You could follow Quince around and post that after 99% of his posts, although with better punctuation.
You could follow Quince around and post that after 99% of his posts, although with better punctuation.
Near as much as you can see Igor asking what's going on.
Clearly Far Right is a term that's bandied about too much these days in an effort to shout people down. It's a defined term, not a generic one for anyone who disagrees with any semblance of left leaning government policy.
It is indeed a relatively meaningless term. To the extent that we have one here, it is a tiny minority, and it isn't pandered to by any government. Addressing immigration isn't a right/left thing, but like the whole Brexit thing beforehand it is presented as polarised in that way.Additionally, also similarly to Brexit, the idea that something that has been gestated over decades can suddenly be neatly and succinctly unwound without any societal upheaval is pure fantasy.
Holden had a shocker on BBC a few weeks ago, now this:
At some point you've got to think they're being this bad on purpose for a new Netflix series.
It was like that Family Guy [was it?] skit where the answer to every question was nine eleven, but with Emily Thornberry switched in.
Too complex for you?Originally Posted by niko_cee
Just highlighting the unfair bad rap that the far right receive because of a few bad eggs. Makes you think doesn't it.
Not really
tbf to quincy I'm sure he's several years removed from his last thought so it's hard for him to denote them.
One for the "Far Right" discussion:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko
He's right. He's very fucking stupid to say it, but he's right. The 2 world wars put the country into a huge amount of debt and saw out major towns and cities reduced to rubble. Not to mention the loss of life. Paying off that debt and rebuilding cost Britain it's empire.
Now, obviously it was the right thing to do and we were on the right side of history, there's no doubt about that. But we are also probably much poorer than we would have been.
What
We finished paying for ww2 in 2006 ffs.
Please feel free to explain why we would be financially worse off NOT being involved in WW2 though. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
This was my exact reaction too. Must be something in the water south of the border...
The Nigels are taking over Essex.
It's not all about money.
Ok. So the country wasn't reduced to rubble, the empire didn't crumble and we weren't paying off war related debt until 2006? Have I imagined this?
Obviously we have to factor in what a Mega-German europe would have done to the economy, but I've nonidea on that score.
I said as much myself.
I mean, he's talking shit here. For starters, he quite happily stabbed Russia in the back, so I've no idea why we'd trust Hitler on neutrality. And - as I said - we (Eventually, after fucking over the Czechs) did the right and moral thing. But the country is poorer as a result of doing so. That's just a fact. I'm not sure where the controversy is.In July 2022, Mr Gribbin posted on the Unherd website: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people."
The same month he wrote: "In Britain specifically we need to exorcise the cult of Churchill and recognize that in both policy and military strategy, he was abysmal."
The controversy comes from people being incapable of separating one point from another when it comes to an overall issue.
It's sad.
The country wasn't reduced to rubble and the empire notion was out the window after WW1.
Do they not have the Blitz on the Scottish silibus?
If you want to see a country reduced to rubble see Germany.
It's almost like involvement in a world war is a bad thing for a nation?
It's just a really wild thing to post and say "Yeah he's right" with barely any context. Especially as you say that, and the rest of the article goes on to detail other fucking wild outlandish viewpoints that he's made on this nutjob magazine platform. Pretty controversial to just brazenly agree with a lunatic like that.
Have you taken leave of your senses? You do understand that Hitler was a genocidal drug-induced maniac and had to be stopped at all costs? There is no neutral in his eyes. This wasn't a territorial dispute or tit-for-tat. This was promotion of the Aryan race or death. Any argument of a stable or even short-term non-war period is a total fabrication and would never have happened. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. Not Germany. Hitler.
I think you should have a little lay down until you're capable of reading what's actually being said.
What's being said? That we should have entrusted a genocidal psychopath with the future of our nation and Europe? Once again forget the idea of 'Germany' this is all about Hitler.
That's not what's been said though, is it? Lay down a little longer.
Ok please enlighten me, how are you interpreting it?
What we should have done is discovered that the country of Wales [country?] was in fact made entirely of gold. We'd be so much better off.
That's about the level of 'argument' being employed.
It's very simple. If you look at the situation through simple, selfish, self-interest it's better to not get involved in wars. It saves your country a lot of death, suffering and money. HOWEVER, getting involved was the moral thing to do and I'm glad we did, even if it did come at great cost.
The initial issue was the Treaty of Versailles. That created the problem in the first place.
I agree, however if there's an absolute fucking psychopath knocking at your door then you really have no choice. Once again this wasn't like a 'normal' war. There was no plan beyond extermination of the non-Aryans. It was a one way road to total annihilation.
Hitler. Stop looking at it as a country and democratic idea. Hitler.
Sorry, I disagree. Admittedly it wasn't the country, but it wasn't solely Adolf either. I think you give him too much (evil) credit. Goring and Himmler were just as fucking mental as Adolf was, and they had significant influence.
Tbf, the German's set out the blueprint for this first with the blitz and Coventry. Dresden and Cologne were fair game after that.
It was less the fighting Hitler and more the Yanks deciding to gouge the fuck out of us until we ran out of assets before joining the war. No lend lease for Ukraine, I see.
Looks pretty decent to me.
They don't have legs as pleasing as those at 0:04.
What band/group of people is featured just after said legs? I thought it was Teenage Fanclub but maybe not.
This page is a low point even for this place.
This Hitler chap sounds very modern day Israel.
The idea that we might have been better off sitting the Second World war out was a pretty uncontroversial one for decades (same with his points about Winston Churchill), and plenty of people still make the same argument about the First World War, so getting all pissy about that is probably another casualty of foreign policy realism going out the window.
People can't even get their heads around the arguments for sitting out of the Ukranian conflict, let alone actually doing it - so arguments for avoiding the defining moment of the 20th century? No chance.
Sign of the times that Spikey makes a very valid and balanced point and he gets jumped.
Indeed. It's depressing. Even more so that he clearly caveated everything and it still happened.
It's an absurd counterfactual.
Not least given that since 'the war' we've seen an unbridled increase in living standards and remain one of the richest countries in the world.
Sign of the times indeed.
Yeah fair enough, let someone else do all the killing and invading for a change. Good old England.
Think of the World Cups we could have won.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
