Tirade against the NME on Morrissey Official FB by Peter Katsis

Appears to come from Peter Katsis. Appallingly written mess of a statement.

Link here:


Text here:

"The N.M.E. used to represent the underground.

Now they are becoming known as The Guardian of rock music.

They had to stop printing copies.

Not because no one buys magazines.

Print publications like Q Magazine and Kerrang! still exist, because they remember who they are.

But not N.M.E.

They forgot who they were.

And because they just aren’t cool anymore.

N.M.E. are also just full of shit.

And can’t even afford good writers to work for them.

They like to remind readers of all the past allegations of the year, despite their lack of any basis in fact, despite that they are just re-hashing stories over and over, old news, fake news, etc.

But they leave out their own old issues, of lawsuits lost, and legal battles that forced them to apologize to M in the past.

And they lie more than Donald Trump.

-N.M.E. asked no one from M’s camp for comment to their recent story.

-Haslam was never a Moz fan. He was a publicity hound who had a new book coming that no one cared about.

-We didn’t cancel our summer shows because of Haslam’s weak event, the protest that drew no people.

-Moz in not a racist.

None of M’s latino fans care about UK politics, but hell…..why not call them up and try and find a story where one doesn’t exist?

Not like they have anything real to write about……like music.

Because they don’t even know what music is anymore.

Basically all this points to the fact that writer(?) Bob Chiarito and his editors at N.M.E. have been relegated to meaninglessness.

Not really even worth writing about for this Facebook post.

We stand up for ourselves here, not because we give a shit anymore what these folks say…..

…..but to point out to the fans and music industry of the UK that they’ve changed their title.

Now N.M.E. stands for …….Now Mostly Excrement.

No longer of any value to the music community…. they have decided to be the TMZ of music news.

Good riddance. - PK"

---

Related item:

• Can Morrissey keep his most hardcore fan contingent - Latino Americans - on side? - NME - Aug. 6, 2018

 

[StalinsPipe]

Do you think there is not very rich businessmen in "communist" Russia and China? Many people became very, very rich under communist regimes. The fact that a lot of them did it by means of corruption adds to the savagery of those regimes.

Hey, no need for the whatabouttery. I agree with you that China is a horrible corrupt state, and it seems to be getting worse at the moment, what with Xi getting rid of term limits and crushing dissidents in a way that hasn't happened for some time.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Do you think there is not very rich businessmen in "communist" Russia and China? Many people became very, very rich under communist regimes. The fact that a lot of them did it by means of corruption adds to the savagery of those regimes.

It's interesting that you rightfully pick up on the savagery of those regimes but ignore the same actions on the right.

My right wing friend Darren is like this, he'll rant all day about 'lefties' but his brain shuts down when it's pointed out corruption happens no matter what the political ideal.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 765]

You are high in the running for the title of the most ignorant sack of shit to ever soil these pages, goof.

The shit that dribbles from your half-cooked brain, through your fingers to your mom’s keyboard is poison. You’re spewing absolute NONSENSE to get a rise. You’re the very definition of a “troll”.

Unless you have a heck of a dental plan, you sure as shit don’t pull this nonsense in public. If you did, you’d be picking up your teeth with broken fingers, ya punk-ass little bitch.

People like you get-off on agitation for agitation’s sake. That’s fine, kiddo. You keep talking nonsense. You’re a blight. A vapid f***-tard. A sad excuse for a human being.

Kindly take your remedial level of your native tongue, your unbridled ignorance and f***-tardery and shove them up your ass, ya daft wee punk-ass twat.

Getting a might feverish on there.
Whats with all the WWF talk? Wrassling with the boyfriend?

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 765]

The Bolsheviks did exactly the same in Russia after 1917. What's your point? That such anti-democratic tactics might be just as much a 'left wing' strategy is surely the point? Scary that it even has to be debated to be honest.

Kerensky was a socialist, and Lenin put him on the road lest he got shot.
Every SUPER COMMIE got shot by Stalin.
They are insane. Every time a Commie shoots somebody or Fs up another country right away its NOT SOCIALISM because SOCIALISM doesnt shoot peeps or F up countries. When in fact, that is all they ever done.

They just think that with Socialism they will have all the stuff they desire for free,without breaking a
sweat. Take away the car from the rich neighbor and drive it around while they puff on a blunt.
They will be finally be recognized as great intellectuals instead of stoners on the dole.

 

[countthree]

Expectingtofly addresses it well. Totalitarian regimes are shitty. Saying they're all left wing is idiotic. Assuming that anything on the left is there to take away freedom because USSR is akin to saying that anything on the right is there to take away freedom because Nazis. It's genuinely idiotic. So many brilliant things have been bought about by the mythical left, Mr Burns would disagree but then it's the Mr Burns' of the World that you seem to be paying attention to. It's a great piece of propaganda to claim that the left has shit on people but it's the left which has gained working standards that don't kill staff, it's the left that has got wages that are worth living on, it's the left that fights for social housing despite it always being sold off etc. If the 'mythical right' was left to its own devices we'd all be f***ed.

I don't say all totalitarian regimes are left wing. I say communism and socialism don't work in the reality in the way those system were devised to function. In the end, all left wing regimes ends up as totalitarian regimes, because they are based in the supression of freedom and in plundering people's honest profits. Nothing based in robbery can survive without coercion, basically because humans are not so stupid to support those pillages forever. Nothing better than the owner of a good to know how to distribute it to the rest of the society. When the government takes people's money and try to distribute it, that opens the door to corruption, bad administration and, even worst, people is totally discouraged to produce in the medium and long term. Best people retire or go to greener pastures and the overall production falls miserabily. People are investing and producing in China because Chinese economy is not communist, it's pure and harsh capitalism under the facade of a communist regime.

 

[countthree]

It's interesting that you rightfully pick up on the savagery of those regimes but ignore the same actions on the right.

My right wing friend Darren is like this, he'll rant all day about 'lefties' but his brain shuts down when it's pointed out corruption happens no matter what the political ideal.

I don't ignore anything. I just say socialism and communism, or the left, are not the panacea. What I said before is that the true dichotomy considering people welfare is not between left and right, but between freedom and dictatorship.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 121]

You see, apart from Hitler and Mussolini's co-opting of left wing slogans, I don't see the similarity in fascism and Stalin's Marxist-Leninism, other than the fact they were authoritarian. It isn't the authoritarian bit which makes someone left or right wing - both left wingers and right wingers can be authoritarian - it's the policy, the economic and political ideology, their actions in government and their reasons for taking those actions.

The Soviet Union was ultimately driven by destroying global capitalism, destroying the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, uniting the proletariat regardless of nationality, race and religion and spreading communism across the world. They may not have achieved these things, but this was the ideology they were driven by, or at least said they were driven by.

The Nazis wanted to unite all Germanic people, exclude or exterminate Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, colonise other nations and destroy the natives for Lebensraum, create German hegemony in Europe, destroy socialism, communism, liberalism, democracy, start a war and they did the majority of these things. It was also Nazi party policy to maintain a strong middle class.

Importantly, the way in which the economy was run highlights further distinctions. The Soviet Union took control of all private enterprises and they were directly controlled by the state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany consolidated private capital, established private, capitalist cartels and capitalists stood to benefit and did indeed benefit from Nazi rule, and many capitalists made a great deal of money thanks to the Nazis.

Stalin=Communism in ONE country.
THUS TROTSKY>

 

[reelfountain]

The system is deeply flawed, I'll give you that.
As I said though, white British are now a minority in London. So obviously there are going to be a lot of non-white people working in councils, and living in council housing. Many of them must be second or third generation immigrants. Why shouldn't a black person who was born and raised in London have an equal shot at getting housing?
I certainly deny that there is any official discrimination in the allocation of housing. As I said there have certainly been incidents of corruption, one of which involved all the housing staff being from one African country and allocating housing to people of the same origin. I don't know how widespread that is.
I have previously worked for a district council just outside London which had less than 10 percent non-White population. I was in the housing department (also 90 percent White) and nearly all the properties went to white people. Nonetheless white people would come in to the office foaming at the mouth and saying "if I painted my face black I'd get a house wouldn't I? “. You remind me of those people.

The picture is more complex than you will admit.

The white working classes are partly responsible for the current lack of council housing. There were 8 million council houses in UK in 1980.Then Thatcher ramped up the Right to Buy and offered council tenants the chance to buy their home at a knock down price. Most of those who could took the bribe This continued for 30 odd years and now there are only 3 or 4 million council homes. While the population has increased by 10 million. Some people did really well out of it. But of course the government never replaced the homes and future generations had to make their way without the availability of council housing, which instead of being occupied by a wide range of people is now only for the most 'vulnerable' or 'greatest housing need'. Which is not code for non-White, it is code for 'dependent on state benefits'. Probably amounts to the same thing in many areas.

Funny how you seem to partly blame people for the Right to Buy and not Thatcher wholly.

London has been engineered to now have a Brit minority. The system want a non-white grateful labour force. This was partly achieved by denying whites social housing - for whatever official reason. I'm not denying that elsewhere things might work differently (for now), but you don't seem to have any knowledge of how wheels turn in London and talk like somebody who works in PR. Everything you say sounds slightly disingenuous (whereas you think I'm a tub-thumping Sun reader).

I don't mean to cause offence but when I read your words the face I imagine speaking them is Tony Blair.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I don't say all totalitarian regimes are left wing. I say communism and socialism don't work in the reality in the way those system were devised to function. In the end, all left wing regimes ends up as totalitarian regimes, because they are based in the supression of freedom and in plundering people's honest profits. Nothing based in robbery can survive without coercion, basically because humans are not so stupid to support those pillages forever. Nothing better than the owner of a good to know how to distribute it to the rest of the society. When the government takes people's money and try to distribute it, that opens the door to corruption, bad administration and, even worst, people is totally discouraged to produce in the medium and long term. Best people retire or go to greener pastures and the overall production falls miserabily. People are investing and producing in China because China economy is not communist, it's pure and harsh capitalism under the facade of a communist regime.

Like I said, you just bought into the Monty Burns system. I'm happy with capitalism as long as the people who work under the system are given the means to live under that system. As soon as you think that checks and balances are robbery you're as f***ed as the system. That sort of greedy mentality would see the return of workhouses. It's a nonsense. A mixed system is always necessary and that involves a heavy left influence unless you like your working population to be shit upon.

 

[countthree]

I say this as someone who doesn't necessarily have an alignment to any left wing faction/sect, but do ultimately want to see the state in its current form destroyed and replaced with something for the benefit of all ordinary working people, regardless of race, creed, nationality etc:

Putin is without a doubt a right-wing proto-fascist. Seeing left wingers defend him out some nostalgia for the USSR is disgusting. He has established a mafia state run by billionaire oligarchs, which regularly murders dissidents and the opposition, often on foreign soil.

The Cuban government, North Korean regime and Venezuela are all f***ing tankies and Stalinist fan boys. Although a lot of misinformation is spread about them, and analysis of them should be more nuanced (not so much North Korea), they certainly aren't the type of socialism I'd consider desirable.

This is the great thing about socialism. It's massive spectrum, with lots of different branches and variations, thinkers.

Everything was OK in your post until I read there is misinformation about the regimes of Cuba and Venezuela. What do you need to know to undertand those are terrible dictatorships? You are not being serious.
I am not right wing at all, but I'm still waiting to know one single case or reference of a communist or socialist regime that didn't create a corrupt bloody dictatorship. Thoughts looks nice in theory, but in reality that recipe never worked to achieve people welfare, on the contrary.

 

[StalinsPipe]

Everything was OK in your post until I read there is misinformation about the regimes of Cuba and Venezuela. What do you need to know to undertand those are terrible dictatorships? You are not being serious.
I am not right wing at all, but I'm still waiting to know one single case or reference of a communist or socialist regime that didn't create a corrupt bloody dictatorship. Thoughts looks nice in theory, but in reality that recipe never worked to achieve people welfare, on the contrary.

Because I don't believe that a lot of analysis of Cuba or Venezuela is particularly nuanced, just like analysis of western nations isn't particularly nuanced.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Everything was OK in your post until I read there is misinformation about the regimes of Cuba and Venezuela. What do you need to know to undertand those are terrible dictatorships? You are not being serious.
I am not right wing at all, but I'm still waiting to know one single case or reference of a communist or socialist regime that didn't create a corrupt bloody dictatorship. Thoughts looks nice in theory, but in reality that recipe never worked to achieve people welfare, on the contrary.

Why do you just spout about dicatorships on the left and then lead to some rant or other about the left and the evils of socialism? For every left wing nutjob dicatorship you could name two on the right. Meanwhile you use dicatorships as the rule of thumb for dismissing all of the good things that the left bring. This is why I've called you an idiot several times. It's pretty straight forward that the good things that the general public live with have been bought about by the struggles of those on the left. If you want to argue against health care, affordable housing, fair pay, sensible working hours, working condition that aren't harmful to employees that is your lookout but at least be honest about it instead of dismissing all of those things because some Communism regime f***ed their people.

 

[countthree]

Like I said, you just bought into the Monty Burns system. I'm happy with capitalism as long as the people who work under the system are given the means to live under that system. As soon as you think that checks and balances are robbery you're as f***ed as the system. That sort of greedy mentality would see the return of workhouses. It's a nonsense. A mixed system is always necessary and that involves a heavy left influence unless you like your working population to be shit upon.

I'm not right wing nor left wing, so I'm not the person who will justify harsh capitalism. But as soon as governments have to limit excessively personal freedoms to achieve distribution goals that's the foundation of a dictatorship that will ruin everything. It's not about right or left, it's about a system that respect people's rights and freedom and that allows distribution under fair rules and laws, but not under government (always corrupt) hands.

 

[countthree]

Because I don't believe that a lot of analysis of Cuba or Venezuela is particularly nuanced, just like analysis of western nations isn't particularly nuanced.

Just look at the way people live, eat and receive health care. Those are western nations too, you f***ing ignorant.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I'm not right wing nor left wing, so I'm not the person who will justify harsh capitalism. But as soon as governments have to limit excessively personal freedoms to achieve distribution goals that's the foundation of a dictatorship that will ruin everything. It's not about right or left, it's about a system that respect people's rights and freedom and that allows distribution under fair rules and laws, but not under government (always corrupt) hands.

So you're basically arguing in favour of greedy bastards right? 'Distribution' is only necessary because of a skewered system towards the top. If people were paid what they were owed in relation to their contribution to a business then re-distribution wouldn't be necessary no?

Or does freedom only relate to greedy bastards that won't pay their staff a sensible rate that allows them to pay their way?

 

[StalinsPipe]

Just look at the way people live, eat and receive health care. Those are western nations too, you f***ing ignorant.

You and I both know I meant western as in Western, capitalist democracies.

 

[countthree]

So you're basically arguing in favour of greedy bastards right? 'Distribution' is only necessary because of a skewered system towards the top. If people were paid what they were owed in relation to a business then re-distribution wouldn't be necessary no?

There is not only one single way of redistributing goods. Government distribution is the worst of them all, because it is always corrupt and unfair, it promotes political clientelism and the fall of productivity.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

There is not only one single way of redistributing goods. Government distribution is the worst of them all, because it is always corrupt and unfair, it promotes political clientelism and the fall of productivity.

So you trust the corrupt and greedy bastards to police themselves?

Have a look into which countries are the most crime ridden. Here's a hint, they're the ones with your mindset where greed rules and the riches just keep rising up to the top. It doesn't end any better than where a government takes everything.

 

[countthree]

You and I both know I meant western as in Western, capitalist democracies.

No, I don't. The fact those people are suffering a dictatorship doesn't mean they don't belong anymore to a western society. In the same way, if UK or France were victims of a dictatorship that wouldn't mean they stop being western countries.

 

[countthree]

So you trust the corrupt and greedy bastards to police themselves?

Have a look into which countries are the most crime ridden. Here's a hint, they're the ones with your mindset where greed rules and the riches just keep rising up to the top. It doesn't end any better than where a government takes everything.

No, I said that precisely because I don't trust the corrupt and greedy bastards to police themselves. That is what happens when politicians and governments distribute the fruit of people's personal work by the mean of first appropriating it and then managing it to please their own interests and pockets.