Friday, 19 December 2014

Hope Not Hate's Support of Human Rights... for Immigrants

Hah! The irony of Nick Lowles's Hope Not Hate grandstanding its support of human rights.

Isn't the freedom of speech one of the most fundamental of human rights? So why has this communist-led group been carrying out a relentless campaign against free speech?

This is what the leader of Hope Not Hate - Nick Lowles - has to say on the matter:

"Everything we do at HOPE not hate, every ounce of support we seek, is cemented by our faith in the universality of human rights."

It's interesting, of course, that Hope Not Hate focuses on the human rights of immigrants: in one case, on what it calls “domestic workers”. After all, they probably have brown and black skins, not the white skin of the (non-Leftist) working class it despises.

Hope Not Hate's image.

Here again, “human rights law" is simply a tool - of the radical Left - which is used to chip away at what they see as the “capitalist state”. Defending the human rights of, say, Tommy Robinson or any white (non-Leftist) person, on the other hand, simply wouldn't do the trick - would it, Nick? 

As the phrase has it, this is yet another example of Leftist “lawfare” against a state which doesn't follow the Trotskyist or communist Left's wishes to a T.

If Hope Not Hate had state power... or at least if a collectivist/socialist government it were happy with had state power, it would silence the following groups and individuals: UKip, the EDL, all patriot and nationalist groups, as well as those millions of people (usually white working class) it classes as “bigots”, “haters”, “racists”, “fascists”, “Nazis”, etc.

Yes, if Hope Not Hate had state power (it already has supporters/fellow travellers in the Opposition, in the law, local government, the Mirror, etc.), it would silence literally millions of British people.

Human rights? The Gulag more like!

These Hope Not Hate references to “human rights” are even more hilarious than its token references to Angie Choudary.

Thursday, 18 December 2014

What Does “Far Right” Mean?

The image is from the Hope Not Hate website.
In the UK, the term “far right” only began to be frequently used very recently. Basically with the rise of the EDL in 2009. (This isn't to say it wasn't used before that.) When it did so, virtually all regional newspapers began to describe the EDL – and then other groups - as “far right”. (That might have been because nearly all regional newspapers are owned by Trinity Mirror and Newsquest.)

I'm convinced that it began to be used because the terms “fascist” or “Nazi” came to embarrass Leftists precisely because they accused almost everyone under the sun of being a “Nazi” or a “fascist”. Others got sick of it too. Thus, all of a sudden, the phrase “far right” came on the scene.

Thus the substitution of “Nazi” or “fascist” with “far right” is very much like the substitution of “capitalism” with “neoliberalism” during almost the same period. (Is this coincidental?) And, in both cases, I'm prepared to accept the there are conceptual and political differences. It's just that most users of “far right” and “neoliberalism” wouldn't be able to tell you what they are. Indeed if they could - or did - cite important and substantial differences between the Far Right and Nazis or fascists, the use of the phrase "far right" would loose its point and political efficacy.

To put this plainly, to the majority of Leftists (as well as to most regional journalist):

far right” = Nazi/fascist.

Try and test Leftists (as well as journalists) out. Ask them to distinguish a member of the “far right” from a Nazi or a fascist. They won't be able to do so in most circumstances. (Leftists could, of course, offer superficial differences in order to prove a point.)

This isn't to say there can't be a Far Right that's not Nazi or fascist. I'm only commenting on the word as it's used by Leftists.

The Pope on the Religion of Peace

The Pope has said many positive things about Islam recently (as has people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, etc.). You get the feeling that this is almost politically compulsory in today's climate. In other words, far from “Islamophobia passing the dinner-part test” (as the then Baroness Warsi once claimed), the exact opposite is the case.

Perhaps the Pope is doing what Leftists frequently do: he's “lying for Justice”. (All politicians and activists, of course, lie at some point. However, Leftists – or at least Trotskyists, etc. – have a strong “theoretical justification” for it.)

The Pope may think that to believe – let alone announce - the alternative (that Islam is a religion of war and religious supremacism) is just too massive a pill to swallow.

In any case, some Christians, Leftists and interfaithers know full well that Islam is not “a religion of peace”. They know it as much as you and I do. However, to publicly pronounce that Islam is a jihadist religion will - they think - result in more communal conflict and violence, not less.

The truth is the other way around. After all, selling the lie that the Nazis “only wanted peace” in the 1930s meant that Britain and America lost a lot of ground when it came to destroying that particular enemy.

Interfaith gobbledegook and talk of Islam being the “religion of peace” (along with na├»ve and often politically fake pacifism) have led to more violence and bloodshed, not less.

What seems to matter more to these people (e.g., Leftists, interfaithers, etc.) is grandstanding their supreme tolerance and very deep lack of bigotry; rather than telling the truth. (Yes, they're being pious!) Thus some of them must know that lying about Islam is going to result in more oppression and death, not less.

How the BBC Does Bias

Because the BBC is tax-payer funded, it always has to hide its Left-Liberal - sometimes outright Leftist - bias. After all, everybody pays for the license fee - no matter what their political beliefs.

So there is rarely any outright politicking on the BBC (except on Have I Got News For You, other BBC comedy programmes, dramas/soaps, opinion pieces, etc.).

The BBC shows it bias by what it focusses on; what it misses out; who it quotes; who it doesn't quote; what it quotes; etc.; rather than by plain politicking.

I don't think that every BBC presenter and BBC programme is Leftist or Left-Liberal either. That doesn't matter. It's the BBC's editorial line and overall bias that's Left-Liberal. Every now and again, then, they will have shows presented by right-wingers, etc.; which is more than The Guardian ever manages. (The Telegraph, on the other hand, does publish pieces by what could be called Left-Liberals.)

Of course it's a little embarrassing accusing the BBC of bias because all kinds of mutually-contradictory political groups do the same. However, all I can do is argue my case. And it must also be borne in mind that many BBC presenters, editors, programme makers, etc. have explicitly admitted to that (left-liberal) bias at certain times. (Quite a few times, actually.) Others have also denied it.

Take the case of those Leftists who say the BBC is based towards Israel. Succinctly, that amounts to saying that the BBC doesn't completely endorse and propagate the revolutionary Marxist analysis of Israel (that it's an “imperialist racist state”) in which Israel has literally sole culpability for.... um, everything that happens in that area of the world. Well, if that's what the BBC must believe in order not to be biased, then the Trotskyists/communists are correct: the BBC is biased.

In addition, when I say that the BBC is biased I don't also believe that such a news outlet can necessarily escape from such bias: it can't. What it can do is admit to its bias (as it has done at times) and also try to allow outlets for other perspectives; which, to some extent at least, the BBC has done.

Anti-Racism Causes Racism

Pious and sanctimonious anti-racism contributes to racism.

The constant barrage from councils, Leftist lawyers, activist groups, the police, etc. against whites and English identity causes racism.

I'm not saying that sanctimonious anti-racism causes all racism. I'm saying that it may well be responsible - after thirty years or more of our Leftist hegemony's relentless hatred of the white (non-Leftist) working class – for much racism.

After all, after thirty years of political correctness and Leftist indoctrination, Leftists themselves say that racism is getting worse. Ever thought that racism is getting worse precisely because of thirty years of political correctness and sanctimonious anti-racistm?

Leftist anti-racists contribute to some – not all – racism. Actions cause a counter-reactions. And relentless anti-racist zealotry – day after day – is bound to cause at least some equal racist zealotry.

White Guilt

You can be against things such as racism and not be a Marxist/Leftist. In fact pious and highly-theoretical brands of anti-racism actually contribute to racism.

If a Leftist admits to having “white privilege”, then he must feel a certain sense of guilt about having that white privilege. People who are privileged often feel guilt for that privilege; as do the numerous Marxists who have been financially and educationally privileged (as well as being white). In fact their white guilt probably motivates almost their entire position on anti-racism. Guilt is an extremely strong emotion/psychological disposition.

And since nearly all Marxists/Leftists are both white and from well-off backgrounds, that is a double dose of strong guilt and it may well motivate their entire politics.

The very acceptance of one's“privilege” involves guilt otherwise it wouldn't be seen a privilege in the first place.

A Class Analysis of Marxists

I would say that nine out of ten Marxists/revolutionary socialists/Trotskyists are middle-class.

Most academic Marxist writers and activists belong to a tiny and severely circumscribed social milieu: the university. What's more, the higher up the echelons you go in the leadership of the Left, the more likely Leftists/Marxists are to be upper-middle-class (e.g., the leaders of Leftist parties, lawyers, “rights activists”,professors, journalists, etc.); rather than plain middle-class ("petit bourgeoisie").

Marxists are the perfect subject for a sociological analysis; though since many sociologists and “class analysts” are Marxists, such a thing has never happened.

What Marxists seem to say is that it's okay for them to analyse where non-Marxists/Leftists get their views from (i.e., their "class position"); though it's wrong for people like me to analyse where Marxists get their ideas from (i.e.,their class position).