Or anyone else for that matter.
On
20 January 2017, near to where Donald Trump was being inaugurated as
45th president of the United States of America, Richard Spencer was being interviewed by an
Australian television channel, when he was punched by an unknown
assailant. Spencer was denying to the interviewer that he was a
neo-Nazi, when members of the public asked him to explain his pin
badge of 'Pepe the Frog' – a symbol often used by racists and
antisemites – when a masked and hooded man ran up, punched Spencer,
then ran off again.
Richard
Spencer is the founder of the Alternative Right movement, often
abbreviated to 'Alt-Right'. He has often espoused white supremacist,
antisemetic, and homophobic views. According to the Southern Poverty
Law Centre, Spencer advocates a homeland for a "dispossessed
white race" and call for "peaceful ethnic cleansing".
The Anti-Defamation League have quoted Spencer as rejecting
conservatism because its adherents "can't or won't represent
explicitly white interests." Although he purports to be an
atheist, he rejects same-sex marriage, which he has described as
"unnatural", stating "very few gay men will find the
idea of monogamy to their liking" Spencer openly supported
Trump for president and at the end of a speech after the Republican
victory, Spencer shouted "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail
victory!", which was met by a large proportion of the audience
giving Nazi-style salutes in return.
Richard
Spencer is certainly therefore an odious individual, with extreme
right wing, and yes, neo-Nazi views; he has repeatedly failed to
condemn Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Since the punching incident, not
only have there been hard left apologists applauding and attempting
to justify the assault, there is now a whole “Punch a Nazi”
movement which is claiming that it is perfectly justified to use
violence first against the extreme right, to silence them, and shut
them down. I would argue that it is never
right to be the first to use violence, no matter the provocation, and
those who do have already lost the argument. I would also state that
many of those who are shouting loudest about punching 'Nazis' are
guilty of the deepest hypocrisy and double standards.
First of all we have to identify just who these 'Nazis' are. Are
they people holding views which can be construed to be not dissimilar
to those of Hitler and the actual Nazis, or neo-Fascist ideas?
There
are some on the hard left who maintain that all movements for
national identity are by their very nature extreme
right wing and racist. I
seek an independent Scotland,
because I firmly believe that self-determination (a right recognised
by the United Nations)
is the only way Scotland can ever progress. Despite the fact that
many of we Scots
Nats, including the Scottish National Party (SNP), have continually
made the distinction of
outward-looking “civic nationalism”,
we have continually been lambasted as 'separatists', 'anti-English
racists' and even portrayed as 'Nazis', by
some on the left, up to and including some Labour Party members.
Opponents openly refer to the
SNP as the “Scottish Nazi Party” and
I recently saw a Tweet from a member of the hard left stating “Forget
this civic nationalism rubbish; nationalism is nationalism.”
So,
should I and other Scots Nats,
who embrace all, be attacked
with violence, despite never using or supporting
violence ourselves? Some would definitely think so. In the run-up
to the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, there were many
shops and cafés ran by the official Yes campaign were often daubed
with swastikas and “Nazis”. As well as being subjected to a
great deal of verbal abuse, Yes campaigners, myself included, were
often spat upon by members of the hard left. At the more extreme
end, a 5-year-old little boy was narrowly missed by a chair pushed
out of a window, aimed at former SNP leader Jim Sillars by a left
wing opponent, and
an 80-year-old man campaigning for Yes, suffered a broken arm after
being pushed to the ground by a woman who was a member of both the
official Better Together campaign and the Labour Party.
And
of course, one of the greatest hypocrisies is that many of those who
decry and
use violence against Scots Nats, quite happily support
self-determination for the Palestine,
and a united Ireland, but will tell you “It's not the same thing.”
Yes, it seriously is.
I
happen to take a centrist ground on immigration and
refugees; I neither believe
in pulling up the drawbridge, nor throwing open the doors to anyone.
I do think that there are dangers of Islamist terrorists infiltrating
immigrants and refugees,
and every western country needs to be aware and cautious of that; as
much as they should be more aware of the dangers of
people-trafficking, which only harms those they claim to be helping.
For being so cautious, as I honestly believe any sane, well-informed,
politically-aware person should be, guess what I get called for that?
A Nazi, that's what (while
the right call me a bleeding heart – I can't win).
Where
does it stop? Examine your own political views and then have a look
at those espoused by the Nazi regime, or even Nazis of today – or
things the hard left define as “Nazi -
and you may very well find
things similar to your own views. Should you
then be punched?
I
have had it suggested to me that the use of violence and shutting
down should only be used on those who openly promote violence against
minorities, or those who openly promote genocide. Oh really? Well,
that is very
interesting. I have in the past been on Irish Republican rallies in
which I have heard sectarian Roman Catholics espousing hatred towards
Protestants, even calling for the death of all of them. I even
recently saw a post on Facebook saying “Scotland was Catholic –
and will be once again”. Are those coming out with such comments
not “Nazis”? Don't they deserve to be punched as such? Oh no,
wait, they can't be; because obviously Irish (and Scottish) Roman
Catholicism is a 'socialist' cause. Aye! Right! If anyone believes
that, go have a look at just how very right wing a great degree of
the Roman Catholic church is. Indeed, I invite any who think such
to educate themselves upon the very close links the Vatican and Pope
Pius XII had with
the real Nazis.
Let
us move on to the matter of
Palestine, and those on the hard-left who show
a strong support for an independent Palestinian state. Without a
doubt, the behaviour of the state of Israel and their treatment of
the Palestinian people has for much of their short history been
utterly shameful. But there are too
many who think this is all one way and that the Palestinians and many
who support them, and lead them, in the Middle-East are somehow
innocent little souls. HA! Palestinians are currently led by the
Hamas and the
Hamas Covenant completely refuses to recognise the right of the state
of Israel to exist. While
they have agreed to a two-state solution, based on 1967 ceasefire
agreements, several Hamas leaders have stated that this can only be
an interim measure, that all
the land belongs to them as “Muslim land” - “from
the River Jordan to the Mediterranean”. (Hamas leader Khaled
Meshall). More disturbingly, the Hamas Covenant not only calls for
the eradication of Israel, but for the killing of each and every Jew
on the face of the planet. Quoting the prophet Muhammed, the
Covenant states; “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims
fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The
stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a
Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Hark tree would not do
that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
So,
there is the call for genocide of the Jews, and do we see the 'Punch
a Nazi' brigade calling for violence to be used on pro-Palestinians,
to silence them and shut them down? Not a bit of it. Quite the
opposite in fact. In my experience there are those on the hard left
who are all too ready to become apologists for Islamist violence
against Jews. But then, there are many on the hard left who are
very quick to bandy about the term “Nazi”, but who are themselves
in fact deeply antisemitic. I have seen and heard it myself; people
who call themselves 'socialists' and yet appear totally incapable of
differentiating between Israeli and Jews, and who attack all
Jews as a result. One need
only look to the shameful levels of antisemitism in the Labour Party
to see the truth of that one.
And strangely enough, I don't see anyone in Labour, least of all
Jeremy Corbyn, punching out any antisemites within the party.
There
has actually been a disturbing increase in antisemitic attacks
including acts of violence against synagogues and individual Jews in
the UK in recent years, and some
is coming from the left, who hold all Jews responsible for atrocities
carried out by the state of Israel. Does this surprise me? Not in
the least. I once put a meme up on Facebook commemorating Holocaust
Memorial Day, with the words “Never Again”, and the first comment
on it was “It is happening again – in Gaza”. But then, when I
put a meme up for Holocaust Memorial Day 2017, I asked others
on Facebook to share it. Not
one person did. Interesting
then that Trump's inauguration fell on the same day (a coincidence
I'm sure, but one which showed utterly crass judgement), and that of
course was the very same day that Richard Spencer was punched, and
the “Punch a Nazi” posts started appearing - from
people who would not recognise Holocaust Memorial Day.
Hang your heads in shame,
you utter hypocrites.
It
is equally true of the Hamas Covenant that it makes mention of The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
which it claims to be factual. The “Protocols”
was in fact a fabricated
Russian document, first published in 1901, which outlaid a secret
Jewish plan for world domination by means of subverting morals,
controlling the media, and taking over the economies of the world.
It was responsible for much of the antisemitism which swept across
the world in the early 20th
century, and was taught in German schools as factual after the Nazis
came to power in 1933. One would have thought that the Protocols
would have disappeared after 1945, but not a bit of it. It is very
much available to this day, and this is never more true than in
Islamic countries, where it is made available and distributed in
Arabic, and taught as factual. Hamas
claim on one hand to have moved away from their Covenant, but on the
other hand say it cannot be changed “for historical reasons”.
Given their insistence that a two-nation state can only ever be
temporary solution, and the continued distribution of the Protocols,
please do excuse my cynicism, but I do
not and will not believe them
for one moment.
Should
the latter part of the above claims of the Protocols
sound familiar, those of Jews subverting and controlling the media
and economies, then it should do. Because the document is also
available online and has been purported as genuine by some in the
west, and this has filtered down to mainstream belief, where we now
have people quite commonly bandying about ignorant views of the press
and world economies being run by Jews; and the left have
swallowed this bait hook, line and sinker.
But they even go further and claim that Israel, and by expansion,
Jews, are available for all the world's ills. Doubt that? How many
times have you read or heard that Jewish workers were pulled from the
World Trade Center before the attacks of 9/11, or indeed the bizarre
claims that Islamist terrorist organisations, including Al Qedea and
Islamic State were set up by
or are even fronts for the
Israeli secret service, Mossad?
And again,
all Jews get the blame
for that.
Yet if there is one group in
society which is not calling for a campaign of violence against
neo-Nazis, and never has done, it is Jewish communities. Seems to me
that some on the hard left could learn quite a lot from them.
So
where are the voices calling for Palestinians and other Muslims who
believe the Protocols
to be true, or their western supporters and apologists, to be
punched? Where are those denying them a platform? Where are those
shutting them down? Suddenly it has all gone silent.
But let me go back for a moment to this claim that it is only those
who call for the genocide of others. Well, the major religions of
the world – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – all contain
commandments in them to kill non-believers, idolaters, adulterers,
homosexuals, and many, many others; such was much of the basis of the
real Nazis, just as it remains the basis of Islamist and
fundamentalist Christians, and indeed some orthodox Jews, to this
day. Whither then the calls to violence against Muslims? Who's
forcibly silencing Baptists? Should we be punching Jews? WOAH! Did
you see where that just went?
In discussing this with others there have been those who have stated
that when faced with a bunch of neo-Nazis, they have the right to
fight. I agree. I have never, not for one moment, ever said that
no-one should not defend themselves. Indeed, I shall go even
further.
It
may come as no surprise to many reading this to learn I am a
pacifist. I have read widely on many pacifist authors, not the least
of which is Mohandas Gandhi. Now, Gandhi can be criticised on some
things he wrote, and I personally think that he was naive at times,
but in fairness he was a product of his time and culture. His
faults however do
not for one moment negate some of the extremely wise things he came
out with. Gandhi believed that honour was more important than life
itself, a view I happen to agree with, because a dishonourable life
is a life not worth living. Under
Gandhi's philosophy defending yourself by violent means is not only
valid, it is necessary. “Nonviolence
is superior to violence, but violence is superior to cowardice.”
Gandhi stated, explaining that when one is left with only the choice
of using violence in defence or cowardice, then violence is the only
honourable stance that you can take, even if that means your death,
but at least you will go down fighting, thereby retaining your
honour.
So
it is that when faced with violence, any one of us not only has the
right to defend ourselves it is the only reasonable – and
honourable – stance
we can take. But note that this is in the face
of violence. It does not for one moment give anyone the right to
throw the first punch, no matter the provocation. Contrary to what
many would have you believe today, words are not
violence, and do not give
you the right to be the first to use violence. For
goodness sake, were I to punch everyone who offended me with their
words, no matter how vile, I would have never been done fighting all
my adult life.
And if you do use violence first, what will it achieve? Will it
change your opponent's mind? Will it silence them? Will it stop
others holding similar views and following them? Not for one moment.
All it will do is make a martyr of them, put yourself in a poor
light, and have the finger of condemnation pointed at you, while
making the 'Nazis' appear squeaky clean. Sure, you can attempt to
silence your opponent by the use or threat of violence. But if you
do so, if you seek to use violence to frighten people into silence to
achieve your own political ends, by do you know what that makes you,
by definition? A terrorist, that's what.
Even should you manage in shutting certain people down or refuse them
a platform because they hold odious views – or merely views you
happen to disagree with (as Unionists v Scots Nats for example) - do
you think that will silence them? Do you honestly believe that in
the internet age they will not find a way of getting their message
across or finding an audience? Of course they shall, even if they
have to go underground to gain it. And in doing so, they will be
able to spread their bile unchallenged to impressionable audiences,
out of the public eye, instead of being where we all can keep an eye
on them, and where their views can be challenged and showed up to be
facile. I well recall the neo-Nazi British National Party (BNP) once
fielded a candidate in a local election here in Edinburgh, and other
candidates said they would not share a platform with him at hustings
meetings. What did that achieve? It handed that candidate his very
own 'Nuremberg Rally' on a plate where he was allowed to spread his
venom without any counter-argument being put forward. And while he
did not win the seat, it pushed his vote up considerably. Attempts
to shut down and silence neo-Nazis can therefore be
counter-productive.
Speaking on LBC Radio on 11 February 2017, Maajid Nawaz said “If
freedom of speech is to mean anything, then it is the rights of
others to say things you do not want to hear. If you only allow
those you agree with to speak, that is not freedom of speech, it is
mere sycophancy.” I can already hear people saying “Huh! Maajid
Nawaz, a radio host, who is he?” Well, let me educate you in just
who he is. Maajid Nawaz is a British-born Muslim who was once a
member of the Sunni Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks a
global Islamic caliphate. For membership of this group he was jailed
in Egypt in 2001, and spent the next five years in prison, during
which he read widely on human rights, and was released with the help
of Amnesty International. After release, he left Hizb ut-Tahrir
and founded the Quillam Foundation, to help combat young people from
becoming radicalised by Islamic extremists. So, there is a man who
once took what could be described as a “Nazi” view, who has
turned his life around. He has seen what silencing people leads to
first hand, and that is why he takes a strong stance against it. If
you think you are wiser than Maajid Nawaz, I strongly suggest you
rethink your attitude.
Trust me, I am no different from any other human being. When I hear
or read people coming out with bigoted bullshit, my first reaction is
indeed to bitchslap the stupid out of them. But if we seek to truly
silence those on the extreme right, then that can only ever be done
through education, and the most important part of that is showing up
their own ideas for just how very dangerous, and very facile, they
are. Using their own words against them is the most effective, most
powerful tool which we have. Turning to violence only makes it look
like we do not have a counter-argument, and actually gives neo-Nazis
a victory. Extreme right views are largely ill thought out appeals
to peoples fears and imagined grievances. By using well-informed,
educated counter-arguments, we can not only show up neo-Nazi and
other right-wing rhetoric to be baseless, but also clearly show those
espousing such views to be as foolish and as dangerous as they truly
are. This is one battle where the pen truly is mightier than the
sword.
But if we embark on a campaign of violence, then we merely hand the
extreme right a victory on a plate. They will be first to exploit
it, to claim they are 'persecuted' (some fundamentalist Christians already
play this game), and make themselves out to martyrs. Using such
tactics are also unhealthy for democracy, for as I have already said,
just who is a 'Nazi' is very much open to interpretation, and one has
to ask, just where does that stop? Violence will only lead to
counter-violence, which will exacerbate into more violence, and
before you know where you are, we will all be silenced. To
paraphrase Gandhi, an eye for an eye does indeed leave the world
blind.
And really, just what was Richard Spencer punched for? For wearing
a Pepe Frog lapel pin? A character which started life as an internet
meme? Is that what it comes down to? Punching people for wearing a
fucking badge based on a meme? Really? Do please grow the
fuck up. Or even if it was for his words, well if there are those
who seek to silence and deny a platform to those whose words they
disagree with through the threat of or the actual use of violence, just
which regime does that sound like? Ermm, the Nazis, that's whom.
Using violence against the extreme right is merely playing their game
and sinking to their level. And those who call for violence but who
are nowhere to be seen when the fighting starts are the worst
kind of coward.
Do not fall for either; you are better than that ~ and if you only look for it, you have
infinitely more honour in you than both put together.
