dinsdag 9 april 2019






Antisemitic criticism of Israel is NOT widespread in the Labour Party

08 Apr 2019

JVL Introduction
There has been a lot said recently about contemporary or ‘new antisemitism’ expressed as criticism of Israel.
In order to advance our appreciation of its prevalence, Alan Maddison has explored this topic with a  particular focus on the influence of political affiliations, using  relevant data drawn from L Daniel Staetsky’s important recent study for the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.
Among the interesting findings presented here, we discover that the risk for a critic of Israel being antisemitic increases as we move from left to right across the political spectrum.
The implications of this analysis for the Labour Party include responding vigorously to any victim complaints, but having appropriate actions based on differentiating between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, a minority motivated by antisemitism, and those where antisemitic comments may be made out of ignorance rather than any hostility towards Jews.



Antisemitic criticism of Israel is NOT

widespread in the Labour Party


Dr Alan Maddison
Jewish Voice for Labour
7 April 2019


Antisemitism takes different forms in different ages, writes Rabbi Jonathan Sacks… “Today [Jews] are hated because of their nation state, the state of Israel.”[1]This is, supposedly, the ‘new antisemitism’.
There are clearly many valid reasons for criticising Israel – its occupation, its treatment of Palestinians, its violation of international law and more. Such criticism  can also  sometimes be motivated by antisemitism. To differentiate between the two we have to look at whether such criticism is associated with antisemitism, defined independently of Israel.
We have recently challenged misleading reports that critics of Israeli policies are ‘highly likely” to reflect expressions of this ‘new antisemitism’, when evidence suggests the very opposite. [2]
In this article we explore the patterns of strong anti-Israel attitudes and any associated strong antisemitic attitudes, or ‘new antisemitism’, in British society. In particular we analyse the variations across political groups, and ask if there is any justification for the relentless McCarthy-like focus on the Labour Party?

Exploring the prevalence of ‘new antisemitism’ expressed as criticism of Israel
Our best guide comes from the biggest survey ever undertaken into antisemitism by the Institute of Jewish Policy Research. Its results were published in 2017 under the title Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain. A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel.[3]
The author, L Daniel Staetsky, offered a number of ‘anti-Israel’ statements to some 4,005 responders, representative of the British population. These ranged from ‘Israel is committing mass murder in Palestine’ or ‘Israel has too much control over global affairs’ to ‘People should boycott Israeli goods and products’.
He found that 47% of responders had an unfavourable opinion about Israel and/or endorsed 1-5 of the statements presented to them while a further 9% agreed with 6 or more statements. The latter group  were defined by Staetsky as having ‘strong anti-Israel attitudes’.
The responses illustrated below, derived from from Staetsky’s data, show that critics of Israeli policies are very prevalent in our society, but only rarely seem associated with antisemitism.
It is disingenuous to frame debates about the Israel-Palestine conflict primarily around ‘new antisemitism’ when most critics of Israel are clearly motivated by other factors, such as advocating social justice and equal rights for Palestinians, or respect for international law.
Recognising that “antisemitism at the individual level is a state of mind and emotions” and that these are complex, the survey “undertook a detailed study of the spread and intensity of various antisemitic ideas and attitudes, and developed what we subsequently called an ‘elastic view’ of antisemitism – i.e. multiple ways of measuring the extent to which antisemitic attitudes permeate society”.(p.12)
So here a range of statements about Jews, positive and negative, were used: A British Jew is just as British as any other British person, British Jews make a positive contribution to British society, Jews think they are better than other people/Jews have too much power in Britain, Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, down to Holocaust denial
The survey found that 30% of responders endorsed at least one statement considered to be ‘antisemitic’ but most were not considered to be antisemitic as they had also agreed with at least one positive statement about Jews.nHowever, 3.6% of responders agreed with 5 or more ‘antisemitic statements’ and were considered by Staetsky as probably ‘antisemitic’ in terms of having a dislike or hostility towards Jews for being Jews.
If we focus on the 9% of responders in Figure 1 above, those who were considered strongly anti-Israel, we see only 2% had strong antisemitic attitudes (shown in deep blue).
So, of the total 3.6% responders overall with strong antisemitic attitudes, little more than half (2/3.6 or 56%) of them also shared strong anti-Israel attitudes. The remaining 1.6% were distributed among the 91% of the population not having any strong anti-Israel attitudes.
The fact that the remaining 44% (1.6/3.6%) of the ‘antisemites’ were not strong critics of Israel is hardly a surprise. Some on the extreme right are both very pro-Israel and aggressively antisemitic. Others may be ignorant about Israel, or even be motivated not to criticise Israel by a prejudice of Islamophobia against Palestinians outweighing their antisemitism.
If we return to the 9% of the British population with ‘strong anti-Israel attitudes shown above, then antisemites were 22% of them (2/9%). It is this group we might choose to refer to as probably being “new antisemites”
We do not, however, know how many of this group were driven by pre-existing antisemitism to criticise certain acts of the “Jewish” State of Israel, and how many developed a generalised dislike for Jews because they were witness to those acts and reacted against them by blaming “the Jews”.
However, we can investigate how this average 22% antisemitism overlap varies across the political spectrum.

‘New antisemitism’ and political affiliation
To illustrate the relationship between strong anti-Israel attitudes and ‘new antisemites’ by political groups, we have applied the general 56% (2/3.6%) overlap of antisemitism mentioned earlier, and combined and simplified the graphs provided by Staetsky.

In Figure 2 we see strong anti-Israel attitudes occur across the whole political spectrum, but with greater prevalence on the left (13% to 22.5%) than right ( 8.5% to 19%).
‘New antisemitism’ (shown as deep blue from the baseline) is also apparent in all political groups, but this time is more prevalent on the right (2% to 7.3%) than the left (1.4% to 2.3%) of politics
Staetsky himself commented on the fact that the low prevalence of strong antisemitic attitudes for the ‘very left-wing’ were indistinguishable from other groups apart from the ‘very right-wing’. This is important, for it exposes as a myth the idea of a greater prevalence of antisemitism on the far left, or the unfounded claim that the Labour Party has become more antisemitic due to an alleged influx of ‘very left-wing’ members.
It is also clear that if we are looking for ‘new antisemitism’ at the political extremes, attention should focus on the ‘very right-wing’, where 40% (7.6/19) of this group of individuals are ‘new antisemites’ and not the ‘very left-wing’ where we find only 10% (2.3/22.5).
Strong anti-Israel attitudes on the left and far left (illustrated by the pale blue surface area) are more often free from ‘new antisemitism’ than those on the right, and therefore more likely to be motivated by previously mentioned values of social justice and equal rights for Palestinians. From the data in Figure 2, it would be tempting to conclude that although ‘new antisemitism’ is found across the whole political spectrum, in order to tackle it effectively we should focus more on the ‘very right-wing’. But…..

Factoring in the size of each political group
In this survey the ‘very right-wing’ group only represents 1.4% of the population, so even if they are almost four times more likely to be ‘new antisemites’ than the average strong critic of Israel, we can estimate that this group only provides around 5% of the new antisemitism found in society.
The ‘very right wing’ may merit special attention but we obviously need to consider the other 95%.  What are their political affiliations?
To answer that question we need to factor in the population sizes for each political group. Figure 3 below shows how participants in Staetsky’s survey responded when asked where they would place themselves on the political spectrum.
The largest group was the ‘centre’ with 36.5% of responders, the smallest groups were at the extremes.
In total there were more people identifying themselves as ‘left-wing’ (27.8%) than ‘right-wing’ (23.5%), and a significant 15.2% did not know how to position themselves.

‘New antisemitism’ by political group
If we combine the prevalence of ‘new antisemitism’ for each group with its population size, we can then estimate the contribution of each to the 2% prevalence of ‘new antisemitism’ we find in society, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Even though the population of the combined right-wing groups (23.5%) was smaller than that for the left-wing groups (27.8%), the right-wingers provided slightly more of the ‘new antisemites’ (25%) than the left-wingers (23%). This was largely, but not solely, down to the ‘very right-wing’ group, which from only 1.4% of the population provided 5% of ‘new antisemites’.
We can see that the 39% share of the ‘centre’ group was slightly higher than their population share of 36.5%, also reflecting a slightly greater than average prevalence of ‘new antisemitism’ among that group.
Participants in the Staetsky survey were then asked for which political party they would vote or would favour (Figure 23 page 44). We find some voters from all political parties in this large ‘centre’ group but in particular 34% voted Labour and 42% Conservative. In fact, based upon the responses given for the voting preferences for all these political groups we can also build a rough estimate of the distribution of all ‘new antisemites‘ by political party.
As expected, this confirms a slightly higher prevalence of ‘new antisemites’ in Conservative than Labour voters.
It has to be said that these are very approximate estimates as they are based on just 80 ‘new antisemites’ (2%) found in the initial group of 4005 respondents.
We can say that the ‘new antisemites’ seem fairly evenly distributed, and of low prevalence, across all political parties, and is probably slightly lower in left-wingers and Labour than right-wingers and Conservative voters.

The implications
In this analysis we see that over half (56%) of the British population, across the whole political spectrum, has some criticism of the way Israel is treating Palestinians. For the vast majority of the population such criticism is free from any antisemitism. The prevalence of those with strong anti-Israel attitudes is also found across the political spectrum, but as shown in Figure 1, it is higher in ‘left-wing’ groups (pooled mean of 15%) than ‘right-wing’ groups (pooled mean of 10%).  However, the variation in prevalence of associated ‘new antisemitism’ is far more marked, as shown in Figure 5 below

We see that as we move from left to right on the political spectrum then the trend is for more ‘new antisemitism’ to be associated with strong criticism of Israel, rising from only 10% of the ‘very left-wing’ group to 40% of the ‘very right-wing’ group.
This pattern is determined both by increases in antisemitism and decreases in strong anti-Israel sentiment as we move from the left to right of politics.
Lately, in claimed searches for ‘new antisemitism’, there has been a particular scrutiny of ‘left-wing’ groups and the Labour Party. This campaign has been linked to high levels of media and political focus on the inevitable cases of alleged ‘new antisemitism’ discovered.
Not only is this selective scrutiny and publicity unjustified, but based on the available evidence presented here, it will provide a very distorted view of the relative threats of antisemitism in wider British society, playing down those from the political centre and right but especially the growing far right movements.
So the exceptionally high volume of attacks concentrated on the Labour Party and left-wingers seems, as some suggest, not to be about antisemitism, but about undermining Jeremy Corbyn and stifling necessary debate on Israel.
A similar process is happening in the USA too. Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders recently defended Muslim Representative Ilhan Omar against violent accusations of antisemitism, [4] saying:
Campaigns to stifle such useful debate have also been criticised by Kenneth Stern, one of the original drafters of what became the IHRA definition on antisemitism.[5] He condemned its misuse, and says that “outside groups will try and suppress – rather than answer – political speech they don’t like” with a “chilling McCarthy-like exercise”. This is precisely what has happened in the UK, including use of serious intimidation.[6,7]
So a distinction has to be made between activities that are part of the genuine fight against antisemitism and those dishonestly employed for factional advantage or political gain, including the suppression of legitimate debate on the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.
The former needs to be energetically supported, but the latter vigorously challenged for the widespread damage it inflicts.

What should the Labour Party do?
Labour must continue to fight antisemitism and other forms of racial and religious prejudices in society and to deal with them all within its own ranks in the same way. It may be that prevalences are much lower than mainstream media and opponents of Corbyn claim but nonetheless Labour must respond seriously and wholeheartedly to all genuine victim complaints.
It should resist the politically motivated McCarthy-like witch hunt attempts to destroy our movement, even from within.
Grossly exaggerated and misleading claims of antisemitism in the Labour Party have already been exposed.[8,9,10] But Labour also needs to publicly challenge pro-Israel groups and others who selectively scour social media solely to undermine Labour’s electoral prospects and deprive its members of their precious freedom of speech.
Labour must leave no victim group behind, and must ask all members to unite, to continue to stand alongside all our ethnic minority communities including our Jewish neighbours, to challenge the Tory’s “hostile environment” and the growing threat from the growing far right and fascist movements.
While being relentless in our opposition to hard-core antisemitism, we need to remember that many offensive comments and attitudes are born out of ignorance rather than hostility. So an education programme would seem appropriate – and urgent. But as the late A Sivanandan, from the Institute of Race Relations recommended [11], this should not be a community-specific exercise but an inclusive one. Such education should also cover all forms of far more prevalent racial and religious prejudices, including Islamophobia. They all share a similar pathway of stereotypes adoption against “the other”, and subsequent exploitation towards discrimination, blame, scapegoating and abuse.
In this way Labour members can work with all minority groups to share experiences and unite in a sincere attempt to combat all the ignorance or hatred in our society that affects us all.

References

  1. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Mutating Virus: Understanding Antisemitism, 27th September 2016 in Brussels.
  2. The New-Antisemitism: Proof At Last? Jamie Stern-Weiner and Alan Maddison, for JVL, 24th February 2019
  3. Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain, L Daniel Staetsky, Institute for Jewish Policy Research, September 2017
  4. Sanders defends Omar: Can’t equate anti-Semitism with ‘legitimate criticism’ of Israel, Tal Axelrod, The Hill, 6th Mrch 2019
  5. Extracts of written testimony of Kenneth S Stern, Before the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, November 7, 2017
  6. “Jewish event at Labour conference abandoned after bomb scare”. Kevin Rawlinson, The Guardian, 25 September 2018.
  7. Listen: Horrific antisemitic voice message sent to left-wing Jewish Labour activist, The Skwawkbox, 15th March 2019.
  8. Antisemitism: no justification for singling out Labour, Dr Alan Maddison, Jewish Voice for Labour, 16 February 2019
  9. Searching for the truth about on-line abuse allegations, Dr Alan Maddison, Jewish Voice for Labour, 28th February 2018
  10. Has the Labour left subjected Luciana Berger to hate speak and death threats? Bob Pitt, Medium, 20th March 2019
  11. Submission from the IRR to the Labour Party Inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, A. Sivanandan, Liz Fekete and Jenny Bourne, Institute of race relations, 23rd June 2016.

maandag 8 april 2019

Populists are whipping up a storm as Europe faces lurch to the right






Populists are whipping up a storm as Europe faces lurch to the right




Nationalist groups across the continent are stoking anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment to win seats in next month’s EU elections



The far-right stuff … Matteo Salvini of Italy’s League and Marine Le Pen of France’s National Rally.  The far-right stuff … Matteo Salvini of Italy’s League and Marine Le Pen of France’s National Rally. Photograph: Antonio Masiello/Getty



T
he battle for Europe is coming to a head – but, surprise, surprise, the main focus is not Brexit. Across the continent, far-right populist and nationalist parties are mobilising ahead of next month’s EU parliamentary elections. Polls show their support growing. For Europe’s newly energised hard right, Brexit is both a spur and a sideshow.

Whipping up anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and anti-semitic sentiment, and exploiting public anger over austerity and the perceived arrogance of the Brussels political class, the populists aim to reassert the pre-eminence of national identity, narrowly defined, and halt the European project in its integrationist tracks.
It is, as yet, a rag-tag army with myriad rivalrous leaders and policy differences. Some prominent figures, such as Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s far-right League, occupy senior government positions. Others, such as Thierry Baudet, who leads the insurgent Dutch populist Forum for Democracy and likes to quote Cicero (in dog Latin), are eccentrics whingeing on the fringe. But Europe’s multi-party mainstream coalitions, which currently dominate the EU parliament, and the grand panjandrums of the EU Commission, where top jobs depend on the election outcome, have been put on notice. The days of comfortable centrist majorities are coming to an end. The far-right is knocking at the door.

The parliament’s own polling confirms this trend. The biggest groupings, the centre-right European People’s party and the centre-left Socialists & Democrats, are each expected to lose dozens of seats, the latest survey suggests. If Britain does not participate, about 150 MEPs out of a total of 705 will represent Eurosceptic parties.
The Europe of Nations and Freedom bloc, which includes Salvini’s League and Marie Le Pen’s French National Rally (formerly the National Front), could swell to more than 60 MEPs. Separate polling by the Politico website predicts that mainstream parties, including the Liberal group allied to French president Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche, may fare even worse.
Far-right populists are not about to take control of the EU. But their enhanced sway will intensify tensions over EU integration, increase disruption and deadlock, and complicate the process of appointing a new commission. As Salvini and his supporters tell it, the evolving realignments could end Franco-German “hegemony” over the EU.
Across the continent, signs of approaching upheaval are unmistakable. An early augury may come this month in Spain’s general election, where Vox is set to become the first far-right party to win seats in parliamentary since the close of the Franco era.
Social media form part of the electoral battlefield. According to research by Alto Analytics, online supporters of far-right populist and nationalist parties are disproportionately deluging platforms such as Facebook and Twitter with anti-immigration, Eurosceptic posts.
Attempts to organise Europe’s far-right into a united, cohesive force are continuing apace, though with mixed success. Following previous meetings with like-minded politicians in Austria, Hungary and Poland, Salvini plans to host a rally involving up to 20 countries in Milan next month. On Monday he will hold talks with German, Finnish and Danish right-wingers. He wants a joint electoral platform akin to the League’s manifesto, which pledges to “underline and reaffirm common Christian roots, defend national identity and the supremacy of [national laws] over European laws and directives”. The manifesto also trumpets opposition to immigration, austerity and integration.
It’s unclear at this point whether leading lights on Europe’s populist right such as Le Pen, Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, and Poland’s ruling party leader, JarosÅ‚aw KaczyÅ„ski, will attend next month. This uncertainty reflects personal jealousies and policy differences, for example over engagement with Russia (which the Poles oppose and Salvini and Le Pen favour).
It’s plain that, like Europe’s mainstream parties, the populist-nationalist camp will struggle to unite around a shared vision. Speaking last week, the chief election candidate for Germany’s anti-Islam, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany, Jörg Meuthen, said personality clashes would probably prevent the creation of a pan-European “patriotic alliance”. But he predicted big gains for the hard right and urged parties to work together.
That’s a lesson the pro-European mainstream also needs to heed. It, too, has an opportunity if it can be grasped. A Eurobarometer survey, published last year, found the highest level of support for the EU in 35 years, with two-thirds of Europeans believing their country had benefited from membership. Last month’s million-strong Remain march in London was “the greatest public outpouring of pro-EU sentiment that Europe has witnessed in years”, wrote analyst Mark Leonard. Yet at the same time, there appears little doubt eurosceptic forces have electoral momentum behind them.
Among Europe’s leaders, only Macron is actively making the case across national borders for a more deeply integrated, tolerant and reformed EU. He recently appealed directly to Europe’s citizens to reject the “anger-mongers” of the right and embrace “renewal”. Salvini and Orban, promoting a sinister-sounding new “European spring”, view Macron as opponent-in-chief.
If the far-right surge is to be repelled, Macron needs help. But strong leadership is lacking. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor and a natural ally, is on her way out. Other pro-EU governments and parties are struggling with multiple policy splits of their own. An ugly brawl is in prospect over who will replace Jean-Claude Juncker as commission president.
And then there is Brexit, distracting attention from the main battlefront at a vital juncture. As Europe prepares for an imminent showdown with the forces of reaction, Britain’s dishonourable retreat from the fray might never be forgiven.

UK poised to embrace authoritarianism, warns Hansard Society








UK poised to embrace authoritarianism, warns Hansard Society

Public attitudes emerge that ‘challenge core tenets of our democracy’, says report


Far-right activists in London Far-right activists in London. ‘When people do not trust traditional political systems, they look elsewhere. That’s when support for political extremes grows,’ said a Hope Not Hate spokeswoman. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft


 Political correspondent

Mon 8 Apr 2019 

The UK public is increasingly disenchanted with MPs and government and ever more willing to welcome the idea of authoritarian leaders who would ignore parliament, a long-running survey of attitudes to politics has shown.
Amid the Brexit chaos, overall public faith in the political system has reached a nadir not previously seen in the 16-year history of the Hansard Society’s audit of political engagement, lower even than at the depths of the crisis over MPs’ expenses.
Almost three-quarters of those asked said the system of governance needed significant improvement, and other attitudes emerged that “challenge core tenets of our democracy”, the audit’s authors stated.
The study, compiled annually by the democracy charity, found that when people were asked whether “Britain needs a strong ruler willing to break the rules”, 54% agreed and only 23% said no.
In all, 42% of respondents agreed with the idea that many national problems could be dealt with more effectively “if the government didn’t have to worry so much about votes in parliament”.
Ruth Fox, the director of the Hansard Society, said scepticism about politics, a feeling that the system was rigged and a willingness to consider radical solutions was a potentially dangerous combination.
She said: “Preferring a strong leader who is willing to break the rules, or thinking that the government should be able to tackle the country’s problems without worrying about the approval of parliament, would challenge core tenets of our democracy.
“The public feel strongly that the system of governing favours the rich and powerful and that political parties don’t care about the average person. And people are not confident that politicians act in the public interest. Unless something changes, this is a potentially toxic recipe for the future of British 
Hope Not Hate, which monitors extreme groups, said the suspicion of politicians, if coupled with a post-Brexit economic downturn, would be “fertile ground for a far-right populist surge”.
Rosie Carter, a senior policy officer with the group, said: “We are facing a crisis of political mistrust. And when people do not trust traditional political systems, they look elsewhere. That’s when support for political extremes grows.”
The report was based on face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of more than 1,000 people, who were asked a mix of new questions and those asked each year. The proportion who said the system of governing needed “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of improvement rose by five points from 2018, to 77%, the highest level recorded.
The survey found that 25% of the public had confidence in MPs’ handling of Brexit, and overall they were more likely to have faith in the military, judges, civil servants, TV broadcasters, councils, unions and banks to “act in the public interest”.
Fifty-six per cent of respondents said they believed Britain was in decline, while 63% agreed that “Britain’s system of government is rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful”.

The overall picture was one of people engaged in politics but with little faith in their ability to shape matters, with 47% saying they felt they had no influence at all over the national direction.
One of the few areas where the populist mood has subsided is backing for referendums. Before the Brexit vote, 76% of people supported more issues being put to the public in referendums, but this has now slumped to 55%, three points lower than 2018.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hansard Report 2019 in full, to be downloaded
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Comments  :

I have been warning for this sinister development since decades now :

1.  Our precious democratic experiment - and not just in the UK - seems to be under severe threat by the very people who are inhabiting our democratic institutions; the very people who are supposed to safeguard our democratic values and rights.

2. Especially with the rise of the public arena of social media, that has the almost unique ability to directly expose malafide politicians and ditto public servants, the electorate is rapidly losing confidence, not just in the inhabitants of our democratic institutions, but  in our very democratic institutions themselves.

3. However, as the latest Hansard study-poll does seem to indicate,  the public at large - by observing politicians and civil servants who do often abuse their special powers, and are hardly ever punished for doing so - does not just lose their faith in the democratic institutions, but are steadily and certainly losing faith in the very  fundamental  democratic principals under our society.

4. So, it is hardly a coincidence, that the extreme-right has become increasingly omni-present within our western societies and has never been more organized, more determined and more popular among the disenfranchised electorate since the thirties.

5. The extreme-right demagogues though - often generously bankrolled by cynical financial and economic global powerhouses and by other cryptic sources of dark money deriving from obscure special interest groups - are offering the frustrated and demotivated people only false hopes and simple solutions to complex problems, or are denying the existence of the problems at all.

6.  Although it is not too late to change this highly dangerous tendency of looming calamity, I would suggest, it might be a few minutes to midnight now, before irrevocable dark political structures might become  established in our civilized societies. 

7. One of the more acute problems for the democratically minded specimens among us, is the dangerous probability-scenario, that once the core of the electorate has been fully intoxicated by the highly poisonous and highly divisive narratives of the extreme-right, people will have lost their democratic points of reference altogether and the extremist ideology will have become mainstream.

8.   Do not under-estimate the resilience  of the neo-authoritarians to conquest power and their utter preparedness to strip the citizens of their human rights, if and when it will suit them..

9. Do not under-estimate their absolute willingness to entertain brute force to defend their newly acquired positions against anyone who might be willing to resist their will to submit the people to a state of neo-feudalism.. 

10. Do not underestimate either their pathological preoccupation with national borders, their obsession with militarism and their strong resolve to be engaged in warfare in order to defend those borders and to recycle historic geo-political claims with military force if they will have decided to "take back what is rightfully ours".

11. Do not underestimate either their pathological preoccupation with racial superiority and racial majority, and with the demographics and religion of minorities, which are perceived an existential threat to the privileges  of the white communities.

12. And do never ever underestimate one of the main objectives of the extreme right neo-fascists, to radically "purify our societies from deviant elements", thereby in the process all too willing to entertain the obsolete tactics of scapegoating the weak and exploiting feelings of ressentiment among the crowds of their followers.

13. So again : It is not just the UK that might be under severe threat of stealthily autocratisation, but our very western civilisation might be the very subject of a fundamental cultural and political change for the worse in the years ahead. 

14. Be vigilante and be prepared to defend our core values, before they will have been totally consummated by the brutal strength of the anti-democratic forces....   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------