FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Winston Churchill was a traitor

Jump to newest
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London

"Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today.

What is this sovereign remedy?

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.

The process is simple.

All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong, and gain as their reward, blessing instead of cursing."

What an utter twatish, liberal bremoaner he'd be!

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He said that but not for it not to include the UK. I thought that was common knowledge

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"He said that but not for it not to include the UK. I thought that was common knowledge"

Why shouldn't it contain Britain?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London

I wasn't saying anything other than he seemed to have nuanced, liberal, namby pamby, wishy washy

views on Europe.

You're right though, I lack common knowledge. I just assume that getting as much information as I can that I do or do not agree with will point me in the right direction.

I guess he was a bit confused when he turned up at the Congress of Europe and said this:

"the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies-in this case armies of peace-under one supreme headquarters. Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence"

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/WSCHague.html

Probably a bit confused at a Conservative party rally in Llandudno too:

"The first circle for us is naturally the British Commonwealth and Empire, with all that that comprises. Then there is also the English-speaking world in which we, Canada, and the other British Dominions and the United States play so important a part. And finally there is United Europe. These three majestic circles are co-existent and if they are linked together there is no force or combination which could overthrow them or even challenge them.

Now if you think of the three interlinked circles you will see that we are the only country which has a great part in every one of them. We stand, in fact, at the very point of junction, and here in this Island at the centre of the seaways and perhaps of the airways also, we have the opportunity of joining them all together. If we rise to the occasion in the years that are to come it may be found that once again we hold the key to opening a safe and happy future to humanity, and will gain for ourselves gratitude and fame.”

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-160/articles-wsc-s-three-majestic-circles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

[Removed by poster at 22/12/16 22:31:43]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP"

He was in the conservative party first

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first "

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism "

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasure domMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism "

You're not wrong there - the main difference between the fascism of the Third Reich and the communism of the Soviet Union or Mao's China is the colour of the uniform. Otherwise, they are just psychotic abusers of their fellow man, infected with the very worst traits of humanity which are unparalleled in other life forms.

In our own society, I have to smile at the irony of the fascists on the hard left who belong to the anti-fascist league. If those people had a sniff of power....infinitely worse than any "street activist" from their opponents.

Or, for those who are close to power, the neo-liberal fascism of demagogues such as Gordon Brown, Tony "Messiah" Blair (666) and Peter Mandelson and, fortunately now removed from any proximity to power, the very illiberal and anti-democratic lib-dems.

Ain't that right, Herr Farran?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first "

I could be wrong but I've a feeling he was a communist to start with .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me. "

Yet Churchill was the main force against Facism !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


" Yet Churchill was the main force against Facism !

"

He was a Liberal and then a Conservative and then NOT a Eurosceptic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP"

Did you really compare Churchill to Mosely?

I assume you were making another point about Churchill's well known aversion to Eurpope which I missed...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism "

No it doesn't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

You're not wrong there - the main difference between the fascism of the Third Reich and the communism of the Soviet Union or Mao's China is the colour of the uniform. Otherwise, they are just psychotic abusers of their fellow man, infected with the very worst traits of humanity which are unparalleled in other life forms.

In our own society, I have to smile at the irony of the fascists on the hard left who belong to the anti-fascist league. If those people had a sniff of power....infinitely worse than any "street activist" from their opponents.

Or, for those who are close to power, the neo-liberal fascism of demagogues such as Gordon Brown, Tony "Messiah" Blair (666) and Peter Mandelson and, fortunately now removed from any proximity to power, the very illiberal and anti-democratic lib-dems.

Ain't that right, Herr Farran?"

How would you describe Thatcher's reign?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasure domMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh

"How would you describe Thatcher's reign?"

For mining communities desolated and ripped apart by a spiteful political strategy infused with deceit and criminality (aided by Scargill playing into her hands) - a bloody disaster.

For sectors of British manufacturing industry, providors of skilled jobs, allowed to go to the wall when European countries nursed theirs through to long-term survival and prosperity - well, the effect is with us to this day.

Thatcher's reliance on the ludicrous economic doctrines of the Chicago school, was just plain madness. No doubt that Britain's industrial practices required reform, but she was a ruthless ideologue lacking the imagination to forsee the end result of her policies.

Trickle down effect? Aye, right! As big a lie as "the cheque's in the post"

Anyone who actually WANTS to be prime minister is probably least suited for the position. Very few possess all the qualities required.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me. "

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

The first quote is Hitler.

The second quote is Karl Marx.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

Did you really compare Churchill to Mosely?

I assume you were making another point about Churchill's well known aversion to Eurpope which I missed..."

No, quite the opposite. One wanted to be a part of it the other simply wanted to be a sponsor and ally. Churchill wasn't averse to Europe but did not want to be a part of a federal Europe which I think is what you are suggesting from this post/thread

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me.

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

The first quote is Hitler.

The second quote is Karl Marx."

Not seen those quoted before but they are quite enlightening , also bear in mind the nazis called themselves national socialists !

It almost doesn't bear thinking about but if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia they could have ended up as Allies !

Now that would have been Scary. !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otlovefun42Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me. "

Tell that to Hitler (National Socialist) or Mussolini (who was a high ranking socialist in his early years)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otlovefun42Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Going back to the original post.

Churchill made those speeches while the horrors (and causes)of two world wars were still fresh in everybody's memory.

However the world and Europe has moved on and what seemed reasonable in the late 40's/early 50's is pretty much irrelevant (and outdated) today.

You can never judge the past through 21st century eyes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"Going back to the original post.

Churchill made those speeches while the horrors (and causes)of two world wars were still fresh in everybody's memory.

However the world and Europe has moved on and what seemed reasonable in the late 40's/early 50's is pretty much irrelevant (and outdated) today.

You can never judge the past through 21st century eyes."

Do you really think that there is no more hatred anymore and therefore the threat of conflict is impossible?

"It couldn't happen now" has been said in error in many places and many times through recent history.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otlovefun42Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...


"Going back to the original post.

Churchill made those speeches while the horrors (and causes)of two world wars were still fresh in everybody's memory.

However the world and Europe has moved on and what seemed reasonable in the late 40's/early 50's is pretty much irrelevant (and outdated) today.

You can never judge the past through 21st century eyes.

Do you really think that there is no more hatred anymore and therefore the threat of conflict is impossible?

"It couldn't happen now" has been said in error in many places and many times through recent history.

"

There is plenty of scope for conflict at the moment but I don't envisage Merkel's tanks charging through the Ardennes any time soon.

With or without a USE.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"He said that but not for it not to include the UK. I thought that was common knowledge"

Yes another Churchill quote, "If Britain must chose between Europe and the open sea, she must always chose the open sea".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasure domMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh

"It almost doesn't bear thinking about but if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia they could have ended up as Allies!"

They were allies!

After Molotov and von Ribbentrop signed the non-aggression pact, both Germany and Russia invaded Poland. The Poles in the east suffered more than those in the German zone. The NKVD's massacre of 25,000 Polish officers in Katyn Wood was one particularly notorious act during that period.

Then Hitler turned on his ally of convenience and launched Operation Barbarossa, completely surprising the soviets in an advance which was only halted by the Russian winter at Stalingrad.

Only after Germany invaded Russia did Stalin request an alliance with the west. Russia was saved by a long winter, the leadership of Zhukov and the supplies delivered by our merchant navy via the horrific arctic convoy route.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasure domMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh

Although not attributable to one person, more a dynasty of monarchs and aristocrat-politicians, the British empire carries the shame of a significant place in the roll of dishonour for massacres, land grabs, genocide and slavery.

Yet during indyref 1, Cameron & co liked to describe the union as the most successful in history.

If one is to be objective with the facts and not the story we like to tell ourselves, is there really such a difference between reich and empire, swastika and butchers' apron?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"He said that but not for it not to include the UK. I thought that was common knowledge

Yes another Churchill quote, "If Britain must chose between Europe and the open sea, she must always chose the open sea". "

You missed the end of the quote:

"Every time I have to decide between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt."

It was apparently said privately and in anger and aimed at de Gaulle as D-Day began. I could not find a reliable source to confirm the quote though. Please do so if you can.

I have provided quotes from public, post-war speeches when Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth and the rest of the world was far clearer and when he wasn't shouting at someone that has annoyed the he'll our of him just before one of history's greatest military gambles.

I do not think he was a European federalist by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said his views were nuanced but certainly not in any way Eurosceptic. All his post-war public engagement was of a similar tone.

"Common knowledge" is not always based in fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London

The point of Nazism (National Socialism) was to promise all things to all people. Workers, capitalists, the military. A promise that could not be fulfilled but would deliver power. This required and external and internal enemy to unite against - the Jews.

I will explicitly draw parallels to both Brexit and Trump and pretty much all nationalist movements everywhere.

To be absolutely clear, voting for Trump or Brexit does NOT make anyone a Nazi or anything even vaguely similar.

However, both movements have promised that everything would be wonderful once they were in power. Very vague plans for how it would be achieved. All problems are due to other people; Mexicans, Muslims or Europeans.

History repeats itself and the UK is not immune to revolution and extremism. We've just been remarkably lucky so far.

Merkel with Panzers is less likely than Trump with nukes at the moment.

"May you live in interesting times." That is a Chinese curse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The point of Nazism (National Socialism) was to promise all things to all people. Workers, capitalists, the military. A promise that could not be fulfilled but would deliver power. This required and external and internal enemy to unite against - the Jews.

I will explicitly draw parallels to both Brexit and Trump and pretty much all nationalist movements everywhere.

To be absolutely clear, voting for Trump or Brexit does NOT make anyone a Nazi or anything even vaguely similar.

However, both movements have promised that everything would be wonderful once they were in power. Very vague plans for how it would be achieved. All problems are due to other people; Mexicans, Muslims or Europeans.

History repeats itself and the UK is not immune to revolution and extremism. We've just been remarkably lucky so far.

Merkel with Panzers is less likely than Trump with nukes at the moment.

"May you live in interesting times." That is a Chinese curse

"

You completely misunderstand Brexit and Trump, it was nothing to do with what people were promised, people are fed up of promises. It was the chance for people to tell the political establishment thdt they are sick of broken promises and not being listened to. It was the people saying it is time for things to change and anyone who can't see that things do need to change is frankly part of the problem

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"He said that but not for it not to include the UK. I thought that was common knowledge

Yes another Churchill quote, "If Britain must chose between Europe and the open sea, she must always chose the open sea".

You missed the end of the quote:

"Every time I have to decide between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt."

It was apparently said privately and in anger and aimed at de Gaulle as D-Day began. I could not find a reliable source to confirm the quote though. Please do so if you can.

I have provided quotes from public, post-war speeches when Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth and the rest of the world was far clearer and when he wasn't shouting at someone that has annoyed the he'll our of him just before one of history's greatest military gambles.

I do not think he was a European federalist by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said his views were nuanced but certainly not in any way Eurosceptic. All his post-war public engagement was of a similar tone.

"Common knowledge" is not always based in fact."

The speech where he described a 'Kind of United States of Europe' was made in Berlin in 1946 - not that long after WW2. In the same year he also made a speech where he said "we are with Europe but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised".

He also, as leader of the Conservative Party, in 1950, opposed the UK applying to join the ECSC, the pre-cursed to the EU.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism "

Nazism and Fascism, whilst similar are not the same ideology. It is no secret that Hitler borrowed ideas from Marx and socialist thinkers as well as others, such as Neitzche. Let us not forget that "National Socialism" had a very strong Nationalist element. Just because someone has cherry picked ideas from something, does not make them the same. By your reasoning, everyone who wanted an NHS would be a Communist.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me.

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

The first quote is Hitler.

The second quote is Karl Marx."

Oooo look, a lack of context...

Marx wrote an entire volume on the emancipation of Jews (mostly from their subjugation by Prussia, but also talks of France too). In a nutshell, his argument was thus: That Jews (and you could apply this to any other group that doesn't follow the "state religion"), cannot be emancipated in a Christian state, because the very existence of Christianity as the state sponsored religion, by its nature, subjigates other religions.

Therefore, the only state in which equality could be achieved is a secular one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me.

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

The first quote is Hitler.

The second quote is Karl Marx.

Oooo look, a lack of context...

Marx wrote an entire volume on the emancipation of Jews (mostly from their subjugation by Prussia, but also talks of France too). In a nutshell, his argument was thus: That Jews (and you could apply this to any other group that doesn't follow the "state religion"), cannot be emancipated in a Christian state, because the very existence of Christianity as the state sponsored religion, by its nature, subjigates other religions.

Therefore, the only state in which equality could be achieved is a secular one. "

And is this what you believe?

Although wasn't Mein Kampf along very similar lines?

So basically what you're saying is that Marx, a socialist, dedicated a whole book to preaching intolerance in society......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"You completely misunderstand Brexit and Trump, it was nothing to do with what people were promised, people are fed up of promises. It was the chance for people to tell the political establishment thdt they are sick of broken promises and not being listened to. It was the people saying it is time for things to change and anyone who can't see that things do need to change is frankly part of the problem"

So then they did not vote for anything that Trump has states he will do and possibly nobody actually voted to leave Europe. Both votes were actually against everything that currently exists?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"I do not think he was a European federalist by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said his views were nuanced but certainly not in any way Eurosceptic. All his post-war public engagement was of a similar tone.

"Common knowledge" is not always based in fact.

The speech where he described a 'Kind of United States of Europe' was made in Berlin in 1946 - not that long after WW2. In the same year he also made a speech where he said "we are with Europe but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised".

He also, as leader of the Conservative Party, in 1950, opposed the UK applying to join the ECSC, the pre-cursed to the EU."

I'll leave the part where I say that his views were nuanced because the relationship is not as simple as the referendum question implies.

I am not taking any single statement or position in isolation. They are all pertinent to their context at any given time and the deal available.

My main point is that he was not a Eurosceptic and much of what he said would have led to outrage and condemnation from the Brexit side during the referendum campaign and now.

Have a read through this article, with references, and see if his position was clearly for the UK to be outside any form of European Union:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-173/churchill-s-europe

For the record the ECSC contained anti-trust and competition regulations that precluded subsidies pouring into the state owned British industries:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/Treaty%20constituting%20the%20European%20Coal%20and%20Steel%20Community.pdf

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Oswald Moseley was all for a united states of Europe though, you know, the well known fascist and Labour MP

He was in the conservative party first

ye then went round the bleedin twist, became a socialist and then a fascist, which as I've pointed out before is where fascism and fascists come from, socialism

Conservative to fascist seems like quite a natural progression to me.

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

The first quote is Hitler.

The second quote is Karl Marx.

Oooo look, a lack of context...

Marx wrote an entire volume on the emancipation of Jews (mostly from their subjugation by Prussia, but also talks of France too). In a nutshell, his argument was thus: That Jews (and you could apply this to any other group that doesn't follow the "state religion"), cannot be emancipated in a Christian state, because the very existence of Christianity as the state sponsored religion, by its nature, subjigates other religions.

Therefore, the only state in which equality could be achieved is a secular one.

And is this what you believe?

Although wasn't Mein Kampf along very similar lines?

So basically what you're saying is that Marx, a socialist, dedicated a whole book to preaching intolerance in society......"

No. Marx (of Jewish ancestry) wrote an entire volume on state persecution of Jews. His conclusion was that only a secular state would not inherently favour one religion. On that last sentence, I agree. He went on to say that all religion leads to persecution of others, to true emancipation lies in the casting aside of religious belief.

Hitler favoured Catholicism as the state religion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You completely misunderstand Brexit and Trump, it was nothing to do with what people were promised, people are fed up of promises. It was the chance for people to tell the political establishment thdt they are sick of broken promises and not being listened to. It was the people saying it is time for things to change and anyone who can't see that things do need to change is frankly part of the problem

So then they did not vote for anything that Trump has states he will do and possibly nobody actually voted to leave Europe. Both votes were actually against everything that currently exists? "

pretty much yes. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump she wouldn't have beaten Homer Simpson. It was a vote for anybody but the establishment. And nobody has voted to leave Europe, it was a vote to kick the people in the teeth who do not listen and think they know best

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The EU is not Europe and never will be

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"

pretty much yes. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump she wouldn't have beaten Homer Simpson. It was a vote for anybody but the establishment. And nobody has voted to leave Europe, it was a vote to kick the people in the teeth who do not listen and think they know best"

So if the result of this is increasing intolerance of "the other" and economic hardship in the short to medium term, then what's the benefit?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"The EU is not Europe and never will be"

OK. What does that mean?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

pretty much yes. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump she wouldn't have beaten Homer Simpson. It was a vote for anybody but the establishment. And nobody has voted to leave Europe, it was a vote to kick the people in the teeth who do not listen and think they know best

So if the result of this is increasing intolerance of "the other" and economic hardship in the short to medium term, then what's the benefit?"

what do you mean, in the short to medium term? A lot of people have been living with economic hardship for years and things just continue to get worse. What world are you living in? The benefit is that governments and businesses will hopefully now start to look at the way things are run, try to improve peoples lives and address the imbalance in earnings and in society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The EU is not Europe and never will be

OK. What does that mean?"

It means that Europe is a continent of wonderful, beautiful individual countries rich in history and traditions that should be celebrated and preserved.

The EU is a cabal of idiots

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


" So if the result of this is increasing intolerance of "the other" and economic hardship in the short to medium term, then what's the benefit?

what do you mean, in the short to medium term? A lot of people have been living with economic hardship for years and things just continue to get worse. What world are you living in? The benefit is that governments and businesses will hopefully now start to look at the way things are run, try to improve peoples lives and address the imbalance in earnings and in society."

You didn't say if the willingness to "say what you think" about people who are different is a good thing. Less acceptance of the other. Blaming them for problems that have been created at our own hands. I accept that there are minority groups who are closed minded and intolerant but the that doesn't mean that it alright to generalise.

The world I live in is still one of the wealthiest and safest on the planet and the history of humanity. This is objectively true. I understand people want more and better. I understand that the distribution of wealth is grossly unfair. Leaving the EU will not improve this situation. From what you've written you don't think so either. You just hope that "something" changes. What's the mechanism?

There are 10 years of Brexit negotiations. Everything else that you hope for, that we all hope for, is just going to be a distraction from that.

What's responsible for the disparities in wealth? The huge power of globalised companies exploitating the differences between companies to minimise their contribution to them. This is everything from oil to technology. Controlling this requires international cooperation and coordination of tax and enforcement. We are stepping away from that. We are joining the race to reduce our corporation tax and give large companies sweetheart deals to invest here. This country becomes more corrupt than the EU, not better than them.

How could we be a more prosperous country? Education more than anything else. Investing in infrastructure and affordable housing. We've been free to do this forever and failed as a country. Has that changed? Will it?

If you have an idea as to the mechanism that will improve the situation other than hope then please share.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top