The recent trend of extreme-right candidates for the European elections getting a milkshake shower continued today with a creaming of The Brexit Party’s Nigel Farage in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. A strike from distance showered his suit.
Farage’s comment immediately after impact, directed at his gang of thugs who accompany him whenever he is in a public place, was to state that security had been
That comment expressed Farage’s view that one or more of his goons should have acted before the milkshake had been propelled. Such an assessment by Farage was deeply disturbing: He wants his thugs to violently attack anyone they might suspect of possibly about to hurl an object at Farage.
Farage was in a public place, a street in a city centre. When he walks along a public street he should not be allowed to be surrounded by hired thugs who have no visible personal identification and no words or emblems on their clothing to indicate that they are security staff. But, Farage believes that his thugs should pounce on any random person on a public street if they feel like it.
Farage’s fellow far-right extremist (and European election candidate) Stephen Yaxley-Lennon encountered similar incidents while campaigning and Yaxley-Lennon’s hired thugs beat up several people, in separate locations, while police officers looked the other way. That is what Farage would like to happen to people who oppose him.
Farage wants to march down streets freely proclaiming offensive dishonest tripe and he wants anyone who gives him a funny look to be given several slaps.
Trumpist, Murdoch-backed Liberal Party led by Scott Morrison retained power in Australia today. By ‘liberal’ the party means the right to defecate over everyone and enact an anti-human ideology.
The reason for Morrison’s success was the abject lack of any alternative. The main party of opposition, Labor Party led by Bill Shorten, typified drab centrist non-politics that are being rejected in every democratic country. Australia’s Labor Party had no cohesive plan and no consistent policies other than saying that they were not the Liberal Party. Every Australian has to vote and, for those who couldn’t decide, and who would normally not vote, the only option was to vote for the party in power given that the main opposition party had nothing.
Centrism is the death of opposition to conservatism and it was designed to be so. It is simultaneously the death of and the killer of opposition. Trump’s election in USA in 2016 was a consequence of Hilary Clinton’s campaign’s vacuity and his potential re-election in 2020 is possible due to an array of inconsistent Democratic Party candidates all of whom are too scared to be an alternative. In Britain, Tories won in 2015 general election because Ed Miliband failed to define his political position robustly enough.
UK’s Labour Party changed since 2015 and does offer an alternative. Centrists, in Labour via Progress, in Liberal Democrats and in Change UK, know that Labour offers a genuine alternative to vicious extreme free-marketeer conservatism and that is why they attack Labour constantly. Like Clinton and Shorten, the woolly centrists in Britain have no capacity to challenge the Tories’ destruction of society, they have no desire nor will to develop a challenge and they will do everything they can to disrupt a challenge.
Centrist is in its death throes, slumped on the floor quivering and panting for breath. It needs to be stamped on and eradicated. The only way to defeat extreme exploitative conservatism is with socialism.
Ian Austin’s presence in the House of Commons is an indictment of the lack of democracy in Britain. In February he resigned as a member of the Labour Party and became an “independent” MP but, following the example set by democracy thieves in secretly funded Change UK, he did not call a by-election for his constituency of Dudley North. He is stealing a seat in parliament from voters in Dudley who voted Labour.
Austin opposed Corbyn’s leadership as soon as the latter was elected in September 2015. If he did not want to support Corbyn’s politics then the correct action Austin should have taken would have been to stand down before the 2017 election. Such a decision would have required integrity and honesty, qualities that are absent from his personality. He did not want to forego his parliamentary salary and expenses.
For the voters in Dudley and for Labour supporters throughout Britain Austin’s access to a parliamentary vote in the House of Commons, a vote stolen from Labour, is defecation on their right to democracy. If there is a vote of no confidence in the Tory government votes of characters like Austin could keep the Tories in power. Labour voters in Dudley voted Labour in 2017 general election to support Jeremy Corbyn’s shift in Labour’s perspective from soft conservatism toward socialism; they did not vote for a thief to protect the Tory government with a stolen vote. (Austin gave his support to the Tories when he voted for the government’s hapless Withdrawal Deal in January, before leaving Labour.)
Last year Austin tried to engineer his expulsion from Labour by following an abusive tirade against Labour MP Ian Lavery with an hilarious letter from legal firm Hamlins that complained about the party’s decision to investigate Austin for his behaviour toward Lavery. (Austin couldn’t afford Mishcon de Reya, Margaret Hodge’s favourite creator of gibberish and intimidation.) Labour’s sound professional response was to issue Austin with a dismissive reprimand and then to ignore him.
Austin is a favourite of TV producers of news and current affairs shows because he is always willing to spout utter tripe directed at Corbyn, McDonnell and the shadow cabinet. Yesterday – May 16th – he was given a platform on Andrew Neil’s light entertainment nonsense This Week on BBC2 whereat he delivered a libel-ridden garbled attack against Corbyn bereft of facts, logic and cohesion. Austin’s performance damned himself as a politician and damned This Week as a serious current affairs analysis show; it was the antithesis of intelligence and emotional maturity.
As an MP, Austin has access to the Palace of Westminster as a venue for political events organised by him. On June 11th he will host members of Israel Defence Force in Westminster where they will regurgitate propaganda designed to grossly misrepresent the actions of their military colleagues and the actions and intent of Palestinian people in Gaza. As an indicator of how despicably and inhumanely biased the event will be co-organsier (and former Labour MP) Michael McCann promoted it by claiming
“If you study any debate in the House of Commons that reacts to violence between Israel and the Palestinians it becomes apparent that some MPs seek to draw moral equivalence between the IDF and the terrorists. There is no equivalence. I can think of no other conflict on the planet where elected politicians are so unwilling to criticise terrorists.” (quoted in IDF visit Westminster)
That is, the presentation will be diametrically opposed to the truth and will revel in slaughter of civilians. Austin’s stolen seat in parliament allows such an event to occur.
Electoral success of Blair-led Labour encouraged a factory to be built for the creation of Blair clones: Vacuous, duplicitous, dim-witted and obedient technocrats whose political role is to occupy opposition to the Tories without actually being opposed to Tory policy. Progress think-tank was invented as an organisational platform and PR tool to assist the stiflers of opposition.
But, Corbyn’s fortitude and the continuing popularity of his and his colleague’s policy proposals made Progress and its members desperate. The desperation manifested itself with increasingly warped polemics from Progress members Austin, Hodge, Gapes, Streeting, etc. and with robbery of parliamentary seats from Labour (and votes from Labour voters) by Austin, fellow independent MP John Woodcock and the laughable Change UK mob. (Austin chose not to join Change UK because his constituency has a majority of people who voted to leave the EU contrary to policy of Change UK.)
All extreme ideologies are intrinsically at war with deductive reasoning and logic and, thus, require erasure of many cognitive abilities in their exponents; afterward, an ideologue’s remaining cerebral husk is limited and incapable of considered argument or even simple logical conclusions. Extreme centrism is defined by a symbiosis of deception and obfuscation. It pretends to be something it isn’t – opposition to conservatism – while obscuring real opposition. As a centrist technocrat Austin has to eradicate any deductive or analytical capabilities in order to approximate utterances to a form of spurious consistency. Hence, his behaviour and rhetoric is bizarre and obstructive to debate.
Austin is a clown. He is embarrassment for British democracy. Discrepancies in the structure and rules of parliament allow him to hang around like a persistent stink. He is popular among broadcasters because they prefer dumb entertainment to information. There is nothing positive for humanity about him. He is an awful person.
Universal Credit was designed to cause destitution, debt, homelessness and death as part of the Tories’ Social Murder policy that has caused the greatest problems for people with disabilities or chronic illnesses.
Exposureon TV, radio and newspapers of the (deliberate) effects of Universal credit on people’s lives is less (voluminously and vehemently) than it should be. Clearly, it is not in the political interests of many of the newspapers and broadcasters to be critical of the Tories. However, bias of media outlets is not the only obstacle; cowardice informs a lack of challenge to the Tories’ PR machine.
Weakness of character is rampant among executives, producers and presenters/interviewers at BBC news. They fear criticism from the Tories. That fear alone is sufficient to dissuade programme makers from thorough investigation and reporting of the details and consequences of Tory policy.
Destruction of the NHS, huge increase in homelessness and people starving to death are issues that receive less coverage on BBC than is appropriate and when they are mentioned then the discussion is in a passive voice non-contextual style that greatly diminishes the government’s guilt. Cowardice is the key driving force of this evasion of deduction.
Today (14th May) Aditya Chakraborttyrevealed details in the Guardian of an internal DWP memo sent to senior staff in the department that included a variety of scams and schemes to misrepresent the progress of Universal Credit. One of the schemes is intended to be an in-house promotional video, extolling an entirely false, misleading and fraudulent presentation of activities in job centres, that has been commissioned by the BBC as a (faux) documentary.
DWP’s Director General of Universal Credit Neil Couling said of the video: “This is a fantastic opportunity for us [DWP] – we’ve been involved in the process from the outset, and we continue working closely with the BBC to ensure a balanced and insightful piece of television.”
Chakrabortty reported that any interviews with DWP staff by the BBC for the programme will be viewed by DWP managers before being allowed for broadcast.
Fraudulent propaganda by DWP of its contribution to Social Murder is unsurprising. Given that the UN condemned Universal Credit in Philip Aston’sreport and that the Tory response to the report was contemptuous and dismissive, it is consistent for the DWP to concoct an intentionally false depiction of how Universal Credit operates. But, complicity with the scam by the BBC would be extreme cowardice and would condemn the BBC without reservation.
On Sunday, the BBC partook of another post-interview onanistic frenzy as it congratulated itself on Andrew Marr’s interview with The Brexit Party’s Nigel Farage. Liberals and centrists joined in with the praise. Excited voices struggled to retain composure as they gushed about how Marr had grilled Farage about such vital topics as gun control and Putin.
Meanwhile, post-Marr/Farage interview, The Brexit Party’s employees concocted video clips of the interview that excluded Marr’s questions and Farage’s clumsy responses and only included the latter’s prepared rhetoric. From Farage and The Brexit Party’s perspective the interview was not a failure. For right-wing politicians, an appearance on TV is a success and it is irrelevant how any interview progresses.
The BBC was equally self-congratulatory about the Andrew Neil interview with Ben Shapiro a few days earlier. But, Shapiro’s profile in Britain was enhanced by the interview regardless of how adept Neil was at discomforting him.
More far-right characters are likely to appear on BBC TV news programmes. The pattern will be the same in each interview: The interviewer will ask pointless questions about things that don’t matter but can catch out the interviewee; afterward BBC and hapless centrists will grin inanely and the far-right interviewee will walk away with a smirk after another platform to enhance exposure. BBC’s approach to the far-right is to pretend to win interviews with tangential questions whose content is irrelevant and to be wholly unconcerned about the usefulness of platforms for the far-right protagonists.
The far-right cannot be engaged. It cannot be challenged with reason and logic. It has no interest in defending itself against its opponents. It has no shame and no self-reflection. Any appearance on TV or radio is a platform for the far-right irrespective of what happens in the encounter.
The BBC knows what it is doing but it doesn’t care if it is enabling far-right politics.
On Saturday at a march and rally for Palestinian solidarity in London Glyn Secker criticised the ambivalence of some political organisations toward the far-right.
“Jewish leaders here also turn a blind eye to the extreme right, even when their own Zionist Federation embraces the English Defence League, a Neo-fascist group banned by Face Book. What on earth are these Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?“
Secker’s comments were a reasonable assessment of bad political positioning by some self-appointed leaders.
Lee Harpin, a journalist at a newspaper edited by Stephen Pollard, took some of the words spoken by Secker and put his own interpretation on them.
“Just heard Glyn Secker – a Labour and Jewish Voice of Labour member – tell demo that ‘Jews are in the gutter’ and Jews ‘are the problem.’ He was loudly cheered. Disgusting.”
Harpin’s gross manipulation of Secker’s comments was deliberate libel and deliberate misrepresentation and was designed to attack solidarity for the Palestinian people and to attack a supporter of Labour.
Harpin’s behaviour sought to distract people from the valid point Secker made. The ambivalent attitude of some organisations toward the extreme-right is disastrous for Jewish people. The extreme-right is intrinsically and vehemently antisemitic in both words and actions, often violent actions. Harpin’s dismissal of Secker’s concerns revealed a worrying lack of interest by the former in the consequences of antisemitism.
Change UK democracy thief Luciana Berger gave her support to Harpin’s dual strategy of libel and misdirection.
Harpin is relatively unknown as a journalist but Berger has attained some infamy due to many media appearances after her departure from Labour and the creation of Change UK. Thus, a greater volume of people noticed her purposeful promotion of Harpin’s warped manipulation of Secker’s comments than saw Harpin’s tweet. When challenged, she refused to acknowledge Harpin’s deception and chose to use Stephen Pollard as an arbiter of truth.
For opponents of socialism the prime focus is to attack Labour while Jeremy Corbyn is its leader. Nothing else matters to them and their is no limit to how low their tactics are.
BBC news, particularly any show produced by Rob Burley, is always keen to give airtime to voices from the extreme right. This policy is part of director-general Tony Hall’s commitment to the “broadest range of views” being allowed a platform on the BBC as he elucidated in his ‘Annual Plan’ in March.
“Making sure all sides of a debate are heard – all different views and voices – is fundamental to our mission. We must stand up for it and defend our role like never before. It is essential if we are to continue to be the place people know they can trust to get to grips with what is truly happening in the world, and to hear the broadest range of views.”
Today, right-wing extremist Ben Shapiro was given a platform on Burley’s Politics Live show interviewed by Andrew Neil. Ahead of the interview Burley tried to reassure viewers that Neil would ask tough questions. Neil, who can be a good interviewer when he wants to be, did ask tough questions and raised concerns about Shapiro’s extreme political philosophy; the latter’s response was petulant and uncooperative and concluded with an abrupt termination of the interview. Immediately after the exchange Burley congratulated the BBC, himself and Neil on exposing Shapiro, but is that what happened?
Characters like Shapiro are charlatans and conmen. His type has no interest in addressing queries that challenge his warped rhetoric and philosophy. His response to such inquiry will always be aggression, name-calling, distraction and petulance. The interview went as expected for anyone with even the remotest knowledge about the methodology of Shapiro’s type.
Burley and Neil’s justification for their satisfaction with the interview consisted of pleasure that Shapiro had been exposed as not being an intellectual and of not having the capacity for reasoned argument. No-one thought he did have such qualities. His modus crassendi is not detailed, thorough, exhaustive and cohesive. Shapiro’s method of persuasion is as simplistic as possible with no thought given to consistency or lack of contradictions. He is a typical right-wing snake-oil salesperson. Thus, the BBC’s satisfaction was worthless.
Ben Shapiro was relatively unknown in Britain even among those who share his extremist outlook. A lunchtime slot on BBC’s main channel was a boon for him. People who are likely to be drawn toward Shapiro’s philosophy will not be deterred by the fact that Neil appeared to “win” the interview. For such people, Shapiro’s aggressive clumsy responses would be welcomed as they (and he) like to position themselves fraudulently as “anti-establishment.” Shapiro’s refrain to Neil to “admit you’re on the left” was a clarion call to all the confidence tricksters on the right who need to depict the BBC as left-of-centre and biased. Tellingly, Neillaughed off the suggestion he was left-of-centre. (Oddly, after the interview Shapiro apologised for calling Neil left-wing.)
Burley claimed that Neil’s successful examination of Shapiro was better than not having Shapiro on mainstream TV. But, the likes of Shapiro follow an agenda that requires such an encounter with someone like Neil. Shapiro got a platform. His name is now known more widely to far-right extremists in Britain who will be utterly unperturbed by how the interview progressed. Neil and Burley patted themselves on the back, erroneously.