I see that in the light of the historic decision by a special elections court to strip erstwhile Labour MP Phil Woolas of his seat in Oldham East and Saddleworth on the grounds that he knowingly lied about an opponent and to re-run the contest Nick Griffin, Leader of the British National Party, has announced his intention to bring Barking Labour MP Margaret Hodge down under the same legislation, namely Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act.
Apparently at a meeting of black Christians in the run-up to the general election in May Hodge told her audience that the BNP would drop immigrants from aeroplanes if ever it was elected to power.
He seems to have overlooked a few minor considerations:
1. In order to challenge the outcome of an election a petition has to be submitted within 21 days of the result having been declared. As I write 211 days have passed since the general election and thus far no petition has been forthcoming.
2. The legislation requires deliberate falsehoods to have been levelled at a specific individual. Hodge's comments were directed at the BNP in general.
3. Woolas held onto his parliamentary seat by 103 votes. It is not unreasonable to suggest that in the absence of his smear campaign against his Liberal Democrat opponent the outcome could quite possibly have been different. Hodge on the other hand beat Griffin by 18,000 votes. He didn't even come second. The chances of there having been more than 18,000 black Christians at said private meeting who might have voted BNP had it not been for Hodge's remarks are remote to say the least.
4. Griffin is on record as having said that boats carrying immigrants into Europe should be sunk in the water. Now a boat is not an aeroplane, granted, but I suspect the sentiment is similar enough to present something of an obstacle to Griffin should he attempt to plead that Hodge's comments were an unfair reflection of his views.
I dare say this rather tacky publicity stunt/fund-raising gimmick will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Saturday 4 December 2010
Tuesday 23 November 2010
Tone down the shrill
The following message was sent out yesterday by Nick Lowles of HOPE Not Hate, an operation which is closely associated with the popular anti-fascist magazine Searchlight.I have expressed my own reservations about Searchlight more than once. These are to a large extent based upon my personal experience as a former fascist with a story to tell, who still finds himself on the receiving end of Searchlight-inspired attacks in spite of my unconditional and unambiguous rejection of racism and the far-right over a period spanning nearly two decades.
My concerns that this behaviour suggests a political agenda beyond anti-fascism (in my case for organisational rather than ideological reasons I have traditionally found myself at loggerheads with the Labour Party in a strictly local context) are routinely pooh-poohed, but no other explanation for the group's remoteness and hostility has ever been forthcoming. So, as is my wont, I work alone.
Nevertheless the concerns expressed in the letter below are very real, and in my view deserve as much publicity and support as they can get:
"Last week Det Supt John Larkin, head of the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit, told the BBC that the activities of the English Defence League were pushing young Muslims towards Islamic extremist groups. His words echoed my recent blog where I said that the EDL and Muslims Against Crusades needed each other to justify their own existence - they were two sides of the same coin. It is a position you agreed with. Over 1,100 of you filled in our survey last week and 96% agreed with my analysis. Only 2% disagreed.
"If extremism breeds extremism it is also important to identify those who are fuelling this hatred in the first place and 73% of you told us it was the media. As a result we are launching a campaign for responsible journalism and have identified the Daily Star as our first target.
"I have written a letter to the newspaper's editor Dawn Neesom and I want you to co-sign it with me.
"We have gone through back copies of the Daily Star since Dawn Neesom became editor in 2003 and found hundreds of articles that portray Muslims in a negative way and very few where they have been portrayed positively. Many of these articles over-exaggerate the importance of tiny Muslim extremist groups while ignoring more mainstream Muslim opinion and use the words of these extremists to smear an entire faith. On other occasions they print inaccurate or slanted articles that whip up fear and mistrust.
"I conclude my letter by saying: 'Freedom of speech is correctly the cornerstone of British society but with freedom comes responsibility and we fear that your reporting is actually encouraging a growth in Muslim extremism in this country'.
"Will you tell Dawn to tone down the shrill?
"Our message to Dawn is simple: by all means be critical, by all means condemn, but do so with responsibility. At the moment you are overstepping the mark and you are encouraging division and hatred. And, as Det Supt John Larkin points out, this hatred is breeding extremism.
"Join us in telling Dawn and the Daily Star to stop being part of the cycle of hate.
"Thanks, Nick"
Saturday 6 November 2010
Us (the British) and them (the Muslims)
Reproduced with acknowledgements to Minority Thought.
The front page and main story of today's Daily Express is a clear and unsubtle attempt at maintaining the "us and them" mentality which is so often levelled by that paper against Muslims:
The headline refers to the shouts from "a group of men" (according to the Mail) who were sitting in the public gallery during the trial of Roshonara Choudhry, the woman convicted of stabbing Stephen Timms MP earlier this year.
As the Express reports:
Rather than leading with the story at hand, the sentencing of Choudhry to "life" imprisonment, the Express has chosen to focus on the deranged rantings of a few nutcases in a courtroom instead. (Both the Daily Mail and The Sun have also gone with this angle, but neither has chosen to put it across in as brazen a way as the Express.).
That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the deliberately ambiguous language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslim thinks about the British.
The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British".
Can you imagine, for example, what the Express would have done if the men who broke into shouts of "Go to hell, Britain" were Christians? Would the Express have replaced "Muslims" with "Christians" in the headline? Would they even have mentioned it so prominently in the first place?
I doubt it.
Continuing the theme of rampant hysteria, the Express' article states that:
"Raged"? Gosh, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it?
Between the Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun, the "raging" demonstration seems to have comprised of at least three poor souls holding particularly unimaginative print-outs:
In their articles about yesterday's events, the BBC and the Telegraph make no mention of the men holding signs outside or of the shouting from the gallery, and the Guardian makes a passing reference only to
An examination of The Sun's article reveals the following:
According to this, the demonstration outside appears to have consisted of the same men who were shouting in the gallery. Therefore the Express' claim that "another demonstration raged outside the court" seems pretty baseless.
Nonetheless, expect the wearisome English Defence League to seize this stormy teacup with both of their grubby hands.
(Both Tabloid Watch and Enemies of Reason have written fantastic posts on this.)
The front page and main story of today's Daily Express is a clear and unsubtle attempt at maintaining the "us and them" mentality which is so often levelled by that paper against Muslims:
The headline refers to the shouts from "a group of men" (according to the Mail) who were sitting in the public gallery during the trial of Roshonara Choudhry, the woman convicted of stabbing Stephen Timms MP earlier this year.
As the Express reports:
"JEERING Muslim fanatics turned an Old Bailey court into a battleground yesterday after an Al Qaeda follower was jailed for stabbing an MP.
"In unprecedented scenes the angry mob chanted 'British go to hell' as would-be assassin Roshonara Choudhry was handed a sentence of life with a minimum of 15 years."
Rather than leading with the story at hand, the sentencing of Choudhry to "life" imprisonment, the Express has chosen to focus on the deranged rantings of a few nutcases in a courtroom instead. (Both the Daily Mail and The Sun have also gone with this angle, but neither has chosen to put it across in as brazen a way as the Express.).
That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the deliberately ambiguous language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslim thinks about the British.
The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British".
Can you imagine, for example, what the Express would have done if the men who broke into shouts of "Go to hell, Britain" were Christians? Would the Express have replaced "Muslims" with "Christians" in the headline? Would they even have mentioned it so prominently in the first place?
I doubt it.
Continuing the theme of rampant hysteria, the Express' article states that:
"The gang, sitting in the public gallery, chanted 'Allahu akbar' or 'God is great' and another demonstration raged outside the court."
"Raged"? Gosh, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it?
Between the Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun, the "raging" demonstration seems to have comprised of at least three poor souls holding particularly unimaginative print-outs:
In their articles about yesterday's events, the BBC and the Telegraph make no mention of the men holding signs outside or of the shouting from the gallery, and the Guardian makes a passing reference only to
"a small demonstration... taking place outside the court."
An examination of The Sun's article reveals the following:
"Security men bundled the ranting bigots from Court Seven after the disgraceful scenes.
"But the three were allowed to continue their poison rants [sic] in the street - yelling 'British soldiers must die'."
According to this, the demonstration outside appears to have consisted of the same men who were shouting in the gallery. Therefore the Express' claim that "another demonstration raged outside the court" seems pretty baseless.
Nonetheless, expect the wearisome English Defence League to seize this stormy teacup with both of their grubby hands.
(Both Tabloid Watch and Enemies of Reason have written fantastic posts on this.)
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Thursday 14 October 2010
Understanding the threat of "Cultural Nationalism"
A little over a month ago I commented upon the upheaval currently taking place within the British National Party (BNP), with party leader Nick Griffin finding himself being challenged for his job by Eddy Butler, a former NF stalwart from London's East End.
In that article I explained that Butler had unsurprisingly failed to meet the ludicrously prohibitive nominations criteria to enable his challenge to proceed to a full ballot against Griffin, and stated that the formation of a breakaway party was "almost inevitable".
I can now report that the almost inevitable has happened, in the event against the wishes of Butler who believes his best chance of seizing the leadership of the BNP rests upon him playing a waiting game and standing for the post again in 2011. At least that was what he believed earlier this week. The arrival a day or two ago of his notice of expulsion from the BNP may yet of course induce a rethink of some kind.
The breakaway has been forced by a number of Butler's more impatient supporters, who refuse to wait another year for the privilege of mounting another, probably doomed challenge under rules which appear designed for the specific purpose of giving Griffin a job for as long as he wants it.
The new venture goes under the name of the British Freedom Party (BFP). I'll not link to it, but for those who wish to see first hand what it is about I am sure Google will prove helpful.
One of the cheerleaders of the BFP would appear to be one Lee Barnes, formerly the BNP's celebrated legal eagle but now an outspoken anti-Griffinite. Like many of those involved on both sides of the dispute Barnes seems to have appeared on the far-right scene some considerable time after I departed it, but he has a reputation in fascist circles as being a wordy and knowledgeable if sometimes rather eccentric kind of guy.
On his blog Barnes advises us that the new outfit will pursue a policy of what he describes as "Cultural Nationalism", which he differentiates from "Ethno Nationalism" (based on race - you're okay if you're white) and "Civic Nationalism" (based on citizenship - you're okay if you have a British passport). According to Barnes:
"Those who are British citizens must integrate into British culture and society, it is not for us to surrender our country and culture, and re-engineer our society, to suit immigrants.
"All immigrants must become British - Britain will not become colonised.
"All those of all races and religions who are British citizens and who are proud to be British and who respect British culture are welcome to join our party."
Whether the BFP will ever amount to anything or whether it will fizzle out as so many other BNP breakaway groups have in the past is still to be seen. It is not a good start, from their point of view, that the anti-Griffin faction would already appear to have split between those who still believe the party can be changed from within and those who feel a new party is the answer. The latter would certainly appear to be devoid of anybody who could by any stretch of the imagination be described as a political heavyweight. Rumours abound that MEP Andrew Brons could be about to join them, but the journey from former Nazi Party sticker displayer to "Cultural Nationalist" would be a considerable one.
What I find myself contemplating with a degree of trepidation is a redrawing of the battle lines in a way that I have for some time considered to be inevitable as the concept of a "racially pure" Britain slips further and further into the realms of unreality. Whereas in the 1960s and 70s it was (just about) possible, without having to undergo a complete credibility bypass, to talk of repatriating "racially unassimilable" minorities, the widespread assimilation of same over the years and decades that have followed has consigned the aspirations of the race freaks to the margins even within their own company.
Instead the argument that minorities will be "welcome" (read "tolerated") just so long as they "integrate into British culture and society" (undefined) emerges as an ostensibly more reasonable option and, I suspect, one that may resonate with the not inconsequential "I'm not racist but..." tendency in our society.
So why should minorities not "become British"? Why should they not accept "our" ways, and adopt them henceforth as their ways? What, to put it bluntly, is wrong with "Cultural Nationalism"?
The first and most obvious worry of course arises from the pedigree of the new party that heralds the concept. It is a breakaway from the unquestionably racist BNP, led and populated by people who had joined an unquestionably racist party to begin with. The objections cited by the rebels towards the BNP leadership throughout their campaign to wrest the party from Nick Griffin have centred not around any dissatisfaction with BNP policy but instead around internal issues such as nepotism and financial probity.
It is possible, of course, for an entire organisation or a faction within an organisation to change fundamentally. The National Front was doing it all the time throughout the 1980s, moving seamlessly from one ideological fad to another, albeit always within the confines of a race-focused overview that remained unshaken. The Social Democrats broke away from a Labour Party that was too left-wing, then merged with most of the Liberals to become the Liberal Democrats who now shun Labour for being too right-wing. There's nowt so queer as folk, especially in politics.
But the move towards "Cultural Nationalism" is not a clean break from racism in the way that I and others who have been where I have been and seen what I have seen would recognise. Rather it is merely a movement towards a more populist expression of racism in a form with which those who would baulk at the purist pretensions of National Socialism would identify.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with all our citizens sharing and celebrating a common British identity. I wrote about such a thing here over two years ago on Walk Away's sister blog, A Community In Action. But that identity arises from our rich diversity as a nation, not from the forced submission of myriad cultures to the one.
I find myself wondering exactly what it is that "Cultural Nationalism" requires of minorities that they might become "like us". Like whom exactly? Like white people?
And just how far is this requirement supposed to go? Is everybody required to eat English food, wear English clothes, adopt "English" religious beliefs? Will accents be acceptable?
It is difficult to imagine a society in which some citizens are required by order of the state to imitate the ways of others ever being able to embrace true equality. Integration is a process that emerges organically over time in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect.
"Cultural Nationalism" moves us away from a society based upon respect and equality. It is but a Plan B for race purists whose first idea passed its sell-by date without being bought.
In that article I explained that Butler had unsurprisingly failed to meet the ludicrously prohibitive nominations criteria to enable his challenge to proceed to a full ballot against Griffin, and stated that the formation of a breakaway party was "almost inevitable".
I can now report that the almost inevitable has happened, in the event against the wishes of Butler who believes his best chance of seizing the leadership of the BNP rests upon him playing a waiting game and standing for the post again in 2011. At least that was what he believed earlier this week. The arrival a day or two ago of his notice of expulsion from the BNP may yet of course induce a rethink of some kind.
The breakaway has been forced by a number of Butler's more impatient supporters, who refuse to wait another year for the privilege of mounting another, probably doomed challenge under rules which appear designed for the specific purpose of giving Griffin a job for as long as he wants it.
The new venture goes under the name of the British Freedom Party (BFP). I'll not link to it, but for those who wish to see first hand what it is about I am sure Google will prove helpful.
One of the cheerleaders of the BFP would appear to be one Lee Barnes, formerly the BNP's celebrated legal eagle but now an outspoken anti-Griffinite. Like many of those involved on both sides of the dispute Barnes seems to have appeared on the far-right scene some considerable time after I departed it, but he has a reputation in fascist circles as being a wordy and knowledgeable if sometimes rather eccentric kind of guy.
On his blog Barnes advises us that the new outfit will pursue a policy of what he describes as "Cultural Nationalism", which he differentiates from "Ethno Nationalism" (based on race - you're okay if you're white) and "Civic Nationalism" (based on citizenship - you're okay if you have a British passport). According to Barnes:
"Those who are British citizens must integrate into British culture and society, it is not for us to surrender our country and culture, and re-engineer our society, to suit immigrants.
"All immigrants must become British - Britain will not become colonised.
"All those of all races and religions who are British citizens and who are proud to be British and who respect British culture are welcome to join our party."
Whether the BFP will ever amount to anything or whether it will fizzle out as so many other BNP breakaway groups have in the past is still to be seen. It is not a good start, from their point of view, that the anti-Griffin faction would already appear to have split between those who still believe the party can be changed from within and those who feel a new party is the answer. The latter would certainly appear to be devoid of anybody who could by any stretch of the imagination be described as a political heavyweight. Rumours abound that MEP Andrew Brons could be about to join them, but the journey from former Nazi Party sticker displayer to "Cultural Nationalist" would be a considerable one.
What I find myself contemplating with a degree of trepidation is a redrawing of the battle lines in a way that I have for some time considered to be inevitable as the concept of a "racially pure" Britain slips further and further into the realms of unreality. Whereas in the 1960s and 70s it was (just about) possible, without having to undergo a complete credibility bypass, to talk of repatriating "racially unassimilable" minorities, the widespread assimilation of same over the years and decades that have followed has consigned the aspirations of the race freaks to the margins even within their own company.
Instead the argument that minorities will be "welcome" (read "tolerated") just so long as they "integrate into British culture and society" (undefined) emerges as an ostensibly more reasonable option and, I suspect, one that may resonate with the not inconsequential "I'm not racist but..." tendency in our society.
So why should minorities not "become British"? Why should they not accept "our" ways, and adopt them henceforth as their ways? What, to put it bluntly, is wrong with "Cultural Nationalism"?
The first and most obvious worry of course arises from the pedigree of the new party that heralds the concept. It is a breakaway from the unquestionably racist BNP, led and populated by people who had joined an unquestionably racist party to begin with. The objections cited by the rebels towards the BNP leadership throughout their campaign to wrest the party from Nick Griffin have centred not around any dissatisfaction with BNP policy but instead around internal issues such as nepotism and financial probity.
It is possible, of course, for an entire organisation or a faction within an organisation to change fundamentally. The National Front was doing it all the time throughout the 1980s, moving seamlessly from one ideological fad to another, albeit always within the confines of a race-focused overview that remained unshaken. The Social Democrats broke away from a Labour Party that was too left-wing, then merged with most of the Liberals to become the Liberal Democrats who now shun Labour for being too right-wing. There's nowt so queer as folk, especially in politics.
But the move towards "Cultural Nationalism" is not a clean break from racism in the way that I and others who have been where I have been and seen what I have seen would recognise. Rather it is merely a movement towards a more populist expression of racism in a form with which those who would baulk at the purist pretensions of National Socialism would identify.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with all our citizens sharing and celebrating a common British identity. I wrote about such a thing here over two years ago on Walk Away's sister blog, A Community In Action. But that identity arises from our rich diversity as a nation, not from the forced submission of myriad cultures to the one.
I find myself wondering exactly what it is that "Cultural Nationalism" requires of minorities that they might become "like us". Like whom exactly? Like white people?
And just how far is this requirement supposed to go? Is everybody required to eat English food, wear English clothes, adopt "English" religious beliefs? Will accents be acceptable?
It is difficult to imagine a society in which some citizens are required by order of the state to imitate the ways of others ever being able to embrace true equality. Integration is a process that emerges organically over time in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect.
"Cultural Nationalism" moves us away from a society based upon respect and equality. It is but a Plan B for race purists whose first idea passed its sell-by date without being bought.
Friday 17 September 2010
Government right to rebuff White History petition
A call by a group of racist petitioners to introduce a publicly-funded White History Month has been rebuffed by the government.
Responding to the petitioners the government wrote: "The Government vision is of a fair society where there are no barriers to participation or ambition based on race, colour or ethnicity. Only by giving everyone the opportunity to succeed can we build a better future for everybody in Britain.
"The Government is not responsible for Black History month. This is, rather, a community led initiative which has developed since the mid-eighties, and individual organisations take part on a voluntary basis. Its benefits are that it raises awareness of the, often unknown, Black contribution to our shared history, for example, that Africans and Asians and their descendants have been living in Britain for the last 500 years and also made a major contribution in the Second World War. By focusing on what people have in common, as well as recognising the value of diversity, we can foster a shared sense of belonging and a shared sense of the future.
"In schools, the existing National Curriculum programme of study for history requires pupils to be taught a substantial amount of British history. The Government is currently reviewing the national curriculum and has announced its intention to reduce the amount of central prescription in the way that schools teach their pupils. The Secretary of State for Education has expressed his intention to return to a more narrative approach to British History."
I'm fairly much with the government on this one. The history our children are taught in the schools and colleges of this country is already predominantly white history. This is because Britain has always had and still has a large white majority, and therefore the historical events that have shaped these islands has been largely, although by no means exclusively, determined by people who happen to have been white. There is no need for a White History Month.
However the valuable and growing contribution made by people of black and minority ethnic origin towards the British society of which we are all part has historically been overlooked. By overlooking that contribution we run the risk of alienating people of minority origin and of forcing them into a cultural ghetto in which they are compelled to make good the deficit by recognising and celebrating their own history to the exclusion of others. In other words creating a parallel historical perspective rather than an integrated one.
That is why Black History Month is important to us all, and not just to black people. Not rocket science, is it?
Responding to the petitioners the government wrote: "The Government vision is of a fair society where there are no barriers to participation or ambition based on race, colour or ethnicity. Only by giving everyone the opportunity to succeed can we build a better future for everybody in Britain.
"The Government is not responsible for Black History month. This is, rather, a community led initiative which has developed since the mid-eighties, and individual organisations take part on a voluntary basis. Its benefits are that it raises awareness of the, often unknown, Black contribution to our shared history, for example, that Africans and Asians and their descendants have been living in Britain for the last 500 years and also made a major contribution in the Second World War. By focusing on what people have in common, as well as recognising the value of diversity, we can foster a shared sense of belonging and a shared sense of the future.
"In schools, the existing National Curriculum programme of study for history requires pupils to be taught a substantial amount of British history. The Government is currently reviewing the national curriculum and has announced its intention to reduce the amount of central prescription in the way that schools teach their pupils. The Secretary of State for Education has expressed his intention to return to a more narrative approach to British History."
I'm fairly much with the government on this one. The history our children are taught in the schools and colleges of this country is already predominantly white history. This is because Britain has always had and still has a large white majority, and therefore the historical events that have shaped these islands has been largely, although by no means exclusively, determined by people who happen to have been white. There is no need for a White History Month.
However the valuable and growing contribution made by people of black and minority ethnic origin towards the British society of which we are all part has historically been overlooked. By overlooking that contribution we run the risk of alienating people of minority origin and of forcing them into a cultural ghetto in which they are compelled to make good the deficit by recognising and celebrating their own history to the exclusion of others. In other words creating a parallel historical perspective rather than an integrated one.
That is why Black History Month is important to us all, and not just to black people. Not rocket science, is it?
Wednesday 8 September 2010
My Role
Somebody asked me today why I don't update this blog more frequently, and I do accept that I had been absent from duty for far too long prior to last night's posting.
All the same I see my role in the fight against the far-right not as a conveyor of everyday news that can be found elsewhere (the excellent but misnamed Lancaster Unity blog - misnamed because it clearly provides a nationwide service - being a good example), but as one who can provide a perspective from somebody who has been "on the other side" himself and who can call upon that knowledge and experience.
Knowledge, not propaganda or wishful thinking, is what sincere anti-fascists need to help them in their work. Those who don't want that knowledge cannot in my book be sincere anti-fascists.
All the same I see my role in the fight against the far-right not as a conveyor of everyday news that can be found elsewhere (the excellent but misnamed Lancaster Unity blog - misnamed because it clearly provides a nationwide service - being a good example), but as one who can provide a perspective from somebody who has been "on the other side" himself and who can call upon that knowledge and experience.
Knowledge, not propaganda or wishful thinking, is what sincere anti-fascists need to help them in their work. Those who don't want that knowledge cannot in my book be sincere anti-fascists.
Wherein lies the best option when one knows both devils?
I've been watching with some interest the increasingly acrimonious spat that has been developing between current BNP Chairman Nick Griffin and his challenger in a recent leadership ballot, Eddy Butler.
I have recounted in previous articles how I knew Griffin back in his National Front days. I worked closely with him on the NF's National Directorate and often saw him at close quarters. He is, or at least was, a man who has both qualities and weaknesses in great abundance.
I also knew Eddy Butler. I recall him during the mid-1980s as a fairly competent member of a fairly competent organisational team that ran the NF in Tower Hamlets, in London's East End. I often spoke at their meetings at Butler's invitation.
On a personal level I liked Butler. I can't recall recognising him at the time as being national leadership material, but I did always feel he was "one for the future". He was bright, and seemed to slot in well within the team at Tower Hamlets, a branch which was not massive in numerical terms but was considered consistent and dependable.
So I look upon the current BNP leadership squabble with a blend of voyeuristic curiosity and, as an anti-fascist, with an interest in the eventual result. Whilst no BNP at all would be the desired outcome, I am realistic enough to accept that it won't be. So a battered and divided BNP, possibly supplemented by the creation of a dead-duck rival party destined from the day of its launch for Boot Hill, would appear to me to be the next most desirable option.
The case against Griffin's leadership appears to have most of its roots in his appointment of a consultant, one Jim Dowson, to help market the BNP and raise funds in a way in which it is alleged by Griffin the party could not have managed using its own resources. Despite having procured donations and other income under Dowson's guidance on a scale that the NF of yesteryear could only have dreamed of, the party would appear to be skint. So much so, say Griffin's critics, that it is heading relentlessly for the abyss. Not unreasonably, assuming for the sake of this argument that there is some truth in the allegations, Butler's supporters are curious to know where all the cash raised as a consequence of Dowson's efforts has actually gone.
As is always the case when the far-right ventures forth into the chaos of internecine warfare a number of secondary, although in some cases even more serious, allegations have been levelled at Griffin and his entourage. Dowson himself has been accused of serious sexual assault, even rape. Lurid stories of illegal detention, the unlawful recording and bugging of members considered not to be in good standing, gratuitous suspensions of "malcontents" and suspected malcontents, accusations of being enemy infiltrators and incidents of what we in the 1980s used to describe as "petty terrorism" - threats, harassment and rumour-mongering - dominate the far-right websites as well as those of their active opponents. This is fairly much how fascist leaders facing the threat of impeachment invariably respond.
Furthermore it is claimed that Griffin has cost the BNP hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs as a consequence of his reckless disregard for the law and its processes. An out of court settlement paid to Unilever after his bizarre inclusion of its Marmite product on the BNP Party Political Broadcast had clearly breached copyright is a case in point.
Despite clearly having a few disgruntled neo-Nazi hardliners on his team, Butler is generally considered to present a more moderate image (by BNP standards) than Griffin. Having gone to some considerable effort in recent years to repackage himself as a more touchy-feely kind of fascist - dropping compulsory repatriation and arguing the case for allowing a very limited and powerless non-white presence into BNP membership - Griffin now finds himself back in the position of having to appeal to the party's "hardliners" to support him against the encroachment of the "civic nationalism" allegedly promoted by Butler.
Butler's campaign to relieve Griffin of the party leadership was always going to be an uphill struggle under the rules laid down by the BNP's constitution, rules made even more draconian following a political sleight of hand by Griffin (and ironically supported at the time by Butler) at a recent Emergency General Meeting. Under these rules a challenge can only ever take place after the challenger has acquired the nominations of 20% of the party membership meeting the appropriate requirements according to length of service. Unsurprisingly Butler failed to achieve this, but the acrimony between the two factions (as in the NF split of 1976 the majority of the party's middle-management would appear to be behind the challenger whilst the core membership remains behind the leader) has rendered it nigh on impossible that the two sides will ever be able to bury their differences and rebuild their relationship.
And so we are faced with an almost inevitable two-party solution. Members of Butler's team seem to be in some disagreement as to whether to break away and form a new party now, to hang around and prepare for the demise of the BNP under a sea of debts before doing so, or to fight to take over ownership of the party. One thing though is certain - Griffin will not give up and call it a day so there will soon be two political factions emerging from the party formerly known as the BNP.
The question that anti-fascists everywhere will be asking is whether a BNP, or even part of a BNP, led by someone who is ostensibly "cleaner" than Griffin (who seems to be losing control in every direction in any case) would be a blessing or a bane. Is the desire for harmony across the community (and that's wherein lies my own anti-fascism, not in some sordid calculation of which scenario creates which particular party advantage) best served by a Griffin victory or a Butler victory?
Let us not forget that both sides are arguing over control of a fascist party. There is no democratic alternative, acceptable to most normal people, on the table.
For me the best outcome would be to see the two factions fight each other to an exhausted stalemate. Better still would be if such a process was to take place over a period of years rather than months, taking us to and beyond the next GLA, European and also hopefully Parliamentary elections.
In the meantime we can take a step back, watch and enjoy. In my considerable experience inter-fascist feuds are never resolved by consensus. BNP watchers should be prepared for the imminent emergence of two or even more fascist parties where once stood the BNP.
I have recounted in previous articles how I knew Griffin back in his National Front days. I worked closely with him on the NF's National Directorate and often saw him at close quarters. He is, or at least was, a man who has both qualities and weaknesses in great abundance.
I also knew Eddy Butler. I recall him during the mid-1980s as a fairly competent member of a fairly competent organisational team that ran the NF in Tower Hamlets, in London's East End. I often spoke at their meetings at Butler's invitation.
On a personal level I liked Butler. I can't recall recognising him at the time as being national leadership material, but I did always feel he was "one for the future". He was bright, and seemed to slot in well within the team at Tower Hamlets, a branch which was not massive in numerical terms but was considered consistent and dependable.
So I look upon the current BNP leadership squabble with a blend of voyeuristic curiosity and, as an anti-fascist, with an interest in the eventual result. Whilst no BNP at all would be the desired outcome, I am realistic enough to accept that it won't be. So a battered and divided BNP, possibly supplemented by the creation of a dead-duck rival party destined from the day of its launch for Boot Hill, would appear to me to be the next most desirable option.
The case against Griffin's leadership appears to have most of its roots in his appointment of a consultant, one Jim Dowson, to help market the BNP and raise funds in a way in which it is alleged by Griffin the party could not have managed using its own resources. Despite having procured donations and other income under Dowson's guidance on a scale that the NF of yesteryear could only have dreamed of, the party would appear to be skint. So much so, say Griffin's critics, that it is heading relentlessly for the abyss. Not unreasonably, assuming for the sake of this argument that there is some truth in the allegations, Butler's supporters are curious to know where all the cash raised as a consequence of Dowson's efforts has actually gone.
As is always the case when the far-right ventures forth into the chaos of internecine warfare a number of secondary, although in some cases even more serious, allegations have been levelled at Griffin and his entourage. Dowson himself has been accused of serious sexual assault, even rape. Lurid stories of illegal detention, the unlawful recording and bugging of members considered not to be in good standing, gratuitous suspensions of "malcontents" and suspected malcontents, accusations of being enemy infiltrators and incidents of what we in the 1980s used to describe as "petty terrorism" - threats, harassment and rumour-mongering - dominate the far-right websites as well as those of their active opponents. This is fairly much how fascist leaders facing the threat of impeachment invariably respond.
Furthermore it is claimed that Griffin has cost the BNP hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs as a consequence of his reckless disregard for the law and its processes. An out of court settlement paid to Unilever after his bizarre inclusion of its Marmite product on the BNP Party Political Broadcast had clearly breached copyright is a case in point.
Despite clearly having a few disgruntled neo-Nazi hardliners on his team, Butler is generally considered to present a more moderate image (by BNP standards) than Griffin. Having gone to some considerable effort in recent years to repackage himself as a more touchy-feely kind of fascist - dropping compulsory repatriation and arguing the case for allowing a very limited and powerless non-white presence into BNP membership - Griffin now finds himself back in the position of having to appeal to the party's "hardliners" to support him against the encroachment of the "civic nationalism" allegedly promoted by Butler.
Butler's campaign to relieve Griffin of the party leadership was always going to be an uphill struggle under the rules laid down by the BNP's constitution, rules made even more draconian following a political sleight of hand by Griffin (and ironically supported at the time by Butler) at a recent Emergency General Meeting. Under these rules a challenge can only ever take place after the challenger has acquired the nominations of 20% of the party membership meeting the appropriate requirements according to length of service. Unsurprisingly Butler failed to achieve this, but the acrimony between the two factions (as in the NF split of 1976 the majority of the party's middle-management would appear to be behind the challenger whilst the core membership remains behind the leader) has rendered it nigh on impossible that the two sides will ever be able to bury their differences and rebuild their relationship.
And so we are faced with an almost inevitable two-party solution. Members of Butler's team seem to be in some disagreement as to whether to break away and form a new party now, to hang around and prepare for the demise of the BNP under a sea of debts before doing so, or to fight to take over ownership of the party. One thing though is certain - Griffin will not give up and call it a day so there will soon be two political factions emerging from the party formerly known as the BNP.
The question that anti-fascists everywhere will be asking is whether a BNP, or even part of a BNP, led by someone who is ostensibly "cleaner" than Griffin (who seems to be losing control in every direction in any case) would be a blessing or a bane. Is the desire for harmony across the community (and that's wherein lies my own anti-fascism, not in some sordid calculation of which scenario creates which particular party advantage) best served by a Griffin victory or a Butler victory?
Let us not forget that both sides are arguing over control of a fascist party. There is no democratic alternative, acceptable to most normal people, on the table.
For me the best outcome would be to see the two factions fight each other to an exhausted stalemate. Better still would be if such a process was to take place over a period of years rather than months, taking us to and beyond the next GLA, European and also hopefully Parliamentary elections.
In the meantime we can take a step back, watch and enjoy. In my considerable experience inter-fascist feuds are never resolved by consensus. BNP watchers should be prepared for the imminent emergence of two or even more fascist parties where once stood the BNP.
Saturday 20 March 2010
The NF and it's short-lived electoral breakthrough
The National Front is not an organisation that it is easy to feel sorry for, and so one has to laugh at the news that despite the racist party having waited 43 years for its first proper councillor the man who achieved that dubious honour just a week or so ago has had his party whip removed this morning.
Rumour has it that Councillor John Gamble, who had originally been elected to Rotherham Borough Council as a member of the BNP for Brinsworth and Catcliffe ward before leaving/being thrown out (depending upon whose version one reads) and joining the National Front via the England First Party, didn't realise that his new party was racist.
This gave him, and them, a particular problem as he claims to have had "several black girlfriends", although some of his erstwhile comrades are suggesting on sundry fascist websites that these "girlfriends" have been extremely temporary liaisons, not to mention somewhat costly.
Councillor Gamble has now announced that he intends to sit as an independent.
One wonders just how many people join fascist parties out of a sense of personal inadequacy and self-loathing. An interesting sociological study, if nothing else.
Rumour has it that Councillor John Gamble, who had originally been elected to Rotherham Borough Council as a member of the BNP for Brinsworth and Catcliffe ward before leaving/being thrown out (depending upon whose version one reads) and joining the National Front via the England First Party, didn't realise that his new party was racist.
This gave him, and them, a particular problem as he claims to have had "several black girlfriends", although some of his erstwhile comrades are suggesting on sundry fascist websites that these "girlfriends" have been extremely temporary liaisons, not to mention somewhat costly.
Councillor Gamble has now announced that he intends to sit as an independent.
One wonders just how many people join fascist parties out of a sense of personal inadequacy and self-loathing. An interesting sociological study, if nothing else.
Sunday 28 February 2010
MPowering Youth Through Education and Experience
I spent a hugely constructive couple of hours yesterday (Saturday) afternoon at the Hounslow Community Centre as a guest at a workshop for young people organised by the MPower Hounslow Youth Project.
About fifteen youngsters - boys and girls mostly from a Muslim background - discussed a host of topics relating to political and social extremism, not just on the fringes of Muslim society but also street gangs and football hooliganism.
I was invited to the meeting in time to give my own presentation about my experiences as a National Front organiser in the 1970s and 1980s, but I arrived early enough to hear some of the earlier presentations and was amazed by the quality of the information that was being imparted. It occurred to me instantly that this project was deadly earnest about trying to keep potentially vulnerable young people who might otherwise find themselves receptive to extremist ideas on the straight and narrow.
When it was my turn to speak I simply gave it from the heart. Many of the people there were so young they had never even heard of the National Front, but most had heard of the BNP and I circulated some photos and written material demonstrating the extent to which I had been involved, including a fading snippet from a local newspaper showing myself and Nick Griffin, now leader of the BNP, addressing a rally in Isleworth and a letter I once received whilst in prison from an outspoken Ulster loyalist friend (writing from another prison) literally a few months before he was shot dead by members of a fringe Irish republican group.
I spoke of the way in which one becomes "ghettoised" when joining up with an extremist group, rightly shunned by normal society but with the result that one finishes up only speaking to and listening to others who share one's own prejudices, and sliding deeper and deeper thereby into an extremist mindset and way of life.
I think it fair to say that most of these very young people were ever so slightly taken aback to suddenly find themselves being lectured by this middle-aged, greying and nondescript old scruffpot and hearing about a way of life in which guns and bombs, whilst not perhaps a feature of everyday life, certainly existed as a feature of the political dialectic at the time.
I think I have said before on this blog that this is the kind of work, more than anything else, that I really want to be doing. I deeply regret my past as a right-wing extremist, but accept that it happened and believe that I am uniquely placed to offer warnings, advice and guidance to young people who may in the wrong circumstances found themselves being led along the same destructive and dangerous path.
MPower is a superb resource for vulnerable young people and I have already expressed to the organisers my willingness, indeed my eagerness to assist them in their future work should they wish me to do so. My respect for those who dedicated themselves to working with and helping young people in this way really does know no bounds.
About fifteen youngsters - boys and girls mostly from a Muslim background - discussed a host of topics relating to political and social extremism, not just on the fringes of Muslim society but also street gangs and football hooliganism.
I was invited to the meeting in time to give my own presentation about my experiences as a National Front organiser in the 1970s and 1980s, but I arrived early enough to hear some of the earlier presentations and was amazed by the quality of the information that was being imparted. It occurred to me instantly that this project was deadly earnest about trying to keep potentially vulnerable young people who might otherwise find themselves receptive to extremist ideas on the straight and narrow.
When it was my turn to speak I simply gave it from the heart. Many of the people there were so young they had never even heard of the National Front, but most had heard of the BNP and I circulated some photos and written material demonstrating the extent to which I had been involved, including a fading snippet from a local newspaper showing myself and Nick Griffin, now leader of the BNP, addressing a rally in Isleworth and a letter I once received whilst in prison from an outspoken Ulster loyalist friend (writing from another prison) literally a few months before he was shot dead by members of a fringe Irish republican group.
I spoke of the way in which one becomes "ghettoised" when joining up with an extremist group, rightly shunned by normal society but with the result that one finishes up only speaking to and listening to others who share one's own prejudices, and sliding deeper and deeper thereby into an extremist mindset and way of life.
I think it fair to say that most of these very young people were ever so slightly taken aback to suddenly find themselves being lectured by this middle-aged, greying and nondescript old scruffpot and hearing about a way of life in which guns and bombs, whilst not perhaps a feature of everyday life, certainly existed as a feature of the political dialectic at the time.
I think I have said before on this blog that this is the kind of work, more than anything else, that I really want to be doing. I deeply regret my past as a right-wing extremist, but accept that it happened and believe that I am uniquely placed to offer warnings, advice and guidance to young people who may in the wrong circumstances found themselves being led along the same destructive and dangerous path.
MPower is a superb resource for vulnerable young people and I have already expressed to the organisers my willingness, indeed my eagerness to assist them in their future work should they wish me to do so. My respect for those who dedicated themselves to working with and helping young people in this way really does know no bounds.
Saturday 16 January 2010
Rise in hate crime follows BNP council election victories
Acknowledegements to The Guardian
Reports of racial and religiously motivated crime rose following the election of British National party councillors in several far-right strongholds, police statistics have revealed.
Complaints of hate crime increased in wards in the West Midlands, London and Essex after the election of a BNP member, in spite of declines in reported hate crime in the wider police areas. In other wards race crime reportedly rose in the run-up to BNP election victories, according to the figures, obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.
The findings came as the party stepped up its campaign to win its first seats in the House of Commons with a "weekend of action" in Barking and Dagenham, where the culture and tourism minister, Margaret Hodge, faces a challenge for her Labour seat from BNP leader, Nick Griffin. Hodge said the new figures cast doubt on police assurances that there is no link between racially motivated crime and a BNP presence.
Yesterday, BNP member Terence Gavan was jailed for 11 years after police found nail bombs and 12 firearms at his home in the borough of Kirklees, West Yorkshire, where the BNP has councillors. The Old Bailey heard that Gavan harboured "a strong hostility" towards immigrants.
One of the biggest increases in hate crime came in Barking's Eastbury ward, where racially motivated violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled in the year after Jeffrey Steed won a council seat for the BNP in May 2006. A year later, hate crime rose again and 45 racial incidents were reported in 12 months.
In several other BNP wards, race crime fell in line with declines in the wider areas, but anti-fascist campaigners believe rises may be linked to BNP election wins. "Voters have been emboldened in their racist views by seeing the BNP in power and that could have led to the increases in racist attacks in some areas," said Sam Tarry, campaign organiser for the Hope Not Hate campaign, set up by the anti-fascist group Searchlight.
"The figures suggest that if the BNP wins more seats, people from ethnic minority and gay communities could face greater persecution because racist and bigoted views will have been further legitimised."
The BNP denies that increases in hate crime are related to its activities and blames the rises on increased immigration. Bob Bailey, the party's London organiser said: "This is due to an increase in the ethnic [sic] population. There are more people who are prepared to go to the police complaining they are victims."
The Guardian has analysed data from 11 police forces covering 29 wards across England where voters have elected BNP councillors in the past six years. In eight wards reports of hate crime rose following BNP election wins despite a wider decline across the police force area. It declined in 14 wards, in line with force-wide reductions, and there was no change in four and an insignificant amount of data in three.
In Essex, complaints of race crime rose after the election of BNP councillors in parts of Epping Forest, while in Chelmsley Wood, a suburb of Birmingham, the average annual incidence of race crime almost doubled after George Morgan won a seat for the BNP in May 2006.
In the four years before his election, there were an average 11 incidents a year rising to an average of 21 a year in the following four years. West Midlands police said some cases involved assault, while most were incidents of verbal abuse in shopping centres, taxis and in the police station with white and Asian victims.
Detective Chief Inspector Sharon Goosen said: "None of the offences reported in the area since 2006 can be directly attributed to an elected member or political organisation."
The BNP is understood to be planning to field more than 1,000 candidates in local elections and 300 candidates in the general election. Griffin and the BNP deputy chairman, Simon Darby, who is standing for Stoke Central, are considered to have the best chance of winning seats at Westminster.
Reports of racial and religiously motivated crime rose following the election of British National party councillors in several far-right strongholds, police statistics have revealed.
Complaints of hate crime increased in wards in the West Midlands, London and Essex after the election of a BNP member, in spite of declines in reported hate crime in the wider police areas. In other wards race crime reportedly rose in the run-up to BNP election victories, according to the figures, obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.
The findings came as the party stepped up its campaign to win its first seats in the House of Commons with a "weekend of action" in Barking and Dagenham, where the culture and tourism minister, Margaret Hodge, faces a challenge for her Labour seat from BNP leader, Nick Griffin. Hodge said the new figures cast doubt on police assurances that there is no link between racially motivated crime and a BNP presence.
Yesterday, BNP member Terence Gavan was jailed for 11 years after police found nail bombs and 12 firearms at his home in the borough of Kirklees, West Yorkshire, where the BNP has councillors. The Old Bailey heard that Gavan harboured "a strong hostility" towards immigrants.
One of the biggest increases in hate crime came in Barking's Eastbury ward, where racially motivated violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled in the year after Jeffrey Steed won a council seat for the BNP in May 2006. A year later, hate crime rose again and 45 racial incidents were reported in 12 months.
In several other BNP wards, race crime fell in line with declines in the wider areas, but anti-fascist campaigners believe rises may be linked to BNP election wins. "Voters have been emboldened in their racist views by seeing the BNP in power and that could have led to the increases in racist attacks in some areas," said Sam Tarry, campaign organiser for the Hope Not Hate campaign, set up by the anti-fascist group Searchlight.
"The figures suggest that if the BNP wins more seats, people from ethnic minority and gay communities could face greater persecution because racist and bigoted views will have been further legitimised."
The BNP denies that increases in hate crime are related to its activities and blames the rises on increased immigration. Bob Bailey, the party's London organiser said: "This is due to an increase in the ethnic [sic] population. There are more people who are prepared to go to the police complaining they are victims."
The Guardian has analysed data from 11 police forces covering 29 wards across England where voters have elected BNP councillors in the past six years. In eight wards reports of hate crime rose following BNP election wins despite a wider decline across the police force area. It declined in 14 wards, in line with force-wide reductions, and there was no change in four and an insignificant amount of data in three.
In Essex, complaints of race crime rose after the election of BNP councillors in parts of Epping Forest, while in Chelmsley Wood, a suburb of Birmingham, the average annual incidence of race crime almost doubled after George Morgan won a seat for the BNP in May 2006.
In the four years before his election, there were an average 11 incidents a year rising to an average of 21 a year in the following four years. West Midlands police said some cases involved assault, while most were incidents of verbal abuse in shopping centres, taxis and in the police station with white and Asian victims.
Detective Chief Inspector Sharon Goosen said: "None of the offences reported in the area since 2006 can be directly attributed to an elected member or political organisation."
The BNP is understood to be planning to field more than 1,000 candidates in local elections and 300 candidates in the general election. Griffin and the BNP deputy chairman, Simon Darby, who is standing for Stoke Central, are considered to have the best chance of winning seats at Westminster.
Thursday 7 January 2010
I the accused
When thinking back, as I often do, to the fourteen and a bit years that I spent on the far-right, it sometimes occurs to me how different things might have been had I taken the time out to place myself, if only for five or ten minutes, into the shoes of those whom I was so quick to condemn.
I hope I am not being emotive nor descending too readily into pathos when I say this, but to have spent just a short time looking in through the eyes of a Jewish person, a "conspirator", and beholding the sheer unreasonableness of the charges being laid against me and others of my kind might - just might - have caused me to think things through to a more logical conclusion.
To be told the fact that some of my kind were politically left of centre and others to the right of centre provided "evidence" that I and 13 million others worldwide were actively scheming together to achieve a stranglehold over the political spectrum.
To be told that by marrying a fellow Jew I would be living proof of Jewish pretensions to racial supremacism, whilst by marrying a non-Jew I would ipso facto be part of an organised international plot to pollute the sacred Aryan bloodline.
To be told that I could not, no matter how much I desired to be but an ordinary guy in a world in which cultural differences were becoming forever less important to most, be anything other than the single-minded conspirator that it was my genetic disposition to be.
To know that this government-in-waiting that I see before me does not accept my presence in the land of my birth, yet acknowledges no home to which I might return in the event of my being compelled to vacate.
With good cause most people associate the far-right in Britain and Europe with opposition to non-white immigration and "multi-culturalism". And I, and others like me, would be told we were the architects of this historical inevitability and personally responsible for every wrongdoing committed by every immigrant, as well as by his ancestors, his offspring and his pets.
It is easy to be repulsed by the spectacle of such a self-evidently unreasonable and irrational mindset masquerading as a political ideology, but there must too be a temptation to humour it just a little. Humour is the most powerful of political weapons. I sometimes wonder why anti-fascists seem so devoid of it.
Maybe it is because fascism, leading as it does to disharmony, violence and murder, is no laughing matter. But all the same it wouldn't hurt, from time to time, to subject the absurdity of its worldview to public scrutiny and to inevitable public ridicule a little more than we seem given to do, and to titter just a little as it squirms whilst attempting to justify the absolute unjustifiability of its creed.
I hope I am not being emotive nor descending too readily into pathos when I say this, but to have spent just a short time looking in through the eyes of a Jewish person, a "conspirator", and beholding the sheer unreasonableness of the charges being laid against me and others of my kind might - just might - have caused me to think things through to a more logical conclusion.
To be told the fact that some of my kind were politically left of centre and others to the right of centre provided "evidence" that I and 13 million others worldwide were actively scheming together to achieve a stranglehold over the political spectrum.
To be told that by marrying a fellow Jew I would be living proof of Jewish pretensions to racial supremacism, whilst by marrying a non-Jew I would ipso facto be part of an organised international plot to pollute the sacred Aryan bloodline.
To be told that I could not, no matter how much I desired to be but an ordinary guy in a world in which cultural differences were becoming forever less important to most, be anything other than the single-minded conspirator that it was my genetic disposition to be.
To know that this government-in-waiting that I see before me does not accept my presence in the land of my birth, yet acknowledges no home to which I might return in the event of my being compelled to vacate.
With good cause most people associate the far-right in Britain and Europe with opposition to non-white immigration and "multi-culturalism". And I, and others like me, would be told we were the architects of this historical inevitability and personally responsible for every wrongdoing committed by every immigrant, as well as by his ancestors, his offspring and his pets.
It is easy to be repulsed by the spectacle of such a self-evidently unreasonable and irrational mindset masquerading as a political ideology, but there must too be a temptation to humour it just a little. Humour is the most powerful of political weapons. I sometimes wonder why anti-fascists seem so devoid of it.
Maybe it is because fascism, leading as it does to disharmony, violence and murder, is no laughing matter. But all the same it wouldn't hurt, from time to time, to subject the absurdity of its worldview to public scrutiny and to inevitable public ridicule a little more than we seem given to do, and to titter just a little as it squirms whilst attempting to justify the absolute unjustifiability of its creed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
