Jump to content

Michael Foot


Renton
 Share

Recommended Posts

History shows it's far fetched, my point is that it is not inconceivable. I was around back then and several times there appeared a real threat that the US would withdraw it's land forces from Europe - those events/arguments really happened, usually over Europe not spending enough to defend itself from the "red menace", why is it so inconceivable that IF we'd dissarmed those events might have had a different outcome.

 

The strategic importance of Europe is overblown, IMO, especially in days when you don't need to be within artillery range to strike devastatingly at an "enemy"

 

I was alive in the 70s and 80s and US withdrawal was never on the agenda from what I remember.

 

There's much more to 'strategic importance' than being in artillery range of the enemy. Had the Russians taken Europe, they would by far be the most powerful nation on the planet. The US could never allow that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

History shows it's far fetched, my point is that it is not inconceivable. I was around back then and several times there appeared a real threat that the US would withdraw it's land forces from Europe - those events/arguments really happened, usually over Europe not spending enough to defend itself from the "red menace", why is it so inconceivable that IF we'd dissarmed those events might have had a different outcome.

 

The strategic importance of Europe is overblown, IMO, especially in days when you don't need to be within artillery range to strike devastatingly at an "enemy"

 

I was alive in the 70s and 80s and US withdrawal was never on the agenda from what I remember.

 

There's much more to 'strategic importance' than being in artillery range of the enemy. Had the Russians taken Europe, they would by far be the most powerful nation on the planet. The US could never allow that.

 

 

exactly - the US would have lost a vast market - we'd all have had to buy Lada's rather than Fords etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Mail.....

 

Good Old Footy? No, a dangerous, deluded hypocrite

 

 

It wasn't so much the olive-green donkey jacket which men of my father's generation objected to. It was the fact that the Labour leader laying the wreath at the Cenotaph sat out the Second World War and let others do his fighting for him.

 

We still don't know the real reason Michael Foot managed to avoid military service. Some put it down to his pious Quaker pacifism qualifying him for a free pass. Others say it was ill-health, a combination of asthma and a skin complaint - though plenty of asthmatic boys with acne were at the front of the queue to sign up for the fight against the Nazis.

 

Foot preferred to sneer from the safety of the sidelines, even publishing a book attacking far better men than he for indulging Hitler throughout the 1930s, ignoring the indisputable reality that this 'appeasement' bought Britain time to re-arm, which ultimately equipped us to stand alone and ensured our survival as a free nation.

 

While his Left-wing contemporaries, including Tony Benn, were enlisting in the RAF, the Army and the Royal Navy, Foot was keeping the home fires burning at his luxury apartment in Mayfair, curled up on the sofa in a brocade smoking jacket, reading George Bernard Shaw.

 

Even if he was physically unsuited for the front line, there were plenty of other ways in which he could have done his bit for the war effort.

 

Foot could have joined the Home Guard and patrolled the White Cliffs of Dover with a breadknife strapped to a walking stick.

 

He could have found useful work in the munitions factories, or got himself a reserved occupation in the coalmines alongside those working-class heroes he lionised throughout his life.

 

When the British Expeditionary Force was being evacuated from Dunkirk, Foot could have joined the flotilla of small ships as a medical orderly, administering First Aid to the fallen as they retreated from the beaches. I'm sure Lord Beaverbrook would have loaned him his yacht.

The former Labour leader, pictured with his faithful dog, campaigned for unilateral disarmament

 

Instead, Foot opted to talk a good fight in the fashionable, self-indulgent socialist salons of the spoilt upper-middle classes and the leader columns of the Evening Standard.

 

Plenty of other Standard staffers fought and died in World War II. When I joined the paper in the late Seventies, there was a memorial to them in the foyer.

 

Foot was a standing affront to their sacrifice. But then he had previous. While one of his heroes, the trades union leader Jack Jones, and hundreds of other idealistic young British Leftists raced to fight the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, Foot stayed home.

 

There's always been a fine line between conscientious objection and cowardice. That's why so many of the tributes to Good Old Footy's 'bravery' this week had such a hollow ring.

 

Obituaries have pointed up Foot's friendship with Enoch Powell, who certainly wasn't afforded such glowing accolades on his death.

 

Yet Powell once said his greatest regret was not laying down his life for his country. No danger of Footy ever dying in the last ditch, unless it was on Hampstead Heath while out walking the dog.

 

His alleged asthma never prevented him delivering lungbursting speeches to CND rallies.

 

While campaigning for a nuclear-free world is a noble, if deluded, aim, Foot took it one step beyond.

 

He wanted unilateral disarmament - demanding Britain and the West give up our nukes while thousands of Russian warheads were pointed in our direction. You have to be a real 'intellectual' to come up with something so stupid and suicidal.

 

What were his motives? You might have thought that having survived the threat of Nazi totalitarianism, thanks to the sacrifices of others, Foot would have been alert to the equal dangers of communism. Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same coin.

 

Far from it. Like so many other misguided men and women of his generation, Foot was a Soviet stooge.

 

Although not a paid-up agent of Moscow, he was certainly one of the most prominent of Lenin's 'useful idiots'. The Labour Party was crawling with them in the Sixties, Seventies and early Eighties.

 

This may be all very well in an impressionable young student in a Doctor Who scarf and a Che Guevara T-shirt, but in a man who aspired to be Prime Minister it is nothing short of calamitous. Foot never grew up.

 

Yet still his apologists cite this as evidence of a humanitarian, romantic bent - as if a love of Hazlitt is enough to mitigate a willingness to surrender one's country to a hostile foreign nuclear power.

 

The revisionists have been out in force this week, their most ludicrous claim being that Good Old Footy was the man who saved the Labour Party for civilisation and democracy.

 

While we expect no better from Kinnochio, who can be relied upon to unpeel the onion at the drop of a Red Flag, from New Labourites a more hard-headed assessment might have been in order.

 

The truth is that Foot's leadership brought Labour to the brink of extinction. He gave free rein to the assorted Trots and spacemen infiltrating the party in the early Eighties. The 'longest suicide note in history' would have turned into a death sentence for Labour if a few more leading figures such as Roy Hattersley had walked out with the Gang of Four and joined the SDP.

 

It was Right-wing trades unionists such as the engineers' Terry Duffy and the electricians' Eric Hammond, who kept the Labour flame burning, not the Hampstead dinner-party set.

 

God help us if Footy had ever become Prime Minister.

 

His obituaries only go to prove once again that being of the Left means never having to say you're sorry. They'll even forgive him freeloading off the hated Tory newspaper baron Beaverbrook, who lavished upon Foot a country house and fabulous holidays in the South of France.

 

This titan of the Left enjoyed rich men's hospitality every bit as much as Peter Mandelson does today.

 

Foot's ocean-going hypocrisy is matched only by that of those New Labourites singing his praises this week. He stood up for what he believed in, they say. He was the true voice of dissent, unafraid to express his pacifist, socialist opinions.

 

Yet when Walter Wolfgang, a near contemporary of Foot, had the audacity to heckle Jack Straw over Iraq at a Labour conference, these same people had him thrown out by the police.

 

And when a poet started reading out the names of Iraq and Afghanistan war dead at the Cenotaph, they had her arrested under an act introduced deliberately to crush dissent.

 

If Good Old Footy turned up at the Cenotaph these days and started spouting his pacifist protest slogans, he'd get the collar of his donkey jacket felt before his wreath had touched the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't need to google that article to know Richard Littlejohn had written it....I've always thought "opinion writers" of whatever politcal hue are the most utterly fuckin useless receivers of a 6 figure salary that have ever drawn breath, and this article pretty much sums that up. A lot of it may be accurate, but RL's opinions, like Foot's during his time at the Evening Standard, are bought and paid for by the paper's proprietor. He has an agenda to push, and this annhilation of a man still warm on a slab is as classless as it is fuckin predictable. The dead cant sue, and the likes of this prick play on that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Mail want to mention the 1930s why don't they talk about their support for Hitler and other Fascists?

 

Fucking cunts.

 

 

to what support do you refer?

 

They praised Hitler's election and also had an infamous "Hooray for the blackshirts" headline in support of Moseley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Mail want to mention the 1930s why don't they talk about their support for Hitler and other Fascists?

 

Fucking cunts.

 

 

to what support do you refer?

 

They praised Hitler's election and also had an infamous "Hooray for the blackshirts" headline in support of Moseley.

 

Ive never seen or heard of that. do you have a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Mail want to mention the 1930s why don't they talk about their support for Hitler and other Fascists?

 

Fucking cunts.

 

 

to what support do you refer?

 

They praised Hitler's election and also had an infamous "Hooray for the blackshirts" headline in support of Moseley.

 

Ive never seen or heard of that. do you have a link?

 

Lord Rothermere owned the Daily Mail back then, and he along with the abdicated George V/ Duke of Windsor and that fuckin bandwagon jumping twat Oswald Mosely would've let the goosestepping cunts in before you could say "bratwurst und chips danke" :lol:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wiki (I know):

 

On 10 July 1933, Rothermere wrote an editorial titled "Youth Triumphant" in support of Adolf Hitler, this was subsequently used as propaganda by the Nazis.[23] In early 1934, Rothermere and the Mail were editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the radical National Socialist British Union of Fascists.[24] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".[25] During the great abdication crisis of 1936, the Daily Mail supported the King, but was only joined by the Daily Express, Evening Standard and Evening News.[26]

 

Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them up to 1939.[27][28] Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler. On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain. However, this was tempered by an awareness of the military threat from the resurgent Germany, of which he warned J.C. Davidson. Rothermere had an executive plane built by the Bristol Aeroplane Company which, with a speed of 307 mph, was faster than any fighter. In 1935, this plane was presented to the RAF on behalf of the Daily Mail where it became the Bristol Blenheim bomber.[29]

 

In 1937, the Mail's chief war correspondent, George Ward Price, to whom Mussolini once wrote in support of him and the newspaper, published a book, I Know These Dictators, in defence of Hitler and Mussolini. Evelyn Waugh was sent as a reporter for the Mail to cover the anticipated Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

 

In 1938, as persecution of the Jews in Europe escalated, the Mail objected to their seeking asylum in Britain. “The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. The number of aliens entering the country through the back door is­ a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.”

 

Rothermere and the Mail supported Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, particularly during the events leading up to the Munich Agreement. In 2005, the British Foreign Office disclosed previously secret letters from Rothermere addressed to Hitler from the summer of 1939, in which he congratulated the German leader on his annexation of Czechoslovakia, urged him to invade Romania, and called Hitler's work "great and superhuman". [2] [3]

Recent history

 

 

Note the point about Appeasement - something Michael Foot is famous for opposing - ironic given the articles thinly disguised accusation of cowardice.

 

As I sad - Fascist bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the point about Appeasement - something Michael Foot is famous for opposing

 

 

appeasement gave this country time to re-arm, especially the airforce. theres no way we could have stood against germany if they'd decided to invade us in 1938 or 1939. overall imo, appeasement was good politics at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the point about Appeasement - something Michael Foot is famous for opposing

 

 

appeasement gave this country time to re-arm, especially the airforce. theres no way we could have stood against germany if they'd decided to invade us in 1938 or 1939. overall imo, appeasement was good politics at that time.

 

Or... Chamberlain ignored offers from several high members of the Wehrmacht to stage a coup if he helped oppose the German claims on the Sudetenland. In dfoing so he condemned the world to war as it gave Hitler time to continue his armaments policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA you have what you guys wanted a country at the beck and call of America. Hope you're happy with it.

 

 

?? not sure what your getting at. quite frankly the end of the empire was pretty much settled after the 1st world war as we could no longer afford imperialism. and tbh, i'd rather be at the beck and call of the yanks than soviet russia. not saying i'm happy with that fact that we are. dont think ive ever said that

 

are you saying we shouldnt have fought WW2 and let germany have a free reign over western europe? that would have been a properly scary situation. with no resistance from the western allies germany would have probably overthrown the soviets and that would have been quite frankly terrifying as they could of then disposed of britain at their whim.

 

biggest mistake germany ever made was not disposing of us (the UK) in 1940 (either by invasion or treaty) as in reality we turned into a huge drop off point for america after that and the 2 front war was more than german infrastructure could take due to the bombing campaign of the western allies. the same western allies that would of been out of the war or at least been severly curtailed by the fact that 'airstrip 1' wasnt off the coast of their controlled teritory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA you have what you guys wanted a country at the beck and call of America. Hope you're happy with it.

 

 

?? not sure what your getting at. quite frankly the end of the empire was pretty much settled after the 1st world war as we could no longer afford imperialism. and tbh, i'd rather be at the beck and call of the yanks than soviet russia. not saying i'm happy with that fact that we are. dont think ive ever said that

 

are you saying we shouldnt have fought WW2 and let germany have a free reign over western europe? that would have been a properly scary situation. with no resistance from the western allies germany would have probably overthrown the soviets and that would have been quite frankly terrifying as they could of then disposed of britain at their whim.

 

biggest mistake germany ever made was not disposing of us (the UK) in 1940 (either by invasion or treaty) as in reality we turned into a huge drop off point for america after that and the 2 front war was more than german infrastructure could take due to the bombing campaign of the western allies. the same western allies that would of been out of the war or at least been severly curtailed by the fact that 'airstrip 1' wasnt off the coast of their controlled teritory.

 

Germany made so many mistakes due to being run by a sociopath it is hard to really identify the biggest but I would call the invasion of Russia the biggest as it was the war in the east which destoyed the werhmacht more so thann the allies did.

The Allied bombing offensive was surprisingly ineffective and German war production was hardly dented until late in 1944 beginning of 1945 and that was mainly due to territorial losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA you have what you guys wanted a country at the beck and call of America. Hope you're happy with it.

 

 

?? not sure what your getting at. quite frankly the end of the empire was pretty much settled after the 1st world war as we could no longer afford imperialism. and tbh, i'd rather be at the beck and call of the yanks than soviet russia. not saying i'm happy with that fact that we are. dont think ive ever said that

 

are you saying we shouldnt have fought WW2 and let germany have a free reign over western europe? that would have been a properly scary situation. with no resistance from the western allies germany would have probably overthrown the soviets and that would have been quite frankly terrifying as they could of then disposed of britain at their whim.

 

biggest mistake germany ever made was not disposing of us (the UK) in 1940 (either by invasion or treaty) as in reality we turned into a huge drop off point for america after that and the 2 front war was more than german infrastructure could take due to the bombing campaign of the western allies. the same western allies that would of been out of the war or at least been severly curtailed by the fact that 'airstrip 1' wasnt off the coast of their controlled teritory.

 

Germany made so many mistakes due to being run by a sociopath it is hard to really identify the biggest but I would call the invasion of Russia the biggest as it was the war in the east which destoyed the werhmacht more so thann the allies did.

The Allied bombing offensive was surprisingly ineffective and German war production was hardly dented until late in 1944 beginning of 1945 and that was mainly due to territorial losses.

 

not quite true - there was a book out a year or so back on the economics of the war in Jormany and the air offensive diverted troops, aircraft, guns etc from the front line from 1942 onwards. It was like a bad tooth - not bad enough to kill you but bloody annoying and sapping your energy

 

Hitler got it wrong not just by invading Russia but by treating the natives as unter-menschen. If he'd promised the Ukranians and the Azeri's soem sort of freedom it would have been a stroll in the park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA you have what you guys wanted a country at the beck and call of America. Hope you're happy with it.

 

 

?? not sure what your getting at. quite frankly the end of the empire was pretty much settled after the 1st world war as we could no longer afford imperialism. and tbh, i'd rather be at the beck and call of the yanks than soviet russia. not saying i'm happy with that fact that we are. dont think ive ever said that

 

are you saying we shouldnt have fought WW2 and let germany have a free reign over western europe? that would have been a properly scary situation. with no resistance from the western allies germany would have probably overthrown the soviets and that would have been quite frankly terrifying as they could of then disposed of britain at their whim.

 

biggest mistake germany ever made was not disposing of us (the UK) in 1940 (either by invasion or treaty) as in reality we turned into a huge drop off point for america after that and the 2 front war was more than german infrastructure could take due to the bombing campaign of the western allies. the same western allies that would of been out of the war or at least been severly curtailed by the fact that 'airstrip 1' wasnt off the coast of their controlled teritory.

 

I'm not talking about the war, I'm referring to your constant digs at the proud tradition of fair play and inclusiveness that pervades the British left. Of course it began with that witch Thatcher (Is she still alive she must be drinking the blood of virgins?) She bought into the whole neo-conservative thesis of perpetual conflict and bolshiness and the expansion of a dracula like private sector. Working claw in glove with the dumbest man alive at that time Reagan (a puppet of the Jewish banking cartels like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs/Bear Stearns (since defunct) they took profit and value out of the system and away from people driven projects. Of course this has been continued by Blair ( a very unsound man and a genetic liar with an ugly posh vindictive wife) and the the 2nd most cluesless president after Reagan - vis a vie Bush Jnr. None of these people and their supporters give a flying fuck about the likes of me and you and keep gumbies like you distracted with perpetual stories of fear and disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Mail want to mention the 1930s why don't they talk about their support for Hitler and other Fascists?

 

Fucking cunts.

 

and support for the growth and influence of Islam is what exactly ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Mail want to mention the 1930s why don't they talk about their support for Hitler and other Fascists?

 

Fucking cunts.

 

 

to what support do you refer?

 

They praised Hitler's election and also had an infamous "Hooray for the blackshirts" headline in support of Moseley.

 

Ive never seen or heard of that. do you have a link?

 

Lord Rothermere owned the Daily Mail back then, and he along with the abdicated George V/ Duke of Windsor and that fuckin bandwagon jumping twat Oswald Mosely would've let the goosestepping cunts in before you could say "bratwurst und chips danke" :lol:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

 

and the "educated and intelligent" Micheal Foot supported CND, and the growth of Socialist Soviet Russia ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA you have what you guys wanted a country at the beck and call of America. Hope you're happy with it.

 

 

?? not sure what your getting at. quite frankly the end of the empire was pretty much settled after the 1st world war as we could no longer afford imperialism. and tbh, i'd rather be at the beck and call of the yanks than soviet russia. not saying i'm happy with that fact that we are. dont think ive ever said that

 

are you saying we shouldnt have fought WW2 and let germany have a free reign over western europe? that would have been a properly scary situation. with no resistance from the western allies germany would have probably overthrown the soviets and that would have been quite frankly terrifying as they could of then disposed of britain at their whim.

 

biggest mistake germany ever made was not disposing of us (the UK) in 1940 (either by invasion or treaty) as in reality we turned into a huge drop off point for america after that and the 2 front war was more than german infrastructure could take due to the bombing campaign of the western allies. the same western allies that would of been out of the war or at least been severly curtailed by the fact that 'airstrip 1' wasnt off the coast of their controlled teritory.

 

I'm not talking about the war, I'm referring to your constant digs at the proud tradition of fair play and inclusiveness that pervades the British left. Of course it began with that witch Thatcher (Is she still alive she must be drinking the blood of virgins?) She bought into the whole neo-conservative thesis of perpetual conflict and bolshiness and the expansion of a dracula like private sector. Working claw in glove with the dumbest man alive at that time Reagan (a puppet of the Jewish banking cartels like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs/Bear Stearns (since defunct) they took profit and value out of the system and away from people driven projects. Of course this has been continued by Blair ( a very unsound man and a genetic liar with an ugly posh vindictive wife) and the the 2nd most cluesless president after Reagan - vis a vie Bush Jnr. None of these people and their supporters give a flying fuck about the likes of me and you and keep gumbies like you distracted with perpetual stories of fear and disaster.

 

 

time of the month Parky???

 

ffs, fair play and inclusiveness. think peter mandelson...................

 

Still dont understand why you think i wanted a country at the beck and call of america. you blame the right for this fair enough, but as i said if it wasnt the yanks it would of been the commies. i reckon i know which is better.

 

i reckon you're completely correct about the americans, the blairs and also the fact no one in your post (inc. thatcher) gives a fuck about me and you. they dont have to give a fuck tho, they just have to make things work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AA you have what you guys wanted a country at the beck and call of America. Hope you're happy with it.

 

 

?? not sure what your getting at. quite frankly the end of the empire was pretty much settled after the 1st world war as we could no longer afford imperialism. and tbh, i'd rather be at the beck and call of the yanks than soviet russia. not saying i'm happy with that fact that we are. dont think ive ever said that

 

are you saying we shouldnt have fought WW2 and let germany have a free reign over western europe? that would have been a properly scary situation. with no resistance from the western allies germany would have probably overthrown the soviets and that would have been quite frankly terrifying as they could of then disposed of britain at their whim.

 

biggest mistake germany ever made was not disposing of us (the UK) in 1940 (either by invasion or treaty) as in reality we turned into a huge drop off point for america after that and the 2 front war was more than german infrastructure could take due to the bombing campaign of the western allies. the same western allies that would of been out of the war or at least been severly curtailed by the fact that 'airstrip 1' wasnt off the coast of their controlled teritory.

 

I'm not talking about the war, I'm referring to your constant digs at the proud tradition of fair play and inclusiveness that pervades the British left. Of course it began with that witch Thatcher (Is she still alive she must be drinking the blood of virgins?) She bought into the whole neo-conservative thesis of perpetual conflict and bolshiness and the expansion of a dracula like private sector. Working claw in glove with the dumbest man alive at that time Reagan (a puppet of the Jewish banking cartels like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs/Bear Stearns (since defunct) they took profit and value out of the system and away from people driven projects. Of course this has been continued by Blair ( a very unsound man and a genetic liar with an ugly posh vindictive wife) and the the 2nd most cluesless president after Reagan - vis a vie Bush Jnr. None of these people and their supporters give a flying fuck about the likes of me and you and keep gumbies like you distracted with perpetual stories of fear and disaster.

 

Nice post. I agree entirely except for the needless anti-semitic remark. :lol:

 

Still, getting 30 years worth of western history into one paragraph is quite impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the war, I'm referring to your constant digs at the proud tradition of fair play and inclusiveness that pervades the British left. Of course it began with that witch Thatcher (Is she still alive she must be drinking the blood of virgins?) She bought into the whole neo-conservative thesis of perpetual conflict and bolshiness and the expansion of a dracula like private sector. Working claw in glove with the dumbest man alive at that time Reagan (a puppet of the Jewish banking cartels like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs/Bear Stearns (since defunct) they took profit and value out of the system and away from people driven projects. Of course this has been continued by Blair ( a very unsound man and a genetic liar with an ugly posh vindictive wife) and the the 2nd most cluesless president after Reagan - vis a vie Bush Jnr. None of these people and their supporters give a flying fuck about the likes of me and you and keep gumbies like you distracted with perpetual stories of fear and disaster.

 

Crikey, that post is just a mirror image of The Mail. People slag off The Mail (quite rightly) for their one-sided, slagging rhetoric, but your post is just exaclty the same, albeit from a different corner. I'm always open for debate, regardless of where it comes from, but why must folk resort to needless, infantile insults? Argue your corner, Parky, just leave out the unnecessary vitriol. IMO :lol:

 

This is from a frustrated commie, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the war, I'm referring to your constant digs at the proud tradition of fair play and inclusiveness that pervades the British left. Of course it began with that witch Thatcher (Is she still alive she must be drinking the blood of virgins?) She bought into the whole neo-conservative thesis of perpetual conflict and bolshiness and the expansion of a dracula like private sector. Working claw in glove with the dumbest man alive at that time Reagan (a puppet of the Jewish banking cartels like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs/Bear Stearns (since defunct) they took profit and value out of the system and away from people driven projects. Of course this has been continued by Blair ( a very unsound man and a genetic liar with an ugly posh vindictive wife) and the the 2nd most cluesless president after Reagan - vis a vie Bush Jnr. None of these people and their supporters give a flying fuck about the likes of me and you and keep gumbies like you distracted with perpetual stories of fear and disaster.

 

Crikey, that post is just a mirror image of The Mail. People slag off The Mail (quite rightly) for their one-sided, slagging rhetoric, but your post is just exaclty the same, albeit from a different corner. I'm always open for debate, regardless of where it comes from, but why must folk resort to needless, infantile insults? Argue your corner, Parky, just leave out the unnecessary vitriol. IMO :blush:

 

This is from a frustrated commie, btw.

 

Aye, but there's a massive difference to posting on a messageboard and publishing in a mainstream 'newspaper' like the Mail, aimed at the mass market (sheeple [\Parky]), isn't there? Anyway I agree with him so I'll let him off. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Mail want to mention the 1930s why don't they talk about their support for Hitler and other Fascists?

 

Fucking cunts.

 

 

to what support do you refer?

 

They praised Hitler's election and also had an infamous "Hooray for the blackshirts" headline in support of Moseley.

 

Ive never seen or heard of that. do you have a link?

 

Lord Rothermere owned the Daily Mail back then, and he along with the abdicated George V/ Duke of Windsor and that fuckin bandwagon jumping twat Oswald Mosely would've let the goosestepping cunts in before you could say "bratwurst und chips danke" :lol:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

 

and the "educated and intelligent" Micheal Foot supported CND, and the growth of Socialist Soviet Russia ?

 

Can't really argue with that but Communism or Facism would've/will have never took off in this country because we tend to laugh at extreamists of whatever political persuasion. The vast majority of us think they're all idiots. But it has to be said that in the 30s facist ideas were in the minds of some very powerful people. There was the Soviet spies at Oxbrigde of course,Philby,MaClean.Blunt etc, but were they really in a posistion to do anything apart form pass secrets on and plot?....The Duke of Windsor visited Hitler straight after the abdication. We've a lot to be thankful to Mrs Simpson for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.