Although I think it is a mistake to consort with the EDL, does it not seem strange that the two US bloggers behind Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs should be banned from entering the UK… whilst Mohammad Al-Arefe can come into the country and preach the overthrow of Western Civilisation?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
They should have just said they were members of Hezbollah…Perry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Independent sites, Blogging & Bloggers · UK affairs June 26th, 2013 |
 58 comments to They should have just said they were members of Hezbollah… |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
They already banned Michael Savage. I listen to his show occasionally and while he’s a bit strident for my taste, sometimes, I’ve never heard anything that seems ban-worthy.
Yes but Richard, he’s a rightwingnutextremist, don’tcha know–I mean, he doesn’t seem to approve of the Sith nor its policies, which right–er, left–thinking people everywhere support. Tsk!
It’s really a tragic state of affairs when a government feels it cannot let intelligent, knowledgeable people speak to the nation under its care. Mr. Spencer and Miss Geller are trying to support Western civilization, and in this case Britain in particular–not, like the Communists and the Islamicists, to conquer and destroy it.
Well, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. We Americans aren’t quite there yet–we’re still legally allowed to speak disapprovingly of the “Religion of Peace”–but we’re working hard to catch up with you.
By the way, Mr. Spencer has put up two postings on this today (June 26 in the U.S.) at Jihad Watch. The first, “Britain Capitulates to Jihad,” includes a scan of the letter from the Home Office, and the second, entitled “British pol Tony Lloyd libels Spencer and Geller, incites hatred and violence,” is a good healthy fisking of Anjem Choudary’s remarks.
Ooops, big mistake. It’s not Choudary Mr. Spencer is fisking, but rather a piece in the Manchester Gazette on 6/25: “Tony Lloyd’s plea: Don’t let hate preachers into UK.”
Apologies.
So just run a telecon over the internet. Companies do it all the time, why not set it up for the meeting they were going to address using large screen projectors? The questions and answers may be delayed by a few seconds but that’s better than not having them talk at all – and has the added benefit of annoying the powers that be.
What does Atlas Shrugged have to do with the EDL?
Not Atlas Shrugged, the novel — “Atlas Shrugs,” which is the name of anti-Jihadist Pamela Geller’s website. She’s staunchly anti-Islamicist-jihad, staunchly pro-America and pro-Israel, and staunchly pro-Ayn Rand. And she’s an activist in trying to defend America and Israel, and the West generally, from the Islamicists.
PS. Her home page is at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
PPS. Among other things, she has an article up from the Independent:
…Read the rest at
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antiground-zero-mosque-campaigners-pamela-geller-and-robert-spencer-barred-from-entering-britain-to-speak-at-an-edl-rally-8675251.html
Cooperating with the EDL would indeed be a mistake – as they contain racist members (I know they contain many non racist members – but when you mix water and urine what do you get?) And are, most likely, infiltrated by people working for the British state (who will do racist things in order to discredit a pro Western position – when required to do so).
For example, UKIP has a strict policy that anyone who has ever been a member of a racist group may not be a member of the political party. The EDL has ex BNP members within it (most likely these are the same people who are privately working for the British state and will, at key moments, do racist things in order to discredit opposition to Islam).
However, as for the ban on Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer even visiting the U.K. and telling the truth about Islam…..
The ban is disgusting – but what do people expect?
As long ago as 1965 it was decided by the government of the United Kingdom that an end to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association (which must include the right not to associate – i.e. to “discriminate”) was a price worth paying for a multicultural society.
The time to really stand up for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association was when they came under attack – now two generations of British people have been taught that “discrimination” is a crime (not just bad morals – but a crime), and that Freedom of Speech does not include opinions the establishment elite do not like.
In the United States the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which does not include an attack on Freedom of Speech – “just” an attack on Freedom of Association) was justified due to the legacy of “Jim Crow” (COMPULSORY discrimination – which were actually struck down by the 1954 Supreme Court judgement) regulations, in some States, and slavery (before 1865) in the United States.
There was no such effort at justification in Britain (because there were no Jim Crow laws here). It was just held, by the establishment elite, that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association were trumped by the “public good” – the catch all utilitarian principle that has undermined the principles of liberty in the United Kingdom since the 19th century.
Once it is accepted that “rights” (if they exist at all) are from THE STATE (not from nature) and that they are trumped by calculations of advantage by the state, and that “law” is just the “will of the state”, then the destruction of liberty is no longer an “if” question, it becomes a “when” question.
Liberty will be destroyed (once its philosophical foundations are rejected) – it just becomes a question of “when?”.
And, of course, liberty will be destroyed in the name of the “public good”.
Do you accept that “law” is just the product of those in authority?
And that this “law” should be created according to the “public good”?
If you do – then forget about liberty.
“does it not seem strange ”
Not sure that “strange” is the word I would use.
Given the wretched nature of the UK coalition government and its craven behaviour on such issues, I am not surprised, although I am still angry. We allow in homophobic, anti-women, religious nutters who want to bring back the Caliphate in its most ruthless form, but woe betide us if we allow advocates of Western civilisation to come here.
Bah.
Spencer and Geller get banned while al-Arefe gets in. The reason is that banning Geller and Spencer won’t, in the minds of the Authorities, get anybody beheaded. Violent people are favored and peaceful people get bent over. Sigh.
Actually, I’ve long advocated (tongue-in-cheek) that Britons generally should be forbidden entry into the US on the grounds that if their government thinks they’re too dangerous to be allowed access to arms, then they’re too dangerous to be allowed the access to arms they’d have by being here.
It’s nonsense, of course, but I wonder how the British government could argue against it if some rich and turbulent American were to ask a federal court to enjoin the US from admitting Britons.
“The list is indicative and not exhaustive.” Nice.
On reflection, I’m not sure I’m against a government minister having the authority to refuse entry into the country on the grounds of “public good” when the concern is violence. But it does seem as though that authority is being exercised with a degree of prejudice.
@Julie thank you for the introduction, but my question was more specific. How does an Ayn Rand fan end up endorsing the EDL? Objectivists are usually *very* careful who they mix with. Even IF the EDL are unfaily maligned, have many non-racist mebers etc Geller is still being absurdly unfussy.
Simon
(the Objectivist organiser of Libertarian meetups…)
The mindset of the western world is being set up for its own destruction.
You can be to the extreme one side of that mindset, or to the extreme other.
But if you step outside it you are an unmentionable.
Surellin hits the nail on the head: the double standards at play here are breathtaking. But really, for someone who makes such a play of her admiration for Rand, consorting with the likes of the EDL was a pretty dumb move in the first place. The enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend.
In the UK, the ‘battle against fascism’ is so important that it means that a charity rejects donations to save a child rather than accept money from people connected to the EDL.
Yes, Simon, I did somewhere run across your mention of being an Objectivist. But your question was, in so many words, “What does Atlas Shrugged have to do with the EDL?” My answer was that it wasn’t the novel but the weblog “Atlas SHRUGS” (different title) that “has to do with the EDL.”
I’ve never heard Pamela G. call herself “an Objectivist,” although I’m sure she tries to apply the principles as she understands them.
1. If the EDL are being unfairly maligned (and I have no idea whether or to what extent that’s true), then there’s nothing eyebrow-raising at all about Miss Geller’s addressing them, and certainly she’s not being “absurdly unfussy.” That would amount to faulting her for not going along with ostracizing — even, by implication, maligning — the innocent!
2. Suppose the EDL does include some racists. So do most political groups, truth be told. I daresay that even includes the Tea Party, which is most definitely NOT a racist bunch, all the media hype and Lefty-Progressive-librul-Democratic screeching to the contrary. Is it therefore unacceptable to speak to a Tea Party group?
As a matter of fact, it has been stated on this very board that “America is a country of casual racists.” Therefore by the same principle, no Samizdatist should ever “endorse” America by speaking to a group of Americans.
It just doesn’t do to say “well [EDL] has some racist members so don’t deal with them!” — even if the premise is correct. It depends on the group. Our group Stormfront, for instance, is (as I understand it — and maybe I’m guilty of insufficient fact-checking myself, but I don’t think so) avowedly racist, meaning white-supremacist; i.e., it advocates true racism, not merely anti-Islamicism, which of course isn’t racism at all.
3. In any case, to address a group is most certainly not to “endorse” it or its aims. If Miss Geller addressed a Labour group on the Muslim issue, would it mean she is endorsing the Labour Party? If she speaks before any kind of librul (or Democratic Party) group here, does that mean she’s endorsing the libruls or the Democrats? Of course not.
Remember, I speak as one who is pretty hyper about the endorsement, or “moral support,” issue myself — see the recent “Inhumane Regime” discussion. :>(
[By the way, before anybody brings it up — no, to address a group of Chinese businessmen (or any group of Chinese people, for that matter) on free markets or other economic issues is not to endorse the Chinese system. Quite the contrary. Entirely different, by and large, from doing business with Chinese firms.]
And here we go again on the EDL and its merits (or lack thereof).
Bill O’Reilly (Mr Establishment – busy supporting the immigration amnesty at the moment) gave an EDL leader a friendly interview a couple of weeks ago. He clearly had not been briefed on the problems with the EDL.
With the large scale resources of News International behind him – one would expect Bill O’Reilly to be better briefed than Pamela Geller, but he does not appear to be.
I know a bit about both these people. I first came across Geller when she organized a small demonstration in support of Denmark and freedom for cartoonists. She is not what the Germans call ‘salonfahig’ (if I’ve got the spelling right). Untamed and unafraid, she is not too well informed about European politics and history.
Spencer speaks Arabic and is a serious student of Islamic history. He has some things to say about Muslim history which are shocking, but no more shocking that the sorts of things scholars have been saying about Jesus and Moses for the last couple of hundred years.
Why either of these Americans should want to have anything to do wit the EDL escapes me ?
Why not? Based on their manifesto, the EDL is right up their alley.
The only problem many have with them is that a number of EDL members are racist, facist, and apparently jackboot thugs, and the rest of the organization is thus smeared with the same brush and hardly considered fit company for enlightened libertarians out for high standards of ideological purity.
If I’ve got this right, the issue here is these two speakers have been denied entry because of the views they might voice. The OP seems to take the position this is an abuse of freedom of speech. But then it criticizes “consorting” with the EDF. Which presumably refers to the two banned individuals addressing an EDF meeting.
Well hang on. Isn’t there a great deal of incoherence here? You’re saying on one hand these people have a message that they have a right to disseminate. On the other hand, the knuckledraggers of the EDF don’t have the right to hear it.
Sounds a peculiar form of freedom of speech to me. Somebody been overdosing on the Guardian?
Politically correct dogma as formulated by so called social scientists, (public sector poltroons) is a nauseous measure denying freedom of speech.
It’s hardly surprising that on behalf of Islamists the illegality of blasphemy seems to be making a return!
In the “Jewish Chronicle” (the newspaper that thinks that balance is having two rabbis giving a reply to the dispute about the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem – BOTH of whom are on the side of having no area of the wall reserved for men, thus making the Wall no longer of use as a place of Jewish worship as traditionally practiced, traditional Jews are like the “Taliban” you see, “none of your business as you are Christian, Paul” true enough, but having two rabbis arguing the SAME side was rather a waste of printers ink) reports that the Jewish Board of Deputies SUPPORTS the banning of Pamela Geller, Spencer Abraham (the Armenian American) and the Dane Anders Gravers (of Stop the Islamisation of Europe).
The pro censorship Jonathan Arkush (of the Board of Deputies) justified his support for the ban by saying that the presence of people who told the truth would be “deeply unhelpful to community relations”.
Mr Arkush continued by saying “The Board stands resolutely opposed to extremism from wherever it comes [telling the truth is “extremism”]. It rejects messaged of hatred and communal division [more smearing of Pamela Gellar and the others] whether they are uttered by Islamist hardliners or those who profess hostility to the religion of Islam”.
“Inflammatory events and statements serve only to give encouragement to extreme elements on all sides. Violence and hatred must by cool thinking and the appropriate use of the law, not by pouring fuel on the flames of anger and intolerance”.
A more disgusting display of dishonesty and cowardice than that shown by Mr Arkush (of the British Board of Deputies) would be difficult to imagine.
However, the Jewish Chronicle does give part of Pamela Geller reply to this betrayal.
“an enormously sad commentary on Jewish lay leadership, and worse, a stunning indictment of their culpability”.
“It mimics the inadequate and ill conceived political action of the Jewish councils in Germany in the late 1930s and 40s. We are not supposed to say such things, but it is true”.
I feel personally on this matter as my aunt (a practicing Orthodox Jew who has just died) held the same general view of Islam that Pamela Geller does (neither “hated” individual Muslims – but they both knew the truth about what Islam teaches), no doubt the Board of Deputies would have betrayed my aunt as they have betrayed Pamela Geller.
Not only, as Pamela Geller rightly says “The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead”, but the Board of Deputies (by its policy of lies, cowardice and betrayal) is preparing the way for the wiping out of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.
All political organisations will have a number of members that are bonkers or cranks or rabid extremists. But the proportion of said folks in an organisation is a very good basis for determining its true outlook and objectives. Well the EDL has a very large number of former NF/BNP folks. Exactly how large? I don’t know but at any gathering of the EDL (and I have seen two up close in the real world, not just the selectively cropped versions of nutters the media loves to use when it covers, say, the Tea Party in the USA or UKIP gatherings in Blighty) and I would have to say to all intents and purposes, these are just gatherings of a rebranded BNP… and not a very successfully rebranding as very few people are fooled.
Indeed. I would have similarly criticised them for being unwise for coming to address the Human Extinction Society, The Jihad for Britain Society, The Garry Glitter Children’s Society, The Jimmy Saville Appreciation Society and all manner of other folk who are really good at ‘tainting the message’.
None whatsoever.
Yes indeed.
Nope. They absolutely do have the right to hear it and these two unwise bloggers should have been allowed in to do so. And in doing so, they take their very valid message and at a stroke make it a trivially easy matter for their enemies to simply tar them with the racist-fascist brush that one gets when addressing a collection of racist-fascists, which is at the very least terrible tactics. That is why it is unwise to consort with such people.
In what way?
I’m sorry to extend this further than perhaps this site’s hosts or even their fellow citizens care for, but I find it fascinating. Spencer addressed it from a slightly different angle here. I am merely including the link as another data point, not as an endorsement.
It seems to me that the linkage between the EDL and Spencer, Geller, et al has as much to with the agreement in principles (and leadership) as it has to do with the ignorance of any competing mass movement. Is there one?
Moreover, all anti-immigration organizations in Europe are painted with the same “right-wing fascist” brush. This includes, for example, the Danish People’s Party. Apart from immigration there is very little to differentiate them from the Social Democrats, but yet they too are termed “right wing fascist” and gallons of ink/pixels are devoted to proving this. What I know about Gert Wilders sounds similar. How do foreigners then determine those organizations that are worthy?
It seems to me that those who disavow the EDL are not explaining these distinctions well enough and/or providing alternatives. Maybe it can’t be done.
Yes that is true. But for some outfits, such as the EDL, it is almost certainly true where as for the likes of Gert Wilders and many others, it is preposterous.
So what’s the difference between the EDL and Geert Wilders? Or between the EDL and UKIP? The acceptable options dress better and butters up their policies in nicer/posh language? Or because they specifically disavow ‘racists’ from their ranks?
I don’t think the UKIP has managed to completely accomplish this – any googling of ‘racism’ and ‘UKIP’ easily provides a number of results to indicate that UKIP also has a number of people who easily fall into the category of ‘racist’, only that they are better at keeping their public masks on. The public, both pro and anti-immigrant, isn’t fooled at all.
By necessity, the policies that UKIP and EDL espouse are, at their core, racist. Or perhaps an even more accurate term would be ‘culturalist’, which advocates implanting British values and social mores in non-British stock. Coloured on the outside, British on the inside, so to speak. And that is absolutely right and proper.
However, there is a very strong correlation between racism and ‘culturalism’, and by promoting one culture above others, it by definition means the others should be eradicated. And while a few people are aware that race=/=culture, for most people they are one and the same. So the cultural superiority viewpoint of UKIP is conflated with racism.
Here’s some rather harsh commentary of the non-working class disdain for the EDL:
http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/06/losing-the-plot/#more-29319
Mobs of (sometimes) rebadged BNP boot boys looking to do some Paki bashing.
One is full of members of a fascist political party and the other is actually entering the mainstream.
Well they fooled me then. As I said before, just because the media keeps playing the racists card does not make it true. EDL has all the hallmarks of a fascist political movement, because it is full of a significant number of BNP members, UKIP does not, because it is not.
Wrong.
Much better.
I agree entirely.
“…that one gets when addressing a collection of racist-fascists”
There you go again. The great Perry de Havilland has decided the EDF – which is of course not some sort of strange composite hive mind but composed of individuals just like…the great Perry de Havilland – are unclean should not be touched. Jeez! And you’re the guy has problems with the concept of collectivization! I’d say the Wobbly Guy has a much more realistic view of the world, untainted by the academic pretension of slapping labels on everything before failing to understand them.
The EDF will be like most things. Fuzzy. There’s a lot of the white working class are sick of this whole touchy-feely multi-culti shit. They’re watching the places the know, grew up in, live in until they’re driven out, turn into cesspits. They have noticed that one particular ethnic group seems overwhelmingly responsible for this. (No. Don’t give me government immigration policy as the cause, here. These people don’t do high policy debates. No-one’d listens to them if they did. They get effects.)
Racist? Yep. That’s the world & it ain’t coffee coloured. Always amuses to read Paul Marks, with his Jewish background railing against racism. As a goy who grew up in a Jewish part of London it’s a bit rich. Know what a yok is? Yiddish. A non Jewish bloke in common parlance. Feminine’s shiksa. You can’t really do that in English. We don’t have the concepts. Don’t see everyone else as being different & not ‘one of us’ in quite the same way. So when the family finds out their precious daughter is dating someone who can talk the talk but doesn’t walk the walk… And that’s just ordinary Jews. Frummers (Orthodox if you don’t do the spiel) don’t fraternize so the question doesn’t often arise. Exaggeration, Paul? Yeh little. But not unfamiliar, is it? Anti-semetic? It’s coming from someone who lived with a Jewish woman for years & help bring up her kids. Still part of the family when UK side. So you tell me.
Jews, Blacks, Sikhs, Greek Cypriots, Chinese, Turks, Poles. You name them, they cleave to their own. Treat outsiders differently. Lot of tension between the black & Asian communities where the turf overlaps. But only white men can be racist. Yeah, right.
Fascist? Still pushing that one? When the EDL starts calling for state control of industry, get back to us.
EDL, even the BNP are just people. People like us. Tattoos? Bit precious isn’t it? Half the girls on the beach down the road have tattoos. Sometimes they wear DMs? Terrifying! Just shows the gulf between middle class intellectuals & the rest of us. Shock horror! We don’t all choose sensible knitwear. And we aren’t all instinctive pacifists or gutless as some prefer to call it. Those who live in a world where if you don’t stick up for yourself you get trodden on. Which is a lot of the UK these days, since the police absented themselves from the streets. Do ‘libertarians’ ever consider, instead of endlessly congratulating each other on their fine prose & holding their noses at the mention of the EDL it might be worth recognising they’re as unhappy with the status quo as ‘libertarians’ are? Could maybe benefit from some ‘libertarian’ wisdom, rather than leave them prey to being influenced by the real fascists? Oh, sorry. They’re not the right sort of people, are they? Can’t be seen talking to the riff-raff.
Sorry mate but you might find it inconvenient to have anyone who has seen the EDL up close point out the screamingly obvious but “the great Perry de Havilland” is not the only one to have noticed who makes up a large portion of the ranks of the EDL. The EDL is not a ‘political party’ any more than the Sturmabteilung was… so no, I am fairly sure it will not be calling for state control of industry. So what? That is not their function any more than that SA was really in the business of issuing industrial policy papers but that did not make them any less ‘fascist’.
And I will start worrying about Jews (and Chinese, Sikhs etc) when they start trying to impose their religion on me. But of course they don’t, so if some Jews want to just be around other Jews and not you, so what? Someone might not want to cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire, free association and all that, so I am not sure why you think it has any relevance if you had some grief with some Jewish woman and her family that put a bee in your bonnet about “the Jews” either.
If all Islam argued for was Muslims just being around Muslims, like some Jews want to be around Jews, there really isn’t much of a problem… but unlike Judaism, Islam is an evangelistic religion that seeks to impose itself on everyone. That is a problem.
But of course I guess that is too nuanced and Guardian-like for your flat cap working class sensibilities.
jdm, thanks for the link to the Frontpagemag piece by Mr. Spencer.
The first comment to the article is by Linda Rivera (a spirited, generally intelligent long-time commenter at FPM and elsewhere). In it she gives a link to Paul Weston’s speech in Croydon. It runs almost 20 minutes and is certainly stirring!
The next commenter replies as follows:
There are many more comments.
the EDL are, much like other more ‘respectable’ commentators such as melanie phillips, pro western, pro britain and anti-islamist. Their fatal flaw however is being composed primarily of the working class which apparently makes them persona non grata to the limp wristed ‘liberarians’ who apparently think islam can be defeated with cleverly worded blog posts and arguments at dinner parties.
Geller and Spence realise that in the coming war with Islam that it will be those awful commoners such as the EDL that will win the fight, not metropolitan latte drinking ‘libertarians’.
You are so full of it, Nick. Their fatal flaw is not being composed primarily of the working class, it is being primarily composed of members of the BNP. Which bit of that do you find hard to comprehend? And being dominated by people like that is really not a whole lot better that being dominated by political muslims. Your ‘solution’ of backing the EDL for fear of islam is like suicide for fear of death.
Priceless.
Perry. Do you do anything else but slurs? Where has Nick, where have anyone else including myself said anything about “backing” the EDL? The post was about talking to them, not backing them.
Sorry, but your drawing room ‘libertarianism’ will go nowhere. is going nowhere, if you don’t talk to people other than yourselves. What’s so frightening about the EDL? “Bootboys”? This is the site has an automatic in it’s graphics & talks about “a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati”. Seems to advocate the right to possess firearms. Yet you’re touchy about the violence implicit in a pair of DMs & some less than PC symbolism.
“…where have anyone else including myself said anything about “backing” the EDL?”
Listen mate, you obviously think I am as much a fool as I think you are. The EDL is full of BNP members. If you deny that you are either a liar or a fool. And if you do not think that an organisation being full of BNP members is a problem and indicative that said organisation shares the value of the BNP, then you are really no less The Enemy than the Islamists. The “violence implicit in a pair of DMs & some less than PC symbolism” is the violence of 1930’s Germany. Once that genie is out of the bottle, the Islamists are the least of our worries.
Also if you think getting a bunch of EDL guys out on the streets advances the cause of liberty or makes the streets safer from Islamic nutters or actually does *anything* useful, you really must be joking. So yeah I am as contemptuous of you as you are of me.
So the EDL is full of BNP members. So what? That’d be the bloke used to walk his dog in Seven Kings park I used to chat with. About 60 & a spaniel not pit bull. There’s a lot of people like him are unhappy about the level of immigration. Specifically Muslim. Have you ever seen Seven Kings? Last election, Labour leader was calling people like him bigots. Remember? So if he wants to show his disapproval where does he go? Tories? LimpDims? BNP did actually get real votes in the Euros. Enough to get 3 MEPs, wasn’t it? Real people put real crosses on real pieces of paper. Lots of them.
Yes the BNP may have some doubtful people amongst its membership. What party hasn’t? Wouldn’t stop me trying to win Labour Party members to the free market cause because it’s got Marxists in it.
So what’s wrong with trying to win disaffected people to your ‘libertarian’ cause? Counter the influence of the real fascists? These people are looking for something. Why not show them something?
I would like to point out that the working class (in almost any country, really) is usually racist. The majority of working class people lack the education, capacity, willingness, or patience to understand the nuances surrounding race/national relations.
See Alisa’s link. That’s your typical working class standard male. He just wants the laws he grew up in to continue working the way as he understood them, the women of his community to be safe (it’s not ray guns, it’s r*p* g*ngs, chalk that down to poor enunciation). He fears the unknown, fears the unfamiliar.
They can’t be bothered with ‘high-falutin’ ideas, they just want their communities to be safe, their customs respected, and to have hope for their children’s future. So I don’t think Perry is too far wrong when he says the EDL is comprised of a lot of BNP folks. But they are also working class, and you do need to have the working class on your side in any election, or worst case scenario, a revolution.
Doesn’t quite make them wrong, but they do need to have their concerns addressed if you want to get them on your side. It doesn’t mean pandering to their racist tendencies, but rather bringing them over to your ideology in a way that they can grasp and understand with minimum effort.
As someone who went to a state school (and not a nice one) and has spent many decades working in such jobs as security guard and car park attendant, I think I am qualified to express an opinion on the “working class”.
Some working people are intelligent, some are not. Some are bigoted, some are not. And so on.
Just like everyone else.
People – do not make the mistake of judging people by their accent or how many long words they use. Formal education may increase someone’s vocabulary, but it does NOT make them more intelligent (let alone better people – the idea, even expressed in the late 19th century, that the job of a university was to “make these young men as unlike their fathers as possible” is creepy – to use a long word it has a totalitarian objective).
As for the EDL – I know little of them.
However, I do know the BNP – and there are a lot of bad people in the BNP. There are some good people who have voted for it (as a protest) – but the activists (the actual members) they do not tend to be good.
By the way the leader of the BNP is certainly not “working class” (no matter how much he puts on a fake way of speaking). Mr G. is as fake as those other Cambridge graduates who never did a menial job in their lives – the famous five who took it upon themselves to decide what was in the interests of the “working class”.
I agree Wobbly Guy. But the ones in the EDL are ‘gone’ I suspect. You want to see a group who I think are very well positioned to reach out to the working class? UKIP.
You have a point Perry – and a point that my “tribe” (and politics is a tribal matter in my East Midlands town) will have to seriously consider before the next general election.
If David Davis had defeated David Cameron in the leadership election things might have been different, but Mr Davis did not defeat Mr Cameron – so we must see what can be done…
By the way – Eton and Oxford (and lots of inherited and married wealth) is NOT the problem with Mr Cameron, the problem is that he is a professional politician (never really been anything else) and life long professional politicians tend to have “positions” rather than principles.
It is perfectly true that a pragmatic person (such as Mr Cameron) is better than someone with evil principles (such as “Ken” Clarke), but “Mr Cameron does NOT have evil principles” is not really enough.
Alisa I have just watched the film you kindly linked to.
I am always wary of people who deliberately make their heads look like mine – I am naturally bald (I wish I was not – but there we go, such is male baldness I had wavy hair and one day it waved farewell), but why should a young man, who has hair, shave his head? Normally (although not always) in indicates a certain political point of view.
Also the young man was incredibly inarticulate – like someone speaking a language not native to him (actually, even among the uneducated, must people do not speak that badly).
However, (leaving the words that sounded a bit like “ray guns” – but could have been anything) the young man made two points….
First that the followers of Islam seek to impose Islamic law – this is true.
Secondly that their has been an outbreak of underage rape against infidel girls – and this is also true.
The inarticulate young man also said “there is nothing we can do about that” in relation to Islamic law being opposed in Muslim majority counties (as opposed to Western countries – where such a conquest can still be prevented). In this statement the inarticulate young man was a lot less dumb than ex Prime Minister Blair (and a lot of others – with their dreams for the Middle East and elsewhere).
Paul: I honestly could not make out a single word of what he said – I’m genuinely glad that he is not as dumb as he sounded to me.
As for the Islamic world – I have just watched the ultra Islamists line up with the Social Justice secularists (under the military) against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a major blow against the Turkish government – as they are close to Muhammed Morsi, the two parties being linked).
It is good news or bad?
Who knows. The Brotherhood are bad guys – but the other people are not nice either (gunning down 16 pro Morsi protestors last night – the BBC reported this as “clashes”).
I would not be astonished if Glenn Beck’s prediction (made years ago) that Muhammed Al B. will end up as President comes true – the “international community” loves him and he will be a much more cunning enemy of Israel than the (rather stupid) Morsi was.
But I would like to know who paid for these endless fireworks and banners – fireworks do not come cheap and thousands have been let off (day after day) for a long time now.
The anti Morsi protesters seem to be much better financed than the pro Morsi ones (they do not have nearly as many banners and so on).
As for the economic side…..
The shortages (of fuel and so on) will continue till prices are allowed to rise – and till distribution networks (controlled by the state since Nasser) are returned to private ownership.
This is not what the protestors want.
They want “Social Justice” which they defined in their protests of two years ago as “free bread” (and so on).
“When the people riot for more bread, the first thing they do is smash up the bakeries”.
Alisa – even as a native Engish speaker I had great trouble working out what he was saying.
The Englishman is branded on his tongue – class is indicated (even more than in other lands) by voice(although someone who is actually from the county of “squires and spires”, Northamptonshire, can confuse people – to some English people I sound upper class, which is amusing considering my actual background) – but this young man went beyond that.
I suspect the interviewer broadcast the most inarticulate person he could find – for reasons of cruel amusement.
Paul,
The question of who pays is always a good one. From the Free Syian Army to the Cámporas in Argentina, to be economically inactive and protesting requires a lunch and more. Victor Suvoov pointed out that the PLO wasted ammo into Beirut skies in the 70s, as the Soviets indulged them with supplies.
I would like to say that the Egyptian Army, despite its many bakeries, has someone in it who might just have a great sense of humour, deposing the President and putting the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court into his place.
That was my thought as well, Paul.
Mr Ed – I suspect that the intention is for the Chief Justice to just keep the seat warm for Muhammed Al B. – but we shall see.
There are already street battles in Alex.
“Ice cold in Alex” as the film says (Alisa if you have not seen this film – you should, it is a classic World War II film). Sadly the city has fallen on hard times since the terrible coup of 1952.
There is a far better candidate than the gentleman mentioned, Nobel Prize winning chemist Dr Zewail.
He does not want the job.
The Nobel Prize for Chemistry is a true achievement.
The Nobel Prize for “Peace” has become a badge of shame.
Paul, thus Mr. Coward: “To be not bad with an unfortunate manner is not enough–”
LOL! Forget which play.
Quite so Julie.
Which film was that, Paul?
“Ice Cold in Alex” I believe.
Pat Condell contributes to the topic about the EDL. Don’t know the man’s reputation in the UK, but I find him interesting.