Tag Archives: Nazis

Life on Hannan World (Part 11)

The Lyin’ King is as predictable as clockwork: you can always rely on him to produce at least one blog per year in which he repeats the lie that the Nazis were “socialists” or produces a variation on that dishonest theme (The BNP is ‘left-wing’ is one such theme). Today’s blog (the comments thread was originally closed) ploughs the same tedious furrow as his previous efforts. The title is a blatant piece of red-baiting: “Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism”.

He opens his latest smear with this scene-setter:

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.

Yes, he’s mentioned Hitler in the first sentence. Clever, huh? Nope.  The first sentence of the second paragraph continues the theme.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

Goebbels? Yeah, he was a real leftist. A proper Bolshevik.

Let’s skip down a paragraph, where he attempts an early defence of his, er, smear-job.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this: but how ‘liberal’ is the Australian Liberal Party? Come to think of it, how communist is the Moldovan Communist Party? The truth of the matter is that there was no ‘socialism’ in Nazism. The early Nazis may have referred to themselves as socialists, but their brand of ‘socialism’ is known as ‘Strasserism’. It was named after the Strasser brothers, who proposed it as a Nazi response to socialism that was ultra-nationalistic, militaristic and anti-Semitic.  Strasserism’s roots are  in the Catholic form of Distributism that was based on the teachings of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI. Even if the Nazis claimed to be the ‘real’ socialists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they were actual socialists. Anyone can say stuff like that. The Tories have claimed to be defenders of freedom. We know that isn’t true… unless you’re talking about preserving the freedoms of bosses to exploit workers. Then, yes, the Tories stand for freedom.

But here’s the worst part of this wretched attempt at historical revisionism for dummies.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.

Laughable. Next, Dan will be telling us the Hitler Diaries weren’t a hoax. National Socialism was the marriage of corporate and state power that was imposed through coercion, fear and intimidation. No workers’ control of the means of production. No workers’ rights at all. Socialists, Communists, anarchists and trade unionists were persecuted. Many died in work camps.

And here’s where The Lyin’ King slips up:

Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order.

Hannan doesn’t understand the nature of class conflict (a necessary component in understanding how socialism works), because he belongs to the dominant class: the bourgeoisie, rather than the dominated or subaltern classes.  It is in his interest and those of his class to refuse the existence of class conflict. Indeed, a war has been waged by the dominant social formation against the subaltern classes for centuries. For example, the Inclosure Acts were used by the ruling classes as a weapon in the war against the so-called ‘lower orders’,  stripping them of the right to agriculture and amusement on common land (the seasonal fairs were also closed down by the end of the 18th century). If it’s one thing that the right hates to be reminded of, it’s social class. Tories like Hannan hate the idea of class consciousness unless its middle class consciousness.

More red-baiting.

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with “the Right”.

Note the use of language here: a “beserk reaction from people” he says, “who see anti-fascism as part of their ideology”. Hannan’s suggesting there’s some kind of confusion on the part of the Left’s anti-fascism. It’s another way of saying, “Leave those fascists alone. They deserve to be heard”. He closes this paragraph by claiming the Nazis weren’t right-wing and it’s all been an attempt on the part of the Left to smear the Right.  Seriously! I hate to tell you this, Danny, but the Catholic Centre Party – a conservative political party – effectively handed power to Hitler. The Nazis are associated with the Right, not only because of the sympathy of German conservatives, but because their ideology was extremely nationalistic, militaristic and racist. How can I put this to you, Dan? You’re talking crap.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell “fascist” at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as “far Right”.

Notice how The Lyin’ King has moved seamlessly from German Nazism to Italian Fascism. Notice also how he talks of “spotty students” yelling “fascist” at some unnamed Tories, because that’s what this is all about: some people calling the Tories “fascists”. He forgets how his side tends to shout “Communist” at anyone who identifies as a ‘liberal’ or a Labour voter.  But what’s this suggestion that the BNP and Golden Dawn aren’t “far-right”? If they aren’t far-right, then what is to “far-right” of the Tories? Nothing? Laughable. But didn’t Tory treasure, Alan Clark, have Nazi sympathies? I think he did… In fact, he once told a journalist,

I am not a fascist. Fascists are shopkeepers, people of that sort. I am a Nazi.

The analysis in the next paragraph is woeful. If an ‘A’ Level History student included this drivel in an essay, they’d get an “F”. Dan has a degree in Modern History from Oxford University.

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls “Right-wing”: the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The “Nazis-were-far-Right” shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that “Right-wing” is a synonym for “baddie”.

A grown man wrote this and was paid for it? You’re having a laugh. By the way, Vladimir Zhirinovsky is the leader of the Russian Liberal Democratic Party – a party that is neither liberal nor democratic. Dan sort of sidesteps him and his terrible party. Funny how The Lyin’ King kind of forgot that. Poor choice, Dan.

I’ll skip to the final paragraph, because the rest of the blog just gets itself into a terrible tizzy.

Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.

Yeah, I can’t wait for that. In fact, I’m setting the timer. I reckon another one of these blogs will be along in another 8 to 12 months.

Say, didn’t many Tories support the Nazis and didn’t The Daily Mail run the infamous headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”? Let’s give those Blackshirts a helping hand.

Then there’s Aidan Burley

Oh and Dan, at the risk of me being tautological: the Nazis were extreme right and reactionary conservatives.

1 Comment

Filed under Journalism, Media, propaganda, Tory press

Telegraph Comment of the Week (#19)

I found some terrific comments this week but my computer died and I lost the screenshots. No matter. In the week that Nelson Mandela died, one expected to find a wealth of racist comments on Telegraph blogs but all the articles about Madiba have closed comments threads. It’s only Brendan O’Neill, who I suspected would be first out the traps with an article about how apartheid was good (the RCP was against sanctions and was thus aligned with Thatcher) and how Mandela was a ‘terrorist’, who’s allowing comments on his thread. But rather than write about Mandela,  he’s penned this tribute to ‘free speech’ instead.

‘Free speech’ in O’Neill’s world is when people are allowed to say whatever they like, no matter how abhorrent, free in the knowledge that they won’t be challenged. Because, in the mind of Eddie Munster, if someone challenges your vile views, they are guilty of ‘stifling’ free speech. Without any trace of irony, he tells us:

Firstly, because it is always better to have dodgy extremist ideas out in the open, where they can be challenged and ridiculed, rather than festering underground, hidden away, unquestioned. And secondly, because it is only by defending freedom of speech for all – yes, even for whackjobs – that we can guarantee it for ourselves, for everyone, for the decent as well as the daft.

My bold. The views left on Telegraph blogs are rarely challenged by blog authors and those who try to challenge them are shouted down. The Telegraph has become a place for neo-Nazis and Enoch Powell worshippers to congregate and they are often attracted by the blog author’s views (I give you James Delingpole). The Lyin’ King, in another blog disputes this, but he doth protest too much.

O’Neill appears to have realized that all the comments threads on the Mandela articles are closed, so he circumvents this by titling his blog

If we are serious about freedom of speech, then everyone must have it

Eddie slyly ends his blog with a recording of Nelson Mandela ‘saying farewell to South Africa’. This was done to draw in the self-styled ‘patriots’ and give them a space to air their disgusting views.

This week’s comment is particularly vile and appears to have been left by someone who could easily be a member of The World Union of National Socialists.

Vitaly Klitschko

Brendan O’Neill is absolutely correct. Historical facts must be separated from PC re-writing of history. History uses the same scientific method as the natural sciences.

The FACTS about WW2 must always be remembered; for example, that far from being a dictator, Hitler was an extremely popular politician. Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor and supported by an overwhelming majority of Germans. It is a huge mistake to demonize National Socialism as “extremism”. Such derogatory labels simplify history, hamper rational analysis and can easily be used for censorship. Demonizing National Socialism means that you fail to understand it.

“FACTS”, eh? In spite of what he says, you won’t find Eddie challenging these views.  This reader believes that Hitler was “an extremely popular politician” and that Nazism has been demonized. Really? But it’s the final sentence that’s the most ignorant. “Vitaly” claims that “Demonizing National Socialism means that you fail to understand it”. Really? Tell than to the millions who died in the death camps. It seems to me that those who clam the Nazis were “demonized” have failed to learn their history or have chosen to ignore it for ideological reasons – like our boneheaded friend,”Vitaly” here.

Here’s part of Hannan’s mealy-mouthed protest:

Now there’s a new variant of the phenomenon: judging a blog by its comment thread. Again, the absurdity should be obvious. Bloggers are not responsible for what happens after they have posted.

Here’s a tip, Danny: if you don’t want to attract the comments of nutters, then don’t write blogs that appeal to them. You could, of course, challenge such views but instead, you’d rather blame it on ‘trolls’ than accept responsibility.

Comments Off on Telegraph Comment of the Week (#19)

Filed under Media, Telegraph Comment of the Week, Tory press

Eric Joyce and Stuart Andrew: what the papers failed to mention

It was the political story of the month. It was a gift that had fallen into the lap of the subs on Fleet Street. “Labour MP, Eric Joyce headbutts Tory MP in the Strangers Bar in the House of Commons”.

We heard that Mr Joyce was slightly worse for wear or “pissed up” in the common parlance, but what was the spark that ignited the flame, so to speak? We heard that Joyce had said, upon entering the bar, that there were “too many Tories” in there. Perhaps there were. Perhaps some of them hold views that are, shall we say, a little reprehensible?

The other day while I was linking the extreme-right wing Trade Union Reform Campaign to this blog, I noticed that the alleged victim of Joyce’s headbutt , Stuart Andrew, the member for Pudsey, is on the Parliamentary Council of TURC. Was Joyce aware of this? Surely, he must have been. The Tory press was full of outrage, many of them claiming how Andrew was totally innocent. None of them bothered to inform their readers of Andrew’s other activities, namely TURC’s work to destroy trade unions. Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Mr Andrew in the Daily Mail,

Mr Andrew said: ‘I was having a lovely evening chatting and relaxing. Andrew [Percy] came back to the table and said, “Excuse me, can I just get to my seat?” but Joyce would not let him. He said, “There are too many Tories” and pushed him against the wall. I stood up and said, “You can’t do that.”

But this is the most interesting part,

Mr Andrew, who briefly joined the Labour Party in 1997, said he had never met Mr Joyce before. ‘We had never spoken and there is no history between us whatsoever. I bet he was in that cell thinking, “Who the hell is Stuart Andrew?” ’

Mr Andrew said he had received ‘superb’ support in recent days. ‘People I don’t even know have been coming up to me and asking if I am all right. Constituents have been phoning with lovely messages, as have schools and sixth formers.’

How nice of them. I wonder how many of them know about his hatred of trade unions? Not knowing Pudsey, it would be improper of me to label each and every elector in his constituency as rabid anti-union types but those who voted for Andrew must be. What I find so odd about Andrew being a former member of Labour Party is his opposition to trade unions. If he joined Labour surely he was aware of the party’s history?

I don’t expect Andrew,  Nazi Boy Burley or any of the other members of TURC to admit to hating trade unions or wanting to destroy them but, then, honesty has never been the strongest suit of this Tory party.

The Tories have a serious problem with unions. In other words, they don’t like them. They seem to feel that the anti-union legislation that was put in place by Thatcher didn’t go far enough. They want to break the unions by further limiting their ability to organize and to fight on their members’ behalf. They even coined a meaningless neologism, “Union Pilgrims” as a term of abuse (they’re great at slinging mud but terrible at having a reasoned debate).  Well, when I say “they”, I really mean Paul Staines and Harry Cole, whose blog is filled with bile-saturated articles about trade unionists, none of which I will quote or link to here.

You can see who else is on TURC’s Parliamentary Council here.  Two names stand out from all the others: those of the disgraced Liam Fox and Dominic Raab. The latter writes evidence-free reports, some of which call for an end to hte Equality Act. Raab also thinks that men have it tough and suffer from sex discrimination at the hands of women. He obviously missed the meeting about the patriarchy. Tories are rather adept at tospy-turvy thinking and this is one example of how they try to play victim by inverting the logic of discrimination.

Back to Andrew, this article from The Yorkshire Post tells us that he is a career politician who has no problem switching sides in order to further his career.

One commentator on the ConservativeHome website states: “Stuart Andrew defected to Labour… This was a total disgrace and displayed political treachery of the worst sort – yet now he is back.”

And on the UKPollingReport site, Jenny Whitmann, wrote: “I just find it totally staggering. How can anyone switch from being a Tory councillor to a Labour councillor then back? ”

Last night Mr Andrew said: “After the 1997 general election I was not happy with the direction of the party and found it very difficult to support some of the stances they had taken,” he said. “So foolishly – I was only in my 20s – I joined Labour. But I soon realised the philosophy of the Conservatives was where my beliefs lie.”


Recently on his website, Andrew’s constituency agent wrote,

Stuart Andrew MP and students from Horsforth, Pudsey Grangefield, Crawshaw and St Mary’s Catholic Schools in the Pudsey constituency returned from the Holocaust Educational Trust’s visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau on Thursday 3rd May vowing to act on the lessons learned from the experience.

Now in its thirteenth year, the Project is based on the premise that “hearing is not like seeing”. Students first visited Osweicim, the town where the Auschwitz death and concentration camps were located and where before the war, 58% of the population was Jewish. Students then visited Auschwitz I to see the former camp’s barracks and crematoria and witnessing the piles of belongings that were seized by the Nazis. Finally they spent time at the main killing centre of Birkenau where the day concluded with candle lighting and a period of reflection to remember the 6 million Jews, and the Roma, Sinti, gay, disabled, black people, and other victims of the Nazis killed in the Holocaust.

Interesting, yet he still associates with a Nazi fetishist who was caught texting his chums during a Holocaust memorial lecture.

As I’ve said before: the Nazis were opposed to trade unions and imprisoned union activists. Today’s Tory Party would like to deny that it embraces a similar hatred but it’s transparently obvious that it does. Stuart Andrew, far from being just a hapless victim of a Labour MP’s violent behaviour, is involved in a campaign that seeks to destroy workers’ rights and the ability of trade unions to fight on their behalf. If I had have been in Joyce’s position, I might have reacted in a similar fashion. I despise liars, turncoats, blacklegs, scabs and bullies. It seems to me that Andrew is all of these things and maybe more.

UPDATE: 29/5/12 @ 1203

It seems that one of Andrew’s drinking buddies on that fateful evening is also on TURC’s Parliamentary Council. Alec Shelbrooke, the MP for Elmet and Rothwell was also a fellow councillor on Leeds City Council.

UPDATE: 16/3/13 @ 1023

As I came to the end of this article in The Independent, I noticed a quote from Shelbrooke that was contained in this paragraph,

A Tory MP caught up in last year’s fracas, Alec Shelbrooke, said: “I will be talking about it to a number of my colleagues who were involved last time to see if we want to take it further.”

To be honest, Shelbrooke looks as though he takes full advantage of the Palace’s subsidized food and drink. His waistline has expanded exponentially since he took his Commons seat in 2010.


Filed under Government & politics, Trade Union Reform Campaign

Benefit cuts fuel abuse towards disabled people

Interesting story in The Guardian that chimes with my blog of 29/1/12.

The government’s focus on alleged fraud and overclaiming to justify cuts in disability benefits has caused an increase in resentment and abuse directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers, six of the country’s biggest disability groups have warned.

Some of the charities say they are now regularly contacted by people who have been taunted on the street about supposedly faking their disability and are concerned the climate of suspicion could spill over into violence or other hate crimes.

While the charities speaking out – ScopeMencapLeonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic SocietyRoyal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB), and Disability Alliance – say inflammatory media coverage has played a role in this, they primarily blame ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting the supposed mass abuse of the disability benefits system, much of which is unfounded.

The same story is taken up by The Independent, which reminds us that,

Last April, employment minister Chris Grayling said the “vast majority” of new claimants for sickness benefits were in fact able to go back to work, after official figures showed three-quarters of applicants for employment and support allowance (ESA) failed to qualify for assistance.

Tom Madders, head of campaigns at the National Autistic Society, told the newspaper: “The Department for Work and Pensions is certainly guilty of helping to drive this media narrative around benefits, portraying those who received benefits as workshy scroungers or abusing a system that’s really easy to cheat.”

I think now would be an appropriate moment to recall how the Nazis saw the disabled.

I found this from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

On August 18, 1939, the Reich Ministry of the Interior circulated a decree compelling all physicians, nurses, and midwives to report newborn infants and children under the age of three who showed signs of severe mental or physical disability. At first only infants and toddlers were incorporated in the effort, but eventually juveniles up to 17 years of age were also killed. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 5,000 physically and mentally disabled children were murdered through starvation or lethal overdose of medication.

The Nazis depicted the disabled as “drains” on the state. We are witnessing exactly the same thing in this country, only this time the The Sun and Daily Express-reading ignoramuses and pathologically tribalist bumpkins of Britain are carrying out violence and abuse on behalf of the state; the very same state that will induce their young to fight a future war with Iran. A war from which many will return physically disabled.

On this issue, there has been nothing but silence on the part of the government.  But given that certain Tories have a fetish for all things Nazi, it wouldn’t surprise me if many of them actually applauded this abuse in private.  If they don’t, then now would be the time to set the record straight.

1 Comment

Filed under Big Society, Conservative Party, Cuts, Government & politics, Media, Neoliberalism, propaganda

Is Britain really less racist than it was 20 years ago? Not if you look at the comments on Telegraph blogs

How much has really changed?

No sooner than the Lawrences get justice for their murdered son than the usual chorus of racist cranks and thugs come slithering out of the woodwork.

Predictably the Torygraph blogs is where we’ll find most of the nutters. These people think that by leaving comments on the Telegraph that, somehow, this will lend more respectability to their vile rants than if they were to leave them on, say, British Nationalist, where hardly anyone will see them.

On Mary Riddell’s blog, titled “Lawrence verdict a tribute to advances in law and science. But can society keep up”? The question is like an open goal to the hoardes of knuckledragging right-wing keyboard warriors who spend their days heaping praise on the likes of Ed West, Delingpole and Gilligoon but see Riddell as some sort of left-wing trojan horse.

Riddell, who was once a Society columnist for The Guardian, ends her article with this,

The one outstanding question is this. Has society moved on at the same pace? Almost 20 years after Stephen Lawrence died, is it conceivable that some other innocent young man or woman could be slaughtered through hate or mindless prejudice? The answer, I am afraid, is yes. On this signal day for truth and justice, we should ask ourselves why.

She needn’t ask herself that question. There are plenty of wannabe murderers leaving comments on her blog. If they aren’t wannabe murderers, then they are the types that would cheer as someone of colour was being kicked to death by a racist thug.

“Cartimandua”, who often has a great deal to say on Islam, says this,

Had the two convicted today been terrorist suspects the Lefty media would be thoroughly on their side complaining that the evidence was suspect and the publicity lead to the impossibility of a fair trial.

I wonder if he still thinks The Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 are still guilty? Probably. Cartimadua is joined by this nutter who calls himself  “Peter Bishop”,

The majority of victims of racist crimes in this country are indeed white although if you read our MSM  you would not be aware of this.  If we look at today’s ” right wing”  Daily Mail coverage we can witness the great efforts this paper makes to publicise its crusade to convict those allegedly guilty of the Lawrence murder yet it  makes no effort to publicise  racist murders of white people.

Let me get this straight, “racist murders of white people”? Don’t bother to ask him about power relations, he’ll just call you a “traitor” and a white-hating “loony lefty”. He’s also likely to chuck out meaningless junk like “anti-racism is anti-white”. It’s straight from the BNP book of stock soundbites.

Here’s another one who can’t hide his racism. Regular commenter, “crownarmourer” says,

If Stephen Lawrence had been white and the victim of a vicious black racist attack you Ms Riddell would have celebrated his attackers and not the victim such are your priority’s.

Are these really the words of a grown adult? It’s debatable.

There are plenty of comments to choose from but here’s one that sounds as if it was written by the BNP’s press department,


The increasingly wasteful plod and CPS and its other lackeys  in answering  the  demands  of  the multiculti   and race fanatics having  now resorted  to full  totalitarianist   policies against the white population as a means for achieving   something they could never have done  by willful consent of the so called tolerant  British people will one day  all be got up  and put through the mincer and fed to their  fellow snouters  at the pig farm .
You know that when they start to talk about Black people having “a chip on their shoulder”, you’re onto something. This exchange can be found on Dan Hodges blog, one of the posters calls himself  “spearofodin”.


48 minutes ago

As a black man who used to live in Plumstead at the time, and often had to venture into Eltham, I know where the author is coming from. The local police were just as bad. I was once stopped for running along Plumstead because a policeman thought that this was suspicious. I used to be an athlete so always used to run and never got any grief until I moved to Plumstead. I’m almost sorry that more black people have moved there now as I would prefer the white racists to stew in their own bile.
Our heart bleeds – you were stopped for running in the street.Thats almost like being thrown into a gas chamber isnt it.You must be the only person ever stopped for running in the street by the police – what evil racism.I was stopped and searched by the police for carrying a bin bag after dark in the street on my council estate – should I cry racism.Oh I cant – I am white.Get the chip off your shoulder.

“Our heart”?  This one presumes to speak for all of his, er, race. But if you complain about racism, you have a “chip on your shoulder”. The name of this commenter shouldn’t be taken lightly; it is the sort of name favoured by self-styled Nordic nationalists neo-Nazis because it comes from Norse mythology. Interestingly enough, Emma West, the woman who shouted racist abuse on a Croydon tram is being supported by the BNP… and “spearofodin” who complains that she’s being sent to Crown Court.

Speaking of West,  “Groovybear” dumped this chunk of cut and paste onto the blog, some of which I will quote here.
Emma West, the woman who spoke out about
immigration on that Croydon tram was dragged through court once more on Tuesday
the 3rd January.

She didn’t “speak out against immigration”, she launched into a racist tirade against her fellow passengers.

Emma West, however, is being brutally bullied by
the Establishment, clearly with the intention of cowing the entire native

Racists rarely hide their true selves. Here “Groovybear” can’t actually think for himself and snatches a chunk of text from the BNP website but neglects to provide a link to the source. Is he that ashamed of his rather obvious connection to the BNP? Here is a snippet from the source article,

The British State’s bullying efforts to frighten indigenous Brits into accepting their second class status and eventual displacement from the own homeland continue.

Emma West, the woman who spoke out about immigration on that Croydon tram was dragged through court once more on Tuesday the 3rd January.

I won’t link to the BNP website for obvious reasons.

His “Groovyness” also bemoans the fact that Rod Liddle’s rancid article was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for contempt of court. The article was taken down. Liddle’s latest article, which is provocatively titled “You have to be very careful who you murder these days”.  reads pretty much the same way but he uses transgendered people as his target instead of blacks. In my mind, it’s just as bad. But what’s truly undignified is the way Liddle assumes the role of martyr.

Take a look at this thread from the EDL’s Facebook page and tell me that it isn’t any different to what you’ve read on Telegraph blogs.

A friend posted this article from The Independent on Facebook.

Back in July when Anders Behring Breivik massacred loads of innocent people, the Torygraph’s commenters were in full cry. Indeed, there was an “anders” who regularly left comments, all of which included words like “dhimmi” and complained about “appeasing” Muslims. Paranoid stuff.

Finally, while those I have quoted excuse the racism of Acourt, Dobbs, Norris et al. Nowhere Towers would like to remind its readers what Eltham and its environs are like if you happen to be in possession of dark skin. As this article from today’s Independent shows.

One alleged victim of the Acourt gang, who was lucky to survive after being stabbed in the stomach, said he was “overjoyed” that two of its members now face jail.

Gurdeep Bhangal, now 41, was attacked with a kitchen knife outside his father’s Wimpy franchise in Eltham on 11 March 1993, during a spate of racist attacks in the weeks before Stephen Lawrence’s murder. He had confronted a group of abusive white youths that he alleges included David Norris. Another member of the group stabbed him.

That part of Southeast London is well known as a hotspot of far-right politics. It was the home to the BNP, who were based in Welling, a short distance away from Eltham. Bexley council shut down the BNP headquarters in 1995. The party has since decamped to Wigton in Cumbria.

So is Britain a less racist place than it was 20 years ago?


Most certainly not.

UPDATE 7/1/12 @ 1049 : On today’s Telegraph blogs, LMer Brendan O’Neill, writes a somewhat confused blog that has attracted an overwhelmingly white nationalist readership.

I found this comment,

UB,Will you accept that I am reasonably acquainted with racial nationalism?  I am a racial nationalist.  I have written a great deal about it.  I am also a genuine student of political philosophy as well as the politics of race.  I know as much of these things, certainly, as anyone posting here.I am going to explain to you what this beautiful philosophy is, and why it does not exist within the liberal paradigm.  I will try to keep it as non-technical as possible.Racial nationalism is nationalism.  Culturalist or civicist nationalisms are actually patriotisms and do not challenge the fundamentals of the racial dispensation within Western polities.  Therefore, when we speak of nationalism as a radical (or consequential) politics, we are only speaking of the quiet politics of natural or genetic interests … the politics of peoples.Now, beyond the liberal paradigm – that is, in the non-Western world – all politics acknowledges the genetic interests of indigenous peoples.   That is true in Japan and in China.  It is true in India, Mexico, Turkey.  It is true of the politics of the Native Americans, for example, and of the Amazonian tribes in Brazil.  It is true even in the breach, as in Palestine and Tibet – we instinctively know where to place our sympathy not because Palestinians and Tibetans share our liberal values but because they are the true people of the land, like us.

Of course, all these national polities are quite unconsciously nationalistic.  They don’t need radicalism because that which is most precious- the life of the true people – is an assumed political value.  But everywhere in the West the assumption is that the genetic interests of European-descended peoples are morally illegitimate.

Something is wrong.

What’s wrong, of course, is that liberalism has become the struggle against the struggle for existence.  You, for example, struggle against the life of our English people.  You think this is moral.  You think “nationalism” is “Nazi” and “fascist” and “evil”.  You have been provided with emotional cues to take the place of thought, and you duly do not think.

Amid such a remarkable absence of intellectual enquiry, and an even more remarkable absence of self-awareness, the simple demand that the true people of the land must live, that the genetic interests of that people must obtain, is revolutionary.  It comes from without the system.  The genetic interests of the people (which subsume the genetic interests of the individual, by the way) have been put outside by Power.  The indigenous European is ignored as such, is denied his existence, is denied the natural political expression which enters politics all across the non-Western world.

The name we give our effort to correct this evil, and to bring health and normality back to our political life, is racial nationalism.  It is radical because of its circumstance, not because of its content.  Its content is normal and universal.

Forget what you read about racial nationalism.  This is the truth.

“John Piggott” doesn’t bother to hide the fact that he’s a racist. Instead he uses the phrase “racial nationalist”. But did you see how he compared his white supremacy to the people of India and China. One of the racist’s favourite tricks is to ask the stupid question “Can I be Chinese”? It’s a straw man.
O’Neill opens by saying,
Is Diane Abbott racist? By any reasoned, rational assessment, of course she isn’t. There’s far more to being a racist than writing the occasional clumsily worded tweet. But if we go by the definition of racism proffered by Abbott’s own social and political set – particularly by the Labour Party – then she is a racist. After all, who was it who redefined racism to include speech and action that is not even consciously bigoted (“unwitting racism”) and to include “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”? Yep, it was Labour and its various cliques. Abbott has fallen victim to her own mates’ ruthless relativisation of what constitutes racism.
O’Neill rationalizes things by weaving Dianegate (can I say that?) into a tapestry of wibertarian-speak. Diane Abbott is no more a racist than the presenters on Loose Women are sexist because of their generalizations about men. Wibertarians like O’Neill always get their knickers in a twist whenever the issues of race, sex (yes, I used that word instead of gender), gender (and I mean, gender) and class are raised.  Bereft of ontological wisdom – either through ignorance or design, wibertarians want you to believe that history or, at least the one you and I remember, never existed. What I find so breathtaking is how their sense of victimhood kicks into overdrive .  “Why can’t I have some of that too”? Just like those men who claim to have a monthly cycle, “It’s just like a woman’s period. Honest”. No, it isn’t. Get a grip.


Filed under racism, Society & culture

Myths, lies and the iconography of Osama bin Laden

Here is some breaking news,

“Osama bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS. He was armed and was brandishing an AK-47.  A woman, believed to be one of his wives, was being used a human shield”.

There was only one thing in that statement that is true: bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS. The rest of it is rubbish.  Within hours of the announcement of bin Laden’s death, a photo was produced that was purported to be that of the newly-deceased Al-Qaeda leader. It was a photoshopped composite of two, possibly more, separate photos. A doctored image that had, apparently been substituted for the real image, which was allegedly “too gruesome” for sensitive Western eyes. Bullshit. We got to see the photos of the expired Saddam Hussein and his gruesome sons. What’s the problem? Aren’t humans, by nature, full of bloodlust? Isn’t that why ‘sports’ like badger-baiting and hare-coursing are still popular with some people? Because we revel in the sight of a blood-spattered being? In spite of what they say, those who go fox-hunting don’t go for the “thrill of the chase” and the stirrup cup (though it helps); they go purely for the denouement. They want to see death.

The assassination of Osama bin Laden in a house in Abbottabad in Pakistan has raised more questions than it has answered. Already, there are conspiracy theories surrounding the life and death of OBL.  Is he really still alive and living the life of luxury in Belize? Is he teaching at a school in Dar es Salaam? Or is he working in a chip shop in Batley, West Yorkshire with Elvis Presley as his manager? Or, to pose a more Baudrillardian question, did he ever exist? I’ll leave those questions for those people who listen to the paranoid ramblings of Alex Jones and Jeff Rense ;  or those who  get a buzz from reading the psychotic prose of  lizard-worrier and anti-Semite, David Icke.  By far the most important question is how this mission was carried out without the expressed prior approval of the Pakistani government. Such a mission would have been unthinkable in a country like North Korea or China, both of whom would be planning  la  revanche as I type this. Surely this hit violated every tenet of what passes for international law? Yes? No? So much for co-operation in the “War on Terror” and other abstract nouns. l’alliance: elle est cassé. Pakistan was only ever going to be a junior partner if that…but Pakistan has a nuke. Nonetheless, the Torygraph bloggers are pretty much united: most of them claim that bin Laden’s summary execution was just and that the US had every right to carry it out. Many of them also agree that this event will spawn a million and one conspiracy theories, which they will pin on ‘leftists’. Some of them, like the Hon Tobes, have produced spectacular drivel like this,

If bin Laden had been captured and put on trial, thousands of people would have died at the hands of his terrorist sympathisers. No doubt there will be reprisals in any event, but the terrorist response would have been far greater if bin Laden had been taken alive.

Hmmm, yes, Tobes. The real truth is that The Network (Al-Qaeda to you and me) is in decline. They have had no influence on the events that have taken place during the so-called and ongoing, “Arab Spring”.  The suggestion put about by Torygraph bloggers and other self-appointed sages of the Right is that bin Laden’s execution will serve as a bookend. But you’d have to be an idiot to believe that. Tobe’s stablemate, the LMer Brendan O’Neill, on the other hand, comes across like a tuppence ha’penny moral philosopher , O’Neill opines,

And third, these complainers don’t seem to realise that the stakes in war are far higher than they are in law. War is a matter of life and death. It touches upon highly existential issues. It is generally considered acceptable in a war to kill someone whom you believe to be a threat to you, your people or your way of life.

On the same page, gobshite serial commenter and Islamo-obsessive, “danoconnor” chips in like a skipping CD,

The Left feels it has an affinity with Islam because the Left feels it has an affinity with everyone–except its own culture .

The Left thinks that all religions have a few nutters , but don’t worry we’ll take care of that when we have defeated the real enemy –the West .

“danoconnor” is a two-trick pony. He only does Islam and the “Left”. Aren’t you glad you don’t have to drink with him?

Many bloggers and commentators were quick to draw parallels with the Nuremberg War Trials and an imagined war crimes trial of OBL.  But it’s lazy stuff that is born of enfeebled minds. It was inevitable that the Nazis would get dragged into this, since the Nazis have become wholly symbolic of pure, undiluted  evil. Before the Nazis came along, Satan incarnate came in the shape of Kaiser Wilhelm and before him, the squat figure of Napoleon Bonaparte.  Will bin Laden supersede Hitler as the embodiment of evil? More than likely. Make no mistake, OBL is the bogeyman for the 21st century. He is, in death as he was in life, a mythologized creature of  spectacular invention: paradoxically, he is at once a dehumanized human being and a monster of gargantuan proportions. He takes his place in the genealogy of unspeakable evil – he is the bastard son of  Adolf Schicklegruber. A sort of bastard’s bastard.

The issue of bin Laden’s “burial at sea” is also a bone of contention. The US says that it dumped OBL’s bullet-riddled corpse into the briny because they “didn’t want his grave to become a site of pilgrimage”. Of course this ignores the fact that the Abbottabad compound in which he was slain could easily become a shrine, complete with a souvenir shop selling T-Shirts, mugs and key-rings with OBL’s visage gracing each one.

One thing that was revealing about the White House’s Jay Carney’s press briefing yesterday, was the way he unconsciously divulged the manner of bin Laden’s death. He was shot in the face, though he corrected himself and said “head”.

The mafia and others shoot people in the face so that the deceased’s relatives can’t have an open coffin at the funeral. But OBL was chucked into the deep…. Now there’s something to think about.

Leave a comment

Filed under Pakistan, United States, World

Cheap tricks and smears. Welcome to the world of Dan Hannan

Hannan’s repeating the lie that the BNP is a ‘left wing’ party again in his blog. Only this time, he is involved in a spat with fellow Telegraph blogger, Damian Thompson. who says,

I really am bored of Right-wing Tories like my old mate Dan Hannan insisting that the British National Party is “far Left”. It isn’t. It’s on the far Right. Sure, the BNP’s economic policies reflect a version of socialism; it would create a monstrously intrusive, high-spending state not unlike those on the totalitarian Left. But, for crying out loud, let’s use some common sense here. Political parties are defined not just by their economic manifestos but also by their culture. And the culture of the BNP expresses a nationalist racism that is almost identical to that of European parties that everyone identifies as far Right, even if they are less statist and protectionist. This culture is a long way removed from Dan’s free market Whiggery; but then Dan is not on the far Right, just as (say) Will Hutton is not on the far Left and has almost nothing in common with the Socialist Workers’ Party. Calling the BNP Left-wing is like calling the Soviet apparatus Right-wing, as so many libertarian Lefties did in the 1970s. It’s a debating society trick, nothing more.

Quite right, Damian, quite right….it’s not only a debating society trick, it’s a cheap trick; a cheap and nasty trick.

Mad Dan’s headline reads “There’s nothing Right-wing about the BNP – except in the BBC sense of baddie”. I think that title reveals more about the man than he cares to admit.

Here, he falls back on a rather shaky piece of logic

The BNP, like all fascist movements, emerged from the revolutionary Left. It dislikes free enterprise, hates the rich and resents the monarchy. It markets itself as “the Labour Party your parents voted for” and its last manifesto promised “to give workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes”. Its support comes overwhelmingly from ex-Labour voters.

Wrong. The BNP was formed as a splinter group from the National Front whose precursor was Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. So what does this prove? Nothing whatsoever. Did Mussolini’s fascists emerge from the revolutionary left? No,  they did not. Mussolini may have, at one time, been a socialist but he was soon expelled for supporting WWI. he soon followed the lead of irredentist,  Gabriele d’Annunzio (who was a darling of the Futurists). Being expelled from a socialist party doesn’t necessarily mean that you will have taken socialism with you to forge into a new dynamic party of fascists. Yet, this is what Mad Dan assumes. Quite frankly, I don’t know what history this man has been reading but it is all wrong. Appealing to the working classes is pretty common for fashos, but actively incorporating them into the party’s leadership structure is something quite different. No far-right party has ever done this. In this way, the far-right shares something in common with the Tories. Remember the Primrose League? It was an attempt by the Tories to attract working class support in the 1880’s. But the working class never found themselves actually leading the League’s  local branches; they remained at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Then there are the Nazis:  Hitler was not and never was, a socialist.  While some of the Nazis may have, at one time, been socialists, they were either expelled or left the party of their own accord. Hitler was totally opposed to socialism from the outset. How on earth could he and his party be ‘left-wing’ when they were opposed to trade unions?

Hannan then quotes FA Hayek. This is a very bad move because Hayek isn’t exactly neutral in his ‘analysis’ of socialism; he wants to tie it to fascism and in so doing ignores the corporatist nature of fascism/Nazism in order to score a political point. The defence of Hayek appears to rest on a single premise: Hayek lived in Austria during the Dolfuss regime.  For Hannan, it is as if Hayek exists in some kind of ideological vacuum.

Read Hayek’s chapter on “The Socialist Roots of Nazism” in The Road to Serfdom,

No thanks, I tried Hayek and he made me sick….and he made the rest of the country sick when Thatcher adopted his philosophy.

This is pure gold,

In what sense, then, is the BNP Right-wing? Some argue that it is Right-wing to discriminate on the basis of race and nationality rather than class and income, but this would surely make Stalin, Gerry Adams, Pol Pot and Robert Mugabe very Right-wing indeed. A true Rightist believes that, other things being equal, the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion: a position equally abhorrent to socialists of the National or Leninist varieties.

When did Gerry Adams discriminate on the basis of race or even religion? You’re going to have to find some pretty solid examples, Dan; because your case is looking shakier by the minute. You do realise that there have been Protestant members of the IRA or did you think that the ‘Troubles’ was all about religion? Your take on the Right as ‘defenders of freedom’ is so risible that I can only say one thing by way of reply: Pinochet. Of course I could have said Franco or Salazar, but Pinochet was alleged to have presided over an ‘economic miracle’  that was, in part, informed by the theories of Hayek (as well as those of Friedman who was also influenced by the Austrian School).

As the blog nears its end, it becomes ever more batty. He shrieks,

No, there is only one sense in which the BNP is Right-wing, and that is the BBC sense. Our state broadcaster uses the epithet “Right-wing” to mean “disagreeable”

Do they? Is that like when “lefties” allegedly use the word “hate” when they mean “disagree”?  To be honest, I think you’re spending far too much time around Teabaggers, Dan.

One thing is clear from this blog and your blog of a couple of days ago: you don’t know your right from your left.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ideologies, Media