Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Tuesday, February 15, 2005

    Media hysteria over Livingstone's comments

    There has been hysteria in the past couple of days about the comments made by Ken Livingstone. A look at this article will reveal exactly what the London mayor meant when he said what he did:

    "In the 1930s Lord Rothermere [the first viscount, great-grandfather of the present Lord Rothermere, who is chairman of Associated Newspapers] and the Daily Mail were supporters of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. "Rothermere wrote an article, 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts', in January 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his 'sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine', and the paper published articles lamenting the number of German Jews entering Britain as refugees after the rise of Nazism. "Rothermere had several meetings with Adolf Hitler, and addressed him as 'My Dear Fuhrer' in letters and telegrams. He argued that the Nazi leader wanted peace, and in 1934 campaigned for the African land confiscated in the Versailles Treaty to be returned to Germany. "Rothermere and the Mail supported [British prime minister] Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, particularly leading up to the Munich Agreement.
    So there you are, Livingstone was referring to Rothermere's support for fascists, and as the article states, the paper which the journalist works for can be linked to the Nazis. Maybe the journalist concerned should also be apologising to the jewish community for working for such an organisation? Maybe the Bush family also ought to apologise for their links to the Nazis as well? See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 2/15/2005 03:57:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Livingstone is a loud mouthed lout, it's astonishing that he could be elected. Londoners have certainly changed.

    At 2/15/2005 04:18:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Well, Livingstone was certainly elected, over 930,000 people decided to vote for him. (combined first and second choice figures)

    At 2/15/2005 04:38:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    The man was right about Bush's visit, that's for sure.

    At 2/15/2005 04:49:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Ah yes, the Cowboy yob with his loud mouth, I was down in London demonstrating alongside hundreds of thousands of others when the chocolate fireguard came to visit (I believe it was the largest demonstration ever against a visiting head of state - no doubt he's proud of that achievement), there wasn't one person I walked past who didn't agree with what we were doing, hardly anyone really wanted him to come over. People all along the side of the roads were giving us the thumbs up, clapping us, and tooting their car horns, And they certainly weren't out on the streets cheering him, waving US flags.

    At 2/15/2005 05:05:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    Does that make them "anti-American"?


    At 2/15/2005 05:44:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    The majority of Britain must be "anti American" then DJEB :)

    At 2/15/2005 10:50:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Hmmm. The reporter was Jewish - yes? And working for the anti-Semitic Mail Group. Ahhh... Ken was actually protecting the rights of the Jewish reporter.


    At 2/16/2005 04:44:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    You didn't quite make your 'Livingstone is a Nazi' comment on this thread. I'm surprised.

    At 2/16/2005 09:39:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    You see Allan, you can say something good about a left winger after all.

    At 2/16/2005 09:13:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    By the way, what are the links of the Bush family to the Nazis? (Is it Bush or Busch?)


    At 2/17/2005 05:07:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    Sorry, no. The links are not to a beer company but with Prescott Bush. You really want to know about it?

    At 2/17/2005 09:13:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    The links are through Prescott Bush, the current "president's" grandfather. He apparently traded with nazi companies, and the Bush family are thought to have made their fortune through doing so.

    At 2/18/2005 12:58:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Firstly, GWB is the President, not the "President".
    Secondly, please stop using BBC-reporter-speak such as 'apparently' and 'thought to have'. If the Bush family traded with Nazi firms (be sure that they are not merely German), then state it as so.


    At 2/18/2005 12:59:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Firstly, GWB is the President, not the "President".
    Secondly, please stop using BBC-reporter-speak such as 'apparently' and 'thought to have'. If the Bush family traded with Nazi firms (be sure that they are not merely German), then state it as so.


    At 2/18/2005 06:12:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    Gosh, thank you for the brilliant didacticism regarding "president" GWB

    On your objection to the word "apparently" and the phrase "thought to have" I'll respond with the following:

    "[P]olitical conservativism can be explained as a set of neurons rooted in fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity," and "this intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes."
    - Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jack Glaser, Arie Kruglanski et al.

    At 2/18/2005 10:50:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Surely you're not a "holocaust denier" are you Allan?

    At 2/19/2005 01:14:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I consider it to be a matter of fact that approximately 6 million Jews were systematically murdered by Nazis with the collaboration of sophisticated Europeans in each and every state which the Nazis occupied. The fate of the Jews who were not murdered and their descendants is of greater concern to me. In Germany, and soon France, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust. This is France's and Germany's way of showing respect to the murdered Jewry of Europe; but what is their attitude to the remaining Jews of the world, and particularly to the state of Israel. The Jewish state is being delegitimised in great part by the media of both these countries and a great increase in the number of anti-Jewish attacks is evident. NB the perpetrators in the main are not neo-Nazis.
    I believe that should Israel suffer a military defeat, or should Iran acquire nuclear weapons which would most certainly result in transfer to Hamas or Hezbollah, then the results of shocking events of mid-century Europe will be repeated.
    How you can infer that I'm a holocaust denier because I don't equate Bush and Republicans with Hitler and Nazis respectively reveals a seriously immature mind.
    For the record, I'm a Protestant of Scottish stock.


    At 2/19/2005 01:19:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Back to the question regarding the provenance of the Bush family's fortune and Prescott Bush's role. Did the Bush family have dealings with Nazis or not? If you consider it to be so, please state it unequivocally and mention your sources.


    At 2/19/2005 09:02:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Firstly, the holocaust denier remark was a little jab at you about IG Farben Allan, you may have heard of them.

    Secondly, I thought you may have been a Scot, with a) the spelling of your name, and b) the fact you've mentioned Aberdeen.

    Thirdly, there are plenty of reports available about Prescott Bush. This is one of them:

    George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

    His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    And finally Allan, a note that there were apparently other victims of the second world war, including all the millions of soldiers who died, gypsies, gays and so on... I don't believe that Stalin was a particularly nice character either.

    At 2/19/2005 12:21:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I can't see the seed of your citation of IG Farben from previous comments.
    You should also note that the USA was not a belligerent until December 1941 so American companies were allowed to conduct authorised business with Nazi Germany until then. In the US at that time, there was a sizeable anti-war movement which I'm sure you would have agreed with. I note further that any dealings by Prescott Bush would be relatively insignificant as compared to those of Joe Kennedy whose defeatism whilst US ambassador to the UK in 1940 undermined attempts to have the US provide more substantial support when the UK stood alone against Nazism.
    My comments about the delegitimisation of Israel and the campaign to portray the Jews as near-Untermenschen are clearly valid when one reviews your recent postings.
    I perceive that your thinking is that anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi (Bush, me?). I perceive further that you can use the internet to pull out of the ether any 'facts' which would give some support to your views yet you don't wish to put your facts in their true and wider perspective.
    I like your site but you are too productive for me to reply to all of your articles so I send an occasional comment to fire things up but only when I'm certain of my facts. However, many of your articles are simply unworthy of comment.


    At 2/19/2005 01:28:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Thank you for your comments Allan, firstly, it is rather a big assumption to make that I would have been against fighting the Nazis in the second world war, considering I have regularly made comments concerning Britain being alone in fighting nazism for a few years.

    Secondly, it is rather an irony for someone to make the argument that because the US was not involved with any combat, then it was ok to launder money for the nazis, while at the same time assuming that I would have been against the second world war. Are you sure you meant to say that?

    Thirdly, your point about anyone disagreeing with me being a nazi is invalid also, because I have not stated that people are "Nazis" as such, I have labelled those who support fascistic ideals as being fascists, and in those terms they are comparable to brown shirts.

    When you say some of the articles are unworthy of comment, I note although you made a big fuss about the links between asylum seekers and health risks some time ago, you have chosen not to comment on the post which states that only 0.2% of asylum seekers have TB, and that the so called "deabte" about that particular issue is a moot point. I give the opportunity for you to check the facts on that point also, and reply if you consider it "worthy".


    At 2/19/2005 02:30:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I'll get back to you on the TB issue but the thrust of my reply will be that whilst a low number of asylum seekers may have TB, the number of cases from all incomers is such that they (the incomers) are by a considerable majority, the main recipients of treatment on the NHS and, by implication, the source of spread of this communicable disease.
    I don't believe that, had the scale of Nazi evil been known in 1940/41, the 'peace movement' in the US would have been supported by the numbers which it was. Likewise, no business would have been permitted either and I doubt that Prescott Bush would have done so. I think that you should put your opinions in the periodic perspective. The riposte, from a rightist, is of course to mention Joe Kennedy, patriarch of the Kennedy family.
    Your definition of fascism posted elsewhere is a bit long-winded but not inaccurate. It may be summarised as the co-opting of business interests by an authoritarian government (as compared with totalitarian - Nazi) to the detriment of minority groups and interests. In my mind, this means China but not the US - simply too much liberty of the individual to be fascist.


    At 2/19/2005 04:15:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    Too much to say at this late hour. I'll be back.

    At 2/20/2005 05:02:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    You are a walking Yad Vashem with your insinuations (the monument includes not only images of the horrific holocaust, but also attempts to link it to Britain and the Palestinians).

    Next, I have to ask, are you really implying that if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they would turn it over to a non-state, terrorist actor? Be serious.

    Next, you say “My comments about the delegitimisation of Israel and the campaign to portray the Jews as near-Untermenschen are clearly valid when one reviews your recent postings.”

    Untermenschen? How's my German? I've heard that before. Where was it…? Oh, yes. I remember:
    Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
    One senior officer said that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.
    The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".
    Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."
    The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slavs and gypsies.
    - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
    I've heard the term more in reference to the “sand niggers” or “ragheads” posters on right-wing sites like freerepublic so often advocate the extermination of.

    As for the State of Israel being delegitimised by the French and German media, I'd say how, give an example. I don't read their media often, but I suspect the “delegitimisation” would amount to the kind of criticism of Israeli state policy that one could find in Ha'aretz.

    Next, your insistence upon criticism of Joseph Kennedy (hardly a saint) is being used as a tu quoque ad hominem. His guilt or innocence in the matter is irrelevant as regards Prescott Bush.

    Voice has already addressed the cheap shot where you claim that there “was a sizeable anti-war movement which I'm sure you would have agreed with.” On this site you have been show to be wrong time and time again. That you are so sure about how someone you don't know and seem to be incapable of assessing shows poor judgment. This goes for your “perceptions” as well.

    Next, you claim that “[you send an occasional comment to fire things up but only when [you're] certain of [your] facts.”

    Your first post was a smartass, one-line non sequitur as most of your posts have been. As for the “facts,” you don't use them. You make claims, get proven wrong and run away from the thread to make another smartass non sequitur on another thread.

    Finally, on your most recent U.S./WWII argument, you are saying that, while the U.S. heard the Nazi rhetoric through the 30s and say thousands of Jews trying to flee Europe and heard the stories coming out at the time, that doing business with this known human rights abuser was ok. Spoken like a true ideologue.

    At 2/21/2005 05:57:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    DJEB 3:16


    Post a Comment

    << Home