Barely a day seems to go by in which some left wing “intellectual” makes an outlandish statement about UKIP. This hit a new low over the weekend in an article by Nick Cohen in the Guardian’s Comment is Free section.
Now, I know any venture into this segment of the Guardian is not dissimilar to Martin Sheen’s river journey in ‘Apocalypse Now’, but it is useful to keep up to date with the lefts thinking. So on occasion, the sacrifice must be made.
For those of you that have not chosen to stare into the abyss recently (which is wise given the often repeated quote from Nietzsche that “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”), you will have missed Nick Cohen run through the whole list of left wing sloganeering, political correctness and slandering which we have come to expect. However, rather than accept such behaviour, is it not time for a frank discussion as to whether the so called “centre left” is in fact extremist and dangerous to society?
To use the example of the article in question, Nick Cohen’s tries to paint UKIP as being “xenophobic”, “bigoted” and “extreme” when any normal person, using common sense, would see that this is not the case. The key phrase here is “common sense”.
The left have long agonised over common sense and came to the conclusion that they needed to create a “new” common sense so that the average person could see Marxist Socialism for the paradise they believe it to be. This is rooted in Cultural Marxism, and in particular the teaching of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of Cultural Hegemony. Gramsci believed that our elites controlled and disseminated cultural norms to maintain their power. As such, to create a socialist society, it is necessary for the left to take control of this elite hegemony to “benevolently” alter society’s norms in favour of socialism.
So here we have Nick Cohen using accusations which he knows are patently untrue to try and assert “centre left” Cultural Hegemony by pushing new meanings to words.
The example of “xenophobic” in particular is an interesting example as it functions on three different levels.
Firstly, the word commonly means someone with an extreme dislike of foreigners. But for the modern “centre left” and Mr Cohen, they understand this to now mean anyone who in any way expresses misgivings about mass uncontrolled immigration. They believe the negative connotations of the word will now be transferred to their new meaning of the word.
Secondly, by usage of the suffix – phobia, (which is a now common tool of the left verbal armoury) he is imputing an irrationality to the position of having misgivings about uncontrolled mass immigration. This also works as a ready packaged slur against the mental state of the target.
Thirdly, the word also acts as a secular version of blasphemy. Mr Cohen’s position is so correct that no discussion is needed or permitted, so the word is uttered without explanation; it’s a self evident truth. The dissenter against his view must be silenced as they are blasphemers against the revealed truth of Marxist Socialism. This also holds true for all new phobias and the word racism.
Given this third usage, it will come as no surprise that the left also have agonised over the structures of religion and have often sought to emulate the role of religion in society, as again espoused by Antonio Gramsci. Mr Cohen himself has written a book regarding censorship entitled ‘You can’t read this book’ in which he mainly concerns himself with religious blasphemy. So he is fully aware of the power and form of blasphemy rules.
Which brings me back to my initial question; given the extreme tactics such as Political Correctness, Cultural Marxism and the surreptitious attempts to mimic the structure of religion (as demonstrated by Nick Cohen) should the “centre left” be deemed extremist and treated by society in the same manner as racist and fascists?
It’s fantastic to read such an intelligent rebuttal to the hit-pieces coming out of the Guardian – well done!
I might add one thought of my own, which is very similar to what Chris has said:
Orwell pointed out in 1984 that “in the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance”.
If you want to establish your own dominance, first establish your enemies’ poverty and ignorance. And the beginning of doing so is to assert it; to drum into the minds of your followers the notion that your enemy is ignorant, is poor, is not worthy of respect or intellectual engagement.
Hence the assertions the Guardian writers frequently make about UKIP being ‘xenophobic’, ‘racist or ‘homophobic’. I’ve even read an article by Suzanne Moore that claimed ‘the right’ (including UKIP, apparently) are incapable of “abstract thinking”, of “critical”, “wonky” writing and art. They don’t get it, only we (and I ) do, so the reasoning goes. It’s all designed to shore up the privileged position of the author and her ilk, and it does so in pandering to the prejudices of those minded to agree…Which is why we need to keep pushing back against it.
This article should be sent to all our friends.
The Left find this article particularly toxic to their eco-fascist leaning ideology !
http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/green-holocaust-tidied-up-after-first-publication-june-2012/
simple answer to that is yes i new there was a problem with politics since anyone i mean anyone got blasted as being a racist for wanting a controlled immigration policy and the fact the political elite exemption of ukip have discriminated against this country’s own youth
I do enjoy reading all the articles on UKIP and by far the worst and outrageous comments are made by the left.
Some of the replies in the comment sections have to be seen to be believed.
These people really do live in a bubble where reality and common sense do not exist just some ideological socialist dream.
It goes without saying the BBC is riddled with such people.
It should be briefly mentioned that Cohen is one of the few left wingers prepared to openly and regularly criticise Islam so he is deserving of a degree of respect that the Owen Jones brigade are not.
However here he seems to fall into the same trap a lot of Labour AND Tory commentators have – that because they define politics in terms of left and right, so must ordinary voters. No, there are few genuine self-defined left and right wingers. Labour has far more voters who support them either from economic self-interest or tribally because their family does or because their part of the world is Labour territory. In the North they hate the Tories for tribal and historical reasons. They don’t hate right wing parties. They are certainly not supporters of mass immigration and EU membership. UKIP is hoovering up votes there because it speaks their language probably more than Labour does these days. Labour today is much more the party of people like Nick Cohen who live in North London and work in the media and have fashionable opinions (in Nick’s case on everything but Islam) than it is of the working class. That’s why UKIP are taking Labour votes. If Cohen thinks the answer is to shout the virtues of fashionable guardianista politics more loudly, he’s not going to get far.
Brilliantly put…I was trying to explain this to a friend of mine who is a little Right Wing…..I’m a Middle of the Road Voter…..for example,
I know that some savings can be found in the £120bn NHS budget – any budget that large must waste just a little – so that is Tory idea…..but wait….I’m against allowing the Private Medical Insurers / Providers (PMIPs) too much ‘freedom’ as evidence seems to indicate that PMIPs tend to want the cash and then not be so quick to pay out and of course often unload the tricky (thus expensive cases) right back on to the taxpayer….
….plus of course should it all go wrong the PMIPs can simply hand back the keys to the taxpayer as HMG rarely seems to be able to hold any company running a formerly private service to account – ECML, ATOS etc…..
….so when it comes to health for example, I’m neither Left nor Right. In fact Red and Blue have both failed to re-organise the NHS by failing to create much needed specialist super units to avoid failures like Bristol (Private Eyes etc)….
http://drphilhammond.com/blog/category/private-eye/
As to crime, I’m against the Death Penalty but think that life should mean life…..so I’m not sure if that is Right Wing or Left Wing.
Likewise with education: I support the creation / expansion of Grammar Schools but only after elite, well funded. well staffed, Technical & Trade Schools have been created along with a genuine third pillar for those who are genuinely middle of the road students.
After all far more will be educated in non-GS than GSs so if you want to win the majority over, I’d suggest getting the non-GS bit right first would be the way to go…..especially as parents tend not to have politics in mind when looking for the best education for their children.
I have noticed that the same tactics are used in the USA, Canada, UK and Europe. It’s all highly disturbing.
The guy on the right is spot on. Those that constantly bring up race are the real racists. The far-left are obsessed with the colour of peoples skin.
It mimics a religion, because socialism is to some a religion. Like most religions there are extremists elements. Some of them are progressive socialists, verging on fascism. Anyone not conforming to the their idiology, like in a religion, will be considered heretics, infidels and to be shouted down at every opportunity. There is no reasoning with them, for they consider their beliefs to be somehow morally superior and not to be trifled with. You are guilty until proved innocent, but how can you disprove their imaginary accusations, especially if you want an independent country, that is proof enough in their books of your guilt.
They will throw dirt like xenophobia and racism around, because it goes against the globalist agenda that socialism represents. Socialism, collectivism or group thinking,is totally opposed to the individual.
You could say the only difference between National Socialism and progressive Socialism is nationalism, so instead of pegging Fascism on the extreme right, it should belong on the extreme left, next to Communism.
The Left-Right model does not adequately describe political extremes, but what is needed is the “Political Compass” which has two axes: Left-Right and Authoritarian-Libertarian. Fascism and Communism come close together right at the top of the Authoritarian end of the graph as shown on this web page, explaining it in more detail and giving some examples from earlier era, and more recently:
looks like a good system. It would be intersting to take the test to see where I fall. I would imagine I would fall somewhere nearer the middle of the compass on the right, but quite strong libertarian beliefs. Thanks
As a forum mod, just to inform you that I currently am aware of 11 members who have delivered not a single leaflet and not partaken in any activity since the forum’s shutdown. Considering that the vast majority of those 11 regularly – almost constantly- EACH deliver a good 3/4 -to a full box of leaflets per week (around 1,000), over the longer than 3 weeks since the forum was shutdown, that equates to thousands of leaflets missed out on being delivered by previously loyal foot soldiers. I have been informed on several occasions that they will not deliver a single leaflet while the forum is on it’s current state.
If UKIP can afford to lose that sort of production from volunteers with the European elections around the corner, well, so be it.
Brian, it’s interesting but a little out of date (eg Clare Short? – long gone!) and I’d like to know where Nigel Farage would be placed on this compass. My guess would be Libertarian Right, which is not the most common stance. Any other suggestions?
“It mimics a religion, because socialism is to some a religion”.
Socialism is definitely a religion. It has the same requirement to believe based entirely on faith, even when there is no tangible proof or evidence. Indeed, what evidence there is absolutely disproves socialism as a serious political viewpoint, so those that follow the religion have to rely on their faith even more.
Re your last para, this is what Norman Tebbit has always argued about National Socialism. What both ideologies have in common is the dismissal of the importance of the individual in favour of the supreme importance of the State; individuals are there to serve the State, whereas in democracies, the State (ideally) exists to serve its citizens.
The individual is very important, more than many realise. In an individualist society, it is the individual who takes responsibility for his or her own environment and those around him or her. You take that responsibility away it then becomes the States responsibility. You end up in a situation where no one is responsible for their actions. Then no longer will it be your civic duty to do what’s right. The drive to make sure you provide for your family is your job, not the Governments, in a normal situation. the government is there to “pave the roads and look after the borders” to put it simply. Maybe add the NHS, though. I guess that is called small government in the UK.
Very interesting to see socialism and new labour in particular as a religion. They certainly place themselves as caring and compassionate – which apparently makes it ok to ruin the country.
So how do you beat a religion? Speaking as a heretic?
“What both ideologies have in common is the dismissal of the importance of the individual in favour of the supreme importance of the State;”
Which means the Communism and Fascism as systems are neither Left nor Right but totalitarian. The power of the state is the be all and the end all and the only difference is the tiny ways the State chooses to exert it’s control over the individuals and groups.
I suggest that Fascism and Communism aren’t left or right…..they are totalitarian. The power of the State in each system is the be all and the end all.
There might be different ways to build and operate a totalitarian state but I’d suggest one totalitarian regime looks very much like another.
The leftists try to maintain that Ukip is solely disaffected tories, when in fact it’s members come from all the conlablibdem party factions.
Hence why the far-left are stepping up the attacks against UKIP now we’re posing a threat to Labour as well.
What an excellent article by Chris Bond. He has ventured into the sludgy environs of the ‘Guardian’ on our behalf, held his nose against the miasma of cultural marxism that steams there and examined their warped use of language to promote a 19th century ideology. He peels away the top layer of Cohen’s use of words such as ‘xenophobic’ to expose the sub-text of misappropriation of those words, the purpose being to demonise political opponents. Yes, the Left are extreme and dangerous because they quack duckspeak straight from Orwell’s ‘1984’. (No offence to ducks.)
And it’s had its effect, because these kinds of people have spread their PC distortions and socialist ‘norms’ throughout society for the last half-century at least. But it’s my belief that the political and cultural tide is turning and Guardian types can see that and are trying, Canute-like, to hold it back. It’s too late, we’ve heard it all before, we’ve seen the results of this ideology and we don’t like it, so it’s time for change. Best of all, people are able to see through all the duckspeak with the help of writers such as Chris Bond.
The Left have their ideas which are a bit odd and some on the right have their ideas e.g. that benefit fraud is rife when by all accepted measures fraud is a tiny part of the benefits and welfare system.
It’s just ‘broad brush’ stuff to gather each sides troops around and for me at least (NOTA tribe) it’s all b******ks spouted by Left and Right.
The anti-Ukip messages on forums invariably amount to a diatribe involving emotive and pejorative terms: racist, bigoted etc, etc. When the critics are asked to advance arguments as opposed to slur and slander, and to state their own political allegiance so that their party policies can be analysed, they go silent. Many of those on the left ( I dislike using such generalities but will do so here as a shorthand) believe themselves to be making an intellectual statement by hurling tired insults, mistaking smear for rational debate.