Far right assassinate MP?

Nobody knows atm

This is a youtube video of their training camp, and my impression is that pretty much all the participants are in it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggMiFa9vPk
I don't think any of them look very much like Tommy Mair, the guy who killed the MP, though it's a bit difficult to tell. The only guy who looks a bit similar is at 0:12 and 0:24 in the youtube video.

yeah, seems too poorly-planned/spontaneous.

Craftwork

yeah, seems too poorly-planned/spontaneous.

He had a "home-made" gun and was waiting for her, so seems well planned to me. Also succeeded in killing her.

Britain First have denied it. But certainly looks likely it was a far right activist who did it. Cox was a vocal Remain campaign supporter, and supporter of migrants including Irish Catholics and Pakistanis.

Looks like a reaction to the Daesh inspired stabbing of the French policeman, extremists on all sides, don't lose your cool

However much I hate pedantry I simply have to correct the following innaccuracy:

A man reportedly shouting 'Britain First' has shot and stabbed a Labour MP to death

The report that Joseph is referring to claims the [edit: suspected] killer shouted "Britain first", not Britain First, although according to independent sources that I am not at liberty to disclose he in fact shouted, "Britain shirk".

No matter what his battle cry was, our thoughts and condolences must go out to the innocent victims of the troubles.

IMO this event says more about the political mainstream than Britain First or the wider far right.

Compare the reaction to when Lee Rigby was murdered. Both were apparently cases of lone wolf attacks where the perpetrators had mental health issues but also subscribed to terrorist ideologies, expressed in the course of the attack. With Lee Rigby, the ideology was immediately seen as causal, there was no prevarication, nobody mentioned their mental health, that they did the weekly shopping for their mum or liked to do gardening for the neighbours. But the attack was also portrayed as characteristic for the group they belonged to, eg. Theresa May saying there were "thousands" more Muslims being radicalised and surveillance of Muslims needed to be extended.

With Jo Cox, there is no emphasis on Tommy Mair's ideology, it's only mentioned together with his "history" of mental health problems, because his attack doesn't tell us anything about the group he belongs to but rather is in conflict and needs to be portrayed as an aberration. No-one is speculating on whether there could be loads of Northern white blokes quietly sympathising, no-one is worrying about internet radicalisation, no-one is demanding Farage and other Brexit leaders to condemn political violence.

I think it's ironic that 24 hours ago, the media story was all about how the Labour party has betrayed its natural constituency because supposedly it didn't pander sufficiently to white working class racism (which apparently the media think is characteristic of the "white working class" whose voice isn't heard), and couldn't the Labour party make some promises to crack down on immigrants, and couldn't there be some really quick negotiation with the EU 7 days before the referendum to abolish free movement etc etc. Then a racist white bloke murders a Labour MP, prominent campaigner for Remain and for Syrian refugees etc, but all of a sudden this act is no longer characteristic and can only be explained in relation to his mental health.

Coming less than a year after Cameron said the Labour party was a threat to national security, that the Labour candidate for London Mayor was a Muslim sharing platforms with ISIS etc. It comes a month after Farage saying the UK had lost complete control over immigration, and that violence was the next step if voting didn't help, and on the same day he revealed a poster of a flood immigrants destroying the UK. Etc etc.

No doubt it is these mainstream narratives that legitimise murderous violence and make it socially acceptable in the minds of fascist lone wolves.

With Jo Cox, there is no emphasis on Tommy Mair's ideology...

Certain sections of the British media immediately jumped upon the aparrently ideological motivation of the suspected killer, notably The Guardian. For example, this from yesterday's Guardian:

Jayda Fransen, deputy leader of Britain First, said the party was “looking into the reports right now”. “We were extremely shocked to see these reports and we are keen to confirm them, because of course at the moment it is hearsay,” she said. “This has just been brought to our attention. This is absolutely not the kind of behaviour we would condone.”

Honest intentions, it would seem.

No-one is speculating on whether there could be loads of Northern white blokes quietly sympathising, no-one is worrying about internet radicalisation, no-one is demanding Farage and other Brexit leaders to condemn political violence.

In general, if they're mostly concerned about this killing for self-serving reasons, because the person killed 'is a politician,' they're unlikely to go after politicians that much due to this, which would undermine the esteem that it's given due to affecting 'politicians.'

In any case, their political associations have quite often been mentioned, but the left wing of capital had for a long time had a view of the 'far right' which is reduced to mere caricature, and hence there is little further that they can be expected to say past that.

Britain First have denied it.

Generally speaking, a slogan can be distinguished from a political group, which has no monopoly on it. As such, their being explicitly associated with this organisation or not need not be relevant to their statement. In general, though, that organisation is presumably unable for reasons of expedience, etc., to express fervent opposition to people who were occupants and active members of the bourgeois state, and therefore it might well be limited.

Yes of course Tommy Mair's political affiliation has be mentioned but somewhat reluctantly (e.g. the Guardian unpublished the news about Mair shouting 'Britain First' until there were 3 witnesses saying this), and only in the context of his mental health problems which are offered as the main explanation.

Just saw that people have posted pics on Twitter of how the Daily Mail has portrayed the killers of Lee Rigby and of Jo Cox. Do you think there's a difference in emphasis?

Lee Rigby killer

Jo Cox killer

edit: can't seem to hotlink to Twitter images

..

Yes, I see your point.

Personally, I will not condemn the actions of these individuals. Whilst our States commit acts of terror, individuals are bound to mimic them.

The first individual is reacting to acts of state terrorism in Afghanistan, the second to acts of state terror committed in Syria.

While everything I've said so far has been about the media and politicians, I'm also happy to condemn fascist and islamist killers.

And equally happy to condemn communists and anarchists that kill? I cannot make that claim myself.

Not sure what you're trying to say. If any communists or anarchists had killed Lee Rigby or Jo Cox I'd condemn them as bloody stupid because such acts could never help us achieve our goals, and would likely be used by our enemies to repress us to extinction. For Islamists and fascists such attacks are pretty useful for furthering their political objectives. But that's a tangent.

Schmoopie

And equally happy to condemn communists and anarchists that kill? I cannot make that claim myself.

There are differences between group A fascist/nazist and group B communist/anarchist. One difference is when group A kills they do it to increase/consolidate exploitation and injustice. When group B kills they do it in response to exploitation and injustice, so that there will be less of it.

It also applies that if group As only activity is to go and kill people they dont like, then eventually, if they are not stopped, they will reach their goal. This does not apply to group B. For group B killing would be a very small share of all the combined activities. Killing in itself would never make group B be able to reach their goal.

For group A it also applies that only very rarely do you see other fascist/nazis condemn one of their own for killing a leftist or an immigrant.
For group B it doesnt take much before a kill will be condemned by others of the same group.

It looks like Tommy Mair really was involved with Britain First

https://twitter.com/mrpaulduane/status/743884230053232640

Yes, no.1. You are right and I admit I am wrong.

I still don't get why this event is being covered on this website. What does the murder of a British Member of Parliament have to do with furthering the aim of libertarian communism? Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Schmoopie

I still don't get why this event is being covered on this website. What does the murder of a British Member of Parliament have to do with furthering the aim of libertarian communism? Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

seriously, I know we have a no flaming rule, so I'm going to try to be polite. But your posts on this topic have been incredibly annoying, to say the least, and if you can't see the relevance of a discussion about a racist murdering someone for not being a racist then maybe you should just shut the hell up

It wasn't my intention Steven. You obviously know more about the shooters motives than I do so I'll take your advice and shut up on this subject, which I must say I find intensely boring.

no1

Not sure what you're trying to say. If any communists or anarchists had killed Lee Rigby or Jo Cox I'd condemn them as bloody stupid because such acts could never help us achieve our goals, and would likely be used by our enemies to repress us to extinction.

and also because someone had their neck slashed open and died in ineffible pain and their children and spouses were left bereft and insane with grief.

Jesus fucking christ Schmoopie, this site is a veritable cornucopia of people saying stupid things sometimes but have the merit prize for the stupidest thing said in recent times, and you have a lot of stiff competition.

From you, Fleur, I take that as a complement. I know how sparing you are with such judgements.

Schmoopie

I still don't get why this event is being covered on this website. What does the murder of a British Member of Parliament have to do with furthering the aim of libertarian communism? Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

If they should be allowed to kill a MP on the premise of safeguarding the national-state without any response, then what should prevent them from killing me or you tomorrow? The connection is very simple and is elementary wisdom of the socialist ideology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEEZsvSzG-4

I draw readers attention to a parallel thread regarding these events:
http://libcom.org/blog/not-just-loner-jo-cox-shooting-fascist-terrorism-17062016#comment-580098

Youre right is has nothing to do with the libertarian communist domain which we are hatching out in our brains and our hearts and our stomachs and our oozing, dripping glands, and even in some little crevices in this giant civilization, I suppose it's news because the fascist resurgence is something we watch, and the political spectacle of capitalism is fascinating from an external view, enjoyable to exercise our analysis, although yes, most news does not have much to do with our real lives that exists for creating real things, in our immediate environment

Schmoopie

I still don't get why this event is being covered on this website. What does the murder of a British Member of Parliament have to do with furthering the aim of libertarian communism? Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

It fits in with other popular topics like whether anti-Zionists are all anti-Semitic, and so on. It is a slightly strange thing here, admittedly, especially given that this is generally elsewhere being used to bolster the prestige of those who were in the British state's political 'elite' - obviously, this is why it's highlighted over any other killing, and assassinations anyway seem a bit of a fashion by now in the West -, but anyway.

Generally speaking, the politicians seem shocked that a movement which they had previously tried to rein in has turned against them and become popular and formally decentralised instead, but in general essentially no member of that state can claim to lack responsibility, which is efficient. Presumably that state would have tried to be more harsh in the case of an overall rebellion, where politicians would of course be merely the easiest of its targets.

Efficient, mmmm.. Eh?

How does it fit in with Zionism/anti-Semitism? I know they hate everyone but I thought the fash would be more likely to focus their attentions on the UK's Muslim population these days.

Jesus, a fascist just killed someone who was campaigning for the rights of refugees and migrants, in the context of a clear rise of racist violence and a media campaign of racism and zenophobia, and you don't think that's something we are afraid by?

Who was that addressed to?

More on the timid gardener: Jo Cox murder suspect Tommy Mair repeatedly hurled racist abuse at Asian cab drivers

factvalue

Who was that addressed to?

whoever is saying 'why are we worrying about this?'

a rise in far right violence means direct physical threat to the lives of some of us and to the friends and loved ones of the rest of us.

Yeah, people saying 'why are we worried about a Labour MP?' are missing the point: she wasn't murdered because she was an MP, she was murdered, by a fascist, because she was a public figure who supported refugees and the Remain campaign. She was murdered because even her bourgeois Labour Party politics was deemed too far left by someone who is basically just reading between the lines of the mainstream political narrative (i.e. Labour a threat to national security, supports British 'invasion' by refugees and Muslims, Faraga saying violence on the streets is 'the next step' etc etc).

That's why it's of interest to us.

Jo Cox murder suspect Tommy Mair tells court "my name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain"

a rise in far right violence means direct physical threat to the lives of some of us and to the friends and loved ones of the rest of us.

I know that well.

Yesterday morning, while talking to a very nice woman at work about the killing, and mentioning that a lunatic from the far right had murdered the pro-EU MP who'd been helping immigrants, and that capitalism doesn't discriminate when it comes to making a profit, in a conversation which had been about capitalism employing people who are desperate on the lowest possible wages, and using people in extremis to break strikes etc., without changing her expression she started saying that when she walks down the high street in her town she wouldn't know where she was in the world, that her son had gone for a job at a local hospital and they had said that he couldn't get it because he wasn't an ethnic minority and something's got to be done. Me and another bloke looked at each other and just quietly left the room, wondering if my accent was that soft by now - I don't think it is though.

Round here the problem isn't Islamists.

Schmoopie

From you, Fleur, I take that as a complement. I know how sparing you are with such judgements.

Lol, that's a pretty good swipe Schmoopie but I gotta tell you, I'm with Fleur and the others on this topic. I just can't figure out what point you're trying to say here.

Schmoopie

However much I hate pedantry I simply have to correct the following innaccuracy:

The report that Joseph is referring to claims the [edit: suspected] killer shouted "Britain first", not Britain First...

I know the conversation has moved past this, but how could anyone possibly know if he capitalized the f in "first" when he shouted?

And, more the point, does it really matter? If it was one dude acting in the name of a far-right organization (it doesn't appear Britain First, as an organization, orchestrated this) or just in the name of general far-right sentiment, it's a still a reflection of the same underlying racist currents.

This is potentially the most dangerous phase ever in the struggle against Fascism in that they have the potential to mushroom in the present climate whether in a Euro-Nationalist or generic Fascist guise.The Establishment are cleverly playing to racist politics with the hope of intoning people incessantly blocking class issues and stopping critical viewpoints on Bankers in the same way we never hear oil mentioned regarding Iraq.The Fash have several active groups who are more extreme and more encouraged due to the present climate and are proxy State asset politically and not the radical voice of the people v. the liberal elite like rich scum like Farage claim.How do we check them physically?Revolutionaries need to prepare seriously in order to counter an already confident enemy who I would suggest are savvy enough to understand the essential green light of encouragement by the press and Establishment who seek to rationalise racism in the mainstream and plausibly deny when it hits the streets.

freemind

This is potentially the most dangerous phase ever in the struggle against Fascism in that they have the potential to mushroom in the present climate whether in a Euro-Nationalist or generic Fascist guise.The Establishment are cleverly playing to racist politics with the hope of intoning people incessantly blocking class issues and stopping critical viewpoints on Bankers in the same way we never hear oil mentioned regarding Iraq.The Fash have several active groups who are more extreme and more encouraged due to the present climate and are proxy State asset politically and not the radical voice of the people v. the liberal elite like rich scum like Farage claim.How do we check them physically?Revolutionaries need to prepare seriously in order to counter an already confident enemy who I would suggest are savvy enough to understand the essential green light of encouragement by the press and Establishment who seek to rationalise racism in the mainstream and plausibly deny when it hits the streets.

I don't disagree with this, but I don't understand the relationships between fascism and the 'establishment', maybe someone can explain, maybe in another thread if this is going OT?

Does the establishment support fascism? Are they supporting it mainly as a tactic of moving politics further and further right and preventing the working class from being revolutionary?

Doesn't fascism clash with the establishments neoliberal politics?

Scallywag

I don't disagree with this, but I don't understand the relationships between fascism and the 'establishment', maybe someone can explain, maybe in another thread if this is going OT?

Does the establishment support fascism? Are they supporting it mainly as a tactic of moving politics further and further right and preventing the working class from being revolutionary?

Doesn't fascism clash with the establishments neoliberal politics?

The establishment is fascism but without parlamentarism. It is the establishment taking the matters into their own hands.

Nazism on the other hand will, when it comes to power, clash with the establishment. Because Nazism is the result of the people collectively have taking a racist nationalist stand and they will have to clash with the establishment because the establishment is not racist and also the establishment thinks that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise and things like that.

Hi Scallywag

The Establishment varies in its support for Fascism in that it's level depends on the level of class consciousness.The climate is dictated by the Capitalist class and this is a natural concomitant in the rise of any Fascist movement.In the last 40 years the various fascist groups have had their thrust neutralised by the State which has coopted their politics which has Fascism in its usual place as the political runt of the bourgeoise.
I think I meant liberal elite rather than Neoliberal elite,apologies comrade

Forexample back in the days Mussolini said this

"Naturally there is no such thing as a pure race, not even a Jewish one … Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality, it is 95% sentiment. I don’t believe that it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure …Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy. The Jews have behaved well as citizens, and as soldiers, they have fought courageously."

And that was in a time when if you were a racist your number one target would be the jews.

And also:

In the Fascist Bible, La Dottrina del Fascismo, published in 1932, ‘nation’ is defined as ‘not a race’ but ‘a multitude unified by an idea’. In the 1935 Enciclopedia Italiana in the section entitled ‘Race’ it states ‘a race does not exist, but only a people and an Italian nation. There does not exist a Jewish race or nation, but a Jewish people; there does not exist, the gravest error of all, an Aryan race.’

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/di-canio-is-right-italian-fascism-was-not-racist/

Very interesting quotes

Scallywag

I don't disagree with this, but I don't understand the relationships between fascism and the 'establishment', maybe someone can explain, maybe in another thread if this is going OT?

Does the establishment support fascism? Are they supporting it mainly as a tactic of moving politics further and further right and preventing the working class from being revolutionary?

Doesn't fascism clash with the establishments neoliberal politics?

Well the short answer is it depends. It depends on what's at stake and how far is this support willing to go. Historically there's plenty of examples of Right wing alliances being made up of everyone from free marketers to conservative authoritarians and outright Fascists.

The most well known example is in the Spanish Civil War. We tend to refer to Franco's lot as the Fash but apart from a circle of officers and the Falange party that wasn't really accurate, at least not in the beginning. Most of those fighting on the side of Spanish army were motivated by Monarchism and political Catholicism. Most "neutral" historians call Franco and his mates the nationalists, because a loyalty to a Spanish nation was all that they all agreed on. It wasn't until later on that the explicitly Fascist group became dominant.

The coalition was formed because the Spanish right were unhappy about the dominance of the parliament by lefty reformers which threatened the monarchy and the Church. And they were tired with the constant workers uprisings in places like Barcelona and Asturia, and the growing regionalism. So when the coup against the republic occurred the monarchists and Catholic traditionalists sided with the modernising Fascists to break their common foe the Atheistic, Communistic, Anarchistic masses.

In Greece in there was a brief alliance between the King and Fascist colonels, but that alliance broke down rather quickly once the dictatorship was established.

And as for an alliance with Neo-Liberals, most Southern and Central American dictatorships were very big on Milton Freidman's economics and at the same time worked with Fascist paramilitaries to destroy their opposition.The Fatherland and Liberty group supported Pinochet in Chile and his regime was economically far closer to Margaret Thatcher then Benito Mussolini

So basically its not unheard of.

The state can work with fascists to the extent that fascists can work with the state. When the ideology starts harming the state then usually there will be a correction, otherwise the state risks becoming vulnerable to other states. It's like any other force that is harnessed in the general interests of capital, if it becomes too ascendant then it becomes harmful.

fingers malone

Jesus, a fascist just killed someone who was campaigning for the rights of refugees and migrants, in the context of a clear rise of racist violence and a media campaign of racism and zenophobia, and you don't think that's something we are afraid by?

fingers malone

whoever is saying 'why are we worrying about this?'

a rise in far right violence means direct physical threat to the lives of some of us and to the friends and loved ones of the rest of us.

She was killed while on her way to meet with constituents, not "campaigning for the rights of refugees and migrants." If this was Brexit related as the media implies then she was killed in the context of the UK elites dispute over whether to remain in the EU (where both sides are campaigning on a platform of restricting (white european) labors freedom of movement). A dispute in which she sided with those wishing to remain in the European Union, which I remind you is a pan-white nationalist federation project, one that has not only subjected its own population to extreme violence but in the past 25 years has waged war, direct and indirect, against *all* of its neighbors from North Africa, to SouthWest Asia, to the Balkans, to Eastern Europe.

She also campaigned (from the "hawk" angle) for re-conquest of Syria (or wiping it off the map if that is not feasible):
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/british-forces-ethical-solution-syria-humanitarian-crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkIpQGU9lDE

a conflict where NATO uses as proxies forces that openly speak of genocide of minority populations in that country.

This regime thug doesn't deserve a single tear; even if the rise of populism/neofascism is concerning for various legitimate reasons.

Ed

Yeah, people saying 'why are we worried about a Labour MP?' are missing the point: she wasn't murdered because she was an MP, she was murdered, by a fascist, because she was a public figure who supported refugees and the Remain campaign. She was murdered because even her bourgeois Labour Party politics was deemed too far left by someone who is basically just reading between the lines of the mainstream political narrative (i.e. Labour a threat to national security, supports British 'invasion' by refugees and Muslims, Faraga saying violence on the streets is 'the next step' etc etc).

That's why it's of interest to us.

What happened to The Struggle Against Fascism Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism? This is just the collapse of the global economic model/order causing the EU to have its Aime Cesaire moment. These people are cold blooded killers; fuck them.

Spot on - these bigoted bastards give no quarter.One thing about a Fascist as opposed to so much of the Left is that if they say they will do something they generally do

Very bizarre to see some of the comments here. I suppose the UK does not have much "lone-wolf" fascist violence, so maybe that is it. In the US, it is more common.

I don't think it really matters whether the MP was a Labour Party person who was complicit in policies that were destructive to the class and ethnic minorities. At the end of the day, this seems like an attack on the left in which there is little distinguishing between the Labour Party and an anarchist group, except in visibility, when it comes to these lone-wolfs. Really, this attack could have been against a host of targets: ethnic minorities, far-left groups, religious minorities, feminists groups, etc. Either way, it is always worrying to see far-right violence, even if it is directed at elements such as the Labour Party that the radical left sees itself as opposition to.

What percentage of EU migrants have shown solidarity with British workers?

wojtek

What percentage of EU migrants have shown solidarity with British workers?

I don't understand this question. What do you mean?

Well can't actually work that out as a percentage, but just anecdotally from personal experience:

Polish labourers helped a lot during sparks dispute, came to pickets, wrote a really good leaflet in Polish explaining the dispute and asking people not to cross picket lines.

I get a lot of support personally when I'm on strike from EU migrants.

Actually, no, I am not doing any more of this, I don't agree with framing the question that way. Wojtek, there's loads of examples, but the problem is a general issue with difficulties in struggle and a breakdown of the normal methods of class solidarity that worked pretty well for us before, not any specific group not showing solidarity with another specific group.

wojtek

What percentage of EU migrants have shown solidarity with British workers?

Are you drunk? Or infected by the nationalism disease that's sweeping Brexit Britain?

My own experience would be Brighton Solfed which is probably majority EU (non-UK) workers these days. We commonly support both UK an EU workers especially in the hospitality industry and with housing problems. Though we're not in he habit of checking people's passports so I can't give you any percentages.

When we do pickets, there's always a lot of support from passersby, both UK and non-UK expressing their solidarity. I can't remember any instance of an EU worker asking about the nationality of the worker we're supporting, and then withholding their solidarity for British workers. When we're supporting EU workers, there are occasionally British people making comments along the lines of "bloody foreigners complaining about [e.g. wage theft], they should go home if they don't like it here", and these have become more common recently.

The assumption behind your question that "EU migrants" and "British workers" are two separate groups that can easily be distinguished is pretty foul and removed from reality.

The assumption behind your question that "EU migrants" and "British workers" are two separate groups that can easily be distinguished is pretty foul and removed from reality.

It wasn't a value judgement, it was descriptive. It certainly isn't removed from my reality sir. No one gives a shit about anyone where i get shifts.

If there's a general breakdown of class solidarity where you work, how does nationality come into it?

wojtek

What percentage of EU migrants have shown solidarity with British workers?

Who on earth would have this statistic and why does it matter?

Unless you're thining interms of they don't support us so we won't support them. In which case working class solidarity is already a non-starter.

how does nationality come into it

The staff ratio is an observable feature and unless you are a nation-blind liberal, i think it's a point that should be recognised.

Who on earth would have this statistic

Of course you're right. I'm glad i asked the question, because the responses have been interesting.

Unless you're thinking in terms of they don't support us so we won't support them. In which case working class solidarity is already a non-starter.

Ha I have thought that. I've been at various times and am capable of being xenophobic, internationalist or liberal in my outlook. It's good to know oneself.
https://youtu.be/0SczGREFf1g

Sorry for changing the topic by the way, as you were.

Do we have to view it in total black and white terms that all MP's are as equally bad, or view them as cartoon villains. Maybe some of them actually think they are doing good things or try to do as good as they can under the circumstances we're in. Maybe some of them would actually see anarchism as a desirable society, maybe their 'pragmatism' gets in the way.

Either way do we really have to agree with their politics to be concerned that one of them was killed by a fascist?

Or is violence and political assassinations something anarchists support now?

The only other people I've seen say that they don't care that an MP was killed and question why their aren't more people killing more MP's to 'protect themselves, their family and country' are right wingers.

Might add that Britain first had stated they consider all 'Muslim elected officials as occupiers and will start to oppose their strategy of entryism and take-over of our political system".

So if this was to escalate and there were to be repeats of this, would we just continue to say who cares, there only politicians?

In responding to Scallwag, I'd say that we should certainly be careful not to make assumptions about the personal motivations good or bad of individual MP's when assessing the practical effects of their political policies but we do need to be aware and make explicit what those policies mean in practice for the rest of us. So for instance if you read/listen to the views expressed by this Labour MP in the links provided by teh in their post No 55 you might (if generous) detect a personal motivation of genuine concern and support for the bombed and starved civilians in the Syrian civil war, but the policies are framed within support for the British states interests in it's relations with other foreign powers up to and including the use of military intervention. The comparisons with Yugoslavia and Bosnia remind us that claimed humanitarian motives can and do end up as ideological justifications in the pursuit of inter-imperialist interests up to and including the bombing of civilians. Beyond that we also need to take account of and make explicit the role of MP's at a more fundamental level in reinforcing the role of the democratic state in maintaining the capitalist conditions which give rise to the horrors that they then claim to be trying to resolve on our behalf! Non of that implies a policy of support for assassinations.

Sorry duplicate.

What percentage of EU migrants have shown solidarity with British workers?

Anecdotal and from several years back, when Edinburgh mail-centre full-timers went out on a wildcat stoppage, almost to the person, the associate grade part-timers, 90% of whom were non-UK and many non-EU, also perhaps equally divided by gender, came out with us even though the dispute didn't involve them and they would not benefit by its resolution. In the short time of their employment, they had come to share our antagonism towards petty-minded management and understood the need to stand up to them.

What the situation is these days i have no idea

ajjohnstone

What percentage of EU migrants have shown solidarity with British workers?

Anecdotal and from several years back, when Edinburgh mail-centre full-timers went out on a wildcat stoppage, almost to the person, the associate grade part-timers, 90% of whom were non-UK and many non-EU, also perhaps equally divided by gender, came out with us even though the dispute didn't involve them and they would not benefit by its resolution.

that's a beautiful thing to read.

Anarchists are rarely against 'violence.' People who have 'come out' against this act in particular are in harmony in this with, as it turns out - basically all of the British state, 'right wingers' as they are. There is also seemingly no attempt to differentiate themselves from these elements.

As far as politicians, glorifying their 'sentiment' is all well and good, but what they do day in day out and such is merely serve the bourgeois state, and possibly the EU. This is how their 'life-energy' is spent. People act consciously, so unless they are mere automatons - in which case their death is irrelevant - they are all to blame.

Obviously, politicians should hardly ever be given the benefit of the doubt anyway, because they do all of this in their own interest, or their interests are harmonised with the bourgeois state. If they aren't seriously radical - and then they would be mourned with far less enthusiasm - then they can claim no immunity from this.

Of course, generally speaking when Labour politicians by this point would gladly praise Thatcher exaggeratedly - not just ape their politics - if they had been assassinated, they can hardly be expected to have any notable political views or allegiances, other than subservience to capital, which is why they were generally elected, and hence at the least a useful signpost unless they should be particularly radical.

wojtek

The staff ratio is an observable feature and unless you are a nation-blind liberal, i think it's a point that should be recognised.

Generally speaking, a difference in approach, history with Britain and such could lead to a difference in various things, nonetheless they are obviously differentiated demographics - although obviously this is about membership in the organisation known as the EU before anything else. Hence, although its intention is obscure in a couple of ways, it's not that out-there a question on your part.

teh

She was killed while on her way to meet with constituents, not "campaigning for the rights of refugees and migrants." If this was Brexit related as the media implies then she was killed in the context of the UK elites dispute over whether to remain in the EU (where both sides are campaigning on a platform of restricting (white european) labors freedom of movement). A dispute in which she sided with those wishing to remain in the European Union, which I remind you is a pan-white nationalist federation project, one that has not only subjected its own population to extreme violence but in the past 25 years has waged war, direct and indirect, against *all* of its neighbors from North Africa, to SouthWest Asia, to the Balkans, to Eastern Europe.

She also campaigned (from the "hawk" angle) for re-conquest of Syria (or wiping it off the map if that is not feasible):
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/british-forces-ethical-solution-syria-humanitarian-crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkIpQGU9lDE

a conflict where NATO uses as proxies forces that openly speak of genocide of minority populations in that country.

This regime thug doesn't deserve a single tear; even if the rise of populism/neofascism is concerning for various legitimate reasons.

A valid point in some ways. This issue is generally speaking elevated precisely because they're a 'regime thug,' however - if they weren't mourned to such an extent, the state would essentially have just given up without effort, would no longer promote its own. In general, increased visibility for anyone with serious politics, as differentiated from this meagre liberal, would have drawn offence from the bourgeois state as much as 'lone wolf' attacks and the like, so there's really no distinction there. As is attested, Jo Cox was already campaigning for mobilising the British state into a general attack. The death of Jo Cox, whatever else might have happened, is not then a primary issue. Nonetheless, if people wanted to discuss such an overall issue, then dealing with the murder of a politician without any apparent sensitivity to the context in which this is promoted - 'politicians are more important,' in brief - might seem peculiar and to merely go along with this line unquestioned.

Their view on the 'far right' can be a different question. This can generally be taken for granted, and requires little elucidation. Perhaps it would be more relevant to specify if they were trying to polemicise against Amadeo Bordiga, for whatever reason they might do that.

The deifying of this woman was inevitable from the minute she died. Now they are moving on to giving MPs a better image and instructing us to have gratitude for the service they give us. I saw on TV that there is a new Twitter hashtag #thankyourmp or something like that. Ugh. I would prefer that this woman had not been killed anyway but the inevitable fallout makes it a no brained to regret her murder.

Zeronowhere

automatons

automata you mean- automatons would describe distinct units, but automata by nature work in conjunction

The Pigeon

Zeronowhere

automatons

automata you mean- automatons would describe distinct units, but automata by nature work in conjunction

Jo Cox was perhaps an 'automata' in bed, then, to meet you in the middle. Otherwise, in the context, you could use that word if you preferred. They're usually not working in conjunction in the grave, and tenuously in a bourgeois context, unless like Mercyful Fate they are dug up by King Diamond to 'make love to shame.'

What are you on about, or more to the point, what are you on?

Battlescarred

What are you on about, or more to the point, what are you on?

It was a fairly trivial suggested alteration, and treated as such.

I don't take drugs, they can help lead to STDs for instance with various nasty after-effects.

WTF? So if I smoke dope I get AIDS or the clap?

Man, Libcom has been quite weird lately.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/19/accused-british-assassin-thomas-mair-attended-racists-2000-meeting

interesting, if true

Thomas Mair, accused of murdering British parliamentarian Jo Cox last week, attended a 2000 meeting of British white supremacists that was aimed at building a leading American neo-Nazi’s white power music empire, Hatewatch has learned.

In late May of that year, Mair was one of between 15 and 20 racist activists who convened in a private room at a pub near the Strand, a major thoroughfare in central London, according to Todd Blodgett, an American who was then a paid informant for the FBI and also met with MI5. Blodgett had helped arrange the meeting at the request of William Pierce, then head of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, and paid close to 800 pounds for the space and the food and alcohol that was served.

“Pierce wanted to make inroads with the European market in terms of the music, distribution and getting bands signed,” Blodgett told Hatewatch. “I had started working with the FBI in March of that year and that was one of the first things I told them, that Pierce wants me to convene a bunch of people in London.” Blodgett was sent to London with a group of federal agents who were his controllers, he said.

“From what I could surmise, Tommy Mair was loosely affiliated with the Leeds chapter of the National Alliance,” Blodgett said. “He was a working class kind of guy who I think was very well read. He was self-educated. I remember he talked about a book he read by [David] Irving,” an infamous British Holocaust denier. At one point, Blodgett mentioned Winston Churchill to Mair during the two- to three-hour meeting. “As soon as I said that, he kind of made a face and he referred to Churchill as a kike-loving bastard,” he said. “I still remember that.”

Blodgett’s revelations are only the latest suggesting that Mair, whose alleged victim was a liberal, pro-immigrant member of Parliament, was a dedicated neo-Nazi. Hatewatch published copies of receipts last week that showed Mair had purchased several weapons handbooks and a Nazi book from the National Alliance, which is based in West Virginia, between 1999 and 2003. British media have reported that Mair also subscribed to a pro-apartheid South African publication and that, in the words of The Guardian, police “are believed” to have found Nazi regalia at his home.

Mair is also reported to have shouted “Britain first” as he allegedly stabbed and shot Cox last Thursday. Britain First is the name of a far-right party that is urging Britons to vote to leave the European Union (EU) in a June 23 referendum. British white supremacists despise the EU for facilitating Muslim and nonwhite immigration.

The May 2000 meeting included a number of well-known British racists, Blodgett recounted. One of them was Stephen Cartwright, who was affiliated with the Scottish branch of the British National Party (BNP), an extreme-right party that at the time only admitted whites. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes Hatewatch, has reported that Cartwright spoke to a 1999 meeting in Arlington, Va., on behalf the American Friends of the British National Party (AFBNP). He gave a speech asking for donations to help support the BNP in British elections.

A better known participant in the 2000 meeting, Blodgett said, was Richard Barnbrook, a BNP member who in 2008 won election to a seat on the London Assembly, which has the power to amend the London mayor’s budget and investigate matters of interest to Londoners. At that time, after coming in fifth in the London mayoral race, he was Britain’s most visible far-right elected politician.

Blodgett said that the meeting, although requested by Pierce, was largely organized by Mark Cotterill, a Briton who was in the United States as the head of the AFBNP and working to raise funds for the BNP. (He was later deported for his activities.) Cotterill’s racist network in the United Kingdom arranged most of the details.

At the time of the meeting, Pierce had recently bought Resistance Records, which quickly developed into the world’s leading purveyor of racist and neo-Nazi white power music. He could not enter Britain legally because of his views, but sent a message with Blodgett to the gathering telling them that he would soon be releasing an electronic game to be called “Ethnic Cleansing.” The game involved shooting black and other non-white people in New York City subways to win points.

“Everyone there was giddy about this game,” he said. “Mair was also plainly excited re the efforts that Pierce was making to further penetrate the UK market and his planned purchase of NORDLAND, which was the Swedish equivalent of Resistance Records, LLC.” Pierce did later buy that and another racist European label.

It is now known exactly what Mair’s relationship to the National Alliance’s reported Leeds chapter was. But the Southern Poverty Law Center has records of a number of Alliance supporters in Leeds and its surrounding north-central county, West Yorkshire. Still, Mair’s home in Batley, West Yorkshire, is just nine miles ­— a 17-minute drive — from Leeds. According to The Guardian, West Yorkshire, whose population is 12% Asian, is a hotbed of extreme-right activity.

Days after the meeting, Blodgett also met with John Tyndall, who had been deposed in 1999 as leader of the BNP and replaced by Nick Griffin. “I asked Tyndall specifically about Mair,” Blodgett told Hatewatch. “Tyndall basically called him a loser on some kind of dole [government aid], something like that.”

Blodgett said that Mair “was a fan of Ian Stuart Donaldson,” who had died in a 1993 car crash. Donaldson was the front man for Skrewdriver, one of the first racist bands of the modern era, and the person who effectively birthed white-power music.

“Mair was easily the quietest, best-mannered guy there,” Blodgett said. “But once he got going — i.e., discussing blacks, Jewish people and other minorities — he was what I’d call ‘all in’ — just like everyone else who attended that gathering.”

Entdinglichung

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/19/accused-british-assassin-thomas-mair-attended-racists-2000-meeting

interesting, if true

Thomas Mair, accused of murdering British parliamentarian Jo Cox last week, attended a 2000 meeting of British white supremacists that was aimed at building a leading American neo-Nazi’s white power music empire, Hatewatch has learned.

In late May of that year, Mair was one of between 15 and 20 racist activists who convened in a private room at a pub near the Strand, a major thoroughfare in central London, according to Todd Blodgett, an American who was then a paid informant for the FBI and also met with MI5. Blodgett had helped arrange the meeting at the request of William Pierce, then head of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, and paid close to 800 pounds for the space and the food and alcohol that was served.

“Pierce wanted to make inroads with the European market in terms of the music, distribution and getting bands signed,” Blodgett told Hatewatch. “I had started working with the FBI in March of that year and that was one of the first things I told them, that Pierce wants me to convene a bunch of people in London.” Blodgett was sent to London with a group of federal agents who were his controllers, he said.

“From what I could surmise, Tommy Mair was loosely affiliated with the Leeds chapter of the National Alliance,” Blodgett said. “He was a working class kind of guy who I think was very well read. He was self-educated. I remember he talked about a book he read by [David] Irving,” an infamous British Holocaust denier. At one point, Blodgett mentioned Winston Churchill to Mair during the two- to three-hour meeting. “As soon as I said that, he kind of made a face and he referred to Churchill as a kike-loving bastard,” he said. “I still remember that.”

Blodgett’s revelations are only the latest suggesting that Mair, whose alleged victim was a liberal, pro-immigrant member of Parliament, was a dedicated neo-Nazi. Hatewatch published copies of receipts last week that showed Mair had purchased several weapons handbooks and a Nazi book from the National Alliance, which is based in West Virginia, between 1999 and 2003. British media have reported that Mair also subscribed to a pro-apartheid South African publication and that, in the words of The Guardian, police “are believed” to have found Nazi regalia at his home.

Mair is also reported to have shouted “Britain first” as he allegedly stabbed and shot Cox last Thursday. Britain First is the name of a far-right party that is urging Britons to vote to leave the European Union (EU) in a June 23 referendum. British white supremacists despise the EU for facilitating Muslim and nonwhite immigration.

The May 2000 meeting included a number of well-known British racists, Blodgett recounted. One of them was Stephen Cartwright, who was affiliated with the Scottish branch of the British National Party (BNP), an extreme-right party that at the time only admitted whites. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes Hatewatch, has reported that Cartwright spoke to a 1999 meeting in Arlington, Va., on behalf the American Friends of the British National Party (AFBNP). He gave a speech asking for donations to help support the BNP in British elections.

A better known participant in the 2000 meeting, Blodgett said, was Richard Barnbrook, a BNP member who in 2008 won election to a seat on the London Assembly, which has the power to amend the London mayor’s budget and investigate matters of interest to Londoners. At that time, after coming in fifth in the London mayoral race, he was Britain’s most visible far-right elected politician.

Blodgett said that the meeting, although requested by Pierce, was largely organized by Mark Cotterill, a Briton who was in the United States as the head of the AFBNP and working to raise funds for the BNP. (He was later deported for his activities.) Cotterill’s racist network in the United Kingdom arranged most of the details.

At the time of the meeting, Pierce had recently bought Resistance Records, which quickly developed into the world’s leading purveyor of racist and neo-Nazi white power music. He could not enter Britain legally because of his views, but sent a message with Blodgett to the gathering telling them that he would soon be releasing an electronic game to be called “Ethnic Cleansing.” The game involved shooting black and other non-white people in New York City subways to win points.

“Everyone there was giddy about this game,” he said. “Mair was also plainly excited re the efforts that Pierce was making to further penetrate the UK market and his planned purchase of NORDLAND, which was the Swedish equivalent of Resistance Records, LLC.” Pierce did later buy that and another racist European label.

It is now known exactly what Mair’s relationship to the National Alliance’s reported Leeds chapter was. But the Southern Poverty Law Center has records of a number of Alliance supporters in Leeds and its surrounding north-central county, West Yorkshire. Still, Mair’s home in Batley, West Yorkshire, is just nine miles ­— a 17-minute drive — from Leeds. According to The Guardian, West Yorkshire, whose population is 12% Asian, is a hotbed of extreme-right activity.

Days after the meeting, Blodgett also met with John Tyndall, who had been deposed in 1999 as leader of the BNP and replaced by Nick Griffin. “I asked Tyndall specifically about Mair,” Blodgett told Hatewatch. “Tyndall basically called him a loser on some kind of dole [government aid], something like that.”

Blodgett said that Mair “was a fan of Ian Stuart Donaldson,” who had died in a 1993 car crash. Donaldson was the front man for Skrewdriver, one of the first racist bands of the modern era, and the person who effectively birthed white-power music.

“Mair was easily the quietest, best-mannered guy there,” Blodgett said. “But once he got going — i.e., discussing blacks, Jewish people and other minorities — he was what I’d call ‘all in’ — just like everyone else who attended that gathering.”

Can I just ask why this is getting down votes? Not to stoke the fire of the up / down vote discussion but because I don't see what I'm missing if anything.

I assume because a few new posters with unsavoury views did it. There were a few fash posts that were unpublished on both threads on this murder. I noticed some pretty weird ratio between up and down votes.

Oh ok thanks.

Does anyone know if it's true what I've heard about Jo Cox? That she voted/supported cuts that affected the poor and voted for a pay increase? I still think it is significant though, that someone perceived to be on the left has been assassinated.

check here

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25394/jo_cox/batley_and_spen

or here

http://myparliament.info/Member/4375/Voting

Well according to this, as politicians go, it looks like she had a pretty good voting record http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25394/jo_cox/batley_and_spen

radicalgraffiti

http://myparliament.info/Member/4375/Voting

According to this though, she voted for the Investigatory Powers Bill and the Policing and Crime Bill but she seems to have voted for welfare rather than against.