Mutual Contempt

Donald Trump’s successful campaign hints not all is well in American politics


Friday 17th June 2016

On 16 June 2015, a year ago yesterday, Donald Trump announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for president, and nobody gave him a chance. Trump’s campaign was going to be a political sideshow; something for the media and the public to enjoy before having to focus on real candidates, like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. It was predicted that Trump would suspend his campaign before primary season. And yet now, with the primaries completed, Trump is the only contender left from an original field of 17. It’s been an eventful 12 months and he is now the presumptive nominee.

From the beginning, Trump has been outrageous. In his commencement speech he said that Mexico is illegally deporting criminals to the United States, and that the most effective way to stop this and illegal immigration is to build a wall (for which the Mexican government would pay). Undeterred by criticism, he continued shamelessly: Sen. John McCain is not a war hero because he was captured in Vietnam and Trump likes “people who weren’t captured, OK?” Cue more criticism, but on he went: announcing after the Paris attacks how he intends to enforce a temporary ban on Muslims from entering the USA “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Trump has denied that he has said anything over the top, claiming he was taken out of context or misquoted by the media, for which he has nothing but disdain. For example, when asked, he clarified that his real issues with McCain were over his failure of veterans and his inability to secure the borders, oh, and, by the way, “Four times, I said, he is a hero, but you know … people choose selective pieces.” Trump appears to be unable to let things slide. Similar to a school bully, he has a huge ego which can be deflated by the tiniest jibe. Just in the past week he revoked the Washington Post’s press credentials for his rallies because of ‘incredibly inaccurate coverage of the record setting Trump campaign’. A ‘short-fingered vulgarian’ is how Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, described Trump in the 1980s. ‘To this day,’ Carter wrote in November 2015, ‘I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers.’

Trump’s candidacy contains plenty more concerning incidents. Including, but certainly not limited to, the mocking of a disabled reporter, promulgating conspiracy theories, calling for waterboarding and the legalisation of torture, the underhand attempt to have presiding judge Gonzalo Curiel dismissed from a case in which Trump is the defendant because Curiel is of Mexican descent, and the uncouthly swift politicisation of the Orlando massacre. Books are no doubt already being written about this tawdry chapter of American politics.

When choosing who to vote for, forgetting the personalities and focusing solely on policies and pledges is often the most productive method available. This would be the wrong thing to do with Trump for two reasons. First, Trump’s policies are not set in stone. In fact, it’s terribly difficult to be sure what he believes in. One week he says one thing, the next he says the complete opposite without any reference to the former. Concrete policies and strategies are not valued by the Donald Trump campaign. He utters meaningless statements and buttresses them with yet more statements devoid of meaning. Consider the following:

We will have so much winning if I get elected that you will get bored with winning. Believe me. I agree, you’ll never get bored with winning! We never get bored! We are going to turn this country around. We are going to start winning Big League on trade. Militarily we’re gonna build up our military. We’re going to have such a strong military that nobody, nobody, is going to mess with us. We’re not going to have to use it.

Piffle. People take from it what they want to hear. This à la carte form of politicking seems to be how his supporters assuage some of their own misgivings. Second, his personality is such that it cannot be ignored. His hubris, that he’s quick to take offence, his lack of humility, and his reticence to take ownership of previous comments makes Trump quite possibly the worst presidential candidate ever.

By now, one can assume that Hillary Clinton will be awarded the Democratic nomination. Clinton has uninspiring policies and acts like she is owed the presidency. During her time as Obama’s Secretary of State she did not make one decision without considering how it could influence future presidential ambitions. Furthermore, when she feels under threat, Clinton resorts to identity politics: pointing out that she is the first female nominee and could be the first female president, implying that this alone makes her a good candidate. She, with her husband, the 42nd president, Bill, continues to maintain the Clinton Foundation which, for all the charity work it does, has an exceptionally seedy side. Furthering the notion that the Clintons’ morals are absent when it comes to money, the foundation has received large fees in exchange for speeches given for some of the vilest, most corrupt people on the planet, thereby lending presidential legitimacy to their client’s dealings. In an ordinary year, one should vote against Clinton; however, this is not an ordinary year. We have a rough idea of what Clinton would do in office, but we do not have a clue what Trump would do, and that – combined with his dirtbag personality – makes him unelectable. If you have a vote on Tuesday 8th November 2016, use it to vote for Clinton.

Trump’s success has unintentionally highlighted loathsome qualities present in modern political discourse. Polls conducted prior to his ascendancy indicating stark polarisation have been borne out. Appealing solely to emotion, inflating a sense of victimhood, using menacing tactics, and routinely discussing opponents in a bias, unreasonable manner has led to the dehumanisation and scapegoating of adversaries. This is not conducive to a healthy democracy when it’s used by one side; it’s exceptionally problematic, however, when both sides partake.

Trump supporters and opponents have engaged in online abuse and minor scuffles. It has only been Trump’s opponents, however, who have tried to prevent people attending a rally in Arizona by erecting a road block. At a rally in Ohio, a protester jumped a fence before being tackled by Trump’s security. These aren’t the only two incidents of inflammatory protest, e.g. there have been plenty of occasions where people have tried to shout Trump down at his own rally. Comparatively minor protests have been held at events for Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The most bizarre aspect is that in almost every instance, the protesters have fed Trump’s narrative and enhanced his insurgent candidacy.

These protesters draw parallels to the 1930s: according to them Trump is the next Hitler, thus a vote for him is a vote for another Holocaust. Trump’s opponents feel they have a chance to stop a despotic dictatorship before it begins. They believe they are on the right side of history, and that what they are doing is morally justifiable. They’re patriots acting so that their country (and the world) does not again fall foul of fascism. They will stop at almost nothing to prevent Trump becoming president.

Trump’s supporters imagine the USA as a weak, downtrodden, helpless victim. The Democrats, the East Coast establishment, and the Liberal Left-wing media have eroded traditional American values and caused its downfall. Trump claims he will reverse this trend and ‘Make America Great Again’. He also hints that while on their moral mission to restore America, Trump and his patriotic supporters should expect an unfavourable response from the traitorous establishment.

Both sides believe that they are doing the right thing and that they’re working for the greater good. In a recent interview, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt said:

We all think that we have reason on our side. … When I talk to groups on the Right they say: ‘…isn’t the bottom line that our side is based on reason and their side is all just based on emotion?’ When I talk to groups on the Left it’s exactly the same thing. [They think] they have reason, and the other side is just emotion.

The passion is refreshing, but the direction in which it is being used is misguided at best. It’s likely that scuffles will increase in frequency, as once a person considers a goal morally essential almost anything which needs to be done to reach it is, by the same rubric, moral too – this includes violence. Almost by definition those against them are evil, expendable, and need to be explained away.

Protesters depict Trump’s supporters as white, racist, Southerners. This could be true; however, I take leave to doubt it as they likely comprise a more complex demographic. Some of them want to see the system burn; these include anarchists and the Alt-Right shit posting trolls. Some are racists, like David Duke. Others undoubtedly hold a position somewhere between anti-immigration and xenophobia. There is probably an anti-political correctness faction too. Of course, one could believe in all or none of these ideas and still support Trump; hence, it’s not unreasonable to seriously question the stereotype. For one thing, they’re certainly not all white or from the South. The reason for the stereotype is to morally legitimise almost any tactic against them: racists are all evil, so screaming in their faces and getting into fights is acceptable.

Seeing the opposition as emotional and their beliefs as incredible should lead one to work doubly hard to understand how they got to their position. Clearly there is a point when a bad idea is so entrenched that it cannot be reasoned with, but people currently seem unwilling to listen to anything which may go against preconceived notions. Any position going against one’s own is automatically rejected as an affront to the individual. Thus, Trump’s supporters are cast into the same category as Islamists and neo-Nazis. Whether this is due to the echo chamber of the Internet, or the broadcast media pandering to the lowest common denominator, it doesn’t matter. What does is that it has drawn political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic into a toxic state of affairs. It is now preferable to label people as unreasonable, and therefore unreachable, rather than listening to them at all. Not engaging means one loses the chance to understand, learn, and maybe help others. It leaves politics open to demagogues who are all too ready to indulge and reinforce solipsistic beliefs and grievances, be they real or perceived, for personal gain. The response to a leaked video from the company, Carrier, should act as case in point.

The footage is of the staff of a factory in Indianapolis being made redundant. It’s announced that Carrier would be moving to Mexico where it will be cheaper to operate. Donald Trump routinely posits that the government has signed trade deals which have decimated the traditional American labour force and destroyed its communities; he has made it a priority to get these firms back into the country. Whether that’s possible or not, it’s completely understandable that he had a surge in support, one would assume from blue collar workers, after the leak of this tape and his subsequent announcement. Similarly, when he talked about rectifying the terrible system in place for veterans’ pensions and support for their families he received a boost in the polls. That these factory workers and veterans had to turn to Trump to be listened to and offered help is embarrassing.

Both the protesters and Trump’s supporters have exhibited a sense of victimhood, a yearning for an achievable utopia, scapegoated their opponents, and are now waging a morally justified battle for what they believe is the greater good. It’s important to remember how to argue, as opposed to focusing purely on what to argue. As a rule, people do not change their minds by being screamed at; however, if one appeals to logic, rather than emotion, persuasion is possible and political discourse is all the better for it. At the moment we have two groups at each other’s throats with the rest unconvinced that either is worth placating. This is a deeply troubling state of affairs which, on the plus side, is rectifiable. The first step is to remember that there are not bad people, only bad ideas.


Identity Politics and the Oscars


Friday 4 March 2016

Manufactured outrage wrapped in a veil of legitimacy. That’s probably the best way to describe identity politics. Knowing when outrage is for legitimate or illegitimate reasons can be difficult because discrimination does occur. Manufacturing discrimination and claiming outrage, however, is an easy way to be taken seriously. For example, when discrimination has been alleged it’s often indisputably accepted before the claim has had a chance to be checked. Twenty years ago it was at the other extreme, people claiming they were discriminated against had to jump through hoops just to be heard; now, someone merely has to utter a buzzword like ‘racist’ for the accused to acquiesce. It’s this worrying state of affairs which is exploited by those practicing identity politics to claim that they and/or their group deserve special treatment because of the discrimination they claim to face. Most recently, a few bitter people in the film industry played identity politics.

Questions linger about systemic racism within the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) nearly a week after the 88th Oscars. Since the nominations were announced back in mid-January, it has been questioned why for the second year running there were no black nominees in the acting categories. Equally the same question could have been asked about why there was a paucity of people of Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic descent, but it wasn’t and, as such, the criticism was oddly framed.

The #OscarsSoWhite controversy was paradoxically discriminatory. The people behind the hashtag and the multimillionaires who boycotted the Academy Awards probably had good intentions, but their protest signals that it’s okay to select based on ethnicity so long as it is their chosen ethnicity. Is it too much to ask that everybody should be treated the same? No special dispensation or discrimination because of your skin colour, gender, sexuality, hair colour, whatever. To borrow a Dave Rubin phrase: everyone should be treated equally shitty.

A huge deal was made about AMPAS membership being mostly white, male, and over 50 years in age, which it is: 94 per cent of respondents to the 2012 Los Angeles Times survey were white; 77 per cent male; 86 per cent were 50 years old or above. The membership, therefore, is not representative of American society which is 72 per cent white, 49 per cent male, 32 per cent aged 50 or older. In response to this criticism, three points needs to be made:

First, the Academy has said that it will try to diversify its membership in future.

Second, being white does not automatically mean you’re a racist. Similarly, being a man does not mean you’re a misogynists and being over 50 does not mean you go out of your way to discriminate against the young. Correlation does not equal causation. Patterns exist, but they can be figments of our imagination. Not having a black nominee does not mean the Oscars are racist. This year the average age for nominees in the two female acting categories was 37.6, in the male it was 43.4 for Best and 50.6 for Supporting. If we wanted to we could draw something from these statistics: why are teenagers being discriminated against? Why are nonagenarians being overlooked? Can they not act as well as other age groups? Could the Oscars be discriminating against the adolescent and the elderly? Yes. Could the Oscars be discriminating against black people? Yes. Finding definitive proof, however, is another matter entirely, especially when the AMPAS membership list is secret. Claiming that unproven allegations are as good as confirmed is dishonest.

Which brings us to point three: judging the creative arts is incredibly subjective. It’s all very well that people think Will Smith, Michael B. Jordan, or Idris Elba should have been nominated – that’s their opinion and disagreeing over creativity is part of the fun of watching movies. Debating whether it was a good story or whether someone was truly believable in their role is enjoyable because it’s so subjective. Personally, I have a penchant for ‘good-bad movies’ because of their unintentional comedic value: Sharknado and Mega Piranha being just two examples. It doesn’t matter whether I or others like them or not, these films will never get nominated for Academy Awards. Never ever ever. Does not being nominated mean a film is bad? No. Does having an Oscar or not having an Oscar indicate whether someone is a good actor or not? No. Alan Rickman never won one. Sir Ian McKellen hasn’t won one, neither has Glenn Close, Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt.

Regardless, ignore subjectivity for a moment: should nominees be chosen on the strength of their performance? Or should they be chosen because of their ethnicity? Imagine that Will Smith had been nominated in the first place and, then, picture the outcry if, when asked, a member of AMPAS said “I chose Smith because he is black and I felt, in the interest of fairness, that I should select a black person.” The backlash would be immense! It’s the same argument as was made at the University of Missouri in late 2015. Students protested because, among other grievances, they felt there were not enough black staff members. Once again, imagine the furore if, anywhere in the western world, it leaked out that an academic had been hired because of his or her ethnicity and not because they were the most qualified.

Sargon of Akkad, a.k.a. Carl Benjamin, made a great point to Dave Rubin on the latter’s show, The Rubin Report, in February 2016. Discussing extreme feminism, Rubin pointed out the overreaction to and criticism of the video game series, Grand Theft Auto:

Rubin:   I played Grand Theft Auto and, yeah, you could steal a car and punch a hooker and people would say: ‘well, that’s against women.’ But you could also punch a man. Or should they only have it that you only punch men? I mean even the logic behind it doesn’t really stand to critique.

Sargon: And there’s no winning either. So, this is the point: it’s all what’s called a ‘kafkatrap.’ It’s either you are this thing or you’re this thing and you don’t even realise it. You know? And there’s no falsifiability to any of their hypothesis. But, the main problem, if you think about it, like with Grand Theft Auto, so: what are the options? Not include women in the game? No way. They’d freak out if you couldn’t put women in the game.

Rubin:   Right.

Sargon: Or you can have the women not being able to be treated like men? Again, they’d be freaking out. ‘That’s not equal at all.’ So, what are you going to have? You’re going to have women so they just can’t be damaged. They will not allow you to treat women like men. You can’t beat up women but you can beat up men. And so you’re in this position where you’ve got no win. There’s no good answer. And that’s how they want it. They want you dancing to their tune.

What links these protesters? What do the extreme feminists against GTA, the #OscarsSoWhite crowd, the students at Mizzou, the people at Bowdoin College who hate tequila and sombreros have in common? They want to be the gatekeepers. They all yearn for preferential treatment. They want to beat down others with whom they disagree. They crave special consideration and they want to be made to feel important due to their membership of or advocacy for what they consider to be a marginalised, powerless, underprivileged, oppressed group.

Saudi women forced to wear cloth bags in desert heat, and Iranian homosexuals who know that if they’re ‘outed’ they’ll have to flee or face execution, are two examples of actually marginalised, powerless, underprivileged and oppressed groups. These people are so viciously discriminated against that they need all the help they can get. Actors and actresses living in Malibu, and directors with grand townhouses in Manhattan, however, are most certainly not marginalised, powerless, underprivileged and oppressed; nor are extreme feminists living in the West. Try telling a woman in rural Pakistan who has no other choice but to return to her husband, the same husband who threw battery acid on her for not bearing him a son, how GTA is stigmatising women. The people who claim special privilege are nothing more than power hungry narcissists acting like fascists, crying that they are being oppressed when a mirror is held up to their own vile bigotry.

At its roots, claiming special privilege stamps everybody else down. It is naturally discriminatory. We should all be treated equally shitty in the first place. It doesn’t matter which group you claim membership of; you do not deserve special privilege for just being X or advocating on behalf of X. Everyone has the right to speak, to march, to protest, to express themselves, but we’re not obliged to listen and we don’t have to accept something as dogma because someone else says it is. We ask for evidence and if we’re presented with a convincing argument we could even join the protest. But if what’s subjected to review is unconvincing then we reserve the right to exercise our own freedom of expression.

Let us ensure that we possess a meritocratic system which treats everybody equally shitty, nobody should be systemically disadvantaged. The person most suited to the job gets the job, rather than the most X. If they consider their identity to be X and they get the job, then great, well done them. They deserved it.

The Oscars are not perfect. Perhaps the Academy’s members considered Smith’s, Jordan’s and Elba’s acting inferior to the nominees, perhaps they didn’t. Maybe there really is systemic racism in the Academy, maybe there isn’t. At the moment the proof is unsatisfactory.

The remaining question is what will be the outcome of the #OscarsSoWhite protest? At the ceremony itself Chris Rock was an exceptional host, some people deserved the awards they won, and some people didn’t. (What’s new?) Next year, however, when the nominees are announced in January 2017 and several black actors and actresses have been nominated, we will all ask ourselves whether they have been chosen on merit or because of their ethnicity.

The Forgotten British Far-Right: Part II

Hitler Painting
‘The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich’, painted in 1914 by Adolf Hitler.
(This is the second of a two-part article. To read the first entry, click here.)

Thursday 23 October 2014

As a preface, I should mention that yesterday I went to Skeptics in the Pub to see journalist Will Storr talk about his latest book.  Titled The Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science, it is a collection of meetings with people who hold unconventional beliefs.  These heretics provide Storr with a vehicle to explore human psychology and understand why they believe such wacky things.  The hypothesis Storr runs with is predicated upon personal narrative and what he calls the ‘hero maker’.  To paraphrase, he says that we each have an ongoing personal story, written by our brains, which we tell ourselves, and in it we are the hero and all of our decisions are easily explicable and justifiable.  Furthermore, and this is something that I took away from the talk, when one challenges another’s belief – like Storr does in the book with David Irving and his Holocaust denial – one is often met with a very defensive stance and/or aggression, this is because their belief is seen as a big, if not central, part of their own story.  It may even be their defining characteristic.

David Irving
David Irving

Irving likely sees himself as fighting back against the establishment and their incorrect history of the Second World War, to borrow a phrase which Storr used several times last night: he is his very own “plucky David fighting against a mighty Goliath.”  I want to consider this when I am writing the rest of this entry because the members of groups like the League of St. George are still human.  My brain may want to turn them into an other or an outsider, but they tell themselves their story, and they are defending or fighting for something which they truly believe in.  They are as human as I am.  Yes, there may be a few charlatans who know that what they are doing is bullshit and are in it for the money; however, for the most part I think these people are quite sincere in their belief.  Their views may be racist, homophobic, sexist and as skewed as it is possible for them to be; regardless, they believe that they are the hero.  Just like we all do.

At the end of the previous piece I had reasoned that it is odd to claim to be a Mosley nationalist lobby group when your website states that it is important to remember the lives of fervent antisemitic neo-Nazis, white nationalists and people who were actually members of the Nazi Party.  Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I cannot help but think that there is far more to being a member of the League than just believing in ‘Europe a Nation’.

Like every other human being, I have heroines and heroes; I admire a lot of people, but I do not endorse all of their views just because I hold them in high regard.  For example, I think that Isaac Newton is one of the greatest scientists ever to have lived, but that doesn’t make me a believer in alchemy or a Biblical literalist like he was.  I admire Martin Luther King, his struggle for civil rights, and especially the policy of nonviolent civil disobedience, but that doesn’t mean that I am on side with his prolific adultery or, even, his Christianity.  The difference which is becoming more and more apparent is that I am explaining where I disagree.  The League of Saint George may really enjoy Hitler’s artwork, but surely they would say if that was the case.  If I was to make the argument that I think highly of Hitler’s painting, I would preface and postface my statement with an unquestionable rejection of his antisemitism, his warped social Darwinism, and the many, many other despicable things he believed in and acted upon or was responsible for happening while he ruled over Germany.  Where are these repudiations on the League’s website?  They do not exist.

Adolf Hitler

I can hear it now, somebody reading this and asking whether this means that one has to litter one’s own speech and writing with caveats.  Not necessarily.  Yet, when the unspoken or unwritten is something as disgraceful as the tacit endorsement of the Holocaust, then one had bloody well better clarify what they are saying and, more importantly, what they are not.  Imagine you are entertaining a friend at home; they glance towards your bookshelf and say “Oh you have a book on Hitler? I really enjoy his paintings.”  As the host, would you let that comment slide, or would you ask them to elaborate?  How about: “A biography of Charles Manson! Fantastic, his collaborations with the Beach Boys were the soundtrack to my teenage years.”  Or “I bought a video of the very best Jim’ll Fix It episodes today.”  One should be pressed to expand further.

Antisemitism, when not uttered or acted upon in any way, is a victimless crime.  This is impossible, of course, and as soon as one expresses such prejudice they run the risk of sacrificing the relationships they have with the people around them.  Most would question their friendship and some would cut off all ties because it takes a certain kind of person to want to be associated with unconcealed bigotry.  There is no explanation as to why the League reveres Nazis and white nationalists on their paltry website, so the only conclusion available is that the League of Saint George is a racist, anti-immigration, antisemitic, fascist group that idolises the Third Reich and really likes the Mosley’s; though, not so much their children, I haven’t seen them mentioned once yet, I wonder why?

I should acknowledge that I missed something of some importance in the previous entry which would have aided my understanding of the League and brought me to this conclusion sooner.  I skipped over a section of a paragraph on their homepage because I was unaware of its meaning.  It is italicised below:

The League of St George was probably the first British group since Mosley to established links with other European nationalists. Many of these contacts were made at the annual nationalist gathering in Diksmuide, Flanders, where in the 1970s the League gave physical support to the Flemish Amnestie campaign, and took part in demonstrations with the Flemish patriots, the VMO. Today, the League has contacts worldwide including Japan. [Emphasis theirs.]

Bert Eriksson
Bert Eriksson

I now know that Diksmuide hosts IJzerbedevaart (Pilgrimage of the Yser), which is a gathering of Flemings remembering those of their number that fell in the First World War.  Postwar, this was hijacked by neo-Nazis because during the war this tradition was continued and organised by the occupying Nazis.

The VMO (Vlaamse Militanten Orde; Order of Flemish Militants) was, until the late 1980s, a neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-immigration, militant Flemish group led in their heyday by Bert Eriksson – a man we met last time on the League’s list of remembrance.  A fanatical policy of theirs was to illegally exhume the bodies of those Flemish Nazi collaborators that were buried outside of Flanders, transport them back, and then have them reinterred within the region.  Another was fire-bombing establishments run by immigrants, and attacking non-ethnic Belgians, leftists, and occasionally Walloons.  At one time they openly associated with Flemish nationalism and at another they identified as a white power group; for example, in 1982, they sent a delegation to visit Léon Degrelle in exile in Marbella.  Degrelle was the founder of the Rexist Party, a Walloon pro-Nazi collaborationist group, and was living out his life in Spain, supported and protected against extradition by Francisco Franco and, after Franco’s death in 1975, by the gangster and pimp Jesús Gil.  This would have been against early VMO policy, but by the 1980s the group was being suppressed and could use any help and support it could find.

Léon Degrelle
Léon Degrelle

The VMO’s policies were disgusting.  Why would anybody give them ‘physical support’, as the League brags?  At no point were the VMO in favour of Mosley’s ‘Europe a Nation’ policy, so this ‘physical support’ was likely a result of being invited to Diksmuide.  The most infuriating aspect of the League is that they do not come out, as it were, in favour of the policies that their website insinuates.  Do they honestly expect to gain pro-‘Europe a Nation’ members which are for immigration and against antisemitism, for example?  If this ever happened, then I would think that they may be a bit put off by the declaration that they should celebrate Hitler’s birthday.  At a minimum, this poor cover is disingenuous and dim.

A large portion of the League’s history involves bungling mistakes, which were exposed through informants like Ray Hill in the mid-1980s.  The group was meant to be an exclusive club for the intellectuals of the British far-right.  Yet, they planned to safe house Italian terrorists until the ITV current affairs show World in Action aired an episode which exposed that plan.  In 1996, through their links in South Africa, they recruited mercenaries to assassinate high-ranking members of Nelson Mandela’s government, but the South African Secret Service cottoned on and easily thwarted them.  These are campaigns devised by the intellectuals of the far-right.  It’s mad, and the scariest part is that they would have thought that they were doing the morally correct thing.

What’s more, their apparent leader, Keith Thompson, was a paid informant for Searchlight magazine between 1979 and 1982.  Thompson sold them hundreds of League related documents ‘including membership and subscriber lists.’  His excuse?  The owner of Searchlight, Gerry Gable, burgled his house.  Thompson is still the leader and also runs Steven Books, an online bookstore which specialises in revisionist history (e.g. Holocaust denial) and is listed as ‘League Enterprises’.  It’s a bit funny how Thompson never pressed charges against Gable for burgling his house.

League FB
The League of Saint George’s Facebook page

The League of Saint George now has a hilariously dated Facebook page, with 230 ‘Likes’.  For impact and scope, they are nowhere near groups like Britain First and the English Defence League.  Several posts on the page indicate that it is run by Catherine Pakulski Parker-Brown.  Her partner, John Pakulski, has ties to several other white supremacist groups and spent a period of time behind bars for stabbing to death a friend, Mark Sanderson, who he found ‘in a state of undress’ with Catherine after a party.

If a user’s privacy settings are weak, then Facebook can open a person’s life up to outsiders.  Pakulski Parker-Brown has very open settings, and that is where I began to find a human aspect to this previously faceless group.  For example, I can see that she also ‘Liked’ PETA and other animal protection groups.  She likes Spike Milligan, Bruce Springsteen, Edgar Allen Poe, supports Britain’s troops, and veterans charities.  Hates domestic abuse, supports her friend’s pages, and likes Peter Kay, Andrex and Aldi.  Likes standing up for autistic people, painting, turtles, guinea pigs, Wallace and Gromit, horses, Jaffa Cakes, Jack Daniel’s Honey, Led Zeppelin.  Apart from honey flavoured bourbon and the overrated PETA, I am in favour of a lot of those things.  Then the things I dislike appeared again: ‘Stop censoring the English!’, ‘Ban all Islamic/Muslin hatred against our troops.make them illegal’, ‘Infidels of Britain’, BNP, ‘Boycott Halal’, ‘New British Union Youth’, ‘The Faustian Circle’.  Our minds work in binary.  It is either 1, we like someone or 0, we don’t.  Admittedly, I started to feel a bit sorry for her when I was reading through her profile, I started to drift away from 0 to 0.1, 0.2.  I reverted to type when the anti-immigration, racist hatred started up again.  It’s so sad.

One can dedicate one’s life to a cause and fight relentlessly for it.  We can be very exclusive and make sure that our friends only come from a specific group or circle; the alternative is to drop in and out of different groups of friends, family, and co-workers – this is what the majority of us do.  We put on masks and tell ourselves stories as to why we act a certain way around different people.  We create a reason for why we can enjoy Jaffa Cakes – a cake named after Jaffa oranges, which were originally grown in Jaffa in Israel, the Jewish state – and at the same time be antisemitic.  Our brains can form a logical explanation for why we would campaign for the ethical treatment of animals, but want England for the ethnically English – specifically the white, non-Jewish English.  It is easy for us to comprehend that we are fond of animals which are not native to the UK – like turtles (which originate from between the tropics) and guinea pigs (South America) – and at the same time want all humans which derive from different cultures to not be legally allowed to live in the same state as you.  Our brains are wonderful at keeping our cognitive dissonance in check.

A quote from Christopher Hitchens springs to mind:

‘In the 1950s there was quite a widespread movement in the United States called the John Birch Society, founded by a man called Robert Welch.  Mr. Welch made himself extremely famous by saying that President Eisenhower was a dedicated and conscious agent of an international communist conspiracy, and lots and lots of people believed that, and I wondered what their lives were like.  You know, you get up in Pasadena, or – wherever you live – Chappaqua, Arlington, you think: “It’s another day.  The President of the United States is being run by the Kremlin.  I guess I’ve still got to go get the groceries, drop off the kids.”  All this raging is going on inside your skull all the time.  It doesn’t in one sense make any difference.  It’s probably even therapeutic for some deeply disordered people.’

Everybody holds contradictory opinions and most of us do not even realise that they conflict.  Our brains weave it all into our story and confabulate what we consider to be legitimate reasoning for quite possibly illogical actions and beliefs.  This is what it is to be human.  If you think that this does not apply to you, then you’re wrong.  It does.  It really, really, really does.

The far-right in Britain is almost dead.  It has occasional flickers of life, such as the BNP winning some MEPs in the late-2000s, and UKIPs current, hugely puffed up, successes.  At its source fascism, and especially populism, is a self-defeating ideology.  It has to win it all at once or it will lose its authenticity.  Whether it is UKIP or the League of Saint George, these groups trade on being anti-establishment and holding unpopular anti-establishment views, like antisemitism.  Once they are voted in they become a part of the establishment by definition.  Unless something – often an unforeseen event – gifts them rapid change, they then lose their base of support because they have become exactly what they have previously rallied against.  I’m not saying that a far-right extremist group like UKIP could not win a majority in the UK, it could.  It’s just that it will not do so in the current climate because the standard of life in Britain is good for the majority.  And, if it did, it would have to be in a constant state of revolution, like Mussolini’s Fascist Party was, to stay in power; if they removed Britain from the EU, for example, UKIP would have to change its central message to retain any essence of support.

Ultimately, we have little to fear from these groups, but we still have to stand up to their bigotry.  It will be a pointless dialogue/shouting match, the equivalent of talking to a wall, but the battle is not to convert, but to prevent the undecided becoming extremists.  People need to speak up whenever the far-right want to intimidate or hurt minorities.  The silent majority should recognise when it needs to become boisterous.

I started this by wondering why people continue to believe in discredited, far-right ideologies, and I’m still not sure, though I believe that I am closer to a general conclusion.  One of the most difficult thought experiments is putting oneself in a position totally alien from our own.  This is because we believe that we are logical, anything divergent is illogical.  To totally understand why Pakulski Parker-Brown got to where she is today I would have to live her life.  I can do some armchair psychology about her upbringing and intelligence, but I would be no closer to a complete conclusion.  As Michael Shermer wrote in The Science of Good and Evil: “Nature is so intertwined with nurture that to say that a complex human characteristic like personality or intelligence or … morality is, say, 40 percent genetics and 60 percent environment (to arbitrarily pick two figures) misses something very important: inheritability does not mean inevitability of success and vice versa.”  We create, polish, and justify our own values.

What she believes is immoral and inherently wrong, but she would think the same about me.  If we ever spoke about it we would leave having only further convinced ourselves of our original positions.  Nonetheless, I do believe that conversion is possible, but only through personal narrative.  For example, one could convince oneself of a truth as powerful as the one previously held, so much so that it eventually usurps and becomes dominant.  This is where I wish to explore next: how do people change their beliefs away from an extreme position?

The Forgotten British Far-Right: Part I

Ugly Combo

Tuesday 21 October 2014

In the final year of my History undergraduate degree I was fortunate enough to study fascism with Dr Maria Sophia Quine, one of the leading scholars in the field.  The central point which I took away from the course was that fascism flourishes during a national crisis, more often than not this will be of the economic variety (e.g. mass unemployment).  Since the interwar years, fascism has taken root as a protest vote against established political parties which are often closer to the liberal centre.  In Weimar Germany, for example, the Nazi Party was able to gain so much support because of its promise to restore Germany back to its former, pre-First World War glory, not because of the antisemitic rhetoric that pervaded their manifesto, Hitler’s speeches and his book, Mein Kampf (although it would be wrong to say that these did not attract anybody at all).  A similar thing had happened earlier in Italy, with Benito Mussolini’s PNF being the anti-communist bulwark desired by Italian elites.  Legitimate ascensions to power by extreme parties occur in this way: disillusion with the establishment, and then protesting against it by voting for parties not considered to be a member of that set.

(As a side note, for a forceful overthrow of a government to happen then the group must have the backing of at least one of the armed forces and, probably nowadays, a subservient media.  An example of this would be Francoist Spain emerging from the bloody Spanish Civil War, and the Generalissimo ruling until his death in 1975.  This happens if the government in power either refuses to hold an election or the nation’s constitution stipulates that another election would not be for some time and, therefore, the extreme group believe that they have to act upon the groundswell of support which they currently have or risk losing it by the time of the next election.)

The continuing presence of fascist and neo-Nazi groups in the United Kingdom astounds me.  I came to this topic in the same way that so many interesting tangents of tangents of tangents are stumbled upon: Wikipedia.  I was researching UKIP for the article that I published in my previous entry (see Hiatus, UKIP, and Dan Carlin).  From there I hunted for the British National Party to see what became of them, this led me to the National Front, which took me back to far-right groups from the 1960s, including the League of Empire Loyalists.  The LEL brought me to the British Union of Fascists, which, in turn, took me to the Union Movement, at which point I noticed that it was only wound up in 1994, after it transformed into the Action Party in 1973.  Moreover, the AP had a splinter group – the League of Saint George – which is still around today after splitting in 1974, likely as a result of the change from UM to AP.  I wanted to find out about this group.  Why would somebody persist in swearing their allegiance to a party, group or ideology which has little to no chance of attaining power by legitimate or, even, illegitimate means?  The financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent global depression was a huge worldwide problem; but the only gain of any real significance for the far-right was the 21 seats (recently down to 18) which were won in 2012 in the Hellenic Parliament by the Greek fascist party, Chrysí Avgí (Golden Dawn).  In an effort to try to understand what makes the League tick, I went to their website – and it is extraordinary.

The League of Saint George with their emblem, centre.

Their homepage describes them as dedicated ‘to [Oswald] Mosley’s concept of a united Europe’, explaining that they have ‘never aimed to be a political party but more of a lobby group to influence and encourage established nationalist parties to embrace … [Mosley’s] philosophy.’  This is tantamount to admitting defeat.  How often have you heard Mosley and/or his policies mentioned in either house? I cannot recall a single instance since his death in 1980, nor could Google.  By definition, the intention of lobbying is to influence decisions made by officials in the government, often this is done by splashing enough cash to get their interests recognised and discussed.  This has most certainly not been achieved by the League.  My initial reaction is that it may well be one of the most ineffective and fanciful lobby groups ever.

Their homepage moves on from defeat to being unintentionally comical.  It is explained that they are ‘probably the first British group since Mosley to established (sic) links with other European nationalists’ (it’s good to know they did their research) and that they have ‘contacts worldwide including Japan’ (exotic!).[Italics mine.]  The website explains further that ‘membership is by invitation only and based on the question “what can you do for the League”.’  I wonder how many members have been invited but in turn were stumped by the entrance examination.

In the late 1970s, the League’s members were banned from the National Front.  Yet the League still exists and the National Front does not.  I wonder what the groups demographic is like: how many original members do they have, where are new ones coming from, and do they have any other objectives seeing as their first has been all but ignored and forgotten.  So I decided that I should try to contact them and ask them some questions, but I paused when I reached their Contacts page which consists of three more unintentionally humorous items.  First, their home office – a.k.a. ‘League Enterprises’ – is based in Grays, Essex.  A quick browse on Google Maps shows that the address provided gives a very unassuming house on a portion of the A1013 which also hosts a pub, some shops, a bank and several Asian takeaways.  Not quite what I was expecting.  Next, the website owner and/or operator has titled himself ‘webmaster’, which only adds to the Geocities/Homestead vibe.  Finally, should one wish to e-mail the group then the recipient uses an address.  I couldn’t help but picture a dial-up modem and the AOL homepage from the late 1990s.  I didn’t e-mail them.  For one thing, I couldn’t be sure that they check their e-mails more than once a week.

Mosley in Rome
Oswald Mosley and the BUF visiting Rome in 1933.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: they’re just big Oswald Mosley fans, they’re not fascist or neo-Nazi, or even far-right.  First, I would say go and do some research on Oswald Mosley and just note what his most influential political party was called, I did mention them earlier.  Secondly, visit their very own online shop (which operates by sending a ‘cheque/postal order’ by snail mail to League Enterprises – Amazon, it is not) and see the four books that are on sale.  At the very top of the list is Mein Kampf.  Second is This Time The World, the autobiography of the founder of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell.  Usury by Hilaire Belloc is third.  Admittedly, I knew that Belloc was antisemitic, but I did not know that he had written on the subject, so I looked for it on Amazon and the following description popped up:

Find out how the definition of usury is actually any interest on an unproductive loan, such as a mortgage, and not the definition we a re (sic) taught today, high interest. Yet another example of how the banking/media/government tool of Jew oppression changes definitions of words to suit their own racist and nefarious purposes.

(The irony of the use of ‘racist’ in that quote is magnificent.)  The final book on sale is A Pictorial History of the Blackshirt Movement: Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists, which is ‘printed and published by League Enterprises on behalf of the League of St. George.’  It seems strange that a group which is lobbying for Mosley’s ideas would list their own book on Mosley last in their own (kind of) online shop… and place racism and Nazis above it, neither of which they mentioned previously.

Mein Kampf
‘Mein Kampf’, Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto.

Their website finishes with two lists.  The first is of eleven people that are ‘Marching with us still – in Spirit’.  The people that make up the eleven are: Oswald and Diana Mosley, George Lincoln Rockwell, Rudolf Hess, Florentine Rost van Tonningen – known as the ‘Black Widow’, she was the wife of Meinoud Rost van Tonningen, a leader of Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging in Nederland (the Dutch Nazi Party) who moved the group into a pro-Nazi, overtly antisemitic position in 1936, and then collaborated enthusiastically during the occupation.  Then there is Bert Eriksson, a Flemish member of the Hitler Youth and a prominent neo-Nazi and antisemite in post-war Flanders.  American racist David Lane also makes the list, known for his membership of The Order, an extreme white nationalist, antisemitic sect with the goal of overthrowing the government of the United States.  The others on the list were all British: Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, two of the most well-known British neo-Nazis of the post-war era, and Ian Stuart Donaldson, co-founder of neo-Nazi network Blood and Honour (with Nicky Crane, who isn’t remembered, probably because he came out as gay shortly before his death).  The last name is Fred Shepherd, who, as his name is followed by ‘(President LSG)’, was probably something to do with the League.

The second list is of 10 ‘Important Dates to Celebrate’ of which the fourth is Hitler’s birthday, two are pagan festivals, and two are the birthdays of the Mosley’s.  Then there is the Battle of Cable Street and the launching of the Union Movement and European magazine (all three of which are also Mosley related), Hess parachuting into Britain, and the date Enoch Powell delivered his controversial, anti-immigration ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.  To me, these two lists do a lot to indicate that this isn’t purely a Mosley nationalist group.

I’m going to have to come back to this.  I’m still wondering why people persevere with a failed ideology, let alone one which is racist and hateful.

The second part of this article can be found here.