Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I'm in with the In Crowd - (with their beautiful flags and marching)

headvoid

Can I have Ops?
What has it come to when one of our enigmatic ambassadors cannot comment on the history of the Nazi art movement. The guy was simply commenting on how the flags, marching etc. "looked beautiful" and that they knew how to put themselves in the limelight - this is all true. They were abhorent in everything they did - but sometimes that can be beautiful.

Blue Velvet by David Lynch was abhorent but beautiful.

Sad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6561177.stm
 
Oh jeez...

The aesthetic qualities on a base level don't change no matter what the ideology or thought process behind it is.
Saying that the iconography and design ethic behind the Nazi regime is aesthetically pleasing does not suddenly make you a Nazi. :roll:


I suppose we're not allowed to find any historical iconograhy aesthetically pleasing then?

What about the Romans? Is finding their design ethic aesthetically beautiful automatically mean you support every single atrocious act they commited?

Is finding the architecture of the Keystone arch an amazing breakthrough automatically mean you want to string Jesus up and crucify him?



For fucks sake.
 
His exact wording, "just fantastic - really beautiful", was stupid and he should have known that it could provoke this kind of response but it wasn't nearly as stupid as the response from the Jewish group.

The most annoying thing about this is that he was completely right. The NAZI style was deliberately constructed to be aesthetically pleasing. Hitler was all about appearences. Look at the Rhineland or Anschluss for example, a military campaign intended mainly to make Germany look good. Hell, the NAZI uniforms were thought up by fashion designers, you'd have to be an idiot to expect them to look anything other than "Fantastic" (or maybe Fabulous).
 
The word "fantastic" can be construed to be innapropriate when discussing the Nazi's but he wasn't addressing a single policy or action they brought about or commited.

He was merley giving his views on the historical design of a huge and important part of history.

They really devalue their already tenuous position by going after people and trying to get them dropped/fired or whatever from their positions by just mentioning a part of history. Wankers.

Remember what happened with Ken Livingstone? He likened a press reporter who was hounding him for answers on some subject to a SS gaurd.

He turned out to be Jewish of course.


They tried and succeeded in getting him suspended from his position as Mayor of London until the High Court steamed in and reinstanted him since they had no authority to suspened a Democratically elected leader.

IN YOUR FACE ASSHOLES!
 
Here it is:







Comments to Oliver Finegold

Ken Livingstone was publicly criticised in February 2005 when he compared an Evening Standard reporter to a concentration camp guard after the reporter had tried to interview him following a reception marking the 20th anniversary of Chris Smith's coming out as gay. The reporter, Oliver Finegold, was in fact Jewish and said he took offence at the comparison, but Livingstone refused to withdraw the remark and was subsequently accused of anti-Semitism. Finegold had an audio recorder running. At the end of the exchange on the tape there is a five second gap. Livingstone claimed this is where Finegold swore him following his comments. Livingstone also claimed Finegold had deleted this part of the tape - the Standards Board for England refused to make a ruling on this, considering the claim to be irrelevant. The Evening Standard decided not to run the story at first but the following transcript of the conversation was leaked to The Guardian:

Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?

Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?

Finegold: How did tonight go?

Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?

Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?

Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Livingstone: Ah right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?

Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?

Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.

Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.
Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism.

This last comment was a reference to the Standard's owners, the Daily Mail and General Trust, which endorsed Oswald Mosley's fascists in 1934 and supported the Nazis until 1939. Livingstone also claimed the Standard was guilty of "harassment of a predominantly lesbian and gay event"[5]. Peter Tatchell commented that this explanation "came across as patronising. Gay people don't need the Mayor's protection to fend off a journalist asking simple questions."



After listening to the recording supplied by Finegold, the London Assembly voted unanimously to ask Livingstone to apologise. Livingstone responded by saying "the form of words I have used are right. I have nothing to apologise for". Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, herself the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, said of Livingstone: "These were inappropriate words and very offensive, both to the individual and to Jews in London".[25] The Board of Deputies of British Jews referred the case to the Standards Board for England, the body responsible for English local government standards, which passed it to the Adjudication Panel for England, which has the power to ban individuals from public office for five years.

Wikinews has news related to:

Reaction to Ken Livingstone suspensionThe Adjudication Panel addressed the case over two days on the 13 & 14 December 2005 [6][7][8], and adjourned the hearing for two months. On 24 February 2006, Ken Livingstone was found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute and suspended from office for four weeks, stating that he seemed "to have failed... to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable". [26] Livingstone attacked the decision on the grounds that the Adjudication Panel members ought not to suspend a democratically elected official from power, describing their actions as "striking at the heart of democracy". The ban was due to begin on 1 March 2006, but on 28 February 2006, a High Court judge postponed it pending an appeal by Livingstone. [27] During a Mayor's Question Time evening at the Hackney Empire a vote was put forward to the few hundred people in the audience asking if them if they supported the decision to ban the Mayor from office; the London audience showed their disapproval and responded with their full backing for the Mayor.

The decision was later quashed by the High Court when on October 5, Justice Collins overturned the suspension, regardless the outcome of Livingstone's appeal concerning the breach of standards. [28] The final judgment upheld Livingstone's appeal and stated that the Adjudication Panel had misdirected itself. On 7 December 2006, at a City Hall reception marking the launch of the London Jewish Forum, Livingstone apologised for any offence that he had caused the Jewish community
 
Top