I remember David Kelly. My memory is confused on this bit (on phone in sticks slow data) (plus senile stupidity) BBC journalist too? Andrew Merton?? Or is that summat else. I do seem to remember Claire Short was sceptical but was persuaded by Blair?
I’m not a blind believer in Gov statements but can’t see this being a scam by May.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
can’t see this being a scam by May.
No way could it possibly be a May,EU/Ukraine/US,false flag set up of Putin to create project fear and support for more EU/NATO rattling of the bear’s cage,all having a clear motive and opportunity.
As opposed to Putin supposedly used a hit squad based at the Russian embassy to deliver a chem WMD downgraded to just make any victims it contacts ill and stable in hospital and that can be easily washed away in a domestic washing machine and shower without it hurting anyone,with Putin’s calling card conveniently attached.All to attack a rival/traitor/double agent on the streets of Salisbury,who Russia had previously released from a Russian prison and somehow conveniently ended up here.The only possible motive for going to all that trouble as opposed to a bullet in the head obviously being a warning to the UK government.
In which case why would Putin have then replied to May’s idiotic ultimatum with a reference to ( threat of ) Russia’s ‘nuclear’ WMD’s status ?.As opposed to him saying yes that was meant,just as it looks,as a chem WMD warning and if you don’t stop messing about on our borders we’ll deliver the real thing ?. 
So what did NATO do.Did it kick out every bleedin Russian ‘diplomat’ in the west and threaten Russia with a bigger relatiatory WMD strike which would have settled the whole thing and then we all could have got on with Brexit.No.
Feel free to explain why.Bunch of cowards trying to start a fight with Russia as part of another agenda and which they haven’t even got the bottle to go through with if Russia actually bites at some point.
A ■■■ for tat exchange of Nukes would have made Brexit talks somewhat dedundant. !
I don’t think anyone is saying those being expelled from the UK had any involvement in the poisoning.
May etc having some motive? Possibly but I’d think they’d use subtler methods? Maybe not.
Putin has motive and the means and gave him a (unnecessary!) boost in the elections.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
During the blame game several things have slipped through the net [emoji12]
We have a wet fish MP throwing wet fish into the river Thames to protest at a failed fisheries deal after Brexit. We get our fishing grounds back for one day.
Juddian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUJHZxgHm64George Galloway putting it all in a nutshell.
So they were poisoned in their home. Went for a meal. Took a walk and sat down and only then the poison took effect?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Juddian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUJHZxgHm64George Galloway putting it all in a nutshell.
So they were poisoned in their home. Went for a meal. Took a walk and sat down and only then the poison took effect?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Some deadly nerve agent that
Interestingly Galloway interviewed Peter Hitchens on this very subject, these two men are about as opposed on most subjects as you could get, makes interesting listening.
youtube.com/watch?v=BFdGogalR3s
Franglais:
A ■■■ for tat exchange of Nukes would have made Brexit talks somewhat dedundant. !
Bloody remianers, they’ll go to any lengths to avoid Brexit. 
Franglais:
May etc having some motive? Possibly but I’d think they’d use subtler methods? Maybe not.
Putin has motive and the means and gave him a (unnecessary!) boost in the elections.Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
For whoever did it, I assume the rather strange method was chosen to have maximum public impact, for whatever motive they had.
A standard assassination would have been far easier and far more difficult to apportion blame to certain parties, whether Russia wanted to send out a message to the West and any dissidents or it was a plot to discredit Russia, after all they’re a thorn in the side of the West and being blamed for electoral interference and supporting the rise in populist movements in the West.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
can’t see this being a scam by May.No way could it possibly be a May
You’re joking aren’t you, the pair of you. This is a dream ticket for May on every single front - I’m not suggesting she has fabricated the underlying circumstances, but you can be assured that it will be exaggerated and milked for everything it is possibly worth to the Tories.
If you notice, the day it happened there was uproar, and yet the media has almost entirely backpedalled - with even some Tories saying Corbyn’s approach is actually the right one, and they want to see material evidence and international cooperation on this issue, not tittle-tattle from turncoats and a rush to unilateral militarism.
I come across a story about Craig Murray yesterday, an ex-ambassador who was ruined and smeared after he blew the whistle on Blair’s support of torture by other regimes, and he says that reading between the lines that Porton Down have not yet found any evidence of Russian involvement, and that they have been leant on to create a link to Russia where none yet exists (much as Blair leant on the intelligence community with Iraq, and then exaggerated and inflated what little concessions they made).
Franglais:
A ■■■ for tat exchange of Nukes would have made Brexit talks somewhat dedundant. !
I don’t think anyone is saying those being expelled from the UK had any involvement in the poisoning.
May etc having some motive? Possibly but I’d think they’d use subtler methods? Maybe not.
Putin has motive and the means and gave him a (unnecessary!) boost in the elections.
You didn’t answer the questions why did Putin suddenly switch from a supposed Chem weapons attack warning to a nuclear one and it seems strange why NATO didn’t respond to that warning with another along the lines of we’ve got nukes too.Oh wait obviously like you NATO hasn’t got the bottle.Which is why we’re in this even more dangerous mess of NATO and the EU rattling the bear’s cage and then fighting like girls when he bites.
As for Putin’s motives.Surely two bullets in the head by professionals with diplomatic immunity.Followed by the same nuclear warning that he issued anyway would have done a better job for his election results.Than going to all the trouble of a silly chemical weapons attack using a so called ‘WMD’ that only puts its victims on a hospital ward and that can be sorted out by just washing it off.
As opposed to May saying oh look we’re effectively at war with Russia and Russia started it so we must stay with the EU and its policy of stupid eastward expasnionism thereby annoying the Russkies even more.All that in an environment where those like you a scared of using the nuclear deterrent assuming that those Trident missiles aren’t just empty cans anyway because,like you,the US has also lost its bottle for defence based on mutually assured destruction.
There’s no way that Putin could have made this zb up.While what is certain is that regardless of what Putin did or didn’t do.We’re all in a much more dangerous situation now.With NATO showing weakness in the face of a clear nuclear warning by Putin or for that matter even ‘if’ this was really a Russian chem weapons warning.
Which leaves the only other possibility that May knows that this is just an EU false flag op for the consumption of the Leave vote and NATO knows and Putin knows and her remain supporters know.Which is why the cowards didn’t want to meet Putin’s threat with a WMD threat in kind.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Franglais:
can’t see this being a scam by May.No way could it possibly be a May
You’re joking aren’t you, the pair of you. This is a dream ticket for May on every single front - I’m not suggesting she has fabricated the underlying circumstances, but you can be assured that it will be exaggerated and milked for everything it is possibly worth to the Tories.
If you notice, the day it happened there was uproar, and yet the media has almost entirely backpedalled - with even some Tories saying Corbyn’s approach is actually the right one, and they want to see material evidence and international cooperation on this issue, not tittle-tattle from turncoats and a rush to unilateral militarism.
I come across a story about Craig Murray yesterday, an ex-ambassador who was ruined and smeared after he blew the whistle on Blair’s support of torture by other regimes, and he says that reading between the lines that Porton Down have not yet found any evidence of Russian involvement, and that they have been leant on to create a link to Russia where none yet exists (much as Blair leant on the intelligence community with Iraq, and then exaggerated and inflated what little concessions they made).
Unlike Franglais yes I was sarcastically joking. 
While unlike you I think the motive was definitely a typical remainer one of the EU = peace and strength so we must stay with the EU which has backfired catastrophically on the stupid zb hag with both the Leave vote ( like myself and Juddian ) and Putin.While it’s so much better to have the Germans and Poles and Ukrainians onside in an argument with Russia.Using provocation tactics to get what we want.While downgrading the old proven methods of the nuclear deterrent combined with diplomacy,to the point of uselessness.What could possibly go wrong.
muckles:
Franglais:
A ■■■ for tat exchange of Nukes would have made Brexit talks somewhat dedundant. !Bloody remianers, they’ll go to any lengths to avoid Brexit.
Franglais:
May etc having some motive? Possibly but I’d think they’d use subtler methods? Maybe not.
Putin has motive and the means and gave him a (unnecessary!) boost in the elections.Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
For whoever did it, I assume the rather strange method was chosen to have maximum public impact, for whatever motive they had.
A standard assassination would have been far easier and far more difficult to apportion blame to certain parties, whether Russia wanted to send out a message to the West and any dissidents or it was a plot to discredit Russia, after all they’re a thorn in the side of the West and being blamed for electoral interference and supporting the rise in populist movements in the West.
Surely blowing the mark’s head off in the open in the middle of Salisbury with a couple of hollow points and then saying he’ll nuke us if we don’t like it and honour the assassin’s diplomatic immunity would have created maximum public impact.You know the same nuclear threat that he gave May when she issued her ‘ultimatum’.
Remainers not only can’t do maths but don’t understand the difference between a threat used as a deterrent v actually pressing the button.
It’s so much better to hold war games on Russia’s borders and tell Putin that Crimea doesn’t belong to Russia and Ukraine belongs in the EU so that we can fill it with more NATO hardware.Then run away crying like girls when he goes old school and says he’ll nuke us ( or maybe even Chem us ) if we don’t go away and stop annoying him.
I hear this stuff about “Fear of Tsarist Russia” - but when was the last time that “Tsarist Russia” actually attacked Britain in any shape or form?
The trick with getting “Conspiracy Theories” laughed out of the arena, - is to tell mostly some “obvious” truths, and then chuck in some mis-worded aspect to be taken as gospel along with the rest.
Eg. “Diana died in a car crash” which would be true, regardless of “Who caused that car crash”.
Another example would be “Russia invaded Crimea” which is a bit like saying “Britain invaded the Malvinos in 1982, taking it off the rightful owners, Argentina”.
When two nations have a different version of what they see history to be, - you enforce YOUR version with Imperial might. Take away the empire - and everything is up for grabs, history ending up being re-written with impunity by the biggest and most powerful liars.
The politicians of the Liberal Left are best at such bull, of course. It’s always “about something else, other than the issues” with them.
Just as we had throughout the 1980’s a Thatcher/Reagan notion that “We are gonna get nuked by Russia any day, perma-DefCon 2” situation, - we forget the fact that over 4m of us had no jobs and no prospects because Thatcher had cut former tradespeople to the bone in our economy, rendering worthless all kinds of technical qualifications in the process.
Roll on thirty years, and we now have not one - but TWO generations of people who just “Can’t do stuff” for themselves any more.
So, governments tell lies - to deflect the public from unpalatable truths, that they could do something serious about - but won’t - because higher powers pay them not to upset the applecart.
(1) The government lies about the NHS, because what really needs to be done - is not so much spend more money on it, but get rid of those people who work for the NHS who waste money.
(2) The government lies about our military standing, because if we are in danger from overseas elements - then it is those actual dangers that the government refuses to do anything about, whilst bigging-up a different danger, that doesn’t actually exist in this universe. Eg. Islamic State are a present danger to the British Public, but Russia haven’t killed any British people in a “Terror attack” in living memory. So you re-label the facts to suit your argument. Leave the ISIS bomber “3000” alone to kill their next victims, whilst demonizing Putin, because he happens to be “Not a liberal leftie” world leader. That the Counter-Terrorism department have taken over this Salisbury thing, suggests that they are currently kicking their heels over the next would-be ISIS attack, as well of course.
The big question I’ve got is WHY are the Western powers doing this? What’s in it for them really?
If I walk down a random London East End street these days, then the chances are next to zero that I will be harmed by a “Russian Agent”, although there’s a somewhat higher chance of a Ukrainian agent pretending to be Russian (they speak the same language, after all - do we know the difference in their accents?) who might have it in their remit to continue rubbishing “Russia and things Russian” in the world.
In practice though, I’m most likely to get knifed by an Ethnic minority of some description, for likely “invading their zone without paying a forfeit” which is actually a lot more likely to happen than me get blown up or run over by the next would-be ISIS attack. Acid attack? Nah. This is Ethnic-on-Ethnic crime, as are “Honour Killings”. If you treat your own people like dirt - then all the rest of us can do is “stay out of that part of town” as the police have been instructed to do already.
I’m probably not going to get shot though, as I’m hardly likely to be in the areas where gun-toting indivuduals looking for trouble might be lurking.
I have not been to London now since 2015. It’s too expensive, too risky, and too unwelcoming. Then there’s the hoops one has to jump through to work in London these days.
Well, our capital city is rotting on the vine - but to suggest we do something about it as a Nation - gets quickly slapped down as “Nationlist Country Lover? - Off to jail with you!” as the heads of EDL recently found to their cost, that “Free Speech” is only free - if you’re not of the Right.
It’s only the public’s reluctance to “go to war” that allows the Liberal Left to keep us in check, the way they do.
I’m still asking the question “Why are our leaders letting this happen to us?” There doesn’t seem to be any amount they could possibly be paid that would make it worth their while…
If Law and Order finally breaks down in this country - we’ll be fighting our own “Jihad” - just to take back control of our own land from the Traitor-backed Fifth Columnists that have brought our former glorious nation to it’s knees - and in the name of WHAT? I would UNDERSTAND people being paid Millions to sell their country out? There’s NO excuse for selling out to the enemies actually attacking us though. 
Thought provoking post there Winseer, though i wonder how long people like us will go on before the current jackboots doing the will of the state kick the door in, you know they’ll come for us eventually.
The current bogeyman is anyone to the right of the left must think, now branded the extreme right, and we’ve seen several young people with conservative views held in detention and banned from entering the country in the last 2 weeks by the person currently masquerading as a Home Sec.
Tommy Robinson went to Speaker’s Corner last Sunday to deliver the speech which the banned Martin Sellner was going to read out, though if you only listen to state sponsored propaganda you probably have no idea what i’m talking about.
How long Tommy will last before the state manages to get rid of him one way or another is the question.
We have entered a totalitarian time in our history, a time when free speech is not just no longer allowed but it’s increasingly likely saying or doing the wrong thing will not just lose you a job/home/position and off to prison, but also your life is in grave danger because they’ll arrange for the useful idiots to deal with you, as they indeed tried with Tommy.
We have a fifth column that have been invited in and not only allowed to do their worse, but encouraged to do so and paid to do so, and some people are wondering why?
It’s a quandy, and i suspect the answers are several but i think this fifth column is the main wedge in the divide and rule regime of the govts we have had for the last 30 years, even poor old Thatcher was an unwitting pawn in this game, doing her part by destroying systematically our manufacturing base which is/was after all the back bone of this industrial nation, i think she finally realised what the score was and who the real enemies of the country were, well represented by the pro EU of the time and now the remain faction in the tory party and politicians in general, and they stabbed her in the back the second she was no longer willing to go along with it.
Another irony is the new fifth column are just another sub set of useful idiots, but the the state has overegged this pudding somewhat and this fifth column is getting way out of control, no go zones, rampant child ■■■■ by a sub set (lets not call it that gentler term grooming eh? its the ■■■■ of lower class young girls in the main) and the arrest of fathers by the state’s now politically motivated enforcers who tried to get their little girls back, no you could not make this up either, and what is coming is going to play into the state’s hands.
The public are duped, JSW’s, antifa, hope not soap, assorted useful idiots wailing about how terrified they are of right wing extremists you couldn’t make this ■■■■■■■■ up either, they’ve jailed the Britain First leaders for hate, they used Farage to destroy the BNP (yes and he takes credit for it) because the BNP were actually becoming a political force and had to go (they tried to jail Griffin twice probably hoping he too would die in prison, but unfortunately the jury didn’t do as told), and they’ve infiltrated UKIP to neuter that when it was no longer useful.
Now whether you had any sympathy at all with the BNP or Britain First the EDL or indeed UKIP, they are to varying degress vilified by the state propaganda machine, with UKIP the least hated because its a controllable safety valve for those who won’t willingly be forced into the lib lab two cheeks of the same arse choice you are only supposed to make.
Yet hated as they are i’m struggling to remember the atrocities committed by these groups, they don’t threaten to kill those who disagree, they don’t slit throats, they don’t bomb innocent children attending concerts,they don’t attack trains or buses, they don’t mow down people in the street or out shopping with their families…and yes we’ve had one incident of an idiot retaliating with a vehicle but he did not come from any of those groups and nor did the other nutter who stabbed Jo Cox…and they don’t systematically ■■■■ children of different backgrounds with the seeming approval of our state enforcers.
Quite what they the establishment hopes to gain from all this i don’t know, i suspect much of the ruling establishment have no more idea of the reasons why this has been done to the country than any of us, they’ve enjoyed the twenty pieces of silver and their little bit of power and glory and have gone along by saying what was required at the time, maybe there’s a bit of appeasement and self preservation at the back of it which would be understandable, the idea that by being seen to be on the right side of what is coming will devour them last, but devour them and their children it surely will.
Maybe the Cotswolds will eventually be a secured off protected area as a refuge for the more equal than others that have enabled the destruction of Britain…note the corridor from that area to the expensive side of the capital is devoid of industralisation and ghetto style living, this isn’t by accident.
Evil people with unlimited funds are at the back of all this.
No one is safe, Orwell had no idea how far this would go, get your eyes and ears away from the state misinformation machine and see for yourselves what the hell is going on.
Juddian:
Thought provoking post there Winseer, though i wonder how long people like us will go on before the current jackboots doing the will of the state kick the door in, you know they’ll come for us eventually.The current bogeyman is anyone to the right of the left must think, now branded the extreme right, and we’ve seen several young people with conservative views held in detention and banned from entering the country in the last 2 weeks by the person currently masquerading as a Home Sec.
Tommy Robinson went to Speaker’s Corner last Sunday to deliver the speech which the banned Martin Sellner was going to read out, though if you only listen to state sponsored propaganda you probably have no idea what i’m talking about.
How long Tommy will last before the state manages to get rid of him one way or another is the question.We have entered a totalitarian time in our history, a time when free speech is not just no longer allowed but it’s increasingly likely saying or doing the wrong thing will not just lose you a job/home/position and off to prison, but also your life is in grave danger because they’ll arrange for the useful idiots to deal with you, as they indeed tried with Tommy.
We have a fifth column that have been invited in and not only allowed to do their worse, but encouraged to do so and paid to do so, and some people are wondering why?
It’s a quandy, and i suspect the answers are several but i think this fifth column is the main wedge in the divide and rule regime of the govts we have had for the last 30 years, even poor old Thatcher was an unwitting pawn in this game, doing her part by destroying systematically our manufacturing base which is/was after all the back bone of this industrial nation, i think she finally realised what the score was and who the real enemies of the country were, well represented by the pro EU of the time and now the remain faction in the tory party and politicians in general, and they stabbed her in the back the second she was no longer willing to go along with it.
Another irony is the new fifth column are just another sub set of useful idiots, but the the state has overegged this pudding somewhat and this fifth column is getting way out of control, no go zones, rampant child ■■■■ by a sub set (lets not call it that gentler term grooming eh? its the ■■■■ of lower class young girls in the main) and the arrest of fathers by the state’s now politically motivated enforcers who tried to get their little girls back, no you could not make this up either, and what is coming is going to play into the state’s hands.
The public are duped, JSW’s, antifa, hope not soap, assorted useful idiots wailing about how terrified they are of right wing extremists
Now whether you had any sympathy at all with the BNP or Britain First the EDL or indeed UKIP, they are to varying degress vilified by the state propaganda machine, with UKIP the least hated because its a controllable safety valve for those who won’t willingly be forced into the lib lab two cheeks of the same arse choice you are only supposed to make.
Yet hated as they are i’m struggling to remember the atrocities committed by these groups, they don’t threaten to kill those who disagree, they don’t slit throats, they don’t bomb innocent children attending concerts,they don’t attack trains or buses, they don’t mow down people in the street or out shopping with their families…and yes we’ve had one incident of an idiot retaliating with a vehicle but he did not come from any of those groups and nor did the other nutter who stabbed Jo Cox…and they don’t systematically ■■■■ children of different backgrounds with the seeming approval of our state enforcers.
Quite what they the establishment hopes to gain from all this i don’t know, i suspect much of the ruling establishment have no more idea of the reasons why this has been done to the country than any of us, they’ve enjoyed the twenty pieces of silver and their little bit of power and glory and have gone along by saying what was required at the time, maybe there’s a bit of appeasement and self preservation at the back of it which would be understandable, the idea that by being seen to be on the right side of what is coming will devour them last, but devour them and their children it surely will.
Maybe the Cotswolds will eventually be a secured off protected area as a refuge for the more equal than others that have enabled the destruction of Britain…note the corridor from that area to the expensive side of the capital is devoid of industralisation and ghetto style living, this isn’t by accident.Evil people with unlimited funds are at the back of all this.
No one is safe, Orwell had no idea how far this would go, get your eyes and ears away from the state misinformation machine and see for yourselves what the hell is going on.
You think Thatcher was unwitting when she smashed manufacturing? You don’t think they stabbed her in the front when she brought 100,000 political militants onto the streets of London over the poll tax, having defied almost every sensible counsel in her own party?
You say you don’t remember the atrocities committed by fascist supporters, but then acknowledge the recent examples of them. Fascist ranks invariably contain a skeleton of violent criminals, gangsters, and would-be hard men. Over the years there have been a variety of infiltrations, exposes, even whistleblowers to show that this is the case. The official policy of these groups is not violence, but one suspects that is only because they would be criminalised for advocating it.
You say fascist supporters do not attack concerts of children or launch van attacks, but of course that is false elsewhere in Europe such as in the case of Anders Breivik, who killed almost 80 people (and injured more), mostly youths, in a combined shooting assault and car bomb.
I was about to acknowledge that Ukip was considerably more moderate on these matters, but then I was reminded of the clash between Mike “Right” Hookem and Stephen Woolfe, where Woolfe was KO’d and left face down, briefcase still in hand, in the halls of the European parliament.
But let’s allow - and I do - that most people are not so extreme or ready on the tactic of violence, and that there is a political issue at stake and a political goal to be achieved. What are these?
You mention the issue of ■■■■■■■■■■ rings and grooming gangs - you talk of “■■■■ of lower class girls by a subset”, and the “arrest of fathers trying to get their girls back”. The reality is that police smash ■■■■■■■■■■ rings on a daily basis, and they are not especially comprised of a particular ethnicity, except of course that if they are local rings then they tend to represent the local ethnicity. Nor are the rapists themselves high-class - they are typically of the same class as the girls.
The recent conviction of Barry Bennell, a man convicted many times before, is just one of very many examples which shows that extremely wide-ranging abuse is not confined to particular ethnic communities. Indeed, the evidence of the last 20 years shows that in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, paedophiles and sadistic types haunted almost every context in which you can imagine adults having power over children - whether it be institutional homes, schools, mental hospitals, general hospitals, recreational camps, borstals, the list is endless. I’d be surprised if most of us cannot think of some familiar white figurehead who has been done for these crimes.
Regarding the jailed leaders of Britain First, they led a witch-hunt in which they accused completely innocent people of grievous crimes, and in which they threatened the integrity of an ongoing ■■■■ trial (the very trials that, presumably, they want to be brought). So they have been sent to prison.
In terms of why the authorities are having such a problem dealing with grooming gangs, I suspect it’s because they’re often dealing with girls who are runaways from institutional care or from difficult homelives, and for many the only thing worse than receiving time, attention, or money from a gang of abusers will be receiving no time, attention, or money from anybody at all, and these are the issues that police officers and social workers are forced to wrestle with, that in the opinion of the victims themselves the abuse gangs are the lesser evil in their lives.
All that being said, and acknowledging that any reasonable person would want a solution to abuse and exploitation, I don’t see why a political constituency would form around demonising a particular ethnicity, unless there is already an ulterior agenda.
There is always the suspicion that amongst the fascists there is no true political commitment to any of the issues they raise. If there was no evidence of Asian abuse gangs, or if the problem were solved, you don’t get the impression they’d still have any concern about child abuse - instead, their campaigns would centre around not liking the smell of curry, or whatever the issue of the day might be that happens to allow them to express their outsized and unjustified dislike of certain groups.
And what, ultimately, are the solutions for these problems that the fascists propose? Public gallows? Sparking civil wars and pogroms? It’s always the militaristic answer, often with no expense spared, instead of simply taking better care of children, and frankly taking better care of parents.
Regardless of one being “Of the Left” or “Of the Right” - we’ve had NEITHER now for decades, if indeed this side of WWII.
Saying “Thatcher is of the Hard Right” is like saying the same of Hitler, when if anything - Hitler was of the hard LEFT. Pro Workers, Big Government, and if you don’t agree? - Bugger off somewhere else. That Hitler eventually went off the rails, and turned into a maniac is more about his own mental health and his over-zealous henchpeople who wanted to take the “■■■■ Cause” beyond mere government. Above all else though, there doesn’t seem to be much room for the “Right” in “National Socialist Worker’s Party” OTHER than the “Love thy country Nationalist” bit, which was just a mask to get elected of course.
Thatcher was none of that. She, in the end - couldn’t hope to stay as PM without the full backing of her (even back then…) divided party. May is in the same situation now as Thatcher was in 1981. But May seems to want to go to war with Russia rather than Argentina to “big herself up” like Thatcher did over the Falklands. What? The War on Terror was supposed to be on-going? What’s caused all interest in that to flag-off the way it has?
What’s going on in Italy now? Do they have a government yet?
It’s hard indeed to push past the mis-information that is our news media these days - and get to what is really going on in the background.
How’s life in Poland, Austria, or Hungary right now? “Right” being the operative word here? News Blackout. Wrong government in control at present. Nothing going on here that’s newsworthy. Come back when they lose office, or there’s a scandal to cover.
The EU are scared of falling apart, due to the UK’s intended departure. There are no amounts of lies, deceits, and even innocents that can be killed - to justify the establishment’s so-called “Greater Good” in that keeping the EU together “no matter what the cost” - is worth any price to be paid, not by them that pull the strings, but the entire European ordinary population of course.
We never got told the reason for bumping the population up our already over-populated nation states was. We get told that to argue against it, is to be Racist, Islamophobic, etc. so perhaps our salvation might one day actually come from those of the “Other side” deciding that this daft pendulum against both Left AND Right - has gone far enough. Even the Liberal Elites getting busted down in Westminster, and other parliaments around the European mainland - hasn’t yet brought these nation-destoying nutters down though! America, Russia, and China have already grasped (and found!) a PROPER leader, but in this country? If you’re not “Of the center” it seems that you’re an extremist. We’re encouraged both to not act “Right” OR Left. How many times do we hear “Corbyn makes Labour unelectable”? I’d argue that it is those people trying to bring down Corbyn right now that are doing a pretty good job of that.
There’s even a school of thought that says “Theresa May lost her majority on purpose, and she did it by lurching to the center, because that’s where the real money and power lie.”
Well, I predict she’ll stick around for her full five years to load up on that full Ex-PM’s pension she’ll get by the Autumn of 2021, and then step aside, perhaps too little too late for someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg to take up the reins by that point. If we’re not fully out of the EU and prospering by that point, - woe betide the Tories, thinking that “Labour are still unelectable”, which already should be apparent to most - isn’t the truth it once was anymore…
Winseer:
Regardless of one being “Of the Left” or “Of the Right” - we’ve had NEITHER now for decades, if indeed this side of WWII.Saying “Thatcher is of the Hard Right” is like saying the same of Hitler, when if anything - Hitler was of the hard LEFT. Pro Workers, Big Government, and if you don’t agree? - Bugger off somewhere else. That Hitler eventually went off the rails, and turned into a maniac is more about his own mental health and his over-zealous henchpeople who wanted to take the “■■■■ Cause” beyond mere government. Above all else though, there doesn’t seem to be much room for the “Right” in “National Socialist Worker’s Party” OTHER than the “Love thy country Nationalist” bit, which was just a mask to get elected of course.
Hitler was not hard-left - not by his own account, not by the account of his supporters, not by the account of any serious historical analyst, and not by the actual actions of the ■■■■ party.
He was not “pro-worker” - he was (self-evidently) pro-German imperialism. He was so committed to private enterprise that not only did he receive a great deal of bankrolling and support from Germany’s rich and from Germany’s petite bourgeoisie, but when war was declared, he did not even nationalise the economy (as Churchill did in Britain), but continued to issue war contracts involving profit for industrialists (in America I think Henry Ford was one of the notable beneficiaries, as was the Bush clan, and of course inside Germany industrialists were also beneficiaries).
Hitler’s opposition to capitalism would more accurately be described as opposition to globalism, and opposition to the international rich, not opposition to capitalism itself. Even the fact that the word “socialist” was eventually included in the ■■■■ party name, was a point of hot contention inside the party (including resistance from Hitler himself), but was accepted in order to increase popular support. He set up the concentration camps initially to house socialists, communists, and trade union leaders. To the extent Hitler had popular support (including amongst some working people), it is more accurate to describe him as a populist and a fascist rather than a socialist.
It’s not unlike the constituency to which right-wing Brexiteers appeal - and we see their true nature and true inclination toward workers revealed with fishing rights and passport production.
My political lexicon consists broadly of the following terms, although they are not used with any scientific precision.
Left and right wing is basically a broad description of which side of the class division your sympathies lie (i.e. it mainly refers to the economic dimension), as well as your attitudes to social policy and the role of authority (left-wingers are democratic and grassroots, right-wingers are authoritarian and elitist).
To be “centrist” in a capitalist society is to broadly accept the capitalist mode of production, market mechanisms, and private ownership of commercial property. To be “centre-left” means you want the hard edges taken off capitalism (to varying degrees) for the benefit of workers, you accept the regulatory role of the state on the economy (and tend reject it’s regulatory role in the social sphere), and that you tend to have a left-wing view of social policy. To be “centre-right” is to be the opposite - pro-market, anti-regulation (on economic matters, but not social matters - right-wingers support the police state), and a generally right-wing view of social policy.
To be “far-left” generally means that you’re a communist revolutionary and seek the overthrow of capitalism or the established order. To be “far-right” generally means you’re a fascist and seek outright military attacks on the populace (especially “troublemakers”) and the overthrow or impairment of democratic mechanisms, and the furtherance of the interests of crony elites or gangsters (not necessarily the wealthy in general, except for the subset that are politically in-favour and supporters for the time being).
There have been some leaders in the undeveloped world like Stalin and Mao who would generally be regarded as left-wing revolutionary leaders, but whose regimes in the longer term would not be seen as left-wing in the developed world - they are more like the Oliver Cromwells of their pre-capitalist societies.
To be “hard left” or “hard right” is more of an intensifier where specific individuals are concerned - not necessarily implying the extremity of the views held, but the conviction with which they are held and the fact that the holder is ideologically inclined (rather than popularity-seeking or being particularly sensitive to real-world political conditions). You might say Thatcher was “hard right”, but you would not really say that she was “far-right” except rhetorically. By the same token, you might say Tony Benn was “hard left”, but he was Labour party MP, not a communist revolutionary.
By the same token, “hard centrists” sometimes emerge as a small unpopular group who resist any sort of change or advocacy of change, and insist on some sort of compromise position or maintenance of the status quo which suits them personally, but which the majority have abandoned in preference to taking one side or another.
Rjan:
Winseer:
Regardless of one being “Of the Left” or “Of the Right” - we’ve had NEITHER now for decades, if indeed this side of WWII.Saying “Thatcher is of the Hard Right” is like saying the same of Hitler, when if anything - Hitler was of the hard LEFT. Pro Workers, Big Government, and if you don’t agree? - Bugger off somewhere else. That Hitler eventually went off the rails, and turned into a maniac is more about his own mental health and his over-zealous henchpeople who wanted to take the “■■■■ Cause” beyond mere government. Above all else though, there doesn’t seem to be much room for the “Right” in “National Socialist Worker’s Party” OTHER than the “Love thy country Nationalist” bit, which was just a mask to get elected of course.
Hitler was not hard-left - not by his own account, not by the account of his supporters, not by the account of any serious historical analyst, and not by the actual actions of the ■■■■ party.
He was not “pro-worker” - he was (self-evidently) pro-German imperialism. He was so committed to private enterprise that not only did he receive a great deal of bankrolling and support from Germany’s rich and from Germany’s petite bourgeoisie, but when war was declared, he did not even nationalise the economy (as Churchill did in Britain), but continued to issue war contracts involving profit for industrialists (in America I think Henry Ford was one of the notable beneficiaries, as was the Bush clan, and of course inside Germany industrialists were also beneficiaries).
Hitler’s opposition to capitalism would more accurately be described as opposition to globalism, and opposition to the international rich, not opposition to capitalism itself. Even the fact that the word “socialist” was eventually included in the ■■■■ party name, was a point of hot contention inside the party (including resistance from Hitler himself), but was accepted in order to increase popular support. He set up the concentration camps initially to house socialists, communists, and trade union leaders. To the extent Hitler had popular support (including amongst some working people), it is more accurate to describe him as a populist and a fascist rather than a socialist.
It’s not unlike the constituency to which right-wing Brexiteers appeal - and we see their true nature and true inclination toward workers revealed with fishing rights and passport production.
My political lexicon consists broadly of the following terms, although they are not used with any scientific precision.
Left and right wing is basically a broad description of which side of the class division your sympathies lie (i.e. it mainly refers to the economic dimension), as well as your attitudes to social policy and the role of authority (left-wingers are democratic and grassroots, right-wingers are authoritarian and elitist).
To be “centrist” in a capitalist society is to broadly accept the capitalist mode of production, market mechanisms, and private ownership of commercial property. To be “centre-left” means you want the hard edges taken off capitalism (to varying degrees) for the benefit of workers, you accept the regulatory role of the state on the economy (and tend reject it’s regulatory role in the social sphere), and that you tend to have a left-wing view of social policy. To be “centre-right” is to be the opposite - pro-market, anti-regulation (on economic matters, but not social matters - right-wingers support the police state), and a generally right-wing view of social policy.
To be “far-left” generally means that you’re a communist revolutionary and seek the overthrow of capitalism or the established order. To be “far-right” generally means you’re a fascist and seek outright military attacks on the populace (especially “troublemakers”) and the overthrow or impairment of democratic mechanisms, and the furtherance of the interests of crony elites or gangsters (not necessarily the wealthy in general, except for the subset that are politically in-favour and supporters for the time being).
There have been some leaders in the undeveloped world like Stalin and Mao who would generally be regarded as left-wing revolutionary leaders, but whose regimes in the longer term would not be seen as left-wing in the developed world - they are more like the Oliver Cromwells of their pre-capitalist societies.
To be “hard left” or “hard right” is more of an intensifier where specific individuals are concerned - not necessarily implying the extremity of the views held, but the conviction with which they are held and the fact that the holder is ideologically inclined (rather than popularity-seeking or being particularly sensitive to real-world political conditions). You might say Thatcher was “hard right”, but you would not really say that she was “far-right” except rhetorically. By the same token, you might say Tony Benn was “hard left”, but he was Labour party MP, not a communist revolutionary.
By the same token, “hard centrists” sometimes emerge as a small unpopular group who resist any sort of change or advocacy of change, and insist on some sort of compromise position or maintenance of the status quo which suits them personally, but which the majority have abandoned in preference to taking one side or another.
The mark of Socialism is a tendency towards social engineering in whatever form ( hence the name ) and an abhorrence of the idea of the nation state and of self determination along nation state lines.It’s obvious that the nazis fitted that description perfectly.As for it not also being a leftist working class Socialist faction you’ve not only conveniently tried to air brush the Socialist part of the ■■■■ Party title out of history but obviously also the word Workers part of it too.While surely you’re not suggesting that Hitler couldn’t/wouldn’t have had those words removed from the title if he didn’t believe in them being there himself.
As for your same old bs that nationalist means fascist that would by definition obviously have to apply to Michael Collins too. In which case it’s clear that Nationalist means centre and Hitler was of the far left just like Stalin.With Hitler having used the Nationalist logo as an electoral trick.Just like Corbyn is using the Labour one to impose a far left Socalist agenda and Sturgeon is using the Nationalist one to impose her Socialist agenda and the DDR called themselves ‘democrats’.Also followed by the LibDems calling themselves ‘democrats’ while,like Sturgeon,also standing for the EUSSR federal dictatorship.
In which case it’s clear that what we’ve got is an unholy alliance of the corporate corrupted so called ‘Capitalist’,anti nation state,globalist,far right,in the form of the Conservatives and Macron.Allied with the far left in the form of the Chinese Communist Party,ex stasi Merkel and to a lesser extent Corbyn,Sturgeon and Cable and their allies among the Italian Communists who luckily the Italians have voted out but no surprise don’t seem to have any intention of giving up their strangle hold over the country.
With the ‘centre’ clearly being made up of the all the European Nationalist Parties.
So to answer Winseer’s questions if you want centre vote Nationalist in whatever form.With all the rest being a stinking alliance of corrupt far Left and far Right all using subterfuge to get take power.The fact being that there is very little if any difference between the so called ‘left’ and the so called ‘right’ which is why May is happy to work with ex stasi Merkel and Italian Communists and the Chinese Communist Party.It’s also explains why all the signs are there in the form of false flag ops and the removal of free speech to impose their stinking agenda.The only conclusion in that regard being that Putin has gone Nationalist and they know it which also explains why they are happy to deal with Communist China but want war with Russia.
IE it’s safe to say that left and right Socialist/Globalist elitism mean corrupt politics flying under whatever flag of convenience they see as getting them into power quickest and most effectively and as such happy to ally with each other.That includes the so called LibDems and Corbyn’s ‘Labour’ rabble which if it was honest would stand with the SLP,and Sturgeon’s anything but so called ‘Nationalists’,.
While if you want good honest centre politics then vote for whatever form of true Nationalist you can find.In our case that can only mean UKIP just as it means FN in France and AfD in Germany and Orban etc in East Euro.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]The mark of Socialism is a tendency towards social engineering in whatever form ( hence the name ) and an abhorrence of the idea of the nation state and of self determination along nation state lines.It’s obvious that the nazis fitted that description perfectly.As for it not also being a leftist working class Socialist faction you’ve not only conveniently tried to air brush the Socialist part of the ■■■■ Party title out of history but obviously also the word Workers part of it too.While surely you’re not suggesting that Hitler couldn’t/wouldn’t have had those words removed from the title if he didn’t believe in them being there himself.
I accept that a tendency toward “social engineering” (actually, political and economic transformation of a progressive nature) is more characteristic of left-wing leaders - that’s why I say Stalin and Mao can be fairly described as left-wing, because their agenda was transformative.
I don’t accept that an abhorrence of nationalism defines the left at all. Stalin argued for “socialism in one country”, Mao for “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Castro was himself a national revolutionary who was happy to adopt a socialist agenda, once it became apparent which superpower’s side his bread would be buttered on, and when it became apparent what effects economic sanctions would have on the Cuban economy. Tony Benn was strongly socialist but had significant nationalist sympathies.
As for the Nazis, they were clearly nationalist - the fact that they were expansionary and imperialist does not mean they wished to see the German nation dissolve, nor does war against and conquest of other nations characterise them as “internationalists”. What the Nazis lacked was any concept of socialism - they were strongly anti-Marxist and thoroughly illiberal, and it is this that characterises them as far-right.
You say I “airbrushed the socialist part of the title”, but of course I did completely the opposite and tackled it head on, you silly person!
I am suggesting Hitler resisted and merely tolerated the word “socialist” in the title, because he is on record as such.
I also accept that “worker” was part of the title, but that is not inconsistent with the fact that Hitler was working class, and a decorated war hero to boot, and his organisation was a grassroots one. But so are gangsters and mafiosi - the mere fact that someone is working class does not make them a socialist, or make them sympathetic to the working class in general. Many working class people are quite content with the structure of society, and simply feel that the roles within it have been improperly distributed (and they want to join the ranks of the exploiters) or that the incumbent elite are incompetent or corrupt on account of their personal bad character or disloyalty. A war hero like Hitler could quite reasonably have taken that latter view in the 1920s. Hitler’s agenda was not to overhaul or transform Germany society, but to restore it’s former prestige and autonomy - the very things he’d valorously risked his life to defend in WW1.
Hitler also supported zionism and the creation of a Jewish nation (this is what Ken Livingstone got into trouble for saying), not because of any sympathy with or support for Jews, but as a rational way of removing Jews from German society, and perfectly consistently with his nationalist outlook. His racist and pro-Aryan views were not radical in the day, but simply taking common sense to it’s logical conclusion. It’s not unheard of even nowadays to hear people casually expressing the view that the poor are breeding rather too much, and that elements of society have bad character on account of their breeding rather than their rearing. Nor is it uncommon to hear, amongst the far-right, that Muslims are breeding rather too much, or that the country is “full” and facing a Malthusian crisis.
As for your same old bs that nationalist means fascist that would by definition obviously have to apply to Michael Collins too.
Nationalist does not necessarily mean “fascist” - it would depend on the context whether they are being conflated. As I say, Castro was a nationalist much more than he was a socialist - a nationalist revolutionary leader - but he was not a fascist. By all accounts he was pretty moderate in ideological terms, until he was forced to lurch to the left and forge an alliance with the Soviets, by the behaviour of the Americans.
Generally speaking, nationalists are more likely to be fascists if they are in control of what are already the strongest nation-states of the world, whereas nationalists in weaker nations tend to be left-wing resistance or transformative movements (i.e. tend to be resisting other colonial or imperial nations, or attempting to build up a strong central state and national identity for the first time). In Stalin and Mao’s cases, industrial development and proletarianisation was their primary agenda, in order to bring forward their economic capacity.
The SNP is a centre-left party (it was originally a centre-right party), whose popular support is defined mainly by their resistance to the Tories and Blairites at Westminster.
I don’t have much to say on the rest of your post that I have cut, except to say I reject its analysis, mostly.
Dipper_Dave:
Winseer:
0
Pray that none of THAT ^^^^ muck ever gets out into the public!Yours, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Your Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief,
WinseerAnybody else see this picture and get instantly reminded of the film ‘Boxing Helena’.
No just me then, I have some serious issues…
^^^^^
i dunno about you,but im just thinking.“gusset”… 