One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
Indeed, and they don't much like prophet #2 in rank being mocked, or His mother [Mary / Miriam] who they venerate greatly.
They have also got wise to atheist elites trying to use them for divide and rule.
Christianity, one woman's lie about adultery that got way out of hand.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
I think the idea of causing offence for no reason except self-indulgence is absurd and nihilistic. He could just have easily have hit himself in the face with a brick for all the value attaching to it.
The closest parallel I can recall is probably someone in my class aged about 13 who mooned out of a coach window on the M1. The gent he mooned at took down the number.
He subsequently got to iirc repeat his performance * for the Deputy Head, a modest amount of cane for the application of - this being ~1980.
* TBF I am not clear on whether it was Sans Cullottes or not.
Of course, if there was a purpose, then I might change my view. There will be plenty of Captain Mainwarings and Crustarafians Francais spluttering into their Gilbeys Gins over this, and they may need to be offended.
The Last Supper itself was offensive to many for many reasons, not least in redefining (or deepening, or fulfilling - depending on your view) the meaning of the Passover Meal.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
At the time that the Nazi came into existence (and Fascism did) free market economic wasn’t a hard right thing.
It was more a centre right/liberal concept.
The reactionary hard right (say, the Junkers) wanted government intervention. As had happened for centuries. Mostly to try and stabilise the social order (aka freeze it in place). Every man in his place and a place for every man. And, by God, he will be kept in his place.
So both the extreme right and the extreme left believed in state control of the economy. Hence a part of the horse shoe theory.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
Compared with those nonbelievers that campaign on the subject of fluid/multiple genders, even hardline Paisleyites are mild in comparison
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Fascism is close to Communism is close to Maoism is close to lunatic authoritarianism. Left and right aren’t really relevant.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Yes, although I think first Marx (or rather his 20th century followers), and then Thatcher and Reagan, redefined right and left in a different direction from its origins.
So that is just 4 + 3 + 3 +2 + 2 = 14 MPs out of 121 so about 100 still up for grabs.
Somewhat worryingly the only MPs who have signed that I have actually heard of are Jenrick camp.
And I am deeply red on Jenrick.
f*ck
Quite surprised that I have heard of 10 out of 14 of the declared supporters.
Sir Edward Leigh - Buffers' buffer. Most overpaid lawyer amongst all the other overpaid lawyers. I assume will be potentially leaving Parliament if he loses right to do his second job. Wasn't he the temporary Speaker who told the abominable Tory Shadow Minister to STFU last week?
Ex Minor Ministers
Alec Shelbrooke Greg Smith Simon Hoare <- Vaguely civilised? Banker?
Crustarian
Sir John Hayes
Blonde Football manager wotsit iirc - Birmingham way?
Karen Bradley
Remember the name - not sure why
Alicia Kearns Julia Lopez Dr Caroline Johnson
Right-wing Wotsit who declared for leader then pulled out
Danny Kruger
Who?
Alex Burghart Gagan Mohindra Saqib Bhatti Peter Fortune
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
Like the renaming of the Brecon Beacons. And indeed drag queen story time. So much of what the right get annoyed at is because those in minor positions of power are actively thinking "what can we do which will annoy people?"
The NHS thing at the London Olympics doesn't really fall into that category. Right wing people's reaction wasn't a furious " we are offended by the existence of the NHS" but a weary "must we really venerate this institution? It's like venerating the DVLA."
What the f##k is wrong with drag time story time?
I loved Mrs Doubtfire as a kid.
Drag has an ancient history in kids stories. Get over yourself if that bothers you.
Well, because it's done for the purpose of "what can we do to offend"?
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
Indeed, and they don't much like prophet #2 in rank being mocked, or His mother [Mary / Miriam] who they venerate greatly.
They have also got wise to atheist elites trying to use them for divide and rule.
Christianity, one woman's lie about adultery that got way out of hand.
Old Testament God had a fling with a married woman - mid life crisis, basically. The son had a bizarre on/off relationship with dad. Rather predictably, the whole thing went sideways. Big time.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
I think the idea of causing offence for no reason except self-indulgence is absurd and nihilistic. He could just have easily have hit himself in the face with a brick for all the value attaching to it.
The closest parallel I can recall is probably someone in my class aged about 13 who mooned out of a coach window on the M1. The gent he mooned at took down the number.
He subsequently got to iirc repeat his performance * for the Deputy Head, a modest amount of cane for the application of - this being ~1980.
* TBF I am not clear on whether it was Sans Cullottes or not.
Again, I am having to radically reevaluate the age of some pb posters...
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Yes, although I think first Marx (or rather his 20th century followers), and then Thatcher and Reagan, redefined right and left in a different direction from its origins.
More about how, after the left split between socialists and liberals, a big chunk of the liberals ended up on the (Centre) Right of politics.
So that is just 4 + 3 + 3 +2 + 2 = 14 MPs out of 121 so about 100 still up for grabs.
Somewhat worryingly the only MPs who have signed that I have actually heard of are Jenrick camp.
And I am deeply red on Jenrick.
f*ck
Quite surprised that I have heard of 10 out of 14 of the declared supporters.
Sir Edward Leigh - Buffers' buffer. Most overpaid lawyer amongst all the other overpaid lawyers. I assume will be potentially leaving Parliament if he loses right to do his second job. Wasn't he the temporary Speaker who told the abominable Tory Shadow Minister to STFU last week?
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
So that is just 4 + 3 + 3 +2 + 2 = 14 MPs out of 121 so about 100 still up for grabs.
Somewhat worryingly the only MPs who have signed that I have actually heard of are Jenrick camp.
And I am deeply red on Jenrick.
f*ck
Quite surprised that I have heard of 10 out of 14 of the declared supporters.
Sir Edward Leigh - Buffers' buffer. Most overpaid lawyer amongst all the other overpaid lawyers. I assume will be potentially leaving Parliament if he loses right to do his second job. Wasn't he the temporary Speaker who told the abominable Tory Shadow Minister to STFU last week?
Ex Minor Ministers
Alec Shelbrooke Greg Smith Simon Hoare
On a pedantic point, it was Mr Chope who told the Tory Shadow Min off.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
So that is just 4 + 3 + 3 +2 + 2 = 14 MPs out of 121 so about 100 still up for grabs.
Somewhat worryingly the only MPs who have signed that I have actually heard of are Jenrick camp.
And I am deeply red on Jenrick.
f*ck
Quite surprised that I have heard of 10 out of 14 of the declared supporters.
Sir Edward Leigh - Buffers' buffer. Most overpaid lawyer amongst all the other overpaid lawyers. I assume will be potentially leaving Parliament if he loses right to do his second job. Wasn't he the temporary Speaker who told the abominable Tory Shadow Minister to STFU last week?
Ex Minor Ministers
Alec Shelbrooke Greg Smith Simon Hoare
I think I may have Karen Bradley muddled.
Karen Bradley was the Northern Ireland Secretary who had not realised loyalists and republicans voted for different parties. Something of a theme in recent years.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
To say "united" implies they weren't already in lockstep.
Given that radical Muslims in France have spent the last ten years burning down churches, blowing up cathedrals, slaughtering priests and generally beheading Catholic things, it is quite hard to say Catholic and Muslim are “united” in France
Indeed, that is one reason Thomas Jolly’s degraded portrayal of the Last Supper was SO offensive and contemptible. Fair enough - - maybe - if you are going to insult every religion in France, then - maybe - it is justified (but even then I doubt it gravely for an Olympic Ceremony, it should be reserved for fringe theatre)
However Thomas The Brave Jolly didn’t go after Islam, did he? I wonder why. He went after Catholicism, in Catholic France, the daughter of the church
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
It was just provocation for provocations sake, there was nothing of any intellectual merit or inspiring message in that scene.
It was more suited to Eurotrash than an Olympics Opening Ceremony
Half the bloody world has made their minds up based on some grainy iphone footage before a date can even begin to be found for a jury of peers can be even assembled.
You can't uninvent things.
But...jeez...
social media...
It's a good thing that no-one here gets carried away by reading early speculation on social media. Can't stand those idiots who get sucked in by it all.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
Half the bloody world has made their minds up based on some grainy iphone footage before a date can even begin to be found for a jury of peers can be even assembled.
You can't uninvent things.
But...jeez...
social media...
It's a good thing that no-one here gets carried away by reading early speculation on social media. Can't stand those idiots who get sucked in by it all.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
To say "united" implies they weren't already in lockstep.
Given that radical Muslims in France have spent the last ten years burning down churches, blowing up cathedrals, slaughtering priests and generally beheading Catholic things, it is quite hard to say Catholic and Muslim are “united” in France
Indeed, that is one reason Thomas Jolly’s degraded portrayal of the Last Supper was SO offensive and contemptible. Fair enough - - maybe - if you are going to insult every religion in France, then - maybe - it is justified (but even then I doubt it gravely for an Olympic Ceremony, it should be reserved for fringe theatre)
However Thomas The Brave Jolly didn’t go after Islam, did he? I wonder why. He went after Catholicism, in Catholic France, the daughter of the church
I hope they throw him in the Loire
And yet you never noticed last night – only now that outrage has spread like a virus through social media, a bit like the Manchester airport kerfuffle.
Am I the only one who'd build it straight through Stonehenge?
Probably.
As it stands it virtually does go straight through Stonehenge. Any canning of this scheme means it will for another generation at least.
You only have to go to Hindhead to see the difference a tunnel makes.
Mind you, there is a valid argument to move the Stones. The A303 (aka Harroway) is tens of thousands of years older. They were probably only put there in the first place as it was near a prehistoric "crossroads" with the North to South "Gold Road"
Don’t they have to be shifted anyway when the clocks change for BST?
I think they predate it and use UDT, or Universal Druid Time. The French of course use TUD, for temps universel des druides, because they're awkward. I'm sure there's an ISO for it.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
It was just provocation for provocations sake, there was nothing of any intellectual merit or inspiring message in that scene.
It was more suited to Eurotrash than an Olympics Opening Ceremony
No Boris Johnson on a string, no wonder you are pissed off. Commiserations and sympathy.
Half the bloody world has made their minds up based on some grainy iphone footage before a date can even begin to be found for a jury of peers can be even assembled.
You can't uninvent things.
But...jeez...
social media...
It's a good thing that no-one here gets carried away by reading early speculation on social media. Can't stand those idiots who get sucked in by it all.
Like the Met Police, briskly condemning GMP for “racism”, long before this new video emerged, giving context?
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
Compared with those nonbelievers that campaign on the subject of fluid/multiple genders, even hardline Paisleyites are mild in comparison
I don't remember trans paramilitaries equivalent to the UDF anywhere.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
Like the renaming of the Brecon Beacons. And indeed drag queen story time. So much of what the right get annoyed at is because those in minor positions of power are actively thinking "what can we do which will annoy people?"
The NHS thing at the London Olympics doesn't really fall into that category. Right wing people's reaction wasn't a furious " we are offended by the existence of the NHS" but a weary "must we really venerate this institution? It's like venerating the DVLA."
I thought the NHS thing in 2012 really strange - as if Alex Boyle had dragged weirdness out of his imagination and combined it with rose-tinted spectacles, giving us cavorting nit-nurses.
The NHS should most definitely be celebrated, but if we want to remember the 1950s we should remember that it was a time of iron lungs, and 150,000 people locked up in mental health institutions largely under Victorian legislation.
The Mental Health Act 1959 was the first piece of legislation to make a big difference. William Beveridge was on the Eugenics Society Consultative Council until the late 1950s.
We should look our history in the eye, not tell ourselves Fairy Stories about it.
The best comparison from NOW I can think of is celebrating our Prison System as it is now, rather than as we hope it will be in 10 years when it has come out of the 1920s.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
To say "united" implies they weren't already in lockstep.
Given that radical Muslims in France have spent the last ten years burning down churches, blowing up cathedrals, slaughtering priests and generally beheading Catholic things, it is quite hard to say Catholic and Muslim are “united” in France
Indeed, that is one reason Thomas Jolly’s degraded portrayal of the Last Supper was SO offensive and contemptible. Fair enough - - maybe - if you are going to insult every religion in France, then - maybe - it is justified (but even then I doubt it gravely for an Olympic Ceremony, it should be reserved for fringe theatre)
However Thomas The Brave Jolly didn’t go after Islam, did he? I wonder why. He went after Catholicism, in Catholic France, the daughter of the church
I hope they throw him in the Loire
And yet you never noticed last night – only now that outrage has spread like a virus through social media, a bit like the Manchester airport kerfuffle.
i saw it at the time. Glanced at it for a few minutes.. And thought UGH
Also I was drunk and happy in Espalion and didn’t want a ruckus
Yeah, I know, amazing. I prioritised a long evening of happiness over a massive row on PB with people much less intelligent than me who I will never meet, such as yourself. Mad!
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
Indeed, and they don't much like prophet #2 in rank being mocked, or His mother [Mary / Miriam] who they venerate greatly.
They have also got wise to atheist elites trying to use them for divide and rule.
Christianity, one woman's lie about adultery that got way out of hand.
Though thankfully not as bad as Islam, one emotionally insecure man's victim complex that got way out of hand. At least it took a few centuries before the Christians got started on their bloodthirsty holy wars.
Consider poor Lady Starmer; John Lewis aren't going to take those cushions back now, even if she does now need the super long life range instead.
What I fear we're seeing is that the Conservatives did a bit too well three weeks ago. They haven't reached the stage of despair that might drive them to change in a useful way. To be fair, it's a long time since we had a losing party achieve that this quickly after a defeat.
It's not funny or you don't think the party is doooomed?
Because the demographics of Tory voters tells me that you are going to get fewer seats in 2028.....
In October 1974 the Heath led Tories lost most voters under 55, in 1979 Thatcher's Tories won most voters over 25 and even beat Labour by 1% with 18-24s.
In 1997 the Major led Tories lost all age groups, in 2001 and 2005 the Hague and Howard led Tories lost most voters under 55, in 2010 the Cameron led Tories won most voters over 25.
A Labour government running a failing economy can do wonders for reducing the average age of Conservative voters....
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
Saved us the faff.
The idea that the Arians weren't Christians is pretty bonkers.
One easy way to tell Kamala was not the “border czar” is that 214 House Republicans voted to impeach *a different member of the cabinet* over the border situation.
Biden tasks Harris with 'stemming the migration' on southern border
The vice president is expected to focus on both curbing the current flow of migrants and coordinating with countries in the region to address the root causes of migration.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
Seems all pretty indirect as far a I can see - just parodying a famous piece of art that happened to have a religious theme. 'Chariots of Fire' takes its title from a religiously themed poem and we had Mr Bean running along to it. What's the difference?
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
It was just provocation for provocations sake, there was nothing of any intellectual merit or inspiring message in that scene.
It was more suited to Eurotrash than an Olympics Opening Ceremony
I was inspired by the ability of the performers to dance in high heels in torrential rain without falling over! I thought it was a great celebration of Paris's history as a centre of fashion, somewhat tongue in cheek, making fun of themselves. I thought it was also a great celebration of the diversity of humanity, appropriate before a multi-sport event where excellence comes in so many different forms. But the direction/editing was terrible.
I'm somewhat unclear why this is the bit that has outraged people when there was another part of the ceremony with a full-on ménage à trois.
I have belatedly discovered that fish cooks PERFECTLY in a microwave
I know this is not on a par with pending religious war, but still. Incroyable
Supermarket trout. Salt & pepper. 3 mins.
My aparthotel in Espalion only has a couple of hob rings and a microwave. Given that French restaurants are now so unerringly awful - everywhere - I’m cooking at home. With that equipment last night I went for Aubrac steak, salad and baked potatoes (hint: OVERCOOK spuds in a microwave, then they get this amazing crunchiness)
But enough steaks already. I was desperate for fish. then I read you can cook PERFECT fish in a microwave in 4 minutes. And, verily, it is true. Cod fillets, flavoured with parsley lemon and garlic, flaking off the fork, as good as it gets. MMMM
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
To say "united" implies they weren't already in lockstep.
Given that radical Muslims in France have spent the last ten years burning down churches, blowing up cathedrals, slaughtering priests and generally beheading Catholic things, it is quite hard to say Catholic and Muslim are “united” in France
That's very specific "burning down churches" and especially "blowing up cathedrals".
Do you have a case for France?
It would not be a surprise if the Islamist 'war on the West' tendency is not under control, as church burning is a fairly standard thing amongst Islamist militants across the "non-West", eg Egypt / Pakistan and many other places.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
Saved us the faff.
The idea that the Arians weren't Christians is pretty bonkers.
UNitarians had to pretend to be Presbyterians so they didn't get reported by the Anglicans and executed for the state crime of denying the Trinity and the 39 Articles. Poor sods. And not very Christian of the C of E .
Confused me once when doing some historical research - this Unitarian turned up in a "Presbyterian" birth register. No wonder.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
For them their historic national identity was linked to the historic, god given Crown which revolutionaries were destroying
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
For them their historic national identity was linked to the historic, god given Crown which revolutionaries were destroying
"historic" means sod all if it was being so well destroyed by the Royal Family themselves. And the aristos.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
For them their historic national identity was linked to the historic, god given Crown which revolutionaries were destroying
"historic" means sod all if it was being so well destroyed by the Royal Family themselves. And the aristos.
The Reign of Terror and Robespierre were the ones destroying it
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
Yet the "conservative" party you support actively attacked those national institutions such as the BBC and the judiciary.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
For them their historic national identity was linked to the historic, god given Crown which revolutionaries were destroying
"historic" means sod all if it was being so well destroyed by the Royal Family themselves. And the aristos.
The Reign of Terror and Robespierre were the ones destroying it
Why do you think they got their popular support in the first place?
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
Seems all pretty indirect as far a I can see - just parodying a famous piece of art that happened to have a religious theme. 'Chariots of Fire' takes its title from a religiously themed poem and we had Mr Bean running along to it. What's the difference?
it’s Da Vinci’s THE LAST SUPPER you stupid fucking maggot. It is THE most famous portrayal of probably the most sacred moment in the whole of the Christian narrative
It is hard to think of an equivalent for Islam, as they don’t have religious art like Christianity. But imagine a drag artist portraying Mohammad as a trans woman with enormous fake tits as she conquers Mecca in a ballgown, surrounded by dancing midgets with their cocks hanging out, and all of this broadcast to one billion people
Islam would explode with anger and violence. Now, to me, that violence would be utterly stupid and wrong, but it would definitely happen, That’s probably why Thomas the Provoker didn’t go after Islam, he didn’t want to be Salman Rushdie and get blinded or beheaded. So in his pathetic Woke cowardice he crudely and childishly mocked Catholic Christianity instead. The man should be thrown in the new Bastille
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
Saved us the faff.
The idea that the Arians weren't Christians is pretty bonkers.
UNitarians had to pretend to be Presbyterians so they didn't get reported by the Anglicans and executed for the state crime of denying the Trinity and the 39 Articles. Poor sods. And not very Christian of the C of E .
Confused me once when doing some historical research - this Unitarian turned up in a "Presbyterian" birth register. No wonder.
How many were executed do you know - serious q?
I never expected a debate about Arius vs Athanasius on PB .
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
For them their historic national identity was linked to the historic, god given Crown which revolutionaries were destroying
"historic" means sod all if it was being so well destroyed by the Royal Family themselves. And the aristos.
The Reign of Terror and Robespierre were the ones destroying it
Why do you think they got their popular support in the first place?
I don't remember Robespierre ever being elected by universal suffrage? A few mobs does not cut it
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
Yet the "conservative" party you support actively attacked those national institutions such as the BBC and the judiciary.
Both still here, the former still with the licence fee
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
It was intentional. The idiot creator, a gay guy called Thomas jolly, says he wanted to provoke and polarise people
Brilliant idea. At an Olympics opening ceremony
@Tweedledee amusingly called it the “Woke Waterloo”
I doubt that’s right but let’s hope so
If he wanted a way to swing provincial France further towards Le Pen in 2027 that was it, it might be clever in largely leftwing and woke Paris it won't have played so well beyond
It was stupid and inappropriate for the Olympics. But, gods, I am always surprised by just how oversensitive and easily triggered religious people are. Muslims are the worse, but Christians are pretty far down that scale. It's like they know how intellectually weak their world view is, so have to throw a stroppy fit at any criticism to discourage people from offending them. They are just like the difficult toddler that everyone treads on eggshells around, because they know she is one wrong word from a full blown tantrum.
Seems all pretty indirect as far a I can see - just parodying a famous piece of art that happened to have a religious theme. 'Chariots of Fire' takes its title from a religiously themed poem and we had Mr Bean running along to it. What's the difference?
it’s Da Vinci’s THE LAST SUPPER you stupid fucking maggot. It is THE most famous portrayal of probably the most sacred moment in the whole of the Christian narrative
It is hard to think of an equivalent for Islam, as they don’t have religious art like Christianity. But imagine a drag artist portraying Mohammad as a trans woman with enormous fake tits as she conquers Mecca in a ballgown, surrounded by dancing midgets with their cocks hanging out, and all of this broadcast to one billion people
Islam would explode with anger and violence. Now, to me, that violence would be utterly stupid and wrong, but it would definitely happen, That’s probably why Thomas the Provoker didn’t go after Islam, he didn’t want to be Salman Rushdie and get blinded or beheaded. So in his pathetic Woke cowardice he crudely and childishly mocked Catholic Christianity instead. The man should be thrown in the new Bastille
This is an argument that religion is stupid, not an argument that people shouldn't be able to provoke it or make fun of it.
Or maybe you agree with the murderers who shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices?
Though I agree wholeheartedly with your point that we feel free to satirise Christianity while mocking Islam invites murderous retribution.
We live in a secular society and anyone who doesn't subscribe that should f. off back to whatever hellhole they came from.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
Tom Tugendhat was labelled as the 'centrist' or 'liberal' or my favourite 'one nation' Tory but here he is standing up for the Jews at a general election hustings in a way one would normally only associate with hard right culture warriors.
'Hard-right culture warriors stand up for the Jews'?
Have you read any 20th century history?
Post-war Soviet Revisionism rather than history per se.
We've allowed a specific narrative to take hold, but contemporary Western reporting of the rise of Nazism didn't generally describe it as hard or far right. Or 'right' at all. Totalitarian, Nationalistic, Fascist - it was described in many ways but not really as a position on a Left-Right spectrum.
In the years they followed it became very important for the Eastern Bloc to distance and differentiate their own brand of Authoritarianism by othering the defeated regime. Communism was already accepted as far left, so it was convenient to forge a narrative where Nazism was the opposite, and therefore 'far right', conflating that side with evil and their own with good.
It was reductive, simplistic and absolutely fucking bollocks of course, but it stuck.
History being written by the winners is nothing new, but it's interesting to see how the terminology gets retconned and how different the tone of contemporaneous accounts frequently is.
Any examples of these contemporary accounts? Hitler was supported by the right in Germany and abroad, outlawed persecuted and murdered leftwingers in Germany etc. It's news to me that calling the Nazis far right is just an invention of soviet revisionism
Hitler was a contemporary socialist. A nationalist socialist but a socialist nonetheless.
Yes Hitler murdered leftwingers in Germany. He also murdered Jews, centrists, right wingers and anyone else who could be a threat to his regime or didn't tow the line sufficiently.
Soviet Russia and Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge also murdered a lot of leftwingers too.
The violence between branches of leftwingers whether it be between Bolsheviks and Trots or anyone else is nothing new.
The phrase "tankie" dates bank to the Soviets sending tanks to murder left wingers rising up in Hungary.
If killing leftwingers makes you far right, then Joseph Stalin must be far right too with the amount of leftwing blood he had on his hands.
I accept the politics horseshoe theory of course but you have to stretch credibility a bit to claim Hitler was a left-winger.
Were the Nazis not fascists or are fascists not right-wing in your opinion?
Fascists are not right wing in my opinion.
They are authoritarian.
Right wing is a belief in a free market, left wing is a belief in a managed economy.
Fascism is a belief in a militarised managed economy. It is more left than right, but the thing that makes it distinctive is the militarised authoritarianism more than either left or right.
Not so. The origin of the left/right divide comes from the seating positions of the French Revolutionary National Assembly, where the supporters of the absolutism of the Ancien Regime sat to the right of the Assembly President, and the revolutionaries who wanted to curb the authority of the King (and ultimately, but not in 1789, end it altogether) sat on the left. So, quite literally, the origins of the right lie in support for authoritarian monarchic absolutism, and those of the left in those who wanted to limit the power of an autocrat.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
Conservatism means maintaining our traditions and order above all, supporting national identity and only changing where absolutely necessary yes, with the expansion of the franchise to the lower middle classes and then the working classes and the rise of socialist, social democrat and Labour parties conservatives united with former opponents in free trade liberals to oppose socialists and the left. Though the 2 are and were historically disctinct
The right wingers in Revolutionary France were perfectly willing to side with Austria and Prussia against their national identity.
For them their historic national identity was linked to the historic, god given Crown which revolutionaries were destroying
"historic" means sod all if it was being so well destroyed by the Royal Family themselves. And the aristos.
The Reign of Terror and Robespierre were the ones destroying it
Why do you think they got their popular support in the first place?
I don't remember Robespierre ever being elected by universal suffrage? A few mobs does not cut it
Why do you think the royals and the aristos were deposed in the first place, and led to all that? Helpful hint, not enough people thought they were doing their jobs properly, historic or otherwise.
One thing that seems to have united Christians and Muslims on twitter is condemnation of that drag themed last supper at the opening ceremony, whether intentional or not.
I recall that when Vermin decided to put statues of the Virgin Mary in some of their shops, it was militant Islamic protestors (peace be upon them) who put an end to it in short order.
Jesus though is a prophet to Muslims too though, they just don't believe in the Trinity
This is where I say not all Christians believe in the Trinity, you say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, I then say that most Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity and you round things off by saying that Unitarians aren't really Christians.
Saved us the faff.
The idea that the Arians weren't Christians is pretty bonkers.
UNitarians had to pretend to be Presbyterians so they didn't get reported by the Anglicans and executed for the state crime of denying the Trinity and the 39 Articles. Poor sods. And not very Christian of the C of E .
Confused me once when doing some historical research - this Unitarian turned up in a "Presbyterian" birth register. No wonder.
How many were executed do you know - serious q?
I never expected a debate about Arius vs Athanasius on PB .
I don't know, but they were certainly frightened enough to hide their beliefs.
Comments
The Last Supper itself was offensive to many for many reasons, not least in redefining (or deepening, or fulfilling - depending on your view) the meaning of the Passover Meal.
It was more a centre right/liberal concept.
The reactionary hard right (say, the Junkers) wanted government intervention. As had happened for centuries. Mostly to try and stabilise the social order (aka freeze it in place). Every man in his place and a place for every man. And, by God, he will be kept in his place.
So both the extreme right and the extreme left believed in state control of the economy. Hence a part of the horse shoe theory.
Similarly the origins of the Tories in England lie in supporters of the absolute monarchy tending Stuart family. Support for free trade lay with the nascent Liberal party
Given that the Ancien Regime involved INTERNAL trade tariffs in France such free marketeers that you describe would likely have sat with the revolutionaries on the left.
And I am deeply red on Jenrick.
f*ck
Sir Edward Leigh - Buffers' buffer. Most overpaid lawyer amongst all the other overpaid lawyers. I assume will be potentially leaving Parliament if he loses right to do his second job. Wasn't he the temporary Speaker who told the abominable Tory Shadow Minister to STFU last week?
Ex Minor Ministers
Alec Shelbrooke
Greg Smith
Simon Hoare <- Vaguely civilised? Banker?
Crustarian
Sir John Hayes
Blonde Football manager wotsit iirc - Birmingham way?
Karen Bradley
Remember the name - not sure why
Alicia Kearns
Julia Lopez
Dr Caroline Johnson
Right-wing Wotsit who declared for leader then pulled out
Danny Kruger
Who?
Alex Burghart
Gagan Mohindra
Saqib Bhatti
Peter Fortune
Former home secretary says she can deliver the ‘experienced and strong’ leadership needed to unite the party’s disparate factions
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/27/priti-patel-tory-leadership-race-members-greater-voice/
God did mellow out, a lot, as a result.
I do agree though.
Are you sure that's entirely wise?
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1817278588074496454?s=61
'They're doomed. Doooomed....'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/20/shadow-health-secretary-rebuked-for-behaving-abominably-in-commons
Indeed, that is one reason Thomas Jolly’s degraded portrayal of the Last Supper was SO offensive and contemptible. Fair enough - - maybe - if you are going to insult every religion in France, then - maybe - it is justified (but even then I doubt it gravely for an Olympic Ceremony, it should be reserved for fringe theatre)
However Thomas The Brave Jolly didn’t go after Islam, did he? I wonder why. He went after Catholicism, in Catholic France, the daughter of the church
I hope they throw him in the Loire
It was more suited to Eurotrash than an Olympics Opening Ceremony
'I feel Pretty, I feel Pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay...'
Because the demographics of Tory voters tells me that you are going to get fewer seats in 2028.....
The NHS should most definitely be celebrated, but if we want to remember the 1950s we should remember that it was a time of iron lungs, and 150,000 people locked up in mental health institutions largely under Victorian legislation.
The Mental Health Act 1959 was the first piece of legislation to make a big difference. William Beveridge was on the Eugenics Society Consultative Council until the late 1950s.
We should look our history in the eye, not tell ourselves Fairy Stories about it.
The best comparison from NOW I can think of is celebrating our Prison System as it is now, rather than as we hope it will be in 10 years when it has come out of the 1920s.
Saved us the faff.
Also I was drunk and happy in Espalion and didn’t want a ruckus
Yeah, I know, amazing. I prioritised a long evening of happiness over a massive row on PB with people much less intelligent than me who I will never meet, such as yourself. Mad!
Consider poor Lady Starmer; John Lewis aren't going to take those cushions back now, even if she does now need the super long life range instead.
What I fear we're seeing is that the Conservatives did a bit too well three weeks ago. They haven't reached the stage of despair that might drive them to change in a useful way. To be fair, it's a long time since we had a losing party achieve that this quickly after a defeat.
In 1997 the Major led Tories lost all age groups, in 2001 and 2005 the Hague and Howard led Tories lost most voters under 55, in 2010 the Cameron led Tories won most voters over 25.
A Labour government running a failing economy can do wonders for reducing the average age of Conservative voters....
I know this is not on a par with pending religious war, but still. Incroyable
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/07/23/why-things-can-get-worse-for-the-tories/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/border-arrests-fall-more-than-40-percent-after-bidens-new-asylum-restrictions-dhs-says
I'm somewhat unclear why this is the bit that has outraged people when there was another part of the ceremony with a full-on ménage à trois.
Come on Tories. You know it makes sense.
But enough steaks already. I was desperate for fish. then I read you can cook PERFECT fish in a microwave in 4 minutes. And, verily, it is true. Cod fillets, flavoured with parsley lemon and garlic, flaking off the fork, as good as it gets. MMMM
Do you have a case for France?
It would not be a surprise if the Islamist 'war on the West' tendency is not under control, as church burning is a fairly standard thing amongst Islamist militants across the "non-West", eg Egypt / Pakistan and many other places.
I believe in Trinity Rodman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Rodman Great player.
Ask me how I know.
Confused me once when doing some historical research - this Unitarian turned up in a "Presbyterian" birth register. No wonder.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/still-falling-1c2c0dec3e95
"Heeeeelp meeeee"
That was too easy.
It is hard to think of an equivalent for Islam, as they don’t have religious art like Christianity. But imagine a drag artist portraying Mohammad as a trans woman with enormous fake tits as she conquers Mecca in a ballgown, surrounded by dancing midgets with their cocks hanging out, and all of this broadcast to one billion people
Islam would explode with anger and violence. Now, to me, that violence would be utterly stupid and wrong, but it would definitely happen, That’s probably why Thomas the Provoker didn’t go after Islam, he didn’t want to be Salman Rushdie and get blinded or beheaded. So in his pathetic Woke cowardice he crudely and childishly mocked Catholic Christianity instead. The man should be thrown in the new Bastille
I never expected a debate about Arius vs Athanasius on PB
Old socks are not a proper topic of conversation.
(And @Leon , it depends on the fish, and how you cook it.
Kippers do OK, but they will your microwave out; they are better Jugged.)
Or maybe you agree with the murderers who shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices?
Though I agree wholeheartedly with your point that we feel free to satirise Christianity while mocking Islam invites murderous retribution.
We live in a secular society and anyone who doesn't subscribe that should f. off back to whatever hellhole they came from.
It blew the microwave door off. Which impacted the opposite wall, bounced back, and hit the floor.
That really happened. It was impressive. And expensive.
Alas not.
New Manchester Airport video shows chaotic scene before man 'kicked' in head by police officer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJ7RQ3bgiA