Book Review: Aurelien Mondon & Aaron Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy’ Verso 2020
INTRODUCTION by Heidi Svenson 4/7/22
As part of ongoing research into Matthew Feldman/Centre For Analysis of The Radical Right (see taster article elsewhere on this site), we have come across output by others just as poor. As (just) a sample, peruse this review by Dr Larry O’Hara of a recent book we thought would make a nice stand alone spin-off from the forthcoming magazine article. Not least because we guess these experts find research a tiresome distraction from Twitter. Bless! For those who can’t concentrate easily there is a cartoon at the end: though the Catch 22 is you will only appreciate it if you read the review…We’re nice like that. As usual, we offer an uncensored (aside from racism/libel) right of reply to the three august Doctors mentioned. Enjoy: and there’ll be lots more where this is coming from. Promise!
REVIEW: Aurelien Mondon & Aaron Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy: How Racism And The Populist Far Right Became Mainstream’ Verso 2020 £16.99
Larry O’Hara
HIGH STANDARDS SET
Dr Aurelien Mondon is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Bath University and Dr Aaron Winter soon to be a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Lancaster University. These authors set high research standards for others in Far Right studies and, presumably therefore, themselves. In their joint words elsewhere “we are not arguing against newcomers, but against poor academic practice, often undertaken by senior colleagues, which not only does no due diligence to the field but also crowds it with poor research” [1]. Without, of course, giving names there: that would hardly help career progression.
SOME USEFUL POINTS
This co-authored book is a keynote contribution by Mondon/Winter, hereafter usually termed M/W for short. Some interesting points are made, such as the conceptualisation of ‘liberal’ (mainstream) and ‘illiberal’ (far right) racism [2]. M/W provide a passable explanation of how Nigel Farage and UKIP crowded out the BNP’s political space, albeit taking Farage’s typical bombastic self-praise too seriously [3]. They also make the valid (if unoriginal) point that Far Right parties and ideas can be influential even if the parties themselves are not doing well electorally [4]. While coming out with the usual Remoaner complaints about Brexit, telling us that the “vote for Brexit…marked a new level in the resurgence and rise of Far Right politics” [5], M/W nonetheless later quote data admitting that in the period 2005-16 and “even during 2016” the main issues for the electorate were “rising prices, with immigration appearing consistently among the issues of least concern” [6]. Quite. Some statements are true but so commonplace as to be banal, such as announcing “as history has shown time and again, rights have rarely been bestowed; they have had to be seized” [7]. Other aspects of the book are mystifying—such as the emphasis on abstention rates in elections throughout, even though M/W admit that in the UK no studies on abstention at scale have been undertaken at all [8]. So, obtaining inferences from such non-activity about political views and allegiances is futile, unless they are proposing to undertake such research themselves. But they aren’t. Nonetheless, M/W draw (evidentially useless) conclusions from abstention anyway.
FACT BLINDNESS
Useful aspects of the book do not make up for grievous problems therein. M/W suffer from fact blindness when stating “attacks seemingly conducted in the name of Islam have generally come to be treated as automatically terrorist in nature. Extreme right attacks meanwhile…have been portrayed as the acts of mad or bad individuals, or as freak incidents” [9]. Really? Is that how Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant have been portrayed? I think not. Nor was Finsbury Park Mosque attacker Darren Osborne [10]. And how does that fit with the proscription of Neo-Nazi National Action and similar in the UK, not mentioned in the book of course? The Counter Terrorism Policing website is also full of Far Right cases. While they describe themselves as ‘terrorism experts’ are Mondon and Winter even aware of this? [11]. They surely are, but think referring to such might be a touch empirical: whereas they are in the polemic business. And is reference to attacks “seemingly conducted in the name of Islam” meant to imply they aren’t (in the eyes of perpetrators)? If not, what might be the attacker’s motivations? Criminal, psychological, what? Or are M/W insinuating ‘false flag’ operations? Who knows: suspect they neither know nor care.
THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM? M/W REINVENT MARTIN LUTHER KING
M/W speak negatively about people they don’t like ‘appropriating’ Martin Luther King’s famous quote, that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”. For M/W “this turns King’s claim on its head, placing the blame for racism on black people, as they apparently refuse to let go of the past, identity politics, racialized thinking and even hatred of white people” [12]. No proof is given of any appropriation actually doing that, therefore it must be treated as fiction. Indeed for King this statement wasn’t a claim, but an aspiration, and can in no way be construed by these (mythical) appropriators as ‘blaming’ black people for racism, that is absurd: and more to the point M/W do not produce any instance of the quote being misused this. Anyway, did not MLK mean this dream to inspire people of all colours? M/W seem to think not, only some (approved by them, who are in fact rather white anyway) are allowed to share it. Sad.
THE PRIVILEGED WHITE WORKING CLASS?
M/W criticise a book on ‘National Populism’ in their view “based on selective use of data and sources, which ignores much of the literature on the topic which would refute its core argument” [13]. Consider, with this in mind, M/W’s use of a 2016 Equality and Human Rights Commission Report into poverty and unemployment, which found (I do not dispute the data) that 35.7% of ethnic minorities were in poverty, as against 17.2% of whites, and 12.9% were unemployed, as opposed to 6.3% of whites. Clear evidence of racial discrimination, certainly. However, at this point other relevant statistics need looking at, to get a fuller picture. According to the government’s Office For National Statistics, in 2016 (date of the EHRC Report), looking at the population’s ethnic breakdown (white 84.2%/ethnic minorities 14.6%) this would translate to 5,212,200 in poverty from ethnic minorities, and 11,482,400 whites, with 1,883,400 ethnic minority unemployed, and 5,304,600 whites [14]. In both respects, these figures are liable to understate the problems, since some ethnic minorities (Asians) are likely to fare better than others, and equally working class whites are more likely to be unemployed (and in poverty) than middle and upper class whites. The main fact to grasp here though, is that using readily available data, and without denying for one minute racial discrimination, over 11 million whites were in poverty and more than 5 million unemployed. In this context, should such people ever read the book’s claim that “being white will place them in a more favourable situation than people of colour structurally” [15] it might at best produce a wry smile. Which would probably disappear should they further read that “the construction of a ‘white working class’ is therefore a displacement of rightful anger in the form of a struggle in which the enemy is defined only by race, ethnicity or foreign nationality, rather than by class” [16]. If by this is meant the working class is not only white, fair enough: but it is as reprehensible to imply there is no white working class who can and do suffer disadvantage as it is to deny that ethnic minority members of the working class are disadvantaged too. Events such as the disgraceful war by the state against the miners in the 1984/5 strike, and the police cover-up after the 1989 Hillsborough disaster both involved largely white working class people, did they not? Perhaps Mondon and Winter might undertake a sight-seeing tour round still devastated former pit villages and mining towns, informing the (mainly) white residents how privileged they are? If so, I suggest bodyguards and a very fast car….Clearly, these authors have spent too long in their ivory towers of elite privilege to understand things such as this, and using only percentages to describe relative disadvantage is a cheap trick that may fool many readers, but not this one, and I charge them here with the very selective use of data M/W affect to dislike in others. This matters especially because by de facto denying the existence of non-privileged white working class members M/W evidently have no interest in understanding or responding to their concerns, much less advancing their interests. Hardly an effective anti-racist strategy. Though I suspect that bothers them not in the slightest.
CHARLIE HEBDO: LEGITIMATE TARGETS?
Failing to understand the contours of class is one thing, however M/W sink even lower. They criticise supporters of Charlie Hebdo magazine in France, where Islamists murdered 12 in 2015, as having a “racist rationale…from the left in particular”, informing us “the publication and defence of the cartoons had little to do with freedom of speech, it was yet another attack on Islam”. Could it not in fact have been both? Supporters are castigated as people who “failed to acknowledge the relative power (or powerlessness) of various targets” [17]. There is merely passing reference to a “horrendous attack”, but not the honesty to admit the 12 murdered and 11 injured were actual human powerless ‘targets’. M/W also do not see fit to mention a third member of the cell that attacked Charlie Hebdo, Amedy Coulibaly, having murdered black female police officer Clarissa Jean-Philippe on the same day (very anti-racist, not) shot dead four in a Jewish supermarket three days later [18]. The cell clearly thought that to be Jewish (and powerless unarmed shoppers/staff) was sufficient to become a target: but as this attack does not fit the books skewed narrative, like the Hebdo casualty figures, it is omitted. While M/W might rightly say there was no need in this book to dwell on the Charlie Hebdo affair as this is not a book about Islamism, that won’t wash. Certainly, Marine Le Pen used the attacks to further her racist cause. However it is M/W who have casually and disgracefully impugned the memory of those victims by hurling the “racist rationale” slur at their supporters: “from the left in particular” and indeed those slain, by clear inference. Or do M/W want us to believe all supporters had a “racist rationale” but Charlie Hebdo staff and visitors didn’t? Further, Jewish shoppers/staff weren’t irrelevant ‘collateral damage’, but ideologically seen by these attackers as ‘legitimate’ targets.
ABOVE IS MUSLIM PC AHMED MERABET, A GENUINELY POWERLESS TARGET MURDERED IN THE CHARLIE HEBDO ATTACK
FRONT NATIONALE/NATIONAL RALLY: RATHER POOR
Turning to Far Right coverage, apparently an area the authors specialise in, matters barely improve. There is a persistent tendency to downplay such success as the Far Right has had, perhaps partly because it provides cover for a total lack of reference to primary sources (except a few US ones). The authors cast their net so wide as to miss the specificity of fascism, and even more so Nazism. As they state in a contribution elsewhere “we do not consider the mainstream and far right as tangible and definite categories, and instead see them as contingent, evolving and with fuzzy borders. Today’s mainstream could be tomorrow’s far right and vice versa” [19]. While true in some places, at some moments, this formulation is simultaneously too loose and too didactic to inform rigorous research. Though by now you will appreciate rigorous research is hardly the most salient feature of this academic circus act…To be precise, M/W are disinclined to explore the subterranean complexity of Far Right ideas as this might complicate their essentially propagandistic approach to the subject. There is lurking here an almost conspiratorial mind-set, even though M/W deny they are conspiracy theorists [20] hinted at in the statement that “central to our argument is the claim that the concept of illiberal racism (and with it both the extreme right and far right) is not an autonomous ahistorical form, but a contingent and functional one that allows liberal societies to represent themselves as post-racist” [21]. The key word here is functional—in other words, serving a purpose, which implies a controlling agency or group/coalition. And inasmuch as M/W concede the white working class exist, they are presumably deemed complicit as ‘privileged’—just a pity nobody has told the 11 million in poverty/5 million unemployed….
M/W’s treatment of the French Front Nationale, since 2018 rebranded National Rally, shows them desperate to understate FN/RN electoral gains. Thus “the Front Nationale has not gone from strength to strength, but rather has benefitted from its opponent’s failures” [22]. Do they not understand this is how politics works, parties gain as much (if not more) from opponent’s perceived failings than their own actions? Having gutted his party of socialists, this (Tory implosion under Johnson) is surely Keir Starmer’s only hope of power, is it not? In the period covered by the book, FN/RN increased their Presidential vote from 16.86% in 2012 to 33.9% in 2017, this last share laughably derided by MW as “fewer than 11 million voters” [23]. While thankfully (from an anti-fascist perspective) RN only obtained 17.3% of the vote in the June 2022 National Assembly elections, they now have 89 members when in 2012 they had two, in 2017 8. Another disturbing fact is that in the 2022 Presidential Election second round, Marine Le Pen’s vote further increased to 41.5% from 33.9%. If that is a trajectory of failure, one wonders what the authors think success might look like.
THE BRITISH FAR RIGHT: LITTLE BETTER
Lack of reference to any primary source whatsoever means, unsurprisingly, the books coverage of the British Far Right is superficial. Coming from two authors resident in the UK and employed at British Universities, a worrying state of affairs. If you are not reading Far Right literature regularly (or at all) you can hardly claim expertise in the subject, yet the potential danger of fascism is too serious a subject for bluffers pretending they are knowledgeable. Entirely understandable from activists, but not from those professing expertise. They tell us that when Nick Griffin’s BNP used a Spitfire in a 2009 European Election campaign poster he faced “near universal condemnation” [24], which doesn’t quite square with the BNP’s best-ever vote of 943,000 (an increase of 120,000) resulting in two MEPs being elected. Does “near universal” mean not just Guardian readers but University Sociology, Politics and Criminology Departments plus BBC Radio 4 listeners too, one wonders? Speaking of the BNP’s formation they tell us John Tyndall “was persuaded to create a new organisation by an anti-fascist who had infiltrated the scene and hoped to divide the extreme right even further” [25]. Absolute poppycock: Tyndall set up the New National Front, which later became the BNP, because the NF would not accept his version of the Fuhrer Princip, which he took the opportunity to advance as the NF was reeling from its poor 1979 General Election showing [26]. That is what all primary sources point to, not some hare-brained scheme [27]. Though I forget: M/W don’t do primary sources, do they? It is reasonable to infer (though no reference given) the supposed anti-fascist infiltrator is the late unlamented racist and anti-Semitic thug Ray Hill, chief claim to fame preventing a (fictional) Notting Hill bomb plot [28]. Oh dear…
In a possible pre-emptive attempt to deflect criticism from evidence-light research, M/W complain elsewhere “when dealing with ethnographic research and its representation researchers who belong to target groups and do not share a privileged identity with the activists may not get the same access and, if they do, may experience added risk” [29]. Valid regarding interviews and similar: but not as regards obtaining and reading Far Right literature (whether in print or on-line) by people claiming expertise.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHER KINGS IN WAITING?
The books rhetoric is at times stirring, indeed ends with the clarion call “democracy must be anti-racist, as it must be anti-sexist and anti-classist, and against any and every form of oppression and where they interest. Any less is cowardly. Any less is reactionary” [30]. Leaving in abeyance exactly what ‘anti-classism’ is, what is their alternative you might ask? Easier to say what it is not. After dissing opinion polls, M/W tell us the “question this raises is whether a democracy can be limited simply to majoritarian elections when it is clear that the majorities concerned base their decisions on limited questions and skewed ideologically loaded knowledge in a deeply inegalitarian setting, in which conservative hegemonic voices conduct most of the public discourse” [31]. If they were proposing to replace representative democracy with genuine organs of popular power as envisaged in the original Soviets or by Council Communists such as early Gramsci, Karl Korsch, Anton Pannekoek or Cornelius Castoriadis I might be sympathetic. But of course, they aren’t, just yet again moaning about Brexit.
Allied to disdain for free speech (large sections of the book consist of name-calling, though not intellectually engaging with, authors they dislike [32]) M/W’s real agenda resembles nothing so much as Plato’s advocacy of rule by philosopher kings, or in their case tenured academics. As Plato put it (though not on Twitter) “there will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed…of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands” [33]. Should you doubt M/W’s essentially elitist anti-democratic stance, consider this airy dismissal: “while parties such as Syriza, Podemos, France Insoumise, and even Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and the movement of support for Bernie Sanders within the US Democratic Party, have been called populist and presented as a threat in most of the mainstream media, these alternative movements have in fact offered moderate reforms within the hegemonic system, rather than proposing a real challenge to the status quo” [34]. How grateful we should be, that these omniscient academic philosopher kings deign to inform us that all these movements by virtue of their programmatic deficiencies and being termed populist have been “immediately and irredeemably tarnished” [35]. Having excoriated diverse actual movements, who, despite limitations, are trying to change things, the books exhortations are just useless hot air, as in the injunction that “we must understand racism as part of a broader system of oppression which cannot be divorced from emancipatory struggles regarding class, gender and all forms of injustice” [36]. Struggles advanced by who exactly, given the Left have been peremptorily excluded as “irredeemably tarnished”? Perhaps selected Sociology and Criminology Post-Graduates in an ESRC funded joint enterprise supervised by Mondon & Winter? That would be fun.
THE ‘VERY EXPERT’ MARIA W NORRIS
ABOLITIONIST OR NOT?
A further illustration of poor research into the far right is provided by a Dr Maria W Norris (Assistant Professor at Coventry University no less), who agreed with a Mondon Tweet criticising “the bandwagon effect in Far Right studies”. She stated “this is true, especially when the scholarship produced downplays the threat or talks about desecuritizing it” [37]. Desecuritization, a current buzzword, refers to removing classification of the Far Right (or other political actors) as a security threat: in other words, she thinks police and security services should not drop their guard. A point of view, certainly, however it must be asked, what does Norris really believe? Just two months before the above Tweet an episode of her podcast ‘Enemies of the People’ contrasted Norris’ views with interviewee Paul Mason: “Paul believes you need to work within existing structures and unleash the power of the law to deal with fascism, while I am an abolitionist, meaning I believe that oppressive systems such as law enforcement and the prison-industrial complex are part of the problem not part of the solution” [38]. That would logically mean she disagrees with securitization of anybody, including the Far Right would it not? For surely an abolitionist would not approve of ‘oppressive’ police either investigating or subsequently incarcerating anybody convicted in the ‘prison-industrial complex’? As to the nature of modern fascism, Norris believes Boris Johnson “is engaging in fascist politics” [39], which aside from idiocy raises a question: by occupying an academic post as she does, is not Norris legitimising a fascist government? The podcast with Mason has now been removed (cancelled) [40]. His own output and slightly preposterous book will be looked at later on this site.
TERRORISM AS A RACIAL LABEL? HARDLY
When it comes to National Action Norris displays her embarrassing lack of knowledge, one Tweet asking “Why is the [terrorist] label so selectively applied? Because terrorism is a racial label, defined as a problem of the racialized other” [41]. Undoubtedly true that most of the 92 organisations currently proscribed as ‘terrorist’ in the UK emanate from overseas (and are mostly non-white, N17 excepted), but misleading historically. For the Prevention of Terrorism Act was first passed in 1974 to outlaw the IRA, a rather white organisation. Indeed, Special Branch was founded in 1883 precisely to combat what would now be called Irish Republican Terrorism. 14 currently proscribed (and also largely white) organisations such as the INLA/UVF etc. are concerned with Irish/Ulster matters, and were all proscribed before any overseas group. Furthermore, as pointed out by Professor Clive Walker in an annex to the 2018 ‘Annual Report on Operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2016’ numerous groups overseas are proscribed “primarily to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism” [42], many bans relating to obscure groups with no base or discernible activity in the UK. To simplistically see the inclusion of such groups as ‘racist’ therefore, is misplaced. Thus, the Norris claim ‘terrorism is a racial label’ is plain wrong, though will certainly do her career prospects no harm.
LA-LA LAND RESEARCH…
Norris compounded the above category error by making this astounding claim (in 2021) “the murder of Jo Cox by a Right-Wing Extremist has not led to any action on right wing extremism by the government”. Indeed, there is “a question that keeps me up at night: if they didn’t act when an extremist killed an MP in broad daylight, then what will it take?” [43]. Troubling indeed: though might I suggest as a cure for insomnia this expert actually does some research? As recently as a Tweet dated 17/6/22 Norris again claimed “virtually nothing was done in response to Cox’s murder”. To calm nerves, perhaps Norris’ research could start with the banning of National Action (NA) as a terrorist organisation, which not only happened after Jo Cox’s murder, but was directly related to it: quoting from the Home Office Order announcing proscription “National Action…promoted and encouraged acts of terrorism after Jo Cox’s murder….The Home Secretary took the decision to proscribe National Action prior to the trial of Thomas Mair, who was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Jo Cox MP” [44]. NA successor groups were also banned including NS131 and Scottish Dawn, and there have been to date trials of 20 people for NA membership: resulting in convictions and imprisonment for the vast majority. It makes you wonder what planet Norris lives on, where facts and history are clearly irrelevant. It is all about grand hyperbolic statements (for which Twitter is ideal) such as “the language of white supremacist terror is the language of our society, and this is why the governments of the US and the UK are utterly unable to tackle far right extremism: they cannot see it as a threat” [45]. Really? Predictably, Norris Tweeted no comment at all when NA co-founder Alex Davies was sentenced to 8.5 years on 7/6/22, as clearly not fitting the La-La Land narrative that passes for her idea of research. Responding to a leak of the Shawcross Report on the Prevent Anti-Terrorist Strategy in May 2022, Norris, now self-described as possessing a “very expert opinion” (so not just expert) believed the “idea that the UK focusses too much on right-wing terrorism is laughable”, and insinuated Shawcross (an undoubted long-term opponent of Islamism) adheres to the ‘Great Replacement Theory’, which is perhaps even libellous [46]. According to her web-site, Norris “has been featured on TV shows such as BBC Newsnight due to her expertise on extremism” [47]. Which says as much about Newsnight as Norris. A frightening thought to end though: students are paying good money/accumulating debt hoping to learn from her wisdom and research techniques [48].
SHORT CONCLUSION
Much more could be said of the Mondon/Winter/Norris show, but enough for now. It is nonetheless a pity reputable Leftist publisher Verso brought out this book, but that is the zeitgeist I suppose. Lewis Carroll (and John Tenniel) would surely have a view: see below….
REFERENCES
[1] In ‘Researching The Far Right’ edited by Stephen D Ashe et al Routledge 2021 p.380.
[2] Aurelien Mondon and Aaron Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy: How Racism And The Populist Far Right Became Mainstream’ (Verso 2020) p.19
[3] ibid. p.43-6
[4] ibid. p.120, see also p.144
[5] ibid. p.1, see also p.140
[6] ibid. p.159
[7] ibid. p.118
[8] ibid. p.165, abstention covered especially p.165-9/180-81/188
[9] ibid. p.20-21
[10] See Finsbury Park terror attack: Victim remembered on fifth anniversary – BBC News and also Speech by Sue Hemming, CPS Head of Counter Terrorism, at the National Security Summit, London, 25 October 2017 | The Crown Prosecution Service and Finsbury Park accused Darren Osborne appears at Old Bailey | UK news | The Guardian
[11] Counter Terrorism Policing | Home
[12] ‘Reactionary Democracy’ p.65-66
[13] ibid. p.101-2
[14] Data used to calculate taken from Population Estimates for UK Mid 2016, release date 22/6/17, also ‘Change over time in admin-based ethnicity statistics, England: 2016 to 2020’, both at www.ons.gov.uk
[15] Mondon/Winter op. cit. p.63
[16] ibid. p.174
[17] ibid. p.76
[18] On all this see The Guardian 10/1/15
[19] In Stephen D Ashe (ed.) ‘Researching The Far Right’ Routledge 2021 p.371
[20] Mondon/Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy’ p.151
[21] Ibid. p.49
[22] ibid. p.40
[23] Ibid. p.137, see also p.38
[24] Ibid. p.41
[25] Ibid. p.42
[26] See my piece in Lobster 23 (Hull) June 1992 p.15-19 on this period
[27] For the general malaise within the NF as viewed from an internal (Tory racist) position, see the NF Constitutional Movement ‘Principles & Practices’ document, fronted by Andrew Fountaine dated 16/11/79, then in sequence: John Tyndall Circular to NF Regional and Branch Organisers 5/1/80, NF Directorate Minutes 19/1/80, Stop Press Addition to Jan/Feb 1980 NF Members Bulletin, further Tyndall Circular to NF Regional and Branch Organisers 2/2/80, NF Directorate Minutes 29/3/80, NF Executive Council Resolution 28/4/80, Tyndall Circular ‘Help Us Save The National Front’ June 1980 and finally special issue (140 June 1980) of Spearhead magazine ‘John Tyndall Launches the New National Front’. Not an exhaustive source-list, but a good start.
[28] See my ‘Searchlight For Beginners’ (1996) p.13-16 on Hill generally [available from the shop on this site], and a bit more detail on the Notting Hill fantasy in Lobster issue 24 (Hull) 1992 p.17-18
[29] In Stephen D Ashe (ed.) ‘Researching The Far Right’ Routledge 2021 p.379
[30] Mondon/Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy’ p.209
[31] Ibid. p.162.
[32] Ibid. 82-91/97-103
[33] Plato ‘The Republic’ [c.380 BC] 1955 Penguin edition p.233
[34] ‘Reactionary Democracy’ p.197
[35] Ibid. p.196
[36] Ibid. p.208
[37] Both Tweets dated 29/4/22, @MariaWNorris account
[38] ‘Enemies of the People’ podcast Episode 22 1/3/22
[39] Ibid.
[40] MariaWNorris Tweet 8/6/22. This because of his emails/conspiracy map featured on the inimitable Gray-zone web-site showing Mason enthusiastically incorporates such racial stereotypes as ‘The Black Community’ and ‘The Muslim Community’ into his paranoid ravings. See https://thegrayzone.com/2022/06/13/paul-masons-collusion-british-intelligence-agent/, the first in a highly entertaining series of revelations about Mason’s antics.
[41] MariaWNorris Tweet 13/8/21
[42] Annex 2 para 1.4 to the 2016 Report by Max Hill, published January 2018
[43] MariaWNorris Tweet 13/8/21
[44] ‘National Action Becomes first extreme right-wing group to be banned in UK’ www.gov.uk 16/12/16
[45] MariaWNorris Tweet 15/5/22
[46] MariaWNorris Tweet 16/5/22
[47] Mariawnorris.com/bio accessed 5/5/22
[48] for a mere £9,250 per year or £15,300 if from overseas. Bargain?
About The Author
