Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 11 of 12     «   Prev   8   9   10   11   12   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #151 
Howard Zinn has his equivalents in Britain and Australia as well:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/25/radical-left-wing-historian-birthed-anti-columbus-crusade/
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 607
Reply with quote  #152 
Howard Zinn is NOT one of my favorite historians and I actually have that tawdry book of his too sadly, a legacy of many 1980's history classes that I had undertaken, was given that book by a teacher in order to shut me up for a while during the daily Q & A sessions.
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 358
Reply with quote  #153 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
An utter embarrassment for Ireland as An Post issues a Che Guevara stamp:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/che-guevara-features-on-new-one-euro-stamp-issued-by-an-post-36203676.html




 Ireland has had a noticeable paucity of native role-models of any stature to emulate in recent years, and so they're now resorting to finding anyone with any trace of Irish blood whatever to confer some sort of recognition upon.  It is a shame, and  I actually think that the people of Ireland will see through it, and hopefully will do better in the future.

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #154 
We knew it all along with Corbyn and Milne:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4979404/Communists-spied-MI5-senior-Corbyn-advisors.html
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #155 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/left-still-beguiled-by-myth-of-murderous-che-guevara/news-story/1e4f760c031dfff44d23287f7a2ef8d3?nk=71c46b018ce913512dcac7f2077fb3ed-1507977772

Quote:

I’ve never owned a Che Guevara T-shirt because I never understood how anybody could venerate a monster. But the iconic image of the Latin American revolutionary — youthful, bearded and bedraggled — made him a poster boy for the Cuban revolution.

This week marks 50 years since Ernesto “Che” Guevara was executed by the Bolivian military, on October 9, 1967. But the mythology of his role in the revolution, and his dream of a global guerrilla movement to replace capitalism with communism, is as strong as ever.

It is a legend wrapped in romanticism. Guevara’s image — he is always portrayed clad in army fatigues and starred beret — has become a symbol of popular culture. The famous photograph of him taken by Alberto Korda is everywhere. It has come to represent rebellion and idealism, but this symbolism is divorced from reality.

Guevara’s place in history has been reimagined as a mix of Martin Luther King Jr, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. He is often shown holding a cigar or a rose, rather than the Cristobal automatic rifle that rarely left his side in the 1950s and 60s.

His portrait has been used to promote almost any cause, including going to church, and as a marketing tool to sell commodities from cigarettes, magnets and coffee mugs to Smirnoff Vodka and Magnum ice cream. Just this week, Ireland issued a €1 postage stamp with Guevara’s image on it (right). What were they thinking?

The Argentinian-born doctor was, no doubt, a charismatic man who inspired many. But he was also a brutal man who jailed, tortured and executed hundreds of people who were enemies of the Cuban revolution.

Guevara’s ideology — the implementation of communism by force — is utterly discredited. It has wrought nothing but misery, starvation, stagnation, violence and death wherever attempts were made to implement it.

There is a strange moral superiority that many on the left of politics, and especially in the union movement, attach to Guevara. His crimes are overlooked. In reality, he is not that far removed from any of the other revolutionaries and dictators who marked the 20th century, such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

It is why I also never understood the appeal that so many had, and still have, for Fidel Castro’s Cuba. He was no saint either. Castro and Guevara did not believe in democracy, human rights or the rule of law. They did not tolerate political dissent, there was no free media and they banned unions from organising workers.

While Castro ran a corrupt and nepotistic government, holding power with fear and force, many Cubans lived in misery. The state-run health and education systems are no justification for the murder, torture or jailing of thousands of people.

The idea of a political novelty tour to this Soviet-era relic, including listening to Castro drone on for hours in one of his public addresses and then take a 1950s pink Chevrolet for a spin, also had zero appeal to me. But many politicians, staff members and unionists raved about it.

The story of Fidel and Che continues to inspire books, documentaries and movies, alongside T-shirts, posters and banners. There is something about these two revolutionaries that charms politicos who should know better. Their ignorance is staggering.

When Castro died last year, he was lauded by the likes of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Greens senator Lee Rhiannon — who was once a youthful operative in the pro-Moscow Socialist Party of Australia — said Castro had “inspired many” and “liberated Cuba from corruption (and) exploitation”. This is nonsense.

The legend of Guevara has always run deeper among the left. They rave about his book, The Motorcycle Diaries, chronicling his formative journey across South America with Alberto Granado in 1952. They admire his work to end poverty and disease as his revolutionary ideals took shape.

In 1955-56, Guevara joined Castro and helped to overthrow the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista, who fled Cuba for the Dominican Republic in 1959.

Guevara provided military and political advice, waged battles from the Sierra Maestra mountains and led his forces into Havana as the government fell. He also ran the notorious La Cabana prison. Hundreds of political prisoners were interrogated, tortured and executed under his command.

Cuba, Guevara believed, was only the beginning of a global revolution. He travelled the world propagating Marxist claptrap.

In 1965, he failed to excite revolution in the Congo. In 1967, he spent months in Bolivia leading a campaign with a small band of revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government. It is suspected that Castro, who encouraged and supported Guevara’s expeditions, wanted him out of the way.

In October that year, Guevara met a grisly death. He was executed by the CIA-backed Bolivian military in the schoolhouse of a small village, La Higuera. He was 39.

His corpse was put on display in a laundry room at the local hospital. His hands were cut off and the body was buried in a secret location. His remains were found three decades later and returned to Cuba. La Higuera has become a popular tourist destination.

What has lived on is the stuff of Marxist fantasy sentimentalised in Korda’s photograph of Guevara, taken in 1960. It is one of the most reproduced photos. Korda was formerly a fashion photographer who was working for a newspaper at the time and was close to Castro. The photo hung on his wall for years before it gained notoriety.

Korda gave a copy for free to Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, who mass reproduced it. Korda was never paid for the photo of Guevara and he never earned a royalty for its use. He later said he didn’t mind because he left something for “humanity”. But this is the kind of exploitation that Marx railed against.

The irony is that all those radical students, politicians and unionists buying shirts emblazoned with Guevara’s image are just buying a brand that serves the capitalist system he devoted his life to destroying.

Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 607
Reply with quote  #156 
An added note of irony is that the photographer Alberto Korda and his family have never gotten a darn dime from the infamous image anyway, plenty of others have. I find a little poetic justice in that somehow!
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #157 
Melanie Phillips interviewed on Sky in Australia last month:
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #158 
WND exposes the media coverup of Antifa behaviour:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/media-cover-up-of-antifa-antics/

http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/antifa-revealed-free-expose-of-alt-left/
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #159 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie Phillips
Had he still been alive, the Marxist professor Eric Hobsbawm would almost certainly have been asked for his thoughts on the centenary of the Russian Revolution. His views would have been treated with respect, if not admiration. He might even have been asked to write a few words for some high-minded publication.
 
Now let’s have a small thought experiment. Imagine that Hobsbawm was a committed fascist and to the end of his life refused to resile from his support and admiration for Hitler. Would such a Hobsbawm have been sought out for his reflections on the anniversary of Hitler’s accession to power? Wouldn’t he have been considered to be utterly beyond the pale as an apologist for mass murder and treated as a social pariah?
 
Yet the real Hobsbawm, who didn’t just remain a member of the Communist Party but to the end of his life refused to condemn the tyranny of the Soviet Union and Stalin’s crimes against humanity, was appointed a Companion of Honour, even though MI5 had listed him as a potentially dangerous subversive.
 
When he died five years ago, obituaries described him as a “great historian”, gushed over his “unflinching sense of engagement” and “expansive intellect” and hailed him as “Britain’s most respected historian of any kind”.
 
His intellectual abilities were indeed formidable. But although he was criticised for his unwavering Soviet apologetics, he was indulged in a way that would not have been the case had he supported fascism.
 
Many other cultural figures who supported Stalin and the Soviet Union, such as the writers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Arthur Ransome, Bertolt Brecht, Picasso, Charlie Chaplin and more, have been treated with similar forbearance.
 
One reason is that it is an article of faith that communism is opposed to fascism. In fact, they are historically joined at the hip. In the 19th and early 20th centuries both appealed to the progressive intelligentsia. This was because both had the utopian ideal of perfecting society rooted in the same 19th-century European cultural trends.
 
There were, of course, differences. While Marxism rejected liberalism, fascism rejected both liberalism and Marxism to promote a communal, anti-individualistic and anti-rationalist culture. But fascism grew out of a revision of Marxism. The progression was bridged by the philosopher Nietzsche and by Mussolini, who believed communism was the force that would bring about the destruction of society necessary to usher in a new civilisation. Mussolini thought, however, that the proletariat would not create Marx’s socialist utopia. Instead, the revolt by a Nietzschean “superman” would destroy bourgeois institutions. Thus fascism was born.
 
Both communism and fascism wanted to rectify what they saw as the disastrous consequences of modernity: the atomisation of society and the alienation of the individual under capitalism. Both spawned cultures of totalitarianism and murderous, psychopathic violence. Both were linked by theories of eugenics and racial superiority.
 
After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Marx called it “the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view”. The resulting doctrine of “social Darwinism” represented progress as a kind of ladder on which humanity could climb towards perfection. This meant the “unfit”, or lesser breeds of humanity, had to be discarded on the way up.
 
Early socialists were imbued with such eugenic thinking. The Webbs, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, Harold Laski, CP Snow and Maynard Keynes were all eugenicists, as were various editors of the New Statesman and Manchester Guardian.
 
It was only when the full horror emerged of the Nazi extermination programs against “mental defectives” and the Jews that eugenics and racial theorising were discredited.
 
Given all this, why are supporters of communism and fascism treated so differently? This is not to suggest that the gulags were the equivalent of the Holocaust. It is merely to wonder why communist ideology, which caused the deaths of so many millions, does not provoke the horror and revulsion that bar fascist supporters from a place in public discourse.
 
Fascism only became seen as unconscionable after the Holocaust linked it to genocide. Concealing its common antecedents, communism then posed as fascism’s antithesis. In fact, much fascist thinking has emerged today in carefully sanitised form — on the left. Atomisation and alienation are contemporary obsessions, while Nietzschean destructiveness has become a fashionable shibboleth fuelling the emergence of the “ooooh Jeremy Corbyn” constituency.
 
The Nazis’ espousal of ecology and organic foods and repudiation of technology mutated into the modern green movement. Both the abortion of defective foetuses and withdrawal of food and fluid from the elderly and infirm are a form of eugenics.
 
Communism, however, was never sent underground in the same way as fascism. For years, the Labour Party tolerated the far left as no more than an irritant. It regarded such people as a threat only if, as with Militant Tendency in the 1980s and Corbynism now, it looked as if they might gain power. It did not exclude such views as beyond the pale of humanity itself.
 
The centenary of the revolution may occasion thoughtful pieces about the horrors of Soviet communism. Like the Potemkin villages built in pre-revolutionary Russia, however, such pieties will conceal a political and philosophical reality that is rotten to the core.
 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #160 
I wish people wouldn't speak of today as the centenary of the Russian Revolution. That was in March. Today is the centenary of the Bolshevik coup that hijacked the Russian Revolution, with such grim consequences for Russia and the world.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #161 
Though from a Monarchist point of view, the Russian Revolution was evil from the beginning. I tend to see the February and October revolutions as two parts of the same process, rather than diametrically opposed to each other. Both were diametrically opposed to Tsarism or even constitutional monarchy.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #162 
From a strictly monarchist point of view, that is true enough. But it is reasonable to doubt that the February (OS)/March (NS) revolution would have produced anything like the evils actually inflicted on the world were it not for the October (OS)/November (NS) coup. One of which evils was the atrocious murder of the former Emperor and all his family along with many other dynasts. I can't see any reason to believe that the Kerensky government or a legitimate successor would have done any such wicked thing, and that would be a monarchist as well as humanitarian justification for drawing a clear distinction between the two events.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #163 
Russia continues to find ways to disgust decent people:
https://www.rbth.com/arts/326533-winter-palace-illuminated-red

Just read my thread here and you see evidence of what I mean:
http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/revealed-on-twitter-the-real-russia-9047183?pid=1299988345
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #164 
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/star-parker-black-leaders-peddle-the-perception-of-racism-to-get-money-and-power-video/

That's just it. She's nailed precisely the issue with multiculturalism, and identity politics and the Left - namely that resentment of white males and Western Civilisation is the only thing they use in a bid to gain power and prominence in society.

What the Diversity industry does is actually reduce diversity of opinion among minority groups, since only those who parrot the Left agenda are allowed a free platform, whether it's blacks, Muslims, non-white peoples, indigenous peoples, or any other categorised "victim" group (such as the Catholic community in Scotland). They always are radical, unpleasant and full of hate - and call you "racist" if you expose their true nature.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #165 
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/bolshevik-revolution-reveals-six-phases-freedom-communist-misery/#.WgDKrCDmxT0.facebook

The disturbing thing is how on the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation social media pages, there are Communist trolls revelling in spreading their lies. They're out in the open.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.