Brexiteers against free movement?

[grandpa]

A recap.

After the Thatcher years in the early 90s the Marxist class based Soviet Union collapses in 1991. The UK communist party, although it tries to re-emerge later under various forms also collapses in the same year. A few years late Blair wins an election and moves from the previous socialist class based Labour party to ‘New Labour.’ Out with the red flag and talk of workers revolutions and in with a blue flag focused on multiculturalism, diversity and equality. That was the change from class to culture.

The following years saw the community massively expand and by 2007 the EU drops all pretense of an economic community and becomes the EU, a political union. Although Thatcher had earlier opted out of the single currency and the Schengen Treaty, PM Brown gives away British sovereignty in 2007 with the Lisbon Treaty which transfers power to Brussels. Brexit wasn’t about giving away British sovereignty; that had already occurred by British politicians under various treaties, it was about getting it back.

Let’s just have a further re-cap of the gibberish so far.

Scargill wasn’t a communist. Britain is ruled by an absolute monarchy and so the English civil war which removed the power of absolute monarchs didn’t occur. Social security is a form of income protection for those who have no income to protect. Tony Benn a lifelong socialist becomes a nationalist. Thatcher and Reagan who were laissez-faire capitalists actually supported communist China … And so it goes on. These are not just errors, they’re fantasies and the failure to acknowledge even basic facts borders on learning difficulties.

Yet there might be a light at the end of the tunnel.

‘It’s more likely that his [my] agenda is all about using it as a diversion from the fact that Marxism and the wrong type of Capitalism have actually created an unholy alliance.’ - Carryfast/Rjan.

It’s not a diversion: YES Carryfast/Rjan, EUREKA!!! You’ve finally got it. It’s called progressivism. It’s why conservative remainers Cameron and May are cheering for the same thing as socialist millionaires Lord Neil Kinnock and Lord Peter Mandelson. The EU was simply a compromise elitist power grab from politically polarized opposites.

Let’s see if you can notice the correlation of what happened in this quote in the early 70s by Saul Alinsky in ‘Rules for Radicals’ to what the EU is today.

‘True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits, and infiltrate the system from within.’

You still don’t get it, do you. Some of you here went to sleep in the 70s dreaming of a workers revolution and never woke up.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
A recap.

After the Thatcher years in the early 90s the Marxist class based Soviet Union collapses in 1991. The UK communist party, although it tries to re-emerge later under various forms also collapses in the same year. A few years late Blair wins an election and moves from the previous socialist class based Labour party to ‘New Labour.’ Out with the red flag and talk of workers revolutions and in with a blue flag focused on multiculturalism, diversity and equality. That was the change from class to culture.

The following years saw the community massively expand and by 2007 the EU drops all pretense of an economic community and becomes the EU, a political union. Although Thatcher had earlier opted out of the single currency and the Schengen Treaty, PM Brown gives away British sovereignty in 2007 with the Lisbon Treaty which transfers power to Brussels. Brexit wasn’t about giving away British sovereignty; that had already occurred by British politicians under various treaties, it was about getting it back.

Let’s just have a further re-cap of the gibberish so far.

Scargill wasn’t a communist. Britain is ruled by an absolute monarchy and so the English civil war which removed the power of absolute monarchs didn’t occur. Social security is a form of income protection for those who have no income to protect. Tony Benn a lifelong socialist becomes a nationalist. Thatcher and Reagan who were laissez-faire capitalists actually supported communist China … And so it goes on. These are not just errors, they’re fantasies and the failure to acknowledge even basic facts borders on learning difficulties.

Yet there might be a light at the end of the tunnel.

‘It’s more likely that his [my] agenda is all about using it as a diversion from the fact that Marxism and the wrong type of Capitalism have actually created an unholy alliance.’ - Carryfast/Rjan.

It’s not a diversion: YES Carryfast/Rjan, EUREKA!!! You’ve finally got it. It’s called progressivism. It’s why conservative remainers Cameron and May are cheering for the same thing as socialist millionaires Lord Neil Kinnock and Lord Peter Mandelson. The EU was simply a compromise elitist power grab from politically polarized opposites.

Let’s see if you can notice the correlation of what happened in this quote in the early 70s by Saul Alinsky in ‘Rules for Radicals’ to what the EU is today.

‘True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits, and infiltrate the system from within.’

You still don’t get it, do you. Some of you here went to sleep in the 70s dreaming of a workers revolution and never woke up.

A recap yeah right.Which as expected contains no answers to the questions if the Treaty of Rome wasn’t the same thing as the EU then what did Powell rightly see within it at the same time as Thatcher was supporting Heath ?.

It’s obvious that the hybrid I am referring to originated with Nixon’s and Reagan’s meetings with the Chinese Communist leadership.Remind us what positions that Cameron,May,Mandelson and Kinnock held at that point in time.On that note it’s clear that the infiltration in this case started in a place that no one had dreamed of ( the Nixon and Reagan presidencies ).No surprise that you’ve conveniently omitted Thatcher’s links with Reagan and her equally positive liasons with Deng Xiaoping in that regard.

As for Blair in what way were his domestic or foreign policies any different to those of Thatcher’s ?.

As for me I’ve said loads of times in the past that the Socialist cause long ago abandoned armed revolution in favour of infiltration.

Then you laughably try to make the case that Mao ( or Deng and all the rest ) weren’t/aren’t Marxists.Thatcher didn’t know that she was signing us up to the EU.With her support of the Treaty of Rome,let alone the Single European Act,supposedly not being the same thing.Even more laughably trying to ignore Powell’s part and arguments in that process.

As for Scargill and Shore do you really think that they would have been fighting for the survival of THE NATION’s mining industry and NATIONAL sovereignty and by definition therefore Nationalist.If they were on the same side as the bleedin Communists and corrupted Capitalists.You know like Deng Xiaoping and Nixon,Reagan,Heath,Callaghan and Thatcher all were.

As for China having no interests outside of its own borders.Yeah right it’s military build up and spending is also only defence based and tell that to Tibet.But then you also think that Mao wasn’t a Marxist and China is now not run by a Communist regime.

As for the Royal Perogative.Which part of :

Yes we do still have an absolute monarchy in the case of the specific remit of the defence of the realm from foreign takeover.Obviously including a treasonous parliament gone rogue.

:don’t you understand.

Dark forces indeed.

[rjan]

Grandpa:

Carryfast:
…

Academics aren’t big headed, they just know more than you and if it wasn’t for teachers you wouldn’t be able to read or write. You didn’t teach yourself the difference between Supranational v International, google did and people like myself wrote the articles that taught you.

Nobody doubts that the academic knows a great deal - the question is whether, or to what extent, anything he knows relates to reality. The theologian knows a great about how many angels fit on a pinhead and why.

Your mistake is assuming that anybody here is going to give you any credit, simply because you have been given credit by some other academics, and without providing any convincing argument.

Just when I thought you’d finally got it, you continue with nonsense, proving to me that there is something wrong with you. Carryfast/Rjan, I don’t want to keep rubbing in, but for all your bluster and pretend knowledge, you couldn’t even write a short essay on cultural Marxism.

I don’t want to engage in the same personal attacks you use, but I’d say you have some mental health problems and you can ignore the following question if you like, but are you autistic?

Oh dear oh dear.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
A recap.

After the Thatcher years in the early 90s the Marxist class based Soviet Union collapses in 1991. The UK communist party, although it tries to re-emerge later under various forms also collapses in the same year. A few years late Blair wins an election and moves from the previous socialist class based Labour party to ‘New Labour.’ Out with the red flag and talk of workers revolutions and in with a blue flag focused on multiculturalism, diversity and equality. That was the change from class to culture.

The New Labour project was formed some time before Blair’s election - he was later elected on that platform.

The process you describe is consistent with Labour jettisoning Marxism. If there isn’t even any pretense of pursuing socialism, no pretense of worker revolution, no red flag, and crucially no confrontation with the bosses, then in what respect are they Marxists?

The Blairites can’t even be accused of being liars or deceivers (on this question), because they aren’t even themselves claiming to be Marxists.

Thatcher and Reagan who were laissez-faire capitalists actually supported communist China.

Those facts are not inconsistent. Western capital has made significant profits trading with and investing in China.

[grandpa]

Carryfast/Rjan (one person to me).

The reason you’re constantly attacking the poster is not to provide facts and explanations, it’s because you can’t and so you disguise it with bluster and opinion, with a degree of jealousy? I can sense you gritting your teeth! When an electrician or plumber repairs something you can’t and tells you what was wrong, do you think they’re elitist, or is it just that they know something you don’t? Likewise, if you can repair a car and most can’t, does that make you an elitist?

You sound like a bitter and angry man and you’ve every right to feel that way. Your former communist hero Scargill is still milking the remaining NUM members after 40 years for a lavish lifestyle, Corbyn, an ageing left-over 60s radical is worth an estimated £3m, clever champagne socialist Blair tens of millions and man of the people multi-millionaire Kinnock is hob-nobbing with the elite in the House of Lords. Corbyn has never seen the inside of a factory, he’s been a left-wing activist since leaving technical college at the age of 25. Ditto Blair, an Oxford graduate who practiced as a Barrister and wouldn’t know what a working man was if he saw one! Ditto Gordon Brown, a former college lecturer and journalist with a Ph.D. who has also never had to wash his hands after a day’s work.

Do you feel hard done by, betrayed and blame the wealthy? The people I’ve just mentioned are the wealthy and it took Blair who abandoned Labour socialist policies to bring in a minimum wage in 1999, something which all your previous socialist hero’s together didn’t do.

You’re part of the gullible these people in their cloth caps and donkey jackets pretending they were stereotypical working class during the 80s conned with their promises of class equality, whilst they set about feathering their own nests. Name me a country where the working class prospered under socialist policies, or one where its leaders didn’t become extremely wealthy? You can’t, so you change the subject and waffle on about nonsense.

It’s no use throwing labels about such as ‘right winger’, ‘Thatcher’s mate’ and suggesting I’m ‘not a friend of the working class.’ The difference between you and I is that I didn’t spend my life sitting on my backside waiting for bunch of pretend socialists to do anything for me, which is why I’m now not the one looking around for excuses and blaming everyone else for something that was never going to happen.

After all those years and going into advanced age, you still don’t understand, do you. That doesn’t make me stupid Carryfast/Rjan; I already knew what a bunch of s**t’s your working class heroes were decades ago.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Carryfast/Rjan (one person to me).

The reason you’re constantly attacking the poster is not to provide facts and explanations, it’s because you can’t and so you disguise it with bluster and opinion, with a degree of jealousy? I can sense you gritting your teeth! When an electrician or plumber repairs something you can’t and tells you what was wrong, do you think they’re elitist, or is it just that they know something you don’t? Likewise, if you can repair a car and most can’t, does that make you an elitist?

You sound like a bitter and angry man and you’ve every right to feel that way. Your former communist hero Scargill is still milking the remaining NUM members after 40 years for a lavish lifestyle, Corbyn, an ageing left-over 60s radical is worth an estimated £3m, clever champagne socialist Blair tens of millions and man of the people multi-millionaire Kinnock is hob-nobbing with the elite in the House of Lords. Corbyn has never seen the inside of a factory, he’s been a left-wing activist since leaving technical college at the age of 25. Ditto Blair, an Oxford graduate who practiced as a Barrister and wouldn’t know what a working man was if he saw one! Ditto Gordon Brown, a former college lecturer and journalist with a Ph.D. who has also never had to wash his hands after a day’s work.

Do you feel hard done by, betrayed and blame the wealthy? The people I’ve just mentioned are the wealthy and it took Blair who abandoned Labour socialist policies to bring in a minimum wage in 1999, something which all your previous socialist hero’s together didn’t do.

You’re part of the gullible these people in their cloth caps and donkey jackets pretending they were stereotypical working class during the 80s conned with their promises of class equality, whilst they set about feathering their own nests. Name me a country where the working class prospered under socialist policies, or one where its leaders didn’t become extremely wealthy? You can’t, so you change the subject and waffle on about nonsense.

It’s no use throwing labels about such as ‘right winger’, ‘Thatcher’s mate’ and suggesting I’m ‘not a friend of the working class.’ The difference between you and I is that I didn’t spend my life sitting on my backside waiting for bunch of pretend socialists to do anything for me, which is why I’m now not the one looking around for excuses and blaming everyone else for something that was never going to happen.

After all those years and going into advanced age, you still don’t understand, do you. That doesn’t make me stupid Carryfast/Rjan; I already knew what a bunch of s**t’s your working class heroes were decades ago.

Which part of I support ( left wing Fordist Capitalism ) in the form of people like Kennedy don’t you understand.You know policies like let’s increase Social Security provision to prevent poor pensioners and desperate and down on their luck workers from wrecking the Fordist,more income=more spending=more demand for labour=more income and more spending,cycle.In which it’s equally obvious that it will need Shore’s ( and Scargill’s ) Nationalist,Protectionist,economic policies to stop the spending part of that cycle going on unnecessary imports and therefore wrecking the demand for labour part of it.

Rjan seems to be a Soviet Socialist.Who,if I’ve read it right,believes that the 1960’s Soviet Union was a superior economic model than 1960’s America. While also by definition supporting the same ideology of Federalism that Thatcher and Heath ( and Callaghan and Jenkins ) all supported in the case of their support for the EUSSR.While we can also add to that support of Chinese Communism and therefore the invasion of Tibet in the case of Thatcher and Reagan.

As for you the conclusion so far seems to be that your idea of what’s best for the workers is what we’ve got in the form of the hybrid of Reaganomics and Chinese Marxist/Communism.Then arguing against your own ideology when you’ve got it.

As for the EU feel free to answer the question what was it that Powell ( and Shore and Benn ) knew about the treaty of Rome and therefore tried to stop us signing up to,that Thatcher supposedly didn’t ?.Here’s a clue I’m sure that I remember the issue of sovereignty and democratic control over our own government being the basis of the latter’s argument obviously in addition to Shore’s far superior Nationalist protectionist economic model.

On that note it’s clear that the corrupt Capitalist/Communist hybrid is trying to desperately infiltrate the Brexit agenda.Using lies like Shore was a Communist and the treaty of Rome in the form of the EEC which Thatcher supported was something different to the EU.Which would obviously have been news to Powell for one if he was still alive to see your lying bs.

[grandpa]

Carryfast/Rjan

There are two forms of thought. One is belief based on subjective opinion and the other factual based on scientific inquiry. You can’t change a belief system with facts and you can’t alter facts with opinions. Part of cultural Marxism suggests that we ignore proof and create our own reality and that’s what you’re engaged in. So for instance you have said that Scargill wasn’t a communist. Even a basic search will tell you that he was and he joined the communist party in 1955. Now, you can either accept that, or opt for a belief system and use opinion to say he didn’t and wasn’t, or ignore it completely. That’s not an academic argument, that’s using subjective opinion to turn beliefs into facts.

Belief systems are generally used by people with low-information on a topic and especially in indoctrinated society’s. So for instance the N. Korean leader becomes a sun God in that particular society, even though factually it’s not true, but becomes true for the people who believe it. That’s what’s happening here as beliefs are presented as facts based on opinions. I’ve already given a series of instances and I’ll repeat them:

‘Scargill wasn’t a communist. Britain is ruled by an absolute monarchy and so the English civil war which removed the power of absolute monarchs didn’t occur. Social security is a form of income protection for those who have no income to protect. Tony Benn a lifelong socialist becomes a nationalist. Thatcher and Reagan who were laissez-faire capitalists actually supported communist China … And so it goes on.’

I can’t disprove these opinions using facts because they’re beliefs. Similarly, if I tell you that the first diesel engine was invented by a guy called Fred in 1857 you can only prove me wrong if I’m prepared to accept facts. If I choose to use beliefs I’ll just keep denying the facts. Do you understand? So, in effect you can state any nonsense and assume it’s factually based without any proof needed because it’s your opinion. It’s why I asked you for a short essay on cultural Marxism which would have sounded strange using beliefs and would have forced you to use facts, which you can’t because you haven’t the knowledge.

So, after all this time on this thread it’s a waste of time carrying on. I do hope some have learned from it though, as understanding cultural Marxism is the key to what is happening throughout the west and it’s based around beliefs. I don’t mind continuing using facts or even explanations if anyone else is interested, but this opinion nonsense based on beliefs is not for me.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Carryfast/Rjan

There are two forms of thought. One is belief based on subjective opinion and the other factual based on scientific inquiry. You can’t change a belief system with facts and you can’t alter facts with opinions. Part of cultural Marxism suggests that we ignore proof and create our own reality and that’s what you’re engaged in. So for instance you have said that Scargill wasn’t a communist. Even a basic search will tell you that he was and he joined the communist party in 1955. Now, you can either accept that, or opt for a belief system and use opinion to say he didn’t and wasn’t, or ignore it completely. That’s not an academic argument, that’s using subjective opinion to turn beliefs into facts.

Belief systems are generally used by people with low-information on a topic and especially in indoctrinated society’s. So for instance the N. Korean leader becomes a sun God in that particular society, even though factually it’s not true, but becomes true for the people who believe it. That’s what’s happening here as beliefs are presented as facts based on opinions. I’ve already given a series of instances and I’ll repeat them:

‘Scargill wasn’t a communist. Britain is ruled by an absolute monarchy and so the English civil war which removed the power of absolute monarchs didn’t occur. Social security is a form of income protection for those who have no income to protect. Tony Benn a lifelong socialist becomes a nationalist. Thatcher and Reagan who were laissez-faire capitalists actually supported communist China … And so it goes on.’

I can’t disprove these opinions using facts because they’re beliefs. Similarly, if I tell you that the first diesel engine was invented by a guy called Fred in 1857 you can only prove me wrong if I’m prepared to accept facts. If I choose to use beliefs I’ll just keep denying the facts. Do you understand? So, in effect you can state any nonsense and assume it’s factually based without any proof needed because it’s your opinion. It’s why I asked you for a short essay on cultural Marxism which would have sounded strange using beliefs and would have forced you to use facts, which you can’t because you haven’t the knowledge.

So, after all this time on this thread it’s a waste of time carrying on. I do hope some have learned from it though, as understanding cultural Marxism is the key to what is happening throughout the west and it’s based around beliefs. I don’t mind continuing using facts or even explanations if anyone else is interested, but this opinion nonsense based on beliefs is not for me.

Fact.The treaty of Rome was the same thing as the EU and Powell knew it.

Fact Scargill was a Nationalist just like Shore.They just didn’t realise it like you not being able to get their heads around the definitions that seperate the two ideologies.But their policies said it all in that regard.IE committed to the protection of the Nation’s industries on a National basis and National government.Unlike bleedin Thatcher.

As for ‘cultural’ Marxism ( read diversionary bs ) from the ‘fact’ that what we’ve actually got is a hybrid of the worst type of exploitative Capitalism in the form of Thatcherism and Reaganomics and equally if not moreso exploitative and definitely more aggressively dangerous,Chinese Communism.

Feel free to add the delusion ( more like lie ) that the Chinese Communist Party isn’t based on Marxist principles.You might as well because you can’t understand even the simplest of definitions and differences between different ideologies.Or more like you can but telling it like it is would derail your obvious support of that evil hybrid.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
Carryfast/Rjan (one person to me).

The reason you’re constantly attacking the poster

I don’t recall having attacked you. I’ve written pages already addressing your argument.

is not to provide facts and explanations, it’s because you can’t and so you disguise it with bluster and opinion, with a degree of jealousy? I can sense you gritting your teeth!

I’m actually quite satisfied with how the argument has progressed here. Because above all, you’ve come across as someone with unpleasant views.

When an electrician or plumber repairs something you can’t and tells you what was wrong, do you think they’re elitist, or is it just that they know something you don’t? Likewise, if you can repair a car and most can’t, does that make you an elitist?

But you’re not a plumber amongst people who don’t know how to plumb. You’re talking politics amongst a number of people who already know how to talk politics - you’re a plumber addressing plumbers.

It’s like I said before, you think you’re the only person here who knows a thing or two. Your conclusions aren’t going to be swallowed wholesale here simply on account of your credentials or background.

You sound like a bitter and angry man and you’ve every right to feel that way. Your former communist hero Scargill is still milking the remaining NUM members after 40 years for a lavish lifestyle, Corbyn, an ageing left-over 60s radical is worth an estimated £3m, clever champagne socialist Blair tens of millions and man of the people multi-millionaire Kinnock is hob-nobbing with the elite in the House of Lords.

You falsely accuse people of indulging in tactics that you actually seem to prefer most. I’m a bitter and angry man, Carryfast is possibly autistic, and so on.

Scargill is old hat nowadays. But as for Blair and Kinnock, where are their left-wing supporters?

As for Corbyn, as someone who’s spent 35 years as an MP, is it really surprising that he has accrued some material security (the majority of which I would guess is his modest terraced house in his own constituency, and his pension)?

Corbyn has never seen the inside of a factory, he’s been a left-wing activist since leaving technical college at the age of 25. Ditto Blair, an Oxford graduate who practiced as a Barrister and wouldn’t know what a working man was if he saw one! Ditto Gordon Brown, a former college lecturer and journalist with a Ph.D. who has also never had to wash his hands after a day’s work.

All fair assessments of those people. But what of it? McDonnell has certainly worked for a living. Politicians have to be judged on their politics at the end of the day, not their background.

Do you feel hard done by, betrayed and blame the wealthy? The people I’ve just mentioned are the wealthy and it took Blair who abandoned Labour socialist policies to bring in a minimum wage in 1999, something which all your previous socialist hero’s together didn’t do.

During the Labour government before Blair (i.e. Callaghan’s) we still had a strong working class able mostly to look after their own wages through collective bargaining and industrial action.

You’re part of the gullible these people in their cloth caps and donkey jackets pretending they were stereotypical working class during the 80s conned with their promises of class equality, whilst they set about feathering their own nests. Name me a country where the working class prospered under socialist policies, or one where its leaders didn’t become extremely wealthy? You can’t, so you change the subject and waffle on about nonsense.

I wouldn’t like to name a “socialist” country, but I can certainly name countries where the state intervenes heavily in the market, and ordinary people see living standards increase dramatically as a result. England, from the start of the second world war, to name just one example!

It’s no use throwing labels about such as ‘right winger’, ‘Thatcher’s mate’ and suggesting I’m ‘not a friend of the working class.’ The difference between you and I is that I didn’t spend my life sitting on my backside waiting for bunch of pretend socialists to do anything for me, which is why I’m now not the one looking around for excuses and blaming everyone else for something that was never going to happen.

Good for you. For my part I don’t advise anyone to sit around waiting for socialists to sort everything out for them. I advise simple measures - such as stand together in the workplace, vote for Corbyn now that the Labour party has readopted pro-worker policies, and reject the ideology of having every aspect of your life governed by the rich in the marketplace.

After all those years and going into advanced age, you still don’t understand, do you. That doesn’t make me stupid Carryfast/Rjan; I already knew what a bunch of s**t’s your working class heroes were decades ago.

Good for you. I never accused you of being stupid, and I don’t believe I’ve named any “working class heroes”.

Most radical right-wingers who are reasonably articulate or educated are not foolish. They are merely sharks - they hold that the natural order of things is dog-eat-dog, they have often achieved a measure of success or curried a degree of favour by attacking only those weaker than themselves, and thus their politics are consistent with this. If by bad fortune they end up at the bottom of the heap, they may reject that station for themselves, but they do not reject the existence of such stations within a system of social relations, provided they are occupied by those other than themselves.

[grandpa]

I said earlier that I was going to wind down my posts on this one because I already saw what was happening.

Capitalism is individual wealth creation and its ownership. Communism is state ownership and its re-distribution. Thatcher was a nationalist and a lasses-faire capitalist who de-nationalised various state owned industries and cut back on state welfare. How can anyone equate Thatcher with communism, or China? That isn’t even an opinion, it’s a stupid comment. What comes next; Hitler wasn’t a National Socialist, but a member of the Green Party?

There is a tiny minority the same as you’d get anywhere who have, ‘just another brick in the wall’ problem. It’s common among socialists who view life as a class struggle, with anyone above a basic level not a friend of the working class, or an enemy of the people, or a radical right-winger and it’s all the fault of the wealthy. That’s classical 20th century left-wing thinking and why the mainstream left abandoned that position in the 90’s as the working class moved away from the cloth cap image, became more educated, property owning and left a minority underclass to carry on the class war. Some got stuck in the loop and it’s why they still focus on the class war forty years ago.

In politics, whatever an individual’s position, there’s a general factual consensus. That Marxism occurs in various forms such as class based Marxism as practiced in the old Soviet Union, or Chinese Maoism in an agricultural society, or Trotskyism which calls for a continuing revolution. Similarly, in the EU the emphasis is not class based, its focus is on minority cultural equality. The ‘old’ socialists are unable to grasp those changes. They’re unable to make sense of the modern world around them, hence the focus on personalities and political events of nearly half a century ago with miner’s strikes, Thatcher and Benn.

I once had a conversation with a Chinese politics teacher. He used the term ‘politic’ and I corrected him and said, ‘no, it’s a plural, politics.’ He answered, ‘there’s only one politic, communism!’ I didn’t press him as although he was factually wrong, his beliefs prevented him from realizing that. Similarly on this thread, when I previously asked where has a successful socialist regime ever existed I was told it couldn’t be named, so the question now would be; why do you believe in something that has never existed? From Father Christmas to a flat earth, if you’re a believer it’s a fact. There’s no debate using opinions presented as facts and therefore there’s no point in continuing.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Thatcher was a nationalist who de-nationalised

Now with that statement we all know for sure that you’re either avin a larf or you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re on about.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
I once had a conversation with a Chinese politics teacher. He used the term ‘politic’ and I corrected him and said, ‘no, it’s a plural, politics.’ He answered, ‘there’s only one politic, communism!’

Which part of I support the ideology of left wing Capitalism didn’t you understand.Now awaits your reply there is only one type of Capitalism and it can only be right wing.

You agree that revolutionary Communism evolved into preferring the idea of infiltration to meet it’s aims.Why do you regard Nixon’s,Reagan’s,and Thatcher’s dealings with Deng Xiaoping as being off limits and not up for discussion in that regard ?.Bearing in mind the obvious gainers in the change from Kennedy’s type of economic policies to Thatcerite and Reaganomics type policies.Or for that matter all the possible interpretations of Deng’s comments there is more than one way to catch mice.

To which your answer so far is that Chinese Communism has nothing to do with Marxism and China is no longer a Communist regime.Yeah right.

[grandpa]

Fact.The treaty of Rome was the same thing as the EU and Powell knew it.

Fact Scargill was a Nationalist just like Shore.They just didn’t realise it like you not being able to get their heads around the definitions that seperate the two ideologies.But their policies said it all in that regard.IE committed to the protection of the Nation’s industries on a National basis and National government.Unlike bleedin Thatcher.

As for ‘cultural’ Marxism ( read diversionary bs ) from the ‘fact’ that what we’ve actually got is a hybrid of the worst type of exploitative Capitalism in the form of Thatcherism and Reaganomics and equally if not moreso exploitative and definitely more aggressively dangerous,Chinese Communism.

Feel free to add the delusion ( more like lie ) that the Chinese Communist Party isn’t based on Marxist principles.You might as well because you can’t understand even the simplest of definitions and differences between different ideologies.Or more like you can but telling it like it is would derail your obvious support of that evil hybrid.

Just read this and it made me laugh so I’ll give you one last example. You say:

‘Fact. The treaty of Rome was the same thing as the EU and Powell knew it.’

No it’s not fact. The 1957 Treaty of Rome enabled the entry into a common market, which is very different from the 2005 Lisbon Treaty which gave political power to the EU. They’re two separate treaties on two separate issues in different eras with different aims. You’ve been googling again and missed the difference between the EEC and the EU. What Powell disagreed on is further European ECONOMIC integration because he thought it would restrict trade with the rest of the world. Powell couldn’t have warned about open borders, transfers of power, or the abolition of nation states, because those ideas didn’t exist then and neither did the POLITICAL EU. There is nothing factual about your beliefs which are based on the EEC and the EU being the same thing.

Thatcher a nationalist becomes a communist, but we just didn’t realize it? Scargill who it’s said wasn’t a communist suddenly is, but he’s not because he’s a nationalist? Cultural Marxism is ‘diversionary bs’, but the EU is based on open borders, the dissolving of nation states and multiculturalism, not class? We’ve still got Thatcherism which ended nearly 30 years ago? You couldn’t go on any political website in the world and write that sort of drivel without getting laughed at.

Thankfully this level of knowledge was voted against in 2016, yet even when BREXIT occurs it will take another generation to repair the damage the belief system caused, just as it did all through the 20th century.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:

‘Fact. The treaty of Rome was the same thing as the EU and Powell knew it.’[/i]

No it’s not fact. The 1957 Treaty of Rome enabled the entry into a common market, which is very different from the 2005 Lisbon Treaty which gave political power to the EU. They’re two separate treaties on two separate issues in different eras with different aims. You’ve been googling again and missed the difference between the EEC and the EU. What Powell disagreed on is further European ECONOMIC integration because he thought it would restrict trade with the rest of the world. Powell couldn’t have warned about open borders, transfers of power, or the abolition of nation states, because those ideas didn’t exist then and neither did the POLITICAL EU. There is nothing factual about your beliefs which are based on the EEC and the EU being the same thing.

Really.He doesn’t say anything about Economic Integration here.He does though obviously refer to ‘‘political unification’’ and us being a vassal state of an EU Federation including quote, ‘’ the mistake which Britain made in giving up her parliamentary self government and National independence to become a part of European Economic Community’’ and he knew it from day 1.Just as Shore spoke about the absurdity of UK laws being made by the ‘EEC’.Obviously in addition to the question of FCO 30/1048.

youtube.com/watch?v=Alld4Og2sTE

So tell us exactly when did Thatcher ‘ever’ make the same type of comments as that regarding the ‘EEC’ ?.Economic Community bs and Thatcher knew it.

On that note even if she didn’t know ( unlikely ) once might have been a mistake but then helping Reagan to sell out the Western economies to the Chinese Communist Party,in addition to selling us out to the EU Federation/EUSSR,is too much to be coincidence.

Although as I’ve said we also shouldn’t underestimate US paranoia at home,regarding secession in all its forms and the obvious threat which a Confederal,as opposed to a Federal,Europe,would create to US domestic policy in that regard.Or for that matter obvious fears of Germany going rogue again if it isn’t kept happy.

[rjan]

Grandpa:
I said earlier that I was going to wind down my posts on this one because I already saw what was happening.

Capitalism is individual wealth creation and its ownership.

No, capitalism is rent extraction from wealth creators, and ownership overwhelmingly by a minority of rich.

If capitalism were merely wealth creation and individual ownership, then why are so many people putting in a full shift and still not making ends meet on their wages? Why is home ownership falling?

Communism is state ownership and its re-distribution. Thatcher was a nationalist and a lasses-faire capitalist who de-nationalised various state owned industries and cut back on state welfare.

It’s rather ironic to hear it said: she “was a nationalist who de-nationalised” everything.

The truth is that Thatcher was a nationalist where democratic power was concerned, and a globalist as far as markets and capital flows were concerned. That’s the sweet spot for the bosses, because it means driving down taxes, shedding obligations, and threatening to relocate every time the citizenry make democratic demands.

How can anyone equate Thatcher with communism, or China? That isn’t even an opinion, it’s a stupid comment. What comes next; Hitler wasn’t a National Socialist, but a member of the Green Party?

I think Carryfast’s argument, one I agree with, is that if Thatcher was a nationalist, then why did she implement economic policies which ceded so much production and profit to foreign nations like China?

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Grandpa:
I said earlier that I was going to wind down my posts on this one because I already saw what was happening.

Capitalism is individual wealth creation and its ownership.

No, capitalism is rent extraction from wealth creators, and ownership overwhelmingly by a minority of rich.

If capitalism were merely wealth creation and individual ownership, then why are so many people putting in a full shift and still not making ends meet on their wages? Why is home ownership falling?

Communism is state ownership and its re-distribution. Thatcher was a nationalist and a lasses-faire capitalist who de-nationalised various state owned industries and cut back on state welfare.

It’s rather ironic to hear it said: she “was a nationalist who de-nationalised” everything.

The truth is that Thatcher was a nationalist where democratic power was concerned, and a globalist as far as markets and capital flows were concerned. That’s the sweet spot for the bosses, because it means driving down taxes, shedding obligations, and threatening to relocate every time the citizenry make democratic demands.

How can anyone equate Thatcher with communism, or China? That isn’t even an opinion, it’s a stupid comment. What comes next; Hitler wasn’t a National Socialist, but a member of the Green Party?

I think Carryfast’s argument, one I agree with, is that if Thatcher was a nationalist, then why did she implement economic policies which ceded so much production and profit to foreign nations like China?

It’s difficult to reconcile Thatcher’s enthusiasm for the ‘EEC’,bearing in mind the alarm bells of both Powell and Benn/Shore against it on grounds of National Sovereignty/Democracy/Political independence,with any possible at least genuine Nationalist tendency either politically or economically.

I think the reality is that 1 ) she was working for foreign interests politically ‘and’ economically.2 ) those interests have been proven to have been linked to the Chinese Communist Party and European Federalism possibly itself linked to the same agenda.

In which case reading back through this argument what I thought was just a credible conspiracy theory ( of my own ) now seems frighteningly beyond doubt to me.

While the Nationalist who de Nationalised the country paradox should also finally remove any doubt that Nationalist can mean left if not by definition can only mean left.IE what’s good for the Nation has to include the Nation’s working class.By ‘protecting’ the means of production and therefore the means of job creation to even keep it in a job,let alone pay its wages.On that note consider the game changer which BL etc operating within a protected market would have been.Instead of which we had the government chucking public money at struggling industries while leaving the door wide open to imports saturating our domestic markets.On the bs basis that our non existent exports would save the day.While at the same time calling on ever fewer workers to increase their ‘competitiveness’ by doing ever increasing amounts of work for ever decreasing pay in real terms.Then to add insult injury effectively removing unemployment cover for the resulting redundant workforce being slashed in the name of efficiency and over manning.

On that basis,unlike Thatcher, Shore and Benn and Heffer at least were all Nationalists.But who just didn’t know it because they were obviously thinking along the same lines of the singular politic left can only = Socialist that Grandpa is obviously grappling with on a selective double standards basis.But which I’d long ago freed my mind from.

The clever bit is the realisation that 1) ‘protecting’ and ‘nurturing’ the means of production and with it the interests of the workers ( Kennedy’s vision ) ain’t the same thing as 2) let’s take it over and go full ■■■■■■ for revenge against the bosses ( Lenin’s Stalin’s and Mao’s ).

Nor obviously let’s protect and nurture the worst base instincts of the worst type of exploitative bosses,including taking advantage of the exploitative anarchy which results from the Bolshevik mess resulting from 2.IE Thatcher and Reagan,with a bit of help from Nixon,throwing the western economies open to the Chinese Communist onslaught and Heath and Thatcher tying us to the USE/EUSSR as a sideshow.Partly to meet similar unholy US geopolitical/economic interests but also crucially in a way that best kept the Germans happy.

[muckles]

Rjan:
It is said that Brexit has already started to deter Eastern Europeans from temporary working in Britain.

So what do the Tories do as soon as it looks like the settled worker in Britain might be in line for better wages on farms? Open the doors to cheap Russian and Ukrainian workers:

theguardian.com/business/20 … te-germany

The article seems to have very little to do with Brexit and more to do with supply and demand of seasonal agricultural labour across the EU?

[muckles]

Grumpy Dad:
Has the government and left wing snowflakes actually sat down and thought about why Britain has a labour shortage, it’s because each and every government has promised to help the unemployed with increased benefits and handouts.
Britain has become a ever wanting society, the students want free learning with the bill passed to the tax payer, and paying tax is something the soap dodging layabouts will never pay as they bounce from course to course, grant after grant increasing the debt they’ll never pay, the unemployed who see living life on handouts a far easier existence than having to carry out manual labour to put food on the table.

Britain has its own viable workforce and maybe it’s time society was gripped by the balls and this workforce was put to use instead of increasing our national debt and our need for foreign labour.

Where are these feckless unemployed?
The unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since the 1970’s, something like 1.6m and many of those will be short term unemployed.

If its so easy and lucrative to be unemployed why are so many having to make do with minimum wage, terrible terms and conditions, having to work as self employed, not by choice but because the employer doesn’t want even the minimum commitments that come with employing workers?

[rjan]

muckles:

Rjan:
It is said that Brexit has already started to deter Eastern Europeans from temporary working in Britain.

So what do the Tories do as soon as it looks like the settled worker in Britain might be in line for better wages on farms? Open the doors to cheap Russian and Ukrainian workers:

theguardian.com/business/20 … te-germany

The article seems to have very little to do with Brexit and more to do with supply and demand of seasonal agricultural labour across the EU?

That wasn’t the point. The point was that as soon as inflows of workers from Eastern Europe have abated (for supply and demand reasons), the Tories have opened up another door to allow farm bosses to recruit new sources of cheap labour from Russia and Ukraine.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:
The article seems to have very little to do with Brexit and more to do with supply and demand of seasonal agricultural labour across the EU?

That wasn’t the point. The point was that as soon as inflows of workers from Eastern Europe have abated (for supply and demand reasons), the Tories have opened up another door to allow farm bosses to recruit new sources of cheap labour from Russia and Ukraine.

Exactly so the title is misleading. But regardless it doesn’t surprise me that the Conservatives would allow businesses to find another source of cheap worker, although seasonal agricultural workers, normally students have been used by farms for many years, I remember working with loads of East Europeans on the potato harvest in the 90’s, despite their rhetoric the conservative are as keen on high levels of immigration as any on the left of the political spectrum.