Podcast appearances and mentions of Tariq Ali

This week's show features stories from UAE, France 24, Radio Deutsche-Welle, and NHK Japan. http://youthspeaksout.net/swr250411.mp3 (29:00) From UAE- 2 excerpts from an interview Afshin Rattansi did with Tariq Ali on Going Underground. Tariq is a Pakistani-British writer, journalist, and political activist. First he talks about Iran and what would happen if the US or Israel attacked them. Also the current political climate in Iran. Then Tariq talks about why the US is so determined to prevent the reunification of the Koreas, something that would please many inhabitants of the island. From FRANCE- The subject of tariffs was everywhere in the media and changed from day to day. We will start with some international press reviews from Thursday on the US tariffs on trading partners. Then a press review on the protests for and against far right leader Marine Le Pen in Paris after she was banned from running in the next French presidential election. French President Macron says France could be the next country to officially recognize Palestinian statehood, like 147 other countries in the world. From GERMANY- French President Macron has called for a ceasefire in Gaza, along with a lifting of the Israeli aid blockade- an interview with Egyptian journalist Karim El-Gahwary. Then a report on the increased tariff that Trump imposed on China. From JAPAN - South Korea will elect a new President in June. Ukraine and Russia resumed large scale bombings of each other. An American Academic in Thailand is under arrest for insulting the monarchy. The EU and China are talking trade on a level playing field. Then a bit more on Marine Le Pen who considers her banning part of a witch hunt. Available in 3 forms- (new) HIGHEST QUALITY (160kb)(33MB), broadcast quality (13MB), and quickdownload or streaming form (6MB) (28:59) Links at outfarpress.com/shortwave.shtml PODCAST!!!- https://feed.podbean.com/outFarpress/feed.xml (160kb Highest Quality) Website Page- < http://www.outfarpress.com/shortwave.shtml ¡FurthuR! Dan Roberts "The only continent where social movements have led to political parties that have pushed through serious social and political reforms is in South America. " -- Tariq Ali Dan Roberts Shortwave Report- www.outfarpress.com YouthSpeaksOut!- www.youthspeaksout.net 707 459-1760

When faced with adversity one can look away and do nothing. But for our own dignity and self-respect we must fight back and resist the depredations of the state and corporate sector. Historically speaking this is one of those critical inflection points. A lot of people are deeply concerned about the Trump regime and Elon Musk. The social safety net is being shredded while the gazillionaires make out like bandits. Tariq Ali says, “What the United States needs today is an opposition, which fights back politically, intellectually, and culturally with arguments, and, when necessary, comes out on the streets to defend democracy, a grassroots uprising. We need activists more than ever before.” Recorded at St. Thomas University.

Tariq Ali was one of the most famous and recognisable figures of the revolutionary student movements of the 1960s. In his distinctive red Aquascutum mac he led marches, gave speeches and galvanised opposition to the Vietnam War and other big issues of the time. Born in Lahore just before Partition, he grew up in a prominent family of politicians and became interested in radical politics from a young age. At only 16 he organised his first strike, among the latrine-wallahs in the hill station where his family holidayed. At 18 he was sent to Oxford University, where he became president of the Union and impressed people with his brilliance at public speaking and debating. He tells Gyles about all this and about some of the amazing people he met along the way - including Mick Jagger, John Lennon, Marlon Brando and Malcolm X. If you aren't familiar with Tariq Ali's story, this is really worth listening to for a fascinating insight into the radical and optimistic days of the late 60s and early 70s, when anything seemed possible. Tariq's memoir, You Can't Please All, is out now, published by Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/authors/ali-tariq?srsltid=AfmBOorNoyy2ZaKtYHa5Zay30ii1E1ieQJ76ERKTHvDgvfIEB9t-zreO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We speak at length with Tariq Ali about his new memoir, “You Can't Please All.”

We speak at length with Tariq Ali about his new memoir, “You Can't Please All.”

​J​eanne Armstrong spoke to world renowned intellectual Tariq Ali ​a​bout his lecture called "The Frailties of Western Civilization".

In this podcast, Tariq Ali discusses the second volume in his memoir series, following “Street Fighting Years.” The book, “You Can't Please All: Memoirs 1980-2024” covers Ali's life and political activism from 1980 to 2024.  It includes autobiographical notes, journalism, essays, political commentary and personal reflections.   Tariq Ali is a Pakistani-British political activist, writer, historian, filmmaker, and public intellectual. He is well-known for his anti-imperialist stance and has been involved in various political movements since his youth. Ali has written or co-authored over 100 fiction and nonfiction books, covering a wide range of topics, including geopolitics and the history of post-colonialism.   Order the book: You Can't Please All: Memoirs 1980-2024 by Tariq Ali https://www.versobooks.com/products/2937-you-can-t-please-all Bhupen-Khakhar painting mentioned: https://brooklynrail.org/2017/02/artseen/Bhupen-Khakhar/ Greg's Blog: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/ Pat's Substack: https://patcummings.substack.com/about   TariqAli#IslamQuintet#EdwardSaid#DerekJarman#ChristopherHitchen#Bhutto#MaryKayWilmers#SusanWatkins#NewLeftReview#StreetFightingYears#StreetFiightingMan#HugoShavez#MickJaeger#JohnLennon#BhupenKhakhar#ChrisHedges#PolitcalActivism#VietnamProtest#AnitImperisalism#Palestine#LeninScenario#OliverStone#postcolonialism#WinstonChurchill#PatCummings#PatrickCummings#GregGodels#ZZBlog#ComingFromLeftField#ComingFromLeftFieldPodcast#zzblog#mltoday

This week we look at the world through the mirror of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (Revelation 6) - 1) War - Israel, Lebanon and Gaza; Russia and Ukraine - 2) Famine, the Economy - Keir Starmer and Blackrock; the Great Reset; Climate Change; Blockading Newcastle; Ice cover and Oceans rising; Paying for COP29; Blackouts in Australia; -  3) Death - Euthanasia;  The London Tube; The World's Oldest Man;  4) The Anti-Christ  - Jordan Peterson; German Judges; The Scottish Government and What is a Woman, court case; Norway churches rebel against state indoctrination; a banana taped to a wall gets $6.2 million; Jacinda Ardern and free speech; Free speech in Australia; Tariq Ali fulfills the prediction of Christopher Hitchens;  and Feedback with music from Joe South, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, Tool, The Bee Gees, Iron Maiden and the Psalms Project

On today's show: Tariq Ali on U.S. & U.K. Arming Israel's War on Gaza, Pakistan Protests, Macron's Embrace of the Right “A Horrifying Undercount”: Ralph Nader Says True Gaza Death Toll Could Be Many Times Higher RIP James Earl Jones: Watch Him Read Frederick Douglass's “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”   The post Democracy Now 6am – September 10, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

The brothers welcome distinguished writer, novelist, and intellectual of the New Left Review Tariq Ali to Makdisi Street. They discuss the similarities and differences between the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations of the 1960s and 1970s and contemporary demonstrations against the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza; the role of the U.S. empire and global capitalism as a bitter opponent of popular liberation globally; the loss of India as opposed to gaining South Africa on the question of Palestine, the significance of the huge divergence between U.S. and British politics on Palestine and popular sentiment in both countries, the question of whether there is still a Global South, the loss of the hegemony of Zionism in the West evidenced by both mass student protests and the overt repression of these students, Biden's delusional contention that he has done more than anyone to help the Palestinians, the question of hope and realism, and the meaning of a new left for new generations. Watch the episode on our YouTube channel Date of recording: July 16, 2024. Follow us on our socials: X: @MakdisiStreet YouTube: @MakdisiStreet Insta: @Makdisist TikTok: @Makdisistreet Music by Hadiiiiii *Sign up at Patreon.com/MakdisiStreet to access all the bonus content, including the latest bonus episode.*      

Support us: https://www.palestinedeepdive.com/support Tariq Ali argues recognising Palestine as a state "means nothing" and that what states should really be implementing is the de-recognition of Israel. Tariq Ali is a writer and filmmaker. He has written more than a dozen books on world history and politics—including Pirates of the Caribbean, Bush in Babylon, The Clash of Fundamentalisms and The Obama Syndrome. Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes is his latest. He's also written five novels in his Islam Quintet series and scripts for the stage and screen. He is an editor of the New Left Review. Mark Seddon is a former UN Correspondent for Al Jazeera English TV and Editor of Tribune. He has also worked as a Speechwriter for former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Fiona Lali wants to bring down the British government, as well as capitalism. The marxist organiser turned independent candidate in the upcoming UK general elections says there's a link between the powerful protest movement for Palestine and the widespread anger felt by young people and workers alike.Lali went viral in May when she confronted former British Home Secretary Suella Braverman on TV, in what many saw as a powerful rebuttal of Braverman's views on the university encampments protesting for Gaza.This week on The Big Picture Podcast, we speak with Lali about how she took on one of the most divisive political figures in the country, and what she wants to change now that she's become a politician.We'd love to hear your thoughts on this episode, and any guests you'd like us to have on our show. Reach us by email at mh@middleeasteye.org or find us on instagram @BigPictureMee.You can also watch all our episodes on our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMyaP73Ho1ySj3cO0OSOHZAOgD1WTDixG

Winston Churchill is one of the most biographed figures in modern history, and held up as an orator and wartime strategist that turned the tide against Hitler and Nazi Germany.But how accurate is this image? And is it hiding a darker reality?This week on The Big Picture, we sit down with British-Pakistani writer, political activist and public intellectual Tariq Ali.Ali published his own biography, titled ‘Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes'. In it, he paints a different portrait - one of a self-obsessed, ruthless and deeply racist colonial leader, who lost little sleep over his crushing attempts to maintain Britain's rule.In particular, his actions in Ireland, Kenya and Bangladesh led to some of the most horrific atrocities of the 20th Century.We'd love to hear your thoughts on this episode, and any guests you'd like us to have on our show. Reach us by email at mh@middleeasteye.org or find us on instagram @BigPictureMee.You can also watch all our episodes on our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMyaP73Ho1ySj3cO0OSOHZAOgD1WTDixG

What is the purpose of democracy when it's become more challenging than ever to tell the left and right apart?  Journalist and filmmaker, Tariq Ali says Western democracy has failed and we are now seeing the emergence of an extreme centre, which ensures no challenges to this form of neoliberal politics is permitted.  Tariq Ali is a British-Pakistani political commentator and a prolific writer, journalist and filmmaker. He has been a leading figure of the international left since the 1960s. His books include The Duel: Pakistan on the Flightpath of American Power, The Obama Sydrome and The Extreme Centre: A Warning.

Ali v svetu, v katerem vlada zakon džungle, kot pravi sloviti pakistansko– britanski politični aktivist, pisatelj, novinar, zgodovinar in javni intelektualec Tariq Ali, sploh lahko govorimo o časti? Izraelci so ob prestrezanju iranskih projektilov istočasno brezsramno napadali Gazo.Ta teden so Združeni narodi izpostavili, da je vojna v Gazi tudi vojna proti ženskam. Združeni narodi, ki so, ob vseh aktualnih krizah, večino časti že davno izgubili. Vlada kriza vodenja oziroma vodenje kriz ob krizi pravih, častnih voditeljev – na koncu pa največjo ceno vedno plačajo nedolžni.

Potem ko je Iran sprožil vojaški napad na Izrael, ta pa se ga je skupaj z zaveznicami uspešno ubranil, je v zraku ostalo veliko vprašanj. Veliko več je “neznanega” kot “znanega”, veliko več “nepredvidljivega” kot “predvidljivega.” Kako vse to postaviti v smiseln zgodovinski in politični kontekst? O Gazi, vlogi Združenih držav Amerike, Evropski uniji, delovanju Nemčije, o tretji svetovni vojni in podnebni krizi svoje misli ponujata: novinar, zgodovinar in aktivist Tariq Ali filozof Srećko Horvat

We have a 'Special Edition' of @EchoChamberFP https://www.instagram.com/echochamberfp/ for you today!!! Truth seeking is this episode's goal, and thanks to Films For Change, Journeyman Pictures & ARPR we got to explore the story of Julian Assange through a new documentary. People finally get to see an unvarnished look at the facts of what happened with WikiLeaks and Assange, which is eye opening! THEN, we have a brief chat with the writer, director of the piece. Who put together a highly engaging exposé, so much so, not even the flu could act as a distraction (though, definitely not on top form)!!! Watch the conversation: HERE! https://youtu.be/ihJo9_dI8xY 'The Trust Fall: Julian Assange' is written & directed by Kym Staton. Despite being detained, silenced, and hidden from public view in maximum security Belmarsh Prison, multi-award-winning Australian journalist and publisher Julian Assange has become one of the loudest voices for free speech of our times. The disclosures of WikiLeaks from 2010 ignited a firestorm of controversy and a relentless ongoing pursuit by the most powerful state on the planet. Today we have: The Trust Fall: Julian Assange Watch Review: Here. https://youtu.be/XLMuX8OZL48 Cinema Nova Melbourne, World Premiere: 30th July 2023 OZ Theatrical Release Date: 6th March 2024 UK Theatrical Release Date: 15th March 2024 Director: Kym Staton Cast: Daniel Ellsberg, John Pilger, Tariq Ali, Chris Hedges, Jennifer Robinson, Jill Stein, Stefania Maurizi, Nils Melzer, Stella Assange, John Shipton, Gabriel Shipton, Roger Waters, M.I.A, Tom Morello, Jonathan Oldham Credit: Films For Change, Journeyman Pictures Genre: Documentary Running Time: 128 min Cert: 15 Trailer: Here. https://youtu.be/wcYOv2SorgY?si=amqpwt-WCI7tC1Aj Website: Here. https://www.thetrustfall.org/ X: @thetrustfalldoc https://twitter.com/thetrustfalldoc?lang=en-GB Facebook: Here. https://www.facebook.com/thetrustfalldoc/ Instagram: @thetrustfalldoc https://www.instagram.com/thetrustfalldoc/ ------------ *(Music) 'Strictly Business (Instrumental)' by EPMD - 2020 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/eftv/message

The labyrinth of personal healing is often clouded with the shame and secrecy of our deepest struggles. Embark with me, Tarek Ali, as I traverse the raw and intimate pathways of my own self-discovery, laying bare the battles with anxiety and the transformative power of returning to one's roots. This episode is a candid revelation, an invitation to listeners to journey alongside as I unpack the layers of my past that have sculpted the person I am today. From the gentrifying streets of Los Angeles to the private recesses of personal trauma, we tackle the complexities of self-worth, body autonomy, queerness, and the messiness of healing.Through the lens of my own narrative, we examine several things: the intersection of queer identity and navigating sexuality, bringing to light the stereotypes within the LGBTQ+ community and the struggles for self-acceptance in the face of social pressures; reclaiming your body when past experiences stole it from you; and rekindling the relationship you have with you body after a lifetime of self-abuse. I share poignant moments from my own childhood and the journey towards reclaiming my body's narrative. It's a story of growth, self-love, and the courage to confront the demons of one's past. As we navigate the intricate dance of self-discovery, we laugh, we learn, and perhaps most importantly, we find solace in the shared experiences of our struggles. This heartfelt episode culminates in a celebration of vulnerability and the solace found in expressing one's truth. It's a reminder that healing is an ongoing process, one that requires grace, self-compassion, and an unwavering commitment to authenticity. I leave you with thoughts steeped in hope and encouragement, urging you to embrace your journey with kindness and reflection, and to continue the conversation on self-compassion as we part ways. Thank you for lending your ears and hearts; may this dialogue resonate with you as much as it has with me, Tarek Ali.Leap into healing subscription edition: Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/that-conversation-with-tarek-ali/id1621963803or Spotify and all other streaming platforms: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1971440/subscribe Support the show

In Someone Else's Empire Tom Stevenson, a contributing editor at the LRB, dispels the potent myth of Britain as a global player punching above its weight on the world stage, arguing instead that its foreign policy has for a long time been in thrall to the wishes and interests of the United States.He talks about his book with writer, filmmaker, publisher and activist Tariq Ali. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Three years ago, we started the podcast Coming From Left Field… where we talk about politics, books, and current events. In this podcast we reflect on some of our guests we have hosted over the 68 episodes, argue where we agree and disagree, and provide observations about our current political apocalypse.   Greg's Blog (subscribe!): http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/    Marxism-Leninism Today (MLToday): https://mltoday.com/ Timestamps: (01:45) book discussion “How Democracies Die” (14:14) Dan Kovalik, “Cancel This Book,” “Pink Tide,” “Trip to Russia & Crimea” (16:24) book discussion Karl Marx (20:47) Carlos Garrido, “Last Years of Marx” book discussion (22:41) Eddie Smith, “Blackshirts and Reds” book discussion (24:38) Christian Parenti, “First Privilege Walk & Radical Hampton” (26:22) Janice O'Mahony &  Kevin Miller, “A Couple of Poets” (27:49) Stephen Gowans, “Israel, A Beachhead in the Middle East” (30:07) Jim Painter, “Media,” & “The Black March Novel” (30:49) Hoss Hollwedel, “”Exterminate All the Brute” & “Amazon unions” (32:21) Toni Gilpin, “The Long Deep Grudge: (32:47) Roger Keeran, “The Communist Party and the Autoworker's” (34:06) Tony Monterio, “The lost legacy of Henry Winston” (37:09) Walter Johnson, “The Broken Heart of America” (39:09) Tariq Ali, “Winston Churchill” (39:20) Vijay Prashad, “The Withdrawal” (39:25) Joanna Moncrieff, “The Serotonin Theory of Depression” (41:42) Gerald Horne, “Black Liberation / Red Scare”, “Jazz and Justice” (45:14) Walter Bragman, “Moms for Liberty” (45:21) Anthony Conwright, “Jan 6, Big Lie” (45:31) Kathryn Joyce. “War on Public Schools” (45:42) Andy Campbell, “We Are Proud Boys” (47:53) Suzanne Gordon, “Wounds of War” (49:42) Bill Ehrhart, “Thank You for Your Service,” “Smedley Butler,” “Essays” (51:27) Norman Finkelstein,” I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It!” (54:29) Ruth Ben-Ghiat, “Strongmen” (57:16) Fredrik deBoer, “Cult of Smart,” ”How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement”             PatCummings#GregGodels#ZZBlog#ComingFromLeftField#ComingFromLeftFieldPodcast#DanKovalik#KarlMarx#MidwesternMarist#CarlosGarrido#EddieSmith#Blackshirts#MichaelParinti#ChristianParenti#JaniceO'Mahony#KevinMiller#Poets#StephenGowans#JimPainter#ToniGilpin#RogerKeeran#CommunistParty#TonyMonterio#WalterJohnson#TariqAli#VijayPrashad#JoannaMoncrieff#GeraldHorne#JazzandJustice#WalterBragman#AnthonyConwright#KathrynJoyce#Andy#Bill Ehrhart#WDEhrhart#NormanFinkelstein#RuthBen-Ghiat#Strongmen#FredrikdeBoer

On this Episode of the HasBeens Podcast, Tariq Ali and Kelly Rose Cayne drop by to discuss their Brand Pitch Play Co.Tap in to this thought provoking episode!!!

https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/587012-mass-protests-against-israels-slaughter/ On this episode of Going Underground we speak with renowned writer, filmmaker and activist Tariq Ali. He discusses the mass protests sweeping the US, UK and EU against Israel's slaughter of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the indifference of governments to the demands of their masses, along with the leaders' refusal to call for a ceasefire. He says Netanyahu's government is trying to quash any possibility of a Palestinian state while the US is fuelling Israeli arrogance, as US carrier strike groups stand guard to defend Israel against possible intervention from Iran. #2023 #art #music #movies #poetry #poem #food #photooftheday #volcano #news #weather #monkeys #climate #horse #puppy #fyp #love #instagood #onelove #eyes #getyoked #horsie #gotmilk #book #shecomin #getready

Emergency meeting discussing Palestine, resistance & the struggle for freedom with:Tariq Ali, author · Refaat Alareer, Palestinian writer live from Gaza · Richard Boyd Barrett, socialist MP in Ireland · Sophia Beach, anti-Zionist Jewish socialist · Ilan Pappé, authorIsrael is launching a brutal attack on Gaza, in what many are calling a "second Nakba". Thousands of Palestinians are being killed, forced to flee and are facing Israeli terror. All this is being done with the support of the West, including politicians like Keir Starmer.Palestinians are right to resist. The 75 years that have passed since the first Nakba have been constant occupation, apartheid and brutalisation of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli state. It is crucial in Britain that we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian resistance. But we have to ask the question - how can Palestine be free?This meeting will be debating how we can build solidarity in Britain, why Palestinians are right to resist and what a revolutionary strategy for Palestinian liberation looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR3qeroQ2M&t=928s #2023 #art #music #movies #poetry #poem #food #photooftheday #volcano #news #weather #monkeys #climate #horse #puppy #fyp #love #instagood #onelove #eyes #getyoked #horsie #gotmilk #book #shecomin #getready 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/233025/the-invention-of-the-jewish-people-by-shlomo-sand/ #2023 #art #music #movies #poetry #poem #food #photooftheday #volcano #news #weather #monkeys #climate #horse #puppy #fyp #love #instagood #onelove #eyes #getyoked #horsie #gotmilk #book #shecomin #getready 

This conversation features award winning film director Kym Staten, who's based in Australia. Kim has devoted nine years to the documentary industry. He's the founder and director of Films4Change, an educational enterprise that's been operating since 2014. And initially Films4Change was a hybrid distributor bringing live in person cinema screenings. of documentary films to 90, 90 cities across the world, including Australia, New Zealand, New Zealand, the UK and America. During the pandemic, Films4Change evolved into streaming with their platform, Films4Change.stream, launching in May 2020. (https://filmsforchange.stream/)  In 2021, Kim put himself behind a camera and a pen and he lends his highly trained eye for subject interpretation and narrative to direct his first documentary. The Trust Fall, includes eight animations and 23 interviews with Kim directing, co producing and writing the powerful narration for the film. (https://www.cinemanova.com.au/films/mdff-trust-fall-julian-assange-the) This powerful film has won various awards and continues to be shown in festivals all around the world as it gears up for cinema release. We have watched quite a few films about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and whilst most made us feel predominantly very angry, The striking thing about this film was it also made us feel deeply sad. Key points from the conversation; The film discusses the mistreatment and violation of due process in Julian Assange's case, including manipulation of evidence. - The film includes animation to provide a brief overview of the history of free speech. - WikiLeaks is known for publishing accurate and thoroughly researched documents. - The filmmaker reached out to various individuals, including John Shipton, Daniel Ellsberg, Tariq Ali, Nils Melzer, and John Pilger, to be interviewed for the film. - The film focuses on the treatment of Julian Assange and the decline of press freedom. - The filmmaker wanted to explore the reasons behind Julian Assange's persecution and the lessons to be learned from his exposures. - The accusations of rape against Julian Assange were seen as a way to destroy his character. - The plan to destroy Julian Assange and WikiLeaks involved a team of individuals assigned to the task.   The United States has played a significant role in various aspects discussed. Here are some key points: The United States has been at war for a significant portion of its existence, with 235 out of 247 years being marked by war. The U.S. has been responsible for 20 million deaths, although it is not specified in what context or time period. The U.S. has 750 overseas military bases, indicating its global military presence. The film highlights the shocking figures related to the Iraq war, including three million deaths (with 80% being civilians), five million orphans, and nine million refugees. The film also features footage of unarmed civilians being murdered by American forces, which is described as a war crime and embarrassing for the U.S. government. The U.S. government is implicated in the plan to destroy Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, with evidence of a task force assigned to this purpose. The U.S. government is accused of covering up the truth about the killing of civilians in New Baghdad in 2007, where Reuters journalists were mistaken for carrying weapons and were shot down. The document does not provide a comprehensive overview of the United States' involvement in various global events or its foreign policy. It focuses on specific aspects related to war, military presence, and the treatment of Julian Assange.

Winston Churchill. You learned about him at school. The wartime prime minister who gave rousing speeches and led the allied forces to victory in Europe. But, history is made up of narratives which, more-often-than-not, serve some purpose in the present day. Oli sat down with the author of Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes, Tariq Ali, to discuss the events and episodes of the Prime Minister's life that they didn't teach you in your high school history class. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Pakistan Lost is a series of audio essays on history exploring the choices that were made that impacted millions of people for decades to come. Episode 5 of the series looks at the loss of East Pakistan, the war for Bangladesh and the rise of Dhakka. Watch all the episodes of Pakistan Lost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVcorSr-vM&list=PLlQZ9NZnjq5qRLMfNjRNQyCTBkT0etuaZ Chapters: 0:00 Introduction 2:00 1947-1971 10:21 Destroying the Myths 25:51 How we remember 1971 and Lessons Podcasts you should watch: 1. Khurram Hussain on the Economic History of Pakistan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68NUwsRH6vo 2. Anam Zakaria on a People's History of 1947 and 1971: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YKulPg_TxA 3. Asim Sajjad Akhtar on the political history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbH4m6tfUKk 4. Yousouf Nazar on 1971 and the Economy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncXBoovBcSI 5. Ali Usman Qasmi on the history of Pakistan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZhd_CgFzrA 6. Mustafa Nawaz Khokar on Reimagining Pakistan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZfLwGnjim0 7. Tariq Ali on 1971: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOoYYGwRORk Sources: A) Books 1. Murder of History by K.K. Aziz 2. Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military by Hussain Haqqani 3. Witness to Surrender by Siddiq Salik 4. From Jinnah to Zia by Muhammad Munir 5. Diaries of Justice Muhammad Ibrahim 6. Sheikh Mujib's 6 point Formula by Syed Humayun 7. Conflict Unending by Sumit Ganguly 8. A Tale of Millions by Major M. Rafiqul Islam 9. The Great Tragedy by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto 10. Pakistan: Eye of the Storm by Owen Benett Jones 11. 1971: A People's History by Anam Zakaria 12. The Pakistan People's Party by Philip E. Jones 13. Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report and the Supplementary Report B) Articles 1. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,830952,00.html 2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24494181 3. https://www.thefridaytimes.com/2022/08/12/1971-and-the-erasure-of-the-biharis/ 4. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/8/15/haunted-by-unification-a-bangladeshi-view-of-partition 5. http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/csas/PDF/Mussarat%20Jabeen%207.pdf 6. https://www.dawn.com/news/1353861 7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3023816 8. https://www.nytimes.com/1954/11/23/archives/pakistani-leader-airs-merger-plan-mohammed-ali-says-both-east-and.html?searchResultPosition=2 9. https://tribune.com.pk/story/40218/the-cyclone-that-broke-pakistans-back 10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/cyclone-not-above-politics-east-pakistan-disaster-politics-and-the-1970-bhola-cyclone/08E3F02666C89C041F57933C0C1B447E 11. https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2011/02/23/agartala-conspiracy-case-was-not-false 12. https://www.dawn.com/news/1602835 13. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/28/archives/bhutto-meets-with-mujib-says-hell-continue-talks-bhutto-meets-with.html 14. https://www.dawn.com/news/130047/niazi-surrendered-on-yahya-s-orders 18. https://www.dawn.com/news/1664104 19. https://www.dawn.com/news/1462757 28. https://www.dawn.com/news/1726305/fact-vs-fiction-pakistan-must-accept-the-uncomfortable-truths-about-the-1971-war C) Videos 1. https://twitter.com/DrMAliShaikh/status/1628081771509166081 2. https://twitter.com/kashmiriRefuge/status/1279667976086548480?lang=en 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eATr7e03N6w 4. https://twitter.com/DrMAliShaikh/status/1628414565586284544 5. VOA Series on 50 years of Fall of Dhaka The Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperience To support the channel: Jazzcash/Easypaisa - 0325 -2982912 Patreon.com/thepakistanexperience

In this episode we talk about the startling (but unsurprising) duplicity of Ed Milliband, we talk of hope and where it lives and also honour the life of Paul O'Grady aka Lily Savage whose history of activism and generally being an exemplary human being may surprise you. In addition we talk about the continued savage and industrial bullying campaign against not just Jeremy Corbyn (he's just the figure head for them), but against YOU. If you would like to support our work by becoming a Patron via: www.patreon.com/cowdaily Make a one off contribution to our work: https://tinyurl.com/y5ctx4ja You can tune into the Cow Daily livestream every weekday at 12 noon, via Youtube: https://tinyurl.com/4djkz9t2 FULL EPISODES AVAILABLE VIA: SPOTIFY: https://tinyurl.com/yw2unns3 APPLE PODCASTS: https://tinyurl.com/ysp5y23v YOUTUBE: https://tinyurl.com/4djkz9t2 BECOME A SUPPORTER OF MTC'S WORK: https://tinyurl.com/5awruft6 TIK TOK: https://tinyurl.com/29c69mnu MAILING LIST: https://tinyurl.com/46jk392v FACEBOOK: https://tinyurl.com/yckj7mhn TWITTER: https://tinyurl.com/24epkej6 INSTAGRAM: https://tinyurl.com/ybhzhcnn WEBSITE: www.milkthecowpodcast.com HOW TO LEAVE A REVIEW 1. Open Apple Podcast App. 2. Go to the icons at the bottom of the screen and choose “search” 3. Search for “Milk the Cow Podcast” 4. Click on the SHOW, not the episode. 5. Scroll all the way down to “Ratings and Reviews” 6. Click on “Write a Review” #milkthecow #cowdaily #mtc #podcasting #podcasts #podcast #mikecow #MikeCow

On this episode of SPS, we first focus on our Annual International Convention (March 29–April 1), which will take place in Chicago, at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, & the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Planning committee members, Ryan & Ethan introduce the convention theme, panels, and historical concerns across the upcoming events. Our second segment is a deep dive into the Platypus archives on the question of imperialism & anti-imperialism, prompted by the one-year anniversary of the Ukrainian War, and the twentieth anniversary of the Iraq War. Members, Sunit & Farsad, join Lisa and Rebekah to reflect on the Platypus panels on the Ukraine crisis a year ago, and on the recent developments of the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist Left. They go back to the founding moment of Platypus and the very first panel "Imperialism: what is it, why should we be against it?" (2007). Platypus International Convention 2023 program: https://platypus1917.org/platypus-international-convention/15th-annual-platypus-international-convention-history-and-class-consciousness/ Convention Segment Links: > Mike Macnair "The Philosophy Trap" (2013): https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/987/lukacs-the-philosophy-trap/ > CPGB/Platypus dialog in full (2013): https://chriscutrone.platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cpgbcontralukacs031513.pdf > Chris Cutrone "CPGB Contra Lukacs" (2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyAx32lzC0U (in the PR: https://platypus1917.org/2014/02/01/why-still-read-lukacs-the-place-of-philosophical-questions-in-marxism/) Imperialism & Anti-imperialism Segment Links: > 2007: Panel: Imperialism: What is it, why should we be against it?https://platypus1917.org/2010/07/09/imperialism-what-is-it-why-should-we-be-against-it/ > 2022: Chris Cutrone "Ukraine: More of the same" https://platypus1917.org/2022/04/01/ukraine-more-of-the-same/ > 2022: Crisis in Ukraine and the Left Panel iterations: >>> Frankfurt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIPr7AyMWak&list=PLNc4xGUuaRwmAmGIlzqMgDuAkQNP-T0sW&index=4 >>> online in German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiFxUcBxYqQ&list=PLNc4xGUuaRwmAmGIlzqMgDuAkQNP-T0sW&index=7 >>> online in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3js9LcbDTY0&list=PLNc4xGUuaRwmAmGIlzqMgDuAkQNP-T0sW&index=6 > 2007: Interview with Tariq Ali by Chris Cutrone https://archive.org/details/TariqAliInterviewedByChrisCutronePlatypusChicago > 2020: Panel “Imperialism and the Left” https://platypus1917.org/2020/07/01/imperialism-and-the-left/ and ​​https://platypus1917.org/2020/09/01/imperialism-and-the-left-2/ > debate between Tariq Ali and Christopher Hitchens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atWb_LD-2I > 2016: Panel "Was ist Imperialismus? Warum sollten wir dagegen sein?" https://platypus1917.org/2016/06/24/podiumsdiskussion-vom-16-06-2016-ist-imperialismus-warum-sollten-wir-dagegen-sein/

Commentary by Drs. Patrick Lawler and Tariq Ali

In this episode, Parameters acting editor-in-chief offers a preview of the upcoming Parameters Spring demi-issue and touches on what the full Spring issue will include. Keywords: Afghanistan, Daoism, gender and conflict, climate change Episode transcript: Parameters Spring 2023 Preview Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point, a U.S. Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. I'm here with Parameters acting editor-in-chief and Strategic Studies Institute historian and researcher, Dr. Conrad Crane. Thank you for being here today, Con. Dr. Conrad Crane Oh, always glad to talk to you, Stephanie. Host Let's talk about the spring demi-issue of Parameters that's due out in the next few weeks. This issue includes a substantial piece by Afghanistan expert Joseph Collins. I hope to talk with him in detail later, but I'm curious . . . from your perspective, what does Collins bring to the Afghanistan conversation? Crane I've known Joe for a lot of years. We are at West Point together, teaching in different departments. He's a long-serving Army officer. He's been a deputy assistant secretary of defense, he's watched Afghanistan for decades. He's written three books on it and about 40 articles. There are a few people I trust more to really analyze what went wrong in Afghanistan than Joe Collins. Host Why are you focusing this demi-issue on Afghanistan? Crane When I got my first assignment in the Strategic Studies Institute over 20 years ago, one of my first research projects was to look at the Army's response to losing in Vietnam. And I ended up doing a monograph entitled Avoiding Vietnam: The US Army's Response to Defeat in Southeast Asia, which can actually be downloaded from the SSI publications website. What I found was that, basically, the Army as an institution ran away from Vietnam. They really didn't do any systematic institutional study of the defeat. They immediately focused on the Yom Kippur War and large-scale combat operations. And what significant discussion analysis did occur in an Army venue occurred in the pages of Parameters. That's about the only place you could find it. Right now, it kind of looks like deja vu all over again. We have the service that is not doing any systematic studies that I know of of why we failed in Afghanistan. I feel that Parameters needs to step up again and become the forum for discussion about that. The service really needs to analyze what went wrong in Afghanistan, because we have never been able to never do this again. Again, we are focused on major combat operations, large-scale combat operations looking at Ukraine. But we can't just forget about Afghanistan. We need to really take a hard look at what went wrong there and get what lessons and insights we can for the future. Host So continuing the Afghanistan theme, for SRAD Directors Corner, Colonel George Shatzer plans to review and comment on two books—The Fifth Act, America's End in Afghanistan by Elliot Ackerman and The 40-Year War in Afghanistan: A Chronicle Foretold by Tariq Ali. These really round out the issue. Care to comment? Crane Let me talk about all three of the items that are going to be in this demi-issue. We'll start with Joe. You know, Joe Collins is looking at the long-term focus on what went wrong in Afghanistan. He's going to focus on the historical difficulties in governing there the Afghan republics two inefficient corrupt governments, ineffective American strategy, operational shortcomings by American forces, an ineffective Afghan military, Pakistan's duplicitous policies, and the strength and determination of the Taliban. So he's looking at it with a very broad scope but basically from an American perspective.

Air Date 1/14/2023 This Martin Luther King Day weekend, we take a look at a wider range of Black radicals who all helped build the unfinished Civil Rights Movement and who our history either whitewashes or demonizes to fit the narrative of American Exceptionalism™ marching us inexorably toward perfection. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com  Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get AD FREE Shows and Bonus Content) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: The dangers of whitewashing black history | David Ikard - TEDxNashville - Air Date 6-18-22 Equipped with the real story of Rosa Parks, professor David Ikard highlights how making the realities of race more benign and digestible harms us all -- and emphasizes the power and importance of historical accuracy. This talk was filmed at TEDxNashville. Ch. 2: The Black American Civil Rights Movement Was One of The Greatest "Military" Campaigns and Insurgencies in History - The Chauncey DeVega Show - Air Date 1-10-23 Thomas Ricks is the guest on this special January 2023 fundraising episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show. Ch. 3: #ilovemalcolm: Tariq Ali on Malcolm X at Oxford - rosaluxnyc - Air Date 3-23-15 At "I Love Malcolm: Legacies of Love and Liberation" on February 14, 2015, organized by the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung—New York Office, Tariq Ali discusses the impact of Malcolm X's debate at Oxford University in 1964. Ch. 4: The Radicalism of Martin Luther King Jr. and W.E.B. Du Bois - Communist Party USA - Air Date 2-26-20 WEB Du Bois and Martin Luther King Jr are two 20th-century giants in both the struggle for African American equality and the liberation of oppressed people worldwide. Ch. 5: The Socialist Anti-Imperialism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - Left Anchor - Air Date 1-18-21 Today we are hoisting up an episode from the archives in celebration of MLK Day. We discuss King's advocacy of democratic socialism and his argument that civil rights were inadequate without an equal share of economic production. Ch. 6: Whitewashing 101: How To Rewrite Black History - Second Thought - Air Date 2-18-22 It's Black History Month, so it's about time we talked about the recuperation of Black radicals like Dr. King and Nelson Mandela. Everyone and their mother likes to claim MLK as their own, and use his words as a rhetorical weapon. Ch. 7: Why the US government murdered Fred Hampton - Vox - Air Date 6-2-21 What we aren't taught about the Black Panther Party. MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 8: Written by Himself - the Life of Frederick Douglass - History of Indian and Africana Philosophy - Air Date 2-29-20 Frederick Douglass' journey from slave to leading figure of 19th-century American thought. FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 9: Final comments on the producers who made this week's topics come to life MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE: Description: Composite image of black and white photos. Top: Martin Luther King Jr. talks with Malcom X. Bottom left: Portrait of W.E.B. Du Bois. Bottom Center: Rosa Parks' mug shot. Bottom right: Button with the words “All Power to the People” surrounding Fred Hampton's head.   Credit: MLK and Malcom X; W.E.B. Du Bois; Rosa Parks; Fred Hampton button | License All Images in Public Domain   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

Tariq Ali is a writer, activist, and longtime public intellectual.  He has authored many books and is a member of the editorial committee of the New Left Review. He contributes to The Guardian, CounterPunch, and the London Review of Books. His most recent book is a critical review that exposes Churchill's leadership in the context of forgotten Imperial crimes. Book: “Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes” with Tariq Ali https://www.versobooks.com/books/3971-winston-churchill   Greg's ZZs Blog: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/   #TariqAlil#WinstonChurchill#Empireft#Colonialism#WWII#WarCrimes#ChurchillWarCriminal#TimesHis Crimes#BritishEmpire#BengalFamine#CarolineElkins#BBCGreatestBritons#GregGodels#zzblog#PatCummings#ComingFromLeftField#Podcast

After a week in which the US midterms proved that the Right is cringe too... we decided to release our Patrons-only show from October 24th where we pointed out just that. "Bumper round-up for Patrons of the UK's latest governmental collapse, Tulsi Gabbard's departure from the Democrats, Kanye's White Lives Matter stunt, ethnic minority Toryism, and why you shouldn't support Keir Starmer". Originally released exclusively on https://www.patreon.com/thepopularpod. Subscribe now for our recent locked episodes with Tariq Ali and Juliet Jacques, plus a free Popular Show beer mat while they last! Help us develop The Popular Show and get extra shows at https://www.patreon.com/thepopularpod More ways to help us continue: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/thepopularshow https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thepopularshow https://cash.app/£ThePopularShow

Last Thursday's failed attempt to assassinate former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has resulted in mass demonstrations throughout the country. The 70 year old former International cricketer turned politician has accused Major General Faisal Naseer of colluding with current prime minister Shehbaz Sharif to try and kill him.

Legend of the old New Left and anti-war movement Tariq Ali joins The Popular Show to discuss Lula's election victory in Brazil, lessons from Afghanistan for Putin and Biden in Ukraine, the anti-Iraq War protest movement, the abject failure of the Western Left to take an autonomous line on the invasion, and why he won't be voting for Keir Starmer's Labour Party. To listen to this episode, become a Patreon supporter and help us build the project: https://www.patreon.com/posts/tps122-extreme-74097719 More ways to help us continue: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thepopularshow https://cash.app/£ThePopularShow

Tariq Ali picks Pather Panchali and New Generation Thinker Sarah Jilani describes Jalsaghar or The Music Room. Rana Mitter presents this programme which looks at what marked out the directing of Satyajit Ray. The BFI has a season of his films screening across July and August and is re-releasing The Big City. Rana's other guests are the programme of the BFI season and herself a film-maker, Sangeeta Datta, and Professor Chandak Sengoopta from Birkbeck, University of London. Sarah Jilani researches postcolonial film and literature at the University of Cambridge. She is a 2021 New Generation Thinker on the scheme run by BBC Radio 3 and the Arts and Humanities Research Council to select ten academics each year who use their research to make radio programmes. Professor Chandook Sengoopta is writing on the historical, cultural and ideological contexts that shaped the work and impact of the film-maker, writer, designer and composer Satyajit Ray. Sangeeta Datta is director of Baithak UK http://www.baithak.info/director-sangeeta-datta. You can find details of the season she has put together at BFI.org.uk Tariq Ali has written more than 2 dozen books on world history, culture and politics https://www.versobooks.com/authors/63-tariq-ali You can find a collection of Radio 3 programmes exploring film on the Free Thinking programme website https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/FJbG166KXBn9xzLKPfrwpc/all-about-film-on-radio-3 Producer: Jayne Egerton

Suzi talks to Dean of Berkeley School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky about the just completed Supreme Court term, handing down decisions that overturned vast areas of law. The Court's decisions ignored settled law and took away a Constitutional right in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. Chemerinsky argues that this court did not follow a judicial methodology, legal principles, or precedents: instead, a conservative majority on the court is making the Republican Party platform Constitutional law. We get Erwin's analysis and ask what can be done.Turning to the UK, Suzi talks to Tariq Ali about the saga of PM Boris Johnson's resignation—brought down by Tory ministers who decided Johnson's personality and unethical conduct had gotten in the way of his politics, which they mostly support. Tariq Ali says that the Tories have been ruthless in dumping Prime Ministers who might lose them the next election, like Thatcher, May, and now Johnson – but Labour is only ruthless in removing a Leader who poses a threat to the extreme center. Under Keir Starmer, Labour has not challenged Johnson's political record, or presented an attractive alternative to the Tories, so Boris Johnson is going, but Britain is still stuck with the same rightwing politics. We get Tariq's view. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

This week we hear from Tariq Ali, a leading figure on the left, a prolific author, an activist, and a member of the editorial board of the New Left Review. Tariq discusses his new book, Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes, published by Verso in May 2022. In the book, Tariq tackles the cult of Churchill that has had a pervasive impact on imperial history and contemporary politics in Britain. Churchill, Tariq highlights, was a white supremacist whose policies contributed to the deaths of millions of people abroad and enacted violence against the working class at home.

Surah At-Tariq recited by Ali al Hudhaify --- Follow me on other platforms: https://linktr.ee/Al_Dawah_al_Salafiyyah

Tariq Ali is the author of two dozen books and his career as a public intellectual and activist stretches back to the 1960s. His new book Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes is an effort to demolish the "Churchill myth" that has been built up since the Thatcher years. Ali demonstrates that Churchill was: - Not actually popular among the British public, who threw him out of office immediately at the end of World War II, and voted in the socialist Labour government instead- A virulent white supremacist whose core political beliefs were the violent maintenance of the British empire abroad and the suppression of class struggle at home- Not actually an opponent of fascism on principle, having highly praised Mussolini. Churchill saw the threat that Hitler posed to Europe but would happily tolerate far-right governments to stop the spread of Bolshevism- Responsible for hideous colonial atrocities such as the Bengal famineAli's book is not just a myth-busting biography of Churchill, but a history of imperialism and the British working class movement, and a case study in how falsified myths are used to justify the maintenance of the existing social order. Today, everyone from Boris Johnson to Volodymyr Zelensky invokes the Churchill of legend, but we need to understand the Churchill of historical fact, and face up to the horrors of the British empire and the way that powerful countries rationalize their misdeeds with appealing self-righteous rhetoric and the turning of morally repugnant rulers into saintly icons. A review of Ali's Winston Churchill has been published in Current Affairs here. Footage of the British public booing Churchill and chanting "We Want Labour!" can be found here.  

April 14, 2022--Loreto Rojas and Cal Winslow return with “Talking About California” and part 3 of a series on the causes and consequences of the war in Ukraine. Their guest is Tariq Ali, the celebrated writer, film maker and peace activist. He writes fiction and non-fiction and has published in magazines and newspapers including the Guardian and the London Review of books. He is frequently a guest on Democracy Now.

Jersey born, New York bred entrepreneur, Tariq Ali, acquired his first business opportunity fresh out of college. 30 years later, Marrakech Moroccan Restaurant is known as a staple in Las Vegas for its amazing food, culture and entertainment. Located just north of the Strip, Marrakech is a perfect choice for date night, business meetings, and every celebration in between. Being from Egyptian and Lebanese descent, Tariq has wholeheartedly created the perfect fusion of Moroccan, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern cuisine in a six course Halal feast for only $49.99 a person. Escape for the evening inside "The Tent" , where bellydancers perform nightly in show stopping, jewel encrusted costumes to ancestral beats that get everyone out of their seats to join the party! This year, Tariq has big plans for his restaurant with new renovations, expansion and the addition of hookah to the menu. Whether you're a local or a tourist, sometimes the Vegas scene can get mundane. Come get the Marrakech experience! https://www.instagram.com/marrakechlv/  

In Part 2 of our interview with Tariq Ali, we discuss the developments with Venezuela, the conflict in Ukraine, and the response from China.

Soaring fuel prices across the world embolden the case for a faster transition to renewable energy; Tariq Ali on Ukraine, Russia, NATO and more; Anti-LGBTQ measures target youth in states such as Florida, Texas and Idaho. Get Democracy Now! delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for the Daily Digest: democracynow.org/subscribe

In Part 2 of our interview with Tariq Ali, we discuss the developments with Venezuela, the conflict in Ukraine, and the response from China.

Tariq Ali has been observing and commenting on Afghanistan for more than four decades. He vehemently opposed the Soviet occupation in 1979, and the NATO invasion and subsequent invasion in 2001. The Forty Year War in Afghanistan (Verso) collects together for the first time his most important writings on this troubled country, and contains a new introduction written in the wake of NATO's ignominious retreat.Ali is in conversation with LRB contributing editor James Meek, who as foreign correspondent for the Guardian witnessed the war in Afghanistan at first hand. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.