My concern about Rupert Lowe MP's Restore Britain polotical party dominated too much of my day yesterday.
We made a video that reflected the sentiment in my blog post from yesterday morning. That is out today.
We have another video in preparation on the economics of what Lowe is proposing and how intensely destructive those policies will be.
Whilst working through all this, James drew my attention to this entry on the Restore Britain website. I have reproduced it in full, not least because, in the later stages of my career, universities became the focus of my work, although I had held academic positions since the 1990s.
- Restore the university
- Britain is home to some of the world's oldest and most prestigious universities. We should be setting global standards in research and academic excellence – but instead of pursuing truth, our high-culture institutions have been totally captured by anti-British, anti-Western, and anti-white ideological trends such as decolonisation, intersectionality, and critical race theory.
- This does not serve the interests of the British public. In fact, it is in academia that so many of the destructive ideas that have come to dominate our culture and political life originate, from gender ideology to multiculturalism.
- There is no such thing as a neutral institution – and this goes for education. Our universities should be openly pro-British: proud of our history, proud of our culture, proud of our people.
- We should not be afraid of rooting out subversive elements within our education system. Professors and administrative staff pushing anti-British ideology should hold no position in a publicly funded British university. Courses that brainwash students into hating their own culture should be shut down. In the most egregious cases, inquiries pertaining to entire universities must be held.
Why does this matter? Mainly because of the horrible echoes of precedent that are clear in all of this. I am, of course, referring to what happened in Nazi Germany, and see no reason for apologising for doing so.
As Restore Britain makes clear, they will, as the Nazis did, come for academics very early on in their regime.
Many academics, writers and artists were first dismissed or driven into exile by the Nazis under the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of April 1933.
Those who resisted or were politically active were then arrested and sent to camps.
Examples of those treated in this way included socialist, social democratic or communist academics; journalists critical of the regime and, of course, Jewish scholars dismissed from universities
Some were imprisoned in early concentration camps. Others fled Germany, resulting in a large-scale “brain drain” that included people like Albert Einstein.
Why were intellectuals targeted? That is because they shape ideas, and totalitarian regimes (as Lowe's language makes clear he is seeking to create) cannot tolerate competing narratives. The evidence of this was also seen in Nazi Germany. Books were burned from May 1933, universities were purged, just as Lowe suggests, and cultural institutions were Nazified.
And note the language Lowe uses when referring to those he wishes to remove. They are, he claims:
- anti-British,
- anti-Western, and
- anti-white
This is the language of nationalist fascism.
And what does he call dangerous? It is:
- gender ideology, and
- multiculturalism
Misogyny and racial purity are demanded, as are being:
- openly pro-British
- proud of our history,
- proud of our culture,
- proud of our people.
Except that means we cannot question:
- slavery
- imperialsim
- cultural suppression
- institutional misogyny, and
- exploitation.
And who defines:
- our culture, and
- our people?
From what is being said by Lowe, it feels very much like this means you must be both white and born of generations who have lived here. Then you will, it seems, have the right to decide these things.
What will happen to those who do not agree? He says
- We should not be afraid of rooting out subversive elements
What does "rooting out" mean? The language is sinister, with violent overtones, implying elimination. You can take it literally when the physical threat is very real. You can take it literally when the threat of oppression is the alternative. Either way, the threat to opponents is explicit.
It is also important to note that this policy in Nazi Germany extended to schools and teachers. They too had to comply with Nazi requirements. It is clear from what Lowe says about universities that the same toxic curriculum he demands for them would be extended to schools as well, and to those who work in them. He does, after all, refer to the "education system".
What should we think about all this? Remember what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Migrants are not the only people in Rupert Lowe's sightlines. Just as the Nazis did, he is also aiming at those who might mount an opposition to what he wishes to achieve.
And yes, for the record, I do feel threatened. Why shouldn't I? So, very well, might you. What is being proposed by Lowe is an attack on many millions of people in this country. If we aren't worried now, we never will be.
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!
Fascists hate intellectuals because they know their own propaganda makes no logical sense whatsoever, leaving them wide open to attack by anybody with a functioning brain.
Last night I saw on C4 News again, this time a paranoid schizophrenic case being looked after by the NHS care in the community scheme who was potentially a threat to the community as was the case in the University of Nottingham killings. The man being looked after seemed of East European in origination.
Thinking about how many living rooms that report was projected into, I cursed the editorial team at C4 for once again walking into a trap in feeding the notion that ‘immigrants are the problem’. All the media are doing is helping to reinforce negative perceptions put forward by Farage and Lowe. Is this unconsciously or consciously aiding and abetting fascism? Are they really shooting our multi cultural society in the foot? And I too asked the question of this chap – did not your country of origination have mental health services that could look after you there?
I was cycling through the city I work in the other day to a site meeting. There are traffic lights out of commission; litter everywhere, potholes in pavements and roads, signs of economic stress everywhere, a closed down and burnt out cinema, closed business units, homes every where in need of TLC, abandoned cars, un-swept leaf fall mashed into the pavements, all peppered by The Butchers Apron here and there (Union Jacks) – celebrating what I wondered (what a joke). And C4 news was talking about this one person who did not even seem English?
This is post-Tory Britain. It still is post-Tory Britain despite a ‘Labour’ government. Yet the Tories have not really answered for their crimes, in fact they have been rewarded and made hay whilst leaving the country in a complete mess. They are still allowed into Parliament and the The Lords. Why? I’m serious. Anyone else would have been dismissed for such poor performance.
What sort of ‘democracy’ is that? And not only is their a justice vacuum, there is also an ideas vacuum, a ‘sorting it out vacuum’ that will only enable fascist scum like Farage and Lowe to sneak in, which they are doing right now. And those that funded the Tory party have found Farage and Lowe to play with.
We are in a really bad situation – the Labour party not being the cavalry to the rescue.
PSR, you say: “And not only is their a justice vacuum, there is also an ideas vacuum, a ‘sorting it out vacuum’ “.
It seems that in publishing his vile paper “Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics”, the one thing that Lowe cannot be accused of is not having ideas or a plan. Labour have no ideas (other than stay in power for as long as possible and continue with whatever the Tories did) – but it is perhaps even more frightening that Lowe has tried to think through in some detail the methods to use to circumvent the laws, checks and balances that could prevent his fascism — it seems he has the basis of a plan (I’m trying to avoid saying ‘his solution’). This is more scary.
And meantime there is a vacuum in anyone having the leadership to counter the false narratives.
It will be worthwhile to monitor statements attributed to Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain to consider whether they merit a police investigation under UK public-order or hate-crime law.
Some areas to look out for:
1. “Millions must go” (re immigration).
Reported comments about large-scale removals are, if framed as lawful policy reform, legitimate political comment. However, if directed at identifiable racial, ethnic or religious groups in threatening terms, such language could be deemed to be offences relating to stirring up hatred.
2. Collective deportation of entire communities.
If online claims suggest deporting whole communities because criminality occurs within them, and if accurately attributed and expressed in threatening terms, collective punishment based on protected characteristics could potentially raise legal concerns.
3. References to the death penalty.
Advocacy of restoring capital punishment is lawful political speech. But it would become problematic if framed as encouragement of violence outside lawful judicial process or directed threateningly at identifiable groups.
4. Use of terms such as invaders or similar rhetoric.
Strongly critical language is not unlawful in itself. But the legal threshold may be crossed if speech is threatening and intended (or likely) to stir up racial or religious hatred.
The Legal Context
Relevant legislation includes the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The bar for prosecution is high: language must generally be threatening and intended or likely to stir up hatred. Political debate, even when robust or offensive, is strongly protected in law.
Verification Requirements
Before any report is made:
Confirm the statement comes from an official, attributable source (e.g. verified account, speech recording, transcript).
Include the full context, not isolated extracts.
Distinguish between statements by party leaders and those made by unaffiliated supporters.
Thanks
Noted
Absolutely.
There is a simpler explanation. Such regimes depend on being able to rewrite history to eradicate their failures. Higher education means learning, witch inherently means remembering.
Those who refuse to forget are a threat to their narrative. This includes those who currently align with their worldview as some of the most impactful detractors can be former devotees who can express strongly why they left.
My daughter taught in Berlin for a few years and I visited her.
In a square in Berlin is a memorial to the book burning. You look down into an underground library with empty shelves. It was more moving than I expected and several others visitors said the same. I never thought we would be threatened with something similar.
https://www.dark-tourism.com/index.php/436-bebelplatz-book-burning-site
Thanks for sharing.
The irony is that many universities have been “captured” by neoliberal groups, resulting in:
❌Turning educational establishments into businesses
❌The effective privatisation of education and the implementation of student loans
❌Neoliberal capture of economics departments, such as the University of Chicago, and the teaching of “classical economics”
❌Pharmaceutical capture of university medical schools, and the teaching of the use of drugs as the only remedy
❌Big Food capture of university nutrition schools, and the teaching of misleading nutrition advice (salt, fats and carbs)
“First code-named Project Bluebird, then Project Artichoke, it was finally renamed MKUltra in 1953. Over the next decade, MKUltra would spend $25 million on research in a quest to find new ways to break prisoners suspected of being Communists and double agents. Eighty institutions were involved in the program, including forty-four universities and twelve hospitals.”
Source: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, https://amzn.eu/d/fAmspcx
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL3XGZ5rreE
Spot on
Restore Britain is obviously, fundamentally inconsistent: “We should be setting global standards in research and academic excellence – but instead of pursuing truth, our high-culture institutions have been totally captured by … decolonisation, intersectionality, and critical race theory.” Surely they should be seeing those trends as attempts to pursue truth? They could be seen as flawed attempts, but they all draw attention to past failures to pursue truth.
Agreed
but the whole thing is riddled with issues like that
As is Reform