Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Rise of the far right in Europe.


Sugar Ape
 Share

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

The Times are “mainstream right” aren’t they? Not exactly far right, which is scary. I wonder if this line of thinking is common amongst the regular Tory voters. cc @A Red @Boss @Rico1304 @easytoslip

 

You've called me right leaning, a tory and said I revelled in Jeremy Corbyn being attacked - all three are not true. If you do not desist with these postulations I will be forced to challenge you to a roll around on the cobbles outside County Road KFC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Liddle is a cunt. What does the article say? After all you’ve read it, right? 

Was going to comment on this but I needed to check back on what was said in the last paragraph I think.

 

Can remember reading it and I'm sure it was on their site, the part of the page I saw looks the same. Went back to check it but it's now behind a paywall. What I'm confused about is how the fuck I managed to read it in the first place? Maybe it was free to view at first then they changed it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it here, it's the first half of this copy/paste :

 

 

He finishes, even though his article isn't fully serious for a big part, with :

 

We have become softened and prone to be frit at everything, perpetually discombobulated in our pacific affluence and our ease, to the extent that we would throw it all away.

 

I wonder what responses he'd get from the general public if he went around asking about their "affluence and ease"? He seems totally out of touch, but maybe not surprising seeing as he's a Times journo who has or still does write for The S*n. A paragraph earlier he's asking where all the stress and mental issues come from too, as if he can't work out what's wrong with people. Looks like he thinks we're a lot better off than we actually are, or maybe he knows and this is also him trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Found it here, it's the first half of this copy/paste :

 

 

He finishes, even though his article isn't fully serious for a big part, with :

 

 

 

 

I wonder what responses he'd get from the general public if he went around asking about their "affluence and ease"? He seems totally out of touch, but maybe not surprising seeing as he's a Times journo who has or still does write for The S*n. A paragraph earlier he's asking where all the stress and mental issues come from too, as if he can't work out what's wrong with people. Looks like he thinks we're a lot better off than we actually are, or maybe he knows and this is also him trolling.

So it’s a piss take?  Right. Ok

 

liddle is still a cunt though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, viRdjil said:

The Times are “mainstream right” aren’t they? Not exactly far right, which is scary. I wonder if this line of thinking is common amongst the regular Tory voters. cc @A Red @Boss @Rico1304 @easytoslip

Did you read the article then? Or can you post it? Wondering if I think the same as what?  Or where you after Lefty of the Day? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Did you read the article then? Or can you post it? Wondering if I think the same as what?  Or where you after Lefty of the Day? 

Would’ve thought it was clear enough? Interested to know the reason behind this appetite for war amongst the right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I’ve not read the article, so I can’t comment.  Have you? 

Fair enough. You can just say you don’t share it you know.. it wasn’t a trick question. I don’t do trick questions. Happy to hear from other right leaning posters instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, viRdjil said:

Fair enough. You can just say you don’t share it you know.. it wasn’t a trick question. I don’t do trick questions. Happy to hear from other right leaning posters instead.

I’ve seen the headline, I obviously don’t want a

war. But if it’s a piss taking article then he isn’t asking for one either.  So it was a bollocks question based on a headline, that he more than likely didn’t write. Glad we’ve established that.  

 

Hes still a cunt though.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, viRdjil said:

Fair enough. You can just say you don’t share it you know.. it wasn’t a trick question. I don’t do trick questions. Happy to hear from other right leaning posters instead.

 

What do you expect us to say? It's one of the most stupid articles I've ever read - on every conceivable level. It could only be written by a baby boomer who's never been in a fight, let alone a war. Do you think any one of us want a war with France or China? It's total fucking bollocks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's always worth looking at contemporary coverage of Mussolini and Hitler (without the prism of WWII) to see what can be learned.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/?fbclid=IwAR2m1JkmW_-4Jn5kZzdwEE_-gYVzdNoD7KMQzYsJYiRXdmlIz1ImxYTVZ-E#9V15z3LgvskQsymc.01

 

Benito Mussolini secured Italy’s premiership by marching on Rome with 30,000 blackshirts in 1922. By 1925 he had declared himself leader for life. While this hardly reflected American values, Mussolini was a darling of the American press, appearing in at least 150 articles from 1925-1932, most neutral, bemused or positive in tone.

 

The Saturday Evening Post even serialized Il Duce’s autobiography in 1928. Acknowledging that the new “Fascisti movement” was a bit “rough in its methods,” papers ranging from the New York Tribune to the Cleveland Plain Dealer to the Chicago Tribune credited it with saving Italy from the far left and revitalizing its economy. From their perspective, the post-WWI surge of anti-capitalism in Europe was a vastly worse threat than Fascism...

 

Mussolini’s success in Italy normalized Hitler’s success in the eyes of the American press who, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, routinely called him “the German Mussolini.” Given Mussolini’s positive press reception in that period, it was a good place from which to start...

 

But the main way that the press defanged Hitler was by portraying him as something of a joke. He was a “nonsensical” screecher of “wild words” whose appearance, according to Newsweek, “suggests Charlie Chaplin.” His “countenance is a caricature.” He was as “voluble” as he was “insecure,” stated Cosmopolitan.

 

When Hitler’s party won influence in Parliament, and even after he was made chancellor of Germany in 1933 – about a year and a half before seizing dictatorial power – many American press outlets judged that he would either be outplayed by more traditional politicians or that he would have to become more moderate...

 

Yes, the American press tended to condemn Hitler’s well-documented anti-Semitism in the early 1930s. But there were plenty of exceptions. Some papers downplayed reports of violence against Germany’s Jewish citizens as propaganda like that which proliferated during the foregoing World War. Many, even those who categorically condemned the violence, repeatedly declared it to be at an end, showing a tendency to look for a return to normalcy.

 

Journalists were aware that they could only criticize the German regime so much and maintain their access. When a CBS broadcaster’s son was beaten up by brownshirts for not saluting the Führer, he didn’t report it...

 

Dorothy Thompson, who judged Hitler a man of “startling insignificance” in 1928, realized her mistake by mid-decade when she, like Mowrer, began raising the alarm.

 

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance,” she reflected in 1935. “He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will.” Applying the lesson to the U.S., she wrote, “When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's always worth looking at contemporary coverage of Mussolini and Hitler (without the prism of WWII) to see what can be learned.

 

Why is this in any way insightful? 

 

His actions within his country were certainly not affected by these reports (probably not even within the US were these informative to the public as a whole). Certainly he was condemned and ultimately defeated.

 

Are you trying to suggest a parallel between a fella who was elected and this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...