Why, yes, yes it is!
I'll give them credit, though. At least they're making it a bit more obvious these days. If you're going to pump out hate-filled, cynical propaganda on a daily basis, and do it with a degree of openness and honesty, then I suppose there is less hypocrisy involved.
(P.S. do check out the readers' comments. Lovely stuff...)
Monday, 8 February 2010
Is the Daily Mail still a fascist newspaper?
Posted by John Demetriou at 00:03
Labels: daily fascist rag, daily hate mail, fuck the daily mail and their fascist cunt readership
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Oh c'mon, play the devil's advocate here and oppose your own thread. To accuse the DM article as fascist depends totally how you decide to interpret it.
Hence the comments ... ;-)
OK, look.
Any interpretation of that piece leads to the same conclusion. There's no other way of seeing it.
The establishment in question was once an RAF training school. Now it's a college for other random shit.
But is the piece about a decline in dress standards? No. Hence the photo and hence the helpful stats on the origins of people in the modern depiction.
The piece is designed to make the reader come to negative conclusions about a) young people b) dark people and c) people and d) people today.
It is spiteful bullshit and it annoys me.
They didn't publish the piece for nothing. Have you asked yourself what it is they are doing here?
Even some of the readers have cottoned on and said as much.
'ant' from 'brum'
"Oh my God!!,,I think i have just realised who I am voting for in the coming elections."
Yeah, you 'just' realised, didn't you? Mail reading BNP fascist cunt.
And as the piece is supposedly about 'standards', how about showing some consistent support for the editorial line you appear to agree with, by spelling out your name and place properly, using correct English?
Funny how the Daily Mail BNP Supporters Club are always the ones to demonstrate an astonishingly poor standard of written English.
In general, I agree that the DM is horrible. And in this article the readers comments certainly support your claim.
But I have to disagree with you on this! I think this exact article could appear on news.bbc.co.uk or in the Graun as a "feel good" piece to show how much has changed: what would have been impossible in 1940 is now commonplace and so much the better. That's clearly why the college organised this, and why they produced the press release that the DM copied (probably almost word for word). If it's "fascist" at all, it's the liberal Establishment sort of "equality and diversity" fascism.
The article has no useful purpose because "feel good" articles never do. It's only in the context of the Daily Mail, and what it normally prints, and who normally reads it, that this looks fascist in the Mussolini sense.
Why the fuck read that shit if it bugs ya!
I read the daily sport,thats a proper paper...
What is wrong with Fascism?
And NO, I am NOT joking.
You're probably not joking, but I can't be arsed to answer you.
I somewhat disagree with your analysis, Mr Demetriou. Sure, the Daily Mail is a tabloid paper, and it is written to appeal to the "gut instincts" of a particular audience (conservative, "middle-class" (whatever that means), possibly largely female?) And yes, you have to read between the lines and try to ignore the bias, like any other newspaper.
Yet, this is the UK's 2nd largest selling tabloid, after The Sun (I was almost about to say "and The Sun hardly counts as a paper", but then I would be destroying my own argument in defence of the Mail, wouldn't I?) If we are to say "such and such a paper "doesn't count", it's "fascist" etc, then we are snubbing our noses up at its readership, who have every bit as much right to their opinions as anyone else does.
Behind the DM's so-called "hate" lies a simple anger at "the way things are currently going", and a simple desire to restore certain traditional values. A good deal of ordinary people happen to agree with the values the DM espouses, myself included. Hence, for every Guardian sold, nine DM's are sold in the UK. They must be doing something right?
However, I recognise what you are getting at. The DM does go over the top, at times. Still, I would rather read Melanie Phillips' wise words than those of Polly Toynbee, any day.
Toynbee is a sick, sick woman.
If I were to compare the Mail and the G, I'd say they were as bad as eachother, but in very different ways.
Neither has the right answers and neither asks the right questions.
The Mail is particularly annoying for me, because it gobbles up the entire right wing debate, so right wingers like me are unfairly tarred with the same brush, even though my politics is starkly different.
The DM gives many on the right a bad name. I wish they'd fuck off and join forces with the BNP. A union made in heaven if ever there was one.
Why should the BNP be interested in joining with a RIGHT wing news paper?
They are more labour than Wilson and Foot EVER where.
Because the Mail is protectionist and state corportatist also.
Both are national socialist in world view.
Fuck 'em.
Exactly.
Socialist. NOT Fascist.
And what is the difference between national socialism and fascism, would you say? Because from over here, it seems there are only minor ideological differences of little importance or interest.
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)
Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism", Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.
The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council for Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)
The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions", Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism
Firstly, my apologies to JD & KB for talking about this, since I doubt either of them particularly care about the distinctions between totalitarian ideologies.
Secondly, thankyou Furor for replying. I'm genuinely interested. However, you haven't convinced me.
It is clear from Mussolini's quotes that when he says "Socialism", he means what we would now call "Communism": "which sees in history nothing but the class struggle". This is also clear from his comments about "private enterprise" which show that he is trying to emphasise a distinction between Fascism and Communism, when in fact that distinction is minor, since he acknowledges that the state should take control of any "private initiative" deemed "insufficient" or politically inconvenient.
Mussolini describes his Fascism as entirely distinct from Socialism, but reveals that the two share a very important principle. "The State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value."
That principle is the defining principle of Socialism. It says that it is the State itself which gives meaning to existence. The State is the source of human liberation and social progress towards an ideal. The only difference between the various subtypes of Socialism (Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and modern day "liberalism") is what that ideal is perceived to be.
Post a Comment