"Zulu incites far-right extremism?" Topic

Legendary English actor Sir Michael Caine denounced critiques of the British war epic "Zulu" after it was flagged by an anti-terror study as promoting "extremism." Caine scoffed at the claim as "bulls---."…

Fox News: link

Today everybody is looking for something there isn;t .great movie.I see they are not complaing about '''Zulu Dawn''.

Well that invalidates that study right off the top.

I posted this an hour ago in another thread. Not just "Zulu".

Subject: Michael Caine Slams U.K. Report Claiming ‘Zulu' Could Incite Terrorists and Far-Right Extremists: ‘Biggest Load of Bulls—‘

"Michael Caine recently told The Spectator (via IndieWire) that it's "bullshit" his 1964 war epic "Zulu" was cited on a recent United Kingdom counter-terrorism report. The controversial Prevent strategy flagged a handful of popular films, British sitcoms, works of literature and more as possible sources of inspiration for terrorist groups and far-right extremists. "Zulu" was cited alongside "The Bridge on the River Kwai," "Brave New World," "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and the BBC's original "House of Cards," among other titles.

"That is the biggest load of I have ever heard," Caine said bluntly when told the news about "Zulu" being classified as a "key text" for "white nationalists and supremacists."

Subject: Michael Caine Slams U.K. Report Claiming ‘Zulu' Could Incite Terrorists and Far-Right Extremists: ‘Biggest Load of Bulls—‘


link

I'm sure it should be banned. Because, you just know there are tens of thousands of white supremist in the UK sitting around right now watching a 59 year old movie. What garbage.

So how about we find some outlet where we can cite "Assault on Precinct 13" as promoting far-left terrorism and anarchy.

Gotta love it. A movie made by a blacklisted communist sympathizer has become a far right icon.

As others have said, good movie and BS ruling.

The only remedy is to laugh this silliness and stupidity out of existence.

On a personal note, I graduated from a segregated high school (last class, 1964) and grew up in a very racist culture. ZULU was one of the big things that made me reconsider some of my assumptions. The Zulus are admirable in many ways, which the film shows clearly. By 1966 I was reading THE WASHING OF THE SPEARS and buying British and Zulus from Jack Scruby.

Did they watch the movie? They do realize the first few scenes are of dead Brits at Isandlwana, right?

Grelber

Proving his point, the Prevent report also cited the complete works of William Shakespeare as possibly inciting the far right.

Well, there goes A Midsummer's Night Dream. All those faries and Puck stirring up those British White Supremacists! And that fascist play Henry V; don't even get me started on that one!

People find the things they are looking for. I don't think the movie in of itself would incite far-right extremism among the level-headed. One would have to be looking for meanings or inspirations they want to be there for it to be used as such.

Following that same logic, looking upon gemischtes or eidelweiss flowers may incite someone to far-right extremism.

Except the National Socialists weren't far right. They were, you know, SOCIALISTS.

Except the National Socialists weren't far right. They were, you know, SOCIALISTS.

Yes, if only a name told us everything. Right, left…it doesn't matter to me where they once or now identify with (horseshoe theory and all)…they are extremists. Context of the time it happens matters. Yesterday's revolutionaries are today's state heroes.

Again, I consider myself "right" (whatever that means nowadays) and have the pedigree to prove it.

The first time I heard him criticize the movie was way back on "The Dick Cavett Show." This answers the question of why he wasn't in the documentary about making the movie.

YouTube link

One of the sublime ironies of Zulu is that before the last zulu assault the redcoats are singing 'Men of Harlech': a Welsh anthem against English domination. And here we have zulus attacking British Imperial domination.

An aside on racsim: The director of the film, Cy Enfield, objected to the then aparthied South African government's dictat that the zulu extras should be paid less than the whites. By means of reparation, at the end of shooting the film, he gave over the cattle herd to the zulus.

Well since I always root for the Zulus (no offense to the Brits) I'm hardly a white supremacist. Glad I have my DVD so I can watch it whenever I want to.

Prince A, I'm familiar with the horseshoe idea, but never found it convincing. I used to teach ideologies as part of a world politics class (intro to diplomatic studies at the local state U. campus). Over a ten-year period I used at least three textbooks on comparative ideologies (never found one I liked) and they all made that dubious connection. Not buying it. Far as I can see the only real difference between the Bolshies and the Nazis was internationalism vs nationalism, and I don't see the reason why nationalism is considered left or right, per se. Both are totalitarian and socialist.

The old Left, to their credit, condemned the excesses of Stalin ("not real socialism") but needed to have a "right wing" totalitarian enemy, lest people think totalitarianism is necessarily left-wing. (Which I do not, btw; Paul Johnson portrays medieval Christenndom as culturally totalitarian (obviously not politically, given feudalism) and I find that persuasive and use it when I teach the Middle Ages.)

But Orwell nailed it in ANIMAL FARM, in the final scene, when the animals couldn't tell the difference between the two sets of tyrants.

Let's not forget, Zulu was only one movie/show targeted.

"Zulu" was cited alongside "The Bridge on the River Kwai," "Brave New World," "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and the BBC's original "House of Cards," among other titles.

So Hitler was on the same end of the horseshoe as Stalin? Or if there is no horseshoe, wouldn't you say end members (whether their roots are in socialism or the right) end up looking and acting remarkably similarly?

Yes, if only a name told us everything.

Well, it does -- look at their economic and social policies, they are all based on centralized State control. Fascism was created by disaffected Marxists who thought that Communism couldn't deliver on the promise of Socialism.

The controlling core economic principle was Corporatism -- the control of the economy and thus the nation via control over industrial leaders and the Unions. Rather than seize corporations and run them from the State, as in Communism, Fascism controlled industry by co-opting and forcing industrial leaders to bend to the will of the Socialist State and become part of the ruling party structure. The working class was led and controlled by the State through the Unions.

So under Corporatism, companies and labor Unions become part of the State's power apparatus. Simply put, it's the marriage of Big Government + Big Labor + Big Corporations. Where do we see that happening today???

Anyways, back on point -- where are these hordes of mouth foaming white nationalists who are supposed to be lurking behind every rock and tree? I think I've maybe met one or two across my entire life. And as far as movies go, the prequel "Islandwana" shows the British get annihilated by the Zulu and in the movie Zulu themselves the British barely survive, so the idea that this a white nationalist fantasy movie seems a reach. And notice it's always "well, studies show" or "research shows" with stuff like this.

What research? What studies? Describe them, prove your point! They can't because the point is an ideological march through society to erode and tear down everything they can and replace it with some Socialist utopia.

Another list of "bad things" comprised by The Useful Idiots. The Dam Busters? Sharpe? The works of Shakespeare? These people would like to have a new Cultural Revolution. I would be shamed and brought to the village square with my CD of Zulu tied around my neck so people could throw things at me. Let the book burning – sorry – CD burning begin. Idiots. Soon they will be coming after The Young and the Restless.

I disagree with the Nazis being either Right-Wing or Left. I would describe them as really hard-core and somewhat extreme Centrists.

Joe Collins

Fascism is a right-wing ideology. Nazis were fascists. That is why they hated communists, who are a form of socialism. The far right and left both use terms that do not really explain who they are or what they believe in. Like Democratic Republic of …

@Grattan54 – Fascism…Isn't that "right wing?" I thought that up until college when I was taking a course on 20th century western history. We were studying the rise of the great dictators -- Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. The professor led us through an examination of Mussolini's rise to power.

Mussolini, as it turns out, was a fervent believer in The Socialist International until WW1. Mussolini, the public founder of Fascism, was born and raised into a family of commited Socialists and was very active as a Marxist in his youth.

He was a committed Socialist and a leader of the International in Italy. He was the editor of "Avanti!," Italy's leading Socialist/Progressive newspaper. He hated Capitalism and Liberal Democracy as obstacles to The Revolution. However, he was discouraged at the progress of Socialism in Italy and became disillusioned with the International (Socialist movement), since if it were true, then the workers of the world would have been united by class and not fought WW1. Instead, German socialists fought for Germany, and British socialists for Britain, etc.

He also saw during WW1 that in the trenches there was no class distinction. Rich, poor, educated and ignorant were all equal in the mud -- they were reduced to being Italians serving the State, first and foremost. That's the vision he had for Socialism in Italy, all Italians serving the State.

He felt there needed to be an *Italian* Socialism for Italians, the International movement would not work in Italy, and indeed had already failed as proven by WW1.

So he worked with other disaffected Marxists to create a *national* Socialist movement he called "Fascism" -- named after the baton of power wielded by an ancient Roman field general or consul, the Fasces. This was a rod fashioned of small sticks, bound together to be strong -- representing the different interests of Rome working as one.

Fascism's "sticks" were comprised of Socialist groups and Labor Unions. The controlling core economic principle was Corporatism -- the control of the economy and thus the nation via control over industrial leaders and the Unions. Rather than sieze corporations and run them from the State, as in Communism, Fascism controlled industry by co-opting and forcing industrial leaders to bend to the will of the Socialist State and become part of the ruling party structure. The working class was led and controlled by the State through the State-aligned Labor Unions. So under Corporatism, companies and labor Unions become part of the State's power apparatus -- those Unions and companies that did not bend to the will of the State were crushed.

Property was also allowed so long as it didn't conflict with the needs of the State, and the Individual was subordinate to the needs of the State -- true freedom, according to Mussolini, came from surrender of the Individual to the State. So, I asked my professor --Mussolini was a Socialist, embraced Socialism, saw Capitalism as the Enemy and created a State controlled society with the Individual subordinate to the needs of the State. How does that make him "Right Wing?"

Why, Nationalism, of course, he said.

However, I said, we'd just studied Stalin and the rise of the Communists to power, and they resorted to heavy ethnic and nationalist appeals in their propaganda wars. So why is it different in Italy?

Why, because it's Fascism! He had a closed loop argument, he got very angry that he couldn't explain why Italian Nationalism in the service of a Socialist movement was different from Russian Nationalism in the service of a Socialist movement -- it just was, so stop being stupid, he told me! After that my professor would take opportunities in class to harangue me, slight me and tried to embarrass me in front of my peers to silence me. Wow. That was an eye opener.

Red Pill, anyone?

Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, they are both Statist, Socialist systems. That Fascists and Communists fought is little different from how Stalinists and Trotskyites fought for control of their movement.

Grattan, yes, what SB said. Your view is the standard one and is incorrect.

What a bunch of BS!! Good job Caine for his comments. What are so I. George Orwell's 1984?!?! Start banning books and movies? Oh NO!

Really, because I have asked every pol sci professor at my college and they all laughed when I said people think the Nazis were socialists. But what do they know. They only have doctorate in pol sci.

But what do they know. They only have doctorate in pol sci.

Plenty of educated people with ideological blinders. I had a number of history and economics professors who were outright Marxists -- how can you study history, see the horror created by Marxists and still call yourself one???

Who said this?
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Or this?

"What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve."

Or this?
"To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service. The individual refrains and the commonwealth"

"Zulu" is a wonderful film that is respectful of all the participants in a war that was fought 150 years ago. Why are some getting so hot under the collar about it?

And I haven't seen any commentary above, when wandering into a "evil socialism" tangent (?? where did this come from anyway?) that even tries to explain how the Scandinavian democratic socialist models post WWII have produced the most prosperous, equitable,stable, and "happiest" countries. So much for all the uninformed, straw-man attacks on "socialism" -- defined by critics as anything they are suspicious of, like equal rights, or that has been co-opted in nomenclature by fascist groups like the Nazis in Germany.
I'd suggest they Google images of the Ku Klux Klan marching with AMERICAN national flags in parades and rallies -- by your standards, does this mean the KKK owns the US flag? Or symbolizes it? 'Nuff said.

The original story was posted in The Telegraph by a journo with an axe to grind about far right terrorism being targeted as well as Islamic terrorism. It is rubbish, Prevent, a core government anti terrorism strategy, does not proscribe Zulu.

Of course disinformation, spreading fear and othering people is a key tactic used by fascists, just like this story.

I don't know if this was a list concocted by the 'researchers' or based on the viewing habits of extreme right wing activists. Either way, I would query the conclusions.

I'm not sure I am reading correctly, are you insinuating the story is "fake news"? If so, all I can say is wow. Again only if that is what you are insinuating, Ostriches all over the world are a prouder species today. 🙂

Yes I believe if memory serves me, in the book "A Right Wingers Guide to the Galaxy", Chapter 32, Verses 1 through 42, there is a list of approved movies: "Thou shall watch only among the following approved movies and thou shall watch no others. These movies consist of……" 😂🤣

I would check, but I sold it. Hmmmm maybe that's where they got the list!!! 🤔😉

"Far-right extremists" seem to be mentioned a lot in the UK at the moment, usually to describe anyone disagreeing with the current orthodoxy (I was going to say current "liberal "orthodoxy but there's nothing liberal about it – quite the opposite).

Anyway, where are these threatening masses of far-right extremists? I venture to suggest that if they exist they are numbered in hundreds at most. They are a handy tool used to clamp down on quite mild, slightly right of centre, views such as venturing to oppose the illegal mass immigration of largely young men by criminal gangs.

DBDD

This seems to have morphed from censorship to political theory. Not sure how many castings either one paints.

I am a little surprised some of the more obvious socialist points about the National Socialist German Workers Party haven't come up--everyone in the armed forces saluting everyone else, instead of just superior officers? The "People's Car?" Really the first cruise ships for working people as part of the KfD--all cabins supposed to be equal and assigned by lottery to be sure? The Waffen SS emphasis on an "open door" policy, leading by example and such? And of course the hatred of religion? Late in the war, Hitler was lamenting leaving Italian and German workers to labor under a "degenerate bourgeoisie." Whatever else you can say of the Nazis, they're not conservatives as conservatism was understood in post-WWI Germany.

Darrell

""Far-right extremists" seem to be mentioned a lot in the UK at the moment, usually to describe anyone disagreeing with the current orthodoxy (I was going to say current "liberal "orthodoxy but there's nothing liberal about it – quite the opposite)."

😉 Yes Darrell, same here as well. Used to stifle and silence those opposed to their viewpoints. The terms "white suppremist", "racist", "homophobe", "Nazi", Neo-Confederate", are just some of the terms used and shouted or written over here to try and stifle opposing views quickly and paint your opponents in a disreputable light.

The NAZIs were socialists. Look at what they were doing before the war intervened: They built a HUGE resort on the coast of the Baltic so all Germans could go on vacation. They built cruise ships so all Germans could go on cruise. Hell, the Volkswagen is German for "People's Car", and it was intended to be cheap enough to be affordable by common people.
What the NAZIs weren't though, is Communist. Communism dictates that the state owns the means of production. Socialism dictates the state controls the means of production. Hitler made sure all the industrialists got their taste of honey, he never nationalized the factories.
Hitler generated hatred between Germany and Russia as part of his search for Lebensraum, space for the Aryan race to expand into. That's why Poland was being steadily denuded and why he attacked in 1941. And the hatred he generated was racial, not political. I doubt it would have mattered even if Russia adopted National Socialism in the German model, Hitler wanted the land and didn't care how many lesser people died to get it.

Grattan, i also have a PhD (in history) and taught poli sci at the university level (including specifically political ideologies) for a decade. Your professors and text books that agree with them are wrong.

piper909, really? The average percentage of white people in Scandinavian countries is about 92%, which means no racial tensions to speak of, and a common cultural heritage. And then they spent hardly any on their own defense, since the US footed most of that bill. You can afford to be socialist when you don't have to worry about the Soviets crossing your borders.

The average percentage of white people in Scandinavian countries is about 92%, which means no racial tensions to speak of, and a common cultural heritage.

Today's racial tensions are being manufactured, created, stoked and inflamed by people who want power and money. Like these people attacking the movie Zulu. They gain instant notoriety and revolution points reactions from celebrities they parlay into more fame and cash, and who knows, maybe their target will surrender and thereby gain in reputation and access to better paying gigs.

You are correct, Sir!

"I don't see the reason why nationalism is considered left or right,"

Well, the internationalists won. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were crushed leaving the Soviets and later the CCP. With the nationalists destroyed, or with negligible power on the world stage, (see Franco's Spain), they were labeled the right by the communists. They were the perfect straw man. Obviously evil they had been destroyed by the righteous of the left. In order to advance the idea that communism was good they couldn't admit that they were on the same side with their political/economic views.

"…explain how the Scandinavian democratic socialist models post WWII have produced the most prosperous, equitable, stable, and "happiest" countries."

Well, they're not full-blown socialists. Sweden and Denmark experimented with socialism, found out it didn't work, and reinstated capitalism.

link

Denmark tells Bernie Sanders to stop calling them socialists because they have a market economy.

Except the National Socialists weren't far right. They were, you know, SOCIALISTS.

Wrong!

Using the word Socialist was a propaganda ploy to appeal to the lower middle class and poor. If it took support away from the real socialists, so much the better. But the Nazis were anything but socialist. Socialism is on the left of the political spectrum while Nazism is on the very far right of the spectrum. Hitler banned the socialist party and arrested or murdered their leaders

"To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers' Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the teetering democratic structures of the Weimar government to attain his goals."

" In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished."

Michael Ray

link

"Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis' incorporation of socialism into their name in 1920, "Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism". Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, "Hitler was never a socialist."

link

It's sad to have to go to these extremes to explain something that was until a decade or so ago common knowledge.

The above is a political and not economic model. Socialists don't like their economic dream to be lumped in with NAZIism so they separate the two. Note that capitalism isn't even listed there.

I believe capitalism falls under the tradition definition of liberalism. Not to be confused with today's leftist/Liberal worldview. It is very hard to see a true liberal advocating big government. That should be left to the nazi/communist camp.

OC, I KNOW that spectrum is what most people believe. I taught political ideologies for a decade at our university. It is simply wrong, I don't care how many people believe it.

Tell me, if you can, how one gets from liberalism to conservatism? And then extrapolating that gets you to a totalitarian system? Not any conservatives I know, for damn certain.

A little sensitive are we?

Both Liberals and Conservatives are often sensitive about their extremes. But as much as you wish it not to be, it is an inescapable fact.

Liberalism and conservatism are not that far apart. Right of center; left of center. Liberalism is far from its extreme Communism and conservatism is far from its extreme Fascism.

While some Conservatives during the Weimar Republic did not support the Nazis and their racial views. Many others did and the Conservative leadership formed a government with the Nazis. They had more in common with each other than they had differences. For example, both groups opposed socialism and communism.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism.

Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their interests to the "common good" accepting political interests as the main priority of the economic organization, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.

The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party to appeal to left-wing workers, a renaming that Hitler initially objected to. The name change was an attempt to appeal to the lower middle class and poor laborers. It also attempted to draw away support from the Socialist and Communist.

Nazism is the polar opposite of communism. Nazimism is an extreme form of conservatism. There was a reason that Communist and Socialist leaders were sent to camps or killed during the Nazi's reign. It is also why the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was such a surprise.

When the film was made it received the full support of the Apartheid South African government to the extent of lending a company of South African infantry as extras. It was an obvious warning to the South African Blacks that a handful of whites could take on many times their number of Blacks. I can see how that message could be popular with current White Supremacist groups. Don't get me wrong, I love the film, and, like many others, it ignited my interest in the Victorian colonial period. The fact that the director was a liberal, blacklisted Jew doesn't change the message that some viewers take away and that I am sure the South African government was well aware of at the time.

Basically, viewers can interpret a film or television show in whatever way they want, so – unless a film is obviously trying to push a particular philosophy or political viewpoint, which I don't think Zulu was, regarding race anyway (unlike Birth of a Nation, for example) – it is not the fault of the film makers or actors if some viewers see it as supporting ideas which others find objectionable.