Why are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO at all? Purely and simply to annoy Russia, which is one of the two reasons why NATO has existed since it achieved its end in 1991. The other is to wage wars to impose sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, and all the other features of global capitalism. Away with it. If it won't wind itself up, then at least we should leave it. The Russian elite at the very highest level is convinced at the very deepest level that the Baltic States are essential to the defence of Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Their arguments may be right, or they may be wrong, but they are certainly not unreasonable. And the treatment of the Russian minorities there is a very real cause for concern; if it matters, the view that they are recent immigrants from the Soviet period is perfectly false.
We are not supposed to hate Russia because she is still basically Soviet. We are supposed to hate Russia because she is not. The definition of the West in terms of the Biblical-Classical synthesis in Jesus Christ and His Church, to be defended vigorously both against Islamic expansion and against Far Eastern domination, is anathema to a lot of people. Including everyone who used to support, and often be supported financially by, the Soviet Union. And including everyone who hated the Soviet Union either for Trotskyist reasons or because of their adherence to the Radical Right, with its demands, echoing and echoed by the Trots, for no drug laws, no age of consent, and so forth. Together, those elements form and define today's British Political Class.
Including the old SDP hands? Increasingly, I suspect so. The Hard Left from which they were seeking to escape was almost always pro-Soviet, and very often Soviet-funded, rather than Trotskyist, one of the reasons to ignore the deliberate distraction of emphasis on the Militant Tendency, which was marginal even within Trotskyism. Foaming-at-the-mouth Cold Warriorism was fundamentally a Trot trait, and its prevalence on the Radical Right raises serious questions about who was really directing that movement, which had so much in common with the Trots in terms of background, formative experiences, tactical machinations, social agenda, and the acting out of those Jenkinsite agenda in daily life. Support for absolutely any anti-Soviet regime, at least so long as it was also anti-Chinese, was a position more than consistent with Trotskyism. Hatred of the trade unions, fought over by the pro-Soviet faction and the utterly non-Marxist Old Labourites, was wholly characteristic.
Alas, it will probably always be impossible to do the full research. But sometimes, there is no real need. Some things are just obvious. If you will allow yourself to see them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Their arguments may be right, or they may be wrong, but they are certainly not unreasonable."
ReplyDeleteOnly if you consider it reasonable that the West is about to attack Russia.
No, only if you consider it reasonable that the West might ever attack Russia. Against which, given our behaviour towards her since 1991, it would be insane of her not to take precautions. If we don't like those precautions, then we should adopt a more reasonable - or, rather, we should adopt a reasonable - approach to Russia.
ReplyDelete"The other is to wage wars to impose sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, and all the other features of global capitalism."
ReplyDeleteYou obviously not been to Russia where plenty of the first offending item has been going on for years - and not just between married couples either.
You really are a young reactionary fart. Go back to the 1950s when nothing horrible happened - buy the Daily Mail!
Yes, Russia is more and more like that now. If there is a New Cold War, then it is within the West. Including Russia.
ReplyDeleteWould those be the 1950s of full employment, strong trade unions, public ownership, and what have you?
Russia has restored the teaching of Christianity in schools, which America forbids and Britain is giving up by stealth. That indicates who is on the right side and who is on the wrong side in, as you say, the real new Cold War, which is within and for historic Christendom.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the 50s. All that was destroyed, as you have often pointed out, by people listening to pirate radio funded by Oliver Smedley and who like him then went on to support Mrs. Thatcher.
Pirate radio was a union-busting attack on public service broadcasting and on a Labour Government (the Minister in question was Tony Benn). Once we realise that, then we realise all sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteThatcher tried to abolish Christian RE and collective worship in schools, but an all-party alliance in the Lords stopped her.
Smedley saw pirate radio as an anti-Soviet bulwark. You are right, it all makes sense when you think about it.
ReplyDeleteAlso the 1950's of hypocrisy, social repression and lack of social mobility. The 1950's of racism (please note), sexism and imperialism. The 1950's where the landed Tories ruled from within and without. The decade of toadying.
ReplyDeleteYour time. Cept maybe for the racism. Try and get a job then weirdo. Would your parent's marraige have been approved by society? Well? You know the answer. They probably thought your maternal relatives ate cat meat (as in food for cats - not the Korean variety).
"hypocrisy"
ReplyDeleteThe tribute that vice pays to virtue. Sooner that than what we have now, emotional incontinence.
"social repression"
Whatever that is.
"lack of social mobility"
Not at all. You are thinking of the period since the abolition of the grammar schools.
"racism"
Not particularly. No worse than now, anyway. Arguably better.
"sexism"
Whatever that is.
"imperialism"
Whatever that is. And what you probably mean was in fact dismantled in the 1950s.
"The 1950's where the landed Tories ruled from within and without. The decade of toadying."
Blah, Blah, Blah. You are one of those, are you? It isn't true, anyway. Again, you are thinking of the period since the abolition of the grammar schools. And there is actually a lot to be said for landed Tories, certainly compared with Thatcherites or Blairites.
"You know the answer."
Yes, I do. My father's family, all born before the War, was very supportive of my parents marriage, even if one of his sisters was terribly disappointed that my mother's name was Cecily Anne Caroline Young. She had been hoping for something exotic to tell her friends.
This sort of drivel is the basis of the power of people like you, the beneficiaries of the Sixties, the Eighties and the Blair years. It has absolutely no factual basis. None whatever. You know that, and that is why you are so utterly hysterical when anyone points it out.