Misogynoir

That’s some rough girls from Rutgers, man, they got tattoos…some hardcore hos, that’s some nappy headed hos there!

Don Imus

Image from imperial.ac.uk

Misogynoir is the dual discriminatory practices, behaviours and attitudes directed towards black women for their race and their gender. The term was coined by queer black feminist and poet Moya Bailey and is a portamenau of the words “misogyny” and “noir” – the latter being the French word for “black”. Bailey explained that she came up with the word to describe the unique ways in which Black women are presented by the media, and the deleterious effects it has on public perceptions of Black women:

“I say all this to say that it is important to me and to at least one other non Black person of color that the term is used to describe the unique ways in which Black women are pathologized in popular culture. What happens to Black women in public space isn’t about them being any woman of color. It is particular and has to do with the ways that anti-Blackness and misogyny combine to malign Black women in our world.”

Moya Bailey

Bailey credits the blogger Gradient Lair for popularisation of the term in current parlance. The basis of its usage is grounded within the framework of intersectionality and a womanist lens.

While existing stereotypes of black women such as the “angry black woman” or the “sassy black woman” alongside a long history that excluded and delegitimised black women from presentations of culturally acceptable femininity (at least, in proximity to whiteness) – early discussions and conceptions of misogynoir focused on the presentation of black women within hip-hop culture, suggesting that internalised oppression within the black community proliferated within popular culture. That said, Bailey and other observers were insistent on the social phenomena that is specific to the experience black women as a whole as a result of the prevailing cultures of sexism and antiblackness intersecting:

“Back in spring 2008, (I love the Gmail archive) I was talking to one of my best friends, Mia Mingus, about the ways that Black women are depicted in the media. She, a self described “queer physically disabled Korean woman transracial and transnational adoptee,” suggested that there could be a term to describe just that, because she too noticed that the way Black women were treated was different from other women of color. I played around with words and ultimately settled on misogynoir… I had other Black women, Whitney Peoples, Alexis Pauline Gumbs, among others, vet the term and we talked about its potential utility, its pros and cons. I started to use it on the Crunk Feminist Collective and members of the CFC started to use it too…It took on a life of its own on tumblr and it is amazing that so many folks I don’t know have taken it up and use it far more frequently than I have… I don’t know that lumping all other WOC into one category is useful, especially when the differences between us could help us root out our own internalized oppression.”

“I was looking for precise language to describe why Renisha McBride would be shot in the face, or why the Onion would think it’s okay to talk about Quvenzhané the way they did, or the hypervisibilty of Black women on reality TV, the arrest of Shanesha Taylor, the incarceration of CeCe, Laverne and Lupita being left off the TIME list, the continued legal actions against Marissa Alexander, the twitter dragging of black women with hateful hashtags and supposedly funny instagram images as well as how Black women are talked about in music. All these things bring to mind misogynoir and not general misogyny directed at women of color more broadly…”

Moya Bailey

Examples of instances commonly cited as misogynoir:

• The forced sterilisations conducted on working-class black women by doctors in the United States – of which civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer was the most prominent victim.
• British Member of Parliament Diane Abbott being the recipient got the greatest incidents of online abuse out of any other female MP, most of which target her for her gender and her race. Amnesty International reported that nearly half of all recorded abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the six weeks before the 2017 general election were directed towards Abbott alone.
• The allegations Meghan Markle made of the British Royal Family regarding a failure from them to protect her from being targeted by the British tabloid press, racialised comments made about her then-unborn son from members of Royal Family, and denying her access to mental health treatment as she suffered from depression.
• The derogatory comments made of Serena Williams’ physique and behaviour, notably the cartoon produced by Australian artist Mark Knight presenting Williams’ outburst towards an umpire during her match with Naomi Osaka in the 2018 Grand Slam final (Osaka herself is coded as white in the cartoon, despite being of dual Haitian and Japanese heritage).
• The aforementioned incident in 2007, with shock-jock Don Imus mocking the appearances of the mostly-black Rutgers University female basketball team.
• The lack of response from the Metropolitan Police to the disappearance of sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman; their bodies only discovered by their family and friends, and even photos of their bodies shared by police officers on WhatsApp.

There are many, many examples to describe misogynoir and are often summed up in two words, “black bitch” (or some other derivative). However, prior to 2010 there was never a word to describe the phenomenon. Gradient Lair also coined the term transmisogynoir to describe the discriminatory practices, behaviour and attitudes directed towards black trans women who face particularly disproportionate violence.

See also:

• Triple oppression
• Intersectionality
• Antiblackness
• Womanism
• Gradient Lair
• Hip-hop and women

The term “ZOG”

“ZOG” is a term which stands for “Zionist Occupational Government” – a conspiracy theory that claims that a government – principally one in the West, is under the control of Israel, or simply the Jews.

The term has been used by far-right activists of various stripes to describe how Jews secretly control the world, and that the nation they happen to live in is a vassal to Zionist power – “Zionist” now meaning more than a supporter of the state of Israel, but some form of racial hierachy that Jews stand on top, at least in terms of political influence.

“ZOG” has its ideological predecessor in the concept of “Cultural Bolshevism” – which defined its opposition to Communism by racializing the movement as a Jewish conspiracy. It also draws from the racial stereotype of the “greedy Jewish merchant” originating from the Middle Ages. Ironically, the basis for that stereotype was that banking was one of the few occupations that Jews in Europe were permitted to do because the Christian world then had strong prohibitions against usury.

Fascists and (neo-)Nazis have also historically hated liberal democracy, viewing it as a means to weaken a particular people. However, their hatred of liberal democracy stems from its essentialism and anti-modernist worldview. It despises plurality in favour of a unitary, binding ideology that can raise a people (specifically White people) and make it strong. A so-called Zionist Occupational Government, according to claimants is maintained by high immigration, promotion of multiculturalism, changing the powers of government to that of the control of finance, and subverting national banks. Primarily, the goal of “ZOGs” is the elimination of the White race. Proponents of this conspiracy theory are therefore usually opposed to international institutions and bureaucratic organisations.

Jews in this demonology are somehow inferior to white people and subhuman, yet are also able to maintain a covert means of global domination. Such an obvious logical contradiction should expose the entire concept to be preposterous. However, believers claim that it is due to the “parasitic” nature of Jews in the host peoples that weaken the latter and make the former strong. This “theory” inadvertently reveals the hidden anxieties of its believers: that their way of life either isn’t or didn’t start off in innocence, and of the insecure self-conception of the people who believe in it.

The logical conclusion of this conspiracy theory is as obvious as it is disturbing; the overthrow of the “ZOG” along with its “puppets”, and the maintenance of a highly authoritarian society. In other words, a society reproduced like the one in Nazi Germany. Its nature would make to be even more eliminationist of what they claim “ZOGs” are, and focused on the “strength” (read:propogation) of its people. This means even putting aside racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people would likely be under threat. “ZOG” exists as a placeholder term for the anxieties of having a familiar world, if only in conception – disrupted by change, and a reaction to return to a purer society.

Good article on the concept: https://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism

See also:

• “Cultural Marxism”
• Antisemitism
• Anti-communism
• Jewish global domination conspiracy theory
• White supremacy
  • “White genocide”
  • Whiteness as exclusionary

Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman

Bibaa Henry (1974-2020) and Nicole Smallman (1993-2020) were two sisters who were murdered on the 6 June 2020 just hours after the former’s birthday was celebrated. Their killer, Danyal Hussein, was not known to either sisters and targeted them to fulfill a ‘pact with a demon’. After the family grew concerned about their disappearance, they contacted the police. However, according to the mother of the sisters, Rev. Mina Smallman, the police were very negligent in investigating their disappearance, leaving family and friends to look for them themselves. Rev. Smallman believes the reason for this was that they were black and working-class.

Bibaa Henry lived in Brent and worked as a social worker for Buckinghamshire Council. Her father was Herman Henry, a former ABA featherweight champion. Bibaa was known to her colleagues as “a lovely woman who was both serious and fun”, a fierce adovcate of safeguarding children and at-risk families. She would drive children with disabilities to their activities, and sing to them to make it a merry journey.

Nicole Smallman lived in Harrow, and was a freelance photographer who graduated from the University of Westminster. She had a passion for the arts, would make documentaries, sing and act. Her friends described her as “a joy to be around”. Nicole also had a passion for humanitarian and environmental causes. Her parents Christopher and Mina, described her as “a child from the 60s”, beautiful within and out.

Their mother, Mina Smallman – worked as a receptionist, teacher, an assistant principal, and later went into the priesthood. She became the first black female archdeacon for the Church of England, serving as Archdeacon for Southend between 2013 and 2016.

To celebrate Bibaa’s 46th birthday consistent with COVID-19 regulations, the sisters and their friends went to Fryent County Park in Wembley. One of the last photos shows them frolicking with fairy lights in the park. It was moments before they would be attacked, and eventually killed.

When neither of the sisters returned home from the park, Ms. Henry’s friend – Nina Esmat; and Ms. Smallman’s boyfriend, Adam Stone, both became worried. When the phone calls received no response, Mr. Stone contacted the police. He claims that a different person spoke to him every instance he did this. Mr. Stone and Ms. Esmat then resolved to take up searching for Bibba and Nicole themselves – the former with his parents, while the mother of the sisters tried contacting the police again to get them to follow up on when they would initiate the search, and follow up on the attendees of the party.

Agonising hours were spent searching in the park, until Nina Esmat discovered Bibaa’s sunglasses. She feared the worst, and called the police, who told her to take them to the police station. Adam Stone and his father found shoes and a knife respectively in an undergrowth. Upon taking a futher look, Mr. Stone had found his girlfriend and her sister. He screamed and wept upon the sight of their lifeless bodies. Ms. Henry had been stabbed eight times, while Ms. Smallman was stabbed 28 times trying to defend herself.

They were killed by Danyal Hussain, a teenager whose motive for killing them was to fulfill a pact with a demon called “King Lucifuge Rocofale” to reward him with a £321million lottery jackpot if he killed six women every six months. Hussain was referred to the Prevent programme for deradicalisation when he was 15 when he communicated with others online displaying an interest in the far-right and Norse mythology.

Adding to the sense of contempt by police, two police officers were found to have taken selfies with the bodies of Ms Henry and Ms Smallman, and shared them on WhatsApp. The officers were charged with misconduct and an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found six more officers under investigation for not reporting and challenging the act.

Danyal Hussain was arrested and charged with two counts of murder on 30th June 2020, appeared before the Old Bailey on 11 March 2021, pleading not guilty; and after a month long trial on the 9th June 2021, was found guilty. He is due to be sentenced in September. Friends and family of the murdered sisters noted his childish and taunting gestures at them.

The family of the sisters are considering suing the Metropolitan Police for misconduct in the handling of their case. Friends and family of the sisters also say that unlike Sarah Everard and other white women murdered by strangers, the public reaction has not been anywhere close. The Rev. Mina Smallman said this on the matter:

 “I think the notion of ‘all people matter’ is absolutely right, but it’s not true. Other people have more kudos in this world than people of colour.

That’s what gives me purpose – if their lives make a change in the way women are viewed, and black women in particular.

In the pecking order of things we are the lowest on the ladder.”

A hearing is due on 12th July 2021, on the two officers charged with misconduct for taking selfies of the bodies of Ms Henry and Ms Smallman.

See also:

• Violence against women
• Femicide
• Misogynoir
• #SayHerName
• Sarah Everard
• Abolish the police

What is the “Prevent strategy”?

Prevent is one of the four elements that form CONTEST – the counter-terrorism strategy implemented by the British government. Its aims are to prevent people from turning to terrorism – by encouraging others to look for tell signs of extremism. It was introduced in 2003, and had its scope expanded in 2011. Curiously, the programs definition of what exactly is considered ‘extremist’ is fairly nebulous, and smacks of authoritarian overreach. More importantly, it serves to drive a wedge between marginalised groups – in this instance, Muslims – within their communities, pressuring them to turn over people within the community suspected to being radicalised to an extremist ideology. The Prevent strategy is also implemented in public institutions such as schools and universities, prisons, hospitals and charities. Local authorities are tasked with using ‘multi-agency groups’ in the coordination of Prevent activity, such as Community Safety Partnerships, Local Safeguarding Children Boards, and Youth Offending Teams. Local authorities are also instructed to use the existing counter-terrorism local profiles (CTLP) as a risk assessment to individuals drawn to terrorism, and to appropriate – or in this case, outsource – staff familiar with Prevent to look for signs of someone drawn to terrorism and the tools used to resolve the issue.

The stated goal of Prevent is:

“…to deal with all forms of terrorism and with non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists then exploit.”

In practice, what this amounts to is anything from listing climate activists such as Extinction Rebellion on a list of organisations that have “extremist ideologies”, to a pair of children been put on the Prevent program for telling a teacher they were given toy guns (the children werent even raised under a religion). NHS trusts have reported that mental illness was a “significant factor” in referring people to the Prevent program – one trust had as high as 98% not going past the channel process.

In spite of all the controversies that have accompanied it, opposition from civil liberties groups, charities, and unions; Prevent is not likely to be scrapped. Quite the opposite: It is much more likely to be expanded. It continues to exist because of Islamic terrorism, which continues to exist because Western nations can’t stop invading Middle Eastern ones for oil. It continues to exist because the people who pushed for it only found fault with it when groups that they didn’t like applied for Prevent-related funding and argued not for it to be scrapped, but for tighter controls and greater scutiny towards ‘terrorist-supporting’ groups who are taking the money. It’s because Islamophobes in Parliament, including Labour MPs who pearl-clutch about predatory Pakistani men – think it’s good.

It is because Britain – rather than accept a multiplural society with different peoples and customs – the British state has to install its hegemony – which means learning and accepting a code known as “British values”, and then demanding that “the Other” (again, in this case – Muslims) accept and then ‘integrate’ it into their daily lives.

See also:

• Counter-terrorism and repression
• Maajid Nawaz
• ‘War on terror’
• New Labour and civil liberties
• New Labour and the neoconservative agenda

Quick Updates: George Floyd, Lockdown, And Other Stuff

To be honest, a lot has went on. Pretty much every day I get involved in some form of activism is every three weeks that I do not write. Technically, I ‘write’ all the time – as does everyone in the digital age – but I imagine that you know what I mean by this. I’ve been musing a bit about whether to instead set up a Medium page instead, but I guess that would have to mean abandoning this website in favour of another one – and approaching a whole new outlook on this – particularly with respect to the anonymity that I have previously maintained. It’s a bit annoying since this announcement has come when I’ve written in total less than forty posts so far. Most of the ones that I do follow somehow are able to squeeze out dozens in a month. I can scarcely imagine the level of free time that these people actually have. Nevertheless, these are the topics that I have in mind:

Racial injustice

It’s on everyone’s lips after the dying scream heard around the world. It’s been exactly a month since the murder of George Floyd on the hands of police, particularly one Officer Derek Chauvin, who after pinning him to the ground, forced his knee into Floyd’s neck as he begged for his life. This came at a pivotal moment in human history – particularly the coronavirus pandemic and video-sharing across social media – millions across the world saw the final moments of a 46-year old black man in America whose life ended because he was alleged to have forged a $20 bill. The protests that took place across America has overshadowed almost completely the presidential race and has – at least for the moment reshaped the politics and society as never before. While the Civil Rights Era remains on the public consciousness as comparative event, even that was never in comparison to what has occured over the past month. More so, the reaction triggered an international show of solidarity in support of the Black Lives Matter movement – and included their contemporary instances of racial injustice. Media (both traditional and online) and the public space in those countries have either responded affording it the space with sensitivity towards the situation or having the conservation thrust upon them with the removal of statues and works represnting racial oppression. This article is coming very soon.

The lockdown of lockdown

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an end of the regular daily Downing Street press conferences of the coronavirus situation in the United Kingdom and has all but indicated that lockdown measures are slowly being lifted – people can meet up to “two households” and up to six people from different households. Public places such as the library, community centres, places of worship, playgrounds and gyms would be able to open provided that measures are taken to limit the transmissions. The same with cinemas, bars, hotels and campsites. The recommended social distancing has now reduced to 1 metre between other people. All of these are to take place from 4th July. It is worth noting that there have been many false starts thanks to the inconsistent and in some cases, overly optimistic assessment of the containment measures that had taken place – leading to a confused message and several instances of people flouting the government advice. It being summertime also plays some part of it. Officially, there has been an estimated 300,000 cases of coronavius, with 43,000 deaths – though the real number could well be as high as 70,000. Perception of Boris Johnson’s has plummeted over the weeks – and he has resisted so far all attempts of an inquiry into his government’s response to the crisis. This too, will receive an article in due course.

Other stuff

Topics like my ever mosaic daily routine, and current thoughts on party politics – and the scope of possibility of a different system are playing in my mind. The problem is the range of stuff that I’m up to occupying my time – not all of them are urgent, but must are educational. I would say everything in some form is “educational”, but there you go. There’s also the edts to old articles that I’ve not come around to doing, but that will happen very soon. Beyond that, this space is gonna be open for a while.

The Meaning of Trevor Philips

On the 8th March 2020, Trevor Philips was suspended from the Labour Party.  Trevor Phillips has – for a very long time now – used his platform as the former EHRC head to voice his dismay at the current generation of activists from multiple marginalised communities, and indeed those in support of those activists – on the basis that they’re trying to undermine freedom of speech. Indeed, in his last documentary Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?, Philips attempts to make the case that social justice activists are now more concerned with condemnation of regular people and policing behaviours than making British society more equal. At one point, he likens them to Stalinists and Maoists. What powers these activists and groups have to “silence” or “police” people beyond a reaction from the intransigent prone to complain about political correctness he hadn’t clarified. But as a consistent appeaser to reactionaries, aggreived Little Englanders, “Very Serious People” and the wider “freeze peach” crowd, it was as much as anything he’s done recently.

Naturally, you will not find an ally in Trevor Philips in me. That the first president of the National Union of Students had reduced himself to the proverbial man ranting at cloud is regrettable but not entirely unexpected. He was always a simpering liberal. For him, the road to racial equality at the end is engaging in respectability politics and victim-blaming as its means – viewing material gains through his elitist lens. I recall in the documentary Things We Can’t Say About Race That Are True his framing of the interview he conducted with Les Ferdinand on racism in football to make a point about the “real taboo”: black bosses. Not Ferdinand’s brother Anton being called a “black cunt” by John Terry. Apparently the lack of black coaches in English football is the real problem and not the underlying culture that allows for this problem. He did this again fairly recently, regarding the the lack of representation of BAME people in executive positions in business. This is the fight that Philips was really interested in: Whether our corporate overlords are black or brown, than whether or not they can feel comfortable in the streets or a workplace without having dehumanizing jibes thrown at them. Black faces in high places.

It is from this respectability politics that Philips is motivated to oppose multiculturalism – and went to head with Ken Livingstone during his tenure as Mayor during the early years of the Greater London Authority, and invoked the ire of Operation Black Vote. It is also where his apparent issue with Muslims – which is the basis for his expulsion from Labour – seems to come from. For him, Muslims seem to represent a faction within British society that is impervious to ‘integration’. Consistent with the patrician faction of liberals such as Anthony Flew, Richard Dawkins and Anthony Giddens – Philips identifies multiculturalism as a threat to Britain, following a curiously crude interpretation of it existing as British state being the manager of different identity groups – all apparently monolithic, steadily encroahing on the British core in exchange for their culutral values remaining untouched.

His anti-Muslim animus motivated him in writing and on TV, to continuously refer to the Rochdale sex trafficking scandal, arguing that authorities ‘not wanting to look racist’ addressing the problem of Pakistani men grooming young girls – who were white. No mention of the lack of trust the authorities had within Asian communities, or indeed that ‘white’ (non-Muslim) grooming gangs are greater in number. No, just blame the victim – the Pakistani and Muslim community as a whole. It’s ‘cultural relavitism’ that have them a chance to exploit those girls, and the Left making excuses for them. They are a ‘nation within a nation’. Giving the amount of times he blames the Left for teachers not supporting black students, for protecting the feelings of Muslims who were “segregating”, and other grievances – I can’t help but womder whether his issue is really with the Left, or whether it is a convenient all-encompassing shorthand for identity politics and marginalised groups as a whole, but he feels he can’t outright say every individual group he charges with victimhood. If anything, other than Simon Danusck, I’ve never seen a more right-wing Labour Party member, or a former equalities campainer and leader work so hard to undermine the gains in British society.

Philips now charges the Labour Party of having become a “totalitarian cult”. Perhaps he should have spent more time musing and speaking on whatever draconian policies the party has, instead of suggesting that the Labour Party has a uniquely anti-Semitic culture that needed to be addressed.

See also:

• “Freeze peach” (coming soon)
• A list of Labour Party suspensions/expulsions on racism allegations (coming soon)
• Black liberals (coming soon)
• Red-baiting (and why reactionaries do it) (coming soon)
• Respectability politics (coming soon)
• Multiculturalism (coming soon)
• Can black people be racist? (coming soon)

Idiots should stop using that fake Voltaire quote to defend their racism

“They are not men, except in their stature, with the faculty of speech and thought at a degree far distant to ours. Such are the ones that I have seen and examined.” – Voltaire on black people.

The polymath and satirist Voltaire today occupies an esteemed position in history as one of the major figures of the Enlightenment period. He wrote around roughly 2,000 books and his works covered a diverse range of topics from plays and studies of the theatre to history, politics, philosophy and the natural sciences. He is remembered as one of France’s greatest writers.

He was also incredibly racist. And not in the “well everybody had those views at the time” kind of racist. He was vehemently racist even by the standards of his time – putting the veneer of intellectual respectability to what was to become known as scientific racism. The depths of his anti-Semitism is still debated amongst scholars but it is broadly agreed that it went well beyond the sardonic streak found in his anti-clerical rhetoric, and owed much more to a biological essentialist view of Jews. In other words, he was a racialist.

Today, in the Information Age (for lack of a better them) – modern cranks, conspiracy theorists and other related paranoiacs who can’t or won’t read his works find it considerably easier to quote – or misquote him on the internet. And so we see stuff like this:

As I said before, Voltaire didn’t say it – and he wouldn’t anyway. The man was famous for decimating the sacred cows of French society during his time, and as a polemicist, he made a living of winding up the French establishment. It is also an erroneous statement – you don’t need to criticize a group who should not be criticized to know your rulers. They often make a show of making themselves known, and even the ones who don’t would be so powerful, it renders criticism irrelevant. The influence of the critics is what encourages a reaction – not the criticism itself. But we’ve already entered into conspiracy-land so logical consistency is not what we’re going to find dealing with this.

This is one instance where it can be said that this is a blatant dog-whistle for Jews, since almost every time, it leads into some tripe around “Zionist-controlled government” or something. I first saw it in relation to “Gamergate”: the manufactroversy born from the gaming community fuelled by the conspiracy theory that video game developer Zoe Quinn slept with a game reviewer for good reviews for her game Depression Quest*. Once they directed their attention to media critic Anita Sarkseesian (…for some reason – possibly being a woman who approaches video games from a feminist analysis) – it became weirdly anti-Semitic (Sarkeesian has Armenian heritage, not Jewish) and got into some overlap with the beginnings of the alt-right movement. Sad to say, I’ve seen it used by segments of the left as well.

During the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, a number of individuals and Jewish organisations insisted that Corbyn had introduced to the party a scale of anti-Semitism unseen in decades. Multiple studies on the prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes by Labour Party members suggested that while anti-Semites almost certainly did exist in the Labour Party – the number was even less than what could be found in comparable political organisations. Despite this, the groups which were Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement and others insisted that the atmosphere had become increasingly hostile towards Jewish members, some even going as far as to charge Corbyn himself with anti-Semitism.

As the furore intensified, an aggravated section of Corbyn supporters – who sensed (rightfully) that this had much less to do with an earnest concern around anti-Semitism becoming acceptable in British society, and more of a panic that a potential Corbyn-led government could mean the shift in the United Kingdom’s relationship with Israel – and with such a visible supporter of Palestinian rights as Prime Minister could mean greater pressure from the the UK for Israel to impove its human rights; expressed their anger in various ways – from condemning the Parlimentary Labour Party members who weren’t being team players (many of them were also members of Labour For Israel), to hostile (or at least critical) media journalists – this section charged them alike as “Zionist”. It grew significantly worse when the Labour Party lost the general election in December 2019, and some of those groups who charged Corbyn’s Labour with anti-Semitism seemed to boast about “destroying Corbyn”**.

Infuriated with the barriers that denied Corbyn the satisfaction of being Prime Minister – the section of the supporters became increasingly rabid. Some of them declared their departure (while not actually leaving) when left-wing candidate for Labour Party leader Rebecca Long-Bailey seemed to have a friendlier relationship with the JLM (ironically, Corbyn himself tried to give a fig leaf to the JLM) and made promises to deal with the anti-Semites in Labour. The more brain-dead of them started posting that false quote whenever the Labour anti-semitism controversy came up, indicating either a descent into racism, or bog-standard unthinking crankery. To explain why this is the straw that broke the camel’s back for me is to have an understanding of why using that quote is a complete self-own whatever the context or motivations – and why it can really piss off a saner person who happens to fly the same red flag:

Taken from the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

This man is Kevin Alfred Strom. A former member of the John Birch Society, presumably because they weren’t fascist enough for him, he joined the National Alliance – a white supremacist organisation led by neo-Nazi William Pierce. He was the editor of its pamplet – the National Vanguard.  After Pierce’s death in 2002, despite being the heir apparent for leadership of the NA, he was passed over in favour of former boxer Erich Gliebe. In 2007, he was arrested from his Virginia home for possessing child pornoography, and charged with possession along with witness tampering. After agreeing to a plea deal, he was sentenced to 23 months in prison – of which he served four months. Southern Law Poverty Center described Strom thus:

“Arguably the only true intellectual remaining in the American neo-Nazi movement following the 2002 death of National Alliance founder William Pierce, Kevin Alfred Strom is a bookish yet dogmatic neo-Nazi whose predilection for child pornography ultimately ruined his efforts to claim his former master’s legacy.”

The strongest attribution of the quote “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you’re not allowed to criticize”, is to him. He is a true believer of the “Zionist Occupied Government” conspiracy theory. Ergo, when cranks “quote Voltaire” because they’re pissed off with “Zionists” (or women) – they are unwittingly quoting a neo-Nazi convicted peadophile. And worse, some of them will insist they’re not racist – which Voltaire was!

It is that jaw-droppingly stupid, but in an age where attention spans are so short – the implications of using a dog-whistle so blatant is lost on them. In the pursuit of faux-depth by trying to quote a “galaxy-brain” French fop, reveals the true shallowness of these people.

In summary: Fuck Voltaire. Fuck Nazis. And fuck anyone who can’t let go of paranoid bullshit like this.

Notes:

*The ruumours of Zoe Quinn sleeping with a game reviewer to get good reviews was started by a spurned ex-boyfriend, who later retacted some of his comments.

**If sincere about this statement, the commenter was then, surprisingly grandiose, and overestimated his own capacity to bring about Corbyn’s collapse. If anything, Brexit damaged Corbyn more than anti-Semitism.

See also:

• “ZOG”
• “Cultural Marxism”
• The Enlightenment and respectable racism
• What do you mean by “globalist”?
• Anti-semitism
• Dog-whistle politics

BBC, Naga Munchetty, Racism and Faux-Neutrality

BBC News presenter Naga Munchetty. Picture taken from Metro.co.uk

On September 24th, the BBC reprimanded newscaster Naga Munchetty for overstepping the broadcaster’s editorial guidelines. The reprimand came in response to Munchetty “deviating” from a neutral standpoint after a segment of BBC Newshour hosted a supporter of Donald Trump to defend comments the US President had made to four sitting congresswomen – Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Priestley and Rashida Tlaib. Trump tweeted:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

Three of the four congresswomen Trump targeted were born in the United States. Ilhan Omar is a naturalized citizen, and came to America when she was a baby. She has no memories of Somalia. Trump’s grandfather was a German, and he himself is married to a Slovenian wife.

However, they were women of colour, and therefore it’s easier for Trump and other white people who find it acceptable to express those sentiments to use the “go back to your country” line.

Trump also express belief in and propagated the Obama birth citizenship conspiracy theory in 2011, demanding that Obama present his birth certificate. It should be obvious to everyone that the man currently sitting in the White House is a racist. However, other racists – who seek to mask their racism in palatable discourse, play the language of obfuscation and, on occasion, red-baiting.

Sometime after the segment, Dan Walker expressed incredulity that the president of the United States could make such statements publicly, providing an anecdote on a person – likely a woman of colour – who said that in her experience, “go back to where you came from” comments were a regular experience but she has never been told by the POTUS prompting Naga Muchetty to concur and agree with those sentiments in this exchange:

Munchetty: “…And every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go home, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism. Now I’m not accusing anyone of anything here, but you know what certain phrases mean.”

Walker: “Are you still told that, do you hear it quite regularly?”

Munchetty; Yes. Well, not as regularly, but I have been told it.”

The BBC Twitter page on July 17th 2019 posted a tweet of the segment, presumably for its followers to consider the strength and seriousness of the discussion – presenting it as a watershed moment. However, the BBC received a complaint from a viewer who saw the presenters comments as a breach in its neutrality, reading:

“Blatant political bias from both presenters. Dan Walker, whilst interviewing a guest about President Trump’s recent tweets regarding 4 Democrat politicians in the USA, repeatedly expressed incredulity that anybody could defend Trump’s tweets. Very unprofessionally, he then asked his fellow presenter Naga Munchetty for her personal opinions on this news story! She foolishly complied with his request and launched into an attack on Trump, including that she was personally furious with his comments.

These two presenters have never made any secret of their left-wing and anti-Trump bias but usually in more subtle ways, such as eye-rolling and looks of exasperation when reporting on news stories. However, personal commentary on controversial news stories is surely going too far and is outside of their remit. They are employed as presenters not political commentators and as such, should at least feign impartiality. It’s about time they were reminded of this.”

The complaint surely came from a reactionary and a racist. The reason why I make this charge is that the basis of their complaint was a personal anecdote of one of the presenter’s personal experiences of racism, and the dog-whistles that were used in them. In other words, the discussion wasn’t about Trump. It was about how Trump, or others use dog-whistle terms.

It’s about the term “go home”/”go back to where you came from”. The segment is about the degree to which Trump and his support base understand that expressing those sentiments convey a racist and xenophobic worldview. Trump supporters and indeed, the person who issued a complaint in this instance – often perform mental gymnastics and display cognitive dissonance in defending these comments if they understand that racism is objectionable – but the very person they support acts and says things that are racist. I  once ended a friendship with someone who failed to explain how Trump can’t be a racist (I gave him the trap of proving a negative proposition) – one claim he made was that Donald Trump was previously married to a Mexican woman (which was false) and he gave unsourced opinion pieces.

The complaint charged Walker and Munchetty with attacking Trump, which they didn’t do, and instead danced around the elephant in the room, to protect BBC’s commitment to “neutrality”. The evidence for “left-wing bias” as “rolling eyes” in segments the person was unable to provide as examples. It suggested that Munchetty was acting foolish in giving a personal account of her experience of racism in response to a comment of Walker’s, and charged that Munchetty was personally furious with Trump, even though she gave no such personal view of Trump, and even refrained from naming anyone she thought was a racist. She said Trump’s comments were racist. Which they are. The complaint therefore is from a reactionary and a racist, who like many racists – is more concerned with the “r-word” (racism) on his/her/their TV than tackling racism.

However, the BBC apparently thought that a complaint from this racist was enough to take seriously, presumably to protect its image of neutrality. Its Executive Editorial Complaints Unit came to the ruling that Naga Munchetty overstepped her boundaries, and breached its guidelines, issuing a reprimand of her conduct. Dan Walker received no such punishment. This speaks to a wider issue in which people of colour, particularly women of colour being vocal about discrimination and the prejudice they experience working in the media industry. Much of BBC’s staff rallied to the support of Naga Munchetty, with some even arguing that the Editorial Complaints Unit was filled with old white men, who do not understand what those comments signal to people who navigate life as an ethnic minority. Management even told its staff to refrain from tweeting support of Munchetty.

However, on 27th September 2019, an open letter to the BBC was published by the Guardian, expressing its solidarity with Naga Munchetty and demanding it overturn its decision to censure her. The letter was signed by over 60 BAME figures of the entertainment and media industry, including Lenny Henry, Afua Hirsch, Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ayo Akinwolere. The saga also provoked commentary from Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid, and Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn in Munchetty’s support. The political pressure exerted forced the BBC to rescind its censure on Munchetty.

While for some this does issue questions on confidence of the BBC’s impartiality, particularly if its pressured to rescind a decision it has made, for me it confirms one clear fact – the BBC is not, and never has been, impartial. The editorial line of the BBC is in line with the hegemonic discourse of those with power – caters to those with power, and goes out of its way to mollify frustrated right-wing cranks. There is a reason why Nigel Farage – a persistent critic of BBC’s “left-wing bias” has appeared over 30 times on BBC Question Time. Authors who complain about the “left-wing bias” of the broadcaster, have a high-chance of appearing on their station. Complaints about the BBC being “anti-business” is the reason why it stopped broadcasting union strikes, in favour of business reports – even in the early morning. All the better for business elites flying over to the UK to get their dose of information relevant for them. It will not report on Sisters Uncut or for the London Renters Union.

The BBC is not neutral. The BBC did not replay the late Darcus Howe’s comments on the 2011 London riots – and Fiona Armstrong even went as far as to suggest he was “no stranger to riots” (She offered a public apology). This is victory, but a small victory in a much wider struggle in reporting in public broadcasting – the mildest and most personal accounts of racism by one of its flagship presenters can quickly get shutdown by the BBC because it’s more concerned about maintaining its illusory of balance and giving way to rightist gripes than defending its own staff.  It decided to pull rank because it felt that for more far-right guests and enablers to use its platform, it would have to punish its own, and what better than an uppity black woman talking about racism?

A truly leftist media platform cannot occupy these corporate mouthpieces “to change from within” – a counter-narrative is required to investigate the issues affecting the marginalised in society – this in of itself would represent a critique of media discourse in the UK. Novara Media seems to be a good example of this criteria, but it’s early days. Bias is everywhere, and every mouthpiece has it. The BBC’s attempts to hide its bias in response to a right-wing griper is far more insidious than any extremist media outlet.

See also:

• The BBC and neoliberalism (coming soon)
• Darcus Howe and the BBC (coming soon)
• “Neutral news sources” (coming soon)
• Ideological warfare (coming soon)
• Stuart Hall’s How to Read the Media (coming soon)
• A history of Black people in broadcasting (coming soon)
• How to tell if someone is a racist (coming soon)
• What right-wingers perceive as far-left (coming soon)