BS: Queen Mother

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:16 AM

Show me a simple recorded fact that shows any communist manifesto requiring mass murder and I'll show you that membership of the Catholic Church requires one to sexually abuse children and that being a Muslim requires you to behead infidels. Alternatively, take off your ideologue's blinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM

Show me a simple recorded fact that shows any communist manifesto requiring mass murder

There is none Steve, but the fact remains that an extraordinary proportion of them have resulted in just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:28 AM

See earlier points dismissing this silly attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:38 AM

The manifestos of political parties all over the world are about as far from reality as you can get - political parties are known by their actions and the results of those actions.

"The revolution was foreseen by the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky who died more than 30 years before it. He wrote:

"Ungodly atheism is near, our children will see it. International decided that the European revolution will start in Russia and it will as we do not have reliable resistance in administration nor society. The mutiny will start with atheism and robbery of all riches they will start to depose the religion, destroy temples and turn them into barracks and barns, engulf the world in blood and then themselves get frightened"."

Orwell's "Animal Farm" was based on the Russian Revolution - the main characters Napoleon = Stalin; Snowball = Trotsky. In the book "Napoleon overthrows Snowball as Stalin overthrew Trotsky and Napoleon took over the farm on which the animals were living on. Napoleon became a tyrant and used force and propaganda to oppress the animals"

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:22 AM

"I can put up plenty of historians like those of Newark Colleg"
I'm sure you can and will, but it does not alter the fact that there has been no solid reliable evidence
I aked you why I should bother to debate with someone who is not interested in the subject to go beyond dredging the net for his information - you have just confirmed that I shouldn't bother
Come back when you've read a book (or maybe you could pick up some jargon from your mate, Torybus
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:43 AM

the fact that there has been no solid reliable evidence

There is.
It is still within living memory.
I have shown you that there is enough "solid reliable evidence" to satisfy the historians.

Once again, you people imagine yourselves better informed about history than historians!
McGrath actually believes they are followers of whims of fashion!

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:54 AM

however, there are very many versions of capitalist ideology that require the wishes of millions of people to be ignored; their livelihoods to be fucked; their environments to be trashed and their lives to be sacrificed to the war machine in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. 1% gain - and if any of the rest of us gain it's a lucky accident.

at least communism is based on a good intention - that we should help each other.

global capitalism is just greed no matter how much you try and find a moral justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 11:42 AM

"It is still within living memory."
Living memory needs to be researched and written down to be understood - not partially borrowed from to suit personal agendas.
Where can we go for this "living memory"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 12:37 PM

" there are very many versions of capitalist ideology that require the wishes of millions of people to be ignored; their livelihoods to be fucked; their environments to be trashed and their lives to be sacrificed to the war machine in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. 1% gain - and if any of the rest of us gain it's a lucky accident.

at least communism is based on a good intention - that we should help each other."

Now whatever box of Christmas crackers that came out of must have been exceptionally cheap.

1: "The wishes of millions to be ignored"
Correct me if I am in error here but in the "Big, Bad Democratic West" we get the choice to vote in who we think will give us what we want. We are free to strike, protest and demonstrate against things we do not like. Not so in "Communist" countries, if you did that you would be deemed to be "An Enemy of the State" arrested charged imprisoned and possibly shot. Acid test on those "good intentions" Achmelvich - go and ask the Poles, the Hungarians and others who enjoyed living under the beneficence of Communist Russian rule if they would welcome those days back? My guess is that you'd get short shrift.

2: "their livelihoods to be fucked;"
Under any communist system you do what you are told, work at what you are assigned to for the good of the State - a state by the way that you as a working class prole could never be part of unless invited into the club by the communist elite - less than 5% of the population of the USSR were Communist Party Members and they ruled the place for THEIR benefit, at no time at all did the wishes of the people ever feature.

3: "their environments to be trashed"
I take it from that that you have never been to the former Soviet Union or any of their former Republics - you have not seen trashed environments until you have. At the last count I think it was 27 rotting wrecks of ships and submarines with nuclear reactors quietly fizzing away left to rot by your communist pals up in the Kara Sea.

4: "and their lives to be sacrificed to the war machine in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. 1% gain - and if any of the rest of us gain it's a lucky accident."

Oh I think that is very true that the Soviet Communist Party Members were all too willing to send their conscripts to their deaths in various scraps round the world 15,000 odd killed in Afghanistan alone. 5% not 1%. As to "any of the rest gain it's a lucky accident"?? Oh poor victim me type sniveling, funny thing is that the harder you work and the more you apply yourself - the luckier you get. That is the trouble with "socialists" it is always someone else's fault, always someone else's responsibility, it is always up to some else to do something - bollocks do it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

More superciliousness - very convincing!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 01:27 PM

Historians' findings, very convincing.
Jim's whims, not convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 01:28 PM

Interesting how the Big Bad Democratic West, paragons when it comes to letting people vote for what they think they want, has a history of undermining other regimes that want people to vote for what they think they want (Chile) and installing their own men who make people do what they're told under pain of death or disappearance (General Pinochet, not exactly a commie). There are plenty more examples of the West propping up people who like to tell people to do exactly what they're told. Oh yes, western democracy can be a very moveable feast. Incidentally, the right-wingers among the leaders of the BBDW are very concerned to keep people uneducated about their own political systems. Efforts to increase the education of children in politics usually arouse howls of communist plotting. Better keep the people ignorant. It's a slight inconvenience when this approach has the unintended consequence of, for example, four million people voting UKIP, but hey ho. And, when you have the Murdoch empire and the Mail onside, it's so much easier to sell your propaganda and smears to under-educated voters, innit? On the whole, I have a feeling that this capitalist/democracy malarkey isn't exactly a done deal. Before criticising what you regard as other failed political experiments, it's as well to cast out the plank, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 02:50 PM

History, like economics, is a branch of literature, not a science. For that matter, the same can be said for much that is often referred to as science.

That doesn't mean it can't tell us important stuff. The same is true for other branches of liteature. But a consensus among historians, if any such thing ever exists, is no more capable of closing an issue than a consensus among novelists would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 02:50 PM

"Historians' findings, very convincing"
You've met somebody who's read one then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:04 PM

Just a hint, Jim: you are at your least lovable when indulging in heavy, aggressive — but entirely unconstructive — sarcasm. To say nothing of your least convincing!

Advice intended in helpful & friendly fashion, you will of course understand. But I expect nevertheless that you wish I would piss off.

Best regards azzevva

≈Michael≈

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:32 PM

"Advice intended in helpful & friendly fashion"
Accepted ads such MIke
XXX
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:34 PM

But it would be pleasant to discuss with somebody who's actually read a book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:16 PM

Jim, I have posted the views of a number of historians.
You have posted absolutely nothing at all that remotely supports your silly assertions.

If you have read a book that informs your opinion, give us the title and author.
Confident prediction, you have not.

Just whims from Jim, and his empty head.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 04:01 AM

"Jim, I have posted the views of a number of historians."
Historian again- have you tried to get help - an exorcist might be the solution.
I, at least, have taken the trouble to read up the period.
I suggest you do the same.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 05:05 AM

Jim, we are discussing history.
That is why I refer to the findings of historians.
Your objection is just that they contradict your cherished prejudices, again.

You claim to have " read up the period."
If you have read anything that disputes Stalin's culpability for the deaths of millions of ordinary peasant people, tell us where.

I have quoted a number of historians who are quite clear that he was.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM

"I, at least, have taken the trouble to read up the period.
I suggest you do the same."

Have you Jim? We have only your word for it, and when asked to elaborate on whose work you have "read up on" you seem extremely reluctant to provide source, work and author. Not surprised at that really Jim, in the past your sources quoted and taken by you as being the "gospel truth" turned out to be highly speculative and unsubstantiated newspaper articles, in newspapers that if used to argue a case against any point you support are instantly dismissed by you as being biased right wing rags.

Keith A on the other hand has given his sources, works and authors who at least are qualified historians who specialise in the subject and who have been trained to examine events from different perspectives before arriving at their conclusions and reading of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM

Name one book about the subject you have actually read.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 09:27 AM

"We have only your word for it, "
We don't need your word on it; you pronounce - you seldom quote or claim to have authority to back up what you say - and you always do it in a sneering manner, as if those who disagree with you are lesser beings.
Happy to supply my reading list to you any time you wish - have constantly attempted to recommend books I feel important, as I have just done on the other thread.
One of the most important books on the period was Robert Conquest's The Great Terror - on the thirties rather than the Famine
My point on reading is that it is essential if you are going to understand subject fully and in context - Keith seems to be immune to this and prefers to either selectively quote scooped up bits that fit a decided line of thought, or invent them when they don't - that is the sum total of his reading, it would appear.
I ave no ideawhat your is, as you hardly ever quote - just pontificate
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 10:42 AM

Keith seems to be immune to this and prefers to either selectively quote scooped up bits that fit a decided line of thought, or invent them when they don't

Not true.
I was unable to find any sources at all that support your view that Stalin might not be culpable.
You have also failed to produce any such.

What I pasted in were just typical examples of what historians say about it.

I could easily produce more.
You have yet to produce anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 11:04 AM

Come along and name a book you have read on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 11:35 AM

hello teribus. in replying to my post what do you keep banging on about soviet 'communism' for? if you tried really hard you may find about half a dozen folk in this country who have still not realised that that whole episode was a disgusting and lethal experiment. as was the system in russia before it and the one that has emerged in recent years. i used to like the slogan 'neither washington nor moscow but international socialism'while it's still broadly true for me moscow has little influence in the world these days apart from what their oligarchs and gansters can buy by selling off stolen state assets.
My post was about capitalism -do you really have no criticisms of it's various modern day applications around the world?

(i don't buy crackers - we lefties tend to be a bit sniffy about the more commercial aspects of the annual celebration of consumerism)

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 12:39 PM

Rag, like Jim I have read the great Terror by Conquest, albeit the revised edition.
I was surprised he referred to it as both editions unequivocally hold Stalin responsible for that terror.

I have also read the biographies by Deucher and Rigby.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 12:49 PM

Astonishing ............. did you understand them

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:17 PM

And what makes you imagine you have any warrant to be so o-so-bloody-superior? Trim your nasty raggy tache & mind your manners.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:22 PM

the raven chides blackness

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:30 PM

Michael, you criticise people for being rude more than most here, yet are one of the rudest people on the forum. Perhaps you think that your age entitles you to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:43 PM

"I was surprised he referred to it as both editions unequivocally hold Stalin responsible for that terror."
Everbody holds Stalin responsible for that terror - nobody is suggesting otherwise - what's your point
"I have also read the biographies by Deucher"
You mean Deutscher?
Hmmm!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM

Michael, I will harken to your admonishment on the proviso that you harken to the illiterate garbage that KAOH normally issues. I'm sure neither of us would wish to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:08 PM

Some recent instances of my rudeness, if you please, Steve? Within, let's say, the last year or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:21 PM

I don't find Michael rude at all. Compared to a lot of the shite that goes on here, he is the essence of decorum.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:27 PM

Raggytash -- I have made no secret of the fact that I am often in far closer agreement with Keith than with all the rest of you oh-so-selfrighteous wellmeaners. One of the major insufferablenesses of you lot over there on the port side is that sickening air of moral superiority for your opinions that you adopt, with the manifest overtone that only the unregenerate evil could possibly differ with them, whilst you are all possessed of every scintilla of virtuous saintliness known to manifest itself in this sad world in which people are given votes by extreme your grace & favour and then proceed to cast them in ways of which your mightinesses disapprove.

And what, pray, are your claims to regarding yourself as more 'literate' than him (us)? For a start, you appear to have only the sketchiest idea of wherein 'literacy' obtains or exists.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:28 PM

Thank you, HiLo

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:39 PM

And a word of comment, Steve. You tend to repeat your effects to the point of extreme tedium, which detracts immeasurably from the cogency of your arguments. What, for instance, is the purpose of your constant harping on the fact that I happen to have been born some years before you, and to have contrived to avoid death up to now? A really pathetic substitute for any sort of intelligent dispute. Do you think me too senile to keep up with your almighty intellect? I flatter myself I could outperform your puny intelligence in any sort of contest that might be devised to that end; if I could be bothered.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:51 PM

And some people might, I suppose, have once found a modicum of wit in all those hilarious references to my need for a "nurse"; till you flogged the joke unmercifully to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:54 PM

"And what makes you imagine you have any warrant to be so o-so-bloody-superior"

Perhaps Michael you could elucidate on your own superiority. No, please don't, you have already done so far too often.

I have no doubts about your command of the English language However despite that knowledge you seem to say very little.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:06 PM

Perhaps not, Guest. Matter of opinion But at least I am not so pusillanimous as to post offensively but anonymously.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:13 PM

Not pusillanimous Michael, merely an oversight on my behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:21 PM

Ah, it's you all along! Well I never!

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM

Oh I'm sure you did Michael, when you were younger perchance.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:09 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion - PM
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:06 PM

Perhaps not, Guest. Matter of opinion But at least I am not so pusillanimous as to post offensively but anonymously."
Hear Hear, Michael has style, its always a pleasure to read the out pourings from the aforesaid booby, his claptrap, codswallop and crapola is delivered with elegance that makes one wonder if he has kissed the Blarney Stone, long may he continue to pontificate his philisophical peregrinations.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:47 PM

Don't be fooled, Guest. Michael's "command of the English language" is entirely predicated on pretentious and arcane (he thinks) constructions that he uses to try, unsuccessfully because he's so easy to see through, to browbeat us with into bouts of completely unnecessary mental processing. Frankly, it's plain rude (though "plain" would seem to be a word that has bypassed Michael's lexicon). A person who has true command of the language comes across as elegant, simple, lucid and easy to understand, without the need to be patronising. I'm afraid that Michael fails on every count. He could be successful, of course, as he has the intellectual potential to be erudite, but he does need to find some way of extracting his head from up his bottom first.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:51 PM

And as for Michael's bleatings about his not being rude, just have a look at his 02.27pm post. Rudeness personified.