Wiley and the world’s oldest hatred

The spiked team discusses anti-Semitism and online censorship.

Share

Should Wiley have been banned from Twitter? Will Boris Johnson’s obesity strategy work? Why is the SNP so authoritarian? Tom Slater, Ella Whelan and Fraser Myers discuss all this and more on this week’s episode of the spiked podcast.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Vivian Darkbloom

6th August 2020 at 2:47 am

Now that’s more like it Bros! Bloody good stuff and nicely put. I too have a mischievous nature. It’s all good and I also enjoyed our exchange. Yeah, the whitesplaining, dammit. I’m mad about it, I can’t help myself. I even find myself doing it in Sainsbury’s especially in the exotic food aisle where I lurk and explain my special recipe for saltfish and ackee to elderly women of West Indian heritage who express their gratitude by sucking their teeth. Look, I’m prepared to give you some of my white privilege to say sorry; not all of it but I dunno, 20%? 30%? Just send me a cheque and I’ll send the white privilege by return post, promise.

OK, big laffs aside, I have to apologise for taking you in bad faith but I must admit to using a rhetorical device; on the interwebs we have to take each other as we find, and speculation is useful but can lead to bad faith. You took the man debating Ms. Johnson in bad faith and I threw it back at you. Putting aside silliness and banter, check out 77th Brigade and you’ll see they are real and troubling, almost like a cuddly British version of the Stasi. Why would we need such a crew in what we are told is a free country? I thought the military were supposed to protect the population, not bloody spy on us! It should make you think.

In retrospect it’s a bit odd that I used Ms. Johnson as an example of someone shutting down speech. Perhaps it wasn’t a good example and I assure you I picked it almost at random – because of Oxford really – but it illustrates what Malcolm X said: the hinge that squeaks gets the grease. Now I see her in other situations such as the event in Brixton and I reckon she’s only just beginning. As Max Weber said, there is a condition in politics which requires charisma to achieve status and power, and she certainly has this quality of charisma. I can see her as a future leader or even an MP eventually. Whether she will be good or bad in that position doesn’t matter. The MSM will love her. I’m not joking. We haven’t heard the last of Sasha Johnson and I am her sibyl. I hope she remembers all I’ve done for her when she hits the big time.

Anyway… I suppose I’m a product of the punk generation when people would say “Left, Right, Same Shite” and as I grow older I find myself becoming even more detached until I’m now an observer cackling on the sidelines at the growing madness.

Now, I’m serious when I say we should all come together to combat the divisive message pumped out by the state to keep us all in line. What they are doing under cover of the Covid medical emergency is leading us all to a very dark place. We really need to put division aside because we’re all being played. All of us. In the future we will not be judged on superficial qualities as measured on the Fitzpatrick scale but whether we had the courage to stand up to tyranny.

So we had an interesting exchange and that’s good and healthy. I don’t think either of us have come out of this exchange without honour, hein? Touché!

Oh, and Oasis? C’mon, Nirvana were the last great rock band, surely?

Whitesplaining, though. I’m dying, I’m seriously dying here.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:15 pm

Furthermore, hate is an emotion of the heart and there can be no law against “hate” as you claim. Expression of hate is different and it takes us back to the question of who decides. I personally would like to live in a respectful, tolerant society where these ideas were exchanged through deep, meaningful conversation, rather than through blasphemous, racist and bigoted satire and Memes. As I stated earlier, the only absolute free speech I believe in is the ability to speak truth to power.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 1:20 pm

It would be interesting to know if she was expecting the target of her venom to be there or whether he was sprung on her by surprise.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:22 am

Vivian,

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by traditionalist.

Nevertheless, I have just seen the video on YouTube and must admit that I am not familiar with Sasha or for that matter, very much with the BLM movement.

However, I believe you have made several errors and overlooked several factors in your analysis of Ms Johnsons comments. Let me try and present an alternative perspective.

You claim (wrongly in my opinion) that Ms Johnson is angry and she is using racial slurs because she “has no regard for other opinions unless they are in line with hers.”
If this was entirely correct, she would have used racist language towards her white interlocutors well before she used it against the black student. I believe one of them was Tommy Robinson but I may be wrong. Anyway She didnt! ( From what I have seen in the videos)

Why? I suspect that the reason for her anger is that she believes the black student ( Unnamed for some reason in your analysis) is being used by his white “puppet masters” as a stooge to cover their racism. So they can stand aside (secretly chuffed) and witness black on black verbal sparring. This “divide and rule” tactic has been used by white people throughout history.

It would be interesting to know if Ms Johnson was informed in advance that a black man would be debating her or if he was sprung on her by surprise.
This unsurprisingly is the same tactic that this website also uses as well as the BBC and other media outlets. For example, when they want to write a negative story about Islam and Muslims, rather than writing it themselves (something a white journalist could easily do as there usually is void of any insightful perspective) or proportionally represent the views of Muslims, they will employ an uncle T om figure with a Muslim name like Ma jid Naw az or Quan tas Ahm ed to write the article instead. Can you explain why they do this? The BBC uses the same tactic on shows like the Big Question and just today, the Daily Fail has many stories about specifically Mus lims breaking lockdown rules and they have a Mus lim Community leader (probably the only one they could find who they probably paid handsomely) to Express their own “Right Wing”narrative.
This justifiably makes BAME members very angry.
However, Does this mean that all black people must agree with Ms Johnsons views? Of course not, I believe that she would have used a much softer, intelligent tone if she was debating a black person on a black conservative podcast as she knows that those black people are not being used as a ruse. All this is I admit is speculative, as I dont know much about this lady.

Furthermore, I believe you have understood the word c#$n in the British sense and not the American Sense in which it was used, where it just translates as Uncle Tom. Maybe you need to add some Gangster Rap to your extensive collection of Grime Music. For the record, I detest both

Mor Vir

2nd August 2020 at 1:42 pm

Today’s polls: The ‘Boris bounce’ is completely spent. 65% of the public personally blame him for bad handling of c19. I said at the start that he cannot expect to survive c19 as PM and that seems borne out. TP presumably still has the MPs to rip up the WA and do a proper Brexit – but only time will tell. It seems that Starmer needed to do nothing, keep his head down, and to just wait for voters to switch to LP as the other ‘option’. Talk recently was of LP being out of government maybe for decades.

Sinn Fein is leading the poll, up now to 30% in ROI (Sunday Times, today), which is likely only to increase as the main opposition party (see Starmer lol). SF voters tend to be loyal so this may be a permanent shift in ROI. SF government in ROI and NI would surely prompt a border poll via GFA. Polling on UI sits on a knife edge in NI, so UI is looking a distinct possibility.

> Boris Johnson’s lead over Labour has slumped to just three points, as public confidence in the government’s handling of coronavirus continues its slide, according to a new poll.

The three-point Conservative margin over Sir Keir Starmer’s party matched the Tory low-point recorded by pollsters Opinium a year ago, when an embattled prime minister was on the brink of suspending a deeply divided parliament to stop MPs blocking his Brexit plans.

And it bore witness to the progress made by Starmer in eroding the Tory lead, which stood at 23 points in the equivalent poll taken the week before his election as leader in April. – Independent, today

Gareth Edward KING

2nd August 2020 at 1:27 pm

There was a little joke in there with Fraser Myers and his love of food! Good on him!

Angela Towers

1st August 2020 at 1:55 am

The obsession with free speech is quite an elitist thing.

Put it this way: if you have big problems in your grown up adult life – such as a wife dying of cancer and the bailiffs in your kitchen demanding immediate payment of 200 quid – then the fact a man gets booted off a music technology forum for saying “everyone in Wales is a smelly, thieving cretin who can’t even make decent dubstep” is neither here nor there.

Christopher Tyson

1st August 2020 at 10:49 am

Free speech is fundamentally important, something we would ideally take for granted, it usually becomes a problem when it is threatened, and for many people it becomes a problem when they are personally stopped from saying what they want, by that time it may be too late.
Even from your example, going public about your problems with the bailiffs, you may be alerting people to something they didn’t know about before, the first step towards change. In your second example, it is not difficult to imagine how this could become a free speech issue, suppose for example you wanted to link the lack of treatment for your wife’s illness with the government’s covid policy and the consequent NHS priorities, it’s conceivable that you could find yourself going against the conventional view, or considered to be putting forward opinions that are injurious to morale in the time of a national emergency, you might be unable to find a publication that will support your concerns.
On your other point, there is an idea of the left as ‘bleeding hearts’ and messianic would be saviours of the downtrodden and suffering. This publication has been critical of a ‘victim culture’ a concern for the dispossessed transforming into something resembling an elevation of the victim, and a diminishment of the idea of individual agency. There is the danger that this critiques can begin to resemble an uncaring attitude or even a callous indifference, and some are more charitable and considerate than others, however tough political battles require tough people.
Free speech matters from the highest to the lowest in society, perhaps more for the lowest, because at least in speech they are put on an equal footing with everyone else, in principle at least.

ubik ubik

1st August 2020 at 12:24 pm

The obsession with free speech is quite a civilization thing.

cliff resnick

2nd August 2020 at 3:27 pm

Of if you say that every etc in the case of “some of color” is Okay then. I don’t think so. So what’s the difference?

cliff resnick

2nd August 2020 at 3:29 pm

sorry about the spelling

Mor Vir

1st August 2020 at 12:07 am

I often find it illuminating to draw analogies with what the China state is doing. Thus ‘liberal Christianity’ is ‘Sinicization’, the adaptation and ordering of religion to the ‘values’ and objectives of the economic state. China state does the same thing with religions but to impose ‘socialist values’ rather than ‘liberal values’.

Speaking purely objectively, the approach of Western economic states to ‘hate speech’ is also analogous to the approach of China state to the same; it is an ordering of speech to the ‘values’ and objectives of the economic state.

The China state is more open about that it suppresses ‘hate speech’ for its own economic and strategic interests but it also proposes the suppression of such speech in terms of ‘rights’, namely the ‘competing constitutional rights’ of the ethnic groups concerned.

The approach of the Western states is also to frame the suppression of ‘hate speech’ in terms of ‘rights’ but it would be naive to suppose that the concern of those states is not also first and foremost their own economic and strategic interest, just as it is with China state. Western states are just more covert about that.

So, the rise of ‘hate speech’ laws in Western states has its locus in the post-imperialist period in which the capitalist states, deprived of their former colonial labour pools, rely on inward-bound workers to increase the domestic workforce, boost labour utilisation and to maintain the expansionary, profit- and debt-driven capitalist economies.

Thus Western capitalist states have the same need of a ‘development of inter-ethnical harmony, trust and respect’ as China state in order to advance their economic and strategic interests and to maintain their legitimacy as economic states that have such interests that depend on such ‘harmony’.

Obviously none of that is to say that ‘ethnic harmony’ is ‘bad’ but, objectively speaking, it should be understood that the primary motivation of the economic state is to protect itself and its economic and strategic interests, and that the ‘values’ and ‘rights’ that the capitalist state proposes and enforces are developed ad hoc to facilitate its own interests.

Thus Western economic states have shifted from a racial and imperialist ideology to an ‘anti-racist’ ideology as their economic and strategic interests have shifted in the post-imperialist era. The values, rights and laws are ‘ideological superstructure’ that reflects the needs of the economic state according to the present stage of development of its material base.

So, the bottom line is sadly that it is all about money for the capitalist state. ‘Hate speech’ law is not driven by a ‘moral’ consideration. Rather the morality, values, rights and laws that the capitalist state proposes and enforces are driven by its economic and strategic needs. Thus they are liable to change, and indeed do change, as its material circumstances change, as is empirically verifiable. (Speech protective of non-ethnic groups performs the strategic ideological function of reinforcing a system of law that generally protects minorities and thus facilitates the economic interests of the capitalist state.)

> Legislation Relating to Hate Speech in China – OHCHR

(extracts)

There is first of all a political approach that treats hate speech primarily as a national security issue that may threaten the legitimacy of the Chinese state. Secondly, there is a legal approach that treats hate speech primarily as a violation of law, especially criminal law. Finally, there is a rights-based approach which treats hate speech as a rights issue in the larger context of ethnic relations. The rights-based approach emphasizes the balance of competing constitutional rights but places individual rights in the context of development of inter-ethnical harmony, trust and respect.

China is a multi-ethnic country. Ethnical autonomy and equality is one of the core constitutional principles and one of the pillars of China’s political foundation.

Ethnic relations in China are fragile and complicated. There are a total of 56 ethnic groups in China and the Han is the largest ethnic groups. As of 2001, the minority groups account for 8.41 percent of the total population of 1.3 billion, but they live in 60 percent of China’s land mass which are rich in natural resources and of great geopolitical importance. Historically, the relations between the majority, the Han, and the minorities, especially the Mongo, the Tibetans and the Urghurs, had been a major concern of each government. Although the government under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been able to hold all ethnic groups together, largely through economic integration in the past 30 years, ethnic tensions have surfaced with greater frequency and intensity in recent years.

In general, China rules its minority regions through economic stimulation and political suppression and the regulation of hate speech should be understood in this larger political context.

From the political perspective, any hate speech that may “cause ethnic disputes” and “incite the splitting of ethnic groups” would be regarded as a national security threat because it not only harms China’s fragile ethnic relations but also undermines the political stability of the regime. In prohibiting hate speech, the government is not merely protecting the victimized minority groups; it is principally protecting one of the pillars of its political order.

Michel Houllebeq

31st July 2020 at 8:11 pm

Speak for yourself – I was banned and silenced on Twitter and Youtube a long time ago no reason was given. To date, Twitter alone has admitted banning over 3 quarters of a million people. The censorship is real.

ubik ubik

31st July 2020 at 9:35 pm

Twitter is not a “state actor” and can therefore ban or censor anyone they want.

Gordon Al Gopher

2nd August 2020 at 3:34 am

Absolutely. What’s the point in championing free speech if you don’t also support private organisations the freedom to choose what is and isn’t said on their website?

Glenn Bell

1st August 2020 at 8:44 am

I agreed with a twitter comment re bringing back capital punishment punishment for terrorists, and I added child abusers too, and twitter suspended my account; Ive not been back since and no have no intention of doing so as anybody who speaks out against extremists, climate, Islam, BLM, is targetted by the twitter thought police.

ubik ubik

31st July 2020 at 2:52 pm

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
-SCJ Samuel Alito (Matal vs. Tam)
Amen…

Michel Houllebeq

31st July 2020 at 1:33 pm

Wileys just doing what Black Grime Artists (and majority in inner cities) do – blame other races and claim racism for anything and everything without looking at the mirror at their own failure, violence, and bigotry.

Ian Murray

31st July 2020 at 5:21 pm

In what sense is Wiley a failure? I understand that he his famous and fairly wealthy. You mean the failure of not being white?

Kathryn Barbara

31st July 2020 at 6:25 pm

I took the meaning to be about the group not the individual. He is undoubtedly a successful man in wealth and fame terms.

Vivian Darkbloom

31st July 2020 at 7:06 pm

Wiley is a bit more than that: he’s a respected member of the establishment, feted and applauded by the tastemakers and the cultural/political elite. He received an MBE from the Queen in 1918, has half-a-million followers on Twatter and is a role model for many young people. He’s right up there and solidly embedded in the British shitstem.

Vivian Darkbloom

31st July 2020 at 7:06 pm

Ha! 2018. I know he’s the Godfather of Grime but he’s not that old

Michel Houllebeq

31st July 2020 at 7:10 pm

I mean as a group as Ian says. Wiley is the 0.0001% of blacks who become rich and famous rapping which many aspire to do.

Vivian Darkbloom

31st July 2020 at 8:05 pm

Oh sure, Michel. It’s only because he’s an establishment figure and in the loop that he gets attention. The rest of us are Orwell’s proles and we can say more-or-less what we want because we’re considered irrelevant.

Bros Bro

1st August 2020 at 12:14 am

Vivian,

I agree, I dont think anyone is going to lose any sleep over what you, I or Micheal writes and thinks.

However, the million dollar question concerning free speech and hate speech regardless of who is making it is who gets to decide?

At the moment it seems to be the nihilist and relativist Tech Giants. Previously, it was the power hungry hypocritical and self serving media barons. I cant think of anyone who was/ is less deserving, representative or qualified. So much for democracy!
As a traditionalist black man, I am worried that “hate speech” laws will soon prevent any one who is “influential” from expressing views regarding e.g Homosexuality, Sex outside marriage, Religious pluralism, gender roles, transgender etc which are contrary to what Tech giants are pushing.

(Even though we might be irrelevant, we all want to see people who are “influential” with similar views to our own freely and passionately making their points)

I am equally worried that the “free speech” ideology is allowing all types of nasty people to say whatever they want about people of colour and “certain” religions. Unlike you, I would like closet racists to remain firmly locked in the closet.

In any case, the least we should expect is consistency. At the moment it is “Free speech” to make a certain comment about one group but “hate speech” when you make the same comment about a different group. This needs to be called out by all fair minded people whom despite the doom and gloom, I still believe are the majority. (though powerless)

Vivian Darkbloom

2nd August 2020 at 9:51 pm

Well OK Bros. If you are indeed a traditionalist black man then it looks like this is directed at you. This is Sasha Jones, a privileged young woman who attends an elite Oxford college, in conversation – if we can call it that – with another black student. Free speech for her but not for him. The speaker has no regard for other opinions unless they are in line with hers. She just wants you to shut up. I’ve asterisked the racial slurs to get round the censors, but I’m sure you’ve heard worse.

“Listen, you just need to shut up man, you’re a c**n, you just need to shut up.”

“Get angry and threaten you some more? I promise you I don’t threaten you, I promise you. So come out there and live through the promise. Come out there and let’s live through the promise. Come out there and we’ll live through the promise. I can promise you now. Come out there and we’ll live it through. You’re a c**n, dude what? What do you mean, because I’m a girlie you think I’m going to f*ck you up? Because I’m a girl?”

“You’re here to drive this side out to make it look like all black people are ignorant. Yeah I’m angry right now because of what’s going on, it’s made me angry yes just like when he was angry when he thought his town was being destructed, his cities’ statues were going out… I’m angry too. So why are you calling me dude, what does the dude mean? what does the dude mean? what does the dude mean?”

“How am I… you’re what we’re dealing with. You are what we’re dealing with. Who are you calling a black woman angry? You’re a c**n. You don’t need to be in this conversation. You don’t need to be in this conversation. How can I racially abuse this man, can someone give this brother some knowledge? How can I racially abuse him?”

(Transcript of Sasha Johnson, Oxford Black Lives Matter leader, in conversation with a black male fellow student in July 2020. Transcribed from the video and paragraphed for clarity by Vivian Darkbloom. Opinions are solely the responsibility of Ms. Johnson. Observation does not confer endorsement but respects the right to free speech even if, as clearly shown here, it is hate speech. Because hate speech is also free speech.)

Vivian Darkbloom

2nd August 2020 at 10:54 pm

So you see this free speech thing is complicated; this power thing is complicated. Sasha Johnson has assumed full power focus and wishes to deny her interlocutors’ right to speak. She clearly wants him to shut up. So who has the power in this exchange? If I, as a magnolia, were to employ the exact same invective against her I would be labelled as a racist and possibly be prosecuted. In the light of Ms. Johnson’s recorded speech she is clearly in breach of hate crime legislation. The idea that black people cannot be racist is contrary to the laws enacted by both Labour and Conservative governments. Hate crime is defined in a very messy and unclear manner; nevertheless it is still a crime on statute: a hate incident is defined as ‘any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them’ relating to protected characteristics, and must be recorded ‘regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element’. See; this is entirely subjective and goes against all previous legislation which clearly defines the alleged crime, i.e. that if one treats someone differently because of an immutable characteristic then this is contrary to law. This has been replaced with a thought-crime called hatred which is nothing more than one of the estimated 27 or more human emotions. So an emotion has been deemed illegal by the state. Think about that: an emotion has been made illegal. As always, speech is a site of contention.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:28 am

Vivian,

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by traditionalist.

Nevertheless, I have just seen the video on Yo uTu be and must admit that I am not familiar with Sas ha or for that matter, very much with the BLM movement.

However, I believe you have made several errors and overlooked several factors in your analysis of Ms Joh nsons comments. Let me try and present an alternative perspective.

You claim (wrongly in my opinion) that Ms John son is angry and she is using rac ial slurs because she “has no regard for other opinions unless they are in line with hers.”
If this was entirely correct, she would have used rac ist language towards her whi te interlocutors well before she used it against the bla ck student. I believe one of them was Tom meh Rob ins on but I may be wrong. Anyway She didnt! ( From what I have seen in the videos)

Why? I suspect that the reason for her anger is that she believes the black student ( Unnamed for some reason in your analysis) is being used by his white “pup pet masters” as a stooge to cover their raci sm. So they can stand aside (secretly chuffed) and witness bla ck on bla ck verbal sparring. This “divide and rule” tactic has been used by wh ite people throughout history.

It would be interesting to know if Ms Joh nson was informed in advance that a bla ck man would be debating her or if he was sprung on her by surprise.
This unsurprisingly is the same tactic that this website also uses as well as the B B C and other media outlets. For example, when they want to write a negative story about Islam and Muslims, rather than writing it themselves (something a whi te journalist could easily do as its usually void of any insightful perspective) or proportionally represent the views of Musl ims, they will employ an uncle T om figure with a Muslim name like Ma jid Naw az or Quan tas Ahm ed to write the article instead. Can you explain why they do this? The B B C uses the same tactic on shows like the Big Question and just today, the Da ily Fail has many stories about specifically Mus lims breaking lockdown rules and they have a Mus lim Community leader (probably the only one they could find who they probably paid handsomely) to Expr ess their own “Right Wing”narrative.
This justifiably makes BAME members very angry.
However, Does this mean that all bla ck people must agree with Ms Joh nsons views? Of course not, I believe that she would have used a much softer, intelligent tone if she was debating a black person on a black conservative podcast as she knows that those black people are not being used as a ruse. All this is I admit is specul ative, as I dont know much about this lady.

Furthermore, I believe you have understood the word c#$n in the British sense and not the American Sense in which it was used, where it just translates as Un cle To m. Maybe you need to add some Gang ster Rap to your extensive collection of Grime Music. For the record, I detest both

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 1:18 pm

Vivian.

I dont believe she was trying to “shut up other opinions which are not in line with hers”
I believe she had rightfully taken offence to how a black man is allowing himself to be used as a stooge by his white “puppet masters”

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 1:21 pm

It would be interesting to know if she was expecting the target of her venom to be there or whether he was sprung on her by surprise.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 1:24 pm

This is an old wh ite mans trick to use people of the same race to discredit opponents, standing by while they enjoy the spectacle.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:02 pm

This Rag of a website does exactly the same when they want to write donething negative about Islam and Muslims. (which is like everyday) Rather than writing it them selves (whites) , they will get a brown man with a Muslim name to write it, even though the article will have no fresh insight from a Muslim perspective. This drives members of the BAME community crazy as it is deliberately done to limit free speech.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:09 pm

If she was politically astute she would keep a white comrade with her all the time, so whenever a black person was used in this way she could step aside and let the comrade speak. But those on the left are not sly like this. They have some ethics.

All this doesn’t mean however that a black person cannot disagree with her, I suspect her tone would be very different if she was talking to some independent black conservatives on a podcast with the same opinions to this “black” stooge.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:15 pm

Furthermore, hate is an emotion of the heart and there can be no law against “hate” as you claim. Expression of hate is different and it takes us back to the question of who decides. I personally would like to live in a respectful, tolerant society where these ideas were exchanged through deep, meaningful conversation, rather than through blasphemous, racist and bigoted satire and Memes. As I stated earlier, the only absolute free speech I believe in is the ability to speak truth to power

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:20 pm

Finally, when she used the C word, she used it in the American meaning which is “uncle tom” and “sellout” she didnt use it in the British term which means something completely different.
Maybe you need to add some hiphop records to your extensive London Grime collection.

P.S All the above is speculative as I have no idea who this lady is. I have just recently seen the video after reading your post.I have tried my best to avoid names and written in short passages to avoid being moderated again as I was last night.

Bros Bro

3rd August 2020 at 2:23 pm

BTW I detest Grime and Hiphop. Music for me died after the first two Oasis albums. I havent looked back since (except in anger)

Vivian Darkbloom

3rd August 2020 at 10:59 pm

OK. I Have no idea who the man in the video is and can hardly hear what he’s saying. I caught a few words but not much. I can only go on the optics. To me, the man presents as black. I’m interested in how you draw your conclusion that he is a stooge controlled by white puppet masters. Maybe he is. Perhaps he’s Tommy Robinson in blackface. However, I assure you I did not enjoy this spectacle. She did more than enough to discredit her cause without his help. As I say, I don’t even know what he was trying to say over the shouting; I can only analyse what I see and hear and when someone says “shut up” I believe they mean what they say.

Surely the c**n word means the same in the UK and the USA? Dictionary.com defines it as “a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person”. It’s related to blackface minstrelsy and is often applied to black people who act white. Of course it’s a racial slur.

So what do you mean by Black? I use the Fitzpatrick scale and then particularise to culture, countries, and individuals. It’s in the liminal areas that things become complicated. Southern Spanish people are called ‘white’ yet a few miles over the Mediterranean folk with the same genotype are called ‘brown’. Turks are both ‘white’ and ‘brown’. The offspring of ‘black’ and ‘white’ parents are considered ‘black’, perhaps harking back to the one-drop rule of the antebellum USA. I consider race as a modern construct dating back a few hundred years to the late medieval period; there exist racialised groups and colourism but races as a scientific taxonomy do not exist. Using race works as a heuristic but has no scientific basis. To even employ race is to use a term of classification invented by so-called white people.

Of course all this is considered unacceptable by the new racial theorists such as Robin DiAngelo, Judith H. Katz, and Peggy McIntosh. It sure is a lucrative business for these bougie white women. Do these white saviours ever ask black people if they want their help in the quest for personal power and privilege? Or have black people just bought into their flaky theories without further examination? To me, I see Ms. Johnson as North American rather than ‘black’. Her speech patterns and gestures imply she’s spent a lot of time watching, studying, and absorbing this foreign culture, especially the glamour of the civil rights movement. Perhaps she’s chagrined that she missed out and has developed a kind of ressentiment. It’s hard to overestimate the influence of American cultural imperialism. The ‘black’ model in the UK seems to be African American, a small group of around 40 million when compared with the 1.1 billion in Africa but with a disproportionate cultural and political influence.

So where does this leave your theory that some kind of nebulous and sinister “white man” is behind this? Surely the black man in the video has agency and a point of view of his own. Is it his speech pattern which gives it away? Does he sound posh and therefore white, the assumption being that posh people are always white? The Hindujas are pretty posh and they are the richest people in the UK. Is it some other cultural signifier? I must admit to bafflement. I had no idea how powerful white men are. They can remote-control black people and make them say things they would never have come up with if left to their own devices.

So basically black people have to be like Ms. Johnson or “they ain’t black”? Are you Joe Biden? Do you mean to say that black people are all the same? Now where have I heard that before?

If anyone is being used by this mysterious and all-powerful “white man” it is Ms. Johnson. BLM appears to be a front for the Democratic Party of the USA Imperial guard. BLM are a predominantly white group. Just look at the optics. They are engaged in trashing US cities including many black-owned businesses. The MSM over here are certainly guilty of censorship but perhaps their worst sin is omission. These bourgeois white-led riots are a constant feature of which little is reported in the controlled media in Europe. What have BLM actually done to improve the lives of African Americans aside from symbolic gestures such as vandalism, graffiti, statue removal and the destruction of A-A communities and businesses? Have you seen what Minnesota looks like after months of rioting? It looks looks like Baghdad or Mosul after the US imperialists had ‘liberated’ these cities.

BLM seems to be a controlled opposition, a Democratic Party front which has raised over $3 million, much of which is unaccounted for but some of which appears to be channeled to the party of Jim Crow through mechanisms such as ActBlue. I say “appears” because I want to be fair. Until a comprehensive audit is carried out, distribution of funds are murky. OK, look at the spikes in BLM activity and you’ll see that they peak at times of US elections. Huge sums have been pumped into BLM from various donors such as The Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and oil companies amongst others. Nobody owns the Black Lives Matter trademark so anyone can fundraise using this tag. Have a look at Black Lives Matter Foundation, a separate organisation. But anyway, this really doesn’t look like a grass roots movement. And that’s before we get into the role played by BLM in the Great Reset.

This is not to detract from the very real problems facing A-A people in the USA.

I have a sneaking suspicion you are are a quite plausible member of the 77th Brigade. I don’t know what your brief is, but there are pointers which I will list: when challenged you disappear for a while; your literary style changes quite abruptly, from beautifully articulated to sub-literate sloganeering; you’re clearly bright but sometimes you’re clearly dim, almost like two or more people are posting the comments; you say you’re a small ‘c’ conservative yet later you’re supporting the left. I have spent time debating with you because I reckon 77th are not necessarily bad people; I’m sure they think they are doing the right thing. Covid-1984, the Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, call it what you will, is set to deliver unprecedented suffering to the ordinary people of the world. Examine your conscience and be careful you don’t lose your humanity and find yourself on the wrong side. We are fast approaching a time of serious crisis and the last thing we need is division. We need to come together to fight the coming fascism with love and unity and a belief in freedom for all.

Bros Bro

4th August 2020 at 6:20 am

Lol!

I hope you feel better now that you’ve got all that off your chest. Thank you for Whitesplaining, Thank you for the countless false assumptions, Thank you for ignoring everything that I wrote and finally, Thank you for making me a member of a brigade I have never heard of. (I anticipate the pay to be good and access to every last bit of information about my interlocutors) I should consider myself extremely fortunate, at least I’m not working for the Kremlin. Or maybe you are using reverse psychology and you yourself are typing from a big hall in Berkshire surrounded by IS supporters as well as militant Transsexuals.

Contrary to what you believe, I have no issues with black people speaking in a posh accent or having an opinion directly opposite to other black people, I do however think (if I may) that you cannot judge a person based on short clips the Alt- Right are spreading about an adversary. I agree that Ms Johnson doesn’t come across well in the video. I was merely offering a different perspective ( not justification) based on my own experience of debating Alt- Rightish groups which I further accepted was nothing more than mere speculation.

Can I also thank you for making me the most fanatical supporter of BLM. You might be interested to learn that I know very little about them. From the little I have seen of them, I would pretty much agree with your analysis. They are coming across as emotionally dysfunctional and opportunistic with an extreme claim to victimhood. They are certainly going to do more damage than good if they continue on the path of trying to make every white person believe they are a racist, or that Britain is a dungeon of Satan.

There is only one definition of Racism that I subscribe to:
A man asked the Prophet (Muhammed) O Messenger of Allah, is it tribalism (`asabiyyah) if a man loves his people (i.e., qawm)? He said: No, rather [from the characteristics of] tribalism is when a man helps his people to do dhulm (i.e., oppression, injustice).
Finally, dont be troubled too much by my inconsistent postings. You have no idea how busy I am on some days and how free I am on others. My posts are a reflection of this as well as my mood swings and somewhat mischievous nature. I am more interested in wrong and right, I am neither Left nor Right. However, I have spent a long time with both and I have seen the good and bad in both. Whatever the truth, I am extremely grateful for your engagement, it makes a dull world that little bit more interesting.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.