Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Hitler despised whate he saw as the effete multiculturism of the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire. That is why he volunteered for a Bavarian regiment rather than an Austrian one.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
Well it wasn’t. In the long run it did the world hugely more good than bad.
I thought taking a long view of history was not allowed anymore, we must remain outraged and upset by all historical moments for all time, with no assessment whatsoever.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
The world is going mad
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Seriously...........................
Yes, rcs is living in a dreamland. If he's lucky the Frenzy will burn out before it reaches STEM...
The frenzy is already burning out. There is no commune in Seattle any more. There are no more riots.
The woke crew have started to argue among themselves over who is purest.
But don't let me get in the way of your hysteria.
Believe me, I really really hope you are right.
And the last BLM movement fizzled out amid accusations of anti-Semitism etc. Which, by the way, is a terrible shame: the essential cause is wholly just
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal...
The power of collective delusion - as one look at a photograph of Himmler makes clear.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.
I've only studied the interwar period, where Austria was a leftover stump of the Empire. Again, I was studying it primarily from an economic standpoint. What you say is interesting.
What was that LadyG/Eadric/SeanT was saying about the second half of 2020 couldn't be any worse?
Next up - nuclear war between India and China......
The Indian nuclear deterrent makes an all-out attack on India by China that much less likely.
China wants Taiwan back and also has a territorial dispute with Japan. They appear to be more likely targets for disastrous military adventurism.
Chinese action versus India is for domestic consumption, to (try to) distract Chinese public from the follies & failures of the regime.
Xi's not crazy enough to truly provoke US or Taiwan or Korea (North or South) & Japan. Is in bed (sort of) with Russia. As for Vietnam, well Chinese tried that back in late 70s and got a bloody nose (not as bad but something like Russia versus Finland in Winter War).
So whose left to kick around? India.
North Korea?
Provoking North Korea is like picking up a sharp stick and poking it in a grumpy (make that rabid) Grizzly Bear's eye.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
It has felt at times that everything that could go wrong for City, has gone wrong for them. Since that 2-2 with Spurs they've contrived to drop a lot of points this season.
However, do not underestimate just how good Liverpool are. Without the ball they are fantastic and incredibly hard to play against. They're not as good going forward as a team compared with City, but they have a lot of talent up front that wins them a lot of games. I still make Liverpool slight favourites to retain their title next season.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
We're currently the champions of England, Europe, and the World, when have City ever been able to sing that?
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.
Austrians got lucky (sort of) because they were considered victims instead of beneficiaries of the Third Reich. Note that Otto von Hapsburg spent WWII in US and played a key role in convincing Allied leaders to treat Austrians as fellow-sufferers not co-conspirators.
Otto von Habsburg was a brave man. In 1940 he stayed in Paris until he could literally hear the jackboots of the Wehrmacht.
Don't have the test breakdown yet, but must be either lots of surveillance tests, or max possible mailed tests (Leicester?)
Twas the latter. Big spike in pillar2 tests, 300k in the last two days, so I'm guessing that's being directed at hotspots.
Presumably half of Leicester are in the process of being tested?
In my part of the world, they’ve sent public health officials through hotspot areas, testing everyone and isolating all positive cases in government facilities. These were usually areas of high-density housing for construction workers. The public health officials were also very clear that they didn’t care about things like immigration offences, they just wanted to stop the virus spreading.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
Both wrong. You have to base it on the swing from the previous season's results.
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
+1
Yes. I strongly prefer Johnson. I wish more would use it. Not just here on PB but generally. Use of his 1st name (unless in irony) is inappropriate and borderline cringeful.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal...
The power of collective delusion - as one look at a photograph of Himmler makes clear.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
That 'the slave trade wasn't a genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in the USA'
He didn't use those actual words, I assume.
Unfortunately he did. Without the word "damn" I think he could have gotten away with that statement, there's certainly an argument to be made that slavery was a different evil to genocide but saying "so many damn blacks" . . . not OK . . .
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Hitler despised whate he saw as the effete multiculturism of the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire. That is why he volunteered for a Bavarian regiment rather than an Austrian one.
That's correct, and the reason why he willingly gave up his Austrian citizenship in 1925. After a period of seven years as a stateless person he only took up the German one in 1932.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
Of course it doesn't matter it terms of who wins the PL title but in terms of discussing where this Liverpool team sits in comparison to other great teams it is a factor.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's a bit like those really American religious types that rail against the evil homosexuality then turn out to have blown every male escort on the Eastern seaboard.
Re: Robert Maxwell's darling daughter, fact that she was able to hide out without detection is NOT that surprising. IF she kept to herself, avoided going out & about, didn't invite people into her hideout, and kept off the phone/web. Especially in place & culture where minding your own beeswax is a virtue. ESPECIALLY during the pandemic.
Instead of a coverup, more likely it took the FBI a while to track her down because she was covering her tracks. Until she messed up OR the G-men got a lucky break.
Anyway, my guess is she's gonna start spilling the beans big-time. AND that it's just possible the Queen might find herself waiving bye-bye to His Foul Highness as his jet passes Windsor on the way to New York to be a "guest" of the US govt.
The FBI have said they've known where she was for a while, and have been monitoring her. And that they brought her in at their convenience.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
It must be pretty galling for Spurs fans that they had the best goal difference two seasons running and didn't win the title in either year.
I only mentioned this because the odds for next season were being discussed the other day. I think goal difference is quite a good measure of potential.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal...
The power of collective delusion - as one look at a photograph of Himmler makes clear.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
Of course it did. They didn't feel "truly German" and this led to a sense of inadequacy which made them over-emphasise "German-ness".
You can see the same process with Brexit: Daniel Hannan, Andrew Lilico, both born outside the UK
And also the same with Scottish Nationalism, with people like Brian Cox, Sean Connery, WingsoverScotland, Stuart Dickson, who have no intention of living in drizzly, midgey Scotland, but perhaps feel a personal guilt for this, and therefore over-compensate
There is, of course, a long noble history of radical nationalist leaders being born outside the nation they lead
Napoloeon was born in Corsica
Kemal Ataturk was born in Greece
Boris Johnson was born in NYC
Attaturk was born in Thessalonika when it was an Ottoman city. It didn't become Greek until the Second Balkan War. At that time its population was roughly 1/3 Turkish, 1/3 Greek and 1/3 Jewish. Most of the Greeks there now are descendents of Anatolian Greeks expelled in 1923.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.
I've only studied the interwar period, where Austria was a leftover stump of the Empire. Again, I was studying it primarily from an economic standpoint. What you say is interesting.
Probably more correct to say, there was a Habsburg imperial identity: "Kaisertreu". Which the dynasty and it's officaldom worked overtime trying to inculcate into Franz Joseph's diverse (to put it mildly) subjects. The closer you get to WWI, the more this imperial ideal began to dissolve under the impact of nationalism. This affected all the peoples of the Empire. Including ethnic Germans (and Hitler certainly qualified as one) especially as their favored position kept on eroding.
Hence the rise of German nationalist ideology (Linz Program) and parties up until the end of the Empire.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
The world is going mad
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Seriously...........................
And will they be sacked for sending such a crass email?
That 'the slave trade wasn't a genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in the USA'
He didn't use those actual words, I assume.
Unfortunately he did. Without the word "damn" I think he could have gotten away with that statement, there's certainly an argument to be made that slavery was a different evil to genocide but saying "so many damn blacks" . . . not OK . . .
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
+1
Yes. I strongly prefer Johnson. I wish more would use it. Not just here on PB but generally. Use of his 1st name (unless in irony) is inappropriate and borderline cringeful.
No matter how many times people tell me its use demonstrates some form of endearment it never stops sounding like a pile of nonsense to me. I think it is really demeaning to suggest that it does in fact. Here, I'll give you an example of why it's nonsense - Boris is an arse, who has been sacked for lying multiple times. Oh heaven forfend, such endearment has been shown by that statement. There's no real implication from using Boris, that's something people are inferring.
His brand is being known as Boris. Fine if people don't want to use it for that reason, or because they want to be consistent or more formal. But I've used both Boris and Johnson and Boris Johnson, and I don't accept this ludicrousness that if people generally refer to him as Boris they should not because it is somehow cuddly or friendly.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
Of course it doesn't matter it terms of who wins the PL title but in terms of discussing where this Liverpool team sits in comparison to other great teams it is a factor.
If the team end up with 100+ points then goal difference really isn't relevant.
If anything their number of games won by 1 goal has shown their tenacity and determination through this season.
Can only afford to drop 3 more points though and get the all time points record this season. A couple of tricky games coming up before the end of the season too.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's a bit like those really American religious types that rail against the evil homosexuality then turn out to have blown every male escort on the Eastern seaboard.
I just checked on the latest gaydar news on the senator from S.Carolina and discovered that (apparently) his nickname amongst male sex workers is Lady G.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
Of course it doesn't matter it terms of who wins the PL title but in terms of discussing where this Liverpool team sits in comparison to other great teams it is a factor.
Perhaps. But gap between first and second is also a factor.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's a bit like those really American religious types that rail against the evil homosexuality then turn out to have blown every male escort on the Eastern seaboard.
I just checked on the latest gaydar news on the senator from S.Carolina and discovered that (apparently) his nickname amongst male sex workers is Lady G.
The divergence between case rates and death rates between the US and UK is remarkable. Yesterday the US case rate again rose dramatically faster than that in the UK, which is slowly dwindling down. Yet the percentage increase in reported COVID deaths in the UK and US was almost the same.
It's a lagging indicator and, also, at the moment Civd-19 is spreading amongst young American people going to bars.
In addition, treatments are vastly improved, so fewer people in hospital will die
It's not remarkable, it makes total sense.
I see that the New York Times does think it is remarkable and suggests the explanation is that, despite all its failings, the US has so far avoided directing infected people into its care homes. Avoiding the mistake made by the UK and some other European countries such as Spain has avoided being hit by an excess of deaths from already elderly, ill and frail nursing home residents.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's a bit like those really American religious types that rail against the evil homosexuality then turn out to have blown every male escort on the Eastern seaboard.
Aren't the stories about Hitlers dubious ancestry down to British propaganda during the war?
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal...
The power of collective delusion - as one look at a photograph of Himmler makes clear.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
Of course it did. They didn't feel "truly German" and this led to a sense of inadequacy which made them over-emphasise "German-ness".
You can see the same process with Brexit: Daniel Hannan, Andrew Lilico, both born outside the UK
And also the same with Scottish Nationalism, with people like Brian Cox, Sean Connery, WingsoverScotland, Stuart Dickson, who have no intention of living in drizzly, midgey Scotland, but perhaps feel a personal guilt for this, and therefore over-compensate
Just the same, apart from them all being born in drizzly, midgey Scotland.
There is, of course, a long noble history of radical nationalist leaders being born outside the nation they lead
Napoloeon was born in Corsica
Kemal Ataturk was born in Greece
Boris Johnson was born in NYC
Attaturk was born in Thessalonika when it was an Ottoman city. It didn't become Greek until the Second Balkan War. At that time its population was roughly 1/3 Turkish, 1/3 Greek and 1/3 Jewish. Most of the Greeks there now are descendents of Anatolian Greeks expelled in 1923.
Alexander Hamiliton (definitely an American nationalist) was born in Nevis, British West Indies.
Garibaldi was born in Nice, though that city was then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia.
Marshal Mannerheim was born in Finland, but he was a Swede Finn who served in the Czarist Army; he spoke fluent Russian as well as Swedish, but Finnish? Not so much.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
All credit to Liverpool for winning the PL this year but they are no where near as ahead of City as some of their fans are claiming. City had a goal difference go 79 t season ago when they romped the league, Liverpool's currently stands at 45 and City's is better.
How dare fans claim they are so far ahead just because they are massively ahead on points, it's relative goal differences which is the true measure of season long consistent ability!
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
It must be pretty galling for Spurs fans that they had the best goal difference two seasons running and didn't win the title in either year.
I only mentioned this because the odds for next season were being discussed the other day. I think goal difference is quite a good measure of potential.
I'm not sure about that. Scoring goals and locking down games are two very different skillsets.
Having the ability to get 1-0 up then lock the game down so the opposition can't score, or to keep pushing into stoppage time for the winner is different to simply going hell for leather to blow teams away.
When Liverpool came close with Suarez etc they were quite different especially at the back to this squad. Then it was almost a case of the team saying "we don't care if you score twice, we're going to score four times". This squad is completely different at the back.
Liverpool's goal difference currently is worse than the goal difference in 2014 but the squad and season is much, much better.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
The world is going mad
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Seriously...........................
I would not be surprised if global uses of the perjorative 'niggardly' are right down in the last 10 years. It's just not worth time or effort to keep using it even if only a tiny number would a] get upset, and b] refuse to accept an etymological explanation.
We have been advised that our office will reopen in early August. Maximum 30% occupancy. WFH will still be the default option; I'll be happy to oblige.
The divergence between case rates and death rates between the US and UK is remarkable. Yesterday the US case rate again rose dramatically faster than that in the UK, which is slowly dwindling down. Yet the percentage increase in reported COVID deaths in the UK and US was almost the same.
It's a lagging indicator and, also, at the moment Civd-19 is spreading amongst young American people going to bars.
In addition, treatments are vastly improved, so fewer people in hospital will die
It's not remarkable, it makes total sense.
I see that the New York Times does think it is remarkable and suggests the explanation is that, despite all its failings, the US has so far avoided directing infected people into its care homes. Avoiding the mistake made by the UK and some other European countries such as Spain has avoided being hit by an excess of deaths from already elderly, ill and frail nursing home residents.
To be brutally honest, spreading it widely among the young rather than spreading it partly among those who are going-to-die-within-two-years-anyway is not necessarily a great result.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's a bit like those really American religious types that rail against the evil homosexuality then turn out to have blown every male escort on the Eastern seaboard.
Aren't the stories about Hitlers dubious ancestry down to British propaganda during the war?
Yes, they were used a propaganda. But post-war research validates basic premise.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's a bit like those really American religious types that rail against the evil homosexuality then turn out to have blown every male escort on the Eastern seaboard.
Aren't the stories about Hitlers dubious ancestry down to British propaganda during the war?
Well we were good at deception in those.
Operations Bodyguard and Fortitude North & South were the best bit of deception ever seen.
FUSAG was the pièce de résistance, even in the middle of July 1944 the Germans thought the Normandy landings were a deception and the they were still expecting the main Allied invasion to be at Pas-de-Calais.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.
I've only studied the interwar period, where Austria was a leftover stump of the Empire. Again, I was studying it primarily from an economic standpoint. What you say is interesting.
Probably more correct to say, there was a Habsburg imperial identity: "Kaisertreu". Which the dynasty and it's officaldom worked overtime trying to inculcate into Franz Joseph's diverse (to put it mildly) subjects. The closer you get to WWI, the more this imperial ideal began to dissolve under the impact of nationalism. This affected all the peoples of the Empire. Including ethnic Germans (and Hitler certainly qualified as one) especially as their favored position kept on eroding.
Hence the rise of German nationalist ideology (Linz Program) and parties up until the end of the Empire.
I think what you are saying is largely correct for the late 19th century, but I think it's also fair to say that the roots of Austrian national identity were seeded sometime between the siege of 1529 and the Battle of 1689. Austrian identity didn't begin with the congress of 1814.
There is, of course, a long noble history of radical nationalist leaders being born outside the nation they lead
Napoloeon was born in Corsica
Kemal Ataturk was born in Greece
Boris Johnson was born in NYC
Attaturk was born in Thessalonika when it was an Ottoman city. It didn't become Greek until the Second Balkan War. At that time its population was roughly 1/3 Turkish, 1/3 Greek and 1/3 Jewish. Most of the Greeks there now are descendents of Anatolian Greeks expelled in 1923.
Alexander Hamiliton (definitely an American nationalist) was born in Nevis, British West Indies.
Garibaldi was born in Nice, though that city was then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia.
Marshal Mannerheim was born in Finland, but he was a Swede Finn who served in the Czarist Army; he spoke fluent Russian as well as Swedish, but Finnish? Not so much.
Wellington manages pretty well as an English icon despite being a Paddy.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal...
The power of collective delusion - as one look at a photograph of Himmler makes clear.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
Of course it did. They didn't feel "truly German" and this led to a sense of inadequacy which made them over-emphasise "German-ness".
You can see the same process with Brexit: Daniel Hannan, Andrew Lilico, both born outside the UK
And also the same with Scottish Nationalism, with people like Brian Cox, Sean Connery, WingsoverScotland, Stuart Dickson, who have no intention of living in drizzly, midgey Scotland, but perhaps feel a personal guilt for this, and therefore over-compensate
Just the same, apart from them all being born in drizzly, midgey Scotland.
The non Aryan Germans hated themselves. The non British-born Brits hate their birthplace and yearn to be British-born.
The non Scottish-abiding Nats actively hate the idea of living in Scotland RIGHT NOW, because it is a midge-infested, drizzled-on toilet, a state of affairs unlikely to improve whether your deficit is run from Edinburgh or Westminster.
I'm not sure this is such a great advert for Scotland. To be perfectly frank.
The divergence between case rates and death rates between the US and UK is remarkable. Yesterday the US case rate again rose dramatically faster than that in the UK, which is slowly dwindling down. Yet the percentage increase in reported COVID deaths in the UK and US was almost the same.
It's a lagging indicator and, also, at the moment Civd-19 is spreading amongst young American people going to bars.
In addition, treatments are vastly improved, so fewer people in hospital will die
It's not remarkable, it makes total sense.
I see that the New York Times does think it is remarkable and suggests the explanation is that, despite all its failings, the US has so far avoided directing infected people into its care homes. Avoiding the mistake made by the UK and some other European countries such as Spain has avoided being hit by an excess of deaths from already elderly, ill and frail nursing home residents.
From memory there were a couple of care homes very early on in the progress (WA state IIRC), and Fauci picked it up straight away and told every doctor in the US not to send people to care homes who hasn’t been tested negative. Which of course the US doctors loved, because their health system has massive capacity and it’s all billable hours/days.
They can’t keep the American kids locked up, but they’re generally adding to the cases numbers and not the deaths.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal...
The power of collective delusion - as one look at a photograph of Himmler makes clear.
Indeed, Heydrich resembled one of the horse he was so keen on riding. I guess all the knightly activities (fencing, riding) helped burnish the image.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
It's obviously a point on the periphery but none of the leading Nazis were much to write home about in the looks department.
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
+1
Yes. I strongly prefer Johnson. I wish more would use it. Not just here on PB but generally. Use of his 1st name (unless in irony) is inappropriate and borderline cringeful.
No matter how many times people tell me its use demonstrates some form of endearment it never stops sounding like a pile of nonsense to me. I think it is really demeaning to suggest that it does in fact. Here, I'll give you an example of why it's nonsense - Boris is an arse, who has been sacked for lying multiple times. Oh heaven forfend, such endearment has been shown by that statement. There's no real implication from using Boris, that's something people are inferring.
His brand is being known as Boris. Fine if people don't want to use it for that reason, or because they want to be consistent or more formal. But I've used both Boris and Johnson and Boris Johnson, and I don't accept this ludicrousness that if people generally refer to him as Boris they should not because it is somehow cuddly or friendly.
Is there any other politician who you routinely refer to by their first name as a matter of course and with no irony?
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
+1
Yes. I strongly prefer Johnson. I wish more would use it. Not just here on PB but generally. Use of his 1st name (unless in irony) is inappropriate and borderline cringeful.
No matter how many times people tell me its use demonstrates some form of endearment it never stops sounding like a pile of nonsense to me. I think it is really demeaning to suggest that it does in fact. Here, I'll give you an example of why it's nonsense - Boris is an arse, who has been sacked for lying multiple times. Oh heaven forfend, such endearment has been shown by that statement. There's no real implication from using Boris, that's something people are inferring.
His brand is being known as Boris. Fine if people don't want to use it for that reason, or because they want to be consistent or more formal. But I've used both Boris and Johnson and Boris Johnson, and I don't accept this ludicrousness that if people generally refer to him as Boris they should not because it is somehow cuddly or friendly.
Is there any other politician who you routinely refer to by their first name as a matter of course and with no irony?
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
+1
Yes. I strongly prefer Johnson. I wish more would use it. Not just here on PB but generally. Use of his 1st name (unless in irony) is inappropriate and borderline cringeful.
No matter how many times people tell me its use demonstrates some form of endearment it never stops sounding like a pile of nonsense to me. I think it is really demeaning to suggest that it does in fact. Here, I'll give you an example of why it's nonsense - Boris is an arse, who has been sacked for lying multiple times. Oh heaven forfend, such endearment has been shown by that statement. There's no real implication from using Boris, that's something people are inferring.
His brand is being known as Boris. Fine if people don't want to use it for that reason, or because they want to be consistent or more formal. But I've used both Boris and Johnson and Boris Johnson, and I don't accept this ludicrousness that if people generally refer to him as Boris they should not because it is somehow cuddly or friendly.
Is there any other politician who you routinely refer to by their first name as a matter of course and with no irony?
Maggie?
It's probably the closest but I don't think to anything like the same extent as Bor ... as Johnson.
Comments
People tested been trying to make it balance for 41 days so far without success Fook it lets say 51
Football is even more ridiculous than politics when it comes to petty arguments. I bet there are people still arguing that Tottenham were the better team the year Leicester won the league. Which might be true, except in the way that matters, so what's the point?
And the last BLM movement fizzled out amid accusations of anti-Semitism etc. Which, by the way, is a terrible shame: the essential cause is wholly just
We shall see
However, do not underestimate just how good Liverpool are. Without the ball they are fantastic and incredibly hard to play against. They're not as good going forward as a team compared with City, but they have a lot of talent up front that wins them a lot of games. I still make Liverpool slight favourites to retain their title next season.
Gavin Williamson was always a bizarre choice for Education Secretary... and this proved it
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/02/gavin-williamson-always-bizarre-choice-education-secretary-proved/
Though to be fair, most of the cabinet are bizarre choices,
In my part of the world, they’ve sent public health officials through hotspot areas, testing everyone and isolating all positive cases in government facilities. These were usually areas of high-density housing for construction workers. The public health officials were also very clear that they didn’t care about things like immigration offences, they just wanted to stop the virus spreading.
Previously, only the Pillar 1 numbers were available I think, so this is a more informative dataset about local outbreaks.
Yes. I strongly prefer Johnson. I wish more would use it. Not just here on PB but generally. Use of his 1st name (unless in irony) is inappropriate and borderline cringeful.
Like Hitler there were rumours of Jewish ancestry.
'He was shy, insecure, and was frequently bullied for his high-pitched voice and rumoured Jewish ancestry. The latter claim earned him the nickname "Moses Handel."'
I wonder if that kind of thing fed the antisemitism.
https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642
Napoloeon was born in Corsica
Kemal Ataturk was born in Greece
Boris Johnson was born in NYC
https://www.scmp.com/article/970657/not-letting-facts-ruin-good-story
I only mentioned this because the odds for next season were being discussed the other day. I think goal difference is quite a good measure of potential.
You can see the same process with Brexit: Daniel Hannan, Andrew Lilico, both born outside the UK
And also the same with Scottish Nationalism, with people like Brian Cox, Sean Connery, WingsoverScotland, Stuart Dickson, who have no intention of living in drizzly, midgey Scotland, but perhaps feel a personal guilt for this, and therefore over-compensate
Hence the rise of German nationalist ideology (Linz Program) and parties up until the end of the Empire.
Now we know that Starkey has a long record of being controversial in his musings, but that phrase came across as either drunk or really quite racist.
His brand is being known as Boris. Fine if people don't want to use it for that reason, or because they want to be consistent or more formal. But I've used both Boris and Johnson and Boris Johnson, and I don't accept this ludicrousness that if people generally refer to him as Boris they should not because it is somehow cuddly or friendly.
If anything their number of games won by 1 goal has shown their tenacity and determination through this season.
Can only afford to drop 3 more points though and get the all time points record this season. A couple of tricky games coming up before the end of the season too.
It's a small world.
Paul McCartney and Derek Hatton are BLUES!!!
Not sure of the other two.
Degsy's a season ticket holder at Goodison. One of Maccas uncles was head of EFC supporters club.
Garibaldi was born in Nice, though that city was then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia.
Marshal Mannerheim was born in Finland, but he was a Swede Finn who served in the Czarist Army; he spoke fluent Russian as well as Swedish, but Finnish? Not so much.
Having the ability to get 1-0 up then lock the game down so the opposition can't score, or to keep pushing into stoppage time for the winner is different to simply going hell for leather to blow teams away.
When Liverpool came close with Suarez etc they were quite different especially at the back to this squad. Then it was almost a case of the team saying "we don't care if you score twice, we're going to score four times". This squad is completely different at the back.
Liverpool's goal difference currently is worse than the goal difference in 2014 but the squad and season is much, much better.
It's probably a wash.
Operations Bodyguard and Fortitude North & South were the best bit of deception ever seen.
FUSAG was the pièce de résistance, even in the middle of July 1944 the Germans thought the Normandy landings were a deception and the they were still expecting the main Allied invasion to be at Pas-de-Calais.
The non Scottish-abiding Nats actively hate the idea of living in Scotland RIGHT NOW, because it is a midge-infested, drizzled-on toilet, a state of affairs unlikely to improve whether your deficit is run from Edinburgh or Westminster.
I'm not sure this is such a great advert for Scotland. To be perfectly frank.
They can’t keep the American kids locked up, but they’re generally adding to the cases numbers and not the deaths.