The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Saturday, 14 March 2015

"No UKIP. No patriots. No platform" is Dan Hodges & Hope Not Hate's Policy

This piece is a response to Dan Hodges' article 'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish' is now Ukip policy (in the Telegraph).

The main thing you note about Dan Hodges' article is how he cleverly fuses race and nationality. In other words, what Nigel Farage says about nationality, Dan Hodges attempts to make it sound as if Farage is talking about race (or about the colour of people's skin). In other words, Hodge is making out that Farage is a good old-fashioned racist.
But firstly, here are a few words from the man himself:

About a year ago I was having a chat with a friend of mine called Nick Lowles. Nick is the director of an organisation called Hope Not Hate, which campaigns against political extremism. I used to provide media advice for HnH, and Nick wanted to sound me out about Ukip."

I love it! Hope Not Hate “campaigns against political extremism”. That's like saying that Hitler or Stalin campaigned against Jew-hatred or extremism.

Hope Not Hate precursor, Searchlight, was set up by a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (he's still a communist) – Gerry Gable. Nick Lowles himself was a member of extreme and violent Trotskyist groups (e.g., Anti-Fascist Action, Socialist Organiser, etc.) until he worked for Hope Not Hate.

The entire Hope Not Hate agenda (like Dan Hodges' own agenda... perhaps) is based on values and goals which are largely fed by Marxist theory. In other words, you can't separate Hope Not Hate from the Marxist theory and International Socialism which exist at its core.

The Telegraph

Here's the Telegraph's own blurb for Dan Hodges:

Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns.”

Think about it: the Telegraph is employing a Leftist to write articles on UKIP (as well as on many other subjects). As a Conservative Party supporting newspaper (generally speaking), perhaps it thinks that an International Socialist can do UKIP more damage than any delicate namby-pamby Conservative journalist.

For the Telegraph, the agitprop language of Dan Hodges' article is quite extreme. It sounds more like the work of a first-year student in the first flush of his religious conversion to revolutionary Trotskyism. Yes, it doesn't sound like anything you'd normally expect from the Telegraph.

The title itself (“'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish' is now Ukip policy”) is a piece of outrageous propaganda. Nigel Farage hasn't said anything that even comes close to that. Yet Dan Hodges uses it as his title.

In any case, it seems that the Telegraph has far more breadth of opinion than, say, the Guardian. Indeed the Telegraph has published pieces by Nigel Farage himself.

Would the Guardian or New Statesman, for example, ever publish an article by an UKIP leader – let alone by a member of by a self-described fascist or Nazi party? Of course it wouldn't!

In a sense, it's quite commendable that the Telegraph publishes articles written by Leftist and Left-Liberal journalists. It's just that Leftist and Left-Liberal outlets rarely – if ever - return that favour. (Nick Cohen is also published a lot in The Spectator.)

The Article: Race or Nationality?

Dan Hodge starts off as he means to go on.

He states: “So it’s official. Nigel Farage wants to make racism legal.”

Dan Hodges tries to convince his readers that Nigel Farage can't “obfuscate and weasel” by complaining about “media misrepresentation” because what he said is crystal clear... or at least that's what Hodges would like us to think.

In fact even the very first quote which Dan Hodges uses makes it clear that Farage didn't say what Hodges wants him to say.

He quotes Nigel Farage (from the Trevor Phillips interview) in this way:

Phillips asks: 'In Ukip-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?'

'No,' Nigel Farage responds.”

Here again Dan Hodge tries to fuse the terms (as well as the concepts) race and nationality. Dan Hodges should know the difference. After all, all sorts of socialist/communist regimes have also been nationalist: from the Soviet Union, to China and Cuba to many regimes in east Asia and Africa. (Some of which were racist too!)

The other strange thing is that Dan Hodges quotes that part of the Trevor Phillips interview (above) and simply leaves it at that. It's as if he thinks he can rely on his readers to fuse nationality and race as well.

Dan Hodge immediately moves on in order to fuse nationality and race again.

He quotes Farage saying this on LBC:

What I said is this: that if a British employer in small business wants to employ a British person over somebody from Poland they should be able to do that without fear that they contravene discrimination laws. That’s all I have said."

Yet because Nigel Farage didn't say what Dan Hodges wanted him to say, all Hodges can do is hint at the fact that what Farage actually said wasn't the whole story. Instead he he says that “we have all been able to watch the actual interview, we can all see it isn’t true”. However, Dan Hodges doesn't quote anything from Farage to demonstrate his point. Rather he relies entirely on innuendo and rhetoric.

And here yet again Dan Hodges fuses race with nationality. He says:

We’ve had some incredible interventions on immigration and race from Ukip’s leader. Funny languages on the train. Immigrants clogging up the M4. Romanians next door.”

Is there a big problem with being put-out by hearing nothing but foreign languages on an English train? And if it is a problem, why is it a problem?

Is it impossible - in principle - that our massive rates of immigration have contributed something to the “clogging up the M4” and to similar problems? And if that's impossible, why is it impossible?

And what's wrong with having a problem with one's Romanian neighbours if, say, they are known criminals who constantly harass locals?

Despite his many attempts to fuse racism and nationality, Dan Hodges himself puts Nigel Farage's position in this way:

He admits he wants to change the law so employers can discriminate on grounds of nationality.”

Yes, not on grounds of race or colour – on “grounds of nationality”! In other words, what Farage said has nothing to with discrimination against British people who happen to have brown or black skin. It's about possible discrimination against the foreign workers who've only just arrived in the UK (often to take the jobs of local people); after which they may very well go straight back to their home countries.

In fact Dan Hodges quotes Farage saying exactly that:

"I think the situation that we now have, where an employer is not allowed to choose between a British-born person and somebody from Poland, is a ludicrous state of affairs. I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to choose, or you can use the word 'discriminate' if you want to, but wishes to choose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so."

Despite all that, Son of Dave Spart (actually, Dan Hodges is the son of Glenda Jackson MP) says:

There was a time when people used to post signs saying: 'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish.' Nigel Farage, by his own admission, wants to make it permissible to again put up signs that say: 'No dogs. No Irish.'”

He then makes a big deal about Farage's use of the term “British-born”. Yet every country on the planet puts their own native citizens first – including former socialist and communist states. In fact this is also far truer of non-communist countries like Japan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. than it's true of the UK.

Most deceitfully of all, Dan Hodges purports to offer us Nigel Farage's real position on race (not, this time, on nationality). Yet he doesn't do that either.

Firstly Hodges writes: “And then finally we have his views on race.” He then says: “ Look again at how he answers the question.” Which question, Mr Hodges? He doesn't tell us what that question is. Despite that, Hodges does state what Farage's answer was: “No.”

This really is terrible political journalism from the Telegraph. It's as if George Galloway or even Leon Trotsky had been let loose on its pages.


No comments:

Post a Comment