WINGS OVER Scotland is flush with other people’s money. It’s proven that the front page of the Sunday Times can be purchased for circa £5000, and its editor is on an adrenalised ego fuelled high. Take note, Murdoch haters, the Thunderer’s headlines are up for grabs to extremists with a grievance. AhDinnaeKen decided to embark on a little sojourn into the post Panelbase rantings of diminutive demagogue, Stuart Campbell:
The danger of the extremist is that they deal in semi-plausible generalisms which can easily trap and seduce the unwary. Wings’ recent post, “Playing with fire” is a case in point.
By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe
AHDINNAEKEN HAS long maintained that Wings Over Scotland is the mouth piece of a hate driven extremist/narcissist. The site’s rantings, frothings and polemics, invariably fit the cliched and archetypal behaviours of extremists as outlined in the handily compact Laird Wilcox list of ‘Extremist Traits’ .
Wilcox concocted the list over a period of several years having studied numerous high profile extremist groups operating on the fringes of American society: groups like the Ku Klux Klan, anti-abortionists, homophobic religious groups and Nazis, pseudo-Nazis etc.
As with any disseminators of extreme views, the modus operandi of Wings is uncannily similar to the disparate groups studied by Wilcox.
With its grievance based rhetoric, dedicated coterie of followers and well established hate figures to blame, the site displays all the stereotypical hallmarks associated with extremism.
The preface quote of the Wilcox list states, “The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”
If you stripped all of the posts in the Wings site, which are almost exclusively dedicated to attacking Campbell’s perceived opponents, you’d be left, anecdotally speaking of course, with about twenty posts or fewer.
Despite all of its author’s sanctimoniously self righteous doom sayering, Wings is positivity-lite and overly reliant on negative ‘othering’ – the extremist’s precedent.
The definition of the logical fallacy of ‘damning the alternatives’ states that, so long as you’re blaming others and putting them on the back foot, you don’t have to pay too much attention to the holes in your own arguments. It’s the classic fall back of the partisan extremist.
The Wings site’s main philosophy takes this fallacy literally. It runs along the lines of: if Scotland doesn’t vote to break away from the subjugating chains of Westminster imposed serfdom, then we’re all doomed forever and a day to suffer at the hands of our Tory imperialist masters. Anything or anyone standing in the way of the chance to break away from such a doom laden scenario is to be treated with “merciless contempt”.
Such “contempt” invariably relies on a variety of colourful epithets and abusive analogies using colourful word such as: ‘c**ts’, retards, thickos, scum, cowards, spineless, illiterate, liars, dicks etc etc etc. Reading Wings has been compared to trying to swim in an effluent encrusted sewer after you’ve been punched in the solar plexus with a jack hammer and had your head thrust underneath the surface.
AhDinnaeKen has read Wings and we* reckon it’s much less pleasant than that.
Which brings us* to one of Wings latest posts on a subject matter the hate-preacher is increasingly desperate to see break out soon in the debate – street violence. Entitled ‘Playing with fire’, the piece is a powerplay of logical fallacy, irresponsible sweeping generalisations and outright repugnant nastiness – it relies on eleven links (count ’em) and a video of an unhinged individual committing a breach of the peace against some perfectly civilised Yes campaigners going about their campaigning business, to make its awful point.
The Wings Facebook page (see above), in an ironically hilarious paradox, heralds the post thus: “Terrified of the polls, the No camp tries to start a war:”
Oh dear! Oh dear! More realistically, if the words ‘the’ and ‘No’ were replaced in that sentence by the words ‘Wings Over Scotland’, it would make much more sense. Otherwise it’s merely abusive analogy.
After reading the post, it’s plain for all to see that Campbell’s champing at the bit for something decidedly unpleasant to happen during the debate. It will give him the chance to ramp up the rhetoric, point the fevered righteous finger of blame at his perceived enemies and deliver some rousing ‘man the barricades’ styled polemic to whip up his “creepy as f**k” cabal of shadowy agentura and profligate donators.
In the shouty rant, he ignites several Nationalist grievances with a single incendiary flame: he compares the Scotsman to rats for changing their headline on a story reporting the latest indy Panelbase poll; stomps all over a foolish Lanarkshire Labour councillor; links an unhinged individual to the Better Together campaign; reminds his readers that the first casualty of violence in the indy debate was a pro-Yes campaigner; unbeknowingly highlights that Wings polemical style isn’t too far removed from that of George Galloway’s; evokes the spectre of sectarianism; claims that Yes campaigners have already been subjected to coordinated intimidation; and likens the Better Together camp to petrol bomb wielding Loyalist extremists.
It’s a post which encapsulates, to varying stereotypical degrees, almost every listed trait and cliche in the Laird Wilcox list.
Campbell likes to trumpet that his alleged ‘facts’ are sourced and cited as if that somehow gives them an unimpeachable credibility and integrity. It doesn’t. It just adds to the hilarity/shock value when you check the alleged cited sources. Invariably and inevitably the sources are Wingsy himself.
Of the eleven links provided in the story, eight of them source straight back to previous Wings posts. All things taken into consideration, it’s the professional equivalent of onanistic navel gazing or vanity led pseudo-journalistic narcissism, or both. Take your pick.
In effect Campbell is saying, “of course this piece is cited, sourced and factually correct, I wrote it myself”. Ye couldnae make it up.
AhDinnaeKen decided to delve a bit further for research purposes and checked all of the links.
We*’d like to say we were surprised by what we* discovered. But we* weren’t. Campbell’s linked sources are a mostly necrotic parasitic treatise of newspaper/media based voyeurism, ghoulishly raking over the bones of desperation and grievance which are fatally underpinned by some deeply unpleasant Nazi inspired propaganda. Or something like that.
AhDinnaeKen is fairly sure that any decent Nationalist or Yes campaigner is bound to be repelled by the hate-speech delivered within Campbell’s piece ‘Playing with fire’.
For example, the first link in the hatemongering polemic relies on some infamously notorious Nazi inspired imagery.
A frame from the ‘Eternal Jew’. A Nazi inspired propaganda film which used the same kind of dehumanising language against the Jews as Campbell used against Scotsman journalists. Coincidence or magic? You decide!
Castigating the Scotsman for its unexplained ‘jigging’ of a web based headline on the most recent referendum poll, the linked to piece entitled ‘Cornered rats’ unsurprisingly compares the Scotsman to ‘cornered rats’.
In the ‘Eternal Jew’, a pre-war Nazi propaganda film aimed at whipping up anti-semitic hatred, pictures of rats running through a sewer were likened to Jews corrupting the ‘purity’ of the German volk. It’s the epitome of hate induced incitement and its something which every right thinking individual should guard against and protest at in the strongest possible terms.
And while the Scots brand of Nationalism cannot and should not be associated with such repulsive imagery, the same cannot be said of Campbell himself. Why else would he make such a comparison to Scotsman journalists, complete with a picture of said rats? It’s anathema to, and has no place in, the independence debate.
Such imagery, analogy and comparison would normally be condemned out of hand by any pluralistic democrat. But not by Campbell’s acolytes. One even commented: “…treat them with the desdain (sic) they deserve, as they are not worthy of anything but contempt.”?!
Another self-referential link in Campbell’s hate piece refers to the physical assault of Yes supporting octogenarian, James McMillan, who was attacked in the street some time ago by a middle aged women suffering from an apparent rush of blood to the head.
There’s no excuse for such attacks on anyone, never mind a fragile old man. What Campbell likes to ignore in the original story printed in the Edinburgh Evening News however, is that the attacker is reported to have stood looking shocked at the consequence of what she had done – instantly remorseful.
Instead, Campbell chose to refer to the incident as a ‘brutal attack‘ rather than provide a balanced sense of perspective. It wouldn’t suit his purposes to refer to it any other way.
Balanced reporting would inevitably impede Campbell’s intention to ‘incite through moral outrage’ – a classic extremist trick – a variation of the Hun pitchforking babies no less.
One of the few non-Wings cited links concerns Campbell’s attack on everyone’s love to hate figure, George Galloway. Campbell implies that Galloway and his idiosycnratic brand of sectarian scaremongering is part of the Better Together campaign.
Here’s a quote from the Spectator regarding their view on Galloway: “It is a reminder that for all nationalists complain about Unionist ‘scaremongering’, the official campaign is a pussy-cat when compared to Gorgeous George’s approach.”
Contrast and compare the above quote with Campbell’s froth. He raged: “But as an increasingly-desperate No campaign issues ever more shrill and incendiary allegations – the former Labour MP George Galloway is currently touring Scotland…”
The guilt by association – which doesn’t exist – is so transparent and easily debunked it’s embarrassing. It does expose, however, the mind set, pathology and driving philosophy behind Campbell’s site; othering, demonisation, obfuscation, guilt by tenuous association, polarisation and hatred.
Above all things though, Campbell wants his ‘side’ to be hated by the other side. He bluntly stated as such in a discussion forum he used to run, pre Wings, when he was still writing deeply meaningful treatises on the merits of the Metal Slug 7 videogame over Metal Slug 3 and whether owning a Metal Slug port ROM on CD is as good as possessing the original cart.
Exciting and crucial stuff for a man in his 40s, we* know!
This is what Campbell said: “It’s not enough just not to care what idiots think. I actively want idiots to hate me. I want the battle lines clearly drawn, and I don’t want fuckwits on my side.”
AhDinnaeKen would have linked to this insightful and fundamental philosophy but, following our* exposure of the ‘courageous’ Campbell as an alleged rape apologist, access to the forum has been strictly denied to everyone and anyone.
“The WoS forums are now closed. Thanks to everyone who visited over the years.” Wings acolytes could maybe ask Campbell why they* chose to close the forum. Scared of what else would be exposed? Some of it was pretty damn embarrassing.
We* could go on, but this piece is way too long already.
The main thrust of Campbell’s diatribe centres around what is fairly disturbing footage of an alleged SDL member haranguing and harrassing peacable Yes campaigners going about their business.
The links peppered throughout the running narrative attempts to build an idea of a sense of desperation from the ‘other side’ which will result in some kind of violence which is neatly encapsulated by the disturbing video posted to accompany the piece.
The plain and simple truth of the matter is that the individual involved in the video should have received a warning from the police and been moved on or have been arrested. It makes unpleasant watching/listening, but it’s no more than the tribal idiocy of the football terraces invading the streets.
It’s this type of thing that Campbell wants to see more of. He’ll revel in it it if it happens. It fuels his brand of polarising hate-preaching extremism.
The real irony of the whole hateful piece is that Campbell’s the same type as the alleged SDL chap, only Campbell chooses to remain indoors with his keyboard and his horde of rat friends.
The really sinister message of Campbell’s hate polemic resides in its last two lines:
“With no small measure of grim, dark irony, we call on all independence campaigners to turn the other cheek, to keep calm and to carry on.”
It’s so heavily laden with the fallacy of ‘accent’ as to be meaningless and completely open to the interpretation of the reader.
As Ian Smart so sagely said to Nationalist Twitter personality, Natalie McGarry the other day: “If the Nats don’t break with Wings then the only conclusion is that he is your agent. Hope the papers do you proper for it.”
Campbell’s shameful piece is a textbook example of why some of the more touchy feely Wings supporting Nationalists such as Junior Minister Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Angus MacNeil MP, Stewart Hosie MP and Joan McAlpine MSP, need to reappraise their support/endorsement of Wings Over Scotland.
If they don’t reappraise and distance themselves publicly, sooner rather than later, you can guarantee that the Nationalists will get a doing. Not a physical doing, which would only serve their cause, but a political and populist doing. In general, the Scots, like all Brits, don’t like extremists much and rail against their toxic brew.
The Nationalists, via the guiding hand of Alex Salmond, have done well to exploit devolution to the degree that they’ve managed to weasel a referendum out of it – despite having no real ‘people’s mandate’ so to speak.
But if they let a pathological loose cannon like Campbell seduce them into thinking that he’s anything other than a one man band, hate preaching, narcissistic polemicist with a grudge against the world for not having made him taller, then they’re in for a big surprise.