The Political Thread

[Leigh S]

I would be amazed if the Sun/Daily Mail doesnt have a headline/editorial calling on all Muslims to denounce Terrorism.  It's a crass and reductive argument whoever you use it against, so that doesnt give Hatton any kind of let off for using it.

[The Legendary Shark]

Who benefits from all the msm's bullshit?

The ruling classes?

[Funt Solo]

What Ken Livingstone said when asked whether Naz Shah was antisemitic:

"Let's remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

Other people have taken this apart more cleanly and comprehensively than I can, but there are lots of disturbing things about his statement.  The idea that it was some kind of insanity that caused the Holocaust, rather than direct, clearly considered Nazi policy.  The notion that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism, when he authored his actual feelings quite clearly in Mein Kampf (in 1925).

And, contextually, in response to an accusation of antisemitism, why is Ken trying to sow the bizarre notion that Adolf Hitler was some kind of friend to Jews before he had a "mental illness" and "accidentally" offed six million of them?  It's not Holocaust denial: just Holocaust excuses.  Oh, if only he hadn't gone "mad".  What - was he going to create an island paradise for them in Madagascar?  This is mental.

Why hasn't he been expelled from Labour?  Do Labour agree with him? 

[The Legendary Shark]

Hitler didn't kill the Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill and so on - the ordinary people who believed he had the right to order such atrocities did so. Blaming one man is ludicrous and dangerous and ignores the relationship between those "in power" and those not.

This fact almost tore Germany apart in the 60s and 70s as a new generation thought they'd uncovered an ongoing Nazi plot when, in reality, it was the older generations refusing to speak about, examine or take responsibility for their actions that looked like a massive conspiracy to the young.

[Funt Solo]

Hitler didn't kill the Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill and so on - the ordinary people who believed he had the right to order such atrocities did so. Blaming one man is ludicrous and dangerous and ignores the relationship between those "in power" and those not.

I appreciate that Hitler didn't personally off several million people: but he was the considerable driving force behind a more widespread ideology.  I mean, you wouldn't say (one assumes) that it wasn't his policy, or his desire?  The point under discussion is that Ken Livingstone was suggesting otherwise.

[Funt Solo]

Hitler didn't kill the Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill and so on - the ordinary people who believed he had the right to order such atrocities did so. Blaming one man is ludicrous and dangerous and ignores the relationship between those "in power" and those not.

I appreciate that Hitler didn't personally off several million people: but he was the considerable driving force behind a more widespread ideology.  I mean, you wouldn't say (one assumes) that it wasn't his policy, or his desire?  The point under discussion is that Ken Livingstone was suggesting otherwise (in order to deflect an argument).

Edit: Oops - I meant to edit the parenthetical addendum of the previous post, not quote myself.  Oh well: it's not every day you can fit parenthetical addendum into two sentences in a row.

[The Legendary Shark]

I appreciate that but it just means that Ken is absolving the real criminals by saying Hitler went insane - as if the orders of the rulers must be followed regardless of their sanity. He's completely missing the major lesson Hitler taught us.

[Funt Solo]

Don't elect people who plan to murder large swathes of the populace?

---

Anyway - I predict you're going to entirely miss the point by blaming "the people" (it seems that your philosophy really hates the proletariat) for falling under the magical spell of power structures, and completely avoid focusing on the brutal realities of bullets.  Hitler didn't use magic to control people, he used murderous force.

[Leigh S]

Again, it's  very crass argument Ken comes up with there, though on just that quote, I would not like to say that was due to antisemitic intent or just trying to reduce his argument int a soundbite for TV - the reductive "went mad" stuff is a bit boggling, as is the suggestion you could take from it that Hitler was the sole author of the Holocaust.

And he was rightly suspended for it, and the suspension was  extended when further concerns were raised while he was investigated - then he left, so it would be hard to expell him on a "you can't fire me, I quit!" kind of situation?

The problem with the investigations dragging on rather than being sorted asap are a whole other issue of course

[The Legendary Shark]

F.S., Hitler did not have genocide as a campaign policy. His rhetoric was all about making Germany great again after the ruinous Allied punishments for WWI. He lied his way into power.

As unpalatable as it may be, people were to blame. Hitler was a person, his supporters were people, people followed his orders, people fired the harsh bullets, people built the weapons and camps, people applied the murderous force, people presented the propaganda, people frightened one another into obeying authority, people did it all.

And until people learn to say "no" to authority, the Hitler Effect will continue to threaten us all.

[Tjm86]

Blood!  Sorry for lighting the touch paper here.   

Funt, I would have to agree with you on Livingstone.  His comments were crass, ingenuous and ill conceived.  Suggesting that Hitler supported Zionism because he wanted to remove them was just downright stupid.  His continuing presence in the Labour party is embarrassing for a whole host of reasons, this included.

Sharky's correct about Hitler's ascendancy.  It's also worth bearing in mind that there is a real danger in trying to reduce anything to simple tropes.  Hitler and the National Socialists very effectively harnessed and channelled very real anger and provided a murderous outlet for it.  "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Goldhagen makes for interesting (albeit contested and controversial) reading regarding the nature of anti-semitism in German culture but also raises the issue of the culpability of the wider population. 

For me the key lesson of this period in history, and one that is dangerously relevant today, is that it is very easy to manipulate sentiment in a population and create an environment of hatred and discord in which rational debate and respect for other human beings is seen as abnormal.  You only have to look at Trump in America or the Brexit debate in this country.  What is the old saying? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  As you say Sharky, challenging authority is a moral imperative.  In this current climate it is more important than ever.  Can you imagine what Goebells would have achieved in this age of social media?

Another agreement Leigh on the danger of 'excusing' what happened as madness.  Then again at the same time the wholesale, industrial level slaughter of millions speaks to a terrifying rationality that does suggest a serious disconnect with morality.  So often in recent years ethics and morality have played second fiddle to efficiency, expediency and profit.  The government's Austerity Agenda, Universal Credit, Syria, the Rohingya's,  world leaders on climate change, ... all causing untold damage and suffering, even death and destruction.  I'm not for a moment suggesting that these are on the same level but they share a disturbing tendency to view human life as less important than short term political or economic gain.

The one thing I'm grateful for in this little corner of the insanity is that however heated the debate gets, respect and reason normally win through.  Of course the irony of a group of fans of a story about a Fascist Dictatorship cannot be ignored.

[Theblazeuk]

What is not helped though is that Corbyn seems so completely inept when it comes to communicating.

I don't think Corbyn is great at communicating but time and time again, the issue really is that the channels of communication are overwhelmingly hostile. You can make speeches and you can make statements, but they get paraphrased, they get chopped up, they get reported in a fairly consistent manner. In the radio news bulletin, it's not Corbyn's quote you hear in the last few seconds before it goes off, it's his opponent's accusations.

Maybe I was too young to remember, but was Corbyn in the newspapers every day whilst he was criticising the Blair/Gordon years? Was he a regular studio panel member? Did he consistently put out the message that Labour was unfit to govern?

[IndigoPrime]

I disagree with this. The problem is that Corbyn says one thing and then does another. He talked about democratic process, but then undermines it. He talks of kindler, gentler politics, but then lashes out. He's a grumpy old git, with no idea how the modern world works, and no interest in change.

I agree he gets a rough time of it from the press, but his Trump-like bullshit in Soubry's seat was just mind-boggling. Why not campaign in May's seat? Or Johnson's? Why sit there on stage bleating about the press, and ignoring all the problems that have led to what's happening now? Because protesting is easier than doing.

It's notable that there are plenty of TV interviews out there that are pretty straight, with minimal or no editing, and there you get to see the real Corbyn. It's not pretty. For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think he needs replacing, but plenty of commentators are bang-on in noting that Labour should have made the Corbyn shift all about policy rather than something closer in nature to a personality cult. It's become all about him, and that just doesn't work. And it's going to be a shit-show when he – through inaction or otherwise – helps May get Brexit through.

[sheridan]

What is not helped though is that Corbyn seems so completely inept when it comes to communicating.

I don't think Corbyn is great at communicating but time and time again, the issue really is that the channels of communication are overwhelmingly hostile. You can make speeches and you can make statements, but they get paraphrased, they get chopped up, they get reported in a fairly consistent manner. In the radio news bulletin, it's not Corbyn's quote you hear in the last few seconds before it goes off, it's his opponent's accusations.

Maybe I was too young to remember, but was Corbyn in the newspapers every day whilst he was criticising the Blair/Gordon years? Was he a regular studio panel member? Did he consistently put out the message that Labour was unfit to govern?

Yep - the biggest problem with Corbyn's communication skills is that he (or a friend) don't own a large multinational media empire feeding selected soundbites via newspapers, radio, the web and/or TV.  Before he was in the leadership campaign the only reason I knew who Corbyn was was because he was my MP - it was pretty surreal when he started appearing in the news.

[sheridan]

People looking for someone to blame - this would explain the rise since 2015, and tie in with Hodges 200 comapints being vastly about people who were not Labour members?

Comapints - sums up the entire media outrage really, doesn't it?