Nazi: no. Hypocrite: you betcha!
I wouldn't describe BlairSupporter as a Nazi. For a start his politics are too incoherent, for another he doesn't have the requisite hatred of Jews. He hates leftists, and gays, and Muslims, and anyone who isn't white, and he would dearly love to throw out all that elected government nonsense and have the country run by right-thinking people (which is why I nicknamed him Uncle Jimmy after the character in the Reggie Perrin series). I feel justified in tagging him as a neofascist, but by comparison with Bonni and the fellow-travellers sharing the space under her rock, he's comparatively harmless, and provokes laughter more frequently. (I note though that despite all Bonni's declarations that she doesn't care if the people she supports are open supporters of Hitler provided they hate Muslims enough, and despite all her Holocaust denial and diatribes against "vile Jews", Jimmy has still never wavered in his support for Bonni and her Nazi pals.
Jimmy these days doesn't have much to say about Muslims, preferring to concentrate on whitewashing the tattered reputation of the washed-up failure whose name he attaches to his site (and indeed his own alias). But that doesn't stop him from trotting out hypocrisy, lies, and simple bewilderment.
Let's start with some hypocrisy. Here is a post linking to a video clip where an interview between Tony Blair and Andrew Marr has been edited to make it appear that Blair is talking about having a sexual relationship with Gordon Brown. Jimmy's comment is "I challenge you to watch this edited Andrew Marr interview of Tony Blair (2m 45s) without laughing, or at least smiling. Brilliant work."
OK, I didn't laugh (the humour is a bit infantile for my taste) but I can certainly see that some folk would find it hilarious. Jimmy has every right to be amused by it. But can you imagine for one second that he would take such a benign view if a similar clip were to be aired in which an interview with Blair had been edited to make it seem that he'd had a sexual relationship with George W Bush? Or Benjamin Netanyahu? Or if an interview with Gordon Brown were to be edited so that he appeared to be describing a session of buggery with Blair?
Oh, wait, we don't need to imagine, because Channel 4 did something similar last year, airing a supposedly humorous piece called "The Hunt For Tony Blair". I didn't watch it: it was a good deal longer than Jimmy's little Youtube clip, and while I don't mind watching a couple of minutes of puerile junk by way of research I drew the line at an hour of "alternative comedy" by The Comic Strip Presents.... when none of their earlier offerings had brought a smile to my face. I don't know whether Jimmy watched it either, though I rather doubt it. The point is that one of the gags in THFTB was the idea that Margaret Thatcher seduced Tony Blair. So how did Jimmy react to this? Here's how (capitals are all Jimmy's):
OUR SOCIETY’S MORAL VALUES HAVE BEEN SAVAGED AND WRECKED IN NO SMALL PART BY A CORRUPT AND MENDACIOUS ALL-PERVASIVE MEDIA AND ITS SOULMATES – THE SO-CALLED “ARTS” WORLD. BOTH REGULARLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR “FREEDOMS” WITH IMPUNITY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. <
Even better, he adds this:
Tony Blair ...has children, one of just 11 years old, who will be aware of this inane hogwash. They may even be personally affected, if only through ribbing or bullying.
Perfectly true, of course. And so does Gordon Brown: two sons, one eight years old and the other just five and suffering from cystic fibrosis. Does Jimmy give a shit about the effect on them of his promotion of a video portraying their father as a homosexual who was in a relationship with Tony Blair? Clearly not.
Call this “film” a comic strip; call it a satire; call it a film noir. Call it what you will. I call it a disgrace.
But when similar "humour" is directed against Gordon Brown - a man without whom, incidentally, Blair could never have been elected and without whose solid support he could never have run the country - then Jimmy calls it "brilliant work".
While we're doing Jimmy's hypocrisy, I wonder who else has noticed that nowhere at all on Jimmy's blog is there any mention of Anders Breivik, perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in Europe this century. None. Nothing. Not a single word of condemnation for this killer of innocent adults and children. (I just Googled again to be certain.) I won't speculate on why that might be, though I will point out that Jimmy shares many of the views expressed by Breivik on the "Islamisation" of Europe, the evils of multiculturalism, the wicked left-wing media and the complicity of "leftists" in the (imagined) attempt to impose a global caliphate and sharia law. Also on the need for "right-thinking people" to overthrow governments which pander to immigrants. No doubt Jimmy deplores Breivik's actions, but he's never said so.
Which is strange when you consider Jimmy's reaction to Muslim idiots who set fire to a wreath of paper poppies at a Remembrance Day ceremony. They "should be locked up", they should "burn in hell", and even if they are "legal citizens of our country" they're "not BRITISH" (damn that pesky skin colour). The BBC are accused of "disgraceful bias" for reporting that the leader of the EDL had been charged with assaulting a police officer, and Jimmy wonders whether they are in cahoots with all three main political parties, which are in denial about the threat from Islamic extremism. And in a couple of chillingly Breivik-like asides he warns
To the politicians in this blighted land of ours – time is short. It really is.
Too many students today. Too few brains.
And the news story which prompted Jimmy's original puff piece for Bare Naked Islam was the murder of two adults and three children in the Israeli settlement of Itamar by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Jimmy found that worthy of pages and pages of condemnation. Yet none for the Oslo and Utoya victims. Is that because the Itamar victims were Jewish settlers (not a group generally known for their left-wing attitudes), while the victims at Utoya were socialists? Or is it that the Itamar killers were brown and Breivik white?
So to sum up. Muslims set fire to paper flowers and yell a lot, and Jimmy goes berserk, declares them non-British and demands that they be locked up. A white guy attacks a police officer and when the BBC report it they are guilty of "bias" for failing to cover up this exemplary British behaviour and focus on the paper-burners. A couple of Palestinians murder 2 adults and 3 children and Jimmy's outrage knows no bounds. Meanwhile, another white guy slaughters 8 adults and 69 children and Jimmy has nothing to say about it at all, possibly because the white guy shares Jimmy's own views on Muslims, immigrants, leftists, multiculturalism, politicians and students.
Perhaps when Anders Breivik is sentenced Jimmy will find something to say. Though somehow I suspect he may find some fascinating piece of Blair puffery to pull from his archive that day so as to avoid any awkwardness.
I'll come back to the bewilderment and lies in a bit. I think the amount of hypocrisy on display both over acts of non-violent and violent protest, terrorist murders and tasteless adolescent humour is enough to be going on with.