Archive for Politics

The Havering Post

The Havering Post.  Double-sided A4.  Colour.  March 2019.  Available in pdf form from Facebook/Independent Havering: https://www.facebook.com/groups/499768197023360/

THE HAVERING POST is a local publication produced in support of several Residents Association groups & independent parties in the London Borough of Havering.  Havering would have been part of Essex before it was transferred to London by the London Government Act 1963.  This same act effectively created what is now known as Greater London as it abolished the administrative county of Middlesex and also absorbed parts of Kent, Surrey and Hertfordshire.

The Facebook site of Independent Havering – https://www.facebook.com/groups/499768197023360/about/ – informs us that it is ‘a pressure group campaigning to maintain and improve our borough’s quality of life.  It aims to lobby and hold national and, especially, local Government and bodies to account for their actions.  In the event of a future independent/RA Council it would aim to work closely with them to ensure promises are delivered but also have their ‘back’ if so.’

The Independent Havering group appears to be very well organised with lots of local ‘grassroots’ support.  In fact, the last local council elections (held in May 2018) nearly saw them sweep away 17 years of Tory rule in the borough.  Bizarrely four Residents Association councillors, who were elected on a anti-Tory ticket, later jumped ship to support the Tories.  One later went on to join the Tory Party itself.  Even more bizarrely, all Labour councillors seem to support the Tory administration!

It should come as no surprise then, that issue 1 of the Havering Post (HP) examines the question of ‘democracy denied’ at both a local and national level.  Refreshingly, however, as well as pointing out how democracy can be turned on its head, it also notes that future issues will ‘look at Proportional Representation, a ‘None Of The Above’ (NOTA) option on ballot papers, Referendums, Preferendums and Voter Recall.’

As noted above, the Havering Post (which is written to a Daily Mail standard) looks at national and local cases whereby the electorate has been cheated.

As its national example it cites the case of what used to be known as The Independent Group (TIG).  It was founded earlier this year when disgruntled pro-EU Tory and Labour MPs quit their respective parties.  Counter Culture readers may recall that, at the time, these MPs came across as very ‘high and mighty.’  However, as the HP notes, despite being elected as Labour or Tory candidates they ‘all refused to resign their seats and intend to stand as candidates for TIG in any subsequent by-elections.  In doing so, they have shown that they have no morals or honour.’

The paper then looks at the denial of democracy in Havering itself.  As described earlier, several Residents Associations (RA) and Independent groups had united under the ‘Independent Havering’ banner and were really giving the Tories a run for their money.  Thus began the political shenanigans.  As the Havering Post notes:

‘Things were so tight that the local Tories had do some horse trading.  It appears that some Residents Association and Independent councillors were approached by the Conservative Party and were offered positions to help them to set up a Havering Council Administration. In the event, four of them jumped ship.  Known as the ‘Back Stabbers’, they are Michael-Deon Burton (who even joined the Tory Party), Brian Eagling, Martin Goode and Darren Wise.’

The rather thoughtful (and insightful) remarks of one local voter are also quoted.  In part, he or she declares that:

“It’s not like they defected half way through their term, but on the first day. This cannot continue – some judicial review needs to be put in place to stop councillors swapping sides. I am totally disgusted. They have no morals.

I find it a personal insult to hear that some people in the RA and Independent coalition feel it is OK to lie to us, your electorate, by way of selling their soul to the Conservatives, just so they can form a majority party to lead our council. 

I can assure you I will personally do my best to make sure that the people in those wards know full well what they voted for. If we the electorate wanted to be lied to, we would vote Labour or Conservatives.’”

The idea of some legislation being brought into place (to stop elected officials jumping ship) is interesting.  The HP declares that those who switch sides ‘are guilty – at the very least – of betrayal and bad faith. Some may say that they’re also guilty of deliberately deceiving voters.’

Whatever the case, those with honour ‘would do the right thing’ and promptly resign their seat and fight a by-election under their new colours.  To date, none of the Havering ‘Back Stabbers’ nor the TIG MPs have done so.  Depending on the circumstances, it sadly doesn’t really say much for the calibre of those elected officials who turn their backs on their policies, manifestos and the people who campaigned so hard to get them elected.  Is it any wonder why so many people feel disconnected from the political system?

To sum up, the Havering Post provides a robust defence of real democracy.  It highlights the failings of democracy (giving local and national examples) but presents a well-argued case for more – and not less – democracy.  This is particularly apt given present circumstances whereby the establishment ignores the democratic will of the people, if it goes against the interests of the establishment – à la Brexit!

Hopefully issue 2 will be in the offering soon.  No doubt it’ll concentrate on local affairs, but as stated earlier, future issues ‘of the Havering Post will examine other ways in which we can make both national and local politics more representative of the people. Thus we’ll look at Proportional Representation, a ‘None Of The Above’ (NOTA) option on ballot papers, Referendums, Preferendums and Voter Recall.’  What’s being proposed here seems to be a purer form of democracy based on participation as opposed to representation.  Here, popular participation (a form of personal self-determination whereby voters exercise action and responsibility) will replace the current system of handing over power and responsibility to others.  With the political air full of doom, gloom and negativity, it’ll be refreshing to read something that’s extremely positive and forward looking.

Reviewed by John Jenkins

Haveringpost+

Leave a Comment

Review: Sixties counterculture: A lecture from Dr. Greg Scorzo at The Academy 21 July 2019

gregscorzo

Greg Scorzo

Greg Scorzo is the director and editor of Culture on the Offensive and host of the Art of Thinking. I attended his lecture at The Academy which contrasted the counterculture of the 60s with the Leftist culture of 2019. Greg’s central argument was that the 60s counterculture was predominantly individualistic whereas the 2019 Left stressed collective themes.

For Greg, the 60s counterculture was in favour of pluralistic free speech and not only opposed government censorship of ideas but sought to foster a cultural environment that nurtured the expression of radical, even ‘dangerous’ ideas. Alongside this sat the belief that this could be done in a peaceful way and that such free expression led away from a view that violence was the only way to gain a voice or achieve change. Fast forward to the present day and that concept is linked explicitly with the Right. The Left instead now champion a ‘call-out culture’ which seeks to restrict free expression with symbolic prohibitions. Bans on words, symbols and even certain types of creative writing (for example writing with a cast of characters who are not sufficiently diverse). Additionally, Religions have been reclassified in terms of ethnic culture rather than seen as ideologies. This places them off-limits for criticism on the basis of the values they promote or their political impact. The Left today would view such criticism as an attack on the ethnic culture these religions now represent.

Whereas the 60s counterculture valued non-conformity the Left today engineers social incentives for people to stay ‘on message’. In Greg’s view whereas pluralistic free expression led away from violence the suppression of ideas favoured today was likely to create the conditions for it.

Greg also highlighted how the 60s counterculture appealed to universalism. It sought to persuade those who held a different view and emphasised to them the fairness of equal treatment. He accepted that there were those within the 60s counterculture who favoured equality of outcome as an aim but argued that this was not the dominant ideology of the movement. The 2019 Left emphasises equality of outcome which essentially looks at dividing power between rival groups and holds individuals responsible for the group to which they belong. Rather than appealing to universal values, it is divisive.

How the Left in 2019 has moved from the positive ideas of freedom expressed in the counterculture of the 60s to the promotion of a bureaucratic conformism today is a question worthy of further study? How they square this with an emotional attachment to the earlier counterculture is also a puzzle. I left Greg’s lecture full of these and other questions.

By Pat Harrington

#theacademy

Leave a Comment

Book Burning

bookburning

There’s a book burning today are you going to come?
It’s someone we loved but you should hear what they’ve done
They’ve defended Goldstein – you’ll be sick at their views
Vile and twisted, it’s all over the news

There’s a book burning today bring all he has written
Tear the pages and spines and make sure that you spit on
Chant his name with hate as the books are consumed
This old way of thinking must be stamped out and doomed

Are you coming to join in as the heat rises high
You’re shaking your head – so tell me just why?
You aren’t a Goldstein, a hater of love?
For any who hate – in the fires, we’ll shove

There’s a book burning tonight be sure that we’re here
Any who aren’t let them stay home in fear
For when all the books are just piles of ash 
We’ll come for the silent ones with pistols and lash

There’s a new book we love and you all have to read
It’s message is love and has a story to heed
And writers will never deviate from our thought
Rebels are burnt when tracked down and caught

There’s a burning tonight and she’s on top of the fire
Her views have kindled her own funeral pyre
Let this be a warning of love to you all
We’ll bury haters alive, wherever they fall.

By Tim Bragg

Leave a Comment

17 Million Fuck Offs

DominicFrisby-Edinburgh-headshot-3-sparkles-A4

17 Million Fuck Offs.  Written and performed by Dominic Frisby.  Music composed and played by Martin Wheatley (based on a traditional Devon folk song).  Video directed by Anon.   Audio mixed and recorded by Wayne McIntyre.  Assistant Director Mark “Yeti” Cribbs.  Available from: https://www.amazon.co.uk/17-Million-Fuck-Offs-Explicit/dp/B07PKY39CK/ref=sr_1_3_twi_mus_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1552953132&sr=8-3&keywords=dominic+frisby

INDIVIDUAL TRACK reviews for Counter Culture are like busses – you wait ages for them to arrive and then two come along at once!

Eagle-eyed readers may recall that – towards the end of last month – I reviewed a track called The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were Right!  You can read the review here https://countercultureuk.com/2019/04/25/the-dirty-fucking-hippies-were-right/ and listen to the track here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4 At the time (and to the best of my knowledge) I’d never reviewed an individual music track before.  Little did I know that I’d be at it again so quickly.

As with last months track, I can’t recall where (or when) I first became aware of 17 Million Fuck Offs but I somehow came across it on YouTube.  You can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUFPjulTW8

Remarkably, there are several similarities and differences between The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were Right! and 17 Million Fuck Offs.  For instance, both deal with important subject matters.  The first was a track about an entire counter cultural movement – the Hippies – which had its origins in the 60s.  The second track is about a specific event, the EU referendum of 23rd June 2016.

Mystery surrounds those who wrote and performed The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were Right! although it’s been attributed to George Carlin (1937 – 2008) the American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and social critic.  However, there’s no mystery about 17 Million Fuck Offs which is the work of Dominic Frisby.  According to his web-site – https://dominicfrisby.com/ – Frisby is a libertarian and a ‘writer-performer’.  However, this brief description is very modest indeed, for he combines straight stand-up and character comedy with writing books about the economy as well as acting, presenting, voiceovers and public speaking.

So much for the differences between the two singles.  The one obvious similarity is the use of the Anglo-Saxon word, ‘Fuck’, in both titles.  Whilst it’s still considered a reasonably offensive swear word, many people seem to use it – maybe even unconsciously – in everyday speech.  To this extent, the word has become somewhat ‘normalised’.  However, I believe that it’s used on both tracks for description and emphasis.  The hippies were way, way before my time, and I’m far from an expert on them, but I believe that they were sometimes described as ‘dirty fucking hippies’.  That would explain its use on the first track.  On 17 Million Fuck Offs it’s used to great comedic effect – especially as it appears like a bolt out of the blue.  Based on a traditional Devon folk song, Frisby sets the scene at the start of the track and sings in a very authoritative manner:

‘On the 23rd of June, 2016
The people of the United Kingdom – and Gibraltar – went to vote
On an issue that for some had been burning for years
The question in full – and unaltered – was – I quote

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?

It was the greatest democratic turnout in British history, I do not scoff
And when the time came to speak the British said fuck off.
Fuck off.’

I’ve shown the YouTube video to a few people and they’ve always reacted with a great big belly laugh when they first hear the words ‘fuck off’.  Have a listen to it yourself and you’ll know what I mean.

Dominic Frisby spends most of his time on the track ridiculing the warnings that the establishment made in the run up to the EU referendum.  Known as ‘Project Fear’ the electorate were warned, if they voted for Brexit, that ‘you’ll lose your job’, ‘you’ll lose yourhome’ and that there would be all manner of food shortages, no medicines, grounded planes and the stock market would collapse. However, most terrifying of all, there’d be ‘an outbreak of super gonorrhea. They seriously said that’. 

He also calls out various members of the establishment who promoted ‘Project Fear’.  They include politicians like David Cameron, Theresa May, George Osborne and Tony Blair – who, in my honest opinion, should be doing serious bird for war crimes – right the way through to ‘celebrities’ like Gary Lineker, JK Rowling and the deliberately (yet delightfully) misnamed Benedict Cumbertwat.  At the end of the list comes Labour’s Lord Adonis.  Frisby proves that he’s truly a great iconoclast when he asks the question on everyone’s lips:‘Who the fuck’s he anyway?’

Listening to the track, it struck me that this was the first time I’d heard a pro-Brexit comedy song.  Indeed, 17 Million Fuck Offs was only song in support of Brexit that I’d come across, no matter what genre it hailed from.

This is odd – to say the very least!  Brexit should’ve provided plenty of material for various mainstream artists & comedians to work with.  For instance, for three years now we’ve been in the ridiculous position of having those MPs who ‘represent’ their constituents in the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ trying to overturn the democratic will of those very same constituents.  It’s absolute comedy gold!  So where are all of the mainstream artists and comedians – shouldn’t they be calling out these MPs on their failure to carry out the express will of the people?  After all, we live in a democracy, don’t we?

Despite the reluctance of many ‘household names’ to point out the obvious – that representative democracy is no longer representative or democratic – Dominic Frisby has managed to do so using both gentle humour and biting satire.  This makes 17 Million Fuck Offsvery important as it reminds us why the electorate voted for Brexit and why the public is so frustrated with the current political stalemate.  To do so using music must be a nightmare for Remainers – that’s because music is universal and can cross so many barriers.  Indeed, music has the ability to touch everyone, no matter who they are.

Have a listen to both the original track – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUFPjulTW8– or the Ramona Ricketts Mix –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-Sz8S7bA0– which has a slight Irish lilt to it.  And don’t forget to let Counter Culture know what you think of  Dominic Frisby’s highly original work – both in terms of musical comedy and the message it conveys.

Reviewed by John Field.

• LOOK OUT for Dominic Frisby’s Libertarian Love Songs later this year at the Edinburgh Fringe.

 

Leave a Comment

A Queer Love of Dix

aqueerloveofdixAletia Upstairs, brought us an exploration of Weill, Brecht, and Weimar cabaret songs like “Falling in Love Again”, “Alabama Song” and “I Am a Vamp”. Interspersed with the songs is an explanation of the cultural context of Weimar Germany which existed 1919 to 1933. For that short period, particularly in the Goldene Zwanziger (“Golden Twenties”)  – roughly only really a five year period – which ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929, there was a cultural and artistic explosion.

Aletia describes Weimar as a Utopia. It’s certainly true that gays were more accepted. According to ‘Queer Identities and Politics in Germany, A History 1880-1945’ at the heyday of the Weimar Republic, there were between 90 and 100 gay bars in Berlin frequented by gay men and lesbians.

Compared to the Nazi period which followed it is easy to see why many view Weimar with rose-tinted glasses. There were anti-gay laws on the books, however, but the majority of German police officers turned a blind eye to the bars. There was a big difference between rural attitudes to those in Berlin. There were also dire economic conditions, which, as today, affected people unequally. Not everyone was enjoying the high life of Berlin! That’s one of the factors that led to the rise of the Nazis who portrayed Weimar culture as both decadent and under foreign influence. Indeed they sought to disrupt many events. When they gained power the music was derided and proscribed. Homosexuals were persecuted and killed by their State.

This show is not a history lesson though. It centres on the songs of the period which have a power, and sometimes, biting emotional edge. “Pirate Jenny” with its dream of class revenge and Spoliansky’s ”It’s All a Swindle” with its condemnation of the corruption of the Political Class and cynicism toward general society stood out for me. As the song says: “The left betrays, the right dismays, the country’s broke and guess who pays?”.

Accompanying the songs are the harsh, brutal images of the expressionist artist Otto Dix. Dix didn’t shy away from depicting distorted human forms to expose vanity or the horror of war. One of my favourites, ‘Girl in front of the mirror‘ from 1922 is used in the show.

Aletia gave a great performance full of passion and humour. The audience loved it. Full marks to the venue, Planet, for hosting it. It wasn’t an ideal venue in many ways but it worked.

The show ended with a performance of the “The Lavender Song” with the audience joining in. It was a song I had not been familiar with. It is a Cabaret song from 1920. It’s not a Weill or Brecht song. The music was composed by Mischa Spoliansky, and the lyrics were written by Kurt Schwabach. It is a song that accuses mainstream society and contains the great line: “they march in lockstep we prefer to dance”. A sentiment not just relevant to sexual freedom but freedom in general.

This Edinburgh premiere has now ended but it’s London-bound!

Queer Identities and Politics in Germany, A History 1880-1945, by Clayton J. Whisnant (Harrington Park Press; 2016).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=47&v=8tvnYLejhj0

Reviewed by Patrick Harrington

five-stars

Leave a Comment

Suffragette (2015)

Directed by Sarah Gavron
Produced by Alison Owen and Faye Ward
Written by Abi Morgan
Starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter,Brendan Gleeson,Anne-Marie Duff,Ben Whishaw and Meryl Streep
Running time 106 minutes

suffragette_poster

A film that pulls no punches

Summary: In early 20th-century Britain, the growing suffragette movement forever changes the life of working wife and mother Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan). Galvanized by political activist Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep), Watts joins a diverse group of women who fight for equality and the right to vote. Faced with increasing police action, Maud and her dedicated suffragettes must play a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse, risking their jobs, homes, family and lives for a just cause.

The film is centred on the character of Maud (Mulligan) who lives with her husband and son and works in a laundry. The laundry is a terrible place with poor conditions and pay and routine, open, sexual harassment and assault. A co-worker named Violet (Anne-Marie Duff) encourages Maud to come to secret meetings run by Edith and Hugh Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter and Finbar Lynch). Maud gets involved in the struggle. Maud loses a lot, personally, from her involvement with the cause.

Being a suffragette wasn’t genteel. It wasn’t just about writing letters to an MP or attending a meeting.

The suffragettes were angry, organised and militant. Their leadership affirmed and incited this. This film leaves you in no doubt that those fighting for votes for women were prepared to take direct and dramatic action.

The film shows how the suffragettes attacked both government and private property. For example, the attack on 1 March 1912, where about 150 women were given hammers, told exactly which windows to break, when to break them, and how to hit panes low so that glass would not fall from above.    At 5.45 p.m. in Oxford Street, Regent Street, the Strand, and other prominent thoroughfares, well-dressed women produced hammers from handbags and began to smash windows. The firms whose windows were
damaged included Burberry’s, Liberty’s, Marshall & Snelgrove, and Kodak. Police arrested 124 women.The damage was estimated at £5,000. The film also follows the women as they plan to attack the property of Lloyd George. At 6 a.m. on 18 February, 1913 the bomb set by Emily Wilding Davison and accomplices wrecked five rooms of his partly-completed house being built near Walton Heath, Surrey.

Suffragette also features perhaps the most famous incident of direct action: the 3 June 1913 disruption of the Derby where she was run down by the King’s horse, Anmer.

Her skull was fractured, and she died five days later without having regained consciousness. Suffragette depicts the huge and impressive funeral of Emily who was considered a martyr by the cause.

Of course the violence was not all one way. The government responded to the suffragettes with repression and brutality. The police had them under surveilance and sought to ‘turn’ some into agents. The scenes of women being beaten by police and force-fed in prison are harrowing. The suffragettes certainly fought back (Dr Forward, the medical officer of Holloway Prison which used force-feeding was assaulted by suffragettes using a dog whip).

Suffragette is an inspiring film showing ordinary women prepared to fight and sacrifice for their rights and those of others. How far their direct action advanced the cause of “Votes for Women” is debatable. Yet their determination and, yes, violence was certainly a strong part of a wider movement that eventually won. Of course it simplifies the complexity of events but, hey, they are telling a long story in 106 minutes!

Suffragette ends with a roll of dates showing when various nations gave women the vote.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Leave a Comment

Civil and Religious Liberties for All

Free Speech

IF LIBERTY means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

George Orwell.

ISSUE 1 of Free Speech (FS) is a double-sided A4 pdf publication. I understand that those who’ve produced it – a new Facebook group called Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – hope that it’ll appear in hard copy in due course. You can check out this Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/ There’s no indication how often FS will appear, but to my mind there’s so many attacks on various freedoms these days that it could become a daily publication!

  • 12032950_1042137645825868_8231591292248633160_n

Two things immediately struck me when I took a look at FS. First of all, its strapline declares that it supports Civil & Religious Liberties For All, something that I agree with wholeheartedly. Secondly, I was delighted to see that the lead article – Trigger Warning! – takes it cue from Mick Hume’s new book Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? This is an excellent and thought-provoking book which I’m very slowly ploughing through myself. If you haven’t read it yet, check out this recent review on Counter Culture: https://countercultureuk.com/2015/07/26/trigger-warning/

This lead article is accompanied by some dramatic artwork featuring a gun which cleverly uses quote marks as a trigger. But more about Trigger Warning! later on.

Issue 1 of FS features a brief but very important ‘mission statement’ entitled Where We Stand. It’s worth reproducing in full:

FREE SPEECH is a new group which aims to promote, protect and preserve civil and religious liberties for all. We are interested in all aspects of freedom. However,

we are especially interested in instances whereby elements of the State try to restrict freedom of speech and assembly.

We believe that Britain should have a formal constitution and bill of rights, based on the concept of civil and religious liberties for all. We also feel that a civil rights’ watchdog

should be established to protect people’s ability to make use of these fundamental rights.

We believe in absolute free speech – with very few exceptions to this rule e.g. inciting violence. Either we all have rights – or none of us have rights.

I’m more than happy with this ‘mission statement’ as I’ve held a deep distrust of elements of the State for many years now. It also seems to echo the words of one of Britain’s most well-know Libertarians – and a man I really admire for his unwavering commitment towards total free speech – Dr. Sean Gabb. Here’s what he has to say about State interference:

My own view—and I speak on this matter not only for me but also for the Libertarian Alliance—is that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech where public affairs are concerned. This involves, among much else, the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, sex, science or history. It is no business of the State to tell people what they can and cannot think. Our bodies are our own. Our minds are our own. What we do with them is our business. It is one of the highest glories of the Enlightenment that states were shamed out of dragooning people into the various established worships of Europe. It is one of the most ominous signs of the modern counter-Enlightenment that people can again be persecuted for their opinions.”

With this in mind, let’s return to the lead article.

Trigger Warning! provides an overview of the various attacks on free speech. One would have thought that only views that deliberately broke the law (maybe by, say, advocating violence) would be monitored or subjected to some form of control. However, the targets for attack are widespread, ‘ordinary’ and don’t necessariyl encourage violence. For as FS notes:

DO YOU use the internet? Are you a football supporter? Do you like comedy? Do you go to university? Are you interested in history? If so, your right to free speech – and assembly – could be under threat!”

FS notes that the main thrust of Hume’s book is “that freedom of speech is under threat, mainly because many of us don’t want to offend anyone. Indeed, politeness or fear of causing offence is undermining the hard-won rights of freedom of speech and thought that we like to think are the foundations of our society.”

Those who seem take offence at anything and everything are branded as illiberal liberals and ‘Reverse-Voltaires’. I like the phrase ‘New Totalitarians’ but it’s not used by FS or Hume. However, the descriptions of illiberal liberals and ‘Reverse-Voltaires’ as used Hume and FS are spot on:

Illiberal ‘liberals’ don’t wish to debate or dispute arguments that they find offensive. They would deny the other person’s right to say it in the first instance. Reverse-Voltaires believe

that their personal emotions and feelings come first. They want to be protected from words.”

According to FS, there are five main areas which appear to be targeted by illiberal liberals and Reverse-Voltaires: the internet, football, comedy, university and history. Examples are given for each area under attack – and, in doing so, both the beliefs and ‘justification’ provided by new totalitaians are shown up for the nonsense that they are.

To some degree, I can understand why elements of the Establishment would want to control – or at the very least, monitor – what’s thought and/or said on the internet and in university. In addition to this, I think that it could come in useful for the Establishment to have its own version or interpretation of history. Indeed, as Walter Benjamin noted, “History is written by the victors.”

I also think that the Establishment can also effectively use history for its own ends and to suit its own agenda. This is also the thrust of History Is A Weaponhttp://historyisaweapon.com/which is a US-based left counter-hegemonic education project.” It has the following to say about the subject:

History isn’t what happened, but a story of what happened. And there are always different versions, different stories, about the same events. One version might revolve mainly around a specific set of facts while another version might minimize them or not include them at all.”

However, other areas which have been targeted by (and are under attack from) the illiberal liberals and ‘Reverse-Voltaires’ are surprising. Why attack football and comedy? I’ve two linked theories about this.

My first theory is that the illiberal liberals and ‘Reverse-Voltaires’ are engaged in a deliberate and well thought out ‘war of position.’ Here they’re working to a political agenda, and as any true liberal publication would assert, they’re:

Politically Correct busy bodies who seem to want to dictate to everyone how they should think and act. Despite their self-proclaimed ‘liberalism’, in reality they’re dogmatic, undemocratic and totalitarian in nature.

Indeed, they would have given the combined forces of the Gestapo and KGB a run for their money!”

My other theory is that – whilst I’m not into ‘class’ – their actions (indeed, their ‘war of position’) could be part of some bizzare form of class warfare. The reason I say this is that the vast majority of football supporters in Britain are working class. The same could be said for those who attend comedy nights in pubs and clubs. But the illiberal liberals and ‘Reverse-Voltaires’ tend to be middle-class professionals.

It’s my feeling that these ‘New Totalitaians’ see themselves as an elite. And as this article https://www.facebook.com/248048985374884/photos/pb.248048985374884.-2207520000.1442514734./407549906091457/?type=1&theater points out

This elite tolerates those who agree with their values and views. But they spew real hate and venom when they disagree with others. It appears that they are more than happy to see the working-class working – as they’re helping to generate profits for others – but as soon as they let their hair down or try to organise politically, culturally or ethnically, they’re demonised.

The illiberal liberal elite simply don’t – or won’t – understand working-class style terrace chants and banter when it comes to race, ethnicity, nationality, religion and sexuality.”

I suppose only time will prove my theories right or wrong. In the meantime, and for what it’s worth, I’d highly recommend issue 1 of Free Speech. You can check it out in the Files section on the Free Speech Facebook site here https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/

  • Reviewed by John Field

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »