‘Hitler’s Nazi party were national socialists, and therefore technically left wing – but so left wing as to appear right wing in their extreme and racist views. The same can apply to the BNP.’
from the BBC dictionary…ala Orwell
From Teddy Bear in the comments….a BBC reply to someone who complained that they were referring to the BNP as right-wing when they should be called left-wing:
Dear Mr D****
Thanks for your e-mail.
I understand you have concerns with our presenters and reporters referring to the BNP or similar parties as “far-right” when you feel that this description is inaccurate.
I can assure you that we carefully consider the terminology before referring to any organisation or person in our news reports.
The BNP was born out of the National Front – a “national” party, who like many parties purporting to represent the national interests of a particular country, claim themselves to be national socialists. NS is an extremely left wing form of political belief – Hitler’s Nazi party were national socialists, and therefore technically left wing – but so left wing as to appear right wing in their extreme and racist views. The same can apply to the BNP.
I would like to assure you that I’ve registered your feelings about this matter on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you once again for taking the trouble to share your views with us.
Regards
Ross *****
BBC Complaints
As Teddy Bear says ‘you couldn’t make it up’.…but you know what…somebody did!
Well if that doesn’t get a ‘we note that you are publishing stuff that’s our little secret’ sniffy note to author and even bbbc editorial (harking back to the last time), I don’t know what will.
I hope Mr. D pushes this the whole way, if appreciating how long and hard the process will be.
It has to get as far as the Trust discussing it, which means several complaints bots and a few ECU Directors being comfortable in the belief that such a circumlution made and makes sense
Only if Rona and the girls (plus the women) get to chew over this at vast expense in several months will it get published in public, and I really want to see this on BBC headed notepaper, along with how they justify such a response
.. if that doesn’t get a ‘we note that you are publishing stuff that’s our little secret’ sniffy note …
Do you know for sure that they expect confidentiality? For a publically funded news organisation to take that attitude would be outrageous. The reply should have come from someone authorised to speak for the BBC and its contents should surely be available to the general public. If it came from someone not authorised then it is worthless; worse, it could well be misleading.
They ‘expect’ it in the same manner TVL advise they are popping round to turn your house over to ‘sell’ a licence, or else.
It’s all in the wording and unhealthy dose of semantic misdirection, with near zero legality or ethical justification.
The end disclaimers to BBC complaints responses are masterpieces of dark muttering.
There is also a thread from this site where the people who don’t care what is written here and ignore everyone who share concerns got very exercised by someone posting one of their peurile template blow-offs and tried to intimidate enough to prevent a repeat.
Like most BBC trust and transparency attempts it didn’t work out as intended.
I’ll try and dig it out during a coffee break back at the work PC.
Meantime, I’ll leave the forum to enjoy the wall to wall blessings that should not get interminably spoken, but do every weekend.
“Do you know for sure that they expect confidentiality? For a publically funded news organisation to take that attitude would be outrageous. The reply should have come from someone authorised to speak for the BBC and its contents should surely be available to the general public.”
Almost forgot my promised links.
BBC Complaints exchange sign-offs at cookie cutter level now simply say:
“This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.”
Beyond being, and designed to be, a royal pain, packed with pointless hurdle-rejumping redundancy, that is a lot better than what used to be tacked on, especially at ECU or Trust level:
‘This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Now, given that mouthful, how do you think the last two statements are meant to be taken?
I also have managed to locate the share from here when Jimmy’s employer wanted secrets kept and for any minded to stray into the public to know how they view such things:
‘The BBC does not seem to enjoy having complaints about it being made public’
This comment (of many – noting very little of CECUTT’s antics seems to have changed, and indeed may have got worse since; especially as regards their unhealthy interest in individuals needing a less than subtle reminder that the BBC knows who they are. Which can seem more threatening from a vast corporation than, say, one intemperate blog poster to another) rather sums up the point at issue:
matthew rowe October 20, 2011 at 11:27 am
We note you have chosen to make this private exchange public.??
Sorry is this exchange private ? did both sides agree to it being kept secret ? and can a publicly taxpayer funded organisation be in anyway expectant of secrecy in this day of F.O.I’s ? well unless they go to court to lie their way out of it [Balen] but that’s still all very public ain’t it BBC??
Despite regular protestations from people who so can’t bear coming here they have to keep coming back to keep saying so, and no one at the BBC cares or can be bothered, it is clear the BBC maintains an active, if often unhealthy interest of sites/forums it considers a threat.
The interest I can understand; the means, almost all covert, if not actually designed to distract or damage, I find less easy to forgive. Either BBC staff, or safe pairs of hands with enough separation, are clearly on station and in action 24/7. Few could argue (though history shows attempts will be made, even in empty rooms) The Truth of that. On rare occasions masks slip or loose lips sink fondly nurtured protestations of impartial personal interest.
Aunty is also Big Brother.
Remarkable. I consider the BBC to be no better than the North Korea propagandists who they regularly ridicule. The Koreans are just very crude operators while the BBC are slick… they are the masters of the game.
The SNP are nationalist and socialist, so will the BBC be referring to their members as are far-right/left?
Every country that has ‘Democratic’ in its name clearly isn’t so we can not rely on names people give their party or state. What we can rely on is their actions and from their desire for everyone to go on holiday together to how they organised rationing it is all left wing.
This BBC person, Ross….., is probably in need of psychiatric help. The statement is complete nonsense. The Nazis were socialists, ie. of the Left. Stalin’s communists were of course of the Left. The Khmer Rouge were of the Left, there are others just like them, all on the Left. They all killed millions of people. So, according to the BBC that makes them all of the Right, because only the Right can do such things.
Complete lunacy.
Is this person fit to be employed? Well, at the BBC yes. I fear there are thousands like him.
I suppose that would be political correspondent Ross Hawkins, expert on the BNP, helping out with BBC complaints.
Why does ‘racism’ only be associated with bBC defined politics. Stalins soviet era would deport whole nations because he did not like them. So Stalins soviet was a far right wing government. The bBC talk a load of bollox.
You clearly don’t understand BBC thought-process.
It’s like this: Right is wrong and Left is right. Gottit?
It’s easy enough to remember.
Anything nationalistic or patriotic is Right Wing. Were the Nazis popular? With Germans, possibly, so proof, Right Wing.
You’ll be telling us next the Nazis were militants and protesters against Jews
It’s all par for the course, when the communists behave like communists they are not ‘real’ communists, when the socialists behave like ‘socialists they are not ‘real’ socialists and when muslims behave like muslims they are not ‘real’ muslims.
Unfortunately the rest of us are ‘real’ victims of their collective stupidity.
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/
A right hook to the left
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/feb/08/goldberg-liberal-fascism-review
So total is the Left’s cultural ascendancy that no one likes to mention the socialist roots of fascism
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100203076/so-total-is-the-lefts-cultural-ascendancy-that-we-dare-not-mention-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/
but so left wing as to appear right wing in their extreme and racist views.
You just have to laugh as otherwise I would be speechless. Someone needs to get this letter into the newspapers so it can be disseminated more widely.
I suppose the only thing in it is the fact that the idiot who wrote it admits Hitler was a socialist.
That’s a rather long winded way of telling someone to get stuffed.
It wasn’t just in name. If you seen any Nazi era films the first thing that strikes you is how left-wing they are.
The biggest Nazi blockbuster till 1943 was a film about the Titanic. The hero of the film, a fictional German First Officer, resembles nothing so well as a tedious whiny Norwegian social worker.
You can watch a clip of the film at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2012/04/titanic-lie.html
No NO. I think Ross has finally made me understand right and left.
It’s not like a yardstick with a sliding scale. It’s a CIRCLE.
Why didn’t I see this before.
Thank you Ross. Thank you BBC. And an obvious thank you to Orwell.
And of course a shout out to P. T. Barnum.
Just to clarify a few points.
This was posted originally in September 2009. I’m not sure if he followed up on it or not. In a later post of his on the subject he says rather tongue in cheek:
Unsurprisingly they’ve been a bit silent since our last communication. I think I should follow it up though… why not? I’m a license holder / customer… I don’t think they would try to avoid communicating with me. ;D
Nearly a year later, in July 2010, Danial Hannan at the Telegraph wrote this excellent article which really helps clarify why left-wingers will try to assign right wing to those who bring their mindset into a more visible ‘disrepute’ :
There’s nothing Right-wing about the BNP – except in the BBC sense of ‘baddie’
‘I don’t think they would try to avoid communicating with me’
IIRC he may struggle. The BBC imposes a deadline on complainants (I think 20 days… no ‘sorry for the delay’ slack that they cut themselves) to re-engage, which if exceeded means all bets are off.
Taking a complaint through to publication means hanging on for a long, very bumpy ride.
Frankly, creating a forum where such responses are shared in public is probably a lot easier and a lot more effective. Which may explain why the BBC has a lot of folk dedicated to nipping that kind of thing in the bud.
For INBBC to note?-
Islamic State’s Islamofascism: beheadings, and burning of books.
“Islamic State destroying all books other than Islamic texts”
[Opening excerpt]-
“They are following in the illustrious footsteps of the caliph Umar, who is supposed to have said when ordering the ancient, fabled library of Alexandria to be burned: ‘If the books agree with the Qur’an, they are superfluous. If they disagree with it, they are heretical.’
“’Iraqi libraries ransacked by Islamic State group in Mosul’…”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/islamic-state-destroying-all-books-other-than-islamic-texts
In Beeboids’ current political vocabulary, as they term present-day Islamofascists as mere “militants,” so the Nazi fascists of yesteryear must be now termed mere “militants” by Beeboids too.
Politically irresponsible absurdity on politically irresponsible aburdity.
No, as they were left-wing Nazis were “Radicals”.
Proper Communism hasn’t really been tried yet.
It depends on where it is tried. The best place to look is within the movements dedicated to promoting and defending proper communism – the left movements. See the demands for censorship, silencing of opponents, justification of violence against those whom the appointed leaders declare to be the enemy. So see how they are trying for communism in the SWP, UAF, Left Unity and so on.
Amazing as to how similar the Nazi and Communist propaganda wall posters were.
Both extolled in classical statuesque poses the virtues of the agrarian and industrial workers in their united struggle against something or other….
Good thread by the way 😉
.
I tried the BBCs logic of left is right on the road . Bloody dangerous , all the other drivers took the traditional view of where left and right is .
Perhaps the signs when you leave Dover saying ‘ Drive on the Left ‘ should say Drive on the Far Right .
I think the terms left and right don’t mean much. However, I think the BBC are correct on this. This is the usual usage. We consider Fascists and Nazis right wing. Certainly, they had some socialistic and collectivistic ideas, but they had others – Volkisch – which were generally of the right. They certainly saw themselves as to the right and anti-communist and were seen as such in Germany, for the most part.
The real problem is that BBC and their ilk like to throw around the term far-right to various parties and figures, some of which genuinely deserve the label and others who don’t.
Also, it should be said that the socialist wing of the Nazis was marginalised by Hitler early on. There is little evidence he was a socialist in a meaningful way. He simply made use of the name and for a time in the 20s allowed experimentation with some socialist ideas amongst some of the party ideologues.
Hmm but he was heard to say he wanted to base his ideas on Marx’s and to push socialism in a new way so I will take that as evidence he was socialist in intent even if you don’t !
When was he known to have said that?
Hitler is someone who said many things without really believing them, as well as claimed many contradictory things. At times he would praise Christianity and appeal to Germany’s Christian heritage, but his close confidants, like Speer and Goebbels, reveal he held Christianity in contempt.
“he held Christianity in contempt”. Just like the marxists and socialists.
“When was he known to have said that?”
Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
This was in a link provided by DP111 (h/t) above. Repeated below.
o http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/
As I said, with Hitler you can’t trust what he said, especially to those other than his intimates. He claimed to be a Christian. You must look at what he did.
As you don’t have to be a socialist to despise Christianity, it would be fallacious to conclude he was a socialist because of that.
One can find some similarities between fascists and socialists, but one can find just as many as between various other, rightwing groups. Left and right don’t mean much, but it is usual to call them right wing and I don’t think the BBC is especially wrong to do that. It does seem like some here want to call the Nazis leftwing simply to avoid what they think might be guilt by association and to try and paint others with that guilt. Instead of such games, why not just maintain that guilt by association in this way is silly.
I think people on here call the nazis left-wing because most, even nearly all, of their policies are virtually indistinguishable from the accepted left-wing parties. Even the death camps were just a crazy extention of eugenics which was a pet belief close to most lefties’ hearts during the 20s, 30s and up to 1945.
In what sense are they indistinguishable, though. How are you defining rightwing in a way that isn’t excessively narrow and little more than a synonym for good and leftwing that isn’t excessively broad and little more than a synonym for bad?
It is perfectly true you can find many of the Nazis’ and fascists’ beliefs on the left in various ways. But this is because you can find almost all rightwing ideas in some form on the left and vice versa. You can find support for eugenics amongst traditionalists, such as Dean Inge, Pope Pius XI, and Winston Churchill.
As a cluster of beliefs – Nietzscheism, social Darwinism, various Volkisch beliefs, and a military orientated collectivism – however, Nazism and fascism, which were often vague and ill-defined to be sure, probably do line up as least as well with the right as the left. This is presumably why the Nazis were more tolerant of the right than the left, though they still often persecuted traditionalists and conservatives.
That said, it must be again stressed leftwing and rightwing are vague and not particularly useful terms. What is more, they change. A classical liberal would now be considered rightwing, but he was leftwing originally. Fascism bears a lot in common with Bonapartism, which originally was leftwing or at least centrist, but would now be considered of the right. The Nazis did have various ideas that could be considered, at various times, of the left, despite the fact that the rightwing label is probably the most accurate.
That said, what should be underscored is that the Nazis were not conservatives or traditionalists. They were conservatives become radical, as is sometimes asserted. Even fascism is not really traditionalist or conservative in most of its forms (fascism is a very vague ideology though, so it can be hard to define). And obviously, Nazis have little in common with classical liberals.
– that should have been they were not conservatives become radical.
They are obsolete empty terms whose only real use is obfuscation, especially when they are simultaneously used to label non-controlling, non-totalitarian political parties.
I posted this on another thread last week:
Extreme-left
Extreme-right
Extreme-yawn
It’s just labels to differentiate skirmishes between violent totalitarian groups trying to seize power.
There are just three words you need to know to understand the aims of would-be mass murderers:
Fascism: state control of the individual
Socialism: state control of commerce
Communism: state control of both
It’s an old cliche amongst the critics, but there were really no differences between Stalin, Hitler, even the French revolutionaries. They defined the enemies of the new progressive state and put them to death. Once an enemy becomes a category (rather then troublesome questioning individuals) then the carnage will begin.
That was a silly answer by Ross, but it was just a mistake, it doesn’t reflect the BBC’s position. He probably copy & pasted it from some random website. Given that this is from years ago, it rather begs the question why Alan is regurgitating it now?
The BBC’s description of the Nazis and the BNP as right wing is accurate because that’s what they are. Its simply where they lie on the political spectrum, and you’ll find that is consistent with every mainstream interpretation and every political textbook on the subject.
I think you and your fellow travellers make 2 mistakes here.
1) You define where a party lies on the political spectrum based on econmic policy. That’s not how’s its defined.
2) Being on the ‘right’ yourself, you are so adverse to being associated with them, that you deny what is factually and self-evidently true. Anarachists have done some nasty things too, that doesnt mean theyre not of the left.
This mistake is the same mistake you make repeatedly. The failure to weigh the evidence against self-interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-Fritzsche.2C_Peter_1998-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party
I do largely agree. The Nazis and fascists had a complex relationship to socialism, and cannot simply be identified with it, whilst they had quite a lot of attributes that were not socialistic or generally of the left. I think the usual academic and popular designation of rightwing for them is properly more valid than leftwing. But I also don’t think right and left mean that much. Traditionalist monarchism, fascism, and anarcho-capitalism would all be considered quite rightwing, but they are hugely different – in many ways as different from each other as they might be from leftwing ideological positions.
Above all, I think guilt by association because of vague leftwing-rightwing spectrum is silly.
Good timing popping up here, now.
“That was a silly answer by Ross, but it was just a mistake, it doesn’t reflect the BBC’s position. He probably copy & pasted it from some random website.”
Maybe if BBC complaints handlers added a twitteresque ‘views my own’, all would be forgiven? Of course that would rather show the whole BBC Complaints system to be a sham.
“Given that this is from years ago, it rather begs the question why Alan is regurgitating it now?”
Precedent again, JP. Does the BBC not reach back into history as and when it suits? Especially if it repeats itself. As a matter of interest, when do you think was this from to be off the table?
‘The BBC’s description of the Nazis and the BNP as right wing is accurate because that’s what they are.’
As one here once coined, ”if you say so'”.
“I think you and your fellow travellers…”
That sounds oddly familiar. Especially with the ‘you lot’ cod pysch lobbed in from on high.
“Anarachists have done some nasty things too”
Itsy-bitsy ones?
‘This mistake is the same mistake you make repeatedly’
Doubtless a belief you are comfortable in having.
‘Maybe if BBC complaints handlers added a twitteresque ‘views my own’, all would be forgiven? Of course that would rather show the whole BBC Complaints system to be a sham.’
It would, but they don’t.
‘Precedent again, JP. Does the BBC not reach back into history as and when it suits? Especially if it repeats itself. As a matter of interest, when do you think was this from to be off the table?
I don’t know what you mean. I dont say its off the table, I’m simply asking why Alan is repeated a post he’s made before. Why now, what’s the relevance?
‘The BBC’s description of the Nazis and the BNP as right wing is accurate because that’s what they are.’ As one here once coined, ”if you say so’”.
I didnt ask that you take my word for it. I provided links did I not? Is that not your ultimate test of any argument, that it has links? That’s ok though, you’re free to change your mind.
“I think you and your fellow travellers…”
That sounds oddly familiar. Especially with the ‘you lot’ cod pysch lobbed in from on high.’
I addressed the autor did I not? And the overwhelmingly supportive posts.
“Anarachists have done some nasty things too” Itsy-bitsy ones?
Nope, I didnt say that did I? But you only go to prove my point.
Some of my most comfortable moments do come when proving others wrong…repeatedly. I’m sure you’re used to it by now though.
‘It would, but they don’t.’
Darn, that really has made further argument fruitless.
‘I don’t know what you mean’
Sadly I am unable to resolve your comprehension issues.
I provided links did I not? Is that not your ultimate test of any argument, that it has links?
They can help. But if cherry picked, and depending on source, never ultimate.
“I addressed the autor did I not?”
That you did. Well, you just hit reply.
‘Nope, I didnt say that did I? But you only go to prove my point.’
No, you didn’t, and you prove your sense of humour is as well developed as your spelling.
‘Some of my most comfortable moments do come when proving others wrong…repeatedly. I’m sure you’re used to it by now though’
If you say so. If you are ever wrong, presumably you can just say you were silly, it was just a mistake, it doesn’t reflect the BBC’s position… and allllll is well?
Ah, pointing out typos. The last refuge of the scoundrel. But then you’d never do that would you………