Rise Of UK DAB Talk Radio Giants LBC Nigel Farage, James O’Brien, Mike Graham – talkRADIO

Nigel Farage has his own daily show on LBC radio, the station that is becoming one of Britain’s media success stories.

Every weekday evening at 6pm Mon – Thurs he’s there on LBC – Leading Britain’s Conversation, as the station’s slogan has it – and he’s banging the drum for Brexit.

There’s no glimmer of any of the usual impartiality of UK broadcasting, and his topics range from abortion (he was against the repeal of Ireland’s eighth amendment) to whether he was running a campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump.

This may make liberals’ teeth grind, but the Farage show is often an entertaining hour of radio and he is a natural broadcaster.

He slots in well to a station that is becoming notable for two things: the punchiness of its editorial proposition, and its ability to unsettle the BBC because of its startling growth in audience.

Since LBC went national, its number of weekly listeners has increased from 1.3 million in 2014 to 2.2 million in a 2018 survey; and that includes a growth of 65 per cent in the number of younger listeners (aged 15-34) contributing to what one broadcasting rival calls “an amazingly well balanced listener age profile”.

Despite the Farage and Nick Ferrari factor, it would be wrong to assume that this has been achieved by becoming a British version of America’s right-wing talk radio.

LBC insiders are squeamish about suggestions of a shift away from UK radio traditions, and “opinionated news broadcasting” is their preferred positioning.


Also on the station and clocking up more than one million listeners is the left-leaning James O’Brien, whose shows are frequently a lament about the awfulness of Brexit; the former 5 Live stalwart Shelagh Fogarty; and Channel 4 News Matt Frei, who takes his Saturday morning programme in a markedly different direction to Farage’s Sunday equivalent.

The BBC is uneasy about what is happening at LBC. “Surprised” is one of the milder adjectives used by an executive when asked to assess how LBC can broadcast a regular show by an elected politician like Farage within the Ofcom impartiality framework.

If you happened to tune in only at a particular time each day, you would hardly be getting a balanced picture – and LBC has exploited to its full the idea of “due impartiality”, which allows broadcasters to aim for impartiality across the totality of their output rather than within a single edition of a programme.

Among the ranks of BBC producers, there are those who find this idea more attractive than the robotic balance of “this person says yes, this person says no” that can be the corporation’s default.

That’s particularly the case on 5 Live, where the figures are heading downwards.

Twenty years ago, 5 Live was a reinvention of speech radio; but its audience is being nibbled away by dedicated sport and news stations – and some of its editorial rationale is lost in an age of social media.

Staff there express admiration for LBC’s interaction with its audience and the strength of its personality and they muse about whether they might be able to follow suit by having, for instance, consecutive shows that represent different points of view.

It’s one possible response to the challenge noted about some BBC presenters displaying their political colours on social media – so why not on air too?

Radio 4 is not immune from the LBC factor.

The network has long obsessed about its “replenisher” audiences – the younger people aged 35 to 54 who need to move over to Radio 4 to replace, frankly, those who are dying off.

But LBC’s success in making speech radio attractive for younger people might add to the corporation’s difficulty in those demographic groups.

At its heart is the question of whether LBC points the way to broadcasting for our noisy, disputatious times, and the extent to which the traditional model is under threat.

It is striking that many of the most memorable moments of political radio in recent years have not happened in their customary home of the Radio 4 news programmes.

It was Iain Dale on LBC whose polite but deadly questioning skewered Theresa May on whether she would now vote Leave in a second EU referendum, and it was Ferrari who dominated the headlines with his Diane Abbott interview during the election campaign.

Elsewhere, the BBC’s rising star Emma Barnett has achieved similar results on 5 Live and on Woman’s Hour with Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn respectively.

LBC’s additional twist on this is to give politicians their own shows, so Jacob Rees-Mogg was added to the roster to take his place alongside regulars like the London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

These more relaxed formats generate newspaper headlines.

This is amplified by energetic use of social media.

LBC has 14 cameras in its studios in Leicester Square, and branding that’s impossible to miss.

The best bits of the content are deployed across multiple digital platforms, with something such as Maajid Nawaz’s interview with Jordan Peterson reaching 600,000 people on YouTube.

It would be churlish not to applaud LBC’s entrepreneurship, and its casting of a boulder into the calm water of radio.

It deserves to succeed.

But we need to make sure this doesn’t become the thin end of the wedge for an Americanisation of our broadcast media in which opinion drives out news.

Alternative – Independent Republic Mike Graham talkRADIO

Mike Graham Independent Republic talkRadio

Mike Graham TalkRadio

Mike Graham The Independent Republic.

The refreshing alternative to the anti-Brexit James O’Brien LBC show

Independent Republic of Mike Graham 10am-1pm talkRadio – the fantastic popular alternative to LBC Radio James O’Brien 10am-1pm.

University students are tuning in to talkRadio Independent Republic all over the UK for this refreshing alternative to the dreary anti-Brexit rhetoric of James O’Brien on LBC Radio.

Mike Graham says it how it really is and he pulls no punches when it comes to stating the facts as he sees them.

talkRADIO is available on DAB radio, but to listen you will need to retune your digital radio.

The good news is, it’s really easy to do.

Most digital radios, either at home or in your car, can be retuned using the following simple instructions:

Press the Auto-Tune or Auto-Scan button on your digital radio.


If there is no Auto-Tune or Auto-Scan button, press the Menu button and go through the options until you find Auto-Tune or Auto-Scan.

If that doesn’t get the job done, refer to your manufacturer’s instructions or click here.

And to check out whether talkRADIO will be available where you live, click here.

You can also listen online via talkRADIO.co.uk, and via iOS and Android apps

Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/how-to-listen#dbVrCAblSRUKz7AA.99


UK University Students Could Join En Masse New Brexit Party Membership

The Brexit Party

Students for Brexit founder Robert Langley said Labour-supporting Brexit voters feel “ignored and neglected” by the Labour Party and are likely to now support the Brexit Party.

Speaking to Express.co.uk, Mr Langley said: “There’s more to life than Brexit.

So, any party that gets set up with the fundamental of getting Brexit, it would need a whole range of policies for it to be successful.

So, it does have potential.

“My home is in the north of England, it’s a Labour stronghold, so a lot of the Labour voters up here feel very ignored and very neglected.

“So there is fertile ground for a Brexit party.”

Mr Langley said he set up pro-Brexit campaign group Students for Brexit earlier this year to give a voice to the young Brexit supporters across Britain.

The politics student said: “The main idea of behind Students for Brexit was to, a, put a platform in place for young Leavers to actually have a say and, b, if there is a second referendum we have got the infrastructure in place to take a bright and positive message onto university campuses across the country.”

NIGEL Farage was one of the most prominent campaigners for Brexit but now says he’s worried the process of leaving could be delayed or even stopped by MPs.

The former Ukip leader has now said he will stand for a new pro-Brexit party if the departure is delayed.

Here’s what you need to know.

What is Nigel Farage’s New Brexit party called?

The Brexit Party has been officially registered with the Electoral Commission allowing it to field candidates at upcoming elections.

He said the new party “has my absolutely full support” and he would stand for it in May’s European Parliament elections if the UK has not left the EU by that point.

Mr Farage said that if MPs “kick the can down the road” by extending Article 50 “then logically we would have to fight European elections and I would certainly stand in them in those circumstances”.

He said new party should be a warning to MPs considering backing any effort, such as the move championed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Nick Boles, to extend Article 50 in order to allow more time for negotiations.

MPs considering such a move “need to be aware there could be a very serious electoral threat to them”.

Mr Farage quit Ukip in December 2018 saying he was uncomfortable with the direction of the party under Gerard Batten.

Who will join?

Mr Farage said the party would attract support from across the political spectrum.

He claimed people now increasingly identifying along Leave and Remain lines rather than by affiliation to the Conservatives or Labour.

“If the need comes for the Brexit Party to be mobilised, I think it will draw support from across the entire spectrum.

“I genuinely believe people would be very surprised at the support it would attract.”

He added: “There is a live vehicle there from which to fight back.

“There are many millions of people out there at the moment feeling disenfranchised completely, feeling that they are more Leavers, or Remainers, but feeling they are more Leavers than they are Labour or Tory supporters and this would give them a focus.”

The party’s founder Catherine Blaiklock told the Daily Telegraph that “a number of hundred” Conservative members had been in touch to say they wanted to defect to the new party and the figure was likely to rise to thousands.

“Never in peacetime has such a betrayal been attempted by this treacherous Conservative government.

“No country has ever signed a treaty like this except under war terms.

This is a wake-up call.

“We are going to have thousands of people who will just leave the Conservatives and vote for us in the event of the European Parliament election.”


Boris Johnson Destined To Be Next Prime Minister

Boris Johnson Likely Next Prime Minister

THERESA May’s leadership has been an uncomfortable display of crumbling credibility combined with resolute determination to push through Brexit – no matter what.

In these turbulent times there seems to be little appetite to replace her – despite faint calls for a general election. But a week in politics is a long time, so here are the latest odds.

Theresa May will go unchallenged by her own party for the next year after surviving a vote of no confidence in December 2018.

May has seemed determined to see her Brexit deal passed before stepping down, and has hinted that she will do so before the next General Election in 2022.

But when quizzed about when she plans to resign, the PM insisted: “As far as I’m concerned, my job is not just about delivering Brexit.

“There is still a domestic agenda that I want to get on with.”

David Davis was the first candidate to publicly express an interest in taking over.

In an interview in the April 2018 issue of Tatler, Mr Davis said he has the right qualifications to take over from Mrs May.

Mr Davis added that he was the PM’s “favourite minister” before he resigned over Brexit last year.

What are the odds on the next Prime Minister?

Here are the latest odds from William Hill as of March 14, 2019

Michael Gove – 5/1

The Environment Secretary has achieved a remarkable turnaround since knifing Boris Johnson during the 2016 leadership contest.

His support among party members dropped through the floor and it seemed his chances were gone for ever.

But Mr Gove, who led the Leave campaign in the EU referendum, has rebranded himself as an ecowarrior as Environment Secretary.

He has also thrown his full support behind Theresa May’s Brexit plan, winning him friends among MPs if not the party faithful.

He claimed May blundered by not having key Labour figures on her Brexit talks team.

The Environment Secretary said the PM “made a mistake by not asking Gisela Stuart to join at the beginning”.

The team should also have had “people like Frank Field”, he said.

He also said No Deal must be kept on the table.

Boris Johnson – 5/1

Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is still a hugely popular figure among Tory grassroots and the general public.

Boris quit as Foreign Secretary on July 9, 2018, in a blow to May’s government.

He walked out just hours after she lost Brexit Secretary David Davis over her Chequers plan to keep close ties to Brussels.

But many MPs appear to have turned against him, meaning he might struggle to get on the ballot.

His aborted leadership bid in 2016 was scuppered by his friend Michael Gove, severely damaging his electoral “brand”.

He has called on May to stop “dithering” and tell the EU that Britain will not accept the controversial backstop arrangement designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland.

He rejected warnings about the impact of a No Deal Brexit, insisting: “Whatever the doomsters may say … there will be no shortage of Mars bars, we will still have potable drinking water in Britain. The planes will fly, the ferries will ply.”

He was mocked when he tried to distance himself from controversial adverts about immigration from Turkey during the 2016 campaign.

Vote Leave adverts posted widely on social media stated that “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU” and “Britain’s new border is with Syria and Iraq”. Some included maps with large red arrows pointing towards the UK.

But Mr Johnson (incredibly) claimed: “I didn’t say anything about Turkey in the referendum …since I made no remarks, I can’t disown them.”

Sajid Javid – 8/1

The Home Secretary ended up backing Remain during the EU referendum but is popular among the Tory parliamentary party.

Mr Javid was appointed Home Secretary in the wake of the Windrush scandal and the resignation of Amber Rudd.

A known Eurosceptic, some of his statements in recent months and his backing for a harder Brexit have been taken as signs he is pitching for the leadership.

The MP for Bromsgrove in Worcestershire is a former managing director from Deutsche Bank.

Dominic Raab – 10/1

The former Brexit Secretary quit the cabinet in protest over Theresa May’s soft divorce deal with the EU.

Raab has insisted No Deal wouldn’t be chaotic for Britain and said the short-term risks were “manageable”.

He has blasted those who want to extend Article 50 or a second referendum.

He said: “If there’s an attempt to reverse the referendum, stop Brexit altogether I think that would cut across not only the democratic mandate, the biggest in history we had.”

Jeremy Hunt – 11/1

Mr Hunt was the longest-serving Health Secretary in British history before replacing Boris as Foreign Secretary.

He left the Department of Health after securing a £20bn funding increase for the NHS, but was hated by junior doctors after changing their contacts so they wouldn’t receive extra pay for the many shifts they work previously classified as unsociable hours.

Mr Hunt is known to have leadership aspirations and now says he backs Brexit despite campaigning for Remain during the referendum.

Amber Rudd – 16/1

Ms Rudd has managed to stay in favour with Mrs May, taking the buck for the Windrush scandal and stepping down as Home Secretary – before months later returning to the cabinet and Work and Pensions chief in November.

The 55-year-old Hastings MP has voiced support for the PM and for her botched Brexit deal, but insiders think she’s savvy enough to manoeuvre a bid to the top when she’s ready.

One concern though would be her slim majority in her constituency of Hastings and Rye, which was slimmed down after the 2017 vote to just 346 votes.

In contrast, Mrs May enjoys a 26,457 majority in her constituency of Maidenhead, that has stood behind her over more than two decades.

She warned the PM there could be dozens of resignations if Tory MPs are banned from voting for a plan to stop a No Deal Brexit.

Andrea Leadsom – 20/1

Though an unlikely candidate at the time, the Brexit campaigner reached the final two of the 2016 leadership contest.

She withdrew over ill-judged remarks about Theresa May not being a mother.

She is now Leader of the House, and survived in post despite reports Mrs May was planning to cut “dead wood” in her January reshuffle.

Mrs Leadsom had a role in the downfall of Sir Michael Fallon after she accused him of lewd sexual comments.

David Davis – 20/1

David Davis quit as Brexit Secretary on July 8, 2018, with a devastating letter warning Mrs May her proposal would leave the UK in “a weak negotiating position” with Brussels.

He has since launched a series of attacks on Mrs May’s strategy, and led a Tory rebellion to ditch the Chequers plan.

He called on Cabinet ministers to rise up and kill off the plans.

Furious Tories have demanded Mr Davis be installed as interim leader to save true Brexit.

Jacob Rees-Mogg – 20/1

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Latin-fluent millionaire financier and MP for North East Somerset, has emerged as the leading Brexiteer on the backbenches.

He has won a huge public profile despite not being a minister and is adored by hard-line Tory activists.

Rees-Mogg has also garnered a surprise following among many young Tories – including Jungle Queen Georgia Toffolo, who called him “a sex god”.

Devout Catholic Rees-Mogg has made no secret of his socially conservative views, such as being anti-abortion and against gay marriage.

His plummy tones, double-breasted suits and traditional manner have earned him the nickname “The Honourable Member for the Nineteenth Century”.

Chuka Umunna – 25/1

Mr Umunna ditched the Labour Party to join forces with three former Tories and eight other ex-Labour MPs to form a new political group in February 2019 after months of plotting.

The Independent Group (TIG) will form a full-fledged parliamentary party.

Umunna insisted hey were not yet a party or a movement, with a fully worked out programme for government, but simply a group of independent MPs.

While he played down reports that he was favourite to be the first leader, he acknowledged that he wanted to play the “biggest role” in the group.

Most Revealing Student Essay 2019 University Students Dropping Left-wing Ideals

Students are dropping Left-wing ideals and distancing themselves fast from any connection or labelling as being Left-wing in identity or thought.

But why the sudden turnaround and the massive flood from Left-wing so called moral idealism?

Below we present a fascinating essay that we are sure will top student internal reading on campus for years to come.

We have all witnessed of late, the extreme left-wing so called ‘progressive’ student movement within our universities.

The left-wing self righteous (law unto themselves) thought police and politically correct fascists.

What the majority of students who fall for this nonsense and rubbish fail to understand, is that the so called moral left-wing agenda and ideal that has been force fed into the student identity and thinking is a very clever ploy used by the much darker and sinister side of what this charade is actually used for to keep concealed from the students in the first place.

Left-wing progressive PC thinking and activism is a direct ideological political platform of nazism.

Left-wing Fascism and Nazism

The tribalism, cultural Marxism, and anti-liberalism that permeates the identity politics promoted by the regressive PC left-wing is self-evident to anyone who has been paying attention to the metastatic growth of the contemporary “social justice” movement over the last few years.

While liberalism as a philosophy has always supported things like freedom of speech and expression, civil discussion and the free exchange of ideas, and judging individuals based on their character, not superficial things like skin color or gender.

The (illiberal left-wing PC fascists) oppose all of these things, and in order to understand why, it is first necessary to understand the ideology behind the “social justice” movement.

At its core, the philosophy of the social justice movement is one firmly rooted in Nazism and Cultural Marxism.

Just as Karl Marx saw the capitalist as the exploitative oppressor of the working class, illiberal leftism adopts a worldview in which white people are the oppressor class and minorities, are the oppressed.

Consequently, illiberal leftism has rejected liberalism’s tendency to judge individuals as individuals and instead adopted the Marxist approach of judging people on the basis of what group they belong to while substituting “race and gender identities for economic ones.”

Left-wing Racist Goldsmith Diversity Officer

Consider a student union diversity officer at Goldsmith University, who banned white people and men from an event promoting equality.

After accusations of what was obvious racism and sexism, the woman denied the allegations, stating that,

“I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.”

You may be thinking, “that’s not the definition of racism,” and you’d be correct.

Racism, by definition, is the belief that some races are naturally superior to others and that race is the primary determinant of human traits.

Racial discrimination is treating people differently solely on the basis of their race, and has nothing to do with “structures or privilege.”

Social justice extremists like this woman have literally redefined what racism is in order to justify their own racism.

In their view, their actions are justified as they are a natural response to oppression.

In another clear case of the tribalism promoted by social justice advocates, a young girl in a viral video, to the applause of her classmates, tells her teacher that white people have never been oppressed.

I suppose totalitarian African dictators evicting white people from their lands and telling them never to come back doesn’t count as oppression.

It seems very likely that the rise of the regressive left has resulted in more racial animosity between whites and non-whites.

When a person is told, or it is implied, that they are a bad person because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or what not, it is natural for them to start to associate even more with that group- identity based on those characteristics rather than seeing themselves as an individual.

If you put people into groups based on superficial characteristics and then designate one group (white people) as an oppressor class, members of whom are only successful because of some unearned privilege, and another as the oppressed class (minorities), members of whom are only unsuccessful because their oppressed status, naturally division and hatred between the members of these groups is going emerge.

The rise of right-wing populism is thus almost certainly a reaction to left-wing identity politics which paints whites in a negative light.

Instead of fostering a unified society where people see themselves as individuals rather than a part of a particular group, the social justice movement is likely responsible for further dividing people along tribalistic lines.

There are vastly better means to which eradicate racism and sexism from society than the identity politics upon which the social justice movement is based.

As is by now apparent, the dichotomy between the oppressor vs. the oppressed is also central to understanding Marxist doctrines like that of illiberal left-wing nazism.

It is also crucial in explaining why these doctrines are so hostile to the individual liberties promoted by liberalism.

Economic Marxism sees free markets and private property rights (i.e economic freedom) as a means to protect the capitalist class from the proletariat that they exploit in order to maintain their socio economic hegemony.

Consequently, economic Marxists have always been hostile to economic freedom and attempted to curtail it or abolish it outright whenever they have had the power to do so.

Cultural Marxism similarly understands fundamental political freedoms, like freedom of speech and expression, to be mechanisms by which those in power, mainly white heterosexual men, use in order to maintain their socioeconomic hegemony to benefit themselves at the expense of minorities and women.

“The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents … as hopelessly naïve.

If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations.

Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash?

So, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.”

Thus, instead of seeing freedom of speech as an individual right that is sacrosanct, the illiberal left sees it as an obstacle in the way of “social justice.”

Sadly, this fact has become increasingly obvious.

Links Left-wing Fascism Nazism

(Click here to see Daniel Hannan article comprehensively proving that Nazism was socialism). (Click here for article by George Watson with the facts, proving Hitler was a socialist). (Click here for a Mises Institute article about Nazism, Socialism and totalitarianism). (Dr Rachel Frosh writes about why Nazism is Socialism, with references to more facts, click here). (Chapter 12 of Friedrich Hayek’s famous book The Road to Serfdom is titled “The Socialist Roots of Naziism” and gives the intellectual and philosophical background. Click for more details)(Joseph Goebbels explains why Nazis are socialists, click to see the truth from the horses mouth!). (Click for extract from book The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff, in which he explains the nature of Nazi Socialism).


The purpose of this essay is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.

For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State.

If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933.

The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages,that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing.

Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far.

Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability.

When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good.

Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier.

The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis.

And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system.

It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls.

(I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government’s control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system.

This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail.

In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offence, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people.

If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis.

The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls.

As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)

Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government’s regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls.

For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property.

For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government’s economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is.

Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual’s economic well-being.

Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual’s life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread.

Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.)

And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself?

The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men.

If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed.

If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers’ terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work ’round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people’s attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people’s misery.

The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself.

It is because of the rulers’ terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas.

Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers.

The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war.

In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it.

The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system.

Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system.

Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state.

Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery.

The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.

In the United States at the present time, we do not have socialism in any form. And we do not have a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian dictatorship.

We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it. Among the essential elements that are still lacking are one-party rule and censorship. We still have freedom of speech and press and free elections, though both have been undermined and their continued existence cannot be guaranteed.

What we have is a hampered market economy that is growing ever more hampered by ever more government intervention, and that is characterized by a growing loss of individual freedom.

The growth of the government’s economic intervention is synonymous with a loss of individual freedom because it means increasingly initiating the use of physical force to make people do what they do not voluntarily choose to do or prevent them from doing what they do voluntarily choose to do.

Since the individual is the best judge of his own interests, and at least as a rule seeks to do what it is in his interest to do and to avoid doing what harms his interest, it follows that the greater the extent of government intervention, the greater the extent to which individuals are prevented from doing what benefits them and are instead compelled to do what causes them loss.

Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government.

Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen’s life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.

The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.

Though the government’s policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.

And in conformity with this attitude, since the collapse of the stock market bubble, which was in fact created by the Federal Reserve’s policy of credit expansion and then pricked by its temporary abandonment of that policy, government prosecutors have adopted what appears to be a particularly vengeful policy toward executives guilty of financial dishonesty, as though their actions were responsible for the widespread losses resulting from the collapse of the bubble.

Thus the former head of a major telecommunications company was recently given a twenty-five year prison sentence. Other top executives have suffered similarly.

Even more ominously, the government’s power to obtain mere criminal indictments has become equivalent to the power to destroy a firm, as occurred in the case of Arthur Andersen, the major accounting firm.

The threatened use of this power was then sufficient to force major insurance brokerage firms in the United States to change their managements to the satisfaction of New York State’s Attorney General. There is no way to describe such developments other than as conviction and punishment without trial and as extortion by the government. These are major steps along a very dangerous path.

Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.

More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.

There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.

This institute, The Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the world’s leading center for the dissemination of Mises’s ideas. It presents a constant flow of analyses based on his ideas, analyses that appear in its academic journals, its books and periodicals, and in its daily website news articles that deal with the issues of the moment.

It educates college and university students, and young instructors, in his ideas and the related ideas of other members of the Austrian school of economics. It does this through the Mises Summer University, the Austrian Scholars Conferences, and a variety of seminars.

Two very major ways of fighting for freedom are to educate oneself to the point of being able to speak and write as articulately in its defense as do the scholars associated with this institute or, if one does not have the time or inclination to pursue such activity, then to financially support the Institute in its vital work to whatever extent one can.

It is possible to turn the tide. No single person can do it. But a large and growing number of intelligent people, educated in the cause of economic freedom, and speaking up and arguing in its defense whenever possible, is capable of gradually forming the attitudes of the culture and thus of the nature of its political and economic system.

You in this audience are all already involved in this great effort. I hope you will continue and intensify your commitment.

These leftist and communist ideas include anti-capitalism, total destruction of the individual in favor of the state, and big government takeover.

We have all heard this stereotype in our universities.

However, we think there is a far more accurate political ideology floating in the minds of modern leftists, thirsty for revolution to take down “the man” and change the “bourgeois system.”

We are speaking of fascism – left-wing politically correct progressive fascism.

“What!” you say.

“James O’Brien on LBC Radio would strongly disagree”.

He would, wouldn’t he?

Fascism is left-wing and that is fact.

According to the (left-wing fascists) fascism itself is reserved only for the so called British evil white conservative men who spout evil fascist rhetoric like small government, individualism, self-reliance, capitalism, less dependency on government, traditionalism, and self-responsibility with strong ties to self-sustaining autonomous Christian family units!!!”

Just slow down, put down your vegan burger and eco warrior climate change book, slip off the (leather shoes) you are wearing and let us explain.

After peeling back some layers of the Orwellian leftist language and indoctrination that has been hounded over many years into young students heads that fascism is always of the evil British nasty right-wing, closer examination reveals the undeniable factual evidence and truth, the horrific reality that you were never meant to know or find out.

Fascism is Left-wing.

Fascism could not be any further from the British or American right-wing conservative (Classical Liberalism at its heart).

Very few realize that fascism by its very nature was an extremely leftist populist movement taking root in Mussolini’s Italy and later Hitler’s Nazi Germany spreading like wildfire throughout Europe.

Left-wing self righteous guilt tripping British hating smug PC luvvies shudder when they realise that they have been misled and fed lies on a scale that even the nazis would of been proud of.

But the full horror really hits home when the people who have been morally hoodwinked and convinced (brainwashed) to follow these so called progressive left-wing crank organisations learn the truth that nazism and fascism were, and are, very much indeed LEFT-WING.

This could be looked at as very amusing if it were not for the simple fact that these self righteous left-wing luvvies who go around calling everybody a (fascist) or a (racist) who happen to have a different opinion, are in actual fact very much racist fascist nazis themselves.

These people have caused untold damage and suffering to people’s lives, and they have driven others to suicide.

This is no laughing matter in any sense of the word, or in the reason and common decency of a civilised democratic society and humanity.

History of Fascism – the real ideology of the left-wing and enforced through Political Correctness

Fascism was born out of socialism (the prized ideology among the left) and was an evolved state-centric version of socialism which became popular around the early to mid 1900s.

It was “new” and full of revolutionary change.

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (a name consisting almost entirely of Socialist revolutionaries) was raised a charismatic Italian Socialist (his Socialist father being a huge influence on him) (Goldberg 31).

After Mussolini incorporated socialism and nationalism within Italy, fascism spread quickly (without much pretense to race that would come later with German Nazism).

Political Correctness is a tool used by the left-wing fascists as the ideal way of silencing opposition or debate against the regime.

Anybody who spoke out against left-wing fascism was labelled as (politically incorrect) in contrast to being (politically correct).

To be (politically correct) means nothing more than – (do as you are told, stay silent and only say what you are told you can say) or you will be branded as (politically incorrect) and viewed as a social outcast and called a variety of names intended to bring disgrace and shame on the non-conformist.

The above can be clearly seen in the way that the left-wing fascists intimidate and oppress people today.

Fascism would eventually compete with International Socialism for the young revolutionary, the working man, the poor, and the masses in places such as Germany, France, and Italy.

To many individuals, fascism state-centric ideology seemed far more of a “working system” rather than that delusional idea of “uniting the workers of the world”, which was the motto of the International Socialist.

With fascism, as with all large bloated governments that leftists think can cure all our qualms, the utopian lie is propagated by the state which supposedly aims to build a communal National Socialism state-sponsored family.

Fascism was to transcend class differences exactly like socialism preached.

Below are first-hand accounts according to working class Germans and their views on Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist ideas:

…Though I was interested in the betterment of the workingman’s plight, I rejected Marxism unconditionally.  I often asked myself why socialism had to be tied up with internationalism- why it could not work as well or better in conjunction with nationalism’. Another German states ‘I shuddered at the thought of Germany in the grip of Bolshevism.

The slogan ‘Workers of the World Unite!’ made no sense to me.  At the same time, however, National Socialism with its promise of community…barring all class struggle, attracted me profoundly’.  Another German stated they embraced Nazism because of the ‘uncompromising will to stamp out the class struggle, snobberies of caste and party hatreds.  The movement bore the true message of socialism to the German workingman. (Goldberg 74)

Below are key points from Mussolini and the Fasci di Combattimento (a Fascist organization created by Mussolini) circa 1919  (Goldberg 46):

  • The abolition of the senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture
  • The creation of various government bodies run by worker’s representatives
  • The obligation of the state to build “rigidly secular” schools for the raising of “the proletariat’s moral and cultural condition”

All of this seems like the modern leftist’s wet dream.

Modern UK and American leftist rhetoric is far closer to fascism than the UK or American right’s strong stress on individualism, capitalism, and reduced government intervention.

Fascism – ideology of the left-wing

Fascism stressed huge nanny state governments, just like the left-wing politically correct liberal elite nanny state.

This huge fascist government included expanding health services, enforcing anti-elitism, wealth-confiscation, and secularism (Goldberg 46) all in the name of the state and the common good.

Fascism offered “anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalistic, and anti-individualist nationalism” (Sternhell 214-220).

The state was always before the individual under fascism; taking from some and redistributing to the many.

This is the core of modern American leftist ideology as well as the British.

To illustrate this comparison further, let’s look at just a few of the Nazi Party’s key points (Goldberg  411):

  • We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
  • We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
  • The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically.  The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

We can’t tell the difference when the Nazi points end and the leftist points begin.

Not to mention, positive discrimination (prized among the left) is just race privilege enforced by left-wing PC fascist undemocratic discriminatory intervention against one kind.

Positive discrimination is similar to the notorious government enforced Aryan privilege in Nazi Germany regardless of skill.

Historic dangers of the left

In all leftist evil extremes, be it Communism, Nazism, Socialism, or Fascism; murder, violence, and censorship are sure to be the eventual outcome of huge government.

It is a historic pattern and if history is cyclical, which we believe it is, we are at the beginning of what will be the eventual violence found among extreme Leftist purity tactics dating back to the French Revolution (Jacboins), up through Soviet Russia(Bolsheviks), Ukraine, and Communist China.

Nothing has been more devastating and dangerous politically in the 20th century than leftist thought.

If we look at 20th century communism alone we come to a whopping 85-100 million worldwide that perished under such leftist regimes, not to mention the censorship, labor camps, violation of civil liberties, and imprisonment.

One should think of fascism not as the complete opposite of socialism and communism, but yet another kindred spirit in extreme leftist political ideologies that were competing for the hearts and minds of the populous.

Not much has changed with fascist ideology of collectivism (another prized belief of the left) were individual twigs bundle together to make a strong piece of collective wood.

Allow this article to be a possible warning sign of modern day ideology, as their quest will devolve into a loss of civility and violence as we move farther and farther left.

As the left ideologies become more and more resembling a preacher preaching piety from the pulpit, “action” will be the next conclusive step.

Peel back the leftist language from moral PC sounding words like “Progressive” and “Bigot” or some other words that end with ‘phobe’, ‘ist’ or ‘ism’ to expose it for what it really is; left-wing fascist policies and huge government takeover in a pretty PC covered wrapper.

The beginning of the end

Whatever the case, one should keep in mind that socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism all are of the left; they were just different factions of the left.

What is occurring in the U.S. and UK today is not that different from what occurred in Europe some years ago.

Though it may be much more hidden under the cloak of political correctness to make it sound moralistic and acceptable, left-wing fascism and nazism are rooted in this evil ideology, and without doubt, left-wing fascism is pure evil.

Keep this in mind when you are sitting in your cube at the Ministry of Truth, hunched over your keyboard, editing and bowdlerizing Wikipedia pages for “the party”; just remember this article and the quintessential fascist party ideology:

…(the) quest to create an all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing state, a state that assumes responsibility for every desirable outcome and takes the blame for every setback on the road to utopia, a state that finally replaces God (Goldberg 20)

“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished.

He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

Do not become the protagonist of 1984.

Let’s keep fiction for the books and the reality for us here in the UK.

The philosophical and political fate of the country depends on it.

Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left.

Students who were brainwashed by the far left-wing elements within university campuses are now beginning to realise that they have been lied to and used by much more darker elements than those on the right-wing they were told they were making a stand against.

Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists — particularly Jewish capitalists, of course, hence the anti-Semitism we see today amongst the far left-wing nazis and progressives.

Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries.

They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict form of left-wing nazi political correctness fascism.

They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.

Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists.

This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are sociological and philosophical terms used to categorise real or perceived tendencies in extreme left-wing politics otherwise commonly attributed to the ideology of Fascism.

Fascism has historically been considered a far right ideology, but crossovers may be expected according to the theory of extremes meet(FrenchLes extrêmes se touchent), where the touching point between the far left and the far right may be the use of power and/or political terrorismSyntagmas such as left-wing fascism provide shorthand labels.

They lack any universally understood or agreed meaning and in common parlance may be used as a pejorative for any left-wing political position, or where unusual (or contradictory) hybrid political positions are perceived.

The term has its origins with criticism by Vladimir Lenin of the threat of anti-Marxist ultra leftism, before being formulated as a position by sociologists Jürgen Habermas and Irving Louis Horowitz.

Left-wing Nazism

Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini.

During World War I, Mussolini recognised that conventional socialism wasn’t working.

He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood.

He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult.

So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy.

He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a “Third Way” between capitalism and communism.

As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy.

But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Hitler followed the same game plan.

He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was “socialist” and that its enemies were the “bourgeoisie” and the “plutocrats” (the rich).

Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations.

Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists).

Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech.

Karl Marx believed likewise.

In his essay, ‘On the Jewish Question’ Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx’s theory to work in the death camps.

The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer.

The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgement that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets “internationalists” and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Yet many who regard “national” socialism as the scourge of humanity consider “international” socialism a benign or even superior form of government.

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia.

This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs “right-wing” atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century.

Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese citizens.

The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course.

Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills wholesale. And so did “national socialism” during the Nazi reign of terror.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite.

The Nazis have been universally condemned — as they obviously should be — but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right — even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches.

At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them.

Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly “implemented.” Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race. Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course. Modern “liberals,” who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial quotas, seem to agree.

They apparently believe that non-white minorities (excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the free market without favoritism mandated by the government.

Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white “liberals” condescend benevolently.

Hitler’s blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.

The media often focuses its microscope on modern neo-nazi lunatics, but the actual scope of the menace is relatively miniscule, with perhaps a few thousand neo-nazis at most in the United States (mostly “twenty-something” know-nothings).

The number of communists and communist sympathizers in the UK and United States dwarfs that figure, of course — even among tenured professors!

While the threat of neo-nazi terrorism is indeed serious, the chance of neo-nazis gaining any kind of legitimate political power anywhere is virtually zero.

Neo-nazi rallies incite violence and they should be looked upon as beyond contempt, but no less so than the left-wing nazis themselves, who are the real heirs to nazism and totalitarian fascism.

To understand why this is happening, it is important to consider the vast changes that have taken place in Western student politics over the last fifty years.

Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech of the University of California, Berkeley’s (UCB) free speech movement. Here is the speech’s most powerful section:

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part!

And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Savio’s speech helped push the movement towards success. Berkeley students won their full rights. Students, now liberated from the “machine” of university censorship, were able to create the anti-Vietnam student movement, another famous campus protest.

Nowadays, the student Left are unwilling to honour Savio’s legacy. On the 2nd of February, violent protests at Berkeley shut down a talk by popular conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead of maintaining a liberal and free atmosphere for speech and argument, Berkeley students have become the gears, wheels and levers of the machine.

In the space of fifty years, Berkeley students have gone from rioting against a university administration that limited their freedom of speech to violently opposing the presence of a speaker they disagree with.

In the modern era, students have often been attracted to the politics of the Left. 1968 saw pivotal student protests around the world. In the United States, students were central to the civil rights movement. In France, students joined forces with millions of striking workers to protest against capitalism.

The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was in Paris during the 1968 riots and has said that it was whilst witnessing the uprising that he became a conservative.

The violence at Berkeley mirrors the street protests in Paris from 1968. Privileged and excitable students living in one of the most blessed parts of the world went out and created havoc in order to overthrow an opponent that they refused to tolerate. The Parisians, at least, had a deeper political cause – but the Berkeley students carried out the ugliest form of protest. It is the form of protest that says “I don’t like that view, therefore you must not be allowed to express it” and it is causing a lot of students to have their own ‘Scruton moment’.

There have been several responses to campus censorship in the United Kingdom and the United States. One of the most interesting developments has been the rise in demand for conservative thought. In the United States, college tours by speakers popular with conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Sommers have become huge events. There has been a spike in membership in conservative college clubs including Young Americans for Liberty, which boasts 804 chapters filled with Conservatives.

In the United Kingdom, free speech societies have been started across the country.

‘Speakeasy’ groups have been founded at the LSE, Leeds, Queen Mary, Cardiff, Oxford, Manchester and at Edinburgh, where I study. In these groups, ‘unacceptable’ conservative thoughts are debated amongst liberally-minded (as all good conservatives are) students.

Moreover, some student unions have voted to disaffiliate from the National Union of Students (NUS).

Analysis from market research firm, The Gild, shows that ‘Gen Z’ is the most conservative generation since 1945. The research reveals that ‘Gen Z’ Britons are more likely to favour conservative spending, dislike tattoos and body-piercings, and oppose marijuana legislation.

The youth and student members of the British Left have given up trying to win arguments on principle, preferring to shut down the views of those they opponents. But ‘Gen Z’ live in the time of mass media where anyone’s political views can be shared worldwide at ease. By pushing a “you can’t say that” attitude, the young Left in the UK and the US are reducing their opportunity to respond to conservative ideas, and, as a result of this, conservatism is on the rise.

Nowadays, the only thing that is stopping a student from accessing a new idea is a censorious gag from a student union or NUS apparatchik. Whilst the student Left have historically campaigned in support of causes that the West’s youth have been favourable towards, such as the anti-war and anti-austerity movements, they are now picking on something that is dear to us: freedom of information.

Students of my generation have grown up in an era of mass-communication. Each year has brought new tools for the flow of ideas, conversation and media. The rapid expansion of affordable technology has been matched by the growth of the social media market. When it is common for students to be able to easily interact with anyone in the world via a portable computer that fits in their pocket, nothing seems more silly to us than cliquey calls for censorship.

That is why young people and students are becoming conservatives – they’re the only people making the case for a freedom that they love.

Students are joining university Conservative societies in growing numbers in reaction to the activities of left-wing activists on campus, it has been claimed.

Several Conservative student groups at Britain’s leading universities doubled in size last year, new figures show – with membership at the Cambridge University Conservative Association swelling by more than 40 per cent.

The number of new members at Brunel University’s student Conservative society has surged by more than 400 per cent, while the Conservative and Unionist Association at Edinburgh University has almost tripled in size.

King’s College London, Kent and Reading have also seen membership subscriptions increase by 30-40 per cent in the last academic year.

Conservative student leaders say the influx of new members is in response to what they say are attacks on free speech by left- wing student groups.

They claim the Rhodes Must Fall campaign for the removal of a statue of colonialist Cecil Rhodes from the grounds of Oriel College led to hundreds of students joining Oxford University’s student Conservative society.

William Rees-Mogg, President of Oxford’s Conservative society and nephew of MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, said students were abandoning other societies out of fear that their views would be derided by other members.

“It’s the fact that you won’t get told off simply for having right-of centre views, that’s a major draw,” said Mr Rees-Mogg, whose society holds a weekly drinking event called ‘Port and Policy’, where members debate anything from the legacy of the British Empire to the merits of Divine Right Absolutism.

He said: “Students seem to be fed up with the irrelevance of politically correct student politics. We also suspect Jeremy Corbyn might be doing us many favours.”

The Tory student surge comes less than a week before the National Union of Students annual elections, which could see Tom Harwood, a 20-year-old undergraduate at Durham University, become the first Conservative president of the NUS since the modern organisation emerged in 1969.

Mr Harwood, who ran the pro-Brexit ‘Students for Britain’ campaign during the European Referendum last year,  claims he will be voted in by a “silent majority” of students.

He said: “The silent majority of today’s students are moderates and Conservatives. There are parallels between how the Labour Party and the NUS have declined recently. The NUS has become an introspective organisation that doesn’t connect with the wider audience of students; the Labour Party mirrors this.”

At the same time several Labour societies have reported a steep decline in numbers.

While the Conservative society at Imperial College has grown by nearly 50 per cent, the Labour society, which had 56 members last year, has seen its membership fall to just 38 in 2017.

At University College London, Labour society membership has fallen from 110 to 94, while the Oxford University Labour Club said it is unable to provide figures because the website used to sign-up new members had recently expired.

Eliot Smith, President of Reading Conservatives, said  the breaking point for many students took place last year, when left-wing students attempted to boycott Jeremy Paxman from speaking on campus because he had allegedly made “sexist comments” on University Challenge.

He added that many members were exasperated by so-called “special snowflakes” and found their actions to be “quite silly”.

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are sociological and philosophical terms used to categorise real or perceived tendencies in extreme left-wing politics otherwise commonly attributed to the tendencies in and around the ideology of Fascism. Left-wing ideology is beyond doubt firmly rooted in fascist and even nazi political thinking.
Fascism has historically been considered a far right ideology, but crossovers may be expected according to the theory of extremes meet (FrenchLes extrêmes se touchent), where the touching point between the far left and the far right may be the malevolent use of power and/or fascist behaviour, as we see very clearly these days with the far left-wing fascists within UK university campuses.
Syntagmas such as left-wing fascism provide shorthand labels, but they lack any universally understood or agreed meaning and in common parlance may be used as a pejorative for any left-wing political position, or where unusual (or contradictory) hybrid political positions are perceived.

The term has its origins with criticism by Vladimir Lenin of the threat of anti-Marxist ultra leftism, before being formulated as a position by sociologists Jürgen Habermas and Irving Louis Horowitz.


Students at universities throughout the UK are now beginning to make a stand and confront the scourge of far left-wing probity-ringer liberal elite Marxist militant anti-democratic student unions who have been accused of alleged anti-Semitism, totalitarian Communist Political Correctness and tyrannical left-wing fascism.

The most prominent early user of the term left-fascism was Jürgen Habermas, a sociologist and philosopher influenced by the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School and the birth of left-wing fascist political correctness.

Political correctness is nothing but a tool used by the left-wing to close down debate, shut people up and to maintain the upper hand by shaming opponents into silence and to prevent examination and exposure of the true intentions of far left-wing fascism.

Supposed political correctness, however, is undermining our real decent true morality and deflecting our efforts to combat the evil of leftist PC anti-British activity and intellectual depravity.

Political correctness actually stirs up hatred by bringing attention to differences in the first place, and then using those differences for its own agenda of divide and rule.

He used the term in the 1960s to distance the Frankfurt School from the violence and authoritarianism of left-wing fascist nazis.

The origins of nazism are also firmly fixed within left-wing ideology.

The modern day far left-wing progressives can be traced back in ideological terms to left-wing nazism, which has now been thoroughly researched and exposed as left-wing in ideology and policy – very similar to the left-wing fascists.

This is something that the far left-wing has desperately tried to keep under wraps since the war, and in modern times they have done this by using political correctness to silence all criticism or scrutiny of the real intentions behind left-wing fascist ideology by calling non-conformists (racists) or (fascists) if they voiced opinion contrary to leftist thinking.

Habermas, whose work emphasizes the importance of rational discourse, democratic institutions and opposition to violence, has made important contributions to conflict theory and is often associated with the radical left.

Sociologist Irving Louis Horowitz, in his 1984 book “Winners and Losers”, built on Vladimir Lenin’s work “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

Lenin describes the enemies of the working class as opportunists and petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, which he links to anarchism.

Horowitz argues that there was a similar political strain in the 1980s, which he characterizes as “left-wing fascism”.

Horowitz argues that it is dangerous to assume clear distinctions between left, centre and right, and that various combinations are possible.

He warned of “left fascism” during later years of the European Years of Lead, which were rife with red-black terrorist groups such as the German Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) and the Italian Red Brigades, which had mixed left- and right-wing influences.

Horowitz argues that “left-wing fascism” in the United States, as in the UK and Europe, is capable of combining very different ideological strains into a political formula that has the potential for mass appeal.

He argues that it operates through mystified language, attributes faults “everywhere and always in an imperial conspiracy of wealth, power or status” and uses anti-Semitism as a pseudo-populist tool.

A tenet of “left-wing fascism” in the UK and the United States is a rejection of true morality and the democratic system, and an assertion of socialism and political correctness with the silencing of freedom of speech as replacement, dressed up to look like a righteous option by championing causes claiming to be in defence of the oppressed when in reality they are just using this facade as a front.

Left-wing fascists uniquely examine socialism without comment on the activities in the Soviet Union and the atrocities carried out in the name of left-wing so called idealism.

The potential false and fake immoral strength of left-wing fascism, which was practiced by Lyndon LaRouche‘s National Caucus of Labor Committees is in the combination of motivating principles for development of a new fascist social order.

The effectiveness is seen in the success in building single-issue alliances with the far right who the left-wing anti-Semitic fascist nazis claim to be against, but also at the same time infiltrating so called progressive student unions for the purpose of student brainwashing and activism in the name of anti-fascism, when in actual fact the left-wing are the very real fascists and racists themselves.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term left fascism has been used to describe unusual hybrid political alliances.

Historian Richard Wolin has used the term left fascism in arguing that some European intellectuals have been infatuated with post-modernist or anti-enlightenment theories, opening up the opportunity for cult-like, irrational, anti-democratic positions that combine characteristics of the Left with those of fascism.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, a philosopher and journalist, calls this political hybrid neo-progressivismnew barbarism or red fascism.

We see today within the UK anti-Americananti-imperialism, and left-wing nazi fascist anti-Semitism within the so called righteous liberal elite leftist organisations.

Students at universities throughout the UK are now beginning to make a stand and confront the scourge of far left-wing probity-ringer liberal elite Marxist militant anti-democratic student unions who have been accused of alleged anti-Semitism, totalitarian Communist Political Correctness and tyrannical left-wing fascism.

There is much suffering in this world.

It is of our opinion that much of it is being perpetrated and caused in the name of far left-wing extremism in the form of liberal elite left-wing politically correct fascism.

Overcoming it will require a concentrated and extended effort on many fronts after brexit, including the moral one.

Supposed political correctness, however, is undermining our real decent true morality and deflecting our efforts to combat the evil of leftist PC anti-British activity and intellectual depravity.

Political correctness actually stirs up hatred by bringing attention to differences in the first place, and then using those differences for its own agenda of divide and rule.

Political correctness is nothing but a tool used by the left-wing to close down debate, shut people up and to maintain the upper hand by shaming opponents into silence and to prevent examination and exposure of the true intentions of far left-wing fascism.

If evil is excused, justified away, and not identified as such, or if we fail to properly locate its sources, our efforts will be misdirected, we will fail, then evil will prevail.

Common sense, as distinct from political correctness, dictates that we acknowledge the reality of extremism as such, for it describes not just the immorality of politically correct left-wing fascists but the pretext and motivation they themselves claim for their evil behaviour and actions within society.

It is obvious that recognizing the reality of politically correct left-wing fascism does not assume that all leftists are evil.

However, because not all anti-British left-wing luvvies are left-wing extremists, it does not follow that there are no left-wing extremists.

Denying the existence of politically correct left-wing fascism blurs the critical distinction between political ideologies which advocate morality and those which abhor it as the politically correct left-wing fascists certainly do.

Since everyone knows there does exist activist far left-wing extremists, failure to call them such actually contributes to the colouring of all leftists as just luvvies, when in actual fact the typical leftist (luvvies) really are just misguided lost souls and cranks, but the more intentionally malicious activists and progressives are much more dangerous than the mere harmless cranks will ever be.

When one defends left-wing thinking by characterising (politically correct left-wing fascism) as merely (harmless eccentricity) and contesting the very serious scope of the threat to democracy, this will then lead to the labelling of all left-wing activists as harmless eccentrics without taking into account that political correctness has far deeper and darker shades of devious intention than just misguided left-wing eccentric moronic activism.

This fatal flaw in judgement in itself can be catastrophic, as we have previously witnessed throughout history and the various communist uprisings and revolutions by these falsely perceived left-wing “harmless cranks” who turned out to be very “dangerous cranks” indeed, and as seen during the Joseph Stalin years within the Communist Soviet Union – millions of deaths followed and people were executed for just being what the (Communist Party) considered (Politically Incorrect).

But to be considered as (Politically Correct) under communism meant just one thing in reality (obey the party line – or else).

In pointing out within this essay the obvious immorality and evil dictates of political correctness, the point is neither to denigrate the left-wing, nor to associate all people who support left-wing twisted policies with politically correct left-wing fascism.

The point is to put the emphasis clearly and unequivocally on the challenge we face, for only by doing so, is there any chance of generating change and rendering a potential serious threat to humanity powerless to cause harm ever again.

All forms rooted in communist thinking can be found within left-wing progressive PC propaganda spewed forth by the left-wing media machine and the leftist organisations hell bent on brainwashing the general public and the young from an early age, especially within our universities.

Left-wing thinking and beliefs fail the moral standards of normal western conservative democratic traditions, or what we now recognise as universal moral truths, but the left-wing will always bend and distort morality in order to fit their own immoral agenda.

They have done this very easily by simply giving morality a revamp and renaming it.

They call it Political Correctness.

As Shakespeare has taught us, the Devil quotes Scripture. He has no need to misquote it.

The challenge of every original genuine sane Labour Party supporter and the reformed leftist cranks too, is to engage in an ongoing process of criticism, evaluation, and reinterpretation, and to expose publicly the real hidden meanings of the corrupt and dangerous type of PC left-wing fascism and anti-Semitism that we see today within the left-wing.

The kind of nonsense that we have all had rammed down our throats for so long by the more sinister left-wing extremist groups and their deluded followers.

We must try to at least give back to the very few remaining genuinely well meaning leftists who actually do believe in supporting their own country and workers, an ounce of legitimacy in the eyes of the general public.

Left-wing political correctness is evil.

The general patriotic hardworking public (left-wing and right-wing) are sick and tired of it and want no more of it.

Traditions are neither inherently moral nor immoral, inherently great or depraved.

There are only great and moral interpreters and interpretations.

Political leaning and identity entail engaging in a constant struggle within our traditions to ensure that the forces of good prevail over those of the likes of far left-wing evil.

Yes of course, there are right-wing extremists, but the (left-wing extremists) are inherently dangerous due to the fact that they actually believe they are morally superior and above any and all questioning or debate concerning their far left-wing thinking and ideology.

This is one of the reasons that those of far left-wing extremist views will never debate with you but will always revert to name calling in an effort to shame you into silence and kill the debate.

This simple fact often goes unrecognised by the people who have become victims themselves of political correctness.

Democracy has been cancelled out at ground zero and the left-wing (tool) of political correctness takes care of anybody who dares to question left-wing ideology by branding opponents as racists or very amusingly (fascists) and thus removing freedom of speech by shaming opponents into silence.

The danger of ignoring political correctness as just eccentricity or by actually denying the reality of politically correct fascism is that it will not protect the misinformed from politically correct instigated immorality, such as in the workplace or in public by becoming a victim of (politically correct responsibility transfer) where the innocent are blamed for the actions of others but it is not deemed as politically correct to hold the real culprits to account or to mention them by description or name.

No amount of dismissive justification of politically correct immoral PC judgemental targeting towards individuals or organisations on the grounds that (they probably deserved it) or the wrongful immoral evaluations within society by PC left-wing fascists will prevent the politically blind and naive from eventually becoming a victim of left-wing fascist victimisation themselves and a casualty of (PC targeting of non-conformists).

Rather, it allows the evil to grow and engulf every facet of society, eventually they will shame you into conforming and following a so called (PC moral code) that you do not believe in, and worse, you know full well deep down that this (PC code) of practice is actually very morally wrong and does not fit well with your own values of right and wrong.

Your own common sense clearly tells you this, and if it doesn’t, then reason in the moment most certainly will.

The fact of the matter is you just cannot lie to yourself in such an obviously dishonest unjust way and actually feel good about it or feel comfortable in your own skin and still retain your true morality as you really are and how you really think.

We all know deep down that the big lie has been peddled by the left-wing through political correctness when they tell you things like “every decent good person thinks this way” but you secretly think “well that’s strange because i really do not think that way, but i know i am still a good person anyway”.

If left-wing evil is to be uprooted, it will only happen when we all acknowledge its existence and leftists worldwide engage in an internal debate over the immorality of their ideology as it stands today, which is not good to say the least.

We non-leftists too must do our part.

We must couple our efforts against left-wing politically correct fascism with robust and sustained support for an honourable and ethical politics and a true (real) morality.

At the same time, we must cease tolerating and supporting evil left-wing politically correct fascist organisations and ideologies and designate them as what they really are – leftist nazi type ideologies.

Just as long as they continue to cause suffering and spread lies and intimidation through PC activism and undemocratic left-wing fascism, then that is exactly what they are – left-wing nazis.

Political correctness, however, is not merely misdirecting our efforts; it is corrupting our moral compass.

We need to wade through the fog of moral relativism generated by politically correct fascism.

Politically correct left-wing fascism is not characterized by its senselessness, nor by its incomprehensibility to Western sensibilities.

All leftist deluded ideology has its justifications – a kind of warped reasoning which tries to legitimize its heinous actions in the eyes of the left-wing fascists themselves and enables them to (feel in some small way) that they are good moral people really, but deep down they are borderline depressives who despise themselves.

It could be the result of a real or imagined sense of injustice resulting from the politically correct left-wing fascists being bullied as a child at some point, but we really just do not know why some people strangely choose to turn to left-wing fascism, it becomes like a form of (club) for the terminally delusional, but abandon all hope ye who enter.

Similarly, politically correct left-wing fascism is also not defined by particular religious, ethnic, or national identity of its supporters, be they either extremist left-wing men or women, British or American.

Politically correct left-wing fascism is very much a twisted politically motivated act of hatred which does not distinguish between politics or social standing, it makes no attempt to do so, and it does not deem itself morally responsible for the failure to do so.

To the contrary, politically correct left-wing fascism involves the purposeful targeting of innocent people by naming and shaming those who do not, or will not agree with leftist immoral PC thinking and the blurring of these critical distinctions, under the guise that the end justifies any means.

What distinguishes a moral political ideology from an immoral one, is not that one engages in acts of real cause and the other a senseless cause, but the fact that one particular ideology actually intends to cause harm and accepts and includes this intention as part of its ongoing so called (progressive) stance as being beneficial in some way to its cause.

Ring any bells here?

Think of the masked hooded left-wing mobs we see holding so called (counter demonstrations) within the UK against peaceful law abiding groups and other political organisations who do not happen to keep tenet with left-wing ideology, it always ends in violence orchestrated by the rabid mobs of left-wing screaming baying extremists.

It is not the mere existence of a motivation or justification which marks moral fortitude, but rather the moral weight of the motivation in question and the nature of the response.

We may acknowledge the existence of a person’s motivation, such as protecting the leftists own delusional mind from having to accept that politically correct left-wing fascism is very wrong, immoral and false.

But our moral strength depends on our ability to identify evil, whether in ourselves or in others, and to distinguish with moral clarity that which is good from that which is not.

Doing so will not alleviate left-wing immoral thinking or its supporters, but it will at least ensure that we are heading in the right direction.


Next Prime Minister Sajid Javid or Michael Gove – Endgame for Jeremy Corbyn

Sajid Javid – Michael Gove – Next Prime Minister

Who will be the next PM?

Flurry of bets sees Michael Gove leapfrog Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson to top spot, but could Sajid Javid race past the post at last furlong?

After delaying the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal yet again, Theresa May has further provoked anger within her party by vowing to stay on after the UK formally leaves the EU.

Brexiteers want one of their own to take over the next stage of negotiations and there have been numerous reports that an attempt to force the prime minister to stand down will be made after the local elections in May.

The PM, who has survived no confidence votes from her own MPs and the opposition, is secure in her role until at least December, barring a mass cabinet revolt or early general election – which she has vowed to contest.

Yet this has not stopped potential challengers polishing their credentials in anticipation of a sudden leadership contest.

So who are the runners and riders jostling to be the next PM?

Who is favourite in the Tory party?

With growing calls for the next leader of the Conservative party to be a committed Brexiteer, Environment Secretary Michael Gove has shot to the top of bookies’ lists.

The former Vote Leave leader has stood by the prime minister throughout the Brexit negotiations, and now he is seen as the most likely to succeed her at 4/1.

OddsMonkey spokesman Peter Watton said: “Michael Gove is now favourite to succeed Theresa May, as Conservative leader and prime minister following some substantial bets on him.

“As Mrs May continues to struggle, it seems a delay on Brexit is the most likely option and that is 2/7 and it seems Gove could be the one to enter into further negotiations.”

Gove’s sudden surge has toppled long-time Tory frontrunner, Boris Johnson.

The former foreign secretary remains hugely popular among members, whose votes he will need in a future leadership election, but “many MPs appear to have turned against him, meaning he might struggle to get on the ballot”, says The Sun.

The paper adds that Johnson’s aborted leadership bid in 2016, which was scuppered by his friend and fellow Vote Leave leader, “severely damaged his electoral ‘brand’.”

“Johnson’s leadership aspirations could also be damaged by reports of a close friendship with a blonde Tory aide and his divorce from wife Marina,” says The Sun.

In third place is Home Secretary Sajid Javid at 6/1.

He has impressed the Tory membership with his tough line on immigration and his handling of the aftermath of the Windrush scandal that ousted his predecessor, Amber Rudd.

Furthermore, he is one of the few MPs who is admired by both Remainers and Brexiteers.

In fourth, is former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab at 9/1, who resigned from the role in November in protest at May’s deal, a stand that won him plaudits among the party’s hardline Brexiteers.

He has also refused to rule himself out of a prospective leadership contest.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who like Javid is a Remainer turned Leave loyalist and is seen as a moderate force within the party, is currently fifth favourite at 10/1, according to SkyBet.

What about Labour?

Until recently bookmakers had Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ahead of all Tory candidates as the most likely next prime minister.

However, the defection of eight of his MPs in protest at his handling of Brexit and failure to tackle anti-Semitism in the party, combined with the surge in support for Gove, has seen his odds of becoming the next prime minister slip slightly to 5/1.

The second favourite from Labour is shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry at 50/1, while former Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who rocked Westminster when he sensationally quit the party last week to join the new Independent Group has seen his odds of becoming prime minister cut to 33/1.

Endgame for Jeremy Corbyn

As Brexit reaches its endgame both Corbyn and May are facing mounting questions about their leadership.

A new poll for the Mail on Sunday has given the prime minister a much needed boost in her bid to stay on in Downing Street.

It predicts the Tories would win a 34-seat majority if an election were held today.

The poll has the Conservatives on 39% and Labour on 31%, with the new Independent Group (TIG) on 11%, the Liberal Democrats on 5% and Ukip on 4%.

“However, the picture changes dramatically upon voters being asked about their preferences if Jeremy Corbyn was no longer Labour leader,” says the Mail.

Without him, the opposition would take 40% of the vote, a 3% lead over the Conservatives and enough to make them the largest party in a hung parliament.

Universities Must Restore Freedom Of Speech & Remove Left-wing Hate Mobs

University Student Freedom Of Speech

Universities are allowing free speech to be curtailed in favour of the ‘Rule of Left-wing Hate Mobs’

Universities are allowing free speech to be curtailed on campuses in favour of “rule of the mob”, the former equalities chief has warned, as he says vice-Chancellors must stop behaving like “frightened children” and take a stand.

Trevor Phillips, who wrote the National Union of Students’ (NUS) original “no platforming” policy in the 1970s, said that it is now being used in an “ugly” and “authoritarian” way.

He said that the policy was designed to counter the rise of the far-Right on campuses and ensure that National Front speakers were barred from addressing students.

“At that time the National Front was making inroads on campuses,” he told The Sunday Telegraph. “The point was very simple: to prevent people who belonged to violent, racist groups from organising on campus in the same way as other societies.

“But people have taken that and stretched it beyond all recognition into something ugly and authoritarian. People use what was originally a protective proposition to damn others with whom they disagree.”

This week the Government published guidance for universities on free speech, which said that speakers should not be banned from campus just because they “offend, shock or disturb” students.

It is the first time in 30 years that ministers have intervened to protect free speech at universities, and follows widespread concern about censorship of unfashionable views.

It says that universities have a legal duty to uphold free speech, and that the starting point should be that any event can go ahead, so long as it is within the law.

In recent years, students have tried to “no platform” prominent lesbian and gay rights activists including Germaine Greer and Linda Bellos on the basis they hold allegedly “transphobic” views. Christian groups have been barred for fear their presence alienates those of other faiths.

Mr Phillips, who is the former chair of the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the erosion of free speech on campus must not be solely blamed on students.

“It is weakness of faculties and university authorities who in many cases just cannot seem to bring themselves to stand up for higher education values,” he said.

“Vice-Chancellors  must stand up for their basic charters. At the moment university [leaders] pretty much uniformly across the UK are behaving like frightened children who are not standing up for their own vales.”

Mr Phillips, who is the chair of Index on Censorship, an pro-free speech organisation, said that university culture is worse than thought police and is more like the Stasi, where “the expression of a non-sanctioned opinion becomes a crime – and that’s where we have got to on some campuses”.

He said: “The debate becomes not the most persuasive argument but who can gather the loudest shouting voices. What you are really talking about is the rule of the mob – that has come to campuses. I find all of those things incredibly threatening.”

Last year Bristol University’s students’ union backed proposals to ban any “terf” speakers who question the transgender status of women.

Terf, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, is generally used as a derogatory term to describe those who believe that “identifying” as a woman is not the same as being born a woman. It can also refer to people who are deemed to hold “transphobic” views.

Sussex University’s free speech society was told by the students’ union that its inaugural guest must submit his speech in advance for vetting, in case it violates their safe space policy.

It also emerged that King’s College London hired “safe space marshals” to police controversial speaker events on campus and take “immediate action” if anyone expresses opinions that breach the safe space policy.

Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of Universities UK, said: “Universities are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting free speech”.

Trevor Phillips in discussion with Professor Shohini Chaudhuri on March 8, 2019 as part of the Essex Book Festival Unspeakable series of events

University Students Tuning Into Independent Republic Of Mike Graham Talk Radio

Mike Graham Independent Republic talkRadio university students alternative to James O’Brien LBC Radio

Independent Republic of Mike Graham 10am-1pm talkRadio – the fantastic popular alternative to LBC Radio James O’Brien 10am-1pm.

University students are tuning in to talkRadio Independent Republic all over the UK for this refreshing alternative to the dreary anti-Brexit rhetoric of James O’Brien on LBC Radio.

Mike Graham says it how it really is and he pulls no punches when it comes to stating the facts as he sees them.

talkRADIO is available on DAB radio, but to listen you will need to retune your digital radio.

The good news is, it’s really easy to do.

Most digital radios, either at home or in your car, can be retuned using the following simple instructions:

Press the Auto-Tune or Auto-Scan button on your digital radio.


If there is no Auto-Tune or Auto-Scan button, press the Menu button and go through the options until you find Auto-Tune or Auto-Scan.

If that doesn’t get the job done, refer to your manufacturer’s instructions or click here.

And to check out whether talkRADIO will be available where you live, click here.

You can also listen online via talkRADIO.co.uk, and via iOS and Android apps

Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/how-to-listen#dbVrCAblSRUKz7AA.99

MIKE GRAHAM talkRadio 

Archibald Michael Graham (born 9 August 1960, Hampstead, London) is an Anglo-Scottish journalist.

He is best known for his work as a presenter on national commercial speech radio stations Talksport and Talkradio.

Previously he was editor of the Scottish Daily Mirror and Programme Director and mid-morning presenter of the Independent Republic of Mike Graham on Talk 107, the Edinburgh sister station of Talksport.

Early life

He was born in London to Scottish parents Archibald and Mairi Graham.


Before his radio career Mike Graham was a Fleet Street journalist for the best part of twenty-five years, he was editor of the Scottish Daily Mirror, and assistant editor of the Daily Express he covered the Bosnian War in 1992 as a reporter for the Daily Express [iTunes (27 May 2016).

 “The Two Mikes” (Podcast). iTunes Store. Retrieved 27 May 2016.] Graham was based in New York City from 1984 to 1992, where he ran his own news agency supplying news, features and pictures to media all over the world.


Mike Graham joined UTV’s former Scottish radio station Talk 107 in February 2006 anchoring the mid-morning slot 10 am to 1 pm with ‘The Independent Republic of Mike Graham’, in November 2006 he was also appointed the station’s programme director.

In 2008 his contract was not renewed at Talk 107 and he started broadcasting on UTV’s national talkSPORT radio station in the 1.00 am to 6.00am slot on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

In April 2010 he presented the 10pm-1am slot every Friday and Saturday night, replacing George Galloway as well as continuing to present the Monday 1-6am slot.

In July 2010 he moved from weekends to weekdays presenting alongside Mike Parry as ‘Parry and Graham’ between 10am-1pm.

Graham’s future with Talksport seemed uncertain after his co-host Mike Parry resigned from talkSPORT as a result of a contractual dispute, in March 2011 he took over talkSPORT’s midweek 1.00 am to 6.00 am, ‘Extra Time’.

In October 2013 Mike Parry returned to broadcast alongside Mike Graham debating “a host of issues” as a segment of ‘Extra Time’ known as ‘The Two Mikes’ which evolved into a regular three-hour slot headlined as ‘The Two Mikes’ between 1.00 am and 4.00 am.

In January 2018, Talkradio announced that Graham would be presenting the 10am weekday mid-morning slot, replacing Julia_Hartley-Brewer who was moving to the 6.30am breakfast slot.

Graham presents The Two Mikes along with Mike Parry on a Friday at 10pm.


In 2015 Graham and Parry launched their Two Mikes ‘World Tour’ at venues throughout Britain.

In 2015 ‘The Two Mikes’ were named as “Alternative Men of the Year” by the Daily Telegraph.


  1. “Mike Graham”. Media UK. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  2. Day, Julia (17 January 2006). “Former Mirror man joins Edinburgh radio launch”. The Guardian. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  3. “Talk 107 casualty Mike Graham warns station’s future is uncertain”. The Scotsman. 30 October 2008. Retrieved June 2011.
  4. “Archibald Graham Obituary | Legacy.com”. http://www.legacy.com. Retrieved 28 May 2016.
  5. “The Two Mikes bring banter to Camden ahead of Edinburgh Festival show”. London Evening Standard. 25 May 2016. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  6. “Time for Talk in Edinburgh”. RadioToday. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  7. “Paterson resigns from talk107”. RadioToday. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  8. Tryhorn, Chris (17 March 2008). “Third DJ leaves Talk 107”. The Guardian. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  9. “Parry and Graham”. talkSPORT. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  10. “Mike Parry quits TalkSport as Keys and Gray get his morning slot”. portsmouth.co.uk. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  11. “The Two Mikes 2013”. talkSPORT. Retrieved 27 May 2016.
  12. “The Two Mikes”. talkSPORT. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  13. “Welcome Holmes: Eamonn Holmes joins all-new talkRADIO”. talkradio.co.uk.
  14. Evans, Denise (31 March 2016). “Talksport stars The Two Mikes coming to Manchester on tour”. men. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  15. Keenan, Amanda (27 November 2015). “Mike Graham and Mike Parry head to Scotland as part of their ‘World Tour. dailyrecord. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  16. “talkSPORT’s Two Mikes to bring night of ‘verbal jousting’ to St”. London Evening Standard. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  17. The Two Mikes’ (Mike Parry & Mike Graham)”. playhousewhitleybay.co.uk. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  18. “The Alternative Men of the Year 2015”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 26 May 2016.

External links