“We are socialists ….”
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” —Adolf Hitler
The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical.
His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.
Dr Rachel Frosh has been removed the Conservative Party candidates list and forced to resign as the Deputy Police and Crime Comissioner in Hertfordshire because she retweeted a message that linked Nazis to Socialism….incurring the inevitable ‘outrage’.
Blackshirted Fascist, Labour’s Oswald Mosley, wanted policies in 1930 that seem uncannily like Labour’s now:
The memorandum called for high tariffs to protect British industries from international finance, for state nationalisation of main industries and a programme of public worksto solve unemployment.Thirty years later, in 1961, R. H. S. Crossman described the memorandum: “… this brilliant memorandum was a whole generation ahead of Labour thinking.”
The Nazis were quite clearly Socialists….You have to wonder what the professionally outraged would have made of a tweet that linked Socialism to Communists…you know those people who murdered millions upon millions of people…far more than the National Socialists ever did.
Never mind that the Left have now joined forces with the Islamists.
Will the people of the East End defend the Jews against the ‘fascists’ now?
It is remarkable what people can be sacked for saying…and what they say but don’t get sacked for…..
Labour comedian John O’Farrell probably has his own parking space at the BBC employed as he is by them so often.
I wonder what it is that they like about him so much?
‘Upon hearing of the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984 he was described as having a ‘surge of excitement’ and wrote how he was ‘disapointed’ the bomb did not kill Margaret Thatcher. He wrote of this event in his book ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ where he said: ‘In October 1984, when the Brighton bomb went off, I felt a surge of excitement at the nearness of her demise and yet disappointment that such a chance had been missed. ‘This was me…..wishing that they had got her. “Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?” I asked myself over and over again.’ ‘
Death to Jewish settlers, says anti-Zionist poet
…Tom Paulin….who frequently worked for the BBC….and was of course a Labour man.
Of course they are prepared to keep on their books the likes of Jeremy Hardy who said all BNP members should be shot in the back of the neck…and Tom Paulin who described Israelis as Nazis who should be shot.
Just what do you have to do to be banned from the BBC?
Alternatively, you could say, like David Bellamy, that you thought catastrophic man-made global warming was not imminent.
That did for his BBC career, he reckons.
Ignoring the Hitler bullshit, which is just distasteful, this has nothing to do with the BBC.
Carol Thatcher isn’t banned from the BBC.
Whats up Bandicoot, truth hitting home is it, Labour (and by direct association, the BBC) are the same as Hitlers mob?
Do you think for one second, that if there were a hung parliament, they would hesitate to jump into bed with the BNP to gain a majority?
No, me neither.
Do you think the BBC’s tone with the BNP following that event would change?
You becha arse it would!
Cameron’s mantra may have been “We’re all in it together”, but never has a phrase been more apt than to be used within the circle of filth that is Socialism.
Labour, Communist party UK, BNP, BBC.
“Were all in it together”
Bet they’re kicking themselves for not thinking of using it first.
Personally, I doub if anybody would get into bed with the BNP -it would be the kiss of death in British politics. I also think overemphasising the socialism in National Socialism is not a good idea. Hitler was a lower middle class corporatist fascist. He (and several of his henchmates) treated the party (which existed before he joined) like an empty bottle that had a label but one which did not necessarily give an accurate description of the particular mixture he poured into it. People with socialist, soak-the-rich, inclinations, like Roehm, were eliminated.
Hitler’s putting trade unionists and social democrats in concentration camps and his inveterate hatred of ‘Bolshevism’ was a little more than just sectarianism of the left. Elizabeth Wiskemann’s Europe of the Dictators (old Fonana edition) actually has a cartoon on its cover satirising the supposed closeness of fascism and communism.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Europe-Dictators-1919-45-Fontana-History/dp/0006324215
Free trade unionists and Social Democrats didn’t fare too well under Lenin and his successors to at least Brezhnev. Many were sent to the Gulags. Think about how the first free trade union in Poland, Solidarity, was stamped on until it became unstoppable.
‘Carol Thatcher isn’t banned from the BBC’
Oo, goodie, let’s play semantics in seeing who is most qualified to become a BBC ECU Director.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7868401.stm
Axed? Yes, but…
‘However, the 55-year-old will not be banned from the BBC as a whole.’
Maybe it was more an expediting? Which is when you are effectively banned, but the BBC calls it something else and they, and fellow travelers, decide that it is different.
OK, how about ‘dropped’?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/03/bbc-drops-carol-thatcher
‘It is understood that Thatcher was employed on the programme on a short-term contract, which will now not be renewed.’
But not banned.
I wonder if she got to side-step a while like Hugs, or had a sweet double popped in that last pay packet like Uncurious George?
Does seem there are variable standards afoot.
Anyway, here’s the truth, though the source may cause some to gag a bit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1136005/Chiles-reveals-truth-Carol-Thatchers-golliwog-gaffe.html
‘BBC1 Controller Jay Hunt said Miss Thatcher had not apologised sufficiently’
One is sure Ms. Hunt is part of Lord Hall Hall’s epic new, expanding market rate team still?
‘At least 3,300 have complained about the decision. .. So far, the BBC has
received around 130 messages backing its move.’
See, a split! And they have spoken again for the nation.
”There are no second chances when anyone in public life uses such offensive language and I find it hard to believe that the Mayor doesn’t understand this’.
Jennette Arnold, a Labour member of the London Assembly, presumably feeling more fondly about Ed’s new proposed next ex-BBC media to politics squeeze in Eastleigh on the words front?
‘Some senior BBC staff have expressed concerns that this will lead to a culture of people reporting each other to the ‘authorities’ all the time.’
Hey… Mr. Pollard, what d’ya reckon?
‘James Hardy, then Head of Communications for BBC News, emailed Ms Deller to tell her that he had read the story and that while he was unconcerned by it, he would ‘drip poison about Meirion’s suspected role’ if he
got the opportunity. Mr Hardy, to his credit, made it clear to the Review that he deeply regretted the use of the phrase ‘drip poison’.
See… ‘deep regret’. That’s what gets you ahead in the BBC. Even if you are a lying sack of weasels.
That, Bandicoot… is more than something to do with the most trusted national broadcast monopoly I am currently compelled to co-fund.
I remember as a teenager an interview, it may have been on an early edition of Newsnight.
It was a very bizarre confrontation between a lefty who was insisting that Oswald Mosley was an “extreme right-winger” and Mosley insisting that he was “a man of the left“.
The thing about socialists is that if they have disagreements then they accuse each other of “not being socialists“, and if the disagreement becomes very serious, such as going to war with each other, then they will accuse each other of being “right-wing extremists“.
When we won the war, we won it with the Soviet Socialists, hence the Fascists/Nazis are mistakenly labelled “right-wing” by communist sympathisers, such as the Neo-Communist Purpose goons at the BBC.
Is this site for real? Came here after reading some comments on Guido about BBC related stuff. Not sure what I expected exactly but it wasn’t this. I can read demented rants about Hitler anywhere on the internet, I don’t see what this has to do with the BBC or why I’d want to read it. Bye bye.
Oooh, they won’t like that! Prepare for incoming!
You’re not wrong though.
They? Again kicking off with the failure in logic.
Matched only by the preceding template huff, fluff and puff kamikaze run.
But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they do say, so I am hoping the fluffer’s fluffer will be staying with us a bile… while yet.
To have this thread already packed with an entire squadron of Flokkers who, so far, have had zero to contribute on the actual topic, suggests this one may have touched a nerve and some budget has been found to try and poison the well in advance. Especially when complemented by whinges on posting protocol based on rules that don’t exist.
Be interesting to see if it works. The BBC prioritised between the aspiring MP opponent who merely said what Labour’s finest actually do, vs. Ed’s colleague’s views (in mine, humbly, rather more controversial) in dealing with political opponents using covert Semtex as opposed to reasoned debate and appeal by persuasion. Snarks & crisis management… it’s all from a different time. Updated.
The historical parallels are worth recalling.
Especially when all carried out with the help of a pervasive propaganda service that leaves as much of relevance out as it twists what it puts in to suit.
They? Again kicking off with the failure in logic.
Logic? Flokkers and cherry vultures, especially when Hugs are at the other end of the market-rate fax line for comfort from Drs Matearlsbrimsgreeninker from Cheshire and BBC CECUTT are closed.
Snarks and blackberry picking chickenhawks. Again.
Unique.
Ah.. a follower of my work.
Normally welcome, but here more than a bit creepy.
I’m also not sure they haven’t created (given the content, ‘perfected’ is a bit far) a Turing Machine that scans, samples and plays back previous posts as a denial of service attempt.
This could get interesting. Throwing so much at the Bulge… hope you have the supply line to support it.
For now… to you Guess Why I can only say… wibble.
Creepy.
Says stalky-like Guest Who.
Wobble.
coldhardtruth – with a closed soft mind.
If you had bothered to read the OP, you might have just grasped that it was about the origins of the National Socialist Party, and the villifaction of someone who dared speak the truth about that. The Nazi Party rose in pre-war Germany from Socialist groups at the time. It became, as so many left-wing hard-line groups do, a totalitarian group, but this does not change the roots of the party one whit.
It is a great shame that, today in this country, no-one can apparently tell the truth about the Nazi Party and its roots, without being hounded from office.
And that’s the issue at stake. Now why would you have difficulty with people pointing that out ? Is it perhaps because you have the same totalitarian mindset ?
And anyone who goes on to a website, interested in what it might offer, then reads (or doesn’t bother to properly read, as the case may be) one thread and then vows never to return probably exhibits exactly what I said above – i.e. a closed soft mind.
Another drive-by sneer with no substance. We do know how to attract them, it seems.
Spot the difference;
“We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” Nikita S. Khrushchev
“To be a true socialist is to submit the ‘I’ to the ‘thou’; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” Joseph Goebbels
-and rather more contemporary;
“We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society.” Hillary Clinton
The only difference between the socialists of Westminster and those of Hitler’s Germany is that our socialists (including the heirs to Blair) persecute the majority rather than the minorities – with one exception, the Jews, singled out for special treatment by both kinds of socialist.
The corrupt private-public partnerships, the surveillance state, soaring government expenditure, unelected gauleiters running the country, civil rights dependant on race, political police officers and courts, the state broadcaster spitting out hate propaganda, a new order in Europe……the parallel is complete.
(apart from the persecution bit in paragraph 1.)
Of course, this all ties in with the question of Orwell’s seminal 1984. Was it, as generations of cultural Marxists have insisted, a warning against right-wing fascism or, as many have long believed, a clear warning against socialist totalitarianism? I read the book very much as the latter; it’s all there – the similarities to any of one of the 20th century’s genocidal ‘cult of personality’ ‘Dear Leaders’ is writ large. Of course, there are still, incredibly, those will insist it was actually an argument against the likes of Hitler or Mussolini who were right-wing ‘fascists’, you understand, not at all like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao or Kim Il Jong.
No, of course, not. Poor old Orwell. The lefties continue to misrepresent and revise possibly his greatest work to suit their own revisionist agendas, still shrilly claiming him as one of their own. Nothing quite so offensive to socialists as a simple home truth, so it must be ‘corrected’, or it must be erased – but then that whole slippery issue of ‘truth’ (who controls it, who decides what it is) was the whole point of Orwell’s book – or did I miss something?
There’s no hiding what MiniTrue (Ministry of Truth) is tho’ is there?
‘However, the 55-year-old will not be banned from the BBC as a whole.’’
The article seems pretty clear to me Guest Who, try reaing it again.
I know you’ve been ‘expedited’ for being a time waster but try not to be too bitter about it. I won’t even ask you for a refund for wasting my licence fee.
You’re not unique.
Your habit of replying as far removed from what is being discussed makes it rather hard to see what you are referring to, but I have already pointed out that what is said semantically need not reflect the accuracy of reality.
Especially in Beebworld.
‘The article seems pretty clear to me Guest Who, try reaing it again.’
Try a spellchecker before making suggestions that make no sense.
‘I know you’ve been ‘expedited’ for being a time waster but try not to be too bitter about it.’
Care to explain how you come to ‘know’ such a thing?
On top of telling Lynette what you know about her exchanges with BBC Complaints suggesting you are keen to create the impression that privileged information between a member of the public and a public sector body is a bit leaky (Pollard covers that too, along with the dripping poison policies that pervade).
‘I won’t even ask you for a refund for wasting my licence fee.’
Good of you. You can always ask. If an option denied most licence fee compelees when forced to fund such as Ms. Boaden’s totally wasted FoI outing, or the McAlpine compo, or the DG doubles yer money…
You’re not unique.
Never said I was, but thanks for some interesting shares that suggest you are part of something that is, and which also feels so unaccountable it can indulge some bragging about it and making some rather racy statements possibly best not left in print.
Try a spellchecker before making suggestions that make no sense.
Says the hall monitor grammar Nazi.
A low hanging cherry the vulture can’t resist a squawk at.
‘Says the hall monitor grammar Nazi.’
Says in no way stalky-like Guess Why.
As you’re on the line, what do you ‘know’ about what BBC CECUTT ‘knows’ about British licence fee payers?
I do confess to have teased on occasion with matters grammatical, and even invoked Godwin, but that’s because I can conscience clear (many feathers flying the last time a 1,000 year allusion was cast).
However, for the trainee Flokker to do so when it’s pretty much the bread and butter of the more longstanding squadron members may see a ticking off at debrief. Makes ’em look bad.
But in this, you and Bandicoot make quite a team.
I often find it hard to know what you’re referring to, due to your pretentious prose.
I know you’ve been expedited because you write about it often. And you seem to think including the word ‘unique’ in the sentence somewhere makes it funny. It doesn’t.
I am not privy to Lynette’s correspondence, I’m pretty sure the response was published on the Complaints site, but you’ll find lots of similar responses published about gay kssing on EastEnders etc as well.
You can ask TVL for a refund, I expect their reply will make more sense than yours.
Of course, no doubt you’ll presume that I am one and the same as anyone else here who dissents, and that the BBC is paying us to monitor you, because of you are so important and are making such a difference….or maybe not.
‘I often find it hard to know what you’re referring to, due to your pretentious prose.
This ‘often’ starting from when, in your vast experience as a poster here?
Critiques of style can wound, though it does depend on who is making them.
Failures in comprehension due to inabilities at the recipient’s end are hence beyond my control.
I know you’ve been expedited because you write about it often.
I write about expediting, and know people who have been.
Please show where I have advised that I have been expedited.
And you seem to think including the word ‘unique’ in the sentence somewhere makes it funny. It doesn’t.
Your tracking of my body of work is noted, but again in the circumstances comes across as a bit creepy.
Humour of course can be relative.
What some find funny, others do not.
The reasons can vary, but those on the wrong end of something can find it unfunny, whilst those observing will.
The BBC uses the word ‘unique’ to describe its funding model.
I use unique about other BBC activities that fall under the apparently desired descriptive parameter the BBC uses, but also not as a good thing. Unique can not be positive.
But your displeasure, and possible reasons, are noted.
Along with repeating the BBC conceit of telling me what is, when it’s no more than what you wish it to be. There is a difference.
I am not privy to Lynette’s correspondence, I’m pretty sure the response was published on the Complaints site, but you’ll find lots of similar responses published about gay kssing on EastEnders etc as well.
What you wrote was:
‘I know the response, and it doesnt accuse the complainant of homophobia.’
That shows you were more than pretty sure then. Now you are back-tracking, and waving at ‘lots of similar responses’ doesn’t dig you out.
You can ask TVL for a refund,
Why would I do that? A refund for what? Are you confusing me with the poster seeking one for today’s failure to provide services charged for?
I expect their reply will make more sense than yours.
Your expectation is noted. The sense of TVL literature and correspondence is easily discovered across the blogosphere and, I hate to break it to you… not in a good way.
‘Of course, no doubt you’ll presume that I am one and the same as anyone else here who dissents,
Dissents? How? You appear to take issue with other posters, yet clearly feel that reaping a response in return is not according to your own quaint rules. Very BBC I’ll grant you, but not really how blog threads work.
‘and that the BBC is paying us to monitor you’
This ‘us’ being? You appear to feel part of a group, who are ‘they’?
‘because of you are so important’
Importance is also relative. And to whom. Maybe one measure is the efforts devoted in trying to distract or constrain a person sharing a view? Have to say, given the numbers and resource invested in reams of online names and new web histories it could be an area worth looking at, along with the various shy box-tickers such entities seem to carry adoringly in their wakes.
‘and are making such a difference….or maybe not.’
Well, making a difference is a noble goal if it is a positive one. Less so if it’s in the cause of trying to cut off and shut down.
But even such negatives can serve if those simply observing can see who is trying to impose, and how, on whom, and with what possible motivations.
And come to their own conclusions.
If I am lucky in this, you are to be commended in this for managing to do a bang-up job.