In the 21st century, new generations have come to idealise communism and the Soviet Union, but fears of Cold War subversion was well founded and the threat was real
Thank you for sharing for free an essay which could have amply filled three or four posts, or even serve as the basis for a book.
Ms Abbott's defence of Mao is extraordinary, essentially: yes, there was collateral damage, but they won their war and now enjoy economic might. The only difference I can see between Mao so described and Hitler is that the latter lost. Had he won, the parallel argument would run something like, "well, he killed millions of Jews, but at least now everyone has a free Volkswagen."
Of course, had Hitler won, Diane Abbott would not be the one in position to make that argument; but then, there are quite a lot of ethnic minority (i.e. non-Han) Chinese equally unable to make their case, on account of suffering from a slight case of death.
The modern Left, or at least the McMarxist luxury cuckoos who have usurped the old Left's nest, has few qualms about collateral damage for the achievement of their aims. Their utter indifference to unborn children, right up to the moment of birth (q.v. Scotland's First Minister), is indicative of a wider indifference to human life as a whole. "Never kiss a Tory" is, I fear, a euphemism for "kill a Tory." The Rainbow allies are certainly not averse to death threats against their foes. Closing bank accounts, getting people fired and indoctrinating children behind their parents' backs are only the first seeds of the revolution, and mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment.
The trouble with the rehabilitation of Communism is that sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Until recently, it has been whispered only in the shadows of the internet's nastier corners, but the riposte is sure to come more and more to light: that just as there's never been any "real Communism," there's never been any "real Fascism," and now is the moment to give it another chance.
Thank you for sharing for free an essay which could have amply filled three or four posts, or even serve as the basis for a book.
Ms Abbott's defence of Mao is extraordinary, essentially: yes, there was collateral damage, but they won their war and now enjoy economic might. The only difference I can see between Mao so described and Hitler is that the latter lost. Had he won, the parallel argument would run something like, "well, he killed millions of Jews, but at least now everyone has a free Volkswagen."
Of course, had Hitler won, Diane Abbott would not be the one in position to make that argument; but then, there are quite a lot of ethnic minority (i.e. non-Han) Chinese equally unable to make their case, on account of suffering from a slight case of death.
The modern Left, or at least the McMarxist luxury cuckoos who have usurped the old Left's nest, has few qualms about collateral damage for the achievement of their aims. Their utter indifference to unborn children, right up to the moment of birth (q.v. Scotland's First Minister), is indicative of a wider indifference to human life as a whole. "Never kiss a Tory" is, I fear, a euphemism for "kill a Tory." The Rainbow allies are certainly not averse to death threats against their foes. Closing bank accounts, getting people fired and indoctrinating children behind their parents' backs are only the first seeds of the revolution, and mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment.
The trouble with the rehabilitation of Communism is that sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Until recently, it has been whispered only in the shadows of the internet's nastier corners, but the riposte is sure to come more and more to light: that just as there's never been any "real Communism," there's never been any "real Fascism," and now is the moment to give it another chance.
God help us.