[Jeliza-Rose]

It seems to me that there are two kinds of liberals - economic and social - and they are polar opposites.

American "liberals" realize that we live in two worlds - one is social and the other is economic.

In the social world we are liberal - in the economic world we are not (opposite of laissez-faire).

In the social world we are liberal because...

we realize that "we are all in this boat together" - where hierarchy is not so important since we all work together.
We tend to be highly suspicious of hierarchical institutions like - the military, religious orthodoxy, and corporations. We believe in representative democracy, which is intrinsically messy. We don't mind messiness because we realize that humans are changeable, but at the same time we acknowledge that there has to be a balance of power.
We remember that what was once accepted as obvious and necessary is now unacceptable in a civilized society - in other words - the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

In the economic world we are not liberal because...

we realize that the economic world (capitalism/laissez-faire) is "dog eat dog" "every man for himself" which really has no social conscious or real love of Democracy. (see: Libertarianism)
We realize that there is no equality in capitalism - it's a world of "bosses" and "the bossed".
We realize that capitalism can undermine democracy and eventually control the democratic process, therefore we would put limits on capitalism.
We see government as a check and balance to the power of 'economic aristocrats' who would run rough-shod over the powerless.

[DrSteveBrule]

I guess I wouldn't really call it a broad Church myself (at least no more broad than any other ideology). If we accept that a liberal is anyone who's end goal and starting value is the promotion of individualist thought, and that this is only possible if you apply it consistently and universally, then we actually get a far closer definition of what a liberal is, and can quickly see how very few of our politicians are actually liberal in nature. As for the Democrats, I'd probably say some are and some are not. The Democrat party is most certainly not a liberal party at it's head, because it's focus will always be on ensuring a strong economic platform (they are clear neolibs, in policy). That doesn't mean however that it's supporters and politicians will all have that as their ideology, just that they are working within the framework they have been left with.

By the most strict definition, yes. Its just that certain permutations of liberalism have less emphasis on individualist ideals, such as social liberalism and market liberalism.

I don't think politicians avoid liberalism due to their beliefs, its due to the fact that they want power.

It seems to me that there are two kinds of liberals - economic and social - and they are polar opposites.

American "liberals" realize that we live in two worlds - one is social and the other is economic.

In the social world we are liberal - in the economic world we are not (opposite of laissez-faire).

Keep in mind that both economic and social liberalism wish to secure individual liberties, but the difference is that the two disagree on whether government or economic elitism is more deserving of mistrust.

[Rei Murasame]

The balloons of delusion in this thread are magnificent to behold, but I'll have to puncture them a little by reminding everyone of this:

Although the dispute over neoliberalism is often characterized in left/right terms, that characterization is misleading. Neoliberal reforms occurred in nearly every country during the 1980s and 1990s, regardless of whether a left- or right-wing government was in office.

[...]

There is an unfortunate tendency to associate the term "neoliberal" with right-wing political views. In fact, the quite liberal social democracies of northern Europe have been among the most aggressive neoliberal reformers. Indeed, according to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is the freest economy in the world in the average of the eight categories unrelated to size of government.[1] The Nordic countries[2] have begun to privatize many activities that government still performs in the United States. These include passenger rail, airports, air-traffic control, highways, postal services, fire departments, water systems, and public schools, among many others. [...]

So with left-liberals - which is to say social democrats - you can have all your government activities privatised, and then still have Muslims raping people on top of that:

SWEDEN: Gang rape of 29-year-old Swedish mother of two by Muslim asylum seekers in refugee camp.
[youtube]KBdmdCW_-A4[/youtube]

Seven-hour non-stop gang rape by 12 Afghan Muslim refugees was the "most gruesome rape marathon in Sweden's history," say prosecutors. The rape was oral, anal, and vaginal, with up to three rapists in her at the same time. Only 7 of the 12 rapists were convicted.

The other Muslim onlookers were clapping and cheering and calling the woman a "whore" and a "slut," how Muslim men describe unveiled women. The victim is now confined to a wheelchair, suffering severe mental distress. The Swedish media concealed the ethnicity of the perpetrators and quickly removed the story.

And Muslims running around doing as they please:

BR Leksaker, Toys R Us, Leklus and Lekia's catalogues were analysed by Swedish newspaper Metro, which spotted just two photos of non-white children in one of the publications and none in any of the other directories.

The catalogues are packed with photos of white children playing with toys and other potential Christmas presents.

Swedish campaign group Equalisters, which aims to correct imbalances of ethnic minority and gender representation in media, culture and business, has criticized the findings. It says the brochures fail to reflect diversity in Sweden, where around a fifth of the population now has roots outside of Sweden.

"These catalogues are too white. I think it's really sad for non-white children. I think this kind of thing can affect their sense of what they can become and do in the future and how welcome they feel in Sweden," Equalisters chairperson Seher Yilmaz told The Local.

She said that parents of white children should join the organization's campaign efforts.

"Think about how you would feel if people who looked like your children were never seen anywhere in the media," she added.

"It is up to everyone to change things. We need to reflect the way Sweden really looks today in the media, in movies and in business".

Swedish toy companies have previously been praised for being among the first to reject gender stereotypes, with some including photos of girls holding toy guns and boys pushing shopping trolleys.

Metro said it was seeking a response to the latest race allegations from all the companies concerned.

Top Toy, which has its headquarters in Denmark, owns BR Leksaker and the franchise for US toy giant Toys R Us. The Local was unable to reach the press team in Denmark after 4pm on Monday.

Yeah! Don't you realise that black Somalian Muslims are part of Sweden too now?!

Speaking of black Somalian Muslim Swedes, here's another story literally just above that one:

Two of the Swedes, who came from Gothenburg and Stockholm, were killed in the town of Kobane during an American air strike on Sunday, reported the Expressen newspaper.

One of the men was killed while on guard and died instantly, another Swedish Isis fighter told the paper.

"The Stockholmer was on the front line in Kobane and was standing on guard," he said.

"An American attack plane bombed the other brothers close by him. He hurried over to help them and was bombed himself."

The Gothenburg man died in the same attack.

A third man who was also from Gothenburg died on Sunday, but from injuries sustained during another attack.

Sweden's foreign ministry is yet to confirm the information.

"This is a tricky area and it's not even certain that we'll get any official information. But it's only then that we can confirm anything," Victoria Bell at the ministry told the TT news agency.

Expressen reported that all three men were of Somali origin, and added that between six and seven Swedes head to Syria each week to fight for Isis.

The town of Kobane, also known as Ayn Arab, has been under assault by Isis extremists since mid-September and is being defended by Kurdish fighters.

Also:

After publishing this article we have had Muslims and the extreme socialist left argue that the numbers are distorted and fabricated. All figures in this report originates from BRÅ, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet – Brå). BRÅ is an agency under the Ministry of Justice and is a centre for research and development within the judicial system. There are no distortions or fabrications in this data. There are links to the original graphs and data from BRÅ for any reference checks.

The Swedish government is no longer collecting sensitive statistics from nationality and crime in the governments deliberate intent of social engineering. Therefore, only figures from 1985-1989 and 1995-2001 are covered for comparison. The current rape statistics are likely much higher today, like in similar proven cases in Norway. These crimes mainly refer to Muslim migrants from Muslim dominated countries who are extremely over-represented in the 77.6% rapes committed by foreigners. That Muslims are overrepresented have been confirmed by a member of Swedish police to us, who wishes to remain anonymous. In addition, the Swedish rapists are only represented by nationality, and may contain persons of foreign background within those numbers. [...]

And:

Policy. The Agency for Crime Prevention Council released Tuesday a new report on self-reported victimization. Among other things, it appears that a Swedish woman growing up today runs around 23 percent risk of being raped at least once in their life, between 16-79 years of age, with today's rape statistics.

The National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) latest report, " Exposure to crime in 2011, "has more than 13 000 people answered questions about whether they were victims of crime during the past year.

The report states, among other things, an end to several media myths regarding rape. Most sex offences are committed not by acquaintances at home, but by strangers outside the home. "In 58 percent of cases the perpetrator was unknown to the victim," writes well and is continuing; "It's common that the incident occurred in a public place (41%) than in a housing (30%)."

- Maybe it contrasts with a [preconceived] notion of what it is, said Thomas Hvitfeldt, investigators at the National Council said.

The report shows that "the estimated number of rapes in the population amounts to more than 29,000 events in 2011," with the vast majority of victims are women. This means that for any given year, the risk of a woman aged 16 to 79 years, raped 4 at the 1000th.

But if you look at the risk of being raped at least once in her life, as much as 1 in 4 women are raped at least once between the time she turned 16 to when she is 79 years old. The risk of being raped before age 16 or after 79 is not calculated.

Crime has exploded in Sweden since the early nineties and the biggest reasons for this is mass immigration and free movement within the EU, reports the good. Among other things, they note that the over-representation of immigrants for crime is big and the worse the crime the more over-representation.

However, not all immigrant groups that exhibit high crime. The extremely high level of crime is primarily concentrated in Africans and people from the Middle East, writes Council. According to statistics from the BRÅ report 1996: 2 page 107, it is clear that, for example, Iraqi and Moroccan men commit rape over twenty times more often than Swedish. According to statistics, as occurred in the late 90s more than half of all rapes in Sweden by non-Swedes.

The article is updated. The calculations assume that the probability that the rape is equal for all women.

Fact: Probability and Statistics

Probability is a tricky subject, and often not intuitive.

Although a probability per year for something happening may seem small, it becomes large if we add up the years. By comparison, the probability that you get the hiccups during this hour is very small, but the probability that you get hiccups at some point during the year is very large.

If the probability that something will happen in a year is, say 20%, then the probability of it happening 80%. The probability that something will not happen two years in a row is 80% * 80%, three consecutive years of 80% * 80% * 80% and so on. The more years the greater the likelihood of it happening in any year.

This could develop into a formula. The probability that something will not happen for a number of years is (1-p) ^ n, where n is the number of years, and p is the probability of it happening during a year.

Tex. according to the data in the report said 1.1 percent that it was broken into their home in 2010, at least once. One can then say that the probability that there will be break-ins is 98.9%. The probability of not encounter burglary ten years in a row would be: 90%, ie 10% chance that there will be a break-in at least once in your home in ten years.

And terrorists thinking that left-liberal countries are holiday resorts for themselves:

[...] As I walked, I envisioned myself traveling along these fault lines. I would stop into villages and interview people, telling the story of a nation with many identities, dissatisfied with them all, in trouble, wanting help. In the background would be a narrator in a similar situation.

My experience in Arab countries ought to have given me pause. After I published my Yemen book, I changed my name from Theo Padnos to Peter Theo Curtis, worried that the book might make reporting from the Middle East difficult. I knew how Westerners were often viewed. But I had done all my studying under the eye of military governments, in places where the secret police listened to every word uttered in every mosque. I had never set foot in a region where only a militant Islam held sway. Things are different in such places. Almost immediately, I fell into a trap.

[...]

I returned to the F.S.A. troops. One told me that his unit had recently traveled to Jordan to receive training from American forces in fighting groups like the Nusra Front.

“Really?” I said. “The Americans? I hope it was good training.”

“Certainly, very,” he replied.

The fighters stared at me. I stared at them.

After a few moments, I asked, “About this business of fighting Jebhat al Nusra?”

“Oh, that,” one said. “We lied to the Americans about that.”

[...]

That night as we finished Abu Farouk’s watermelon and were gazing up at the stars, I listened to the fighters musing about their futures. “Hey, Abu Petra,” they asked me, “what is Sweden like?” [...]

"Sweden Yes".

[Rich]

Liberalism was started by totalitarian filth like John Locke who completely opposed the toleration of Atheists. Locke, an investor in the slave trade, needed monotheism to keep the slaves and serfs of the empire and the workers of Britain under control. liberalism has always been hypocritical and inconsistent. Libertarians were enthusiastic supporters of slavery but now claim that no Libertarian could ever support slavery. They supported genocide of native peoples, but now endlessly lecture us on non aggression. They supported fascism, but now claim that fascism is an evil socialist ideology that they have always opposed. Non Jewish German Libertarians virtually all supported Hitler and the Nazis until they started losing. They supported all sorts of dictators, Pinochet actually being one of the better ones. They're best representatives in government Reagan and Thatcher even supported Saddam and the Khmer Rouge.

[Godstud]

Like anything else, in moderation it's good. Liberalism, the extreme, is terrible. It's like political correctness, taken too far. It's abhorrent.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, the present menu offering at the neoliberal restaurant basically comes down to, would you like:

• Neoliberalism with a side of Muslim rape. (left-liberalism)
• Neoliberalism without rape. (right-liberalism)

If that is the interim choice, then I think it's like I'm on the telephone saying, "Hmm, okay, I think I'll go with your non-rape option? Is that available? Uhuh, yeah. That's correct. I don't need Muslim rape in the order. I don't order from the neoliberalism restaurant if I can help it, but when I do, I choose the non-rape option."

[layman]

Rei, I noticed you used to be far more accommodating with left liberals than right liberals. Clearly a change of perspective on your part. Not that there is anything wrong with this.

[Rei Murasame]

Yep. I had to go back the other way after I realised that left-liberals were determined to seriously carry the pro-Muslim craze to its full rapey conclusion, and that it wasn't just an 'extreme' Swedish phenomenon.

After I saw the Labour Party UK doing it in the wake of the Rotherham incident, I was just like, "Wow, New Labour just discarded its commitment to feminism in order to appease Muslim men, despite the fact that the War on Terror was declared on their watch in 2001. They are literally insane."

But I think everyone saw it coming after the whole 'Blue Labour' idea with people like Maurice Glasman, Chuka Harrison Umunna, and Caroline Flint, was unfortunately trashed. 'Blue Labour' would have been Labour's last chance to catch my attention, but they decided not to go with that (apparently 'Blue' ideas are 'too racist' and 'too right-wing' for them), so when I saw that they abandoned the idea I was just like "fuck it, they will never learn".

Left-liberals are simply incapable of learning.

Of course, left-liberals don't care if I dislike them, since they'd just say "well, Rei, you are a right-winger, obviously we are not really trying to get your vote in the first place". The next UK general election is going to be really funny.

[Rich]

We suffer not from one sickness but from three: Libertarianism, Zionism and the leftie Muslim lovers. As far as I can make it out, it was actually originally a Libertarian wheeze to flood our countries with Muslims. Of course once they were here the lefties could never admit that any country could ever have too many Muslims. Jewish supremacists have attempted to fuck us up with multi-culturalism. To be fair this is quite an understandable response of paranoia and desire for vengeance against European ethnic patriotism and identity. At the end of the day I think the Jewish supremacists are our best hope. If they destroy Europe Israel won't last long. Hopefully the instinct for self preservation will overcome their desire to humiliate us.

[ThirdTerm]

[youtube]he3meRqAmIA[/youtube]

The Liberal Party originally invented political liberalism in the UK in the late 19th century and it was a working class party that oversaw welfare reforms in the early 20th century that created a welfare state. Winston Churchill was notably a member of the Liberal Party after switching parties from the Tories and he was accused of betraying his class. In the 1923 general election, most of Liberals including Churchill himself lost their seats and the Liberal Party was finished as a political force in the 1920s with the rise of the Labour Party, which replaced it as the Tories' rival in the two-party system. When I took a course on Churchill, an American student asked about the reason behind the Liberal Party's sudden demise but a Cambridge lecturer did not have an answer for that at the time. It was actually the rise of Labour which undermined Liberals, who were mostly upper-class politicians pretending to care about the lower class of British society, while the Labour Party presented itself as a real alternative the Liberal Party.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”
― Winston S. Churchill

When it comes to post-war multiculturalism, it all started with the fall of Singapore in 1942 and the subsequent demise of European colonial empires in Asia. The era of colonialism came to an end in the 1950s as a result and most white colonies had to adjust their domestic and immigration policies by embracing multiculturalism and Australia's White Australia policy was symbolically abolished under British pressure over a period of 25 years. Any laws against multicultural ideals have now become unacceptable in the civilised world but Nordic countries may have taken multiculturalism too far by accepting tens of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers annually, which seems to be unnecessary or even harmful for a nation of just over 9 million people. Nordic countries may have gone too socialist during the Cold War, while providing the people with cradle-to-grave welfare, and socialist parties have exerted too much influence on the region's domestic and foreign policies for many decades.

Sweden expects more than 80,000 asylum seekers this year, after a 70 percent jump in the first six months. Refugees are entering the country at a pace not seen since the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, according to the Migration Board in Stockholm. The government is urging Swedes to take a more compassionate view towards asylum seekers in an effort to turn the xenophobic tide. Sweden received the most asylum applications per person in the world from 2009 through 2013, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The share of Swedes born abroad was 15.9 percent last year compared with 11.3 percent in 2000. Immigration rose 12 percent to an all-time high last year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-2 ... klash.html

[Far-Right Sage]

I agree with Rei in the sense that left-liberals running amok with no substantive opposition have collectively caused the most harm and devastation to our respective societies, without question. Even those nations of Eastern and Southeastern Europe which were under the communist boot heel for generations emerged from a failing economic system with a renewed sense of identity and togetherness, dreams about what the future of their nations could be post-Soviet control. Those dreams were quickly ground to dust by left-liberals and the liberal internationalist class, the assassins of dreams, but it serves to illustrate a point. Germany is the perfect example because the nation was subject to twin occupations (one of which is in effect now and encompasses the whole of the national territory save that which lies outside the imposed German borders which will be ripped apart with a furious declaration of intent) simultaneously and the DDR regime was not merciful toward German culture in the slightest, but set about enshrining Stalin and later Khruschev as heroic enlightened father figures, blew up and decimated German churches with Gothic architecture dating back centuries in areas around Leipzig and that which had not already been destroyed in Dresden, and countless other examples. The goal was annihilation of culture and spirit. The Stasi was awe-inspiring in the scope of its power in the sense that this intelligence agency was perhaps and still is among the finest examples of pervasive intelligence not only in the sense of information gathering but in effectively grooming society. Yet after all this when the wall came down and reunification was effected, it is to this day in Sachsen and those areas of the nation which lie to the east where one finds a people far more jaded with their lot and because of this far more aware about the nuances of the political conditions imposed upon them over their heads, and thus far more open to radical currents of opposition. I truly believe the move toward national renewal will begin in the east and am filled earnestly with this hope through seeing the difference in attitudes of common people. Liberalism has been a greater, more encompassing totalitarianism than communism was and ever could be. Communism drove opposition so far underground it ceased existing speaking practically. Liberalism has gained such a monopoly over wealth and information flowing globally that it has truly won more converts and succeeded at imposing a (terrible) reality for entire human societies in a way that communism never solidified itself to be able to do. It has been the most resourceful and shrewd in its neutering and co-opting of movements on the far-right and far-left to the point it renders them valueless.

When one looks at what is happening in Scandinavia today, as Rei went to great lengths to spell out above for those unaware, this is a dystopia in full effect. Of course, it has not even gone 1/10th of the way as a far as its architects and planners intend it to go. Nothing will remain of Europe when they are finished with it if we allow them to accomplish their objectives without disruption. Not unless one defines Europe as a brown polyglot marketplace of dispirited disunited people living as slaves and serfs to financial institutions and one which is open for business like a $10 Tijuana whore. In Sweden the entire political system is driven by this with ideologically alike parties engaging in a game of musical chairs, but one could say the Swedish Social Democratic Party is the worst culprit and among the most degenerate forces in Europe. In Norway, the Norwegian Labor Party is similarly horrendous and it is unsurprising to me that a figure like Breivik would arise to put those sick puppies down. The lives of ten or twenty or fifty or eighty are inconsequential compared to the prospect of thousands of years of human cultural achievement which was woven the tapestry of your unique nation being undone and left in ashes to the tune of successive generations of Norwegian women and children only having to look foward to being raped, plundered, murdered, and displaced on their own land which their forefathers built and raised up, subject to the treatment an occupied people face from a foreign army. Nothing is too harsh an action to liquidate the people driving this policy, including terrorism. Unfortunately on several fronts Breivik was in ideological error (engaging in "neo-Crusader" themes, making overtures toward Christian Zionists, favoring a somewhat vague and incoherent white Christian nationalism above anything, etc.) but rather than a coherent political leader with the capability of leading any serious movement for dramatic change, I see him and men like him who will no doubt arise in the future more as inevitable agents of punishment who appear to now and again bring the hammer down on that political class which strangles us. And I have no complaints. I have far more hatred in my blood, heart, and soul for those people than I do an Iraqi or Afghan or Somali or Pakistani rapist. The latter group is not engaged in the political and social engineering of a human population group to its detriment in an advanced developed society. They are just low-level thugs from an insular culture testing the boundaries of what dumb white foreigners who have tied their own hands behind their back will allow them to get away with. Then they move in for the kill and take everything, including the dignity of Swedish women, of Norwegian women, of Danish and British and German and French women. Meanwhile whites are trained like whipped circus seals to ask for more. Who expects a better outcome and who expects a better future as a result? The right understands human nature. Yet unfortunately it hasn't seized the initiative to capture the mainstream narrative because left-liberalism is still the dominant ideology of the establishment of the transatlantic elite in Western countries.

And Rei hit the nail on the head. If some people, including disheartened ex-socialists and those on the left with nowhere else to turn after the Soviet state fell believe that they can at least settle for these milquetoast left-liberals because they may endeavor to incorporate something substantive about social justice into their platform and steer society in a more egalitarian direction in that regard, neoliberal economic theory has completely driven policy and captured the reins of power every bit as much in Stockholm or Oslo or Copenhagen as it has in London, Washington D.C., or Canberra, and to some extent experimentation with privatization programmes has gone further in jurisdictions like Sweden.

[Pants-of-dog]

I agree with Rei in the sense that left-liberals running amok with no substantive opposition have collectively caused the most harm and devastation to our respective societies, without question.

Right. Socialised medicine has been far more destructive than when the Nazis almost destroyed all Of Europe.

I ignored the rest of your post because it was noting more than a rant.

[Far-Right Sage]

That's fine.

I reiterate every sentence I wrote. You and people like yourself in actual positions of power and your sympathizers are the absolute enemy of everything and everyone I hold dear and I pray daily for the destruction of your lot while knowing bold young men will eventually heed the call. May the arrogance of your success in Sweden and more generally in Europe as a whole turn to ashes in your mouth. May dedicated nationalists make that a reality.

[Rich]

Right. Socialised medicine has been far more destructive than when the Nazis almost destroyed all Of Europe.

All of Europe? Did the Nazis destroy Prague? Did the Nazis destroy Paris? And remind me again who destroyed Dresden, was it the Nazis or was someone else responsible? Um and I don't want to be critical of that lovely Uncle Joe that wise Mr Roosevelt was so fond of, but didn't Stalin's scorched Earth policies cause just the incy winciest bit of destruction?

But hey the Nazis were evil, they don't deserve to be judged by the facts. They were so evil that they must only be judged according to the myths prescribed by our ideological masters (sorry I mean guardians).

[Rei Murasame]

I know, right? Also, given that there was the threat inside Germany of a collapsing economy with massive inequality everywhere, and the external threat of the Soviet Union which was planning to steamroll its way through Europe, I think it should be obvious that the National Socialists were actually attempting to save Europe from itself, rather than to destroy it.

But here we see Pants-of-Dog blaming them for not succeeding at saving Europe.

Maybe on some level he is right. Nazis ought to apologise for having unfortunately lost the war. Great calamities were unleashed because they lost, calamities which much of Europe and East Asia are still struggling to recover from now.

Someone should also talk about how another key chance was missed in the 1970s when there was supposed to be a coup carried out against Harold Wilson, where Lord Mountbatten of Burma was supposed to have persons in the military loyal to him, overthrow the civilian government of the UK and its military defenders, and then bring in 'the government of national salvation'. Imagine how different things would be now if that had succeeded as well. It's just unfortunate that they couldn't pull that off.

[ThirdTerm]

Peter Wright, in his book Spycatcher, claimed that in 1967 Mountbatten attended a private meeting with press baron and MI5 agent Cecil King, and the Government's chief scientific adviser, Solly Zuckerman. King and Peter Wright were members of a group of thirty MI5 officers who wanted to stage a coup against the then crisis-stricken Labour Government of Harold Wilson, and King allegedly used the meeting to urge Mountbatten to become the leader of a government of national salvation. Solly Zuckerman pointed out that it was treason, and the idea came to nothing because of Mountbatten's reluctance to act.[57] The first official history of MI5, The Defence of the Realm published in 2009, tacitly confirmed that there was a plot against Wilson and that MI5 did have a file on him. Yet it also made clear that the plot was in no way official and that any activity centred on a small group of discontented officers. This much had already been confirmed by former cabinet secretary Lord Hunt, who concluded in a secret inquiry conducted in 1996 that "there is absolutely no doubt at all that a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5...a lot of them like Peter Wright who were rightwing, malicious and had serious personal grudges – gave vent to these and spread damaging malicious stories about that Labour government."[59]

Defend the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 Paperback – December 7, 2010
by Christopher Andrew
http://www.amazon.com/Defend-Realm-The- ... 0307275817

The Defence of the Realm (Andrew 2009: 635-43) does mention the plot against the Wilson government but Peter Wright's outrageous claims in his memoir that Lord Mountbatten got involved in the plot to overthrow the Wilson government may be his own creation, upon which the BBC documentary was based. Personal memoirs are often unreliable as historical documents and Seiji Yoshida, who wrote a memoir detailing the kidnapping of few hundred Korean comfort women on a remote Korean island, was recently exposed as a professional liar and a Communist. It was Anatoliy Golitsyn who tipped off the CIA about Harold Wilson's alleged KGB links but he is described as an "unreliable conspiracy theorist" (Andrew 2009: 503) and as a Soviet defector, he may have been feeding misleading information to make him useful to the Americans as was the case with Curveball, who lied about Iraqi WMDs. However, MI5 may have actually run secret surveillance operations on Harold Wilson as he suspected during his second term in office and it was a natural course of action during the Cold War to spy on suspected Soviet sympathisers.

During his second term in office (1974-1976), Wilson appears to have become convinced that he was under constant electronic surveillance. His official biographer Philip Ziegler relates an account of Wilson's caution in the lavatory in Number 10, where "the Prime Minister pointed at the electric light fitting and made an exaggerated gesture of caution, putting his finger to his lips and indicating that confidential talk would be unsafe." Former US President George H. W. Bush, then director of the CIA, reportedly emerged from a meeting at Downing Street expressing amazement that "He did nothing but complain about being spied on!" [1] Wilson's fears were publicised in July 1977 in an article in The Observer, in which he was quoted as claiming that a faction in the Service was mounting a "whispering campaign" against him and that he had been bugged.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/mi5-history ... -plot.html



In the book's final chapter, Wright talks of approaches from colleagues who said of the prime minister, "Wilson's a bloody menace and it's about time the public knew the truth .... this time we'll have him out." Wright goes on to say, "Although the full Wilson story never emerged, it was obvious to me that the boys had been actively pushing their plan as much as they could. No wonder Wilson was later to claim that he was the victim of a plot!" The third edition of HMSO official publication "MI5 The Security Service" has the following to say on the "Wilson Plot" allegations; "In his book Spycatcher, the former Security Service officer Peter Wright claimed that up to 30 members of the Service had plotted to undermine the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. This allegation was exhaustively investigated and it was concluded, as stated publicly by Ministers, that no such plot had ever existed. Wright himself finally admitted in an interview with BBC1's Panorama programme in 1988 that his account had been unreliable." It adds the following about Wright's claim that Hollis was a Russian mole; "It was claimed that the former Director General of the Security Service, Sir Roger Hollis, was a Russian spy. The Trend inquiry of 1974 cleared Hollis of that accusation. Subsequently, the evidence of the former KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky confirmed this judgment."
http://www.mi5.com/security/mi5org/spycatcher.htm

[Rei Murasame]

I don't see how you can decide that since Seiji Yoshida lied about comfort women in Japan in the 1940s, that it somehow means that Peter Wright and Lord Hunt are lying about the coup plan in the United Kingdom in the 1970s.

That is an epic non-sequitur.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's fine.

I reiterate every sentence I wrote. You and people like yourself in actual positions of power and your sympathizers are the absolute enemy of everything and everyone I hold dear and I pray daily for the destruction of your lot while knowing bold young men will eventually heed the call. May the arrogance of your success in Sweden and more generally in Europe as a whole turn to ashes in your mouth. May dedicated nationalists make that a reality.

Are you a member of Toastmaster's? I bet you give good speeches. With lots of memorable phrases.

------------------------

All of Europe? Did the Nazis destroy Prague?

No, but neither did the Allies who bombed it by accident, and who have apologised and voiced their regrets.

However, the Nazis did occupy it, displace hundreds of thousands of refugees, ruined the Czechoslovakian economy, killed almost all the Jews, and eventually got kicked out by the people of Czechoslovakia.

Are we now going to claim that left-liberals (such as those who formed the Czechoslovakian resistance) somehow did more damage to Czechoslovakia than the Nazis?

Did the Nazis destroy Paris?

No, but I never claimed they destroyed all of Europe.

However, they did occupy France, kill the Jews, etc.

And remind me again who destroyed Dresden, was it the Nazis or was someone else responsible? Um and I don't want to be critical of that lovely Uncle Joe that wise Mr Roosevelt was so fond of, but didn't Stalin's scorched Earth policies cause just the incy winciest bit of destruction?

The bombing of Dresden, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were crimes or awful mistakes. I lean towards the former. However, the fact that the Allies did horrible and cruel things does not mean that the Nazis did not do even worse things.

But hey the Nazis were evil, they don't deserve to be judged by the facts. They were so evil that they must only be judged according to the myths prescribed by our ideological masters (sorry I mean guardians).

It is a fact that the Nazis killed millions of Europeans and tried to destroy several European cultures. And I have trouble coming up with any comparable factual activity by leftist liberals.

------------------------

I know, right? Also, given that there was the threat inside Germany of a collapsing economy with massive inequality everywhere, and the external threat of the Soviet Union which was planning to steamroll its way through Europe, I think it should be obvious that the National Socialists were actually attempting to save Europe from itself, rather than to destroy it.

But here we see Pants-of-Dog blaming them for not succeeding at saving Europe.

Maybe on some level he is right. Nazis ought to apologise for having unfortunately lost the war. Great calamities were unleashed because they lost, calamities which much of Europe and East Asia are still struggling to recover from now.

Someone should also talk about how another key chance was missed in the 1970s when there was supposed to be a coup carried out against Harold Wilson, where Lord Mountbatten of Burma was supposed to have persons in the military loyal to him, overthrow the civilian government of the UK and its military defenders, and then bring in 'the government of national salvation'. Imagine how different things would be now if that had succeeded as well. It's just unfortunate that they couldn't pull that off.

Yes, I guess if you rewrite history, the Nazis were actually trying to save Europe.

[Far-Right Sage]

I don't want to debate war issues here because it's been done to death and we all already know where the other side stands, but it's worth pointing out that to the extent "left-liberals" existed among the British-backed Czech insurgent underground which fought to undermine the transitional Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, this was inconsequential in the end. Left-liberals certainly did not kick the Wehrmacht out of Prague and neither did the whole of the Czech insurgency; the Red Army did and only after Berlin had sadly fallen and the Führer entered the hall of the greatest martyrs in face of the Bolshevist hordes. Let's at least be factual and attribute such things properly. The Czech insurgents could never have had the material strength to kick the Wehrmacht out of the Czech capital so I don't know why you concocted this fantasy scenario. Their specialty was sabotage, hit-and-run tactics, spreading themselves thin with involvement in other people's insurgencies (such as that aimed against Tiso's Slovakia) and a few high profile assassinations, like Heydrich (which even then they were manipulated by London into). They were not a conventional fighting force and were only hastily organized into something resembling one by the end of the war (when the Prague Offensive occurred).

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as we agree that the Nazis did far more damage than European left-liberals did.