By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Whereas Sugar Photoshoping Corbyn in Nazi Uniform in a car with Hitler?
No suspension.
Why Richard
I remember Corbyn saying that he was present but not involved.
Don't know what football programme this is on BBC1 at the moment, but it's quite relaxing.
Yes I have it on with the sound off. I haven't a clue what is happening. It is as relaxing as watching tropical fish in an aquarium. It reminds me of the old interludes - the potter and so on.
You should try with the sound on.
OK Sound on. Lots of cheering and roaring. I still haven't a clue what is happening. But less relaxing. I prefer it with the sound off.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
Don't know what football programme this is on BBC1 at the moment, but it's quite relaxing.
Yes I have it on with the sound off. I haven't a clue what is happening. It is as relaxing as watching tropical fish in an aquarium. It reminds me of the old interludes - the potter and so on.
You should try with the sound on.
OK Sound on. Lots of cheering and roaring. I still haven't a clue what is happening. But less relaxing. I prefer it with the sound off.
If nothing else it shows how thin the actual content of the programme is. It needs that level of padding and fluff else it's not even a very good Youtube highlights reel video.
Don't know what football programme this is on BBC1 at the moment, but it's quite relaxing.
Yes I have it on with the sound off. I haven't a clue what is happening. It is as relaxing as watching tropical fish in an aquarium. It reminds me of the old interludes - the potter and so on.
You should try with the sound on.
OK Sound on. Lots of cheering and roaring. I still haven't a clue what is happening. But less relaxing. I prefer it with the sound off.
If you haven't a clue then you've never been to a football match and probably don't follow the sport.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
For obvious reasons, I doubt Nazi Germany was a big target for inward migration, so we must imagine what their language about such migrants might have been. I'm also yet to see any quotations from Lineker, or any PBers supporting him, of the actual language from Braverman or other Ministers that that he finds redolent of 1930's Germany. So his comments seem essentially to be condemning the Government for language that he imagines them using, which he finds similar to language he imagines the Nazis using.
It's no surprise that the public is in support of 'stopping the small boats'. I mean, even lefties like me think that it isn't good at all to have so many people crossing the sea in that way - there must be a better way. So yes, I want to stop the 'small boats'.
What's important is a) whether the policy introduced last week will actually work, and b) what does a sensible and humane asylum seeker/refugee policy look like?
Here's the problem:
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Yes, tech startups were struggling because of general macro economic conditions and inflation, and were withdrawing more cash than normal. SVB put out a bond issue to raise more cash: majorly undersubscribed. Then issued a notice to the market stating they need to raise more cash. Customers panic, run on the back, spreads to the UK subsidiary and we have classic bank insolvency.
SVP turns out to have had almost zero protective capital in the US. UK sub had more in line with regulatory requirement but when you get a run you get a run.
It's no surprise that the public is in support of 'stopping the small boats'. I mean, even lefties like me think that it isn't good at all to have so many people crossing the sea in that way - there must be a better way. So yes, I want to stop the 'small boats'.
What's important is a) whether the policy introduced last week will actually work, and b) what does a sensible and humane asylum seeker/refugee policy look like?
Here's the problem:
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
Nothing particularly new there. Has been the case all my long life. We used to deal with it much better.
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
As a number of people have pointed out the current government’s language doesn’t bear much resemblance to 1930s Germany, it’s much more like 1930s Britain. To say we were lukewarm about receiving Jewish refugees from Germany that decade would be kind.
Even as late as 1938 this was the Daily Mails position:
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
Sorry, I was referring to the bit about mortgage backed securities. Sounds like a rehash of 2008, so it would be surprising.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
As a number of people have pointed out the current government’s language doesn’t bear much resemblance to 1930s Germany, it’s much more like 1930s Britain. To say we were lukewarm about receiving Jewish refugees from Germany that decade would be kind.
Even as late as 1938 this was the Daily Mails position:
Would be better to see an editorial from the DM at the time. This article is mostly a factual report of things others have said and done. Except, of course, for "a problem to which the daily mail has repeatedly pointed" -- which implies campaigning on their part.
Just looked in my old work email account. I’ve had invites to five law firm briefings about the SVB collapse sent today. That’s not a great sign!
Tempted to sell my financials when they open. They could drop sharply when the USA opens.
I wouldn't. I've heard no panic at all amongst my contacts.
If there is one I will be buying on Monday.
I think the market quite toppy at the moment. A lot of companies will be squeezed by the cost of borrowing. I moved last week to a more defensive position with more in cash. I am inclined to make that more defensive still on Monday.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the comments I made yesterday about SVB.
It’s true, though, that banks in the US are sitting on some very hefty unrealised losses on their HTM bonds. That’s not a problem if they have strong balance sheets, but I’d guess there are a number of regional banks anxious about their corporate depositors deciding their cash would be safer in govt bonds.
Other runs might not be impossible ?
I think most of you know my job involves stress testing the financial institution I work for (and the wider industry.)
As worst case scenarios go this isn't in the top 20 and we can survive most of the scenarios.
I think a nuclear exchange in Ukraine and/or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is what might bugger things up.
Out of interest, you are a senior risk/analysis employee at your bank being a solicitor. I’m trying to work out which major bank is HQ’d in Manchester rather than London that has such senior people outside the metropolis these days - used to be Brown Shipley in the regions but really good surprise that banking is not overly centralised to London.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Or one could mention such jolly SA marching songs as “When Jewish blood spurts from the knife/then things go twice as well!”
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
It's no surprise that the public is in support of 'stopping the small boats'. I mean, even lefties like me think that it isn't good at all to have so many people crossing the sea in that way - there must be a better way. So yes, I want to stop the 'small boats'.
What's important is a) whether the policy introduced last week will actually work, and b) what does a sensible and humane asylum seeker/refugee policy look like?
Here's the problem:
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
Nothing particularly new there. Has been the case all my long life. We used to deal with it much better.
The problem is steadily growing as third world populations grow and the despair of living in a failed state for generation after generation increases.
Its easy to see why someone from Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia wants to migrate to the western world.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
My wife who is very knowledgeable about the period did say that it was obvious to any proper student of history ((which she thinks everyone is, and never understands why Stacey her hairdresser can't explain the Prison Act 1835 in extreme detail)) that Lineker surely didn't mean what he typed. Surely Lineker had studied the period in question and she couldn't understand why Lineker would draw parallels between the two periods in time.
She briefly considered joining Twitter to quiz him on the subject - I did try (and fail) to explain to her that Lineker had not done any research at all on 1930s Germany and was just spouting off, but she refused to accept that he'd done less than a PHD on the period because of course no one would comment on the period otherwise.......
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
As a number of people have pointed out the current government’s language doesn’t bear much resemblance to 1930s Germany, it’s much more like 1930s Britain. To say we were lukewarm about receiving Jewish refugees from Germany that decade would be kind.
Even as late as 1938 this was the Daily Mails position:
Britain is of course not unique here. Rich countries that are a log way from the trouble people flee from have long taken an I’m alright Jack attitude to refugees.
Thing is, we all want to “stop the boats” because people making dangerous journeys on dinghies across the channel is a horrible thing. We just have different views on how to do so.
And that would be fine, but this government have decided to play base - and dangerous - playground politics with a serious issue, more interested in making political capital and creating traps for Labour than actually solving the problem. The fact they made up a branded podium and launched a series of ludicrous banner ads shows precisely how seriously they take the issue. It’s at a similar level of depth as “24 hours to save the NHS”.
It’s a shame. Sunak showed last week that he is capable, when he puts his mind to it, of formulating sensible policy on cross border issues. The shadow of Boris hangs too heavy still.
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
Sorry, I was referring to the bit about mortgage backed securities. Sounds like a rehash of 2008, so it would be surprising.
"Banks need to do something with customer deposits and SVB decided to put the bulk of the money into bonds, mostly federal agency mortgage-backed securities. These carry minimal credit risk but can have sizable interest-rate risk.
SVB’s mistake was investing in longer-term mortgage securities with more than 10 years to maturity, rather than shorter-maturity Treasuries or mortgage issues maturing in less than five years. This led to an asset/liability mismatch."
So, not sub-prime mortgages pace 2008, but safe mortgages - just with valuations prone to interest rate changes.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Whereas Sugar Photoshoping Corbyn in Nazi Uniform in a car with Hitler?
No suspension.
Why Richard
I recall there was a fair amount of 'Germany 1930s' talk from Corbyn critics when the Labour antisemitism story was raging.
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
Sorry, I was referring to the bit about mortgage backed securities. Sounds like a rehash of 2008, so it would be surprising.
"Banks need to do something with customer deposits and SVB decided to put the bulk of the money into bonds, mostly federal agency mortgage-backed securities. These carry minimal credit risk but can have sizable interest-rate risk.
SVB’s mistake was investing in longer-term mortgage securities with more than 10 years to maturity, rather than shorter-maturity Treasuries or mortgage issues maturing in less than five years. This led to an asset/liability mismatch."
So, not sub-prime mortgages pace 2008, but safe mortgages - just with valuations prone to interest rate changes.
Thanks. I had only read some superficial reporting on it. The link Nigel posted was very informative.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Surely yo could ave taken an other 30 seconds to record accurately what Lineker said?
It’s a shame. Sunak showed last week that he is capable, when he puts his mind to it, of formulating sensible policy on cross border issues. The shadow of Boris hangs too heavy still.
If Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell were in Downing Street, what do you think their policy would be?
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Per ChatGPT, via twitter:
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Is that actually correct?
I'm not qualified to comment. But I understand they had a huge influx of deposits in 2021 and so needed to invest them. They bought various interest-bearing instruments, planning to hold them to maturity. So any losses were not crystallised on the balance sheet. But then they needed to sell some. So the losses were crystallised (losses becuase interest rates went up so the instruments were worth less). So now they needed to raise money to shore up the balance sheet. This looked desparate, and the run started...
Sorry, I was referring to the bit about mortgage backed securities. Sounds like a rehash of 2008, so it would be surprising.
"Banks need to do something with customer deposits and SVB decided to put the bulk of the money into bonds, mostly federal agency mortgage-backed securities. These carry minimal credit risk but can have sizable interest-rate risk.
SVB’s mistake was investing in longer-term mortgage securities with more than 10 years to maturity, rather than shorter-maturity Treasuries or mortgage issues maturing in less than five years. This led to an asset/liability mismatch."
So, not sub-prime mortgages pace 2008, but safe mortgages - just with valuations prone to interest rate changes.
None of that would have mattered had depositors not started pulling out unexpectedly large amounts of cash in the last few weeks. So I would say the mortgage back securities investments weakened the balance sheet and caused the solvency problem, but the liquidity trigger was cash withdrawals.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used by the government and that used in 1930s Germany.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Or one could mention such jolly SA marching songs as “When Jewish blood spurts from the knife/then things go twice as well!”
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
Lineker's thought process might have been:
1) I don't like the government 2) I am good therefore the government is bad 3) The government is bad therefore the government are Nazis 4) The Nazis murdered Jews therefore the government must want to do something similar
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Or one could mention such jolly SA marching songs as “When Jewish blood spurts from the knife/then things go twice as well!”
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
Lineker's thought process might have been:
1) I don't like the government 2) I am good therefore the government is bad 3) The government is bad therefore the government are Nazis 4) The Nazis murdered Jews therefore the government must want to do something similar
You might want to look again at what Lineker actually said (not what the Daily Mail or Tory MPs think he said).
Anyone know the details on why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? (Apart from not having enough money).
Yes, tech startups were struggling because of general macro economic conditions and inflation, and were withdrawing more cash than normal. SVB put out a bond issue to raise more cash: majorly undersubscribed. Then issued a notice to the market stating they need to raise more cash. Customers panic, run on the back, spreads to the UK subsidiary and we have classic bank insolvency.
SVP turns out to have had almost zero protective capital in the US. UK sub had more in line with regulatory requirement but when you get a run you get a run.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Surely yo could ave taken an other 30 seconds to record accurately what Lineker said?
Any Oscar thoughts?
I think Everything Everywhere All At Once nailed on for best film and Director.
I though Babylon might be worth a punt for best costume.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Or one could mention such jolly SA marching songs as “When Jewish blood spurts from the knife/then things go twice as well!”
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
Lineker's thought process might have been:
1) I don't like the government 2) I am good therefore the government is bad 3) The government is bad therefore the government are Nazis 4) The Nazis murdered Jews therefore the government must want to do something similar
And yours, what’s the worst construction I can put on Lineker’s behaviour if I completely ignore what he actually said, and engage in some fact free mind reading ?
It’s a shame. Sunak showed last week that he is capable, when he puts his mind to it, of formulating sensible policy on cross border issues. The shadow of Boris hangs too heavy still.
If Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell were in Downing Street, what do you think their policy would be?
As a Lib Dem member, I fear it would have been excessively authoritarian too. The language would probably have been a couple of notches down the scale.
It’s sad that very few of our politicians are able to take a properly internationalist view of intractable issues like migration and refugee movements. That so few politicians are able to start from the perspective of compassion and work from there. Most European countries are no better, so it’s not really the fault of the British tabloids. It’s human / ape nature - in-group and out-group. Suspicion of the outsider, particularly if they arrive by unorthodox means.
Lineker has been very consistent on this issue and has put his money where his mouth is.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Why does everything GB News do, turn out like this?
Wrong too, the fans did chant the old Gary Lineker song several times.
The bit on MOTD was the Leicester Fans enquiring of Wesley Fofana why he was such a c**t. I wouldn't have thought that would normally get past the editor.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Whereas Sugar Photoshoping Corbyn in Nazi Uniform in a car with Hitler?
No suspension.
Why Richard
I recall there was a fair amount of 'Germany 1930s' talk from Corbyn critics when the Labour antisemitism story was raging.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Or one could mention such jolly SA marching songs as “When Jewish blood spurts from the knife/then things go twice as well!”
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
Lineker's thought process might have been:
1) I don't like the government 2) I am good therefore the government is bad 3) The government is bad therefore the government are Nazis 4) The Nazis murdered Jews therefore the government must want to do something similar
More likely:
- long term interest and engagement in refugee issues - First hand experience of housing Syrian refugees at home - Upset to see people in this situation dehumanised and spoken of as if a different species - pissed off at the government for making political points over other peoples suffering
The government attitude is exactly the same as that which views people on benefits as lazy scroungers. It’s just, as in the famous Murdoch that blokes trying to nick your biscuit cartoon, it’s easier to scapegoat people who look and sound different than poor people who look like us.
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
I very much agree with your analysis. To my mind, the population in a failed/unpleasant state have two options.
The first is to do exactly what you have described, namely to leave said failed state and try and get to a better place to live. As you correctly say however, if they ALL did this, and ALL succeeded then yes, the western countries they were coming to would themselves turn into failed states due to (even if nothing else) there simply being far too many people in these countries and the local infrastructure not being able to cope anymore.
The second path, which is far harder to get people to do, is for the local people in the failed state to think, "You know what? I'm sick to death of living in a shit hole. But rather than move, I'll try and make our country a better place to live. Reduce corruption, introduce democracy, and start proper improvement programmes in our country."
In theory, if everyone who wanted to leave instead decided to do the second, I certainly think they'd be in with a shout of succeeding. Unfortunately for them: 1. The local rulers don't want them to succeed and are quite prepared to use force of arms to stop any changes being made. 2. Organising this by the local people is going to be virtually impossible. 3. I strongly suspect that the western world itself quite likes these places to be shit holes as it makes it easier to exploit them for resources anyway (and therefore, they'll support the local warlords/rulers in the guise of 'state aid' which said rulers immediately spend on themselves/building their army up).
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Yes, but you are never going to convince people on the Internet by using facts!
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
Now all Lineker had to do was say something like:
"This is an issue I feel strongly about and which I think the government has the wrong policy. Now because I feel so passionately on this issue I didn't take the care I should have in my choice of words. So I will now take the opportunity to withdraw the reference to 30s Germany as, of course, I do not think the government are Nazis. But I will restate my opposition to the government's policy on this issue."
And he comes out all morally superior and untouchable.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used by the government and that used in 1930s Germany.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
He doesn’t say used in Germany but used by Germany, so he was clearly talking about the Nazi government.
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
I very much agree with your analysis. To my mind, the population in a failed/unpleasant state have two options.
The first is to do exactly what you have described, namely to leave said failed state and try and get to a better place to live. As you correctly say however, if they ALL did this, and ALL succeeded then yes, the western countries they were coming to would themselves turn into failed states due to (even if nothing else) there simply being far too many people in these countries and the local infrastructure not being able to cope anymore.
The second path, which is far harder to get people to do, is for the local people in the failed state to think, "You know what? I'm sick to death of living in a shit hole. But rather than move, I'll try and make our country a better place to live. Reduce corruption, introduce democracy, and start proper improvement programmes in our country."
In theory, if everyone who wanted to leave instead decided to do the second, I certainly think they'd be in with a shout of succeeding. Unfortunately for them: 1. The local rulers don't want them to succeed and are quite prepared to use force of arms to stop any changes being made. 2. Organising this by the local people is going to be virtually impossible. 3. I strongly suspect that the western world itself quite likes these places to be shit holes as it makes it easier to exploit them for resources anyway (and therefore, they'll support the local warlords/rulers in the guise of 'state aid' which said rulers immediately spend on themselves/building their army up).
Am I terribly far off the mark?
3 is very close to the truth. It is the essence of the neo-colonialist mentality.
It's no surprise that the public is in support of 'stopping the small boats'. I mean, even lefties like me think that it isn't good at all to have so many people crossing the sea in that way - there must be a better way. So yes, I want to stop the 'small boats'.
What's important is a) whether the policy introduced last week will actually work, and b) what does a sensible and humane asylum seeker/refugee policy look like?
Here's the problem:
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
Nothing particularly new there. Has been the case all my long life. We used to deal with it much better.
The problem is steadily growing as third world populations grow and the despair of living in a failed state for generation after generation increases.
Its easy to see why someone from Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia wants to migrate to the western world.
They are called the Global South for some reason (which seems a bit harsh on Australia and New Zealand and maybe Chile). And everybody knows that all their problems are because of European colonialism and the slave trade, which is obviously which they are so desperate to move to our racist and failing societies.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Yes, but you are never going to convince people on the Internet by using facts!
Well they have the facts they just want to believe the Tories are good.
There's an overlap between those who think Lineker was wrong and those that support the Tories. They like cancel culture when they shut down opinions they don't like.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
And to the extent that the language used by the government dehumanises these people in the same way that the language used in Germany (yes by the Nazis) in the 1930s, Lineker is right.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
Now all Lineker had to do was say something like:
"This is an issue I feel strongly about and which I think the government has the wrong policy. Now because I feel so passionately on this issue I didn't take the care I should have in my choice of words. So I will now take the opportunity to withdraw the reference to 30s Germany as, of course, I do not think the government are Nazis. But I will restate my opposition to the government's policy on this issue."
And he comes out all morally superior and untouchable.
I don't think he's going to roll back like that. A lot of people have been very keen to say how he was absolutely right, and with that behind you it's not easy to pull back even a little.
The next few decades will see demographic ageing and decline on an unprecedented scale in about 3/4 of the world. The western countries that embrace immigration (or get it anyway, like the USA) will be the ones that survive.
The UK is one of the most open and welcoming societies for migrants on the world. It really is, all the surveys say so. Our population will continue relatively dynamic while many others in more mono-ethnic states stagnate.
So we have a lot going for us. I don’t for a moment believe the country is a racist hellhole. But we have a government that’s decided its best chance of squeezing a few percentage points in the polls is to go all in on culture war, and that is dangerous and irresponsible.
"Silicon Valley Bank chief pressed Congress to weaken risk regulations CEO Greg Becker personally led the bank’s half-million-dollar push to reduce scrutiny of his institution – and lawmakers obliged"
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
Now all Lineker had to do was say something like:
"This is an issue I feel strongly about and which I think the government has the wrong policy. Now because I feel so passionately on this issue I didn't take the care I should have in my choice of words. So I will now take the opportunity to withdraw the reference to 30s Germany as, of course, I do not think the government are Nazis. But I will restate my opposition to the government's policy on this issue."
And he comes out all morally superior and untouchable.
But what's the point of him doing that? He's still breaking the BBC's rule, so still banned by them.
(I can see it might be a route to allow the BBC to climb down gracefully however, so it might not be a bad suggestion.)
The next few decades will see demographic ageing and decline on an unprecedented scale in about 3/4 of the world. The western countries that embrace immigration (or get it anyway, like the USA) will be the ones that survive.
The UK is one of the most open and welcoming societies for migrants on the world. It really is, all the surveys say so. Our population will continue relatively dynamic while many others in more mono-ethnic states stagnate.
So we have a lot going for us. I don’t for a moment believe the country is a racist hellhole. But we have a government that’s decided its best chance of squeezing a few percentage points in the polls is to go all in on culture war, and that is dangerous and irresponsible.
Stagnation and not surviving are very different outcomes.
Right now the country in Europe with the most consistently strong economic growth is Poland and they don’t exactly adopt the approach you recommend.
Just seen BBC interviewer: "If Gary Lineker had said to Suella Braverman, 'I support your migrant policy. I back it. It is brilliant.' Would you have removed him from air for that?"
BBC Director General Tim Davie: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals..."
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Much as people are right that if Lineker had praised the policy he would likely not have been punished, I think it is a bit ridiculous to claim by technicality he was not being pretty clear about Nazi comparisons.
It's no surprise that the public is in support of 'stopping the small boats'. I mean, even lefties like me think that it isn't good at all to have so many people crossing the sea in that way - there must be a better way. So yes, I want to stop the 'small boats'.
What's important is a) whether the policy introduced last week will actually work, and b) what does a sensible and humane asylum seeker/refugee policy look like?
Here's the problem:
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
This has been the case for a long time, if not always. The question is why is the problem worse now. I think the internet, social media and smartphones are probably one of the main reasons, because when you can see in perfect sound and picture what life is like in western countries it's a lot different to just watching it occasionally on a grainy film in a cinema or on an old TV where you can hardly make anything out, which is what people in undeveloped countries would have seen until about 10/15 years ago.
It’s also because people in poor countries are getting richer so can afford to pay people smugglers. Poor people stay where they are by poverty. Rich people stay where they are by choice.
Slightly surprised it's being taken that seriously by anyone. It's a monastic cesspit lid from local stone as shown by petrological work, not the Lia Fail of mediaeval desciption.
I know it's from Wikipedia, but there are some compelling arguments that it actually is the genuine article:
"The Westminster Stone theory is not accepted by many historians, or those responsible for the care of the Stone. There are many strong arguments against the theory.
If Edward I did not remove the true stone, yet claimed to have done so, the Scots' easiest refutation of his claims would be to produce the True Stone. However, there is no record of them doing so. Hiding the stone might have been a sensible precaution while the English remained a threat, but it was never produced once the threat was removed. Despite its importance as a symbol of Kingship, the stone was not used for subsequent coronations, which it surely would have if still in Scottish possession. Legends and theories abound, but no proof has been found to indicate there is another stone. If there was warning enough of Edward's intention to remove the Stone, why were the other regalia, documents and Black Rood not hidden also? A number of English knights attended the coronation of King John of Scotland only a few years earlier, and would have seen the true stone, but none of them told Edward that his stone was a fake. On studying the Stone in 1996, after its return to Scotland, nine periods of workmanship were identified on the Stone's faces, as well as recognisable erosion between the features, which proves it is an ancient artefact.[8] Edward had followers from the Scottish nobility who would also have been able to verify the stone's authenticity."
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Most people know that if you're going to draw a Nazi analogy you'd better be sure. A little bit sort of like the Nazis doesn't really cut it.
Just seen BBC interviewer: "If Gary Lineker had said to Suella Braverman, 'I support your migrant policy. I back it. It is brilliant.' Would you have removed him from air for that?"
BBC Director General Tim Davie: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals..."
Killer Question well done BBC interviewer
Not so fast. That smart f*****'s P45 is in the post as we speak.
Just seen BBC interviewer: "If Gary Lineker had said to Suella Braverman, 'I support your migrant policy. I back it. It is brilliant.' Would you have removed him from air for that?"
BBC Director General Tim Davie: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals..."
Killer Question well done BBC interviewer
As someone speculated earlier, it might be fun if a prominent figure sincerely did tweet that out of solidarity (being clear they are indeed sincere), so they too can be punished (though of course repeat offending might not be in play).
The next few decades will see demographic ageing and decline on an unprecedented scale in about 3/4 of the world. The western countries that embrace immigration (or get it anyway, like the USA) will be the ones that survive.
The UK is one of the most open and welcoming societies for migrants on the world. It really is, all the surveys say so. Our population will continue relatively dynamic while many others in more mono-ethnic states stagnate.
So we have a lot going for us. I don’t for a moment believe the country is a racist hellhole. But we have a government that’s decided its best chance of squeezing a few percentage points in the polls is to go all in on culture war, and that is dangerous and irresponsible.
Stagnation and not surviving are very different outcomes.
Right now the country in Europe with the most consistently strong economic growth is Poland and they don’t exactly adopt the approach you recommend.
They’ve taken on more Ukrainian refugees than any other country.
The next few decades will see demographic ageing and decline on an unprecedented scale in about 3/4 of the world. The western countries that embrace immigration (or get it anyway, like the USA) will be the ones that survive.
The UK is one of the most open and welcoming societies for migrants on the world. It really is, all the surveys say so. Our population will continue relatively dynamic while many others in more mono-ethnic states stagnate.
So we have a lot going for us. I don’t for a moment believe the country is a racist hellhole. But we have a government that’s decided its best chance of squeezing a few percentage points in the polls is to go all in on culture war, and that is dangerous and irresponsible.
Stagnation and not surviving are very different outcomes.
Right now the country in Europe with the most consistently strong economic growth is Poland and they don’t exactly adopt the approach you recommend.
They’ve taken on more Ukrainian refugees than any other country.
Just seen BBC interviewer: "If Gary Lineker had said to Suella Braverman, 'I support your migrant policy. I back it. It is brilliant.' Would you have removed him from air for that?"
BBC Director General Tim Davie: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals..."
Killer Question well done BBC interviewer
Not so fast. That smart f*****'s P45 is in the post as we speak.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Much as people are right that if Lineker had praised the policy he would likely not have been punished, I think it is a bit ridiculous to claim by technicality he was not being pretty clear about Nazi comparisons.
Disagree. The Nazi crimes did not start with concentration camps, they started with dehumanising people and limiting their legal rights. It's the latter that the language used in this week's immigration announcement has similarity with.
The next few decades will see demographic ageing and decline on an unprecedented scale in about 3/4 of the world. The western countries that embrace immigration (or get it anyway, like the USA) will be the ones that survive.
The UK is one of the most open and welcoming societies for migrants on the world. It really is, all the surveys say so. Our population will continue relatively dynamic while many others in more mono-ethnic states stagnate.
So we have a lot going for us. I don’t for a moment believe the country is a racist hellhole. But we have a government that’s decided its best chance of squeezing a few percentage points in the polls is to go all in on culture war, and that is dangerous and irresponsible.
Stagnation and not surviving are very different outcomes.
Right now the country in Europe with the most consistently strong economic growth is Poland and they don’t exactly adopt the approach you recommend.
They’ve taken on more Ukrainian refugees than any other country.
An emergency, rather than a policy though.
That’s how refugee policy is supposed to work. People flee war and persecution, and other countries welcome them.
But I think you’d be hard pressed to say Polish economic success is down to having a tight migration policy. Look at the GDP stats for the last few years and - Ireland aside - all the top performers are in Central Europe. Why? Because they are going through their long overdue economic transition and catching up with Western Europe, thanks to joining the EU. Even dysfunctional Hungary is up there along with Estonia, Slovakia and others.
But once they get there they face the same problem as the rest of us, same as Japan and Korea, same as China, sane - but for migration - as the USA. A declining economically active population and growing economically dependent elderly population. I don’t think the world’s economists have caught up with the demographers on this yet.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
Now all Lineker had to do was say something like:
"This is an issue I feel strongly about and which I think the government has the wrong policy. Now because I feel so passionately on this issue I didn't take the care I should have in my choice of words. So I will now take the opportunity to withdraw the reference to 30s Germany as, of course, I do not think the government are Nazis. But I will restate my opposition to the government's policy on this issue."
And he comes out all morally superior and untouchable.
Now all Lineker had to do was say . . . exactly what he wanted to say, and DID actually say, as opposed to the bumpf YOU keep fantasizing he should have said . . . and managed in the process, to provoke the British Freaking Government into committing a total unnecessary and counterproductive OWN GOAL.
Deviously clever stratagem: light a match . . . then wait for HMG to try extinguishing it with a bucket of rocket fuel . . .
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
I don't think he was alluding to any politician. He was rightly stating the the language used had similarities with that used in Germany in the 1930s.
It's the government that should be deeply embarrassed about that, not Lineker.
Comments
Edit: not the full truth, obviously.
Lots of cheering and roaring. I still haven't a clue what is happening.
But less relaxing. I prefer it with the sound off.
Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
SVP turns out to have had almost zero protective capital in the US. UK sub had more in line with regulatory requirement but when you get a run you get a run.
It'll be less surreal tomorrow. Or not.
This is a pretty good article describing it in some detail.
https://www.netinterest.co/p/the-demise-of-silicon-valley-bank
Feel old?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8WX6YL9JnLw
(Go back to 10pm)
But I don't support Rishi's useless policy to actually do it.
So I can see why the idea of stopping the boats is popular - but I am far less convinced the Government's approach to it is.
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
Its easy to see why someone from Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia wants to migrate to the western world.
"You really need to listen to this!"
:: plays some music on their phone ::
"Whoah!"
"I know!"
"What's the band's name?!?!?!"
"Dire Straits!!!"
...
She briefly considered joining Twitter to quiz him on the subject - I did try (and fail) to explain to her that Lineker had not done any research at all on 1930s Germany and was just spouting off, but she refused to accept that he'd done less than a PHD on the period because of course no one would comment on the period otherwise.......
Anyway..............
Thing is, we all want to “stop the boats” because people making dangerous journeys on dinghies across the channel is a horrible thing. We just have different views on how to do so.
And that would be fine, but this government have decided to play base - and dangerous - playground politics with a serious issue, more interested in making political capital and creating traps for Labour than actually solving the problem. The fact they made up a branded podium and launched a series of ludicrous banner ads shows precisely how seriously they take the issue. It’s at a similar level of depth as “24 hours to save the NHS”.
It’s a shame. Sunak showed last week that he is capable, when he puts his mind to it, of formulating sensible policy on cross border issues. The shadow of Boris hangs too heavy still.
SVB’s mistake was investing in longer-term mortgage securities with more than 10 years to maturity, rather than shorter-maturity Treasuries or mortgage issues maturing in less than five years. This led to an asset/liability mismatch."
So, not sub-prime mortgages pace 2008, but safe mortgages - just with valuations prone to interest rate changes.
Survation hands Matt Goodwin his arse
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
https://twitter.com/TanjaBueltmann/status/1633445311103262721?s=20
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used by the government and that used in 1930s Germany.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
1) I don't like the government
2) I am good therefore the government is bad
3) The government is bad therefore the government are Nazis
4) The Nazis murdered Jews therefore the government must want to do something similar
2. Is a deliberate misinformed analysis of what Lineker wrote.
4. I would like to stop the boats too, but for different reasons to Braverman.
I think Everything Everywhere All At Once nailed on for best film and Director.
I though Babylon might be worth a punt for best costume.
Why does everything GB News do, turn out like this?
https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1634530311756210179?s=20
It’s sad that very few of our politicians are able to take a properly internationalist view of intractable issues like migration and refugee movements. That so few politicians are able to start from the perspective of compassion and work from there. Most European countries are no better, so it’s not really the fault of the British tabloids. It’s human / ape nature - in-group and out-group. Suspicion of the outsider, particularly if they arrive by unorthodox means.
Lineker has been very consistent on this issue and has put his money where his mouth is.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people.
Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis
The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
The bit on MOTD was the Leicester Fans enquiring of Wesley Fofana why he was such a c**t. I wouldn't have thought that would normally get past the editor.
"Jim Cramer
@jimcramer
Watch SIVB common. It is climbing despite endless bear raids....
12:18 PM · Mar 10, 2023
·363.5K Views"
https://twitter.com/jimcramer/status/1634166854091456514
- long term interest and engagement in refugee issues
- First hand experience of housing Syrian refugees at home
- Upset to see people in this situation dehumanised and spoken of as if a different species
- pissed off at the government for making political points over other peoples suffering
The government attitude is exactly the same as that which views people on benefits as lazy scroungers. It’s just, as in the famous Murdoch that blokes trying to nick your biscuit
cartoon, it’s easier to scapegoat people who look and sound different than poor people who look like us.
The first is to do exactly what you have described, namely to leave said failed state and try and get to a better place to live.
As you correctly say however, if they ALL did this, and ALL succeeded then yes, the western countries they were coming to would themselves turn into failed states due to (even if nothing else) there simply being far too many people in these countries and the local infrastructure not being able to cope anymore.
The second path, which is far harder to get people to do, is for the local people in the failed state to think, "You know what? I'm sick to death of living in a shit hole. But rather than move, I'll try and make our country a better place to live. Reduce corruption, introduce democracy, and start proper improvement programmes in our country."
In theory, if everyone who wanted to leave instead decided to do the second, I certainly think they'd be in with a shout of succeeding. Unfortunately for them:
1. The local rulers don't want them to succeed and are quite prepared to use force of arms to stop any changes being made.
2. Organising this by the local people is going to be virtually impossible.
3. I strongly suspect that the western world itself quite likes these places to be shit holes as it makes it easier to exploit them for resources anyway (and therefore, they'll support the local warlords/rulers in the guise of 'state aid' which said rulers immediately spend on themselves/building their army up).
Am I terribly far off the mark?
"This is an issue I feel strongly about and which I think the government has the wrong policy. Now because I feel so passionately on this issue I didn't take the care I should have in my choice of words. So I will now take the opportunity to withdraw the reference to 30s Germany as, of course, I do not think the government are Nazis. But I will restate my opposition to the government's policy on this issue."
And he comes out all morally superior and untouchable.
There's an overlap between those who think Lineker was wrong and those that support the Tories. They like cancel culture when they shut down opinions they don't like.
The UK is one of the most open and welcoming societies for migrants on the world. It really is, all the surveys say so. Our population will continue relatively dynamic while many others in more mono-ethnic states stagnate.
So we have a lot going for us. I don’t for a moment believe the country is a racist hellhole. But we have a government that’s decided its best chance of squeezing a few percentage points in the polls is to go all in on culture war, and that is dangerous and irresponsible.
CEO Greg Becker personally led the bank’s half-million-dollar push to reduce scrutiny of his institution – and lawmakers obliged"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/11/silicon-valley-bank-weaken-risk-regulations-svb
Are you doing your Oscars analysis or have you walked out in solidarity with Lineker?
(I can see it might be a route to allow the BBC to climb down gracefully however, so it might not be a bad suggestion.)
Right now the country in Europe with the most consistently strong economic growth is Poland and they don’t exactly adopt the approach you recommend.
Just seen BBC interviewer: "If Gary Lineker had said to Suella Braverman, 'I support your migrant policy. I back it. It is brilliant.' Would you have removed him from air for that?"
BBC Director General Tim Davie: "I'm not going to get into hypotheticals..."
Killer Question well done BBC interviewer
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Much as people are right that if Lineker had praised the policy he would likely not have been punished, I think it is a bit ridiculous to claim by technicality he was not being pretty clear about Nazi comparisons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Stone_theory
"The Westminster Stone theory is not accepted by many historians, or those responsible for the care of the Stone. There are many strong arguments against the theory.
If Edward I did not remove the true stone, yet claimed to have done so, the Scots' easiest refutation of his claims would be to produce the True Stone. However, there is no record of them doing so.
Hiding the stone might have been a sensible precaution while the English remained a threat, but it was never produced once the threat was removed.
Despite its importance as a symbol of Kingship, the stone was not used for subsequent coronations, which it surely would have if still in Scottish possession.
Legends and theories abound, but no proof has been found to indicate there is another stone.
If there was warning enough of Edward's intention to remove the Stone, why were the other regalia, documents and Black Rood not hidden also?
A number of English knights attended the coronation of King John of Scotland only a few years earlier, and would have seen the true stone, but none of them told Edward that his stone was a fake.
On studying the Stone in 1996, after its return to Scotland, nine periods of workmanship were identified on the Stone's faces, as well as recognisable erosion between the features, which proves it is an ancient artefact.[8]
Edward had followers from the Scottish nobility who would also have been able to verify the stone's authenticity."
Not really
https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/silicon-valley-bank-failure-amv.pdf
The point is made well in this thread.
https://twitter.com/TanjaBueltmann/status/1633445311103262721?s=20
But I think you’d be hard pressed to say Polish economic success is down to having a tight migration policy. Look at the GDP stats for the last few years and - Ireland aside - all the top performers are in Central Europe. Why? Because they are going through their long overdue economic transition and catching up with Western Europe, thanks to joining the EU. Even dysfunctional Hungary is up there along with Estonia, Slovakia and others.
But once they get there they face the same problem as the rest of us, same as Japan and Korea, same as China, sane - but for migration - as the USA. A declining economically active population and growing economically dependent elderly population. I don’t think the world’s economists have caught up with the demographers on this yet.
Deviously clever stratagem: light a match . . . then wait for HMG to try extinguishing it with a bucket of rocket fuel . . .
It's the government that should be deeply embarrassed about that, not Lineker.