Yeah, I know these ‘White Pride’ types have been around for awhile, and will always be with us, but it still strikes me when I’m reminded about them, and sample their thinking … in today’s Sunday Star Times at the stuff.co.nz website…
Joining Right Wing Resistance on the streets were also stalwarts to the white nationalist movement – Blood and Honour, National Front, Southland Skinheads and Independent Skinheads.
“We have seen it in other countries,” said former Christchurch Central MP Brendon Burns. “Fanned in the right direction, with the right economic and social circumstances, it can take hold. Obviously Christchurch is going through its most difficult time yet.” …[Kyle] Chapman said Right Wing Resistance was about creating a place where people could be taken care of. It was about “fighting that politically-correct crap“. It was about fighting dodgy politicians lying to New Zealanders. It was about a warning.
“As long as the politicians keep going like that, groups like us are going to keep growing, and they are going to grow more militant.”
That “fighting that politically-correct crap” complaint and justification for militancy isn’t just a neo-Nazi/skinhead thing — it’s echoed in right wing propaganda on a ‘milder’ end of the scale too. Look at firebrand Andrew Breitbart’s sad tale of persecution, misery and woe which he (rather gleefully, it seems to me) used as a basis for declaring “War!” on … well, on who exactly, really? The left wing liberal elite old media? The left? Who?
While emoting outrage about a homogenous ‘the left’ which [allegedly] uses ‘divide and conquer’ tactics and demeaning people, Andrew Breitbart seems to me to do exactly what he accuses them of. (Doesn’t he?) Then promises ‘War!’ with such a delighted twinkle in his eye. Take a look: (contains swearing)
Could Andrew Breitbart be said to be pugnacious for its own sake, perhaps? Maybe. See how he angrily abused protesters just a few weeks before he died of a heart attack. Who is demeaning whom?
I said earlier, as part of another conversation:
The term ‘politically correct’ comes in for a lot of stick and self-described ‘firebrands’ like Andrew Breitbart (or ‘haters’ some might call them) have tried to make ‘tolerance’ a bad thing. Screaming about ‘liberal media’ trying to ‘silence them’, they set out to destroy people’s lives by holding up the very same ‘politically correct’ banner and protesting others’ right to hold an opinion that doesn’t match theirs.
In the warm glow of debate I’ve seen right wingers chastising left wingers for uttering supposedly politically incorrect sentiments. I remember a conversation I was on the edge of with ACT’s Cathy Odgers and others where she objected to a comment about the colonial-era confiscation of Maori land (viz: ‘raping and pillaging land is historical fact’). Cathy countered with ‘depends entirely on ur perspective doesn’t it? And U can’t “rape” land. Demeans the word rape…’
Sigh.
Isn’t that ‘demeans the word rape’ a precious example of PC? I think so. Or it could just be a smokescreen to duck behind when the argument isn’t going your way. I’ve observed the same sensitivity pops up, in Cathy’s case, with mentions of suicide and depression (and rightly so).
My point is: it ain’t just left wingers who reach for the ‘You can’t say that!’ button of political correctness, despite the claims of cultural strangulation by ‘PC’.
It’s worth reading the whole article on Christchurch’s ‘white power’ scene.
– P
PS: Andrew Breitbart doesn’t need my assistance to publicize his hate-filled rants against whatever it was that he perceived as “the left”. From the self-serving hogwash like this:
“We didn’t declare war on the Left. They declared war on us.”
(Yeah, right.) To:
The new media is taking over where the old media failed. Yes, they failed, my friends. Yes, they failed.
This type of psycho-babble is pure nonsense. It is frequently trotted out by haters to justify all sorts of nasty aggression against those in their ‘out-groups’.
It’s as I discussed when we looked at the science of fear: political operators can – and do – use their hallucinations about how ‘corrupt’ their opponents are imagined to be to justify their own oh-so-real corrupt actions and tactics.
I don’t mean to harp on about Richard Nixon, but he’s a good example of someone creating an ‘enemies list’ then doing despicable things to people on that list …. because they were on the list.
Worth a read about Andrew Breitbart’s “Stop raping people” … http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065161/-Debunking-Breitbart-s-Occupy-Rape-List-
I have never seen this guy before, so I started to have a look at his stuff on youtube. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlqiv-YL7c
From what I have seen, I would say he is basically a Tea Party version of Michael Moore.
I suppose either Moore or Breitbart could enrage me, but curiously they don’t. Rather, it is difficult to take either of these characters seriously.
Rgds,
*p*
Andrew Breitbart vs Mike Moore — yes, that seems like a good comparison.
Tribalism is pretty pervasive, isn’t it?
My point really was that we (homo sapiens) seem very willing to create grievance and an ‘enemy’ in our imagination … then got to ‘War!’ with that construct using whatever is at hand.
– P
Gi Peter,
Actually, I rather like Michael Moore. He is funny. Roger & Me was great. Of course, his “documentaries” are heavily edited pieces of fiction. He is entertaining, if you don’t take his stuff too literally or seriously. He even manages to make some good points, using a largely manipulative and arguanly dishonest approach.
The US is set up such that the segregation of powers ensures extreme left or extreme right views never yield that much power. Instead, we see rather insipid compromise governments of the centre, like most other democracies.
“Andrew Breitbart vs Mike Moore — yes, that seems like a good comparison.”
Okay.
And yet curiously you have written too many blogs to count criticising right wing journalists, bloggers or politicians (Fox News, Slater, Breitbart, National, John Key, Nixon, Cactus Kate etc etc), and virtually nothing expressing distaste for the far left equivalents? Perhaps this inconsistency is just a coincidence, or an incorrect perception on my part?
Are you sure that you are as outside the fray – as neutral with a big O for objective – as you proclaim to be?
Irrespectively, there is nothing necessarily wrong with having entrenched views yourself.
In my view, however, in such cases, it can be useful to drop the pretence of neutrality,
Rgds,
*p*
ps. For the record, poormastery is not neutral. I prefer less rather than more government spending, and less government intrusion into my life.
Hi poormastery
By ‘good comparison’ w.r.t Moore/Breitbart I was referring to the *partisan outrage* provoked by the slant of their propaganda and selective editing/manipulation of source material.
Further, Moore and Breitbart are given ‘amnesty’ by their respective supporters for any misleading or hyperbolic claims in their work.
Do I ‘proclaim’ that I am any such big O objective? Or neutral?
Hmm … I have repeatedly stated those phantom mental positions aren’t actually possible … nor, actually, ‘the goals’ … which are, in my view: a commitment to truthfulness and fairness with whatever is the issue at hand viz:
http://www.thepaepae.com/media-neutrality-vs-being-truthful/21194/
http://www.thepaepae.com/new-media-its-not-about-being-impartial/18934/
http://www.thepaepae.com/do-your-opinions-invalidate-your-reporting/7569/
That said, yes, agreed, it’s probably fair to say from observation that on The Paepae, I don’t routinely draw attention to the misdemeanors of ‘lefties’ … with a few exceptions: Anthony Weiner for obvious reasons
http://www.thepaepae.com/self-inflicted-wounds/17066/
and Martyn Bradbury excited my attention with his parlous attacks on Cathy Odgers’ democratic rights (along with white-supremecist Alex Fogerty’s)
http://www.thepaepae.com/on-a-collision-course/17572/
which wasn’t appreciated (by Martyn).
Of course, Martyn’s dis-invitation from Jim Mora’s radio show after reading one of his blogged rants [glass house alert!] against the PM was discussed
http://www.thepaepae.com/storm-the-barricades-brothers-and-sisters/19380/
Right winger Cameron Slater whom I praised here
http://www.thepaepae.com/in-praise-of-cameron-slater/17729/
later acknowledged me for ‘castigating’ him and Cactus Kate but defending his access to the Offical Information Act like any other citizen, despite Martyn’s urgent cries of alarm …
http://www.thepaepae.com/sis-bosss-slow-resignation-letter/17973/
—
Poormastery, I don’t want to take anything away from your observations of what I ramble about here. I’m open to hearing your opinion — that’s the whole ‘platform for dialogue’ thing.
I can be opinionated at times, sure, and sometimes rattle bugbears and bees in my bonnet, like anyone. What you see is what you get, and whatever attracts my attention (or engages my attention-span for whatever reason) I do try to be fair about it.
As I said last year when exploring my own motivations, ‘I write to work out what I think’…
http://www.thepaepae.com/why-am-i-doing-this-muckraking/13762/
Cheers, Peter
Michael Moore is a man of conviction – and he makes sense. Funny thing is a large number of hugely qualified pundits are agreeing with his findings … after the fact.
When you are rich and powerful – you want small government. When you are aspiring to be rich and powerful – you swallow the bullshit of the rich and powerful … that you NEED small Government therefore you say you want it … quote those who say you need it – and foolishly believe you need it. When you are poor and disenfranchised – you dont have a fucking clue what you want – you do know you want a road out of being screwed by the system.
What is small government – seems to me the neo liberal Keyistroika version of the Soviet System says that small Government involves persecution, punishment and peasantry for the clear majority of the population … to ensure economic survival. Winners Curse – i guess.
I hear the sweet tones of cowbells even now.
As for Petes neutral position on matters – he annoys the hell out of me at times – but he devotes a lot of attention to keeping as neutral as possible. Often in the face of what seems to be the most alarmingly huge levels of patronising elitist statements and longwinded expressions of same, directed at him at times.
And to finish re “small government” .. the Keyistroika version of the soviet system … is actually BIG Government presence and action – to supposedly create the appearance of “small” government.
Is this Government on prozac. If not – why not??
Judith Collins is the poster-girl of the Keyistroika Soviet system … backed up by the teapot tapes police complaint … this is “small government”.
Which tit is actually being pulled here. Is it really not “BIG GOVERNMENT” masquerading as “small government” but the keyistroika soviet style is that the Big Government only really is there for the few who will benefit??
Democracy in action.
What a load of crap.
Hi Peter,
All good.
Alas, perhaps you misunderstand me.
Neutrality at all costs is not, in my opinion, some high minded objective…
The people who have changed the world (for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer) are usually the extremists.
The mavericks, the inspired, the crazy, the über committed, the power crazed – these people occupy the extremes. The middle ground shudders and shifts according to their will.
Having a view is fine, in my opinion, even though it may break some journalistic code…
Hypocrisy (for example, pretending to be “neutral” or “objective”) is arguably more annoying to many, even if the pretence of neutrality is a somewhat convincing and powerful position to occupy. The role of the arbiter is arguably powerful?
As for ivantheterrible banging on about Mr Key and National, personally I don’t support them either. Here’s why:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10795790
Nonetheless, despite National’s failings, somehow I doubt I would enjoy living in a world run by ivantheterrible. Poormastery is an optimist, a positive person and has hopes for the future (both personally, and for humanity).
As Mr Wilde said:
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”
Gaze at those stars, ivantheterrible! They don’t look so bad at all…
Actually, I prefer the stars in the Southern hemisphere. As I peer out the window, I am reminded of Kant:
“Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
Out of interest, ivantheterrible, what leaves you feeling ever-increasing wonder and awe?
Rgds,
*p*
Cheers poormastery. I agree that hypocrisy is A.Very.Bad.Thing.
“Having a view is fine, in my opinion, even though it may break some journalistic code…
Some of the best articles on maintaining a journalistic pretence of objectivity are by Jay Rosen. His ‘The View from Nowhere’ quoted earlier:
http://archive.pressthink.org/2003/09/18/jennings.html
http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/
And the issue of ‘false equivalence’ (or fake balance) is an issue we’ve talked about and, coincidentally, of current debate…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zuHm9ZtiCA
Watch it for the last line: “What’s changed is the centre of the Republican Party”
Updated: Oh, read this, too: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11020258-what-constitutes-the-left?lite
—
You won’t be surprised that I also agree with you that history is littered with examples of today’s ‘rebel’ being tomorrow’s ‘thought leader’.
It will ever be so. Indeed: If salt loses its flavour, what is it good for?
– P
[…] came to see Breitbart as a professional liar, distorting facts to make them sharper arrows, calling for ‘War!’ against ‘the media’ … and hatefully shouting down and intimidating […]
[…] and thought no more about it. (Andrew Breitbart’s defense of Tea Party animal West [video here] was an indicator, if we needed one, of West’s … ‘reliability’ re […]
[…] from my post Warnings of militancy. Not just an ultra-right thaang. […]