Why I don’t wear a red poppy!

Back in the sixties, where my philosophy stems from, we were a generation who wanted peace. We stood against war. We took the attitude that violence creates violence and there were better ways of dealing with problems.

The Vietnam war was raging. American boys were being brought back maimed or in body bags. Vietnamese people were being bombed and napalmed. There were atrocities, agent orange, the My Lai massacre, rape and torture. War is horrific and disgusting.

We opposed war.

The red poppy was seen as a symbol of war, and the Remembrance Service was run by the State that caused and ran that war. It really did not represent the ordinary soldiers who had fought, died and been mentally or physically maimed by that war.

The people organising the Remembrance Service were the same people who, in the 1st World War, had ordered the shooting of young soldiers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress. There was an element of jingoism and unpleasant nationalistic patriotism in that Remembrance Service that felt hypocritical.

In America I met US veterans who were traumatised by what they had seen and done. They despised the way they had been treated. They felt used and discarded.

I felt that the Vietnam War, like most wars, was not a just war. It was about politics and power – not justice.

Since then we have had what I consider to be illegal war after illegal war – Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. More body bags, torture, rape and atrocities – more horror. All in the name of profit and economic imperialism.

If only as much money and energy had been put into solving the underlying problems we wouldn’t have the festering Palestinian situation, the rise of militant Islam or mass migration. But no. They want war.

It is quite apparent that the soldiers who are sacrificed in these conflicts are being used. They come back physically maimed or suffering from Post Traumatic Stress and are largely discarded and forgotten. They rely on poppy sales and donations to gain any reasonable treatment. While the Remembrance Services perpetuate the same old hypocritical lie.

So my sympathies lie with the soldiers and not the politicians and generals who wrongly deploy them.

I would wear a poppy to support them, to acknowledge their bravery, and in recognition that we do need a military force to protect us; that there are forces out there who would threaten us.

I would wear a poppy to recognise the sacrifices made by our troops – the deaths, the injuries and psychological trauma.

I would wear a poppy to salute the brave men and women who protect us.

But I won’t wear a poppy for the warmongering politicians or generals.

I won’t wear a poppy for unjust wars.

So I choose to wear a white poppy.

The white poppy stands for peace. It supports our troops and the victims of war. It recognises their valour and their role in protecting us while not supporting the war machine that is causing such wanton destruction around the world.

I wear a white poppy.


70 thoughts on “Why I don’t wear a red poppy!

  1. The concept of the red poppy arises from a poem by an American about the slaughter in Flanders fields during WW1. The area was covered in red field poppies. Apart from remembrance of those who have died in wars, it also represents peace. It does not represent the elite or the generals/politicians who ordered those soldiers to their death. I lived through the Vietnam conflict & the protests associated with it. I don’t recall any rejection of the red poppy during that time. I think you have fabricated that bit. The white poppy is a modern construct attempting to create some politically-correct concept. It doesn’t represent anything real like the deaths of millions of soldiers in Flanders. Someone somewhere is probably making a mint of producing them and selling them to deluded purchasers, a bit like the t-shirts produced in sweat shops for Labour politicians. Remember those? “This is what a feminist looks like” @ £25 a throw.

    1. Bede – did you see any young people wearing poppies back then??
      Yes I know what it is meant to represent. I think the whole concept of the red poppy and Remembrance Service has a hypocritical element to it. It is run by the politicians and generals.
      I prefer to wear the white. It honours the soldiers not the warmongers.

      1. Yes, of course I remember people wearing red poppies in the 60s. In fact Remembrance Day used to be a larger event and many young people took part in marches often as a member of some organisation like the Boys Brigade. I can agree that students in the 60s/70s didn’t wear poppies usually but that had more to do with dress street cred than considering that Remembrance Day was a hypocritical charade. What do you think happens to the money raised? It doesn’t go into government coffers or a fund for generals etc. It’s spent on injured personnel who may have lost their limbs whilst serving. The problem with those young people who adopt the same view as you is that they are too far removed from how close the UK was to being destroyed during WW2 and know only security and affluence. The result is they don’t appreciate the sacrifice their forebears made in giving their lives whilst fighting the Nazis and Japanese military. You are fortunate that you grew up in a period when you were not required to defend the country or even undergo National Service. Try putting on a uniform and spend some time in Afghanistan on the front line. You have lead a cossetted life partly because of the sacrifices made by UK personnel in the 2 major wars of the 20th century. The UK did not start either of those wars and was a reluctant participant in both.

      2. Bede – yes I have been extremely lucky not to have to fight in any war. That doesn’t alter my view that I respect the soldiers and not the generals and politicians.
        I don’t remember anybody wearing a poppy back in the 60s and I well remember the antiwar feeling. War was an instrument of the establishment. The people of one country did not generally have a problem with the people of other countries.

    2. Here, here, Bernard.
      I was rather angry when I read all that nonsense from you Opher. In fact I was close to seething. I’ve only just calmed down several hours later from reading it. Having just watched the latest installment of BBC4’s “The Last Tommy”, and hearing the remarkable recollections of these men, I’m all the more suspect of your motives here.

      That statement regarding post traumatic stress has been highly inflated. In real terms very few return with any such ailments and is generally determined by the type of work done by individuals. In WW1, most were heavy gunners and similarly in WW2.
      Although many in WW1 had suffered due to being under constant heavy artillery bombardment in the trenches for weeks on end. There’s been no other war like it since.
      Of the 200,000 or so men court-martialled during the First World War, 20,000 were found guilty of offences carrying the death penalty. Of those, 3000 actually received it, and of those sentences, 346 were carried out. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things this barely warrants mention and certainly not all of the 346 were shot for desertion and many were for in-house murders.

      I know for a fact that the Mai Lai massacre at only 500 persons, however unpleasant and brutally unnecessary was nothing close to the levels of men lost every hour in many field battles of WW1 and 2. It is by no means anything near the worst losses of life during the Vietnam war.

      Personally, I’m not entirely convinced by your claims regarding why you are wearing a poppy, be it red or white.
      Perhaps if you came from a family that had made the greatest of sacrifices then you might not have quite such a flippant and disdainful attitude. It’s not about you, it’s about those that sacrificed themselves for your freedoms that you so enjoy.
      It is a Red Poppy and a Red Poppy it is.

      1. Wallace – you greatly underestimate the mental damage. I had grandparents who fought in the first war and a father who fought in the second. We lost relatives and my parents lost close friends. Both my father and grandfather were affected by their experience. My mother worked with Churchill in the war office and had a breakdown.
        I in no way disrespect the people who fought. I disrespect the people who led them.
        I am a pacifist and am against war unless it is absolutely the last resort. I do not believe many of the wars fought since the second world war were last resort. They are political.
        I’ll wear my white poppy with pride. It supports the soldiers not the elite.
        I see no reason why you should seethe about that.
        Your excusing of the shooting of men suffering from PTS and the massacres of innocent civilians is repugnant.
        There is nothing flippant or disdainful concerning my attitude.

      2. I underestimate nothing.
        We all had grandfathers. Funny that. That’s why they’re called World Wars and not Opher’s Wars.
        Churchill had several breakdowns. My grandfather worked directly for him as his personal security adjutant in the disused parts of London Underground that were rebuilt for home security strategic planning. Your mother wouldn’t have got to even hear about it never mind get there. My grandfather didn’t have a breakdown.
        My father lost a brother and a sister. He never got around to mentioning any friends.
        I don’t much care for war either. All wars are political. Every single last one of them.

      3. Wallace – well interestingly my Mother didn’t go down into them but my brother-in-law, who is an electrician, rewired them.
        Yes but some wars are just but most aren’t.

      4. Measure “Just”. Your side – My side, Our side – Their side. Who determines what’s “Just”? The Victor who gets to write the history?
        We also know that so much information on the causes of outbreak of war is secreted.

      5. Opher – Seldom is any individual in close proximity to the true facts. There exists no such transparency otherwise we wouldn’t have top secret documents locked away for a lifetime of years, would we?

      6. Opher – Ah no, we won’t be doing that again. Tony Blair’s WMD’s being the case in point.

      7. But that is the point. It was easy to see at the time that there weren’t any WMD. It was a question of whether Saddam was evil enough to warrant taking out. One could weigh that up.

      8. Opher – Did you miss something there? What did TB spend two years talking about? TB could not have cared less if Saddam was “evil”, and very naive to suggest that is what troubled him. And if it was “easy to see at the time that there weren’t any” – your words, not mine – then why the hell did TB do what he did on the pretext of there being WMD’S? Why was UK’s senior WMD inspector for Iraq, found dead in the woods with a shotgun he’d never owned?

        Do you want to list those countries with leaders that are perceived in some circles to be “evil”. It would number around 150 of the world’s 200 countries.
        Col. Gaddafi was considered “evil” by many throughout his 42 years of tenancy, yet it wasn’t foreign powers that removed him, but his own people. So your “evil” theory looks a bit shaky.
        Furthermore, since Gaddafi’s removal the Mediterranean Sea has become a lot more dangerous for all as he had previously policed it from piracy, and so doing a massive public service for us all.

        I really don’t think you have firm enough sea legs on this particular case.

      9. I don’t suppose it did trouble him. TB went in because of pressure and assurances from the States. He made a big mistake. There was no WMD. But that is not what I was referring to. It is individuals that have to decide for themselves, listen to the argument and make a judgement. Very few wars have ever been justified in my opinion. There was a case against Saddam but I don’t think it justified a war.

      10. Opher – Now you say that. OK. We could have both saved time.
        Your theory of course is completely dependent on the basis that an individual is privy to all the facts. Unfortunately we all know (or should) that is never to be the case. We know only what they tell us. Some lie to us. TB a case in point.

        A good example might be the origins to the outbreak of WW2.
        We are told that Britain went to war because we had promised Poland we would protect them.
        Meanwhile, in Germany, people were told the Polish had invaded and attacked German towns on the the border area.
        These Germans did not know at that time that these “attacks” were a false flag and it had been stage managed where German soldiers were dressed as Polish and did actually engage in attacks killing some innocent Germans. The results were filmed and photographed and used for propaganda.
        This is the excuse that Hitler used to invade Poland. He had firm evidence too.
        We could have quite easily left it to the Russians to deal with as they also had a treaty of promise to protect.
        We needn’t have declared war but we did because Churchill and many others had seen enough and were running scared of Hitler, yet Hitler posed no direct threat at that time to us. He was certainly flexing muscles but not directly at us.
        At what concise juncture should any leadership address an issue or ignore an issue?
        It’s always a fine line. There’s always that bunch who object to action, then when suddenly the bullets start flying… We both know the answer to that.

      11. It is true that people get lied to – look at Brexit. But it is still possible to look into what is being said and come to a conclusion. The truth is there and it is reported. WMD was not found and the reports said so. Robin Cook spoke. There’s plenty to form an informed opinion on. It is not so easy to cover things up now as it was in the First World War.

      12. Brexit? Brexit is a no-brainer. It was as clear to me then what the issues were as to today. The sooner we leave the EU, the better.

        I do not agree. All that is reported is all that they want you to know. End of story. There’s been no change to protocol regards public exposure of private communique’s since 1914. Cover ups are easily just as possible today, if not even more so because of considerably more sophisticated multi-tier information systems.

  2. When I buy a red poppy or contribute to the collection box for the British Legion, it is to help pay for the valuable work the British Legion and Poppy Scotland do in caring for wounded personnel. You appear to have overlooked the essential function of raising money during Remembrance Day during your crusade.

    1. I’m sure they do a great job. I think the government should care for the troops and not leaving it to a charity though. It just might make them a little more careful when they choose to pick a fight.

  3. You admitted supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the justification of removing Saddam Hussain despite the likelihood of destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, causing millions of deaths and disrupting the balance of power in the Middle East. Now you profess to be taking an anti-war stance. You need to address the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy.

    1. Bede – I think you misunderstand. I said that Saddam and his sons were monstrous tyrants and something needed doing about them. I think the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were knee-jerk reactions to 9/11 but there was some justification. I do not support wars.

      1. Here we go again. When you are confronted with some statement you made previously, you try to water it down and claim I have misunderstood. I did not misunderstand your clear statement that the Iraq invasion was justified to get rid of Saddam Hussain. There are many despicable tyrants running countries. It’s not our entitlement to remove them. The UN weapons inspectors had given Iraq a clean bill of health so far as their holding weapons of mass destruction was concerned but the Prime Minister, for whom you voted, still went ahead and caused mass destruction, death and the problems in the Middle East we now have.

      2. Bede – I am not in favour of war. I think Saddam needed dealing with because of his terrible cruelty to his own people and the genocide he was wreaking on the Marsh Arabs – using chemical weapons. He and his sons were monsters. I would much have preferred that means other than war were deployed.

  4. You are a DISGRACE. I am the same age as you and I did not like the Vietnam War, there were those that did not want to go to War, who does but they did what they had to do and one should stand by one’s Country and its Troops not behave as you do so full of your own self importance. Wear your White Poppy which does not stand for Peace BUT A SLAP IN THE FACE FOR ALL THOSE THAT SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES so you could have the FREEDOM to say what you have. I support OUR Armed Forces, I support the Veterans and I support all those that went to War, Died or came back injured. My own Husband David was in the RAF in the Burma Campaign, (my Uncle was a POW in Changi) I know exactly what David would say about you and your utter disrespect for all those that did their Duty for their Country. Typical Leftie reaction by you. We were both born after the War and should be showing the children how to respect those that are Prepared to Fight for their Country, but you no you would rather teach Left Wing bollocks. Don’t even attempt to patronise me as you always do and say I am “worked up” etc. Unlike you I wear my RED POPPY with PRIDE and will stand with my head bowed for the Two Minute Silence, not be pontificating about the rights and wrongs and the rich politicians etc etc and your twisted version of this Country’s Monument to all those that Died in the Service of Their Country, The Cenotaph.

    I have disagreed with you on many things over the years Opher, but this I find so sad that someone your age would think like this, I find it so disgusting the disrespect and the excuses you use to justify the disrespect you have for all those that have Died so that we can enjoy the Freedoms we have, despite the fact that they are being given away by the establishment. the Top and the pressure from the Lefties Regime.

    I will watch all those Brave Courageous Men and Women walk past the Cenotaph on Sunday and lay their Wreaths and show their RESPECT, albeit via the tv, and I shall do what I always do I Sob for all those that gave their lives and all those that they left behind. Young Soldier in Iraq War received the highest Honour this Country could give, his Battalion had no ammunition left they had no alternative but to use Bayonets for the first time since maybe The Charge of the Light Brigade (sure you will correct that), they Bayonet charged not one of them got as much as a scratch and all returned home. What do you call that, I call that Courageous and they deserve to be Honoured they deserve to be Remembered, thats why we wear the RED Poppy, you stick to your “fashionable” white cowards poppy. Shame, shame, shame on you.

      1. Saddam Hussain’s use of chemical weapons on the Kurds took place years before the 2003 invasion. Sure he and his sons were despicable characters but so are many rulers across the world. Are we to start wars and destroy countries to remove them all? When a government is removed by force and the infrastructure destroyed, a country is left in chaos with a chasm left to fill by extremists. Prior to the 2003 invasion the vast majority of Iraqis went about their business normally without fear of death or rape. Iraq was no longer a threat to world peace. Tony Blair, the man you supported and gave your vote to, committed the UK to his vanity war in Iraq. I believe all right-minded people oppose war. Certainly I do. The difference between is that you supported the war on the flimsy justification of removing Saddam Hussain and I didn’t.

      2. Bede – no I do not think we should use war against tyrants. There are other means that are a lot better.
        I did not advocate war with Iraq. We’ve been over this a number of times. I do not believe there ever were any WMDs. I think that was manufactured by the States. But I do think there was justification in the behaviour of Saddam and his sons. I think there were better ways.
        At present I would support a war on ISIS. They are scum.

  5. I had a look at the history of wearing the white poppy. It became popular after Thatcher publicly criticised it in the 80s. It represents the promotion of peace which is a rightful cause but it doesn’t raise money specifically for the care of wounded personnel. The destination of money raised depends on where the poppy was purchased. If you buy it direct from the Peace Union it goes to support their aim of promoting peace, fair enough but nothing to do with caring for wounded personnel. If you buy it from a local outlet there is no control over where the sale proceeds go. Therefore I could set up a stand at my local car boot, selling white poppies and keep all the sale profits for myself. Is that a good and worthwhile enterprise supporting much needed care work – no. It simply promotes the belief of the wearer that peace is preferable to war & enables me to make some money by conning purchasers into believing they are contributing to a worthwhile cause. You don’t need to spend money on an artificial poppy just to display your sanctimonious view. Just give money direct to the Peace Union and wear it year round instead of trying to suggest that the concept of the red poppy celebrates and promotes conflict. It doesn’t.

    1. Bede – I would dissociate the two aspects: the support of the injured and traumatised victims and the symbol of respect.
      Firstly I think the government should give first-class treatment for all victims. It should not be down to a charity. They were injured as a result of fighting for the country. They need excellent treatment.
      Secondly – the symbolism of the poppy is important. To show respect for the soldiers who sacrificed their lives is one aspect. The white poppy has the other symbols of promoting peace and showing a dislike of the people who initiate or benefit from war.
      That is why the white poppy is better for me. I want to show respect for the soldiers and sacrifice while showing that I do not support war or respect the warmongers.

      1. Well wear the white poppy year round then instead of hijacking Remembrance Day, which has the dual purpose of contributing to the welfare of injured personnel and also reminding us of the horrors of warfare. Remembrance Day is an anti-war event not some jingoistic, nationalistic celebration. Don’t you understand the meaning of the words “lest we forget”. Those words are intended to remind us of the mistake of fighting wars and to remind us of the millions of soldiers whose bodies lie beneath fields of red poppies and whose lives were wasted. Where did you buy your white poppy? I’m interested because I suspect some people are making money from it, just as they did with the Labour Party “right-on” t-shirts. I can respect the decisions of people like James McLean, an Irish republican, and Nemanja Matic, whose village in Serbia was bombed by Blair’s planes, in deciding not to wear a red poppy because British forces damaged their upbringing but I have no respect for those who hijack an anti-war event intended to pay respect to soldiers who voluntarily gave their lives for their country and to raise money for the care of their injured colleagues.

      2. Bede – I think you are very generous towards the military hierarchy in suggesting it is merely an anti-war event. I don’t think it is. There is an element of jingoism.
        Lest we forget – yes. Supporting war – no.

  6. It’s pointless revisiting the debate over whether you supported Blair’s war in Iraq because you will keep denying the truth of what you said at the beginning of the discussion. You stated that you supported Blair’s invasion. That’s a fact. Now that statement has become an inconvenient truth you try to dilute your stance. You sport a white poppy because you state you oppose all wars yet you support a war against Daesh. There’s a clear inconsistency there. You should be adopting Jezza’s stance that we should send some policemen to Syria and Libya to arrest the members of Daesh so they can be arraigned before the courts.

    1. Bede – I said it was justified. That does not mean I support it.
      I oppose nearly all war. Sometimes, as with Daesh, war is necessary. That is not inconsistent. War should be a last resort.
      I rarely support it.
      Yes I would much prefer bringing them to a court – like we are doing with the torturers we have captured. I would like to have seen Bin Laden brought to justice and not killed.

      1. “Justified”, “Supported”? What’s the difference. You are simply splitting hairs and coming out with the same bullshit Blair came out with when he was questioned over his reasons for invading Iraq. Iraq was no threat to world peace in 2003 (confirmed in the report of the UN weapons’ inspectors) so there was no justification in the mind of any reasonable person who prefers peace to war for the invasion. Look at the consequences – hundreds of thousands killed, raped; towns, cities and communities destroyed. Do you think the death of Saddam Hussain and his sons justified all that death and destruction? Read Nadia Murad’s account of her captivity under Daesh, a consequence of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the USA & UK. The Middle East is still suffering the consequences. Iran has been emboldened as a result and has armed the Houthi rebels in Yemen enabling them to overthrow the legitimate government leading to another war with the Sunni Gulf coalition.

  7. I think the “false flag” propaganda probably referred to Czechoslovakia not Poland. Hitler annexed part of Czechoslovakia before the UK entered the war on the basis that German citizens were being attacked there. We then had the agreement with Hitler which supposedly would prevent our being involved in a war with Germany. We also had a bi-lateral treaty with Poland similar to the one with Belgium before WW1 where we agreed to defend Poland if she was attacked. Hitler formed an alliance with Stalin and the clear purpose was to divide up Poland and probably other territories between them. Germany had prepared well to fight a war. The UK had not so when a war began the UK was immediately on the back foot against the German war machine. When Hitler failed to obtain domination of air space he decided against a risky channel crossing to push forward the gains Germany had made in France and the Low countries. Hitler was not interested in observing treaties or neutral countries. Holland was invaded, for example, despite being a non-participant. When Hitler realised an attempted invasion of the UK was too risky he tore up his agreement with Stalin and attacked Russia. The Japanese were behaving similarly in the Far East and also had built up a formidable war machine. The world could have been divided up between Germany & Japan if both those countries had possessed the resources to conduct a lengthy war effort.

      1. Opher – It’s actually not. The Gleiwitz incident was what triggered UK’s response and nothing else.

      1. Yes, Wallace. I looked at that and agree that it was probably the pretext created by German forces to justify the invasion of Poland but clearly they had intended to invade in any event because they invaded the morning after the incident so had prepared for an invasion. The point I made was that we had a bi-lateral treaty with Poland which is the reason we went to war with Germany whereas when Germany previously annexed part of Czechoslovakia, we did not and did not respond militarily but sought a peace accord for the future.

  8. Afghanistan was another vanity war undertaken by Labour. Blair’s cabinet minister, John Reid, famously said “we expect to be in and out of there without a shot being fired”. How ironic.

  9. How does Remembrance Sunday support war? It tells us everything about the stupidity, the horrors and the wastefulness of it in graphic detail. Do graveyards in Northern Europe & North Africa containing thousands of gravestones indicate support for war? I think not.

    1. Precisely because it allows the hierarchy who run war to pretend to be sorry. There’s the hypocrisy.
      I prefer the graveyards and Menin Gate. They are moving for me. I don’t need PM and Queens pretending to be sorry.

      1. The hypocrisy lies in your showboating with a white poppy when you don’t subscribe to the principles of the Peace Union which is against ALL war not a select few. You don’t need to sport a white poppy to show you oppose a war or violence. Gandhi didn’t wear a white poppy nor did most of the 1 million who marched through London in protest against the proposed invasion of Iraq. For me, and I am sure millions of others, Remembrance Day and the wearing of the red poppy represents the futility, the wastefulness, the foolishness of war and warns against fighting wars again not jingoism, nationalism or militarism. I don’t see any evidence that the white poppy was intended to replace the red poppy on the anniversary of the ending of war. It’s a symbol of peace like the white peace lily. Hippy ideals don’t always end well. Remember Manson?

      2. No hypocrisy Bede. You wear what you like. I’ll wear what I like. I know what it means to me.

        I remember Manson very well. I hardly think he was the epitome of the Hippie ideal.

  10. Manson was one of the products of the hippy ideal because he exploited the naivety of idealists and convinced them to commit horrendous crimes. I have no objection to anyone wearing a white poppy. Supporting the concept of peace is a worthwhile cause. I object to the wearing of a white poppy by way of denigrating the wearing of a red poppy. I read that some Corbyn supporter has described the red poppy as “racist”. Thousands of citizens of what are now Commonwealth countries died during WW1 & 2 fighting on behalf of the UK. There is a modern problem concerning the process of “labelling” in order to remove or diminish the voice of people whose views differ from the labellers. It’s become prolific on university campuses.

    1. Manson was a crazed cult leader who was a mass murderer. I don’t remember any hippie ideals I was involved with condoning butchering people. Yes he exploited naïve people. Not exactly peace and love is it?
      I’m not denigrating wearing a red poppy. I certainly don’t see that as racist. Whoever says that is a nutcase.
      I am against labelling or stereotyping. I prefer robust discussion without personal shit. Expose the nastiness and defeat it with reason. No platform should be unchallenged. There’s a whole new wave of fascism and racism that needs addressing.

      1. Opher – Manson wasn’t a mass murdered. Technically, it is known that he personally only killed one person – a drug dealer. He was completely unconnected to the Tate murders because he simply wasn’t there and had already left the premises before the La Bianca murders.
        Manson had been well known to the authorities for quite some time and they knew all about his activities with drug dealing. In fact, it is believed he was a CIA mole and was distributing CIA manufactured LSD around the Laurel Canyon district and neighbouring districts.

  11. Manson’s cult members were all hippy idealists looking for a new way of living before they got involved with and controlled by Manson, who had a different outlook on life. The hypocrisy I referred to was the inconsistency between your advocating a war against Daesh because they are “scum” whilst simultaneously wearing the symbol of the Peace Union. Doesn’t add up.

    1. They may well have been. They got conned, duped and taken in. They were young gullible kids. But that doesn’t detract from the idealism of the counterculture movement.
      Yes it does. I made it perfectly clear. I am not in favour of war in general and would advocate using other means. We wouldn’t have had Daesh if it hadn’t been for war. But there are rare occasions when I think war is necessary. There have been just wars.

      1. Read the Peace Union Pledge which entitles people to sport their white poppy symbol. “I renounce war and do not support any kind of war” or words to that effect. Your stance is at odds with that pledge if you support a war against Daesh or consider there are “just” wars.

      2. Opher – There’s a lot more to the Manson Family than that. Tex Watson and Bobby Beausoleil were under no influence as they were killers under their own steam.
        Manson had nothing to do with the Family’s first murder, that of drug dealer Gary Hinman. He never instructed Beausoleil to stab Hinman or for Beausoleil with Mary Brunner and Susan Atkins to smother him to death.
        All these young women as tragic as it may seem all wanted to kill.
        Years later Atkins was still not sorry for what she did to Tate.

      3. Wallace – yes I read Sanders book.
        The point I was making was that they were not part of the hippie ideal. It did not celebrate violence. There were numerous subgroups that did.

  12. The point I made was speakers are being denied a platform because their views don’t comply with “trendy” agenda eg. a feminist is denied a platform because she thinks a man should not be classed as a woman purely on the basis of self-identification – Jane Bindel.

Leave a Reply to Bernard Nalson Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.