British democracy at it's best.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Politics is a fecking joke and we are the mugs. The media and the government are part of a show. Just look at how many government personnel are former journalists.
The revolving door between leading jobs in the media and the Conservative party/government continues. And yet I still have to put up with idiots claiming the media is biased towards the left, apparently.
Michael Gove’s shelves:
Twitter is going crazy over the bookshelf 
Strange Death of Europe... HummmTwitter is going crazy over the bookshelf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strange_Death_of_Europe
though this has to be the highlight
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Michael-Gove-Saves-World/dp/1521231079
the david irving book hopefully finishes gove though - probably the most slimy man in parliament which in and of its self is quite an achievement
Last edited:
Twitter is going crazy over the bookshelf
It’s a bit ridiculous but you just know Gove would be nodding along to the two Murray books.
resigned as minister ... really should have resigned as an mp...
suspect we will see him back in a government post in 6 months once this has blown over
I have a book written by Hitler on my shelf....
Yes, at the least he'll retain his MP's salary, pension and influence, and in many cases they just keep their head down for a year or so and then get promotion again. Constituency parties never seem to act on these things either. Or even the voters. One does despair a bit at times.
We're being trolled by the BookShelfGate photo, I fear.
My second reaction as well. I mean the whole set up is a who's who of Cnuts and it's not like Mail journos are averse to trolling.
And another thing ... if someone junior in his office or the civil service had used HOC notepaper for personal advantage they would have been sacked. People always talk of those at the top having more responsibility, but in practice they don't, It's the lower levels that are always punished the most.
Is there any plausible deniability to suggest that it's still possible to come across Irving without knowing who he is?
His credibility as a historian is obviously in tatters as a result of the Lipstadt case, but there are at least enough references to him as serious historian (in some cases from people who are pushing their own denialism agenda but in some cases not) to make me think that you could stumble across it and not realise who he is.
I simply don't accept that as an excuse for Gove, at the very least we should hold our politicians to the standards of being able to do a google search, but it was a question which struck me when I re-read Slaughterhouse Five and saw Irving quoted uncritically by Vonnegut without any comment.
The thing is that Hitler's book is of interest at a primary source account of that period of history. Irving's work has absolutely no value except as a study of denialism, and I don't see any of the necessary works surrounding that (e.g. Lipstadt's own book) to suggest that that is the context in which Gove may have been interested in it. The best defence you can offer is that he didn't know what Irving was, but I think it's both extremely implausible and ludicrously week.
His credibility as a historian is obviously in tatters as a result of the Lipstadt case, but there are at least enough references to him as serious historian (in some cases from people who are pushing their own denialism agenda but in some cases not) to make me think that you could stumble across it and not realise who he is.
I simply don't accept that as an excuse for Gove, at the very least we should hold our politicians to the standards of being able to do a google search, but it was a question which struck me when I re-read Slaughterhouse Five and saw Irving quoted uncritically by Vonnegut without any comment.
The thing is that Hitler's book is of interest at a primary source account of that period of history. Irving's work has absolutely no value except as a study of denialism, and I don't see any of the necessary works surrounding that (e.g. Lipstadt's own book) to suggest that that is the context in which Gove may have been interested in it. The best defence you can offer is that he didn't know what Irving was, but I think it's both extremely implausible and ludicrously week.
I'm trying to be objective - no doubt many of us have owned controversial books - but Irving's work is something I'd avoid completely, as frankly he disgusts me:
Wikipedia: 'Several of these statements were cited by the judge's decision in Irving's lawsuit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, leading the judge to conclude that Irving "had on many occasions spoken in terms which are plainly racist." One example brought was his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.'
Wikipedia: 'Several of these statements were cited by the judge's decision in Irving's lawsuit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, leading the judge to conclude that Irving "had on many occasions spoken in terms which are plainly racist." One example brought was his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.'
From what I understand that particular book was published before Irving’s reputation and credibility collapsed. I don’t think it’s such an issue to have it on the shelf given that it’s balanced somewhat by some other works in the collection concerning the broader topic. I’ve got books by anti-Islam authors like Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or and Ayan Hirsi Ali on my shelf, but many many more which would counter them.
I’d be much more concerned by The Bell Curve and The Strange Death of Europe, especially as they may be perceived to potentially pertain much more to current issues facing the present government.
I'm more concerned that an education secretary is into books like the bell curve.
It's also annoying that these books are going to see increased sales thanks to this little stunt by Gove. He can own David Irving for all I care but don't promote the prick by being an influential public figure and tweeting a photo of his book in your collection.
It's also annoying that these books are going to see increased sales thanks to this little stunt by Gove. He can own David Irving for all I care but don't promote the prick by being an influential public figure and tweeting a photo of his book in your collection.
Last edited:
The thing I notice from a brief scan is an absolute dearth of women or books outside the anglosphere - also the vast preponderance of Americans.
Edit: Although I'm delighted to see Ayn Rand made an appearance.
Edit: Although I'm delighted to see Ayn Rand made an appearance.
The old ones are the best.
He has a copy of the Koran! Also a copy of "How Michael Gove saves the world"
The main issue is less that Gove has an Irving book on his shelf and more the media’s collective shrug in response. If this was a left-wing Labour MP allied to Corbyn (or, Corbyn himself) we’d have had calls to resign, Kuenssberg’s fingers would be sore from hysterical tweeting and the journalists would have made sure a largely unaware public knew just how distasteful Irving’s work is.
I find the presence of most books on that shelf worrying largely as you can see how they frame the worldview of the likes of Gove and Vine. But out of intellectual curiosity I think the presence of virtually any book can be justified. It’s more interesting for exposing the media bias and the free pass given to figures on the right. Some people may recall Gove’s tweet a few months back conflating British Jewish citizens with Israel but it didn’t get a peep either in mainstream media.
I find the presence of most books on that shelf worrying largely as you can see how they frame the worldview of the likes of Gove and Vine. But out of intellectual curiosity I think the presence of virtually any book can be justified. It’s more interesting for exposing the media bias and the free pass given to figures on the right. Some people may recall Gove’s tweet a few months back conflating British Jewish citizens with Israel but it didn’t get a peep either in mainstream media.
The problem with Irving's earlier work is that it's tainted by the same ideas that led to the reputation collapse. The Destruction of Dresden, for example, vastly inflates the figure of the dead to equate it the horrors of Auschwitz because Irving was a Nazi sympathiser, an anti-semite, and generally a piece of absolute garbage even before he transitioned to full blown denial. As the judgement made clear:
In the first place Irving knew all along that there were powerful reasons for doubting the genuineness of the purported TB47. It had been denounced by Seydewitz as fraudulent. Indeed Irving himself was aware that Goebbels had been seeking to take propagandist advantage of the raid by making exaggerated claims as to the number of deaths. Irving in 1963 described the so-called TB47 as “spurious” (although I accept that at that date he had not seen a copy). When he did receive a copy, he was warned by Lange, the Dresden archivist, that it was a patent forgery. I accept the evidence of Evans, which I have summarised above, that there were features within the document itself which cast doubt on its bona fides. Irving therefore had every reason to be suspicious about the claim that the death toll might ultimately be 250,000.
The Leucther report and Irving's acceptance of it blew the lid off of the pretence that he was a historian acting in good faith or that he has anything interesting to say. He wasn't a good historian who made mistakes, or a person whose opinion was informed by the sources and came up with a kooky premise, he was an intelligent, able historian who manipulated, misused and mischaracterised what he was dealing with to push a racist, anti-semite, Nazi agenda. There's no historical merit or value to anything he's written as a result.
Thankfully he was stupid enough to sue Deborah Lipstadt and show that to the world.
I can't believe that Irving had any possible excuse for that 'oversight'. I mean, I've only read about half-a-dozen books on WWII, yet even I'd read of the controversy over (and manipulation of) the Dresden figures; so, if a layperson was aware of it, no way was an historian ignorant of the matter. Irving had no defence.
Anyway, we know why Gove has it on his shelf. He's a bit of a fan:
Gove's criticism of Professor Evans' words is just plain wrong-headed...perhaps deliberately missing the point:
I can see Gove throwing his wife under the bus and saying all the dodgy books are hers (including how Michael Gove saved the world)
It really is incredible the way people like Gove can just so readily dismiss the crimes perpetrated by the US and the likes of Kissinger.
This is the article, he really doesn’t come across as a fan of Irving:
That's a fair reading.
It is a really odd article though which seems to set Irving up simply as a yardstick in which to argue that Kissinger isn't a war criminal and that suggesting he could be is akin to holocaust denial. At best, I'd say he'd had too much coke that week.
Hmmm. The motivations of the article are very suspicious at best. Interesting use of an attempted moral equivalence argument whilst deriding the use of "moral equivalence".This is the article, he really doesn’t come across as a fan of Irving:
Would love to have seen Gove and Hitchens on the debating podiums in response to this article.
I suspect it’s fairly standard Cold War stuff from the right, pushing American/Western innocence, etc.
Anyway this resonates as maybe the primary issue with that collection:
There’s a real lack of intellectual curiosity on display there.
If only they had posted the "random" non racist shelf before
Though given his ego I'm shocked there isn't a copy of how Michael Gove saves the world on each shelf
It’s what you’d expect a Brexiteer ideologue’s bookshelf to look like - an obsession with US politics and WWII, very little interest in continental Europe (apart from Hitler) and zero curiosity about the rest of the world (or indeed any subjects other than politics or history). The only thing missing are books on Wellington and Nelson.
Well, thanks to Sarah Vine I've now seen a bunch of people today defending The Bell Curve. What a twat.
Maybe it's just me but I didn't need to know Michael Gove reading habits to come to the conclusion that he is in fact a cnut.
Reading material you disagree with sharpens your thinking.
I have most of David Irving's books. I also have books by Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans and Robert Jan Van Pelt, among other authors on WWII.
My range of books on Israel and the Arabs is just as broad. I have books by both the 'Old' Historians' (Efraim Karsh, Yoav Gelber, Shabtai Teveth, ectra) and the 'New' Historians (Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Simha Flapan, ectra).
Owen Jones should try reading a book he disagrees with sometime. He might learn something.
