So what did Viscount Rothermere really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country


8:55 am - October 2nd 2013

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

by David Hodd

On a cold winter’s day, an old man made his way to meet a lifetime admirer. He had exchanged correspondence several times before, but now at last he would meet this “superhuman” in person.

It had been quite an effort to get to this point – he had needed to secure the services of an Austrian Princess, Stephanie Hohenlohe to gain the influence that would allow them to meet, and now here he was, shoulder to shoulder with Adolf Hitler

The year was 1936. The man was Harold Harmsworth a.k.a. 1st Viscount Rothermere. A barrister’s son, he had success with several newspapers, and was now one of the most influential people in the land. He was very active against what he regarded as the pernicious threats of communism and international Jewry. Harmsworth was very critical of those who used “every means financial, social, political and personal to influence British Government Departments” – but only if they were Jewish.

He penned the most notorious articles in British journalism, in support of the British Union of Fascists: “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” he wrote in the Mail, and “Give the Blackshirts a Helping Hand” in the Mirror (which he also owned). He even ran a competition, awarding a prize for the reader who gave the best response to “Why I love the Blackshirts”.

His own view was clear:

“Because Fascism comes from Italy, short-sighted people in this country think they show sturdy national spirit by deriding it.” He went on to criticise those that “have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call “Nazi atrocities” which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence”

After congratulating Hitler for invading Czechoslovakia – and urging him on to Romania, Harmsworth continued to exchange telegrams with him at least to July 1939. Meanwhile his newspapers campaigned to prevent large numbers of Jews (like Ralph Milliband for example) from gaining sanctuary.

His son and grandson carried on Harmsworth’s evil legacy – they used the Daily Mail to exert influence as they saw fit, lived colourful lifestyles, and did whatever they could to avoid paying tax. His father once said “Today, the whole idea is that morality is a matter of opinion.”

To what extent the current owner of the Daily Mail Jonathan Harmsworth, inherited the controversial views of his dad, or his antecedents is not fully clear. But he has been happy to live off the inheritance of his media empire, and through that inheritance he enjoys easy access to ministers. His tale is not one of the self-made man favoured by free market thinkers, but one who’s start in life was a silver spoon worth over a billion pounds. He is now thought to be worth less than that.

Despite his British passport, Eton education and his Wiltshire home, he is a Tax Non-Dom. Investigations into his tax status were dropped by none other than David Hartnett himself. This Non-Dom status reveals his hatred for Britons – he has done all he can to avoid contributing towards the upkeep of the armed forces his paper writes so proudly about. He has avoided supporting the education of British children, and likewise support for the the sick and needy has been minimal.

These little acts against our sturdy national spirit reveal a disregard for the nation, and a belief that personal interest trumps all. He is still living with the financial gains of a fascist supporter, and living its poisonous creed. It is in his power to change this, but he does not.

Whilst Jonathan Harmsworth – who lives in a ‘modest’ £40million Mock-Georgian home – publishes articles that talk of ‘socialism’ being the key word for the next Labour government, perhaps ground is indeed now being prepared, to undermine any public support a next Labour government might have.


To be clear, this article is a parody of the original Daily Mail piece attacking Ralph Miliband

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


To what extent the current owner of the Daily Mail Jonathan Harmsworth, inherited the controversial views of his dad, or his antecedents is not fully clear.

It’s his grandfather isn’t it?

To be an accurate parody of the Mail article, it would also have to contain lies and omissions of relevant facts. The Mail called Ralph Milliband “the man who hated Britain” while omitting to mention that he fought in the Navy, seeing action in the Med and at the Normandy landings, although as a Belgian national at the time he did not have to, and although as a Jewish refugee from Nazism he would have certainly been murdered if captured. This article, however, is pretty accurate and matches the known and relevant facts.

The blackshirt supporting Rothermere is in fact the current Rothermere’s great grandfather; the former died 37 years before the latter’s birth.

I wait to be corrected, but I don’t recall the current Rothermere making great play of his admiration of his great grandad’s “principles”.

@ Bluecat.

Maybe that’s how you parody a hackish hate piece that’s composed mostly of bare faced lies – you tell the truth! The Daily Heil certainly wouldn’t recognise the strategy.

3. cjcj
Jonathan Harmsworth’s wealth and influence is entirely due to the wealth that his great-grandad had and the influence he exerted. Even his non dom tax status was inherited.

RACISM,FACISM,HAVE NO PLACE .IN ANY CIVILISED SOCIETY,AS FOR THE DAILY MAIL,MOST BRITISH PEOPLE,ARE ONLY TO WELL,AWARE,THAT THE DAILY-MAIL OWNER,AND EDITOR,AND MUCH OF ITS STAFF,REALLY,TRUELLY,—HATE–BRITISH.–PEOPLE.YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THERE HISTORY,THEY -SUPPORTED,THE -NAZIs.AGAINST US,THEY COZIED-UP-TO-HITLER.THEY EFFECTIVELY,ENCOURAGED,HITLER,TO INVADE EUROPE,,,BUT NOW THEY HAVE IT ROCK BOTTOM,,THEY -TRUELLY ARE,THE DREGS,OF THE WORLD,,THERE OWNER,AS NEVER,DONE A DAYS WORK,IN HIS LIFE,,HE INHERITED,HIS FOTUNE,FROM HIS FAMILIES,CORRUPTION,,NOW I HAVE TIME,,I WILL PERSONALLY,WRITE,TO EVERY SINGLE,BUSINESS,AND THERE CUSTOMERS,VIA–THE SOCIAL,MEDIA,–INTERNET,AND ASK IF THEY APPROVE,OF ADVERTISING,IN,SUCH,AN EVIL,,–ANTI–BRITISH,–NEWSPAPER,,IF IT MEANS,A FEW BUSINESSES,SUFFERING,FOR—BACKING,,-THE–EVIL,–CORRUPT,–ANTI—BRITISH–DAILY–MAIL, SO-BE–IT,,,THEY SHOULD,ADVERTISE,WITH,LOYAL.—BRITISH—NEWSPAPERS,,

The Mail has published articles in support of the extremist right wing Front National in France.

The online version allows EDL supporters free reign – but often actively blocks comments on subjects the editors dislike.

@5 and the Milibrothers are where they are because of daddy’s connections

Are you saying that the current Rothermere should reject his inheritance on the basis of what his granddad wrote?

9. Robin Levett

@cjcjc #8:

Are you saying that the current Rothermere should reject his inheritance on the basis of what his granddad wrote

That does appear to be the logic of the original Mail piece.

8. cjcj

whereas Ed has differentiated himself from his dad, none of the Harmworths have distanced themselves from the shameful behaviour of Harold Harmsworth.

The dynasty has continued to benefit from his wealth creation, and failed to pay their contribution to British society.

I would suggest that for Jonathan to be welcome in civil society he could start by paying taxes in this country and to publically distance himself from the stain of his Great Grandfather. He could build on this: he could welcome the idea of a Jewish prime-minister (I believe the Mail’s article is more about anti-Jew than anti-Marxitm), and he could also give us something concrete to show that the Zinovieve letters would not happen again.

@9 Miliband has frequently praised his father’s “principles”

I think those principles are therefore fair game for investigation (though the DM did it terribly badly)

I’m not sure that Jonathan (as we are now on first name terms) has quite gone that far – unless failure to reject your inheritance counts as tacit praise for a man who died 37 years before you were born

Though of course his tax affairs – no doubt perfectly legal – are certainly fair game for the same

But Harmsworth retracted support on the outset of war – Miliband’s father cememted his through war but let’s not let facts get in the way of whatever this is, eh?

The Daily Mail is having a nervy b, would be funny if it didn’t actually involve real people and that.

14. Robin Levett

@cjcj #11:

Miliband has frequently praised his father’s “principles”.

I think those principles are therefore fair game for investigation

Nice weasel word, that; “principles”.

We know what “Red” Ed’s politics are (and that’s what’s in issue here); we know that they’d make Ralph Miliband turn in his grave – “save capitalism from itself”, I ask you.

Did you listen to Today this morning? “Red” Ken Livingstone made the point rather nicely – you can accept your father’s values, as he did, without subscribing to his politics. His parents were both, as he described them, working class Tories who’d never voted for any other party in their lives and admired Thatcher. Can we, from the facts that KL adopted his father;’s values and that his father was a working class Tory, deduce that KL, in power, would ram through Thatcherite policies?

Take a look at this piece:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9544522/Ed-Miliband-interview-I-want-to-save-the-capitalism-my-father-hated.html

Ed has made quite clear that he rejects the core of his father’s political views, and that his father would reject his.

15. badstephen

The Levy article is vicious, one-sided and unpleasant. No law against that. The Mail’s problem is that “hated Britain” in the headline. It’s a bit like Andrew Gilligan’s use of “sexed up”. Perhaps that’s why there was something oddly familiar about Alistair Campbell seizing on one phrase to take apart that hapless Mail editor on Newsnight. “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” (Does quoting Marx make me un-British?)

er you dont have to go as far back as rothemere to find right wing tories eager to work with racists and fascists ..it would appear that a certain paul staines – he of guidofawkes fame – tried to form an ‘anti-left’ alliance with the racist and fascist bnp in his younger days when an activist with the federation of conservative students http://guidoforks.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/tory-student-leader-in-racist-party.html

17. Robin Levett

@DtP #12:

But Harmsworth retracted support on the outset of war – Miliband’s father cememted his through war

Do you mean that Ralph Miliband cemented his support for Britain through volunteering to fight for it, ntowithstanding that as a Belgian refugee he had no obligation to do so, and that as a Jew he would be liable to be shot out of hand if captured?

And the Mail might have retracted support for Hitler on the outset of the war, but did Harmsworth – he was no longer running the paper?

18. Charlieman

@17. Robin Levett: “Do you mean that Ralph Miliband cemented his support for Britain through volunteering to fight for it, ntowithstanding that as a Belgian refugee he had no obligation to do so, and that as a Jew he would be liable to be shot out of hand if captured?”

Are you sure about the final point? Servicemen were advised not to carry items which might disclose Jewish faith* (one might consider why, and what was known by those advising) and there are cases of captured Western European troops being executed rather than becoming POWs. Thankfully most Jewish servicemen who became prisoners were treated as any other POW. Obviously, that would not apply to a Jewish soldier captured on the Eastern Front.

None of the above quibbling diminishes my respect for Ralph Miliband’s volunteering for Naval service.

* That recollection comes from reading WWII pilot biographies, so don’t demand a quick citation.

19. PottyTraining

If only you knew!

We discussed this a zillion times on housepricecrash.co.uk

If you want to learn about the elite fraud of economics/banking sytems/housing markets and others go on there a few years!

The elites have all shifted the ownership of their estates/mansions into offshore owned ‘shadow’ trusts/companies to avoid paying billions £££ per annum in tax buying-selling to each other, death duties, etc

They have fiddled our laws to benefit themselves!
They fiddle the land registry records so no one can see who bought and sold (think Mayfair properties where the owners dont bother to pay council tax cos they are shielded behind a myriad of offshore companies)
– so council gives up chasing (out-foxed) and goes after the easier pickings ie the little guy!

They then have the temerity to claim all farming/land/forestry grants thru CAP/defra to the tune of billions £s a year

Monies defrauded from the taxpayer then returned by Brussels. Each year the pound was devalued against Euro they shared out an extra 200million £££ in benefits!

Nothing is deliberately done about this defrauding tax avoiding state of affairs!
They even pay the servant oiks/gardeners/cooks etc through offshore owned companies – so taxman can’t see their yearly incomes and sources of income!

The oiks pay to protect them with police services, fire, ambulance etc. ie socialised

20. Robin Levett

@Charlieman #18:

As you say, there are cases of Jewish prisoners being shot rather than treated under the GCs; and also of segregation for different treatment short of outright murder. I suspect it depended on who captured you – the Waffen SS would be rather more likely to kill captured Jews than the Wehrmacht Heer.

The fact remains though that that was an additional risk that Jewish combatants against the Germans took; and you couldn’t join the services only on condition you wouldn’t be captured by the SS.

But Harmsworth retracted support on the outset of war

Perhaps because support became treason when war was declared.

22. Charlieman

@20. Robin Levett: “The fact remains though that that was an additional risk that Jewish combatants against the Germans took; and you couldn’t join the services only on condition you wouldn’t be captured by the SS.”

I do not wish to argue too much further, Robin.

The Belgian teenage Jew who could not speak much English when he arrived in England, Ralph Miliband, signed up for the Navy and became an NCO. That is enough proof about sincerity for me.

@ OP

You mention:

His father once said “Today, the whole idea is that morality is a matter of opinion.”

Surely morality is a matter of opinion? You think that Harmsworth saying this shows that he is eveil?

I think every one agrees that the Mail look like total tits over this. I’m kinda proud that young Miliband gave a big fat ‘fuck you’ straight back at them – good lad. Not for nothing but good on both Cameron & Clegg for fully endorsing his perfectly respectable bloody fucking fury. Families are never ever on the agenda unless they volunteer and, yer know, they’re alive and such.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have a thread about similarities &/or differences in political world view employed by all 3 Milibands as they’ve produced such decent output. To have a poorly written hatchet job pinned on a diary entry when any one of all 3 of them is neither here nor bloody there. There’s a comedy show on Rd4 that has comedians who kept diaries going over them and trying to figure out wtf they were on about.

Dacre’s a tit. Miliband defo won the conferences. 18 months to an election. Jock decision seems pretty fixed?!? Steady away.

Ace thread by the way. Always wanted to know who owned the Mail. I thought Lady Rothermere was the guv’nor. Keep it up.

25. torn at or flay

Seen in the parody so

don’t query as if serious.

23. Fungus

I included that quote to contrast the moral certainties of the Daily Mail editorial line, and the more nuanced world the proprieter operated in. Richard Desmond tried smearing the lifestyles of Jonathan Harmsworth and his father. He had a valid point in contrasting the hypocrisy here. Of course the way they lived their lives would be protected from public scrutiny.

David Hood re Comment 10:

“He could build on this: he could welcome the idea of a Jewish prime-minister (I believe the Mail’s article is more about anti-Jew than anti-Marxitm), and he could also give us something concrete to show that the Zinovieve letters would not happen again.”

To say the article in The Daily Mail was anti-Jew would be as silly as saying Ralph Miliband hated Britain.

Don’t get all het up about a topic only to make an equally silly point. It rather undermines the basis on which your irritation is founded.

28. So Much For Subtlety

17. Robin Levett

Do you mean that Ralph Miliband cemented his support for Britain through volunteering to fight for it, ntowithstanding that as a Belgian refugee he had no obligation to do so, and that as a Jew he would be liable to be shot out of hand if captured?

Miliband did not fight for Britain. He fought in the Belgian Navy. Well, those Belgians who fled to the UK and were to go on to form the post-War Belgian Navy. And I know of no case where the Nazis executed Jewish POWS from Western countries. I believe it was not their policy to do so. So no, he did not face such a risk.

And the Mail might have retracted support for Hitler on the outset of the war, but did Harmsworth – he was no longer running the paper?

You might think so. Especially once Hitler lost. If we go around blaming people for politics they supported, almost all of Tony Blair’s cabinet would have been thrown out of office. Given virtually all of them except Tony himself supported Stalinism at one time or other.

Amazing how some think that British newspapers were not censored during WWII.

@29 Ceilog. That’s the elephant in the room – no British chap gave a flying fuck about Europe. Perhaps it was geo politics, perhaps it was conviction but as far as I remember it you were pretty much fucked either way. Pick a team, oh – shit – seem to be dead there.

SMFS:
The RNSB was, unequivocally, part of the Royal Navy. The RN in its name is a clue. In 1946, it was disbanded and many of its personnel joined the newly created Belgian navy.

There are several documented cases of German authorities singling out Western Allied Jewish POWs for ill treatment, of which the best known is the punishment detail at Berga.

But apart from that, spot on.

32. So Much For Subtlety

31. john b

The RNSB was, unequivocally, part of the Royal Navy. The RN in its name is a clue. In 1946, it was disbanded and many of its personnel joined the newly created Belgian navy.

I don’t know about unequivocally. The Belgians who fled to the UK formed their own version of the Free French. They were not big enough to form an independent unit and came under the control of the Royal Navy. The name is not a clue as Belgium had and still has a Royal family.

It is more likely that Miliband thought he was fighting against Fascism and for Revolution than that he thought he was fighting for Britain – a country he loathed and wanted to see changed so much it amounted to destruction. Even ignoring his evident desire to see the Soviet Army march down Pall Mall.

There are several documented cases of German authorities singling out Western Allied Jewish POWs for ill treatment, of which the best known is the punishment detail at Berga.

Ill-treatment is not the same as instant execution. Even at Berga 80% of the POWs survived. It is not even certain that they were punishing Jews as Jews, but rather trouble makers, whom they assumed would be Jews.

But apart from that, spot on.

So, spot on.

“a country he loathed and wanted to see changed so much it amounted to destruction. Even ignoring his evident desire to see the Soviet Army march down Pall Mall.”

[citation needed]. Relatedly, this.

@27

Kojak you thread disrupter

We were forced to go thru WW2 so the zionist faux-israel state came about shortly after it ended!
It is full of NON-SEMITE faux jews too!

The Daily Mail might consider looking into the fact that an official phone number for Iain Duncan Smith’s Leadership campaign was in fact for the house of Nick Griffin’s father, a Vice-President of that campaign, who answered that phone with the words “British National Party”. That was not in the 1930s. It was not even in the 1960s. It was in the present century.

Then there are the youthful ties of numerous members of the present Government to apartheid South Africa and to Pinochet’s Chile. And then there are the Nazi sympathisers in the aristocratic backgrounds of many an MP from either Coalition party. Cameron himself is related by marriage (so, a matter of his choice) to none other than the Astors.

“Hurrah for the Blackshirts!”, indeed.

32. So Much Fucking Stupidity
Proof is required for your assertion that Ralph Miliband wanted to see the Soviet Army march down Pall Mall. Even the Daily Telegraph recognised Ralph Miliband as a hater of Stalin.
No wonder that you can’t see anyone complaining about the content of the DM article when you’re too busy spouting your own malicious bullshit.

37. Robin Levett

@ anyone who is interested.

A small prize for guessing which Marxist intellectual once wrote:

“The simple fact of the matter is that capitalist democracy, for all its crippling limitations, has been immeasurably less oppressive and a lot more democratic than any communist regime, whatever the latter’s achievements in economic, social and other fields.”

38. badstephen

Why has the Mail never done a piece on the true beliefs of Grantham’s big-spending former Independent Mayor, re-invented as a rabid neo-conservative by his daughter?

39. so much for twittery

oh dear oh dear, see what The Daily Mail has done is reawakened interest in populist left thoughts and ideas. Good going guys, Nationalisation is coming, start with Centrica and move out. Taking back them rail roads, and that post office too. Keep up the good fellas. Think it might be time to get out that red flag too, its been a while.

40. so much for twittery

also there is only two types of people that gate-crash funerals, cunts and Will Ferrell. I said gate-crash a funeral, I know it was a memorial, but I thought I would make the story appear more sensational then it really was, thus employing one of the tactics the mail itself uses. Also do say it was a funeral as its going to be fun watching idiots like SMFS explain why its more of an acceptable thing to do gate-crashing a memorial as opposed to a funeral. Come on guys it will be such a laugh

41. So Much For Subtlety

36. Ceiliog

Proof is required for your assertion that Ralph Miliband wanted to see the Soviet Army march down Pall Mall. Even the Daily Telegraph recognised Ralph Miliband as a hater of Stalin.

RM was a process, not a state. He started out in one place, he finished in another. So he came to Britain in 1940, and was disgusted by the unity and dedication of the British to the fight against Germany. Presumably, like Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond Williams, and everyone else who shilled for Stalinism, he was at that time on the side of the Nazis and praying for a British defeat as a prelude to the collapse of the Nazis and the emergence of Communism.

Robin Levett

A small prize for guessing which Marxist intellectual once wrote:

Once wrote? You mean in 1989. So you mean Ralph Miliband recognised that his entire life’s work was pointless once the Soviet Union collapsed? How frightfully interesting.

It is almost as if he had enough shame to recognise his dream had died with the Soviets.

so much for twittery

Also do say it was a funeral as its going to be fun watching idiots like SMFS explain why its more of an acceptable thing to do gate-crashing a memorial as opposed to a funeral. Come on guys it will be such a laugh

No doubt. But as I don’t support either the gate crashing – although plenty of journalists have done it before – or the attacks on Ed Miliband, it is pointless.

A key point is being missed here. The Mail, by accidental blundering, has created an addition to that rarest of breeds, The Famous Belgian.

43. So Much For Subtlety

37. Robin Levett

A small prize for guessing which Marxist intellectual once wrote:

“The simple fact of the matter is that capitalist democracy, for all its crippling limitations, has been immeasurably less oppressive and a lot more democratic than any communist regime, whatever the latter’s achievements in economic, social and other fields.”

Not to beat a dead horse any more than is necessary, but notice that Robin is offering as a defence the fact that it took until 1989 for Ralph Miliband to notice the bleeding obvious.

Which suggests two things about Old Adolphe. Either he was amazingly slow on the uptake – this comment might have been interested in 1949 for instance. But he did not make it in 1949. He did not even make it in 1979 when he was still defending the Khmer Rouge. Or, alternatively, Adolphe there hung out with a lot of people who whom this is not immediately and self evidently true. People who thought otherwise.

Either way, Robin might like to ask himself why he is defending this odious little sh!t.

44. Robin Levett

@SMFS #41:

Once wrote? You mean in 1989. So you mean Ralph Miliband recognised that his entire life’s work was pointless once the Soviet Union collapsed? How frightfully interesting.

It is almost as if he had enough shame to recognise his dream had died with the Soviets.

We seem to have missed out the bit where you provide evidence that Ralph Miliband ever supported Stalin, or Stalinism, or the Soviet Union.

45. Robin Levett

@SMFS:

Perhaps some words of praise for the Soviet Union from RM on the occasion of the glorious liberation of Hungary in 1956? Or on the occasion of its fraternal intervention in Czechoslovakia? Or some indication that RM considered “Soviet-type” societies as socialist, or even transitional to socialism? Words of condemnation of the kulaks who needed purging? Anything? After all, you have read all his writings, and presumably such words can be found across his output?

Oh dear, oh dear, it gets worse for the Mail by the day:

“A former member of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet has accused the Daily Mail of ‘telling lies’ about Ralph Miliband after the newspaper claimed that the Marxist writings of the late father of the Labour party leader meant that he hated Britain.

“In the biggest blow yet to the Mail editor, Paul Dacre, who has launched a strong defence of his paper’s decision to claim that Ralph Miliband had left an ‘evil legacy’, Lord Moore of Lower Marsh said his former tutor was a good man who never had a bad word to say about Britain. . . . ”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/02/thatcher-ally-daily-mail-ralph-miliband-lies

Of course, all this could be easily resolved if Paul Dacre, editor of the Mail, considered his position and did the honourable thing.

One of my posts appears to have disappeared, I will assume that it wasn’t a deliberate act of censure.

46
Ralph Miliband was a marxist and marxists do not support capitalist institutions or monarchies, they do, however, support the working-class of capitalist states. WW2 represented the allegiance of the USSR and capitalist countries fighting a common enemy. There is absolutely no evidence that Ralph M hated Britain, indeed Marx himself was one of it’s most famous asylum seekers and he certainly did not hate Britain. Marxism is about the economic base and the mode of production not about individuals or individual countries.

43

No Marxist ever believed that socialism could emerge from peasant economies nor that socialism involved a central state.

‘Where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation’ Leon Trotsky.

48. So Much For Subtlety

44. Robin Levett

We seem to have missed out the bit where you provide evidence that Ralph Miliband ever supported Stalin, or Stalinism, or the Soviet Union.

I knowe you will want to change the subject now, given the embarassment of Ralph’s volte face coming some 40 years too late – virtually the man’s entire adult life too late. But out of curiousity, where in the bit you quoted did I say that Ralph supported Stalin?

Oh wait, you are screwing up so badly you need to refer to some other stuff in some other thread?

Robin Levett

Or some indication that RM considered “Soviet-type” societies as socialist, or even transitional to socialism?

Just out of curiousity, you are denying that this is what Ralph thought or you’re just throwing claims out there in the hope that at least one of them will prove productive?

Words of condemnation of the kulaks who needed purging? Anything? After all, you have read all his writings, and presumably such words can be found across his output?

Naturally. But why bother? You are so deep you’re drowning. Why would I need to do anything at all?

By the way, remember in 1940 Stalin and his minions in the British Communist Party were in alliance with Hitler and so opposed to anything short of a Nazi victory in the war with Britain. It just so happens that RM also opposed Britain’s war effort at that time. Interesting isn’t it?

steveb

Ralph Miliband was a marxist and marxists do not support capitalist institutions or monarchies, they do, however, support the working-class of capitalist states.

A working class they themselves define. So this is circular. They oppose Britain and British interests but they support the British people …. who are basically themselves as the self-appointed vanguard of the same.

WW2 represented the allegiance of the USSR and capitalist countries fighting a common enemy.

No it did not. Because Stalin was fighting the West all the time he was allied to or fight with Hitler.

There is absolutely no evidence that Ralph M hated Britain

Apart from everything he believed. He wanted Britain destroyed and a Socialist republic, ie Soviet satrapy, set up instead.

indeed Marx himself was one of it’s most famous asylum seekers and he certainly did not hate Britain.

He most certainly did. And Marx is proof that the asylum system is morally wrong.

No Marxist ever believed that socialism could emerge from peasant economies nor that socialism involved a central state.

You mean you do not. After the collapse of the Soviet Union. You are not all Marxists. In fact most of the world’s Marxists thought Lenin could do it and supported him in trying. Which is why the British Trade Union movement struck to protect the Communist regime in the 1920s.

‘Where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation’ Leon Trotsky.

That sounds very liberal of him. Where did he say that?

49. Robin Levett

@SMFS #48:

Just out of curiousity, you are denying that this is what Ralph thought

Since you’ve read the 1979 essay, in which RM opposed the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (and presumably the entire output of the Socialist Register), you’ll know the answer to that question. To him, the Soviet society, under Stalin and subsequently, wan’t even vaguely socialist; he supported the Prague Spring and opposed the Soviet crushng of it; and he opposed the 1956 invasion of Hungary. Even the DT obituary writers, who had no hesitation in condmning Hobsbawm on this score, recognised his opposition to the Soviet Union and what went on there.

50. SoaringCid

Here you go folks

I sussed the reason for ‘flagging’ this non-entity.

Its one of the zionist-Mason piss-take setups!

Ralph (etymology_
derived from “WOLF”

The link to the twat who runs the newspaper

“English printers’ slang for
“An alleged or imagined evil spirit who does mischief in a printing house.”

(The logo of the Fabians!)
Zionist/marxist/whatever Milibands are
Wolves (in sheep clothing) BAAA

Marx is proof that the asylum system is morally wrong.

That’s one of your best. Not as good as Dr Alan Statham Consultant quotes though.

52. SoaringCid

the Round Table how it links in with Rothschilds and PalestineIf you want to learn summat and expand your knowledge – read the fantastic reply posts!
(esp about Blair extinguishing “Clause IV”of the Labour Party constitution, the Round Table/secret elitist groups, how they link in with Satanist Rothschilds and Palestine/British Govt connivance/formation of Modern Israel)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread532846/pg1

53. SoaringCid

Fantastic quote

“The word Fabian derives from a Roman general named Fabius, who used carefully planned strategies to slowly wear down his enemies over an extended period of time.”

They now ‘act’ in capacity of a think tank pulling the strings of the Labour Party!

Zionist Jews are amoung the enemy of the State – NWO (The illuminati pull their strings using zionists as frontmen)

@42

“A key point is being missed here. The Mail, by accidental blundering, has created an addition to that rarest of breeds, The Famous Belgian”.

You’ve overlooked Eddie Merckx, Jacques Brel, Pieter Breughel the Elder, Audrey Hepburn, Jean-Claude van Damme and *coughs* Hergé (of Tin Tin fame/infamy).

Famous Luxembourgers… well, that’s a different matter. :D

I’m not over-looking them, I said he was an addition.

And if you’re going to add Hergé, and why not, then what about Poirot?

48

‘In fact most of the world’s Marxists thought Lenin could do it and supported him trying’

I agree that most marxists hoped that Lenin would succeed in implementing socialism and there was a concerted effort to make is succeed. But the operative word in your quote is ‘trying’. Of course many liberals supported Thatcher in her attempt to roll back the state, she too failed because our state is so entrenched in our economic base, illustrating that it is the environment which is the most significant determinant.

‘Where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation’
‘That sounds very liberal of him. Where did he say that?’

Do your own research but I agree it does sound liberal, in fact I’ve lost count of the times that this has been quoted by libertarians to counter socialist arguments. The phrase appears in Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’, and Hayek quoted Trotsky. Irony indeed, it always makes me smile.

It is also true that the USSR was supported by many individuals and organisations in the UK, and well into the 1980’s. The Morning Star was one, and there are many known individuals who were prominent in the labour movement.

By this stage, there can have been no doubt as to the reality of life within the USSR.

57. Jack C
Not Ralph Miliband though.
Hopefully, with easy access to information via the internet*, fewer people will praise authoritarian leaders and not take the words of propagandists as facts. I say hopefully but I there will always some who’ll believe anything that matches what they’ve been conditioned to accept as true and correct.
* Not for long, if some in government have their way.

Ceiliog,
My apologies, I was making a general point and didn’t mean to include Ralph Milliband. I wasn’t sufficiently clear though.

60. So Much For Subtlety

49. Robin Levett

Since you’ve read the 1979 essay, in which RM opposed the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (and presumably the entire output of the Socialist Register), you’ll know the answer to that question.

It was not a 1979 essay. It was published in 1980. When he would have known full well what the Khmer Rouge had done.

To him, the Soviet society, under Stalin and subsequently, wan’t even vaguely socialist

Now you’re just lying. He was a Trot. That means he could not cut himself off from the Russian Revolution. He condemned Stalin, not Stalinism per se. You can see what he thought about Soviet society from this for instance:

What is at issue here is nothing less than the complete undoing of the social revolutions which occurred in these countries after World War II. That such social revolutions did occur may be obscured by the fact that most of them, in Eastern and Central Europe, were imposed from above, indeed from outside, and that the regimes issued from them turned out as they did; but this does not negate the immense, revolutionary changes, good or bad, which they all experienced. The authoritarian or semi-authoritarian political structures which had been in place in most of these countries in the pre-war years were dissolved; and so too were the social hierarchies which, save in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, had kept the great majority of their (mainly peasant) populations in a state of dire subjection. In all of them, property relations were profoundly transformed; in place of the traditional ruling classes, members of hitherto excluded, marginalised or persecuted layers of society gained access to positions of power; state structures were thoroughly reorganised; modernisation in every area of life was the order of the day; a rhetoric of socialist commitment and proletarian democracy was given pride of place; and great changes were made (or were at least proposed) in the whole national culture.

If he ever once described the Soviet Union as something other than socialist, it is news to me. Care to quote him?

61. So Much For Subtlety

51. Ceiliog

That’s one of your best.

Thank you. If only we had returned Marx to face justice, tens of millions of innocent people would be alive.

steveb

I agree that most marxists hoped that Lenin would succeed in implementing socialism and there was a concerted effort to make is succeed.

But you’re saying that they threw out everything they believed for the joys of power, even if vicariously enjoyed?

Do your own research but I agree it does sound liberal, in fact I’ve lost count of the times that this has been quoted by libertarians to counter socialist arguments. The phrase appears in Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’, and Hayek quoted Trotsky. Irony indeed, it always makes me smile.

It is not an irony. The owl of Minerva flies at midnight. Trotsky wrote that in the Revolution Betrayed. Where he thought, although not for long or deeply, about what had gone wrong. It did not change his support for socialism nor did it produce an apology for his role in creating that situation. But it was a sign of progress.

Jack C

It is also true that the USSR was supported by many individuals and organisations in the UK, and well into the 1980?s. The Morning Star was one, and there are many known individuals who were prominent in the labour movement.

And the TUC. And academia.

By this stage, there can have been no doubt as to the reality of life within the USSR.

Right from the start there was no doubt. But that was not a bug, it was a feature. Just as the Guardian invariably supports whomever kills and tortures the most, so too does the British Left.

Ceiliog

Not Ralph Miliband though.

Even old Ralph. Just not after 1945 or so. Hard to tell precisely when. Again, it is likely that Stalin’s campaign against “Zionists” and “rootless cosmopolitans” in the party drove Ralph out.

But he did defend the Khmer Rouge which is just as bad.

62. Robin Levett

@SMFS #60:

If he ever once described the Soviet Union as something other than socialist, it is news to me. Care to quote him?

Gladly – but since this is from the essay in the 1980 Socialist Register, I’m telling you something you (ought to) already know – it’s from section 3 of the essay:

The point is that the regimes in question are not simply monopolistic and repressive from temporary necessity and transient adverse circumstances, but by their very structure. I mean by this that they are based on a view of ‘socialism’ as requiring the existence of one ‘leading’ party whose leaders do exercise monopolistic power; and monopolistic power by definition means the exclusion from power of everyone else, and also the deprivation of rights-speech, association, publication – which are essential for the exercise of power or at least pressure and which are so to speak the oxygen of civil society. To speak of this as a ‘Soviet-type’ regime is at one level inaccurate, since the rule of the Soviets was intended to establish the opposite of concentrated and monopolistic power. But history has associated this monopolistic form of regime with the Soviet Union;and it is therefore convenient to refer to it as a ‘Soviet-type’ regime. Its early form was the largely unintended product of the circumstances of the Bolshevik Revolution; but it was perfected, with every deliberate intention, by Stalin. All Communist regimes which have come into being since World War II bear this stamp. Some of them are less repressive than others, with the extent of the repressiveness varying not only from country to country but over time within countries. But they are all monopolistic regimes, not excluding Yugoslavia.

Much confusion is engendered by the discussion of these regimes as ‘transitional’, meaning in effect ‘transitional’ from capitalism to socialism. Most notably, Trotskyist discussion, which has ever since Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed of 1936 most probingly sought to advance the Marxist analysis of Soviet-type regimes, has also fostered much confusion about them by insisting that they were ‘workers’ states’; albeit ‘bureaucratically deformed’; and that they were ‘transitional’ between capitalism and socialism. The main reason why this thesis is maintained is of course that in these regimes the private ownership of the means of production has been replaced by state ownership and control. Given this, it is argued, to my mind rightly, that the societies in question are no longer ‘capitalist’; and that the description of them as ‘state capitalist’ does not fit any better. However, they are not ‘socialist’ either – hence the label ‘deformed’ or ‘degenerate workers’ states’. But this label is also defective, not only because they are obviously not ‘workers’ states’, of any description, but also because the label is intended to suggest or imply that, for all their bureaucratic deformations, they are on the way to being socialist, in a process which, though it will not be painless, has been rendered inevitable by the abolition of the private ownership and control of the main means of production. This needs to be questioned.

On this view, the notion of Soviet-type societies as ‘transitional’ ones is misleading, illusory, and even vacuous. It is much more helpful to a proper assessment of these societies and their regimes to see them as specific systems, with their own particular mode of production and their own social and political structures. They lack an agreed label: but that does not detract from their reality or from their specificity. They are not capitalist systems. But they are also very far distant from anything that could be called socialism. The term is largely meaningless if it does not include a fundamental recasting of the ‘relations of production’ and the ‘relations of life’ in general in democratic and egalitarian directions: and this clearly requires the institutionalisation of the means whereby this can be achieved, or at least striven for. Merely to say this, in relation to Soviet-type societies, is to indicate how great is the distance which separates them from socialism, and how inappropriate it is to apply the notion of ‘transition’ to them. In the only terms that are ultimately decisive, namely in terms of the generation of socialist consciousness among the people, capitalist societies are at least as ‘transitional’ as Soviet-type ones.

Note in the middle there his disagreement with the Trotskyite analysis?

63. Robin Levett

@SMFS #60:

Oh, and I noticed the cherrypick from the “What comes after Communist regimes” essay; immediately after the passage you quoted comes this:

For a short couple of years after 1945, and before the imposition of the Communist monopoly of power, there was hope, nurtured in the terrible years of war, that there might be built a democratic and egalitarian order on the ruins of the old and discredited pre-war
regimes; and there was even a very broad measure of popular support for the changes that were occurring. Whether there really ever was a possibility that a reasonably democratic and egalitarian order might be built is a matter of controversy. But if it did exist, it was quickly snuffed out by the onset of the Cold War and the imposition in all the countries of the Soviet sphere of influence of the Stalinist model of political rule and economic organisation, with the Communist monopoly of power and the stifling of all dissent, and the imposition of the command economy over all aspects of economic life.
Even so, there were two sides to these regimes, particularly in their earlier years: on the one hand, they were viciously repressive and cruel; on the other, their record, in terms of economic growth, modernisation, education, welfare, and new opportunities for a majority of hitherto greatly disadvantaged people, was far from negative, especially if account is taken of the lamentable conditions which most of them had inherited. Nor is it accurate to think of all the leaders of the Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe as mere scoundrels and stooges. Many of them had in fact spent many years in the anti-fascist struggle in their country, and had suffered grievous persecution for it. Their tragedy and that of their successors was that the system they built or accepted was based on unchecked power, and demonstrated to perfection how deeply corrupting such power is, and how wasteful and ultimately inefficient is economic management under its auspices.

64. So Much For Subtlety

62. Robin Levett

Gladly – but since this is from the essay in the 1980 Socialist Register, I’m telling you something you (ought to) already know – it’s from section 3 of the essay:

But this is hair splitting. He has come up with a new, and as far as I can see unique to RM, definition of socialism. Ignoring what Marx would have said.

I mean by this that they are based on a view of ‘socialism’ as requiring the existence of one ‘leading’ party whose leaders do exercise monopolistic power

Notice the basic assumption, which he is disagreeing with, that they are socialist. They think they are, RM expects other people to think they are.

Most notably, Trotskyist discussion, which has ever since Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed of 1936 most probingly sought to advance the Marxist analysis of Soviet-type regimes, has also fostered much confusion about them by insisting that they were ‘workers’ states’; albeit ‘bureaucratically deformed’; and that they were ‘transitional’ between capitalism and socialism.

Notice the praise for the Trots. Especially for Trotsky himself. RM may disagree, but this is a disagreement among friends.

The main reason why this thesis is maintained is of course that in these regimes the private ownership of the means of production has been replaced by state ownership and control. Given this, it is argued, to my mind rightly, that the societies in question are no longer ‘capitalist’

And for a proper Marxist the point should end there. As Marx is only interested in economic production. Which is owned by the State, not by capitalists.

It is much more helpful to a proper assessment of these societies and their regimes to see them as specific systems, with their own particular mode of production and their own social and political structures.

Welcome to the world of Karl Wittofgel. Of course RM lacks that sort of intellectual honesty.

But they are also very far distant from anything that could be called socialism. The term is largely meaningless if it does not include a fundamental recasting of the ‘relations of production’ and the ‘relations of life’ in general in democratic and egalitarian directions

Notice that he does praise the Soviet puppet states for precisely this. So this is an interesting little diversion for Ralph. And also notice the difference in tone – they are not capitalist but they are “far” from socialism. That does not mean he does not think they are socialist. Just not there yet. Even while he has problems with the notion of transition.

Note in the middle there his disagreement with the Trotskyite analysis?

But not a serious one. It is an interesting article, and if only RM had more intellectual rigour, it could have been much more interesting. But he does not say they are not socialist.

Robin Levett

Oh, and I noticed the cherrypick from the “What comes after Communist regimes” essay; immediately after the passage you quoted comes this:

The quotation was too long as it was. The rest means nothing more and adds nothing extra.

But if it did exist, it was quickly snuffed out by the onset of the Cold War and the imposition in all the countries of the Soviet sphere of influence of the Stalinist model of political rule and economic organisation, with the Communist monopoly of power and the stifling of all dissent, and the imposition of the command economy over all aspects of economic life.

No claim this was not socialism here.

Even so, there were two sides to these regimes, particularly in their earlier years: on the one hand, they were viciously repressive and cruel; on the other, their record, in terms of economic growth, modernisation, education, welfare, and new opportunities for a majority of hitherto greatly disadvantaged people, was far from negative

So apart from the mass murder, he is fine with the Soviet system. He praises it.

Nor is it accurate to think of all the leaders of the Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe as mere scoundrels and stooges. Many of them had in fact spent many years in the anti-fascist struggle in their country, and had suffered grievous persecution for it.

He also likes Stalin’s little lackeys. Not surprising as he had so much in common with them (not least a common ethnic background) and perhaps in different circumstances would have been one himself.

Their tragedy and that of their successors was that the system they built or accepted was based on unchecked power, and demonstrated to perfection how deeply corrupting such power is, and how wasteful and ultimately inefficient is economic management under its auspices.

Power. He is moving in an interesting way away from his Marxism, but he does not go anywhere much with it. A shame.

After all, this is a man who spent his life condemning the Labour Party and Parliament as reformist and fundamentally unable to bring about a proper transformation of Britain.

65. Robin Levett

@SMFS #64:

But this is hair splitting. He has come up with a new, and as far as I can see unique to RM, definition of socialism. Ignoring what Marx would have said.

Welcome to the real world, where not everyone acts according to the SMFS stereotype.

So apart from the mass murder, he is fine with the Soviet system. He praises it.

“Apart from the mass murder”; are you actually now admitting that he wasn’t in favour of mass murder?

He also likes Stalin’s little lackeys.

Likes? In summary – they’re not just “scoundrels and stooges”; they were also corrupted by the power they gave themselves in the system they built. Not much “like” there.

61.
Yeh and the Wright brothers are to blame for the Blitz.

If only we had returned Marx to face justice, tens of millions of innocent people would be alive.

Face justice where and for what?

67. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

SMFS – But he did defend the Khmer Rouge which is just as bad. …It was published in 1980. When he would have known full well what the Khmer Rouge had done.

But who said this in 1988, 13 years after the Khmer Rouge reign of terror?

“Some of the Khmer Rouge, of course, are very different. I think there are probably two parts of the Khmer Rouge, there are those who supported Pol Pot, and then there’s a much, much reasonable grouping within that title, Khmer Rouge…So, you’ll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government.”

Of course; Margaret Thatcher. Apparently, she didn’t just hate Britain, she hated humanity itself.

68. Well it's fair to say

That from the past two threads this has become true: http://So.Much.For.Subtlety.Just.Got.Owned.Aninote.com

The jerkers’ fag waves too much.

61

‘But you’re saying that they threw out everything they believed for the joy of power’.

No, you said that, I have said that realpolitik prevailed.

The example of the USSR is unlikely to have changed any socialist’s view about socialism simply because socialism never prevailed. It did, however, reinforce Marx’s theory about which environment is required for socialism to emerge.

71. So Much For Subtlety

65. Robin Levett

Welcome to the real world, where not everyone acts according to the SMFS stereotype.

That is one way for you to avoid an argument.

“Apart from the mass murder”; are you actually now admitting that he wasn’t in favour of mass murder?

No. He did not like *that*instance* of mass murder. As with Trotsky who did not object to Trotsky murdering millions of people but objected to Stalin murdering a few of his friends. Given that RM spent his entire life condemning Parliament and the non-violent approach to politics, he is clearly fine with mass murder.

Likes? In summary – they’re not just “scoundrels and stooges”; they were also corrupted by the power they gave themselves in the system they built. Not much “like” there.

On the contrary. He thinks they were helpless victims of circumstance. I assume he knew some of them and liked them. Or perhaps he just recognised that a lot of them were like him – Jewish, whatever the value-neutral term for cosmopolitan is, aligned with the Soviet Union and so on.

Ceiliog

Face justice where and for what?

For supporting mass murder. And who cares? If ever there was a case where a quick act of extra-judicial murder was justified this is it.

Witchsmeller Pursuivant

“Some of the Khmer Rouge, of course, are very different. I think there are probably two parts of the Khmer Rouge, there are those who supported Pol Pot, and then there’s a much, much reasonable grouping within that title, Khmer Rouge…So, you’ll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government.”

Of course; Margaret Thatcher. Apparently, she didn’t just hate Britain, she hated humanity itself.

No doubt she was being briefed by the Foreign Office. But note that exactly what she predicted came true. There was a larger part of the Khmer Rouge that was willing to abandon Pol Pot. The Vietnamese put some of them in power. Hun Sen is precisely such a man. The rest joined one party or another after Pol Pot’s death.

Not as good as hanging them all, but that would require a WEstern invasion and of course you lot would never allow that.

steveb

No, you said that, I have said that realpolitik prevailed.

And the difference is?

The example of the USSR is unlikely to have changed any socialist’s view about socialism simply because socialism never prevailed. It did, however, reinforce Marx’s theory about which environment is required for socialism to emerge.

Every socialist in the world except you thinks it did.

72. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

SMFS – my point, which as usual you have spectacularly missed, was that statements from history deserve context. You are, unsurprisingly, willing to extend that courtesy to Thatcher but not to Milliband. I have no doubt that Thatcher’s support for the Khmer Rouge was nuanced and pragmatic; I drew attention to her comments merely to show the malicious idiocy of your comment regarding Milliband’s “defence” of the KR.

Not as good as hanging them all, but that would require a Western invasion and of course you lot would never allow that.

By “you lot” I assume you refer to those of us who remain in touch with reality. The Khmer Rouge were only able to take power due to a previous Western intervention; they were removed from power by the Vietnamese responsible for defeating that Western intervention. Only somebody as obtuse and unhinged as your good self would believe that another Western intervention would have been anything other than disastrous, even if it had been possible to sell to an American public still traumatised by their defeat in SE Asia.

But perhaps I shouldn’t take you so seriously – after all, you wander round the internet leaving your verbose nuggets of “wisdom” like loon droppings. Maybe you should up your meds?

71.

For supporting mass murder. And who cares? If ever there was a case where a quick act of extra-judicial murder was justified this is it.

… and if the Atlantis secret service had engineered an accident in the Sarajevo motorway underpass in which Archduke Ferdinand dies of head injuries, World War One would not have happened and millions of lives would have been saved.

71

Look up the meaning of Realpolitik, do your own research. Hint, something to do with the environment.

I’m very impressed that you know every socialist in the world, please give me one example of who and how they have changed their view other than realizing that the USSR never was and never became a socialist state.

Just heard on Radio 4 the story of Claude Filbert who for 30 years made a living out of voicing his opinions. The opinions would be usefully surprising, and he would defend it as if it wasn’t e.g. “Gandhi was a war criminal plain and simple”. His line of arguments reminded me of one who has frustrated many on these pages.

Unfortunately the shear weight of all the reasonable opinions he had repressed over the years started to leak out, as he displayed increasingly severe symptoms of “Niceness Tourettes”. Let Claude’s sad story be a warning to us all who think the argument is about maintaining disagreement, rather than finding a resolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c3dx7
2:45 in

76. So Much For Subtlety

72. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

my point, which as usual you have spectacularly missed, was that statements from history deserve context. You are, unsurprisingly, willing to extend that courtesy to Thatcher but not to Milliband.

You may think that is what you were trying to do, but as usual, it was not what you did. You need to work on your communication skills.

And notice I have been providing Miliband with both context and nuance. His position on Stalinism for instance – welcoming it and defending it wherever it appeared while weeping crocodile tears in public – is highly nuanced as only I point out. His hatred of the British in 1940 is presumably linked to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As only I point out.

I have no doubt that Thatcher’s support for the Khmer Rouge was nuanced and pragmatic; I drew attention to her comments merely to show the malicious idiocy of your comment regarding Milliband’s “defence” of the KR.

She did not support the Khmer Rouge as that full quote shows. She also specifically says her view is based on the advice she has got. All she is doing is saying that it is impossible to execute every single lowly member of the KR. Just as we couldn’t with the Nazis. As much as we would like. There were too many of them. She is clear that the KR could never be allowed back in power.

The Khmer Rouge were only able to take power due to a previous Western intervention; they were removed from power by the Vietnamese responsible for defeating that Western intervention.

Actually no. They were only able to take power with the support (and soldiers) of the North Vietnamese as well as with the support of China, the King and the Western Left. Who came out on the streets and marched to make sure the KR took power. The Western intervention was very successful at keeping the KR out of power until people like you sabotaged it and so allowed genocide to take place.

Only somebody as obtuse and unhinged as your good self would believe that another Western intervention would have been anything other than disastrous, even if it had been possible to sell to an American public still traumatised by their defeat in SE Asia.

I did not say it was politically possible – precisely because the dishonest, lying campaign of the Left. But who knows? Maybe there was a chance that they would have sobered up and taken their proclaimed ideals seriously. I doubt it because they were all lying weasels.

77. So Much For Subtlety

73. Ceiliog

… and if the Atlantis secret service had engineered an accident in the Sarajevo motorway underpass in which Archduke Ferdinand dies of head injuries, World War One would not have happened and millions of lives would have been saved.

Maybe. But we have nothing to learn from that. No one could foresee what happened next. We do not need an on-going Archduke policy. We do, on the other hand, need a change to our asylum policy. It is amazing how many mass murderers have taken advantage of our hospitality. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all lived in Britain for some time. Too many Islamists do today. We need to stop that. Send them back to face justice in their homelands. All of them.

77.

We need to stop that. Send them back to face justice in their homelands.

Just like Germany did with Lenin.

Game, set and match to SMFS on this thread.

Ralph Miliband’s “love” of Britain was highly qualified, and through it all he continued to love Marxism much much more.

80. Man on Clapham Omnibus

79. TONE

‘continued to love Marxism much much more’

You do realise that phrase is entirely meaningless dont you.

It is as meaningless as someone ‘loving’ a country.

81. Man on Clapham Omnibus

64. So Much For Subtlety

‘After all, this is a man who spent his life condemning the Labour Party and Parliament as reformist and fundamentally unable to bring about a proper transformation of Britain’

And he was right!

MoCo @ 80:

“You do realise that phrase is entirely meaningless dont you. It is as meaningless as someone ‘loving’ a country.”

Entirely meaningless? On what grounds? The English word ‘love’ has many applications: you can love a person, a dog, ice cream, a song, cricket, York Minister, a landscape, a car, an equation, an idea, a culture, a cuisine, a country…the list is almost endless. And as meaning is use, all of these expressions are meaningful. You cannot make them meaningless by your arbitrary semantic fiat.

If someone loves Marxism, and loves a particular country, then it should be expected that they will want to bring Marxism to that country…

Cylux @ 83:

“If someone loves Marxism, and loves a particular country, then it should be expected that they will want to bring Marxism to that country…”

But if someone loves Marxism so much that he wants to destroy by violent revolution the way of life and all the established institutions of the country he also professes to love, then his love of his country is an odd kind of love, if it is love at all.

It is like a lover compelling his beloved to undergo radical plastic surgery and body-sculpting, with personality-changing psychotherapy and drugs, because he “loves” her so much. He does not love her as she is, but rather he loves his image of how she would be when he has transformed her completely. He wants to destroy her as she is, so he can love her as he wants her to be. And this is not love: it is an abusive relationship.

Similarly, with a Marxist’s love of his capitalist country: it is not love as normally understood. The Marxist may try to deny this, but he or she is living a psychological contradiction, which is part of the weird psychopathology of Marxism.

84.
What if someone loves Oswald Mosley and black shirts so much that he’ll want his country turned into a fascist state?

@84 You could also compare it to the love of a battered wife for her husband who wishes to change him for the better, or the stern love for ones children that could see you push and punish them to try harder and achieve more.

The problem of course is that no one has bothered to define ‘loved’ in this context or what apparently constitutes ‘Britain’ thus ‘loved Britain’ means something different to each and every person, and they will all of course instinctively think that their interpretation is the correct one.

This is what we have been waiting for. The ideological significance of the iceberg in the film ‘Titanic’. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DocwBZyESU. The next time that you see a Daily Mail opinion piece disguised as news say, “Brrrh. Cold and menacing. Not for me.”

ceiliog @ 85:

The same applies. Revolutionary authoritarians of left and right are peas from the same pod. Though I imagine the self-delusions of the fascists will be slightly different.

cylux @ 85:

“You could also compare it to the love of a battered wife for her husband who wishes to change him for the better, or the stern love for ones children that could see you push and punish them to try harder and achieve more.”

But neither of those analogies fits the case of Ralph Miliband – he was hardly battered/abused by the British state, nor was in loco parentis as a stern paterfamilias – whereas my analogy fits his case exactly.

Love may be mystery; but the meaning of ‘love’ is not. It is ‘hold(ing) dear’ or ‘(to hold in) affectionate devotion’. And if you hold something dear, or regard it or them with affectionate devotion, you want to maintain its or their existence and you want to further its or their interests. If you don’t want to maintain its existence or promote its interests, then you simply don’t love what you imagine you love. Now, if you are a revolutionary Marxist bent on destroying British institutions, you cannot in consistency love Britain because you don’t want to maintain its existence or promote its interests. You are like the obsessive lover who wishes to transform his beloved physically and mentally. So consistency gives way in your conflicted Marxist mind to emotional dishonesty, self-delusion, casuistry, etc.

88. That’s just waffle about an imaginary obsessive.

88

Well there’s nothing conflicted in your mind you are the classical concrete thinker who sees the world in absolutes, this is a trait I’ve noticed exists in most right-wingers. However, the world is not quite so straight forward, as I have already stated, you can dislike the institution of monarchy but not the individual monarch. You can dislike a system but not the actors within it.

79

‘Game, set and match to SMFS on this thread’

Glad to be informed that s/he is playing tennis because there’s no evidence of a reasonable debate. Perhaps you can spot the irony.

steveb @ 90:

“Well there’s nothing conflicted in your mind you are the classical concrete thinker…”

Really? You mean, I’m not given to self-serving apologies for a vicious ideology like Marxism? Or that I do not fantasize about some theoretical state of affairs – true socialism – that has never been realised or even approached, and which no-one can describe coherently because it is your childish fantasy?

“…you can dislike the institution of monarchy but not the individual monarch. You can dislike a system but not the actors within it.”

Yes, you can think like that, but it’s hard work – and not the most likely outcome. Given the amount of sheer hatred on the left for the right, I doubt the vast majority of your comrades would agree with you – or would behave like that in a revolution. You have only to read the threads on LC to see that many, if not most posters, think right-wingers are evil (whereas most right-wingers tend to think that leftists are mistaken and/or a bit thick). To take the example of the monarchy that you use, any debate about republicanism on here soon brings out the hate-filled ranters whose spittle-flecked posts describe the House of Windsor as parasites, vermin, lice, etc, and such terminology strongly suggests that the poster is thinking in terms of extermination, as that is what we do to vermin, etc.

“there’s no evidence of a reasonable debate.”

I beg to differ. The debate above is quite instructive and quite reasonable by LC standards.

92. So Much For Subtlety

78. Ceiliog

Just like Germany did with Lenin.

Nice reply. If only. If only Kerensky had some balls. The world would be a much nicer place. With a lot more Russians, Chinese and Cambodians in it too.

Man on Clapham Omnibus

And he was right!

Well about one thing, perhaps.

Ceiliog

What if someone loves Oswald Mosley and black shirts so much that he’ll want his country turned into a fascist state?

I think we would agree that this is a strange definition of love. You cannot love Jews so much you want them gassed. You cannot love Britain so much you want it to become a Communist country. But at least Britain’s Fascists largely supported the war effort. Which is more than you can say for Britain’s Communists – Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond William campaigned against Britain on orders from Moscow up to June 22 1941.

Although actually Fascist countries survived Fascism much better and with a lot less social damage than Communist countries suffered under Communism. If Britain had been Fascist for 50 years, it would still be British. It would be something else much worse after 50 years of Ralph Miliband’s Trot nonsense.

So let me get this straight, removing, altering or changing British institutions counts as animus toward Britain? And Britain is merely the sum of its official institutions?

94. So Much For Subtlety

93. Cylux

So let me get this straight, removing, altering or changing British institutions counts as animus toward Britain? And Britain is merely the sum of its official institutions?

No, destroying *all* of them does. Along with murdering a significant percentage of British people. He wanted to turn Britain into Albania with rainy weather. That is just utterly impossible to reconcile with loving Britain. Britain is more than the sum of its official institutions – although keep in mind that RM wanted to destroy all of Britain’s unofficial institutions too – the Boy Scouts, the National Trust, the Red Cross, the WI, every coal mine brass band, right down to the small pigeon racer’s club. But not only did RM hate all its institutions, but he also had nothing but contempt for the views and opinions of the British people. Whom he wanted to drag in chains into his version of paradise.

91

You mention ‘republicanism’ relative to Marxism, but there are a large number of liberals who share that view. You also refer to Marxism as a vicious ideology, but there is nothing vicious about Marxism. You mistake the ideology with the actions carried out in his name just as witch burning was carried out in the name of Christianity, you are unable or unwilling to make those distinctions, and the rise of liberalism in Europe was hardly peaceful.

And I’ve mentioned ‘monarchy’ on several recent threads on a number of occasions and I’m still waiting for the hate-filled ranters.

@91

They are ‘cloaked’ Saxe-Coberg-Gotha German extraction.

Why do you use an anagram of ‘ETON’ as your poster identity?

@ 96:

It’s ‘Coburg’, not ‘Coberg’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha

TONE = Tax Obesity, Not Enterprise

@ 75

“Gandhi was a war criminal plain and simple”

Gandi was a Mason, British trained lawyer, and stooge of the elites.

He was jailed for doing bad things in South Africa too!

99. Trellis, N Wales

@ #92 “If Britain had been Fascist for 50 years, it would still be British.”
Mrs Beynon’s son is in one of those concentration camps in England. It’s only recently that the Red Cross has got through. It’s usually a good sign when the Red Cross is allowed in because it shows that the rulers are panicking over possible liberation of the country by the allied troops.

steveb @ 95:

“You also refer to Marxism as a vicious ideology, but there is nothing vicious about Marxism.”

That’s false. Marxism’s brutal history is a built-in consequence of its principles – not an accidental by-product of a well-intentioned theory – as these quotes indicate:

Marx in 1848: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

Engels in 1849: “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”

Lenin in 1917: “The state is an instrument for coercion … We want to organize violence in the name of the interests of the workers.”

100

This quote is from Marx about the French Revolution, y’know, the liberal revolution and the period of ‘terror’. It’s been extrapolated (wrongly) as being Marx’s view about a socialist revolution, and used to justify the violence following the October 1917 revolution, which attempted the revolutionary change from peasantry to socialist society.

Engels 1849, this is where concrete thinking disables the ability to interpret what is being said, Engels is talking about a class and dynasties (as in institutions) not individuals.

Lenin, the state is an instrument of coercion which is the opinion of most marxists and refers to all states, particularly capitalist states.

The actions which have attributed to marxism are no different to the actions attributed to Christianity by the Branch Davidians.

102. Robin Levett

@TONE #100:

Marx in 1848: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

In which of his works does that quote appear?

103. Robin Levett

@steveb #101:

This quote is from Marx about the French Revolution

It doesn’t seem to be clearly a quote from Marx at all. It is a misquote of a fragment of an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung cited in that publication’s final edition:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm

The relevant sentence in that quote (trnalsated from the original German) was:

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

104. Robin Levett

It is Marx, and the whole piece is here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

It’s about the events of 1848 (not the 1793-4 reign of terror in France); and at its highest it is saying that revolutionary forces will have to meet fire with fire.

steveb @ 100

1. Not for the first time, you show you don’t know what you are talking about. The Marx quote is not about the French Revolution, but about 1848. And in it Marx is clearly endorsing “revolutionary terror”.

2. “Engels is talking about a class and dynasties (as in institutions) not individuals.” But classes and dynasties are made up of individuals! Your pernicious ideology clearly blinds you to that: when people are dehumanised by ideological categories like ‘class’ or ‘dynasty’, they can be slaughtered without regret. After all, their elimination is only the inevitable working out in history of the great dialectic, from which only good can come in the long run…

Engels says: “…the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward. (Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 194, January 13, 1849).

His rhetoric drips with hatred of the “Slav barbarians”, “these petty hidebound nations” and “reactionary peoples”. He exults in the prospect of their wiping out and disappearance from the face of the earth. He is intoxicated by the thought of their slaughter, which he believes will advance his ideology.

RL @ 104:

“at its highest it is saying that revolutionary forces will have to meet fire with fire.”

Marx is endorsing the use of “revolutionary terror”. He is not merely calling for measured or proportionate reprisals: he is calling for a qualitatively different response – terror and terrorism.

Marxism is a vicious and violent ideology, and one that the ghastly Ralph Miliband spent his life promoting and defending.

105. Shock and Awe stuff eh, tone?

105

1. The revolutions which spread through Europe in 1848 were liberal revolutions not socialist revolutions, and Marx was making reference to the ‘reign of terror’ during the French revolution. Marxism makes it quite clear that the socialist revolution is likely to be bloodless.

2. Let’s hope that you never encounter someone who may make an off the cuff comment such as ‘we should kill off the monarchy’, no doubt you would interpret that as shooting the Windsors. Watch what you say around TONE any liberal republicans, s/he’ll take it literally.

103

Thanks Robin, I didn’t check the accuracy of the quote simply because Marx was involved in the spread of the 1848 liberal revolutions in Europe in which the French revolution was a precursor, so it would not have been surprising for Marx to have made reference to the reign of terror. The rise of liberalism was, at the time, one of the bloodiest events in history, the absolute monarchs and the ancient regimes clung on to power very robustly, and when it was lost the counter-revolutionary forces caused even more bloodshed.

109. So Much For Subtlety

104. Robin Levett

It’s about the events of 1848 (not the 1793-4 reign of terror in France); and at its highest it is saying that revolutionary forces will have to meet fire with fire.

Actually no. It works from the standard Marxist assumption that mass murder will follow the Revolution – and the possessing classes will resist. So the only way to minimise the bloodshed in the resulting civil war is to ruthlessly murder all your class enemies first.

Ceiliog

105. Shock and Awe stuff eh, tone?

Asinine.

steveb

Marxism makes it quite clear that the socialist revolution is likely to be bloodless.

No it doesn’t.

steveb

The rise of liberalism was, at the time, one of the bloodiest events in history, the absolute monarchs and the ancient regimes clung on to power very robustly, and when it was lost the counter-revolutionary forces caused even more bloodshed.

The death toll for the 1848 Revolution as a whole is between 25,000 and 75,000. For the whole of Europe. The conservative forces were actually unbelievably mild. To put that in conext, it is about 10 to 30 days of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia – they killed about 2,500 people each and every day for the four years they were in power.

Totally supported by people like steveb and Robin for every single one of those years.

Steveb: “Marxism makes it quite clear that the socialist revolution is likely to be bloodless.”
So Much For Subtlety: “No it doesn’t.”

To settle that, try Engels’ preface in 1886 to the English edition of Capital:

“Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a lifelong study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a ‘pro-slavery rebellion,’ to this peaceful and legal revolution.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htm

111. Robin Levett

@SMFS #109:

To put that in conext, it is about 10 to 30 days of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia – they killed about 2,500 people each and every day for the four years they were in power.

Totally supported by people like steveb and Robin for every single one of those years.

Now you’re being offensive as well as monochrome.

109

Before I read your post SMFS I guessed that you would attempt to trump the number of deaths, however, you were clearly ready to sleep when you read my post, I said ‘at the time’. For your information, the 1848 revolutions took place in the 19th century.

110

In 1886 the ruling classes in England would certainly not have given in without a fight but Engels would not have suspected or suggested that any attempt at a socialist revolution would be imminent.

113. So Much For Subtlety

111. Robin Levett

Now you’re being offensive as well as monochrome.

I am being neither. Until the Soft Left, if indeed that is what you are, gets over its obsessive hatred of anyone to the Right of them – to the point that they habitually apologise for anyone to the Left of them – they have no future. You do have enemies to the Left of you. More dangerous enemies than anyone to the Right. But you do not care.

And everyone like you cheered the Khmer Rouge when they came to power and all through their years of mass murder. People like you continue to give a free pass to their apologists like Chomsky in a way you would not for someone like David Irving, or even someone who said something nice about South Africa under Apartheid.

steveb

Before I read your post SMFS I guessed that you would attempt to trump the number of deaths, however, you were clearly ready to sleep when you read my post, I said ‘at the time’. For your information, the 1848 revolutions took place in the 19th century.

It is interesting how reality does keep trying to break through. Subconsciously you knew your claim was bollocks. At the time? The death toll for 1848 was vastly lower than for the French Revolution – the Right did nothing like the Vendee massacres. But even for the time, 1848 was not that bloody. Less so than the 1870-1 Franco-Prussian War for instance.

In 1886 the ruling classes in England would certainly not have given in without a fight but Engels would not have suspected or suggested that any attempt at a socialist revolution would be imminent.

So you admit you got Engels wrong on violence.

114. Robin Levett

@SMFS #113:

And everyone like you cheered the Khmer Rouge when they came to power and all through their years of mass murder.

You appear to be confusing me with someone else – probably a result of the voices in your head. And yes, you are being offensive in making this wholly untrue and unevidenced claim.

113

Do keep up, I stated that ‘The rise of liberalism was, at the time, one of the bloodiest events in history’. this statement encompasses the French revolution (cos it was a liberal revolution) unless you are attempting a bit more revisionism.

‘In 1886 the ruling classes in England would certainly not have given in’.

This was a speculative statement unless you know of an attempted socialist revolution in England during 1886, please share that information with the rest of us.

116. So Much For Subtlety

114. Robin Levett

You appear to be confusing me with someone else – probably a result of the voices in your head. And yes, you are being offensive in making this wholly untrue and unevidenced claim.

I am not confusing you with anyone else. I am not saying a word about you for a start. And it is undeniable that as long as the Khmer Rouge were in power people like you were entirely happy with them. All the evidence shows this to be true. People on my side of politics said genocide would happen, and correctly saw the victory that people like you worked for for so long would be tragic, but they were smeared for saying so.

steveb

Do keep up, I stated that ‘The rise of liberalism was, at the time, one of the bloodiest events in history’. this statement encompasses the French revolution (cos it was a liberal revolution) unless you are attempting a bit more revisionism.

So you’re using your own private definition of liberal. Interesting. Not surprising but interesting.

‘In 1886 the ruling classes in England would certainly not have given in’.

This was a speculative statement unless you know of an attempted socialist revolution in England during 1886, please share that information with the rest of us.

Umm, steve, son, that is your comment you are replying to. Not mine. If you do not know what you yourself say, then your problems are deeper than I thought.

116

‘So you’re using your private definition of liberal’

No

‘Umm, steve, son that is your comment you are replying to’.

I was repeating not replying, is that against the rules of LC?

The House of Lords rejected the budget for 1909/10 of the then Liberal government because of the proposed tax increases intended to fund welfare benefits such as a state pension scheme. For the historical detail, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Budget

The ensuing general election of January 1910 led to the return of the Liberal government and the Lords caved in, not least because of discrete threats from the monarch that he would create sufficient peers to ensure the passage of the budget in the Lords.

Another outcome was the constitutionally important Parliament Act of 1911, which limited the power of the Lords to obstruct subsequent government legislation and which blocked the Lords from voting on budgets. This Act ensured the primacy of the elected Commons over that of the hereditary peers in the Lords.

Kh-mer rouge
mer/mir means Pyramid
(symbol of illuminati/NWO/reverse of dollar)

Rouge
– Red Satanists + Rothschild (REDSHIELD)
Tim Roth, Rothermere etc = symbolic ‘flagging’

120. So Much For Subtlety

117. steveb

I was repeating not replying, is that against the rules of LC?

You attacked your own claim. That is not repeating. That is bat sh!t crazy.

120

I’ve looked at several definitions of repeating and cannot find any reference to attacking. All I can assume is that the word ‘repeating’ triggered an association with a repeating rifle (pun intended)

Sleep depravation can cause unusual neurological disturbances.

122. SoaringCid

Re pyramids, easter island etc being ? in alignment i.e. within 0.1° latitude of each other

We seem to have come rather a long way from the comparison of Jonathan Harmsworth with Ed Milliband don’t you think?

btw:

Ur 30°57?N
Petra 30°19?N
Gaza Pyramids 29°58?N
Persepolis 29°56?N
Mohenjo-daro 27°19?N
Angkor Wat 14°24?N
Machu Picchu 13°9?S
Nazca Lines 14°43?S
Easter Island 27°7?S
range= 57°4?. This is equivalent to 6334 miles. That is not an alignment.

123. Paul Peter Smith

@123 David Hodd
Cid is just trying to get as much out as possible before the Esoteric content filters kick in.

124

Blimey, from the name I thought the posts were written while SoaringCid was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs as in;-

‘to fathom hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of psychedelic’.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy: So what did Viscount Rothermere really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country | moonblogsfromsyb

    […] via Guest Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/10/02/so-what-did-viscount-rothermere-really-believe-in-the-answer… […]

  2. The Millibands and the Daily Mail and How Times Do Not Change. | The Moon

    […] that time. The one headlined  "Up the Blackshirts" is written by no less than the then Lord Rothemere the great grandpapa of the current owner of the Daily Mail to whom Ed Milliband is sending his […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.