Galloway Latest

If George Galloway claims to be a true Socialist I was under the impression that they were sworn enemies of Fascism (Nazism). I put a case of MoD(UK) involvement in Nazism in Germany, he never denied I did not have a case at any time. All that came out of his office at Westminster was stalling tactics for roughly six months. Finally he refused to do anything, which proves that he cannot be a true socialist or Democrat come to that, if he will not expose Fascism wherever it is encountered. The evidence I sent him, more than proved that the MoD(UK) were up to their necks in fixing cases at will, using NAZI legislation. Even a child could see that Nazism was at play. . 

Fascism, properly used, denotes the belief that the state is primary, and more important than the individual. The word was introduced by Mussolini and his supporters in Italy, then used to describe Nazism, and nowadays has degenerated into an all-purpose brush for left-wingers to tar anyone whom they perceive as being right-wing.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, it should become obvious that the USSR, China, North Korea, and most other "communist" states were just as fascist in organization and principle as Nazi Germany. Stalin's police state made the Nazi setup look distinctly amateur - enthusiastic, but amateur. Max Eastman, an American socialist who actually took the trouble to visit the USSR and see for himself, put like this:

"Instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple... it is better described as superfascist."

Almost all modern governments - especially that of the USA - are moving steadily in the direction of fascism. Every law that is passed compelling or forbidding individuals to do what they want, every new set of guidelines and every new quango, is one more step towards fascism.

It's a sad day when some of us even consider supporting a politician whose views we dislike, purely and simply because he is one of the last remaining handful who can express himself clearly and persuasively in English.

>It's a sad day when some of us even consider supporting a politician whose views we dislike, purely and simply because he is one of the last remaining handful who can express himself clearly and persuasively in English.

Strangely enough, I always tend to trust people or thinkers who can speak and write clear, exact, easily understood English. They strike me as fundamentally democratic, as opposed to individuals who speak cant - deliberately complex, convoluted, jargon-ridden English. Trotskyites and many marxists of my generation (68) seem to have specialized in this latter form of dishonest obsfuscation (and as neo-con members of Nu Labour still seem to be practising it)..

But it has left me ending up with some pretty strange bed partners. As well as leftists like Orwell or EP Thompson or Raphael Samuel - all superb users of English - I've also admired Enoch Powell and, I'm afraid to say, Ian Paisley, whose use of C17th English (when, in my opinion, the English language was at its zenith) is only otherwise found today being used by great black preachers in The States like Martin Luther King.

But it is really good to be able to sit back and listen to great words and ideas as opposed to wondering what the hell the person is on about and are they trying to pull a fast one by deliberately pulling the wool over your eyes.

Sits back and waits for showers of abuse.

"It's a sad day when some of us even consider supporting a politician whose views we dislike"

What's all this?  All George Galloway has done really over the last 10-15 years, his flamboyance & erudition aside, is to tell the truth about what is going on in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq.  Nothing else.  He has been demonised and smeared by the establishment for doing this, because they fear you, through him, finding out the truth about what is going on.  It really is as simple as that.  Read your Robert Fisk (The Great War for Civilisation) and then deny this. 

Yes it seems a bit of a shame that the minor blip in history called the 2nd World War was only an exercise in killing a few tens of millions of people. The bastard responsible for it, namely Adolf Hitler is now revered by Western politicians. He is the person they are waiting for to have a second coming.

 I often wonder what would have happened had the west got to 'H' before the Russians. The reason for the 2nd World War was that, unfortunately for the West, 'H' decided that Poland and other East European countries needed to be eliminated, for him to get at the Soviet Union. Had he been able to somehow bait the Soviets into making the first move, before he blundered into Poland, forcing Britain & France's hand, things would have been very different. Afterall, it would have looked a bit suspicious, had the west decided to wait, and then declared war against the Soviet Union, when 'H' launched Barbarossa in June 1941

 This meant the fascist sympathisers in high places were a bit stuck, because 'H' believed in open FASCISM i.e. all the flags, aren't we big parades and funny steps, whereas the west was run on a fake Democracy system. Consequently, the fascists in the UK and France, who were masquerading as democrats and lying low, were in a bit of a quandry, as their hope of Stalin making the first move to get a buffer against 'H' did not materialise. Hence, them having to go to war against their true God.

I couldn't agree more! I simply love listening to Galloway - or, failing that, reading his words. I just wish there were a lot more politicians who could even approach his level of debating. He is a truly superb speaker.

As to his views, didn't he use to be some kind of Marxist? I really don't believe in Marxism, or indeed any form of what is laughingly known as "communism". I suppose I'm a conservative (sits back and waits for showers of abuse). Not really a Dave conservative, or a Thatcher conservative; more a "lower-case" conservative, as in an engineering "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kind of way. I think that many people (especially loudmouthed politicians) tend to have a vastly inflated idea of their abilities, so they set out to do things they are simply not capable of.

But I have no objection to anything Galloway has done relating to Iraq, although his friendliness with Saddam Hussein makes me a little queasy. He has certainly called everything far better than the UK or US government, and I just loved his performance in telling the US Senate where it got off.

I'm with JohnF.

Too much rambling and not enough clear simple, 'make your point' English. Look at Tom's post on "New Pro-War Blairwatch! Brought To You By Neil Clark " as an example of rambling.

But thank's to many bloggers who make the point; be it news, or just satire on an issue.

Going back to the subject of pragmatic Tories its good to see Michael Ancram has been talking to Hamas.

Galloway's certainly hated for his telling of inconvenient truths, and he's clearly a better performer than the remotely controlled lobby fodder crawling around the environs of Westminster. But am I alone in distrust of the very 'skills' that make an effective politician? All the sophistry and calculated passion, the greasy suit and fabricated sincerity, the rehearsed gesture. It's not really his fault, these are the career requirements  and survival skills required for players in a spectator democracy. When his enemies call him a demagogue perhaps they've got a point. But it's mostly jealousy. If some of these old bastards had half his talent for dark arts they would have gone they way of Mandelson a long time ago.

I think you're right Tom - statist models, leninist, fascist or corporate capitalist, have a great deal in common. All of them see people as fundamentally incapable, and seek to subordinate the population to either a vanguard of technocrats and intellectuals (leninism), or concentrated private power ( corporate capitalist), or to  a straightforward military elite (fascism). It probably explains why they move so easily from one position to another - most of the US neo-cons are ex-Trots. The anti-democratic assumptions are the same across the board.

Doubleplusungood

The reason for the second world war was a miscalculation by the Conservative party. They thought Hitler was one of them. Hence the running down off britains armed forces at that time,they never saw the threat as aimed at britain. Hitler was the tories hero. They thought they could control him and come out on top after he had  enslaved Europe they would step in and take control. Read the links...

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2074100.stm

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm

Thats why the the Conservative Party nearly throw their lot in with him until they realised that Hitlers plan was to put them up against the wall as soon as he got into the UK. It dawned on them they couldn`t control him he was indeed like them totally insane...

"When Stanley Baldwin replaced Ramsay MacDonald as prime minister in 1935 he appointed Lord Halifax as his war secretary and as leader of the House of Lords. In 1936 Halifax visited Nazi Germany for the first time. Halifax's friend, Henry (Chips) Channon, reported: "He told me he liked all the Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit. He thinks the regime absolutely fantastic."

"In November, 1937, Neville Chamberlain, who had replaced Stanley Baldwin as prime minister, sent Lord Halifax to meet Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering in Germany. In his diary, Lord Halifax records how he told Hitler: "Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country." This was a reference to the fact that Hitler had banned the Communist Party (KPD) in Germany and placed its leaders in Concentration Camps."

http:// www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...2WWhalifaxL.htm

"Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, "

Indeed but NOT offending Conservative party  opinion.

It`s still alive and kicking in the tory party...

http://tinyurl.com/325mk2

Hi George Dutton,

  I totally agree with what you have written especially re: the Tory party.

  I contacted Michael Howard about a matter of the MoD(UK) and its use of illegal NAZI laws in Germany to FIX employment courts against amongst others British ex-servicemen. This was all linked to a blatant breach of Democracy, but Mr. Howard's reply was "this is a personal matter between yourself and the MoD." How a matter of Democracy can be a personal matter beggars belief. Does this mean that in effect the 2nd World War was a lot of personal duels between all the soldiers who took part?

 Kenneth Clarke the so called Democracy spokesman, conveniently, only looks at Democracy as a whole, and does not get involved in individual cases.

 David Davis replied saying "he had noted my case and he would keep it on record"

 So all three did not at any stage say I did not have a case, but on the other hand, they refused to act, even though it would have been in the defence of Democracy. This proves that politicians are ignoring the main reason they are in the profession.

 The truth of it is, that the MoD(UK) has been caught in numerous cases, using Hitler legislation to win cases that they could not possible have won otherwise. They were facing a bill for back pay of many millions, so Democracy was thrown out of the window, and NAZI legislation was implemented, which overrides all other laws, even the Constitution. If the authorities are going to lose by fair means they use this legislation to make sure they win by foul play. 

 I have a letter from the German Justice Ministry in which they say that the Hitler legislation is used today to protect the client and make sure that they get the best legal advice possible. You could well imagine that Hitler allowed such legislation, especially if the client was challenging his regime. It seems strange that no one who was attacked, on for example Kristallnacht, in November 1938, or had their property destroyed, bothered to use this legislation to challenge the people who had committed such acts.