Inertia creeps
by hakmao, 27 November 2007
Apparently fighting nazis is ‘totalitarian’. Political discourse has degenerated to the extent that race hate is now just another ‘text’–as valid as any other. For the facilitators of this discourse, reality is reduced to a series of abstractions–discrete, unconnected occurrences–where ‘nigger/paki/yid/poofter’ is not followed by a fist, boot, or bottle. In their privileged bubble no-one is ever that nasty and the politics of genocide are reducible to a parlour game. They congratulate themselves on their virtue, secure in their certainty that there is no connection between the words of their transgressive entertainer for the evening and the axe-murder of a teenager in Liverpool. If the pile of corpses swells enough to reach the doorstep of their bubble, the best we may expect is that they ring their hands and wail ‘well we never thought they actually meant it’–again.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 22:31
Well said.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 23:13
Beautifully put
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 23:33
One reaction I heard today to the Independent’s front cover (The uprising against fascism) was along the lines of “This headline is wrong, it’s them who are the fascists”. Groan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00260/p1-271107_260086a.jpg
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 23:39
It would be quite interesting to conduct a survey of the fash-facilitators’ and home counties letterwriters’ views on … migration and asylum. Just out of idle curiosity like.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 23:42
These pomo-filth are everywhere online — this issue has proven to be a good litmus test.
“Spiked Online” cretinism has a lot to answer for.
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/living_marxism_rcp_spiked_online.html
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 11:14
Allow the boundaries of free speech to be determined by the will of the mob instead of the law, and who knows where we’ll end up.
http://questionthat.me.uk/2007/11/hate-to-say-it.html
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 15:52
another prick.
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 19:11
Heh, someone who doesn’t care to engage his opponents in debate. No prize for guessing which group of thugs you remind me of.
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 19:28
Because you dictate who has to be engaged in some abstract debate doesn’t mean anyone has to obey you you thick piece of wankery.
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 19:33
Oh fuck you. I come onto your little talking shop and provide an opposing view and you say I’m dictating to you. Are you always this clueless?
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 20:13
You’re doing a good job of proving the premise of my post.
How much of a debate were Anthony Walker or Stephen Lawrence allowed to have?
Remember kids - democracy is only acceptable when mediated by our ‘betters’.
Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 22:04
Ed Vulliamy [got] it:
When ITN sued in pursuit of these aims, the company of course ran the risk that such action would draw attention to LM’s revisionism. But no one could have predicted the degree to which, rather than be dismissed as a foul revisionist trick, Living Marxism’s claims would become a matter for voguish tittle-tattle among bored intellectuals on the sofas of the Groucho Club.
LM played its hand well but the rot in the British intelligentsia made it easy for them to do so. LM succeeded in entwining the two issues of the libel writ and denial of the camps. Some of their supporters argued that they accepted the truth of the genocide but nevertheless felt compelled by ITN’s supposedly heavy-handed use of the libel laws to speak out in favour of those who denied the carnage. But such distinctions were utterly unconvincing. Those who helped LM cannot fail to recognise that by doing so they also stirred the poison LM had dropped into the well of history, playing their own role in denying a genocide.
By this entwinement, genocide was devalued into a “media debate”, something to chitter-chatter about over grilled sea bass and pale Belgian beer.
Hungry for controversy, a sizeable portion of London’s intelligentsia lined up to support Living Marxism. They rallied round those who had named me and others as liars in the name of free speech — so why not name them too, the great, the good and the up-and-coming? Fay Weldon, Doris Lessing, Harold Evans, Toby Young, and even a handful of contributors to this newspaper. A diverse coterie, eager to sip Living Marxism’s apparently excellent claret at the ICA, to eat their canapés and run alongside the rotten bandwagon of revisionism.
Thursday 29 November 2007 at 10:08
The more I read this blog the more scared I am. In the comments on one post someone suggests that people should be killed for their ideas - and you, Hak, agree with him!
Yes, of course the ideas of the likes of the BNP are evil - but some of you really are stooping to their level.
Thursday 29 November 2007 at 11:27
I am not Afraid
Thursday 29 November 2007 at 12:38
Boo!
Thursday 29 November 2007 at 12:48
Am now
Thursday 29 November 2007 at 14:27
This is the last I’m posting on this topic
I’ve been thinking about this all week, and taken into account quite how odious Griffin & Irving’s views are, but I cannot come to any other conclusion than that, within the law, the Oxford Union should be able to invite whoever they like to take part in whatever debate they feel the need to.
Thursday 29 November 2007 at 14:44
You aren’t very smart then, huh? Stupid cunt.