Talk:Western Goals Institute/Archive 1

message: It is disappointing, to say the very least, that this page too has been attacked by CJCurrie et al in his demonisation campaign.
It is NVOP to attribute desigantions such as "far-right" and to cite newspaper journalists as bastions of irrefutable neutral truth.  The Western Goals Institute saw itself as an ultra-conservative anti-communist pressure group and this is therefore the description it should have. Not the description of a Marxist journalist writing for a newspaper that only the broad left read.Robert I 18:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if the complaint had been upheld you would undoubtedly have been told that. Homey 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Guardian is a well-respected newspaper. The South African counterpart, M&G, Owner (Zimbabwean, Trevor Ncube) has just had his passport taken away by the government of Robert Mugabe, in the first application of restrictive press freedom laws. Wizzy…☎ 14:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: I came to this page this afternoon when it had no structure, and spent quite a long time researching and rewriting it. Unfortunately this coincided with Robert l doing the same (his version). I think my structure is a better basis for the future, though it still needs work. Rd232 talk 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert l referred to a 1989 letter by Marc Gordon; I can't find this in LexisNexis. In any case it's not clear what the point of the paragraph was. Rd232 talk 20:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, here is the current sum of my substantial changes, based on HOTR's version, and including some recent changes by Robert I that I thought were worth keeping. Let's please now work from my version and make further changes to that as necessary. Rd232 talk 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those changes might include scaling down the "Other activities" section, which mostly isn't terribly interesting or notable stuff (letter writing and what-have you). Rd232 talk 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I wasn't suggesting "wiping", I said "scaling down". Alternatively, the letters could be used in relation to the views or influence of the Institute, and not merely reported as if they were important in themselves, which they aren't very much. Rd232 talk 13:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't destroyed anything, not least since I was working from a version which had no structure. The "demonisation" of which you speak appears to relate primarily to a couple of specific remarks by newspapers, such as the Observer talking about a "take over" and the Guardian talking about "infiltrate fascists". Since the statements are clearly attributed this is hardly demonisation; the Wikipedia article isn't agreeing with those statements. I think the statements are relevant and notable, but if it's these that are the issue then let's discuss/adapt those parts specifically, and not make sweeping statements like "entirely one-sided". Rd232 talk 13:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the sentence about the holocaust denial "right to be heard" letter (allegedly Evening Standard, 10 Sep 1996) as (a) it doesn't really mean anything - anyone who believes in free speech must agree; (b) I can't find the letter in Lexis to see whether the letter said anything that would go beyond that and therefore be of some significance. Rd232 talk 13:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: * Regardless of CJCurry's personal opinions, the WGI was established to fight communism and The Left generally (I think these fundamentals have long been removed from the article), and was broadly an old style Tory nationalist grouping (nationalism having once been a fundamental plank of Toryism). There is nothing in any of its published literature which states that one of its major goals was anti-immigration, notwithstanding that Kenneth Griffith spoke on that subject at one of their dinners, or that they felt large-scale immigration would affect our national character. Its newspaper, European Dawn had not one article on immigration, and not one policy paper was ever produced on the subject. All of its (mainstream) patrons and officers were obsessed with communism and fighting it (as were, it is often thought, most of the Western World). Doubtless that because of the connexions with Le Pen and co the left-wing media decided for themselves that the WGI had anti-immigration as a main plank, but that was not the case. But it was something they could bash them with. This is just one tiny example, of a great many, where those across the Atlantic, who have no input or proper knowledge of our political scene here, except from biased crap in the media, seek to impose their opinions upon things they really know nothing about. Robert I 11:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its very easy to see that you do not live here and that your knowledge of our media is very limited and dated, especially when you refer to the Daily Telegraph as "right-wing". 
I then provided several sources - primarily British sources - that supported my characterisation of the Dreadnought as "right wing". Your claim to know better than the rest of us what is going on the UK is not credible. You are using that claim to dismiss anything that you simply don't like. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your views to the exclusion of others. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WGI's Best Known Operations

message: I see no reason to remove the current notice disputing the neutrality of this heavily-worked article. Readers of the article should be able to reach their own conclusions about the political activities and leanings of any organisation without it being described in the opening sentences as "hard right" by someone who obviously wants it to be seen in that light. Also, the comment above about what it was best known for is entirely accurate - anti-communism and anti-marxist activities. Immigration for the WGI was a side issue. 86.140.102.10 10:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: This simple answer to that is you are wrong. The UK Conservative Party ceased to be "right-wing" in the conventional sense of the word decades ago, possibly since the war. There is no evidence in 2006 of any traditional right-wing stance in the party and there is an absolute dearth of MPs who might be remotely considered as traditional Tories. The left-wing media called Margaret Thatcher "right-wing" (indeed, some called her a fascist) but she was just a classic Manchester liberal free-trader. In the real sense, identifying right and left policies, she failed to carry out any policies in the UK remotely right-wing. Crushing the unions is just part of the free-market thing.
So it is entirely inaccurate to call the present Conservative Party "right-wing" or even centre-right. They have been "centre" for some considerable time.
"Mainstream" is a word without a great deal of meaning. Those who observe that the Conservative Party has only had about 34% of the vote for the past 15 years might argue they were out of it.
As for Western Goals, again you are wrong. Most older conservatives would have endorsed their aims, aims which, for the most part, the Conservative Party themselves once held. (Was not the entire western world fiercly anti-communist?) WGI was s recognised part of the Right in Britain, but because the Right, in real terms, has no adequate representation it is difficult to assess what is "mainstream", a rather stupid word if ever there was one.
You have deleted my quote from City Limits. I placed it because I felt that here was a political writer/commentator making a statement about the WGI which I thought was pertinent. In fact it demonstrated, if nothing else, that if not in what you wish to call the "mainstream", it was a 'sit-up'and-take-note group which was widely acknowledged. 86.141.58.94 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elastic usage of terminology

message: Please may I comment.
* The aims of WGI were mainstream goals inasmuch as their principle aim above all other things was to oppose communism/Marxism etc. As for restrictions on immigration, the Conservative Party at least claimed to be committed to this concept right into the 1990s. What unorthodox means did WGI apply to their aims? Liasing and making contact with other organisations with the same goals? How could that be deemed to be odd? Le Pen, for instance, came second in the French Presidential Elections. Would you not regard the Front National as mainstream? If not, what are they?
* Toryism does not "shift". It is a basic political theory with a fundamental set of concepts. It is the Conservative Party which has shifted away from them. Your left-wing term "die-hard" is objectionable. Are you referring to those who refuse to abandon their principles?
* UK-wide, the SNP are seen as a little tribal-based wacky party. In Scotland 95% of those who vote for them are morons and the uneducated. In addition, seats can be deceptive. For instance the Conservative Party gained more votes in Scotland than the LibDems at the last General Election, yet they only got 2 seats whereas they LibDems got 11. Some democracy, eh?
* Elsewhere I see you have complained about lack of sources. Yet when a source is now provided you suggest it is not a "quality" source! Some of us would argue that Marxist rags such as The Guardian are anything but quality, but its cited all over the place on the Wikipedia as 'authorative'. I know people who would weep at such a statement. 
It would appear that the most important thing to you is your opinion. Lightoftheworld 09:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perceptions

message: I do not agree that she would dispute this label. See Alessandra Mussolini, which say:
:"Alessandra Mussolini (born December 30, 1962) is an Italian fascist politician and Member of the European Parliament."
Her party in 1992 when she was invited by WGI was the Italian Social Movement. It is descibed in its article as:
:"The Italian Social Movement (Movimento sociale italiano ) (MSI) was a neo-Fascist party formed 1946 in the post-World War II period by supporters of the executed dictator Benito Mussolini under the lead of Giorgio Almirante."
She opposed its merger into the more moderate Alleanza Nazionale, and in 2003, formed Azione Sociale:
:"Azione Sociale ("Social Action"), previously known as Libertà di Azione ("Freedom of Action"), is an Italian extremely-conservative and neo-fascist political party, led by Alessandra Mussolini, and a splinter group from Alleanza Nazionale. Mussolini had resigned from AN on 28 November 2003, following the visit of party leader and deputy prime minister Gianfranco Fini to Israel, where he described fascism as "an absolute evil" during an apology for Italy's role in the Axis Powers during the Second World War. Following her resignation, Mussolini formed this party to offer an uncompromising form of Neo-fascism and to serve as an opposition group to the Fini's modernisation."
Azione Sociale is now a part of Alternativa Sociale:
:"Alternativa Sociale is an Italian political coalition of neo-fascist parties."
I did not write any of these articles. Ground Zero | t 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alessandra Mussolini and neo-fascism

message: My observations are that the person above is now citing Wikipedia as the authoritive  source and that, in turn, Wikipedia, on virtually all political issues, appears to cite, overwhelmingly, newspaper reports. Most journalists, whichever paper they write for, are today fairly left-wing, and see "neo-fascists", "racists" etc., under every bed much as McCarthy saw Reds under all his beds.  Are any of the parties referred to here described in their manifestos as "neo-fascist"? Indeed, how closely do those manifestos resemble Il Duce's stated aims and pledges?
 
Which brings me to another point: CJCurrie has changed "right-wing" to "hard-right" when referring to France's Front National. This party has Jews, even blacks, in it. Its deputy leader is married to a Japanese lady. Its programme is very long and detailed and covers every aspect of domestic policy. How does it differ fundamentally, as a party, from, say, Gaullists (with the exception, of course, that the latter were pro-EU). Really, what I am asking here is just who awards these catagories? Is this newspaper "language" all over again? Sussexman 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political figures and groups

message: "The WGI supported the continuation of European-dominated government in South Africa" has been changed to "WGI supported the continuance of apartheid policies in South Africa". Can we have a very clear source for this change please. I appreciate that supporting the Conservative Party of SA might have been seen as supporting a continuance of Separate Development, but that is not the same thing as saying that the WGI had a policy dedicated to Separate Development. Their clear policy was the continuance of a pro-western and European government. So over to you. 86.129.65.37 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source please

message: Is there still a dispute about article content here? Sussexman 13:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is disappointing to look back through the edits and observe the very major efforts which have been made to portray this group, which had some very eminent members, in the worst possible light. Quotations from The Guardian, "a communist newspaper" (Lord Beaverbrook), which employed journalists like Francis Wheen and David Rose, both committed Marxists, should be treated with great caution on subjects such as this. Chelsea Tory 08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds pretty accurate to me. 213.122.22.27 11:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: What has happened to the Institute's forerunner's article? Chelsea Tory 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Goals (UK)