One of the key justifications offered by Vladimir Putin for his invasion of Ukraine was that the country had come under the spell of Nazis and had to be “denazified”. We know of course neo-Nazi groups have been active in Ukraine and extreme right-wing parties have had some support in elections. But just a few percentage points. This is why at the start those claims sounded like typical hollow propaganda, a weak and flimsy justification for the invasion.
An article this week by Timofei Sergeitsev, translated from RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned news agency, sheds new light on the proposed denazification and what it really means. Reading this, one is simply at loss for words.
The article is titled “What Russia Should Do with Ukraine” and the author starts by claiming the denazification of Ukraine is inevitable and has now moved to “the practical level”. He says a significant part of the population, and probably the majority, have become Nazis. He then goes on to lay out the plan. First, Nazis must be destroyed on the battlefield, and the author makes no distinction between the Ukrainian army and independent armed groups – all are Nazis. Next comes the punishment of “active Nazis”, and remember this includes the whole Ukrainian military, and the punishment should be “exemplary” and “demonstrable”; thinking about what that might mean sends a chill down one‘s spine.
But this is not all. Sergeitsev claims a large portion of the population are “passive Nazis”. What should be done with them then? The methods proposed are “re-education, which is achieved by ideological repression (suppression) of Nazi attitudes and severe censorship: not only in the political sphere, but necessarily also in the sphere of culture and education”. Even the country‘s name must be eradicated. This is expected to take a generation.
The article claims Ukraine is “impossible as a nation-state” for it will always descend into Nazism. Furthermore, denazification essentially means de-Europeanisation. In other words, Europeans in general are Nazis.
There is something about the kind of claims made in this article that reminds one of the propaganda against European Jews in the 19th and early 20th century – the smearing of an entire people via vague and crass generalisations. One can only wonder what would happen to those who would not yield to the “re-education” and “ideological repression”. We all know what happened to the Jews and other undesirable groups in Europe in the 1940s, to the Bosnian Muslims and the Tutsi of Rwanda in the early 1990s, just to name a few examples of where our ever-present inclination towards branding and exclusion, based on nationality, race, culture or beliefs, can lead.
Since the start of the war, I have been very sceptical of the more radical claims regarding Putin‘s intentions in Ukraine. But in the context of his speeches, the way the war has played out, and the fact this article has been published by a state-owned news agency, it is difficult not to conclude the views expressed are at least not contrary to the views of the authorities. And if so, events such as the destruction of Mariupol and the massacre in Bucha are easier to understand.
It can be seen from the comments on the original article that about two thirds of the commenters disapprove of Sergeitsev‘s article while a third approve. This might be an indication of the acceptance of the author‘s views. If a third of Russians approve of not only invading a neighbouring country, but eradicating it; ruining its culture, heritage and even its name, this tells us things are much worse than one would have suspected. I have sought reactions from friends in Russia and with ties to Russia in order to better understand how popular this view is. I will finish by quoting of one of them: “Russia is not a monolith. But yes, there are enough Russians who believe Ukraine doesn’t deserve to exist as a state.”
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an economist who lives in Iceland. Find him on his blog.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“The 61-year-old ‘Ngozi Fulani’ was previously Marlene Headley. She describes herself as “of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality””
Ah, so she herself recognises that the question “Where are you from” has more than one answer, or that the answer can be complex.
“Where are you from?” Where’s your ancestry from? Not a.. “oh, thanks for asking” but a.. “how dare you”.
If I’m completely off the mark I apologise to all involved, I wasn’t there so we’re only witnessing hearsay but on the totality of the accusations it feels like a case of misunderstanding or just another witch hunt. Point being I doubt there was any malice or evil intent – but mustn’t let that get in the way of a good witch hunt by the wolves of wokery with little regard for consequences. Consequences? What are those?
She describes herself as “of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality””
As a sentence, this means roughly I’m African except I’m not, because I’m Caribbean except I’m not because I’m British except I’m not or, worded slightly differently, I‘m neither African nor Caribbean nor British (but I’m trans-African, trans-Caribbean and trans-British!) As Theresa May once aptly put it: Citizen of nowhere. Ubi bene, ibi patria in Latin.
The non-lady recognises that she doesn’t want to answer such a question because her identity exists on a spectrum: She prefers to appear as someone different at different times and in different circumstances, depending on what seems most convenient at the moment. Calling her African means you’re a racist, calling a Caribbean as well and – of course – also calling her British as this implictly denies all her other so-called roots.
Sums it up nicely. Basically best not to speak to people like her at all – just avoid them or listen without saying anything – or tell them to f*** off. No point trying to engage in any kind of sincere way – she’s clearly a professional wind-up merchant.
Partially, I was trying to make fun of woke speech codes here (on a spectrum) but there was also serious message: Someone who claims that he is an Afro-Caribbean-Brit really just says the he’s neither African nor Caribbean nor British.
A mongrel, then.
Just like me, with my British, Irish and Indian blood.
But if anyone is daft enough to ask further, I am quite good at recounting the key points of my genealogy and the influence of the British Raj. Enough to send many into a deep sleep.
Maybe a mongrel as well, but that’s tangential point: This is – in line with the woke paradigm – about claimed identities and based on a logical principle called tertiam non datur (a third one hasn’t been provided), namely, that for any property A, everything is either A or not A. Assuming a second property B, a mixture of 50% A and 50% B falls into the group of neither A nor B. Someone who claims he’s an African Brit claims that he distinct from both Non-Brit Africans and Non-African Brits and that he thinks this distinction is important. Hence, the claim is really I want to emphasize that I’m neiter African[*] nor British.
[*] This is already a nonsense-classification. While there are – courtesy to colonial mangling – no real African nations, there are most certainly African tribes (protoform of a nation). If the lady can’t name her’s, her claimed African heritage has obviously been lost and/or she doesn’t really care that much about it.
It seems there was no attempt by the palace to calm things down, to get a balanced and objective view of the incident, to settle the matter with minimal damage, just a knee jerk response from William to throw his godmother under the bus with Charles’s blessing. No, the woke idol demands immediate human sacrifice without the benefit of sound judgement or scrutiny. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. I wonder what other palace employees will make of this thoughtless treatment of its staff, and does William still have a godmother?
I was prepared to give the King the benefit of the doubt upon his coronation. But this takes the biscuit. The entire family appear to be paralysed with abject fear. What kind of message have they sent to the staff and courtiers of the royal household if this is what 62 years of dedicated service gets you?
They will need a new health and safety plan at Buckingham Palace after this, because there will be a stampede for the exits by the staff if anyone is spotted who might be vaguely connected with any place outside the home counties.
Again, it seems, we have a divisive issue fuelled by the media and the powers that be. It is almost irrelevant what the initial issue is.
What happens in these situations is that the weaker of the two opposing sides is supported. This prolongs and amplifies some minor issue into a major issue, causing polarisation.
As long as the population can be kept divided amongst itself, the powerful can extend their reach and control.
Lady Hussey was probably just wondering if Marlene knew where she was from. She’s talking to Ngozi but also Marlene who was born in London but of Caribbean heritage who’s adopted a made up African tribal name & dresses like an extra from Coming To America. I’d be curious too.
The comment I made yesterday seems just as relevant:
If I was Susan Hussey I would have told Willy Windsor to sling his firkin hook.
First she was sacked and then told to give the fake slave an apology. Loyalty has its boundaries and the Windsor mob are overstepping them marvellously.
Keep it up you lot and we’ll soon have shut of the lot of you.
Although I’m speculating, perhaps Lady Hussey has spent much time in Africa with Royal Tours with The Queem, or meeting Africans here. Perhaps she has been schooled on etiquette and tribal matters, and faced with someone who at best could be a hotchpotch fake, realised that she was looking at a poor approximation of an African.
Its a shameful episode for William who seems not to have inherited any of his Grandmothers or Grandfathers better traits. I had hoped that with the crown on his head Charles might turn out to have a backbone of steel after all. I am disappointed, but not surprised.
I seriously doubt the lady of unclear heritage and no nationality beyond what seems most convenient at the moment has the necessary wiring in her head to ever become genuinely offended or distressed by anything. She’s just parroting lines she got from elsewhere. Same goes for the so-called royals — all just playing fixed parts in a public comedy called Racist Britain!!1
A shameful spectacle.
Modern race categorisations stem from a Victorian pseudo-science (which in turn finds its origins (!) in Charles Darwin’s a / immoral social-biological theorising).
It is no more empirically valid to seek to divide a near infinitely varied humanity up into neat biological boxes with identifiable characteristics than it is to try to ascribe human causes to the near infinitely varied, changeable and complex earth climatic system.
Furthermore far from being an intrinsically neutral and purely observational system as its proponents claim scientific racism is intrinsically ‘racist’ in the pejorative sense; nobody ever ascribes negative characteristics to their own (imaginary) race, just those of others.
When you then further reduce the whole thing down to terms like ‘black’ and ‘white’ (neither of which of course exist in the real world) you are into truly fantastical realms.
Having said all that, and especially in the context of the Daily Sceptic and the pursuit of free speech / thinking versus tyranny it is important to recognise that adult individuals have the right to buy into whatever theories (no matter how irrational) they choose, as long as they don’t use them to engage in or promote violence or other forms of actual oppression over others.
Anti-racist legislation in these areas is both wildly muddled and directly harmful because it seeks to police thoughts and behaviour without even beginning to address the underlying issue – the complete delusion and intrinsic negativity of arbitrarily dividing human beings up into sectarian groupings based on appearance and skin colour.
Turning to the case at hand, Lady Susan Hussey made no biological references whatsoever, so on the basis of this evidence cannot be accused of even buying into the concept of racial categorisations (which the vast majority still do) never mind racism in a pejorative sense. Asking someone where they are from, especially if they are wearing unusual and geographically specific clothing, is simply a standard of polite small talk (along the same lines of asking someone wearing a football top which team they play for).
On the other hand Ngozi Fulani has devoted her entire career to promoting the harmful racial / ‘black’ ‘white’ sectarian divide.
She chose to change her name from Marlene Headley to an African one as well as to wear African attire to emphasise separateness, her (now suspended) domestic violence organisation Sistah Space refuses to help females with pale skin colour, and in the episode with Lady Hussey the racism was solely in one direction:
Ngozi claimed to have been mistreated based purely on the colour of Susan Hussey’s skin – there is no chance that she would have claimed that someone with darker skin tone asking the same perfectly polite question was being racist.
So taking all this into account, and as was well pointed out in the article, the treatment of this elderly lady by the palace, large sections of the media, political establishment etc has been disgraceful.
The site of her having to publicly recant her imaginary sin / thought crime and promise to re-educate herself in front of her imaginary victim really did bring Nazi, Soviet and Maoist confessional show trials to mind.
I largely agree. However while race is somewhat arbitrary and grey and a spectrum, I think trying to argue that it doesn’t exist or that it is meaningless/insignificant doesn’t really wash. What % of elite 100m runners in the last few decades come from a fairly small part of Africa, genetically speaking? Of course all of this is generalisations, doesn’t mean they are not valid. How useful they are is a different matter. Nobody thinks it’s about “skin colour”. It’s about DNA.
There is no doubt whatsoever that environment plays a role in human biology – darker skin is associated with more sunlight and vice versa, as you pointed out living at a high altitude can give an advantage in long distance running (re Kenya especially) etc.
But looking at the latter it is still only a tiny percentage of the relevant population who are able to become world class athletes, and it is the sort of pseudo-scientific generalising out to ‘Africans tend to be good marathon runners’ which is the problem.
Even more so when even more tendentious and discriminatory terms such as ‘intelligence’ start to creep in. There is no need for or benefit in group categorising whatsoever.
Re “Nobody thinks it’s about “skin colour”. It’s about DNA.”
In fact in the contemporary scene a formerly quite complex (though still unscientific) system has been reduced down to the dualistic concepts of ‘black’ and ‘white’ (with an occasional nod to ‘Asian’) which are entirely meaningless, but hugely divisive and conflict-inducing terms – as a glance at the history books shows.
Far from trying to slot human beings into boxes we should celebrate true diversity – ie individuality, and in terms of outward appearance every skin shade from deep ebony to palest pink.
To bring things back on topic, without these imaginary categorisations Lady Susan Hussey would not have been ignominiously thrown on the scrap heap in her eighties (incidentally I am no supporter of the monarchical system and am just talking on the sympathetic human level here).
I think you’ll find it’s the race hustlers and people who say it’s a social construct that go on the most about “black” and “white”.
As far as categorising goes, that’s what scientists do, isn’t it? As for the benefits, I am not qualified to judge. Studying stuff and observing reality seem to cause problems, but are those problems the result of the study or how some people react to it?
To be honest I am not sure what branch of modern science dealing with the concept of ‘race’ that you are referring to. Please let me know what it is called, and what the (attempted) current racial categorisations consist of.
In any case all that is really just out of my own interest, the subject at hand is the current personal, political and ideological ramifications of the near universal acceptance (ie not just by ‘race hustlers’) of the concepts of ‘black’ and ‘white’ which are clearly so imprecise and wildly generalised to rule out any attempted claims for scientific validity.
And it is this sort of pseudo-scientific sectarianism which is at the centre of the issues discussed in the article
I don’t know what the branch(es) are called but I have seen extracts from papers they produce.
There are some broad categorisations of “racial/ethnic groups” used in different countries that show some consistency in various metrics – educational and economic achievement. Some people point to those as evidence of “systemic racism”. Prove that they are not.
Re “There are some broad categorisations of “racial/ethnic groups” used in different countries that show some consistency in various metrics – educational and economic achievement. Some people point to those as evidence of “systemic racism”. Prove that they are not.”
There is no doubt whatsoever that people frequently discriminate for and against each other for all sorts of reasons, including outward appearance, and that can affect the sorts of outcomes pointed to here.
But this sort of unfairness is hugely exacerbated by pointless sectarian concepts such as ‘race’, and any pseudo-science which underpins it.
“There is no doubt whatsoever that people frequently discriminate for and against each other for all sorts of reasons, including outward appearance, and that can affect the sorts of outcomes pointed to here.”
Maybe, sometimes. Other differences are genetically influenced.
“But this sort of unfairness is hugely exacerbated by pointless sectarian concepts such as ‘race’, and any pseudo-science which underpins it.”
Au contraire, we are bending over backwards to eliminate the influence of “race” – a concept pushed in the mainstream not by scientists doing perfectly scientific studies, but by the race hustling industry – and failing. Which is, according to some, because we are systemically racist. It’s the race hustlers who insist on monitoring outcomes based on “race”.
Re: ‘ It’s the race hustlers who insist on monitoring outcomes based on “race”.
My point throughout is that if there is no concept of race then this problem disappears (which doesn’t of course extend to all the other ways which human beings manage to find divisions and enmities, ultimately this all boils down to the basic moral challenge of full mutual tolerance and respect).
To put this another way, ‘anti-racism’ and ‘racism’ are two sides of the same coin – because they both create divisions, and both rest on the same imaginary syndrome, that of ‘race’ (which in contemporary reality means ‘black’ or ‘white’)
The genie is out of the bottle. The race hustlers will never go away. It will end badly, with abject defeat for one or both sides.
I feel that Marlene must have been expecting, if not inciting, offense if she had covertly recorded the conversation.
King Charles III has proven himself already to be nothing more than a Poundshop Elizabeth II. Shame on him.
He has been a woke wuss for a long long time. He’s not going to change now he’s top of the royal pile. He’ll just double down on his loonish thoughts and behaviour. He’s too thick to know better and nobody around him will tell him the error of his ways.
‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ writ large.
If anything it shows the weakness now at the heart of the monarchy. They are either badly advised or they themselves make bad decisions but in both cases they show us a glimpse of an institution that is in decline, attempting to stay modern and relevant but not judging the situation at all well. Both Prince William and King Charles have shown us what they are made of and it is found wanting.
We routinely see politicians throw colleagues under a bus to save their own skins but if Royalty go down this road, as they have demonstrated, they are finished as an institution.
I once asked a very dark-skinned lady with a strong African accent “Where are you from”? She didn’t look like she approved of that question and replied “THE UNITED KINGDOM”————–mmmmm If she says she is from the UK then fine, but how many people born in the UK sound like Nigerians? I have also asked people from Australia and South Africa where they are from because I like to think I can pick out accents and get where they are from correct. My best attempts at guessing where people are from were an optician from Australia and I correctly pinpointed him as coming from Melbourne, and another chap from Toronto. ———But today everything seems to have revert to RACE, and in particular offence taken regarding RACE. ——-How pathetic.
Anyone who ever meets Ngozi from now on ought to address her as ‘Marlene’ and ask her where she’s from.
As for ‘the palace’ … who can recognise a a king someone who treats a friend like Susan Hussey and an enemy like Marlene Headley like that?