Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Chronicles of a stable genius - all the biggliest stuff

I must admit I do have a problem with the tossing around ‘Nazi’ as an insult at anyone who doesn't conform to the liberal progressive minutiae....

You often hear politicians from across the ideological spectrum, influential media figures, and ordinary people on social media casually using Holocaust terminology to bash anyone or any policy with which they disagree.

For a start it's historically illiterate and extremely offensive to anyone who has been affected by what the real Nazi's did all those years ago in 1930's Greater Germany.

The Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews as well as the genocides of around 1 million Roma Gypsies.

Equating your political opponents with Nazis, especially without a full understanding of the historical context, risks blurring the definition of Nazism and minimising the atrocities it represents....
 
Beretta said:
what a miss leading article, the ABC can go F*** themselves lol

500,000 people in attendance, and a world record for a ticketed concert.

spewing i wasn't there.
Click to expand...

Nothing to see here.

The 58-year-old rocker, whose fans are known for their chants "Kill a Serb" and "Here we go Ustasha" (the Croatian fascist and ultranationalist organisation), has been banned from performing in some European cities over frequent pro-Nazi displays at his gigs.

https://www.euronews.com/culture/20...-fans-make-pro-nazi-salutes-at-record-breakin

Croatia’s WWII Ustasha regime ran concentration camps where tens of thousands of ethnic Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti-fascists from Croatia and the neighbouring countries were brutally executed.

Video footage aired by Croatian media also showed many fans displaying pro-Nazi salutes earlier in the day.
 
Football us life said:
I must admit I do have a problem with the tossing around ‘Nazi’ as an insult at anyone who doesn't conform to the liberal progressive minutiae....

You often hear politicians from across the ideological spectrum, influential media figures, and ordinary people on social media casually using Holocaust terminology to bash anyone or any policy with which they disagree.

For a start it's historically illiterate and extremely offensive to anyone who has been affected by what the real Nazi's did all those years ago in 1930's Greater Germany.

The Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews as well as the genocides of around 1 million Roma Gypsies.

Equating your political opponents with Nazis, especially without a full understanding of the historical context, risks blurring the definition of Nazism and minimising the atrocities it represents....
Click to expand...

Google Jasenovac if you think there no equivalence with what the Nazis did. I guarantee you it was worse than anything the Germans did.

You know things are grim when even the SS think they'd gone too far and were disgusted.
 
Muz said:
Nothing to see here.

The 58-year-old rocker, whose fans are known for their chants "Kill a Serb" and "Here we go Ustasha" (the Croatian fascist and ultranationalist organisation), has been banned from performing in some European cities over frequent pro-Nazi displays at his gigs.

https://www.euronews.com/culture/20...-fans-make-pro-nazi-salutes-at-record-breakin

Croatia’s WWII Ustasha regime ran concentration camps where tens of thousands of ethnic Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti-fascists from Croatia and the neighbouring countries were brutally executed.

Video footage aired by Croatian media also showed many fans displaying pro-Nazi salutes earlier in the day.
Click to expand...
where in any of his songs does he mention kill serbs? or Ustase?

banned from playing in some European cities, but can play in Croatia and get 500k people, under the current leftist government in Croatia. lol

such a slow new day article, yawn.


🤡
 
Muz said:
Google Jasenovac if you think there no equivalence with what the Nazis did. I guarantee you it was worse than anything the Germans did.

You know things are grim when even the SS think they'd gone too far and were disgusted.
Click to expand...

I dont know....I googled Marko Perković and Jasenovac together and it didn't really say much about if this guy had orchestrated or been involved in anything in the way of genocide or genocidal warfare during WW2. Which of course he hasn't because he was born in the 1960's....

He might be sympathetic towards the ustasha and other symbols of Croatian nationalism and even fascism but calling him an actual 'Nazi' seems a little bit extreme.

I know this kind of reaction can be subjective but I think that you're getting out of context with your words here.

Another example...

There was a big music festival in the UK at Glastonbury last week in which this kind of punky hip hop band calling themselves Bob Vylan were chanting "Death, death to the IDF" and other distasteful anti- Israel chants during their set and were cheered on by thousands of young middle class hipsters. The band have also had accusations of purveying distasteful tropes against Jewish music industry identities too.

They have been labelled as anti-semitic by the media. Well it might be a touch unsavoury but is it actually antisemitism?

Are this band Bob Vylan Nazi's for their apparent hatred of Jews too?

There was another hip hop band playing at Glastonbury called 'Kneecap'. An Northern Irish nationalist band who have on many times over the years been labelled as anti-semitic. They are facing charges of terrorism for flying Hezbollah and Hamas flags at some of their gigs.

But is this antisemitic?

Or do we toss the antisemitism tag around too easily as well?

I just think that these kind of reactions to certain trains of thought are sometimes taken a little bit out of context.
 
Last edited:
So the Epstein list doesn't exist at all despite sitting on Bondi's desk just a week ago?
 
www.thetimes.com

Young, angry, educated — and raring to rebel

New York’s Democratic mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani taps into an energy mirrored in Corbynism: overqualified graduates who are pro-rent control, anti-Israel and agitating for change
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
Young, angry, educated — and raring to rebel
Click to expand...

New York’s Democratic mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani taps into an energy mirrored in Corbynism: overqualified graduates who struggle to afford city life, are pro-rent control, anti-Israel and agitating for change, writes Fraser Nelson
Click to expand...

In the New York City mayoral primary, the bulk of Zohran Mamdani’s votes came from trendy, majority-renter, graduateheavy areas
Next image ›
Bushwick, a gentrified neighbourhood in Brooklyn, is dripping in the angst of America’s millennials. “Did you spend $200 on a bad first date?” screams a billboard near the main station, and it’s a fair point.

Those $25 cocktails, $45 main courses and taxis all add up — and to many, it’s a very real cost of living crisis. The ad is for a dating service, promising less wasted money. At a nearby bar, offering happy-hour oysters, I meet Jake, who tells me he’s paid $100,000 a year and still struggles to make ends meet.

New York’s young professionals are mad as hell — and now have a candidate to embody their rage.

In theory, the 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani should have had no chance of becoming the Democrat candidate for New York mayor. He was up against Andrew Cuomo, a former state governor backed by tens of millions in donations and the benediction of Bill Clinton. But in last month’s election, in which three million registered Democrats were invited to vote, Mamdani flattened all ten of his opponents. His weapons: Obamaish eloquence, Trumpish insurgency and — crucially — his own new coalition of the young, affluent and angry.

He ran on an explicitly socialist platform: free bus journeys, “childcare for all”, even pilots of government-run grocery stores, all to be paid for by taxing the rich. His campaign, he boasted, was funded by the masses, not billionaires. But strikingly, his class war did not resonate in the poorest, largely black areas. His base was the more fashionable, majorityrenter, graduate-heavy precincts. Mamdani took Bushwick with 79 per cent of the vote, and won more than three in four votes in similar areas. His strongest support was among those with household income of between $75,000 and $200,000 a year.

Mamdani has all the credentials for modern radical chic. He’s a longstanding critic of Israel who pointedly refuses to condemn the phrase “globalise the intifada”.

At times, it seems he is out to troll the right — as Trump does the left. “I am Donald Trump’s worst nightmare,” he said during the debates: “A progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things I believe in.” Like Trump, his selection — and his viral campaign — put paid to the idea that victory can only come from the centre. He is inspiring his own intifada: one of the city slickers, very much in the market for remaking the economic model.

New York has always been a city of stunning and visible inequality. At one end of Central Park lie the jazz concerts and brunch spots: at the other, you’re buying M&Ms through a bulletproof screen. Manhattan’s top end has come back from lockdown as beautiful as ever but the bottom seems more visible, and distressed.

“Being honest” said one placard I saw, “I need money for weed!” I was on my way to dinner with an old friend — no wine, shared dessert — which came to $350. It’s not hard to see a world from which everyone, even the would-be high-flyers, feels locked out.

One recent study found that a single person needs $140,000 a year to “live comfortably” in New York — that is, basic living expenses absorbing no more than half the salary. Quite a high bar, given the average graduate starting out in the city is paid about half that. Those who arrive thinking they’ll be Wolf of Wall Street find the reality is more Fairytale of New York. After a few years, this grates.

The sad truth is that skills don’t dictate salary: supply-and-demand does. Workers are usually paid whatever they’d cost to replace. The more graduates clamour for each job, the less employers can get away with paying. This is what Tony Blair didn’t work out when he wanted half of young people to go to university. It was said at the time that China was mass-producing graduates so Britain had to follow suit in the global skills race. But no one asked: what happens if graduates are produced far faster than graduate jobs? China is now a case study. Its national nuclear corporation recently announced 1.2 million applications for 1,700 positions. This was meant as a boast but it triggered rage from the Chinese young, who took it as proof of the impossibility of their position. It’s hard, of course, to protest in a one-party state. Easier in a democracy, once the right candidate emerges.

All this fits a pattern described by the evolutionary historian Peter Turchin in a 2009 book Secular Cycles.

Societies, he argued, go through long cycles of growth and collapse triggered not by poverty but by an excess of privilege. The real danger comes when countries overproduce their elites, churning out far more highly educated aspirants than they have positions to offer.

“We should not expand our system of higher education beyond the ability of the economy to absorb university graduates,” he wrote in a letter to Nature in 2010. “An excess of young people with advanced degrees has been one of the chief causes of instability in the past.”

Turchin saw the French Revolution not as a peasant revolt but as a rebellion of surplus lawyers and frustrated intellectuals shut out of power. In Tsarist Russia, he tracked how a quadrupling of graduates fuelled the ideological radicalism that led to Bolshevism. Even the American Civil War, he argued, bore the marks of “elite overproduction” in the southern planter class, threatened by economic stagnation and demographic pressure.

Turchin, an émigré from Soviet Russia, came to believe that his theory could predict the future not just explain the past. In 2010 he foresaw “stagnating or declining real wages, a growing gap between rich and poor, overproduction of young graduates with advanced degrees and exploding public debt”.

This, he said, would lead to a blowup in the 2020s. He was, in short, talking about a revolution — driven not by the downtrodden but the disaffected children of privilege.

Mamdani certainly fits the mould. He is the son of a Columbia University professor and an Oscarnominated filmmaking mother, both Indians who met in Uganda (where he was born). Raised among the cultural elite, he has the polish of a privileged insider but is, to his supporters, a radical outsider. His campaign didn’t speak to the most deprived New Yorkers but, instead, to the most frustrated: renters, graduates and mid-career professionals who feel they did everything right and that the system still won’t let them in. That anger — articulate, educated and, now, organised — is what Turchin warned about.

Corbyn’s young professional core

None of this should seem foreign to Britain. Back in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn almost won with 12.9 million votes, far more than the 9.7 million Keir Starmer gathered at the last election. Young professionals were very much part of the Corbyn coalition: 39 per cent of Financial Times readers, for example, voted Labour that year. Anti-Israel, pro-rent control, pronationalisation: Corbyn’s priorities were very much the mood of the urbanites where his vote was concentrated. Labour’s agony over Corbyn — asking how the party could have slid so far from its workingclass roots — has overlooked just how electorally successful it all was. And could be again.

A recent survey found one in ten Brits saying that support for Palestinians in Gaza was a major factor in how they voted at the last election. Among the under- 25s, it was one in four. The five so-called Gaza independents now in parliament are seen as evidence of ethnic or religious sectarian voting, but this overlooks the ethnic composition of a typical Gaza protest march — and the extent to which this has become a touchstone for the young across the West.

Bushwick in New York is peppered with “Boycott Israel” graffiti and posters exhorting locals to avoid businesses who “fund genocide”.

Then, the economics. In New York, someone who pays more than 30 per cent of their salary in rent is considered “rent burdened” (in Manhattan, you need a household income of $180,000 a year to avoid this fate). By this measure, most renters in England are “rent burdened”. The average is 34 per cent, rising to 40 per cent in London, Bath and Bristol, and about 45 per cent in Brighton. It’s more a case of being rent-crushed, especially after the inflation of the past few years. Housing costs are not expected to fall. And the UK average salary is rising so slowly that, by the end of this decade, it will still be lower than before the 2008 crash. A lost decade is bad enough; losing two decades can lead to despair and electoral rage.

Crucially, graduates have solid ground for complaint. When tuition fees were introduced, university degrees started being sold, not just offered. Government adverts proclaimed that the average graduate earns £100,000 more over their lifetime. Tuition fees of £9,000 a year? Same again in living costs? Don’t worry, it’ll pay off in the end: that was the pitch. But like many pitches, it blurred a vital detail: the vast differences by subject and institution. Medicine at Oxbridge? Yes, you’ll do well. Media studies at a former polytechnic? You may end up poorer than if you hadn’t gone at all.

What makes the scandal worse is that government pushed university education without ever really accepting the flaw. What made them think graduate jobs and opportunities would expand, to match the supply of graduates? Might they be leading a generation of young people down the garden path, saddling them with debt that they’d never repay? Politicians wanted to be seen as pro-ambition and proaspiration, so promoted university for political reasons. At no stage was the economic case — for the students — properly examined.

“ Labour’s agony over Corbyn — how the party could have slid so far from its working-class roots — has overlooked just how electorally successful it all was. And could be again

Buried inside Whitehall is a dataset called LEO: Longitudinal Education Outcomes. It links tax records with education records to show how much graduates from specific courses earn one, five, and ten years after their degrees. It’s one of the richest education economy datasets in the world. But a proper publicfacing version, allowing any student to see real-life salary prospects for any course, any college, was never launched. Perhaps just as well, given what it shows.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, about one in five graduates would have been better off financially had they skipped university. LEO data shows English, psychology, and social science degrees often yield negative returns once debt, tax and loan repayments are factored in. Almost all men with a creative arts degree earn less than non-graduates.

Starmer could perform a quiet revolution by opening LEO to all. With average graduate debt now at £53,000, it’s the least the state can do. “Sorry” said a street art piece by Banksy that emerged in London in 2011: “The lifestyle you ordered is currently out of stock.” It was meant as a satire, but may soon come to be seen as a call to arms.

In right-leaning America there is glee — almost schadenfreude — at New York’s political divisions.

Most Americans, it’s argued, will see in this a selfdefeating tantrum from the most entitled generation in history. “They’ve never had a tough day,” Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran political consultant, told the Wall Street Journal. “They can’t buy an apartment. I’m sorry they can’t buy an apartment. But they can buy a $9 latte and a $100 dinner.” But he certainly thinks this dismay is strong enough to fan into something bigger and regards Mamdani as “the face of the end of the Democratic Party as we know it”.

Is Mamdani the future of the left?

If Mamdani is elected New York mayor in November (and bookmakers give him a 75 per cent chance) he will add another piece of critical mass to the young, social media-savvy radicals like his supporter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The ensuing centrist vs radical tension may play out when Democrats come to choose the next presidential candidate — by which time, Mamdani may stand out as an example of how not to run a city. Or he may, like Giorgia Meloni, end up a success, accompanying radical language with more doable, centrist policies. Either way, his mayoralty would be deeply influential in deciding the future for the still-disorientated American left.

And in Britain? For now, the Green Party is the party of the overeducated and underhoused. It has blended its environmentalism with more robust positions on Gaza and economic radicalism (with the obligatory rent control) which took it to power in Brighton and Bristol. Zarah Sultana’s defection from Labour to set up her own party may yet prove to be stillborn. If someone is to lead a British graduates’ revolt, right now it is hard to see who.

But until fairly recently, even political obsessives had not heard of Zohran Mamdani. He was an obscure local politician with no achievements or controversies to his name, who seemed laughably incapable of raising the tens of millions in campaign finance that seems the entry price to American politics. But he TikToked his way up using short-form videos, the medium of our time. Young and good-looking, he even inspired a “Hot Girls for Zohran” movement. If politics is a battle for attention, the new algorithm-driven videos are a way of very quickly reaching a generation who don’t read newspapers or watch television news (the average New Yorker is 38). Through these methods he inspired an army of 50,000 to campaign for him — and, in so doing, showed it’s far easier, now, to be a bolt from the blue.

If Mamdani can win, anyone can: that’s the real shock to the system. In a political culture supposedly ruled by party tribes, money and machinery, a skinny-tie socialist with barely a campaign office managed to flatten the Democratic establishment. He didn’t need a newspaper endorsement, a donor network or even a coherent policy agenda. He needed anger, fluency in the digital platforms where that anger lives and a generation ready to listen — then vote. The overqualified underclass is finding its voice and, in New York at least, its champion.
Click to expand...
 
So these Epstein files. 2 things can only be true....

1. Trump is in there/protecting people in there
2. He's weak and has been told by his masters that he can't release them

Amazing how he's not coping heat from MAGA now over it, and it's all directed at BIndi. He's the fucking president. He can turn them over in a second if he wanted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Oh, now Trump is saying Biden doctored the Epstein files :ROFLMAO: Wonder what's going to come out.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Surely people of all sides are on that Epstein list. Withholding it now can be used as a bargaining chip. I think some who are on it have piped down of late.

What happens when we see people on it from across the board? Lance Armstrong style shock? Maybe for some but one could argue the heavily linked won't be surprising.
 
3021 said:
There were lots of foreigners outside of Diaspora at the Hipodrom. Including non europeans.
Click to expand...
yes, for example the likes of Bulgaria's drug dealing , mafia neo-nazis were there too. Family values hey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top