Moors Murders

[Lipsky]

What do you think his goals were, then? What was he working toward?

Certainly nothing positive or humanitarian.

Main goal was acquisition of absolute political power, neodespotism ("fuhrer prinzip"). Construction of a police state ran by a clique of psychopaths, each with their own agenda but committed to : antibolshevism, antisemitism, violence, and total disrespect for human life and democracy. Successful in that aspect.

Political aims: blocking the upcoming bolshevism in Germany by electoral win of the KPD. Successful. Destruction of Weimar Republic. Successful.

Military aims: contributing in the destruction of Republican Spain. Successful. Destruction of Soviet Union. Failed.

"Other" aims: Destruction of European Jews. Successful by 2/3. Destruction of Polish nation. Failed. Implementation of Generalplan Ost. Failed (partial success in parts). Berlin as world finance monopoly centre, renamed "Welthaupt Germania". Failed.

Random "pseudosocialist" aspects of the "25 points programme", still supported by some renegade Strasserites, ought to be discarded.
And the concept of "pan-europeanism" that Mosley re-invented himself to in the post-war era, must have brought Hitler to his laughing tears -- the man didn't give a damn for Germany, let alone "Europa".

[Ginger]

Wow. Suffice to say I don't agree with this outlook on Hitlierism

What do you think his goals were, then? What was he working toward?

[Lipsky]

Adolf Hitler, V.I. Lenin and his colleagues, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel and Raoul Castro*, and a whole long list of others - what made them terrible wasn't a shared political philosophy. They didn't really have one. What made them terrible was their desire to pursue their vision of a perfect society, at all costs. I don't see a bit of that in Ian Brady. He was just an evil man who liked to hurt people, and talk big.


*Fun Fact - I have a friend whose parents were friends and neighbors of Raoul. They eventually fled Cuba in horror - it was no longer a place where ordinary people's dreams counted for anything. Also, I met Harry Benson, who met Leni Riefenstahl, who was Hitler's buddy. I have both Commie and Nazi cooties by association!

Though this way off topic, I am tempted to put in my two cents. I'd say Robespierre cannot be understood without Oliver Cromwell, both the English and the French revolutions were meant to overthrow monarchy and the old feudalist class system in favor of the rising new class, propelled by technological and economical change. Capitalism as a democratic, radical rising force.

Hitler did not pursue any "transformation" of economics by political revolution. The mechanics of the NSDAP and eventually the Third Reich are complicated, though it can be argued -- and it has -- that it was the final solution (that phrase again) for the finance monopolies of Germany (originally) and Europe eventually against Bolshevism. That explains the appeasement policies, the events of Spain 1936-1939, the anchluss etc. So I would hardly throw Hitler and Lenin in a same "category".

It is understandable that the Third Reich grew to be a hideous police state, totalitarian, and that aspects of such conduct can be met in the darkest years of stalinism, either in Soviet Russia or elsewhere. But these are two wholly different systems. Nazism adopted agressive warfare as means of "lebensraum", the violent incorporation or enslavement of natural or man-made resources, genocidal murder on industrial scale and destruction of cultural/national identity in the context of a highly violent racist outlook. The Third reich is unique in human history, though its origins were, as I said, gradual support of a barricade against Bolshevist spread, from a practical point of view for the German (Krupp, Thyssen) and eventually the european capital. Hitlerism saw in Bolshevism the "latest radical egalitarian manifestation of Judaism". Himmler expounded as such in his "work" "The SS as antibolshevist struggle" (1936), and various other written proof by Goebbels, Goering, Rosenberg support this claim... and of course there's always "Mein Kampf".

Brady was, as I said in a previous post, not a fascist in the practical political side of things. He didn't wish to "organize" or "lead" (much less "follow") and I don't think he would have joined Mosley if he lived in pre-war Britain. He identified with the core of fascist nihilism/misanthropy: murder as self-righteous "punishment/experimentation" on the "inferior" strata. This identifies with Raskolnikov amoral self-righteousness, indifferent to the destruction of the "inferior" ones. And it identifies with the Whitechapel murderer, as far as I am concerned, in terms or profiling.

PS. Leni Riefenstahl was fascist and unapologetic, down to the end.
I don't care how talented she was with a camera, if that "talent" was employed to serve genocidal criminals.

[Lipsky]

Even Hitler's (and by extension, the Third Reich's) philosophy was ultimately based on positive ideals. Hitler certainly sought to destroy much of what we recognize as civilization, and to kill or enslave most of our species, but his motivation was to free mankind from what he saw as a biological suicide pact imposed by civilization. From what I understand of him, Hitler felt that the suffering he caused was justified to ensure that mankind in the future was strong, and biologically capable of meeting any challenge.

Wow. Suffice to say I don't agree with this outlook on Hitlierism

[Ginger]

And, the topic is one which interests me, and now you've set me in motion, so...

Maximilien Robespierre, architect of the Reign of Terror, was an admirer of both Rousseau and Montesquieu. Robespierre fascinates me. He considered all political authority to be derived from the consent of the people, and believed, and apparently practiced, the principle that a man ought always to be guided by his consideration of right and wrong, and what was best for all, and not by personal interests. He was widely known as "The Incorruptible", with apparently no irony at all. His political opponents, who eventually felt they had no choice but to kill him if they themselves were to survive, conceded this of him. He instituted a system that recognized almost no value to the individual human life, yet I'd have to argue that his intentions were good. He was in many respects an examplar of the principles of the Age of Reason. He dreamed of a France where popular democracy was unquestioned, and people lived according to their consciences, and if people who might impede that revolutionary change had to die to enable it, well...

Pol Pot, who turned Cambodia into a genocidal hellscape from the Dark Ages, had similar ambitions. He wanted to reshape society into an agrarian socialist paradise. He got surprisingly far in moving his country toward collectivist agrarianism, although at the expense of depopulating the cities and killing most of the educated and middle classes; and also in decentralizing government, albeit at the price of an anarchic rule of the strongest and the most ruthless practiced at village level. Too bad as well for those who believed in his dream, but needed medicine to survive, or were just old or weak.

Adolf Hitler, V.I. Lenin and his colleagues, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel and Raoul Castro*, and a whole long list of others - what made them terrible wasn't a shared political philosophy. They didn't really have one. What made them terrible was their desire to pursue their vision of a perfect society, at all costs. I don't see a bit of that in Ian Brady. He was just an evil man who liked to hurt people, and talk big.


*Fun Fact - I have a friend whose parents were friends and neighbors of Raoul. They eventually fled Cuba in horror - it was no longer a place where ordinary people's dreams counted for anything. Also, I met Harry Benson, who met Leni Riefenstahl, who was Hitler's buddy. I have both Commie and Nazi cooties by association!

[Ginger]

On a side note, the fascist convictions of Ian Brady have been downplayed in recent years.
It was not about historical, british fascism (Mosley), not about the practical politics of it, but the timeless fascist inhumane concept of misanthropy, constituted on state-level by the Third Reich.

I don't think he was a fascist. He was intelligent, and could discuss the theory, of course, but I see no evidence that he tried to find a leader, or to be a leader to others, except Hindley, and there he seemed to be just a rather nasty sort of dominant. Even Hitler's (and by extension, the Third Reich's) philosophy was ultimately based on positive ideals. Hitler certainly sought to destroy much of what we recognize as civilization, and to kill or enslave most of our species, but his motivation was to free mankind from what he saw as a biological suicide pact imposed by civilization. From what I understand of him, Hitler felt that the suffering he caused was justified to ensure that mankind in the future was strong, and biologically capable of meeting any challenge.

I don't see that in Brady. He enjoyed dominating others, and feeling superior to them. Torturing and murdering children was part of that. His treatment of Hindley was part of that. (She was, herself, a rotter, but that's another issue). Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see no real motivation in Brady beyond wanting to feel powerful. When talking to others, of course, he'd never admit that. He'd have to claim a philosophical motivation, and ideally one which allows him to claim grandiose motivations and which stresses that ordinary people just can't understand him.

[Lipsky]

On a side note, the fascist convictions of Ian Brady have been downplayed in recent years.
It was not about historical, british fascism (Mosley), not about the practical politics of it, but the timeless fascist inhumane concept of misanthropy, constituted on state-level by the Third Reich.

[Beowulf]

Well, thankfully so. Wiser heads prevailed.

[Limehouse]

I have not seen anything on this since the murders did happen so long ago and so I know no more than what I read back then, other than these new stories that is. Also I did not know he wanted to die. (Sure)/sarc

What happened to his girlfriend who as I remember went out and got his victims for him?

She died in prison, aged 60, some years ago. She spent many years cultivating high profile supporters such as Lord Longford to help convince the public and the authorities that she was a reformed character and should be released but to no avail.

[Beowulf]

I have not seen anything on this since the murders did happen so long ago and so I know no more than what I read back then, other than these new stories that is. Also I did not know he wanted to die. (Sure)/sarc

What happened to his girlfriend who as I remember went out and got his victims for him?

[Limehouse]

Brady is a very sick man and his sickness, in my opinion, stretches back to his childhood. It is very difficult to determine what to do with people like Brady because he can't be cured and yet it seems inappropriate to execute someone so sick.

The one thing that should be done though is that anyone visiting and engaging with him should be banned from publishing, or passing to others for publication, any of Brady's sick rants or twisted views until he is actually dead.

The one gratification Brady gets is to see how much any news about him winds up the general public and the powers-that-be. Therefore there should be a ban on reporting anything about HIM until he dies.

If this 'friend' has any information that will reveal the whereabouts of Keith's body, he should be required to pass the information to the police.

I was a small child when Brady and Hindley murdered those children but I can still remember the news reports on the radio (we didn't have TV) and the pictures of them in the newspaper and it filled me with absolute horror. Even years later, when I did my Duke Of Edinburgh Award and had to take part in an outdoor 'expedition', the very word 'moors' filled me with a cold dread.

I am glad Hindley died in prison. It's the least she could have expected in return for the lives she took. If she really had 'reformed' and felt 'remorse' she should have been glad to die in prison just so that the families of her victims never had to come face to face with her or come to terms with her freedom when their children remained dead - and in one case - unburied in a place they could visit.

Robert - I will gladly sign that petition. If he refuses to allow his victim's family the dignity of a proper burial for their loved one, he should stay in jail.

[Rosella]

The doctor reminds me of the Earl of Longford, who used to visit Myra Hindley in prison and thought she was a 'lovely person' really.

[MysterySinger]

What amazes me is why they keep giving publicity to this loser. The Doctor should be ashamed of himself for being led along like this. Brady's stupid mind games once again.

[Robert]

The following doesn't apply to Brady, who will never be released. However : I don't normally tout around petitions, but I'm making an exception here:

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-introduce-helen-s-law

[MsWeatherwax]

I don't believe for a second Brady wants to die. It's a well known fact that he breaks his 'hunger-strike' with soup and toast. As long as they keep him in Ashworth (where he clearly does NOT want to be), and don't move him to an ordinary prison, I'll be very happy.

The person responsible for this book (Dr Alan Keightley) is an awful man. I've seen a couple of interviews where he almost hero worships Brady, which is no doubt why the narcissistic old coot is so happy to talk to him.