Tirade against the NME on Morrissey Official FB by Peter Katsis

Appears to come from Peter Katsis. Appallingly written mess of a statement.

Link here:


Text here:

"The N.M.E. used to represent the underground.

Now they are becoming known as The Guardian of rock music.

They had to stop printing copies.

Not because no one buys magazines.

Print publications like Q Magazine and Kerrang! still exist, because they remember who they are.

But not N.M.E.

They forgot who they were.

And because they just aren’t cool anymore.

N.M.E. are also just full of shit.

And can’t even afford good writers to work for them.

They like to remind readers of all the past allegations of the year, despite their lack of any basis in fact, despite that they are just re-hashing stories over and over, old news, fake news, etc.

But they leave out their own old issues, of lawsuits lost, and legal battles that forced them to apologize to M in the past.

And they lie more than Donald Trump.

-N.M.E. asked no one from M’s camp for comment to their recent story.

-Haslam was never a Moz fan. He was a publicity hound who had a new book coming that no one cared about.

-We didn’t cancel our summer shows because of Haslam’s weak event, the protest that drew no people.

-Moz in not a racist.

None of M’s latino fans care about UK politics, but hell…..why not call them up and try and find a story where one doesn’t exist?

Not like they have anything real to write about……like music.

Because they don’t even know what music is anymore.

Basically all this points to the fact that writer(?) Bob Chiarito and his editors at N.M.E. have been relegated to meaninglessness.

Not really even worth writing about for this Facebook post.

We stand up for ourselves here, not because we give a shit anymore what these folks say…..

…..but to point out to the fans and music industry of the UK that they’ve changed their title.

Now N.M.E. stands for …….Now Mostly Excrement.

No longer of any value to the music community…. they have decided to be the TMZ of music news.

Good riddance. - PK"


Related item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that I'm stupid. I don't have any A-levels or a degree so I don't have much in the way of formal education.

I'm sorry that you don't like the way I write. I don't think that I write like a child.

I have some mild learning difficulties mainly to do with maths and science. I think that I might have dyscalculia (which is to do with having difficulties to do with maths/numbers) and possibly some dyspraxia but this hasn't been officially diagnosed.

I have been officially diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome which means that I'm on the autistic spectrum. I accept that you didn't know that I'm on the autistic spectrum.

I also have some physical problems as well. I have a form of arthritis and an underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism). These physical problems have only come on in the last few years.

I suffer from bouts of depression and quite bad anxiety from time to time. I have been on antidepressants in the past but I'm not anymore.

I don't know what is going on in North Korea but from what I understand it is a communist regime. I don't like communism or fascism.

I was trying to stand up for Thewlis (who posts on here) and Morrissey because I believe that what they say about Adolf Hitler is the truth. I didn't like that you called Thewlis names.

I noticed that you swear and blaspheme quite a lot in your posts. I'm a genuine Christian. I take my faith seriously.

What is this? Moz-solo group therapy?
 
So, you have no education on the subject, but you believe it to be true. You have no basis in fact for yiur opinion, other than the ramblings of a half-baked, net-educated, mom’s basement dwelling reject. ...and to top that off, you call yourself a Christian. Christianity (and all religions) are a crutch for the weak and those who want to escape responsibility for their own actions. If you believe in f***ing sky-fairies, there’s ZERO point in trying to engage in rational discourse with you.
I don't live in my Mum's basement. I live on my own. There isn't anything wrong with living in a basement but I don't. My Mum doesn't have a basement in her home.

I haven't had much formal education as I explained before. I may not be educated but Morrissey is and he knows a lot and he is well read on many subjects.

I believe that what Morrissey said is the truth. Morrissey is a free thinker and he isn't part of the mainstream.

I don't think that people want me to talk about Christianity on here but I don't see my faith as a crutch.

You say that I'm a reject. It's true that I have had quite a lot of rejection in my life if that is what you meant.

We may have different views about things but that doesn't mean that we can't all get along.

James Maker explained what Morrissey meant better than I can.

This is what James Maker (Morrissey's good friend) said: "Hitler was indeed 'Left-wing' in the sense of incorporating the word 'socialist' into the party's name to cynically draw voters away from communism and towards populist nationalism dressed as socialism. Hence, 'Hitler was Left-wing.' Morrissey was not suggesting that Hitler and Yvette Cooper (for example) share the same political ideals. The fact is, Left-wing totalitarianism looks little different to Right-wing authoritarianism — if you're being oppressed, it's the same experience."

Yvette Cooper is a British MP (born 20th March 1969) she is a Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford since 2010, having served as the MP for Pontefract and Castleford since 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvette_Cooper
 
Last edited:
It’s 2018 and you actually still have idiots writing as if the Nazis were actually socialists of any kind and didn’t just appropriate the world for election purposes amongst Germany’s downtrodden working class?
1. People this thick can’t be argued with
2. They are just trolling you, ignore them
3. The only reason why I even remember NME still exists is Moz keeps mentioning them :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You are either ill-informed or a devious liar working for a leftist body. Positive discrimination has been practiced in councils/housing associations for decades now (it's no secret) and if you belong to an ethnic minority you get more points - no ifs, no buts - just like women with dependents get more points. In fact a lot of housing associations will only accept migrants/asylum seekers/ethnic minorities and are set up for this very purpose. You're talking to somebody who has been on housing lists for longer than I can remember, or simply denied outright, still to no avail. Flats are built all the time and people can see with their eyes who gets them.

I remember at school lots of the girls planned to get pregnant so they could get a flat and their own independence. They'd do this by getting pregnant then getting a letter from their parents saying they'd been thrown out. It's an unwise and immature thing to do but it's been happening for decades (less right now because of the housing shortage). It's why so many black single mothers live in London council estates and it's vastly contributed to the gang problem we have now (ie boys needing a 'gang family' because they only have a lard arse of a mother at home that doesn't give a shit about them).

Don't pontificate to me about this subject or give me 'official' bullshit about it, because only truth interests me. Real experience and real life. I could list more examples here from friends/ family (and even strangers) on the subject of discrimination/open corruption with social housing than you can even imagine. Get out there and simply talk to the people affected by this. You won't hear about this subject in the media because the white working class have no voice and years of being refused housing in London or having to move out because of alienation/ crime once children come along has mostly cleansed this group from London now.

It's a subject that has caused a lot of bitterness among people for years, and is almost spoken in whispers because of decades of conditioning to be wary of the threat of being branded a 'racist'.

To be treated as second class if you're white and working class in London has become so normalised that it's now almost ingrained as just the way it is with a shrug. This has been the plan for years. To ingrain a notion of inferiority in this class. I see this especially in the white young who now look up to other cultures because they feel to be English is to have no culture. Nowadays everything social is engineered in some way by the elite for their own sinister reasons.

What Stalinspipe said is correct. I am not 'pontificating' I am giving you the benefit of my knowledge and experience, having worked for councils and housing associations and having many friends whose job is the allocstion of housing. Obviously I can't speak from direct experience about every London Borough. Nor can you.
You are right that there have been some housing associations set up by and for certain races. Which is shocking to me because imagine if it was set up the other way round and you tried to have a housing association that instead of giving priority to 'Black and minority ethnic' had a policy of 'priority for Whites'! However these make up a small fraction of the overall social housing stock.
With the exception of these rather odd little housing associations, where your argument about "minorities get more points" can be proven wrong is that each council has to publish an allocations policy setting out what you are awarded points for. It is all there online. Have a look at your local council's policy.
Come back to me when you've found an allocation policy that makes any reference to the race or creed of the applicant, other than to say they won't discriminate. I won't hold my breath waiting.
Yes you are right that the old 'single mum with baby' trick has always been a route to social housing. Less so now but ultimately when a resource is scarce it tends to be the most 'vulnerable' and least able to help themselves who it is given to. It is harder for a single mum to work than a single man, and no one wants to see a kid sleeping on the street, so they will always get some priority in the pecking order.
Now it may well be that there is a disproportionate number of people from an ethnic minority background who are f***ups. Hence there will be more of them getting social housing. Same as there are a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in prison.

Of course the term 'ethnic minority' is soon to become redundant. And effectively already is in London, where White British is officially below 50 percent of the population. If there really is a policy giving preference to minorities, perhaps you should point out that you are one!
I am as interested as you in the truth and as Stalinspipe says we are both just telling the truth as we see it.
 
The UK is turning into a mess. You invite strangers to live in your country and give them free housing , $1000 a month (which is more money they have ever seen in their lives), scratch your head as to how to stop the migrant flow (maybe not give them $1000 a month?), your economy sucks, your justice system is corrupt , and you all are too weak to do anything about it.
I'm sorry but you really don't make sense. I can see the foam though. That's clear.
 
God, it's astounding that some people on this website can't seem to get their heads round the idea that right wing extremism might, just might, have some things in common with left wing extremism - do I really have to list the things they have in common? And that this similarity was what Moz was suggesting in his interview. Oh, but socialists are all pure and humanist and believe in universal brotherhood and wouldn't dare put anyone against a wall? f***, it's like history never happened...
 
What Stalinspipe said is correct. I am not 'pontificating' I am giving you the benefit of my knowledge and experience, having worked for councils and housing associations and having many friends whose job is the allocstion of housing. Obviously I can't speak from direct experience about every London Borough. Nor can you.
You are right that there have been some housing associations set up by and for certain races. Which is shocking to me because imagine if it was set up the other way round and you tried to have a housing association that instead of giving priority to 'Black and minority ethnic' had a policy of 'priority for Whites'! However these make up a small fraction of the overall social housing stock.
With the exception of these rather odd little housing associations, where your argument about "minorities get more points" can be proven wrong is that each council has to publish an allocations policy setting out what you are awarded points for. It is all there online. Have a look at your local council's policy.
Come back to me when you've found an allocation policy that makes any reference to the race or creed of the applicant, other than to say they won't discriminate. I won't hold my breath waiting.
Yes you are right that the old 'single mum with baby' trick has always been a route to social housing. Less so now but ultimately when a resource is scarce it tends to be the most 'vulnerable' and least able to help themselves who it is given to. It is harder for a single mum to work than a single man, and no one wants to see a kid sleeping on the street, so they will always get some priority in the pecking order.
Now it may well be that there is a disproportionate number of people from an ethnic minority background who are f***ups. Hence there will be more of them getting social housing. Same as there are a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in prison.

Of course the term 'ethnic minority' is soon to become redundant. And effectively already is in London, where White British is officially below 50 percent of the population. If there really is a policy giving preference to minorities, perhaps you should point out that you are one!
I am as interested as you in the truth and as Stalinspipe says we are both just telling the truth as we see it.
The 'most vulnerable' is a code word for 'non white' - and no, you won't see that on the official allocation policy. Go into a housing office and you won't see a white person working there. Positive discrimination exists and always has in London councils, whether it's for housing or the allocation of jobs - officially and certainly otherwise. Are you denying that, or am I imagining that I've lived in London my whole life and know the system inside out?

In London these 'odd little racist housing associations' are everywhere. They form part of the social engineering project that has almost completely cleansed the capital of the white working class since Blair.

Was the covering up for decades of what went on in Rotherham and dozens of other towns up and down the land written in some official policy somewhere? Can I access that online too?

The system is rotten. Maybe you should work in PR for the government. Maybe you do.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Putin is left wing or right wing. What about Maduro and his accomplices who live like kings in a starved country. The Cuban government elite. "Communist" North Korea government. In the origins of modern democracy it was seen as a system to free the people from the oppression of absolutist monarchies. We were tricked to believe socialism and communism had come to improve the situation of the poor, when in fact they just were useful to re-oppress the people and take away their hard-won freedom.
 
The Bolsheviks did exactly the same in Russia after 1917. What's your point? That such anti-democratic tactics might be just as much a 'left wing' strategy is surely the point? Scary that it even has to be debated to be honest.

I thought my point was pretty obvious. If Hitler was left wing, why did he brutally target pretty much everyone on the left (including some of the 'socialist' elements in his own party in the Night of the Long Knives), and why was most opposition to him coming from the left, via the SDP and the communists?

Bringing up the Bolsheviks is complete whataboutery. I'm well aware of what they did, and I'm well aware that people on the left have also committed acts of evil brutality. But the topic I was addressing was the statement, "Hitler was left wing". He clearly wasn't.
 
The 'most vulnerable' is a code word for 'non white' - and no, you won't see that on the official allocation policy. Go into a housing office and you won't see a white person working there. Positive discrimination exists and always has in London councils, whether it's for housing or the allocation of jobs - officially and certainly otherwise. Are you denying that, or am I imagining that I've lived in London my whole life and know the system inside out?

In London these 'odd little racist housing associations' are everywhere. They form part of the social engineering project that has almost completely cleansed the capital of the white working class since Blair.

Was the covering up for decades of what went on in Rotherham and dozens of other towns up and down the land written in some official policy somewhere? Can I access that online too?

The system is rotten. Maybe you should work in PR for the government.

The system is deeply flawed, I'll give you that.
As I said though, white British are now a minority in London. So obviously there are going to be a lot of non-white people working in councils, and living in council housing. Many of them must be second or third generation immigrants. Why shouldn't a black person who was born and raised in London have an equal shot at getting housing?
I certainly deny that there is any official discrimination in the allocation of housing. As I said there have certainly been incidents of corruption, one of which involved all the housing staff being from one African country and allocating housing to people of the same origin. I don't know how widespread that is.
I have previously worked for a district council just outside London which had less than 10 percent non-White population. I was in the housing department (also 90 percent White) and nearly all the properties went to white people. Nonetheless white people would come in to the office foaming at the mouth and saying "if I painted my face black I'd get a house wouldn't I? “. You remind me of those people.

The picture is more complex than you will admit.

The white working classes are partly responsible for the current lack of council housing. There were 8 million council houses in UK in 1980.Then Thatcher ramped up the Right to Buy and offered council tenants the chance to buy their home at a knock down price. Most of those who could took the bribe This continued for 30 odd years and now there are only 3 or 4 million council homes. While the population has increased by 10 million. Some people did really well out of it. But of course the government never replaced the homes and future generations had to make their way without the availability of council housing, which instead of being occupied by a wide range of people is now only for the most 'vulnerable' or 'greatest housing need'. Which is not code for non-White, it is code for 'dependent on state benefits'. Probably amounts to the same thing in many areas.
 
WtF? She can herself a Christian as many times as she pleases, Chezz, what is this, North Korea:crazy:
How would you like it if she told you to quit posting about the stupid 'brown people', which you do
just about all the time.:confused:

Hitler was the leader of the SOCIALIST NATIONALIST WORKERS PARTY of course he was a
socialist. Just because you all loons cant live with the fact you cant just give the word 'socialism'
a new bizarre meaning to fit the:chicken: agenda.:grimacing:
You are high in the running for the title of the most ignorant sack of shit to ever soil these pages, goof.

The shit that dribbles from your half-cooked brain, through your fingers to your mom’s keyboard is poison. You’re spewing absolute NONSENSE to get a rise. You’re the very definition of a “troll”.

Unless you have a heck of a dental plan, you sure as shit don’t pull this nonsense in public. If you did, you’d be picking up your teeth with broken fingers, ya punk-ass little bitch.

People like you get-off on agitation for agitation’s sake. That’s fine, kiddo. You keep talking nonsense. You’re a blight. A vapid f***-tard. A sad excuse for a human being.

Kindly take your remedial level of your native tongue, your unbridled ignorance and f***-tardery and shove them up your ass, ya daft wee punk-ass twat.
 
Oh come now - you are of course correct but in a very limited sense. It was state Marxism / socialism that was played out most dramatically in 20th century history (whether Marxist university lecturers see that as 'pure' Marxism or not), and it was the idea of an all-powerful state that so clearly appealed to Mussolini and Hitler. People and parties can be left wing in some ways and right wing in others. With their origins in the seating arrangements of the National Assembly during the French Revolution, the terms ultimately can be defined as the left being in favour of radical change (pro-revolution) and the right being in favour of the status quo (pro-monarchy). In this sense both Mussolini and Hitler could be described as fundamentally left wing at the beginning of their careers in their desire to bring about radical change in Italy and Germany respectively and over-throw the status quo. They were both in favour of 'revolution' - just not the Marxist kind.


You see, apart from Hitler and Mussolini's co-opting of left wing slogans, I don't see the similarity in fascism and Stalin's Marxist-Leninism, other than the fact they were authoritarian. It isn't the authoritarian bit which makes someone left or right wing - both left wingers and right wingers can be authoritarian - it's the policy, the economic and political ideology, their actions in government and their reasons for taking those actions.

The Soviet Union was ultimately driven by destroying global capitalism, destroying the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, uniting the proletariat regardless of nationality, race and religion and spreading communism across the world. They may not have achieved these things, but this was the ideology they were driven by, or at least said they were driven by.

The Nazis wanted to unite all Germanic people, exclude or exterminate Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, colonise other nations and destroy the natives for Lebensraum, create German hegemony in Europe, destroy socialism, communism, liberalism, democracy, start a war and they did the majority of these things. It was also Nazi party policy to maintain a strong middle class.

Importantly, the way in which the economy was run highlights further distinctions. The Soviet Union took control of all private enterprises and they were directly controlled by the state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany consolidated private capital, established private, capitalist cartels and capitalists stood to benefit and did indeed benefit from Nazi rule, and many capitalists made a great deal of money thanks to the Nazis.
 
I wonder if Putin is left wing or right wing. What about Maduro and his accomplices who live like kings in a starved country. The Cuban government elite. "Communist" North Korea government. In the origins of modern democracy it was seen as a system to free the people from the oppression of absolutist monarchies. We were tricked to believe socialism and communism had come to improve the situation of the poor, when in fact they just were useful to re-oppress the people and take away their hard-won freedom.

Expectingtofly addresses it well. Totalitarian regimes are shitty. Saying they're all left wing is idiotic. Assuming that anything on the left is there to take away freedom because USSR is akin to saying that anything on the right is there to take away freedom because Nazis. It's genuinely idiotic. So many brilliant things have been bought about by the mythical left, Mr Burns would disagree but then it's the Mr Burns' of the World that you seem to be paying attention to. It's a great piece of propaganda to claim that the left has shit on people but it's the left which has gained working standards that don't kill staff, it's the left that has got wages that are worth living on, it's the left that fights for social housing despite it always being sold off etc. If the 'mythical right' was left to its own devices we'd all be f***ed.
 
Turk, you're a good sort. I like your posts. But how can PK's childish rant be seen as anything but digging the hole even deeper? I mean, this guys is supposed to be a top-tier international recording executive. With this post, he's sealed his fate as a laughing stock.

Thanks for sayin' I'm a good sort. You're a good sort too!
Here's a good Sort Sol song:

 
You see, apart from Hitler and Mussolini's co-opting of left wing slogans, I don't see the similarity in fascism and Stalin's Marxist-Leninism, other than the fact they were authoritarian. It isn't the authoritarian bit which makes someone left or right wing - both left wingers and right wingers can be authoritarian - it's the policy, the economic and political ideology, their actions in government and their reasons for taking those actions.

The Soviet Union was ultimately driven by destroying global capitalism, destroying the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, uniting the proletariat regardless of nationality, race and religion and spreading communism across the world. They may not have achieved these things, but this was the ideology they were driven by, or at least said they were driven by.

The Nazis wanted to unite all Germanic people, exclude or exterminate Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, colonise other nations and destroy the natives for Lebensraum, create German hegemony in Europe, destroy socialism, communism, liberalism, democracy, start a war and they did the majority of these things. It was also Nazi party policy to maintain a strong middle class.

Importantly, the way in which the economy was run highlights further distinctions. The Soviet Union took control of all private enterprises and they were directly controlled by the state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany consolidated private capital, established private, capitalist cartels and capitalists stood to benefit and did indeed benefit from Nazi rule, and many capitalists made a great deal of money thanks to the Nazis.

Do you think there is not very rich businessmen in "communist" Russia and China? Many people became very, very rich under communist regimes. The fact that a lot of them did it by means of corruption adds to the savagery of those regimes.
 
I wonder if Putin is left wing or right wing. What about Maduro and his accomplices who live like kings in a starved country. The Cuban government elite. "Communist" North Korea government. In the origins of modern democracy it was seen as a system to free the people from the oppression of absolutist monarchies. We were tricked to believe socialism and communism had come to improve the situation of the poor, when in fact they just were useful to re-oppress the people and take away their hard-won freedom.

I say this as someone who doesn't necessarily have an alignment to any left wing faction/sect, but do ultimately want to see the state in its current form destroyed and replaced with something for the benefit of all ordinary working people, regardless of race, creed, nationality etc:

Putin is without a doubt a right-wing proto-fascist. Seeing left wingers defend him out some nostalgia for the USSR is disgusting. He has established a mafia state run by billionaire oligarchs, which regularly murders dissidents and the opposition, often on foreign soil.

The Cuban government, North Korean regime and Venezuela are all f***ing tankies and Stalinist fan boys. Although a lot of misinformation is spread about them, and analysis of them should be more nuanced (not so much North Korea), they certainly aren't the type of socialism I'd consider desirable.

This is the great thing about socialism. It's massive spectrum, with lots of different branches and variations, thinkers.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom