The Daily Mail, hatred, and everyone

This is a too-long-to-be-an-extract mini-essay, motivated by a particular event, but about the Daily Fail in general.


The Daily Maul has behaved utterly uncharacteristically, recently, by laying in to someone!

Apparently, the current Labour Party leader's dad was a socialist... and a foreigner [Dun-dun-durrrr]

This, according to the Daily Fail, means he "HATED BRITAIN"


I have a few points to respond with:

1) After WWII, when Miliband (Sr.) was active, a socialist government won the nation's General Election. So did a majority of the population hate Britain, at that time?

2) Before WWII, the Daily Maul stridently supported the Nazi movement. They went suspiciously silent in 1934 when their (Jewish) advertisers threatened to withdraw funding. Of course, if they'd continued, their actions would become treasonous anyway, and punishable with execution!

3) Ralph Miliband was a Belgian Jew who fled the Nazis, and fought with the British forces. So who's hated Britain more?

4) The main 'reasons' the Mail gives for Miliband (Sr.) 'hating Britain' are opposition to:

• Monarchism - the idea that an arbitrary family should receive obligatory wealth and responsibility (most of it now funded by taxpaying republicans, such as me), and that one person in that family should become the highest authority in the land because they happened to plop out of a lucky vagina, at a lucky juncture.

• Religious Establishment - the idea that arrogant, delusional, mentally enfeebled men should be given divine access to the UK's law-making processes, instead of being treated as the cult leaders and executives of criminal organisations that they really are.

5) Ralph Miliband has been dead for almost two decades! The Daily Fail have been trying to libel a dead man*. Classy! But why now?

*It's not actually the first time!


What the Daily Mail really finds so egregious about Ed Miliband (the current Labour Party leader), is that he is the son of a foreign, jewish socialist, whom they perceive to be a Communist...

and not the 'good', 'strong', 'decisive' 'leader' i.e. fascist, that they want to be P.M. of the UK.

They do not want him to win the next General Election!


Their historic fascism - which led them to support the Nazis - has still not gone away, and this is why they are so frequently described as a 'paper that deals in hate and fear.


But hatred is just what people do when they don't like something. It's a generic emotion, and not explicitly wrong. What matters is what we hate, not whether we hate. I, for example, hate deceit - possibly more than anything - and so it follows, logically, that i also hate superstition, and pseudoscience {see entire sections on my blog!} and propaganda, and therefore pretty-much everything that comes out of the Daily Mail.

... but boy, is there a lot that Mailists don't like! And it's all personalised. Their 'criticisms' are as subtle as a brick through a Jew's shop window.


The way a village idiot makes themselves feel bigger, is by mongering their world into a cartoon, that they find easier to understand. A world where there are goodies and baddies, the strong and the weak, saints and sinners, Christians and heathens...

In this paradigm, you're either on the 'right' side or the 'wrong' side.

In reality, if you're on any side, you're on the wrong side - real problems don't get resolved by factionalistic attrition - if you take sides, you're actually part of the problem!

No-one can fit this hyper-idealistic, reality-denialistic ideological attitude, and so plenty of emotion pours forth, but with no rationality to temper it. What matters to someone like this is not whether something should be feared/hated, but whether it can be feared/hated.


The Daily Mail, in all the xenophobia and cartoon-minded conservatism it exhibits, is a shining example of what happens when humanity goes wrong.

Despite its misogyny, the majority of Mail readers are female. Why? Because the loathing can always be pointed at other women (who are too fat/slobbish/poorly dressed/foreign/lesbian/etc).
Despite its xenophobia, there are readers who weren't born in Britain, because those people can loathe other foreigners (who are of another nationality they don't like/too fat/slobbish/poorly dressed/foreign/lesbian/etc).

All emotion - no rationality - as if spouting bigotry is some form of stress toy!


Other 'papers, though, like the Torygraph (called that because they have an ideological bias in favour of the Conservative Party) actually like the Daily Mail.

Not because they agree with them, but because they disagree. In fact, all the other papers look so pleasant, level-headed and... well, acceptable... because the Daily Maul's so outright repulsive. It's held as a paragon of obscenity.

Without the Daily Flail, standards would rise, and another 'paper would become the most right-wing, conservative extremity in British journalism. Probably one of Murdoch's.

And so, the Mailists who buy into the lies they spew forth, form a sort of cult. Resistant to criticism, and full of bile for anyone who fails to heed the word of the lord. Hallelujah!

...that lord's Lord (Viscount) Rothermere, of course.


That's right, Westboro Baptists - Britain beat you to it - we've had a universally-loathed bunch of bigots who are inexplicably popular within their group, for more than a century, and it's the Daily Mail. The difference is that there are only 40 of them, and the Mail has a daily readership of more than 4 million!


They say you should strive to be a good example, and if not that, at least be a terrible warning.

Mailists think they're a good example - but they're actually a terrible warning.

So really, the take-home lesson should be this: Know whether you're a good example, or a terrible warning, and strive to be the former!
.