The War on Everyone

I accept the need for curiosity.

I don't accept people can be found in contempt and clearly just zulu fucks are given.
Given how incredibly poorly Parliament has performed recently, is it any wonder so many people regard it with cynical indifference if not outright contempt?
 
Given how incredibly poorly Parliament has performed recently, is it any wonder so many people regard with cynical indifference if not outright contempt?
No, do not dilute deliberate and calculated attempt to defeat the scrutiny of a select committee of parliament with a 'they're all at It'.

This was a deliberate attempt to avoid investigation.

The same committee had Aaron Banks walk out when the started asking about money.

So, this is pattern of evasion and obfuscation. Which is has clearly worked. As one is at the right hand of the PM, who is shit scared of the Brexit Party and is trying to steal their sandwiches to win an election and stay in power.

But when someone clearly don't give a ****, the British constitution (based on people respecting convention)is pretty powerless.

Laws and convention are obviously for the little people.
 
We're a bit more used to seeing fringe socialist/communist politicians and ideas in our mainstream politics so perhaps the general UK population sees it as less of a threat.
I think the Fabian way has been more successful in the UK because of the Westminster-centric system of Government and the use of appointed quango's instead of the sort of local democracy common in America. A bit like the frog in the pan scenario.
 
OK I listened to the first three chapters and gave up after that as I simply don't have time to listen to all of it. If it had been a written essay instead of an audio-book I might have been able to make it all the way through, but an audio-book isn't really a format which lends itself to critical analysis as it puts the author rather than the reader in control (no doubt Marshal McLuhan would have a snappy way of describing that were he still alive today).

Here's my comments on the first three chapters of Robert Evan's audio book.

Chapter 1.
========

Much of this is simply a regurgitation of an essay by Umberto Eco. While Eco may have been a well known novelist, he wasn't so far as I was aware a noted scholar of political philosophy.

Eco's essay ( found here: http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf ) is ostensibly about what he feels the defining characteristics of what fascism are, but which comes across to me as an excuse of why he wasn't a fascist despite having been a member of the fascist youth movement as a child (it wasn't really his fault).

Evans seems to throw this in simply to justify his use of the term "fascist" to describe anyone he doesn't like. There are genuine differences between fascists, neo-Nazis, and garden variety racists which are important in order to understand them, but Evans wants to pound all the square pegs into the same round hole even though in later chapters he has to admit that they don't all get along with one another or have the same political views.

Evans also talks about "throwing milkshakes" at people whom he insists are genuine fascists and Nazis. I'm not sure if there is some larger political context to this, but the only widely known current context for this that I am aware of is leftists throwing milkshakes at certain Brexit proponents in the UK. I'm not aware of the targets of those milkshakes having a penchant for goose stepping, so why in an essay on fascism and neo-Nazism in the US he feels compelled to cite these people as examples is a good question.

This may seem like a minor point, but it does raise questions about tendentious writing, which is something that ought to be concerning if we are being asked to trust the author.

Evans also talks about the use of lies and propaganda as being unique to "fascists", as if other totalitarian or dictatorial political movements didn't make use of them also. This is a big WTF?

He also implies that the use of humour is an identifying characteristic of fascist political propaganda. This is another big WTF?

I'll go over the next two chapters more briefly.


Chapter 2.
========

In this chapter he conflates US religious nutters and garden variety racists with Nazis and Fascists. All might be unpleasant in some way and many may share common characteristics, but if you try to pound them all into the same pigeonhole you will never really understand them.

He continually uses the term "fascist" as a synonym for "racist" without establishing any thread of continuity or similarity with actual fascists. Again, he is either extremely thick or there is a strong thread of tendentiousness running through his writing (or speaking in this case).


Chapter 3.
========

Evans says that one American is (paraphrasing) "the single founding father of international fascism", but fails to support that statement in any way. He has a tendency to so this, to make dramatic and seemingly crucial statements but leaving them to stand without attempting to justify them.

He mentions the development of the "vanguardist" elements of the American far right but was oddly reluctant to draw the obvious parallels with communism as a similar vanguard of revolution. The listener is left wondering did those far-right activists in the US draw inspiration in terms of their tactics and strategy from American Marxists, or did they come up with this strategy on their own through parallel development? This may not be a critical deficiency, but as a listener I was left feeling somewhat dissatisfied that perhaps there was some genuinely new insight which the author had about the subject which he had neglected to elaborate on.

Evans also would avoid trying to put historical events into a wider social and economic context to explain why various far-right movements in the US rose and fell when they did. Instead he tried to force-fit the narrative into one which pinned everything onto a series of key men who happened to be in the right place at the right time and whom without their intervention supposedly none of this would have happened. It's as if the forces of history were only allowed to lead in one direction and that direction can't be allowed to be "fascism" as that would be contrary to a different ideology's world view.


And with the preceding in mind, at this point I gave up, because there really was nothing new in what he had to say about the supposed subject up to that point. Everything he had to say so far about the far right was not news to anyone who had done even the briefest and most superficial reading about the history of the American far right.

Where he had said something different to add, it was about labelling people who aren't neo-Nazis or fascists as Nazis and fascists, but that isn't really new either if you listen to any far left propaganda.

@Red Hander mentioned something about not trusting the stuff which Evans wrote when it came to things that he (Red Hander) knew about, and so being reluctant to trust the stuff he couldn't readily verify. I find myself in a similar boat.

I've pointed out some very problematic things that Evans said with respect to matters only peripherally related to the American far right. In the parts where he did speak about the far right that I did listen to, he narration over simplified a very complex landscape and was (up to that point) painting a false picture in terms of the centrality of certain individuals.

If you did find what he had to say as something new to you, then your best bet would be to take notes of the names of people and organisations that he mentions and looking up some more reputable references to read about them. It's a wild, wacky, and chaotic world that is primarily noted for how little the different groups have in common with each other.

The far right in the US are violent and they do kill people. They are scary on an individual level, but in my opinion unless they change on a very fundamental level they will never have the organisation to present a threat to the established political order.

They appear to differ from the far right in Europe in that they have less political coherence and are more focused on simple racism. On the other hand, some of their political marginalisation in the US may simply be down to some of what are considered to be right wing agendas in Europe (or Canada) are the political mainstream in US politics (you can fill in the details on that yourself).

So far as the audio-book goes though, in my opinion it is not a good introduction to the topic as so much about it is questionable that you will never be sure what bits are true and what bits are a hidden agenda the author is pushing.
 
Last edited:
It makes me laugh when the left go on about the rise of the far right. If anything the Marxists have seeped into every organisation and every space available, so much so that they're left wing fascists ready to ruin anybody’s lives who dare disagree with them.

If the left are upset about a rise of the right then it’s a direct reaction to them, see Isaac Newton for more details, equal and opposite reaction and all that.
In Britain especially Marxism has become the norm in education, culture and the arts. Our trade unions are bastions of communism, and these unions are pushing for a communist take-over.

Our main opposition party is am open communist party, with a one-party communist aganda in place should they ever gail power.
 
In Britain especially Marxism has become the norm in education, culture and the arts. Our trade unions are bastions of communism, and these unions are pushing for a communist take-over.

Our main opposition party is am open communist party, with a one-party communist aganda in place should they ever gail power.
Can't wait.... :rolleyes:
 
That's a very good review @terminal. You note:

'... but an audio-book isn't really a format which lends itself to critical analysis as it puts the author rather than the reader in control.'

and that's bang on. With a paper book, you could pause and consider, or re-read, part of the text, if needed. It is less easy with an audio book. With this author, he moves quickly onto new points and you start thinking about one odd statement but he is already onto something new. I also missed annotations, and a list of references.

I appreciate that you have ceased listening to the book. If however you get time to listen to Ch7, as a stand alone chapter, it would be interesting to hear your views about it.
 
No, do not dilute deliberate and calculated attempt to defeat the scrutiny of a select committee of parliament with a 'they're all at It'.

This was a deliberate attempt to avoid investigation.

The same committee had Aaron Banks walk out when the started asking about money.

So, this is pattern of evasion and obfuscation. Which is has clearly worked. As one is at the right hand of the PM, who is shit scared of the Brexit Party and is trying to steal their sandwiches to win an election and stay in power.

But when someone clearly don't give a ****, the British constitution (based on people respecting convention)is pretty powerless.

Laws and convention are obviously for the little people.
The little people are slowly waking up to the fact that respect has to be earned, and that Parliament has done precious little in recent years to merit it's status. The NHS is circling the drain, our criminal justice system is a pathetic joke, most people in the private sector will be able to retire two days after they die and three years of whinging and navel-gazing by our so-called elected leaders sees us staring down the barrel of a No Deal Brexit. With all the potentially catastrophic consequences that entails.

It's not just Doctor Strange who doesn't give a s**t about parliament or convention. It's rapidly becoming the default viewpoint of the majority outside the Westminster Bubble. And rightly so, IMHO.
 
I am rather bored of the Briebart tendency around here, to be honest.
I don't read Breitbart (I checked the site for the first time just now). It has a right wing perspective but it isn't selling itself as an impartial news organisation. It is openly conservative.
At a time when the notionally impartial media is far from impartial (see Ch4's head of news calling Boris Johnson a liar, this week), and appears to have taken an anti-Brexit position, people will be more independently - minded.
Looking at Breitbart London's articles, a case can be made that - accepting that the website is conservative/right wing - stories are being reported which are ignored by the MSM. I don't see that talking about issues which the MSM sees as 'beyond the pale' is of itself wrong. Nor is having opinions which push back against the prevailing MSM narrative. Put another way, if the BBC can report as 'news' - without an opposing opinion being offered - that a Youtuber thinks the government's anti-knife crime PR campaign is racist, then it is OK for Breitbart to offer an alternative commentary. There are also left-wing Internet news sites such as Huffington post. They are rarely called left wing because, increasingly, left wing is the mainstream in the MSM.
The UK right wing media, such as it is, is dwarfed by the mainly liberally-minded MSM.
 
The little people are slowly waking up to the fact that respect has to be earned, and that Parliament has done precious little in recent years to merit it's status. The NHS is circling the drain, our criminal justice system is a pathetic joke, most people in the private sector will be able to retire two days after they die and three years of whinging and navel-gazing by our so-called elected leaders sees us staring down the barrel of a No Deal Brexit. With all the potentially catastrophic consequences that entails.

It's not just Doctor Strange who doesn't give a s**t about parliament or convention. It's rapidly becoming the default viewpoint of the majority outside the Westminster Bubble. And rightly so, IMHO.
What you have just described is the fish rotting from the head down.

And whilst our "leaders" are free to be convicted of contempt of Parliament and enter government, I wonder what signal that sends to the rest of society.
 
In Britain especially Marxism has become the norm in education, culture and the arts. Our trade unions are bastions of communism, and these unions are pushing for a communist take-over.

Our main opposition party is am open communist party, with a one-party communist aganda in place should they ever gail power.
Where the actual **** did you get your political education from :mrgreen:

Go back to basics and get some basic political definitions understood

 
I don't read Breitbart (I checked the site for the first time just now). It has a right wing perspective but it isn't selling itself as an impartial news organisation. It is openly conservative.
But it isn't conservative is it. 'conservative' now means anything but.

I have no problem with 'Conservative, Briebart leads to people in chinos and tikitorches being called 'fine people'.
 
I don't read Breitbart (I checked the site for the first time just now). It has a right wing perspective but it isn't selling itself as an impartial news organisation. It is openly conservative.
At a time when the notionally impartial media is far from impartial (see Ch4's head of news calling Boris Johnson a liar, this week), and appears to have taken an anti-Brexit position, people will be more independently - minded.
Looking at Breitbart London's articles, a case can be made that - accepting that the website is conservative/right wing - stories are being reported which are ignored by the MSM. I don't see that talking about issues which the MSM sees as 'beyond the pale' is of itself wrong. Nor is having opinions which push back against the prevailing MSM narrative. Put another way, if the BBC can report as 'news' - without an opposing opinion being offered - that a Youtuber thinks the government's anti-knife crime PR campaign is racist, then it is OK for Breitbart to offer an alternative commentary. There are also left-wing Internet news sites such as Huffington post. They are rarely called left wing because, increasingly, left wing is the mainstream in the MSM.
The UK right wing media, such as it is, is dwarfed by the mainly liberally-minded MSM.
U.K. right wing media dwarfed my mainly liberally minded MSM?

Are you making a distinction between right wing media and MSM

Isn’t it just “media” or are you talking about journalism (papers) versus all media?

Because I can’t dissect your statement and find any way to justify it
 
Nazis under the bed or not, there is a significant XRW in the US. It's useful to know how they operate so that you can recognise narratives when you see them.

Happy to discuss more about this book with people who've listened to it.
The left's narrative is known to all, denigrate anyone who criticises and refuses to comply with the left's hive mentality.
All you are seeing is push-back, and because it has been a long time coming it is going to get a bit vocal until some balance is restored.
 
U.K. right wing media dwarfed my mainly liberally minded MSM?

Are you making a distinction between right wing media and MSM

Isn’t it just “media” or are you talking about journalism (papers) versus all media?

Because I can’t dissect your statement and find any way to justify it
I think I meant that, each site that is a Breitbart is offering an alternative narrative to organisations like the BBC - which offers a liberal/progressive perspective of events - which have bigger budgets; greater reach across platforms (in the case of the BBC, television, radio, Web, print in some cases) and which are more a part of the establishment.
In terms of newspapers, most of the popular titles are conservative in outlook, so my point isn't valid in that respect.
 
OK I listened to the first three chapters and gave up after that as I simply don't have time to listen to all of it. If it had been a written essay instead of an audio-book I might have been able to make it all the way through, but an audio-book isn't really a format which lends itself to critical analysis as it puts the author rather than the reader in control (no doubt Marshal McLuhan would have a snappy way of describing that were he still alive today).

Here's my comments on the first three chapters of Robert Evan's audio book.

Chapter 1.
========

Much of this is simply a regurgitation of an essay by Umberto Eco. While Eco may have been a well known novelist, he wasn't so far as I was aware a noted scholar of political philosophy.

Eco's essay ( found here: http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf ) is ostensibly about what he feels the defining characteristics of what fascism are, but which comes across to me as an excuse of why he wasn't a fascist despite having been a member of the fascist youth movement as a child (it wasn't really his fault).

Evans seems to throw this in simply to justify his use of the term "fascist" to describe anyone he doesn't like. There are genuine differences between fascists, neo-Nazis, and garden variety racists which are important in order to understand them, but Evans wants to pound all the square pegs into the same round hole even though in later chapters he has to admit that they don't all get along with one another or have the same political views.

Evans also talks about "throwing milkshakes" at people whom he insists are genuine fascists and Nazis. I'm not sure if there is some larger political context to this, but the only widely known current context for this that I am aware of is leftists throwing milkshakes at certain Brexit proponents in the UK. I'm not aware of the targets of those milkshakes having a penchant for goose stepping, so why in an essay on fascism and neo-Nazism in the US he feels compelled to cite these people as examples is a good question.

This may seem like a minor point, but it does raise questions about tendentious writing, which is something that ought to be concerning if we are being asked to trust the author.

Evans also talks about the use of lies and propaganda as being unique to "fascists", as if other totalitarian or dictatorial political movements didn't make use of them also. This is a big WTF?

He also implies that the use of humour is an identifying characteristic of fascist political propaganda. This is another big WTF?

I'll go over the next two chapters more briefly.


Chapter 2.
========

In this chapter he conflates US religious nutters and garden variety racists with Nazis and Fascists. All might be unpleasant in some way and many may share common characteristics, but if you try to pound them all into the same pigeonhole you will never really understand them.

He continually uses the term "fascist" as a synonym for "racist" without establishing any thread of continuity or similarity with actual fascists. Again, he is either extremely thick or there is a strong thread of tendentiousness running through his writing (or speaking in this case).


Chapter 3.
========

Evans says that one American is (paraphrasing) "the single founding father of international fascism", but fails to support that statement in any way. He has a tendency to so this, to make dramatic and seemingly crucial statements but leaving them to stand without attempting to justify them.

He mentions the development of the "vanguardist" elements of the American far right but was oddly reluctant to draw the obvious parallels with communism as a similar vanguard of revolution. The listener is left wondering did those far-right activists in the US draw inspiration in terms of their tactics and strategy from American Marxists, or did they come up with this strategy on their own through parallel development? This may not be a critical deficiency, but as a listener I was left feeling somewhat dissatisfied that perhaps there was some genuinely new insight which the author had about the subject which he had neglected to elaborate on.

Evans also would avoid trying to put historical events into a wider social and economic context to explain why various far-right movements in the US rose and fell when they did. Instead he tried to force-fit the narrative into one which pinned everything onto a series of key men who happened to be in the right place at the right time and whom without their intervention supposedly none of this would have happened. It's as if the forces of history were only allowed to lead in one direction and that direction can't be allowed to be "fascism" as that would be contrary to a different ideology's world view.


And with the preceding in mind, at this point I gave up, because there really was nothing new in what he had to say about the supposed subject up to that point. Everything he had to say so far about the far right was not news to anyone who had done even the briefest and most superficial reading about the history of the American far right.

Where he had said something different to add, it was about labelling people who aren't neo-Nazis or fascists as Nazis and fascists, but that isn't really new either if you listen to any far left propaganda.

@Red Hander mentioned something about not trusting the stuff which Evans wrote when it came to things that he (Red Hander) knew about, and so being reluctant to trust the stuff he couldn't readily verify. I find myself in a similar boat.

I've pointed out some very problematic things that Evans said with respect to matters only peripherally related to the American far right. In the parts where he did speak about the far right that I did listen to, he narration over simplified a very complex landscape and was (up to that point) painting a false picture in terms of the centrality of certain individuals.

If you did find what he had to say as something new to you, then your best bet would be to take notes of the names of people and organisations that he mentions and looking up some more reputable references to read about them. It's a wild, wacky, and chaotic world that is primarily noted for how little the different groups have in common with each other.

The far right in the US are violent and they do kill people. They are scary on an individual level, but in my opinion unless they change on a very fundamental level they will never have the organisation to present a threat to the established political order.

They appear to differ from the far right in Europe in that they have less political coherence and are more focused on simple racism. On the other hand, some of their political marginalisation in the US may simply be down to some of what are considered to be right wing agendas in Europe (or Canada) are the political mainstream in US politics (you can fill in the details on that yourself).

So far as the audio-book goes though, in my opinion it is not a good introduction to the topic as so much about it is questionable that you will never be sure what bits are true and what bits are a hidden agenda the author is pushing.
Thanks for that. I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of US XRW politics & movements is sparse, so I did find it an interesting listen even with author bias. You're right, it is useful as a springboard to additional research. I did find it useful though for the names of the books which are shared.

Audio books & podcasts are my thing at the moment for when I'm driving or looking to saving calories from holding things.
 
That's not impartiality that's fact.
It may be a fact. The point is not whether the PM is a liar, it is whether the head of an 'impartial' news service should call him a liar.
The Head of Ch4 news' full speech is linked to here. She doesn't seem very impartial. I would go so far as to say she sounds quite Left/liberal:

 

endure

GCM
It may be a fact. The point is not whether the PM is a liar, it is whether the head of an 'impartial' news service should call him a liar.
The Head of Ch4 news' full speech is linked to here. She doesn't seem very impartial. I would go so far as to say she sounds quite Left/liberal:


She's allowed to have and to express her opinions but as the speech wasn't broadcast on C4 news her opinions are irrelevant to its impartiality.
 
This is a free audio book by Robert Evans:


Robert Evan's is a journalist who goes in and out of different conflict zones but I'm familiar with his "behind the b@stards" podcast, which I also recommend.

The book is about the far right, mainly in the US, and how they've come around, what their objectives are & what their methodology has been to promote narratives, raise funds, carry out actions, respond to state action and how key figures, attackers & publications connect.

You'll be suprised at how different conspiracy theories & individuals connect. It's very well researched.

I'm not usually interested in XRW stuff & often don't trust the source. But with this book you can get an insight into extremism & extremist violence that you might not be familiar with.

And it's free.
I hope it also discusses the very rapid rise in extremism and Intolerism from the Left and also the politicians and media who actively lie and deliberately stir up hatred - bearing in mind the last 2 mass killings were by left wing extremists and also the trouble being caused bythe extreme left wing ANTIFA - extremism in all forms whether by the right or the left is unacceptable but sadly those on the left seem to get a free pass and a stiff ignoring by celebs, politicians and the media which is very dangerous.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top