Thoughts on Thursday: The UK election fallout

So, I had planned to respond immediately after the election result last year. However, I only really had fury for the majority that had been either convinced by misinformation (and therefore failed at self-knowledge) or were otherwise complicit in a Tory majority (and therefore failed at self-analysis). News outlets were keen to portray this as a 'Brexit election' and this sentiment seemed to rule the day, whether it was true or not. I had been fairly convinced of a hung parliament being the result, with the possibility of a left-leaning coalition, but that was not to be. A single majority was the most surprising result that one could have envisaged really, as elsewhere across the globe (albeit, only where voting for more than one or two parties is possible) there seems to be a movement towards a centralising or collective type approach in politics with countries being run by an awkward 'federation' of competing parties. Indeed, I was starting to be convinced that this wasn't such a bad thing, as it stops one party with one leader making whatever they want law and directing the entire country towards whatever they wish. Sadly that is exactly the way we are going again in the UK.

Link to the Wiki election result page here

I suppose that instead of strengthening support for parties outside of the 'Big Two' and marking a move towards this collation government approach, that instead we found ourselves being focused on a presidential leadership race again. Something positively heralded by the Tories, awkwardly mismanaged by Labour, and destructively embraced by the Lib Dems. This thought and approach comes, I suggest, from the American handlers of the Tory party and their wish for a state-run propaganda channel like Fox News.

Also helping the Tories were the "other racist parties," namely Farage's Brexit party, UKIP, and smaller factions. Farage did not stand, proving once again that despite all his talk his ultimate goal is political destabilisation and thus he is a 'useful idiot'. Farage also ruled that the Brexit party would not stand against the Tories in key seats in an effort to help "get Brexit done." If by that, he meant, get the Tories a majority then they were indeed successful. Another help was the final and hilarious destruction of UKIP from within. The interim leader Pat Mountain giving once of the worst political interviews recorded in history, which if you watch the video you will see is no exaggeration. This fundamentally undermined; her own leadership, her party, and the value of the continuing existence of said party. So, something that many others have been trying to do for some time, but in only 8 minutes. The key line was Pat Mountain describing UKIP and the Brexit party as "other racist parties." Comedy gold.

Catherine Tate's 'Nan' character       UKIP interim leader Pat Mountain

Final helper for the Tories was probably the most vital. I said "being focused" a moment ago and this work was done by the media. It's slightly odd that public opinion is still so swayed by that of billionaire press barons, but evidently this is still the case. Possibly because public engagement with politics is flat lining, this means that simply adopting the opinion of 'everyone else' (as you are told) is easier than investigating and coming up with your own political opinion? But how can this be? Because surely we were told of the 'rising up' of the youth, that because of the internet that young people were being re-engaged into politics and talking more of an interest?

Well, although I might now start sounding like a broken record. I do not think that social media does anything positive to increase political awareness. Indeed, quite the opposite, it makes people 'gamify' this otherwise important part of their life into an 'App'. As if sending a few likes or comments is the same as engaging directly with another of the opposite opinion. I hear political conversations much less now in public as, I suggest, people are made overly concerned with the possibility of stoking division (as the press call it) and the last thing most people want is an active conflict. Certainly not one that they have to actually deal with. Now making a fuss online where there are no repercussions for what anyone might say is another matter. Consequence-free name calling is the bread and butter of online 'discourse' and puts a stop to any real debate from happening.

Thus in the build up to the general election you might have wondered, as I did, why is it so quiet online? That instead of passionate but respectful discussion happening online between friends, colleagues and family there was less of any sort of dialogue than at any time before.

Why is that?

Apologies for what follows, but it was mostly written in the previously mentioned fury and therefore the language is rather 'beyond'.

Section 1: People are cunts online.

You may not know this, but you're a cunt online. Really, you are. You may not mean to be, but that only makes it worse. It's your lack of introspection that makes it worse, your lack of nuance, your lack of physicality. What do you mean it's not your fault? You're online aren't you?

Let's try this out, think of something you care deeply about, a core principle if you'll allow the phrase. Now let's picture this idea getting shat all over by some prick that you thought were a friend. The very indignity of it all! Better get that shitebag telt.

Wait, I got ahead of myself there and this isn't a fair depiction. After all you've thought this through haven't you? And, indeed, you welcome the friendly cut-and-thrust of debate especially as you feel confidant in your knowledge of your subject area, as it's an opinion that you've researched thoroughly.

One small problem though.

Section 2.1: Your opinion is wrong.

Think you've been over all the oppositional arguments and considered every angle? No you fucking haven't you liar. You've briefly entertained the idea that you might be wrong and have then filled your craw with endless 'well done' arguments. If you really challenged your own point of view you'd be in such a dizzying state of indecision that you wouldn't know if you were coming or going.

Section 2.2: Your opinion isn't an argument.

Arguments are a detailed deconstruction of a particular point of view intended to prove the validity or otherwise of a particular position, whether that be contrary or partisan in nature. Your meme or your 'aphorism' is not that. If anything is being referenced it's normally a 'dog-whistle' to some objectionable political perspective, whether you know that or not. Retweets might not be endorsements, but they help mainstream an idea that would not otherwise get oxygen.

Section 2.3: Your opinion isn't yours.

Have you thought about were the latest viral meme has come from? Who created it and for what reason? Just so you know, "only joking" probably isn't the real reason and is normally the answer given by fucking liars anyway. Further to that, being a joke does not free one from being criticised for untruthful or hurtful allegations whether clouded by ignorance or stupidity or not.

Section 3: The end is the beginning.

So, apologies for the swearing, but there's not much to be hopeful about politically in my opinion. At least not until the culture shifts to a less awful place, most likely this will require us becoming less addicted to social media and believing obvious lies rather than willing to engage in the potentially painful process of self-examination. However, this activity takes work and time, something that could be an 'allowance' of sorts by a government that wishes their populace to engage rather be willing servants, which is instead what we've had mostly throughout history it seems.

Thoughts on NOT Thursday: The YouTube 'Putsch'

This (the aforementioned 'putsch') has become such an interesting snapshot of British politics that I feel it's worth recording and commenting upon, because at the moment with larger constantly looming political stories both at home and abroad it is becoming increasingly possible to lose track of events and fail to mark those important occasions and happenings with our attention, but I think this case in point of the failure of the far-right is one that is an outcome of hope for moderates, the left and the general population. Not least because it offers a push back to the received wisdom of the power of social media and as such I'll being comparing this story to another recent event, the so-called 'storming of Area 51' that gained a great deal of social media 'noise' and apparent influence, which ended in a damp squib.

Turns out that people who say one thing online in a completely anonymous and consequence free environment are unlikely to follow up any of the things they said they'd do. If only Brexiteers and the alt-right (two totally different groups of course) were also so spectral in their support. Although this story helps prove that apparent volume of online support doesn't necessarily lead to true believers. If we're not being watched or we have no responsibility to enact the things we say we'll do then we rarely seem to do them.

Link to BBC story here

Towards the end of last year there was a definite feeling (being promoted online) that the dissenting voices of 'Tommy' and his UKIP pals would not be silenced. That only with a true HARD BREXIT would the voices of the British Working Classes really be heard and responded to after their shattering 51.9% to 48.1% 'victory' in the advisory EU referendum that was held in 2016. Indeed, longtime demagogue Nigel Farage said what was lurking in the recesses of Tommy and his followers minds the previous year (at an event in 2017) that "there will be widespread public anger in this country on a scale and in a way we have never seen before... if they don't deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines."

Well, the March deadline came and went without any public guillotines making an appearance and even after the October Spooktactular deadline was also passed, still not an incident had occurred. Perhaps they are biding their time?

I mean, either that, or the Farages, Tommy Robinsons and other Dick Braines were just all full of shit and pandering to a delusional and easily swayed crowd of scared, confused and not overly sympathetic people with bombastic ranting specifically designed to appeal to weaker impulses and help keep them in power.

You could end of feeling sorry for them if they weren't literally the worst sort of people imaginable.

Here's an example in case it seems like I'm making a straw man.

Tommy Trumpet and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Booklet

By the man who brought you, 'Ten Reasons why Jacob Rees-Mogg should be Prime Minister.'

For a brief while it seemed as if the far-right was on a resurgence all across Europe (indeed, elsewhere it really is and is an actual threat) but thankfully Tommy seems to have almost single-handedly damaged the standing of such parties in the UK almost fatally. Perhaps another figurehead will rise up to become this generation's Nick Griffin, but I can't help but think that Tommy's has had his time already. Since his release from Belmarsh prison in September, Tommy has been rather quiet, but it's interesting to see that one of the last public things he did was to 'back Boris'. Perhaps it's just that 'they' have become mainstream and that people like Tommy are no longer needed.

Really there's not much more that needs to be said about these people, as there's no point in engaging with them in good faith as this is the last thing that they would ever do. Their rhetoric is a swirling nonsense of racist buzzwords that only the initiated can interpret (AKA a dogwhistle) which leaves a deniability that allows their verbal slurry to permeate normal channels of discourse in an attempt to 'mainstream' their ideas. Fortunately, unlike the fascists of the USA and elsewhere in Europe and Russia, our lot are a rather pea-brained collection of failed humans.

I mean, unless you think that Farage and Boris Johnson pose an actual existential threat to the UK.

I'll get back to you about that on Friday the 13th.


Timeline of events:

• 28/3/18 Yaxley-Lennon banned from Twitter
• 14/4/18 Gerard Batten becomes leader of UKIP (acting leader from Feb)
• 25/5/18 Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA 'Tommy Robinson' arrested for breach of the peace, filming outside Leeds Crown Court grooming trial, when he had already been previously warned (he was on a suspended sentence)
• 17/6/18 Various 'Alt-Right' social media 'influencers' join party, they include; Paul Joseph Watson (Infowars), Carl Benjamin AKA 'Sargon of Akkad' (YouTuber), Milo Yiannopoulos (former Breitbart), and Markus Meechan AKA 'Count Dankula'. All support 'Tommy'
• 1/8/18 Yaxley-Lennon freed on bail, court of appeal rules he should be charged with contempt of court and not breach of the peace
• 23/10/18 Judge rules that Yaxley-Lennon's case be referred to the attorney general
• 8/11/18 Paypal stops handling payments for Yaxley-Lennon and others
• 23/11/18 UKIP leader Gerard Batten defends hiring of 'Tommy' as 'advisor' the previous day
• 27/11/18 UKIP MEP Patrick O'Flynn defects to SDP
• 3/12/18 UKIP leader Gerard Batten survives vote of no confidence
• 4/12/18 Former leader Nigel Farage resigns from UKIP cites "obsession with Islam"
• 6/12/18 Former Welsh leader Nathan Gill resigns from UKIP
• 7/12/18 Scottish leader David Coburn resigns from UKIP cites "extremist... infiltration"
• 7/12/18 Former leader Paul Nuttall resigns from UKIP cites 'Tommy Robinson' as reason
• 9/12/18 'Brexit Betrayal' March led by 'Tommy' and others in London.
• 26/2/19 Yaxley-Lennon banned from Facebook and Instagram
• 15/3/19 Yaxley-Lennon loses 'discrimination' case against Cambridgeshire police
• 2/4/19 Yaxley-Lennon videos restricted on Youtube
• 5/4/19 Yaxley-Lennon banned from Snapchat
• 25/4/19 Yaxley-Lennon announces plans to stand as an MEP
• 23/5/19 European Elections: Yaxley-Lennon loses deposit after polling 2.2% in North-West, Carl Benjamin finished 6th polling 3.2% in the South-West, and Mark Meechan polled at 1.8% finishing 4th in Scotland. UKIP leader Gerald Batten polled at 2.1% in London. Worst results ever for the party in it's brief existence, being eclipsed by Nigel Farage's Brexit Party. In total UKIP gained 3.2% of the overall vote, a deficit of 23.4% and losing all 23 of their previously held seats.
• 2/7/19 Gerard Batten steps down after 'disastrous' Euro election results
• 11/7/19 Yaxley-Lennon jailed for nine months for Contempt of Court
• 12/7/19 Piers Wauchope appointed Interim Leader of UKIP
• 10/8/19 New UKIP leader Dick Braine appointed
• 30/10/19 Dick Braine resigns as leader :-(
• As of today (11/11/19), UKIP is still Leader and Deputy Leader VACANT

Magickal Melancholy Mondays: Try Again, Fail Again, Fail Better.

Note: This is labelled 'personal' because it is mostly an unmoderated rant without research or citations to back my thoughts up with. As such, it is to be taken with a pinch of salt, as it is mostly strong emotional reactions to things not thought through clearly enough beforehand.

I've been trying to write about several things presently and they keep coalescing into one mess. This might have more to do with my own state of mind as I wait for the birth of my son, rather than any definite connexion between the subjects. Although I think that there's something there, even if it's just my own narrative attempt at understanding.

First, I've been trying to write about our, what I call, 'Emerging Online Ochlocracy' that is to say, the way in which we are becoming like a mob when we 'connect' online into groups or societies or communities (whatever we call them). I think that perhaps this is due to the depersonalisation of the connexion, but also because some of the online communities are actually trying to raise their talking points across all media on the internet, which means that on any topic that is interacted with or discussed online you find their 'take' on these things creeping into the discussion and eventually simply replacing that supposed conversation with their own ideology.

It is at this point that I realise that I've moved from a generalised look at depersonalisation online causing groups to become close-minded and isolated into an actual analysis of the alt-right and their tactics online. This especially in wake of recent events and the very active effort by the alt-right and their allies to deflect any criticism, valid or not, from touching their base. And this starts to make me think about the connexion with right-wing politics and our digital lives in totality.

That, politically, we are also become distanced and 'held at arm's length' from the real work of the government. And this in turn brings up the subject of Brexit, which is very much on my mind presently as you might imagine. That people are becoming disgruntled with the lack of voice within politics, their lack of involvement in the sense of being paid any mind by the people in control. And this makes me think about what are we meant to do to change this? Being online, gives one the illusion of immediate access to things, it also gives us the opportunity to air those thoughts 'to the wider world' and makes us believe that our personal opinion is important (after all, it always seems that way to ourselves). So, we engage with the world online, perhaps we simply comment, or join chats or forums about subjects of interest, or perhaps we become a content creator ourselves.

We can make angry videos that are sad.

We can make sad videos that are angry.

But although one might be more theoretically stable and the other mostly just cathartic entertainment, in the end, our lack of agency means that all most of us can do is watch these videos on YouTube, adding money to Google, or we circulate other forums and air other views, again to the ultimate benefit of an internet corporation, or we can be one of five million (at time writing) people signing on online UK government petition to revoke article 50, or we can go outdoors and head to London and take part in a one million person march supporting revoking article 50, or support the opposite opinion, or one of many other ways in which we can make ourselves feel slightly better about our condition without actually effecting much of anything. It all feels like screaming into the wind.

Because without several fairly major global changes in attitude it's hard to see how we might move out of this, and this might be the ultimate failure of the internet. It brings people together as it isolates, it offers alternative views while indoctrinating users into a particular ideology, it offers the harmonious global village, but actually just creates aggressive mobs. Before the pervasiveness of the internet, one had to actively seek out extreme views and hostile opinions, they were never 'just there'. The connected networks of the Web also allowed the 24 hours news media to flourish and replace objective journalism with attention grabbing entertainment as ideology programming ("pick the channel/paper/website that best describes you!"). Of course, we move towards groups and opinions we agree with, but outside of the internet we are instead brought face-to-face with otherness, with those that mildly disagree with us, with opinions we can ignore or engage with. Online, the distinct differences drive us apart, not together, and people circulate with their own, out of fear of being publicly shamed, or criticised, or made a fool of, or called out, or doxxed.

And if we do meet with opinions we disagree with, or are directly challenged by another faceless accuser, our response is typically one of childish vitriol rather than a measured respect. As fake as that respect might be, still people in everyday life react to different opinions by at least hearing the other person out in most cases. But why are we like this? Is this just 'how it is'?

The thing I come back to in every case is the influence of global capitalism on all aspects of our lives, that post-crash 2008 we were betrayed by those we voted for to protect us, who chose instead to favour those that pay their wages. We are (some of us) convinced by a competitive individualism that exhorts this sorts behaviour as merely the rules of the game. The only rule that matters being, 'Winner takes all'.

Cosy liberal friends suggest going on marches and being 'politically active' as ways in which we can all help make a difference, but this is the world as they see it, a world where having the most logically pure argument will win out. The delusions of the philosopher, but in the face of a system that doesn't care or a person that hates, their arguments are meaningless.

Perhaps this seems unfair, cruel even, to be thinking this (especially now!) and perhaps it is just harmfully cynical. I should say that I'm very proud of my friends that made it to London on Saturday for the march. I gives me joy that they still hope. I've pinned my hope elsewhere. Not to my child, you understand, but to myself as a father, my family, our future together. Albeit one that looks outwards and is not just an insular motivation.

But what to do about our present circumstances? I have no idea. I keep trying to make sense of it, give it a reason, but failing every time. "Try again, fail again, fail better." - Beckett.

London, March 23rd 2019 'People's Vote March' Image from Sky News Ⓒ

Thoughts on Thursday: A Genuine Question...

A genuine question,

Why is there not a larger scale Green Conservative movement?

Further. Why is it that those who would otherwise set themselves up as defenders of tradition, not want to defend the tradition of having a breathable atmosphere?

Or to put it another way, why would those that are adverse to sudden change, be okay with sudden climate change?

Surely, Conservative is only a few letters away from Conservation?

Alright, seriously though, why must it be that those of us who consider the continuing survival of the ecosystem an important thing to be considered radicals? I would have thought that there's nothing more traditional than being able to provide a safe and sustainable living environment for our children and future generations to live in. Aren't these the people that love inheritance?

If you want it to continue to be a 'Green and Pleasant' land in more than just words, you would must also believe in doing your utmost to protect the natural landscape from unnecessary and dangerously damaging exploitation.

However, to do so those on the Right must make more than a small movement towards environmentalism without getting caught up in their own little England. For although the environmentalist of the past might have been concerned with 'saving the Hedgehog' or 'protecting the Church's duck pond from the Bypass' the problem nowadays is that our environmental problems are of a much larger, much more global scale.

The problem isn't that Mr. Popescu isn't doing his fair share in the bottle recycling drive at the Rotary Club, the problem is greater than the individual and greater than the small town mentality of the countryside Conservative who pays lip-service to Environmentalism but refuses to criticise the collusion between governments and corporations. Such are the problem with Roger Scruton's otherwise commendable efforts in Green Philosophy, 2012.

And this might be the crux of the matter in the current debate. The Left posits views and solutions that most of the Right can seemingly dismiss in otherwise ridiculously stupid ways. Although the view 'across the pond' in much different, perhaps due to green politics being effectively excluded from the mainstream political debate for generations, whereas although it is often downplayed and dismissed, at least there is a stream of environmental politics in Britain that has never gone away and does do good work in communicating it's message to the wider public (however difficult the media continue to make that). So, it is for that reason the 'leader of the free world' can make the monumentally stupid statement, "when the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric."

Although, the currently prison-free POTUS has a long acknowledged inability to understand green energy or issues, his famous opposition to wind farms was based on the turbines "ruining the view" from his hideous already-an-eye-sore golf course that was build on a SSSI mainly due to the 'bung' he paid Alex Salmond (allegedly). I'm pleased to say, his opposition failed, but mainly because he became 'otherwise occupied' than a change of heart.

Anyway, keeping this to British politics, as we drive inexorably towards the cliff-edge of Brexit I can't help but wonder if this will provoke a greater interest in our longer-term survivability as an energy producing nation (our renewable energies market has grown massively in the last few years and could spell a certain freedom from being tied to foreign gas and oil) or whether we'll be drawn to making whatever short-term deals are 'needed' to keep the rich wealthy and in power at the expense, not only of the poor (because it seems we've never been that bothered about the poor) but also at the expense of the natural landscape of Britain itself.

And don't you want to save the British Hedgehog?

Still, think tanks like Bright Blue do exist... so, I'm more hopeful for the general British political consensus to consider and react appropriately towards environmental matters. I just worry about (1) the speed of this action, and (2) our inability to fight a stronger anti-environmental pro-corporation message being promoted by the US, Russia, and China. This will only be harder to fight against outside of Europe...

Secular Sundays: Misdirection, or Whataboutism as Political Expedience

Misdirection, or Whataboutism as Political Expedience

Bosch (c. 1500) The Wayfarer

My previous post could have been made at any time in the last year really, especially as pertaining to the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn. However, this has been made current by a recent split in the Labour Party and the formation of the Independent Group, many of whom cited Labour’s Anti-Semitism (some felt they didn’t need to prefix this with ‘Labour’s failure to deal with…’ that prompts a tone change in the conversation) as their reason for leaving. However, it also begs the question, “WHY NOW?” Why now, when we are less than a month from a potential No-Deal Brexit? Why now, when the Home Secretary is making a British citizen stateless?

There is a real need for a legitimate discussion about issues caused by the actions of foreign states and our part in them, about our relation towards religion and liberalism in the UK, about certain types of bigotry being effectively ‘authorised’ by our Government in their unwillingness to act, something that calls into question the usefulness of liberal democracies when dealing with fascism. However, is that time now? Or this is just a helpful distraction from the ongoing and unfolding crisis of inaction by the UK Government in relation to Brexit?

I would suggest that based on the lack of actual attempts to make this discussion about apparent anti-Semitism an all-party debate, and the general tone of media ‘scandal’ that has accompanied such reporting that is this another in a long line of recent distractions perpetrated by Governments to shift the public’s attention from a larger problem within the ruling party.

This is something of a speciality by the Trump administration, whose constant barrage of new outrages means that the press, let along the public, barely have the time to react before something new has overtaken the previous story. This technique means that there is not sufficient time to perform a proper analysis of the situation, place it in context, research facts, and so forth.

However, more useful in its level of distraction, would be a different crisis that has no simple or immediate end in sight (if at all). So, raising the spectre of the failure of multiculturalism and liberal ‘double standards’ (this despite rabid anti-Islamic feeling in the British press and in various political parties, as well as recent actions by the Tory Government in the ‘Windrush Scandal’) gives a potentially limitless supply of ammunition in moving the public’s gaze from Brexit to criticising and distrusting one of the only party’s that could actually offer a solution from the Brexit crisis.

In today’s edition of the Observer for example there were; 12 articles about anti-Semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s failure to deal with the split that created the Independent Group, and 4 articles about Brexit and the potential economic problems that a no-deal exit would cause, and all of former pieces were critical comments on Labour and Corbyn. I suppose that scientifically I should look through ALL the Sunday papers... but I'd really need to be paid in order to spent my time with anymore of that...

Secular Sundays: Hypocrisy, or double standards relating to criticism of the State, Religion, and people.

Hypocrisy, or double standards relating to criticism of the State, Religion, and people.

George Grosz (1918) The Funeral

Recently a political figure in the UK was swiftly expelled from their party for making the following comment on Twitter, “Islamic people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Saudi Arabia!”

No, wait a minute, perhaps I’m getting confused. Wasn’t it, “Muslims must do more than just condemn terrorism.”?

Although stateless terrorists and a state-sponsored murder of a journalist (amongst many other wrongdoings) are obviously totally different. In that… answers on a postcard please.

No, there is no real difference, because in both cases one group of people is rendered guilty by association. If they do not do X, then they are without humanity or are not being truly ‘British and Muslim’, what follows for a minority group stripped of human rights has played out throughout history with various despicable consequences.

Actually though this didn’t really happen. The second quote was indeed made by Sajid Javid, Conservative politician and current Home Secretary, but he received no sanction for it. He might have received a little criticism from the left-leaning press (very little) but in general his views were welcomed. No, the difference was the first quote which was actually, “Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel!” and was made by Labour’s Derek Hatton, whose return to the Labour party, after previously being expelled for Misogynistic comments, was very brief indeed.

Now, I have no wish to defend Hatton (whether the comment was six years old or not), but simply to point out the great disparity in reaction to similar comments made about Islam and Judaism in Britain. Both statements (Hatton’s and Javid’s) place blame on a minority that implies the removal of ‘normal’ privilege by their failure to act in a specified way. Obviously Hatton’s, both coming in the form of a character-limited tweet and being made by a stupid bigot, is worse and comes to worse conclusions that the lengthy statement made by Javid, but then Javid is not a stupid man.

No reasonable person would wish to defend fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups and would not therefore complain about such groups being criticised for various failures in rationality and humanity, but any such criticism of Israel’s Zionist ideology is counted as being a form of anti-Semitism and I would seek to make a clear distinction between being critical of Zionist ideology and being a person who hates Jews unconditionally.

For a start, let us remove the comparison with current or historic groups of terror as this is an unneeded emotive ‘accelerant’. One that draws a false comparison, as would comparing Israel with Nazi Germany, something that is so distasteful as to be an obvious inflammatory tactic. Instead let us compare my own criticism of the Trump regime of the US with my relationship with America and Americans. Hold on you say, this is merely an argument from experience and therefore a logical fallacy. One might as well say, “Some of my best friends are Tories.”

Well, alright then, let’s start again. People often use something like the argument that, “Jews are the only group of people who do not have the right to aspire to their own nation state in their historic homeland. The same people (who do have a problem with this) have no issue with Kurdish, or Catalan, or Nepalese, or Palestinian peoples making similar national aspirations. Anti-Zionism is then the political wing of anti-Semitism and the hidden desire to remove the Jewish people from existence.”

Under this argument it is therefore contradictory to say that one is anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic in the same way that it would be to say that, “I’ve no problem with the Japanese, I just don’t think that Japan should exist as a country or that the Japanese have any right to a country.”

There is comparison to be made with Zionism and that is with a similar argument made by the BNP that, “Britain belongs to the British” which means something quite different to them than it does to me. I would, for example, agree that Britain does indeed belong to the British (although it does strike one as a bit of a redundant comment to make) but among the British I would count; Muhammad, a Sudanese-born Muslim who came to the UK to train and work in the NHS and has now married and had a child here (although name changed this is an actual person and not, I would suggest, unique in that), and many others that the BNP and their current representatives, UKIP, would not allow to be counted as ‘British’. The comparison to be made between Zionism and the white Nationalism of the BNP is that both are Ethno-Nationalistic ideologies.

Perhaps then this is why ethno-state advocate Tommy Robinson also talks of being a Zionist and not least because he has received funding from Zionist organisations, but also because they have similar World views. However, I suspect that the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ attitude between white nationalists and Zionists only goes so far. Were the far-right to come to power in the UK their ‘connection’ with Zionism would be dropped and all Jews would either be expelled to Israel or have to cease ‘being Jewish’.

To call an ethno-nationalist ideology ‘regressive’ would probably be the least one could say about them. As a product of ‘turn of the century’ anxieties about ‘living space’ as well as pseudo-scientific ideas of race propagated at the time, followed by the collapse of Empire(s) brought about by ‘the Great War’ (WWI) I would suggest that ethno-nationalistic ideologies belong in the past. Although the replacement of such ideas cannot come about without some intellectual and political work taking place. Again we look to the new generation to do the work that we and our parents have failed to accomplish (or even start).

Anyway, let’s bring this back to the false equivalence already mentioned. So, I don’t have a ‘problem with the Japanese’, but I’m critical of their actions during WWII and their lack of proper apology to Korean and Chinese victims during this time, does this make me anti-Japanese? I mean, I say I’m just anti-Shōwa but really I must just be anti-Japanese.

However, you could just dismiss this argument as me being disingenuous, because nobody is arguing for the reconceptualisation of Japanese WWII Militarism, this is purely historical and an abstraction. It was be as nonsensical as someone still hating Germans for having been Nazis, and no one does that!

Okay then, let’s criticise Shinzō Abe… He is a lapdog of Trump, having being told to put Trump forward for a Nobel Peace prize for two years in a row he has done just that, more than that he is a regressive Business before People’s Welfare politician, a corrupt leader who gives preferential treatment to his political friends and allies (i.e. Cronyism). Would such a criticism be evidence of anti-Japanese sentiment? Well, perhaps it might, but does this stop my criticism from being valid?

I suppose you’d have to ask me more to find out. Of course, one clue might be that I haven’t implicated Japan in a global conspiracy to run the banks and Hollywood and bring about Multiculturalism to create a downfall in the ‘West’.

What if… Abe decided to persecute the Ainu people? He reverses the 2008 ruling recognising the Ainu people as indigenous to Japan and instead strips them of their rights, removes them from their land in Hokkaido, land that he claims is properly Historically Japanese, and houses them in settlements elsewhere in Japan without providing proper amenities. What then? Would my forthcoming criticism of these actions hide a secret desire to exterminate the Japanese people? Or would it be a criticism of brutal dehumanising actions of a Government? Could it be both? Without reading minds how could you know for sure? A person's words AND actions perhaps? Therefore, to bring it back to the initial case (Hatton etc), what action(s) of the Labour party suggest anti-Semitism?

What if... We consider Zionism as an understandable reaction to the building anti-Semitism of the time in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Why shouldn't the Jewish people have a homeland, a homeland that they once held? And, of course, I would agree with this. How could a compassionate person think otherwise? But, how was it done, how was it arranged? Empire builders cutting up a land and a people that wasn't theirs and creating countless problems because of this. Consider, as comparison, the Partition of India that created a massive crisis at the time (in 1947) or perhaps the foundation of Iraq (in 1920) after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and (again) controlled by the British. And then, regardless of what we think of the formation of a country (all are an 'artificial' imposition in some way) we can then critique it's Government and leaders for their policies and actions, can we not?

P.S. If it needs saying, I think that anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic and Misogynistic and anti-LGBT+ and racist and fascist and, indeed, all forms of hatred and bigoted views are ALL wrong.

(or do I? how do you know? maybe I hate the Finnish, you don't know)

Sports on Sunday: Football Lads

Yesterday, 'my team', Chelsea beat Manchester City 2-0 at Stamford Bridge. During the match Manchester City forward Raheem Sterling reported that there was racist abuse directed at him from among the home supporters. That this is not surprising to me is much to do with the history of Chelsea's support, a portion of whom have been long acknowledged as violent racists. Indeed, like many firms, for them this is a badge of honour.

It has been a recent fantasy that since 1990 the 'bad old days' of hooliganism had been expunged from football. That it had instead been replaced with a family-friendly inclusive and modern way of supporting teams and following the game. Something that meant that 'being a fan' was paying for a Sky Sports subscription, rather than actually attending matches and experiencing the game itself. A more distant and impersonal attachment to sport, something that allowed for a global reach, that was more like marketing a brand, and was to many something that started to feel plastic and hollow. Football support, that is watching and not playing, is about the crowd and belonging. This is something that Bill Buford recognised.

'Among the Thugs' (1990) by Bill Buford captures a certain restless self-destructive energy that describes the society of the hooligan. A willing giving of the self to the crowd, to throw away individuality into a nihilistic ecstasy of frenzied togetherness. The wish to belong, to be part of something, and to feel that you are special in that. What makes you worthy is ironically that you have given up your personality for membership of the crowd, you have ceased being singular and are now part of a collective. That this collective is dedicated to violence is bizarre, irrational, even utterly foolish, but more than the collective wish to enjoy music or sport or be together in some ideological spirit, instead the hooligan embraces their outsider otherness, their wilful destructive hate. It is more enlivening, more thrilling, more real, because it is so anti-conventional. A line has been crossed. It is this 'line' that Buford seeks to describe in other crowd behaviours; the Yugoslav protest turned violent, the football crowd pushing themselves to cross the street, and in doing so make a physical sign that they have transgressed the rules of normalcy and that now, anarchy rules, the mob rules. Standard practice is being, temporarily, abandoned in favour of; self-abnegation, public destruction, social disorder, and the joy, the thrill, the excitement of violence. Whether an individual participant threw a punch or not, they were there when it all "went off."

Joe Kennedy's 'Games Without Frontiers' (2016) also points to another development in this resurgent hooligan attitude in football. That it is the working-class man's game and that the behaviours that they, the ultras, engage in are those that are 'true' to the authentic British male's experience. This experience rejects the hollow and plastic commodification of the game, but it also rejects the perceived middle-class gentrification of what is 'theirs' in another way. It labels the social improvements (as I would see it) of anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-homophobia (in short, anti-bigotry) as itself being unauthentic to the British working-class. A nonsense that effectively denies the fact that any working-class person could ever be anti-racist (f.e.) without being either a class traitor or a fake. So, something that started being about rejecting commercialisation of sport is now about the definition of what 'real' British maleness is, or at least, this is what the politicisation leads towards. And what counts as 'real' is the anti-feminist, anti-Islam, anti-immigration agenda of the far-right, which portrays itself as the 'real' voice of the working-class.

Racially abusing a black player on the other team therefore is, in this mindset, merely a case of a 'bit of banter', as it wasn't directed at all black players on both sides, it was just 'part of the game', just a bit of ridiculing the opposition and what if the middle-class PC SJW snowflakes don't like the language used, it's 'only words'.

Something that Buford also highlighted in his book was the attempted politicisation of these football firms in the 1980s by the National Front. He describes attending a gathering at a remote country pub that was organised by Nick Griffin. Then of the NF but who would later lead the British National Party to their, thankful, demise after a modicum of political success. However, although the BNP has dissolved back into the shadows. The people involved and, more importantly, their ideas did not.The attempts to hold influence over various different football firms coalesced into the English Defence League, which was founded in 2009 with 'Tommy Robinson' soon becoming the group's leader.

The Football Lads Alliance was founded in 2017, but represents only the most recent part of this ongoing politicisation of football fans, or more expansively, of the white working-class male. That this has also come on the rising tide of nationalism and of anti-Islamic feeling in Britain is no surprise. It was no surprise, because this has always been their intent. Our contemporary Nick Griffin, 'Tommy Robinson' is today participating in the Brexit betrayal march in London and like the attention parasite he is, this has particularly prescient timing. The ongoing 'yellow vest' riots in Paris (to which many in the far-right have added their support), and planned for only two days before a major vote on the future of Brexit in parliament. This march represents another attempt to infest one cause, Ukip's obsessive "Will of the people" hard Brexit, with the opinions and attitudes of the far-right.

Let's bring this back to the original case, which I see has now already turned into a 'one bad fan' story and carries with it the ubiquitous allegedly. It is also unhelpfully tinged by the excessive reporting on Raheem Sterling, who is a somewhat controversial figure in football, in that he seems to have opinions and the ability to articulate them (and he's black). Of course, it will be a simple enough matter to dismiss this as one rare occurrence and not in the 'true spirit' of the everyday fan. Well, of course, this is the case, it is not as if the far-right's opinion of the British working-class is in fact true. Worryingly though many other (non-working-class) people seem to buy into this depiction and (f.e.) blame Brexit on this stereotyped view of the thuggish racist working-class, something aided no doubt by sensationalist media coverage.

Certainly the attitudes and behaviours of many 'everyday' football fans don't help their case in the public eye, but then this is confusing an ebullient, albeit aggressive, atmosphere at football matches with something inherently dangerous. Much like the conservatives reaction to punk, or rock n' roll, or anything that seems counter-cultural (to them). In short, it is partly motivated by a fear of the working-class, something that only helps strengthen the far-right's attempts to show that they, the white working-class men, are the 'real victims' or other such falsehoods to gain recruits to their agenda of hate.

I will be writing more about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA 'Tommy Robinson' and the recent soft coup of Ukip and the general 'crowd behaviour' dynamic of many online communities, but this story felt like it needed an immediate response and it's been a subject on my mind for some time.

P.S. Although this should really have been titled 'Secular Sunday: Football Lads' I couldn't resist.

Both are recommended reading.

In blogs past: Scottish with a small s

I wrote this sometime in 2007-2008, perhaps even earlier, I can only guess at the date because I mention being in Lampeter, which I left in mid-2008. [I've now dated this to September 2007, thanks to the mention of Scotland's second victory over France.]

I’ve been living now in Scotland again for the last couple of years (since September 2014 indeed) and with all the recent talk of independence and nationality, I’ve begun questioning my own ‘Scottishness’ again. Especially as my partner has been made to feel ‘not of the place’ more than once, due to her being from England. I’d hesitate to say, made to feel ‘not welcome’ but I think, for the most part, this was never the problem. Indeed, as an adult returning to the haunts of my childhood and early adulthood, but now with a partner, with experience and (hopefully) with some insight. I realise how small those ‘problems’ really were. Still, those problems were the basis for feelings that developed my world-sense, for my feeling of longing for acceptance and ‘home’. I have found and lost that home several times now, but have now come to an understanding that it stays within you, indeed, it comes from within you to begin with, thus, we never really find or lose anything. Only grow a little more each encounter.

Myself at Falcondale Lake sometime ago

Original Post:

There are times when my 'identity' as a Scotsman comes under threat, but my tie to Scotland is more (?) than mere politics. Indeed the recent boom in Scottish patriotism, helped along the way by the SNP and a 1-0 home and away victory against France, has done little to pull me 'home', but home it still is. Even here in Celtic rural Wales. It sometimes feels like a step along (up?) the ladder of Plato as described in symposium, in which the love of a person leads eventually to the love of wisdom. So, my love of a land leads me to a love of all (land, the world). Perhaps, perhaps. Although, I am not a Platonist. This is not my intention. The real question therefore may be, what makes you 'of a nation’? The mere fact of being born in a particular country? Being accepted? My ties with Scotland, as I have said, are with the land itself and not the people, with whom I have never felt completely accepted (English parentage on my part permanently marks my sheet for most). The land we may presently call Scotland.

PDB:

I wonder about this — about feeling connected to a place (along with language/languages, ways of living, &c. that might — ? — be associated with it). I wonder particularly about being self-consciously tied to a land. Hardly seems possible to establish, or be established in, such a sense of connection in the climate of diffuseness of language & interest I've grown up & spent most of my life in. I don't suppose this sort of blunted experience is special to my part of the world — though maybe others could usefully contradict that impression. 'The land' & its associations, anyway, can have a terrible vagueness in one's awareness. One might be transplanted a few thousand miles away and not be much affected by the change, as long as the weather & the availability of retail goods are more or less on par with those of the situation previous.

My Reply:

Paul, I think there is a definite separation between the connection one simply 'has' with somewhere and that which we make for ourselves or are given (a difference between culture and identity). Indeed, I am culturally British and do not deny this, but there is also here in the UK, perhaps more than in the US (where you have a general patriotic feeling of being an American), a definite sense of a more local identity. Whether this be England, Wales or Scotland and again this separates quite strongly with other divides (northern English and London and so on).

However, this doesn't quite touch on the point I was making (or indeed yours). I agree that we have allowed ourselves to become separated from the land we live amongst, but I do not feel it is something impossible to overcome.

As I have moved to somewhere with similar weather, people's attitudes, and retail goods (for in Britain we have a generally similar experience where ever we may live) I can still say, this is not 'my land' in such the same way I could say about the north east of Scotland and yet I am not fully accepted there (or rather it is me who does not allow myself to feel accepted, which is different). So, really what I am trying (and failing) to say is that although I feel a special connection with the unique landscape of Scotland this is only a small thing (hence a small s) in terms of a recognition of one's nationhood but still, perhaps it is something that is far too often overlooked or ignored (as you have suggested because of our culture). I think we, here in Britain, have more problems with immigration because of these localised identities, but this for another day...

Really to save time I could have just said, I feel homesick but I’m not sure exactly what (or where) this longing is for.

Thomas:

I feel that quite regularly - there isn’t really a place outside of music and a few peaceful places where we cannot dwell for any length of time, like the stream outside Tynycornel, that really feel right, a proper home. Sometimes for me there seems like a second skin to the world, a true shape, of which this place of the 21st century is just the dream from which I can never really wake. I promised myself to Dartmoor on the solar eclipse, but it is a rare occurrence that I actually encounter the land I made that promise to. And here in Wales, no amount of Welsh classes and time spent in the pub could make me really part of this community and this place of reality. It feels like I have lost the sacred land into which I should have been born, my ancestors aren’t in its bones, and I am not far enough into this Now to forget them. This world is so temporary it has ceased to have solid depth, only a ghost behind the modern dream. Bristol was burnt stumps, Wales and Dartmoor are the ghosts of trees, the ghost remnants of belonging.