Daily Mail Morrissey article "Bonfire Of Teenagers" & Manchester Bombing (October 27, 2022)

Richard LittleJohn best know as the conservative poster boy reviews Morrissey Bonfire of teenagers.

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Why should we go easy on Islamist killers? Singer Morrissey rejects the ubiquitous 'turn another cheek' response. And quite right, too - dailymail.co.uk

But sadly I feel it misses the point & makes him out to be some sort of pop star for the Far Right.

But again what do you expect from the Daily Mail.

October 29, 2022:
Now a Central post:

TURNABOUT: - MESSAGES FROM MORRISSEY - MORRISSEY CENTRAL - TURNABOUT:

MESSAGES FROM MORRISSEY on MORRISSEY CENTRAL

www.morrisseycentral.com

 

[Dirk Blaggard]

The Banshees of Inisherin is wonderful. Martin McDonagh as a writer seems to be getting better with each movie he makes. I love the way the script is so pared down that the viewer is free to see in the story all sorts of allusions and allegories on so many different levels. For me, there is an obvious allegory in the movie about the importance of holding on to civility and not 'cancelling' people - because without civility and dialogue human society can very quickly descend into cruelty and barbarism. That is an important message in these troubled times.
I can't imagine Morrissey would be delighted to have the support of Richard Littlejohn. Anyone old enough will remember his rabid anti-gay stance in the 1980s, against the backdrop of Clause 28. But it is an indication of how social attitudes have changed in the past 30 years that Littlejohn would mention Morrissey with praise. And it also an indication perhaps of just how much hatred of the West has grown on the left in the past decade that people as far apart as Morrissey and Littlejohn now seem to find themselves sharing similar ground with regard to their attitude towards the supposed benefits of diversity and cultural relativism.

I agree with you about the film
I dont agree with you about the pop star. M likes whoever likes him This is true now more than fecking ever

 

[Malarkey]

Is 'Mexico' pro-immigration? Not obviously so. It's a reflective lyric about the relationship between Mexico and its richer neighbour to the north, and not related to any obvious historical event to pin it down in any way. It alludes to all sorts of issues, but there is no explicit pro-immigration message. Not that that would be a bad thing. I think everyone would agree that immigration is a good thing.

Bonfire is about an historical event - when a young man called Salman Abedi blew himself up in Manchester Arena killing 23 people, including himself, and wounding 1017 people. Abedi's father was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a Salafi jihadist organisation proscribed by the United Nations, and father and son fought for the group in Libya in 2011. Abedi's parents, both born in Tripoli, remained in Libya in 2011, while 17-year-old Abedi returned to live in the UK. He took a gap year in 2014, when he returned with his brother Hashem to Libya to live with his parents. Abedi was injured in Ajdabiya that year while fighting for an Islamist group. The brothers were rescued from Tripoli by the Royal Navy survey ship HMS Enterprise in August 2014 as part of a group of 110 British citizens as the Libyan civil war erupted, taken to Malta and flown back to the UK.
He never should have been allowed back in to the UK. He should have been left to rot in Tripoli. When he was back in the UK, of course, there were repeated warnings that he was an Islamist extremist. After the bombing, one of his other brothers was allowed to fly out of the UK and disappear, despite being summoned to give evidence. If someone I loved had died in that bombing, forgiveness and not looking back in anger would be the last thing on my mind.

The Lone Star State hates the non-white poor Mexicans because they're crossing the border.

Morrissey put Lone Star State, Mexico, white & rich in the song.

He didn't put Manchester, Lybia, or Islamic State in Bonfire.

 

[gashonthenail]

Thank you for that great review, gashonthenail. I saw the film yesterday. The scenery is stunning, the acting outstanding, and the action sometimes shocking, emotional, hysterical and troubling; sometimes tender, calm and plain. Characters often come across as helplessly irrational, which is probably closer to reality in general. Your observations about civility and cancel culture are so thoughtful. I think another strong theme is nature versus culture, and an implication that culture comes at a cost to nature, particularly in the remark made by Colm about God no longer caring whether creatures like the miniature donkey pull through, which is when everything went wrong.

Strong stuff for sure. Friendly strife: that can also be eased by interested outsiders, or exacerbated when exposed to the Littlejohns of this world

Thanks for those comments - I'm glad you liked it too. I was thinking about the film today strangely enough - hoping and praying that Brazil doesn't descend into civil strife following the presidential election there. Societies around the world seem to be splitting down the middle and moving to extremes these days - dark times!
I also thought on some level that the movie could be viewed as a response to Graham Norton's silly comments recently - that there is no such thing as 'cancel culture', it's just 'consequences'. Yes, and the consequences of deciding 'I'm not talking to you any more' can be absolutely terrifying. The movie is indeed powerful stuff.

 

[Dirk Blaggard]

His songs about Thatcher, the Queen and meat eating are no more nuanced than Bonfire. Morrissey has never been nuanced when it concerns his personal ethics and political views.

well, what makes QID so great, if that's the song you mean, about the Queen is this
I'll reference my mate,
" The QID is a fantastic song, as it's not really about THE Queen as people in the press are saying, it's about A queen- that queen is M but it could be any of us "sensitive brits"
The words are M at his shapest and best, it's at once the state of the nation and also a diary entry.
Then you have Johnny at his best with his greatest guitar moment since How Soon Is Now? That intro is wah wah magic It's The Smiths' strongest song. I think
Getting back to M's words, they are hilarious "you should hear me play piano", heartfelt " we can go for a walk where it's quiet and dry and talk about precious things" . and strident "Farewell to this land's cheerless marshes". Its also incredibly magical "

He's fecking spot on as well. You can't say any of that about BOT
I will say, on record BOT Is much better but it's still limited and basic and it's still not really attacking the bombers as such, its attacking reactions to an event, which although I agree with his comment, it's not helpful.
I think lots of us agree with M, I don;t think his viewpoint is right-wing. People like Richard Littlecock are right here and there but they are usually wrong and its better not to be in their gang

 

[Malarkey]

The gig started with a clip of David Holye saying something like "what does nationality mean to my identity, f*** all".

And they also played this:



Plus Islamic State moved into Lybia because we deposed Gaddafi & caused the total breakdown of their society.

Morrissey has always come from the point of view that government policies harm people - Littlejohn just hates immigrants.

 

[goinghome]

The song is completely justified and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The Islamic side of the seemingly now normalised terror attacks across Europe over the past 20 years is always played down, as if it is all coincidental, but that’s like suggesting the IRA terror attacks of the 80s had nothing to do with Irish republicanism.

And likewise, if you go back one step further, it's found the IRA, for example, were reacting to brutal oppression by far more powerful organised regimes who would not give them or their people a break, or justice and equality, or leave them alone to get on with doing things their own way. 'The story is old but it goes on'.

 

[goinghome]

This, a million times. You made so many other great points, the entire post is so true and so on point, but this is what it's about.
There is no longer a left and right and I could get into a whole discussion about 9/11 and what happened after and how both sides here ended up being exactly the same. Obama and Bush are exactly the same. Anyway, don't want to go too far off topic, but Morrissey is definitely pro freedom, anyone can see that...well, anyone who wants to, anyone who is not in the grips of hysteria of the false narrative.

The UK's 9/11 is how Morrissey refers to the Manchester bombing. What do you think he means by that, especially in the context of what you saw happening after?

 

[Redacted]

The UK's 9/11 is how Morrissey refers to the Manchester bombing. What do you think he means by that, especially in the context of what you saw happening after?

They are terrible tragedies, on very different scales, but terrible tragedies nonetheless, born of the same ideology.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you lot seriously calling The Daily Mail far right? It's a rag granted and Littlejohn is a pure prick but they're hardly 'far right'. The daily mail website is one of the most visited websites in the UK (top 10), is the majority of the UK far right?

In 1934 they published a comment piece by Viscount Rothermere titled Hurrah For The Blackshirts calling people who deride fascism 'stupid'. His great-grandson Lord Rothermere currently owns the newspaper. In more recent times they have published a cartoon depicting immigrants as a pack of rats. They used to employ Katie Hopkins as a columnist until they fired her for being so overtly racist that it started to get them in trouble with the media regulator.

There are countless other examples online if you care to look. But these alone are enough for me to believe that yes, the Daily Mail is a newspaper that has sympathies with far-Right ideology. They are as close as you can get to being a far-Right newspaper without being illegal.

And the website being so popular is another part of the problem. How do you think so many people learned that words like 'woke' and 'snowflake' are terms of abuse you can hurl at 'lefties'? They read them in headlines on the MailOnline every day, that's how.

The whole thing is a dreadful organisation that has had an insidious effect on British society for decades. It should be shut down.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

The gig started with a clip of David Holye saying something like "what does nationality mean to my identity, f*** all".

And they also played this:



Plus Islamic State moved into Lybia because we deposed Gaddafi & caused the total breakdown of their society.

Morrissey has always come from the point of view that government policies harm people - Littlejohn just hates immigrants.

What gig is that? A Morrissey gig? Sorry for not following.

 

[Malarkey]

What gig is that? A Morrissey gig? Sorry for not following.

It's Morrissey's gig at the London Palladium - the one that Brendan O'Neill reviewed in the Spectator.

Richard Littlejohn didn't go to the gig - all he did was read Brendan's review.

At that gig Morrissey played a clip of a drag queen called David Hoyle making an anti-nationalist statement & the video of people from different groups being friends.

Within the context of the gig I don't think he was out to denounce diversity, immigration or Islam.

And I think Bonfire would have named those things if that's what he wanted.

The attack made him feel angry. The socially acceptable response was to not be angry. It bothered him. I don't think it's worse than that.

But, I think SER could make it worse. The SPLC is on his case & that could be gruesome.

 

[Redacted]

No one with a speck of intelligence and/or common sense takes the SPLC seriously

 

[Gregor Samsa]

It's Morrissey's gig at the London Palladium - the one that Brendan O'Neill reviewed in the Spectator.

Richard Littlejohn didn't go to the gig - all he did was read Brendan's review.

At that gig Morrissey played a clip of a drag queen called David Hoyle making an anti-nationalist statement & the video of people from different groups being friends.

Within the context of the gig I don't think he was out to denounce diversity, immigration or Islam.

And I think Bonfire would have named those things if that's what he wanted.

The attack made him feel angry. The socially acceptable response was to not be angry. It bothered him. I don't think it's worse than that.

But, I think SER could make it worse. The SPLC is on his case & that could be gruesome.

I think this says it all, him playing an anti-nationalist clip made by a trans person. But right-leaning individuals will never accept that, and that includes SER.

 

[Malarkey]

No one with a speck of intelligence and/or common sense takes the SPLC seriously

They can influence the industry - and he does need the industry on his side - or no gigs, no records, no distribution.

 

[Redacted]

They can influence the industry - and he does need the industry on his side - or no gigs, no records, no distribution.

No they cant. You talk a lot but you don't say anything. I am not feeding this whatever it is you are doing, but you do need to be fact checked a lot.

 

[gashonthenail]

The Lone Star State hates the non-white poor Mexicans because they're crossing the border.

Morrissey put Lone Star State, Mexico, white & rich in the song.

He didn't put Manchester, Lybia, or Islamic State in Bonfire.

Still don't see how you jump from that to the song being 'pro-immigration' (your words). I think the song laments the fact that life is easy if you're rich and white, and hard if you're poor and Mexican. Wouldn't the world be a better place if poor people didn't need to leave their country and risk their lives crossing a sea or a border? That's not a pro-immigration sentiment. Nor is it an anti-immigration sentiment - it's a different sentiment all together.

I don't think Morrissey needed to put any of those words you suggests in Bonfire. It's about an historical event, after all. The song is an invitation for the listener to find out why the singer felt such rage over what happened, and why 'don't look back in anger' felt so trite. 'Cause the media sure won't tell ya. Ultimately the song is about the UK government's failure to protect its citizens, sorry, 'subjects'.

Ultimately though, we all bring what we want to a song or a novel or a movie. The artist has no control over that. You hear what you want to hear, Karen. Richard Littlejohn hears what he wants to hear. And I hear what I want to hear. We're all right, and we're all wrong.

 

[Malarkey]

No they cant. You talk a lot but you don't say anything. I am not feeding this whatever it is you are doing, but you do need to be fact checked a lot.

Next you'll be saying no one in music supported Black Lives Matter.

Yes - getting noticed by a pressure group that tracks hate groups will impact a person's career esp when they had a liberal audience.

 

[gashonthenail]

I think this says it all, him playing an anti-nationalist clip made by a trans person. But right-leaning individuals will never accept that, and that includes SER.

David Hoyle is a gay, male performance artist. He's not trans.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

David Hoyle is a gay, male performance artist. He's not trans.

Right. I forgot how important these labels are to some people. I’m sorry.

 

[BookishBoy]

It doesn't name a person, or a location, there's no indication of anyone's ethnicity or religion.

But in your own review of the recent Glasgow show, you stated that the song was "inspired by the Manchester Arena Bombing of 2017". Have you changed your mind on that?