Exposing McCarthyism

Meachan (far Right) Tommy Robinson (far Right)

Investigations are an alien term in Conservative circles usually because the mainstream coverage is distracted by other ‘more’ progressive material that warrants a higher concern; notably, even endorsed spokespeople rally behind the priority set by media’s one-way-traffic itinerary.  So, anti-Islam, antisemitism cowers in the forgotten in-tray – this is modern Britain.

Section 20 of the Equality Act (2006) is of interest as the detestable disorder continues in political circles, equating to a far right contagion that’s enrolled in the disingenuous data from the last three years. From Brexit, to vitriolic anti-Islam journalists who’ve a hefty readership to placate middle age gammon to keep the faith. Meanwhile the shock of the new dwindles leaving one direction to go, the place where the blurry lines are. This is where we’re at, and cultivates why the Equality Act (2006) is called into motion devised to re-establish the red lines of disparaging discourse.  Before settling on a conclusive report, a recording that an individual had committed an unlawful act or failed to correctly acknowledge what’s acceptable. Iniquitousness is inevitable; however, it’s always worth scrutinizing.

To clarify my idiosyncratic quest, I did seek guidance from a comedian who’s lived day in and out on the proverbial discriminatory treadmill, for he’s in a superior, distinguished position than I to quantify what’s adequate racism. Rarely do I opt to gift an individual an Office to validate hate (or not); now we’re in the scope of theorising subjective vitriol and not forgetting that investigations have commenced for well over seventy ‘anti-Semitic’ social media users, who’ve written without heed, showcasing self-professed McCarthyism. My judgement isn’t about Mark Lewis’s growing list of ‘culprits’ - but, rather than why the provocation warranted a hyperbolic response which subsequently deemed to be enough to be labelled as anti-Semitic. Inadvertently, David Baddiel’s (Jew) lucid comment about jesters and their satirical right to offend added another dimension to the racism trope.

Quite unexpected, I never saw offensive content as being accommodating regardless of platform or whom was belligerent.  Herewith, the layering is convoluted and the danger is participating on the candid terrain – folks, toying with jovial discrimination is a minefield. We’re not alone either, in the US, Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s supporters deflect attentions from her anti-Semitism by denoting ‘Islamophobia;’ engineered mixed messaging. A few may be able to strip back the layers and encounter the trope of inherited prejudice, although the majority are unaware. Not dissimilar to the complexities surrounding Labour’s adoption of the IHRA Definition last year. Minor deviations or as some may say… redundant semantics enabled Socialism’s core values to remain. Otherwise, the conflicts of interests were just too flagrant – resulting in endangering the whole movement and that wouldn’t be good for democracy.

Of course, satirists don’t require alignment to a good behaviour doctrine to be ‘funny’ – albeit, the unsaid condition of freedom of speech does have obligations, see Equality Act (2006). No vocational demographic is immune and the majority aren’t skilled in the art of wit either… leaving an abundant of ill-equipped raconteurs walking the plank of shame. In Frederich Engels address of anti-Semitism of 1890, there’s zero license of spirited witticism, just an antiquated evaluation of where bigotry resides. Namely with the classes still in the Middle Ages, there and there alone is meager capital, mainly Jewish and prejudices are prevalent.  Simple-mindedness is a major factor at this epoch, under the observation of Engels – alas, anti-Semitism laced in humour really infuriates me; for example: covert racism is as abhorrent as flagrant racism.  When the two are treated differently in context this is where the disputes arise, via hypocrisy; of the premise if you label yourself as a professional sh*tposter , automatically you’re exempt by proficient outfit.

Here’s the heinous duplicity, Baddiel meticulously pronounces and explains why Count Dankula’s, alias Markus Meechan’s anti-Semitic posts are not, you guessed it… anti-Semitic. I hated the fact I was informed by a second-rate comic... Didn’t you spot the twinkle in the eye? Baddiel continues: Admire the training involved not forgetting the number of biscuits to get Buddha the Pug to engage in Nazi salutes, duly because a pug’s sad face is a good comic counterpoint to the power and nobility that the fascist salute strives for.  Baddiel is grotesquely instructing his readership to garner… this is funny - the cherry on top of the trifle being Buddha the pug studiously watching Triumph des Willens (1935).  Personally, I couldn’t care less about the sketch being framed ironically or that it failed to compete with Mel Brooks’s: ‘Springtime for Hitler’ (1967). Sickening appreciation for a despicable act of vivid anti-Semitism, imagine the media furore if this was conducted or said by a Labour Party member / Corbynite.

However, as Baddiel instructed, the intention is to laugh at this evil. But, the majority can’t on the off-chance of laughing at it in the wrong way, being branded something we’re not, i.e. anti-Semitic. Oh to have such luxury in the headlights of online transparency and getting away with it. Meechan didn’t and was sent down; all part of cognisant ‘sh*tposting,’ which is intentionally posting poor quality humour with no relevance to the platform where it is posted. Only the self-professed scholars of wit busters such as Baddiel can attempt to spin the sh*tposting to a more plausible political animal claiming it has dexterity, or has cultural nuance and deserves an iota of comprehension.  No, is my answer - it deserves public disdain to the point of absolute obliteration.

Every aspect of the Nazi narrative has to be rejected and this includes creating sniggering material devised to take a pop at the ideological / illogical pillars. There’s no reason to revise the bygone era of regime doctrine, of the premise the far-right is wholeheartedly a Nazi message of hate. So, to haphazardly assume radical Islamists are part of this indoctrination is a grandiose disillusion; the suchlike cannot be repackaged as an extreme nationalist order - oil and water don’t mix. Same goes with Marxism and Leninism in Russia, profoundly disingenuous to mix the two philosophies up to make a cheap political point in 21^st C Blighty. Joking about fascism is betokening of a lagging culture. Frederich Engels in the late 19^th C admitted there were examples of racist mockery in Prussia, Austria and Russia; if the repugnant satire entered into the English or American psyche the responsive derision would be monstrous. My word, social intelligence is deficient, today.

Marx was a full-bloodied Jew, for much of his prophecies enveloped peace and lifestyle / capitalist counter-balances. Even during this forgotten Age, there was a decent collaboration of internationalists who were naturally intrigued with making a mark somehow; not by being a satirical authoritarian who excuses a sh*tposter of anti-Semitic material, evidently way beyond suitable – alas, by influencing Central Europe into becoming democratic institutions.

Börne like Marx worked to inform and induce others, and was driven by exposing injustices – but I’ve been informed we can’t put people in prison for not being comedy geniuses, albeit, there’s McCarthyism out there who’re determined to divide Left and Right; yet no anti-Semitic trait is right in comedic value or otherwise, especially when an insurmountable time has been made to train a pug to unknowingly be a Nazi; anyone who tolerates it, finds it funny is anti-Semitic.