DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Lenny Hensley** · 04-20-2011, 01:46 AM

I think it's always blown out of proportion in terms of elections. A lot of people have, and always have had, tacit sympathy for groups such as the BNP, National Front and their foreign equivalents, but for a number of reasons that sympathy or covert support rarely translates into sustained electoral progress for these parties. Politics is geneally cyclical, so far right groups may gain votes one year and lose them the next year, if support for far right groups grows substantially over the next decade, as in 3 or 4 per cent growth per annum compounded, so what? The BNP, which is by no means the smallest far right group in Europe, polls around 3-5% of the vote nationally in a parliamentary election, if they grow at 5% every year for the next ten years 90% of voters will still not be voting for them.

Centrist parties will beef up their immigration policy to attract fence sitters who may be lulled by media savvy far rightist groups, but they will only go so far and generally the fence sitters will meet them half way (i.e. in order to pull the average BNP voter away from the BNP the Conservative Party would not need to replicate BNP policy, just make a gesture such as advocating a burka ban).

Bottom line, until they're starving people would rather not vote for 'fascists'. They have been conditioned to be this way and that is the greatest defence against the rise of the far right.

Really? How, and if so, why are you not a BNP voter if it would be shoving a finger up at the establishment who conditioned you?

This sort of 'conditioned not to vote for fascists' talk is really usually found in the far-right itself. It's the same as the guy who is a loser blaming the world for his problems.

---------- Post added 2011-04-19 at 18:47 ----------

This sounds a lot like Vlaams Belang. They had a number of intelligent people at the top, master tacticians, but at the local level it was mostly idiotic, low-brow mouth-breathers. This problem, of course, only got worse as they grew and expanded.

Stupid principles attract stupid people. Of course, by definition most voters (and the populace in general) are stupid, and these sort of parties aim at attracting such people, especially when they are scared.

04-20-2011, 01:46 AM	#27
Lenny Hensley Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	I think it's always blown out of proportion in terms of elections. A lot of people have, and always have had, tacit sympathy for groups such as the BNP, National Front and their foreign equivalents, but for a number of reasons that sympathy or covert support rarely translates into sustained electoral progress for these parties. Politics is geneally cyclical, so far right groups may gain votes one year and lose them the next year, if support for far right groups grows substantially over the next decade, as in 3 or 4 per cent growth per annum compounded, so what? The BNP, which is by no means the smallest far right group in Europe, polls around 3-5% of the vote nationally in a parliamentary election, if they grow at 5% every year for the next ten years 90% of voters will still not be voting for them. Centrist parties will beef up their immigration policy to attract fence sitters who may be lulled by media savvy far rightist groups, but they will only go so far and generally the fence sitters will meet them half way (i.e. in order to pull the average BNP voter away from the BNP the Conservative Party would not need to replicate BNP policy, just make a gesture such as advocating a burka ban). Bottom line, until they're starving people would rather not vote for 'fascists'. They have been conditioned to be this way and that is the greatest defence against the rise of the far right. Really? How, and if so, why are you not a BNP voter if it would be shoving a finger up at the establishment who conditioned you? This sort of 'conditioned not to vote for fascists' talk is really usually found in the far-right itself. It's the same as the guy who is a loser blaming the world for his problems. ---------- Post added 2011-04-19 at 18:47 ---------- This sounds a lot like Vlaams Belang. They had a number of intelligent people at the top, master tacticians, but at the local level it was mostly idiotic, low-brow mouth-breathers. This problem, of course, only got worse as they grew and expanded. Stupid principles attract stupid people. Of course, by definition most voters (and the populace in general) are stupid, and these sort of parties aim at attracting such people, especially when they are scared.
	Quote