TCS Daily


God Save the Queen... From the Beeb

By Val MacQueen - July 17, 2007 12:00 AM

The clattering sound that was heard all round Britain at breakfast time last Wednesday was the sound of British jaws hitting breakfast tables, dressing tables and steering wheels as a commercial for a BBC program urged viewers to watch a program in which "the Queen storms out" of a photo session "in a huff."

Given that, during the 60 years of her reign as head of state of Britain, Queen Elizabeth has never evinced the slightest sign of irritation - or indeed boredom which must, so many times, have been jaw-cracking as she listened to speeches at state banquets and official luncheons and endured thick-witted dining companions - never mind displeasure, the British simply didn't believe it. A keen horsewoman and breeder of thoroughbreds, she never even allows herself to look vaguely disappointed in public when one of her horses loses.

Mouths also gaped round the British Commonwealth, for the Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and around 50 other nations comprising around 2bn people in all. The workload, including traveling, endured by 81-year old Queen Elizabeth, whose devotion to her duty is legendary, would be daunting for someone 40 years younger.

Given the leftist, anti-royalist agenda of the British Broadcasting Corporation, funded by the compulsory purchase of television licenses under penalty of imprisonment, the average Briton heard the announcement and sensed a plot. And, indeed, it wasn't long before the confession of one, accompanied by a mealy-mouthed, insulting apology, was prised out the BBC.

Throughout her 60 years as head of state, the Queen has sat for many portraits, both painted and photographed, as a record of her reign. The artists - as diverse as the rather violent Lucien Freud to Nigerian-born Chinwe Chukwuggo-Roy and many in between - are chosen by the Queen's staff. The photographers have been similarly diverse.

The photographer chosen by her equerries for this year was Annie Leibowitz, more at home in Beverly Hills than Buckingham Palace. The Queen was to be photographed in her official robes. The chain of office alone is 26 large, heavy gold links. Leibowitz, not knowing the difference between a crown and a tiara, asked the Queen if she would remove her "crown." "Less dressy?" quipped the Queen, who could not remove her heavy, jewel-encrusted tiara without the help of a hairdresser to unpin it.

The BBC was at the sitting, as part of preparation of a documentary A Year with The Queen. BBC photographers had filmed her on her way down a corridor in Buckingham Palace as, clad in the heavy robes she would pose in, she walked briskly to the sitting. On the way, the camera had picked up a passing remark she had made to her lady-in-waiting, "I'm not changing anything. I've had enough of dressing like this ..." She was referring to not wanting to fuss around with her heavy robes of state in the middle of a hot day.

The BBC promptly ran the excerpt, joined to a clip of Queen Elizabeth saying "Too dressy?" labeling it, "Queen storms out in a huff!" As the Queen, with a discipline of steel, has never shown the faintest displeasure to anyone or anything, this film clip, purporting to be the Queen storming out of - rather than walking toward - her appointment, was what caused jaws throughout Britain and the Commonwealth to hit the floor.

As Melanie Phillips notes, "The BBC had falsified the sequence of events to make a better story."

Peter Fincham, controller of BBC was forced to make a groveling apology, while at the same time he claimed the tape had been edited "in error" and shown by "mistake." The Palace, when alerted of the "mistake" had called Fincham almost 24 hours previously, yet he failed to apologize and withdraw the deceitful tape until 19 hours later.

Such is the loathing of royalty among the socialist elements who populate the upper echelons of the BBC.

But not among the British public at large who, if the correspondence columns in the national papers, in which hundreds of people have protested, are anything to go by, are incandescent. So far, Fincham has resisted calls to resign, which he claims would be "a disproportionate response." The betting is he'll have to go. The backlash is gathering momentum, with members of the public now calling for the BBC's director-general Mark Thompson to go too. More cheering still, this manoeuver has revived calls for the license fee to be abolished, and for this monolithic, Sovietesque broadcasting establishment to be broken up and privatized.

This breach of its compact with the license-payers comes in the same week that the BBC was fined £55,000 ($111,800) for falsifying a call-in competition on the children's show "Blue Peter." They also received a knuckle-rapping for, in the same show, "making a child complicit" in the deception.

Val MacQueen is a TCS Contributing Writer living in the United Kingdom.

Categories:

35 Comments

To the BBC, truth is incidental to the bigger story
the bigger story being whatever is in fashion for the far left at the moment.

Be it, global warming, the war in Iraq, or anything to do with the British royalty, the BBC won't let anything as trivial as truth or reality get in the way of pushing their agenda.

fairness
the staff at the BBC are the ideological soulmates of those in this country who want to bring back the fairness doctrine.

And the results will be the same.

dreaming of the past...
Used to be in less troubled time that such insults to the Royal family were capital crimes, as a result such things happened but rarely.

But the Brits, under pressure from the spineless French (and those under their yoke during the Napoleontic era and effectively ever since) have abolished the death penalty even for the worst of crimes, bad manners.

Unpleasant truth
Just in case any reader of TCS is inclined to believe this farrago:


The offending film was made not by the BBC but by an independent production company. The BBC had to apologise for showing it – they foolishly believed that the BBC’s standards of veracity and accuracy applied in the world of private-enterprise mass media.


For any normal human being living in the UK the proposition that the BBC is anti-monarchy is laughable. In no other country would the worthless activities of dim princelings, the crusty prejudices of pointless regents and the witless musings of a near-fatally indulged heir to a throne be so carefully recorded and respectfully broadcast.


The correspondent might wish to compare the magnitude of the Blue Peter offence and fine to the record of fraud of, and corresponding 7-figure penalties applied to, the commercial TV companies of the UK. Then again, probably not. Such an exercise would be of no use except to people interested in accuracy…

The BBC has standards? Not that I've ever been able to find.
...

Priceless
I'm afraid you're too late, Mark. Or just too damn lazy to do the most basic research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6901613.stm

Not understanding how the BBC operates, you didn't know that it often uses private production companies to produce programmes in order to cut costs (and, in this case, corners). This particular firm has admitted to deception. The BBC were sold a pup. More fool them but the real culprits were the production firm.

One notorious, but conveniently forgotten, example occurred where the BBC News deliberately reversed two events in order to show one side in a sympathetic light and the other as the aggressors was the Battle of Oregreave between the National Union of Mineworkers pickets and the police. In the reporting, the pickets started throwing stones and missiles and the thousands of police responded with cavalry charges and baton attacks. The reverse was true - pickets responded in the only way they could to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack.
Unsurprisingly, there wasn't a murmur from your ideological soulmates to such a gross misrepresentation. In fact, it was repeated in the right-wing press ad nauseum. Why? Because it suited their political ends.

And the 'socialist' BBC's response? Zero publicity and a written explanation to a miner that in the haste to put the news together the sequence of events was mistakenly reversed. Every miner who was there, and everyone who has been on the receiving end of the BBC's 'objectivity', knows that its claims to evenhandedness are fantasy. This case of the Queen is so trivial that it barely merits a mention when juxtaposed against more serious shortcomings. And ones that the BBC is directly responsible for.

I wouldn't take Mark's protestation too seriously, coming from the man who brought us ...
"the left fully supported Hitler up till Hitler broke the Russo/German non-aggression pact.
Only then did the left support war with Germany."

and

was clueless of the fact that Christians haven't killed each other in recent history.

Neither are we supposed to notice the breathtaking irony of

"don't bother roy with facts, he knows what ought to be true, and that's enough for him"

nor

"Does your hatred of Bush allow you any time to think for yourself?"

nor

"if you weren't such a far left wing ideologue, you could spot your mistake without having to have someone you consider stupid and ideologically hidebound pointing it out to you."

nor

"a lie is stating something you know to be untrue .... as opposed to the liberal definition, which being, a lie is anything a liberal chooses not to believe."

More McQueen-isms - prejudice masquerading as fact
"Just in case any reader of TCS is inclined to believe this farrago:"

I'm afraid you were too late, Delia. Curiously the critical faculties of a quite a number of TCS posters are suspended when they hear something they want to hear and which they think gives them licence to spew forth their perverse ideology. Mark, I'm afraid is a typical example.

"For any normal human being living in the UK the proposition that the BBC is anti-monarchy is laughable."

Indeed. Not that that will get in the way of a good right-wing rant.

"Such an exercise would be of no use except to people interested in accuracy…"

Why would it when Val McQueen is of the opinion "for the Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and around 50 other nations comprising around 2bn people in all"? 1 billion plus Indians and Sri Lankans might differ.
Such 'research', however, is swallowed hook, line and sinker by the usual suspects. Don't expect any howls of criticism about that or the evidence-free assertion that "Mouths also gaped round the British Commonwealth" and "Such is the loathing of royalty among the socialist elements who populate the upper echelons of the BBC".

McQueen must live in a parallel universe to come up with "But not among the British public at large who, if the correspondence columns in the national papers, in which hundreds of people have protested, are anything to go by, are incandescent."

The sycophancy of the whole article allows McQueen to allow her prejudices to dominate her writing. I especially liked these two contradictory examples:

"Peter Fincham, controller of BBC was forced to make a groveling apology" but earlier claimed "it wasn't long before the confession of one, accompanied by a mealy-mouthed, insulting apology, was prised out the BBC."

Still, when one is writing to what one believes is a wholly right-wing American audience, who cares about the facts? Irony indeed!

Correction
That should have read 'was clueless of the fact that Christians HAVE killed each other in recent history.'

as usual, cassius can't be bothered by mere reality
My statement regarding the left and Hitler is completely true and can be verified by any history book. Maybe your mommy will read one to you.

That depends on what you mean by recent history and by killing. Are you talking last few decades, or last few centuries. As to killing, are you talking about organized killing, or individual killing. As usual you are so eager to make a point that you totally ignore reality.

As to the rest of the statements, they are my opinion. If you care to do anything to show that this opinion is innaccurate, please try. So far all you have managed to do is confirm them.

as usual, cassius fails to read context
this is the best that your average liberal can do.

I remember when Maureen Dowd got caught removing select words from quotes in order to completely change the meanings of those quotes.

As usual, to a liberal, it's only a lie when it fails to advance the agenda.

liberal lexicon
assertion (by a liberal) equals proof

As cassius once again demonstrates.

Nothing to contradict the article's flaws?
"My statement regarding the left and Hitler is completely true and can be verified by any history book. Maybe your mommy will read one to you."

Wrong! You obviously didn't read my reply when you initially made that howler.

"That depends on what you mean by recent history and by killing. Are you talking last few decades, or last few centuries. As to killing, are you talking about organized killing, or individual killing. As usual you are so eager to make a point that you totally ignore reality."

Again, you haven't been bothered to read my extensive reply concerning the Irish War. And I didn't mention the Yugoslav wars. You clearly can't read what's in front of you - too busy slurring the next victim of your oh-so-funny one-liners.

"As to the rest of the statements, they are my opinion. If you care to do anything to show that this opinion is innaccurate, please try. So far all you have managed to do is confirm them."

My point was about irony. You accuse everyone who disagrees with of delusional behaviour but when you can't see facts or fiction when it's in front of you it's merely 'my opinion.'

MarkTheGullible fails to distinguish fact from fiction for the umpteenth time
"I remember when Maureen Dowd got caught removing select words from quotes in order to completely change the meanings of those quotes."

I remember when the early journalistic career of Boris Johnson (prospective Conservative Party candidate for London mayor) went down the plughole because he was found to be inventing quotes.

We could be here all day accusing one 'side' or the other (which is what you do best) but you fail to notice that my criticisms of the BBC were based on facts and were far more stinging than the one you've read from a friendly journalist who can't even be bothered to research basic facts.

"As usual, to a liberal, it's only a lie when it fails to advance the agenda."

Your usual dumbass accusation. I've asked you before to provide some proof that I'm a 'liberal'. Thus far, you've failed miserably.

Mark's lexicon of hate
"assertion (by a liberal) equals proof"

This is so lame it's almost beyond words.

Your problem is that you insist on proclaiming that 'liberals' merely assert while you have some monopoly on truth. Each and every time I've challenged your facts - and I'm especially looking forward to your reply to my retort to your 'Hitler supported by the Left' fantasy - you have nothing. I'm quite sure that some 'liberals' have been guilty of fabrication. What your 'ideology' can't seem to accept is that conservatives have been guilty of it.

Why don't you enter the real world and posit facts to dispute my criticism of the article? All your comments WERE assertions. Nothing was based on evidence. Your gullibility knows no boinds when you can fall fall for McQueen's guff.

I'm not surprised that you won't admit your political leanings
however your posts make it quite clear where your sympothies lie.

BTW, most conservatives in England would fit comfortably in the left hand side of the America's Democratic party.

I have
you just can't deal with any reality that isn't in the party manual.

as usual, cassius can't be bothered with accuracy
I see, in cassius's mind, if I can use the concept that loosely, any time two people, one of which may or may not be nominally Christian kill each other, that's proof that Christians kill on an institutional basis.

And to think, he actually believes that liberals are capable of independant thought.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that any of my opinions are faulty.

To date, you further prove me correct every time you post.

this claim fails the laugh test
1) The ad was on BBC.

2) The only way your claim could be true was if the BBC had not reviewed the "documentary" prior to agreeing to air it.

3) That kind of thing does not happen.

4) The BBC new what was in the documentary. They knew that the ad was false. They aired it anyway.

It must be so disorientating to have nothing that'll fit me in a nice, neat pigeon hole
Keep mouthing that 'liberal ... blah blah blah... party line .... blah blah blah .... far left' line if that's how you cope with life.

"however your posts make it quite clear where your sympothies lie."

So clear that you haven't posted any evidence. Once again, your evasions demonstrate your intellectual bankruptcy. Mark has no need for evidence - just bald assertion on top of bald assertion.

"BTW, most conservatives in England would fit comfortably in the left hand side of the America's Democratic party."

As per, you either don't understand the composition of the UK Conservative Party and/or you exaggerate the left of the Democrats. If you are referring to Boris Johnson and believe him to be comparable to the left of the Dems then you compound your ignorance. I guess you were unaware of his editorship of the house journal of the Right - The Spectator.

Bone Idle
"I see, in cassius's mind, if I can use the concept that loosely, any time two people, one of which may or may not be nominally Christian kill each other, that's proof that Christians kill on an institutional basis."

As you're actually an insufferable infant who has to have everything spoon-fed to you, here are my two replies on the religious element to the Irish War and the Left's non-support of Hitler:

1) Posted: 29 Jun 2007, 8:41 AM in relation to your demand that Muslims should apologise for acts of terror committed in their name.

>Have you been asleep for the past 40 years or did the Irish War pass you by? I can always rely on you to put your foot in it.

Ok so you want some evidence?

670 people were deliberately targeted by Protestant Loyalists because they were Catholics, including Protestant civilians killed because they were mistaken for Catholics or married to or associated with Catholic civilians. 73.5% of Loyalist targeted killings were innocent Catholic/Protestant civilians.

Here's an example of the psychopaths who inhabited the world of the Protestant death squads whose motto was 'For God and Ulster':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

Nice huh? They'd have had Zarqawi wincing!

And here's their leader:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Murphy

And what was the heavy price in personal liberty that was imposed on these representatives of Protestant Loyalism to demonstrate the revulsion of the British state and its representatives? Murphy was given a few years for possession of a handgun. In typical style, he murdered someone in a bar fight on his release. He was NEVER convicted of the murders he committed as leader of the his murder gang.

Fortunately, he was given a dose of rough justice in one of the IRA's most popular hits.

And what was the response of the moderate Protestant leaders to killings done 'in their name'? Condemn them outright for visiting death and misery on innocent Catholics? No. It was to blame it on the IRA for effectively bringing it on Catholics themselves. During the 80s they also stood side-by-side with them on platforms at Ulster Resistance rallies, occasionally wearing a red beret as an act of solidarity.

Here's a short biog of one of Protestant Ulster's finest - George 'burn the Catholics' Seawright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seawright

And what of the response of the British state? Stand full square behind the victims and hunt down the perpetrators? No. It was to provide police and military intelligence for the murder gangs. Here's only the most famous example of Brian Nelson, a British Army operative who was the Intelligence Officer of the Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters, during whose tenure dozens of innocent Catholics were killed.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sf31398.htm

But perhaps that's not good enough for you. Here's some more.

Direct collusion between MI5 and the death squads occurred in the most deadly attacks in one day of the Irish War:
33 Irish civilians were killed on one day, 17 May 1974, in simultaneous car bomb attacks in Dublin and Monaghan. (A total of 43 Irish Republic citizens were deliberately killed by Loyalists.)

And what about the general Protestant population's response to the UFF, UVF, Red Hand Commandos etc...? Demonstrations and marches against the violence were conspicuous by their absence. In your world that would be enough to associate them with the perpetrators of anti-Catholic murder.

One of the most notorious UFF attacks was on an IRA funeral at Milltown cemetery, attended by about 10, 000 people. Curiously, for a republican funeral - particularly one as high profile as for the 'Gibraltar 3' - there was no police presence with Brit Army back-up and surveillance helicopters providing the obligatory nuisance value. What followed was a random gun and grenade attack by a lone Protestant, Michael Stone. Three people were killed and sixty injured until he was chased down by unarmed mourners. Only when some of the crowd had courageously dodged bullets and grenades, and were in the process of beating Stone to death, did Her Majesty's finest appear on the scene to do their 'duty'. One of whom said to Stone, "Did you hear that? You got two of them. Isn't that brilliant?" Later, he signed autographs for his police guards in hospital. That'll be the apologetic tone that Irish nationalists have come to expect from the 'last line of defence' from barbarism.

Now, presumably you'd like to condemn all those Protestants who should have been making clear, in no uncertain terms, that such crimes were being committed in their name for the warped ideology of 'a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people'. Oddly, there were no such calls at the time that you demand from Muslims. Or maybe Protestants get a pass because they're Christians and not Muslims.

Next time you get that oh-so-smug and self-satisfied feeling, think!

2) posted 11 Jul 2007, 10:11 AM

>"the left fully supported Hitler up till Hitler broke the Russo/German non-aggression pact.
Only then did the left support war with Germany."

Oh really, Mark? I know your historical knowledge is notoriously poor so allow me to educate you .... again!

After the catastrophic defeat in Germany, the Left adopted the Popular Front strategy, allying themselves with liberals and centrists against fascism.

The Spanish Civil War (1936-39) mobilised the International Left to fight fascism. Having failed abysmally to muster any resistance to Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship, most of the Left realised the nature of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc. while Churchill was praising them and other conservatives were indulging them.

In 1936 the East End of London mobilised hundreds of thousands against Hitler's British allies - Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. Large numbers of Jews in the East End - many of whom were Communist Party members and supporters - fought the police and fascists to prevent them marching through their streets. Fascism never achieved much headway after this decisive battle.

At the outbreak of the war, the British Labour Party refused to join a coalition government with Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. Only when Churchill became PM in 1940 did Labour join a national coalition government.

If by the 'Left' you mean the Soviet Union and its satellite parties in the Comintern then you'd be correct. It's foreign policy since Stalin's rise to power wasn't to spread revolution throughout Europe but to play off one European power against another so as to better achieve 'socialism in one country'. If this meant being opportunists and signing a pact with a sworn enemy then so be it.

Having said that, in Mark's world the Left IS the Communist Party!

So you're either blissfully ignorant of basic history or your crass ideology can't cope with facts.

More inventions from Mark
"And to think, he actually believes that liberals are capable of independant thought."

Yawn

"To date, you further prove me correct every time you post."

To date? That must be as close as you get to having an open-mind! As above, I have proved you utterly wrong. Try thinking for once - independently or otherwise - before indulging in juvenile banter. I won't be holding my breath.

It's your party and you'll whine if you want to ...
"you just can't deal with any reality that isn't in the party manual."

And which party would that be? Since you haven't an inkling of what my ideas on global warming, free speech, development etc then you'll be guessing what my affiliations are some time yet. In the meantime, why not repeat your 'liberal' line ad nauseum?

Let's recap:

1) You assert the BBC is 'far left' without any regard to its meaning beyond your bizarre political definitions;

2) You provide nothing to back up you assertion that the BBC is anti-monarchy;

3) You give no evidence to show the BBC's 'upper echelons' are 'socialist';

4) You fail to recognise any of the basic factual errors by McQueen;

5) You fail to realise that a private production company admitted their inaccurate sequencing and deception and apologised to the BBC;

6) You fail to provide one iota of evidence to dispute my claims.

The intellectual blind alley of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' sums you up completely. You now provide backing to the 21st century anachronism of an unelected head of state who's only qualification is an accident of birth.

I can only now assume that you're actually a whining teenager with a colossal grudge and a huge amount of growing up to do. Say it ain't so!

More assertion eh?
"1) The ad was on BBC"

Strawman argument. No-one is disputing that.

"2) The only way your claim could be true was if the BBC had not reviewed the "documentary" prior to agreeing to air it."

So why would the private production firm say it was its fault and NOT the BBC's?

"3) That kind of thing does not happen"

Clearly it has. I realise you're looking for a conspiracy theory, however. The way ahead for the BBC would be to do all its productions in-house and not seek to save money by outsourcing to private firms wanting to make a name for themselves.

What part of "This particular firm has admitted to deception. The BBC were sold a pup. More fool them but the real culprits were the production firm" do you not understand??

"4) The BBC new what was in the documentary. They knew that the ad was false. They aired it anyway"

Pure conjecture. And you know it. Why on earth would they leave themselves open to a complaint from the Queen. Your assertion falls on its ar*e, as per.

cassius stumbles over the obvious
1) Necessary precondition - Basic logic, you should try learning some

2) Maybe because they would never get another special on the Beeb if they didn't? Regardless, the Beeb saw the ad, saw nothing wrong with the ad, and ran the ad. They had every reason to know that the ad was false, they ran it any way.

3) Pure conjecture on your part.

4) If the Beeb didn't review the film, then they are utterly incompetant. So which is it? Are they corrupt, or are they incompetant, or are they both.

bald assertions
I have backed up my claims.
You on the other hand just go around claiming that anything you don't want to know is nothing more than an assertion.

You really need to look up the concept of projection.

the only problem is, none of that has any relevance to any question at hand.
,,,

you have posted reams of irrelevant or incoherent data
I suppose it might impress your professors.

cassius, NAZI is national socialism
There is a political spectrum. Left or right, or right or left, it's all relative to where you're starting from.

So the idea that the NAZI's were right wing came from Stalin and the Communists who were decidedly LEFT of the *****. The *****, though were LEFT of most everyone else.

The ***** were decidedly socialists. Look at what they did. The social order was ascendant over the individual. Same with the Italian Fascists. Social over individual. One way of distinguising between right and left political spheres is to consider right wing as the individual person as more important to promote than the social. The individual before government. There's a reason it's called socialism.

The main reason the left didn't want to have anything to do with the ***** in the 30s and 40s was due to the N in NAZI. It stood for NATIONAL socialism, which everyone on the left outside of Germany considered to be the BAD socialism.

GOOD socialism was universal socialism that accepted all peoples everywhere. The bad NAZI socialism that placed Aryan Germans at the top of the heap was not to be tolerated.

Later, after the defeat of the ***** and the full extent of the horror they inflicted became known, the left had another cause to deny that the ***** were on the left -- because they lost.

Where on earth do you derive that from??
"I have backed up my claims"

If you sincerely believe that then you've only confirmed you're not the full shilling.

State where you have backed up any of your statements on this thread with verifiable facts. Until such time, they are what they are - assertions. And baseless ones, at that.

"You really need to look up the concept of projection"

I presume you did just that after someone accurately called you MarkTheProjectionist.

Mark's customary evasions
You stated : "I'm still waiting for you to prove that any of my opinions are faulty."

I provided answers to your questions with an array of links with FACTUAL material.

Your response: "the only problem is, none of that has any relevance to any question at hand."

You can run but you can't hide, Mark.

'Irrelevant' because you have no case and 'incoherent' because you lack the knowledge of the subject
You can continue to evade the questions as much as you like. Since you asked me to debunk your claims and were too bone idle to look for yourself, I provided them. It was you who asked me to counter your arguments. I did so and comprehensively destroyed them so you resort to stamping your feet and crying 'irrelevant' and 'incoherent'.

That says it all really. You are an utter waste of space.

More characteristic allusions to a conspiracy
1) An immaterial fact that no-one disputes. The question concerns who juxtaposed the sequences in the wrong order.

2) Private production firm created the film, BBC runs it in good faith. RDF apologises for deceiving the BBC, the public and the Queen.

It would be more logical to conclude that RDF invented this 'story' precisely to gain a reputation. It has backfired on them spectacularly.

3) It's an opinion based on the facts that are known. You prefer to see a conspiracy.

4) Again, which part of "This particular firm has admitted to deception. The BBC were sold a pup. More fool them but the real culprits were the production firm", do you not understand??

At least you now admit that it's possible the Beeb didn't see the rushes.

Erjazz
Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Firstly, what's in a name? The Naazis were no more socialist than the Russian fascist, Vladimir Zhironovsky, is a liberal or a democrat.

However, let's look at the name - National Socialist German Workers' Party. In the circumstances of mass politics and the desire for radical change after WWI it should be apparent that it is a catch-all label designed to appeal to a wide range of strata.

Its ideology was virulently nationalistic and profoundly hostile to the working class. Thus its appeal was that it was anti-socialist in word and deed. (I shall come back to that later.)

Its social composition was almost wholly middle-class. 'Workers' was clearly a misnomer.

I'm glad you raised the point that socialism is related to the social. I disagree with your presentation of it, however. The 'social' is present in the writings of conservative reactionaries such as de Maistre. Forcing a dichotomy between the individual and society isn't the sole definition of a conservative.

The original definition of left and right was where one sat in the French Assembly - radicals and liberals to the left, conservatives and defenders of the ancien regime to the right.

In the capitalist epoch conservatives and the right generally wish to conserve the status quo i.e. capitalism and orientate themselves to capital and authority. The left is at the very least critical of capitalism and in its 'socialist' form wishes to transform capitalist SOCIAL RELATIONS. Hence, it orientates itself to the working class.

Now, to the Naazis and as to whether they were socialist in practice.

They allied themselves with every right-wing putsch attempt and much of their recruits came from the Freikorps - ex-soldiers dedicated to fighting the Left.
Physical attacks on working-class areas and the organisations of the Left were commonplace and increased as their popularity grew. They made no inroads in the elections for workers' organisations precisely because workers knew the Naazis were hostile to their interests. Only on the eve of Hitler's accession to complete power did they achieve any success in workers council elections.

And what did these 'socialists' do as soon as they were in power? Politically, they arrested, imprisoned, tortured and murdered the leadership and militants of the SPD, KPD, the rest of the Left and the trade union movement. Economically, they forced through a pay freeze, militarised labour via 'voluntary' labour schemes, restricted freedom of labour, enforced speed-ups and longer hours.

And who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the working class - the supposed beneficiaries of socialism. Rather it was capitalists who could take advantage of the destruction of a powerful workers' movement. (Note that IG Faban who donated 45% of NSDAP election funds in 1933 were 'rewarded' by being given the opportunity of building Auschwitz.)

It's true that there was a plebian wing in the NSDAP. Led by the Strasser brothers this was destroyed in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. There was now no doubt which side of the fence they were on.

There is also ample material of the substantial backing from business that the NSDAP enjoyed. Here's an excellent and detailed example: http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_07.htm

There can be no doubt from the above that industrialists and bankers saw in Hitler their saviour in the face of a militant working-class.

As far as Naazi ideology is concerned, it was grounded in irrationalist German philosophy, hence the focus on the volk, the environment and countryside, blood and soil etc.

Your quote : "Later, after the defeat of the ***** and the full extent of the horror they inflicted became known, the left had another cause to deny that the ***** were on the left -- because they lost."

It was the Right that was on the defensive after the War. Its racial thinking had to be debunked for public consumption after the logical conclusion of having a hierarchy of races was crystallised in the shape of the Holocaust.

The meaning of socialism
Engels explained the difference between socialism and nationalisation of enterprises and why the latter in and of itself isn't socialism:

"For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the State has become economically inevitable, only then - even if it is the State of today that effects this - is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes - this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels."

In short, socialism implies workers management of production and exchange. Without this, 'conscious planning' cannot exist. Instead, the command-style beauracratic mess that existed in the Soviet Bloc and elsewhere dominates.

Much as I am loathed to quote Mises because I believe he has a profound misunderstanding of socialism, he does appreciate the difference between nationalisation of some enterprises and wholesale nationalisation.

"There is, of course, a fundamental distinction of the highest importance between the nationalization or municipalization of individual undertakings which are publicly or communally run in a society otherwise maintaining the principle of private property in the means of production, and the complete socialization which tolerates no private ownership by individuals in the means of production alongside that of the socialist community. As long as only a few undertakings are run by the State, prices for the means of production will be established in the market, and it is thus still possible for State undertakings to make calculations. How far the conduct of the undertakings would be based on the results of these calculations is another question; but the very fact that to a certain extent the results of operations can be quantitatively ascertained provides the business administration of such undertakings with a gauge which would not be available to the administration of a purely socialist community. The way in which State undertakings are run may justifiably be called bad business but it is still business. In a socialist community, as we have seen, economy in the strict sense of the word, cannot exist."

Of course, he goes on to ignore his own words but what he is getting at is that the market mechanism is still the economic regulator and nationalised industries are still subject to it while capitalist social relations remain.

TCS Daily Archives