FFFF: Are we the baddies?

Fascist fun and frolics Friday is a series of posts where, for my deranged amusement, I explore the exciting world of white supremacist web forums. Previous posts can be found here, here and here.

Let’s pick up where we left off last week. If many White Nationalists think of Lord of the Rings and Dungeons and Dragons as their ideal fantasy worlds, complete with well delineated races with defined characteristics, and thus give Middle Earth praise, love and affection, then Star Wars is their bete noire. (Appropriate phrase, really).

It’s not that White Supremacists dislike Star Wars. It’s just that they think the wrong side wins. For example, when a bunch of white supremacists takes a Star Wars personality test, they mostly come out as Emperor Palpatine, and are pretty chuffed about it, too. As one Stormfront poster says:

“I never understood why the Galactic Empire was so bad. They were mostly English (white men) and everything was so orderly and all. Aside from blowing up Aldaraan, they were pretty much the good guys and all.

Of course it makes a lot of sense when you replace the aliens with real life non-whites. Star Wars is pretty much the multi-cult against a fictional White Nationalist Empire. In the movies, everyone in the Empire was pretty much an Anglo-Saxon, even in phenotype.

One of my favourite Stormfront threads deals with just this topic. It’s called Does loving the Galactic Empire in Star Wars have anything to do with being Pro White? The first post is:

Maybe its just the uniforms.”

The whole Star Wars empire thing is pretty clear to most White nationalists. After all:

“I know they are supposed to be villains, but whenever I see a movie with pseudo-Nazis in it I always pull for them to win, including the Galactic Empire in Star Wars.”

Mind you, it’s no Schindlers List. As one Stromfronter says:

“I think cheering for the Imperial forces is a good warm up to watching Shindlers List and cheering for the Nazi’s”

As someone says in that thread, there’s one plus about the Star Wars universe. Although there’s plenty of different races, there’s pretty little inter race or species love depicted. Why?

“Perhaps since there are no Jews in the Star Wars galaxy, there is no one around to encourage race mixing and therefor it is very rare. Though, Jabba the Hutt does seem to have a thing for scantily clad humanoid women, which seems pretty bizarre.”

The trouble with this sort of stuff is that pretty soon you dissappear down the rabbithole of the Fascist mentality- which leaves you staring in disbelief at a post like this:

“My claim that the Star Wars Saga are subversive films? You mentioned the Ewoks a while back- to me they represent the struggle of nonwhites against European “colonialism” in the Third World, and it’s clear which side Lucas takes. “

Wait, So the Ewoks are evil now?

There’s loads of these strange twists in Stormfront, as pretty much every film with fascistic enemies gets turned on its head when it comes to the good guys and the bad guys.

The general justification for this is that since as we all know, the Jews control the media and films and TV, then obviously they’re going to portray Nazi’s and their stand ins as the baddies.  That makes it OK for proud White nationalists to cheer for the baddies. This happens again and again in threads like “Worst movie Racewise” where posters recount watching Roots for it’s happy ending – because they watched it in reverse.

So far, so obvious. These people are deeply twisted, and that makes them ludicrous and laughable (They get really upset about “white men can’t jump”). It’s not just useful to expose the stupidity, it’s important, because otherwise you can fall into the trap of believing their own mythology about themselves. On Stormfront, you don’t find a master-race, but a bunch of not very bright race-nerds, who spend an inordinate amount of time wondering if George Lucas is a Jew.

But I want to close with something else. The most troubling thing about reading Stormfront is not that everyone who posts there is a racist. After a while, the bigotry and hatred become almost boring. When someone calls a black person a “Mud” for the thousandth time, the bigotry is unpleasant, but it stops being shocking.

No, what really affects me is when I see a glimpse of something better. Something not twisted and angry and ugly.

Take the Stormfront thread on ladies shoes. It’s just a thread on shoes. Lots of women posting pictures of attractive shoes they like or want to buy. Just normal, everyday stuff.

Then someone posts this:

Here is an example of how creative and advanced Africans are when it comes to shoemaking.

Bang. there’s a chorus of approval and laughter, and you remember who and what you’re reading.

But then someone posts this in response.

“Maybe PMS is affecting me strangely tonight but I actually find that really sad. “

I want to scream at the poor woman. I want to say to her, again and again:

“That’s not Pre Menstrual Syndrome. It’s your compassion,  your humanity, desperately trying to be heard. It’s battering against your prejudice, trying to communicate to you that maybe the best reaction to someone else’s poverty and misfortune isn’t laughter and bigotry.

“That sadness you’re feeling, that is the best part of you, the thing that makes you truly human. And you think it’s PMS.”

You find these slips of the mask everywhere on Stormfront.

Take the oddly affecting way the guilty pleasures thread has some guy raving about Black harmonica players, and he apologises for loving the music because he discovered it well before becoming a white nationalist.

Well, I hate to admit it, but forty years ago I discovered what negroes could do with the Hohner Marine Band Harmonica… In 1971, I heard “Magic Dick” of the J. Geils Band play WHAMMER JAMMER, and it changed my life forever. By the way, I think Magic Dick and most of the other members of the J. Geils Band were Jews. Oh well!
…My main influences on the harmonica in the early days were the negroes Little Walter, Sonny Boy Williamson, Junior Wells, and Sonny Terry…
Guilty pleasure? Well, my musical career began decades before I became a White Nationalist. Before many on this board were even born.
If you don’t mind, I think I’ll just hold onto my old negro harmonica licks, since there doesn’t seem to be anything more exciting coming up these days. I plead guilty!”

I defy you not to feel for the man that guy used to be.

Which takes us back to the start, because when I read posts like that,
I can’t help but think of another Star Wars story – the character who gave into hatred and anger and loathing,  and our hope that they find a way to be redeemed.

They’re the baddies alright.

But even they can be saved.

37 Responses to “FFFF: Are we the baddies?”

  1. quietzapple

    Pity the nonsense these people spout doesn’t make the opposite nonsense, given more credence than it deserves in the Labour Party, true.

    Reply
  2. tim f

    quietzapple, I’m quite happy for the Labour Party to be described as the opposite of these guys.

    Hopi, that’s the best of these articles yet & I agree with your concluding sentiment, which strikes me as almost religious.

    Reply
  3. tim f

    At the risk of coming over like a dirty hippie, the opposite of hatred isn’t more hatred, it’s love.

    Reply
  4. quietzapple

    Ah . . errmm yes, Hug a terrorist, David Chameleon I believe.

    The truth is that the Labour Party has many useful dupes for Hamas, the Taliban, who’d like Saddam back, and who would like to feed Israel and America to anyone whom they see as downtrodden.

    Far too many are simply mirror images of the Neo Nazis, some claiming to be the hobbits of love and beauty, spitting like orcs whenever anyone mentions Labour’s great achievements of the past 13 years, which include a remarkable degree of security in a turbulent world.

    Reply
      • Danivon

        Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about real people in Labour, rather than trolls who post garbage on the guardian site and could be members of any party (or none).

        I see now. Try mixing among real people for a while, qa. It’s a lot less scary.

        Reply
  5. Newmania

    I read that the Black shirts were defeated by laughter , PG Wodehouse was early into the fray with Spode and his absurd Black shorts .

    Of course the Labour Party did for Wodehouse in one of their class wars and Moseley came from the Labour Party

    Reply
    • tory boys never grow up

      Mosley also came from the Conservative Party and the aristocracy. Spode did not appear in PG Wodehouse’s novel until September/October 1938 – by which time the Public Order Act introduced at the start of 1937 had put pay to the British Union of Fascists para military activities, and events in Continental Europe had rather more sway over British public opinion.

      You may wish to attribute all fascism and racism to the Labour Party, while ignoring the role played by the Conservative Party, but please have some respect for the historical facts.

      Reply
  6. AB

    I shouldn’t rise to this utter tripe, but in what sense did the Labour Party do for PG Wodehouse? If you mean his move to the US, that came in 1944 during the wartime coalition government and reflected widespread public disquiet at his (imho foolish but not criminal) broadcasts from Nazi Germany. It was Quintin Hogg (a noted Tory appeaser of Hitlers’ territorial demands btw) who called for him to be shot as a traitor.

    If you mean the earlier residence he established in the US in the mid-1930s, that was because of double taxation, but nothing to do with Labour.

    While we’re on this Labour=Nazis rubbish, a while ago you quoted a number that 35 per cent of Labour voters expressed BNP as a second preference. Care to name a source, or did you just make it up? This poll (page 20 of pdf) suggests you are off by some 34 percentage points. http://www.comres.co.uk/page165425649.aspx

    Reply
  7. Newmania

    Read that Survey in Nick Coen`s Whats Left and interestingly it is also quoted in “The Likes of Us” a history of the white working classes , Michael Collins its not much out of line with other linky stuff though

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/bnp.shtml

    There is further interesting material friom Nick concerning the incidence of racism in various Communities .
    “ In 1997 a study for the Institute for Public Policy Research showed that32% of Hindu’s , Muslims and Sikhs and 29% of Jews would be repelled if a member of their family married an Afro-Caribbean , whereas only 13% of white Britons said they would have a problem.

    (From How the Liberals Lost their Way …..a)
    Hopi does not of course have a Friday pop at Muslims Hindus and Jews . Fancy

    Mosley`s mature Politics were obviously of the left and he was inspired by the Duce a leading Italian Socialist. Wodehouse was crucified by the (Cassandra ) and the BBC using such faintly Soviet insults as expressions as “Quisling” and “worshipping the Führer.” . It some time later that Parliament appeased to left wing mob
    If Gordon Brown has taught us anything it is this , a lie can be told using facts and you two Quisling power worshippers should be ashamed of your own efforts . The Conservative writer George Orwell who stoutly defended Woodhouse would have had some stiff words of rebuke .

    Reply
    • tory boys never grow up

      “If Gordon Brown has taught us anything it is this , a lie can be told using facts”

      As opposed to Newmania who tries to tell us that a lie can be told using lies.

      Where did I attack PG Woodhouse? When was Orwell ever a Conservative with a large C or even a small one for that matter?

      Reply
      • tory boys never grow up

        “In England the fiercest tirades against Quislings are uttered by Conservatives who were practising appeasement in 1938 and Communists who were advocating it in 1940″

        George Orwell from his essay in defence of Woodhouse in 1940 – and guess who is throwing around the Quisling accusations in 2010?

        Reply
  8. quietzapple

    From my wife and childrens’ experiences in China, I’d expect there to be more racists there than in any similar sized body of people elsewhere.

    They don’t prat about on easily taken off websites though.

    Neither do they – as the islamo-fascists and neo nazis do – threaten the UK’s internal security.

    Newmania is the most arrant liar I’ve troubled to read more than once, I hope he’s white, he spits self loathing like the extreme right used to claim of any left wing politician.

    Reply
  9. Newmania

    Oops sorry thats Orwell , your suspicions are unfounded on the Surveys and my spelling is better than Shakespeare’s

    Reply
  10. AB

    I repeat: if you think the BBC was regarded as part of the left during the 1940s you are a bigger pillock than even I or the rest of the readers of this blog had previously thought. Broadcasting a postscript from a columnist attacking Wodehouse doesn’t make them left-wing. This is the kind of backwards argument in which you specialise, whereby Orwell, a member of the Independent Labour Party, becomes a “Conservative writer” because you agree with what he says and you think Conservatism to be correct.

    On which subject here’s Orwell, Why I Write, 1946: “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.” Go on, tell me why those are the words of a Conservative. Go on. We could all do with a laugh.

    As for Shakespeare: I read Shakespeare. I passed exams on Shakespeare. Shakespeare was my friend. Newmania, you’re no William Shakespeare.

    Reply
  11. Newmania

    The Mirror on the other hand, certainly is left wing and that was what was broadcast in what Orwell clearly the key moment of the witch hunt. The Conservatism of Orwell is a rather interesting subject actually . I am of course aware that in some sense he remained a socialist but to be so at that time was really only to remain part of the intelligentsia . I think its hard to get around “Eng Soc “ and its portrayal in his most complete work ( your quote refers back to the feeling of the Spanish Civil War ).If he never became a Conservative , an impossiblity at that time , he was at the very least a semi detatched critic of Socialism from a Conservative perspective.

    Bernard Crick’s judgment that Orwell’s genius is as an essayist, and not as a novelist, and that ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ is perhaps his greatest work is telling ,I think .His most determinedly left wing biographer , is drawn to minor jottings and way from mature achievement .Suggestive no ?

    Well I think so

    Reply
    • Danivon

      The Lion and the Unicorn was pretty late on, so quite ‘mature’ and does expound on quite a lot of his ideas about England and the English (which he used to mean the whole of Britain, by the way).

      He was not a critic of socialism from a conservative perspective. He was a critic of certain forms of socialism from a left wing perspective. Try Homage to Calalonia or Road to Wigan Pier to understand why he called the Stalinists and social democrats ‘right wing’ in context.

      Actually, that’s a good idea, Newmania. Why not judge Orwell on his writings, not on other people’s opinions of them, or of watching ‘Brazil’ or the Disney version of ‘Animal Farm’. That might be a start…

      Reply
    • AB

      “I am of course aware that in some sense he remained a socialist”

      No, keep going, this is hilarious.

      “If he never became a Conservative , an impossiblity at that time”

      Literally impossible. People were arrested in the street, usually by roving bands of Daily Mirror columnists, and banished to the US for being Conservatives. Except Churchill, who was unaccountably allowed to remain prime minister. So perhaps Churchill was a socialist?

      “The Mirror on the other hand, certainly is left wing”

      As, evidently was Quintin Hogg and the Tory appeasers whom Orwell clearly identifies (in the line TBNGU quotes) as chief among Wodehouse’s persecutors. Evidently they must have been left wing, or they wouldn’t have witch-hunted him. The circular argument disappears up its own arse again.

      “your quote refers back to the feeling of the Spanish Civil War”

      No, you see, the quote is from 1946 and the Spanish Civil War ended in 1939. He was talking about the period between 1936 and 1946, only three years of which were covered by the Spanish Civil War. Easy mistake for the innumerate.

      It’s a strange inverted kind of world NM inhabits, in which socialists are Conservatives, fascists are socialists, war is peace, freedom is slavery and his deranged babbling makes some sort of sense.

      Reply
  12. Newmania

    AB you are becoming delightfully shrill. The quote , which I take it you do not actually know ,is this “The Spanish War and other events in 1936–37, turned the scale. Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it.”
    I said it referred backwards to that time and it clearly does .It expresses a feeling he had but only one , and not his evolving disillusion and disgust with English Socialism – See below .

    Daninvon – The Lion and the unicorn is an excellent read but formed in the crucible and more a performance than a sustained artistic achievement . For that reason it is especially revealing for the biographer but literary biography is not Literary criticism .
    In it Orwell remarks that there were ‘only left wing intellectuals ‘.The left was for him the “Whole intellectual world” as I was trying patiently to explain to AB …poor chap

    Its best passages are the almost lyrical investigations of Englishness which contain some thrilling steps along the way to Conservatism …“Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another…..”
    “And above all, it is your civilization, it is you. However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time.”
    He does not resolve the glaring dissonance between the implications of “cultural man” and “Economic man”
    He despairs of the intellectual as knowing nothing of courage and work but has, at this time , no comprehension of the creative potential of, neither does he see the futility of the planned Russian economy .
    On the contrary he regards planning as the only possible route to efficiency. His attitude to Empire does indeed shows signs of Neo Con Realpolitik ( India can no more be independent than a cat or a dog ,,…)

    Importantly Russia is definitely within his definition of socialism..It is a salutatory reminder to us all to see what socialism actually means even to a man whose thinking and emotions are taking him from it . The main point for our purposes is this“Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
    ..and the consequence …“ From the moment that all productive goods have been declared the property of the State, the common people will feel, as they cannot feel now, that the State is themselves.” and as he remarks elsewhere , ‘’everyone works for the state’ .

    That is what socialism is a belief that man is fundamentally changeable by his economic environment alone , but what of democracy , what of all the Englishness he tries to include in his idea? This is the utopia that awaits us
    “It will shoot traitors, but it will give them a solemn trial beforehand and occasionally it will acquit them. It will crush any open revolt promptly and cruelly, but it will interfere very little with the spoken and written word. Political parties with different names will still exist, revolutionary sects will still be publishing their newspapers and making as little impression as ever. It will disestablish the Church, but will not persecute religion. It will retain a vague reverence for the Christian moral code, and from time to time will refer to England as ‘a Christian Country “
    There will not in fact be any real democracy at all except token “Different names “. Yes , he is certainly a socialist at this time , but Democratic , in form only.

    Left wing Commentators seeming to deny the obvious conclusion of reading 1984 rely on the subtle strategy of renaming the Soviet union as’ right wing’ and differentiating between Democratic Socialism and Socialism . This is an absurd anachronism given the USSR`s relationship with British labour well into eh 70s . Reading the Lion and the Unicorn is a useful reality check for those who wish to deny that the horrors of Eng Soc were about “English Socialism”

    Here endeth the lesson

    Reply
  13. tory boys never grow up

    “Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it.”

    So he was a Conservative at the same time as being “for Democratic Socialism”, but he was just denying his own heartfelt beliefs as now discovered by Newmania in his novels ???!

    Of course 1984, Animal Farm and Homage to Catalonia and many of Orwell’s essays were written as a warning as to how socialism can become something else (even in England), and yes there are still some socialists who do still do not understand this. This however does not mean that he was a Conservative. It is quite possible for rational people to be critical of the beliefs held by those who happen to be your allies at the time – and in fact such a process is incredibly healthy. You really should try it sometimes Newmania – you may even find that you would not need to make such a comical volte-farce about the views of your local MP.

    Reply
  14. Newmania

    he was just denying his own heartfelt beliefs as now discovered by Newmania in his novels ???!

    Ahem well yes if you put it that way but I am hardly alone . If , like Bernard Crick you see Orwell as a political philosopher and secular Saint who wrote a bit then his essays and jottings may be your point of judgement . If , like me , you see him as pre-eminently a novelist (with an interest in Politics ) then you go to the Novels and 1984 is by far the best .
    You see , the Novel form is itself against socialism, it cannot avoid parody of the heroic and grand , its genesis was precisely that .Its entire effect is an illusion whereby a confiding voice tells you what really is in real observable life . It is pessimistic and human scaled in its form . Orwells heroic effort to make himself a writer meant he had to turn on his dogmas in the end . He did .

    H.G. Wells’s A Modern Utopia makes a good contrast if you want to see what how socialism reads .

    Reply
  15. tory boys never grow up

    Quite clearly Orwell would not agree with your analysis of his own novels and he clearly said so in his letters and essays. Are you really saying that writers are incapable of criticising and challenging their own beliefs in their writings? Or, are you just talking from your own perspective where self doubt can never enter into the equation?

    Don’t you get the point in 1984 about the regimes being able to effortlessly switch their ideologies and allies whenever necessary.

    Reply
  16. AB

    Bottom line: Orwell, being a great writer and thinker, was capable of distinguishing between the democratic socialism that he supported and the totalitarianism he utterly abhorred. NM, being a loon, cannot. Of the two, I sense Orwell’s work will endure.

    Reply
  17. Newmania

    ( No thanks to the left wing literary establishment who hated him)

    Reply
  18. AB

    Suspect you are misquoting Cohen or it is a selective survey – certainly that link of yours says nothing about Labour voters.

    I think you have undertaken more than your usual quota of typos (and if y0u are going to defend PG Wodehouse, which is actually what I did, at least learn to spell his name).

    ‘Mosley`s mature Politics were obviously of the left and he was inspired by the Duce a leading Italian Socialist….faintly Soviet insults as expressions as “Quisling”…The Conservative writer George Orwell…’

    I think you have misspelled “extreme right” as “left”, “fascist” as “Socialist”, “Norwegian” as “Soviet” and “Labour” as “Conservative”. Oh, and if you think the BBC was regarded as part of the left during the 1940s you are a bigger pillock than even I or the rest of the readers of this blog had previously thought.

    Reply
  19. Newmania

    On 15th July, the Home Service of the B.B.C. carried an extremely violent Postscript by “Cassandra” of the Daily Mirror, accusing Wodehouse of “selling his country.” This postscript made free use of such expressions as “Quisling” and “worshipping the Fìhrer”. The main charge was that Wodehouse had agreed to do German propaganda as a way of buying himself out of the internment camp.

    “Cassandra’s” Postscript caused a certain amount of protest, but on the whole it seems to have intensified popular feeling against Wodehouse. One result of it was that numerous lending libraries withdrew Wodehouse’s books from circulation. Here is a typical news item:

    “Within twenty-four hours of listening to the broadcast of Cassandra, the Daily Mirror columnist, Portadown (North Ireland) Urban District Council banned P. G. Wodehouse’s books from their public library. Mr. Edward McCann said that Cassandra’s broadcast had clinched the matter. Wodehouse was funny no longer.” (Daily Mirror.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply