RocketClock
Registered
Get in line, get vaxed, do what that government, you supposedly all hate, tells you to do.
Lineker
- Thread starter kendalfox
- Start date
The thread is about Saint Gary
The Saint who want to dodge tax
He is dodging as are you
soupsandwich
Roofer
RocketClock
Registered
They dodge as a hobby.
I'm triple-jabbed. Wasn't sure what to believe at the time. I can't say I hated the Tories, but I was suspicious.
These lot lined up willingly.
They'll do anything to lie to themselves.
Lineker clearly references Nazi Germany, even if he doesn't say 'Nazi Germany.'
RocketClock
Registered
Fuck you twat.
soupsandwich
Roofer
The Left love a spelling mistake
Are you working early shift tommorrow (Sausage McMuffins and Hash Browns) or have you qualified for the complicated stuff yet?
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Oh well, there were some interesting posts before the children turned up.
Foxonwater
Registered
Boils down to whether you support free speech or not .
Clearly a few don’t unless they approve of what’s said .
Clearly a few don’t unless they approve of what’s said .
RegiRoka
Roofer
And if he had supported Braverman you view would have been what exactly........?
hackneyfox
Roofer
Wasn’t this in politics earlier?
sabredunce
Silver Surfer
Richardvanles
Roofer
Leo or PEN?The Great Leo Strauss? That's so 2002. The writer is a full blown neo-con crackpot.
sabredunce
Silver Surfer
Seriously, you have to read the article twice to even try and comprehend it, it's an ideological dog's breakfast. And just think, everyone just got blasted with this crap twenty years ago. It's jumbled, word salad.
When that happens, you’ll be the first to know.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Some people can't see what they're doing, others have compassion.
English is my only language
Foxonwater
Registered
Foxonwater
Registered
I see a Neo - Nazi party in Germany have applauded Braverman’s policy .
Time to pick a side methinks .
Time to pick a side methinks .
Foxonwater
Registered
Hilarious P4. I guess you’re support for Neo Nazis comes from your disappointment at the result in 1945?
And you claim patriotism .
Now that’s funny
From UnHerd:
It’s like clockwork. Every few months the government announces a new plan to tighten immigration policy and then, within seconds, you find ‘1930s Germany’ trending on Twitter. From the moment a picture of the Prime Minister’s flashy ‘Stop the Boats’ podium emerged, it became obvious what the next few days of online discourse would consist of.
It is Match of the Day host Gary Lineker’s belief that the Home Secretary’s language, when setting out her plans for the Government’s asylum policy, was ‘not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s’. Those who make such claims ought to be mocked, aside from anything else, for the apparent shallowness of their arsenal of cultural references.
But why are critics of the government so quick to reach for the rise of Nazism? Such analogies tend to be rooted in what could be described as ‘Holocaust-as-civics-lesson’, as distinct from ‘Holocaust-as-history’. The latter seeks to understand the catastrophes of the twentieth century in their own terms, as complex and contingent historical events, whose underlying causes were specific to their time. ‘Holocaust-as-civics-lesson’, however, reduces the entire point of learning about the Holocaust to ‘Never again’.
According to that view, the story of Hitler is a kind of cautionary tale: one learns about it simply so that one can ‘recognise’ the hallmarks of fascism in one’s everyday life and ‘call them out’. This explains not only why people like Lineker make the analogies they do, but also why they feel so self-satisfied as they do it. In short, there can be no surprise that people use the Holocaust as a blunt rhetorical tool, because they believe that the purpose of learning about the Holocaust is to use it as a blunt rhetorical tool.
To contort the history of 1930s Germany into an analogy for 2020s Britain, one has to do and say some very strange things. It is untrue, for example, that Nazi rhetoric was ‘insidious’ or ‘subtle’, as though they ever bothered to hide their violent hatred of Jews. Likewise, the British press is in no way reminiscent — no matter what Alastair Campbell tells you — of the Nazi press: turn to any page of Der Stürmer and you would have found things much nastier than you’ll ever get in the Daily Mail.
The problem with ‘Holocaust-as-civics-lesson’, like the problem of treating the collapse of Weimar Germany as a parable, is that it means that the Holocaust has to be ‘updated’ to reflect present political concerns.
There are many things that the Holocaust wasn’t. It wasn’t about immigration, for one thing: most of the massacred Jews had lived where they lived for decades, if not centuries, and even the most impeccable assimilation didn’t spare them from the camps. Nor was it about citizenship. Jews weren’t persecuted because they weren’t citizens: they were stripped of their citizenship because they were Jews. Most importantly, it wasn’t really about ‘language’ at all (unless we’re talking about the language of blood purity). Insofar as ‘dehumanising language’ played a role, it was much less significant than legal persecution and street violence, both of which were already under way from the moment Hitler assumed power.
To make the ‘moral lesson’ of the Holocaust work for the modern day, its causes have to be abstracted. The Holocaust itself must somehow be made universal and timeless, a generic ‘persecution of outsiders’. But ‘Holocaust-as-history’ also matters. As memories of the atrocity fade away, we cannot allow such abstractions to obscure the historical reality of what the Holocaust was
It’s like clockwork. Every few months the government announces a new plan to tighten immigration policy and then, within seconds, you find ‘1930s Germany’ trending on Twitter. From the moment a picture of the Prime Minister’s flashy ‘Stop the Boats’ podium emerged, it became obvious what the next few days of online discourse would consist of.
It is Match of the Day host Gary Lineker’s belief that the Home Secretary’s language, when setting out her plans for the Government’s asylum policy, was ‘not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s’. Those who make such claims ought to be mocked, aside from anything else, for the apparent shallowness of their arsenal of cultural references.
But why are critics of the government so quick to reach for the rise of Nazism? Such analogies tend to be rooted in what could be described as ‘Holocaust-as-civics-lesson’, as distinct from ‘Holocaust-as-history’. The latter seeks to understand the catastrophes of the twentieth century in their own terms, as complex and contingent historical events, whose underlying causes were specific to their time. ‘Holocaust-as-civics-lesson’, however, reduces the entire point of learning about the Holocaust to ‘Never again’.
According to that view, the story of Hitler is a kind of cautionary tale: one learns about it simply so that one can ‘recognise’ the hallmarks of fascism in one’s everyday life and ‘call them out’. This explains not only why people like Lineker make the analogies they do, but also why they feel so self-satisfied as they do it. In short, there can be no surprise that people use the Holocaust as a blunt rhetorical tool, because they believe that the purpose of learning about the Holocaust is to use it as a blunt rhetorical tool.
To contort the history of 1930s Germany into an analogy for 2020s Britain, one has to do and say some very strange things. It is untrue, for example, that Nazi rhetoric was ‘insidious’ or ‘subtle’, as though they ever bothered to hide their violent hatred of Jews. Likewise, the British press is in no way reminiscent — no matter what Alastair Campbell tells you — of the Nazi press: turn to any page of Der Stürmer and you would have found things much nastier than you’ll ever get in the Daily Mail.
The problem with ‘Holocaust-as-civics-lesson’, like the problem of treating the collapse of Weimar Germany as a parable, is that it means that the Holocaust has to be ‘updated’ to reflect present political concerns.
There are many things that the Holocaust wasn’t. It wasn’t about immigration, for one thing: most of the massacred Jews had lived where they lived for decades, if not centuries, and even the most impeccable assimilation didn’t spare them from the camps. Nor was it about citizenship. Jews weren’t persecuted because they weren’t citizens: they were stripped of their citizenship because they were Jews. Most importantly, it wasn’t really about ‘language’ at all (unless we’re talking about the language of blood purity). Insofar as ‘dehumanising language’ played a role, it was much less significant than legal persecution and street violence, both of which were already under way from the moment Hitler assumed power.
To make the ‘moral lesson’ of the Holocaust work for the modern day, its causes have to be abstracted. The Holocaust itself must somehow be made universal and timeless, a generic ‘persecution of outsiders’. But ‘Holocaust-as-history’ also matters. As memories of the atrocity fade away, we cannot allow such abstractions to obscure the historical reality of what the Holocaust was
Richardvanles
Roofer
Well let’s talk about the Holocaust shall we, or rather why and how it happened. From 1930 a lot of Jews realised things were going tits up for them in Germany and decided to leave their homeland, encouraged to do so by the Nazi’s. Talking of Britain specifically, our policy was to accept those who would transfer their business to the UK, those that were poor would be accepted if the secured jobs as home helps etc. Even up until 1938 and possibly beyond poor jews that made it here without papers etc were forcibly removed and sent back (that worked out well for them eh!)
If you were a rich jew with money and connections it wasn’t a problem. Poor jew it wasn’t as easy. Oh, add to that the “Anglo Jewish” community were expected to fund all this (until they ran out of money around 1940) and had to ask for government help. Don’t forget, if you were lucky enough to be granted asylum, you had to integrate properly, no talking in your mother tongue in public, dress and act like a little Englander otherwise you could be shunned or interned once war broke out (as many Jews were) AND once the war was over you were fully expected to fuck off from whence you came.
So was Lineker right in his comments?
Dunno, but the reality is there are certain parallels between then and now. Only time will tell I guess. But one thing is certain, the fact that the rich and those with establishment connections seem to get their bread buttered both sides while the rest are left to take their chances.
Wonder how many of those from these nations coming here now have been fast tracked into our society?
But what do I know, I’m just a cov cunt
If you were a rich jew with money and connections it wasn’t a problem. Poor jew it wasn’t as easy. Oh, add to that the “Anglo Jewish” community were expected to fund all this (until they ran out of money around 1940) and had to ask for government help. Don’t forget, if you were lucky enough to be granted asylum, you had to integrate properly, no talking in your mother tongue in public, dress and act like a little Englander otherwise you could be shunned or interned once war broke out (as many Jews were) AND once the war was over you were fully expected to fuck off from whence you came.
So was Lineker right in his comments?
Dunno, but the reality is there are certain parallels between then and now. Only time will tell I guess. But one thing is certain, the fact that the rich and those with establishment connections seem to get their bread buttered both sides while the rest are left to take their chances.
Wonder how many of those from these nations coming here now have been fast tracked into our society?
But what do I know, I’m just a cov cunt
Walthamstowfox
Roofer
Saw that last night.
He was excellent
Richardvanles
Roofer
We all know she’s specifically talking about migrants crossing the channel in boats. Love to know where she gets her hundreds of thousands numbers from or do you think she might be doing a Matt and scaring the pants off folk?
Foxonwater
Registered
Ohhh Gary Gary
Gary Gary Gary Lineker
Gary Gary Gary Lineker
FoxgoIfer
Registered
I can't speak for anyone else, but she doesn't scare me.
