Stalin, Ian Duncan Smith and Terror as Corporate Management Technique


Iosip Vissarionovich Djugashvili, aka Stalin: Thuggish Dictator of the Soviet Union

Ian Duncan Smith pic

Ian Duncan Smith: Thuggish Dictator of the Department of Work and Pensions

One of the other books I’ve been reading lately is Alex De Jonge’s biography of Stalin, Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins 1986). During his career Stalin is estimated to have killed at least 30 million Soviet citizens – though the real figure may be a high as 45 million or over – through a series of purges and artificial famines as he transformed the Soviet Union into the military and industrial superpower that was to dominate half of Europe and challenge America for world mastery for the next fifty years. From his boyhood Stalin was a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

The son of a drunken, abusive father, who used to challenge his son to knife him when beating him and a hard mother, Iosip Vissarionovich Djugashvili, grew up dirty poor in the village of Gori in Georgia, one of the countries in the Caucasus that had been absorbed into the Russian Empire. The family lived in one room of a two-room house. The other was occupied by their landlord. He was short, only 5’4” tall, with an elbow left permanently stiff through a childhood accident. The second and third toes on one of his feet were conjoined from birth, and his faced had been left pockmarked through smallpox. This and his family’s poverty gave him strong feelings of inferiority. He soon developed a deep hatred of anyone in authority above him, and his need to dominate and utter lack of any feeling for others were commented on by his fellow students at the Orthodox Christian seminary in Tiflis, in which his parents had enrolled him. One of them remarked on how he was never known to cry, and greeted the joys and misfortunes of his fellow students alike with a sarcastic smile. Most of all, the young Stalin already was alien to basic human altruism. He could not understand how anyone could act kindly or generously to another out of the sheer goodness of their heart, without some ulterior motive. At the seminary he joined a secret Marxist discussion circle set up by some of the other students. He managed to split this between his supporters and opponents through his absolute insistence that only his interpretation of Marx’s doctrine could ever be correct.

He was also already an advocate of absolute, ruthless personal government. One of the stories about Stalin’s time at the seminary is about an essay he wrote on the fall of Julius Caesar. The history teacher had set them the question ‘Why did Caesar fall?’ Stalin’s essay looked at the question from the perspective of the organs of state power, identifying weaknesses and filling in the gaps where these could be strengthened. He stated that Rome’s greatest dictator fell, because he had allowed another source of authority and resistance, the Senate, to continue uninterrupted. The provincial governors opposed him, because they feared his power more than that of the Senate. He also made the mistake of relying on the support of friends, rather than managers, who depended on him for power and who could be relied on to do his bidding. As a result, he was assassinated by his two friends, Brutus and Cassius. When he was asked if his essay was recommending absolute monarchy, he responded by saying that it did not. Absolute monarchy was the control of the state by a single personality. In Stalin’s view, his recommendations were the exact opposite: the strengthening of state power through a single personality.

Stalin was eventually thrown out of the seminary for reading forbidden
books, like Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and Marx. He demanded that the other members of the Marxist discussion circle should likewise resign, so that they could concentrate on revolutionary activities and propaganda amongst the people. They refused, offering the excuse that they didn’t want to disappoint their parents. So Stalin denounced them all to the seminary authorities, who threw them out anyway. On their expulsion, Djugashvili told them that they were now free to pursue their revolutionary activities amongst the people. After this, the young revolutionary became a kinto, the Georgian term for a semi-criminal street hustler. His revolutionary activities included a series of bank robberies used to fund the Russian Social Democratic Party, the parent Marxist organisation which produced the Bolshevik faction, that later became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

So the pattern of Stalin’s personality and rule were present from his childhood: feelings of inferiority, hatred of authority, utter ruthlessness and a need to dominate others, with a predilection for absolute power and the willingness to use violence to obtain it.

I can’t remember if it was De Jonge’s book, but I do remember that in the 1980s the Sunday Express reviewed one of the biographies of the monster. This was done as yet another of the ‘real truth about an icon of the Left’ that the Right-wing press runs every now and again in order to discredit anyone, whose views are to the left of Maggie Thatcher. In fact, Stalin had been discredited long before the 1980s. He had been out of favour in the Soviet Union ever since the ‘Secret Speech’ of 1953, in which Khruschev denounced his ‘cult of personality’. Moreover, the old thug’s fiercest critics included not only non-Communist democrats, but also dissident Marxists like Roy Medvedev, an historian and author of Let History Judge, which exposed not only Stalin and his crimes, but also his henchmen. The book’s Russian title is, if I can remember correctly, B Dvortse Istorii, which literally translated means In History’s Court, which might have a slightly different shade of meaning. Medvedev was a democrat. He presented to Brezhnev a 12-point plan drawn up by himself and other leading Soviet dissidents like Andrei Sakharov. Nevertheless, he was a Marxist, who founded the Socialist Party of Russian Working People in 1991 in opposition to the banning of the Russian Communist party after the coup against Gorbachev.

At first sight, there appears to be very little in common between Ian Duncan Smith and Stalin. Stalin was, after all, essentially a poor street thug, who cleverly manipulated others to make his way to the very top of Soviet hierarchy. IDS is like the rest of the cabinet, a creature of privilege, who owes his position to the British class system. Nevertheless, the two share certain psychological traits in common and their management styles are very similar. In the introduction De Jonge discusses Stalin’s style of government, and rebuts the suggestion that it is somehow strange or unusual in the West. It is in the traditions of democratic government. However, it is much less unusual, and even common, when it is compared with the aggressive and ruthless management style of some company directors. These also rule by fear, though this is simply that of being sacked, rather than being sent to a forced labour camp or shot in the back of the head by the NKVD. Such chairmen are also unwilling to take advice, capricious, and surround themselves with sycophants willing to do and say anything to gain promotion, including stabbing each other in the back. And like Stalin, these company directors can turn their corporations into highly efficient, successful companies. De Jonge states

‘At first sight the country over which he and they ruled strikes Western observers as alien, as indeed it is when judged by the standards and practices of Western political democracy. However, when considered from a different point of view, much that may seem strange at first sight will strike the reader as surprisingly familiar. My interest in Stalin began many years ago, when I was in a position to compare what I knew of him with the atmosphere in a large British corporation, ruled by a chief executive who believed in management by terror. Everyone, fr4om the board of directors to the lift man, existed under the continuing threat of dismissal without warning, while sackings appeared to occur on a virtually random basis. The chairman set ambitious targets based on his intuitions, seldom listened to advice and never admitted he had made a mistake. He was surrounded by an entourage of sycophants who passed his management style down the line, subjecting their own subordinates to the same kind of bullying, with the result that the corporation operated in a terror-laden miasma of politicking, backstabbing, misrepresentation of personal achievement and the sophisticated ‘management’ of company news. Nevertheless, the technique got results, and while the chairman’s intuitive methods produced some spectacular failures, they could also be spectacularly successful. It was a world in which the dangers were colossal, but in which the rewards were commensurate with the risks.

For many years I had supposed this style of management to be unique and that those who had had the misfortune to know it were exceptionally unfortunate. However, I have come to understand that in the world of the nontenured, administration by fear, with the firing squad replaced by instant dismissal, is closer to the rule than the exception. Indeed, it appears to be the norm for any organization in which the administrators are not accountable to those under their authority and in which there is no job security. Academics tend to tr4eat STalin’s Russia as a savage and alien society that requires sophisticated analytic techniques to understand it, because tenure protects them from that perpetual threat of job loss that, with all its attendant office politics, drawn daggers and smoking guns, is part of the fabric of most peoples’ daily lives. They fail to appreciate that Soviet reality ‘begins at home’.

Now this reminds very strongly of IDS’ DWP. Let’s see, run by a bully, who governs by his own intuitions untrammelled by facts? Check. An atmosphere of fear of dismissal, with the subordinates passing this down the line to those under them? Check. Carefully managed news? Definitely check. Backstabbing? Absolutely. Furthermore, like Stalin the ultimate use of terror is the benefit sanction, in which the victim is denied state support. You can compare this to the artificial famines Stalin and his subordinates created during collectivisation, and which devastated the Ukraine in what has become known as the Holodomor. And people are similarly starving in Britain through Smith’s policies, and have died as a result. See the blog entries by Stilloaks, Mike, The Void, DEAP and Jayne Linney for this.

As for the personal psychology of the two, like Stalin IDS also appears to have an inferiority complex. There is, after all, considerable doubt whether he was actually an officer in the British army. IDS also seems to share Stalin’s intellectual vanity. Stalin became General Secretary of the Communist Party as the other Bolsheviks thought that he was too thick to present much of a threat. They believed that a Napoleonic dictator would arise after the Revolution to rule by fear. Unfortunately, they looked in completely the opposite direction, and thought it was Trotsky. Trotsky was, after all, the head of the Red Army during the Civil War, and was a far more sophisticated thinker than Stalin. And so they were looking in completely the wrong direction, while Stalin was under their noses carefully using his position to throw out anyone, who was not absolutely loyal to him. From being a thicko, who didn’t properly understand the niceties of Marxist doctrine – in the 1930s he was still supposed to be taking lessons in Dialectal Materialism – Stalin suddenly became the greatest genius of all time and all humanity, who not only understood Marx thoroughly, but had also personally solved certain problems in Plato. IDS similarly claims an intellectual ability he doesn’t possess. He has, after all, claimed to have a degree from an Italian institute of higher education, which actually doesn’t issue them.

As for spin and backbiting, it was IDS, who appears to have blamed one of his subordinates for his own mistakes. He regularly refuses to release the figures on how many people have died after being declared ‘fit for work’ by ATOS, and delayed appearing before the Work and Pensions Committee for as long as possible. Like Iosip Vissarionovich from Georgia, he also believes himself to be above the law.

And like Stalin, IDS personally likes to appear surrounded by armed thugs. When he appeared before the parliamentary Work and Pensions Committee, he was surrounded by bodyguards and armed policemen, who kept their guns trained on the public gallery, including disabled visitors and their carers. So IDS also has the old brute’s absolute contempt for the poor and most vulnerable in spades.

There are, however, some differences between the two. So far, Ian Duncan Smith and Cameron are not following Stalin in demanding mass arrests, and deportations to forced labour camps, although there are extremely ominous signs of something like them in Osborne’s plans to expand workfare. But the main difference is in success. Stalin was ruthless, but he turned the Soviet Union into the world’s second superpower. During the 1930s the country had an economic growth rate of something like 30 per cent. Vast industrial combines, such as those in the Donbass, virtually appeared overnight. The Tories, on the other hand, have consistently wrecked Britain’s industrial, manufacturing base. Osborne is claiming that we are well on the way to recovery, but this is only through a very clever manipulation of the statistics.

So IDS and his Tory party comrades have all of Stalin’s defects – the murderous ruthlessness, with absolutely none of the old psychopath’s capacity for turning the country into an industrial giant. And this is the man, who, as head of the Department for Work and Pensions, is in charge of the lives of millions of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Way back in the 19th century liberal Russians cried ‘Who can be happy in Russia?’ Under Cameron, the question can be put this side of the Baltic. ‘Who can be happy in Britain?’

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

27 Responses to “Stalin, Ian Duncan Smith and Terror as Corporate Management Technique”

  1. Jeffrey Davies Says:

    it seems stalin had a twin called ids whose taking to killing many by with holding their benefits starvation and cold yet hes allowed through austerity to cull the disabled and the sick compassion they the tory party haven’t a ounce of it jeff3

    • beastrabban Says:

      Ah, but because people are simply starving to death in their own homes, without being marched to death camps, it’s invisible. That’s how IDS gets away with it.

  2. Mike Sivier Says:

    Reblogged this on Vox Political.

  3. chriswaynepoetry Says:

    It’s interesting to note just how many of the polities of this coalition resemble the oppressive nature of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet reign. It shows in many ways that people aren’t just repeating history, but don’t know its original origins.

  4. Paul Smyth Says:

    Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.

  5. The M Says:

    Uncle Joe killed 30 million, no it was 50 million, no it was 100 million, no it was half a million!!!…..if hypocritical western revisionists and Russian crony crapitalists want to demonise an individual, wouldn’t it be helpful to agree on a single figure instead of randomly picking out a number and adding ‘million’ to the end of it, or do you believe this cod historical subterfuge somehow distracts attention away from the hundreds of millions who have died and suffered in the name of British Imperialism and the British Monarchy over the last 500 years or so?. Or is it simply a case of Western Capitalist Terror being more ‘benevolent’ than evil commie terror (watch out, there’s reds under the beds you know). When it comes to self delusion, selective amnesia and historical revisionism you can’t beat westerners and their take on foreign ‘despots’ and ‘tyrants’. As for Iain Drunken Spliff, how many millions voted for his party in the last Election again? What a caring, sharing, compassionate, altruistic bunch we are over here in good old Blighty eh, so civilised and moralistic!

    • beastrabban Says:

      M, it’s not just Western revisionists or Russian crony capitalists that believe Stalin killed millions of Soviet citizens. As I point out in the blog piece, the Russian Communists themselves are acutely aware of the crimes of Stalin and his collaborators and henchmen, like Beria. As I said, Khruschev denounced him in his ‘Secret Speech’ of 1953 to the politburo. I mentioned Roy Medvedev, the Russian historian and author of Let History Judge, as one of the Communists, who denounced Stalin and his mass murder.

      As for Stalin’s Terror being used to direct attention away from atrocities committed by the British Empire, that really wasn’t my attention at all. There are some extremely provocative books out there that describe some of the horrors committed by the British Empire under the ideology of promoting Free Trade. One of these is Victorian Holocausts, which discusses the way British imperialists allowed famines all over the Empire to break out and did little to stop them, because this would interfere in the natural balance of trade. I’m afraid I’ve forgotten who the author is, but you should be able to google it. There’s also now a very sizable literature on the transatlantic slave trade, another atrocity committed in the name of imperialism. As for other atrocities, there’s the massive, disproportionate use of force against the Mau Mau in Kenya. One good resource for investigating the hidden atrocities of the British Empire in the 20th century is Lobster, a magazine devoted to parapolitics and political manipulation by covert groups, like the various intelligence services. It’s now on-line, and free to read, though some earlier issues are pay to view. I recommend it.

  6. untynewear Says:

    Reblogged this on UNEMPLOYED IN TYNE & WEAR.

  7. bookmanwales Says:

    The number killed numbers in the hundreds of millions, nit picking changes this in no way. There is no denying what happened and it is not “western revisionists” who brought out these stories but survivors from all the famines and purges carried out.

    As for those who voted for IDS and cronies don’t forget both Stalin and Hitler had massive public support for their policies justifying them by judicious “press releases” to state controlled media. The public were for, the most part, kept in ignorance of the real horrors and atrocities and those who did know and talked soon found themselves part of the horror.
    The jews, both Stalin’s and Hitler’s “scapegoats” were portrayed as evil, money grabbing lazy, unhygienic, drunken unsocial creatures who were a drain on the respective countries finances. ( anything ringing a bell here ?) The camps they were sent to were “work camps”, “Education camps” or just plain old prisons. The public overwhelmingly supported these measures as the “press releases” at the time bore out the governments view that these people deserved no less.

    We are now in this country facing a similar situation. The government has mass public support for the inhumane treatment of the unemployed, ill and disabled by judicious use of “press releases” and “official statistics” ( many proven to be lies) to support their theory that these people deserve no less.
    One only has to look at twitter and facebook to see the kind of comments posted and the eagerness of people to see these “scum” die with many even offering to do the job themselves.
    It matters not that most benefits go to people in work, the perception is that it is only lazy, drunken, immoral, drug taking, scrounging murdering scum who benefit from unlimited use of the welfare system. Should the government tomorrow announce internment camps for anyone unemployed more than six months I am pretty sure public support would be overwhelming.
    Throughout history internment camps have been an interim step only one short step from mass genocide.
    Tory, Labour or, God forbid, UKIP makes no difference they are all aiming for the same solution, low paid slavery that keeps us in fear and cowed as they pig out at the trough.

    • beastrabban Says:

      I completely agree with you, Bookmanwales. And you can certainly compare the ‘Worker’s Education Centres’ to which former Concentration Camp inmates were sent after their release to the psychological tactics adopted by the government’s nudge unit so that the unemployed blame themselves, rather than the economy, for their inability to find a job.

  8. joanna Says:

    We are also seeing what a highly pathetic and incredibly useless royal family we have, instead of giving these brutal attacks on the vulnerable people in society, shouldn’t she instead be protecting her so called subjects!?! If she doesn’t do something could this country become a dictatorship?

    I for one have already lost the will to live, because there Is no future anymore

    • beastrabban Says:

      Joanna, I don’t think the Queen is in a position to publicly attack the policies of her government. The monarchy is supposed to be above politics, and there has been a lot of criticism in the past directed at the members of the royal family, who’ve been politically outspoken. Prince Philip regularly gets criticised for his boorish comments about foreigners. He managed to cause particular outrage in the 1980s when he said that the British public ‘should get their finger out’. I can remember that this particularly outraged one of the managers at Dad’s work, who told Dad that it was directed at them – the managers, rather than the workers. In the 1990s Prince Charles was regularly savaged by the Tory press because of his comments on everything from the ‘monstrous carbuncles’ of modern architecture, to the massive unemployment and destruction of British industry caused by one Margaret Thatcher, late of Grantham. I distinctly remember him appearing on TV to express utter incredulity when the government closed down almost the whole of the British mining industry, throwing hundreds of thousand? millions? out of work. Some of the more Left-wing commenters here will argue, with some justification, that the royal family as a whole has not cared at all about the British working class, so long as they could maintain power. I don’t think that’s entirely the case, and that the present Queen and Prince Charles have largely been extremely conscientious about their duties. I think after the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Lady Di they’re probably too afraid of appearing at loggerheads with the government for fear of weakening the institution of the monarchy itself.

      Please don’t lose the will to live, however. Things will get better, eventually. The political pendulum has a habit of swinging one way, and then another. But it will swing left-ward again, sooner or later. Hopefully sooner, though it’ll take a lot of effort, and things may well get worse before they get better.

      • joanna Says:

        Thank you for your kind reply, but I do have one question. I don’t understand why she would give her full assent to policies that are clearly going to harm the majority of the public, maybe I don’t understand anything but Prince Philip is only a consort, he shouldn’t have any power, but the queen should be doing all she can for her country. We shouldn’t be held responsible for her feelings about princess Diana.
        I am sorry if I caused any offence!

  9. lallygag26 Says:

    I don’t think there’s any revisionist history going on. Sartre and the Left Bank intellectuals of post war Paris were already arguing amongst themselves in the early ’50s because Communism appeared to be being betrayed by Stalinism as it appeared to be just another form of totalitarianism, not the New Society they’d dreamed of. The same debate was already well established here in the 1970s and was the badis of much factionalism. And it was extraordinarily difficult to deal with because Stalin and the Soviets were absolutely the heroes of the Second World War. They had sacrificed more, had more war dead and had clearly won the war. The real ‘revisionist’ history has always been via Hollywood who clearly believe the US single handedly saved the world.

    But history aside, there’s no doubt that not only IDS but the rest of the Cabinet too have an extraordinary capacity to lie, invent and distort any facts available until they have turned the truth into something which is more acceptable to their ideology. Added to their refusal to acknowledge that any real harm is being done and their belief that any temporary inconveniences will all be sorted out by the Market this makes a toxic mix which is poisoning our society as a whole.

    • beastrabban Says:

      Absolutely, Lallygag. De Jonge in his biography of Stalin does indeed criticise Sartre for his attitude that the truth about the forced labour camps shouldn’t be revealed in case it demoralised the working class, as well as Shaw for blindly swallowing everything Stalin said and then regurgitating the lie that there was no famine back in Britain. And you’re absolutely right about the ideology about the Market being the solution for all society’s problems, and the almost infinite Tory capacity for lies and spin.

  10. jaynel62 Says:

    Reblogged this on jaynelinney and commented:
    Intriguing yet very Frightening post by Beastrabban; as he considers the leadership styles of Stalin with the Tory Cabinet, and ends with a real question ‘Who can be happy in Britain?’

  11. lallygag26 Says:

    May I make a request for help to you all, please? I have a blog I have posted a letter about the TTIP which poses an even greater threat to democracy and our health as a nation than this foul government does. It needs to be sent to MEPs (and others) across the country – it has already gone to all the London ones and we’ve had the first reply. It isn’t a good idea to send lots of identical letters, we need to start a dialogue with individual politicians and they’ll dismiss mass mailing as ‘nuisance’ mail. But if there are groups of people willing to send it with multiple signatures as ‘we the undersigned’ that would be brilliant. If you could do this, please will you post to my blog saying who you’ve contacted, so that we can try and avoid resending to those people.

    Thank you very much in advance for your help.

  12. jaynel62 Says:

    Reblogged at Jayne Linney commenting “Intriguing yet very Frightening post by Beastrabban; as he considers the leadership styles of Stalin with the Tory Cabinet, and ends with a real question ‘Who can be happy in Britain?’”

  13. Florence Says:

    Simple, and erudite. A good piece of work, and one that poses genuine challenges to how & why the pogrom against the weak in our society has taken hold. One thing that never changes in fact is the human mind, and the capacity for making the individual into a “majority mob” member with government propaganda. That’s why the lessons from Stalinism (and the same could equally have been written about Mao, Tito, Franco, or any of the totalitarian dictatorships) are so informative. We have in fact the added dimension, you also refer to, with the class war.

    We also need to learn the remedies too. The opposition must not be silenced by the propagandists in the mass media. Think the Jarrow march linking the whole of England, and the National Strike. We need modern Jarrow marchers to take the message through the land, in a way that cannot be marginalised in the local press, and ignored by the national media. May I propose an Anonymous crusade from regional capitals to London?

    (Can anyone push my wheel chair, because I would be up for it. I cut my teeth on CND marches – literally, I was in a push chair to make up numbers. Who else is willing?)

    • beastrabban Says:

      A national crusade by the unemployed sounds like a very good idea, though unfortunately it would take a far better organiser than me. I seem to remember that when Thatcher came to power and started laying people off right, left and centre, there were marches by the unemployed then, which were compared to the Jarrow March. Unfortunately, this was all forgotten in the later boom years of the 1980s and the hysterical patriotism surrounding the Falklands War, which the Tory Party deliberately played on. Indeed, I distinctly remember the Mail and the Express referring to the ‘Falklands Factor’ in Thatcher’s re-election. And there’s another parallel with Fascism: the use of nationalism to create a sense of social solidarity and support for the government.

      As for the current attacks on the unemployed and the disabled, these both deserve quite long and detailed posts. The demonization of the unemployed, for example, is very similar to Soviet attacks on ‘parasitism’ and ‘hooliganism’, directed against those they considered to be lazy, and insufficiently zealous to fulfil the Five Year Plans. I’ve got a feeling that the Japanese also used to attack those without the same kind of Stakhanovite work ethic as hooligans as well. The attacks on the disabled are based on the old 19th century fears about society being overrun with people unable – or unwilling to work, and so a drain on resources. In modern times it started with the eugenics movement and the Nazi attempts to exterminate the congenitally disabled. It does, however, go back much further. Vlad Tepes, the prince of Wallachian on whom Bram Stoker based Dracula, in Romanian legend is supposed to have wiped out his country’s beggars by inviting them to a banquet. After they all had eagerly gone in an filled the building, he ordered the doors closed and the place burnt down. IDS and McVey haven’t gone that far yet, but the attitude towards the disabled is the same, if not as extreme. There’s also lessons here from the history of witchcraft, about the needs of societies under threat, or communities suffering the threat of starvation to find scapegoats on the poorest members of the communities.

      • Florence Says:

        Interesting, I hadn’t considered the link to the Witch trials but it does make sense when there is currently an on-going discussion about the fact that after the disabled the next most numerous groups affected by coalition policy are women, including single mothers. They have been demonised as workshy, prolific breeders, amoral (no ring, no man) etc. The early 20thC eugenics movement In the UK was also a part of the class war as well as part of fascism and the adoption of both by the royal family down. Marie Stopes did not try to set up birth control clinics because of women’s rights, but because she, like many of the upper crust eugenics believers, thought the poor would out-breed the rich, and dilute to genetic “strength” of the nation race with bad genes. That was all part of the social / medical / political mix that had single mothers committed to institutions for life for the sin of motherhood without marriage. Toxic.
        There is a lot coming out on the release of papers from the Thatcher era, which although providing interesting reading, makes me feel even more motivated to stop this whole episode of fascistic unelected coalition policies being left to the propagandists. We need to tear it down here & now We cannot allow this carnage to continue and be left to those in 30 years time to be able to find us correct.

        Meanwhile. I look forward very much to your future work on these topics.

  14. Jasmine Says:

    Well done for this work you are doing, highlighting this worrying situation in the UK. I too am very concerned for people’s safety. You may be interested in reading about the late polish psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Lobaczewski. He talks of a highly pathological oppressive regime in power. Psychopathy diagnosis in a powerful leader, taking control of media and causing the wolf mentality in society which he called pathocracy. It is very disturbing. I was thinking perhaps I am getting it wrong but the more time goes by, I am beginning to feel sick with it. It took 20 years for his book to get published, as he was under such threat, oppression and suppression.

    • Jasmine Says:

      His book is called ‘political ponerology’ the science of evil in political leaders.

      • beastrabban Says:

        Thanks for this, Jasmine. The name sounds familiar, but I can’t say I’ve heard of the book. I’ll definitely have to look him up.

  15. Will it ever end? Says:

    “[Stalin] stated that Rome’s greatest dictator fell, because he had allowed another source of authority and resistance, the Senate, to continue uninterrupted.”

    Cameron has clearly taken a leaf out of Stalin’s book.

  16. Heisenberg Says:

    Welcome to the 4th Reich same plan just tweaked and mastered over the last 60 or so years, implemented slowly but surely.
    The Nazis legalized everything they did just as Camoron is doing now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: