2018 Newspeak: when “Far Right” means “sensible”, and “Caring” means “Hard Left”

metodayLove is hate, reflection is weak, thinking is dangerous, Joy comes from Might, social insanity is progressive, new philosophy is Nazism, and questioning where we are is revisionist fascism. The lingua franca of the liberal Establishment sounds more like Pravda every week.


Below is an excerpt from the Manifesto of a UK political Party. I stress that no “nasties” have been removed from it. It is taken from the Party’s website, and confirms that it believes in the following:

  • The government of the United Kingdom must place the interests of the British people over and above the citizens of other nations
  • an early exit from the European Union
  • all public service providers must be accountable to the British public
  • the democratic right to freedom of speech; excluding only direct incitement to violence
  • free and fair elections with one vote in all public elections afforded to all citizens
  • the equality of all citizens before one law, as determined by elected representatives in Parliament
  • the preservation of traditional British liberties
  • low and appropriate inward migration to the United Kingdom in order to preserve traditional British liberties
  • the rights of the individual only
  • the liberty of all citizens to live privately and without unnecessary state intrusion.
  • a free market and capitalist economy
  • the reduction of taxation alongside increased efficiency in a publicly accountable public sector
  • freedom of thought and the rights of the individual to assent to, or reject, any philosophical, political, or religious belief system, without penalty.

Which Party do you think it might be? I’m not asking you to agree with it, by the way:  I don’t entirely buy into the first belief, I think we need more mixed economic motives than free market capitalism, and I’m sure that capitalism in its current form is both anti-social and self-destructive. As for taxation, I think it needs reducing for the middle to bottom 70%, and increasing above that. But bear in mind that ‘low and appropriate inward migration to the United Kingdom’ is government policy. And ‘an early exit from the European Union’ is government policy.

While you’re thinking about its possible identity, I would ask you to ponder yesterday’s big Sunday Times splash:


It’s good to see that the Murdoch Times has finally caught up with the vitriolic bile being spewed onto Twitter and Facebook by Corbyn’s Momentum supporters. The rest of us have been aware of it since the last General Election, but that’s Establishment journalism for you these days. As readers of The Slog will know, there are far better stories inside Corbyn’s Anarchic Army than this one, but then OfSted says that the average literary output of Roop’s ST reporters these days is “that of an average 14 year old”, so we mustn’t hope for too much.

Useful Idiots like Owen Jones sometimes try to distance themselves from the vicious language these morons employ, and at other times apologise for it on spurious bases. Here’s a classic from OJ Wimpson last night that has to be read to be believed:


See right, if you’re fighting murderous white supremacists, yer gotta fight fire with fire, right? Yer see right, like the means justifies the ends an that dunnit? Winnie fought for herself and her ‘football team’. She murdered and tortured innocent people with abandon, and then got away with it. But that’s OK with Owen, cos ‘e’s well ard, see? No knittin’ circles Chez Jones: smash, kill, destroy and obliterate any and all Bad People: everything that immolates bad makes good.

Of course it does, Owen. Owen likes cats, you know. Bless.

However, the overriding focus of the Sunday Times piece is to highlight the current anti-Corbyn spin: that the Party is anti-Semitic, and he himself is part and parcel of that.

I have equivocal feelings about the Sunday Times ‘story’. On the one hand, it’s good to see the Hard Left getting a taste of its own snake-oil medicine when it comes to the robotic Soros chant of “Love Not Hate”: it’s well-deserved, long-overdue and something the spirit of George Orwell would applaud wildly. On the other hand, reading the piece, I’m afraid it falls fathoms below the standards of the old Insight team given free rein on investigative journalism under the management of Harold Evans during the 1960s.

It won’t do to smear ‘those close to Corbyn’ with anti-Semitism simply because they belong to the same organisations as someone who writes virulently about “the Jews”. And if some people in those organisations state that the amount of Jewish control over global banking is ‘too great’, then that’s their right: empirically, business and commerce is frequently controlled by Jews – certainly, far beyond their total numbers in the global population. I don’t have a problem with that, because they’re better at it than the Goyim.

Nevertheless, go back to the list of aims of the Party with whom I started several paragraphs ago:

  • the democratic right to freedom of speech; excluding only direct incitement to violence

That seems to me pragmatic and pretty healthy. As a purist, one can observe that freedom of speech is not divisible – and that is sort of true. But most violently-expressed socio-political views come from those whom, if given power, would not allow the freedom of speech they demand from others.

Now let’s think about who, in contemporary Britain, one might suspect of such fascist tendencies. This would be my list:

  • The Cameronian Tory Party for its attempt to legally penalise so-called ‘non-violent extremists’ (NVEs)
  • The Mayflower Tory crew for passing the Hate Speech Act
  • The Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott/Momentum Labour Party for its refusal to eschew violence as a course of political action
  • Both major Parties for their obvious intention – given half a chance – to stifle online criticisms of their hypocrisy, mendacity and incompetence under the all-embracing privilege-umbrella of ‘hate speech’
  • The Liberal Democrats for their espousal (along with other diehards like Blair, Kenneth Clarke and Lord Adonis) of any and all methods of undermining the Referendum result on the subject of EU membership
  • The BNP because it combines sanitised website gloss with an underbelly of admiration for all racial supremacists – and in everything it does and writes, betrays rather than displays a barely literate venom towards any ethnicity beyond Caucasian
  • UKIP, because its former leader himself has Führerprinzip tendencies, and a pattern of past behaviour that suggests he likes City money, Murdoch money and some of the worst tendencies of the Conservative Party
  • The Green Party, because almost everything they want demands compulsion on a grand scale based on often flakey data
  • Islamics, who seem somehow to be above the law, given that their demo placards radiate hatred – and British people of an ecumenical bent find their intolerant double standards interminably frustrating.


So then: which of the above do you think set out the principles I recorded at the start of this post?

Well, this is what Wikipedia has to say about them:

‘a far-right political party in the United Kingdom’

The Party concerned is ‘For Britain’, led by former UKIP bigwig Anne Marie Waters. And if, on the basis of its stated principles and objectives, it’s a Far Right Party, then I’m a transgender pink banana from Jupiter.

This is not a commercial for Ms Waters’ Party. I don’t know enough about its senior members at the moment, and of course every political Party puts its best foot forward online, while hiding those parts of its agenda that supporters of liberal democracy would find repellent.

But it does seem unlikely to me that an Exec Committee of FB could come up with a very straightforward and outspoken set of policies (albeit that a huge proportion of Brits would sign up to) if not too deep down they were all gagging to march about in Nazi regalia and invade Russia. I think we can all safely leave that task to NATO.

The problem the West has, it seems to me – and Britain represents one of the worst examples of it – is that it refuses to put any trust in its citizens. Our élite is scared that putting ideas of good governance before them at elections will result in their cosy power duopoly being threatened. With a fair electoral system and an unbiased media set, I think that is exactly what would happen. As it is, we don’t have either of those things, so Anne Marie’s breakaway from UKIP is going to disappear without trace in the current cultural context.

I can only observe this: on paper – and that’s all it is at this stage – For Britain is far more worthy of my vote than any of the other alternatives on offer. The Party seems to want to stop the drift into dictatorial oligarchy and divisive ideology. I think that, like Viktor Orban in Hungary, it wants to preserve what it sees as a worthwhile culture….certainly, one vastly superior to anything a reinvented USSR, crypto Wall Street or Sharia Law Caliphate could ever be.

The United Kingdom today is a nation State in dangerous denial of the quack ideas being put forward by neoliberals, EUnatics, feminists, communists, neoconservatives, globalists and WUTs (the Wishful Unthinking Tendency) generally. But if there is one thing I would do to start reversing the slide into totalitarianism tomorrow, it is to press for the repeal of this dangerously naive Hate Speech Law. It is a Gold Standard for legislation to designed to destroy empiricist criticism in my country.

But I would never, ever repeal Owen Jones. Such would be to swat a bluebottle while facing an invasion of giant hornets. And anyway, he’s far more use at large, because everything he says and writes simply confirms my opinion of Leftist intolerance and dangerous convictions. He is without doubt an unconscious asset to all of us who detest intolerant ideologues.

I find myself fascinated by the response to my  At the End of the Day post of two nights ago in relation to Dating sites. While viewed by 423 people, it has not evoked a single comment – an all-time record at The Slog. I wonder if this reflects a continuing inhibition about being associated with them in the first place: perhaps the stigma lives on after all.