Podcasts about Oswald Mosley

7 hours and 4 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the complete audio to the series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley. Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

7 hours and 4 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the complete audio to the series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley. Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

7 hours and 4 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the complete audio to the series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley. Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

65 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete conclude a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley. Thomas talks about the British Free Corps.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

63 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete continue a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

61 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete continue a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

66 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete continue a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

64 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete continue a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

67 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete continue a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

54 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas and Pete begin a series exploring the life and work of British Union of Fascists founder, Oswald Mosley.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

In this fiery episode of History Rage, host Paul Bavill welcomes back historian, journalist, and author Guy Walters to rage against the sanitized veneration of the Mitford Sisters. These interwar aristocrats have often been glamorized in books, media, and society, but beneath their glittering façade lies a much darker reality.Fascist Fables:Unity Mitford's Obsession with Hitler: Unity stalked Adolf Hitler, met him over 130 times, and became one of his closest British confidantes. Her diaries, recently unearthed and published, reveal her disturbing Nazi sympathies and personal infatuation with the Führer.Diana Mitford's Glamour and Extremism: Diana married Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, in Joseph Goebbels' living room, with Hitler himself in attendance. Despite her aristocratic charm, Diana remained an unrepentant fascist even decades after the war.The Mitford Dynamic:The Extreme Spectrum: With parents steeped in fascist ideology, the Mitford siblings included fascists like Diana and Unity, alongside Jessica Mitford, an avowed communist. Guy explores how political extremism permeated the family's psyche.Romanticisation in Media: From syrupy books to glossy TV dramas, the Mitfords are too often depicted as glamorous, eccentric aristocrats, overshadowing their political extremism and disturbing sympathies.Guy's Call to Action:Stop the Mitford glorification. Shift your fascination to figures like the women of the SOE—glamorous, courageous, and committed to fighting tyranny, not enabling it.Join Guy Walters as he dismantles the myths surrounding the Mitford Sisters and rages against the misplaced admiration for these controversial figures.

Yes, another Sherlock Holmes book! The longtime EIC of Tripwire, Joel Meadows, joins the Bandits to talk about the second volume of his Sherlock Holmes and The Empire Builders story. You may know Joel as a journalist, who's written extensively about comics, film, and genre narratives throughout the UK. He's written two books about comics: Studio Space (as co-author) about where and how 20 of the world's best comic artists work, and Masters of Comics, which covered more comic artists and their workspaces. Part II of The Gene Genie finds Holmes at his lowest ebb, having lost his closest friend and confidante to prime minister Oswald Mosley's thugs.The Gene Genie Kickstarter has ended, but you can still late-pledge for both volumes of the story at http://kck.st/4foyZko. And you can follow Joel on X @joelmeadows1 and on Instagram @tripwiremag.____________________Check out a video version of this episode on our YouTube channel: youtube.com/dollarbinbandits.If you like this podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts. And if you really like this podcast, support what we do as a member of the Dollar Bin Boosters: buzzsprout.com/1817176/support.Looking for more ways to express your undying DBB love and devotion? Email us at dollarbinbandits@gmail.com. Follow us @dollarbinbandits on Facebook and Instagram, and @DBBandits on X._____________________Dollar Bin Bandits is the official podcast of TwoMorrows Publishing. Check out their fine publications at twomorrows.com.Hombres en crecimientoSi has estado buscando un lugar que te ayude a crecer, simplificar tu vida.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the show

This is the story of British fascism seen through the life of its leader, Oswald Mosley. We explore his charismatic yet deeply flawed personality, his relationship with European fascists, and the eventual decline of his movement.With us is Stephen Dorril, a former senior lecturer in journalism at Huddersfield University and the author of 'Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism'. He joins us for an in-depth look at this complex and controversial figure.Produced and edited by James Hickmann.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.

The sister of the Christchurch terrorist said he idolised Adolf Hitler and admired British fascist Oswald Mosley. At the inquest into the murder of 51 worshippers at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in March 2019, Lauren Tarrant described how her brother had descended into far right extremism. Timothy Brown was in the Coroner's Court - and a warning his report contains some distressing detail. 

Dimes and Judas discuss the racially traitorous Tim Walz on the campaign trail, The Longshoreman Union's blue collar mafia shakedown, and their idealistic dreams for the recent escalation of conflict between Israel and Iran. They then review the autobiography of the BUF leader Oswald Mosley titled “My Life,” exploring a life which stands in sharp contrast to his political contemporaries as a distinctly Anglo realization of fascism. Lastly on this edition of Copepranos Society, Dimes speaks with creator of Unreconstructed, Garak Obama, and the two discuss the concept of the Western Thaw as it relates to an irregular and uncoordinated victory for the Right, and how to plan for a world after a Trump victory. Timestamps: 00:18 – The Montreal Smoked Meat Steaming Debate 07:39 – Judas for prime Minster Campaign Song, by RWP 10:38 – JD Vance vs. Tim Walz at Vice Presidential Debate 17:26 – Is America Ready for a Problem Drinker President? (Yes.) 21:48 – RFK Jr. Moderating While Covered In Animal Blood 24:00 – White Sitcom Dads Betrays the American Military 28:19 – The Escalating Conflict Between Israel and Iran 31:42 – The Damaged International Reputation of Iran After Repeated Unanswered Assassinations 41:17 – Everyone is Scared of a Nuclear Exchange Not Being Scary 49:33 – Is it Different This Time, and Does BRICS Matter? 55:15 – Longshoreman Union Strike as Cool White Mafia Shakedown 58:39 – Harold Dagget, ChatGPT's Tony Soprano 1:07:01 – Blood $atellite News: Latest Releases, Articles, Spaces 1:13:46 – Crimes Chat: Chemspray 1:18:43 – Oswald Mosley's “My Life” Discussion Begins 1:22:56 – Reformer Rather Than Revolutionary 1:27:00 – Mosley's Relationship With His Degenerate Father 1:31:30 – Experiences in and Hatred of War 1:37:16 – A Charmed Life Leads to Extravagant Escape 1:40:14 – Experiences in British Parliament 1:42:12 – Position Against Antisemitism and Oppressive Racism (Except India) 1:46:40 – Tour of America Inspires Economic Model 1:58:50 – Relationship with the International Fascist Coalition 2:02:04 – The British Union of Fascists as Street Defense Against Communism 2:07:45 – Garak Obama Interview Begins

Britská unie fašistů nebyla nikdy doopravdy úspěšným hnutím. Ani před druhou světovou válkou, natož během ní. Její vůdce Oswald Mosley, kdysi nadějný mladý politik, je něčím mezi šášou a anglickým Mussolinim. Ale Mosley není člověkem, který bude nejvíce spojován s britským fašismem, to bude jeho švagrová, jistá Unity Mitford. A to hlavně pro její vztah s mnohem významnějším fašistickým vůdcem.

This Day in Legal History: Lord Haw-Haw Sentenced to HangOn September 19, 1945, William Joyce, infamously known as "Lord Haw-Haw," was sentenced to death by a British court for treason. Joyce, an American-born British subject, became notorious for his English-language radio broadcasts during World War II, where he spread Nazi propaganda designed to demoralize Allied forces and sway public opinion. His broadcasts, aired from Germany, ridiculed Britain and encouraged defeatism, earning him the mocking nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" due to his affected, sneering tone.Interestingly, before aligning with Nazi Germany, Joyce had served as an informant for the British government on Irish Republican Army (IRA) activities. In the 1920s, Joyce had strong anti-communist and anti-Irish Republican sentiments, and his knowledge of far-right politics in the U.K. led him to assist British authorities in monitoring IRA movements. However, his extreme right-wing views eventually drew him to fascism, and by the late 1930s, he joined Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists before fleeing to Germany at the onset of World War II.The nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" was coined by British journalist Jonah Barrington in reference to the exaggerated aristocratic accent of an anonymous broadcaster. Though it initially referred to another German propagandist, the label stuck to Joyce, who became the most infamous voice behind Nazi broadcasts. His broadcasts, filled with mockery of the British government and predictions of their downfall, made him a household name in Britain, and the face of enemy propaganda. Despite his American birth, Joyce's use of a British passport for his travels was enough for the court to convict him of treason. His execution in January 1946 marked the end of one of the most infamous figures of wartime propaganda.The Compton Courthouse in Los Angeles suffered two major floods in January 2024, caused by burst water valves, resulting in closures and significant disruptions to court operations. Nearly 5,000 cases were impacted, and emergency repairs cost California almost $2.6 million. This courthouse, along with many others in L.A. County, is deteriorating due to a "run to failure" maintenance approach, where repairs are made only after systems break. Budget constraints have forced the California Judicial Council to prioritize only critical repairs, leaving many courthouses vulnerable to failure. Compton is a "medium priority" for repairs, raising concerns about more urgent locations, such as the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, which has also faced severe plumbing and hazardous material issues.Los Angeles has 36 courthouses, many of which are well past their 50-year lifespans, and costly maintenance bills continue to rise. The challenges are compounded by seismic safety risks, as many of these buildings are not built to withstand earthquakes, presenting a significant danger to the public. Renovation and replacement of courthouses are progressing slowly, with only a few new facilities funded each year. Experts suggest modernizing courthouse designs and incorporating technology to reduce the need for large, outdated structures. However, without substantial investment, L.A.'s court infrastructure remains vulnerable to both natural disasters and everyday wear and tear.L.A. Courthouses Crumble With ‘Run to Failure' MaintenanceSecond indoor flood causes Compton Courthouse to close until further noticeCOMPTON COURTHOUSE CLOSED FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS DUE TO ADDITIONAL FLOODING ISSUES AFFECTING ELEVATORS AND LOBBAlso in California legal news, a judge has denied a request to reopen Golden Gate University's law school, which closed after 123 years of operation. California Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer ruled against the plaintiffs, a group of former students and alumni, who had sought an injunction to reinstate the school. The plaintiffs had sued for breach of contract, claiming the university kept students in the dark about its financial struggles before announcing the closure.Golden Gate University cited declining enrollment, poor bar exam pass rates, and a weak job market as reasons for shutting down its law program. While most of the affected students have transferred to other American Bar Association-accredited schools, such as the University of San Francisco School of Law and Mitchell Hamline School of Law, the plaintiffs argue that the school failed to provide adequate transfer options.Although the school will not reopen, the plaintiffs can still pursue monetary damages for claims such as breach of contract and false advertising. A hearing is scheduled for October 22 to determine whether their case will proceed. Golden Gate Law is the latest in a series of law schools nationwide facing closures due to similar challenges.California judge rejects bid to reopen 123-year-old law school | ReutersMark Esper, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, joined Squire Patton Boggs as a part-time senior adviser, where he will focus on advising clients on national security and foreign policy. Although Esper has extensive experience in government and previously worked for defense contractor Raytheon, he will not lobby for the firm's clients in Congress or executive branch agencies. His role will leverage his public policy expertise from over 30 years in high-level government positions.Esper's move comes after his public break with Donald Trump in 2020, particularly over disagreements about invoking the Insurrection Act during protests following George Floyd's murder. He has since emerged as a critic of Trump, calling him a “threat to democracy” while also critiquing President Biden. While at Squire Patton Boggs, Esper will continue his work with venture capital firm Red Cell Partners and European think tank GLOBSEC.The firm views Esper's hire as a key step toward becoming a leader in national security advisory services. His work is expected to focus more on helping multinational corporations navigate the intersection of economic policy and national security rather than direct governmental advocacy.Trump Defense Secretary Esper Joins Squire Patton BoggsEx-Trump defense secretary Esper joins law firm Squire Patton Boggs | ReutersSenate Democrats are working to strike a deal with Republicans to confirm a backlog of President Biden's judicial nominees before the end of the year. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin is hopeful that Republicans will agree to a package of nominees, a practice that was more common in less partisan times. With the Senate's slim Democratic majority, confirmations have been challenging, particularly for nominees like Rebecca Pennell and Mustafa Kasubhai, whose votes were delayed due to attendance issues and GOP opposition.Some nominees, such as Charnelle Bjelkengren, faced significant hurdles, with Bjelkengren withdrawing earlier this year due to a failed confirmation hearing. Kasubhai, who is still awaiting a vote, has been scrutinized by Republicans over his stance on diversity and past writings. Additionally, Democrats have faced internal opposition, with key senators refusing to support Adeel Mangi's nomination due to allegations of affiliations with controversial groups. The Senate faces a tight deadline, with a limited five-week "lame duck" session following the upcoming election recess, during which they must juggle these nominations alongside other legislative priorities.Democrats Look to Strike Deal With Republicans on Judicial PicksEU antitrust regulators have initiated proceedings to ensure Apple complies with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which requires the company to open its closed ecosystem to rivals. The European Commission aims to clarify what Apple must do to meet its obligations, focusing on iOS interoperability for devices like smartwatches, headphones, and VR headsets, as well as how Apple handles third-party and developer requests for connectivity. The Commission expects to finalize the guidelines within six months, with Apple at risk of fines up to 10% of its annual global turnover if it fails to comply. Apple has expressed willingness to cooperate but warned that opening its systems could expose users to security risks.EU antitrust regulators tell Apple how to comply with tech rules | ReutersAnd something of a double-dip in the Apple news bowl, in a piece I wrote for Forbes I spoke about the European Union's recent win in a legal battle requiring Ireland to collect €13 billion in unpaid taxes from Apple–a significant victory in the fight against multinational tax avoidance. Although the EU's highest court upheld the decision, Ireland remains reluctant to claim the windfall, as doing so could threaten its status as a low-tax haven that attracts large corporations. Ireland had argued, alongside Apple, that the taxes were not owed, reflecting its desire to maintain control over its tax policies.This case highlights the tension between national tax sovereignty and EU regulations aimed at curbing unfair competition through favorable tax deals. While the EU can force Ireland to reclaim the unpaid taxes, it cannot dictate how the country spends the money, leaving the Irish government with a difficult decision. Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been key to its economic growth, but the Apple ruling could have global ramifications as more countries adopt minimum tax frameworks to address tax avoidance by multinational corporations.The case underscores broader issues in international tax law, as countries like Luxembourg and the Netherlands, also known for favorable tax policies, may face similar pressures. While Ireland is legally obligated to collect the money, its cautious approach reflects a concern about maintaining its attractiveness to global businesses. The funds remain in escrow, and Ireland has yet to reveal how it plans to utilize the money, which is equivalent to 2.43% of its GDP.You Can Give Ireland Tax Revenue—But Can You Make Ireland Spend It? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Tracy-Ann Oberman has reprised her role as Eastenders' Chrissie Watts. She talks to Nuala about stepping back into this character after almost two decades, and her recent adaptation of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. In it, Tracy-Ann plays a female version of the Jewish character, Shylock, and sets the action in 1930s London during the rise of Oswald Mosley, the antisemitic founder of the British Union of Fascists.We look back at Tuesday's special programme, live from the Radio Theatre in Broadcasting House in London, looking at the support for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities – or SEND as it's often known in England. Nuala heard from guest panellists including Kellie Bright, an actress in EastEnders but also a mum to a child with SEND, Katie, who is 17 and says she was completely failed by the SEND system, Marsha Martin, the founder and CEO of the charity Black SEN Mamas and the Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell.Visual artist Bharti Kher's new exhibition, Target Queen at the Southbank Centre, features supersized bindis reimagined from their microscopic form to the macro size worn by the goddess, transforming the brutalist building into a powerful feminine force. Bharti joins Anita to discuss the exhibition.The newly elected Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, Labour MP Sarah Owen, joins Anita Rani on the programme to discuss the remit of her new role and what she hopes to achieve.A new play, The Lightest Element, which has opened at Hampstead Theatre, explores the life and career of astronomer Cecila Payne-Gaposchkin, the first person to work out what stars are made of. Anita is joined by actor Maureen Beatie, who plays Cecilia, and the playwright Stella Feehilly.

Social media influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan are facing charges in Romania of human trafficking and organised crime. If found guilty, they could be jailed for more than 10 years. They strongly deny the charges against them. Now, two British women not involved with the Romanian case, have given detailed first-hand accounts to the BBC, against Andrew Tate, of alleged rape and sexual violence. The allegations date back at least 10 years, to when Mr Tate was living in Luton. BBC Panorama reporter Ruth Clegg joins Nuala McGovern to discuss. Tracy-Ann Oberman has reprised her role as Eastenders' Chrissie Watts. She talks to Nuala about stepping back into this character after almost two decades, and her recent adaptation of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. In it, Tracy-Ann plays a female version of the Jewish character, Shylock, and sets the action in 1930s London during the rise of Oswald Mosley, the antisemitic founder of the British Union of Fascists.Around 1,700 prisoners will be freed tomorrow when the government's new early release scheme, SDS40, comes in to effect. We look at both the impact that this scheme will have on women who have been the victims of crime and the experiences of women in prison. Nuala speaks to Andrea Coomber KC, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform which campaigns for prison reform.Rebecca Middleton was in her late 30s when she was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm. It is a condition that's believed to be more common in women than men and in Rebecca's case it was hereditary – she lost her grandmother and mother to the condition, which is what led to her own genetic testing. Rebecca has since had successful surgery to remove the aneurysm and has also created the charity, Hereditary Brain Aneurysm Support to help other people going through it. In Paris, pouring rain and exploding fireworks ended the Paralympics last night with drenched, dancing Paralympians. Nuala is joined by Paralympian turned broadcaster, Rachael Latham to talk about the standouts, surprises and legacy of the Games.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Maryam Maruf Studio Manager: Bob Nettles

"Hvis I virkelig tror, at det nuværende system kan hjælpe jer, er det så meget desto bedre for vores nye og virile form for fascisme. Jeg kommer til jer med et nyt og revolutionerende tankesæt" Ordene kom fra Sir Oswald Mosley, en 36-årig adelsmand, der stod i spidsen for det nystiftede parti, British Union of Fascists. Året var 1932, den økonomiske krise bed, arbejdsløshedskøen voksede og det britiske imperium slog sprækker. Foran en talstærk forsamling af unge mænd med sorte skjorter og højre arm strakt i en heilende hilsen, talte Mosley om alt det, der måtte gøres for at komme elendigheden til livs. Mosley blev aldrig Storbritanniens Fører, men hans ætsende kritik af racesammenblanding og multikultur stikker fortsat sit hoved frem, bl.a. under de nylige optøjer i flere britiske byer. Hvem Sir Oswald Mosley var? Hvordan hans britiske fascisme adskilte sig fra den kontinentale udgave? Og hvilke spor den har sat i eftertiden? Det er nogle af spørgsmålene i Kampen om historien, hvor Adam Holm taler med lektor i historie Claus Bundgård Christensen. Redaktør: Thomas Vinther Larsen. I redaktionen: Nanna Sloth Skardhamar og Clara Faust Spies. Musik: Adi Zukanovic.

Lyssnarnas favorit nr 5 blev nr de beryktade systrarna Mitford vars skiftande öden är synnerligen fängslande. Det blir förälskelser i Hitler, en annan i Oswald Mosley, det blir radikal kommunism och ingifte i förnäma familjer. Vi återhör avsnitt 180 från 2017. Lyssna på våra avsnitt fritt från reklam: https://plus.acast.com/s/historiepodden. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The human dynamo that is Anne de Courcy returns to the podcast by popular demand after her brilliant interview about Princess Margaret and Tony Snowdon. This week she is speaking about one of her most successful books ‘The Viceroy's Daughters', the saga of Lord Curzon and his three talented, beautiful but often wayward daughters at the pinnacle of British and imperial high society in the first half of the 20th Century.Overlapping love affairs, dalliances with dangerous young men and campaigning alongside the most charismatic politician of the age, Oswald Mosley, the former socialist turned fascist leader of Britain's ‘Black Shirts' in the 1930s - this is a story with everything and an incredible window into a glittering but also menacing world of privilege, power and decadence. If you want to support what we do and help us grow this podcast, please hit the ‘Like' button and we now also have a Thank You option on YouTube for donations starting at 2 UK pounds - find it by clicking on the 'three dots' next to the ‘download' button. You can buy Anne's books and those of the other authors we feature in our own bookshop, along with thousands of others. All profit are shared between podcasters and independent booksellers...https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/the-viceroy-s-daughters-anne-de-courcy/5024095?aid=12054&ean=9780753812556& Looking for the perfect gift for a special scandalous someone - or someone you'd like to get scandalous with? We're here to help...https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/ScandalMongers *** If you enjoy our work please consider clicking the YouTube subscribe button, even if you listen to us on an audio app. It will help our brand to grow and our content to reach new ears.THE SCANDAL MONGERS PODCAST is also available to watch on YouTube...https://www.youtube.com/@thescandalmongerspodcast/videosAndrew Lownie...https://twitter.com/andrewlowniePhil Craig...https://twitter.com/philmcraigThe Scandal Mongers...https://twitter.com/MongersPodcastYou can get in touch with the show hosts via...team@podcastworld.org(place 'Scandal Mongers' in the heading please).Production byTheo XKerem IsikProduced byPodcastWorld.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's 1932, and aristocratic beauty Diana Guinness is the belle of high society London. But her world - and her marriage - are turned upside down when she meets alluring politician, Oswald Mosley. Together they become a very dangerous double act. And Diana is forced to choose between friends and family, and fascism.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

RNIB Connect Radio's Toby Davey is joined again by Vidar Hjardeng MBE, Inclusion and Diversity Consultant for ITV News across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands for the next in his regular Connect Radio theatre reviews. This week Vidar was reviewing The Merchant of Venice 1936 at the RSC in Stratford-upon-Avon with the production centred around a planned march by Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists through the Jewish East End of London. Audio described at the RSC in Stratford-upon-Avon with description by professional Audio Describers Julia Grundy and Ellie Packer.  About The Merchant of Venice 1936 London, 1936 the threat of fascism grows day by day. Shylock (Tracy-Ann Oberman - Eastenders, Doctor Who, Friday Night Dinner) a widow, single mother and survivor of attacks on Jewish people in Russia, runs a small business from her home in Cable Street. Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists plan a march through the Jewish East End and a fragile peace is shattered. Into Shylock's world enters antisemitic Antonio in need of a loan, a dangerous deal is made. Will Shylock take her revenge?   A powerful reminder of a key moment in British history.  ‘If you prick us do we not bleed? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?'  For more about access at the Royal Shakespeare Company and for details about audio described performances of tier productions do visit - https://www.rsc.org.uk/your-visit/access (Image shows RNIB logo. 'RNIB' written in black capital letters over a white background and underlined with a bold pink line, with the words 'See differently' underneath)

Pádraig Óg Ó Ruairc is no stranger to this podcast. While his latest book explores 'The Disappeared' (launching this month from Merrion Press), he has also been undertaking a study of the far-right in Ireland historically. Moving beyond the familiar, like the Army Comrades Association ('the Blueshirts'), Pádraig's study begins with some more overlooked groups. Even before Oswald Mosley, the British Fascisti were a force with surprising connections to Dublin, and an active branch in the city.

Oswald Mosley – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_M… ADRIEN ARCAND 1962 – Unique entrevue – English interview – YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PbIk_… Academic Agent Retrospective #17: Sensibly Centred – YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfWV1p… frank@fakeologist.com iFrame is not supported! $ $ $ $ $ Please donate! $ $ $ $ $No tags for this post.

I was never particularly interested in politics growing up. My father was an active social democrat, and I remember him jumping up and down with excitement when the SDP was formed, as David Owen, Roy Jenkins, and Shirley Williams broke away from the Labour Party. Even as a student, I never got interested beyond having a feeling that something wasn't right. I felt I should be left-wing - that that was the right thing to be, but I never felt particularly engaged, only alienated. My vague understanding of political ideology was that Stalin and the Bolsheviks were far left and Hitler and the Nazis were far right - I didn't realise Nazi meant national socialist back then - but that far left and far right were actually quite close in philosophy. Horseshoe theory, basically.It seemed actual far right was something that didn't really exist in the UK. There was Oswald Mosley, but he was a bit of a laughing stock, and the National Front was tiny and ineffectual. In my mid-to-late 30s, as a result of studying gold, sound money and limited government, I discovered libertarianism. For the first time, here was a political philosophy that resonated with me. Government is inherently incompetent, inefficient and inequitable. The more it does, the worse things seem to get. The less it does, the better. “A multiplicity of individual decisions,” to quote John Cowperthwaite, former Governor of Hong Kong, “will produce a better and wiser result than a single decision by a Government or by a board with its inevitably limited knowledge of the myriad factors involved, and its inflexibility.”It always amazes me that somebody who advocates peace, free trade, less government, and, in the case of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, no government at all, can be sectioned off with Nazis and labelled far right. Far right involves more government not less. To say far-right libertarian, as the Guardian did the other day to describe Argentina's new president Javier Milei, is surely oxymoronic. Or maybe just plain moronic.At best it's lazy and ignorant. At worst it's the stuff of smearing and straw men, and wilfully dishonest. I used to think it's the former. Now most of the time I realise it's the latter.I am proud to have written the Libertarian National Anthem, which distils libertarian philosophy. The lyrics read:Arise libertarians above totalitariansOur guide is the mighty invisible hand.Reject state controllers, collectors, patrollers.Our choices are better than government plans.Taxation is a form of theft.Free markets and free trade are best.Free speech, free movement, free minds and free choice.Our actions are all voluntary,Not coerced or compulsory.War we abhor, socialism does not work.No debt or inflation, no stealth confiscation,No pigs in the trough at the gravy to drink,No state education to brainwash our nation,No experts dictate what to do, what to think.We scorn your fiat currency.Gold and bitcoin is our money.We own ourselves and we live and let live.We take responsibility.Life, love and liberty.Leave us alone, let a thousand flowers bloom.How is any of that far right?(If you want to watch the video of the above, which I heartily recommend, it is here). Buying gold in the uncertain times? My recommended bullion dealer is The Pure Gold Company, whether you are taking delivery or storing online. Premiums are low, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe, or you can store your gold with them. I have an affiliation deal. More here.What actually is “far right'?Time for a Wikipedia definition: Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. That's what I thought. But here's the problem. They've done that change-the-definition thing:Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views. So, basically, now far right can be anything you don't agree with. The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.Of course, the whole prism of left and right is false, in any case. Authoritarian v libertarian is much more telling, and the political compass is the best scale of all. But so overused is the term far right that the political compass is starting to look something like this.I have argued many times, starting with Life After the State, that healthcare, education and welfare would all be cheaper and of a higher standard, if the government stayed out of it. The internet is the most powerful learning tool ever created and it's (almost) free. In the context of the times, the Friendly Societies of the 19th century were much better providers of care than the state equivalent we have today. But, somehow, if you argue that state care is no good, and that we should do away with it, people think you are advocating a society with no care at all, and therefore you are a fascist and far right. It's not about wanting the best care for people though, with them, is it? It's about control.This week we have seen the election of Javier Milei in Argentina, who is a self pronounced libertarian and anarcho capitalist. His rants denouncing the state are the stuff libertarian wet dreams are made of. I know the purists say he is a WEF stooge. Please. Real life will never as clean as idealists and theorists would like. It is muddy and impure. Take the win. Milei's victory is a good for the libertarian cause, even if only for the PR it has given the word(s) anarcho capitalist. If his policies start to work, the potential for other countries to copy and for libertarianism to spread multiplies. Nevertheless, he is, as we learn from the Guardian, far right.Then on Thursday, an Algerian migrant in Ireland went on a stabbing spree at a school in Dublin, counting three small children and a woman among his victims. Many Irish people, like the rest of Europe, have had had their concerns about large-scale migration ignored by their leaders, who have set pro-immigration policies in place, for years. They've seen increased racial tension, increased crime, especially violent crime and rape, criminals released from prison early due to overcrowding, unaffordable housing get even more unaffordable, while schools, healthcare, transport infrastructure all struggle to cope with the increased numbers. But the stabbing made something snap and Dublin saw the biggest riots it has seen in living memory.Then came the reporting. This was the Telegraph, who should know better.Who committed the knife attack? Was that not violent? Or did it just happen? You're far right if you are angry kids are being stabbed? The Irish leadership took no responsibility. This had nothing to do with their policies. Instead it too blamed the far right. It was hooligans “driven by far right ideology”, said the head of police. My breath was taken away by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar who as good ignored the crime but condemned the reaction as racist, having no place in multi-cultural Ireland, and pledged more censorship and clamping down of hate speech. “The problem isn't that Ireland is being flooded with unassimilable, predatory aliens,” as John Carter so eloquently writes. “The problem isn't that a little girl was stabbed by one of them. No, the problem is that the Irish have a problem with it.”The death of the mediaThe Far Right it seems is now everywhere. Brexit was a far right thing. The Dutch feeling threatened by mass Muslim immigration is far right thing. Argentina, deciding that enough is enough after umpteen hyperinflations, large scale corruption and Lord knows what else, is far right. Even being opposed to the inequitable tax that is ULEZ is far right, apparently - by that measure, Robin Hood, Gandhi, Boudicca, the Peasants Revolt, the American and French Revolutionaries - yes, they were all far right. Both Just Stop Oil and Black Lives Matter are self-proclaimed far left organisations. Why does the media almost never refer to them as far left?There hasn't been a sudden rise or re-emergence of the Far Right. There has just been a rise in name-calling by a media that operates with dual standards. The name-calling can be justified because the definition of what is far right has been changed. And now people who are unhappy about a child being stabbed can be bracketed with Hitler. Do you remember the Nice terror attack in 2016? A Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowd of people celebrating Bastille day and killed 84 people. How did the media report that? This is the BBC headline:Killed by lorry! No mention of the driver, his background or political affiliation. Just the passive voice.But anyone who reacts to murderous conduct by an illegal immigrant is far right.When people are angry because George Floyd is killed and we get several months of looting, that's fine. But when three Irish kids are stabbed and the Irish get hacked off about it, that's far right. Such blatant double standards.Here we see “Oxford men”.We all know the media lies and has probably always lied. But it also has to be truthful at the level it operates. This switching between active and passive voice is, effectively, lying and sophistry. When the truth is so obviously ignored by a media too scared to call a shovel a shovel, people will inevitably lose trust in it.Thank God for alternative media, that's all I can say, or should I say, alt right media. At least there's a truth to it. Give me a citizen journalist at the heart of the action over a hack any day of the week.I don't think anyone minds people applying to come to a country, working hard, contributing, being respectful and so on. But they do mind lots of fighting-age young men coming illegally, stabbing people, raping women, exhausting local resources (such as accommodation, education and healthcare) and then being called racist and far right for raising objections. If you keep calling people far right Nazis, they will eventually start behaving like far right Nazis, as my friend Low Status Opinions keeps saying to me. The longer moderate political parties ignore the concerns of those who elected them, then the more they will be driven to extremism. It's all very well saying the mainstream media is dead. There's no doubt that it is in decline, but it still has enormous influence. The quicker it dies, the better in my opinion - then some kind of genuine free market can return and replace the  monopolistic media we have endured for the last few decades. I say “free market” can return to the media - maybe I should say “far right markets”.When all is said and done, we are seeing a battle for control of the narrative and one side is losing. That's when they start using smears like far right. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

I was never particularly interested in politics growing up. My father was an active social democrat, and I remember him jumping up and down with excitement when the SDP was formed, as David Owen, Roy Jenkins, and Shirley Williams broke away from the Labour Party. Even as a student, I never got interested beyond having a feeling that something wasn't right. I felt I should be left-wing - that that was the right thing to be, but I never felt particularly engaged, only alienated. My vague understanding of political ideology was that Stalin and the Bolsheviks were far left and Hitler and the Nazis were far right - I didn't realise Nazi meant national socialist back then - but that far left and far right were actually quite close in philosophy. Horseshoe theory, basically.It seemed actual far right was something that didn't really exist in the UK. There was Oswald Mosley, but he was a bit of a laughing stock, and the National Front was tiny and ineffectual. In my mid-to-late 30s, as a result of studying gold, sound money and limited government, I discovered libertarianism. For the first time, here was a political philosophy that resonated with me. Government is inherently incompetent, inefficient and inequitable. The more it does, the worse things seem to get. The less it does, the better. “A multiplicity of individual decisions,” to quote John Cowperthwaite, former Governor of Hong Kong, “will produce a better and wiser result than a single decision by a Government or by a board with its inevitably limited knowledge of the myriad factors involved, and its inflexibility.”It always amazes me that somebody who advocates peace, free trade, less government, and, in the case of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, no government at all, can be sectioned off with Nazis and labelled far right. Far right involves more government not less. To say far-right libertarian, as the Guardian did the other day to describe Argentina's new president Javier Milei, is surely oxymoronic. Or maybe just plain moronic.At best it's lazy and ignorant. At worst it's the stuff of smearing and straw men, and wilfully dishonest. I used to think it's the former. Now most of the time I realise it's the latter.I am proud to have written the Libertarian National Anthem, which distils libertarian philosophy. The lyrics read:Arise libertarians above totalitariansOur guide is the mighty invisible hand.Reject state controllers, collectors, patrollers.Our choices are better than government plans.Taxation is a form of theft.Free markets and free trade are best.Free speech, free movement, free minds and free choice.Our actions are all voluntary,Not coerced or compulsory.War we abhor, socialism does not work.No debt or inflation, no stealth confiscation,No pigs in the trough at the gravy to drink,No state education to brainwash our nation,No experts dictate what to do, what to think.We scorn your fiat currency.Gold and bitcoin is our money.We own ourselves and we live and let live.We take responsibility.Life, love and liberty.Leave us alone, let a thousand flowers bloom.How is any of that far right?(If you want to watch the video of the above, which I heartily recommend, it is here). Buying gold in the uncertain times? My recommended bullion dealer is The Pure Gold Company, whether you are taking delivery or storing online. Premiums are low, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe, or you can store your gold with them. I have an affiliation deal. More here.What actually is “far right'?Time for a Wikipedia definition: Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. That's what I thought. But here's the problem. They've done that change-the-definition thing:Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views. So, basically, now far right can be anything you don't agree with. The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.Of course, the whole prism of left and right is false, in any case. Authoritarian v libertarian is much more telling, and the political compass is the best scale of all. But so overused is the term far right that the political compass is starting to look something like this.I have argued many times, starting with Life After the State, that healthcare, education and welfare would all be cheaper and of a higher standard, if the government stayed out of it. The internet is the most powerful learning tool ever created and it's (almost) free. In the context of the times, the Friendly Societies of the 19th century were much better providers of care than the state equivalent we have today. But, somehow, if you argue that state care is no good, and that we should do away with it, people think you are advocating a society with no care at all, and therefore you are a fascist and far right. It's not about wanting the best care for people though, with them, is it? It's about control.This week we have seen the election of Javier Milei in Argentina, who is a self pronounced libertarian and anarcho capitalist. His rants denouncing the state are the stuff libertarian wet dreams are made of. I know the purists say he is a WEF stooge. Please. Real life will never as clean as idealists and theorists would like. It is muddy and impure. Take the win. Milei's victory is a good for the libertarian cause, even if only for the PR it has given the word(s) anarcho capitalist. If his policies start to work, the potential for other countries to copy and for libertarianism to spread multiplies. Nevertheless, he is, as we learn from the Guardian, far right.Then on Thursday, an Algerian migrant in Ireland went on a stabbing spree at a school in Dublin, counting three small children and a woman among his victims. Many Irish people, like the rest of Europe, have had had their concerns about large-scale migration ignored by their leaders, who have set pro-immigration policies in place, for years. They've seen increased racial tension, increased crime, especially violent crime and rape, criminals released from prison early due to overcrowding, unaffordable housing get even more unaffordable, while schools, healthcare, transport infrastructure all struggle to cope with the increased numbers. But the stabbing made something snap and Dublin saw the biggest riots it has seen in living memory.Then came the reporting. This was the Telegraph, who should know better.Who committed the knife attack? Was that not violent? Or did it just happen? You're far right if you are angry kids are being stabbed? The Irish leadership took no responsibility. This had nothing to do with their policies. Instead it too blamed the far right. It was hooligans “driven by far right ideology”, said the head of police. My breath was taken away by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar who as good ignored the crime but condemned the reaction as racist, having no place in multi-cultural Ireland, and pledged more censorship and clamping down of hate speech. “The problem isn't that Ireland is being flooded with unassimilable, predatory aliens,” as John Carter so eloquently writes. “The problem isn't that a little girl was stabbed by one of them. No, the problem is that the Irish have a problem with it.”The death of the mediaThe Far Right it seems is now everywhere. Brexit was a far right thing. The Dutch feeling threatened by mass Muslim immigration is far right thing. Argentina, deciding that enough is enough after umpteen hyperinflations, large scale corruption and Lord knows what else, is far right. Even being opposed to the inequitable tax that is ULEZ is far right, apparently - by that measure, Robin Hood, Gandhi, Boudicca, the Peasants Revolt, the American and French Revolutionaries - yes, they were all far right. Both Just Stop Oil and Black Lives Matter are self-proclaimed far left organisations. Why does the media almost never refer to them as far left?There hasn't been a sudden rise or re-emergence of the Far Right. There has just been a rise in name-calling by a media that operates with dual standards. The name-calling can be justified because the definition of what is far right has been changed. And now people who are unhappy about a child being stabbed can be bracketed with Hitler. Do you remember the Nice terror attack in 2016? A Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowd of people celebrating Bastille day and killed 84 people. How did the media report that? This is the BBC headline:Killed by lorry! No mention of the driver, his background or political affiliation. Just the passive voice.But anyone who reacts to murderous conduct by an illegal immigrant is far right.When people are angry because George Floyd is killed and we get several months of looting, that's fine. But when three Irish kids are stabbed and the Irish get hacked off about it, that's far right. Such blatant double standards.Here we see “Oxford men”.We all know the media lies and has probably always lied. But it also has to be truthful at the level it operates. This switching between active and passive voice is, effectively, lying and sophistry. When the truth is so obviously ignored by a media too scared to call a shovel a shovel, people will inevitably lose trust in it.Thank God for alternative media, that's all I can say, or should I say, alt right media. At least there's a truth to it. Give me a citizen journalist at the heart of the action over a hack any day of the week.I don't think anyone minds people applying to come to a country, working hard, contributing, being respectful and so on. But they do mind lots of fighting-age young men coming illegally, stabbing people, raping women, exhausting local resources (such as accommodation, education and healthcare) and then being called racist and far right for raising objections. If you keep calling people far right Nazis, they will eventually start behaving like far right Nazis, as my friend Low Status Opinions keeps saying to me. The longer moderate political parties ignore the concerns of those who elected them, then the more they will be driven to extremism. It's all very well saying the mainstream media is dead. There's no doubt that it is in decline, but it still has enormous influence. The quicker it dies, the better in my opinion - then some kind of genuine free market can return and replace the  monopolistic media we have endured for the last few decades. I say “free market” can return to the media - maybe I should say “far right markets”.When all is said and done, we are seeing a battle for control of the narrative and one side is losing. That's when they start using smears like far right. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Ian Dunt and Dorian Lynskey discuss perhaps the most extraordinary individual they have encountered so far: John Maynard Keynes. The most significant economist since Adam Smith rewrote our understanding of the relationship between the state and the market. But Keynes was also a philosopher, a statesman, an aesthete and a hell of a writer: a one-man advertisement for the virtues of refusing to stay in your lane. In part one Dorian and Ian track Keynes' remarkable life in the fifty years leading up to his game changing “general theory” in the 1930s. They talk about his gilded youth at Eton and Cambridge, his complicated friendship with the Bloomsbury Group, his sensational journalism, his rivalries with classical economists, and his rise to wealth and influence. But for all his achievements, his policy prescriptions were usually ignored, from the Treaty of Versailles to the Great Depression. His failures made him Mister Told-you-so. Why was Keynes such a remarkable figure and why wouldn't politicians listen to him? Was he an arch-centrist in an age of extremes? Along the way we meet Virginia Woolf, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, Oswald Mosley and zingers galore. Next week: the rise and fall (and rise again) of Keynesianism. Reading list for both episodes Books: Roger E. Backhouse and Bradley W. Bateman — Capitalist Revolutionary: John Maynard Keynes, 2011 Bradley W. Bateman, Toshiaki Hirai and Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, eds. — The Return to Keynes, 2010 Zach Carter — The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes, 2020 Peter Clarke — Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist, 2010 Roy Harrod — The Life of John Maynard Keynes, 1951 John Maynard Keynes — The Essential Keynes, 2015 Robert Skidelsky — John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman, 2004 Nicholas Wapshott — Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, 2011 Online: John Maynard Keynes, ‘Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren', 1930 https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/archive/keynes_persuasion/Economic_Possibilities_for_our_Grandchildren.htm We Are All Keynesians Now, Time, 1965 https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,842353,00.html Tides of History podcast with Zach Carter https://podcasts.apple.com/bg/podcast/john-maynard-keynes-and-his-legacies-interview-with/id1257202425?i=1000476041925 Written and presented by Dorian Lynskey and Ian Dunt. Audio production by Simon Williams. Music by Jade Bailey. Logo art by Mischa Welsh. Lead Producer is Anne-Marie Luff. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Origin Story is a Podmasters production. https://twitter.com/OriginStorycast  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Mitfords were the most glamorous aristocrats on the London scene in the 1920s, with at their head Diana, the most beautiful woman in London, who would eventually marry Oswald Mosley. However, her younger sister Unity would strike up a relationship with her own fascist leader: Adolf Hitler. Having first moved to Berlin in 1934, Unity would eventually become part of the Führer's inner-circle: having described them both as “perfect example of aryan womanhood”, her and Diana were his guests at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, sat next to Eva Braun. Unity would introduce her parents to Hitler, and he even visited her when she was in hospital during the opening weeks of WWII. Join Tom and Dominic in the final episode of our series on British fascism, as they delve into the life of Unity Mitford, her family, and her relationship with Hitler. Was she trying to seduce Hitler and form an Anglo-German dynasty? Did the violence of the SS not unsettle her? And was she carrying Hitler's child upon her return to Britain? Listen to find out… *The Rest Is History Live Tour 2023*: Tom and Dominic are back on tour this autumn! See them live in London, New Zealand, and Australia! Buy your tickets here: restishistorypod.com Twitter:  @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The fascists in Britain have found a leader known across the country: the sinister yet complex Oswald Mosley. Following stints as an MP for both the Tories and Labour, Mosley, a veteran of the First World War, forms the British Union of Fascists in 1932, making a big effort to appeal to women and the working class. Although his rhetoric is surprisingly anti-militarist, the violence that occurs at his fascist meeting in Kensington Olympia in 1934, the same month as the Night of the Long Knives, will have irreversible effects on the development of his new party. Join Tom and Dominic in the second episode of our series on British Fascism, as they look at Oswald Mosley, his influences, his role within British society, and the rise of the British Union of Fascists… *The Rest Is History Live Tour 2023*: Tom and Dominic are back on tour this autumn! See them live in London, New Zealand, and Australia! Buy your tickets here: restishistorypod.com Twitter:  @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Faschismus V - Oswald Mosley und die British Union of FascistsHeute werfen wir einen Blick nach England und schauen uns die Lebensgeschichte von Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley an, einem britischen Politiker, aristokratischen Faschisten und Gründer der British Union of Fascists (BUF).Weiterführende Literatur:Pugh, Martin (2005). Hurrah for the Blackshirts!: Fascists and Fascism in Britain between the Wars.Skidelsky, Robert (1969). "The Problem of Mosley: Why a Fascist Failed". Encounter. Vol. 33, no. 192. pp. 77–88.https://www.zukunft-braucht-erinnerung.de/oswald-mosley/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists---Dir gefällt der Podcast? Dann unterstütze unsere Arbeit auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/allezeitderweltWir freuen uns auch sehr, wenn du uns eine Bewertung da lässt und uns bei Twitter (https://twitter.com/allezeit_pod) & Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/@allezeitderwelt) folgst! Danke :)---Tags: Zeitgeschichte, Europa, England, Faschismus, Oswald Mosley

We discuss the history of the way too big amount of political parties founded to promote Oswald Mosley style British fascism. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aristotle-asparagus/support

JBLC begins a series highlighting the history of fascism as we watch it rise again in the U.S., starting with profiles of Benito Mussolini and British fascist Oswald Mosley, comparing them to Ron Desantis and Donald Trump, all for less than the price of a cup of coffee...

Fascism is a hydra

Peaky Blinders« mit ihrer sechsten und finalen Staffel eigentlich enden können, denn historische Authentizität wird vor dem Hintergrund des Englands der 20er und 30er Jahre dort gern einmal der Coolness untergeordnet. Doch es ist alles ganz anders. Volker Zierke und Philip Stein haben sich die aktuelle Staffel angesehen und diskutieren: Wieviel Inhalt steckt noch im BBC-Mosley? Wie cool sind die Figuren wirklich? Und: Darf man sich mit den Peaky Blinders identifizieren?

"the world's largest indoor meeting"

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

Welcome back to Bingetown! Today, we are continuing the Peaky Blinders Season 6 train with episode 3 "Gold." Wow, how about our girl Ada?? Absolute star this episode in the face of two power house characters, Jack Nelson and Oswald Mosley. Meanwhile, Tommy was being a fraud trying to find a cure for his daughter, Ruby's, TB. Also, Arthur steps up to the plate.....and swings and misses. A flash of an almost great return turns south for the older Shelby. If you like what you heard, catch us at www.bingetowntv.com and follow us on Instagram and Twitter @bingetowntv ! If you'd like to support the podcast/channel, we now have a Patreon page! Our Patreon offers exclusive podcast episodes, video interviews with the stars of your favorite shows, plus more! https://www.Patreon.com/bingetowntv !

What's up Bingetown?? We are back and, as always, excited to bring you more content with today's coverage of Peaky Blinders Season 6 Episode 2. This season, so far, has shifted away from the gangster lifestyle of the Shelby Company Limited and is focusing more on their political involvement worldwide. We are finally introduced to Uncle Jack, Oswald Mosley makes his appearance, and how could we forget our boy...ALFIE SOLOMONS! This season has provided us some great character growth and plot buildup and we break it all down here for you. BingetownTV is a podcast covering your favorite “Binge-worthy” Sci-Fi / Fantasy television shows! We drop Recaps/Reviews as well as interview some of the Stars of the best shows on Television! Currently available- The Wheel of Time, The Witcher, The Last Kingdom, Midnight Mass, Dexter: New Blood, Marvel's What if...?, The OA, Outlander, Wynonna Earp, Loki, Shadow & Bone, Rick & Morty, FatWS, WandaVision, The Boys, The Mandalorian, The Magicians, The 100, Carnival Row, The Haunting Anthology Series, The Starz Spartacus Series, & Netflix Original Cursed! Plus so much more! Check us out at www.bingetowntv.com and follow us on Instagram and Twitter @bingetowntv ! If you'd like to support the podcast/channel, we now have a Patreon page! Our Patreon offers exclusive podcast episodes, video interviews with the stars of your favorite shows, plus more! https://www.Patreon.com/bingetowntv !

Agenten-Story über Hitler-Groupie - nach dem Sachbuch von Michaela Karl. Sie kam aus bestem britischem Hause und widmete ihr Leben dem "Führer". Michaela Karl erzählt die schier unglaubliche Lebensgeschichte der Unity Valkyrie Mitford: Hitler-Groupie, nordische Göttin und verwöhnte Tochter eines britischen Lords. Mitte der dreißiger Jahre zieht die 20-jährige Cousine Winston Churchills nach München, um Hitler kennenzulernen. Göring hält sie für eine britische Spionin, der MI5 für eine törichte Person Während Eva Braun angesichts der unerwarteten Konkurrenz einen Selbstmordversuch unternimmt, spekuliert die Presse offen über die künftige Mrs. Adolf Hitler. Doch als am 3. September 1939 Großbritannien und Frankreich dem Deutschen Reich den Krieg erklären, hallen plötzlich zwei Schüsse durch den Englischen Garten. Die Bearbeiterin und Regisseurin Eva Solloch durchdringt Michaela Karls umfassende Recherchen und arrangiert einen Agenten-Thriller über eine in jeder Hinsicht außergewöhnliche Fußnote des Dritten Reichs: "Downton Abbey meets Reichsparteitag." Mit: Julia Riedler (Unity Mitford), Götz Schubert (Deutscher Agent 1), Erik Schäffler (Deutscher Agent 2), Matti Krause (Deutscher Agent 3), Tomas Sinclair (Britischer Geheimagent), Achim Buch (Sprecher), Maja Schöne (Diana Mitford), Tilo Werner (Ernst Hanfstaengl und Joseph Goebbels), Maria Magdalena Wardzinska (Eva Braun und Virginia Cowles), Jürgen Uter (Journalist 3 und Jewish Chronicle), Michael Weber (Lord Redesdale und Journalist 2), Anne Weber (Lady Redesdale und Journalistin 1), Sebastian Rudolph (Fritz Wiedemann und Oswald Mosley), Anton Pleva (Albert Speer), Samuel Weiss (Donald St. Clair Gainer und Gastwirt) und im Originalton: Michaela Karl. Besetzung: Marc Zippel. Technische Realisation: Christian Alpen und Sebastian Ohm. Regieassistenz: Anne Abendroth. Bearbeitung und Regie: Eva Solloch. Dramaturgie: Michael Becker. Produktion: NDR 2019. https://ndr.de/radiokunst

This week, Stacie has a 'good divorce,' one where everyone seems to have accepted the situation and stayed friendly and supportive of each other. Unfortunately for actor Lou Diamond Phillips, who by all accounts was very gracious through it all, his first divorce continues to be described in the press as "when his wife, Julie Cypher, left him for Melissa Etheridge." Then, Alicia dips into one of the 20th century's most fascinating sets of siblings, the Mitford Sisters. Diana Mitford married well, but restlessness led her to an affair with British Fascist leader Oswald Mosley, as well as a long-running flirtation with fascism itself. Sponsors Dipsea. Get 30 days of full access to steamy stories for free when you go to dipseastories.com/trashy! The Oak Tree Group. Mention Trashy Divorces for your free one hour financial preparedness conversation. Call 770-319-1700 or visit them on the web at theoaktreegroup.net. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Diving deep into the past of famous loser Oswald Mosley. Make sure to follow us on twitter @redrighthandpo1 @issurvivedbypro @joshualynngary Leave us a review! Let us know what you think of the show --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/issurvivedbyproductions/message

How is it that one episode can move from Second World War politics to Exo politics with only a few awkward segues? That's what happens when you're Eavesdroppin'! This week, Geordie & Michelle kick off the episode with some dodgy facts about Loch Ness, the correct way to say ‘Ural' (thanks Jannika!) and their brand spanking new Patreon page before getting into the good stuff… POLITICS! Sort of…   Why is Michelle talking about Peaky Blinders? And how is that connected to Britain's first ‘It Girls', the Mitford Sisters? Why are we talking about Oswald Mosely and Hitler? And can a serial killer ever be sexy (swoon, Jamie Dornan)? Who is Sam Claflin? And how are poltergeists wrapped up in all this? You've got to listen to find out!   Then Geordie moves on to the REAL reason behind the Russia-Ukraine war… It's all to do with ALIEN ARKS apparently… What are alien arks? What does Exo politics mean? Is the alien illuminati really running the world? And what's Eisenhower chipping a tooth go to do with anything? Did hacker Greg McKinnon REALLY uncover US Government alien secrets? Or is it all just nonsense made up by deep-state theorists and Qers, fan fiction or…? Who knows…  Thanks to Tameera the Modern Mystic for the info on this week J   We hope you enjoy Eavesdroppin' on us this week! *Disclaimer: We don't claim to have any factual info about anything ever, soooooorrrrrryyyyyyyy   Get in touch with your stories and listen, like, subscribe, share etc…  Or email us at hello@eavesdroppinpodcast.com      Listen here: www.eavesdroppinpodcast.com Or here: https://podfollow.com/1539144364   WE ARE NOW ON PATREON :) Want to show some love by throwing a bit of coin into the tipjar? You can support Eavesdroppin' over at our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/eavesdroppin   EAVESDROPPIN' ON SPOTIFY : https://open.spotify.com/show/3BKt2Oy4zfPCxI7LDOQLN4 APPLE PODCASTS : https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/eavesdroppin/id1539144364 GOOGLE PODCASTS : https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2VhdmVzZHJvcHBpbi9mZWVkLnhtbA?hl=en YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqcuzv-EXizUo4emmt9Pgfw Our Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/eavesdroppinpodcast Or wherever you normally listen…     Catch our round-up of February's episodes in the Eavesdroppin' February Monthlies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jhsmPkMrNA   #alienarks #peakyblinders #themitfords #exopolitics #conspiracytheories #conspiracytheory #unexplainedmysteries #mystery #aliens #oswaldmoseley #dianamitford #unitymitford #coverup #solarwardenprogram #gregmckinnon #UFOs #thedisclosureproject #podcast #comedy  #comedypodcast #truestories #supernatural #truecrime #truelife #storytellingpodcast #eavesdroppin #eavesdroppinpodcast #ukpodcast #funny #podcastersofinstagram #podcasters #podcastlife #funnypodcast #2birdsyakkin 

Welcome to 1939. This is how World War 2 started. Hitler began gobbling up pieces of Europe. Now, Putin is working from the same playbook. Like 1939, some politicians admired and supported this dictator. Can you say “Donald Trump?” In 1939 it was Oswald Mosley in England. Appeasement was the The post Hitler's Playbook appeared first on Male Chastity Journal.

Tommy wakes up and sees a scarecrow in his farmland dressed up as him. Confused and angry, he approaches the scarecrow where he finds a note and quickly discovers that he is standing in the midst of landmines. At his mansion, Tommy gets a call from IRA agent Captain Swing, who informs him that she has captured Michael from the men who supposedly want to kill Tommy and asks whether to spare him or kill him. At the Garrison pub, Arthur and Tommy warn Finn not to get involved with guns, and Tommy tells Arthur that he doesn't sleep because he dreams that someone wants his crown and that it might be Michael. Polly and Arthur go to the station to receive Michael, where he introduces Gina, his wife. Tommy and Ada meet with Oswald Mosley. Meanwhile, in a forest, the Billy Boys shoot Aberama in the shoulder and kill Bonnie after crucifying him.Peaky Blinders by Story Archives is brought to you by the Soapbox Podcast Network. Hosts and fellow 'Peaky' fans, Mario Busto and Zachary Newton bring you entertaining commentary and analysis of each episode, so that you can get caught up on all of the action, drama, and excitement of the show.Find Story Archives online:InstagramPodcast Network

In this week's episode, we take another look at the troubling relationship between fascism and the occult, through the specific lens of one prominent British fascist, conspiracy theorist, and feminist, Nesta Helen Webster. We have a deep dive into the theories that she proported, and later we theorise on why the relationship between fascism and the occult has been so prevalent across the globe. Some reading material on British Fascism/Nesta Helen Webster: R. Thurlow, Fascism in Britain, from Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to the National Front. T. Linehan, British Fascism, Parties, Ideology and Culture. Follow the podcast at:Instagram: @rubashovseyeTikTok: @rubashovseyepodcastFollow Morgaine at: Instagram: @morgaine.tarotTiktok: @morgaine.tarotBeautiful podcast art by Lorien Vivianne. Follow Lorien: @mon.den.kind on Instagram. 

In this episode Rob puts questions to our Kyle where everything from actors, shoes, Lidl's bakery section to even John Delaney and so much more is discussed. But also in this episode, our heroes are joined by a very special guest in Kyle's brother Kane all the way from London, who puts forward the question he's been meaning to ask Kyle for a long time. Possibly. Please follow the podcast on Instagram: https://instagram.com/2manypodcasts and Facebook https://www.facebook.com/2manypodcasts and check out our brand new website https://www.2manypodcasts.com and submit any question that you may have for our hero Kyle through any of those channels. Visit the pod on www.2manypodcasts.com

The UK's favourite fitness coach is back with series two of his podcast. This summer, Joe will be speaking to inspirational friends and some of his favourite people to ask them what they do to keep themselves feeling mentally and physically strong in the face of life's little challenges. It might be going for a new personal best on the running machine or cosying up with a good book; every guest will share the one thing that works for them in the hope it might inspire you to try something new. You'll know Sam Claflin from his roles in The Hunger Games film franchise, Enola Holmes, Journey's End, and for playing fascist politician Oswald Mosley in BBC One's Peaky Blinders. But you may not know he can beat Joe Wicks on an exercise bike! Joe caught up with Sam to talk fitness, family and Sam's phenomenal rise to Hollywood fame. Sam describes the pressure he sometimes feels to stay super fit as a man in the film industry and explains he likes the challenge of a film involving a physical transformation. And he and Joe realise they share a common love for exercising with their young children. This is sunshine in a podcast. Joe Wicks is here for you, and he won't stop until you're fit and happy. Producer: Clare Salisbury Editor: Dimitri Houtart A BBC Audio Bristol production for Radio 4

We conclude the two parter of British Fascist, Oswald Mosley. Enjoy politics? You're in the right place with this one! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.