General CE Chat

An intriguing but very sad story:

"I miss him so much": why did a devoted wife kill the man she loved?
Eight years after Sally Challen took a hammer to her husband’s head, a groundbreaking appeal hopes to reveal the truth about their relationship.
“From the outside, it’s such a bizarre thing to happen. It’s only when you look at their whole marriage and understand coercive control that the picture starts making sense.”

Is it enough to explain a murderous hammer attack? The Challens’ two sons, David, now 30, and James, 34, believe so. Neighbours, friends and family – as well as Richard’s family and his oldest friend – are all behind the appeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-who-killed-husband-with-hammer-sally-challen
 


I can't stop laughing about this. Maybe it's time for the jacobin writers to unionize to overcome this horrific exploitation. They also should show some solidarity with the poor sods from the tribune.:lol:

I was following this since the hard left *hates* Jacobin and was very happy with this story. It might not be credible - the guy who wrote that payday report link has been attacking Jacobin many times before, and there was an allegation (which I can't find) that the people Jacobin didn't re-hire hadn't bothered to keep subscription lists or record books. Jacobin staff is unionised, AFAIK.
At the same time I've heard Sankara being interviewed and he was very proud of being a cut-throat owner of a commercially successful magazine.
So I don't know.


Fake News(Red Roar is a awful news site)

 
Climate Change Will Get Worse. These Investors Are Betting on It
If electric cars and clean energy aren’t enough to prevent rising oceans, then there’s money to be made in seawalls, indoor agriculture, and emergency housing.


A top investment strategist for JPMorgan Asset Management sent a note to clients earlier this year with a dire forecast. Despite global efforts to stop climate change, sea levels are likely to rise dramatically, threatening the 40 percent of Americans who live along the coast.

On the other hand, there will probably be some investment opportunities in seawalls.

“A storm surge barrier system protecting New York City and parts of New Jersey could cost $2.7 million per meter,” Michael Cembalest, the asset manager’s chairman of market and investment strategy, wrote in his annual “Eye on the Market” energy newsletter in April. He added that governments would probably struggle to pay that cost, perhaps turning to either bonds or outright privatization.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...l-get-worse-these-investors-are-betting-on-it

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreementpledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report


Overwhelmed by climate change? Here's what you can do
Spoiler: nothing. Structural forces larger than you will decide what happens. You have one vote to effect limited change. Other people can vote with their money, many multiples of what you have, to make more substantial change the other way.
 
Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Farage.
 
I've only just found out about this speech by Churchill where he pats himself and Britain on the back for not invading Ireland during WW2.

Churchill's speech followed by De Valera's response.

Churchill's broadcast:

"the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This indeed was a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland, we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera, or perish from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I venture to say, history will find few parallels, His Majesty’s Government never laid a violent hand upon them, though at times it would have been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de Valera Government to frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives to their heart’s content."

Dev's response:

"Allowances can be made for Mr. Churchill’s statement, however unworthy, in the first flush of victory. No such excuse could be found for me in this quieter atmosphere. There are, however, some things it is essential to say. I shall try to say them as dispassionately as I can. Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his actions by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain's necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count... that is precisely why we had this disastrous succession of wars — World War No.1 and World War No.2 — and shall it be World War No.3? Surely Mr. Churchill must see that if his contention be admitted in our regard, a like justification can be framed for similar acts of aggression elsewhere and no small nation adjoining a great Power could ever hope to be permitted to go its own way in peace. It is indeed fortunate that Britain's necessity did not reach the point where Mr. Churchill would have acted. All credit to him that he successfully resisted the temptation which I have no doubt many times assailed him in his difficulties, and to which, I freely admit, many leaders might have easily succumbed. It is indeed hard for the strong to be just to the weak, but acting justly always has its rewards. By resisting his temptation in this instance, Mr. Churchill, instead of adding another horrid chapter to the already bloodstained record of the relations between England and this country, has advanced the cause of international morality — an important step, one of the most important indeed that can be taken on the road to the establishment of any sure basis for peace....

Mr. Churchill is proud of Britain’s stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famine, massacres, in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but each time on returning to consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?"

Bad ass.
 
I'll never quite understand the obsession of some people in the UK with the Royalty. Would re-doing the UK Constitution to eliminate Royalty be akin to the US simple throwing out the US Constitution and starting new (IE politically and culturally unfeasible)?
the uk doesn't really have a constitution, it has parliamentary acts that act as the same thing. the current tory government tried to codify one in 2015 but when they realised they'd have to bring legal standards up to more recent centuries they cancelled it

getting rid of the monarchy is technically easier than changing say, the second amendment, but even republicans don't really care enough to actively seek it, the most likely scenario is going to be a prince andrew who doesn't get away with his alleged crimes sinking the families standing
 
Last edited:
Am I totally wrong in assuming there's just some American dude somewhere ghostwriting the twitter stuff for Ahmadinejad?

Still weird if he has opted for this, but I struggle to believe he's been a closet US pop culture buff all these years.
 
Am I totally wrong in assuming there's just some American dude somewhere ghostwriting the twitter stuff for Ahmadinejad?

Still weird if he has opted for this, but I struggle to believe he's been a closet US pop culture buff all these years.

That was my assumption till I saw the checkmark.
 
glporapucst11.jpg
 
That was my assumption till I saw the checkmark.
Not sure we mean the same thing - official accounts can still be run by other people. So not Denald/Evil Kagawa, more like a footballer's account handled by a PR guy. But as I said, that would still be weird enough. Or maybe he really tweets that himself, idk.
 
Not sure we mean the same thing - official accounts can still be run by other people. So not Denald/Evil Kagawa, more like a footballer's account handled by a PR guy. But as I said, that would still be weird enough. Or maybe he really tweets that himself, idk.

it's probably done by himself, for another pr-related reason
xig7ndtlest11.png
 
Saw on Twitter about how in Germany the Greens have been polling lately, leaving the SDP trailing and almost catching up with the CDU. Any of our resident Germans got any idea as to why their popularity has exploded lately? Is it just that they're seen as a decent alternative to the SDP on the left or have they been doing anything in particular?
 
Saw on Twitter about how in Germany the Greens have been polling lately, leaving the SDP trailing and almost catching up with the CDU. Any of our resident Germans got any idea as to why their popularity has exploded lately? Is it just that they're seen as a decent alternative to the SDP on the left or have they been doing anything in particular?
Not German but I think it has to do with the Greens being the diametrical opposite to AfD
 
[probably the best thread for this]
I am interested to see you expand on this, as you seem to take some degree of offence whenever certain criticisms of Zionism are put forward, rightly or wrongly, but have put forward nebulous claim that 'significant' numbers of Arabs followed this ideology or that it was a 'popular' Arab stance to support Nazism/ fascism, without any real information as to what kind of percentages you personally are referring to.
I used the rather vague terms "significant" and "popular" exactly because I can't quantify these sentiments, while on the other hand being sure that they mattered to the political scenery of the Arab world of that time. So a kind of compromise, which is admittedly not the best idea. That's why I also mentioned the controversies around this issue in today's academical and political discourse; opinion on this is unsurprisingly non-uniform.

Why I mentioned this topic at all can be taken from the exchange itself:

It started with the assumption (in form of a question) that there may have been a significant anti-British/pro-Nazi sentiment in Zionism, strong enough to guide Israeli foreign policy to this day. Which is utter nonsense.

So I pointed out that any anti-British=pro-axis attitude of relevance was to be found among Arab actors, because I thought the poster had probably mixed that up (turned out to be a little different).

What I can accept, on reflection, is the criticism that the language still makes too strong implications about public attitudes at that time. Given what I said at the beginning of this post, it would have been better to just note the existence and relevance of anti-British/pro-axis sentiments in the political sphere, without resorting to any vagueness regarding their spread.

------
Btw, I doubt the numbers/percentages you ask for exist, because I can't imagine measuring public opinion was a thing back then. I assume any estimation about public attitudes has to be an extrapolation based on reports and other sources, so more a matter of plausibility than hard data.
 
[probably the best thread for this]

I used the rather vague terms "significant" and "popular" exactly because I can't quantify these sentiments, while on the other hand being sure that they mattered to the political scenery of the Arab world of that time. So a kind of compromise, which is admittedly not the best idea. That's why I also mentioned the controversies around this issue in today's academical and political discourse; opinion on this is unsurprisingly non-uniform.

Why I mentioned this topic at all can be taken from the exchange itself:

It started with the assumption (in form of a question) that there may have been a significant anti-British/pro-Nazi sentiment in Zionism, strong enough to guide Israeli foreign policy to this day. Which is utter nonsense.

So I pointed out that any anti-British=pro-axis attitude of relevance was to be found among Arab actors, because I thought the poster had probably mixed that up (turned out to be a little different).

What I can accept, on reflection, is the criticism that the language still makes too strong implications about public attitudes at that time. Given what I said at the beginning of this post, it would have been better to just note the existence and relevance of anti-British/pro-axis sentiments in the political sphere, without resorting to any vagueness regarding their spread.

------
Btw, I doubt the numbers/percentages you ask for exist, because I can't imagine measuring public opinion was a thing back then. I assume any estimation about public attitudes has to be an extrapolation based on reports and other sources, so more a matter of plausibility than hard data.

This recent edited volume collected by a historian I have a lot of respect for offers a revisionist assessment of this topic - Arab Responses to Fascism and Nazism - https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/gerara

"The first book to present an analysis of Arab response to fascism and Nazism from the perspectives of both individual countries and the Arab world at large, this collection problematizes and ultimately deconstructs the established narratives that assume most Arabs supported fascism and Nazism leading up to and during World War II. Using new source materials taken largely from Arab memoirs, archives, and print media, the articles reexamine Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, and Iraqi responses in the 1930s and throughout the war.

While acknowledging the individuals, forces, and organizations that did support and collaborate with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, Arab Responses to Fascism and Nazis focuses on the many other Arab voices that identified with Britain and France and with the Allied cause during the war. The authors argue that many groups within Arab societies—elites and non-elites, governing forces, and civilians—rejected Nazism and fascism as totalitarian, racist, and, most important, as new, more oppressive forms of European imperialism. The essays in this volume argue that, in contrast to prevailing beliefs that Arabs were de facto supporters of Italy and Germany—since “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”—mainstream Arab forces and currents opposed the Axis powers and supported the Allies during the war. They played a significant role in the battles for control over the Middle East."

I haven't read it yet. My previous understanding was that pro-axis sentiment among Arabs wasn't solely fuelled by the "My enemy's enemy" approach, although that was likely the biggest factor.

Post-Ottoman Arab armies inherited a legacy of German military ethos due to the German-Ottoman alliance which developed in the decades preceding WW1, when German military instructors trained or influenced many of the men who would go on to form the political elite in places like Syria and Iraq.

Also, the German and Italian examples of nationalism and state-formation - the unification of a politically fragmented, linguistically-defined ethnic group into one state - offered far more relevant models for the interwar Arabs than the theoretically more liberal French and British firms of nationalism.

Like you say, very difficult to measure the extent of this sentiment at that time. However the Mufti's activities weren't the only explicit manifestation of pro-Axis activism, there was also a pro-Axis coup in Iraq in 1941 which was followed by an anti-Jewish pogrom (the Farhud) after the British military had intervened.
 
Gershoni's name really pops up all the time when reading about the current debates. From cursory reading, my impression of some revisionist authors so far is that they have a point about certain dominant interpretations being too narrow in interest, while themselves perhaps tending to (over?)accentuate opposing facts and interpretations in their narratives. The character of a reaction to something seems somewhat imprinted on their writing. But as far as I can tell, their main point isn't to dispute political and ideological influences of fascism, but to contrast it with counter-tendencies and to contextualize it better. Which seems fair overall. But as I said, only first impressions.

And yes, the Iraqi example stands out in several ways; The Egyptian opposition landscape is another interesting case (with young Sadat participating in several such pro-axis groups, for example), and apparently subject of severe contention in these debates. For example, some point to the Muslim Brotherhood receiving funds from Nazi Germany and distributing Nazi propaganda, while others (Gershoni) say they were very fundamentally anti-Nazi.

(For everyone interested, this online library offers free reading of many articles of that kind: https://www.jstor.org/ )
 
Last edited:
my impression of some revisionist authors so far is that they have a point about certain dominant interpretations being too narrow in interest, while themselves perhaps tending to (over?)accentuate opposing facts and interpretations in their narratives

Yeah that's always the danger I guess.

The Egyptian opposition landscape is another interesting case (with young Sadat participating in several such pro-axis groups, for example), and apparently subject of severe contention in these debates. For example, some point to the Muslim Brotherhood receiving funds from Nazi Germany and distributing Nazi propaganda, while others (Gershoni) say they were very fundamentally anti-Nazi.

I think it must have been extremely hard for any dissenting Middle Eastern ideological movement in the interwar years to escape the influence of the European totalitarian movements (both left and right) - not just in terms of ideology itself but also related to the example they provided in terms of internal organization/discipline, modes of seizing and exerting power, and generally standing in opposition to the dominant 'liberal' elites backed by Britain and France - this seems to have been the case in the Middle East with the likes of the SSNP, the Phalanges, Young Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ba'th (a bit later) and, some would argue, Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionists.
 
I think it must have been extremely hard for any dissenting Middle Eastern ideological movement in the interwar years to escape the influence of the European totalitarian movements (both left and right) - not just in terms of ideology itself but also related to the example they provided in terms of internal organization/discipline, modes of seizing and exerting power, and generally standing in opposition to the dominant 'liberal' elites backed by Britain and France - this seems to have been the case in the Middle East with the likes of the SSNP, the Phalanges, Young Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ba'th (a bit later) and, some would argue, Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionists.
In German political theory there's the term nachholende Entwicklung (intranslatable, something like "catching-up development") for attempts on implementing a massively sped up economic, political, and socio-structural modernisation of so far underdeveloped states. Authoritarian-style centralisation indeed seems like one quite natural option to pursue this for newly independent nation states, at least over much of the 20th century. Although I'm not aware if successful alternative ("non-authoritarian", whatever that means) models existed, and if so, under which specific conditions they were functional.
 
Last edited:
[probably the best thread for this]

I used the rather vague terms "significant" and "popular" exactly because I can't quantify these sentiments, while on the other hand being sure that they mattered to the political scenery of the Arab world of that time. So a kind of compromise, which is admittedly not the best idea. That's why I also mentioned the controversies around this issue in today's academical and political discourse; opinion on this is unsurprisingly non-uniform.

Why I mentioned this topic at all can be taken from the exchange itself:

It started with the assumption (in form of a question) that there may have been a significant anti-British/pro-Nazi sentiment in Zionism, strong enough to guide Israeli foreign policy to this day. Which is utter nonsense.

So I pointed out that any anti-British=pro-axis attitude of relevance was to be found among Arab actors, because I thought the poster had probably mixed that up (turned out to be a little different).

What I can accept, on reflection, is the criticism that the language still makes too strong implications about public attitudes at that time. Given what I said at the beginning of this post, it would have been better to just note the existence and relevance of anti-British/pro-axis sentiments in the political sphere, without resorting to any vagueness regarding their spread.

------
Btw, I doubt the numbers/percentages you ask for exist, because I can't imagine measuring public opinion was a thing back then. I assume any estimation about public attitudes has to be an extrapolation based on reports and other sources, so more a matter of plausibility than hard data.

Apologies for the late reply, I have been otherwise occupied recently.

I appreciate it was a compromise. And I will bring the last bit of your post here and say that I am also 100% sure that the numbers/ percentages don't exist. You would be hard pressed to get such data on such things from these countries now, let alone back then.So that initiated my post really. How can you say there was significant or popular support? Those terms to me indicate a large number of people in those areas support those ideas and considering the confidence with which you wrote the message, I imagine people who may not have much knowledge of the are would come away from that conversation thinking Arabs at the time were a bunch of intrinsically jew hating Nazis.

There was of course support for the Nazis in the Arab world, just as there was in France, the UK etc. It was further complicated (and perhaps augmented) by the fact many Arab countries were, at least nominally, under the thumb of the old imperial powers France and the UK and increasingly seeing more migration by what some considered a new colonial group (the Zionists), on the background of having been promised independence after the last WW.

And even in the context of whatever support there may have been, that does not indicate a generalised support of anti semitism and for Nazi policies towards the Jews, any more than the Arab uprising against the Ottomans, instigated by the British, indicated a support for imperialist Brits over fellow Muslims.

Saying there was a strong pro-Nazi sentiment amongst Zionists was of course silly and incorrect.

And I think you're right to be honest, noting the existence of the sentiment would have been both fair and accurate, without more descriptive terms we could not really quantify.
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...d-Ljb0uoAskbBCjS6ewY2Ets-dTUUd6cX1phJlpgKE2xQ


'Asia Bibi 'not offered UK asylum amid concerns of unrest and attacks'

"Wilson Chowdhry of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said: “Britain was concerned about potential unrest in the country, attacks on embassies and civilians.

“They have not offered automatic asylum, whereas several countries have now come forward. They won't be coming to Britain. The family will definitely not be coming to Britain.”

He said Britain was “being helpful”, but it was “an enduring shame that a country with such a lauded history of helping refugees and asylum seekers, that when the Asia Bibi case has come before them, they haven't been as generous as they have for many victims in the past".


Somewhere along the road something went wrong when Britain can't offer this woman asylum due to the aforementioned reasons.