Nastiness in Australia

May 10th, 2014 at 9:25 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Electrical Trades Union has apologised for comparing Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to Adolf Hitler.

The apology comes after an image published on the union’s newsletter infuriated Jewish groups who condemned the protrayal.

The ETU released a brief statement on Friday (local time) apologising for the newsletter and pulled the offending article from its Facebook page.

“The ETU sincerely and unreservedly apologises,” the statement said.

“The theme of the magazine was to show the demonisation of unions has had a long history.”

The cover of the autumn newsletter for the Victorian branch of the ETU has used a digitally altered picture of Tony Abbott, complete with a tiny moustache and a tattoo on his chest similar to the Third Reich eagle.

In the picture, Mr Abbott is portrayed wearing a white singlet, gold necklace and smoking a cigarette under the headline “The Abbott crimes”. The back page of the newsletter has a large picture of Hitler with two anti-union quotes attributed to the dictator and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi head of propaganda.

The ETU was a major donor to the Australian Green Party. In 2013 they donated $300,000 for just one seat – Melbourne, held by the Greens. In 2010 they gave $325,000 to the Greens.

Tags:

24 Responses to “Nastiness in Australia”

  1. Redbaiter (8,022 comments) says:

    Ironic when Hitler’s party, the Nazis, was the National Socialist Workers Party, and the Green political sector’s indoctrination of schoolchildren today, and in particular the public shaming of those kids who do not “believe”, is so reminiscent of Hitler’s Brownshirt organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. duggledog (1,439 comments) says:

    They’re not actually sorry – the message went out there as planned, and now there it will stay.

    Just like Trev in the House the other day re Judith Collins & the 500 stacks. Ejected, too bad, it’s been said, job done

    C***ts

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    Ahh, so its not just in New Zealand then that people in the political arena likes to act like pathetic imbeciles.

    Hitler is probably the most well known ‘creep’ of recent history, and therefore, when you want to insult a politician, there is no greater way to cause offence. And it certainly seems to get people’s attention.

    Nice comment about the Greens, nothing like adding a bit of political innuendo in an election year – for those stupid enough to associate the Ozzie Greens with NZ Greens. – chip chip chipping away – great way to win an election when you’ve got nothing else going for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. duggledog (1,439 comments) says:

    I will associate the NZ Greens with the Aussie variety Judith – neither could be trusted with a chequebook

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. rouppe (942 comments) says:

    Exactly, Red, exactly.

    I once confronted Trotter with that, and he sneered back that it was just a name, and that didn’t make the Nazi Party left wing…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. calendar girl (1,203 comments) says:

    It amazes me how “thick” most old-style trade unions can be. They seem preoccupied with fighting their beloved class warfare out in the open, with no regard for how poorly their actions reflect on their cause in the eyes of the general public.

    What thinking worker, just seeking to reinforce his/her terms, conditions and security of employment, could feel comfortable with industrial “leadership” from this kind of publicist’s nightmare?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. F E Smith (3,315 comments) says:

    he sneered back that it was just a name, and that didn’t make the Nazi Party left wing…

    Well, that in itself is correct, but the fact that it was an anti-capitalist, pro-worker, (unions were bolshevist, so were the competition.  The USSR also abolished unions.) command economy, protectionist, interventionist, and generally Keynesian, party that supported a very strong central government to assist and guide its citizens at every part of their life.

     Gee, that sounds a lot like the Greens…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. DJP6-25 (1,310 comments) says:

    The reason the rest of the ‘left’ despise Hitler is because he was the wrong kind of socialist. That he lost WW II, killed millions, and is fair game is incidental as far as they are concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ross12 (1,273 comments) says:

    Slightly off topic but these are interesting points and may explain what Abbott has to tackle :

    “In Australia half of all families get more money from the state than they contribute:


    The exclusive modelling for News Corp Australia by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra reveals 48 per cent of Australia’s 12.2 million “income units” pay no net tax. Any tax they do contribute is more than offset by the welfare — pensions, family tax benefits or childcare rebates — they receive.

    The fiscal churn is large. How many people are paid to spend all their productive hours just managing a circle of money?


    On average, Australian families will pay $12,935 in income tax this year, but receive $9,515 in benefits — leaving a net yearly contribution to the public purse of just $3424. “

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Hitler was NOT a socialist! He was a fascist.

    By 1935, he had ejected most socialists, people like Gregor Strasser, out of the Nazi Party.

    When the Nazis rammed the Enabling Act – the legislation that gave Hitler dictatorial powers – through the Reichstag, the only votes against it came from the Socialist Party. Many party members paid dearly for their courage.

    One of Hitler’s first moves was to occupy trade union offices, confiscate their funds, dissolve them and have their leaders arrested. He then set up one big patsy union, the German Labor Front.

    Would a socialist do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Hitler was a socialist in more than just name. He promised to close the gaps, feed the hungry and allow ordinary people a role in government instead of just the old-boy network. He was opposed to the moneyed class and bankers (which is why Jews were targeted).

    Pure 100% socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Using Hitler as a dramatic example of evil shows a deep and profound ignorance of modern history. The Socialist Russians went on to do far worse and took over not only Europe, but Central Asia and Caspian region. The scope and breadth of their oppressive regime went well beyond Hitlers intentions of securing Germanic peoples. The horror only ended recently for many.

    Of course even that is nothing compared to what went on under Socialist Mao in China, official records of which are only recently being slowly released. It is too distressing for me to post any of that today.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    Hitler was NOT a socialist! He was a fascist.

    The overlap between the two is enormous, so it’s not quite clear why you chose to write “NOT” in capital letters.

    Fascism and socialism are notable for their similarities, not their differences.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Socilaism does not equal fascism. I’m amazed anyone would maintain such an argument. On reflection, though, this is Kiwiblog after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    Socilaism does not equal fascism.

    The difference is simply their economic model. Socialism prescribes the state ownership of the means of production and distribution; whereas fascism permits private ownership, but in name only: essential property rights are arrogated to the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    mikemwimp: Why bother to watch this post, your pathetic and gutless outlook is only suited to “The Standard”, and the rainbow room.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. OneTrack (2,818 comments) says:

    mike – “Socilaism does not equal fascism.”

    You say that as if it is true. How about some examples of why they are different. It might be a short list so shouldn’t take too long.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. freemark (519 comments) says:

    Of course we can connect the Australian & NZ Green Party – they have deep links encouraged & facilitated by the Communist Norman. There is a pipeline for some of them via the Socialist Republic of Waiheke, where interestingly enough the ex Chair of the PGF is Green MP Roach’s husband – join the dots if you will.
    Judith, are you as two faced at work & home as you are online? A yes or no will do thanks.
    As far as I know we are still waiting for the answer as to what JK promised you, or the lie he told you (Judith, you are a decent woman perhaps?) to have created this hate, or more likely envy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ed Snack (1,797 comments) says:

    Android us, not sure if you are being ironic. Amongst the first groups to be liquidated under the Bolshevik regime were those foolish enough to believe that the socialists supported free trade unions, and went ahead and formed them without kowtowing to the party.

    And of course Hitler attacked the socialist in Germany who called themselves that, internecine struggles are always the fiercest. The biggest differences between Nazism and communism as actually practised lie in the Nazi’s emphasis on race as opposed to class (but they both hated the Jews), in the Nazi’s tolerance for ownership (but not control) remaining partially private, and in the rhetoric. The totalitarian base remains.

    The real opposition is between those who believe in the rights of individuals and those who profess the freedom of groups. But the group freedom people also believe that they should control the definition of those groups and who can claim membership of the various groups. Typically the group it’s also believe that some groups are de facto privileged and so other groups should be empowered in response. This explains why the soviet constitution actually granted quite extensive rights to the citizens of the Soviet Union, rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression, lots of rights. But as the prosecutors and judges often had to explain, those rights didn’t apply to anyone who opposed the party, and the party itself (or it’s ruling faction) determined who did or did not oppose the party.

    You see this today in the privilege arguments becoming so popular in those bastions of “freedom”, the universities. Those who are privileged don’t get free speech or other rights because they already have such advantages that they shouldn’t get them. “Shut Up” they explained.

    In NZ only ACT and to a much lesser extent National still new to this now almost old fashioned idea that rights are individual’s to exercise. Labour and especially the Greens are on the group rights side, because for them that way lies power.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. gump (1,553 comments) says:

    The Nazis weren’t socialists though they certainly adopted several socialist principles. They also weren’t fascist though they adopted several principles from there as well.

    The truth is that they brought together ideas from both sides of the political spectrum and created a new ideology that was unique and terrible. There hadn’t been anything quite like it before and there hasn’t been anything quite like it since.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross411 (295 comments) says:

    You want to know what this reminds me of?

    I wish I could find the link. Remember when the union was protesting the ports of Auckland thing. Some people went out there and protested against the protesters and were attacked by the irrational and angry union protesters. Maybe they were spat on, or whatever crazy loon union protesters do.

    Anyone got a link for this? It was gold, as representative of what unions lead people to believe is okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    The Nazis…brought together ideas from both sides of the political spectrum and created a new ideology that was unique and terrible

    That’s simply not true. Nazism was just a particular flavour of statism, of leftism. It brought nothing whatsover from the other side of the political spectrum. Nor was it ‘unique and terrible,’ as the extreme suffering of Communism’s hundreds of millions of victims attests.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (8,022 comments) says:

    The Nazis were merely another historical example of leftism. Political zealots who became totalitarian tyrants.

    As they became totalitarian tyrants in Cambodia, Nth Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, China, the old USSR and every other country where they gained political ascendancy.

    And as they will throughout all the west if we are weak and stupid enough to permit them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gump (1,553 comments) says:

    @wat dabney

    The core principle of Nazism was the explicit rejection of equality in favour of racial superiority. This is incompatible with socialist principles.

    Hitler himself described Nazism as a blend of ‘pure’ ideas from both sides of the political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.