The Damnatio Memoriae of Lord Mandelson
We all know, and everyone is commenting on, the moral meanderings of Mandelson. He borrowed money, he was indiscreet, he counselled, he cajoled, he gossiped about the great and good, he trifled with the lives of the rich and famous, he was a good friend of Jeffrey Epstein, he seems to have leaked privileged government information to a private individual. But I, for one, am not impressed. This is the small change of history. Nickels and dimes. Either bring charges: for instance, treason or attainder, or something: or be quiet. But no one wants to be quiet.
What is more interesting, then, is the attempt at damnatio memoriae, ‘the damnation of memory’, whereby Romans attempted to destroy the reputation of a dead emperor, or confirm after death the destruction of reputation the emperor had visited on himself when alive. Caesar? Deified on death. Caligula, Commodus, Elagabalus? Damned on death. Which meant absolute cancellation. Their names were effaced from inscriptions. It was cancellation cubed. We all talk about cancellation. But no one has tried – yet – to remove Rowling’s name from Harry Potter, Starkey’s name from Monarchy, Linehan’s name from the credits of Father Ted, or, God forbid, Toby Young’s name from How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A senior politician and diplomat who hangs around over a period of years with a piece of work like epstein has to be assumed to be complicit.
Caesar’s wife etc
Before Epstein became a scandalous figure, he was just a very rich and very influential guy who was socially very well connected. People might not have had much choice wrt to him in this respect.
I don’t see the Prince and Princess of Wales or the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh or the Princess Royal mired in all this – maybe they are more discerning. Perhaps they took to heart and mind the idea that we are judged by the company we keep.
The majority of the people on this planet never had any contact to Epstein and I wasn’t talking about any Royals, anyway. For someone who had to move in the circles Epstein was part of for professional or political reasons, he was probably difficult to avoid before he became disgraced and It was probably rather a huge advantage to cultivate his friendship if possible. A presumption of guilt by association seems inappropriate here.
I tend to agree that this is just a fairly irrelevant distraction from the damage being done to our civilisation by our enemies, who continue to work against us.
The whole circus is certainly diverting attention from the diaspora moving in human caravan from Africa to the southern Spanish border. Spain has just regularised half a million illegal migrants and is viewed as welcoming. Having made it to western Europe, all that would be required is a short boat ride across the English Channel to the UK. Now that is something to worry about.
I’m in the Canary Islands at the moment and I don’t see much evidence of immigrants. The majority of immigrants are British and Irish. Some from sub-Saharan Africa (doing stuff like cleaning) and some from North Africa (seem to work more in hospitality or maybe drug dealing as they ride around on those electric scooter things), a smattering of Indians and Chinese in shops. Maybe the mainland is seen as more attractive – easier to disappear than on an island which has no big cities and more close knit communities.
Sadly I think you may be wrong, the invasion operation is kept away from the main tourist areas and the small island of El Hierro is the preferred route apparently. From there they are facilitated through to mainland Spain
Below from Nov 24 but I don’t imagine it has got any better since then
The Spanish island that is Europe’s new migration frontline | Reuters
Yes that would make sense
See Reuters calling it “irregular” migration. That’s a filthy distortion of the truth and doesn’t even make sense
An irregular soldier is a mercenary.
Indeed
They are invaders
Just back from Fuerteventura last week and I got the same impression.
Planning a boat trip there – any recommendations?
Interesting post from “Just Stop It Now” – how is it possible that everything is going through El Hierro unless the authorities are collaborating with the “irregular migrant” enablers?
My opinion on this is: Epstein is dead and it’s high time to stop publically digging through his sex life – of whatever nature – of 20 years ago. Let US prosecution authorities handle this insofar there are any crimes to prosecute and apart from that, stop talking about the guy all the time. We have much more pressing and also, much more interesting problems to deal with.
Epstein serves the government and their lackeys in the MSM well. It provides a huge distraction from the Ukranian project which is going badly, the failing economy, cost of living, Net Zero being increasingly seen as a scam, the rise of Reform, mass immigration and the unpopularity of Labour.
You may be right. I think it depends on what Epstein was all about. Was it just standard debauched rich and powerful people doing what they could get away with or was there more behind it – blackmail in order to control events (or try to). If the latter then understanding the extent of it is of great interest. I have no idea and sadly only the superficial layers are talked about anyway.
In general, we accept a bit of underage for actors and musicians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOSYB38y2xA
[Rolling Stones, Stray Cat Blues]
But this is certainly entirely fictional (sarcasm).
See also: Abba – Does Your Mother Know?
Labour dinner. Mandy says to Gordon, ‘ can I borrow 10p to phone a friend?’
Gordon ‘ here’s 20p, phone them both’.
Turns out, Epstein was the friend, and he was calling to betray his comrade(s), his party, his country, and the fundamental principles of Labour, socialism, decency, englishness, etc. He can burn in hell, with Epstein as far as I’m concerned.
Sir Keir’s favourite ballad?
♫♬Oh, Mandy
Well, you came
And you gave without taking
But I sent you away
Oh, Mandy
Well, you kissed me
And stopped me from shaking
And I need you today
Oh, Mandy♫♬
Yes, it certainly diverts attention away from illegal immigration’s and the grooming gang horror doesn’t it?
We’re seeing the circus – where’s the bread?
The reasoning in this article is peculiar. The Prof quotes the Gospel account. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” is a quote from John 8 where Jesus of Nazareth addresses men who have brought a woman caught in adultery before Him, asking him what the law demands of such a transgressor. Jesus was asked this question to try to entrap Him. Note the part of the account where Jesus writes in the earth. This is explained as not hearing the questioners. After Jesus has made his declaration that the sinless may carry out the law, the men then go away. They go away because their conscience has been awakened. They, as men, are guilty of this particular transgression of adultery. The woman gets off the charge on a technicality. Where are the accusers? There are none. Simply because they’ve gone away. An accused person cannot be condemned without witnesses. Jesus wasn’t making a general rule to apply regardless of circumstances. In this Epstein business, there are plenty of witnesses. What does it mean to be loyal to a friend who has been convicted of unlawful sex with a child? In the Gospel, Matthew 18, Jesus says… Read more »
Chances are that Jesus wouldn’t have regarded female teenagers exchanging sexual favours for material goods as children just because this would become illegal in certain US jurisdictions about 2000 years later.
BTW, does Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor perhaps ring a bell somewhere? There’s no unless you really do dislike him exception.
For some reason, it is usually forgotten that in some 30 US states, the age of consent is now still 16, but was recently much lower. Who now remembers Jerry Lee Lewis and his 13 year old bride?
Of course, some adherents of the RoP still follow their Prophet’s unchallengeable actions even ‘marrying’ their ‘wives’ at nine.
None of which justifies Mandelson, Andrew or Epstein.
But it makes an interesting contrast to the current fashionable outrage.
When Mandelson joined the Privy Council he swore to keep top level government discussions private. I do not consider his passing them on to his moneybags friend and therefore on to his even bigger moneybags friends to make a killing with advance information as “nickels and dimes” stuff.
The fact that Alexander does – and in Latin – doesn’t make me think less badly of Mandelson, just more badly of him.
I’m not really interested in these “elite” cronies. None of it is in the slightest surprising or unusual.
The whole thing is just a distraction from government ineptitude
I’d argue that the government’s treachery over 30 years or more is going to plan and competently executed too.
I suggest you watch this from Ivor Cummins and then try to justify a claim that the only thing Mandelson is guilty of is loyalty to a friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FsKP4yZu0Q
Not so. Hasn’t Mandelson been found to have betrayed British State Secrets to Epstein to make money in commercial markets?