1/ When @SuellaBraverman took office she would be briefed on the fact that one in six terror convicts in the UK is far-right. The core ideology driving them is fear that "invasion" by migrants is a form of "white genocide". Here's Renaud Camus - Great Replacement - 2012...
2/ So "invasion" is not just an over-emotive word, that might trigger the far right. It is a word validating their world-view... that the invasion is being organised by liberals, human rights lawyers, and feminists - and in Suella's case by implication, the Labour Party
3/ For Camus there are three phases: the "collaborators" prepare the way (human rights law); the "invasion" takes place; then the invaders "colonise and replace"... Braverman's thought architecture is close on the first two points...
4/ Here's the most succinct form of Camus' thesis. Tell me how Braverman's Commons answer in any way distanced the government from this worldview?
5/ See also the link to "globalism" and ...and you can see why it is so dangerous to use this terminology. Thousands of actual fascists will feel they have an explicit ally - in the very politician whose job it is to prevent far right terror and street disorder...
6/ In #HowToStopFascism I describe the central problem: the ideological takeover of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing populism by the language and thought structures of Camus' fascism...
7/ If Great Replacement is Item #1 in the fascist thought architecture, and Collaborationism of the liberal humanists #2, what is Item #3? You guessed it: Cultural Marxism... the idea that the downfall of the West has been designed by an alien/hostile/treacherous force...
8/ Item #4 of modern fascist ideology is to commit acts of symbolic violence that reinforce the narrative. Like firebombing a migrant centre. Spot the absence of outright condemnation in Braverman's first public response...She could have said "I condemn this attack".
9/ The fifth and final item in the modern fascist belief system is the idea that modernity will end in a global ethnic civil war, from which transnational ethnically pure empires will emerge. Thankfully there is no trace of that in right-wing British conservatism...
10/10 But Braverman's use of the world "invasion" in this context is despicable. I hope ministers will take a crash course in how to defeat Great Replacement politics, and understand its pervasive influence among the online right, including those convicted of terror offences.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Four moves just happened in the US-Iran battle: Trump leaks peace conditions; Iran makes extreme counter-demands; Trump threatens to destroy energy plants; Iran threatens to destroy Gulf desalination plants... this is "escalate to de-escalate"... 1/
2/ analysis: First off, Trump is explicitly threatening a war crime; the UK should have no part in that. Iran's threat is also criminal. Second - Israel seems absent from the exchange. Third: Iran's maximalist demands are actually a plea for inclusion in a rules based order -
3/ If either escalation threat were carried out we would see an epic refugee and humanitarian crisis: Southern Caucasus, Iraq, Türkiye,Turkmenistan all vulnerable
The British government is not "confused" or unclear - it's been crystal clear it did not take part in the US/Israeli attack on Iran because there is no legal basis to do so; in addition its aims are ill defined... 1/ so Labour MPs need to get real...
2/ We're under political attack from a Tory party that would have willingly breached the UN Charter. We're sticking by the Charter - everything we've done so far is lawful under Article 51...
3/ We're also under attack from the Greens who want to leave NATO, & Plaid and the SNP who want to dismember the United Kingdom. You were elected as social democrats, act like one: get behind the government and deliver a massive majority for strong, lawful conduct during this war
As Morgan McSweeney resigns - here's some basic politics for any member of the Labour Party: 1/ We cannot have a leadership contest now. Why? Because the bond market is a "daily referendum on UK political stability"...the right wing press baying for Keir to resign know this ...
2/ The rat pack of podcasters and YouTubers will have a field day stoking up chaos... a doom loop of bad headlines and soaring bond yields. Therefore Keir Starmer has to remain PM. Let's have a clear report from the ISC - and it should not be difficult to get to the point...
3/ ... did the DV process throw up any problems with Mandelson? Did the security services warn anyone? Once we have that information there is a story to tell about what went wrong ...
In a jaw dropping interview with Channel 4 News, Zack Polanski claims he wants both "to reform NATO from within" and replace it with "an alternative alliance of countries based in Europe… plus Brazil and Mexico and global south countries"... let's unpack... 1/
2/ NATO is an alliance formed by treaty. It is the lynchpin of the rules based global order, together with the UN. All 31 countries are signed up to defend each other. Can you imagine what would happen if we, the 5th biggest economy, left it?
3/ If the UK left NATO it would collapse. There would not be "an alliance of UK with other European countries plus Mexico and Brasil" - there would be the Russian occupation of Estonia, Lithuania, probably Svalbard and likely the collapse of Ukraine...
Zack Polanski's puerile name-calling during an international crisis is testament to a profound lack of seriousness... here's the sum total of the GPEW's response so far... 🧵1/~
2/~ Starmer has not "appeased" Trump. He has conducted tough diplomacy over Ukraine, talking Trump back from a total sell-out; he has banned all relevant arms sales to Israel; and on Greenland he has made defence of Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders self-determination a red line
3/~ But at the last election the GPEW did NOT say "relying on US for nukes is dangerous"... they said give up nuclear weapons unilaterally... here's the manifesto...
Russia's talking point of the day already being echoed by useful idiot savants ... "They can't invade Europe because they couldn't defeat Ukraine" - here's why that's wrong ... 1/ They have 350k troops in Belarus trained to do exactly that ...
2/ Russia just carried out an attack exercise in Belarus where it practised only with its strategic forces - showing how it will use lessons learned in Ukraine to menace Europe once there is a frozen conflict in Ukraine
3/ Specifically Russia has 3x options - destabilise Moldova, seize Svalbard, attack a Baltic state - in each case it may judge that with Guardianista useful idiots and "actionists" plus far right parties in W Europe - and Trump in power - NATO would not respond... but...