Friday, 15 February 2019

Theresa May's message to the youth of Britain: Never Vote Tory


Let's be honest. We're destroying this planet. Just look at the millions of tons of plastic in the oceans. Look at the way insects are dying off in unprecedented numbers. And look at the fact that every single one of the five hottest years on record have occurred in the last five years.

Mindless consumerism and profit-fixated capitalism are not just trashing the planet, they're trashing the futures of the younger generations, many of whom are understandably angry about it.

They're too young to be allowed to vote in elections, but they've found a way to express their political opinions through the School Strike for Climate protests that manifested all over the world today.

Anyone who understands the essential political truth that proper political engagement involves more than stuffing a bit of paper into a box every few years should be delighted that so many young people are learning to raise their political voices before they even get to voting age.

But Theresa May and the Tories are far from pleased. The idea of young activists demanding political action frightens the hell out of them because they're repulsed by anything that might get in the way of their project to transfer as much wealth and power as possible to the mega-rich elitist class who entirely bankroll their party.

Theresa May's unbelievably patronising comments about the School Strike for Climate protests included accusations that the kids were being "disruptive" and "wasting time".

The Daily Mail hack, relentless Tory cheerleader and wife of the Tory environment secretary Sarah Vine went even further with an extraordinary claim that 99.9% of the kids who went on the protest had no real concerns about the planet whatever, and saw it as nothing more than "an excellent opportunity to get out of doing any work".

So the subtext to the Tory stance is absolutely clear. Your concerns are irrelevant, your attempts to engage with politics are not just disruptive, but they're also completely insincere for 999 out of every 1,000 of you too!

Way to appeal to future voters Tory geniuses!


Politicians from other parties adopted an entirely different tone to demonstrate that they were listening carefully to the concerns of the younger generations. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn said the young protesters were "right to feel let down by the generations before them", Caroline Lucas of the Greens described the widespread protests as "most hopeful thing that's happened in years", and Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP said the protests were "a cause for optimism in an often dark world".

The Tory party are already utterly toxic amongst the younger generations as a result of their introduction of rip-off university fees (aspiration taxes that over 3/4 of students will never pay off despite entire working lifetimes of paying a 9% education tax on their disposable income), massive cuts to school funding since 2010, the deliberate and sustained under-investment in the infrastructure and services that generate future economic prosperity, and last but not least their hard-right ultranationalist interpretation of the 2016 Brexit vote.

But this unbelievably patronising attitude to young people raising their political voices is the glitter on the Tory turd.

The Tory stance seems to be that "kids can't vote, so fuck 'em", but it'll obviously only be a few years before these kids at the protest today become adults, so the Tory attitude isn't just patronising and dismissive, but also incredibly short-sighted too

This Tory political shortsightedness when it comes to listening to future voters is decidedly ironic given that political shortsightedness about environmental issues was one of the core themes of the youth protest.


So yes, kids skipped a few lessons today to protest about what they believe in, but the patronising toxicity of Theresa May and the Tories' reactions to their protest provides a much bigger life lesson than anything they could have learned in school: 'Never Vote Tory'.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Thursday, 14 February 2019

Freedom of speech doesn't mean we're obligated to give extreme-right fanatics a platform


As regular Another Angry Voice readers will know from all the extreme-right trolls who infest my Facebook comments, I've got very strong anti-censorship views.

In the 8 years I've been running the AAV page I've blocked fewer than two dozen accounts from commenting, which is incredibly low for a page with 335,000+ followers. It works out at about 3 a year, or 1 in every 14,600 followers. So just 0.0068% of people are depraved enough to get themselves thrown off my page. I defy you to find me a page with a lower block rate than that.

The only time I block people is when they do stuff like post calls for ethnic genocide, repeatedly spread defamatory accusations, bully and threaten other people in the comments, and/or hijack my page to post links to stuff like extreme-right hate groups and anti-Semitic conspiracy sites. Behaviour that is not only vile and outrageous, but that could also end up getting my page shut down if I didn't remove it.

Whenever I do block people or remove comments I take the very unusual step of informing the group what I've done, which stands in total contrast to extreme-right social media pages that routinely ban anyone who dares express a dissenting opinion in the closed ideology hate chambers they're curating (just try asking about all the white paedophiles in the EDL on a Tommy Robinson fan page and see how long your comment lasts).

But whenever I inform the group about the removal of extreme-right content from my page, I always get extreme-right fanatics crying "see, look at the terrible lefty censorship".

Aside from the grotesque hypocrisy of extreme-right propagandists decrying the open and transparent moderation of content by a left-leaning page when they absolutely don't give a shit about the industrial scale deletion of dissenting opinions on extreme-right pages, this kind of extreme-right victim complex snowflakery betrays a crucial misunderstanding of the concept of free speech.

Yes, everyone has the right to say whatever they like (within the constraints of the law), but nobody has the right to force other people to actively promote their hate speech.

In Britain it's not actually a criminal offence to glorify the Nazi party, praise Adolf Hitler, or deny the Holocaust, but it's also not obligatory for others to promote these views when they come across them.

Consider these examples:
  • Should a Jewish baker be forced to fulfil the order of a neo-Nazi who comes into his shop to demand a cake with Nazi Swastikas, Hitler's face, and a message saying the Holocaust didn't happen?
  • Should the World Wildlife Fund be forced to host adverts on their website from gun safari operations that arrange for mega-rich people to go out shooting endangered wild animals in Africa?
  • Should a black civil rights magazine be forced to accept article submissions from white supremacists promoting ethnic cleansing and the formation of a white ethno-state in their country?
  • Should atheists or secularists be forced to promote content from terrorist-supporting Islamist extremists or civil rights-opposing Christian fundamentalists on their social media accounts?
  • Should environmental charities like Greenpeace be forced to host climate change denier propaganda paid for by shady fossil fuel industry lobbying outfits?
Of course they shouldn't. So why should a left-leaning Facebook page be forced to allow extreme-right fanatics to hijack their page in order to promote neo-fascism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacism to their audience.

Yes these far-right extremists have a legal right to spread their hateful ideology in their own online spaces (as long as they avoid breaking the law by inciting terrorism or whatever), but they absolutely don't have a right to force other people to promote their dangerous ideology for them.

We may have to listen to their depraved extremist ranting every so often, but we have absolutely no obligation to hand them a megaphone.

In fact we actually have a duty not to. If allow our online platforms to be used to actually help these people spread their fanatical extreme-right ideas into mainstream political discourse, we're actually complicit in what they're doing.

So when the BBC give a ridiculous soft ball interview to an extreme-right hate preacher on the very day one of his acolytes was jailed for carrying out a deadly extreme-right terrorist attack, they're actively complicit in the spreading of dangerous extreme-right fanaticism into the mainstream.

Of course the state broadcaster giving vast dollops of free publicity to terrorism-inspiring extreme-right hate preachers is much more problematic than ordinary people or relatively small independent media pages inadvertently allowing their comments threads to be hijacked by neo-Nazis, but it's all part of the same problem.

The extreme-right continually invoke "free speech" and present themselves as poor innocent victims whenever anyone refuses to give them a platform to spread their hateful ideology (just like the Nazis did in the 1930s), but:

Why should left-wing, liberal, and progressive people tolerate them posting their extremist views on our pages when they routinely delete all of our views off theirs? 
Why should those who actually believe in free speech be forced to amplify the reach of those who would ruthlessly destroy the very freedom of speech they use in order to demand that we provide them a platform? 
Why should left-wingers allow neo-Nazis to hijack our platforms with their propaganda when we know that if they ever actually achieved political power the very first people to be herded into their death chambers would be us?
The answer to all of these questions of course is that we shouldn't. 


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

The unbelievable Tory attacks on Labour's pro-NHS video


The Labour Party have produced a short video detailing the dreadful consequences of the systematic Tory vandalism of the NHS that has been going on for the last 9 years.

The video is absolutely full of facts and evidence about the Tories' ideological vandalism of the NHS, but instead of attempting to counter any of the numerous factual assertions in the video, the Tory party decided to attack the video on the basis that the people in it are actors rather than actual NHS staff and patients (something that is clearly stated at the very beginning of the video as you can see for yourself).



The reason they don't want to engage with any of the evidence presented in the video is that they know that it's all factually correct. A British Medical Journal report did link 120,000 excess deaths with Tory austerity dogma in the health and social care services. Since the Tories came to power in 2010 waiting times have soared to the worst level everThe NHS has been devastated by staff shortages. And the NHS is undeniably being carved up and given away to private profiteers.

The director of the IPPR has done an extensive Twitter fact check thread going through all of the claims made in the video if you're interested.


Because everything the video says is demonstrably true, the Tories decided they needed another plan of attack. Eventually they decided to focus criticism on the fact that the video uses actors rather than actual NHS staff, even going as far as leaking the private casting information onto social media to make out there was some kind of terrible secretive conspiracy.

Presumably they thought it would be a wonderful "gotcha" moment like the recent furore over Amber Rudd and the Tory DWP getting caught using an actor to promote their life-wrecking Universal Credit fiasco as a "good thing".

But there's an absolutely crucial difference: Labour were open and upfront about it, and cearly admitted the fact they had used actors in the opening credits of the video. The Tory DWP deliberately and deceptively hid the fact that the star of their DWP propaganda video was a professional actor (and not just a fitness trainer as the video implied).


So now lets think about why Labour might have used actors to tell the truth about the NHS.

If the Tories are prepared to leak the private casting details of the actors in a desperate and pathetic attempt to smear the Labour Party and deflect attention away from the facts and evidence in the video, just imagine what they would have done had the video used real people.

If they're prepared to attack the professional lives of actors in the video, there's little doubt that had Labour used ordinary NHS staff and members of the public, then James Cleverly and other malicious Tory propagandists would have gleefully fed these ordinary people to the baying Tory mob, destroying their private lives and jeopardising their careers.

One of the big reasons Labour decided to use actors in the first place was to prevent reprisals against ordinary NHS staff and members of the public, yet the Tories just went ahead and carried out their reprisals against the actors!

Just imagine the depraved mentality of the Tories who did this. They knew they couldn't possibly win the argument by countering all the video's facts and evidence about their ongoing ideological vandalism of the NHS, so they decided to stick their nasty Tory boots into a handful of low-paid character actors simply for having done their job instead.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Watch the explosive speech that Facebook apparently doesn't want you to see


On Tuesday February 12th 2019 the SNP's Ian Blackford gave a barnstorming speech in parliament in which he criticised Theresa May on multiple fronts for the absolute shambles she's made of implementing Brexit.

I thought the speech was so good I uploaded it to Facebook to share it with the 335,000+ people who follow my page. I then spent 20 minutes adding subtitles to the video because I know that really helps deaf people, and people who can't listen to their device for whatever reason.

After adding the subtitles I went to check how many people had already watched it, and it turned out to be just one. Me, as I was adding subtitles to it.

Ever since Facebook changed their algorithms to dramatically reduce the reach of independent pages like mine I've noticed that my videos are getting a lot fewer views, but this example is quite extraordinary. The Facebook algorithms somehow decided to show this video to zero of the 1/3 of a million people who follow my page (not even the people who have selected "see first" to ensure they don't miss out on my content).

So here's the text commentary and then the video that Facebook apparently doesn't want you to see.



UPDATE: Facebook is now blocking me from posting links on my page, so I can't even share this article about the video they're blocking my audience from watching.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Saturday, 9 February 2019

Why do Question Time love Billy the Bigot so much?


BBC Question Time is a remarkably biased show. Regular viewers will be familiar with the regular appearances of Tory Party plants in the audience, and they'll also be familiar with the way the panel of five guests is always heavily loaded in favour of pro-austerity neoliberals, and the way that left-wing panellists are hectored and interrupted far more than right-wingers.

However the episode on February 7th 2019 was quite extraordinary with the notorious Billy "the bigot" Mitchell making yet another appearance as one of the select few audience members allowed to ask a question.

Billy Mitchell is an orange order supporting former UKIP candidate with a long track record of spouting extremely right-wing British nationalist bile. Wings Over Scotland has more details on the four appearances, and Billy's extraordinary bigoted, sectarian, British nationalist, pro-Trump, anti-EU, pro-Putin, orange order, creationist views.

Of course a minority of the Scottish public are actually orange order supporting sectarian bigots like Billy, and they should be allowed to express their views (even if they are despicable) but how on earth have the BBC decided that this tiny sectarian demographic in Scotland should be represented by the same man as if he's just a random member of the public rather than someone they've repeatedly selected to represent orange order bigotry on national television?

The odds against being selected to speak on the show more than once are very high, but when someone's been selected as a speaking audience member on at least three occasions the odds are simply too high for it to be a coincidence.

But there's no need to rely on the mathematical improbability of being selected as a speaking member of the audience on so many occasions, because pictures from before the show reveal Billy the bigot getting offscreen access to at least one member of the Question Time panel (something that isn't supposed to happen according to the show's own rules).

There is clearly a very serious problem with the methodology the BBC are using to determine the makeup of Question Time audiences, and to decide which audience members get picked to ask questions of the panel.

And there's obviously a very serious problem with their selective enforcement of their own rules when it comes to certain politically partisan far-right audience members being given off air access to the panel before the show, whilst ordinary members of the public are expected to abide by the rules.


The woman in charge of picking the Question Time audience is Alison Fuller Pedley who has an extraordinary track record of controversy including sharing Britain First content on her (now deleted) Facebook page, colluding with a UKIP councillor to bring Question Time to his home town, inviting the EDL street thuggery group to appear in the Question Time audience, and following the Facebook page of an extreme-right hate mob called the British Patriot Front.

Whether she's a far right fanatic pushing her own personal agenda onto the show, or someone actively working to push extremist far-right ideas into mainstream political discourse it's appalling either way.

But as is the way with big institutions, whenever people complain about her antics, or the obviously partisan audience selections the BBC go into 'circle the wagons' ultra-defensive mode. And whenever people ask about the exact process they use for deciding the balance of audience members on their politics shows, they refuse the Freedom of Information requests.


The BBC has a "closed box" approach to their methodology for picking audience members and which audience members get to speak, the woman who runs this process has a concerning history of far-right activity, and they've just been caught red-handed giving an orange order bigot yet another speaking appearance on the show.

But given their long track record of ignoring criticism over their lack of political impartiality (including the extraordinary case where they gave a question to an extreme-right fanatic who was facing jail time for a disgusting string of online abuse and death threats) it's highly unlikely that anything will be done to reverse this Question Time trend of deliberately promoting far-right extremist views into mainstream political discourse.

As far as they're concerned far-right political views make cracking publicity for their show, hence the fact that they decided to actually Tweet Billy the Bigot's question, provoking absolute raptures from across the extreme-right online fringe.

Not only do they think they're doing nothing wrong by rigging their audiences and questions in order to push extremist far-right views into the mainstream, they actually see it as their job to do this.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Tory MPs are publicly promoting an imported extreme-right propaganda outfit


The Tories know that they're deeply unpopular with the younger generations, but instead of offering young people anything like actual reasons to vote Tory, numerous Tory MPs have secided to begin publicly promoting an extremely dodgy far-right propaganda outfit called Turning Point that has been imported directly from the United States.

The US chapter of this youth radicalisation programme has links to racists and white supremacists, spreads the anti-Semitic Nazi era trope of "cultural Marxism", and created a 'hit list' of supposedlty left-wing University professors for their followers to send abuse and death threats to.

Aside from their despicable tactics and dodgy political associations, the US Turning Point movement also have a propensity for ludicrous self-owns like the time they triggered universal ridicule for dressing themselves in diapers at Kent State University to protest against the concept of safe spaces.

There's absolutely no way that these Tory MPs can pretend that they don't know who is behind this far right youth radicalisation programme given that the founder has pumped £100,000 into Tory party coffers since 2017

And there's no way they can deny the links between this organisation and extreme-right propaganda outfits like Infowars and Breitbart, especially given the photographic evidence that the Turning Point UK leadership are associates of Infowars propagandist and soy salesman Paul Joseph Watson.

The Turning Point UK agenda is obvious. They're funnelling huge amounts of cash from dodgy mega-rich donors into efforts to radicalise young people on university campuses using the age old fascist technique of pretending that they're being censored in order to get the victimhood and self-pity vibe really going.

Tory MPs to have actively promoted this grotesque propaganda operation include Jacob Rees-Mogg, Priti Patel, Bernard Jenkin, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, and Steve Baker.

Noticeably all five of these Tory figures are Brexiteers, which makes their backing of a US-based mainly US-funded far-right indoctrination programmes on UK campuses seem rather unusual.
 

How can a bunch of people who never stop banging on about the importance of British sovereignty be so enthusiastic about the spread of imported far-right propaganda into British universities and British political discourse?

The answer is simple. They never actually gave a damn about sovereignty and simply saw Brexit as a convenient Trojan Horse to push their own radical right-wing agenda of scrapping workers' rights, food standards, environmental laws, freedoms from persecution, and consumer protections.

Thus their support for imported far-right Turning Point propaganda outfit derives from the fact that they're ideological blood brothers all pushing the same radically right-wing political agenda.

When UKIP attempted to jump on the alt-right bandwagon by signing up right-wing Youtubers like Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), Paul Joseph Watson (Prison Planet), and Mark Meechan (Count Dankula) people saw it as a last desperate effort of a dying political party to remain relevant.

Now that the Tories are embracing far-right propaganda tactics things are a lot more serious. This isn't just the crumbling edifice of Nigel Farage's publicity vehicle embracing the extreme-right in a desperate effort to remain relevant, it's the actual party of government embracing the extreme-right to try and stay in power.

The last time we saw the British government embracing extremism to such an extent was the 1930s when Tory MPs signed up in droves to pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups like The Right Club and the Anglo-German Link.

Scroll forward eight decades and the majority of Brits who made such enormous sacrifices to beat fascism during the Second World War have passed away, our cultural memory of the horrors of Nazism is fading, and imported fascism and anti-Semitism are right back in fashion in the Tory ranks.

Anyone who is not concerned by this latest Tory lurch to the extreme-right is just as complacent as those who ridiculed Winston Churchill and the anti-fascists in the 1930s for warning of the dangers back then.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Wednesday, 30 January 2019

If this is what "triumph" looks like, what would be a "failure"?


If you were the kind of person to believe what you read on the front page of the Daily Mail (stop laughing - some people do!) then today you'd be imagining that last night Theresa May engineered some kind of extraordinary political triumph which involved both "uniting her party" and "crushing Corbyn".

The reality of the situation is that Theresa May has pathetically caved in to the most fanatical fringes of the Tory-DUP axis that she cobbled together in order to stay in power after the failure of her 2017 hubris election.

Theresa May's capitulation was so humiliating that she was forced into whipping her MPs to vote against her EU Withdrawal Agreement (by supporting the Brady Amendment) so she can use this self-inflicted defeat to go back to the EU and pathetically beg for changes to the Irish border backstop that they've already categorically ruled out.

This is the deal that Theresa May and the Tory government just spent the last two months repeatedly describing as "the best possible deal", and yet they've voted against it themselves, and this humiliating U-turn is somehow a wonderful "triumph" according to the Daily Mail! 


The reason Theresa May and the Tories are behaving in this extraordinary manner is that they know that they can only get their pathetic shambles of a Brexit deal through parliament with the support of the Northern Irish DUP sectarians and the radically right-wing ERG Brextremist faction of their own party.

They've got to keep their rabble of a coalition together otherwise they'll surely be out of power for at least a generation, so that means brazenly defying the national interest by continually ceding ground to the most fanatical elements in their midst.

The farcical spectacle of Theresa May and the Tories putting their own party political interests above the interests of the nation as a whole to vote against their own damned Brexit legislation isn't even the worst part of this "triumph" either.

The worst part of it is that the Tory government is behaving in this extraordinary manner with the rest of the world watching on.

The world has seen our government agree to a deal with the EU27 only to turn around and vote to tear up what they've just agreed to.

Add in the continual Tory threat of launching a ruinous "no deal" Brexit and refusing to pay Britain's share of the EU's debts and liabilities, and it's making Britain look like an incredibly unreliable actor on the world stage.

After Brexit goes ahead the UK is already going to be in the desperate position of having to beg for trade deals with other economies that all know that we need the deals far more than they do ... but they'll also be well aware that the UK government is a bad faith actor with a track record of threatening to rip off their trading partners and deliberately tearing up diplomatic agreements they've only just signed up to.

Who on earth would sign a trade agreement with a rogue state like that?

One of the main Tory arguments in favour of Theresa May's hard line interpretation of Brexit has been the importance of being able to sign our own trade deals, but their farcical handling of the Brexit process is wrecking that very objective by portraying Britain as a hopelessly unreliable rogue state that refuses to abide by the deals it's only just signed up to.

Theresa May and the Tories are not just humiliating themselves by voting against their own damned legislation, they're also wrecking their own post-Brexit dream of 'trade deals galore' by trashing what's left of Britain's already shattered reputation on the world stage.

So how on earth is it possible for the Daily Mail to present this shambolic and humiliating Tory farce as a "triumph" for Theresa May?

The answer is that they simply can't bear to tell the truth.

They can't bear to admit to their readers that the Tory administered Brexit they've spent the last three years promoting has turned out to be a farcical and humiliating shambles.


They can't bear to admit that Theresa May is a leader without talent or authority who is being forced to dance to the tune of the most extreme elements of the Tory-DUP coalition that she cobbled together to save her own political skin in 2017.

They can't bear to admit that the British government tearing up the deals it's only just signed up to is absolutely destroying any prospects of a boom in post-Brexit trade deals.

And when the most dishonest newspaper in Britain is faced with uncomfortable truths about the failure of the political agenda they've been promoting, why would anyone expect them not to resort to outright deception?

Yes the deception is so brazen and ridiculous that nobody with any sense is going to fall for it, but Daily Mail hacks know that people with any sense are not their target audience, and they know that their readers are such a gullible bunch of idiots that they regularly take the piss out of their idiocy with cognitive dissonance inducing juxtapositions.

So they simply repackage Theresa May's latest shambolic and humiliating capitulation as a wonderful and glorious triumph and expect their idiotic readers to lap it up and believe every word of it.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Tuesday, 29 January 2019

Why do so many people get offended at facts they don't like?


Who is Ross Greer? 

Well according to Twitter he's a "laughing ginger turd", a "horrible little bastard", an "arrogant fool", a "pompous little toad", a "smirking offensive little twat", an "absolute fucking weapon", a "sneering sniggering little twat", a "horrible and hateful little shit", "a silly ginger cunt",  a "little idiot", a "snide spoilt little boy", an "ugly ginger little snowflake cunt", a "little liberal ginger jihadist", a "pompous weasel", a " stupid little dumb shit ginger", a "massive bell end", a "disrespectful ginger mutant", "the reason ginger people get picked on", a "slimy nonce ginger cunt""just a prick", and "everything that's wrong with this country these days"!

Blimey you might think. He must have done something pretty bloody bad to trigger such a massive outpouring of hate.

But you'd be wrong. All Ross Greer tried to do was to provide a bit of historical perspective on the legacies of Winston Churchill by talking about issues like Churchill's contempt for the working classes and his role in the Bengal famine.

However the problem with attempting to use facts and evidence to critique prevailing narratives like the lionisation of Churchill is that in modern Britain an awful lot of people get extremely angry and offended when confronted with facts that they don't like.

Of course Churchill deserves credit for getting some things right. When the Tory party and almost the entire British establishment class became utterly fixated by the lure of fascism in the 1930s Churchill was one of the few amongst them who defied this shocking trend because he rightly saw fascism as the danger it was.

And once he became Prime Minister Churchill recognised the crucial strategic importance of bringing both Russia and the United States into the war on Britain's side.


A more ideologically driven anti-communist (of which there were very many in the British establishment at the time) could have simply watched Russia fall under Nazi control rather than actively supporting the Soviet Union with the Arctic Convoys in order to keep Hitler's forces divided and fighting on multiple fronts as Churchill did.

Churchill was a sadistic Tory. He set the British army on striking workers in Scotland and south Wales, he had racist views on imperialist conquesthe was utterly indifferent to the starvation of millions of people in Bengal to the point of joking about why Gandhi hadn't died in it, he sent the black and tans to Ireland, before the war he'd been a supporter of poison gas and concentration camps, and after the war his government brutally repressed the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya through collective punishment, torture and castration.

But on the other hand when fascism was so trendy that his Tory colleagues were signing up in droves to anti-Semitic groups like the Right Club, and the royal family were indoctrinating the young Elizabeth to give Nazi salutes in their palace gardens, Churchill was one of the few amongst his peers to buck that horrifying trend.

The man was an enigma who is understandably glorified by many as a great war leader, but equally understandably detested by others because of his brutality and sadism. 

And as Churchill himself once said "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is".

But by telling the truth about some of Churchill's darker legacies on national television, the relatively obscure MSP Ross Greer has triggered an absolute tsunami of hatred and abuse from people who are offended by his facts.

Just look at Piers Morgan's conduct during the interview.



Instead of following a reasonably impartial line of questioning Morgan worked himself up into such a fit of rage that he couldn't even listen to the words that Greer was saying.


And this extraordinary adult tantrum was performed by a man who routinely denounces people on the left as being over-sensitive "snowflakes" who get offended by reality!

Suzanna Reid's behaviour was perhaps even more extraordinary than Morgan's when she brazenly straw-manned Greer's argument by plucking a comparison with Hitler out of thin air, and then described Greer's facts as "offensive".

It's not our TV presenters' role to invite people on their shows just to shout them down, lie about their argument, and dismiss their facts as "offensive". That's more of a circus than anything resembling informed debate.


And if our television presenters behave in this extraordinary manner, is it any wonder that members of the public also get so offended by facts that they don't like that they take to Twitter to hurl torrents of personal abuse at the deliverer of said facts?

Amongst the torrents of witless abuse one criticism of Ross Greer was particularly telling. After telling Ross to "fuck off" one of the triggered snowflakes claimed that Greer is "everything that's wrong with this country nowadays".

In reality the real problem with this country is glaringly obvious.

The problem is that there are huge numbers of people out there who get unbelievably angry at facts they don't like, who spew torrents of hate at anyone who dares talk about the facts they don't like, and who vote for dumb shit like giving the Tory party the green light to conduct "make it up as we go along" Brexit farce because they absolutely refuse to listen to the facts that they don't like.

The problem with modern Britain isn't that Churchill was a racist and sadistic imperialist, because that's now history.

Neither is the problem that some people want to introduce a tiny bit of historical balance by highlighting the fact that as well as being the war leader who led Britain in the fight against Nazism, Churchill was also a racist and sadistic imperialist, because that's simply the truth.

The problem is that we're becoming a nation full of emotionally unstable and over-opinionated adult toddlers who feel entitled to publicly abuse anyone who offends them with facts they don't like.

And the torrents of abuse aimed at Ross Greer suggests that this over-sensitive snowflakery isn't actually a left-wing thing either, coming mainly from right-wingers and ultranationalists.

Maybe this lot actually want to live in a country where it's considered normal behaviour for people to online bully a person to the extent of furiously smearing him as a paedophile, simply because they find his facts offensive?

But the damage these tantrum-throwing adult-toddlers are doing to the standard of political discourse, and to the nation as a whole, is pretty damned obvious to the rest of us.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR