Above: Arron Banks: on the Trade Unionists Against the EU website
Doug Nicholls, chair of Trade Unionists Against the EU (whose website features Ukip’s Arron Banks), writes in the Morning Star:
‘Don’t believe the hype; the Tories are not in charge and not the most evil ones. They work to the directives and treaties of the EU and base their budgets on the EU austerity agenda and stability and “growth” pact. This has already created the world’s lowest-growth area and flattened collective bargaining’.
Above: Johnson’s lies on the EU exposed by fellow Tory Andrew Tyrie
The liar, cheat, hypocrite and malevolent clown Boris Johnson has done something many observers would have thought impossible: taken the Tory campaign against Labour’s Sadiq Kahn in London down to new depths of filth, thinly-disguised racism and mendacity.
The Tory candidate, Zac Goldsmith has put out a leaflet calling Khan “radical and divisive”, obviously with the implication that Khan is linked to radical Islamism and perhaps even to terrorism. In another leaflet, directly mailed to people Goldsmith’s team considered likely to be of Indian or Sri Lankan backgrounds (based on their names), Goldsmith has suggested that Khan would tax “family jewellery”.
In fact, Khan is a socially liberal Muslim who has been outspoken in his support for gay rights (including gay marriage), womens’ rights and opposition to anti-Semitism. He has even criticised the present Labour leadership for (in his view) not tackling anti-Semitism with sufficient vigour.
And yet Johnson, writing in today’s Daily Telegraph has the audacity to try to brand Khan an anti-Semite by association: there are some anti-Semites in the Labour Party and Khan is a member of the Labour Party – ipso facto Khan is an anti-Semite, or at least tainted with it. Johnson does, in fact, begrudgingly acknowledge that Khan has spoken out against anti-Semitism in the Party (or, as Johnson puts it, has “belatedly admitted that Labour is afflicted with anti-Semitism”) before going on to accuse Khan of “sharing platforms with some of the most backward and sectarian forces in Islam” … without mentioning the fact that Khan has often used those platforms to criticise such people to their faces.
Oh yes, Johnson mentions that one of the Islamists Khan shared a platform with, Sulaiman Ghani, has “denounced gays.” Johnson, it seems, is a great defender of gay rights. These days. According to himself.
Tory ex-MP Matthew Parris (who has been openly gay for many years) recently (March 26) wrote a scathing attack on Johnson, in The Times (unfortunately, Murdoch’s pay-wall prevents me from linking to it beyond the opening sentences, here). Parris begins his piece thus:
Parody is now extinct. Boris Johnson has killed the distinction between reality and satire. Remember the Tory who as a wannabe MP called Labour’s repeal of Section 28 “appalling”, who joked about “tank-topped bum-boys”, who sneakily rowed back from homophobia by asking “what’s not to like?” about gays who leave the field of available women clear for straight men? He is now urging gay men to vote Leave because, he says, some Eastern European countries have legislation that represses them
“It was us” he burbles on a new Out & Proud video, “the British people, that created [an] environment of happiness and contentment for LGBT people. It may well have been us. It ruddy well wasn’t him. But now, even into gay saunas creeps the smell of his damp tweed.
Parris’ entire piece is well worth reading and sometime in the future I may well risk the wrath of Murdoch’s lawyers by republishing the whole thing. But for now, I’ll content myself with republishing the transcript (again, brought to us courtesy of Parris in The Times) of Johnson giving his criminal friend Darius Guppy the details of a journalist Guppy wanted beaten up. Johnson was concerned about how badly the journalist would be injured, because the assault might be linked to himself:
Johnson: “I really want to know …”
Guppy: “I guarantee you he will not be seriously hurt.”
Johnson: “How badly will he…”
Guppy [interrupting]: “He will not have a broken limb or broken arm, he will not be put into intensive care or anything like that. He’ll probably get a couple of black eyes and a cracked rib or something.”
Johnson: “Cracked rib? If I get trouble, if I get…I got this bloody number for you. OK Darrie. I said I’d do it. I’ll do it. Don’t worry.”
And this creature, Boris Johnson, has the nerve to write that Sadiq Khan is unfit to be Mayor of London because he, Khan, is – on the basis of no evidence whatsoever from Johnson – “pandering to the extremists”! Johnson is not (as even some on the left seem to think) an amusing buffoon: he’s a filthy, racist hypocrite and scumbag.
Comrade Coatesy reports:
Staff T-Shirt in Craft-Beer and Quinoa Hoxton Bistro.
This recently appeared: Badiou Studies Volume Four, Number One. Ontology, Neutrality and the Strive for (non)Being Benedetta Tripodi. Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Iasi, Romania.
Unfortunately, as this just published piece explains, Un « philosophe français » label rouge. Relecture tripodienne d’Alain Badiou, the article is a pastiche and satire – albeit with serious intent.
Which reminds us of this: the Sokal Affair.
The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal’s intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether “a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions”.
The article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity“, was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 “Science Wars” issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist. On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as “a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense … structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics.
Last autumn the ‘peer reviewed’ academic journal Badiou Studies called for papers for a special issue, “towards a queer badiouian feminism “.
The merry pair, Anouk Barberousse & Philippe Huneman, sent their text off and it was accepted.
We hear that the learned Badiou Studies has just now rumbled the prank.
Badiou is, as they observe, highly regarded not just in France (where he is at the pinnacle of a certain academic establishment, while being cordially loathed by those in different camps) but in the world of Cultural Studies, Film Studies, White Studies, Heritage Studies, Postcolonial Studies and one could add Verso books who publish his ponderings. Terry Eagleton has called him The Greatest Philosopher since Plato and St Ignatius of Loyola” – the latter no doubt not without a ring of a certain ‘truth regime’.
Badiou is also known for his ‘Maoist’ past, his support for the Khmer Rouge, and the bullying of other leftist and academics by his 1970’s groupusucle the Union des communistes de France marxiste-léniniste (UCFml).
He remains unwavering in his glorification of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. This apparently is one of the Events that demonstrate the Truth of the Communist Idea to which he remains faithful.
As Barberousse and Huneman remark, most of Badiou’s admirers like his politics – his ‘Communist Hypothesis’ – while grasping little or nothing of his metaphysics (“Badiousiens « politiques » se satisfont de savoir que cette métaphysique est profonde, mais ils n’y comprennent rien.”)
They contest what is in effect a legitimation of philosophy by an abstract ontology (une légitimation pour la métaphysique du philosophe). Or to be more clearly, the idea that you can produce a rational picture of the world by intellectual fiat while concealing the many difficulties it involves.
The parody is designed to undermine the foundations on which the ontology of the ‘Master’ rests, its use to determine how social relations work, how radical politics can be based, and, apart from anything else, is highly amusing.
The ‘paper’ Ontology, Neutrality and the Strive for (non)Being begins:
As established by Badiou in Being and Event , mathematics – as set theory – is the ultimate ontology. Sets are what gender in g processes by reactionary institutions intend to hold, in contradiction to the status of the multiplicities proper to each subject qua subject. This tension between subjectivity and gender comes to the fore through the lens of the ‘count as ‘one’, the onto logical operator identified by Badiou as the fluid mediator between set belonging and set existence. After having specified these ontological preliminaries, this paper will show that the genuine subject of feminism is the “many” that is negatively referred to through the “count as one” posited by the gendering of “the” woman. Maintaining the openness of this “many” is an interweaving philosophical endeavour. It is also a political task for any theory receptive to the oppressive load proper to the institutions of sexuation, as deployed through modern capitalism that is, any queer theory. In its second step, the paper will therefore expose the adequacy of the Badiousian ontology to provide theoretical resources for articulating the field of a genuine queer nomination. It will finally appear that “non gender” structurally corresponds in the field of a post capitalist politics of the body to what Francois Laruelle (1984) designated as non philosophie within the field of metaphysics.
This is priceless.
“To sum up, non-gender cannot but only be thought of, by a radical philosophical gesture, as a supplement of this philosophy itself. As such a supplement, non gender has to be where philosophy is not meant to be, even when it shows instead of saying(according to the well known Wittgensteinian distinction) or, shows through its non saying that this situation is a non situation, or, in Badiousian words, that we have the situation of a condition that is a non condition.”
What matters to this truth is a faithfulness to the “many” that was unnamed but arising in the event of feminism. It is the faithfulness to the Impensé of the gendering institutions proper to late capitalism – in other words, a faithfulness to the (non) gender (Bersanti 1987; Magnus 2006). Here, we reach the limits of what philosophy – conceived of in Badiousian terms, as exposing the conditions of an authentic event of truth through the subjectification of a subject– can frame, or, more generally, can utter.
The suggestion that Jacobin was about the publish an interview with Benedetta Tripodi has been denied.
Readers may remember the incident a week or so ago when Fran Cowling, the NUS lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) representative, said that she would not share a stage with Peter Tatchell, whom she described as “racist” and “transphobic”. The row was covered in some detail by Comrade Coatesy here, and in the Guardian here.
Tatchell, a long standing campaigner for gay rights and human rights more generally, quite understandably, decided to mount a public defence of his good name against these outrageous slurs. As a result of doing so, he was denounced yet again, in this hysterical Open Letter – which includes the truly Orwellian charge of Tatchell referring to a “confidential email chain” that had been forwarded to him “without permission”, thus apparently making Tachell’s accuser the true ‘victim’ of this story!
The signatories include not just the usual NUS suspects and their petty bourgeois and authoritarian friends in academia, but shamefully, the editor of the anarchist Freedom News has signed, too.
It’s a depressing read, but serious in its way, as an example of the anti-free speech, authoritarian logic of extreme identity politics and the hysteria it can induce.
Note, in particular, this paragraph:
“Tatchell has a long record of urging that public platforms be denied members of ethnic and religious groups, especially Muslims. He has called for banning so-called “Islamist” speakers from Universities. He has even demanded mosques apologise “for hosting homophobic hate preachers” and give “assurances that they will not host them again.” Tatchell claims the right to decide who qualifies as a “homophobic hate preacher”; what counts is not inciting violence or any tangible threats to LGBT Londoners, but rather simply expressing religious opinions about homosexual acts. The peculiar urgency with which Tatchell targets Muslims lends credibility to the charge of racial insensitivity.”
So, at some point, it has apparently become acceptable for supposed leftwingers to consider speaker tours for homophobic bigots to be a matter of indifference, and that it is “racially insensitive” for LGBT rights campaigners to object to people expressing “religious opinions about homosexual acts“. Most decent lefties (and liberals) will find this euphemistic description of far-right hate preachers pretty sickening. Now, some might disagree with Tatchell on minor tactical issues of precisely how he approaches this, but my gut response, when ‘lefties’ tell gay rights campaigners to shut up about organised far-right bigotry is: “fuck off”.
Also: “The particular urgency with which Tatchell targets Muslims“? Well – which Muslims? All of them? An attack on a far-right preacher who thinks all gay people are animals is an attack on all Muslims? Isn’t it “racially insensitive” to identify all Muslims with the hard-right ideologues that Tatchell feels “urgent” about?
What a wretched, hypocritical shower these self-righteous NUS authoritarians and their academic friends, are!
From Tendance Coatesy:
HOPE not hate
We hope this is not true but the story is circulating:
The Huffington Post also carries the story:
The NUS Is ‘Trying To Ban’ Hope Not Hate Founder Nick Lowles For Being ‘Islamophobic’
The Tendance has been to an event organised by Hope not Hate in Ipswich.
A broad range of left-wing activists, from the Labour Party, trade unionists, to the extra-Parliamentary left, Muslims, and even one Tory, were present.
Our principal concern at that point was campaigning against the xenophobes of UKIP.
Hope Not Hate’s work against UKIP and all forms of far-right bigotry, from Islamists to the BNP, is greatly respected.
It is perhaps unnecessary to observe that the far-right (Stormfront) often mentions that Nick Lowles is from a Jewish background*.
All we can say, if this account is true, is that the NUS are now even more beneath contempt.
* This is what the Nazis say, “Nick Lowles of Searchlight, admits to being part of “Jewish community”?
I’m not sure if this was just a Freudian slip, or what. There have been rumours kicking about before, from Larry O’Hara, that he was a member of the Union of Jewish Students. In any case, this was in The Jewish Chronicle and set alarms ringing;
Update: The Letter of Shame.
We stand in solidarity with NUS LGBT+ Officer Fran Cowling and support their right to choose who they share a platform with according to their own values and beliefs. We believe fundamentally in the right to freedom of speech and association but that both of these carry with them the right to choose to neither speak nor associate with someone and Fran has every right to exercise those rights however they deem fit.
We are appalled at Peter Tatchell’s actions in dragging a dedicated, hard-working and passionate activist through an appalling media circus which has led to them receiving a torrent of vile abuse with no other apparent purpose than to salve his own ego.
We believe that whether Peter Tatchell feels he is racist or transphobic is ultimately irrelevant as none of us is best placed to be an objective judge of our own behaviour and Fran’s decision to listen to the voices of People of Colour and Trans people who have raised issues with his behaviour was the right decision for them to make and should be supported. Whilst also recognising that those opinions are not universal amongst People of Colour and Trans people, nor should there ever be expectation that they would be, because neither group is comprised of identical clones and where differing opinions exist the choice of who to side with remains with the individual.
More on the Site of Shame
Like (I’m sure) most decent people, I was appalled to read in today’s Observer that the NUS’s LGBT representative, one Fran Cowling, has denounced Peter Tatchell as “transphobic” and “racist”.
The “evidence” for this nonsense is non-existent to any rational person, so I don’t intend, here, to even dignify it with a response: Comrade Coatesy deals with it here.
Suffice to say that my immediate reaction was that Fran Cowling, the NUS’s LGBT representative who made these comments, may be mentally ill: certainly, she should not be taken as speaking on behalf of the NUS: the NUS told the Observer “Tatchell has not been ‘no-platformed’ by the union as a whole, and that it was up to Cowling to make her own choices with regard to this event.”
So I assumed this was the reaction of one strange and disturbed individual, carried away by the self-righteous logic of identity politics. Until this was drawn to my attention:
Here is what passed – overwhelmingly – at NUS LGBT conference 2015
Motion 101: End Transphobia, Biphobia and Islamophobia on Campus
Content warning: Transphobia, biphobia, and Islamophobia
1.1. NUS LGBT has a duty to protect and promote the rights of those who self-define as part of LGBT NUS, on campus at University or college and in wider society.
2.2. All students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, have the right to a safe environment at their University or College campus where they can learn, develop as an individual, and achieve their full potential. This safe space must include an environment that is free from all forms of discrimination and prejudice including but not limited to: homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, racism, sexism, ableism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism.
3.3. Transphobia is an irrational dislike, hatred, prejudice and/or discriminatory action towards individuals who define as Trans, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, transvestite, and genderqueer people, and anyone who does define into the gender binary norms of society.
4.4. NUS Liberation Campaigns have previously passed ‘No Platform’ Policies in order to protect students from individuals who preach prejudice and discrimination based on an individual’s identity, and who incite hatred against an individual based upon their identity or beliefs.
5.5. The NUS LGBT Campaign and the NUS Women’s Campaign have previously passed policy refusing to share a platform with Julie Bindel, a journalist and author who is notorious for her transphobic publications and views, and other individuals who hold transphobic views.
Conference further believes:
1.1. Julie Bindel is renowned for her transphobic viewpoints, which first came to light in her article Gender Benders, Beware (2004). Bindel has apologised for the ‘tone’ of this article, but has not renounced further writings which argue that Trans people should be denied medical care. Moreover, she has spoken at events such as Femifest 2014 that explicitly exclude Trans people.
2.2. Julie Bindel argued in her latest book, ‘Straight Expectations’ (2014) that that bisexuality doesn’t exist as a sexual identity, thus erasing bisexual individuals’ identities and experiences.
3.3. Julie Bindel has also criticised women who wear the niqab in her article for the Daily Mail: Why are my fellow feminists shamefully silent over the tyranny of the veil (2013); in refusing to believe that Muslim women have made their own decision to wear the niqab she denies Muslim women agency.
1.1. That the NUS LGBT Officers and members of the NUS LGBT committee shall not share a platform with Julie Bindel.
2.2. That the NUS LGBT Officers and members of the NUS LGBT Committee shall not engage with transphobic, biphobic or Islamophobic speakers
And here is a motion that passed at NUS Trans Conference in autumn 2015 – note “The sharing of content on social media is also granting a platform … Covering transphobic speech both in a positive and negative light is still granting it a platform”
Motion 108 | Hate has no place on campuses
Content Warning: Transphobia
1.NUS has a duty to protect and promote the rights of those who self-define as trans, on campus at University or college and in wider society.
2.All students, regardless of their gender identity, have the right to a safe environment at their University or College campus.
3.Transphobia is an irrational dislike, hatred, prejudice and/or discriminatory action towards individuals who define as trans.
4.NUS Liberation Campaigns have previously passed ‘No Platform’, “no sharing of platforms” and “no invite” Policies in order to protect students from individuals who preach and incite hatred against an individual based upon their identity.
5.Legally “hate speech” does not cover transphobic speech
Conference Further Believes:
1.1. Transphobic, homophobic, biphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and/or antiSemitic speakers have no place at universities or colleges.
2.2. “No sharing of platforms” and “no invite” Policies do not limit the freedom of speech
3.3. Transphobic speech should be legally recognised as hate speech
4.4. Transphobia and transphobic speakers have lead to poor access to health care and welfare services by spreading myths about trans people.
5.5. By allowing transphobic speakers onto campus this can affect the mental health of trans students on campus.
6.6. By giving a speaker a platform it is a method to legitimises their views
7.7. The sharing of content on social media is also granting a platform
8.8. Covering transphobic speech both in a positive and negative light is still granting it a platform.
9.9. Transphobic speech is still transphobic hate speech even if they are a member of another or the same liberation group.
10.10. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination.
11.11. Universities and Colleges should be a place for trans people to thrive where they feel safe and accepted.
1.1. To support all campaigns, protests and petitions making people who are Transphobic, homophobic, biphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and/or anti-Semitic speakers not to invited onto campuses.
2.2. To not share platforms with and not to invite onto campuses all transphobic speakers including but not limited to: Germaine Greer1 , Julie Bindel2 , Julie Burchill3 and Milo Yiannapolous4 .
3.3. To actively campaign against the platforming and inviting onto campuses of all transphobic speakers at universities.
4.4. To encourage the platforming and inviting onto campuses of people from liberation groups, specifically pertaining to the issue at hand.
5.5. Encourage students’ unions to have safe spaces for trans people, as well spaces where they can operate autonomously
6.6. To work on making transphobic speech covered under the definition of “hate speech”
So it would seem that Fran Cowling is not just an individual lunatic, but is acting on behalf of the NUS’s LGBT conference: in which case socialists have a job of work to shake these tossers out of their self-righteous idiocy, before society as a whole declares them beyond the pale.
George Galloway is the gift that keeps on giving. He no longer makes me angry: he makes me laugh. An increasingly preposterous self-caricature, the Prat in The Hat has become a rather sad conspiracy theorist.
On BBC Newsnight (see Youtube clip above) he rejected The Owen inquiry‘s conclusion that Vladimir Putin was “probably” involved in the murder of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko – claiming the inquiry was “riddled with imperfection” and accusing the BBC’s Newsnight of conducting a “show trial”. He also claimed to be opposed to Islamist extremism (in sharp contrast to what he said during the Afghan and Iraq wars) and accused Litvinenko’s friend, the Russian democracy campaigner Alex Goldfarb of having a “cold war agenda.”
The Prat then went on to praise Putin for “trying to restore a lot of the lost prestige” in Russia and for being “the most popular politician on the planet”, before entering the realms of conspiracy theory, likening the Owen’s inquiry – which found Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun to have poisoned Litvinenko in London in 2006 by putting the radioactive substance polonium-210 into his drink at a hotel – to the inquest into the death of Iraq weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly.
It would be easy to ascribe this sort of grovelling to the fact that Galloway is a bought-and-paid for creature of Putin’s propaganda machine (he works for RT television), but I don’t think that is really the explanation: the truth is that Galloway is irresistibly drawn to dictators and strongmen, whom he admires and seeks to serve in whatever capacity he can.
He has become a truly pathetic figure.
STOP PRESS: Galloway knows who dunnit: it was the You-Know-Who’s (of course!):
By Dale Street
Tunnock’s teacakes are the latest victims of the super-patriotic wing of Scottish nationalism: Along with all other Tunnock’s products (caramel wafers, caramel logs and snowballs), they should now be boycotted by all true Scots.
The trigger for the call for a boycott is an advertising campaign on London Underground which Tunnock’s launched in the New Year. According to the Facebook page “Boycott the Companies That Scared Scotland” (21,360 likes):
“Tunnock’s are ditching the lion rampant from their branding, stating that they are not a Scottish biscuit, they are a Great British biscuit. This is the second time this company has pissed on Scotland, after funding a ‘No’ vote in 2014. What’s really petty is a millionaire interfering with a country’s democratic decision so he can sell more biscuits.”
The company was duly added to the list of companies to be boycotted for having “scared Scotland” in the 2014 referendum. The list already included the Daily Record, the BBC, BP, Marks and Spencer, B&Q, Sainsbury’s John Lewis and USDAW.
(Yes, USDAW is a trade union, not a company. But the difference between a trade union and an employer seems to be lost on many nationalists: If they’re British, everything else shades into insignificance.)
An SNP-cybernat definition of “Tunnock” quickly did the rounds on social media:
“Tunnock: A person who is embarrassed by their Scottish heritage; one who prefers their country to be ruled by another; an individual who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause or principle; a dick. See also Dobber and Bawbag.”
Nationalist enthusiasts took to social media to express their support for a boycott:
“Tunnocks can get to fuck. Turncoat traitor wanks.” “I hope not one person in Scotland buys your products after abandoning the lion to appeal to England.” “Will not be buying any more fk tunnock.” “Established 1890. Sold out 2016.” “Rebranding is one thing. What Tunnocks did was a brazen rejection of Scotland.” “Let’s hope it cost him millions. We can only hope it puts him out of business.”
In fact, it turned out that some “Yes” supporters had been boycotting Tunnock’s ever since the referendum, some fifteen months before the launch of its ‘unpatriotic’ advertising campaign:
“Why is people only just (now) doing this? I’ve not bought anything from them since they came out as ‘No’.” “Never bought another Tunnocks product since Indy and never will again.” “I’ve never eaten anything made by Tunnock’s since the referendum.” “They supported a #No vote. That’s all you need to know.”
But other Scottish nationalists felt that calling for a boycott of Tunnock’s products did not really make sense. According to an editorial in The National (which pretends to be a newspaper but is in fact something you wave while your Saltires are away at the dry cleaners):
“What the whole episode really shows is how pro-Unionist campaigners moved quickly to condemn those who called for a boycott and made it not about those fringes but the whole pro-independence movement.
The truth is you never hear Yes campaigners calling for a boycott. Not really. You hear the crazed loons on the fringes of social media.”
Unfortunately for The National, comments posted beneath the editorial revealed that a fair number of its own readers were Tunnock’s-boycotting “crazed loons on the fringes of social media”. And they did not like being called “crazed loons”:
“Those ‘crazy loons’ you are referring to will soon see that ‘The National’ is just another unionist newspaper dressed in a kilt. I have till now bought Tunnocks, I won’t from now on.” “How about that? I’m a ‘crazed loon’! And proud of it!”
“I have been told I was being extremist for boycotting all papers except ‘The National’. Now ‘The National’ is saying I am on the lunatic fringe for boycotting a confectionery product. Hmmm.”
“If ‘The National’ thinks I am a loon because I choose to no longer buy a product, their product is now also one I no longer wish to buy.” “Be very careful who you call ‘crazed loons’. We are AT THE MOMENT supporting this paper.”
“Wow. This is bizarre from ‘The National’. I will boycott Tunnocks as is my choice. I can justify this in a completely rational way(!!!) and I would encourage others to do likewise. I am not a crazed loon on the fringes of social media because of this. However your opinion piece is more deserving of such a description.”
It is doubtless true that only a minority of Scottish nationalists support an actual boycott of Tunnock’s. But the call for a boycott is certainly a microcosm of the overall nationalist mindset and method of political ‘argument’:
– Ignore basic facts: The lion rampant has not been “ditched” by Tunnock’s. It is very visible on the Tunnock’s packaging in the advert. And the expression “Great British teacake” is a humorous take on “Great British Bake Off”, not an assertion of national identity (insofar as teacakes have a national identity).
– Ignore inconsistencies: Such as denouncing millionaires who donated to the ‘No’ campaign for interfering with a country’s democratic decision, but not making the same denunciation of millionaires who donated to the ‘Yes’ campaign.
– Ignore reality: 55% of the electorate voted against independence in 2014. 45% voted in favour. “55” is a bigger number than “45”. (And the current price of a barrel of oil is $35. “35” is considerably less than the SNP-promised figure of “117”.)
– Invent an insult to the Scottish nation (in a particularly aggressive and self-righteous tone – because, although you lost in 2014, you are the ‘real’ spokesperson of the nation): A self-confessed Tory millionaire who voted ‘No’ has dared to remove the symbol of the medieval Scottish monarchy from his teacakes branding!
– Invent a conspiracy theory: Too tedious quote verbatim, but it runs as follows: Tunnock’s has not Britified its teacakes as an advertising gimmick but in order to make pro-Unionist propaganda. (“The reality is that Boyd Tunnock was quite explicit about the packaging changes being intended for the purpose of promoting a unionist message.”)
– Sacrifice workers’ interests on your nationalist altar: A boycott of Tunnock’s, if it ever took off, would cost workers’ jobs (“We can only hope it puts him out of business.”) And unlike many SNP employers, Tunnocks actually recognises a trade union (Unite).
Sure, only a minority of Scottish nationalists are the kind of “crazed loons” who back a boycott of Tunnock’s (although, as The National discovered to its cost, there are a quite a lot of them out there).
But the ‘logic’ of the argument for boycotting a teacake contains all the ingredients of mainstream Scottish nationalism.
Steve Bell’s If …
By Dale Street (also posted at the Workers Liberty website)
“SNP independence has become the cocaine of the politically active. Fun to join in, but dulling the senses, jabbering on at a hundred words per minute while disconnected from self-awareness.”
In a recent article admitting that the SNP’s economic arguments for independence never stacked up, this is how Alex Bell summed up the delirious nature of the pro-independence political mindset. (Bell was SNP Head of Policy under Salmond.)
But the response of the SNP to the launch of airstrikes against Daesh has exposed the inaccuracy of Bell’s statement: he was being too charitable by half.
Labour Party policy was to oppose the bombing. The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs – and a majority of the Shadow Cabinet – voted against the bombing. Some 75% of Labour Party members were against the bombing. The lead speaker in Westminster against the bombing was the Labour Party leader.
But all these basic facts were blotted out of reality in the parallel political universe inhabited – and created – by Scottish nationalism.
SNP MP John Nicolson summed up the political essence of the SNP response to the launch of airstrikes when he created the hashtag: “Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems #BombingTogether.”
Challenged about the accuracy of this hashtag, Nicolson responded that bombing was backed by the vast majority of Tories (true), by all Lib Dems (wrong), and by most of the Shadow Cabinet (wrong).
And the 152 Labour MPs who voted against bombing? Or Labour Party policy against bombing? Nicolson simply ignored them.
SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson likewise ignored how most Labour MPs actually voted. Harking back to the SNP’s exploitation of the Labour-Tory “Better Together” referendum campaign, he tweeted:
“Syria vote: Want to join opposition to Labour/Tory ‘better together’ majority. Join the SNP.”
The Tories had a majority even without the votes of Labour MPs. And the majority of the Labour MPs voted against bombing. But this did not prevent Robertson from performing the political conjuring trick of pulling a “Labour/Tory ‘better together’ majority” out of his hat.
The SNP was equally silent about anti-war speeches by Labour MPs. Instead, on planet SNP, the intervention by Labour MPs was reduced to Hilary Benn’s closing pro-bombing speech. Read the rest of this entry »
Reblogged from Faisal Saeed Al-Mutor‘s site
It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.
It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:
“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
“No you didn’t.”
“Wait, what? Yes we did…”
“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”
“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”
“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”
“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”
“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”
H/t: Peter Ryley
Next page »