'If the Tories had announced they were doing this, Labour would have been up in arms.'@IainDale is 'struggling to think of a positive reason' for the publication of foreign criminals' nationalities. pic.twitter.com/A0X1NQPbpo
Puppet and mouthpiece of the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby, Iain Dale, does not think that the public should be allowed to see or hear the truth on this issue.
The fact is that, proportionate to the population(s), non-whites commit far more crimes than white English/British people.
In fact, even publishing the formal national origins of persons convicted does not and will not tell the whole story, because many of the non-whites committing crimes hold “British” nationality; indeed, many were born here. In quite many cases, those non-whites committing crimes have parents and indeed even grandparents born here, by reason of the mass immigration that has hit Britain in the past 80 years (mostly the past 60 years, indeed the past 30).
I recall how amazed I was, as a belated Bar pupil (trainee barrister) and then junior barrister (early 1990s) to see how high was the proportion of non-whites on trial in the criminal courts of London. That was 33-34 years ago. Imagine now!
If you were to take out the figures relating to “travellers” (Irish tinkers) etc, the proportion of actual English/British defendants would be even smaller, very considerably so,
Of course, as blogged previously, quite a long time ago, LBC is owned by a company itself owned by Jews. Use the searchbox on the blog to discover more.
Putin has offered to halt his SMO of Ukraine along the current front line in order to reach a peace deal with Trump. pic.twitter.com/7wtQP61wma
Security guarantees of the type demanded by Zelensky are practically equivalent to NATO membership anyway, and would be also of the type given by Britain and France to Poland in March 1939. That one made the Second World War almost inevitable. Don’t make the same mistake twice.
Ukraine's accession to NATO will not be on the agenda of US-EU negotiations this week, writes British journalist Owen Matthews in an article for The Telegraph, citing an interview with US President's special envoy Steve Witkoff and leaked information in the press.
Time flies to such an extent that, when I read that book, 14-15 years ago, around 2010 or 2011, I got halfway through before I realized that I had known the author’s mother (though only slightly) in the early 1980s, when I was taking a part-time Russian language course at a language institute near Euston Square in Central London. The language school was part of what is now the University of Westminster. Ludmilla Matthews was one of about 5 teachers I had. I think that her subject was Russian Conversation.
Ludmilla Matthews had something not quite right with one of her feet. She was kind enough to say once that my (in fact quite rudimentary) Russian at the time was “stylish“. I remember her mainly for having talked to me about her reluctant acquaintanceship with a (literally) mad Russian or Russian/Polish girl. That was after said girl had almost kidnapped me by guile, having said that I looked like St. Herman of Alaska (I had a beard at the time), and that she had an icon of St. Herman above her bed at her home in Kensington, and would I like to see it? You get the picture.
Anyway, Owen Matthews, now 53 and a well-known international journalist and writer, must have been about 12 when his mother was my once-a-week teacher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Matthews.
I have written once before on the blog about these matters, I think.
Officials from the US, Europe, and Ukraine were unable to hold a meeting in London to discuss the Ukraine issue because they had failed to bring their positions closer together, Dmitry Peskov said at a briefing:https://t.co/lflKUyaozDpic.twitter.com/raghPzB72F
British author, Matt Goodwin, @GoodwinMJ, explains the Orwellian crack down on free speech in the UK and attempts by government to outlaw any criticism of Islam.
The full interview will be posted this Thursday April 24th at 2pm EST U.S. and 7pm… pic.twitter.com/lHmqmbQdkz
Tellingly, Matt Goodwin has never, not once, put the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby, particularly the malicious, small —but well-funded— “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [or “CAA”], in the dock…
Matt Goodwin? Controlled opposition, but useful all the same (moving the Overton Window etc, and maybe unwittingly paving the way for a later social-national movement).
Well-known Jews who have been mercilessly targeted by other Jews include the jazz musician Gilad Atzmon (I think that he is a half-Jew), author Michael Rosen, and the actress Miriam Margolyes. Another anti-Israel Jewess, the journalist Mira Bar-Hillel, too:
“Ms Bar-Hillel, who was born in Jerusalem and served as a folk singer in the IDF, claimed she was the victim of a trolling campaign. “You cannot criticise anything to do with Israel or Jews. You start by criticising Israeli government policy and then you get attacked by Jews,” she said…“I’m prejudiced against Jews who criticise me. Their religion has everything to do with it. I’m reporting something that’s horribly wrong with the policies of Israel and they attack me. In my long career no other group has acted in this way.
“When I’m being attacked I feel I’m being attacked by communal action. That community view is very dangerous. It is intimidation. The best way to respond to these things is to simply ignore them. It starts to be like a gang-bang.”
✍️ 'Overseas aid is not charity; it’s an investment in global stability that pays dividends for Britain’s security and prosperity' | Writes Hamish de Bretton-Gordon & Tobias Ellwood
Or so say two of the most misguided or wrongheaded (at best) “interventionists”, cheerleaders for the military destabilization of the Middle East, North Africa, and former Soviet Union.
Ocean County. 32-36 years ago, I lived in Middlesex County, very near Monmouth County, near to the Jersey Shore but to the north of where those fires are raging.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the United States now understands Russia's position on the crisis in Ukraine much better after holding a series of bilateral consultations:https://t.co/3OHjPYiQ1mpic.twitter.com/wRtkIOcBOw
Russia is not going to attack anyone, it has no problems with either Finland or Sweden, which have joined NATO, Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with the French magazine Le Point:https://t.co/lgSNVw2Jxzpic.twitter.com/0SqaSOtrME
This blog punches above its weight. It may only have a relatively small number of regular readers (and far fewer commentators), but it has influenced many many people. It has reached directly about 150 states and territories in the world, and quite possibly all 200 or so indirectly.
I have always taken the view that “one human soul is a big audience“, and that if I can influence one young Alexander, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi or, indeed, Moses, then the fact that I do not have a huge audience or a readership of millions becomes irrelevant. As Dietrich Eckart said when nearing the end of his life, “do not mourn me…I shall have influenced history more than any other German“.
I often see used distinctive phrases I myself have used (first) in the past, whether on the blog or from tweets when I still had a Twitter account (a pack of Jews had me expelled from Twitter in 2018, following a concerted campaign or conspiracy which lasted several years, and which continues).
For example, I think I was the first to use the terms “migration invasion” and “migrant invaders”, since echoed by many politicians and others, including even some Prominente from System parties.
If you put a drop of intense ultramarine dye into a pool, pond or lake, after a while, the water goes blue; all the water. My blog has that kind of influence, despite the fact that most of my blog posts have been read by, at most, only a few thousand people (each), even after several years.
It is because my blog has influence far beyond its actual numbers of readers that the Jew-Zionist lobby has made extensive efforts to shut it down over the past 8-9 years since first publication in late 2016.
Well, so far I am still here, and the blog is still being published near-daily, despite malicious complaints by Jews, despite backstairs attempts to procure prosecutions (by Israel puppets such as ex-MP —now “lord”— Ian Austin), despite repeated police interference, despite my having been put on trial in 2023, despite my having been sentenced in 2024, despite everything.
On the macro level, I see things beginning to move my way.
It seems to me that the existence of dedicated cycleways between road and pavement/sidewalk is the key factor, an arrangement I first saw when I was first in the Netherlands, in 1975.
The Vale of Glamorgan farming family being evicted by landowners Legal & General to make way for a new business park. https://t.co/jG06E1UEnd
Crete, as part of Greece, uses the Euro, but even if the £5,000-£6,000 a night cost is nearly 6,000 Euros, that makes little difference. In fact, the ad is clearly aimed at UK people paying in pounds.
On the face of it, there are questions to be answered here.
That man is right. What we are witnessing across the white Western world is an exercise in psychological conditioning on a vast scale. A distortion of the truth on the scale of the “holocaust” narrative, and with far more immediate, and on-the-ground, effects.
Once more, Peter Hitchens trying to fit actual facts into the very outdated “right”/”left” structure of thought. Why bother with this? It is at least 80 years out of date, if not 250 years.
They have gone @jenswoone, not by some accident but because the tax and benefits system, and the greed of employers for cheap labour, brought them to an end. You can get state help for any sort of childcare except the sort you can do yourself. https://t.co/xjUto3OO7y
Lovely to see Blairism still has its defenders in the media even after all this. I never forget the women in Baghdad who gave birth prematurely during the Blair-backed, Bush-imposed 'Shock and Awe'. Shock indeed, but an absence of awe, I rather think. https://t.co/ZErIxhV3Ru
Yes, those who sit in London, or New York City, find it easy to give glib support to the various NWO/ZOG “interventions” in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Libya etc. It is all very different when your own city comes under attack. Two buildings were destroyed, unexpectedly, in New York City in 2001, and the Americans have still not got over the “shock and awe”…
If they tell people to stock up, and people do, then there will be less pressure. Bring down the biosecurity “woke” Australian and New Zealand police state(s)!
Australian former NBA star Andrew Bogut says he was offered money to promote lockdowns, but refused. Clip below, and link to the full 11 minute video released on Instagram yesterday: https://t.co/M2nRfvHlpnpic.twitter.com/vuqk340sM7
Man jailed for eight months for promoting an antilockdown protest in Australia. His sentance was handed out just 1 day after he was arrestedhttps://t.co/KqteLBHzYN
…and all the pseudo-socialists, and self-descibing “Left” on Twitter will welcome the useless untermenschen, and say that they must be prioritized before white Brits. Just as they support “strict lockdown”, the facemask nonsense, “Covid passports” etc. Sick. They have thrown away the substance of socialism while retaining the outward forms of its mid-20thC coercion and propaganda.
I have even seen some (mostly rather old) lunatics (pretending to offer or) offering rooms in their modest homes to migrant-invaders (via Twitter or local newspapers). The same people never offer homeless Brits shelter. Why? Those people are virtue-signallers and/or deluded.
It is absolutely shameful someone should be sent to prison for saying something that offends. Obviously I understand that governments, laws and sentencing are influenced by pressure, funding and lobbying but I didn’t think it would ever be made so obvious.
I watched a BBC2 TV documentary about Venezuela. Something like Venezuela: Revolution in Ruins. I was of course au fait with the way in which other revolutions in history developed and, in many cases, degenerated: Russia/Soviet Union, China, Cambodia/Kampuchea, Ethiopia, Cuba etc, even France (from 1789). However, I especially wanted to understand better why this country, Venezuela, rich in oil, huge in area, fertile, with a coastline on the Caribbean, a number of scenic islands and also a huge exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the Law of the Sea, should be in such a condition that 3 million or more, 10% of its population, have now fled, that large numbers of its inhabitants are starving, or rummaging for food in trash cans or dumps, or are foraging wherever they can.
Why are basic items such as loo roll, bread, milk, even fruit (in a tropical country where many fruits grow wild) effectively unavailable? Why are basic medicines not available? Why is oil being imported when Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, exceeding even those of Saudi Arabia?
There is a natural human desire to make excuses for states espousing the overall values (superficially) espoused by the judging person. Thus we see pro-“socialist” people defending the Soviet record on human rights, living standards or generally, despite the early [Russian Civil] War Communism (under which strikers and others were shot, and anyone late for work could be imprisoned or sent to a labour camp), despite the Leninist and Stalinist repressions, the “GULAG Archipelago”, the Cheka/OGPU/GPU/NKVD/KGB etc. Thus we see people (British, other Europeans, North Americans, others) today defending Castro’s dictatorship in Cuba, despite the large number of persons shot, imprisoned or driven out under socialist rule.
The usual excuses for the failure of an old-style Marxist-Leninist socialist state are that:
foreign intervention ruined the economy and/or made the new regime more severely repressive than it otherwise would have been;
one or more individuals usurped or misused the power which properly belonged to “the people” and/or the “true” socialists;
existing private enterprises or wealthy persons either left the country (with their wealth) or stayed in the country and profiteered; in both cases, these parasitic classes of people sabotaged the socialist economy.
We can look at a few well-known examples to illustrate the syndrome.
Russia
Here is a typical example of a self-deluding socialist, one “Liz from Leeds”, heard via telephone on some daytime TV show (the black woman shown is the presenter):
Aaron Bastani and Ash Sarkar are supporters of Corbyn-Labour and part of a collective called Novara Media. I wrote about them —and others— in this article:
In that clip, hereinabove, “Liz from Leeds” asserts that Soviet socialism failed because
“14 foreign armies smashed it” and then
“Stalin took over and imposed a state-capitalistic totalitarian state”.
(and, by the way, “revolutionary” talking-head Ash Sarkar, on the show as a guest, and who teaches Global Politics at a former polytechnic —!—, can be seen nodding in apparent agreement at this ahistorical nonsense!).
“Liz from Leeds” obviously has little or no real knowledge of what seems to be her main interest, because:
the Intervention by “Western” powers in Russia only started to occur in July 1918, about 8 months after the start of the Russian Civil War. By that date, the various factions in the Civil War had already been fighting for months;
the largest and most powerful foreign contingent, the Czechoslovak Legion, eventually had 40,000 soldiers (93% Czech, 7% Slovak) in Russia, but this was not a foreign army in the sense of a state-controlled force. Czechoslovakia only declared independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in December 1918. The Czechs etc were in Russia because they had been fighting with the Russian Empire against the Central Powers (including Austria-Hungary) in the First World War.
all this in a country of vast extent (over 90x the size of the UK), encompassing 11 time zones, in which the Bolshevik forces numbered some 5.5 million (and the White or anti-Bolshevik forces about 2.4 million).
in other words, the Intervention was fundamentally a side-show in the Russian Civil War. The war started in late 1917, eight months before Intervention, and continued until late 1922, two years after almost all Allied forces had left in 1920 (though Japanese forces occupied small parts of the later-termed “Soviet Far East” until 1922, and part of Sakhalin Island until 1925); in fact, the larger contingents, such as the 23,000 Greek troops in and around Odessa (to protect Black Sea Greeks), were only there for three months;
while Intervention affected the development of the Soviet Union (established late 1922), it did so mainly in the psychological sense. In fact, there were still outbreaks of anti-Soviet fighting as late as 1934 (in Central Asia), but there was no foreign backing for that. It was purely local and regional.
As to personality-cult etc, Stalin expanded the slave-state aspects of the Soviet Union, but that already existed: Lenin and his fellow-Communists (Jews and part-Jews, mostly, such as Dzerzhinsky) set up that system as soon as they seized power (in one fairly small corner of the Empire, i.e. Petrograd and Moscow, initially): executions on a vast scale, prison camps, prisons, labour camps, secret police and so on;
the Soviet Union was “State Capitalism”, but that was not the creation of Stalin. It was there from the very start of Lenin’s rule;
even the system of “nomenklatura”, with its gradations of special rations (the best being the Kremlin Ration [Kremlyovsky Payok], which developed under Stalin into a whole sector of special-privilege shops, apartments, health services etc), started during the Civil War: http://www.polithistory.ru/en/visit_us/view.php?id=1735
As to sabotage by parasitic classes, the Bolsheviks first destroyed (killed, exiled, imprisoned) the Imperial Family, then the aristocracy and the wealthy merchant class, but then moved on to those peasant families who were more affluent than average (the “kulaks“), then later to the peasantry as a whole (via Collectivization). Eventually new targets had to be found: a myriad of Diversionists, Deviationists, Trotskyists etc. “Enemies of the people”. By that time, most of the “former people” of pre-1918 had been exiled overseas, killed, imprisoned, or reduced to complete poverty in internal exile. Few existed in Soviet territory, outside camps and prisons, after the 1930s.
[Addendum: re-reading this in 2021, I realize that some people may object that Dzerzhinsky was not Jewish. Wikipedia describes his parents as “ethnically Polish”. Sadly, Wikipedia is not infallible. Though Dzerzhinky’s parents were technically second-generation “noble” under the Tsarist meritocratic honour system (Lenin’s father was “ennobled” for service as a schools inspector), and mainly of Polish origin, Dzerzhinsky’s father was part-Jew (as was Lenin’s mother)].
The “Liz from Leeds” school of cod-history is based on small nuggets of truth as well as large measures of wishful thinking. The Tsarist system was in need of reform; there were huge inequities; there was a foreign Intervention, though very limited, composed arguably of 12 mostly small forces rather than “14 armies” (and never intended to actually overthrow Bolshevism); there was the cult of personality (though it predated Stalin’s supremacy and was the child of Lenin, Trotsky/Bronstein and others in the early 1920s); there were wealthy or not-poor classes who could to some extent be described as parasitic (especially the absentee and rentier nobles). It is worth remembering that, pre-1914, the Russian economy was booming, and looked like overtaking Europe and North America before long.
However, the Soviet Union was badly flawed from its inception, and its evil seed was Marxism-Leninism. The idea that the political sphere (the State) should rule over both the economic sphere and the sphere of spirit, culture, education, medicine, was wrong in conception and was bound to lead to a greater or lesser disaster. The same mistaken conception brought low other lands (eg Cuba) and, our present interest, Venezuela.
In fact, the syndrome, in less savage or severe forms, also applies to the social-democratic regimes in Europe, such as the post-1945 British governments. Harold Wilson of the Labour Party blamed “speculators” and “the Gnomes of Zurich” (Swiss bankers) for the UK’s economic problems of the 1960s and mid-1970s, rather than nationalized industries and subsidies paid to industry and agriculture.
Below, a cartoon for “Liz from Leeds” and her colleagues in (?) the local social workers’ union or comprehensive school staff-room:
Cuba
The same applies to Cuba: socio-economic inequities, leading to revolution. That revolution elevating personalities (Fidel, Che etc). State takeover of the economy, including all major industry and agriculture. Eventually, shortages, corruption (you don’t think that Castro lived like the poor mulatto saps he ruled, do you?), repression. Cuba even had ineffective foreign (US) interventions: the Bay of Pigs botched “invasion” by proxy, the sanctions regime imposed by the USA (termed “Blockade” by Castro); attempts to assassinate Castro in various absurd ways (eg poisoned ice-cream). As for scapegoating, the Cuban regime has blamed American policy, counter-revolutionary Cubans based in Miami, but also Cubans in Cuba and who wanted to leave in the 1960s and 1970s, which people were called gusanos (“worms”).
The Cuban economy was kept afloat by Soviet subsidy (direct subsidy and also via preferential pricing of Cuban agricultural exports to the Soviet Union) until the early 1990s. Cuba then had to introduce a free-market element to the economy, in order to prevent complete collapse.
Venezuela
So we return to Venezuela. Again, socio-economic inequities led to demands for reform. Eventually, a revolution by election happened, in 1998, in this case led by an Army general, Hugo Chavez. I have no idea what Chavez was like as a general (though judging by his botched first coup d’etat, in 1992, not very effective), but as a political leader I regard him as having been a blundering clown, sometimes well-meaning, genial, friendly, sometimes sinister and frightening. In fact, with his televized clowning, inability to master facts, and populist emoting, he was reminiscent of a certain British politician, one who is superficially on another ideological page— Boris Johnson.
As the TV documentary I saw noted, Venezuela’s oil wealth bankrolled the social programmes which improved the lot of many of the poorer Venezuelans. Chavez was voted into power by 56% of the population, mostly the poor and some of the “disenchanted middle class”.
No attempt was made to diversify the economy. When oil prices fell, Venezuela went into a spiral. The tensions within the country worsened, many left (the wealthy by air to the USA and other countries, the middleclass nouveaux pauvres and the real/always-been poor by car or on foot to neighbouring countries).
The US sanctions on Venezuela have enabled the Venezuelan government, now under Maduro, to claim, however implausibly, that those sanctions largely caused the economic collapse.
Chavez expropriated and redistributed land, again with “good intentions”, but the net result has been both a falling-off in food production and a great fall in dollar-exports, which in turn restricted the supply of foreign imports of food (and other goods).
Chavez blamed “speculators and hoarders” for the problems, imposed price controls, replaced private supermarkets by a chain of 16,000 State shops and supermarkets, which however now have almost bare shelves. Chavez also nationalized large food producers. The result has been a breakdown in food supply. Children are starving, adults and children alike scavenge in the trash for anything to eat. The Roman Catholic Church has asked those who discard any food waste to label it so that people can rummage in the rubbish dumps and trash cans for it. Meanwhile, the government set up 6,000 soup kitchens.
Thoughts
I have never been to Venezuela (nor any part of Latin America south of Panama), and I have only known one person who has visited the country (a girlfriend who attended a week-long international conference in Caracas in the 1980s). My views are therefore taken from what I have read and what I have watched on TV.
It is clear to me that Venezuela’s problems are, at root, political. There was always poverty there, but the cure has been worse than the illness. Chavez was a political clown, who had no idea how to run a government, let alone an economy, but who decided, amid clowning and behaving like a public entertainer, to take the reins of the economy firmly in his own hands. He took over the oil industry, agriculture, food production and distribution, imports and exports generally, even banking. He tried to run industries himself or via equally-inept cronies.
The result has been disastrous. Thousands and quite possibly millions may have died from lack of food and medicine, as well as via militarized repression (the troops always look fit and well-fed…). To my mind, those responsible for this politico-economic disaster could not complain were they to be taken out and shot. Chavez himself died a few years ago; his daughter is apparently one of the wealthiest women in the world. Before people start praising Chavez, they might start to ask where those hundreds of millions of dollars came from.
What Chavez should have done would have been to
regulate, tax, but not operate businesses;
by all means nationalize oil production, as a national strategic asset, but employ only experts experienced in upstream and downstream oil to operate it;
work with landowners (existing landowners and new entrants) to maximize and diversify domestic food production; set a cap on acreage held by any one family;
revalue the currency;
create social programmes from taxes raised, not directly from oil revenues.
All the same, there are those in British political life who praised Chavez: Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn, to name the two most prominent. They have been quiet about Venezuela for a while now, as that country slides into chaos, but some of their colleagues still beat the drum. Here is Chris Williamson MP (whom I am loath to impliedly criticize, because he is pro-animal welfare, and used to retweet me on Twitter occasionally; and because the Jew-Zionists hate him, but truth conquers all):
(in fact, the Venezuelan government has only hit 24% of its housing target, though the programme itself may be OK in principle).
It seems to me that the only thing to do in Venezuela is to rip up the Chavez-Maduro system and begin ad novum. That means a different government, an all-out war on crime, corruption and disorder, a private-enterprise economy (except for oil production), a clear and effective tax system, an appeal for all Venezuelans now overseas to return and to help rebuild. Also, the government has lost control of the borders of the State and has lost control of the streets. Gangs are rampant. Firing squads may be necessary. An effective border force must be set up. Above all, consumer goods and/or including food must be prioritized, urgently. In this case, butter before guns, up to a point at least.
Racial Aspects
Racial aspects are important. Cuba was ruled by Spanish-descended Europeans and to some extent also mestizos, until Castro drove most of them to the USA or elsewhere. Now Cuba has a far higher percentage of blacks than it had in 1959. Venezuela is about 54% mestizo, only 43% white (and that figure is out of date; there must be far fewer white people now).
Could It Happen Elsewhere?
Never say never. Russia was booming only four or five years before it fell into civil war and despair under Lenin. Cuba, though corrupt and unequal, was in a far better state in the 1940s and 1950s (even though plagued by the Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky etc) than it is now. From what I have seen on TV, much of Havana seems to be just falling apart, literally. As to Europe, who knows? Reasonably-civilized Yugoslavia fell into civil war and bloody chaos only 25 years ago.
Now that Europe has been invaded by untermenschen, who are breeding, who knows what lies ahead? Britain is increasingly non-white, while the real British (white) population is, in my view at least, less and less cultured. You only have to look at those who are now MPs. Many MPs, and not only Labour Party ones, would not have been seen in the Palace of Westminster before the 1990s, unless working as cleaners or office staff.
As to economy, we have seen that Corbyn-Labour (yes, well-meaning, as were many radicals and revolutionaries prior to taking power) has praised Castro, Chavez, even Lenin and Trotsky! British Labour Party policy may not go as far as that which Labour leaders have praised in other lands, but never say never…
Listening again to painfully naive “Liz from Leeds”, it occurs to me that her definition of “Communism” could apply to almost any self-describing political movement, as well as to, say, Christianity. In fact, Valentin Tomberg [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Tomberg], whose mother and pet dog were both killed (tied to a tree and shot) by those lovely kind Communists after the Bolshevik Revolution, made the point in one of his works that it was the small “Christian” element in Communism that made people willing to support it and struggle for it.
“Communism” as defined by “Liz from Leeds” is the sort of platitudinous wishful thought that might be heard on Radio 4’s Thought For The Day. Stalin once cut short a discussion (which must have been unwittingly hilarious) among his mostly useless Politburo members, as to what “Socialism” (the earlier stage, in Marxist theory) was, by saying “I’ll define Socialism for you— it’s where the Red Army halts its trucks!”
21 January 2019: a few more thoughts
Some reading the above article may imagine that my being opposed to fossilized 20thC socialism must mean that I am a free-market anti-communist and nothing more. Not so. My views favour policies which are social, rather than socialist. For me, economic enterprises must be regulated and taxed (and that is the business of government), but not directly run by the State. By the same token, the world of business must not interfere with the organs of the State, must not buy or own politicians or civil servants.
29 January 2019
It occurs to me that Che Guevara was at least to some extent in the real world, unlike most of those who admire him…
Andrew Neil on BBC2 This Week nails Ken Livingstone to the mast…
"If all that's true, it would be appalling, but I have watched America impose sanctions… an appalling impact on their country" @ken4london on how Alan Johnson & Esther McVey reacted to his #bbctw film
Below, an interview with Venezuelan quasi-dictator Maduro. While he is probably right to say that the USA would like to have a firmer superpower grip on Venezuela, Maduro cannot explain Venezuela’s fall into chaotic poverty by reference to that American wish or strategy. He’s an idiot…
President Maduro tries to make a BBC journalist understand the political war that the US extreme right is waging against Venezuela. pic.twitter.com/fNQZplj1W1
Venezuela's health crisis is so bad that patients who go the hospital need to bring their own food and medical supplies, like syringes and scalpels, as well as their own soap and water, says a new report. https://t.co/dFRcpuS4X5
"While migrants and cocaine leave Venezuelan shores in growing quantities, food and medicines travel the other way, for purchase by those in Venezuela who still have access to hard currency," writes @JerryMcdermott:https://t.co/InI2XAYPi3
Well, the Venezuelan rebellion has failed, mainly because the Army would not back it. Also it seems that the leader of the uprising, who now hides out in the Spanish Embassy in Caracas, is a silly ineffective fellow. We saw something similar in Zimbabwe, when the opposition to Mugabe years ago was led by a silly and thick African (supposed) “liberal” (later killed in the USA, in a plane crash). The lesson is that a dictator may be opposed by less wicked people but those possibly better people may simply be ineffective.
Meanwhile, for the Venezuelan poor (i.e. almost all inhabitants), the agony (caused mainly by simplistic socialism) continues:
Venezuela’s fall is the single largest economic collapse outside of war in at least 45 years, economists say https://t.co/EP1bJWFTJV
Here is another little twit of the same or similar tribe, one “Chris#WeBackCorbyn/@Socialist_Chris”:
Criminals, thieves and worse. I wouldn't even allow them to stand.
I don't agree with fascist parties being allowed to take part in democratic elections, considering they stand for dismantling democracy in the first place.https://t.co/p7BY8nQeUy
— Chris (still a socialist) (@Socialist_Chris) July 16, 2019
To understand the fullness of this idiot’s repressive ideological fanaticism, you have to read the whole thread. He thinks that parties or people which are “fascist” (as decided by him? as decided by a troika of secret police officers? as decided by a Stalinist-style fixed meeting of “activists”?) should be barred from elections or other political activity.
“Socialist Chris” seems very limited in his mentality. His derivative and flawed narrative about being intolerant of intolerance is not only hackneyed in the extreme, but is dependent on him or people like him deciding what is “fascist” (and so unacceprable…to him). He says that “you cannot compare fascism and socialism”. In a sense, true. Many 20thC types of “socialism” were far worse (more repressive, more evil, less effective in any field but repression) than Fascism (eg Mussolini, Franco) or even (different from “Fascism”), National Socialism.
Those books, and thousands of others, show that when relatively undiluted “socialism” takes power (whether by force or election), political freedom vanishes. That has been true in every instance of importance, from the Soviet Union and China to Cuba and Venezuela.
I suppose that “Socialist Chris” would make the usual excuses (see above) re. all that. He cannot see that “socialism” in the 20th (and now 21st Century, as far as “socialism” has even existed since 1989) is and has been far more repressive than either “fascism” or National Socialism, and that both Fascism and National Socialism achieved far more for the people than Marxist (etc) “socialism”, and in far less time.
An idiot, and yet looking at his tweets, I see that he makes much of having written a “dissertation” (on post-1945 “fascism”). No university mentioned. Maybe Oxford, maybe Cambridge, maybe the God-Knows-Where University of Travel and Tourism, who knows? No mention of a specific profession or occupation, just that he works up to 13 hours a day (which seems doubtful, but maybe that’s life in a call centre…I wouldn’t know).
Here’s another idiot, supporting “Socialist Chris”:
What happens if they stand, win and then remove the vote? You know, without telling you before they won that election that they would seek to do so?
Ahh sure don't worry about it, it'll never happen again, we've all learned so much. 🙄 https://t.co/QmxlVKHLdV
— Chris (still a socialist) (@Socialist_Chris) July 16, 2019
Marxist “socialists” wouldn’t do that, would they? Remove the vote from people? Never! Ha ha! No, they would more likely seize power forcibly in the first place, then label all opposition “fascist” (and so barred from existing at all), then hold meaningless “votes” in elections containing only approved non-“fascists”…
It is worrying that someone such as “Socialist Chris” can undergo primary, secondary and tertiary education, including as it seems a valueless “Master’s degree” and even perhaps a pointless “doctorate”, yet still be unable to reason. But that is where we are…
Update, 25 August 2013
Here’s another idiot, one @eshaLegal. A lawyer? If so, remarkably ill-informed about modern history, especially that of the Soviet Union, Stalin etc. Seems to be an Indian or Pakistani living in the USA. Read the thread to see others put her right (more or less right), anyway.
Victims of Stalinism? You mean Nazi war criminals? You want us to remember Nazi war criminals along with Nazi victims?
Ian Robert Millard 