Ralph Miliband and how he bit the English hand that fed him (Robert Henderson)

by Robert Henderson

The Daily Mail has put the cat amongst the pigeons by examining the character of Ralph Miliband, the father of David and Ed. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/GEOFFREY-LEVY-SATURDAY-ESSAY-Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father.html#ixzz2gSu79fxm)

Ralph Miliband (originally Adolphe Miliband) was born and raised in Belgium and became a member of Hashomer Hatzair (“Young Guard”), a socialistZionist youth group. He fled Belgium with his father in 1940 and came to England. He was sixteen when he arrived in England, A year after he arrived he was writing this in his diary:

” ‘The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.’ (ibid)

Interestingly, although Ralph Miliband attacks not Britain but the English, all the present day British media have translated the attack on England into an attack on Britain.

But we do not need to rely on a 17 year old’s words to doubt his feelings for the country which had given him refuge. Ralph Miliband’s unequivocally adult beliefs do that. By its very nature Marxism is incompatible with representative government and democratic control. It also operates completely outside morality which it dismisses as “bourgeois morality”. The end always justifies the means until the attainment of a universal state of communist development, a state which can never be legitimately changed. Interestingly, it mimics Islam which also has as its end a universal Islamic theocracy (the world Caliphate) which which will brook no alteration once established.

Miliband senior was an exceptionally committed and enduring Marxist, who died still believing in the revolution of the proletariat and the eventual attainment of universal communism. That means by definition he was an enemy of this country because Marxism is antithetical towards British values and traditions. It also means he was a hidebound ideologue and like all ideologues, hopelessly equipped to deal with reality*

 Ed Miliband has frothed at the mouth over the Mail’s attack on his father, giving a saccharine description of his father’s “love” for Britain, with his “evidence” being how he had spent three years in the Royal Navy fighting Hitler and how glad he was to return to the country every time he left it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2439593/Why-father-loved-Britain-Ed-Miliband.html#ixzz2gSuPSzL1) .His service against Hitler can plausibly be put down to the entry of the Soviet Union into the war: as for being glad to return to Britain this was scarcely surprising because it had been first a place of safety during the war and then a residence in which he and his family did well. But there is nothing in Ralph Miliband’s adult writings or speeches which ever suggested he liked the people or society of the the British. Indeed, the every reverse because his politics involved sweeping away much that was distinctively British or English, especially the ruling class and their institutions. Here he is writing to the American leftist C Wright Mills:

“Eton and Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge, the great Clubs, the Times, the Church, the Army, the respectable Sunday papers . . . It also means the values . . . of the ruling orders, keep the workers in their place, strengthen the House of Lords, maintain social hierarchies, God save the Queen, equality is bunk, democracy is dangerous, etc. 

‘Also respectability, good taste, don’t rock the boat, there will always be an England, foreigners, Jews, natives etc are all right in their place and their place is outside . . .” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html)

Miliband senior was emotionally committed until the day he died in bringing communism to Britain.

His son Ed can scarcely complain that his father’s attitude to this country and his politics were given a public airing because he himself has recently been banging the socialist drum, saying he was going to bring socialism back to Britain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html), something [plausibly attributable to his father’s Marxist influence beyond the grave. As the Blairite blogger Dand Hodges remarked, Ed Miliband constantly refers to his parents, and his father in particular, in his speeches and the influence on him. Nor is Ed Miliband unaware of his father’s undemocratic views for in his first speech as Labour leader he said “I suppose not everyone has a dad who wrote a book saying he didn’t believe in the parliamentary road to socialism…”(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100239016/if-ed-miliband-wanted-his-father-to-be-off-limits-he-should-have-kept-quiet-about-him/).

Ralph Miliband gave this country nothing of worth and took much from it. For him it was a milch cow to be exploited.

* By ideology I mean a set of ideas, religious or secular, to which an individual subscribes blindly regardless of the objective and testable truth of the ideology or of any contradictions which it may contain. Read more at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/against-ideology/


  1. So, given the Marxist ideas of Miliband snr, how come Ed & Dave are millionaires? Where has that money come from?

  2. Didn’t Puke Daddy establish a nice little property portfolio for himself and his rotten posterity?. A hypocrite to the core as well as an active supporter of evil.

  3. Ralph Miliband was a monster – a personal friend of C. Wright Mills (the American totalitarian) and Harold Laski (the man who demanded full socialism by violence, even if the people rejected it in elections – when the newspapers reported his speeches and writings demanding this he sued for libel, and as the Daily Mail rightly reports the jury dismissed his case in 20 minutes).

    Ralph Milband remained a Marxist till his dying day – there is no way his son could be unaware of this. Any more than I could be unaware that my half brother (Anthony Marks) is (or was – I am not sure if he is still alive) a Marxist.

    Yet “Ed” Miliband has said repeatedly that his father’s dreams are his dreams – and that the purpose of his life is to make them reality. which would be like me saying “Anthony’s dreams are my dreams”.

    Well “Ed” – so you want to turn the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into a totalitarian Hellhole like North Korea.

    Or are you lying about your father’s aims being your aims?

    Which is it?

    Are you are a totalitarian?

    Or are you a liar?

    By the way – the “Guadian” newspaper (in a front page story today) described the totalitarianism of Ralph Miliband as support for “justice”.

    It would seem that David Davis of this parish is correct about the Guardian

    This was a front page endorsement of totalitarianism – as “justice”.

    No beating about the bush – no “we are socialists – but we are not Marxists”. Ralph Miliband was a Marxist (he made no secret of the fact) – he was dog turd

    And people who support the totalitarian politics of Ralph Miilband (such as the Guardian) are dog turd.

    So “Ed” Miliband – do you support your father (as you have repeatedly said you do) or not?

  4. By the way – a very good post Mr Henderson.

    You will also be aware of the “Ralph Miliband lectures” – an annual event at the LSE (supported by “Ed” Miliband) where Colonel Q’s son (and other nasty types) were invited to give a speech.

    This country is not yet like the United States – where the press (desperate to prove how “respectable” they are – i.e. how in line with the universities) see it as their duty to help COVER UP the past of “Progressive” politicians (such as that of Comrade Barack Obama – whose past is Marxist).

    On the contrary it is the duty of the press to expose the background of politicians – especially if they say (repeatedly) they are loyal to the same ideas as their (utterly vile) relatives and other associates. The darker the truth – the MORE essential it is that the truth be exposed.

  5. I wonder how long the Mail will hold out over this matter.

    The emotional garbage being presented as ‘debate’ is enough to drive anyone to distraction. I would be surprised if they manage to hold on and continue to stand their ground, because the attack dogs of the hive mind have clamped on tight and they do not usually let go until they have drawn blood.

    I have heard various radio debates about ‘not attacking the dead’, that the press has ‘no right’ (seriously?) to ‘defame’ Ralph Miliband by reporting on his views and political ideologies and I have heard all the usual slurs about the paper that primarily come from the Guardian reading masses that hate the Daily Mail to the bone.

    The Daily Mail is a schizophrenic newspaper and the hypocrisy is often rife, I am certainly no cheerleader for the newspaper. I find their hypocrisy and double standards infuriating, and even as somebody who is not in favour of Islam and immigration, I do not always agree with their positions and articles about it. Nor do I like their censorship in the comments.

    However, none of these assassinations of the newspaper model has anything to do with the validity of the material contained in the article though.

    When you come to a country and state that you do not like the society and national institutions you have come to, and thus seek to overturn every aspect of it, by violence if necessary, you clearly do not like the country and want to replace it with another one.

    You do not become a member of the Liberal Democrats, for example, and then set about a dogged determination to undermine and change everything about that party because none of it is to your liking and you actually loathe what their party is – whether you view it as wishing to “help it improve” to your own way of thinking or not!

    Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. For fictions sake, let us imagine that David Cameron’s father was the stereotypical bogeyman of this age.

    Let us imagine he was therefore a ‘Neo-Nazi’ or a ‘Fascist’ who admired Mussolini and Adolph Hitler.

    Let us imagine he was a fairly influential academic, awarded column space and air time, mixed in academic and political circles that somewhat shaped politics of the day.

    If the shoe was on the other foot, and David Cameron had spoken glowingly of his father and his influence on his views and politics, that it shaped him as a child to be sat in these discussions with “academics” around the dinner table, and then it was discovered about David Cameron’s fathers “Neo Nazi” past and that he had even gone on a pilgrimage to Hitler’s grave to pay respect…….would the Guardian newspaper have sat on their hands and said nothing about it?…… I hardly think so.

    It is the same double standards we see time after time.

    In Greece, I believe the Golden Dawn party leadership had their parliamentary privileges removed from them (which is apparently against the rules of democracy there), after which they were arrested on some trumped up ‘link-by-association’ to a crime that an alleged ‘supporter’ (not necessarily a member) has committed against a violent antifa supporter in a scuffle, and that moves are being taken by the opposing parties to ban the party altogether by redefining it as a ‘criminal organisation’.

    Where is the outrage in the Guardian or “liberal press” over this breach of rules and breach of democracy? Where is Obama and David Cameron calling the “Greek Regime” to step down as being tyrants? Nowhere.

    They may report the news of it, throw in the labels “Neo Nazi” and “Hate” and all the rest of it in the process, but moral outrage over it? No.

    This is because it does not fit with their narrative and would mean defending the very kinds of people they loathe.

    Who would come to Golden Dawn’s aid if they were being ejected from politics by their ideological opponents? Nobody. Nobody wants to hear the possibility that they might be victims in an agenda. Nobody wants to be seen questioning it all. There is only one “right” view to take. One narrative, one viewpoint, one goal.

    The Daily Mail newspaper should be free to print the article – providing that it can back up the validity of the excerpts provided from Ralph’s own diaries and publications, and if they can highlight the hard Communist/Marxist visions and traits he had, and could explain what that political ideology managed to do wherever it has gripped.

    It has killed more millions than Adolph Hitler could ever lay claim to, yet for some reason, the ideology of the liberal-left roots are hardly ever brought up in the same way that the “Nazi Party” is brought up as a bogeyman.

    Ironically, the Daily Mail itself is a pedlar of this bias!

    It is even known in some circles as the Daily Hail – because without fail, every single day, there is some far fetched story of some “vile horror” allegedly done by the Nazi’s! I am surprised there has not yet been “Hitler ate my Hamster” featured.

    They never really bring up the scores of ‘mass murdering’ lunatics of the liberal-left persuasion.

    Where is the serialisation of the 7 Million victims of the Ukrainian Holodomor/Genocide? Where are the ‘escape stories’ from that?

    Where are the ones for Pol Pot, or many others? Nowhere. They tend to leave the soft-communism of the ruling elite of this country alone to get on with things undetected – whilst reminding people daily of the threat from “Nazis”!

    I realise I may be speaking out of turn here and that some sensitive souls may find it “offensive”, but I am hardly shocked that a Jewish immigrant came to this country as a Marxist and sought to radically break it down via the institutions and morals of society in order to alter the essence of it. It pretty much tends to go with the territory with that group, particular the “academic” sorts.

    Nor am I shocked that he seems to have took advantage of this country, via us giving him shelter, only for this man to feather his own nest and look after his own Jewish and political interests at our expense. That is something else we have seen before, particularly in the USA.

    What I also find a little bit interesting is that the author of the article is pretty much being left alone on this occasion……. Usually, there are calls for heads on a plate.

    Ordinarily, if it had been Jeremy Clarkson or somebody like that, their head would be hunted until they were sacked or until they resigned (in this “tolerant” country with “freedom of thought and expression”).

    This time the author is almost entirely off the radar. I do wonder why that is, and what is different about him.

    The newspaper seems to have given Ed the right of reply. As is right in a proper society and press.

    The Mail then stood by what they published, and good on them. It is about time some backbone was shown when the hounds are let loose.

    • I’d just like to add a little thanks to Geoffrey Levy for causing the commotion, it has certainly been entertaining if nothing else……and perhaps it is good thing that the newspaper is being challenged rather than the author being hounded down, in the fashion as I described above.

      Upon a quick search, I had forgotten that he also did some critical work on exposing the sinister side of another Jewish Marxist immigrant to London that gained influence in the media, academia and, of course, the Labour party…Eric Hobsbawm.

  6. If “Ed” Miliband had remained silent about his father there might have been an argument not to mention him – like one of those people whose father was a murderer or a rapist (“the sins of the fathers” and all that).

    But he did NOT stay silent – on the contrary he kept going round saying what a wonderful man Ralph Miliband was and how he (“Ed” Miiband) was going to make the dreams of his father a reality.

    This made it essential for the truth about the monster that was Ralph Miliband to be exposed.

    Nor will the “well he hated the Nazis” thing cover everything – plenty of people hated the Nazis without being Communists (indeed the Nazis and the Communists allied in 1939 – if Ralph Miliband was really motivated by hatred of the Nazis should he not then have broken with Marxism?).

    As for anti-Semitism – Karl Marx (in spite of his own ethnic background) was a vicious anti-Semite (and general racist). If Ralph Miliband was really motivated by opposition to anti-Semitism and general racism then he should have DENOUNCED Karl Marx (not become a follower of Karl Marx).

    People make mistakes – but they can also correct them.

    My own father (Harry Marks) joined the Young Communist League – when he was fighting the Black Shirt invaders of the East End of London. However, he soon came to understand his error.

    They (the Young Communist League) ordered him to picket an ladies ship (they had some sort of dispute with the lady and wanted to threaten her) – not only did he refuse, but Harry Marks picked up the conference table of the Young Communist League committee and hit them with it (being a fur cutter he was a man of very great physical strength – as many Black Shirts had already found to their cost).

    My father then decided to look into what the Communists actually were and what they did – it did not take him long to discover that they were murdering MILLIONS of people in the Soviet Union.

    Think about them – an uneducated man in the East End of the London found out (and had no difficulty in finding out ) that the Communists were murdering millions of people in the 1930s.

    So how could the Communists claim they did not know? That it was such a difficult thing to find out about?

    No decent person could stay a Marxist after finding out what they really believed (i.e. how they even wanted to steal corner shops) and what they were doing – i.e. murdering millions of people.

    Ralph Miliband knew all this very well – and remained a Marxist till his dying day.

    And the Guardian newspaper (the main newspaper of the left) still supports his ideas as “justice” to this day – front page 2nd of October 2013 (no remorse – the same commitment to evil as “justice”).

    The Reds murdered at least ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism” – a work written by French former socialists).

    And, as the front page of the Guardian newspaper makes clear, they have no remorse – and would do it all again.

    And call it “justice”.

    As for Harry Marks – he became a Liberal Party supporter and later a Conservative Party person.

    Such a course of action was open to Ralph Miliband and he choose NOT to take it – or to follow such people in the Labour party as Hugh Gaitskell who tried to get rid of “Clause Four” (the commitment to Soviet style collectivism).

    On the contrary Ralph Miliband had nothing but hatred and contempt for moderate people within the Labour party.

    Ralph Miliband was a monster – that is the truth.

    His son “Ed” Miliband claims to want to make his father’s dreams a reality.

    That is horrifying.

  7. And if anyone thinks the American far left (the C. Wright Mills types) are any different from their friends such as Harold Laski and Ralph Miliband….

    Let us look at the main newspaper of the American left establishment – the New York Times.

    1930s – their correspondent claims that the Spanish Republicans are not Communist dominated (not a mistake – a LIE, for it is clear from letters and so on that their correspondent knew that the Spanish Republicans were Communist dominated).

    The New York Times also denied the murder of millions in the then Soviet Union – another lie (as their correspondent knew the truth and choose to lie)

    Late 1940s – support for the “Old China Hands” in the State Department (the people who demanded that Manchurian offensive of 1946 be stopped – thus dooming Chang and handing over China to the Communists). Around 60 MILLION human beings died because of this – see “Mao: The Untold Story”.

    1950s – the pretence that Fidel Castro was not a Communists (again it was a lie, not a mistake – they knew the truth).

    I could go into modern times (right to the covering up for Obama) but I am getting too angry – a flaw of mine.

    If I have not done enough I am sorry – but I can not do any more

    The idea that the New York Times is the newspaper of a respectable “non Communist” left is just drivel.

    There are too many “mistakes” that are not mistakes (they are lies – covering up for the Communists) for that to be the case.

  8. As I’ve said over at the Guardian website, it’s time we started calling these left-apologists “Communism Deniers”. The Holocaust isn’t the only 20th century monstrosity that some people have a vested interest in “revising”.

  9. Concerned Briton says; “I realise I may be speaking out of turn here and that some sensitive souls may find it “offensive”, but I am hardly shocked that a Jewish immigrant came to this country as a Marxist and sought to radically break it down via the institutions and morals of society in order to alter the essence of it. It pretty much tends to go with the territory with that group, particular the “academic” sorts…”

    By ‘that group’ do you mean Jewish immigrants, or just Jews in general? I would very much like to disagree with you, but regrettably there seems to be some truth in what you say.
    Why do you think this might be? As I write these words a possible answer has just floated into my mind – is it because so many Jewish immigrants were fleeing Fascism?

    Incidentally, I do not think an honestly expressed opinion can ever be ‘offensive’. That’s my view anyway.

    • The Jewish Left has a history well before Fascism. My own view is that it is a cultural thing; people from different cultures have different tendencies that tend to push them in the aggregate in different directions ideologically (consider, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, etc) and this has manifested in this way in Jews. And Evangelical Protestants, who are the wellspring of Progressivism IMO, my particular focus most of the time. By that argument, the New Left is a consequence of Anglo-Protestants and Jews grasping for some hegemonic ideology to believe in after secularisation.

      Problem is, discussing these things tends to rapidly get one accused of anti-semitism, and so on.

    • I am not exactly sure what causes it, but it does seem to me that Jews are highly disproportionate in taking part in the kinds of things I suggest – as well as more often being of a particular ideological leaning as a whole.

      When it comes to academics in particular though, which is more what I was driving at really in my comment, I believe that some of thier ability to rise to positions of influence (and such) stems from both an advantageous ingroup/outgroup aspect and their higher collective IQ.

      The same is probably notable in matters of finance and media. People who are above average in intelligence in a specific field can often rise to the top or be very influential in shaping other people, thrashing out strategies and directions for institutions and wider society.

      The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm and Ralp Miliband moved in the same circles and were good friends, and in that way, it is hardly surprising that they might have helped each other out in getting placements, or books published, or getting roles in various parties and organisations. (A case of ‘who you know’ and ‘what you know’, I suppose).

      When it comes to ‘having to flee’ it sometimes seems to be a cyclic thing throughout the ages, of their own actions (of a few) coming to bite them collectively on the backside.

      This is where the unfortunate nature of it all means that these kinds of people (as featured in the Mail as well as those of disproportionate similar heritage in high finance, media, and American foreign policy) end up creating conditions of life so detrimental to the hosting societies, that they can ultimately end up being blamed ‘as a whole people’.

      They can easily become seen as a collective who cannot be trusted. Many dots can be joined both past and present, often coincidentally, but not always, which gives people easy answers and easy explanations for everything percieved to be going wrong.

      This often seems to result in some quite terrible affairs occurring against them as a whole, which they would indeed need to flee from. Events which they had perhaps sought to prevent happening (again) to them by trying to influence their hosts to the contrary – and thus make the ‘risk’ reduced.

      It seems to be some kind self-fulfilling prophesy in a vicious cycle where their meddling comes to cause resentment. For example, there is a now famous clip of one Barbera Spectre admitting that people like her will be resented for what they are scheming for Europe’s future. They are not always unaware of what they are doing and how they will be seen as a group collective, whether ordinary Jews have anything to do with her sorts of plans or not.

      This planning of destroying ethnically European nations (which Barbera admits as her role in life) is probably a prime example of this circular effect in action.

      One theory of this is that their paranoia of being a recognised and ‘persecuted’ ‘organised minority’ group (see the documentary “Defamation” for example) is likely to make the Jewish people very supportive of multiracial societies and multicultural societies, where they feel safer and more shielded from any particular suspicion or blame.

      Homogeneous societies are perhaps also ingrained as being a threat to them too, seeing as they have historically been booted out of around 100 different such countries for causing perceived mischief – and sometimes for their usury, which perhaps used to be seen in those more religious and manual labour times as somewhat parasitic – as in making money for nothing off the back of other people’s labour.

      Undermining of homogeneous nationhood and national structures also ties nicely into “international socialism” of the Marxist/Leftwing variety anyway.

      On that, it is therefore not really one thing or another I think, you cannot paint with a broad brush stroke and categorise people, but it is perhaps instead a complex affair within and around them that just generally tends to tug more in one direction than the other, especially when looked at from the perspective of an outside group.

      Of course, it is not fair nor correct to sweep them all under the same umbrella.

      For a direct example, the Miliband article we are discussing was written by somebody who sounds to be of Jewish extraction – and many people like him are extremely plain in their dislike for Marxist ideologies (as is a commenter on this website).

      There are some Jews on the “right” and who argue against other Jews over their actions and narratives, even right up to the controversial end of the scope, such as Norman Finklestein.

      The problem in wider society is that the Jews and their sometimes nefarious influences in the modern world have become extremely hard to criticise (or even suggest at all).

      What are the odds, for example, of Jewish people being highly representative in pushing for immigration restriction relaxation in America, Australia etc in the past, when they were notoriously European/Caucasian in foundation (and had a desire to remain so)?

      Even Ireland today has somebody of that heritage doing the same there, via Alan Shatter – who is ceremonially and almost single handedly transforming the very ethnic make up of Ireland’s future at a truly astonishing rate of knots, considering its size.

      Barbera Roche here was involved in the Neather scandal report, Jack Straw was the one who overturned family reunification and settlement rules for Pakistanis and others, Lord Levi has been at the forefront of race legislation that effectively removed the ability of the indigenous population to vociferously oppose what was going on, and on it goes, all pulling strings on immigration and the ensuing race relations affairs.

      What are the odds of this, quite honestly, given their tiny numbers? Are we not supposed to draw any links or suggestions at all? Some would say not, that it is all random and just a coincidence….

      How about the make up of the “Fed” Board of Governors both past and present though….Ben Shalom Bernanke, Donald L. Kohn, Randall S. Kroszner, Frederic S. Mishkin, Alan Greenspan….etc.. what are the odds there? lol.

      The same goes for perceived influence in the foreign policy of the USA, which many might call “Neo-conservative” or supportive of “Zionism” in their choices of who the ‘enemy’ is, who needs ‘regime change’ bringing upon them.

      Some see the general and constant destabilisation in the Middle East as a tool to reduce a collective threat being posed to Israel (as remaining a defined nation state for the Jews) by the surrounding Muslim nations. George Galloway even said as much on the Daily Politics show lately, when discussing Syria.

      I think that is getting a bit far fetched myself, but it might well be a side consequence of other reasons and rationale. I do not find many things to be black and white.

      Many Labour policies, for example, probably had three goals to them rather than just one at any single point in time. A case of “problem, reaction, solution” to perpetuate their long term agenda.

      It was perhaps just a bonus at times, or a welcome side effect of other policies. For example, a higher low skilled immigration rate boosts their voter base, whilst it also lowers wages, and creates a new pool of desperate people that need the nanny state and need to get into debt, which is what was making the country appear “wealthy”. It also helps their international socialist agenda I suppose.

      It was a “win-win-win-win” situation, if you see what I mean.

      Again, a cloudy convergeance of many complex issues arise, that seems to push in one direction more than another.

      It is not an easy thing to think about or discuss Jewish influences in society at the best of times, and we all have to find our own paths I suppose. I certainly did not like having to question things or enter into uncertainty about a lot of subjects and past and present world affairs, including our own national story over the last world war.

      Some people can get highly offended by even bringing the subject matter up in any shape or form, and many even recoil in horror at any sort of highlighting of these things – perhaps because they have been conditioned to do so on the back of hardship the Jews have collectively suffered in the past.

      It is almost at the point where, like a pavlovian dog, when somebody even says the word Jew we automatically think of the Holocaust and think that we must not look or think any further into various activities or traits in case it leads to another one. But this can be a convenient distraction at times where criticism should be forthcoming.

      I do not really have any collective or blanket view over them or such, nor am I stacked one way or the other over Zionism and Israel (it is the double standards of how they can have a ‘homeland’ whilst indigenous Europeans cannot, that tends to cheese me off) – but I think it is important to be able to at least bring up ideas, suggestions, criticism, analysis and such of any influential grouping, or any situation that might be problematic, no matter who is at the helm of it.

      Different groups do tend to have different traits in my opinion, a bit like Ian said. I also think races have different traits as a collective, as well as there being religious traits and cultural traits within nations. Not everyone agrees, and I am fine with that. I once sat on the other side of that divide.

      I think the Jews have theirs, just as any other collective group. Similarly, as with Islam say, they are not a monolithic block and not “all the same” in their beliefs or stature.

      However, it seems we can often discuss the harmful nature of what Islamic socio-political agendas and end-games are (eg a global caliphate under the instruction or heel of Islamic rules), but when it comes to Jewish interests and their socio-political agendas (such as a lean towards international-socialism and world government, or other self interests like Zionism), of which they do have them, well, they are not so similarly brought into view.

      I know I might have some very controversial views, but all I can is that I am only trying to find my own way through some difficult subjects and theories. I am not saying I am right or wrong, I am just trying to convey where I see things to be in the here and now of my life. Cheers.

  10. Well first on the Daily Mail – as the attack upon it has been to claim anti Semitism and to bring up Mosley and the Blackshirts of the 1930s.

    The Daily Mail did indeed write nice things about Oswald Moseley – but this was before it became obvious that Mosley was going to centre his movement on anti Semitism. Like Mussolini, Sir Oswald Mosley was a deeply cynical man – his anti Semitism was a TACTIC (not a heart felt hatred as with Adolf Hitler), many Jews had once been friends of Sir Oswald (including the owners of Marks and Spencer) should they be condemned for their association with him? For their lack of telepathic powers telling them how he would turn out?

    It should also be remembered that Oswald Mosley was a man of the LEFT – he left the Labour Party (the biggest tactical mistake of his life – if he had stayed he would have become the leader of the Labour party) because Ramsey MacDonald and Philip Snowden would not accept his endless demands for more government spending (of course Mr MacDonald and Mr Snowden eventually spilt the Labour party – so if Sir Oswald had stayed….).

    Do the left really want to discuss Sir Oswald Mosley and the Blackshirts when the economic policies of ED MILIBAND are so close to those of Mosley?

    Wild government spending.

    Price controls.

    Threatening to confiscate privately owned land if it was “unused”.

    That was Mosley – and that is ED MILIBAND .

    Fascism was an outgrowth of Marxism (although, like all heretics, they fought with the “Orthodox” ) – that is the truth the left does not want exposed.

    Now on the “Jewish left”

    One could also talk of the “Jewish right” Ian. Jews are all over the place politically (utterly divided) – and always have been.

    Why not talk of the “Catholic left” or the “Methodist left”?

    About the only two generalisations one can make is that religious Jews (i.e. people who actually believe in Judaism) are more likely to be on the “right” than the “left” (and that has always been true), although there are plenty of atheist “Jews” who have also been on the “right” (indeed both the libertarian and the conservative movements have been dominated by Jewish thinkers over the last hundred years – and many of these thinkers have been non religious, at least at first).

    The other generalisation is one that Paul Johnson makes in his “A History of the Jews” (although he admits that many people have noticed it before him).

    Jews tend to be more interested in politics than other people – indeed more interested in ideas in general. So they are “over represented” on both the “right” and the “left”. Just as Jews are “over represented” in all intellectual and cultural matters (for example in playing the music that Hitler loved – not that this saved the people who played the music).

    Of course Richard Strauss broke with Richard Wagner because he (Richard Strauss) was not prepared was not prepared to pretend that his friends (and his wife) were not Jewish or were somehow “special” Jews (everyone else being a monster). One of Dr Sean Gabb’s arguments against “Area Bombing” is that it destroyed the property (and the lives) of good Germans as well as evil Germans (to treat all Germans as a collective lump is insane) – and one of the buildings destroyed was indeed the theatre of Richard Strauss. What if he, and his family, had been in it at the time? Many good (not just evil) Germans were killed by bombs – as the Bishop of Chichester (a person who had done more than anyone else in Britain to work with the resistance in Germany) pointed out at the time.

    As the great Selden back in the 1600s pointed out – Jews tend to argue in the same way that lawyers of the Common Law argue (indeed the Talmud is really just a record of thousands of years of debates). Which is why the book Selden requested to read whilst he was in the Tower of London was the Talmud.

    As the old saying has it…..

    “The sound of Christianity is bells ringing, the sound of Islam is the call to prayer – and the sound of Judaism is men having an argument”.

    And (my apologies to modern sensibilities) it has traditionally been men – rather than women – although this is changing

    And the arguments (both verbal and physical) have traditionally been over theological, philosophical, political and cultural matters – not women or sport.

  11. I once heard a Rabbi say that wherever you get two Jews together, you have at least three opinions.
    Of course criticizing Jews is not the same thing at all as anti-Semitism. My late father-in law ( a former SS man) was always wary of Jews ‘because they always get to the top and let others do all the work’. Whether you agree or not, that is an arguable point, and not necessarily anti-Semitic.
    My view is that Jews are by nature intellectually aggressive and that is why they are, as Paul says, ‘over-represented’ in many fields.

  12. Why not talk of the “Catholic left” or the “Methodist left”?

    But I do Paul. I bet more than half my output is about the “Methodist Left”!

  13. C.Wright Mills a totalitarian? Remember reading his “Power Elite” at University but forget everything in it.Tell me more.

  14. Quite so Ian – you do. And your term “Communism deniers” is a good one. It is sad about the Methodists – John Wesley was a fine man (both theologically and politically) they seem to have lost their way.

    “Intellectually aggressive” – that is true Hugo, and in Britain at least not just intellectually.

    “If you are not prepared to have a fight, even to lose a fight, over the point – you do not really care about it” is something a London Jew would say (and act on – down to lost teeth on both sides), but something that a pre war European Jew would never say or act upon – they were far too civilised.

    But then European Jews mostly ended being made into soap (and so on) – perhaps they should have been less civilised.

    Adolf Hitler getting his head kicked in leading a violent S.A. invasion march into a Jewish area of a German city would have prevented a lot of problems – but German Jews (in spite of all the Iron Crosses they won in the First World War) tended to HIDE waiting for the bad people to go away.

    That is how the bad people got into power. And (no surprise) the first things the National Socialists gained control of were the Student Unions (they had those even in the 1920s – when they were getting about 1% of the vote in national elections). Jewish students were just (in the main) not prepared for a punch up – too civilised.

    Of course the bodyguard of Oswald Moseley was Jewish (a boxer – my father was a boxer as well, but no friend of Sir Oswald). It is a funny old world.

    I wonder (and I am just speculating now) if Irish culture had an effect on London (and New York) Jews

    An Irishman tends to “fight now – think later” (even if they are highly intelligent) – not really caring if they win or lose (fighting, not winning, is the test of whether someone is a man or not) – if someone insults you or your people (or anything you believe in) you fight – at once, and without bothering to calculate the odds. The point is to punish the person who made the insult – even if you die punishing him (the American term is “fighting words” – the opponent used “fighting words”).

    Not a wonderful way of winning wars (or even staying alive as an individual) – but people think twice before the cross you. Even if the “law of the feud is the highest law” lacks something as a philosophy of law.

    Ulstermen (Protestant Irish – or what Americans call “Scots Irish” – the sort from Andrew Jackson to Audie Murphy) are even more like that than Catholic Irish are. They really will “fight a hundred men rather than take a step backwards”.

    They also do not have the disgusting habit of “smile and hit” (make “friends” with an enemy – and then attack them when they do not expect it).

    That is a custom that still exists in Ireland – but was considered unacceptable in London. Even friends and family would turn on an Irish Catholic who practiced that vile custom.

  15. I disagree re Wesley. Regarding the boxer-read Morton Lewis’ biograhpy of his father,Britain’s best-ever pound-for-pound in my view.

  16. I am reminded of what Old Man McCoy never tired of pointing out (and it is the reason there could be no reconciliation in his life time – or for long beyond it).

    The Hatfields and McCoys (both Protestant families by the way) were not “equally to blame” for the feud.

    The Hatfields had drawn first blood (or so Old Man McCoy believed) by killing a McCoy – for having served in the Union (rather than the Confederate) army during the Civil War.

    And the Hatfields had killed women and children – whereas the McCoys never had.

    Thus Old Man McCoy would rather have had the whole world burn than concede that both families were equally to blame – which is what (in his mind) shaking hands would have meant (even many years afterwards).

    Old Man McCoy may have been “more made out of fire than flesh” – but my relatives (both Jewish and non Jewish) would have understood him.

  17. It’s a pity we don’t have an equivalent “slogan” term for the mass murders of Communism like “Holocaust”. Maybe we should put our thinking caps on and come up with one.

  18. Mark – C. Wright Mills had the same aims as Ralph Miliband (indeed they were close allies).

    It was just that C. Wright Mills (a man so delusional that he could look at a semi socialist dump like New Haven Conn – and see a place dominated by a capitalist “Power Elite”) did not have the guts to call himself a Marxist. Like most American Marxists he hid behind academic double-talk.

    Ian – the Ukrainians have a term (it has already been used on this site by “Concerned Briton”) “Holodomor”.

    By the way killing Jews tends to be a matter of who does it……

    When the Labour Party government in Israel in the 1940s blew up a ship and machine gunned the survivors in the water (for the crime of being anti socialist Jews) the world did not bat an eyelid.

    Although even non socialist Jews have committed crimes (as have people from all religions and none). The worst crime I can think of committed by non socialist Jews was the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem – full disclosure, a cousin of my mother was murdered in that attack.

  19. “Of course the bodyguard of Oswald Moseley was Jewish… ”
    So was Goering’s wife. Goering declared “I will decide who is a Jew and who is not”. Nazi logic.

  20. Talking of Goering, there is a newsreel clip of him being driven round Paris on a tour of the city. His choice of transport was an open topped Rolls Royce. Very odd. Can’t see Churchill being driven round in a Mercedes somehow.

Leave a Reply