I just had to reblog this from Pride’s Purge. It would seem that UKIP’s MEPs aren’t the only members of the party to have a taste for crooked behaviour. Cambridgeshire County Councillor, Peter Lagoda, has been up before the beak for benefit fraud. Now what is it UKIP says about social security benefit claimants? Oh yeah, they’re “parasites” (their words, not mine).
Hands up, who’s heard of the Campaign Against Political Correctness? I came across this group a couple of years ago. It’s part of an agenda to roll back the gains made by those of us who have struggled for equality over the decades. For these people, equality and tolerance are seen as bad things; signs of animalistic weakness, anathema to bullies, misogynists and self-described libertarians everywhere.
The CAPC operates as a flak machine and perhaps one of the most interesting developments in the way in which flak machines operate is how they’ve adopted the language of their ideological ‘enemies’. The Campaign Against Political Correctness is a group of ‘ like-minded people’ who believe political correctness is destroying British society. On their home page they have appropriated the anti-war slogan ‘Not in my name’ and conscripted it to serve a different and opposing ideological agenda. This extract from their website sets out their ‘principles’:
We strongly believe that political correctness is wrong because:
It is causing tension between communities where there need not be any.
It is encouraging racism and sexism – especially in the job market – encouraging people to be given jobs based on the colour of their skin or their sex and not on their merit.
It tries to protect those identified as “minorities” (also including women!) despite the fact that they very rarely consult these people before they speak on their behalf and more often than not thoroughly insult them by assuming that they are not perfectly capable of defending themselves or asking for help if they want it (see our “Latest News” and “Your Stories” sections for examples of this).
Although it is supposed to be around to prevent offence it deems it acceptable to offend the majority of people on a regular basis.
What is noticeable about this set of ‘principles’ is the way it swats away the real issues like some annoying insect. The second and third points are revealing because they tend to make the claim that others are speaking on behalf of minorities and not the minorities themselves. This objection appears to be rooted in the notion that anything that is done in relation to minorities is a form of ‘extreme liberalism’ and that any effort to achieve parity in the workplace or office is indicative of the further erosion of the fabric of society and calls into question of the British idea of ‘fair play’. Ironic, isn’t it?
What is interesting about groups such as CAPC is the way in which they propagate and sustain the myth that anything that does not operate within its ideological contours is foreign or alien to the British ‘way of life’. Sometimes, to hear these people talk, you’d think we were still living in the 1980s.
‘The people who are most disadvantaged by the national minimum wage are the most vulnerable in society. My concern about it is it prevents those people from being given the opportunity to get the first rung on the employment ladder.
Naturally, Davies complained that anyone who criticized his ‘ideas’ were spreading “leftwing hysteria”.
Horrible little man. Horrible little group. Horrible little site.
Here’s a taste of the kind of comments people leave on the site.
Political correctness is not free living, its people interfering in things where they’re not wanted!!!
What does “free living” mean? Here’s another.
Political Correctness and Human Rights laws are ruining this once great nation. A stand must be made and something must be done!
Yeah, damn and blast those human rights! Let’s bring back the rack and the ducking stool!
What does “of Muslim appearance” mean? The BBC’s Nick Robinson thought he knew when he told us that the Woolwich attackers were of “Muslim appearance”. Apparently, this is what “Whitehall sources” had told him. This was also before Lee Rigby’s murderers’ details had been verified (the name of the victim had also to be verified). That’s what I’d call “irresponsible journalism”.
In the aftermath of the shooting of Jean Charles, I was afraid to go on the Tube. Why? Because someone could have mistaken me for a Muslim ‘terrorist’. I carry a rucksack. I have dark skin. For some people, that’s enough.
So what is a Muslim supposed to look like?
Here’s a picture of a Muslim.
This is Richard Thompson, formerly of Fairport Convention. He’s a Sufi. He’s also a bloody good guitarist.
The word “Muslim” for the racist thugs of the English Defence League is shorthand for “someone who has dark skin”.
On the left is comedian Dave Chappelle. He’s a Muslim too. He’s very funny.
Remind me again, what is a Muslim supposed to look like?
Do you have to catch them at Friday prayers to identify them?
Even then, you’d have a hard time because, you see, they come in all different shapes, sizes and colours.
This is probably the world’s most famous Muslim. He’s Muhammad Ali (right). He floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee.
When he changed his name from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali, there were people who refused to call him by his newly adopted name.
Just for balance, here’s a female Muslim.
This is Riz Lateef, she anchors BBC London’s evening news.
Still think you know what a Muslim looks like?
Here’s Marmaduke Pickthall, he translated the Qu’ran into English. His skin is the same colour as that of the EDL thugs who hate Muslims.
Here’s another. This is Jeffrey Lang, he’s a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Kansas.
So what does “Of Muslim appearance” mean? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Yesterday, the party leader, Nigel ‘The Spiv’ Farage, was campaigning on behalf of his candidate in the Aberdeen Donside by-election, when he was forced to seek shelter in the Canon Gait pub. Here’s the video.
This video clip is better.
Naturally, it fell to UKIP’s media spin artists to talk down the Scots’ distaste for far-right politics by turning this into a story about “nasty Lefties” versus “Our Nige”. Michael Heaver, writing for the Daily Telegraph tells us,
The “far Left”? Laughable The Scots don’t have time for UKIP, Farage and their shenanigans. The far-right have always done badly in Scotland; have a look at the BNP’s polling figures if you don’t believe me. This is a country where even the Tories are thin on the ground. That should tell Heaver something, but he isn’t having it.
After all, this is a rare politician who is all too happy to welcome even those hostile towards him into public meetings, so they can make their points in a controlled manner that allows room for sensible democratic debate. Those who hate Farage can say why – and he will give them the courtesy of a response. Not all politicians do that; he should be respected for it.
Heaver is delusional. He thinks Farage’s ‘bloke down the pub” schtick is a vote winner north of the border. The Scots aren’t fooled by it. In in the following paragraph he heaps delusion upon delusion. It’s bloody embarrassing.
None of this would have happened if the far Left wasn’t so rattled. Their candidates usually finish nowhere – while Ukip are on the march in working-class areas, as we saw in South Shields. Why? Because Farage actually addresses the hopes and aspirations of working people who are feeling the economic squeeze harder than ever, thanks partly to open-door immigration. The far Left prefer to scream about their latest model for economic suicide.
Heaver tries to comfort himself with his party’s second place showing in South Shields but he still can’t explain why UKIP does so badly in Scotland. Notice how he says, “Farage actually addresses the hopes and aspirations of working people”. Hilarious. Furthemore, it isn’t the “Left” who are rattled, it’s their ideological brethren, the Tories, who are rattled.
It should surprise no one that Heaver describes himself as a “political commentator who campaigns for UKIP”.
After cowering in the Canon Gait, Farage was whisked off in a police van. I would have preferred to have seen him packed off in a prison van and sent to HMP Shotts quite frankly.
One Kipper who ought to be in Shotts is someone who calls himself “BHAFC Patriot” (@lawrenceV) who tweeted this. Hat tip, Still Laughing at UKIP (SLATUKIP) on Facebook for this.
This is a worrying sign: a Kipper calling for some form of paramilitary protection for Farage and his gang. It sort of reminds me of the Brownshirts. The account has been mysteriously suspended.
On the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland, Farage tried to spin this incident as “anti-Englishness” but comes unstuck when the interviewer drills into his feeble argument. He refers to the protesters as “fascists”. That’s rich coming from a Falangist. No? You can listen to the interview here. Farage hangs up when the questions get too uncomfortable.
Finally, here’s why UKIP will never do well in Scotland. Again, hat-tip to the SLATUKIP Facebook page. These are tweets from Ron Northcott, a UKIP candidate.
Nice people, eh? By a strange coincidence, Northcott’s tweets have also disappeared. He claims that he’s been “hacked”. Yeah, sure you were [rolls eyes].
Ever since last Friday’s county council election results tumbled in, the Kippers have been crowing. Emboldened, too, by the BBC’s rather one-sided coverage their party, UKIP supporters have taken to social media in their droves to spout their anti-intellectual bullshit and hurl abuse at anyone who doesn’t share their belief that Nigel Farage is Britain’s political messiah. The BBC ought to know better: UKIP doesn’t have a single Westminster MP, while The Green Party not only has an MP, it also has a large number of local councillors and members on the Greater London Assembly (The Green have 2 AMs and UKIP has none). It also has representation in the Scottish Parliament (The Greens have 2 MSPs and UKIP has none), whereas UKIP have found it difficult to win a seat in both parliaments. But the Greens got no mention, while Farage and his mates Paul Nuttall and Godfrey Bloom have been interviewed and given free passes.
Right-wing parties hate ideas and they despise anyone who possesses critical faculties, whom they erroneously refer to as “elitists”. The use of the word in this context owes a great deal to the American Right who employed the word to describe intellectuals, academics, city-dwellers, the disabled, gays, lesbians, Blacks, Asians and anyone who didn’t share their reactionary point of view. Anti-intellectualism is a dominant feature of far-right politics – especially fascism and Nazism. Franco’s regime wasn’t textbook fascist but it came close. In Spain, the Falange held ideological sway and like other far-right variants it was notable for its anti-intellectualism. In a right-wing world, you question nothing and accept everything that you’re told by the leadership – who form the elite group of their party (as it is with other authoritarian forms of government, including Stalinism). A Kipper will lazily join a few dots rather than produce anything that borders on a coherent argument. Just look at the way they dismiss climate change science out of hand without producing an epistemologically-sound counter-argument of their own.
Speaking of which, here’s a video of UKIP’s Christopher Monckton railing against climate change.
The discursive tricks used by UKIP supporters are redolent of those methods used by the Tea Party in the United States. This is manifested in their inability to discuss anything without hurling abuse or breaking Godwin’s Law. I had several of them rock up on Twitter and spout the most unbelievable rubbish at me. One tried to proselytize and when he resorted to flattery, I cheekily told him that “flattery would get him nowhere” and that I was on the Left of British politics, this gave him the excuse to chuck “Hitler” at me by way of reply. “Nice riposte” I thought, so I blocked him. I can’t be bothered with trolls. The leadership of UKIP describes the party as “libertarian” but as I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog, their brand of libertarianism is both a means to deny their true authoritarian core beliefs and rationalize their social Darwinism and imperialism (the latter is perhaps the highest ideal in the mind of the New Right). For example, how can a self-described libertarian party claim to stand for freedom and then say that they’re against equal marriage while keeping a straight face? Well, Kippers can and do. Thus far I have only been able to identify a single example of their libertarianism: the freedom to kill oneself by smoking 100 cigarettes a day. Farage admits to being a chain-smoker. That says a lot about the party’s ‘libertarianism’: it’s pretty selective. Some UKIP supporters believe that those of us who work to expose them as a party of hypocrites and liars are simply scared of them. Well, if criticizing them and shining a light into the dark recesses of their discourses is “scared”, then baby, I’m shit scared; too frightened to come from behind the sofa scared. The only people who are really scared of UKIP is the Conservative Party’s high command. Other Tories, like Daniel Hannan, have even argued for a merger or, in this case, a coalition with UKIP. Yes, you read that correctly: a coalition with a party that doesn’t have a single Westminster MP.
Let’s have a look at what the Lyin’ King’s saying.
The prospect of a Tory-Ukip coalition is no longer theoretical. A blue-purple pact – which I think this blog may have been the firstto propose – is now at least a mathematical possibility in Cambridgeshire, East Sussex, Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire. Whether or not such pacts happen will, of course, be decided county by county, and rightly so. No truly localist party would want to tell its councillors whom to sit with. Still, my guess is that most of the Conservatives in question would rather deal with Ukip than with the Lib Dems.
The Cat thinks Hannan is getting a little ahead of himself here. We’re two years away from a general election and already, the one of the party’s biggest headbangers is calling for a coalition. Of course Hannan is trying to cover his arse by suggesting that the two parties co-operate on a local level to shaft the voters with their authoritarian-libertarian mush. But, make no mistake, a man like Hannan would love to see a Tory/UKIP coalition in government with Bozza as PM and Farage as Deputy PM. Sort of makes you want to vomit. No? Towards the end of his piece, he tells us:
Six months ago, I mournfully predicted that the two parties would fail to get their act together, because of all the petty considerations that held up Canada’s Unite the Right movement for a decade:
“Unite the Right”? Good luck with that, Danny. In my mind, there’s no chance of a unified right-wing electoral arrangement either now or in the immediate future. Indeed, Farage has demanded the immediate removal of Cameron as a precondition for any kind of marriage. We must remember that Hannan was previously involved in the formation of a British (read English) Tea Party. The project, it would seem, has not taken off in the way that he or The Freedom Association would have liked. I guess there is little demand for this kind of Americanized right-wing astro-turfing here in the UK, and as much as men like Hannan enthuse about such things, the more I am likely to think they’re deluding themselves.
The fighting between UKIP and the Conservatives has exposed the barely-concealed fault-lines over the EU within the Tory party that have existed since the time of John Major’s government and his “bastards” comment. On that occasion, the divisions in the party over Europe contributed to the Tories battering at the ballot box in 1997. It now looks like history is repeating itself for the Tories, only this time they face external pressures from the upstart Kippers. Some Tories may be tempted to run off and join Farage’s motley band of late League of Empire Loyalists and chain-smoking free-marketeers, while others like Hannan will continue to make conciliatory noises without making any effort to join the party. Shouldn’t he be putting his money where is mouth is?
This is a worrying sign: a Kipper calling for some form of paramilitary protection for Farage and his gang. It sort of reminds me of the 
Guy Debord's Cat 