You’ve heard it, we’ve heard it, everyone has heard it.
“Antifa/The left/Lefties/Unwashed scum are violent!”
You’ve also seen the refutations, the clear evidence of these far-right organisations calling for violence and terror, stating that it is ‘necessary’. Now, I’m sure I am not the first to admit that both sides have engaged in violence at these sorts of rallies in the past. It is inherent. As much as we would like there to be no violence, there is going to be, and the only thing you can do to stop it is to avoid it.
The violence at times is instigated from the left, and sometimes from the (far) right. To be honest, I’m not a fan of the whole “you’re violent!” argument, because both sides are guilty of it. Regardless, we do see what seems to be more of a legitimising propaganda machine for violence coming from the far-right, and stating that it is necessary, however, they do seem to hide under the cover of ‘retaliation’.
But let’s leave it at that, for the moment. Both sides are violent, both sides are guilty of such. However impassioned the issues are to either, there seems to be some who will take to it physically.
So, if we can finally put that aside, let’s actually understand why there is violence. If both are guilty or neither are guilty of violent acts, then we need to judge the motivations of these movements, and read into the legitimacy of either side based on what they are calling for/defending.
Now, as you and I both know, the far-right, particularly the UPF, lump anyone who disagrees with them into the ‘lefties’ basket. Not only is this effectively throwing half the population into that political pool, but they’ve gone as far as throwing conservatives such as Andrew Bolt, Neil Mitchell and even Tony Abbott into the ‘leftie’ basket. It’s becoming a little crowded.
The above screenshot is an extremely simplified view of the ‘Left wing’, and although I could tear it to shreds for not only the ordering, but the fact that the standard Left-Right spectrum doesn’t accurately reflect political persuasions (I prefer the X,Y graph), it does show exactly what we are constantly labelled by the far-right. We are interchangeably labelled Marxists, Commies, Anarchists, Socialist scum, Greenies, ALP fools, etc. Pretty much things that simply do not co-exist, but then again, would you expect the UPF following to understand that? No.
This is a more preferable spectrum, as it represents Libertarian and Authoritarian views, too. When we say far-right, we mean upper-right corner. Authoritarian right wing, aka, fascism. This is quite obvious within those of the UPF. We hear constant discourse about their leadership (and the inevitable splits) and about how they wish to run things. Stating things such as “if you don’t do X, then you don’t belong in this movement”, this is intertwined with discussion of violence amongst those who may oppose them, whilst glorifying violence that they may or may not have played part in. The right wing element is more based around the conservative element of their movement, to ‘stop multiculturalism’ and return to what is seemingly a white-only Australia.
So now that we have the ‘for and against’ in the UPF’s eyes out of the way, let’s break down the motivations of such.
This is quite simply put as “Left wing politics” vs “Far-right politics”.
Left wing politics are easily described as:
- Left–wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.
- in 1998, Barry Clark described Leftists as “Leftists… claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated. According to leftists, a society without substantial equality will distort the development of not only deprived persons, but also those whose privileges undermine their motivation and sense of social responsibility. This suppression of human development, together with the resentment and conflict engendered by sharp class distinctions, will ultimately reduce the efficiency of the economy.”
Understanding this, there is a theme of supporting others, equality, and other words that primarily have connotations of positives, ‘niceties, responsibility, equality and cooperation’. Humane, if you will. Much of what you enjoy today, is the product of “Leftism”. The motivations behind those labelled ‘left’ is extremely broad, but one common motivation we have experienced since beginning ReclaimWhat is the simple notion of giving everyone a ‘fair go’. This opportunity for a fair go is not limited by the ‘social norms’ that the UPF wish for you to see. This encompasses communities such as ethnic minorities, religious minorities, non-religious persons, women who don’t wish to ‘conform’ to the feminine and household based ‘social norms’, the LGBTQI, etc. Now, let’s look at the far-right:
- Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The terms are commonly used to describe fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organisations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views. Some far-right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority or their alleged threat to the nation or state.
- Far-right politics commonly include authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism. Often, the term “far right” is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far-right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and—in the case of Nazism—genocide of people deemed to be inferior.
This is riddled with a litany of words that have negative connotations. They are regressive, hateful, harmful, ultra conservative and xenophobic. It is drowning in prejudice and inhumane ideas.
This, I honestly believe, is the primary reason it has taken so damned long for them to admit they are white nationalists, and admit they are of the far-right. The constant attack on the “left”, and “antifascists” (which would mean they are pro-fascist by simple logic) is finally becoming what we have always said it was, fascism. Again, if asked about the motivations of the far-right, I do believe them to be broad. However, I see the UPF and their supporters categorised into 2 separate areas of the far right: The conscious and the Uninformed. There seems to be a great amount of misinformation and lacking of education amongst their groups. For the uninformed, I believe the motivations lie with a general prejudice against those who are ‘different’, however, these people are seemingly unaware that they are participants in a neofascist movement. The motivations of the conscious supporters in the UPF are more narrow. They are aware of they’re participating in, they too know that the movement has ‘unsavoury’ elements. I believe their motivations are deeply ingrained disdain of all things they regard to be foreign, and they are happy to do anything to push their political agendas. If we can therefore admit both sides resort to dirty tactics such as violence, then we can finally have the discussion about what the motivations actually are. I know where I sit on this.
I would also like to make mention of one more thing. Many of you have seen the photo of Winston Churchill accompanied by the saying
“The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists”
The issue with this saying, is that he never actually said it. This is quite typical of the UPF, particularly Blair, who simply makes up sayings and chucks them onto the photos of someone from the past. Nobody asks for evidence.
The Winston Churchill society looked long and hard for evidence of this saying, and decided “There was absolutely no evidence anywhere of him ever saying it and so, therefore, he didn’t say it.”
The actual origin of this saying, comes from 1930’s America, from Huey Long, a populist politician from the state of Louisiana.
What he actually said was
“When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!””
But even this is just an adaptation of an earlier article, stating something along those lines.
The time this article was actually printed (which is pictured below), the world was not yet aware of the horror of fascism. WW2, the holocaust, etc. had yet to happen.
The article states that when fascism comes to America, it will be called “Americanism” – aka “Patriotism” (as stated by Stand Up to Hate)
This is no different to Australia.
“When fascism comes to Australia, it will not be labelled ‘Made in Germany’, it will not be marked with a swastika, it will not even be called fascism. It will be called Australian Patriotism.”
To the UPF and their supporters – Progress, change, adapt, or die.