Tuesday, 8 September 2009

FFS can the media learn the difference between Right and Left

A lot of newspapers are running stories on the newly formed English Defence League (EDL) who are protesting against Islam. Once you were allowed to protest against Islam but not anymore. However this is not about Islam, there are few religions that I find as vile as Islam, but this is out of the question.

The EDL have been labeled, and I take this newspaper as an example of the misconception, "right-wing" by the Times.

I think a short recap of history is needed before we tare into this highly objectionable newspaper. How did the terms 'right' and 'left' - wing politics come about?

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Now the way the Times use the term 'right-wing' along with the article suggests that they are in fact fascists - the EDL that is. However looking at the proper fascists of history we see that not only one but two had policies which were suspectedly left-wing (along with the tiny fact that they both killed millions).

What is left-wing?

Centralised command control, trade tariffs, state owned businesses, increase in pensions (well not a necessary one but definitely there), expansion of the NHS and so on. A top down approach all the way through government basically.

Now the media have come to use the term 'right-wing' synonymously with 'baddie' however looking at the comments on the Times article few seem to agree with this stance which the MSM have, for some reason, adopted as their ipso facto approach to right-wing politics. I think we can safely say that the people can see through their little deception quite easily since the only people who do support them are the extremely violet UAF and New Labour apparatchiks.

Iain Dale and John Redwood adopt the similar approach as myself. However people tend to use as argument against this stance that Churchill said in 1939 that

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among nations.

This is just a pure and blatant misinterpretation of history.

Churchill said this before he became PM, before the nazis started exterminating everyone whom they disliked, before war had been declared on Germany by Britain, before the WWII started through and through. What is more the quote is not even referring to Hitlers policies but his character as a strong man. This is not a defence of Hitler most certainly not nor is it an apology for the Nazis. But do not misinterpret history for political gains. That is what happens in '1984' and it is a very dangerous theme to play around with.

Demonstrating against a concept which you find objectionable, in this case Islam, is not "right-wing" it is Democracy and it is not a spectator sport.

No comments: