Posts Tagged ‘Mass Murder’

Video Compilation of Sargon Defending Nazis

April 8, 2019

Sargon of Akkad, real name Carl Benjamin, is a right-wing internet pundit, who puts up videos on YouTube attacking what he describes as ‘Social Justice Warriors’ – feminists, anti-racists, gay and trans-rights activists, as well as the liberal and socialist left. Benjamin defines himself as a ‘classical liberal’, which means that he’s all for the unfettered Manchester school capitalism of the early 19th century. For some reason, however, he considers himself ‘centre left’, despite holding what most people would consider to be right-wing, if not extremely right-wing, views. He’s also a nationalist, but of the civic kind. Which means that in contrast to the ethnonationalists of the Alt Right, who believe that only Whites should have citizenship in the majority White West, he believes that everyone born in a country should be equal citizens, regardless of their race or ethnicity. The Sage of Swindon has frequently debated this issue with the Alt Right. However, critics like Kevin Logan have pointed out that while he might disagree with them on this issue, he nevertheless seems to agree with them very much on others.

Kevin Logan, male feminist and anti-Fascist, put up this video on YouTube. It’s a mirror from another anti-racist YouTuber, Rational Disconnect, and it shows various examples of Sargon defending and supporting the real Nazis of the Alt Right and related movements.

It begins with a clip of Sargon telling a panel of other YouTubers on the Trainwreck TV channel that he stands up for people being bullied, including Nazis. This then fades into another clip of him talking to the Scots racist, Millennial Woes, in which they both agree that Heather Hayer, the young woman mown down and killed by one of the Nazi fanatics at the Charlottesville march really died of a heart attack. They then claim, contrary to the facts, that the Alt Right is being unfairly blamed for her death. There then follows a tweet from Sargon in which he tells a gay rights group that the election of the Fascist Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil is somehow their fault for forcing the issue of trans rights, or something. In another, he states that Bolsonaro is quite right to call out the left’s ‘Marxist baggage’. In another tweet about Bolsonaro, he declares that the left are going to get helicopter memes as Bolsonaro murders them. This is a reference to memes and jokes by Fascists and Nazis about General Pinochet’s favourite method of killing political prisoners: throwing them out of helicopters. Sargon goes on to say that he’s not going to shed a tear, because leftists are liars, scoundrels and cowards.

There’s then an audio rant from Sargon blaming feminists for the mass-murder, mainly of women, by Elliot Rodger, an Alt Right misogynist. Sargon rants that murders on this scale didn’t happen before the rise of feminism, because it has disenfranchised a large section of poor young men, who feel they have no options left. Yes, he actually says it’s the fault of a ‘feminist system’. In another audio clip, he states that the success of the Alt Right is less of a threat to him and his family than the success of the SJWs, and that the Alt Right should take this gambit. ‘Even if it means the end of liberal democracy’.

Sargon has a very large audience on YouTube for his extreme right-wing nonsense, which is bad enough, though not a threat to democracy. I doubt many people beyond his circle really know who he is. However, Sargon has also joined UKIP, along with other figures from the internet right. Like Mark Meechan, aka Count Dankula, who trained his girlfriend’s pug to make the Nazi salute when he yelled ‘gas the Jews’, and Paul Joseph Watson, formerly Alex Jones’ sidekick at the conspiracy internet site, Infowars. The organisation that, amongst other lies, has told its viewers that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons, or cyborgs, or satanic witches, and that Obama wanted to get rid of every American’s right to own guns and force people into FEMA concentration camps for the New World Order. And then there’s Batten’s own adviser on Islam and prisons, because he’s spent a lot of time in them, Tommy Robinson, the notorious islamophobe and former head of the EDL and Pegida UK. These characters have brought several thousands more members into UKIP and dragged the party further towards the genuine Fascist right that Nigel Farage was so keen to distance it from. But while Benjamin shares many of their views, defends them and their murder of women, leftists, feminists and queer activists, Sargon’s not a Nazi. 

He may not personally be a Fascist, but he is defending and supporting them, especially as UKIP look set to select him as one of their candidates for the European elections. His views are vile, and are a real danger to democracy and the safety of this country’s citizens. 


D.G. Ritchie’s Philosophical Justification for State Interference

December 18, 2018

Okay, this is going to be a long extract, but bear with it. It all needs to be said. One of the arguments I’ve seen Libertarians use to defend their ideology of a minimal state and absolute laissez-faire free enterprise and zero state welfare, is that liberals and socialists don’t have any philosophical arguments to justify their position beyond pointing to the practical, positive effects. I’ve seen this line stated by one of the more notorious Libertarians, Vox Day. Not only is Day a supporter of the miserable and immiserating economics of vons Hayek and Mises, but he has extreme right-wing views on feminism and race. You can tell just how far right he is by the fact that he calls Donald Trump ‘the God Emperor’ and refers to Anders Breivik, the man who called 70 odd children at a Norwegian Young Socialists’ camp, a saint. He really is despicable.

In fact, the philosophers of the New Liberalism, which appeared in Britain in the 1880s, like T.H. Green, D.G. Ritchie, J.A. Hobson and L.T. Hobhouse, produced philosophical defences of state interference to justify the new change in direction taken by the Liberals. These had broken with the stance of the old Radicals, who were firmly against state legislation. Instead, these philosophers argued that state interference, rather than reducing human freedom, actually enlarged it by empowering the individual. Ritchie, in the piece below, attacks the simplistic notion of the state versus personal liberty expressed by Herbert Spencer, the founder of Social Darwinism, and provides a philosophical justification for collective ownership not just in nationalization but also municipalization. In his The Principles of State Interference of 1891 he wrote

Underlying all these traditions and prejudices there is a particular metaphysical theory-a metaphysical theory which takes hold of those persons especially who are fondest of abjuring all metaphysics; and the disease is in their case the more dangerous since they do not know when they have it. The chief symptom of this metaphysical complaint is the belief in the abstract individual. The individual is thought of, at least spoken of, as if he had a meaning and significance apart from his surroundings and apart from his relations to the community of which he is a member. It may be quite true that the significance of the individual is not exhausted by his relations to any given set of surroundings; but apart from all these he is a mere abstraction-a logical ghost, a metaphysical spectre, which haunts the habitations of those who have derided metaphysics. The individual, apart from all relations to a community, is a negation. You can say nothing about him, or rather it, except that it is not any other individual. Now, along with this negative and abstract view of the individual there goes, as counterpart, the way of looking at the State as an opposing element to the individual. The individual and the State are put over against one another. Their relation is regarded as one merely of antithesis. Of course, this is a point of view which we can take, and quite rightly for certain purposes; but it is only one point of view. It expresses only a partial truth; and a partial truth, if accepted as the whole truth, is always a falsehood. Such a conception is, in any case, quite inadequate as a basis for any profitable discussion of the duties of Government.

It is this theory of the individual which underlies Mill’s famous book, Liberty. Mill, and all those who take up his attitude towards the State, seem to assume that all power gained by the State is so much taken from the individual, and conversely, that all power gained by the individual is gained at the expense of the state. Now this is to treat the two elements, power of the State and power (or liberty) of the individual, as if they formed the debit and credit sides of an account book; it is to make them like two heaps of a fixed number of stones, to neither of which you can add without taking from the other. It is to apply a mere quantitative conception in politics, as it that were an adequate ‘category’ in such matters. the same thing is done when society is spoken of as merely ‘an aggregate of individuals.’ The citizen of a State, the member of a society of any sort, even an artificial or temporary association, does not stand in the same relation to the Whole that one number does to a series of numbers, or that one stone does to a heap of stones. Even ordinary language shows this. We feel it to be a more adequate expression to say that the citizen is a member of the body politic, than to call him merely a unit in a political aggregate…

Life Mr. Spencer defines as adaptation of the individual to his environment; but, unless the individual manages likewise to adapt his environment to himself, the definition would be more applicable to death.

It must not be supposed that we wish to blind ourselves to the many real difficulties and objections which there are in the way of remedying and preventing evils by direct State action. If assured that the end is good, we must see that the means are sufficient and necessary, and we must be prepared to count the cost. But, admitting the real difficulties, we must not allow imaginary difficulties to block the way. In the first place, as already said, State action does not necessarily imply the direct action of the central government. Many things may be undertaken by local bodies which it would be unwise to put under the control of officials at a distance. ‘Municipalisation’ is, in many cases, a much better ‘cry’ than ‘Nationalisation’. Experiments may also be more safely tried in small than in large areas, and local bodies may profit by each other’s experience. Diffusion of power may well be combined with concentration of information. ‘Power’, says J.S. Mill, ‘may be localized, but knowledge to be most useful must be centralized.’ Secondly, there are many matters which can more easily be taken in hand than others by the State as presently constituted. Thus the means of communication and locomotion can in every civilized country be easily nationalized or municipalized, where this has not been done already. With regard to productive industries, there may appear greater difficulty. But the process now going on by which the individual capitalist more and more gives place to enormous joint-stock enterprises, worked by salaried managers, this tendency of capital to become ‘impersonal,’ is making the transition to management by government (central or local) very much more simple, and very much more necessary, than in the days of small industries, before the ‘industrial revolution’ began. The State will not so much displace individual enterprise, as substitute for the irresponsible company or ‘trust’ the responsible public corporation. Thirdly, and lastly, be it observed that the arguments used against ‘government’ action, where the government is entirely or mainly in the hands of a ruling class or caste, exercising wisely or unwisely a paternal or ‘grandmotherly’ authority-such arguments lose their force just in proportion as government becomes more and more genuinely the government of the people by the people themselves. The explicit recognition of popular sovereignty tends to abolish the antithesis between ‘the Man’ and ‘the State’. The State becomes, not ‘I’ indeed, but ‘we.’ The main reason for desiring more State action is in order to give the individual a greater chance of developing all his activities in a healthy way. The State and the individual are not sides of an antithesis between which we must choose; and it is possible, though, like all great things, difficult for a democracy to construct a strong and vigorous State, and thereby to foster a strong and vigorous individuality, not selfish nor isolated, but finding its truest welfare in the welfare of the community. Mr. Spencer takes up the formula ‘from status to contract’ as a complete philosophy of history. Is there not wanting a third and higher stage in which there shall be at once order and progress, cohesion and liberty, socialistic-but, therefore, rendering possible the highest development of all such individuality as constitutes an element in well-being? Perhaps then Radicalism is not turning back to an effete Toryism, but advancing to a further and positive form, leaving to the Tories and old Whigs and to Mr. Spencer the worn-out and cast-off credd of its own immaturity.

In Alan Bullock and Maurice Shock, eds., The Liberal Tradition: From Fox to Keynes (Oxford: OUP 1956), pp. 187-90.

Libertarianism was discredited long ago, when 19th century governments first started passing legislation to clear slums and give the labouring poor proper sanitation, working hours and education. Its philosophical justification came later, but I think also effectively demolished it. The people promoting it, such as the Koch brothers in America, are big businessmen seeking to re-establish a highly exploitative order which allowed industry to profit massively at the expense of working people. It became popular through aligning itself with left-wing ideas of personal liberty that emerged in the 1960s, such as the drug culture, and in the ’90s produced the illegal rave scene. In the form of Anarcho-Capitalism, it also appealed to some of those who were attracted to anarchism, while attacking the communist elements in that philosophy. Its adherent also try to justify it by calling it Classical Liberalism.

But it’s still just the same old reactionary ideology, that should have finally gone out with end of the Nineteenth Century. I think that as more people become trapped in poverty as a result of its policies, it’ll lose whatever popularity it once had. And perhaps then we can back to proper political theories advocating state intervention to advance the real, practical liberty of working people.

May Makes Another Worthless Promise About NHS Funding

March 28, 2018

Tweezer was in the I yesterday, and she’s in it again today, trying to shore up her popularity by promising to do something about the NHS. This is ailing because she and her fellow Tories have done everything they can to cut funding, prior to the Health Service’s eventual privatisation. Which they’re also proceeding with at a rate of knots. Already, 70 per cent of NHS contracts go to private firms, and the Tories want them to run whole regions. With such piecemeal tactics do they indeed to destroy this greatest and most precious of all our national institutions.

But the latest crisis is clearly an embarrassment. So she’s promised to ring-fence NHS funding for the next ten years. This has given me a sense of Deja Vue. Now where have I heard that promise before from a Tory?

Ah yes, it was David Cameron before he was elected PM. This was when he and IDS were playing at being more left-wing than the Labour party. So he and the future mass-murderer of the poor and disabled posed as the champions of the NHS, running around protesting against hospital closures. And Cameron had posters put up everywhere promising that he would ring-fence NHS funding, and protect it from the cuts he intended to make as party of his austerity programme.

It sounded good. Too good, and when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. It was what Mike Yarwood once described in one of his impressions way back in the 1970s as ‘election promises’. In other words, a total lie. Once in power, Cameron did a volte face, carried on closing hospitals like his New Labour predecessors, and inflicted further cuts and privatisations on to the NHS.

This is just more of the same. Another empty promise, like all the others May has made and broken in her ignominious tenure of 10 Downing Street.

Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But we won’t be fooled again.

Don’t listen to her lies. Protect the NHS, and vote the Tories out in the May council elections!