Michael Danby, a Stalinist show trial, and as a bonus extra, getting down and dirty with the anon edit at The Australian ...

(Above: and a special shout out to any decidedly odd Muslim who strays across this page, because everyone loves a festival, Eid Mubarak).

Joseph Vissarionovichj Stalin died on the 5th March 1953, and so, more sadly, did Russian composer Sergei Sergeyevich Prokofiev.

After that date, it became a tad harder to become a Stalinist. While some might revere the memory, the homicidal music within the man died with him, and unlike Prokofiev, he left no decent tunes to the world. Other lunatics followed at the head of the Soviet Union, but it's worth remembering that in the Khruschev era, some of the worst moments of Stalinism were revealed, as in Khruschev's memoirs:

Stalin called everyone who didn't agree with him an "enemy of the people." He said that they wanted to restore the old order, and for this purpose, "the enemies of the people" had linked up with the forces of reaction internationally. As a result, several hundred thousand honest people perished. Everyone lived in fear in those days. Everyone expected that at any moment there would be a knock on the door in the middle of the night and that knock on the door would prove fatal ... [P]eople not to Stalin's liking were annihilated, honest party members, irreproachable people, loyal and hard workers for our cause who had gone through the school of revolutionary struggle under Lenin's leadership. This was utter and complete arbitrariness. And now is all this to be forgiven and forgotten? Never! (at Khrushchev's wiki).

But in the arcane world of left wing politics, the accusation of being a Stalinist, a Leninist, a Trotskyite, a Marxist, a Maoist, or half a dozen other key brands are the favourite tools of abuse, and never die.

They should immediately invoke an extended Godwin's Law, but you can guess from Michael Danby's Whether she likes it or nyet, Lee Rihannon was a Stalinist that he doesn't have the first clue about the meaning of that fine law ...

Danby spends a bilious amount of time establishing that Greenie Senator Lee Rhiannon was a Stalinist because she headed off to Russia to meet Leonid Brezhnev, who was allegedly head of a "neo-Stalinist regime". Which means that anyone who heads off to China these days, is most likely a supporter of the current mob in power, who run what can only be described as a "neo-Maoist" regime.

As anyone who has seen that fine film The Founding of a Republic will testify, it turns out that Mao was a devoted believer in capitalism with Chinese characteristics, an ardent defender of consumerism, and a fierce devotee of shopping in malls. I guess in a way that makes us all neo-Maoists ...

Never mind, Danby spends a lot of time establishing that Rhiannon's parents were ardent Communists and Sovietphiles, and actually joined at a time when Stalin was running the show, and we all know that the sins of the parents are the sins of the children, and then it's a quick cut to the seventies and there's Gorman nee Rhiannon becoming a senior office bearer for the youth wing of the Soviet commies, and at this point you might ask who gives a flying fuck, seeing as how Julia Gillard once typed envelopes for the Socialist Forum, which moved the likes of Ron Boswell to dig in the dirt and scribble The real Julia is true to her socialist forum past.

Does this smearing in any way phase Danby? Not on your socialist nelly:

Now, some people will say that it’s hypocritical for me to criticise Senator Rhiannon’s when there are people in the Labor Party who have similar pasts.

Well I guess that makes the pond some of those people who think that Michael Danby is a hypocrite and a fool of the first water. Especially as he tries to make a distinction between Rhiannon's past and those of his brethren:

It’s true that many people who grew up in the Vietnam War era were radicalised as students and joined Maoist, Trotskyist or anarchist student groups. But most of them rapidly grew out this youthful phase and became moderate social democrats – some, such as Christopher Pearson, who supported the Khmer Rouge in his youth, have even become conservatives!

Uh huh. And now for the special pleading:

Senator Rhiannon’s case is different. She grew up not as a wild student radical, but as a dedicated member of a pro-Soviet Communist Party.

Oh slap me thighs, and kill me with laughter. What a goose.

And then he trips up a little as he hoes in with the steel caps:

When the CPA tried to free itself from Stalinism, she followed her parents into the breakaway pro-Soviet SPA. She loyally supported all the crimes of the Soviet Union during that time. And this was not a passing phase for her. She remained a senior and active member of the SPA until well into her 30s. She only abandoned communism when it had visibly failed as a useful vehicle for left-wing politics. She then joined the Greens, which is now the main vehicle for left-wing politics in Australia.

And there you have it. An explicit statement by a member of the Labor party that it is not the main vehicle for left-wing politics in Australia. So if you fancy yourself as a leftie, what are you doing in the Labor party? Isn't it about time you joined Christopher Pearson and crossed the aisle?

The greater irony in all this of course is that while Danby is busy constructing a Stalinist show trial for Rhiannon and the greenies, he's replicating the very process that Gerard Henderson, Ron Boswell, and the rest of the mob do for the Labor party, as well as the Greens (and we occasionally like to do with that renegade bland suit, Peter "short memory" Garrett).

Danby's piece ends in a fine rhetorical flourish:

What Australians wanted to hear Senator Rhiannon say was that she had repudiated communism, not just as a tactical convenience but as a matter of conviction; and that she regretted the harm caused by her years of advocacy and activism for the Soviet Union. Senator Rhiannon did none of these things and the Australian people will judge her accordingly.

Well we'd like to add our own fine rhetorical flourish:

What Australians wanted to hear the Australian Labor Party say is that it has repudiated neo-Maoist Chinese communism, not just as a tactical convenience but as a matter of conviction; and that it regrets the harm caused by its years of advocacy and activism for the neo-Maoist Chinese communists, starting with Gough Whitlam, and so has banned the sale of Australian iron ore and coal to the neo-Maoists until Tibet is free, and Uyghur leadder Rebiya Kadeer can roam the world freely. The Australian Labor Party did none of these things and the Australian people will judge it accordingly.

True, you could level the same charge at the Liberal party. So perhaps the Australian people might just go shopping in a mall. Whatever.

The pond has no truck with Rhiannon - liking Russian music and the films of Eisenstein isn't the basis for a love of Communism - but has even less taste for Stalinist show trials, and the world of Michael Danby, but how clever of him to confirm that the routine trashing of the past affiliations of Labor party members by Liberals is a fine and dandy way to conduct politics ...

Face it. If we were all judged by the actions of our younger days - ah the sweet bliss of drug-induced euphoria - who could pass as innocent in the world of Danby, or Henderson, or Ron Boswell, or Christopher Pearson ...

It's best to judge by the actions and policies of the moment, and what we can judge of Danby is that he knows how to write malicious, rhetorical, spiteful, snide tripe, right up there with the best of Gerard Henderson's offerings ...

Speaking of tripe, we have just enough time to note a couple of splendid offerings from the anonymous editorialist at The Australian, as he or she has a gigantic orgasm about the BHP profit in The boom we're happy to have:

The huge BHP profit has prompted calls for miners to pay a higher price for the right to extract finite minerals. This is not the time for knee-jerk reactions but there is room to canvass this issue in the broader context of the Henry recommendations and the October tax summit. Australians understand the economy is underpinned by resources: they are unmoved by ideological objections to mining. But they have a right to know the government is looking out for the national interest and ensuring miners pay appropriate levels of taxation.

Finite materials? Tax? Is this the same editorialist who scribbled Miners are right to keep the heat on tax?

Dear sweet absent lord, what will Tony say, when creeping socialism creeps ever further into the sweet-scented bosom of The Australian.

Oh come now, surely this must be as knee-jerk reaction, because as we all know, thanks to Tony, any tax on mining would ruin it, and we must continue steadfastly to rip the guts out of Australia and ship it off to China, and without a thought of recompense, as we do our bit to lift the standard of living for the Chinese citizenry and BHP shareholders ...

And then there was this bit of blather by the anon edit in Same-sex marriage debate must be shut down.

As always with The Australian, it poses in the name of liberal open debate, and then goes on to suggest that the evil Fairfax press is involved in shutting down the liberal, "open debate" of the likes of Bob Katter and Rebecca Hagelin and Miranda the Devine.

As usual you get this kind of unctuous disclaimer before the trolling begins:

The Australian leans towards libertarianism on social issues, believing the state should tread as lightly as possible around personal issues.

Libertarian? The rag wouldn't begin to know the meaning of the word.

It is not our role to pronounce one way or another on same-sex marriage, though we would caution the issue is far more complicated than gay "rights" supporters would have us believe.

Yeah, yeah, and New York is currently in the grip of complete moral collapse, unlike London ...

But the lowest of the low is surely the way The Australian treats the issue of gay marriage as a way to have a dust-up with the Fairfax press, while defending its ultra right-wing minions:

Dissenters, right or left, gay or straight, religious or irreligious, will always be welcome on the pages of this newspaper. We hope some self-styled intellectuals, who recently turned down invitations to write on these pages in order to retain what they perceive as their ideological "purity" change their minds.

Ideological purity? No, actually, it might just be a refusal to fall into line with Darth Vader and the evil empire, where minions can scribble with such withering contempt for "self-styled intellectuals".

Why would anyone assist in that kind of wankerdom and self-abuse? Is it ideological "purity" to avoid sewers and the excessive use of "inverted commas"?

We also hope that The Age survives the current reign of contempt for its readers and remains in business as a contributor to the debate, and that The Sydney Morning Herald continues to publish Farrelly's columns, if only because of the insight they offer into the confused minds of the inner-city moral-political class.

Fuck me dead. Did someone mention contempt, and the curled, sneering lip of the condescending anon edit as he or she scribbles about the confused inner city moral-political class, what ever that piece of bullshit humbuggery might mean?

And you an inner city reader, and you still buy The Australian? Pray tell, where did this self-loathing come from, when did it start? Around the time you started buying the rag? Do tell ...

Curiously, Farrelly is opposed to some forms of religion, but does not rule out the idea of an after-life. "In my next life I want to be smug," she tells us. Why wait?

Yes, why wait, when you can become a dickhead smug editorialist or columnist right now for Chairman Murdoch, just like the anonymous editorialist ... or Miranda the Devine.

Some things are indefensible, and lordy how The Australian is indefensible even on a good day ...