Independent: "Has Morrissey ruined The Smiths?" by Sean Smith (May 13, 2022)

smiths copy 2.jpg

Has Morrissey ruined The Smiths? - The Independent

The ‘Oswald Mosley’ of pop is martyring himself on a cross of his own making, but what does that mean for the legacy of the band that started Morrissey off, asks Sean Smith.


Long, critical discussion piece with usual tropes.
Gated article, but where there's a will...
Read in full:

Regards,
FWD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She probably meant criminals, you dimwit. Not the whole immigrant population. You know nothinggggggggggggggg.

BTW it's "she wrote", not "she write".
No she didn’t. There are many speeches where she has expressed her belief that there is a deliberate plan to replace whites with Muslims and has called for deportations not criminals but all Muslims and she has spoken at Generation Identity meetings where she has shared the stage with leaders of GI and expressed views of enforced deportation of all on whites from Europe.

Stick to the facts. And we also don’t deport criminal uk citizens which would be a significant human rights issue but we all know you think that would be a good idea.
 
Wait........holocaust denial? What are you on about? As to the GRT........have you seen London lately?
Yes and it’s great we have a multicultural society and long May it continue. The majority of the things I live in life come from being in a multicultural society.

And your point about Holocaust denial is what? Waters has links to Holocaust deniers. She invited a well known Swedish Holocaust denier to speak along side with Katie Hopkins at her conference.

I would prefer to not engage with you because you are a racist and the issue for me is the lack of intelligence with that viewpoint and I would rather discuss with people who are nearer to logic and sanity than a pointless racist.
 
I know.......you're another gutless wonder.
I think again you don’t get it. I could create an account but it wouldn’t make any difference to the debate and you would have no idea whether it was a real name or not.
It’s not important but again diversion
 
Nonsense. She has called for the deportation of muslims, she has called for restrictive birth rates for Muslims.

Are you really bringing in Nick Griffin’s point of view on her? I won’t even respond to that nonsense.

She endorses Holocaust deniers who she personally has invited to speak at he party conference.

No one in the right mind would ever say these were actions of anyone on the left.

Her manifesto had one page in relation to animal rights and all is said was that her party’s aim was to ban veal crates. That was her only manifesto policy in relation to animal rights but the problem was veal crates have been illegal for a couple of decades already in the uk so it was rubbish. It was a con to try to appeal to that demographic but anyone who really stood for animal rights would have always known that veal crates were already banned.

Brummie, will you quit this shit - Anne Marie had promised many animal welfare reforms in memes & blogs.

Her party has misfits from diverse backgrounds.

And the far right hating her is relevant.
 
I think again you don’t get it. I could create an account but it wouldn’t make any difference to the debate and you would have no idea whether it was a real name or not.
It’s not important but again diversion

it’s not about having a real name. It’s about identification with a single name and a familiarity with a member, a history, so one knows where each stands and what they’re about.

It’s turns people off from even wanting to converse at all with someone that’s going to slide around anonymously.

Become a member and over time build a relationship with other members on the site. It’s hard to respect, trust or believe people that remain anonymous. Just saying.
 
Milo was just an example. As an openly gay man he spread hate and was a poster boy for the far right. The fact he then suffered a car crash/breakdown is not the fact that really proves anything.

I also have have had contacts with a gay man who throughout the 80s was a senior recruiter for the National Front in the UK. He was the main recruiter outside schools in the UK and increased the membership of the National Front back there significantly.

There has been significant changes of the views of the far right in relation to LGBT people and more and more they are expressing pro LGBT views and they are actively seeking supporters from the LGBT community.

Just to stereotype male homosexuals a bit, though, there is an obvious streak of theatricality, flippancy, and attention-grabbing in a provocateur like Milo Yiannopolous. Prior to his conversion to heterosexuality and Catholicism, he would probably have fallen more on the libertarian right than on the truly far right.

As for gays of a more serious sort who are situated further out on the political spectrum, there is something in the crisp style of a Hugo Boss uniform, the brute homoeroticism of military culture, and the notion of a male-dominated patriarchal structure that would exert appeal to a certain type of homosexual male. You see this kind of thing in Visconti's film The Damned and in the aesthetics of Death in June.

This element has always been there and always will be, but it is a minority subset. It doesn't really mean the far right is getting rainbow and inclusive, even if it does occasionally make some concessions on the surface. Marine Le Pen, whom you cited, is a good example. Even though she has a homosexual for a close advisor and does not resurrect the rhetoric of her father, I doubt anyone on either her side or the opposition's was surprised that she very quietly pledged to downgrade same-sex marriage.

The traditional values point you make is exactly where Waters does come in because she has preached for many years about european white populations at risk because of a deliberate and planned migration of Islamists and it is that very traditional view of europe being white and christian that she directly tries to appeal to.

The difference between Waters' rhetoric and the far right's is that they mean two different things when they say "the West." For Waters, it is the Enlightenment values of the West, whereas for someone more conservative, it is the traditional authoritarian values of Christendom. They're united on a hatred of Islam because, for Waters, Shariah law is the antithesis of the Enlightenment model. They may all be bigots against Islam, but it is not for the same reason. Anne-Marie Waters sees Islam the same way Nietzsche saw it: "Islam presupposes men." For the German philosopher, that was a positive, but for a vegan feminist lesbian, a growth in the numbers of Mohammedans threatens everything she wants to preserve.

If you think it is a narrow definition though do you think someone who has close links with Generation Identity with their deportation plan of all non whites from Europe, someone who invites Holocaust deniers to her conferences to speak, someone who has close links to self confessed far right commentators, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, a woman, allegedly feminist but who has openly in speeches has suggested we start to restrict the reproduction rates of Muslims, do you think this woman could be described as anything other than far right? Considering these points where would you put her on the political spectrum?

That's a good question. She's a leftist who's been radicalized by the left's refusal to acknowledge the culturo-ideological threat posed by Islam. I would agree that she's no longer on the left, but she remains a curious and interesting sort of hybrid. To the extent that she's on the right, she's arrived there for different reasons than her cohorts.

I am not aware of anyone on the left endorsing the view that the Holocaust was a lie.

Does she hold that view, though? Being on the same speaking slate as a Holocaust denier doesn't mean you endorse their view; it just means you haven't done due diligence in vetting their positions. She seems pro-Zionist to me, which I consider one of her failings. Her abhorrence of Islam, while justified, flickers with such an intensity that it has blinded her to the barbarism of the other two Hebrew religions.
 
Last edited:
No she didn’t. There are many speeches where she has expressed her belief that there is a deliberate plan to replace whites with Muslims and has called for deportations not criminals but all Muslims and she has spoken at Generation Identity meetings where she has shared the stage with leaders of GI and expressed views of enforced deportation of all on whites from Europe.

Stick to the facts. And we also don’t deport criminal uk citizens which would be a significant human rights issue but we all know you think that would be a good idea.

Deporting all foreign criminals would be a wonderful idea. Obviously. You should also stick to the facts and do more research.
 
Nonsense. She has called for the deportation of muslims, she has called for restrictive birth rates for Muslims.

Are you really bringing in Nick Griffin’s point of view on her? I won’t even respond to that nonsense.

She endorses Holocaust deniers who she personally has invited to speak at he party conference.

No one in the right mind would ever say these were actions of anyone on the left.

Her manifesto had one page in relation to animal rights and all is said was that her party’s aim was to ban veal crates. That was her only manifesto policy in relation to animal rights but the problem was veal crates have been illegal for a couple of decades already in the uk so it was rubbish. It was a con to try to appeal to that demographic but anyone who really stood for animal rights would have always known that veal crates were already banned.

Google is your friend. https://www.forbritain.uk/policy/
 
Just to stereotype male homosexuals a bit, though, there is an obvious streak of theatricality, flippancy, and attention-grabbing in a provocateur like Milo Yiannopolous. Prior to his conversion to heterosexuality and Catholicism, he would probably have fallen more on the libertarian right than on the truly far right.

As for gays of a more serious sort who are situated further out on the political spectrum, there is something in the crisp style of a Hugo Boss uniform, the brute homoeroticism of military culture, and the notion of a male-dominated patriarchal structure that would exert appeal to a certain type of homosexual male. You see this kind of thing in Visconti's film The Damned and in the aesthetics of Death in June.

This element has always been there and always will be, but it is a minority subset. It doesn't really mean the far right is getting rainbow and inclusive, even if it does occasionally make some concessions on the surface. Marine Le Pen, whom you cited, is a good example. Even though she has a homosexual for a close advisor and does not resurrect the rhetoric of her father, I doubt anyone on either her side or the opposition's was surprised that she very quietly pledged to downgrade same-sex marriage.



The difference between Waters' rhetoric and the far right's is that they mean two different things when they say "the West." For Waters, it is the Enlightenment values of the West, whereas for someone more conservative, it is the traditional authoritarian values of Christendom. They're united on a hatred of Islam because, for Waters, Shariah law is the antithesis of the Enlightenment model. They may all be bigots against Islam, but it is not for the same reason. Anne-Marie Waters sees Islam the same way Nietzsche saw it: "Islam presupposes men." For the German philosopher, that was a positive, but for a vegan feminist lesbian, a growth in the numbers of Mohammedans threatens everything she wants to preserve.



That's a good question. She's a leftist who's been radicalized by the left's refusal to acknowledge the culturo-ideological threat posed by Islam. I would agree that she's no longer on the left, but she remains a curious and interesting sort of hybrid. To the extent that she's on the right, she's arrived there for different reasons than her cohorts.



Does she hold that view, though? Being on the same speaking slate as a Holocaust denier doesn't mean you endorse their view; it just means you haven't done due diligence in vetting their positions. She seems pro-Zionist to me, which I consider one of her failings. Her abhorrence of Islam, while justified, flickers with such an intensity that it has blinded her to the barbarism of the other two Hebrew religions.

 
Yes and it’s great we have a multicultural society and long May it continue. The majority of the things I live in life come from being in a multicultural society.

And your point about Holocaust denial is what? Waters has links to Holocaust deniers. She invited a well known Swedish Holocaust denier to speak along side with Katie Hopkins at her conference.

I would prefer to not engage with you because you are a racist and the issue for me is the lack of intelligence with that viewpoint and I would rather discuss with people who are nearer to logic and sanity than a pointless racist.

Why are you here then?
 
Brummie, will you quit this shit - Anne Marie had promised many animal welfare reforms in memes & blogs.

Her party has misfits from diverse backgrounds.

And the far right hating her is relevant.

Her manifesto only had i policy on animal rights but it was fake because we don’t have beak crates in the uk and someone who claims one of her main objectives is animal welfare would surely have already known that.

People can put out as many memes as they wish but it’s actual policies in a party’s manifesto that are the important factor and how is this relevant?

Are you saying it doesn’t matter she supports Holocaust denial and enforced deportations and birth control for Muslims because she publishes animal memes on social media?

The far right don’t hate her. She is the far right. She is on a list of the top 10 global far right political figures.
 
it’s not about having a real name. It’s about identification with a single name and a familiarity with a member, a history, so one knows where each stands and what they’re about.

It’s turns people off from even wanting to converse at all with someone that’s going to slide around anonymously.

Become a member and over time build a relationship with other members on the site. It’s hard to respect, trust or believe people that remain anonymous. Just saying.
I’m not really interested in gaining trust. What I talk about are facts that are out there for everyone to check themselves if they so wish.

I am not on here often so no point it having an account. It would be damaging for my mental health to be on this page too often.

Do you have trust for the likes of Hoffman then, someone who repeatedly posts inflammatory racist comments?
 
Just to stereotype male homosexuals a bit, though, there is an obvious streak of theatricality, flippancy, and attention-grabbing in a provocateur like Milo Yiannopolous. Prior to his conversion to heterosexuality and Catholicism, he would probably have fallen more on the libertarian right than on the truly far right.

As for gays of a more serious sort who are situated further out on the political spectrum, there is something in the crisp style of a Hugo Boss uniform, the brute homoeroticism of military culture, and the notion of a male-dominated patriarchal structure that would exert appeal to a certain type of homosexual male. You see this kind of thing in Visconti's film The Damned and in the aesthetics of Death in June.

This element has always been there and always will be, but it is a minority subset. It doesn't really mean the far right is getting rainbow and inclusive, even if it does occasionally make some concessions on the surface. Marine Le Pen, whom you cited, is a good example. Even though she has a homosexual for a close advisor and does not resurrect the rhetoric of her father, I doubt anyone on either her side or the opposition's was surprised that she very quietly pledged to downgrade same-sex marriage.



The difference between Waters' rhetoric and the far right's is that they mean two different things when they say "the West." For Waters, it is the Enlightenment values of the West, whereas for someone more conservative, it is the traditional authoritarian values of Christendom. They're united on a hatred of Islam because, for Waters, Shariah law is the antithesis of the Enlightenment model. They may all be bigots against Islam, but it is not for the same reason. Anne-Marie Waters sees Islam the same way Nietzsche saw it: "Islam presupposes men." For the German philosopher, that was a positive, but for a vegan feminist lesbian, a growth in the numbers of Mohammedans threatens everything she wants to preserve.



That's a good question. She's a leftist who's been radicalized by the left's refusal to acknowledge the culturo-ideological threat posed by Islam. I would agree that she's no longer on the left, but she remains a curious and interesting sort of hybrid. To the extent that she's on the right, she's arrived there for different reasons than her cohorts.



Does she hold that view, though? Being on the same speaking slate as a Holocaust denier doesn't mean you endorse their view; it just means you haven't done due diligence in vetting their positions. She seems pro-Zionist to me, which I consider one of her failings. Her abhorrence of Islam, while justified, flickers with such an intensity that it has blinded her to the barbarism of the other two Hebrew religions.
Yes she does know he is a Holocaust denier. She invited him to her conference to speak about it. His main objective is to talk about Holocaust denial. To suggest she didn’t know one of the most famous Holocaust deniers globally was a Holocaust denier and make him a key speaker at her conference is just nonsense.

She also speaks often with Generation identity meetings whose main leader has often spouted about the Jewish take over of business and other conspiracy theories. She is linked to people who have called for death to Jews.

They is no possibility with these links and extreme views regardless of whether they come from different reasons than traditional historic far right people that she could ever be considered anything but far right.

The far right movement is changing rapidly and she is part of that. Groups of well educated youngsters in university or straight from university across Europe and the US are signing up to this movement and people like Waters welcome them with open arms. In the UK she has welcomed people that are banned from the likes of UKIP because of their extreme far right views.
 
Yes she does know he is a Holocaust denier. She invited him to her conference to speak about it. His main objective is to talk about Holocaust denial. To suggest she didn’t know one of the most famous Holocaust deniers globally was a Holocaust denier and make him a key speaker at her conference is just nonsense.

In the "HOPE not hate" article you cited, it doesn't mention her personally inviting Holocaust deniers to come to her functions to speak about Holocaust denial. It only says she shared a stage with some goon, or spoke at the same function as another goon. I don't excuse that. She should be a lot more careful with her political bedfellows. What it doesn't mean, though, is that she endorses Holocaust denial. She is, factually and on record, pro-Israel. That's something I would prefer she not be. It doesn't make any sense to impute Holocaust denial and a belief in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to her unless you're just unwilling to assess her honestly.

The far right movement is changing rapidly and she is part of that. Groups of well educated youngsters in university or straight from university across Europe and the US are signing up to this movement and people like Waters welcome them with open arms. In the UK she has welcomed people that are banned from the likes of UKIP because of their extreme far right views.

If her policies worry you, and if she's appealing to a growing coterie of well-educated disaffected youth, then you ought to prioritize better and ignore this little internet niche and get out there and raise the banner for Islam and multiculturalism. The fact that she appeals to an eccentric, soon-to-be 63-yr-old Angeliño is insignificant. Morrissey is not that influential anymore.
 
Last edited:
I’m not really interested in gaining trust. What I talk about are facts that are out there for everyone to check themselves if they so wish.

What’s your goal then ?

I am not on here often so no point it having an account. It would be damaging for my mental health to be on this page too often.

One is not forced to come often simply because they have an account.


Do you have trust for the likes of Hoffman then, someone who repeatedly posts inflammatory racist comments?

I have trust that he will post the kind of views he does. He stands by his views, and others know where he stands under one name. Which goes for all of those that are members.
 
In the "HOPE not hate" article you cited, it doesn't mention her personally inviting Holocaust deniers to come to her functions to speak about Holocaust denial. It only says she shared a stage with some goon, or spoke at the same function as another goon. I don't excuse that. She should be a lot more careful with her political bedfellows. What it doesn't mean, though, is that she endorses Holocaust denial. She is, factually and on record, pro-Israel. That's something I would prefer she not be. It doesn't make any sense to associate her with Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories unless you're just unwilling to assess her honestly.



If her policies worry you, and if she's appealing to a growing coterie of well-educated disaffected youth, then you ought to prioritize better and ignore this little internet niche and get out there and raise the banner for Islam and multiculturalism. The fact that she appeals to an eccentric, soon-to-be 63-yr-old Angelino is insignificant. Morrissey is not that influential anymore.

She didn't just happen to share the stage with a holocaust denier, it was her conference and she has personal direct links to Ingrid Carlqvist, said Holocaust denier and personally invited him to attend to speak. She would be well aware of his Holocaust denial theories because they are well known.

Also she has direct links to Generation Identity people, whose meetings she has been a key speaker and these people are very much anti semitic and have leaders who have been heard calling for death to Jews.

Links to these kinds of people are not excusable for what Morrissey describes as a very intelligent woman. Ignorance, not that I believe for minute that she is ignorant of these people's outspoken views, isn't an excuse.

I am very much out there. It is my job. I have attended her conferences as a researcher and I report to charities and to government agencies. It is my job.

This is just a bit of a very occasional side track.

You are correct he isn't very influential any more and mainly public opinion is not on the side of these far right speakers or those who speak out in support of them as is obvious with what has happened to Morrissey's fanbase. Most people in the UK are very supportive of a multicultural society but that doesn't mean it needs to be monitored.

The likes of Hoffman on here etc aren't in the slightest any concern to anyone. People like that are all over the place but they are generally incapable of putting up an intelligent argument and mostly have objectives designed to shock but history and statistics clearly show no one really listens to those kind of snippets and rhetoric and they aren't going to successfully proselytise anyone.

However people like Waters have significant internet presence and funding globally and they are the people that we monitor and when someone with millions of followers, followers who include significant numbers of people who would eat soil if Morrissey said he does, it does need to be responded to. No one , especially him, ever thought that there would be such a significant reaction against his words and visible support of For Britain, and I do think that for the most part he was enticed by a woman who appealed to him through the fact she was a lesbian and an animal lover but that is also part of the problem. These things aren't just by the by in the same way Tommy Robinson has no real interest in campaigning against child abuse, he just uses it to target Islam. He never cares or speaks out against the child abuse perpetrated by Christian clergy and priests etc.

People have said but this was years ago etc etc. Makes no difference to me. I wouldn't want someone with links to holocaust deniers, or links to a woman who has spoken out suggesting enforced birth control for Muslims and enforced deportation , whether they be direct or indirect links, or anyone who supports any group that has such links in my house so I'm not going to be spending money on any such person either.

Whether he has any influence or not anymore is irrelevant to me and all the 1000s of people who have left his fanbase. They will never come back. Before all this came out he would have easily sold out every gig in minutes. Weeks before Vegas and not one show has sold out and most of them are not even half full.
 
What’s your goal then ?



One is not forced to come often simply because they have an account.




I have trust that he will post the kind of views he does. He stands by his views, and others know where he stands under one name. Which goes for all of those that are members.
There is no goal on here. I just got involved in this discussion because people brought up the nonsense about all of Morrissey's woes being because of newspapers which then led to other people raising the For Britain issues so I merely chose to take part in that discussion and put some of the facts across and welcomed intelligent discussion for anyone because mostly on here people just throw personal insults when they get asked about something in relation this topic.

I have in this thread had some interesting discussion in the past couple of days putting aside the usual reactionary misfits.

I can't be bothered creating an account and I don't need to know in a chat forum who it is I am talking to. It is purely about discussing the points being raised and not knowing someone's background etc is often a plus point because it helps to focus purely on the discussion points rather than being distracted by past posts that named person may have posted.
 
Back
Top Bottom