The emergence of thousands of flags across Britain over the last few months was no spontaneous occurrence. It was a centrally planned and implemented operation by a hard core of fascists. That they may have drawn in other gullible people in their own periphery, as with the riots outside run-down, former hotels and motels used to, now, house unfortunate asylum seekers and refugees is not in doubt, but doesn't change the fact that it was a centrally planned operation by hard core, fascist activists. That they couldn't seem to decide or distinguish between raising the Union Flag, or the Flag of St. George, also, doesn't change that, it only goes to indicate the actual mentality behind the operation.
The large-scale operation had one main purpose, but also carried with it a secondary objective. The main purpose was propaganda. The idea was that sections of he Left would be up in arms demanding the flags be taken down, and that, as local councils took down the flags, the fascists would be able to attack them for having the effrontery to disrespect the nation's flag, in the case of England, or the British flag, in the case of the Union Flag. But, they failed. In large part, the Left did not get overly worked up about the erection of the flags, but pointed out, as I have above, that this was a deliberate strategy not by ordinary people, stirred into patriotic fervour by the actions of politicians who were encouraging migrants to overrun the country, but by a hard core of fascists simply trying to whip up hysteria.
What sections of The Left did, do, however, also, in that respect, was to point out that second motivation of the fascists, which was that they sought to use the flags in an intimidatory way, focusing some of them near to places where ethnic minorities are congregated. Again the fascists failed in their objective.
Where councils did remove flags, it was only in those places where they posed a safety hazard, for example, where they had been erected recklessly so as to block road signs, and to cause distractions that could have led to road accidents. The real purpose of the campaign was exposed, in those cases, as even there the fascists, supported by some of the fascistic elements of the media, tried to attack the councils for taking them down, without reporting the actual reasons for them doing so.
But, as the months have gone by, its clear that the campaign of the flagging fascists has become as frayed and limp as the flags they erected. Rather than demanding the flags be taken down, or taking them down, the response has been indifference. In at least one case, it has been amusingly turned around on those that hung out the flags. Houses flying the flags were sent spoof letters saying that as they were obviously patriots they would want to help the country, and so had been chosen to house refugees.
In general the proliferation of flags has been in areas that were already seedy, and run down, and the tattiness of the flags erected already added to the generally run-down, tacky environment. The more the flags have hung limply and degraded over the months, the more that has become apparent, a bit like the erection of tacky and vulgar house decorations for Halloween and Christmas that go up months before the festivities, and hang around long after they are over. It is the British equivalent of the vulgarity of the fountainhead of their ideas, Donald Trump, as manifest in his décor in the Whitehouse. The only difference is that the British version is cheap and nasty displays of vulgarity, whereas Trump's is very expensive and nasty displays of vulgarity as with his $350 million ballroom.
Still at least the demand for the thousands of flags erected will have provided employment and wages for workers in Bangladesh, Vietnam or Taiwan, where many of them will have been produced.
No comments:
Post a Comment