Most teachers don’t pay much attention to Pol Pot these days. If a pupil asks about the Cambodian dictator they will explain he was an inevitable complication of the struggle to create a classless society. It is true they will say that Pol Pot killed two million of his subjects, Stalin twenty million, and Mao Zedong, seventy million, but there are bound to be mistakes on the way to perfect equality. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Pupils would be much better studying the evil Nazis, who believed in the coming of the master race and not the dictatorship of the proletariat where all will be equal and live in harmony.
Pol Pot was the son of a wealthy Cambodian farmer, an ex-Catholic schoolboy, many Marxist killers were, who thought up the idea, long before computers were part of the furniture, of a ‘clean install’ of society. In modern terms, the old hard disk, as it were, of Cambodian society, corrupted by centuries of class privilege, would be wiped clean and a new operating system called ‘Year Zero’ installed.
Year Zero involved the killing of all intellectuals, farmers, doctors, nurses, business men, tradesmen, property owners of any kind – even a grass hut, while anybody who had the tiniest advantage in society, people who wore glasses or spoke a foreign language, were butchered. Cambodia’s cities were emptied and their inhabitant driven into the country to work as lowly agricultural labourers. Life meant nothing. A party slogan read: To spare you is no profit, to destroy you is no loss.
Jeremy Corbyn, the allotment holder of Islington, is not Pol Pot, nor will he ever be. He is a mild and peaceful man, but for years, until like Cinderella he was suddenly elevated to the leadership of Her Majesty’s Opposition, he has dreamt of a classless Britain. It is why you can see whenever he looks directly at the camera the bright gleam of revolution in his eyes that spells the end of the British middle class. Unlike Pol Pot he will try to achieve it not by violence but by ramping up migration. Which is why Dianne Abbott, his shadow Home Secretary has promised that if Labour wins she will shut down our immigration centres and open our borders.
Like all Marxist idealists, Corbyn believes in a world without frontiers, passports, voting, property, religion, patriotism, monarchy, rank or class. Workers of the World Unite is his first commandment, which means the working class does not end at Dover, it is worldwide. It explains his ambivalence toward the EU. He wants us to leave because it is a tool of international capital, yet still allows its workers to pass freely in and out of a frontier less Britain. The same goes for the working classes from the rest of the world. Muhammed from Somalia has much right to live here as Jim Smith from Oldham and the same claim on our property.
Will there be room? The savage taxes on wealth and property planned by Corbyn, by driving middle-class people from their homes, and capital from the country will ensure an adequate supply of empty houses for the new wave of migrants. The latter will never own those houses – all property is held in common. ‘Ah,’ but his enemies will say, ‘He will go bust before he achieves it, look at his ridiculous spending plans.’ But Corbyn does not believe in money, except for purchasing the week’s shopping or tiny items for domestic use. People do not need savings in a communist state or titles to land or property. The state owns everything.
Is this ever likely to happen? Not this time around, but if we keep our borders open yes; Boris is keen on it as well. Net migration is increasing the population by one million every four years. With pull migration, bringing in the relatives of migrants already here, it is likely that by 2025 the population will have passed the 100 million mark. We don’t have enough farmland, water or power to support such a number. This is fertile ground for revolutionaries of both left and right. Street fighting brought the Nazis to power in thirties’ Germany, famine and war put the mass killer Lenin in power in Russia
We are however not allowed to speak about these matters; all the competing parties in the coming elections as well as the media, churches, mosques, universities have nothing to say and the police are now actively looking for people who do open their mouths. This was our country once. Where will we go when we have lost it?
Subscribe to the digital magazine
Subscribe to the paper Magazine
The Salisbury Review — Winter 2019
J. O’Connell 19TH JANUARY 2020 AT 7:54 PM: “That is all I have to say”
We can but hope!
It is only fair that I make way for an erudite, well-informed, thoughtful
person such as yourself. I think you will find that it is you who is the interloper here, I am sure there is a wall somewhere that you could graffiti, So that is it “chum”. I wouldn’t want you to think you have ended your long search for a pen-pal.
For Andrew, like for most leftists, the leftist dogmas are so self-evidently true, that the very act of disagreement is an insult. Asking him for evidence is proof in itself of the heretic’s lower – almost subhuman – moral and intellectual status. He doesn’t DO evidence, any more than the leader of Iran debate atheists. He just expect compliance with his views as a birthright.
For a “logical” leftist, unlike the “hate filled” right-wingers, you sure have a propensity to call those who disagree with you “deranged” or “insane” or “with the attention span of a flea”.
About Iran – Funny, thought, how we are in was with Iran for 40 years, and yet Trump “started WW III” by daring to fight back. Naturally the only strategy lefiists accept, in the name of peace, is passive surrender.
About immigration – “judging each case on its merits” means de facto unlimited immigration, since the “merits” of merely being from a poor third-world nation is sufficient reason for left-wingers to let the immigrant in.
Or… decide each case on its merits, as any reasonable person would.
Andrew’s “opinions” are becoming routinely abusive. I feel he lowers the tone distinctly. Even in the aftermath of Sir Roger’s death he continues. Could you please monitor his activities?
I agree Andrew is abusive but that is because he has a weak case or none at all. He is an excellent example of how fear and hatred of the working classes drives such people’s opinions. Notice how he avoids direct questions
Free speech is absolute I am not falling into Andrews trap
“He is an excellent example of how fear and hatred of the working classes drives such people’s opinions.”
Care to explain this bizarre comment?
Your observation that Andrew avoids direct questions is exemplified by his latest offering, where he gives it a swerve by directing a question back at you.
That is all I have to say
The sheer ludicrous-ness (?) of the immigration maths here – 16000+ EVERY DAY for the next 5 years apparently (the current average net figure is less than 600) – is almost the least bonkers thing in this right wing fantasist’s wet dream. Perhaps a second’s thought would have stopped you looking so completely idiotic.
The rest of it is barely worth considering. Austerity and welfare cuts kill people just as surely.
Oh yeah! Thousands lie dead from welfare cuts. The mortuaries are filling up with the bodies of those who struggled to make it to the food bank only to find the last can of beans had already been claimed by a struggling single mother and her poor emaciated child. Mass graves are being prepared for the victims of austerity. The final message is already being carved “Tomb of the unknown victims of Tory cuts. Died before a socialist could come to the rescue with a plan for the many not the few”. Pol Pot’s efforts were small beer by comparison with the instigators of Universal Credit. Where will it all end!
Sounds like a Left wing fantasist’s wet dream to me.
You don’t HAVE to be morally numb to be a socialist but it does help, especially when it comes to that old “you can’t make an omlette without breaking eggs” approach. That’s why you need a “man of steel” to do the dirty work. The rest of you can mutter platitudes about how it was a necessary step on the road to better future “for the many, not the few”. Shove the piles of corpses into the dustbin of history and just focus on the brave new society you are building.
Andrew . Welcome back to the same same question which you won’t answer. What limit would you put on immigration ?
I wouldn’t think in terms of an absolute limit at all. What limit do you set? None?
In addition to introducing ethnic and religious tensions and strife into a society where none existed before, mass immigration is also a huge Ponzi scheme: immigrants themselves get old and need care and pensions supported by a younger population. The “solution” economists come up with in their spreadsheet models is: more immigrants.
So, essentially, Andrew, you’re for an open-border approach where anybody at all can just walk right in into the UK.
Nobody can “just” walk right in. Otherwise all those 100 million Turks you’re so scared of would be here already wouldn’t they.
How many do you think should be allowed in before you arbitrarily stop the next person and say “Sorry, we’re full now”? An exact number please.
Annually for next 5 years. And once the yearly annual limit had been reached and the next 100 applicants came up with the same appeal, what would you do about them ?
Brilliant. I think years should be annually, for ever actually. But how MANY would you allow?
Genius evasion by the way. You’re a bit dim, aren’t you?
For the record, if the next 100 were escaping a war zone I’d let them in too. You could bugger off to wherever it is you people always threaten if you don’t get the election result you want, to make room.
When it comes to irrational hysteria, the left has the right beat by a large margin. Only last week, for example, Trump had “started World War Three”, as I recall.
I know you maybe have the attention span of a flea, but don’t you think these things might take a little longer than a couple of weeks to play out?
We’ve already had one inadvertent tragedy involving at least 3 other countries as a direct consequence.
Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.
But the left didn’t say Trump’s act *might* cause WWIII, as some sort of future possibility made more likely, but that it is already an established fact, as they hysterically waited for the Mullah’s inevitable vengence.
It also made clear that if there *is* such a war, it will be on Iran’s side – not that the Mullahs would have much use for that bunch of hysterical cowards, if it comes to that.
As for your immigration logic. Clearly you’re right. Why have any fixed number? It is all arbitrary. But you aren’t taking it far enough.
I suggest all speed limits be revoked and anybody can drive at whatever speed they want. We cannot have this awful unfairness, where driving at 50 mph is legal, but you arbitrarily stop and ticket the guy who drives merely one mph faster.
Or take, say, murder. Killing in self defnese is legal. Why is it that one person may get off scot-free with killing in self-defense, while another, only a *little bit* less justified in his actions, go to jail? Clearly, as you cannot give me an *exact* amount of violence that can be legally used in any situation, the only solution is to have no limits at all.
Rape should be legalized too. Talk about a law with a grey area. It’s deeply unfair that someone might not be guilty of rape despite being rather, shall we say, pushy, but somene only a *little bit* more violent is a rapist. Can you give me an *exact*, no grey area, definition of what “rape” is? No? So let’s just let men do whatever they want to women.
This is the “logic” of your immigration “position”, but it’s just a rhetorical device. In fact you obviously simply want unlimited immigration.
Also, drawing a line in the sand is likely to *deter* the Mullahs from further violence, as their calculatedly feeble response shows. We are lucky Trump, and not Mrs. Benghazi-Carter, is in charge. Otherwise we would be facing another “hundreds of Americans held hostages in an embassy” situation by now.
Of course the left calls Trump “insane” and claims he “doesn’tt know what he’s doing”, but this is a classic case of Aristotle’s observation: the brave man is always called a fool – by the coward.
“The left” doesn’t actually say anything, individuals do.
What you may have heard somebody say is their opinion. It may be that without a formal declaration an official ‘state of war’ doesn’t exist, but a de facto one probably does. Hasn’t Iran already said so dozens of times since 1979?
If you think trump is a brave man you are deranged. He’s a chancer, and an ignorant, irrational one.