The politics of denial

Followers of this blog may be aware that I have for some time now planned to write in detail about the supposed holocaust perpetrated by the German National Socialist regime in the 1940s.  Some may also be wondering why it matters.

In the past week my blog has enjoyed its highest readership in France, the USA, and Greece.  Two of those are countries where free speech is denied to those who seek the truth.  A simple search on the internet reveals that in September 2014 the Greek parliament voted to outlaw any denial of the supposed holocaust, whereas a similar law has existed in France since 1990.

It is never made entirely clear why such laws exist, but links are often made with the inevitably vague concepts of racism and anti-semitism.  I have some questions.

Have the lives of Jewish people in France improved since 1990?  Have the lives of Jewish people in Greece improved since 2014?  Are Jewish people in those countries better off than Jewish people in Britain and the USA where holocaust denial remains legal?

I repeat what I wrote in an earlier post: 

According to a recent press report Britain is currently experiencing a sharp increase in incidents of anti-semitic hate crimes.  [If I remember correctly, the press report did not link these hate crimes with holocaust denial.]  In France the situation is far worse, with many Jews emigrating to either Britain or Israel.

In other words, many Jews feel safer in Britain where it is legal to deny the holocaust than they do in France where it has been illegal for more than a generation.  If anyone still thinks that holocaust denial laws exist for a good reason, then maybe they could leave a comment.  

I remember watching The Cook Report on ITV in 1997 when Roger Cook confronted Nick Griffin about his views, and in particular asked him about the holocaust.  (This programme can normally be found on Youtube by searching for Cook Report BNP.)  It is worth noting that Roger Cook raised the matter, and not Griffin.

About ten years later, a programme was broadcast called BNP Wives (which can also be normally found on Youtube), in which a member of the British National Party called Marlene Guest was shown distributing leaflets during a by-election campaign which refuted allegations that she was a holocaust denier.  I couldn't help but wonder if this were the best possible use of her time.  Surely people tend to vote in elections on the basis of what is happening in their lives today, and not on the basis of what may or may not have happened many decades ago.

The best advice I can give to anyone who is active in a political party is to stay away from this topic as much as possible.  If anyone asks you your view on the supposed holocaust, then reply that you are campaigning on the lack of affordable housing locally - or whatever issues matter to the local electorate at that time.

I am glad that I live in a country where the denial of free speech has not yet extended to twentieth century history, and I cannot help but feel sorry for people who live in countries such as Greece and France.

It seems to me at times that the whole concept of the supposed holocaust of Jews in the 1940s derives from a belief that the life of a Jew is of greater value than the life of a gentile, but then maybe I am wrong about that.  Another simple search on the internet reveals that abortion is permitted in Israel, and that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the USA are tolerant of abortion.

If a Jewish woman has an abortion, then a person of Jewish parentage dies.  Does anyone care to deny that?

Related previous posts include:
The Jews are afraid, but what about the rest of us?
Another very British holocaust

Metro comment and Niemoeller's prayer

I have already discussed Niemoeller's prayer in a previous blog post, and it is now relevant to mention it again.  Just a few days ago, on 4 January 2017, the Metro newspaper published its first ever editorial comment.  It was on the subject of press freedom.

For many years the press in the United Kingdom was regulated by an organisation called the Press Complaints Commission.  In September 2014 this was replaced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.  The government is now considering putting pressure on the British press to register instead with a regulatory body called Impress, which is largely funded by Max Mosley.  Any newspaper which does not register with it would do so at the risk of financial ruin.

As an aside, in 2008 Max Mosley successfully sued a national newspaper which had reported on him indulging in a sex orgy with five prostitutes.

A few years ago I made numerous complaints to the Press Complaints Commission about factual inaccuracies in newspapers, one of which involved myself.  Not one of these complaints was upheld, and in not one case did the newspaper in question even admit the possibility that they might be in error.

The Metro comment makes reference to the role of the press in reporting the Rotherham sex grooming scandal, but this is hardly their strongest card.  Paedophile grooming gangs have been operating in the north west of England for far longer than the seventeen years in which the Metro has been in print.  In which year did the Metro first report on it?  In which year did any other national newspaper first report on it?

The truth is that it was almost entirely the efforts of the British National Party which dragged this sordid matter into the public domain, and  yet I cannot think of a single British newspaper which has ever acknowledged this.  In fact I cannot think of a single British newspaper which has ever said anything remotely positive about any patriotic political party.

On the one hand I do not want the British press to be cajoled into submission by an overbearing government, but on the other hand I wish that the people in charge of the British press would display at least some humility regarding their many failures.

Related previous posts include:
Britain First and Niemoeller's prayer
Of Jews and paedophiles

Are you a fascist?

There used to exist a communist country which was commonly known as East Germany.  I remember once seeing its head of government on television making a speech.  In a country devoid of democracy, he referred to its western frontier as the frontier with fascism.  I found this curious - even a trifle amusing - but I eventually realised that this was in fact a key part of the communist mindset.

Fascism - like communism - is a difficult concept to define in words, but basically it is a political ideology which arose in Italy around one hundred years ago.  As with communism, it maintains that the power of the state should be without limits, and holds both democracy and free speech in contempt.  Someone at some point coined the word totalitarianism as an umbrella term to classify both communism and fascism.

But whatever fascism was originally, it is now a word habitually used by communists to vilify almost anything they dislike.

Take for example this recent essay on the website of a national newspaper.  The author talks about the rise of fascism, but without offering any definition, and neither can I find a definition in any of her previous work.

What is obvious however is that she dislikes the outcome of the Brexit referendum, the election of Donald Trump, and tax avoidance by large companies.  I also have a dislike of tax avoidance by large companies, but I would not describe it as fascism.  I would not vote for Donald Trump, but I'm not sure I would describe him as a fascist.  I voted for Brexit, and I certainly do not regard myself as a fascist.

In an essay written in August 2016, the same author describes supporters of Jeremy Corbyn as ordinary, fed-up voters, and I wonder why she cannot bring herself to apply a similar description to British people who voted for Brexit or for American people who voted for Trump.

While the author may see herself and other people like her as marginalised, it is nevertheless the case that she is allowed to put her views across in a national newspaper.  By contrast, I am not sure I have ever come across a genuinely nationalist comment writer in any of Britain's national newspapers.  It is of course true that newspaper comment writers will occasionally put across a patriotic point of view, but this is merely a cynical ploy to encourage people to buy the newspaper.

I have never been invited to write for a national newspaper, and neither to my knowledge has any other patriotic blogger.  I hope that readers of this site will follow my example and never buy any national newspaper.  Read them only when you can do so without letting them have any of your money.

Related previous posts include:
The communist-loving "right wing" tabloids
The Trump phenomenon
What is tax avoidance?

The question of statehood in the USA

Once again I have decided to dedicate a post to an in-depth reply to a comment.  This time it relates to my recent post about the definition of a state.  When writing this blog I always try to be factually correct, but I may make mistakes from time to time, and readers are welcome to point out any faults.

I am replying to someone called Luke, who appears to be an American citizen.  The original comments are shown in blue, and I reply mainly in black text.
.

A State of the United States can secede by a simple majority vote of its State legislator.

I wasn't aware of this.  What is your evidence for this?  Is it written into the Constitution of the USA?

That hasn't happened since our Civil War, but many elected representatives of different States have discussed it openly and even made it an issue in their campaigns just recently. No effort to secede from the United States since the Civil War has been successful, mainly because it has never been popular enough to even come to a vote. 

I do not know whether or not any states have discussed leaving the Union since 1865, but I do know that the efforts of eleven states to secede in 1861 were unsuccessful because the federal government of the USA brought them back into the Union through various acts of violence and starvation.

It would be financial suicide for a State to secede from the United States. Only New York, California, and Texas might be able to survive a cut off from the federal system. Our communal taxation system makes it almost impossible for a State to succeed and be financially successful, without that federal financial help.

Again, what is your evidence for this?  I expect that some people in 1776 thought that the British colonies in North America would not be able to survive outside of the British Empire.  Maybe some people in 1966 felt that Bechuanaland would not be able to flourish outside of the British Empire.

Then their is the question of what happens to the federally guarded rights of an American citizen living in a State that secedes.

Presumably they would be replaced by rights guarded by the legislation of that particular state.

When some States seceded from the United States before our Civil War, there was no federal right that made slavery illegal, protected blacks, or even made blacks citizens.

I believe that is correct.

This is where Lincoln is rightfully accused of making unconstitutional, illegal decisions.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I repeat what I said in an earlier post:

If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens.  The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
.

Lincoln never took the stand that slavery was illegal, or should be abolished. His stance was, as new States joined the United States, they would agree to be non-slave States. 

This is not true.  My understanding is that Lincoln was elected on a policy that all new states of the USA would not have any slavery.  However he subsequently decided - I believe it was early in 1862 - to abolish slavery throughout the USA.  He also decided for political reasons to delay announcing this new policy until later that year.

Our Civil War decided the question of State's rights. 

It decided that states have no right to secede.

Federal law trumps State law. A State cannot deny the federally guaranteed rights of any individual no matter where they (which State) lived. Once our federal Supreme Court decides a certain issues is a protected federal right, that is the law for all States. Same sex marriage is an example. So is integrated schools. 

In short, do states have any rights at all?  It seems to me that they have no rights whatever.  Should they even be termed states?

A person is a United States citizen first, not just a citizen of any one State. It does not matter where in the United States one lives, to have their federal rights protected. 

A big problem with this is that one man's federal right could be another man's federal wrong.

Our Constitution states any right not enumerated by the federal Constitution is left to the States to decide. That's why issues over the years fight in the Supreme Court to get federally protected status.

In other words, a lot of people in the USA do not like to see things decided by states.  That is not surprising when the states are effectively powerless.

This all gets legally complicated and the federal government has sent troops into States to enforce the rights of individuals. Again, the integration of schools is a good example.

I suppose it is easy to decide any legal quibble by sending in troops.  Who needs democracy when you can simply resort to violence?

I know little about the details of your form of government, but I can answer questions about our form of government.

I presume from the above that you are American. Do you accept that your form of government is founded in part at least upon violence?

I came across your blog through a random search and was intrigued by your post enough to respond.

Feel free to respond again.

The quote above in purple text is from this previous post: Mortocracy versus democracy

The only other time I have responded in depth to a comment was with this post: A reasoned approach to war

What exactly is a state?

I have found myself wondering of late about the proper definition of the word state. In some of my previous blog posts I have made use of Merriam Webster online dictionary, but on this occasion I will not be quoting it.

Earlier today I visited that site, and checked the definitions of three words: state, nation, and country.  I had planned to quote the definitions either in whole or in part, but I found the definitions so vague as to be not much use to me.  Up until today, I would have defined these words along the following lines:

A country is a geographical area occupied by people who for the most part share a common heritage and a common culture.  It has clear, recognised boundaries, and will either enjoy a degree of self-determination, or else will have done so in the past.

A nation is a country which currently enjoys a substantial degree of self-determination.  My definition of the word state would be similar although not identical, and it is worth noting that the two words are sometimes linked in the phrase nation state.

Even as I write, however, I feel uneasy with the above definitions.  For example, I have always regarded Wales as  country, but I'm not sure if it really fits the above definition.  Wales was brought together from a cluster of small states in the sixteenth century, but by a legislative process which abolished Welsh law and replaced it with English law.

Some readers might argue that the existence of the Welsh Assembly provides Wales with the degree of self-determination required for it to be classed as a country, but of course the Welsh Assembly was created by an act of parliament of 1998.

I could continue with this argument, but I will not.  I am not asking the reader to decide either way whether or not Wales could have been accurately described as a country prior to 1998.  I am merely observing that the question exists.  I am however prepared to say confidently that I have not tended in the past to regard Wales as either a state or a nation, as I have felt that it lacks a sufficient degree of self-determination.

By contrast, Scotland is easy to regard as a country.  It existed as a self-governing country for hundreds of years, and I have no problem with describing it as both a nation and a state for much of its history.  In 1707 it was united with England to form a new nation called Great Britain.  From that point on until 1998, Scotland continued to have its own legal and judicial system, and laws which applied in England did not necessarily apply in Scotland - and vice versa.

I have habitually regarded Scotland in this era as a country, but I have been less inclined to describe it as a nation, and I have never regarded it as a state.  An act of parliament of 1998 created the Scottish Parliament, whereby I believe that Scotland has a far stronger claim to be considered a nation, although I am still unwilling to describe it as a state.

The United States of America came into existence through a succession of events in the late eighteenth century which include the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Treaty of Paris in 1783.  There were initially just thirteen states, but this had increased to more than thirty at the outset of the year 1861.  In that year, seven states seceded from the Union, closely followed by four others.  All eleven states were forcibly returned to the union in 1865 following a war which claimed in the region of one million lives.

The USA now numbers fifty so-called states.  Each one has its own legislature, but so far as I am aware, not one of them since 1865 has even discussed becoming independent from the rest of the USA.  Nor so far as I am aware is there any recognised legal process whereby one of the so-called states can secede.

By contrast, an act of parliament of 2010 allowed the people of Scotland to vote for independence by referendum in the year 2014.  I am not aware that anyone in the United Kingdom denies that Scotland has the right to become independent if it so chooses, and on that basis Scotland has more right to be termed a state then any of the so-called states of the USA.

Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes
Independence versus devolution
Mortocracy versus democracy

The proscription of Britain First

I rarely make changes to posts on this blog, aside from correcting errors of spelling or punctuation.  I can think of only one post which I deleted, and that was because it linked to photographs which were no longer available online.

Yesterday I read an item in a national newspaper to the effect that many of our obnoxious MPs had asked that the political party Britain First be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.  The rationale for this was apparently that it may have been linked to the supposed murder of Jo Cox, even though there is no evidence that Thomas Mair - the man convicted of her killing - was ever a member of Britain First, or that he had any connection with them, or that they ever condoned violent crime.

This morning I tried to find this press report, but could not.  Maybe it had been removed.  What I did find however was an item about the possible proscription of a group called National Action, and this too was linked to the supposed murder of Jo Cox.

I have already outlined in a previous post some of the reasons why the murder of Jo Cox was almost certainly a false flag.  I will add that Thomas Mair appears to be mentally unstable, barely spoke at all either when questioned by the police or while on trial, and that a press photograph of his book collection appears to show books in pristine condition - as if they had never been read.  He is also alleged to have visited anti-establishment websites on public access computers in libraries - even though local councils across Britain habitually deny access to such websites.

It does not surprise me that not one national newspaper has considered the possibility that the murder of Jo Cox was a hoax.  It also does not greatly surprise me that the only journalist for whom I have any admiration recently described Jo Cox as a shiningly good person. How does he know?  Has he ever met her?

One of the few things we know for certain about Jo Cox was that she nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour Party, and then later said that she regretted doing so.  For the record, I'm not aware that Jeremy Corbyn has ever voted for British involvement in an illegal war.

Every British Prime Minister in my adult lifetime has approved of Britain taking part in at least one illegal war, and yet I do not see any MPs calling for either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats to be proscribed as the terrorist organisations which they undoubtedly are.

Related previous posts include:

Who murdered Jo Cox?

Britain First and Niemoeller's Prayer

Britain First and the fiction of a free country

We can't trust chameleon Dave

A sense of the inevitable

A lot has changed since I began writing this blog more than three years ago.  One change is that I am now far more likely to believe in the power of the inevitable.

When Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, he believed that all of history is an inevitable process which people cannot influence - not even supposedly powerful people like kings and emperors.  On the one hand, this might seem an utterly bizarre notion, but on the other hand there are always exceptions to just about any rule.

Consider football.  Suppose Everton play Swansea.  It is easy to envisage either team winning the match.  Now suppose that Tottenham play Chesterfield.  It is hard to imagine any realistic outcome other than a victory for Tottenham.

Tolstoy wrote his novel about the French invasion of Russia in 1812.  The invasion was a complete disaster which proved to be the beginning of the end for the Emperor Napoleon.

It is hard not to see a strong sense of inevitability about the events of 1812.  Napoleon led a very large army into Russia with little in the way of supplies.  It had apparently not occurred to him that it would be very difficult to keep such a large army supplied by foraging.  Many of his troops were killed in battle as he marched towards Moscow - notably at the Battle of Borodino - and many more died of hunger.

Eventually the French captured Moscow, but found that almost the entire population had fled.  As winter began to draw in, the French abandoned Moscow, and began the long march home. Tens of thousands of soldiers died from the effects of hunger and extreme cold, while many others were either killed in battle or murdered by Russian civilians.

But enough of history.  As I write, the British people are looking forward to the long-promised referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.  I have not so far spoken out about this, partly because I have a sense of inevitability.

I have previously said confidently that I expect Scotland to leave the United Kingdom at some point in the future, and now I confidently expect Britain to leave the European Union.  Even if the outcome of the referendum is a victory for staying in, then I still think it would be only a minor setback.  Nothing is more likely to bring the European Union to its knees than its own continued exisence.

As a final points, the European Union has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights.  That is an agency of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate body.

Related previous posts include:
Austerity versus democracy in Greece

Treason and hypocrisy

I have been planning for some time to write about the supposed German holocaust of the 1940s, but that would require more time than I have available to me right now.

What I will note today is this famous quote from Lord Shawcross, who was the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials:

There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.

I am not sure that the British establishment has ever allowed this pearl of wisdom to apply to British people - or indeed to people whom they regard as British.

It is reported today that the BBC has argued that William Joyce - also known as Lord Haw Haw - should never have been convicted of treason by the British government on the grounds that he was an American national.

It is also noted that the British government during the Second World War interned people who were suspected of being sympathetic to the German government.  The German government sent people to concentration camps on the grounds of their political views, and so too did the British government.

It is curious how people in the political arena can often be adept at spotting hypocrisy in their rivals, but can be utterly blind to their own hypocrisy.  In the time I have been writing this blog, I have tried to avoid writing anything which could be seen as hypocritical, and I am pleased that no one has yet accused me of hypocrisy.  Comments are welcome as always.

Related previous posts include:
The outdated concept of treason

Musings on the general election

It is a folly common to perhaps all political commentators that they make predictions and then realise that those predictions might not come true.

Just over a year ago, I opined that UKIP would not win a single seat in the 2015 general election, and yet now I must face up to the possibility that I might be proven wrong. Fortunately I am not worried about it.  UKIP will not have my vote, but well done them if they can persuade other people to vote for them.

It is widely predicted now that the Scottish National Party will win almost all of the parliamentary seats in Scotland, and this is not surprising.  Forty-five percent of the vote in last year's referendum was for independence, and if the SNP obtains forty-five percent of the vote across Scotland in the general election, then it could possibly win every seat.

The United Kingdom is traditionally governed by the political party which enjoys more than half the seats in parliament, although this is not the same as having more than half the votes.  Therefore if the SNP win most of the seats in Scotland, then that would surely be a mandate for independence.

So confident am I that Scotland will be leaving the United Kingdom in due course that I recently changed my profile picture to one of the English flag.

It is also widely reported in the national press that many supporters of the SNP have been intimidating their political opponents and also employees of the BBC.

This the same BBC which for many years excluded the British National Party from Question Time, while at the same time not excluding parties which had less evidence of popular support.  This is the same BBC which sent a lying scumbag called Jason Gwynne to pretend to be a supporter of the British National Party so that they could make a documentary about how the BNP in those days was full of people who objected to child abuse. (Judging by its website, it still is.)

I do not know to what extent the Scottish National Party is responsible for the actions of some of its members, but it appears that it condones the direct action taken by those members who shout at senior figures in the Scottish Labour Party when they are trying to engage with members of the public.  Will the Labour Party reassure the public that not one of its members has ever shouted at people who campaign for other political parties?

It is also widely reported that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon is seeking a coalition government in which her party will provide the Labour Party with a parliamentary majority.  While many commentators have argued that it would be unfair of the SNP to vote in parliament on issues which affect England but not Scotland, it has to be said that the entire history of British politics is largely a history of exploiting unfair advantages.

The simple solution is for the English MPs to demand a second referendum on Scottish independence at a very early date.  Would the SNP have a problem with that?

Related previous posts include:
Devolution: a very British disaster
Sensational news: people can be nasty

Emma and Chris are veritaphobic

Actress Emma Watson has recently made a speech to the United Nations about gender equality.  A video of this speech is included below.  Meanwhile, the Daily Express has published an essay by Chris Roycroft-Davies, who if I've got it right is or used to be a speechwriter for the war criminal David Cameron.  His essay can be read here.

Chris Roycroft-Davis

Emma Watson makes some good points, whereas Chris Roycroft-Davies makes hardly any.

He begins by quoting Otto von Bismarck about blood and iron, although I'm not sure that Bismarck is the best possible role model for humane government.  In fact I'm quite sure he isn't.

Roycroft-Davies then asserts that Britain will soon be joining in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, although my understanding is that that is subject to a vote in parliament which has not yet taken place.

He argues that Britain has no choice but to enter the war, but he is wrong.  Last year British MPs voted against entering a war against Syria in order to remove President Assad, but now they are expected to vote to go to war against the enemies of Assad.

Perhaps the only truth he utters is that we are faced with an enemy fighting a war without borders.

In recent years, Britain has gone to war against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and each of those wars has made the world a more dangerous place.  This new war is unlikely to be any different.

And so to my central point: Emma Watson and Chris Roycroft-Davies are united in their veritaphobia - the fear of the truth.  Emma Watson does not mention the fact that Islam is a huge obstacle to gender equality.  Islam is after all founded on a book which says that Muslim men may beat and rape their wives.  Chris Roycroft-Davies does not mention the fact that Islam is fundamentally belligerent.

I am proud of the fact that I maintain a high standard of factual accuracy with this blog, but I will admit to having been wrong about ISIS.  I have previously argued that Muslims killing other Muslims cannot be explained in terms of The Koran.  I am indebted to David Woods for pointing out that Muslims are commanded to strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them (9:73).

Unbelievers are non-Muslims, whereas hypocrites are fake Muslims.  Any Muslim is free to regard any other Muslim as a fake, and of course the true Muslim is required to be belligerent.

It is highly unlikely that Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated while Islam exists.  The Muslim who is sweetness and light today could be a soldier of ISIS tomorrow.  Missiles can kill individual Muslims, but the war will never be won by missiles alone.

As well as being veritaphobic, Chris Roycroft-Davies is devoted to the cause of open door immigration.  If the British government wants to protect the British people from Islamic terror, then it should close our borders to Muslims, and seek to persuade Muslims in this country to abandon Islam.  I say persuade and not coerce, as coercion rarely works.

I am sure that a lot of people would happily demonise me for holding that point of view, but surely closing our borders to Muslims is more humane than bombing other countries.

Related previous posts include:
Your Muslim faith - really?
Now study Islam
Now ban The Koran
Bacon does not kill Muslims