Has Amber Rudd been reading Mein Kampf?

[bobjimwilly]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/amber-rudd-conservative-party-conerence-hitler-mein-kampf-james-obrien-a7347251.html

Interesting.

[The Red Baron]

It seems totally unnecessary if you plan to control immigration through a system of work permits, which is what the Government seems to prefer to a points system.

Unless she is talking about people working here illegally and there are systems in place to deal with that.

[MachoMadness]

That speech yesterday was f**king terrifying, although not quite so much as the reaction of the media, which ranged from not caring to enthusiasm. We're living in a country of a reactive government who are, inch by inch, legitmising racism and bigotry at an institutional level because they know it will win them votes. That speech was the first step down a dark, dark path for this government.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I still can't quite figure out what to make of her speech...

[ravenrover]

Is BST on holiday or banned?

[The Red Baron]

Funny you should say that. I was wondering where the Rt. Hon. Member for Sheffield was.

I hope he hasn't been kidnapped by Corbynistas! 

[BobG]

Funnily enough I was just going to quote parts of La Rudd's speech to make that very point. Adolf said his legacy would rise again one day. He did get the country wrong though...  If you have 5-6 minutes to spare, read the top article on this page here:

http://derekbateman.scot/2016/10/05/degrees-of-estrangement/

Interesting reading.

BobG

[wilts rover]

Dunno about Hitler - it reminded me of Alf Garnet and was as politically astute as most of his best lines.

The future trade negotiations with the home counties of these people we wish to ban should be interesting.

[Sammy Chung was King]

I would fear for the country even more if she was in power, i see a very ungenuine person when i look at her. The present leader will be bad enough i have very little faith in what she says she will do to improve things. As always we will see.

[selby]

Extreme politics only become popular when the electorate are not happy.
   We have been run by SPIVS for too long, all centred on the South East of England, and what we have now is the result.
   Most of the country is being left behind and people will look for someone to blame.
   It is history being repeated,just a different country.

[BobG]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread chaps. Thanks. I have one further thought to offer: it concerns the use of language.

La Rudd and la May may fill thinking people with fear and loathing, but, and it's a hugely important but, it looks as if their use of language has been specifically designed to attract a sufficient set of voters to undermine UKIP and destroy Labour. Why do I say this? Look at these very few short facts:

When surveys asked Americans whether the federal government was spending too little on assistance to the poor, 65% of them agreed. But only 25% agreed that it was spending too little on welfare. In the approach to the 1991 Gulf War, nearly two thirds of Americans said they were willing to use military force. But fewer than 30% were willing to go to war.

Language is everything. Tony Blair wasn't bad at it. Gordon Brown was poor. Cameron was average to just below average but these two harridans? They're looking like they're going to be top quality. And what would that mean? Faced by a politician in Corbyn, who is the worst user of language in decades, they look to be setting out their stall as leaders of a de facto one party state.

It's times like this when I'm actually glad I'm not in my 20's or 30's any more....

BobG

[hoolahoop]

That speech yesterday was f**king terrifying, although not quite so much as the reaction of the media, which ranged from not caring to enthusiasm. We're living in a country of a reactive government who are, inch by inch, legitmising racism and bigotry at an institutional level because they know it will win them votes. That speech was the first step down a dark, dark path for this government.

Yes frankly if I was a foreigner I would want to be out of here pronto.

[BobG]

I'm not a foreigner - and I want to be out of here pronto tbh Hools. Not easy to do, but the desire is there.

Cue the holier than thou brigade and the chorus of nationalism and the spying of traitors. I hope it gets something off chests. I'm an internationalist and have been so for decades. I despise nationalism. For me, it is one of the two biggest curses the world has ever seen: nationalism and religion. Between them they've killed more people than any other none natural cause in the history of the universe.

BobG

[BobG]

Really? I didn't know that. Pray tell, do.

Bob

[wilts rover]

I'm not a foreigner - and I want to be out of here pronto tbh Hools. Not easy to do, but the desire is there.

Cue the holier than thou brigade and the chorus of nationalism and the spying of traitors. I hope it gets something off chests. I'm an internationalist and have been so for decades. I despise nationalism. For me, it is one of the two biggest curses the world has ever seen: nationalism and religion. Between them they've killed more people than any other none natural cause in the history of the universe.

BobG

Hmm, according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll following WWII, three of the next four greatest conflicts with the greatest number of casualties were the raids of Genghis Khan, the Spanish Conquest of South America and the War of Three Kingdoms - none of which appear to relate to nationalism or religion?

Nor really did WWI. What they do all have in common though is the search for ever increasing power.

[RedJ]

How can you say a war that was started when a nationalist assassinated a member of the royal family had no relation to nationalism?

[wilts rover]

Because it was about imperialism rather than nationalism. It might have been started by the actions of a nationalist (or an agent of the Serbian state) but the motivation behind Germany, France, Russia, Britain, Italy, Japan becoming involved - and continue fighting - had nothing to do with nationalism but imperialistic power and control. The US became involved because they had lent a substantial amount of money to the Allies and wished to make sure they got them back.

[BobG]

That's an interpretation Wilts. It's no more right than anybody elses' - though I argue that nationalism, and religion, have caused more deaths than anything else.

Have you seen the pictures though Wilts, of the massed crowds flocking to the centres of Berlin, Moscow, London, Paris and other cities everywhere on the day that world war one broke out? Tell me: if that wasn't nationalism, what was it? There's even a picture of A Hitler stood in such a crowd in the centre of Munich that day applauding the rush to war for the good of greater Germany. Hmm. Another facet of nationalism.

Cheers

Bob

[hoolahoop]

Funnily enough I was just going to quote parts of La Rudd's speech to make that very point. Adolf said his legacy would rise again one day. He did get the country wrong though...  If you have 5-6 minutes to spare, read the top article on this page here:

http://derekbateman.scot/2016/10/05/degrees-of-estrangement/

Interesting reading.

BobG

Thank you Bob, indeed worth reading as well as most of the subsequent comments.
As one that proudly not only voted " Remain " but still remains a " Remoaner ", I am appalled but not surprised by the direction our country seems to be taking.

We have taken advantage of the last 40+ years and have actively thrived in the EU, now we seek to toss it all away over a false sense of regaining sovereignty supposedly turning back the tide of immigration that has helped this country become rich again . Unfortunately that abundance of riches has been pissed away over the decades not by the EU but the UK governments.

[hoolahoop]

Extreme politics only become popular when the electorate are not happy.
   We have been run by SPIVS for too long, all centred on the South East of England, and what we have now is the result.
   Most of the country is being left behind and people will look for someone to blame.
   It is history being repeated,just a different country.

Selby the problem is that a large part of this blame has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's an irony that the " forgotten " areas that were helped by and large by EU  Development grants were the areas that voted to leave . These were areas of the country that "our" govt. hadn't helped for decades.

Successive Govts. Spouted on about how they were going to narrow the North-South divide and did very little. Had these EU funds not been available , I wonder just how poor our County would have become ! It makes me furious just thinking about the deflected blame on the EU, on immigrants, on anything but ourselves and our failed institutions.

[Lipsy]

  And that's why I remain sodding angry about the EU/Brexit vote. Virtually every complaint that people have about it can be laid at the door of our successive governments... Really, it can.

Sold a pup, and now we appear to have turned into something rather vile. Sad times.

[hoolahoop]

And that's why I remain sodding angry about the EU/Brexit vote. Virtually every complaint that people have about it can be laid at the door of our successive governments... Really, it can.

Sold a pup, and now we appear to have turned into something rather vile. Sad times.

Vile is the only word to describe it and I hope Labour and other interested politicians whI Hever party they are from will hound this triumvirate and their " drunk with power " leader at every turn.

It makes me ashamed to be English when I hear the language used . It's not just the words but the emphasis that an extra adjective/ adverb gives to the whole reporting of this . I happen to glance at a headline the other day in the Express which basically described " the  many who had to have their will exercised whilst the 《 just 》48% should respect it and stop moaning. The word " just " makes those that they wish to disenfranchise sound like an insignificant number . 16,000, 000 + ffs

[BobG]

It's language like that Hools that tells the entire world, very, very clearly, that these newspapers, commetators and politicians are peddling their own private agenda. Why else seek, at every opportunity, to denigrate those who oppose their point of view? It's one of the major reasons I despise them and their ilk. Truth doesn't matter. Ideology is all. And to bring this all back to the original point of this thread, that way lies the results of Mein Kampf.

BobG

[Yargo]

Wasn't Rudd a remainiac?https://www.amberrudd.co.uk/campaigns/my-campaign-remain
Does someone want me to point out the similarities in some of the speeches of Tony Blair or how about Billary with Hitler?
Tell me remainiacs were you cheering on Kinnock in the late eighties when he wanted Britain to join the ERM,at a then rate of DM 3.20,forced out at DM 2.95 despite interest rates of 15%,all in the interest of being a good European ?

[RedJ]

"Remainiac". Top banter.

[Lipsy]

I see your "Remainiac" and raise you "Brexshirt". Somewhat apt, I think, given the title of this thread.

Top bantz, btw. Keep it up...

[wilts rover]

That's an interpretation Wilts. It's no more right than anybody elses' - though I argue that nationalism, and religion, have caused more deaths than anything else.

Have you seen the pictures though Wilts, of the massed crowds flocking to the centres of Berlin, Moscow, London, Paris and other cities everywhere on the day that world war one broke out? Tell me: if that wasn't nationalism, what was it? There's even a picture of A Hitler stood in such a crowd in the centre of Munich that day applauding the rush to war for the good of greater Germany. Hmm. Another facet of nationalism.

Cheers

Bob

Does a massed crowd automatically mean a war is nationalistic though Bob? There were crowds on the streets celebrating the relief of Makeking and the relief of Lucknow, were those wars nationalistic? They certainly were for the Indians and the Boers who wanted their own country and self-government, but this was British imperial aggression they were celebrating.

What about the mased crowds on the streets of Moscow & St Petersburg in 1917 overthrowing the government because they didn't like the war and saw no Russian self-interest in it?

And how popular was it in Britain? Certainly tens of thousands joined up in the first few months, but after that? We had to introduce conscription because people didn't wish to fight for their country and there were still thousands who appealled to the tribunals because they didn't wish to go. Not because they were cowards - but because they didnt see any sense in what they were fighting for.

And those who did join up, did they join up to fight for the nation? If you watch Lyn Macdonald's interviews or read the books it seems most of them joined up for a bit of an adventure, a change from the drudgery of the factory and farm, and anyway they would be home by Christmas.

Those men in Berlin, Moscow, Paris, Vienna, etc, they didn't rush to join up, they were all in the army anyway and were going whether they liked or not.

Yes there certainly were men who fought for nationalistic ideas. However in most cases these were put down by the imperial powers, in the Balkans, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, India, Hong Kong etc. At one time in Africa the British had more men fighting the Africans than they did the Germans (who were also fighting African revolts - I seem to think there was even one tribe who were fighting both imperial powers at the same time). The most well known to us is of course the Dublin Rising. There certainly were nationalists on one side there, were they on the other?

The imperial powers did use these nationalistic sentiments for their own ends, the infamous Balfour Agreement being a good example when we promised both the Arabs and the Jews control over Palestine if they fought for us, then ignored them both with the Sykes-Picot Agreement that added the Middle East to French and British control.

As for Serbia - was their wish to take over what is now Bosnia actually nationalism or imperial expansion? Japan invading China, what was that if not imperial expansion?

However we would be on agreeable ground if you had said religion had a big part to play in the War. When the Ottoman Empire joined in a jihad was called for Muslims to wage war in support of the Axis against the Allies. This caused serious anxiety for a time as the German led Arab forces invaded Egypt and reached within a couple of miles of the Suez Canal. Fortunately for us many Muslims ignored the call and fought for us instead.

This didn't stop 1.5 million Orthodox Armerian Christians being wiped out by Ottoman Muslim forces though in the world's first genocide. Was this nationalistic - they were both in the same country - indeed in the same army!!

Above and beyond these points there are three other main actions that I believe show that the war was an imperialistic one rather than a nationalist one:

The Mesopotamian Campaign - a British/British Indian Army fighting a Turkish Army in Persia - what national self interest was there there, it is two imperial powers fighting for control over someone else (and their oil). Similarly the African Campaign, but without the oil.

The involvement of troops from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Jamaica, Bermuda on the Western Front, what national self-interest did they have there, they were fighting for an Empire, literally.

And finally the map of the world before and after the War. In 1914 it is mainly red and blue with bits of black and yellow. After the War the black and yellow has gone, and the red and blue expanded. If the Germans (and Turks) had won, there would be less red and blue and more black and yellow. That's what the war was about, although most of the serious fighting took place in Europe, it was a World War fought across the world for control of the world - imperialism.

[hoolahoop]

"Remainiac". Top banter.

Shouldn't it be " Remoaners " , cowardly traitors to their country ?

However Judder and the 3 amigos are nutters or Bremaniacs.

[BobG]

If you're interested in what's happening around us, this might be informative:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/18/brexit-death-of-british-business/

BobG

[Yargo]

Amber Rudd had to resign from government because she lied to MP's.
What a fine example to bring back into government to push through May's horrific deal that ties Britain to the EU forever.
Perhaps Rudd sees Britain's never ending tie to the EU as the best way to achieve her own brand of facism?