The hard-right are now actually arguing there's "not enough Islamophobia within the Tory ranks"!

This week's Spectator magazine hosts an article by the right-wing agitator Rod Liddle calling for more Islamophobia within the Tory party.

This extraordinary call for even more anti-Muslim bigotry in the Tory ranks comes against a backdrop of Theresa May deliberately stonewalling Muslim people's demands for an inquiry into the shocking scale and frequency of Islamophobic abuse within the Tory ranks.

There's no denying that the Tory party is riddled with anti-Muslim bigots, from the rank and file all the way up to the top of the party. 

• How else is it possible to explain away the numerous examples of alleged Islamophobia throughout the Tory ranks?

• How else is it possible to explain away the regular outpourings of anti-Muslim hate on Tory social media accounts?

• How else is it possible to explain away Zac Goldsmith's disgusting anti-Muslim smear-mongering campaign during the 2016 London mayoral election?

• How else is it possible to explain away all the Tory councillors who keep getting busted for spewing anti-Muslim hate (and other forms of disgusting bigotry)?

• How else is it possible to explain away all the Tory MPs leaping to Boris Johnson's defence after he deliberately triggered an absolute tsunami of anti-Muslim abuse in the right-wing social media echo chambers by ridiculing Muslim women and calling for them to be denied access to public services unless they dress in a way he approves of?

One of the most bizarre things about Rod Liddle's Spectator article is that it starts off with one of his trademark transphobic rants, which is still going on as the article hits the paywall fadeout!

But if you do get beyond the paywall you find that Liddle is re-using the simplistic extreme-right trick of conflating criticism of the Islamic religion with bigotry and hatred towards Muslim people.

He tries to imply that the loony liberal left are somehow censoring people from criticising Islam by accusing those who criticise the religion of being Islamophobes.

It's an utterly misleading argument, but unfortunately right-wing idiots buy into it.

It only takes the briefest glimpse at reality to see that the majority of people criticising the vile homophobic, misogynistic, democracy-crushing, head-chopping, terrorism-promoting, tyrannical Saudi war criminals are lefties.
 

Meanwhile Theresa May and the Tories continually suck up to the vile Islamist Saudi tyrants in order to hawk them even more British weapons, and right-wingers like Liddle and his chums at the Spectator turn a blind eye to this absolute depravity.

In fact, the very same Boris Johnson who the extreme-right hate mob are lauding for sticking the boot into Muslim women this week is the very person who outlined the Tory government's position that Britain will continue selling weapons to the Saudi tyrants to commit their war crimes with because if we don't cash in on their war crimes, someone else might!

Then if you look at the countries that are banning arms sales to Saudi Arabia and openly criticising them for their grotesque human rights record, it's the kind of socially liberal governments that Liddle and the Spectaror mob regularly spit their hate at (Canada, Norway &Germany).

If you look at the UK politicians who do the most to oppose arms sales to Saudi Arabia while they're committing war crimes in Yemen, it's lefties like Emily Thornbury, Caroline Lucas, and Jeremy Corbyn (all hate figures for Rod and his mates in the Spectator mob).

If you look at people who are actually leading the fight against grotesque practises like female genital mutilation, forced under-age marriage, and rampant misogyny, again it's usually leftie liberals and western Muslim women doing the heavy lifting, while hard-right idiots like Liddle carp from the sidelines and use these issues as ammunition to call for even more bigotry and hatred towards Muslim people in general.
 

Let's get it absolutely straight. It's absolutely possible to utterly condemn vile Islamist regimes like Saudi Arabia, and to oppose barbaric practises that are still commonplace in the Muslim world (like FGM and forced marriage) without spitting bigoted Islamophobic vitriol at all Muslims in general.

In fact there's nothing Islamophobic about criticising the Islamic religion at all (especially if you're doing it from an atheist/agnostic stance that includes criticism of other religions too).

But if you're using cheap and nasty appeals to "our Judeo-Christian history" to deliberately conflate criticism of Islam with spewing bigotry and hatred at Muslim people (as Liddle does in his article), you're blatantly being an utterly disingenuous shit.

We all know that had a left-leaning magazine or blog posted an article that openly called for "more anti-Jewish bigotry in the Labour ranks" and created a ridiculously deceptive argument that the freedom to criticise Israel somehow justifies this call for more anti-Semitic abuse, there would have been an absolute tidal wave of condemnation, but somehow Liddle continually gets away with this kind of extreme-right trolling.

What's even more telling is that the BBC's heavyweight political presenter Andrew Neil is the chair of Spectator magazine which published this disgracefully deceptive article calling for more anti-Muslim bigotry in politics.

So next time you see Andrew Neil, or any other BBC journalist, spewing faux outrage about the Labour anti-Semitism row, just remember that Neil is perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to outright calls for more anti-Muslim bigotry in the Tory ranks, and that the BBC are quite happy to have Neil continue to be the heavyweight front man for their supposedly impartial political coverage.

 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

Just imagine the mainstream media outrage if a Labour MP posted something as bigoted as this

Now that the local elections have passed, the raging orchestrated Labour anti-Semitism bonfire has died down to embers, with few people ever having realised that anti-Semitism is actually way more prevalent in the ranks of the Tory party.

The reason people don't realise is that proof of rampant bigotry within the Tory party is rarely reported because it simply doesn't align with the mainstream media "groupthink" objective of undermining Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour opposition at every opportunity.

Of course there are pockets of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party (any organisation with 500,000+ members is always going to have difficulty rooting out every single person with bigoted views), and of course the Labour Party is correct to have set up robust procedures for dealing with bigots, but when the the ruling party is evidently over-run with bigots, it seems like an odd thing for the media to fixate upon.

Take the repeated calls for an investigation into rampant anti-Muslim hatred within the Tory party from Muslim groups like the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Tory MPs like Sayeeda Warsi.

These calls haven't just been ignored by the Tory party, they've been openly publicly ridiculed by Tory MPs!

And now consider the vile pro-Trump Tweet in the article header from the Tory MP Michael Fabricant that depicts the Muslim Mayor of London being fucked by a pig.

The fact that Fabricant thought this image was so hilarious that he actually shared it on Twitter is indicative of the extreme-right anti-Muslim bigotry that is absolutely commonplace within the Tory ranks.

Shockingly the mainstream media have remained absolutely silent on this overt display of anti-Muslim bigotry from a Tory MP.

There are two main reasons for this silence:

One reason is that anti-Muslim hatred has become so normalised in Britain after years of anti-Muslim hate-mongering in the tabloid press and online hate chambers like the Guido Fawkes hate mob and the (now banned) Britain First Facebook page. Thus in modern Britain anti-Semitism is (rightly) considered grotesque, while anti-Muslim hate barely registers as bigotry at all for millions of people, especially people who have been normalised to anti-Muslim hate by hard-right media sources.

Then there's the fact that highlighting proven examples of vile bigotry within the Tory party would be absolutely counter-productive to the mainstream media "groupthink" agenda of continually attacking and undermining Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour leadership.

Just to illustrate the point, consider how furiously mainstream media hacks would have reacted had it been a Labour MP sharing a picture of a Jewish person being fucked by a pig. Just consider the days of coverage they would have wrung out of the scandal in order to inflict as much damage on Labour as possible. And just consider the absolute silence over Fabricant's vile display of bigotry.

 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 Tories are actually trying to spin their anti-Muslim bigotry scandal as a vote winner!

After the Muslim Council of Britain and several senior Conservatives demanded an investigation into anti-Muslim prejudice in the Tory party, many on the left have been quick to point out the tiny flicker of mainstream media coverage on the issue in relation to the massive Labour anti-Semitism furore before the local elections.

The discrepancy in coverage is obvious, but it should come as no surprise at all given the relentless pro-Tory anti-Corbyn bias that not only dominates the print media, but also thrives on the supposedly neutral BBC too.

The allegations of widespread Islamophobia in the Tory ranks and specific accusations of anti-Muslim discrimination against Michael Gove and the Tory leadership should surely be getting more media coverage, but the reason these stories aren't getting much traction are obvious.

Of course mainstream media journalists don't want to scrutinise Tory Islamophobia to the same extent they attacked Labour over allegations of anti-Semitism. Firstly such scrutiny would run entirely counter to the mainstream media groupthink objective of protecting the neoliberal status quo by working to oust Jeremy Corbyn, and secondly "the Tory party is over-run with bigots" is really more of a common sense assertion rather than a groundbreaking news story anyway, isn't it? 

For me the huge disparity between mainstream media coverage of the Labour anti-Semitsm row and the Tory anti-Muslim allegations is actually secondary to another issue, the shockingly cynical Tory response to these allegations of widespread anti-Muslim bigotry in their own party.

While Labour took the position that anti-Semitism is wrong, and that it should be stamped out in all of society, including when it arises in the Labour ranks (the correct response), the Tories have signalled that they're absolutely fine with the allegations and have no intention of investigating them, or dealing with anti-Muslim bigots in their ranks.

The refusal to take the allegations seriously was exemplified by the new Tory Home Secretary Sajid Javid when he attempted to publicly delegitimise the Muslim Council of Britain rather than deal with their concerns over Tory anti-Muslim bigotry.

Labour admitted that they had a problem and proposed to take action to combat it and mainstream media hacks hounded them for weeks over it, and the Tories have basically said "fuck you, we're fine with it" and the mainstream press have largely left them alone.

The interesting thing here is that the Tory response to these allegations has been clearly calculated. They're not just adopting this "fuck you, we're fine with it" attitude because they expect to be allowed to get away with it by their chums in the mainstream media, they will also have considered the public opinion consequences too.

Given that the Tories are only clinging onto power at all because they managed to absorb the majority of the hard-right ultranationalist voters who fled the wreckage of UKIP, a belligerent "fuck you" response to accusations of widespread anti-Muslim bigotry in their ranks is likely to resonate a lot more strongly with this crucial demographic than an admission that anti-Muslim attitudes are wrong, and the launch of an investigation into the problem.

The Tories seem to have calculated that their "fuck you, we're fine with it" attitude will play so well with the large extreme-right ultranationalist demographic they're so desperate to appease, that it will easily mitigate any fallout amongst Tory voting Muslims.

The logic being that any Muslim who still votes Tory after the outrageous BNP stype anti-Muslim fearmongering campaign they ran for Zac Goldsmith's London mayoral campaign in 2015, is clearly also likely to tolerate their refusal to investigate widespread accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry in the Tory ranks too.

An admission of the problem and the launch of an inquiry into it would infuriate the crucial blue-kip demographic the Tory party has rendered itself utterly reliant upon, whilst their belligerent refusal to engage with the criticisms creates the impression that they're exactly the kind of bigoted extreme-right anti-Muslim party this hard right blue-kip demographic are looking for.

just think about it. British society has not yet drifted so far to the extreme-right that the Tories can come out and explicitly position themselves as an anti-Muslim party, but what's the next best thing to appeal to the extreme-right - ultranationalist - white-supremacist - anti-Muslim demographic?

Publicly attacking and delegitimising the Muslim Council of Britain, and clearly signalling that they have no intention of rooting out anti-Muslim bigots from their party would seem ideal for the purpose don't you think?

The Tories are actually playing their anti-Muslim bigotry scandal as a vote winner, knowing that to a significant swathe of right-wing people, rampant anti-Muslim prejudice is actually an attractive quality!

 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

Will Theresa May condemn Donald Trump for sharing Britain First bigotry?

At any other time in history the President of the United States deciding to actively publicise an extreme-right British political party would be an unprecedented scandal, but somehow this kind of lunacy has been happening virtually every day since Donald Trump entered the White House.

The bigot Trump decided to Retweeted three times to his followers is Jayda Fransen of the notorious extreme-right hate group Britain First, which is a spin-off from the BNP.

In 2016 the British MP Jo Cox was murdered in the street by an extreme-right fanatic who was heard yelling "Britain First" as he carried out the attack, and was also photographed campaigning with them in his local area too.

The problem isn't just that Trump decided to publicise anti-Muslim hate from a convicted extreme-right bigot who heads a truly vile extremist organisation, it's also that he's actively undermining the UK government promoting a rival political party.

Diplomatic convention has always been that elected leaders do not go around undermining the leaders of other states by promoting rival parties and politicians, especially not if the political rivals are a bunch of multiply-convicted criminals from the extreme-right fringe.

We all know by now that Theresa May is an abject coward who trashed her own election chances by refusing to debate her political opponents. We all saw how she hid herself away from the survivors and local residents in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We all saw how she scuttled off to America to heap praise on Donald Trump in her lamentable "begging bowl" speech, rather than stand up to him. We can all see how she's too weak to sack any of her government ministers, no matter how extreme their incompetence, disloyalty, or the pornography on their work computers.

So will Theresa May stand up for herself, for the United Kingdom, for the absolute fundamentals of diplomatic convention and basic human decency and tell Trump he's crossed a line by promoting this vile hate group?

Or will she hide away and pretend that it's of no great consequence that the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States has degenerated so rapidly and so dramatically that the actual President of the United States is publicising British fascist groups right in front of her face, while she sits by and does nothing?

 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 Spanish knew about Abdelbaki Es Satty's jihadist links, but they didn't bother to tell the Catalan police

The Islamist extremist who masterminded the August 2017 terrorist attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils had worked as an informant to the Spanish security services.

Spain's National Intelligence Centre (CNI) have admitted that they had contact with Abdelbaki Es Satty that began during his four year jail sentence for drug smuggling between 2010 and 2014.

It's also been established that Es Satty was known to the Spanish intelligence services when he first arrived in Spain in 2002, and that his contact details were included in the address books of the terrorists who carried out the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 193 people.

Es Satty was killed in an explosion in the bomb factory he was operating in the small Catalan town of Alcanar in August 2017.

The CNI have refused to admit when Es Satty stopped working as an informant for them, or how much he was paid. They also failed to intervene when Es Satty appealed against his deportation from Spain in 2015 because the court were presented with no information whatever about his links with Islamist terrorists.

The CNI have not offered an explanation for why none of the information on Es Satty's jihadist links and drug smuggling activities were ever shared with the Catalan police when it became clear that he'd settled in Catalonia either.

What's even worse is that despite the Spanish security services having failed to share the information they had on Es Satty with the Catalan police, Spanish sources in Madrid even set about briefing the press that the Catalan police were at fault for "missing opportunities to uncover the plot".

Given how the justice system works in Spain nobody in the Spanish intelligence agencies will ever face criticism, let alone punishment over this scandal, and if Es Satty was still working as an informant while he was actively plotting terrorist attacks, the fact will never be made public.

We know this because if you're part of the Spanish establishment you can walk free even after being found guilty of vast multi-billion Euro frauds (like Rodrigo Rato and Iñaki Urdangarin have), while if you're considered an enemy of the Spanish state you can be imprisoned without trial for "crimes" like peacefully promoting Catalan independence and organising a democratic vote.

It's absolutely no surprise that the Spanish legal system is widely regarded as the most corrupt in western Europe, and it would take an extraordinary display of wishful thinking to expect anything resembling a proper unbiased investigation into the Abdelbaki Es Satty scandal.

 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

Yet another worst possible take from the Daily Mail

Let's imagine for a moment that it's your job to work as a mercenary hack for an extreme-right propaganda rag. Your bosses want you to come up with an article defending the indefensible. 

They're terrified that the Westminster sex pest scandal is going to cost Theresa May the slim parliamentary majority that it cost her £1 billion in bribes to the DUP to obtain, so they want you to write an article defending the sex pests and denouncing their critics. So how would you go about it?

Well this is the scenario faced by the Daily Mail hack Peter Hitchens, and his solution to the problem was to equate the victims of sexual assaults and harassment to "militant Islamists".

The crux of his argument being that if women complain when powerful men grope them or harass them with sexist comments, then males in general are the actual victims, and women in politics should end up wearing a niqab or a burka as a safety measure.

Hitchens begins his torturous path to this absurd conclusion with a simple sleight of hand. he denounces anyone who complains about their abuse/harassment at the hands of a specific man with "the belief that all men should be assumed to be slavering sex predators", which he claims is a view they share with "militant Islamists".

It's interesting to see that Hitchens assumes his audience of Daily Mail readers to be so thick that they couldn't possibly differentiate between an allegation that "a specific man groped me" and an assertion that "all men are slavering sex predators".

Hitchens then tries to elicit sympathy for the sex pests by chastising the victims: "Any male action, any form of words you choose to disapprove of can and will be presumed to be guilty because, well, men are like that. The culprit will be ruined for ever" he whines.

Of course there is always the problem of a small minority of women who make false, malicious or exaggerated accusations against men. Women who not only attempt to trash innocent men's reputations, but also cast doubt on the testimonies of actual victims through their dishonesty. 

But this is not what's happening in the Westminster sex pest scandal, because several of the MPs have already openly admitted what they did (including the Tory MP Mark Garnier was actually allowed to keep his ministerial job after laughing off his massively inappropriate treatment of a female employee as if it was all just jolly japes).

Attempting to elicit sympathy for the alleged perpetrators of sexual harassment as if they're the victims is bad enough, but when many of them have actually already admitted their guilt, then it's just downright sick.

Hitchens' next move is the classic whataboutery tactic.

What about "the biggest constitutional crisis in a Century" he whines? And What about the country "wobbling on the precipice of bankruptcy"?

Under these circumstances, Hitchens opines, women who denounce the sexual misdemeanours of senior politicians are ridiculous, and will be "laughed at by future generations".

The obvious problem with Hitchens citing these specific whataboutery issues is that he makes no attempt to explain how the country ended up in such a parlous position. 

He makes no attempt whatever to explain that the "biggest constitutional crisis in a Century" is the absolute shambles the Tory party are making of Brexit, and the economic weakness of the country is a result of seven years of ruinous Tory austerity dogma.

It's way beyond insincere to raise these issues and just ignore the role the Daily Mail have played in all of this. His fellow Daily Mail hacks relentlessly promoted Brexit despite the fact that the Brexiteers had no plan whatever for how they were actually going to manage the transition, and they poured absolute derision on anyone who dared suggest that investment economics makes more long-term economic sense than the Tories' bonkers "let's cut our way to growth" austerity fetishism.

Hitchens then goes on to dig himself even deeper into his hole by pointing out that "Michael Fallon was one of the worst Defence Secretaries in history" in order to lament that Fallon wasn't made to quit because of his incompetence, but because he's not "safe in mixed company".

Again, Hitchens avoids the Daily Mail's role in all of this. In June 2017 Theresa May handed the British people a wonderful chance to remove Michael Fallon as defence secretary, but the Daily Mail churned out a relentlessly pro-Tory propaganda line for the entire General Election campaign which helped him back into office.

The Daily Mail worked tirelessly to convince their readers to keep Michael Fallon as Defence Secretary despite his obvious dishonesty, incompetence and blabber-mouthed lunacy, and now one of their main columnists is whining about the way that he's gone.

Given the Daily Mail's role in keeping this incompetent buffoon in his job, Hitchen's should actually be grateful that the women who succeeded in removing him by denouncing him as a sex pest. Instead of attacking them, Hitchens should actually be thanking them for clearing up another of the Daily Mail's messes.

After making an absolute fool of himself by citing three Daily Mail messes as more serious problems than sexual assault, Hitchens returns to one of his favourite themes; feminist-bashing.

When he says "the suspicion lingers that much of the current fuss is aimed mainly at making all men look wicked and grubby" he's displaying his paranoia.

When a sex pest is denounced as a sex pest (for stuff like groping junior staff and young journalists, sending sexual text messages to a teenager he only has the contact details for because she applied for a job in his office, misogyny, or sexual harassment) I don't find that I empathise with the perpetrator just because I too have a penis. 

I'm actually glad that they've been exposed as the creeps that they are, because I don't behave like that with women, so why should they be allowed to get away with it just because they've got power. wealth and authority?

Hitchens finishes off his article by proposing "the niqab, the burka, and the segregation of the sexes" as a solution, before having one more dig at the victims by implying that they're suffering from insanity for having spoken out.

In the middle of the article Hitchens prophesied that the victims of sexual misconduct would be laughed at by future generations, but my prediction is different: Future generations will be full of derision should they ever come across this display of paranoid, hyperbolic, and intellectually dishonest victim-blaming from a mercenary hack working for a fanatically right-wing publication that actually helped to create the whataboutery problems he cites as being more important than dealing with the allegations of sexual misconduct he's decrying.

Look at his anachronistic views on issues like love, marriage, and equality of the sexes they'll snigger. Look at the way he displays his shockingly compromised integrity and look at the way he uses intellectually dishonest tricks to fool the audience he arrogantly believes to be his inferiors.

What backwards times people lived in, future generations will wonder, that the people of Britain actually accepted such a repulsive blend of arrogance, divisiveness, misogyny, misdirection, victim-blaming and paranoia published by the propaganda arm of the thankfully long-defunct Tory party!

 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

Why are the mainstream media so relaxed about extreme-right terrorism?

Yesterday it was announced that the extreme-right terrorist organisation National Action had infiltrated the British army with at least four serving soldiers belonging to the banned white supremacist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi organisation.

Today the news cycle has already moved on to other things leaving the "neo-Nazis in the army" story to fade into old news obscurity.

Now just imagine if it had been a banned group of Islamist fanatics who had infiltrated the British army. Do you think the mainstream media would have let the story drop down the old news memory hole inside a single day?

We all know that the right-wing dominated media would only just be gearing up their intense campaign of anti-Muslim outrage if it had been Islamist fanatics instead of white neo-Nazis:

Outrage that British taxpayers' money has been used to train Islamist fanatics how to use weapons. Questions over why these fanatics weren't reported by the Muslim community. Demands that the Muslim community do more to confront the extremists in their midst. Insinuations that there's something inherent in Islam that causes people to become radicalised, and that all Muslims should be held collectively responsible.

But because the terrorist army infiltrators were white British neo-Nazis, the same kind of commentary goes unmade and the same kind of questions go unanswered.

Where is the outrage that British taxpayers' money has been used to train extreme-right neo-Nazi terrorists in the use of weapons?

Where are the questions about why the white communities didn't report these terrorists for their extremist views, or their membership of a banned neo-Nazi organisation?

Where are the demands that the white community do more to confront the growing number of dangerously radicalised extremists in their midst?

Where are the insinuations that there is something inherent in white culture that causes people to become fixated with disgusting extreme-right ideas like white supremacy, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and anti-Semitism?

Where are the insinuations that all white people should be held collectively responsible for the actions of a fringe group of violent ideological fanatics?

These questions haven't been asked because Brits, driven by the influence of the UK mainstream media, is clearly a lot less concerned about extreme-right radicalisation than they are about Islamist radicalisation.

Perhaps it doesn't matter as much to the mainly white-British mainstream media because they don't consider themselves the primary targets of extreme-right fanaticism?

History has proven how dangerous this relaxed attitude towards extreme-right fanaticism is.

When the fascists gain political power they begin by wiping out the left. People like me would be the first on their hit lists because they hate people like anarcho-socialists, left-libertarians, syndicalists, the green-left, and Marxists even more than the people they consider to be racially or genetically inferior.

After they've massacred the left, they turn their attentions to ethnic cleansing and enforced ideological conformity. If you have so-called "moderate" political views (rights-based liberalism, democratic socialism, traditional conservatism) then you'd better get with the fascist programme, or suffer the same horrible fate as the lefties, ethnic minorities, LGBT people, and the disabled.

Even after the extreme-right have brutally murdered a left-liberal MP in the street, and used the exact same methods as the Islamist extremists to murder pedestrians with vehicles in Finsbury Park and Charlottesville, the British mainstream media are still very much more relaxed about the growth of white supremacist fanaticism than they are about Islamist fanaticism.

For me they're two sides of the exact same ideological coin. They both have the same objective (an ideological war between Islam and the West); they both use extreme violence to further their cause; they both use hatred to divide people; they both represent a tiny minority of the cultures they claim to represent; they both hate liberal western values (democracy, the rule of law, social liberalism ...); and they increasingly use the exact same method of attack (ramming pedestrians with vehicles).

The fact that one is treated with so much less concern than the other by the UK mainstream media is deeply concerning because the hatred of the extreme-right fuels the hatred of the Islamist fanatics and vice versa.

Every time a Britain First follower writes a hate-filled diatribe about how much they'd love a campaign of anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing, or attacks random Muslims in the street, they're working as recruitment agents for the Islamist fanatics.

And every time an Islamist fanatic commits an atrocity against the west, extreme-right hate chambers like Britain First thrive by spewing their divisive hateful rhetoric.

In conclusion, the white community have a responsibility to deal with the growing number of extremists in our midst. The public have a duty to report people for hate speech and membership of extreme-right hate groups, and the mainstream media have a responsibility to treat extreme-right hate preachers and white supremacist terrorism with the same degree of seriousness as they treat Islamist hate preachers and Jihadist terrorist organisations.

 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 Beckton acid attack suspect has a history of sharing extreme-right content

Jameel Muhktar and his 21 year old cousin Resham Khan suffered severe life-changing injuries when acid was squirted through their car window in Beckton on Wednesday 21st June 2017.

The suspect in this attack against random innocent people is a man called John Tomlin who is about 6ft tall and has distinctive crying tattoos on his face. The police have warned that members of the public should not approach him, and call 999 if they see him or know his whereabouts.

A look at Tomlin's Facebook profile reveals that he has a history of sharing content from extreme-right hate groups like the Britain First spin-off "English and Proud".

This is far from the first example of someone having been radicalised by extreme-right Facebook hate groups going on to commit acts of sickening violence.

The extreme-right terrorist who murdered the MP Jo Cox was photographed at a Britain First demonstration (a picture that was reported to the police and to the mainstream media, but no action was taken); the suspect in the Finsbury Park terrorist attack followed the Britain First leaders on Twitter; and now the Beckton acid attack suspect has a history of sharing extreme-right Facebook propaganda too.

Of course extreme-right sympathisers will try to argue the case that Tommy Mair, Darren Osborne and John Tomlin are all mentally ill and not representative of the wider extreme-right.

The extreme-right "they're mentally ill - we're patriots" excuse is pathetic enough in it's own right, but coming from people who generalise about all Muslims based on the actions of a tiny violent minority, the hypocrisy is absolutely searing.

Just imagine the mentality of the kind of person whose first instinct is not to condemn this kind of savagery, but to make excuses for it.

“I honestly feel that if this was a white person attacked by an Asian…it’d be all over the news.” Acid attack victim tells #c4news his story pic.twitter.com/HPmNHcv5xj

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 29, 2017

Even if Tommy Mair and the two recent extreme-right terrorism suspects are all mentally ill, the extreme-right hate groups and their supporters who spread their propaganda all over social media are still clearly responsible because individuals resorting to acts of violence becomes inevitable when hundreds of thousands of people are subjected with daily bombardments of anti-Muslim propaganda, white supremacist ideology, and the kind of lawless lynch mob mentality that Britain First actively promote.

Screenshot of an extreme-right post that John
Tomlin shared on his Facebook profile.

Just look at the image that Tomlin shared. It's an absolutely clear incitement to, and glorification of violence. And just look at the absolute hero worship of people who carry out extreme-right atrocities that goes on in these extreme-right hate groups.

Of course the mainstream media, the government, the legal authorities, and Facebook will continue to ignore the links between extreme-right hate groups like Britain First and their spin-offs, because if a Britain First supporter yelling "Britain First" as he shot and stabbed an MP to death in the street wasn't enough for action to be taken against extreme-right social media hate-mongering, then clearly nothing ever will be.

We'll just have to witness a continuing succession of sickening atrocities committed by people who have been radicalised by extreme-right social media hate groups. 

We'll have to continue to witness these extreme-right attacks with the full knowledge that Facebook won't do anything about it because hosting extreme-right hate groups full of violations of their so-called community standards is a lucrative money-spinner for them, and that the government won't do anything because they have a much more tolerant attitude towards extreme-right hate preaching and its consequences than they do towards Islamist hate preaching and its consequences.

 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