We think Australia has problems. At least the old stale Left is not dominant in the ALP.

This UK Corbyn bloke “has long been a vocal supporter of Hamas and the IRA.” AND whats worse he opposes the UK building four new Trident/nuclear warhead ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).

I bet he claims to believe in Peace to! Pathetic.

Corbyn needs to realise that politics is the art of the possible, of compromise and especially Staying in Power. Ideological purity is a luxury for idiots.

This article makes some outrageous claims, without any evidence. The statement that "Until now, he has been a committed unilateralist, calling for the West to abandon all nuclear weapons" is particularly silly: it's Britain (not the entire West) where unilateralists want all nuclear weapons abandoned.

I suggest reading his Wikipedia entry for a more accurate summary of his position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

The English-speaking EU is unravelling under financial and migration crises. UK claimed France for 470 years and celebrates Waterloo like no other battle. Rome had to defeat Carthage and France needs to be deterred from pre-emptive glory and honour when London burns

Good idea nicknamenick

Re-union of France and Britain under King Peter Plantagenet the Awesome sounds viable.

Have Royal birthright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Plantagenet#Origin

King Pete

Well, what's his nuclear policy then? March on Moscow before Putin burns it ?

Good question Nick

I would be guided by the nuclear policies of the Plantagenets.

Pete de la Awesome

The Despotic House Of Saud——The Plantagenets Of The Oil Dunes

by Consortium News • September 6, 2015

De Sportif Oust de Sauge -- Plantagenets L'Anjou ?
What are those tall towers at Mecca?

Here's an idealistic speech for you:

"...I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. ..."

What hippy-dippy peacnic said this?
JFK, June 10 1963, less than a year after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx

Good article Mal Fletcher. Could I add to your knowledge?

An unknown proportion of people in every society have a deep psychological need to think totally in terms of what is absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. Psychologists categorise such people as having "absolutist" mindsets. For an "absolutist" there can be no shades of grey. Moral quandaries or moral priorities are concepts they decline to even think about. Moral values must be carved in stone, unquestionable, and unchanging. Such people are attracted to absolutist movements of both the Left and Right.

Environmental fundamentalists, religious fundamentalists, economic fundamentalists, human rights fundamentalists, pacifist fundamentalists, racism and anti racism fundamentalists, health fundamentalists, temperance fundamentalists, and animal rights fundamentalists, may differ in their ideologies, but not in their mindsets. For such people, their way of thinking is totally correct and must not be questioned. They all believe that people who oppose their ideologies are unspeakably evil.

Such people demand simple, single answer solutions to the most complex of problems. Usually, this means that they demand that everybody else in society must adopt their ideology, because it is the only right one. Oddly, such people are often seen as leaders, because they are totally committed to their causes. They often take over entire political and religious movements, because their unshakable zeal in their own ideologies wears down those who take moderate positions. Eventually, they replace the moderates and put their own disciples into subordinate positions.

You can show a religious fundamentalist truckloads of fossils and they will still refuse to believe in evolution. You can show animal rights activists the effects of feral animals upon native flora and fauna, and they will still refuse to consider that feral animals should be killed. You can point out to human rights activists that human rights conflict with each other, and they don't want to know. You can prove to a fundamentalist greenie that their policies will create economic ruin, and they don't care. You can point out to a committed Socialist that socialism failed everywhere it was tried, and they will still say that it works.

Hi Nick Name

"The Despotic House Of Saud——The Plantagenets Of The Oil Dunes"

It is written that Princess Lara de Bingle was sailing on Syd Harb blue - when promptly captured by corporate pirates of King Malware de Turncoat.

Such were the pleasures of her highly toned bod that she crushed the forces of Lord Mayor Luzy thereby rising on the Arch-Bishopric of Pell the Bloody Awful.
_____________________________________________________________

Hi LEGO

Very true about

"You can point out to human rights activists that human rights conflict with each other, and they don't want to know. You can prove to a fundamentalist greenie that their policies will create economic ruin, and they don't care."

Pete

Pete,

SBS are showing Plantagenets at 5:30 today.

From what I've heard, it makes the events of Canberra look very tame!

Thanks Aidan

They can be hard to get on with - bringing hot pokers and battle-axes.

Cheers

Pete

Jesus, Plantagenet. If you and I are actually agreeing on something, then I must have been wrong. I take it all back.

Anyhoo, Mr Nicknamenick may have an Absolutist personality. He just made a "hit and run" post in the style of the morally outraged, a fairly reliable indicator of that particular mindset category. . Apparently, he is just too dumb to think beyond superficialities when it comes to judging the House of Saud.

OK, in the birthplace of Islam, a country which is 100% Muslim, the birthplace of Islam, and the protector of Islam's most holy shrines, what sort of government does Mr Nick think will govern that place? It can hardly be a secular democracy that advocates the western invented concept of human rights. It can only be either an Islamic theocracy, or a feudal type despotism where the ruling class placates the mullahs by either buying them off, terrorising them, or engaging in mutual back scratching.

No matter how bad, hostile, incompetent, or corrupt the House of Saud is, it at least is not openly declaring jihad against the West. And if the House of Saud falls, whoever replaces it is not going to be any better in a Western thinking democratic, secular sense. But it could be ten times worse. Think of Adolph Hitler with half the world's oil supply, a couple of trillion bucks in hard currency investments, and a religious conviction that he must take over the entire world by force to please Odin, (or at least bring on Armageddon), and you get the idea.

The problem is not the House of Saud per se. It is Islam. But you can bet that people like Mr Nick will never criticise that. Not that I blame him. Criticising Islam gets you killed. Safer to blame the House of Saud, the Christians, the Jews, the West, the USA, Europe, Pauline Hanson, Tony Abbott, or anybody else but Islam.

The rising of hope in Jeremyn Corbyn's landslide UK Labour leadership election will be short lived. A military-media coup will almost certainly remove him from power.

Western democracy,UK-style,will go into a long, dark period of authoritarian government and will emerge with a military-democracy style rule, with immunity from prosecution for the MI5/British army intelligence operatives who violently destroyed all hope of a left-wing awakening of bottom-up rule.

Britain's allies, including, as especially, Australia, will accept this as the way things should be, as there is no alternative (other than what the corporate-political media establishment says there is).

Of course, I desperately want to be proved wrong. I'd like nothing better than to be proved a left-wing conspiracy nutter.

A right wing military dictatorship would be preferable to a democratically elected Socialist one, Killarney, for the simple reason that socialist regimes usually turn into authoritarian ones anyway, and at least the right wing authoritarians know how to run an economy.

Read up on your history, Killarney. Greece, South Korea, Taiwan, Cuba and Singapore were economically solvent under their right wing authoritarian governments. Chile went from a steadily improving third world democratic country economy until it elected a Corbyn of it's own. It then went backwards so rapidly that people were starving and the Chilean women walked the streets banging pots and pans to let the stupid socialist government know that there was no food to eat. People stood in the streets and cheered when the Chilean Air Force bombed the Presidential Palace and killed that arch idiot Allende. Under General Pinochet, the economy recovered and improved.

Britain became "the poor man of Europe" when it's union dominated socialist Labour Party gained office and the country's economy nose dived. Labour nationalised British Leyland, the coal mines, and every other failing industry to "create jobs." The result was economic ruin. Thank God Margaret Thatcher saved the place from Socialism.

You must be very young to love Socialism so much, Killarney. Older people are more sensible, and they have been inoculated against the empty promises of Socialism through watching it fail everywhere.

After I am dead, I hope you get what you want in the end. I can still remember the Africans and Muslims cheering when the hated white colonialists were sent packing from their countries. Then reality bit and their countries became unlivable. Now they all want to come and live with us, whether we want them to or not. And I know that people with your peculiar mindest cheered on Lenin, Pol Pot, and Kim Il Sung. Then they went into shock when they were all rounded up and led towards the execution pits. They died screaming "But comrades, there has been a mistake! We are Socialists!"

Wow, LEGO, Pinochet is your example of a Right Wing Authoritarian success story? It would be better than a centre-left democracy?

How many tortured - 28,000 The most prevalent forms of state-sponsored torture that Chilean prisoners endured were electric shocks, waterboarding, beatings, and sexual abuse.

How many executed - 2,279
Here is the last song of folk singer Victor Jara - killed in a Chile soccer stadium - his hands were crushed before he was executed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY84jqSyspI

How many disappeared - 1,248

How many left country to escape Pinochet regime - 200,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_in_Pinochet%27s_Chile

And the so called economic miracle - maybe if you were in the elite, for the majority it was anything but.

"Amartya Sen, in his book Hunger and Public Action, examines the performance of Chile in various economic and social indicators. He finds, from a survey of the literature on the field:

The so-called "monetarist experiment" which lasted until 1982 in its pure form, has been the object of much controversy, but few have claimed it to be a success...The most conspicuous feature of the post 1973 period is that of considerable instability...no firm and consistent upward trend (to say the least).

According to Ricardo Ffrench-Davis the unnecessary radicalism of the shock therapy in the 1970s caused mass unemployment, purchasing power losses, extreme inequalities in the distribution of income and severe socio-economic damage.[20] According to United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean data the percentage of Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

Just found this beautiful song by Christy Moore about Victor Jara's life and death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGtCeyu9hxQ

Here are the lyrics
Victor Jara of Chile lived like a shooting star
He fought for the people of Chile with his songs and his guitar
His hands were gentle and his hands were strong

Victor Jara was a peasant boy barely six years old
He sat upon his father's plough and watched the earth unfold

When the neighbours had a wedding or one of their children died
His mother sang all night to them with Victor by her side

He grew up to be a fighter stood against what was wrong
He learned of peoples grief and joy and turned it into song

He sang for the copper miners and those who farmed the land
He sang for the factory workers who knew Victor was their man

He campaigned for Allende canvassed night and day
Singing take hold of your brother's hand the future starts today

When Pinochet seized Chile they arrested Victor then -
They caged him in the stadium with 5000 frightened men

Victor picked up his guitar his voice resounded strong
And he sang for his comrades till the guards cut short his song

They broke the bones in both his hands and beat him on the head
Tortured him with electric wires then they shot him dead

Victor Jara of Chile lived like a shooting star
He fought for the people of Chile with his songs and his guitar
His hands were gentle and his hands were strong

Hi BJelly. I got this from Wiki.

Estimated number of victims of socialism.

In the introduction, editor Stéphane Courtois states that "...Communist regimes... turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government."[3] He claims that a death toll totals 94 million.[4] The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Ethiopia
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America, mainly Cuba
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]

Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, famine, deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labour.

Here is your National Socialist friend Hitler on Socialism.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Adolf Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927

Number of victims of National Socialism? 30 million Russians, six million Jews, and a few million French, British, US, Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian, Australians, Danish, Ukrainian, etc etc

LEGO
The leftist Angevin-Saudi nuclear headlock will never get off the ground. Just look at Sicily for example.
In a series of battles at sea and skirmishes on land, the Angevin forces were defeated by Aragonese-Sicilian ones. In one of the war's comical episodes, Charles and the younger Peter were to meet for a duel to decide the fate of Sicily, each accompanied by a hundred fighting knights. This was to take place in June 1283 at Bordeaux, capital of the neutral French territories of Edward, King of England. Each king agreed to appear with his suite but it was tacitly understood that each would arrive at a different time. Then each sovereign claimed that the other was a coward. In another incident, King Charles' incompetent son..and so on ad nauseam. I tell you..

Hi Lego,

You were the one who argued that a right wing military dictatorship like Pinochet's was preferable to a social-democratic government. I simply wanted to point out that life under Pinochet was not as rosy as you tried to make out. There was no economic miracle, but there was state sponsored terrorism of many innocent people.

I am no fan of dictators no matter if they are of the left or right - you cannot say the same.

Allende's government was not "centre -left", BJelly. They were hard core communists who immediately "nationalised" (another word for "stole") industries and tried to "nationalise" the Chilean farming community with "price controls" on the food that famers grew and sold, which peed of the peasant famers no end.

Chile's economy simply fell apart. People were starving because the famers would not bother to grow food at the ridiculously low prices that the stupid Socialist government was demanding. But what history had taught us was that when unpopular Socialist governments fell into disfavour with their own people, the Socialists did not bother having elections again. With Socialism, "democracy" meant, "one man, one vote, once." Every Socialist government on planet Earth existed only through force of arms.

Socialists seek power by appealing to the poorest members of society and claiming that they are their advocates. Their message is clear, let us take from the rich and give it to you poor. That is not such a bad idea in countries where the divisions between the few very rich and the mass of people who are very poor exist. Sharing the common wealth is crucial to social cohesion.

The problem is, that poverty can have a political or social cause, either through religious leaders encouraging unchecked population growth, or through the fact that the dumbest members of society usually have much higher fecundity than the smartest.

Socialists just want power, and that is why they will do anything to increase the numbers of poor in order to have a growing political strength. That is why they advocate unchecked immigration of unassimilable people from failed cultures into successful ones. The more unemployable poor, the better for the Socialists.

Socialists in advanced societies are usually grouped within those government services committed to helping "the poor." Increasing poverty means increasing job opportunities for Socialists, as well as growing politcal strength.

You must be in one of those jobs yourself BJelly, to advocate an historically failed system which depends upon creating poverty and social dysfunction to survive.

to Mr Nick.

What the Hell were you raving about in your last post? Did you forget take your medication?

" Apparently, he is just too dumb to think beyond superficialities when it comes to judging the House of Saud. "
Are you kept on ice?

Lego save yourself some time and reply to my posts not the posts you think I make. The centre-left government I referred to was a potential Corbyn government which you were arguing would be worse than a military right wing dictatorship.

Lego said "A right wing military dictatorship would be preferable to a democratically elected Socialist one"

If you believe in human sacrifice which you must if you think it is ok to kill, terrorise and torture people who committed no crime other than being leftists, leftist sympathisers and anyone who is perceived as a threat to corporate power, then that is your business. But don't try to make it sound noble because it isn't. It isn't ok when Communists kill people for their beliefs. It isn't ok when fascists kill people for their beliefs.

BTW the Allende didn't just fall apart - Nixon ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" - to oust Allende. He was annoyed that Allende was even "allowed" to be elected - you know what that means don't you - the US government reserved the right to choose who ruled countries in Latin America - the people were not to be trusted to elect their own democratically elected leaders.

The CIA paid truck drivers to stop working to create chaos and food shortages - it was all part of the plan to bring down a democratically elected socialist government.

For the US there was nothing worse than having a successful, peaceful leftist democratic government on the its doorstep - it was not going to be tolerated.

Check out the CIA's own documents - they tell the sorry story behind the assassination of General Schneider to make way for Pinochet. The world-wide propaganda campaign against Allende, corporate sabotage including Telephone company IT&T's involvement - bizarre, but true!
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/

Here is a Youtube video that includes audio of Nixon which shows his involvement in the Chilean coup.

"Let's turn to a recording of President Richard Nixon speaking in a March 1972 phone call, acknowledging he had given instructions to "to do anything short of a Dominican type action to keep the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende from assuming office ... in this clip you hear President Nixon telling his Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler he had given orders to undermine Chilean democracy to the US Ambassador, but "he had failed, he should have kept Allende from getting in"

The clip also shows Nixon mentioning ITT/IT&T the phone company that was a player in the coup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Ki6nWSeVQ

The video later refers to a CIA assessment that Allende was no Soviet pawn, he was his own man, "he would be hard for the Commmunists Party and for Moscow to control". There was also disagreement from CIA and other analysts about the US getting involved in overthrowing a government that was no threat to the US's national security. But this advice was ignored by Nixon and Kissinger.

Holy heck, jeeze I love the internet!
Just found some of the documents related to the coup in Chile - its strange seeing actual notes and analysis from this time discussing the pros and cons of the US supporting the military overthrow of an elected government - but hey, business is business, after all, the world is a business Mr Beale.

Document written by CIA chief Richard Helms
"Meeting with the President on Chile at 1525 15 Sept 1970, Present:John Mitchell, Henry Kissinger" ... game plan - make the economy scream. (have to scroll to second page to get typed notes - the first page is difficult to read)
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%203%20-%20Handwritten%20instructions%20from%20Nixon%20Sep%2015%201970.pdf

CIA (Sept 1970) analysis stating pros and cons of being involved in coup.
"...What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets..." Conclusion was that a coup was not recommended, as Chilean Military wouldn't have supported it - that's where the assassination of Gen Schneider (head of military) in Oct 1970 probably helped move things along. Pinchet became head of military in 1973 - bingo bango.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%202%20-%20Vaky%20to%20Kissinger%20Sep%2014%201970%20-%20Chile--40%20Committee%20Meeting%20Monday%20-%20Sep%2014.pdf

NSC Meeting with President Nixon 2 days after coup - they discuss whether to send someone to funeral (decide against it) Decide not to be too hasty recognizing Pinochet government - they will encourage some other Latin state to do it first - as it will look better. Australia gets a mention when discussing aid - they don't want to look like they are the only ones giving assistance - they suggest Australia and Argentina would be good mulitlateral partners, but the Chileans would be told who was really behind this aid.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%206%20-%20Sep%2013%201973%20-%20WSAG%20of%20Sep%2012%20-%20DNSA%20Chile%2000795%20.pdf

Phone Call Kissinger to Nixon 16/9/73 (5 days after coup)
Kissinger:I mean instead of celebrating - in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes
Nixon:Well we didn't - as you know - our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it, I mean we helped them....
Nixon: "Well main thing was. Let's forget the pro-Communist. It was anti-American all the way."
Heaven forbid a country puts its own interests first!
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%207%20-%20Kissinger-Nixon%20telcon%20Sep%2016%201973.pdf

Can't blame Nixon, he was brain washed into fascist terrorism.
The democratic North government of a quiet coastal island off France was violently assaulted in 1775 by armed militias who destroyed artillery and self-defence boats of the London community hymn singers.

As a result the US plunged into a full blown crisis under the Chilean iron fist and naval dominance.
War of the Pacific

"The United States tried to bring an early end to the War of the Pacific, mainly because of US business interests in Peru, but also because its leaders worried that the United Kingdom would take economic control of the region through Chile. Peace negotiations failed when a stipulation required Chile to return the conquered lands. Chileans suspected the new US initiative was tainted with a pro-Peruvian bias. As a result, relations between Chile and the United States took a turn for the worse. Chile instead asked that the United States remain neutral, and the United States, unable to match Chilean naval power, backed down.

As I have pointed out previously, BJelly, "fascists" and "communists" are practically the same thing. They are no more different than Sunnis and Shiites, who both advocate Islam, and hate each other. In what way was Hitler's Germany essentially different to Stalin's USSR?

Of course it is correct to kill people who want to enslave you, especially ones who demand that you adhere to a social/ political/ economic/system which has already proven to be a catastrophic failure. And especially when the people who advocate such nonsense are themselves noted for mass murdering people who oppose them.

People will take up arms against any regime that they think is contrary to their collective interest. It is in the interests of the most devout Muslims to follow the teachings of their religion, and use force and terrorism to spread their religion. If they do that, they get to go to heaven, meet their God personally, live forever in "the gardens of paradise", and screw 72 "high breasted, dark eyed houris" into eternity.

Now, I do not want my society to become Muslim (or National Socialist, or International Socialist, either). So I am prepared to kill Muslims who want to kill me if I do not accept their stupid religion, with it's accompanying economic and social dysfunction. That does not mean that I am going to run of down the street and kill Muslims, right now. Because most people in my society do not recognise Muslims as a threat to their survival right now. It is not socially unacceptable at the moment.

But a time will come when western people will see it as socially acceptable, because it be the matter of "who runs this place"? "Us or them"? The Serbs did it, and according to socialist social theories, there can be no difference between Serbs and everybody else on planet Earth. When that happens, killing Muslims will be as socially acceptable as killing German Nazis, Japanese imperialists, Al Qaida terrorists, Communists, or Boko Haram nutcases. It is a matter of recognising who are your enemies, and butchering them in a civilised way.

Hi LEGO, Most people will agree that self-defense is a defense to kill another. But LEGO, you support the Pinochet regime - it killed innocent civilians like students, doctors, farmers and musicians. How were these people a threat to a military junta that was backed by one of the 2 superpowers of the time?
It is one thing to kill in self-defense, but Pinochet didn't just kill and torture soldiers and armed militants, but ordinary people like housewives. How is that defensible?

I agree that Communism and Fascism are as bad as each other. Both want to control people and resources, and both will kill to do it.

Hi Nick - love your work! It's a bit random, but I kinda like that.

Shot guns are not random just inclusive. I'm against yanks, poms, nazis, politicians, protest groups, Maccas price rise and knighthoods.

Of course I support General Piniochet, BJelly. He was an anti communist, and socialism failed everywhere it was tried. The USA was right all along. As for the "innocent" housewives and workers, I don't know how "innocent" they were. Just like in this country, there are "Australian" traitors who are more loyal to an internationalist socialist ideology than to their own people, and traitors are not popular figures. That is something that you should think about.

The South Korean government was once so brutal that it was a toss up if the South Koreans were worse than the North Koreans. US soldiers and US journalists at the time of the Korean War were aghast at witnessing summary mass executions of civilians, and many voiced concerns about what kind of government they were fighting for. But free market south Korea evolved into the fourth largest economy in the world today, and it's people are free and happy, while socialist North Korea is a totalitarian pariah state and a threat to world peace.

So you are ok with imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing thousands of civilians?

There was no civil war in Chile. Pinochet's government had no right to rule - he was a military leader who overthrew a legitimate democratically elected government. And who within days of coming to power went on to purge the country of anyone remotely associated with the left - didn't matter if the worst they did was hand out pamphlets in a leftist student group or someone who they thought might have leftist sympathies - anyone with even the slightest links to the left, even ordinary housewives, could fall victim to his regime.

Mass graves were found near his concentration camps. But this is preferable to leftist democracy?

Your question assumes that you do not. If you believe in Socialism, then you must believe in imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing civilians, yourself. Since when have Socialists ever held back from repression when it comes to losing power?

Look BJelly. Do you want Australia or Europe to democratically become Muslim countries? Would you live under Islamic rule with Sharia Law, a Jizya tax on infidels, death to homosexuals, absolute gender inequality, death to blasphemers and critics of Islam, the right of Muslim men to beat their wives, and the concept that raped women are responsible for their rape? Or would you fight and do whatever is necessary to prevent that?

I have spoken to stupid socialists who have told me point blank that they are prepared to accept a Muslim Australia "if it is done democratically." However much I believe in democracy, I would oppose such a democratic decision with everything I have. If the Australian military staged a coup against the democratically elected Muslim government, I would support my military against "my" own government. Because I know exactly how Muslims treat minorities and I don't intend to be a victim.

I support General Pinochet for exactly the same reason. Socialists may be arguably better than Muslims when it comes to dealing with social problems and economic management, but when you look at Pol Pot and Mao's "Great leap Forward" (which the Chinese still call today "The Great Leap Backward") that is a toss up.

To summarise, I would prefer to live under a right wing dictatorship which imprisoned people in concentration camps, as well tortured and killed civilians, then live under either a Muslim or Socialist dictatorship, which have always dojne exactly the same thing. I do so because I think that right wing dictatorships are reformable, while left wing and Muslim dictatorships are the most ruthless and efficient forms of dictatorships ever invented. I would prefer to live in Singapore under Le Kuan Yew, than live in a China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or North Korea under the Sung dynasty.

LEGO,
"If you believe in Socialism, then you must believe in imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing civilians, yourself."
Under that definition of "socialism", most people who self identify as socialists don't believe in "socialism", and would like to see "socialism" eliminated completely (despite wanting a lot more wealth redistribution and nationalisation).

Socialists have very frequently held back from repression when it comes to losing power. Throughout western Europe, socialists who were democratically elected have always respected democracy. Clement Attlee's government in Britain (just after WW2) famously only lasted a single term as people thought its nationalisation program had gone too far.

The fact that in this very thread you've already mentioned the effects of Labour governments in Britain shows that you know you're DELIBERATELY LYING (not merely mistaken) when you claim "If you believe in Socialism, then you must believe in imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing civilians".

BTW you're wrong on the details: although the Attlee government nationalised the coal mines, British Leyland wasn't nationalised until the 1970s.

Hi Aiden.

Before you butt in and go off half cocked, could you please scroll back and get up to speed?

BJelly is a socialist loony who was screeching about my support for General Pinochet. This topic is about how idealists become fundamentalists and BJelly fell into my carefully laid trap. I have written previously on this topic how fundamentalists, whatever their cause, have essentially the same mindsets. They take what may be a good idea or a good moral value and take it to it's most absurd extreme. They can only see things in black and white, good verses evil, and moral quandaries and moral priorities are concepts they are unable to comprehend.

Characteristically, they present their arguments in terms of self righteous outrage as they are aghast that anyone could contradict their view. Please note that this is exactly the approach used by BJelly. He is angry and emotional because he can not understand how anyone could support what he has been conditioned by his peers to think is unspeakable evil. My approach to BJelly, is to use General Pinochet to force him to examine his own ideology and force him to see what he most definitely does not want to see.

BJelly has been conditioned to think that General Pinochet was something resembling the devil because of his coup which hurled the socialist idiots who ruined Chile into oblivion. My premise is that he was a hero who is hated by the left for saving his country from socialism. He can hardly complain about General Pinochet using brutal methods when the socialists are renown for using force to get their way.

You are correct in claiming that British socialism was a very mild form which still respected the democratic system and which only sought to purchase failing industries to provide jobs for their electorate. Allende's government however, was a full blown socialist one which nationalised the means of production by expropriating (stealing) private property.

LEGO, stop fooling yourself! Pinochet was an evil dictator whose actions can't be justified by any rational criteria. So instead you tried to justify it with lies and resorted to the absolutely abominable tactic of blaming the victims!

Try considering what people actually have to say instead of writing them off as "loony left" and assuming their views to be what you ignorantly assume those of socialists to be.

Brutal methods tend to be a characteristic of dictators, not socialists. Some dictators are socialists, but most aren't.

And this was not about property rights. Both of Allende's opponents wanted to nationalise the copper mines; he and one of them wanted to do so without proper compensation. And once Pinochet took over he didn't return them to their rightful owners. But under the Pinochet regime ordinary people were coerced into surrendering their public pensions for far less lucrative private pensions. And Chile's economic performance was mediocre. The only reason the stats look impressive is that they include the one off boost from ending the strikes (which would've ended anyway).

//My premise is that he was a hero//

Jesus, if Pinochet's a hero then I'd hate to see what your idea of a villain looks like. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Sometimes he's just a dick.

To Aiden

A "mediocre" economy is still a lot better than a collapsing one.

Greece has a bloated public service pension scheme which is bankrupting the economy, and whatever form a Greek government takes, they too will eventually have to deal with it. When they do, I suppose you will say that they are "evil" and "oppressing the people?"

Dictators tend to be brutal, but some countries are better off for it. My favourite brutal dictator was Josef Broz Tito who regularly shot anybody (including one of his best friends) who stirred up separatist nationalism in Yugoslavia. When he died, his multicultural country fell apart and a million people died.

Saddam Hussein was about as bad as they come. But at least he held his multicultural country together. That is why the western world often backs brutal dictators. Some countries are so dysfunctional and socially divided that only a brutal dictator can hold the joint together, and give some sort of peace and stability. And whatever follows the brutal dictators could be a lot worse. Look at Syria, Iraq and Iran today.

Dictatorship is better than anarchy. The west will support those brutal dictators who at least try to keep some sort of a free market economy and try to keep good relations with the rest of the world. We oppose those who promote socialism, especially those who try to export this failed system through violence and terrorism. The US would have left Sandanistas of Nicaragua alone had they not tried to foment socialist revolutions in their neighbours. Saddam Hussein would have been left alone if he had not invaded Kuwait, left Kuwait when ordered to by the UN, and behaved himself after his defeat in Desert Storm.

Pinochet did exactly the right thing in Chile. Greece too was better off under military rule. Yugoslavia was better off under Tito. Iran was better off under the Shah. Arabs in particular seem to accept dictatorship as a natural law of nature.

The mediocre Saudi policies are far outdone by the skill of ISIS administration. Here we see competent application of firm vision in all sectors of state roles. They have focussed the pivoting of even superpowers in their confused knee jerking. With the proven track record of Tito, Pinochet, Adolf and Howard to guide learners from the mistakes of unbalanced books, the Middle east has a glowing future.

Hi Lego,
I am not an ideologue. I am a fan of socialised capitalism and democracy. I believe we need competition and co-operation to get the best from our society. I think we need to act as individuals, and have personal freedoms and liberties, but we also need to foster social capital and cohesion - we are social creatures and if we can't connect to others we feel isolated and alienated.

It is fair to say, that I am no fan of neo-liberalism. To me, neo-liberalism is an extreme amoral version of capitalism.

The Scandinavian model of social democracy has a lot going for it. Admittedly, they have been implementing neo-liberal policies in the last few years, and have seen an increase in inequality as a result. I think the Danish notion of hygge (the cosy feeling you get with friends) is a missing element in our stressful, competitive, society, where many of us have a feeling of being left out or behind.

In a wealthy country like Australia we have billions to spend on dodgy fighter jets, but little to combat the growing problem of homelessness (1 in 200 Australians is homeless) - isn't that strange? I don't know about you, but too many of the people I know seem to either be on anti-depressants or self medicating. To me that is a sign that despite our national wealth, something is missing. Something is wrong. We need a more inclusive society that invests in people.

No political system will ever be perfect, but we need to recognize what works and what doesn't. Neo-liberalism is amoral. It priorities corporate needs over those of ordinary people. It externalises environmental and social costs. It assumes that what is good for big business is good the the economy as a whole. This is patently false. We need to civilise the excesses of Capitalism to live in a healthy society. Greed, aggression, and competition only get you so far. We also need a society that values honesty, honour, compassion and co-operation. In a neo-liberal world, those values are for saps and do-gooders.