Dumbing down politics and abusing and demonising the other side
by The Webmaster
“There are efforts to dumb down politics and abuse and demonise the other side”
His company have produced a programme for ITV’s “flagship current affairs” programme Exposure. Flagship here appears to mean that it goes out in a late night midweek slot, has a so-so rating on IMDB and is on a channel better known by its general audience for shows such as Coronation Street and X-Factor.
In a carefully crafted written attack on the TBG, we learn that the group is somehow part of a “resurgent far right”. These kinds of intellectually dishonest phrases (when not used ironically) tend to offer us a great unintentional guide to the viewing position of the accuser on the political spectrum, rather than to the object actually being accused off in the distance
This assumption is reinforced by learning that the programme has lined up as its ‘experts’ two notorious individuals from the Hope Not Hate cabal, which manages its activities - in part - as a charity. The organisation was initially a splinter-group from the Searchlight Educational Trust another 'charity' and the cashcow of publisher Gerald Gable who comes from a (historical) Communist and criminal background.
At a time when Hardcash’s first 'expert' Mr Lowles was the editor of their publication Searchlight Magazine under Gable, yet another key employee, the European Editor, was a Graham Atkinson, who was for many years the local editor of Morning Star the house organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). We believe Mr Atkinson then smoothly decanted himself out from under Gable’s tutelage into Hope Not Hate. I am led to believe that Mr Lowles himself may have also crawled out of one of a thousand Trotskyite splinters into more camouflaged political activity.
Hope Not Hate found more rewarding friends after this formal split, including surprisingly within the Conservative Party, though not their natural allies in other circumstances, they were fortuitously given thousands of pounds to their charitable arm ('for the EDL') at a time when the organisation was attacking the Conservative's rivals UKIP with the Left's usual tired rhetorical techniques of ‘racism’ and being ‘far right’. You’ll note from this FOI request that the government department attempted to initially deny these payments under the excuse that they had become confused as HnH were still legally called the Searchlight Educational Trust. Let’s give the confused lady the benefit of the doubt and put it down to her lack of attention to detail. It should not surprise you that most of these types of organisations are supported by arms of government, unions, hands-off quangos and other well-endowed 'charities'.
The second ‘expert’ that Hardcash have used to frame their analysis is one Matthew Collins who by his own admission was a dreg from the bonehead wing of the BNP, telling tales of their campaigning with hidden metal wheel braces and having fun socialising by smashing glasses into people’s faces. He improbably liked to chant to himself in the mirror how he was a "National Socialist, a white Aryan, part of the master race" and he favoured as his weapon of choice a glass bottle of Lucozade. Intellectual gravitas here is probably going to be too much to expect.
So please factor the pedigree of these experts into an overall evaluation of the moral quality, intellectual depth and political neutrality and wonder with us how they have been handpicked to develop this programme’s narrative, to which I now turn.
The tactic of the programme makers from letters to others that I have seen online (Waters; Buckby; Generation Identity) seems to be to throw a net out as far as possible to try to find something ghastly or dramatic to offer viewers. Over a 6 month period they sent young women undercover to ingratiate themselves and slyly record everything in the hopes of getting a few indiscreet or outrageous phrases. They've boiled down hundreds of hours into a one hour critique and kept ‘experts’ on-hand to try to keep the dramatic tension going. In doing so they appear to have dragged in many unrelated species who normally would not be found swimming together, from football 'hooligans' to High Tories. It’s noteworthy that they used young women, clearly relying on the natural male chivalry and trusting openness of their targets to further their goal. But to achieve this they have invaded the right to privacy of hundreds of British citizens to cobble together their exposé that could just as easily have been achieved from public sources. The most obvious explanation is that this type of ‘naughty’ voyeurism must be pitched this way for the ITV audience they are expecting and that it will have their liberal media peers cooing at their bravery and awarding them more perspex door stoppers. Unlike the KneeGate hysteria on British television, it’s unlikely that their reporter will be regaling us with any revelations of sexual advances.
It’s not possible to cover every ridiculous damning accusation they apply their fisheye lens to, nor fillet the analysis from this ‘charity’ Hope Not Hate that they try to overlay upon it, though my comrade has done a sterling job of some of it here. Let’s cover a little of it below.
The letter attempts to shame the organisation with the declaration that we had “neo-Nazis attendees (such as Mark Collett)” in attendance. We have no knowledge of the current political affiliation of this man, having never attended before, but we submit that "neo-Nazi" is a patently absurd hysterical media code for "thinks things that our tribe does not". It might make for good television drama for ITV’s general audience, but it’s less suited to any sober analysis. We are only aware (after looking) that he was until 2002 a leader for a BNP youth group, which is to say 15 years ago and was found not guilty on multiple race hate charges in Leeds at a time when they were campaigning against groomers.
The modus operandi of such an accusation is to cherrypick one individual and to implicitly generalise from it to the whole organisation as if one should find a taxidermist at a Conservative village fête and declare the party a covert special interest group for taxidermists. As a group who campaign for traditional Tory principles, we are happy for a wide range of people to attend TBG events, as thousands have, provided they come with goodwill and a willingness to listen to solid conservative and traditionalist standpoints. We have had liberals, libertarians, UKIPers, Conservatives, nationalists, old Labourites, and many different nationalities in attendance. Thousands of people are on our database, but sadly not all of them feel exactly as we do about every political issue. Our speakers have included titled people and world-famous academics, none of whom are your standbys of political extremism. Fundamentally we are not Communists and therefore do not have fanatical proscriptions for enemies of the people or “deviationists and splitters” that the left engage in and we will not be morally bounced into doing so.
The letter seems to be particularly incensed by the TBG guest, Anne Marie Waters’ argument that “that the left has aligned with Islam and with every jihadi on the planet; the left and Islam are seeking tyranny and totalitarianism; and the left wants to bring about the destruction of Western civilization and capitalism.”
If we separate out these accusations:
1) The Left has aligned with Islam…
2) The Left and Islam are seeking tyranny and totalitarianism
3) The Left wants to bring about the destruction of Western civilization and capitalism
I would assume these accusations would find agreement with large swathes of our country. We hear much about ‘extremism’ in the United Kingdom, but very little about Left extremism pumped out on a daily basis through our media and educational system, willing the destruction of our sovereignty, our borders, our native population and cultural landscape. Even this supposedly ‘Conservative’ government has continued mass immigration, enforced equality policy, racial audits and replaced sexual classifications with ideological fantasies.
1) Traditionally the Left looks upon European history and its relations with non-Europeans as a relation of oppressor and oppressed. They have a selective blindness towards the actions of the oppressed and a magnified scrutiny towards the European ‘oppressor’. Their value system is also grounded in the destructive idea of social equality: other peoples who aren’t citizens should have similar rights to those who are; social differences between groups are based upon conventions or discrimination not natural inclinations or inherited capabilities; any actions to bring about equality are justified; the civilisation created by the West is no better, probably worse, than that developed by other peoples; British people should be legally penalised where they resist; ad naseum.
In the service of this nihilistic attitude towards their own cultural inheritance and territorial integrity these lemmings on the Left are willing to offer an umbrella of protection towards Islam. This has directly contributed towards many significant outrages in our country and across Europe. These outrages include ignoring the grooming epidemic (still ongoing); the Islamic terrorist attacks that are directly justified using the arguments developed by Cultural Marxist academics focused on post-colonialism and “neoliberalism” (see the London tube bombings, the London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attack or the Manchester bombing). It provides to Third or Developing World people the belief that they are entitled to resettle in Europe and that attacks on British streets are justified by reference to past colonial wrongs and a neoliberal present. Hundreds of thousands of their racial brethren here sympathise with them and the Left provide them with ideological cover. At the “antiracist” demonstrations that popup with tiresome regularity Islamists and Antifa types make common cause. And finally it advances the utterly noxious idea of “human rights” over national rights which fundamentally undermines Britain's ability to defend herself. Radicals believe Islam will help them: as disruptive change agents and thus make common cause.
The recognition of this existence of this fraternity of leftists and Islamists is represented quite widely in our media and by reformed Islamists, by continental liberal academics and by those who make the tedious effort to document every twist.
2) The Left seeks to have a society reformatted on the above basis. As their ideology conflicts with the natural inclinations of people they naturally look to legal and regulatory measures to enforce their ‘inclusive’ diktats by excluding and penalising the views or behaviours of those that are hindrances. Diversity is the parent of the big state and has grown exponentially ever since Conservatives opposed Labour’s first Race Relations Act in 1965. Now this degraded party actually champion it on the left-wing websites of activist ‘charities’.
As for Islam, any argument that asserts that by increasing the number of Islamic adherents in a country, this will not bring that country closer to accommodating the tenets of that religion is dishonest in the extreme. For British people proud of our hard won liberties and culture, this cannot but be viewed as other than big stepping stones to a tyrannical future.
3) Most modern iterations of Leftist thought are directly related to the Marxist praxis that preceded them. From the New Left outlined so ably outlined by Scruton to the analyses of the Frankfurt School (ISR) and wider Cultural Marxist trends including in Britain, the intention is to recover the promise of Marxist social upheaval through decanting into new bottles, including but not limited to identity politics, post-modernism and post-colonialism. This doesn’t need explaining, a look at any daily newspaper will see some new campaign to remove historical figures that offend our new guests or tear open long-standing social conventions such as adoption, the position of the sexes, or mutilating children on behalf of a pernicious ideology.
One quotation that was not mentioned in this letter, was Miss Waters’s reference to the media which bears repeating: “the media are running the country because the politicians are so terrified of the backlash that they allow the media to determine for them what they should say what their policies should be, we have essentially a media dominated totalitarian state.” The media are a fundamental arm of the liberal Zeitgeist, delineating the boundaries of the respectable for those who cannot think for themselves or have little moral courage.
The letter contains multiple other accusations levelled at AMW, many are related to issues against the Left which have been outlined above, for the rest, we will briefly just link to evidence for exactly that:
“Islam is the source of the rape and mutilation of children”
We suggest anyone who doubts the clear connection between Islam and the ethnic rape gangs should peruse the information outlined in this report Easy Meat, or see whether you can deduce any pattern that better explains the map shown here.
“Islam is trying to - and will - destroy and take over Europe”
This accusation is based upon i) intention and ii) demographic or political change.
- i) Intention is harder to prove but Muslims calling for this includes the President of Turkey, Erdogan and infamously Gaddafi. His prophecy is being amply realised. One also cannot engage with non-Europeans in online discussions without the trumpeting of the idea of "reverse colonisation".
- ii) Demographics - Muslims have more children Pew # estimates almost 9% by 2030 # - the UK Muslim population is doubling each decade; Muslim birthrates exceed those of the host communities (Muslim Council of Britain) #
Finally, it's worth mentioning, that ‘Hazel’ first appeared at the launch of Waters’s UKIP leadership launch. Was this originally conceived as a major hit piece on the bookies' favourite for UKIP leader?
The letter then goes on to attack Martin Sellner of Generation Identity and his speech at our conference.
Much of it rehashes the above criticisms. What is mildly different is the accusation is his statement that "multiculturalism is killing and destroying our society, solidarity and democracy". If this makes one a right-wing extremist, it is a view echoed by mainstream politicians including Cameron in his "war on multiculturalism" (that never was); or Merkel declaring it had "failed utterly" or Sarkozy in France and Aznar in Spain with his rejection of multiculturalism and his concerns over Muslim birth-rates.
They then take issue with Sellner's statement that "the Great Replacement is the most serious and the most severe problem any generation in the whole history of Europe has ever faced"
Every word in this statement is nothing but the truth. It is the key 'takeaway' point. Europeans are in an existential crisis. Europeans are falling off the global shelf and other people are taking our place, especially in the land of our ancestors. We are being morally blackmailed to go quietly and not object to our demographic replacement. We are being persuaded - at best - to have an economic view of our replacement (the utility of GDP). But there is a fundamental self-interest in opposing this and for policies which allow those who are closer to you (genetically, culturally, historically) to retain their social position and not be forced to engage in a natalist (births) arms race with alien peoples. Europeans are 6% globally, we cannot win that battle with porous borders.
Readers should ponder the fact that at the time of Enoch Powell’s famous speech in Birmingham in 1968 and also of Thatcher’s ‘swamped’ interview a decade later in 1978, net immigration was in the minus figures. The concern has always been not towards ‘capacity’ as the modern conceit has it, but towards ‘incompatibility’ and towards the natural interests of the historical native population in their demographic position and cultural inheritance in their homeland and preserving both.
The left in the guise of Labour intentionally “changed the face of this country”, increased the importance of the ethnic minority vote and the Conservative government of Cameron and now May has followed suit, moving her policies towards immigrant concerns whilst promising to reduce immigration but doing nothing. Last year 588,000 people came legally to Britain and an estimate of 150,000 people came illegally (738,000 in total). The window for a political defence of the British people shrinks every day.
Finally on Sellner Mr Henshaw asserts, “the programme will suggest that the ideology of Generation Identity is akin to white supremacy.”
It is hard to believe that the programme makers are remotely serious in making this statement, without some exceptional double-speak. Perhaps due to the assumed paucity of the subject matter they needed to add some spice to the stew or took their ‘experts’ at their word.
If we hold our noses and accept the Wikipedia definition, they categorise it as "white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." A 'because this> then that' statement. Many groups have national or ethnic pride or solidarity, the whole world in fact outside of Europe. Perhaps because European achievements are so significant it is considered bad form to trumpet or defend them. But this definition clearly requires someone to be supreme over others. Is there one iota of an attempt to prove this is desired? The assumed inability of the programme to do so should be yet another alert as to the neutral intent of these 'experts'.
The programme will also apparently consider the fake idea of ‘hate crimes’ and its relationship to the ‘resurgent far right’.
Following the media circus around the stabbing of an unfortunate young man in London called Stephen Lawrence in 1993, the murder was hijacked by those with a political purpose, resulting in the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry followed by its Macpherson Report. As Wiki describes it “its fallout included profound cultural changes to attitudes on racism and the police, and to the law and police practice, and the partial revocation of double jeopardy laws.” One young man's murder (amongst thousands of others), was used as a political battering ram.
There has been much criticism of the revolutionary nature of this cultural upheaval, including an earlier book by a recent TBG speaker who was hounded from his university position for being intellectually honest.
Macpherson’s report had one well-noted effect: it created the idea of a racist incident as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” - a purely subjective matter. Whilst the motivation of the person being reported is assumed, recorded and accepted, the motivation of the person doing the reporting is of course not.
This idea of a hate incident (all recorded cases) is conflated with that of a hate crime (‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ ) - a smaller number of that being investigated, a criminal offence, and the media are very happy to play along.
89% of all ‘hate crimes’ are based upon two broad definitions: either ‘public order offences’ (56%) which include actions in public such graffiti, drunkenness and comments; and violence against the person (33%).
Violence is broken down into two areas: 25% of hate crimes are violence against the person without injury and only 8% were with injury. You will be astounded to hear that the police class online comments as harassment and duly record it as 'violence against the person without injury'.
So graffiti, public drunkenness and comments in person or online make up a significant proportion of ‘hate crimes’. We submit that this is not the way that these crimes are represented to the British public. The intention we suggest is because otherwise they would find it harder to push for further legal infringement on our liberty or be able to shame us over the moral state of the nation and justify the social conditioning that accompanies it.
As a further indication of the highly politicised nature of these ‘offences’, consider this. Recent media reports on the spike in hate crimes have expressed outrage over a significant fall in the cases taken forward to prosecution. The CPS have a growing file of highly politicised, flagged cases the government wants to see action on, but it is taking a diminishing number to court. That is because they do not cross the prosecutional benchmark. To sustain this level of moral hysteria it will require the government to further turn the screws and make political dissent more easily prosecutable. Mrs May and Rudd’s targeting of social media ‘opinion crimes’ seems to the way that they intend to do this. As I suggested above, diversity gives the state full license to attack us, the British public. Even where there is no prospect of prosecution, political intimidation is the order of the day. Consider what happened to this young man when Prevent officers arrived on his doorstep and whether it is indicative of a move to a Central European Communist state apparatus. Intimidated at his own door, told that his employer would be advised of his politically incorrect opinions yet none of it was against the law.
To get this original spike in reports, the government changed its recording procedure (see the 89% link above) and also engaged in a massive public information campaign, funded by taxpayers, to encourage people to report things that previously would not have occurred to them. For instance following the misleading media circus after graffiti on a right-wing Polish cultural centre, the Metropolitan Police’s TrueVision platform spent hundreds of pounds of social media targeting Polish people and thousands since on wider awareness campaigns; officers handed out leaflets at underground stations and stood in front of television cameras calling for people to come forward. The CPS joins with the hard left NUT to campaign in schools, and another campaign also targets school children with propaganda led by the government funded “Youth Parliament” called “Don’t Hate, Educate”. We don’t have enough time to outline all the myriad taxpayer funded campaigns involved here. The key point is: ask millions of people to report ‘hate crime’ and you can get some people responding. Then you can report a rise in hate crimes.
Responsibility of the ‘Far-Right’
In his letter Mr Henshaw (perhaps echoing his 'experts') then takes this ‘rise’ in these statistics and tries to suggest a direct tie with the woolly unrelated groups he bundles together as ‘far right’:
“the role you and others on the far right might play in these increases and what dangers this poses for British society.”
From the 7/7/2005 Islamic attack, to the Lee Rigby killing, the Westminster attack, the Manchester attack and London Bridge, 89 people have been killed. Hundreds more have been maimed or traumatised, including in the now largely forgotten attacks at Glasgow airport, Exeter airport, Leytonstone tube and at Parsons Green.
Tens of thousands of young girls have been made into sex slaves, tortured, extorted for decades, while our government and police looked in the other direction. Just in one town, Rotherham, official reports suggested 1,400 children, and Sarah Champion, the MP for the town suggested a figure of up to one million nationally.
Any attempt to lay any public anger directed at particular social groups at the door of those on the 'far right' who have been calling for an end to immigration is both intellectually challenged and factually incorrect and comes from a highly jaundiced political perspective.
What such ‘experts’ wish to do, through their media enablers, is to frame the narrative for the viewing public. It is an attempt to keep control of the message and avoid (as the letter suggests) “the ability of those on the far right to intervene in community conflict, to intervene on issues like grooming and terrorism and to demonise a whole community”. This is a clear statement that British people on the right should have no right to 'intervene' with their own viewpoints in issues that affect their countrymen and women where it also touches upon minorities.
At a time when the 100th anniversary of the Communist revolution is being remembered around the world this month and the 100 million people killed, it is time to remember that those who sympathised with them are still here with us, rebranded, even within the official opposition in our national Parliament.
Perhaps Mr Henshaw as a constituent of Jeremy Corbyn might find the national changes wrought on our country to be for the betterment of society. Outside of the Islington bubble, most of us do not.
If the programme finishes on the dramatic note with a clear focus on the recent “right-wing terrorism” proscriptions of a handful of teenagers messaging outrages to each other in their bedrooms (and a nod to Jo Cox), we will know what the intention behind this all was: HnH are trying to stitch together the whole spectrum of right-wing resistance and make a case for the normalisation of the banning of British political groups on the right.
From the letters I have seen it appears that the programme may be attempting to do what it accused the “resurgent far right" of doing which brings us full circle to the beginning of this essay: “efforts to dumb down politics and abuse and demonise the other side”, it is ITV after all. Whether this is for a political objective, or hardcash, the judicious viewer will have to decide.