The term the politics of hate describes the deliberate use of fear, resentment, and division to win and hold power. It works by persuading people that their problems are caused not by failed policy or unequal power, but by other people, whether they be migrants, minorities, the poor, neighbouring nations, people of another gender or sexual orientation, or anyone else who can be turned into an enemy.
Yeah, like the rich, or neoliberals……
There is perhaps no bigger hypocrite in British public life – if spouting off on a YouTube channel and a blog to a few hundred daft cunts counts as public life.
Tony Blair declares war on the British people, 1999:
For the 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism and socialism but between the forces of progress and the forces of conservatism.
They are what hold our nation back. Not just in the Conservative Party but within us, within our nation.
The forces that do not understand that creating a new Britain of true equality is no more a betrayal of Britain’s history than New Labour is of Labour’s values.
The old prejudices, where foreign means bad.
Where multi-culturalism is not something to celebrate, but a left-wing conspiracy to destroy their way of life.
Where women shouldn’t work and those who do are responsible for the breakdown of the family.
The old elites, establishments that have run our professions and our country too long. Who have kept women and black and Asian talent out of our top jobs and senior parts of Government and the Services. Who keep our bright inner city kids from our best universities. And who still think the House of Lords should be run by hereditary peers in the interests of the Tory Party.
The old order, those forces of conservatism, for all their language about promoting the individual, and freedom and liberty, they held people back. They kept people down. They stunted people’s potential. Year after year. Decade after decade.
Think back on some of the great achievements of this century.
To us today, it almost defies belief that people had to die to win the fight for the vote for women. But they did. That battle was a massive, heroic struggle. But why did it need such a fight? Because Tory MPs stood up in the House of Commons and said: “voting is a man’s business”. And that is why we can be so proud that it is this Labour Party that has more women MPs and more women Ministers than any Government before us until our record is bettered by a future Labour Government.
Look at this Party’s greatest achievement. The forces of conservatism, and the force of the Conservative Party, pulled every trick in the book – voting 51 times, yes 51 times, against the creation of the NHS. One leading Tory, Mr Henry Willink, said at the time that the NHS “will destroy so much in this country that we value”, when we knew human potential can never be realised when whether you are well or ill depends on wealth not need.
The forces of conservatism allied to racism are why one of the heroes of the 20th Century, Martin Luther King, is dead.
It’s why another, Nelson Mandela, spent the best years of his life in a cell the size of a bed.
And though the fact that Mandela is alive, free and became President, is a sign of the progress we have made: the fact that Stephen Lawrence is dead, for no other reason than he was born black, is a sign of how far we still have to go.
And they still keep opposing progress and justice.
Have the far left finally got around to trashing Sir Henry Willink, the man responsible for the idea and early formulation of a NHS. He led and promoted the development of the concept during the war years only to see Bevin take the idea and for ideological reasons ensure the NHS would forever be a disaster for the nation as we see only too clear now.
Are the left concerned that history will finally recognise it was not Bevin and Atlee that can claim the NHS as their great idea?
St. Spud of Ely is just another of his personalities, each seemingly more nauseating than the last.
Left wing morons always go on about “division”. Could end it pretty quickly by agreeing with us.
Am I right to assume that hating the new Kulaks such as Musk and Bezos as well as the
jewszionists, of course, doesn’t qualify as the politics of hate?Steve has again beat me to the punch on rebutting the first paragraph and highlighting an absolute master in the ‘politics of hate’ – who until the current regime had set a new low for political government arguably globally, let alone in the UK, but it’s worth quoting this in full:
The term the politics of hate describes the deliberate use of fear, resentment, and division to win and hold power. It works by persuading people that their problems are caused not by failed policy or unequal power, but by other people, whether they be migrants, minorities, the poor, neighbouring nations, people of another gender or sexual orientation, or anyone else who can be turned into an enemy.
Yes of course – so the use of terms like ‘toxic masculinity’, ‘white privilege’ or so forth is completely different. Telling ethnic minorities, women and LGBT minorities their problems are always the result of discrimination is of course completely fair and has nothing to do with misdirection.
First, the politics of hate is a strategy of distraction. When living standards stagnate, public services fail, or inequality widens, attention is redirected away from structural causes such as austerity, financialisation, tax abuse, or underinvestment. Blame is placed on those with the least power to resist it. We see this repeatedly when social security recipients are scapegoated while corporate tax avoidance goes unchallenged.
I’d actually agree with this to some degree – the demonisation of bankers or of companies is a convenient distraction from massive systemic state failure cause by it being far too large and grotesquely inefficient. A state which allows and subsequently turns a blind eye to the systemic sexual abuse of literally thousands of white girls by Islamist rape gangs is certainly indulging in the politics of hate by misdirecting people towards Israel as the enemy or focusing on a dead Jewish financier rather than the very real culprits (numbering in the thousands) who walk among us.
Second, the rhetoric depends on false economics. Myths about “taxpayers’ money”, the household analogy, or the obsession with balanced budgets are used to claim that there is not enough to go round. Scarcity is manufactured to justify exclusion. Once people believe resources are fixed, it becomes easier to argue that some groups must lose so others can survive.
Economics which are manifestly true and have consistently been proven true, unlike voodoo cults like MMT which have been continually debunked as absurd. Resources are finite and cannot simply be reallocated according to harebrained academic schemes based on profoundly false and quite dangerous economics.
Third, the politics of hate corrodes democracy. It weakens the relationship between voter and representative by replacing accountability with loyalty to a tribe. Leaders who cannot justify policy outcomes resort to culture wars, misinformation, and attacks on institutions. As a result, independent courts, regulators, journalists, and civil servants become enemies because they ask questions and seek to hold those promoting false ideologies to account.
Institutions , like courts and police services which have manifestly failed to stop institutional rape or even control levels of immigration into the country and which seem determined to work for supranational institutions whose interest are often counter to that of the country need to be held up to scrutiny. Are you saying that such institutions are beyond criticism? That’s almost a reversion to a feudal state?
Fourth, hate is profitable. Media attention, campaign funding, and political mobilisation often increase when fear is stoked. Divided societies are easier to govern in the interests of concentrated wealth. If people blame each other, they are less likely to question illicit financial flows, secrecy jurisdictions, or the power of finance over policy.
This rhetoric seemed vaguely similar to something I read a long time ago:
‘In economics he undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected to his financial control.
In the political field he refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.’
Anyone care to guess the original author??
Fifth, the cost is social collapse. Trust erodes, cooperation declines, and communities fracture as everything that holds them together, from trust to volunteering and simple friendship, fails. Economic policy becomes reactive and punitive rather than constructive. Investment in the five forms of capital (environmental, human, social, physical, and financial), which are key to wellbeing, is neglected because long-term stewardship cannot coexist with short-term anger.
Because of course we trust in the institutions that have facilitated mass immigration, the Great Replacement, The Great Reset and the destruction of Britain! This government has proven to be my friend. Obedience is necessary!!
Finally, the antidote is clear. We need politics that starts from shared humanity, not division. We need politics for people – policy designed to meet real needs – and a politics of care that recognises our interdependence and our duty to future generations. That means fair taxation, strong social security, honest economics, accountable government, and investment in the common good.
As always – the solution involves you being given more money and greater power over the people in the country – something of a pattern.
The politics of hate thrives on fear and falsehood. The politics of care builds on truth and solidarity. If we want a stable economy and a functioning democracy, the choice between them cannot be postponed.
This is as close to a false paradigm as its possible to get. The hatred is on your side.As Norman makes the point – the truth is your failure to secure yourself an adequate standard of living in retirement leads you to peddle this sad and deluded twaddle. A part of me hopes that Restore Britain does get power just to see if your fleeing to Ireland would happen.
“replacing accountability with loyalty to a tribe”
Isn’t that precisely what the Left have done about the rape gangs?
Yup, that’s what happens when you import millions of people from low-trust societies, don’t assimilate them and fund them to continue their tribal lifestyles.
And regarding “friendship fails”, there’s lots of mention in his blog about his family, the ‘famous’ people he talks to, even coffee shop attendants. But never any mention of friends.
One does almost start to feel sorry for him.
It’s also what happens when your government, institutions and City spivs act like cunts, despise you, and take the piss in full view.
The politics of hate thrives on fear and falsehood. The politics of care builds on truth and solidarity.
Why would I want to be in ‘solidarity’ with black drug dealers or Muslim terrorists and rapists?
@Van_Patten: “Anyone care to guess the original author??”
I’m struggling.
As, indeed, he was.
Are you ‘The original Jim’ or Mark 2??
Very true – I don’t think beyond Venn diagrams Murphy’s artistic talents are quite on a par…
And which Jim is the farmer?
To find out, shout ‘agricultural subsidies here!’ and note which one comes running?
Thats me!!! 🙂 🙂
Google search suggests Mein Kampf.
Useless approximation of a definition of ‘politics of hate.’ I wonder if he could define “hammer?” And “sickle?”
Socialism is the politics of coveting, fertilised with spite, and top-dressed with hate.
If you’re looking for hypocrisy look Left, young man, for that is where it is most easily found. This is because those of the Left cleave to a “narrative” which conflicts with objective reality, and consequent cognitive dissonance forces hypocrisy upon them.
Apart from those cunts who are fully aware of what they’re doing, mind.
This is because those of the Left cleave to a “narrative” which conflicts with objective reality, and consequent cognitive dissonance forces hypocrisy upon them.
On the basis that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue I am not sure I would altogether agree with that. I think I’d prefer the solution that the cognitive dissonance obliges them simply to lie.
But ymmv.
You should read his latest shyte. He’s playing the victim again, claiming that Reform UK will be coming after him because (i) he’s an ‘intellectual’ and (ii) his Celtic origin.
Talking of which, isn’t his ‘Celtic’ origin, the fact that ONE of his grandfathers was Irish and came to the UK and er….that’s it? Making him 1/4 Irish with his parents (and him) having lived their entire lives in England?
We need to talk about nationality inequality – the modal number of passports is one, but the LHTD has two along with many other elite individuals. That’s unfair I tell ye! He could forget to renew the UK one or have it nicked by Rob Lowe and suffer absolutely no material change – different queue at the airport perhaps
Reform UK will be coming after him because… his Celtic origin.
History records it’s not necessarily being different that causes problems. It’s mouthing off about the difference does.
Reform should publicise this plan to get him more widely. Could be worth a few points in the polls.
That still makes him more ‘celtic’ than he is an ‘intellectual’
‘Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not all out to get me’
Here it is in full for those who can stomach it.
Whilst working through all this, James drew my attention to this entry on the Restore Britain website. I have reproduced it in full, not least because, in the later stages of my career, universities became the focus of my work, although I had held academic positions since the 1990s.
Good to see the family following in the footsteps.
This is what the Restore Britain website has:
This is long overdue – there have been decades of Communist propaganda churned out in our institutions – and it ill behoves someone who blocks literally thousands of people who disagree with him to bemoan potential censorship.
Anyone who disagrees with this really is part of the problem. I see no reason why taxpayers should fund people who loathe our country
I doubt you’d find too many countries outside the West where their students openly despise their country. If you did find this offensive perhaps the issue is on your side?
Again this seems to me to be what is called a ‘no brainer’? You have subversive elements and fifth columnists operating – what’s the standard practice? Again – perhaps you should have thought about this before looking to close down political opponents?
Why does this matter? Mainly because of the horrible echoes of precedent that are clear in all of this. I am, of course, referring to what happened in Nazi Germany, and see no reason for apologising for doing so.
As Restore Britain makes clear, they will, as the Nazis did, come for academics very early on in their regime.
Many academics, writers and artists were first dismissed or driven into exile by the Nazis under the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of April 1933.
Those who resisted or were politically active were then arrested and sent to camps.
Perhaps you may want to refer to what happened in Maoist China or the USSR or would that be too complicated for your historically selective brain (or what passes for it!)? As I reiterate, if you start to clamp down on free thought and free speech, as the Hard Left have done for decades here, that strategy can always come back to bite you. I’d very much doubt you’re capable of the self reflection or intellectual understanding to change your mindset.
Examples of those treated in this way included socialist, social democratic or communist academics; journalists critical of the regime and, of course, Jewish scholars dismissed from universities
Some were imprisoned in early concentration camps. Others fled Germany, resulting in a large-scale “brain drain” that included people like Albert Einstein.
Why were intellectuals targeted? That is because they shape ideas, and totalitarian regimes (as Lowe’s language makes clear he is seeking to create) cannot tolerate competing narratives. The evidence of this was also seen in Nazi Germany. Books were burned from May 1933, universities were purged, just as Lowe suggests, and cultural institutions were Nazified.
From a summary of ‘Higher education’ in the Soviet Union:
Research and education, in all subjects but especially in the social sciences, was dominated by Marxist-Leninistideology and supervised by the CPSU. Such domination led to abolition of whole academic disciplines such as genetics.Some scholars were purged as they were proclaimed bourgeois during that period. Most of the abolished branches of learning were rehabilitated later in Soviet history, in the 1960s–1990s (e.g., genetics in October 1964), although many purged scholars were rehabilitated only in post-Soviet times. In addition, many textbooks – such as history ones – were full of ideology and propaganda, and contained factually inaccurate information
No mention of that of course in his narrative
And note the language Lowe uses when referring to those he wishes to remove. They are, he claims:
This is the language of nationalist fascism.
Hardly – seems to me to be common sense – why would anyone want an Anti – British or Anti Western (or indeed anti -white) agenda? Surely a more liberal approach would be an open
curriculum rather than the left wing dominated ones that prevail at the moment?
Misogyny and racial purity are demanded, as are being:
Except that means we cannot question:
And who defines:
From what is being said by Lowe, it feels very much like this means you must be both white and born of generations who have lived here. Then you will, it seems, have the right to decide these things.
Yes – Restore Britain are going to re-enact slavery and restore the British Empire? I often ask the same questions regarding ‘quis custodiet custodes’ of your schemes to confiscate savings and impose your economics on the rest of society? I don’t recall ever having seen an answer as to why you should be the arbiter of what constitutes ‘fairness’
What will happen to those who do not agree? He says
What does “rooting out” mean? The language is sinister, with violent overtones, implying elimination. You can take it literally when the physical threat is very real. You can take it literally when the threat of oppression is the alternative. Either way, the threat to opponents is explicit.
It is also important to note that this policy in Nazi Germany extended to schools and teachers. They too had to comply with Nazi requirements. It is clear from what Lowe says about universities that the same toxic curriculum he demands for them would be extended to schools as well, and to those who work in them. He does, after all, refer to the “education system”.
Didn’t you get booted out as too extreme by Sheffield? Weren’t they a hotbed of ‘neoliberalism’? I happen to think the education system has for too long been dominated by utterly toxic left wingers and the sooner they are purged (or certainly dismissed) from the sector the better. They won’t be any great loss.
OT
There are very substantial US forces arriving in the Middle East to join the very substantial US forces that have already arrived. If the balloon is going to go up it can now go up at any time.
I recommend to my fellow obvious and trivials to top up your vehicles and any jerry cans immediately. Get your panic-buying in relaxed and early so you don’t have to que in the rain with the mere mortals. If it all fizzles out you’ll use the fuel anyway.
*This conspiracy theory has been approved by authoritative approval authorities.
They can only keep those forces in the gulf on high alert and high readiness for so long, I’ve seen around 4-6 weeks in a serious discussion, before something has to give.
My guess is Trump does a deal, he’s made it quite clear he doesn’t want his legacy to be yet another forever war.
Could be, BiND. For all his bluster (WAR! Department), Trump has demonstrated extreme reluctance to engage in substantial hostilities. This can be a good thing but in cases like the Islamic Republic of Iran (to differentiate from the wider Persians) there will be no “deal” that will stop them getting nukes. The mullahs and their religious military have to go to prevent that. Destroy all aspects of the nuclear program and weaken the barking establishment enough to be overthrown by the people rather than by invasion. Not sure Trump has what it takes.
As to any kickoff timing, probably not this weekend (Ford not on station and transferred assets fatigued). But that assumes the kickoff is a planned event. Plenty of opportunities for “organic” developments.
Hence my suggestion to top up. Doing so won’t save you from price hikes or long term shortages but, as we’ve seen before, it only takes a minister to suggest people fill their cars and all of a sudden there are queues for days because panic. A real pain if you’re on a fifth of a tank. Probably worth getting some extra bog roll too. ☉
As we’ve seen enough times, unless they co-opt those with the guns there is no regime change worthy of the name and Trump or at least Rubio is well aware of that situation. That’s why they’ve take the approach they have in Venezuela.
Could he do a deal with the IRGC that sees the back of the mullahs and their excesses of Islam and curtailing nuclear enrichment in return for lifting oil sanctions? I don’t think they’ll go for it.
Of course there’s one very big piece in this jigsaw, Iran tried to assassinate to Trump so it’s personal.
Trump is now saying 10 days to do a deal, which is a variation on the frequent use of “about two weeks” he’s famous for.
Meanwhile, Starmer seems to be doing his best to make us the country Trump chooses to bully in lieu of facing down actual threats.
I’ve just seen that and that Starmer hasn’t given the go ahead for US bases in Britain to be used. Short term politics trumps long term security.
Heh, now it’s 15 days “max”. Still “about two weeks”.