In the 1980s, we find a Westminster establishment regular trying to forge links with the then openly Neo-Nazi British National Party. As a luminary in the Federation of Conservative Students, he said there was a great deal of common ground between himself and the BNP, particularly with regard to "the elimination of Communism in Britain – the mass media, the trade unions, and the schoolroom."
A year later we see our hero flogging off UNITA solidarity shirts. For younger readers not au fait with this particular acronym, they began life as a Maoist anti-colonial guerrilla outfit in what was then Portuguese-occupied Angola. It then undertook an armed struggle against the pro-Soviet MPLA government and morphed into a right wing, anti-communist outfit as cash flowed in from Uncle Sam and apartheid South Africa. A truly charming organisation that was implicated in brutal atrocities and trade in blood diamonds.
Later reflecting on his youthful scrapes, he recalled "I was a fanatical, zealot anti-communist. I wasn't really a Tory, I was an anarcho-capitalist. I was lobbying at the Council of Europe and at Parliament; I was over in Washington, in Jo'burg, in South America. It was 'let's get guns for the Contras', that sort of stuff. I was enjoying it immensely, I got to go with these guys and fire off AK-47s. I always like to go where the action is, and for that period in the Reagan/Thatcher days, it was great fun, it was all expenses paid and I got to see the world." (Matthew Collin, Altered State, 1997, p.99)
Ah, the indiscretions of the young. Ah, but what do we have here? How about a forthright defence of Augusto Pinochet, replete with pig iron production figures and spin so crude they make North Korean apologetics look sophisticated. Likewise, looking back again at the small part he played in the Cold War, he boasts "I'm still pretty gung-ho. We were on the right side of history. I don't have any problem with having raised money to kill communists." Oh, and to bring matters fully up to date, our pillar of establishment politics shares the hard right's racist and sexist obsession with Diane Abbott.
None of this is news. But we have a very forgiving political class because none of the shilly-shallying with Nazis, excusing brutal dictators, and funnelling cash to and colluding with far right paramilitaries matters a jot. He's part of the scene and everything is dandy, all is forgiven. I mean, it's a good job he was hanging around with murderous thugs at the age of 21 instead of anonymously shit posting sexist and homophobic comments on the internet, otherwise he'd be finished.
Hypocrisy is a sickening thing, especially when people are happy to dog pile a new MP for saying daft things a decade-and-a-half ago, and doing so while caring nothing for the anti-social, beyond-the-pale, unrepentant doings of Paul Staines of Guido fame. It's time some perspective was had.
22 comments:
Scope for a bit of MSM investigative journalism methinks. I'm not holding my breath though.
" it was all expenses paid and I got to see the world."
There seems to be a good living for the talentless in right wing bollocks. Where does the money come from and how do you apply for it?
The BNP thing is untrue. Please remove those paragraphs. Ask around, the journalist concerned (David Rose) will confirm. I have a standard legal letter about this but I think you are more sensible than that. Thanks
When they were less than a year ago, perhaps?
You'll forgive me if I do indeed ask around before removing.
So you are happy with the rest of it?
Everything else is true though? Good, so you're the epitome of Neo-Facists.
"The BNP thing is untrue".
Is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/04/guido-fawkes-blogger-gossip
I see...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NSyZipZQ2I4C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=paul+staines+hull+bnp&source=bl&ots=mAKrzMb6rI&sig=0_hL0aT79np0djhmRq1W12de8eE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi23obd94nXAhVmYZoKHUptAjwQ6AEITzAG#v=onepage&q=paul%20staines%20hull%20bnp&f=false
Righty o!
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/neocons_pretend/
You'll huff and you'll puff and that's about all you'll do.
But Guido you care not a jot for the vile inaccuracies of your pieces..
in what sense is Guido being a hypocrite here?
The sources seeem fairly clear. It's almost as though Staines was a liar, as well as a bullying sociopath with (it could be argued) a face like a carrier-bag full of warm dogshit.
"I'm a far right nut but please don't claim I was a member of the BNP"
Paul Staines is a big fat repellent slob with tiny private parts.
There. I've said it. Does he have a standard legal letter for that?
Sorry, I’m a little confused, which part of the ‘BNP thing’ is untrue. Mr Fawkes admits writing the letter to them while he was an activist with the FCS in Hull, (a group he admits, ‘were so obnoxious that the Conservative party decided to close down') and agrees with the contents of the letter as portrayed. So that’s all true then. The only part left up to debate is whether he was, as he claims, acting as ‘agent provocateur… to smoke people out’ or genuinely trying to forge links between the ultra-right group he represented and another ultra-right group. Which version of events do we believe? Was he lying to the BNP about his intentions and telling the truth about being an ‘agent provocateur’? Or was he being genuine in his attempts to form ties with the fascist organization and later, realising how this might reflect badly on him in the future, deciding to come up with this somewhat bizarre explanation for his actions. I wonder if there is other evidence he can produce that shows this was just a small part of an extensive campaign against the BNP or was it simply this one letter….. and with it he was going to bring down the BNP single handed. Did they fall for it? Did it ‘smoke people out’? I tracked down the letter from the journalist which, he claims, exonerates him. However, it says nothing about the letter or its contents being untrue (well, even Fawkes hasn’t disputed that part), merely that he (David Rose) chooses to believe Staines’ explanation about why he sent it. Naturally everyone else is free to decide which lie is the truth.
I assume this is some vague attempt to defend or deflect from that loutish Labour MP?
(Forgive me if I'm wrong.)
Three quick observations:
Staines is not an MP.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Quite a bit more recent and even less savoury stuff has come out.
Or is Labour now "feeding the troll" by suspending him?
Yeah. All else ok then? Shared far and wide. Some Commies left you haven't killed Paul Staines.
Whatever you do DON'T called Guido the British Breitbart. He REALLY hates that.
The controversy over the Guardian 1986 report, and David Rose's private repudiation of it in 1990 (which did not amount to an official retraction by the newspaper) came up in 2007, and was discussed by Sunny Hundal at the time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070430002743/http://www.pickledpolitics.com:80/archives/1009
Yes, I've had recent problems with Facebook too having been banned from sharing stuff and seeing referrals fall through the floor.
Chris
'Quite a bit more recent and even less savoury stuff has come out.'
You mean some woman called Sophie Evans alleging that O'Mara called her an ugly bitch - an allegation for which there is no corroboration from disinterested third parties, meaning that this is all just 'he said, she said'. Is that what you're referring to by any chance?
He claims no one reads the comments under his articles and that the posters are all 'mad'. The comments are pretty raunchy and if he wants to put his money where his mouth is, he should clean them up. His moral compass is a very odd one, if he even has one. He's just turned into the average boring Tory boy.
Post a Comment