Skip to main content

Fellow Travelers and Useful Idiots

Sometimes I wonder whether Mary Dejevsky is not actually in the pay of the Kremlin lie factory.

Pieces like her latest in The Independent leave me open mouthed. The idea that Britain is in some way responsible for Kremlin sanctioned murders in London, "because we give asylum to the Kremlin's enemies" is simply despicable. The special pleading she makes for the Kremlin is reminiscent of the most lick spittle Communist fellow traveller. The fact is that Russian agents were sent from Moscow to kill in broad daylight, and with scant regard for the well-being of any innocents who might have got in the way.

Then again, she actually supports authoritarianism- her piece in January was nothing short of disgraceful.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Cicero


You do not support Authoritianism but is your position on Russia's past too different even if you reach different conclusions. You believe Russia has never had anything other than a tradition of absolutist autocracy until 15 years ago. As awful as Putin is in your eyes the handover from Yeltsin was the first non violent handover of power from one Russian ruler to the next in History never mind where the previous incumbent gets to spend the rest of his days peacefully.

I suggest you read the current Economist. It's clear some kind of transition is under way. I think it is the transition to Medvedev. True it's gradual and I'm sure you will rant Putin will stay as the real power and yet Cicero had he wanted he could have done anything third term life term whatever he didn't. So perhaps despite the arselikhan of Dejevsky you might reconsider Russia as well. Imperfect often extremely violent by Western standards but it still looks favourable next to Central Asia or China.

Lepidus
9:48 pm
Andy Cooke said…
God, what an unpleasant article by Dejevsky. Is she really saying that a sovereign nation is justified in painfully murdering refugees from hiding in other nations?
As for that piece in January - someone should remind her that "Benevolent" and "authoritarianism" tend not to get along very well.
(And who's to define the merit in her "meritocracy"? Could it be merit that she'd approve of? In which case her argument simplifies to: "The best Government would be a Government made up of people I'd approve of, that the people can't throw out, with ultimate power over every aspect of their lives".
What a seriously unpleasant stance of hers.
9:51 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more