of a court; however, we both know the reason why that wasn't possible. If, as you imply, the accusations of sexual misconduct against Assange were part of a US attempt to discredit him, then it was a pretty inept performance. Why invent a scenario which involves consensual sex? If these women were complicit in this sting, why didn't one or both of them simply accuse Assange of rape with nothing consensual to it? Why would the Swedish state wish to implicate itself in such an affair? Instead of assigning Messiah status to an individual who - irrespective of whether he has committed a crime in this particular instance - is imo a flawed individual, why don't you approach matters with a more open mind rather than immediately conclude that anything untoward must - seemingly by definition - be the fault of the US state? I will certainly not be buying Assange's book but if you post a link to a free version of it, I may give it a go.

Wrong!!! I was replying to a post by JonnyF where he stated, "Drastically reduce the number of immigrants ...". There is no differentiation there between legal (economic) immigrants and asylum seekers.

Sunak was not elected by the wider Tory membership; he was selected by MPs. Prior to that, Tory party members were presented with the choice of Sunak or Truss, all other candidates having been eliminated in a series of elections in which only Tory MPs could vote. The fact that two right wing candidates, Sunak and Truss, made it to the final supports my assertion that the Conservative Parliamentary Party is itself right-wing. Sunak has shown himself to be conservative wrt social policy. Economically, in rejecting the majority of Truss' madcap ideas, Sunak has, by default, shown himself to be pragmatic but he is a neo liberalist economist at heart. The Economist concluded that Sunak was the most right-wing leader since Thatcher and I agree with them.

I think the exact opposite. I don't agree with all the author's conclusions, but it is a well written piece, full of well articulated arguments. If by "..defend the indefensible", you mean the current status quo then I don't see that at all. The Tory (and Labour) party is - and always has been - a broad church. It is a by-product of our 'first past the post' system. If you want to gain office at Westminster then you must join one of the two major parties, which means that both parties attract a broad spectrum of people and views. Given that context, I disagree completely with the implication that the current Tory party has moved leftwards; if anything the opposite is the case. Sunak and Truss are more naturally right-wing than any Tory leader since Thatcher; Johnson - ironically probably a more centralist Tory at heart - owed his position to the backing of the extreme right-wing ERG (I use 'extreme' in the context of the Tory party, not the broader political spectrum), having firstly had to purge the party of more centralist Tories e.g. Clarke, Stewart. Therefore, I would suggest that the current crop of Tory MPs is probably more right wing than any in the past 40 years. For me, the most interesting sentence in the article - and one which with I agree - is, "Reform does not represent a coherent strategy or political philosophy but something entirely new and rather extraordinary: a party that exists merely to subvert rather than to promote its own cause". Imo this sums up Farage. He got Brexit, but was never going to be held accountable or responsible for its' implementation or success. Post-election, if Farage does migrate to the Tories, he will once again be free from accountability or responsibility as the Tories will, almost certainly, be in opposition. The acid test for Farage will come if he ever achieves office although, given his age, that is unlikely. Imo Farage is an excellent and successful lobbyist, but - to date at least - no more than that.

It isn't as simple as reducing numbers as the various data sets here illustrate https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/ However, I agree that the UK doesn't need immigrants who bring with them, "' ...anti-semitic, misogynistic, intolerant belief systems.". It's therefore fortunate that the majority immigrants to the UK don't have those attributes.

Given that most of the major right-wing parties in the EU e.g. National Rally, AfD, etc have moved away from a commitment to leave, I'd say that the break up of the EU is extremely unlikely in the near future.