I had this comment made on the blog today, and it is typical of many others, most of which do not see the light of day. On this occasion, I have decided to reply.
The commentator, who claims to have the name B Clarence, but whose email address might suggest otherwise, started by saying:
Richard, prepare to be astonished – i am the grandchild of immigrants and i fully support flying england flags!
My grandparents were post war immigrants, i am proudly english. Why does this astonish you? Oh yes i am white, my grandparents are from eastern europe, so you are making your assumption by the colour of someone's skin.
I am completely baffled by the conclusion to these two paragraphs.
I cannot find what assumption this person is referring to. I admit that, based on observation, those flying flags do appear to be white, but what I have said is that they appear to be racist. I have never said that racism is a characteristic reserved for white people alone, because I know full well that it is not. Skin colour does not come into that suggestion, then.
And, what I have also made clear, because it is obviously true, based on my experience, is that white people can be racist about white people. So, I find it baffling that allegations about prejudice based on the colour of skin came into B Clarence's argument. It is simply not present in what I say.
B Clarence continued by saying:
Is this how you make your assumptions that inform your output when you out observing the world, as you claim to be an expert in.
It is exceptionally difficult to provide a response to this comment because the assumption I am accused of making has not been made.
In that case, let me move on to the next part of the comment, in which they said:
People are sick of not being listened to and having their will continually opposed from those above who will not listen, and the wise men, like you, seeking to tell them that they know best, and that any opposing view will be smeared as fascism. The people dont get listened to at the ballot box, you ahve to expect a reaction eventually. I would suggest that flying flags is benign.
Once again, I'm completely baffled by this observation. I have written for years about how a neoliberal elite, backed up by a mythical form of economics, the study and promotion of which has been paid for by people who wish to skew the benefit of the world economy in the favour of a tiny number of people, is the cause of the oppression of the vast majority of people in the UK, and in many other countries around the world.
I am not promoting this abuse. I am opposing it.
Whilst doing so, I have listened to people.
I know that they feel oppressed.
I know that they have good reason to feel oppressed.
I sympathise entirely with their anger.
I have dedicated countless hours to formulating responses to the economic policies that oppress them, seeking policy solutions that benefit ordinary people and reduce the elite's power over them.
What is more, I have gone out of my way to argue that people whom I do not necessarily agree with should have more influence over politics in the UK because I support the introduction of proportional representation precisely so that people's voices will be heard, whether I agree with them or not.
So, once more, I am totally confused by being told I do the exact opposite of what I am actually seeking to achieve. I'm a campaigner to reform the economy precisely so that those who have been mistreated by it, most particularly over the last 15 years, get an appropriate share of what they deserve from the value that they create within this country, and yet I am being told that I have done the exact opposite. I genuinely struggle to work out why.
Finally, B Clarence says:
For a man of the people, you really ought to go out and meet some people, not selectively, and listen rather than lecture. It may improve your dire output.
So, contrary to the claim just made that I am supposedly a part of the oppressing elite, I am now recognised as a man of the people. There might be some irony or even sarcasm in there. What I do know is that there is a contradiction and only one of the statements is correct, which is the second: I am indeed only interested in the majority of people. But, apparently, I do not listen to those people even though I speak to a great many of them, very often and realise that people's anger is with:
- Low incomes
- Poor job prospects
- Young people who feel abandoned by an economy that is indifferent to them, even when they have done everything that has been asked of them
- Excessive costs of housing
- Food price inflation
- Excessive interest rates
- Unfair taxes
- Poor government services, from Health, to education, to justice, to social care and a great deal more
- The indifference of political elites
- Electoral systems that do not represent people
- And more.
I have argued for reform on all of these issues, so what have I not listened to?
I can only come down to one thing, and that is I have not listened to demands from racists. What else have I got wrong? I can't see what it is based on this comment. Can anyone explain?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard
My view is this (I’ll have a go).
What fascism does is feed off the underlying prejudices in some people that are held back and restrained during the good times, but all too often come out in the bad times and can be exploited – fascist political science knows this. Hannah Arendt knew this too.
These prejudices can be inflamed by GENUINE grievances and conflated with them. For some people, they are convenient to their pre-existing prejudices. And let’s face it, are also so simple for them to grasp that there are too many people and not enough money, rather than to go and find out more for themselves. Because they have – whether they know it or not – already made up their minds with their fundamental inner-racism, which acts like a bouncing betty land mine, waiting to be triggered.
Clarence’s bouncing betty has been triggered, and is basically having a go at you for not seeing the world how he/she/it limits themselves to seeing it. They have imposed limits on their cognition that suits their racism because it is something they feel that they know, are familiar with. They want to go no further. And they know there is safety in numbers – because the media tells them others feel like they do – they get affirmation.
I’ve had this with my younger brother – I tell him about MMT, austerity and he says that there is nothing he can do about any of that. The awful reason is that his racism gives him a sense of agency – he can sense it, feel it, makes him comfortable and so he and the rest of these numpties, cower under that. They really do cower, because they are so unfamiliar and ill equipped to deal with any other factors that created these grievances. Such racism in this context can be seen as a classic case of Pablo Freire’s ‘naive consciousness’ as apposed to a critical consciousness about society’s power structures.
We know that Farage et al are basically a bunch of rich people pretending to emphasise with poor people whose prejudices are just being exploited in order that people like Farage closes down debate and deliver simple, recognisable and wrong messages about what the problems are and sustain the status quo. Change is thwarted.
You have done nothing wrong.
Thanks.
I like the idea of Pablo Freire’s ‘naive consciousness’. It is consciousness at least, I suppose. Can it be built on?
It made me think of the Russian idea of ‘Vatniks’. Not from my world at all, but it came to me from Elvira Barry and her video about why normal people support the war in Ukraine. It’s a mindset that is a refuge for people who have been stripped of something. An identity, or a tribe. Rather than feel alone and isolated, they get behind something else to feel part of a group again. This is often simplistic and provided by a dominant narrative.
ADR
Wouldn’t give him the time of day. Ignore him.
Its just rehashing the standard trope that ‘the people’ know that its immigrants and asylum seekers to blame for all their ills – which is precisely what BBC and billionaire media imply or tell them directly every day of the week. Starmer, Badenoch and Jenrick saying the same.
The whole flag business is a designed distraction – hopefully will prove to be too boring to be an ongoing issue.
Hopefully.
I fear not.
It’s what you said here:
“In the . . vicinity in which I live, there are quite a number of people who are not of British origin, either themselves or because their parents and grandparents were migrants to this country. If any of them feel relaxed about what is happening, I would be completely astonished”
B Clarence is claiming to be British and also relaxed.
It is quite reasonable and not astonishing to have immigrant grandparents, be British and like it.
Not in my experience it is not.
I have already discussed it. The feeling amongst those I have spoken to? That this is performative cruelty used as a threat.
Richard,
You have done nothing wrong whatsoever. PSR is correct in his analysis and I would only add, that your reply provided all the necessary arguments for B Clarence to rectify his outlook. Lets hope that it helps him to do just that. In the meanwhile your clarity and messaging must not be diverted by those who only want to side-track you.
Bob Forsyth
Don’t feed the troll!!
Don’t worry many British people can’t get beyond stupid. Who had the world’s biggest fascist empire and then had to give it up because the subjected kicked back? I blame William the Conqueror for really hammering home the naive message might is right!
Richard, You are trying(correctly) to reason with a person who cannot do the same.
As I’ve said a few times recently, we cannot reason people out of a view they didn’t reason themselves into. They have no rational defence and will just go with how they ‘feel’. I know you prefer to persist with such people and maybe the penny will drop with them. Somebody has to keep trying by unravelling their argument until it cannot stand. They are bound to contradict themselves at some point.
To anyone who supports the right to asylum and opposes the fascists, racist thugs and the dimwits who believe the lies they talk you’ve done nothing wrong.
However, to right whinge grievance warriors like the aforementioned poster you’ve done wrong precisely because you’ve pointed out that the cross of St George is being used by racists and plastic patriots in their anti migrant campaign which has been encouraged by disgusting Tory/reform politicians and not opposed by this spineless, useless labour government.
So of course they insult and abuse you. If those putting up these flags are just patriots, why did l justi see a BBC report on how contractors working to remove them in Sussex have been abused and verbally threatened?
Come on B Clarence, explain that, ‘patriot’.
Thanks.
This Clarence is clearly a troll. Don’t look for logic where there is none. However, you have used it positively to re-state your position.
PSR’s analyse is spot on in my opinion. I am also confident that there is nothing you can say or do that would have any impact upon Clarence’s opinions quite simply because the shutters are down and fingers are in ears while humming la la la la. Having said that I think it perhaps pertinent to consider that perhaps the Clarences of this world just plain do not understand what you are saying
Thanks
Is this just DARVO … deny, attack, reverse victim and offender?
Probably.
Someone whose family has migrated from Eastern Europe has very likely an antipathy to socialism and sees the symbolism of the flag of England as part of the UK which offered refuge to his family. The shame of it is that he or she seems unaware that the flag is currently the centrepiece of a campaign of hatred against …people who are compelled to migrate to the UK. Just like his/her family…
I think the truth can be found in his/her statement ‘your dire output.’ He/she just doesn’t like you and what you stand for. Could be a misguided, but genuine angry person who is who they say they are—or could just be a sniggering troll out to upset you. Either way, they’ve not engaged with your actual viewpoints at all. You’ve just offered an explanation …they either take it on board or not.
Try not to let this crap get under your skin. My opinion is that they’re hunched over a computer somewhere, laughing their little pointy heads off, witnessing the distress they just caused. Karma awaits….
Not distress.
I wrote my blog to highlight how absurd the claims made are, on this and other issues.
Richard thankyou for replying, and my right to reply…
The commenter P M Keeitel above has it correct. You couldnt see that yourself. You said you would be astonished if second generation immigrants would be relaxed about the out pouring of flags. You clearly havent met many. Even above your arrogance can’t allow you to admit that ok heres one (me) at least.
You are one person.
And even if you are being honest you only prove your own thinking.
In the rest of the world sentiment is as I describe.
I have spoken to it. It would seem you have not. For the second time, you make claims that are entirely false.
How relaxed do you feel about released convict and banned director London Mayoralty candidate Ant Middleton’s definition of Britishness? (because it excludes you).
We already have a system of nationality that allows gov’t to revoke UK Citizenship from those with dual nationality. Are you relaxed about that?
If you want to see how that works out in practice, cast your eye across the pond to see which US citizens Trump’s masked armed ICE thugs are kidnapping off the streets of the USA and deporting.
Still relaxed?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_Middleton
Still relaxed?
(Middleton’s convictions relate to assaults on the police, and his banning from directorship relates to failure to pay large amounts of corporate taxes).
(Incidentally, Companies House, in that famous work of fiction they call their website, still list him as an active director.)
Thanks
You clearly do not understand psychology. You are getting so bogged down with your obsession with nuance that you fail to grasp this is not the way to communicate ideas in the 2020s. Psychology dictates that that the most effective way to communicate is to appeal to the senses – simple messaging (black and white thinking that you detest) rather than appealing to the intellect. As a simple illustration look at the obsession now of both facebook and youtube with short form videos rather than the long form. You are behind the 8 ball in getting your message across and I really feel you need to consider what I am saying. It is no coincidence that intellectual discussion is a major target of those wishing to extend power. Your appeal to bring it back is not going to work in isolation. Continuing with your obsession just opens you up to being baited (appealing to your senses) and adding to the confusion you express here.
Like it or not, some of us will never give up on thinking and nuance.
And thankfully, in the end we always win by beating the propaganda that is your choice.
There’s real life, face to face dialogue, with a real person, articulating real grievances (usually the list you gave, and in my experience, at the top would be housing). Discussion is worthwhile, especially if it can quickly move to facts, and the complainants actual 1st hand experience. I have these conversations, face to face and they arise from relationship. They are right about their grievances, but misinformed about the causes.
But here, online, with an anonymous unknown person where nothing can be verified and the complainant is totally unaccountable?
Maybe they get a right of reply, but if they dodge a fair question, I wouldn’t waste time on them, I’d block them.
As for me, once I started getting some responses here challenging my veracity (rather than my views), I sent a brief bio in to Richard to identify me and any claims I make.
I’ve found that failure to answer fair questions (eg: what are your sources for that allegation? Or – tell me more about how this affects you personally?) is a useful indicator of a troll/time waster. Plus anything ad-hominem in the first response? That’s a dead give-away.
Also remember that one goal of the organised professional troll is to smear/slander/discredit you. Those who disagree with you on Palestine/Israel may discredit you on economics. Those who dislike your economics may weaponise AS against you and slander you on that topic.
The lesson (some) of the Corbyn-supporting left learned over the last ten years of soul-sapping warfare (on support for terrorism lies, Putin-apologist slurs and AS smears), is, when the trolling and defamation start – don’t yield, don’t be cowed, go in hard (when justified), don’t ever try to appease. React fast and hard to smears. Zara Sultana has the right idea, and it is working, even on the Murdoch press..
Finally, take it as huge compliment, and affirmation of your effectiveness. Your portrait probably adorns a dartboard in Tufton Street. We have them on the run.
Applying those tests to B Clarence? Can they make a reasoned response?
This is so true:
I’ve found that failure to answer fair questions (eg: what are your sources for that allegation? Or – tell me more about how this affects you personally?) is a useful indicator of a troll/time waster. Plus anything ad-hominem in the first response? That’s a dead give-away.
In my humble opinion immigration can be played as the sole reason for ALL problems that exist in the political sphere. I would hazard a guess that most potential reform voters have no solution to the real problems they, and the rest of us face, beyond a views that immigration MUST be the issue
Clarence B has not offered any solution to their/their country’s predicament other than the level of immigration
Challenging the story that ‘it’s immigration, stupid’ could elicit a set of well articulated solutions beyond immigration but Clarence B seems not to have any.
The position that immigration cannot be the root cause of the ENTIRE state of our political economy does not deny that immigration could be a factor but is not the sole cause as suggested by Clarence B
.. “The Earth” would have a fantastic football team but a rather disappointing fixture list …. Anyhoo, during this outbreak of flaggy false consciousness I have noticed the relentless and ( hem hem ) ‘dehumanising’ use of ‘far right’, to describe anyone with the faintest attachment to their country or any conception of an English people. I’m probably more of Conservative than anything else but as a bitter remainer, I’m sulking in my tent about Brexit, and have recently voted Liberal. I’m sure I’m not ‘far right’.
Nonetheless, I like the seeing the English flag around. I like it as an antidote to the prevailing self-loathing; of the country, its history its culture and by extension of the West entirely. So there.
What self loathing?
I don’t hate this country.
I am not sure I know anybody who dues.
I hate neoliberalism and the elite who promote it.
I hate fascism and it’s desire to differentiate and destroy so much that is very good
But you don’t seem to agree that those are the problem and see another self loathing. What is it, because in reality I can’t find loathing anywhere else.
OK then, let’s take the nuclear option shall we?
How about if the people flying the flags you love so much – the Union Jack or George Cross – instead of flying them outside immigration hotels and trying to set them on fire and chucking bricks – what if they were outside parliament doing that, protesting about austerity or the bed room tax or the hike of VAT to 20% or interest rates? Or outside of Chequers, some party office or some corporation who has just bought Starmer a new pair of glasses or a night out?
Would your patriotism be stirred too? Because arguably, it should be – these items are the real cause of a lot of the discontent – and maybe people HAVE protested about it – but you just won’t be allowed to see it?
But the black faces you see – those strangers on boats? – many of you ‘bouncing bettys’ have already marked their cards haven’t you? But you are so cowardly that you just cannot admit it and instead we get bollocks like this – about be dehumanised by real human beings with empathy.
Fact? You dehumanise immigrants and in doing so, dehumanise yourselves – whilst your own government led by rich people dehumanises you too by starving you of money and services because they KNOW – like we do here – that its racism – not patriotism that drives you.
You’re weak and your weakness is being used . Deal with it, deal with that and you will be welcome here. Until then, find a hole in the ground to crawl into. It’s where you belong, in the dark ages.
Thanks
In what way is the collective description “far right”, dehumanising, in a way that your use of the collective descriptions, Conservative, Liberal (?are they still around?) or English isn’t? They are collective terms without which political discussion would be very difficult. Context is everything.
Perhaps you can give examples?
Secondly, you have ignored several posts in which English people here have expressed their love of their country and NOT been labelled ‘far right’.
So I can’t take your post seriously.
I have never denied I love this country. But I can also see its faults. My wife says the same about me.
The advice usually given in these circumstances? Don’t argue with a donkey….but we still do, every day.
Pointing out absurdity is not, as such, arguing, although I guess it can be seen that way.
It’s odd. I’ve never read that you consider that the flying of the Palestinian flag in the UK might be intended to intimidate Britain’s Jewish population. That they might be uncomfortable with chants of ‘from the river to the sea’ at demonstrations.
That doesn’t seem to concern you.
Oh dear, you really are confused.
Israel is committing genocide. You may not have noticed. Flying the Palestinian flag is solidarity with a people being ethnically cleansed. Even so,, it happens very rarely.
And Israel is intent on “from the river to the sea” despite having no authority to do so.
What is more this is not a Jewish issue: Israel as it stands is a fascist state and does not represent all Jews.
All your claims are unjustified then.
I refer you to the annual flag march through E Jerusalem (illegally annexed by Israel).
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-day-flag-march-marred-by-far-right-violence-under-shadow-of-war/
And the “river to the sea” concept is not unique to Hamas. As you would know from the increasingly genocidal comments from Israeli cabinet members and the Likud charter.
Swopping hate-speech and rival terror charters won’t produce peace.
Thanks
On a positive note (sort of), there are people out there realising that your voice is being heard and so the trolls have been unleashed
An analogy. Suppose I have a close relative with a life-threatening disease. If I don’t much care I will look for something to blame — maybe the price of drugs, maybe an infectious foreigner — something. If I love this relative I will do all I can for a cure, or amelioration if that’s all that’s possible. Just so I can love England, see faults, want to make it better. This doesn’t mean I don’t love my country, it means quite the reverse. And to my mind that means left-wing principles and remedies, many of which are embraced on this blog. KUTGW Richard.
Richard,
Those are trolls. Strident, emotional, unfocused. Their aim is to make you want to reply and to simultaneously make the construction of any reply a difficult task.
In many cases this tactic works. In many cases its effect is to derail and suppress any discussion as the victim struggles for an appropriate frame of reference and form of words. In your case, you bash out a cogent 900 words without drawing breath, and don’t even appear to notice there was an attempt to slow you down!
Still, please understand that they are not honest adversaries. Very few people have the frankly absurd workrate with which you can counter them.
I understand that. But please understand, beginning to edited and published, 900 words can be 15 minutes or less.
[…] This story was first published in Richard Murphy’s blog, where it provoked some discussion.You can read his response to one comment here. […]
First flag (St George) on a lampost in my neighbourhood today, about 20 feet up in centre of a small roundabout, attached with 2 cable ties. It will definitely use up local resources when it is removed, and intimidate some residents who have a right NOT to be intimidated.
It looks a bit lonely.
Also vandalism with red paint of one zebra crossing about a mile away.
It hasn’t fixed anything.