Political Assassinations and Secret History

Auntie's recent series about Mrs T was as usual interesting as much for what it left out as for what it included. The convoluted but essential history of the Labour Party's vicissitudes in the 1980s was almost entirely neglected. The Falklands and the Belgrano were skated over briefly and the yomp to Port Stanley was barely mentioned. But most intriguing, given that the Brighton bomb was covered in some detail, was the absence of any assassinations.

Airey Neave in fact got several mentions from the time when he was Mrs Thatcher's campaign manager. But his assassination by the INLA was entirely ignored. And Ian Gow, who was similarly assassinated by the Provisional IRA, didn't so much as see the light of day.

On the one hand yes there's the BBC's commitment to the "peace" process. Mention Fenian violence and you'll get complaints. And on top of that there's Auntie's perennial implicit anti-Catholic bias, which in the case of Neave and Gow works in a particularly interesting way. Because Neave and Gow were almost certainly targeted specifically because they were "Catholics" (or rather, in Gow's case, an "Anglo-Catholic"). So even less reason than usual to mention them? Possibly!

But what about the Beeb's similarly perennial anti-Right bias? It may seem odd to complain about that Tory favourite old chestnut when considering a series that was for the most part admirably objective and even-handed. But one can't escape a lingering uneasy feeling that they wouldn't have wanted to make Neave and Gow into martyrs. Partly this will be because they wouldn't want people to know how right-wing they really were. The Far Left have always wanted people to think Mrs T was on the Right of the Party, when in reality she was always in its liberal pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-Rhodesia and anti-Apartheid "centre". And the libertarians conversely now want to claim her as one of their own. Either way, remind people that an Ulster integrationist and a pro-Rhodesian anti-abolitionist were amongst the Lady's closest political allies and you'll get more than just complaints.

Somewhere in the middle though is of course just good old-fashioned squeamishness about the role of political violence in a liberal democratic order. Neave and Gow were murdered for political reasons and, however unpalatable the truth may be, yes, political murders can work. Mrs T's career could have been quite different if Neave had lived. And Gow's death helped to isolate her in the Cabinet as her enemies within her own party plotted her downfall. It just shouldn't be surprising that a "liberal" Establishment doesn't like to imagine that even as recently as the 1980s we still lived in that sort of world.

Woke Fate*

All one can really say for all the post-T2 Terminator films up until 2019 was that at least they weren't boring. Terminator: Dark Fate manages to be not only offensively boring but boringly offensive. In fact boringly offensively offensive and boring more or less sums it up.

Of course the first Terminator was genuinely scary. The body horror was genuinely horrible and horrific. Its first sequel, like Aliens, was a high-octane action thriller, complete with a cute kid and gun-toting mommabear. And all the others have been footnotes not to the original concept but to that later derogation. Because Rise of the Machines was both disappointing and toe-curlingly bad, though it was at least amusingly so. Arnie's ditching Ed Furlong and teaming up with Mel Gibson cast-off Nick Stahl certainly didn't save it. Then Salvation was head-spinningly mad, and not quite redeemed either by Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese or by a typically over-the-top Christian Bale as John Connor. And finally Genesis was just bad full-stop, marred mainly by abysmal casting choices and even more abysmal liberties with the franchise's characters and ideas - although a silly plot and ropy special effects certainly didn't help.

The Alien franchise actually waited until number 4 before going self-consciously campy and kooky. But already by Alien3 it had ditched any sense that it was building a long-running saga by using its first few minutes to undo the happy ending of the previous film. The difference between that and the termination of John Connor in the first few minutes of Dark Fate is that casually (off screen!) killing off a cute little girl, a handsome young man and a cool funky robot was in retrospect very much in keeping with the bleak soulless Godlessness of the Alien universe - where there is no fate, but also no good and evil, and there probably shouldn't really be any happy endings. And that doesn't quite work in the Terminator universe, where the moral is supposed to be that we're all supposed to be in charge of our fates, because destiny is nothing but what we make of it.

So having seen unborn baby John Connor, bratty but adorable kid John Connor, twinky teen John Connor, angry adult John Connor and finally baddy (FFS!) John Connor, in Dark Fate we see boy John Connor go the way of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, and that's before we've even got so far as the opening credits. And as with the Star Wars characters the moral apparently is simply that we don't need white men to save the world anymore. We can make do with a young Latina call Dani Gomez. Or Ami Diaz. Or... or whatever her name is.

And she doesn't need no help from no man neither, be he machine or otherwise! Because she's got her super-butch blond-haired, blue-eyed girlfriend to rescue her, and to help her to get across the Mexican border illegally (yes, really!).

And that's before we've even mentioned the return of kick-ass sexagenarian† Linda Hamilton!

Well, the biggest disappointment of Rise of the Machines was that Hamilton and Furlong weren't in it. The biggest disappointment of Dark Fate is that now they're both back, only he got no more than a computer "de-aged"†† cameo after the manner of Princess Leia in Rogue One, and she's little more than a Carrie Fisher clone from circa The Force Awakens. Her beauty has gone, as has any trace of wit or charm. All that's left is some dried-up aged sass.

Sarah Connor herself now seems to be doing little more than channeling Hillary Clinton. She's old, she's embittered, she's out for revenge, and she doesn't just hate machines anymore, because now she also hates both men generally and indeed motherhood. One can only assume therefore that Ami Gomez is supposed to be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is presumably supposed to be... Arnold Schwarzenegger? He was a baddy, but now he's a nice liberal gun-toting Republican Texan who just wants to help.

What else? Well it's possible the writers may have tried to be wise to potential "Mary Sue"-type criticisms, because their (literally, physically) strong female characters do get bumped around a little bit. But the truth is than one never really feels for any of them. (Sarah Connor alone in one scene manages to bounce burly security guards around like babies.) And I'm normally the last person to demand more "sex" in my films, but sex is leaking out of modern films not because of some new wave of Puritanism or even because of the dreaded PG-13 rating but simply because of the Chinese market. (The Chinese don't like slow build-ups either, of course!) And I suppose in a movieverse where women don't need men to rescue them, why should they have any other sorts of "needs" either?

So fair's fair! This isn't a film the Terminator franchise needed, and it's certainly not one that anyone will want either to re-watch or to remember. Its possible fate can be termination, and with extreme prejudice.

*I thought of Snark Bait, but there's a certain sense in which this may have been the high point of Trump-era wokeness. For various reasons, Hollywood may be about to turn a corner politically.
†In one scene I think she literally kicks the arse of a muscular twenty-something security guard. (OK boomer?)
††What with this and the de-aged kids in [Sh]It, last year was perhaps the creepiest year ever for Hollywood boylovers.

Brexit: Why they lost

Some of this is interesting, especially the substantive point that when Tony Blair (who on every important issue was John Major's pupil rather than his adversary) and his creepy cultural commissars tried to redraw the political map along ethical rather than pragmatic lines they made the mistake of de-legitimizing their opposition.

With the advent of the third way in the 1990s, it became fashionable in some quarters to declare that the adversarial model of politics was now obsolete – so categories of right and left were no longer needed. But even the champions of a post-political consensus cannot avoid drawing a frontier between themselves and their rivals. Since they refuse to draw it in an adversarial way, they create a moral divide, which does not permit a true agonistic debate. Tony Blair pitted the modernisers against the traditionalists; for Emmanuel Macron, the frontier is between the progressives and the conservatives.

[Chantal Mouffe in The Guardian, 'Centrist politics will not defeat Boris Johnson’s rightwing populism'] 

The result of this de-legitimization was a subsequent total lack of debate about a whole series of crucially important matters, from life issues to mass immigration to the hunting ban to gay marriage.
In the end of course the Left lost the Brexit vote mainly because they'd co-opted the European Union to the same cause as Sunday shopping and sodomy for teenagers. No attempt was made at any point to sell either a different vision of Europe (whether Christian, classical or ethnic) or to placate the opposition that had taken up the Euro-sceptic cause by conceding any ground at all on any single issue. We were simply told that we were "racist" and we were standing against the tide of history.

And in the end most people decided they'd had enough. They'd had enough of "cultural change". They'd had enough of being called "nostalgics" and "bigots" and "Little Englanders". They'd had enough of having their noses rubbed in it.

(But yes, the idea that the Left can stop populism now simply by having a "green new deal" does seem quite silly.)

Are liberals going mad?

For once, I'm not just using the word 'mad' as a political term of abuse. One of the most common sorts of "madness" is simple cognitive dissonance. It occurs when something happens that challenges one of someone's deeply (and indeed sincerely) held beliefs. It's the psychological equivalent of an unstoppable force striking an immovable object. In the most extreme cases it can result in literal hallucinations. More commonly though, the subject will simply start grasping for rationalizations for why something that of course cannot be the case seemingly is the case. And of course this is something that we all do most of the time, and sometimes we do it without even realizing it. The greater the trauma the greater the challenge to one's view of reality, and the more deeply and sincerely held the the belief the more pressing the need for a satisfying explanation.

And if an explanation is not forthcoming, or if it is not sufficiently "satisfying"... well, nature abhors a vacuum.

By 'satisfying' of course I don't just mean intellectually or logically satisfying "on the facts". If a great man is suddenly and publicly murdered (such as JFK, MLK, RFK, etc.) then there's an immediate and instinctive feeling than a lone gunman (Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan) with an obscure motive (thinking Kennedy was a "fascist", a desire for fame, the younger Kennedy's support for arms to Israel) just won't do as an explanation. And thus the 1960s generation had a strong psychological need for the 1960s assassinations to be political killings and for their victims to be martyrs for civil rights. And so the men who actually killed them had to be either patsies or involved in vast, right-wing conspiracies.

In the last couple of years of course similar things have happened with Trump and Brexit. And although the Trump conspiracy theories (i.e. Trump is a Russian secret agent and Russia rigged the election to make him President) have been largely debunked, the Brexit theories are still mutating and multiplying beautifully. Stephen Daisley in The Spectator recently wrote about 'Brexit and the great liberal crack-up'.

Liberals – or at least some of them – have gone quite mad over Brexit. There is almost no intrigue they will not seize on if it might explain away the last three years. 

TV historian Dan Snow tweeted a photograph of his postal ballot and the Brexit Party leaflet he claimed had been delivered inside the same envelope. When celebrity Twitter flicks on its blue-tick sirens, craven officialdom comes running but they brought bad news.

Snow’s local council released a statement saying postal votes were handled internally and double-checked; it was ‘very unlikely’ that Brexit Party literature could have arrived in the same envelope. ‘Rather,’ they said with no little diplomacy of phrasing, ‘it is likely that the leaflet was delivered on or around the same day as the postal voting pack, which is how this misunderstanding may have arisen’. 

Snow’s initial tweet racked up 3,500 retweets; his follow-up, admitting ‘a prank or incompetence on my part’ was likely to blame, managed a mere 300.

Snow’s flakery is far from isolated. Brexit angst is driving liberals to take positions they would have recognised as reactionary and illogical not so long ago. Decrying the BBC has become de rigueur in a way once confined to Tory conference fringes and mad academic symposiums on Zionist control of the media. Some remainers have convinced themselves the Corporation is pushing not only a pro-Leave agenda, but a pro-Farage one; some now openly question Auntie’s future.

Most of these charges focus on particular presenters, interviews or formats the accuser disapproves of. More worrying are those who question the virtue of due impartiality itself, simpering babyishly that broadcasters should instead air ‘The Truth’. Happily enough, The Truth just happens to match their own worldview, perhaps with an occasional nod to benighted opponents and their wrongthink.

Liberals on this side of the Atlantic have become as accustomed as their analogues on the other side to blaming their defeats on nefarious Russian plots. That’s not to say that the Kremlin doesn’t seek to influence elections in the West (it does) or that Putin wouldn’t favour the destabilisation of a rival superstate (he would). But liberals have fashioned a soothing parable in which a few Russian troll farms are all that’s stopping the people of Sunderland from embracing their inner European integrationist.

Those who weren’t brainwashed by Boris the Bot were motivated by ethnic prejudice. A fair whack of Remainers are positive their opponents are knuckle-dragging bigots. This view seems particularly prevalent amongst Labour members, though I suppose when it comes to racism they should know. 

Tell yourself often enough that your opponents are Freddy Krueger and you will come to resent all democratic niceties and wonder if a more direct approach might be in order. Accosting politicians (the good ones) and shouting at them is A Threat to the Fabric of Our Democracy; accosting others (the bad ones) and hitting them with a milkshake is not. As a result, nominally-liberal commentators are dunking their own reputations to excuse what the police treat as common assault.

The phrase "clinically fascinating" could have been more or less invented for these people.

In reality, of course, there is no great mystery about the Brexit vote. The simple truth is that the more people learn about the European Union the less they like it, and so the same generation that had voted for membership of the Common Market in 1973 ended up voting in 2016 to leave the EU. The European Union had been growing progressively more unpopular in Britain for the better part of thirty years, and then when dear old David Cameron declined to make any sort of intellectual case for EU membership and simply decided to force the issue he underestimated both the degree of Euro-scepticism in the country and his own personal unpopularity with conservative voters. Thus on the one hand he was undone by a near total lack of hard polling data on the subject of "Europe" that weren't forty years out of date. On the other, he was utterly overwhelmed by the cumulative result of two generations' worth of "cultural change"

Said cultural problem is of course the easiest to write about and (to me at least) the most obvious, and yet it's the one that the cognitively dissonant liberals have been most keen to ignore. The "European project" had been lashed (or lashed itself) to the mast of every neo-Marxist fad of the last 50 years, from green energy to gay marriage to NATO expansion to (conversely) anti-Bush-anti-war-anti-Americanism: the same people who legalised buggery for children and banned foxhunting had wanted us to join the Euro; people whose fathers (or grandfathers) had organised the trains to Auschwitz had preached at us about how Europe was more "civilised" than the backward and barbarous United States because America still had the death penalty. And more often than not the whole package had been topped off with an implicit sneer at all things English, from the weather (because having the most temperate climate in the world is boring and depressing, presumably) to our food and drink (because wine and pizza are healthier than ale and roast beef, supposedly - and everyone eats curry now anyway, you racist!) to the clothes we wore (because by the late 1990s even James Bond was wearing Italian designer labels) to the language we used on telly (mostly Americanised, as it happens, but only ridiculous "Little Englanders" ever complained) to (of course!) our history (because the British Empire, far from being the greatest and most enlightened the world had ever seen, just happened to be the biggest and most malignant - and because the Monarchy obviously had to be modernised, if not abolished altogether).

But that hasn't stopped the mad doyens of the "liberal" Left from finding any number of alternative, more imaginative solutions to the Brexit conundrum. An eye-wateringly terrible book by Danny Dorling (a professor of geography - yes, really!) and Sally Tomlinson (who is an emeritus professor of education - WTF?) called Rule Britannia: Brexit and the End of Empire manages to blame virtually the whole Brexit vote on yes, you guessed it, nasty reactionary British imperialists who can't cope with the loss of the Empire. (It may not be the worst book about Brexit, but it certainly has a good claim to be one of them.)

As you can imagine, given that Dorling and Tomlinson blame the result of the 2016 referendum on something that ceased to exist long before Britain voted in favour of joining the Common Market in the 1973 referendum, it's somewhat light on relevant facts and logical arguments. To take just one example, there is (happily) absolutely no evidence that '71 percent of under 25s' voted to remain in the EU. The truth is that it was more like 46%, considerably less than the proportion of their parents' generation who would have voted to stay in the previous referendum and significantly less than the proportion of remainers amongst older voters in 2016. And in so far as the book has an argument, we're meant to believe that Brexit was caused by the rich getting richer thanks to austerity (because austerity makes people richer, presumably), which meant that they could make the poor work so hard that they were too weak to protest against the rich who were also stealing from them. (Or is "austerity" a form of theft? I'm not sure.)

In fact according to Dorling and Tomlinson the Brexit vote was all because we allowed 'a handful of billionaires [imperial nostalgics all, apparently] to poison [our] national conversation with disinformation'.* But how did those billionaires manage that, one wonders, when most tabloids came out for Remain in the referendum and the overwhelming majority of the population don't read newspapers anyway? We may never know. (By 2016 the proportion who did still read the 'papers was down to 29% and the number who actually took a regular paper was down to just 6 million, or about 10%.)

So what can you do? Mysteries that aren't even mysteries require new and more ingenious conspiracies to explain them. '[H]ow can a Britain of 2019 see a rise in death-rates, child poverty & infant mortality', ponders this review. Well, gee, maybe it's got something to do with our ageing population and women having babies much too late - which, it may shock you to hear, may, just may have something to do with house prices, which may, just may have something to do with supply and demand, which may, just may have something to do with immigration. But then that might suggest that immigration isn't just a non-issue cooked up by racialists and imperial nostalgia junkies to hoodwink the horrible hateful white working class.

In reality, of course, the biggest British imperialists of the middle of the twentieth century, whether they came from the liberal Right (such as Churchill) or from the "moderate" Left (such as Sir Oswald Mosley) were very much in favour of the European project. It was cranks and gadflies like Tony Benn and Enoch Powell (both committed anti-Americans) who came out swinging against European integration.

But then that of course is the whole point of cognitive dissonance. Who needs facts when your liberal beliefs are obviously so much preferable?

UPDATE: If you have to ask the question...

*This is according to someone with the name Joris Luyendijk. (Make of that what you will.)

The Purging of Paul Joseph Watson

It may make me even more of a heartless, callous, mean-spirited right-wing bastard, but... it's hard for me to feel too sorry for Paul Joseph Watson. At the end of the day, unlike however many other hundreds of thousands of YouTubers, he's one of the ones who's landed on his feet and (apparently, according to that recent, slightly blubby documentary) he lives off the proceeds of his wordsmithying in quite a nice flat in South London. (Would that we could all make the Internet work for us like that!)

Having said that though, there are three points very much to be said in his favour:

1. He is very, very good at what does. (I'd rather listen to his angry ranty [Sheffield-born] Battersea-boi screeds than watch most other things on YouTube, let alone television.)
2. He does happen to be right about most things. (OK, I haven't listened to all his stuff. For all I know, he may once have touched some political live wire to do with US government pedo pizza parlours or whatever. And no, I'm not a free speech, gay rights and Paki-bashing libertarian-type either. But to most extents and purposes he's impressively perceptive. By the standards of the modern British right, he's surprisingly "sound".)
3. And yes, the most important thing he's right about is the matter of whether or not modern social media platform providers have the right and/or responsibility to censor what we say (and think) via their services. (Apparently it's all to do with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which some Republicans are supposed to be trying to reform. Or something.)

Because yes, that last one is a genuine effing problem. If President Trump doesn't have the right to block lippy followers on Twitter, why should Twitter have the right to ban users just because they don't like the cut of their jib - provided, that is to say, what they're being banned for isn't actually criminal. And then again, on the subject of criminality, how can Google claim they're just providing a service (essentially no different from the US Postal Service) that just happens to be abused by criminals from time to time (for example when nonces are sharing kiddie-porn) and yet reserve the right to censor YouTube (for example... if they don't like the cut of your jib).

And that of course brings us to PJW's recent problems with the Magic Face-Book. Watson has written up his own account of being banned by Facebook on Human Events and given a reasonably intelligent interview about it to sp!ked. And James Delingpole has come out swinging for the lad at Breitbart (in the wake, it has to be said, of The Donald himself on Twitter), declaring with characteristic British understatement that 'Silicon Valley censorship poses one of the biggest threats to Western Civilisation in the world today'. (It's up there with 'fundamentalist Islam, China, eco-fascism, neo-Marxism, and so on', apparently.*)

As it happens, I think PJW is right.

This is nothing less than election meddling. Everyone Facebook has banned was instrumental in getting Trump elected. This is punishment. This is a political purge. This has nothing to do with ‘hate’ or ‘violating terms of service.’

Well quite!

It just remains to be seen (a) whether or not it will work and (b) whether the likes of Donald Trump and his "conservative" allies will do anything about it.

*Demographic obliteration doesn't quite make the grade for Dellers's threat matrix, presumably. (Not to the same extent as the world 'badly needs' conservative jokes and memes, at any rate!)