The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
Dunno. Didn’t he?
They also advocated nationalisations, high taxation and stopping “profiteering”. Further, they pretty much created an entirely separate wing of the land forces - the Waffen SS - to get round the fact the Prussian aristocracy dominated the Wehrmacht, which was relatively (if extremely darkly) meritocratic if you were politically sound.
Because we were 25% ahead at the last election then she soiled the bed.
The last election demonstrated that supposedly uber-smart political movers and shakers surrounding Mrs. May actually had the political acumen of the slugs in my garden.....
Where were the people in the Tory campaign standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs "You want to do the fuck WHAT?????" That incredulity should have covered:
a) holding the election at all b) holding the election separate from the locals c) the content of the manifesto d) the debates e) the election materials f) a whole load of stuff I've probably forgotten but spiked my blood pressure forty points at the time.
I'm only part way through Tim Shipman's "Fall Out" but it's clear that there were people shouting those things but that May was being hermetically sealed from them by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill - who sealed May from anything they didn't agree with.
On your points:
a) the election was the right call - a small majority left too many hostages to fortune and 2016-7 presented the best opportunity a PM could hope for.
b) I don't think this much mattered either way. The Tory campaign was brought down by the manifesto; if anything, the local elections (which were outstanding for the Tories) boosted morale. Had she not screwed everything up shortly after, the reality of the poll leads at the time would have caused serious worries and possibly infighting in other parties.
c) Yes - the manifesto was barely disclosed to anyone. Idiots. Why hire the best political consultants in the world and then not use them?
d) Agreed. You can't be strong and stable and then hide from scrutiny.
e) Not sure what you mean there, but i suspect it's largely duplicating other points?
f) Again, down to the excessive control in the centre meaning that (1) information wasn't properly disclosed and discussed among the Tory team (indeed, there wasn't much 'team'), and (2) there was no 'grid' to try to control the media agenda, leaving the door open to Labour.
I think the broader point is that Timothy/Hill felt the stratospheric poll leads that May had up until May 2017 vindicated their style and behaviour.
Once they’d fallen victim to the inevitable hubris, it was too late.
To an extent - the polling certainly inflated their already excessive self-confidence, rudeness and arrogance - but those characteristics were intrinsic too.
If Labour has one core strength, it is nepotism....
Another policy Blair's red Tories shamelessly stole from the Conservatives, who gave us the only PM to be succeeded by his niece's husband; not to mention the Pitts, elder and younger.
And the Grenvilles, and the Chamberlains, and the Salisburys.
Admittedly in the time of the Pitts and Grenvilles party labels were very loose - both described themselves as Whigs although they led Tory ministries - and the Chamberlains all started as Liberals.
The Cecil family they can have!
Don’t forget the Aberdeens - although as that nexus traded as Aberdeen/Majoribanks/Hogg/Hailsham/Boyd-Carpenter it’s harder to track
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
No ground troops of any scale will be going in.I can assure you of that.
A good point was made earlier that given this crisis the Prime Minister should be able to have a frank conversation with the leader of the opposition to agree action but that is simply impossible with Corbyn
He is pro Russia, Iran and Hamas and anti the US, the West, NATO, Israel and Saudia all of whom are involved in possible military action.
This is the closest the USA and Russia have come to attacking each other since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There was that incident in 1983 (Nifty Dolphin?) when the Soviets were hallucinating and the US sleepwalking. Also, that time the Soviet missile-tracking system went wrong and wrongly alerted an incoming ICBM. And the Yugoslav war where a US general ordered James Blunt to capture an airbase occupied by the Russians.
If Labour has one core strength, it is nepotism....
Another policy Blair's red Tories shamelessly stole from the Conservatives, who gave us the only PM to be succeeded by his niece's husband; not to mention the Pitts, elder and younger.
And the Grenvilles, and the Chamberlains, and the Salisburys.
Admittedly in the time of the Pitts and Grenvilles party labels were very loose - both described themselves as Whigs although they led Tory ministries - and the Chamberlains all started as Liberals.
The Cecil family they can have!
Don’t forget the Aberdeens - although as that nexus traded as Aberdeen/Majoribanks/Hogg/Hailsham/Boyd-Carpenter it’s harder to track
For the Liberals we could mention the Gladstones, Asquith/Bonham Carter, Sinclair.
I also forgot the Stanley/Derby family, although they tended to swap in and out.
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
No ground troops of any scale will be going in.I can assure you of that.
In many ways that's the opposite of reassuring.
Yes I agree Yd.One bad mistake and it could escalate.
Does anyone else think these increasingly bizarre tweets are beginning to resemble Chapman's extraordinary nervous breakdown?
While the soft pedalling would be welcomed in isolation, it just looks like unhinged flailing in the context.
Could we see a sudden shortening of odds on Mike Pence becoming Acting President?
I think there's method in Trump's madness. Russia's MO is to create trouble and demand attention. That's mostly a reflection of Russia's weakness. It is strong enough to cause trouble but not strong enough to exercise its will or impose much influence. The unspoken deal is that Russia causes its trouble within limits. Problem is, Russia is unwillling, or largely I think unable, to keep to its implied bargain. What Trump is doing is making Putin's adventurism costly for Russia. The idea is that Putin's constituency - and every dictator has a constituency they need to keep onside - decide both Putin and his foreign adventures are more trouble than they are worth.
High risk however, as Putin has so far always managed to double-down.
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
Presumably betting against armagedon is both more lucrative, and also possible to collect!
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
Presumably betting against armagedon is both more lucrative, and also possible to collect!
Bugger, you worked it out! Bang goes my hopes of a new extension (hopefully not literally)...
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
Dunno. Didn’t he?
They also advocated nationalisations, high taxation and stopping “profiteering”. Further, they pretty much created an entirely separate wing of the land forces - the Waffen SS - to get round the fact the Prussian aristocracy dominated the Wehrmacht, which was relatively (if extremely darkly) meritocratic if you were politically sound.
Yes, but they were all secondary policies, introduced either to enable the primary ones of funding a war-machine that would build an empire in the east and cleanse the nation of what they saw as impure elements, or as some kind of reflection of their values elsewhere - the mistrust of banking as too tainted by "Jewish love of money" (and, indeed, an excess of comfort being liable to weaken the nation).
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
No ground troops of any scale will be going in.I can assure you of that.
In many ways that's the opposite of reassuring.
Yes I agree Yd.One bad mistake and it could escalate.
Very easy for a US warplane to get shot down, or SF get captured. Then what happens?
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
Errm, wouldn't it be reasonable (if possibly futile given the consequences of WW111) for you to show you also could honour the wager?
I think also looking for evens is a tad ungenerous.
Anyway, I also tend to favour the view that we are not going to die, yet.
It was reported (or claimed) that in the recent Israeli strike on Syria, five of the eight missiles fired were shot down by the presumably Russian-supplied Syrian defences. I couldn't say whether that is good, bad or indifferent (or even true).
I had a conversation with the hilariously pro-Putin LuckGuy about this sort of thing a few years back, when the Russians started in Syria. He claimed that every Russian cruise missile fired got through, and none crashed as claimed. I countered that with the chances of every one of the 26 missiles fired hitting their targets was remote: they're fired so infrequently, and are so complex, that some are bound to either get 'lost' or have other technical failures.
I'd expect the US to do better given the greater numbers they fire and technological superiority, but it would not surprise me if one or two of the eight crashed through technical failures.
As for them being shot down: the Israelis managed to get at least one plane or weapons system through the other night, although possibly with help.
As we saw with Patriot in the first Gulf War, initial claims of success when it comes to anti-missile systems is not always correct when more information comes in ...
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
No ground troops of any scale will be going in.I can assure you of that.
UK SAS are already in Syria supporting US operations as demonstrated when one lost his life last week.
But the idea we will have ground troops in Syria is a non starter but we could well be involved in some other way.
Saudi has pledged support to Macron yesterday, and Israel has already attacked an airbase this week
I rememberthe Cuban missile crisis in 1962 with the real fear that a nuclear war was about to break out and the relief when it was avoided.
We are not anything like the 1962 crisis and to be honest while I am concerned about this I am not frightened like I was in 1962
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Who were the political opponents of the Nazis in the Twenties and early Thirties? Mostly the Communists and Social Democrats. Who were the supporters of the Nazis?
If Labour has one core strength, it is nepotism....
Another policy Blair's red Tories shamelessly stole from the Conservatives, who gave us the only PM to be succeeded by his niece's husband; not to mention the Pitts, elder and younger.
And the Grenvilles, and the Chamberlains, and the Salisburys.
Admittedly in the time of the Pitts and Grenvilles party labels were very loose - both described themselves as Whigs although they led Tory ministries - and the Chamberlains all started as Liberals.
The Cecil family they can have!
Don’t forget the Aberdeens - although as that nexus traded as Aberdeen/Majoribanks/Hogg/Hailsham/Boyd-Carpenter it’s harder to track
Notable that most of those examples are from the 19th century and earlier, unlike Labour's.
That said, I'm less fussed about a politician following in their father's (or mother's) footsteps, when they have to go through constituency selections and elections, than the background nepotisms of being appointed special advisors and senior office staff. The likes of Hurd or Gummer on the Tory side, or Cryer or Benn on Labour's at least had to prove their worth to party members and (to an extent) the public.
A good point was made earlier that given this crisis the Prime Minister should be able to have a frank conversation with the leader of the opposition to agree action but that is simply impossible with Corbyn
He is pro Russia, Iran and Hamas and anti the US, the West, NATO, Israel and Saudia all of whom are involved in possible military action.
Do we really think Corbyn is the answer
That rather depends upon what the question is.
In practical terms, no Corbyn is never the answer. If it were a pub quiz question. 'Who is the biggest fool in world politics?' yes Corbyn would be the unequivocal answer.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Who were the political opponents of the Nazis in the Twenties and early Thirties? Mostly the Communists and Social Democrats. Who were the supporters of the Nazis?
Immaterial. That was a straight political power struggle. That's like claiming that the Mensheviks weren't left wing because their main opponents were the Bolsheviks.
A good point was made earlier that given this crisis the Prime Minister should be able to have a frank conversation with the leader of the opposition to agree action but that is simply impossible with Corbyn
He is pro Russia, Iran and Hamas and anti the US, the West, NATO, Israel and Saudia all of whom are involved in possible military action.
Do we really think Corbyn is the answer
That rather depends upon what the question is.
In practical terms, no Corbyn is never the answer. If it were a pub quiz question. 'Who is the biggest fool in world politics?' yes Corbyn would be the unequivocal answer.
Now be fair Pete. I think it's known on these boards that I'm not Corbyn's hugest fan but Trump owns the answer to that question.
Meanwhile, in the ongoing race for dumbest politician at Westminster, this is a stunning bid for glory...
Divisions within the SNP over the timing of a fresh independence referendum were laid bare as one MP called for a new vote by the end of next year.
Angus Brendan MacNeil, the SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, organised a straw poll of his social media followers on the timing of a new vote then announced his backing for a second referendum within 18 months.
It puts him at odds with Pete Wishart, his parliamentary colleague and SNP MP for Perth & North Perthshire who warned Nationalists this week not to charge into an early campaign they could lose. Jim Sillars, the veteran pro-independence activist and former SNP deputy leader, warned that the independence movement was in danger of turning in on itself on the issue.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
Errm, wouldn't it be reasonable (if possibly futile given the consequences of WW111) for you to show you also could honour the wager?
I think also looking for evens is a tad ungenerous.
Anyway, I also tend to favour the view that we are not going to die, yet.
Wars tend to stoke inflation. in the event of WW3, £50m might be quite affordable.
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
Errm, wouldn't it be reasonable (if possibly futile given the consequences of WW111) for you to show you also could honour the wager?
I think also looking for evens is a tad ungenerous.
Anyway, I also tend to favour the view that we are not going to die, yet.
Wars tend to stoke inflation. in the event of WW3, £50m might be quite affordable.
Surely it would burn up all paper money and put us back on the gold standard?
I've not been on here for a while, but can anyone reassure me that WW3 isn't going to start in Syria and we're not going to be nuked in the next week or so?
This is a betting site. The best you'll get are odds.
I am willing to bet up to £50 million that World War III will not break out in two weeks.
If anyone wishes to take me up they will have to show they have £50 million to lose first.
Do you? I mean, I know teachers have a pretty generous pension scheme but that is a lot of money.
I'm not offering to prove anything. It's anyone who bets with me would have to prove their ability to pay.
Errm, wouldn't it be reasonable (if possibly futile given the consequences of WW111) for you to show you also could honour the wager?
I think also looking for evens is a tad ungenerous.
Anyway, I also tend to favour the view that we are not going to die, yet.
Wars tend to stoke inflation. in the event of WW3, £50m might be quite affordable.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
By deeds they hardly were promoting free enterprise were they?
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
By deeds they hardly were promoting free enterprise were they?
Autarky isn't socialism. I know Stalin practised it too, but that was because there were no other socialists to trade with.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
Well they did many of them. They introduced the National Socialist People’s Welfare in 1934 which was a comprehensive social welfare system. They nationalised most of the industrial base and particularly the raw material base including steel works and coal mines. Those industries they didn't nationalise they forced into compulsory cartels which had to be closely aligned with the Government. They forced every worker to join the state run union system. They dissolved all small corporations and banned the creation of new ones and they shut down the majority of the stock exchanges and enacted a raft of laws banning or restrictiing share ownership. It looks to me like most of their platform became deeds.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
By deeds they hardly were promoting free enterprise were they?
I would agree with you that Hitler wasn't a classical liberal. That's why the fact that there's more than one 'left-right' axis is useful.
They nationalised most of the industrial base and particularly the raw material base including steel works and coal mines.
What's your source for that? That's certainly not my understanding of what they did. I thought, for example, that they only nationalised the Thyssen steel conglomerate, and then only after its owner left for Switzerland. Krupp certainly kept control of his works - that's why he was tried as a war criminal.
The SKWAWKBOX has new Polling from You Gov.Jeremy Corbyn is the 5th most admired man in the UK,beating the Dalai Lama.
You forgot the bit about the D notice May has imposed to hide how popular her great rival the Rightful Prime Minister Who Totally won the 2017 Election is.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
There is more to the right/left-wing split than economic policy. Indeed, the original conception of it - coming from the Estates General - was only loosely related to economics.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
The claim usually made is that right and left wing arrive at the same place despite very different starting points. I think that is wrong; i simply cannot think of three policies which are distinctively far left and anathema to the far right, nor vice versa. The main differences are that the left pretend not to be antisemites while the right don't bother to hide it, and the right enacts the will of the fuhrer while the left enacts the will of the people (interpreted and mediated by someone who looks awfully like the fuhrer).
The SKWAWKBOX has new Polling from You Gov.Jeremy Corbyn is the 5th most admired man in the UK,beating the Dalai Lama.
You forgot the bit about the D notice May has imposed to hide how popular her great rival the Rightful Prime Minister Who Totally won the 2017 Election is.
I have to go. Have a good afternoon.
OTOH T May is 17th on the all world women list and 23rd in the USA, Corbyn not appearing on either list.
In fact everyone seems to rate May, though not very highly - even the Russians - and no one has heard of poor old Jez. Annoyingly none of Israel, Palestine or Venezuela was polled.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The fact that totalitarian states of far-left or far-right share some common features shouldn't obscure the fact that they don't share all features in common.
The original Nazi party Economic programme included:
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work. The abolition of debt interest The confiscation of all war profits The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations The nationalization of all heavy industry Profit-sharing in large enterprises Extensive development of insurance for old-age Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
Don't judge them by their platform; judge them by their deeds. How many of those things did they do as a matter of principle? When a government has near-absolute power, you get the measure of its true priorities, objectives and values.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Forcing women from their jobs back to cooking and childrearing seems pretty right wing to me.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
I think when you're talking about totalitarian states, the right/left distinction tends to blur into meaninglessness. It's as though they've each gone the opposite way around the spectrum and met on the other side...
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
Defence is one area where I feel I'm to the left on, though under your definition I'd be right - though so would Corbyn... which doesn't feel right (sort of)
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
I think when you're talking about totalitarian states, the right/left distinction tends to blur into meaninglessness. It's as though they've each gone the opposite way around the spectrum and met on the other side...
I think that's right. The big loser from both communism and fascism was liberalism. Which is why it dominated after the second world war in the West - in reaction to what happened. That ascendancy has now crumbled.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
The claim usually made is that right and left wing arrive at the same place despite very different starting points. I think that is wrong; i simply cannot think of three policies which are distinctively far left and anathema to the far right, nor vice versa. The main differences are that the left pretend not to be antisemites while the right don't bother to hide it, and the right enacts the will of the fuhrer while the left enacts the will of the people (interpreted and mediated by someone who looks awfully like the fuhrer).
That's because there is an important distinction is between nationalism and internationalism, often associated with liberalism. The regimes in Germany and the Soviet Union were very nationalistic and therefore similar in many ways even though they were at total war. I don't think comparisons between Corbyn and Stalin or Hitler are useful or fair.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Forcing women from their jobs back to cooking and childrearing seems pretty right wing to me.
'In 1939, a third of all married women in Germany were economically active and more than half of all women between the ages of 15 and 60 were in work... Even in 1944 the participation rate for British women between the ages of 15 to 65 was only 41 per cent' (Tooze, Wages of Destruction p.358)
If Labour has one core strength, it is nepotism....
Another policy Blair's red Tories shamelessly stole from the Conservatives, who gave us the only PM to be succeeded by his niece's husband; not to mention the Pitts, elder and younger.
And the Grenvilles, and the Chamberlains, and the Salisburys.
Admittedly in the time of the Pitts and Grenvilles party labels were very loose - both described themselves as Whigs although they led Tory ministries - and the Chamberlains all started as Liberals.
The Cecil family they can have!
Don’t forget the Aberdeens - although as that nexus traded as Aberdeen/Majoribanks/Hogg/Hailsham/Boyd-Carpenter it’s harder to track
Notable that most of those examples are from the 19th century and earlier, unlike Labour's.
That said, I'm less fussed about a politician following in their father's (or mother's) footsteps, when they have to go through constituency selections and elections, than the background nepotisms of being appointed special advisors and senior office staff. The likes of Hurd or Gummer on the Tory side, or Cryer or Benn on Labour's at least had to prove their worth to party members and (to an extent) the public.
The Aberdeen’s ran from around the 1790s through to the late 1990s.
After 200 years it’s time to vacate the stage and let someone else have a turn
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
Defence is one area where I feel I'm to the left on, though under your definition I'd be right - though so would Corbyn... which doesn't feel right (sort of)
I think you’d both be liberal rather than authoritarian (as would I) which is arguably a different axis. If if weren’t, the Soviet Union would have been classed as rightwing, given its high defence budget as a proportion of GDP.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
I think when you're talking about totalitarian states, the right/left distinction tends to blur into meaninglessness. It's as though they've each gone the opposite way around the spectrum and met on the other side...
nice analogy - in terms of grossness and despicability, how do you distinguish Hitler & Mao, Mussolini & Stalin?
Did you see the Russian remarks which preceded that ? https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/trump-syria-missile-attack-514499 “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’” Trump wrote on Twitter Wednesday morning. “You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”…
…a response to remarks from Alexander Zasypkin, the Kremlin’s ambassador to Lebanon, who said Tuesday, according to Reuters, that “if there is a strike by the Americans, then...the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired.” Zasypkin said his comments about a U.S. missile strike echoed remarks from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian military chief of staff.
It is one thing for the US to lob missiles at Syrian chemical plants and/or airfields, and for the Russians to attempt to intercept those missiles... quite another for the US/Russians to start shooting directly at each other.
As an ex "man in a white coat",I feel my skills have never been more needed in the case of the current POTUS because the world needs the men in white coats right now to take this highly dangerous sociopath to the local asylum,where 1960s style he would first have a compulsory enema-high,hot and hellavalot-all newly admitted patients had to have one-,followed by hosing down in the sluice.He would there be accompanied to small room where he would have an intra-muscular injection of the finest medication of the times,Paraldehyde-had to be used with metal syringes because it melted the plastic ones and then maintain in seclusion for 3 months assessment.I can still smell it. To remain in seclusion for 3 months assessment.Pre-83, for as long as it takes.
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
I think when you're talking about totalitarian states, the right/left distinction tends to blur into meaninglessness. It's as though they've each gone the opposite way around the spectrum and met on the other side...
nice analogy - in terms of grossness and despicability, how do you distinguish Hitler & Mao, Mussolini & Stalin?
Unless you're in the business of handing out style points, you don't. (Though I suppose Mussolini's sheer ineffectiveness makes him rather less of a monster.)
It was a common practice for officers to take “campaign wives” or PPZh (pokhodno-polevy zheny-“field marching wives”) as any women serving in the Red Army were told that they were now the mistresses of the officers regardless of what they felt about the matter or for the officers to “adopt” a civilian woman as their “campaign wife”, who often entered into the unit rosters so that they could receive pay.[115] The "campaign wives" were often nurses, signallers and clerks who wore a black beret and despite being forced to become the concubines of the officers were widely hated by the frontoviks, who saw the "campaign wives" as trading sex for more favorable positions.[116] The writer Vasily Grossman recorded typical remarks about the "campaign wives" in 1942: "Where's the general?" [someone asks]. "Sleeping with his whore."
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
I think when you're talking about totalitarian states, the right/left distinction tends to blur into meaninglessness. It's as though they've each gone the opposite way around the spectrum and met on the other side...
nice analogy - in terms of grossness and despicability, how do you distinguish Hitler & Mao, Mussolini & Stalin?
I think the point is that the distinguishing characteristic is their murderous dictatorial natures, rather than whatever beliefs they professed to espouse - they were the sort of people who would have been murderous in other causes if they'd grown up in a different time. One can try to list them in order of horror (probably Mussolini killed fewest of the four, but that doesn't make him a nice fellow) but it's a bit pointless, as is trying to extrapolate from them to anyone who nominally shared their beliefs. (I'm as anti-nationalist as anyone, but I wouldn't claim that anyone who sympathises with ultra-nationalism, such as Orban, is like Hitler or even Mussolini.)
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
In the context of the Holocaust, it's reasonable to focus on Nazis. But to avoid it being only an oh-how-awful-it-must-have-been piece of history like the Irish potato famine, it should be put into context of the way that prejudice and nationalism can spiral out of control into massacres and genocide - and yes, that can apply to far right, far left and some in between as well. The Armenian genocide wasn't an especially right- or left-wing thing, it was just xenophobia gone mad.
Do you think Nazis are far right or far left?
Obviously far-right. They did little to alter the existing class or economic structures but were obsessed by notions of nationality, power, strength, racial purity and so on.
The.
Dunno. Didn’t he?
They also advocated nationalisations, high taxation and stopping “profiteering”. Further, they pretty much created an entirely separate wing of the land forces - the Waffen SS - to get round the fact the Prussian aristocracy dominated the Wehrmacht, which was relatively (if extremely darkly) meritocratic if you were politically sound.
Yes, but they were all secondary policies, introduced either to enable the primary ones of funding a war-machine that would build an empire in the east and cleanse the nation of what they saw as impure elements, or as some kind of reflection of their values elsewhere - the mistrust of banking as too tainted by "Jewish love of money" (and, indeed, an excess of comfort being liable to weaken the nation).
I think their name summed them up quite well: national socialists. Nationalist and socialist. The socialism being in service of the nationalism.
Of course, the nationalist was far more extreme than the socialism. They did a bit of redistribution but not an awful lot. Arguably the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn’t dissimilar either, just the other way round.
Perhaps the Nazis might have done more socialism had they actually won outright.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
The claim usually made is that right and left wing arrive at the same place despite very different starting points. I think that is wrong; i simply cannot think of three policies which are distinctively far left and anathema to the far right, nor vice versa. The main differences are that the left pretend not to be antisemites while the right don't bother to hide it, and the right enacts the will of the fuhrer while the left enacts the will of the people (interpreted and mediated by someone who looks awfully like the fuhrer).
That's because there is an important distinction is between nationalism and internationalism, often associated with liberalism. The regimes in Germany and the Soviet Union were very nationalistic and therefore similar in many ways even though they were at total war. I don't think comparisons between Corbyn and Stalin or Hitler are useful or fair.
I don’t see any direct connectivity between liberalism, and the centre-left; there’s possibly a better one with internationalism, but not much.
I would say those on the centre-right are more liberal when it comes to free speech, market economics and international trade. But, that doesn’t extend to being liberal on free movement of peoples, nor taking a view that to value (or liberate) diversity you have to restrict some of the liberties of others.
I think those on the centre-right tend to see the nation state as a guarantor of liberalism, rather than an obstacle to it.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
The claim usually made is that right and left wing arrive at the same place despite very different starting points. I think that is wrong; i simply cannot think of three policies which are distinctively far left and anathema to the far right, nor vice versa. The main differences are that the left pretend not to be antisemites while the right don't bother to hide it, and the right enacts the will of the fuhrer while the left enacts the will of the people (interpreted and mediated by someone who looks awfully like the fuhrer).
That's because there is an important distinction is between nationalism and internationalism, often associated with liberalism. The regimes in Germany and the Soviet Union were very nationalistic and therefore similar in many ways even though they were at total war. I don't think comparisons between Corbyn and Stalin or Hitler are useful or fair.
I don’t see any direct connectivity between liberalism, and the centre-left; there’s possibly a better one with internationalism, but not much.
I would say those on the centre-right are more liberal when it comes to free speech, market economics and international trade. But, that doesn’t extend to being liberal on free movement of peoples, nor taking a view that to value (or liberate) diversity you have to restrict some of the liberties of others.
I think those on the centre-right tend to see the nation state as a guarantor of liberalism, rather than an obstacle to it.
I agree with you, by the way. You can be liberal and centre-left or centre-right. The "centre" is probably the key bit as it implies moderation.
PS. Whether Corbyn is a liberal is a topic for discussion. Clearly compared with Stalin he is, and probably also compared with Chavez. He seems committed to democracy. But he is not really a philosophical liberal, like his predecessors as Labour leader.
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
The claim usually made is that right and left wing arrive at the same place despite very different starting points. I think that is wrong; i simply cannot think of three policies which are distinctively far left and anathema to the far right, nor vice versa. The main differences are that the left pretend not to be antisemites while the right don't bother to hide it, and the right enacts the will of the fuhrer while the left enacts the will of the people (interpreted and mediated by someone who looks awfully like the fuhrer).
That's because there is an important distinction is between nationalism and internationalism, often associated with liberalism. The regimes in Germany and the Soviet Union were very nationalistic and therefore similar in many ways even though they were at total war. I don't think comparisons between Corbyn and Stalin or Hitler are useful or fair.
I don’t see any direct connectivity between liberalism, and the centre-left; there’s possibly a better one with internationalism, but not much.
I would say those on the centre-right are more liberal when it comes to free speech, market economics and international trade. But, that doesn’t extend to being liberal on free movement of peoples, nor taking a view that to value (or liberate) diversity you have to restrict some of the liberties of others.
I think those on the centre-right tend to see the nation state as a guarantor of liberalism, rather than an obstacle to it.
Are you in favour of the free movement of people between the nations of England and Scotland?
Hardly a right wing policy. The Russians aren't renowned for being light on military spending. Nor were any of the other Eastern bloc countries, or China.
A very sound point. It's hard to make a case that increased public spending is 'rightwing'. I suppose a true rightwing approach to military and policing would be several private forces competing with one another, or so it could be argued.
The claim usually made is that right and left wing arrive at the same place despite very different starting points. I think that is wrong; i simply cannot think of three policies which are distinctively far left and anathema to the far right, nor vice versa. The main differences are that the left pretend not to be antisemites while the right don't bother to hide it, and the right enacts the will of the fuhrer while the left enacts the will of the people (interpreted and mediated by someone who looks awfully like the fuhrer).
That's because there is an important distinction is between nationalism and internationalism, often associated with liberalism. The regimes in Germany and the Soviet Union were very nationalistic and therefore similar in many ways even though they were at total war. I don't think comparisons between Corbyn and Stalin or Hitler are useful or fair.
I don’t see any direct connectivity between liberalism, and the centre-left; there’s possibly a better one with internationalism, but not much.
I would say those on the centre-right are more liberal when it comes to free speech, market economics and international trade. But, that doesn’t extend to being liberal on free movement of peoples, nor taking a view that to value (or liberate) diversity you have to restrict some of the liberties of others.
I think those on the centre-right tend to see the nation state as a guarantor of liberalism, rather than an obstacle to it.
Are you in favour of the free movement of people between the nations of England and Scotland?
That's completely different. Those countries are neighbours.
Surely time for Spurs to be re-instated as the English club playing in the Semis?
Seems reasonable to me.
I've not seen anything today from the wing-nut in chief but my recent bets on Jezza going this year aren't looking nailed on just yet..... [not mentioned them here before as in the same draw as Tracey Crouch for next Tory leader]
Can you name a single "right wing" policy that Hitler enacted ?
Hitler was above all anti-communist. He hated organised labour of any kind. If we accept Communists and trade unions are left-wing - Yes? - and as Hitler was also opposed to liberalism and moderation of any kind, that makes him right wing by definition. These are just labels, but they have currrency on their normal definitions.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
I think when you're talking about totalitarian states, the right/left distinction tends to blur into meaninglessness. It's as though they've each gone the opposite way around the spectrum and met on the other side...
nice analogy - in terms of grossness and despicability, how do you distinguish Hitler & Mao, Mussolini & Stalin?
I think the point is that the distinguishing characteristic is their murderous dictatorial natures, rather than whatever beliefs they professed to espouse - they were the sort of people who would have been murderous in other causes if they'd grown up in a different time. One can try to list them in order of horror (probably Mussolini killed fewest of the four, but that doesn't make him a nice fellow) but it's a bit pointless, as is trying to extrapolate from them to anyone who nominally shared their beliefs. (I'm as anti-nationalist as anyone, but I wouldn't claim that anyone who sympathises with ultra-nationalism, such as Orban, is like Hitler or even Mussolini.)
I don't think Mussolini deserves inclusion with the other three. They used mass murder as an instrument of state policy, either as a means of terrorism or as an end in itself (or both); Mussolini was, by contrast, a much more regular dictator whose use of violence was tactical rather than strategic.
Comments
They also advocated nationalisations, high taxation and stopping “profiteering”. Further, they pretty much created an entirely separate wing of the land forces - the Waffen SS - to get round the fact the Prussian aristocracy dominated the Wehrmacht, which was relatively (if extremely darkly) meritocratic if you were politically sound.
But it's not great.
I also forgot the Stanley/Derby family, although they tended to swap in and out.
High risk however, as Putin has so far always managed to double-down.
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work.
The abolition of debt interest
The confiscation of all war profits
The nationalization of all businesses which had been formed into corporations
The nationalization of all heavy industry
Profit-sharing in large enterprises
Extensive development of insurance for old-age
Land reform suitable to national requirements
That certainly looks like a left wing economic agenda to me.
In addition, in the late 1930s Hitler introduced a comprehensive social welfare system and in 1944 Goebbels was still writing editorials entitled 'Our Socialism'.
I think also looking for evens is a tad ungenerous.
Anyway, I also tend to favour the view that we are not going to die, yet.
I'd expect the US to do better given the greater numbers they fire and technological superiority, but it would not surprise me if one or two of the eight crashed through technical failures.
As for them being shot down: the Israelis managed to get at least one plane or weapons system through the other night, although possibly with help.
As we saw with Patriot in the first Gulf War, initial claims of success when it comes to anti-missile systems is not always correct when more information comes in ...
But the idea we will have ground troops in Syria is a non starter but we could well be involved in some other way.
Saudi has pledged support to Macron yesterday, and Israel has already attacked an airbase this week
I rememberthe Cuban missile crisis in 1962 with the real fear that a nuclear war was about to break out and the relief when it was avoided.
We are not anything like the 1962 crisis and to be honest while I am concerned about this I am not frightened like I was in 1962
That said, I'm less fussed about a politician following in their father's (or mother's) footsteps, when they have to go through constituency selections and elections, than the background nepotisms of being appointed special advisors and senior office staff. The likes of Hurd or Gummer on the Tory side, or Cryer or Benn on Labour's at least had to prove their worth to party members and (to an extent) the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
Zephyr Teachout"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-facebook-hearing-sham
Brexit would lead to World War III*
*Well he didn't, but many people think he did.
Divisions within the SNP over the timing of a fresh independence referendum were laid bare as one MP called for a new vote by the end of next year.
Angus Brendan MacNeil, the SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, organised a straw poll of his social media followers on the timing of a new vote then announced his backing for a second referendum within 18 months.
It puts him at odds with Pete Wishart, his parliamentary colleague and SNP MP for Perth & North Perthshire who warned Nationalists this week not to charge into an early campaign they could lose. Jim Sillars, the veteran pro-independence activist and former SNP deputy leader, warned that the independence movement was in danger of turning in on itself on the issue.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/snp-fractures-over-new-referendum-date-rhp3d5s7f
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373054743742275584
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/04/07/2326242/facebook-donated-to-46-of-55-members-on-committee-that-will-question-zuckerberg
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/nerve-agent-attack-russian-tv-crew-kicked-out-of-salisbury-hospital-after-appalling-stunt-11326162?__twitter_impression=true
IL76MD, a variant the Algerians have, can lift approx 40T of payload
Not the first time that a mil charter has underestimated the weight on board though. No way that 250 men and kit weight less than 40T
RIP to the casualties.
I have to go. Have a good afternoon.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/04/11/worlds-most-admired-2018/
In fact everyone seems to rate May, though not very highly - even the Russians - and no one has heard of poor old Jez. Annoyingly none of Israel, Palestine or Venezuela was polled.
He didn't really have an economic policy and in fact despised economics as a thing. In practice Nazi Germany was a capitalist economy with a large element of nationalism, turning into a slave economy during the Second World War. Big business was happily aligned with Nazism because it approved of Hitler's anti-communism and the destruction of organised labour. It should have known better.
Has the Third World War started yet?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/nick-griffin-backs-corbyn/
After 200 years it’s time to vacate the stage and let someone else have a turn
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/trump-syria-missile-attack-514499
“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’” Trump wrote on Twitter Wednesday morning. “You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”…
…a response to remarks from Alexander Zasypkin, the Kremlin’s ambassador to Lebanon, who said Tuesday, according to Reuters, that “if there is a strike by the Americans, then...the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired.” Zasypkin said his comments about a U.S. missile strike echoed remarks from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian military chief of staff.
It is one thing for the US to lob missiles at Syrian chemical plants and/or airfields, and for the Russians to attempt to intercept those missiles... quite another for the US/Russians to start shooting directly at each other.
To remain in seclusion for 3 months assessment.Pre-83, for as long as it takes.
(Though I suppose Mussolini's sheer ineffectiveness makes him rather less of a monster.)
It was a common practice for officers to take “campaign wives” or PPZh (pokhodno-polevy zheny-“field marching wives”) as any women serving in the Red Army were told that they were now the mistresses of the officers regardless of what they felt about the matter or for the officers to “adopt” a civilian woman as their “campaign wife”, who often entered into the unit rosters so that they could receive pay.[115] The "campaign wives" were often nurses, signallers and clerks who wore a black beret and despite being forced to become the concubines of the officers were widely hated by the frontoviks, who saw the "campaign wives" as trading sex for more favorable positions.[116] The writer Vasily Grossman recorded typical remarks about the "campaign wives" in 1942: "Where's the general?" [someone asks]. "Sleeping with his whore."
More seriously, perhaps you mean Able Archer 83?
https://twitter.com/LauraAMcCormack/status/983783073522253824?s=19
Of course, the nationalist was far more extreme than the socialism. They did a bit of redistribution but not an awful lot. Arguably the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn’t dissimilar either, just the other way round.
Perhaps the Nazis might have done more socialism had they actually won outright.
I would say those on the centre-right are more liberal when it comes to free speech, market economics and international trade. But, that doesn’t extend to being liberal on free movement of peoples, nor taking a view that to value (or liberate) diversity you have to restrict some of the liberties of others.
I think those on the centre-right tend to see the nation state as a guarantor of liberalism, rather than an obstacle to it.
PS. Whether Corbyn is a liberal is a topic for discussion. Clearly compared with Stalin he is, and probably also compared with Chavez. He seems committed to democracy. But he is not really a philosophical liberal, like his predecessors as Labour leader.
Oh.
Just the 528 miles out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/post-industrial-plymouth-business-social-enterprise
Surely time for Spurs to be re-instated as the English club playing in the Semis?
Seems reasonable to me.
I've not seen anything today from the wing-nut in chief but my recent bets on Jezza going this year aren't looking nailed on just yet..... [not mentioned them here before as in the same draw as Tracey Crouch for next Tory leader]