advertisement


The Rise of the Far Right

Weird story on the BBC today about a vicar called Matthew Firth testifying to the Home Affairs select committee that he was bought an endless stream of young male asylum seekers wishing to be baptised who would disappear straight afterwards. He says he soon put a stop to it.

It says he had an article published in the Torygraph about it too.

No one in the church seems to agree with his version of events which made me wonder who he is and why he's being called to give 'evidence'.

Ah.

0A8OWVA.png


vFayDK1.png
 
paulfromcamden said:
Weird story on the BBC today about a vicar called Matthew Firth testifying to the Home Affairs select committee that he was bought an endless stream of young male asylum seekers wishing to be baptised who would disappear straight afterwards. He says he soon put a stop to it.

It says he had an article published in the Torygraph about it too.

No one in the church seems to agree with his version of events which made me wonder who he is and why he's being called to give 'evidence'.

Ah.

0A8OWVA.png


vFayDK1.png
Click to expand...
File under right-wing piece of sh1t with an imaginary friend. If only the beeb were as diligent in their turn vetting as pfm's best.
 
Cosplay clerics and plastic vicars of “the Free Church of England”. Can anyone join?

lqCxWXB.jpeg


…every false self loves a dressing up bag
 
paulfromcamden said:
These people are really weird.

TPjqg7C.png


The rest of his account is moaning about gays, women, liberals. It's like a parody account but I think it's actually a real person.
Click to expand...
People holding discos in a cathedral, whatever next? I mean, imagine if the church at Nether Horsewalloping was ever defiled by the local Scouts and Guides cavorting wildly to the records of some awful beat combo late into the evening.
 
stevec67 said:
People holding discos in a cathedral, whatever next?
Click to expand...
There used to be a psychedelic nightclub in the crypt of a Catholic Church in Deptford, London ( called The Crypt oddly enough). You wouldn't believe what went on under the parish priest's nose.
 
PaulMB said:
One example in favour of some form of proportional representation. I wonder if in the UK he might not have won.
Click to expand...
PR probably helped, but it appears the key factor, in this case, is that one or more of the right wing parties refused to co-operate with Wilders.

Quote from The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton:
Since the fascist route to power has always passed through cooperation with conservative elites, at least in the cases so far known, the strength of a fascist movement in itself is only one of the determining variables in the achievement (or not) of power, though it is surely a vital one. Fascists did have numbers and muscle to offer to conservatives caught in crisis in Italy and Germany, as we have seen. Equally important, however, was the conservative elites’ willingness to work with fascism; a reciprocal flexibility on the fascist leaders’ part; and the urgency of the crisis that induced them to cooperate with each other. It is therefore essential to examine the accomplices who helped at crucial points.
Click to expand...
 
laughingboy said:
PR probably helped, but it appears the key factor, in this case, is that one or more of the right wing parties refused to co-operate with Wilders.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that with a FPTP system like in the UK, Wilders might have won a majority to govern. But I haven't done any sums and it may be impossible to do so. But with PR he won 37 out of 150 seats. since his was the most-voted party, In a FPTP system of 150 constituencies, he could well have been the winning party in more than half of them, and not need any coalition partners.
 
PaulMB said:
What I meant was that with a FPTP system like in the UK, Wilders might have won a majority to govern. But I haven't done any sums and it may be impossible to do so. But with PR he won 37 out of 150 seats. since his was the most-voted party, In a FPTP system of 150 constituencies, he could well have been the winning party in more than half of them, and not need any coalition partners.
Click to expand...
I agree that FPTP is more vulnerable than PR. You only have to look at the US to see that. But it's also worth noting that Trump was enabled by the GOP's anti-establishment 'tea party' wing (Wikipedia). There are still elements of the GOP that oppose Trump, but he has basically assumed control of the party. You can see in the UK that Farage has calculated that he needs to either destroy or subvert the Tory party to gain any sort of power - or perhaps more accurately, he needs to offer an existential threat to the Tories, so that - in desperation - they let him in.

As for Wilders, he got less than 25% of the vote, IIRC. So, again, he needs others to help him into power, no matter the system.
 
7

Gove is following Goebbels’ advice​

Posted on March 14 2024

The government has published its new definition of extremism this morning. It says of this:

The new definition provides a stricter characterisation that government can use to make sure that extremist organisations and individuals are not being legitimised or given a platform through their interactions with government.

The definition is:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
  1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
  2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
  3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
They added, by way of explanation:

The new definition is narrower and more precise than the 2011 Prevent definition, which did not provide the detail we now need to assess and identify extremism. This new definition helps clearly articulate how extremism is evidenced through the public behaviour of extremists that advance their violent, hateful or intolerant aims.

Try as I might, the only organisation that I can think of that meets the new criteria for being an extremist organisation is the current government, populated as it is by Conservative party ministers.
They prorogued parliament, illegally.

They have sought to pass legislation contrary to international law on more than one issue

They are actively undermining devolved democracy.

They have sought to deny the vote to millions of young people on a discriminatory basis, with older people not suffering the extreme prejudice that younger people do when it comes to proving their entitlement to partake in democracy.

They openly promote division and hatred within society.

They are accepting funds from those who appear to hold racist views.

The right to freedom of speech and protest is being actively denied, including in our legal system.

Try as I might I can think of no one else so actively engaged in the pursuit of the destruction of liberal democracy in this country.

It was Goebbels who suggested that a propagandist should accuse their enemy of that of which they themselves are guilty. This is what appears to be happening here.
 
Just a fundamentally corrupt genocide-supporting government with 18% of the electorate behind them going full-Putin.
 
ks.234 said:
7

Gove is following Goebbels’ advice​

Posted on March 14 2024

The government has published its new definition of extremism this morning. It says of this:

The new definition provides a stricter characterisation that government can use to make sure that extremist organisations and individuals are not being legitimised or given a platform through their interactions with government.

The definition is:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
  1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
  2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
  3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
They added, by way of explanation:

The new definition is narrower and more precise than the 2011 Prevent definition, which did not provide the detail we now need to assess and identify extremism. This new definition helps clearly articulate how extremism is evidenced through the public behaviour of extremists that advance their violent, hateful or intolerant aims.

Try as I might, the only organisation that I can think of that meets the new criteria for being an extremist organisation is the current government, populated as it is by Conservative party ministers.
They prorogued parliament, illegally.

They have sought to pass legislation contrary to international law on more than one issue

They are actively undermining devolved democracy.

They have sought to deny the vote to millions of young people on a discriminatory basis, with older people not suffering the extreme prejudice that younger people do when it comes to proving their entitlement to partake in democracy.

They openly promote division and hatred within society.

They are accepting funds from those who appear to hold racist views.

The right to freedom of speech and protest is being actively denied, including in our legal system.

Try as I might I can think of no one else so actively engaged in the pursuit of the destruction of liberal democracy in this country.

It was Goebbels who suggested that a propagandist should accuse their enemy of that of which they themselves are guilty. This is what appears to be happening here.
Click to expand...
Hey, anyone notice that under #3, they can do #1? 'You can't exercise your rights! You're creating a permissive environment!'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top