An Islamic group called islam4uk, who are a front organisation for the islamo-fascist group al-Muhajiroun, want to march through Wootton Bassett carrying “symbolic coffins” as a protest against the ongoing British participation in the Afghan civil war against the Taliban.
My suggestion is that the good people of Wootton Bassett reply by throwing “symbolic bricks” at the Islamo-fascist protesters, should they actually ever march down that town’s streets. Just symbolic bricks of course, made of sponge cake… or maybe bricks of good English bacon or Danish butter as I am sure the cheerful chaps of al-Muhajiroun will get the joke… not real bricks, because we do not want any Islamo-fascists to get their brains bashed out by our jolly japes… well, not whilst they are in Britain at least.
But what I would really like to see is for Islam4uk carry out a march carrying symbolic coffins through a street in beautiful downtown Bazarak in Panjshir Province in Afghanistan. Just about everyone there is a muslim, so what could possibly go wrong, eh? Go on, guys, give it a try.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/thats-all-very-nice-then/
There is nothing stopping them marching, except classical liberal politeness and good manners.
May I humbly suggest commend to you the projectile merits of tapioca pudding or chocolate mousse, the contents to be enclosed in a damp paper napkin. The dampness can be achieved by placing the mousse or tapioca “charge” inside a napkin and handling it gently until the contents look likely to burst out. Throw. It will burst on impact with eminently satisfactory results. No disappointed customers yet.
A new one on me Sheri. Or one could try dumdum potatoes: roast potatoes hollowed out and filled with mashed brussels sprouts. Or whatever.
It strikes me the BNP could not have paid them to come up with better publicity.
Waste a perfectly good chocolate mousse, of all things? Or did you mean a spoiled one – if there even can be such thing?
No need for elaboration, paper bags full of pigshit will do nicely…
So what’s being suggested is throwing things at unarmed and otherwise-peaceful protestors? And the only subject for debate is exactly what should be thrown at them?
Do I have that right?
If these people, however odious their views, are doing nothing more than march down the street, shouting their beliefs to the rooftops – what gives you the right to advocate throwing anything at them?
As I have said here before, the Brits – even those on the angels’ side of the centre – still have a tremendous amount to learn about what free speech really means.
llater,
llamas
Llamas:
It’s the double standards that piss me off. Free speech for Islamofascists, death if you dare to draw a cartoon of Mighty Mo.
I’m with Llamas on this and I have to say, although I’m familiar with Perry’s fairly robust views on Islamofascism, I didn’t think he’d be advocating the assault of people expressing their beliefs in public – but I do expect that the post was largely tongue-in-cheek, with a middle finger raised, just for good measure.
I joined the ‘no to Islam4UK marching through Wootton Bassett’ group on Facebook (no, I don’t know why, either – just symbolism, I s’pose), but I think the difference between myself and most of the posters there is that, whilst I think the march is wrong and I’m against it, I do not believe that it should be stopped. Lots of people on the group are making desperate comments seeking to use the law or local authorities to stop the march, even trying to get Gordon Brown to step in and somehow make a decision. It just smacks of Islamofascist tactics – they’re just blind to the hypocrisy.
My suggestion for any audience at Wootton Bassett? Line the streets with the names of all those innocent Muslims murdered in blue-on-blue attacks. Caused by British soldiers? My arse.
The fact they want to bring about a global Caliphate and are a front for a support group for terrorists. It is a bit like English fascists expecting to exercise their right to march down a street in England in 1941 and expect nothing more that indulgent smiles… that is what gives me or any other of their intended victims the right… to match one symbolic act with another. You think they are not serious? That they are playing a fucking game? You think good manners is the answer to these guys?
You think they are not serious?
I think there are few people who doubt their sincerity or intentions, but assaulting them for ‘pre-crime’ doesn’t sound particularly liberal.
It’s just words. I’m content with them hurling words in public and making dicks of themselves, rather than hand grenades. Groups of people throughout history have taken things a step further because they weren’t allowed to express their beliefs.
I think there’s a reasonable case for having a hog-calling contest or an open-air bacon market at the center of the village, at the same time. Or a shoe-throwing competition. Dress up a bunch of mannequins in keffiyahs and robes, and lob shoes at them.
What’s really needed is something that is calculated to be as culturally offensive as possible, without physically assaulting the marchers of Islam4uk.
Howsabout people hold up signs showing Mo walking a dog, eating a bacon sanny, whispering sweet nothings to a six year old, picking up dog crap with a plastic bag, saying ‘dhimmiwit’, exalting suicide bombers, being enraged about f all, ‘behead the believers’, ‘Shariah Opium-cos’ you know it makes sense’, ‘Muzzy we put up with this?’, etc. etc. etc.
But standing silently.
Their right to be offended necessitates my right to free speech.
STB.
Our generous host claims
“the right… to match one symbolic act with another . . ”
Except that that’s not what you’re suggesting, Perry de Havilland. You’re suggesting that a symbolic act (marching down the street carrying fake coffins and chanting slogans) be matched with a definitely non-symbolic act (throwing things at people so doing).
It’s not a question of ‘good manners’. I suggest that the response to these chuckleheads should be as impolite and unmannerly as possible. I hope that the police have to be deployed in large numbers to keep the peace, as thousands line the streets to hurl invective at what will undoubtedly be a very small group of rather-silly extremists. They should be left with no doubt at all that the vast majority is enthusiastically opposed to their silly delusions and the teachings of their C7 death cult.
Contrary to the implication of your question, I am quite certain that these people – or rather, the people they front for – are deadly serious. But that still does not give you or anyone else the right to express your opposition to their mere views with violence of any sort – even if you choose to call it ‘symbolic’. A violent response is reserved for those who actually do, or plan to, commit real acts of violence.
As I have said here before, the Brits – even those on the angels’ side of the centre – still have a tremendous amount to learn about what free speech really means.
On a purely practical, law-enforcement sort of note – those who advocate visiting violence on these chcukleheads who publicly, gratuitously express their Islamofascist rhetoric would do well to note that these are never the people who actually do violent acts. As the magician gets the rabbit into the hat while you’re watching the handkerchief in his other hand, so these mooks distract your attention from the real bad guys. Put simply – you’re advocating slinging things at the wrong people. They’re being put there to distract you. It seems to be working. Your efforts, and the efforts of our governments, would be much-better spent in – oh, I don’t know, watching what’s being said, and by whom, in meetings of the UCL Islamic Society? It’s just a thought . . . You’re all still laughing and jeering at the Greeks – but they’re sailing away. Better to keep an eye on that horse – you know, the one that you dragged inside the walls?
llater,
llamas
How about all the residents who have dogs walk them on the High Street at that particular hour? Is it legal not to have a dog on a leash in Britain? If so, let all the Fidos have their head and run around pawing table-cloth wearing strangers. Definitely anyone who has a pet pig should bring it along for more jolly japes. People might also like to bring along transistor radios, if anyone still has one, playing dogs barking, at volume. Maybe the pig could have a little sign around her neck reading ‘Aisha’. Just for fun.
As I have said here before, the Brits – even those on the angels’ side of the centre – still have a tremendous amount to learn about what free speech really means.
Probably because we’ve never really had it and we don’t really know what it looks like…
I think Bod has the right idea: mount a counter-demonstration, containing anything “calculated to be as culturally offensive as possible”. How about large posters of the famous Danish cartoons? “Eat More Pork” signs? Just be sure to wear a burka: you don’t want them to see your face, or you’ll have a fatwa issued against you!
One thing I should have included was that whatever is done is simultaneously as ridiculous to non-muslims as possible. Nothing deflates self-righteous hubris like a hearty guffaw, ideally experienced by every reader of The Sun and Daily Mirror.
The ideal outcome would be a riot, whereby the counter-demonstrators are photographed being assaulted by young, energetic muslim ‘yoof’ carrying “Islam is a religion of peace, Death To the Infidel!” signs.
Just be sure to wear a burka: you don’t want them to see your face, or you’ll have a fatwa issued against you!
Or an arrest warrant, for some Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006) -mandated crime… It does make me wonder how far you can go, in the eyes of those who interpret, pick and choose the application of law, in acts of calculated offensive behaviour.
I don’t think such acts would be considered ‘culturally offensive’ in this context, would they? Rather, they’d be ‘religiously offensive’, surely, putting them under the scope of the law if there’s an intention to stir up ‘hatred’?
Now you’re talking!
That might actually change some minds and put the idiocy of these chuckleheads in sharp focus for the millions of TV viewers.
As opposed to the simplistic and unimaginative response of ‘throw things at them’, which simply looks like a tawdry street brawl.
My suggestion – have each and every ever-lovin’ person in Wootton Bassett hold a vast and simultanous public cook-out that day – with pork heavily-featured on the menu. Have “Wootton in May”. Offer trays of spare-ribs to the marchers. Huge walking effigies of the Mo cartoons, or distribute thousands of hats with the Mo-bomb design that the cartoon showed. Go on – use some imagination!
The key is to get these mooks into the situation where everyone and his dog is laughing their asses off at them. And drawing the attention of the TV cameras to how ridiculous they are. As another has noted, the ideal outcome is plenty of pictures of the “demonstrators” behaving in the most hypocritical and unflattering ways possible.
This is what works when the knuckledraggers of the KKK come to town in the US. You always have the militant idiots who want to ‘mobilise on the streets to deny the fascists a platform!’, but that’s just silly. The best way by far is to give the slope-headed ‘demonstrators’ the most TV exposure possible, this allowing themselves to show the largest number of people just what sort of cousin-bedding Neanderthals they really are. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, with coarse humour a close second. Not throwing stuff.
llater,
llamas
I’m afraid when it comes to negotiating, bargaining, gaining advantage in a situation, the exercise of real spiritual power, westerners are hopelessly outmanoeuvred. With such lack of wisdom the west is going to lose unless perhaps it resorts to blind force as in the past, but in that field Iran has pretty much got the west on the run now, anyway (nukes).
I suppose the west can perhaps fall back on its technological superiority, but I am sure that edge will soon be eroded with the massive wealth transfer, as well.
Possibly the only solution in human terms is to make us one big global happy human family with a ruling elite that rules by the exercise of extreme control (where we are headed it would seem.)
My point being that we, who have substantially never experienced real totalitarian power first hand (except some, okay), are watching the civilisation that has grown up to protect us, being whittled away. In fact that whittling is now rattling along at an alarming pace.
Westerners do not know how to begin to defend themselves against the trickery of the bazaar, except a few who have first hand experience, and who are by and large ignored.
Think accurate. Not superior.
Personally I believe in the Lord Jesus.
I won’t be throwing any food at Islam4UK marchers.
There are still many more non-muslims than muslims in the UK and if the antics of a minority of UK muslims in Luon, Wooton Basset or anywhere else become tiresome then I’m sure a future government won’t be able to resist the popularity to be gained from some laws restricting their activities, or at least sending a warning shot across the bows like the Swiss have done with their ban on minarets.
John B – “In fact that whittling is now rattling along at an alarming pace.
Westerners do not know how to begin to defend themselves against the trickery of the bazaar …”. And the British don’t know how to defend themselves against their own government which has been using the islamics as a weapon against the British in their own country. The Neather Report, which doesn’t get as much mention as it should, makes note that the islamics were imported in such numbers to destabilise the British sense of self and British patriotism.
Whether these marchers know it or not, they are but tools of Blair, Brown, Harman, Johnson and, above all, Jack Straw, who has a giant grudge against the British.
The point is, pete, that *society itself* needs to reject these people’s view, not another law on the books.
Once you rely on legislation to control the behavior of people in a society, you’ve eliminated yourself from the discourse, and delegated your future to lawyers and politicians – two constituencies who have no inherent interest in protecting your freedom.
The correct response is the visceral one. When you see this kind of behavior, you know it’s distasteful. What the west needs *right now* is the testicular fortitude to say ‘Enough. We will tolerate this no longer.” A twofer would be to say that we no longer tolerate politicians who disagree. But the primary objective is to stop letting unworthy ‘leaders’ legislate what is ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’.
It’ll be hard for the West to reclaim its balls, but it’s necessary for individuals and groups of like-minded individuals to do so.
I advocate kicking the Islamic community’s crutches out from underneath them. Clear and unambiguous public demonstrations of disobedience to both EU and UK legislation.
Under conditions of free association, Islam wouldn’t last long.
Throwing bacon sandwiches at Muslims is pathetic.
Counter-protest, with signs saying things like “Death Penalty for Islamic Terrorists”, “Islam Terrorizes Women” and “Your Caliphate will Never Happen”.
All protected under freedom of speech, because they’re all either factual or opinion.
And above all, refuse to be tempted into violence.
Kim,
Under those circumstances, with those protesters, the mere existance of counter-protesters will guarantee some violence, or at least near-violent encounters.
Hence the importance of plenty of cameras, and the willingness to take a few lumps for posterity.
I do agree that the muslims need to be seen to be the aggressors.
The most powerful statement would be if everyone left Wootton Bassett that day, left it a ghost town, and the media studiously ignored the whole event. Let them march down the street accompanied by the police alone.
Of course that would never happen because the media are traitors who would sell their own children for a good headline or footage of something controversial.
Well said to Kim and Bod!
What Jim said.
Leave them to walk alone, with tumbleweed blowing down the street. Possibly with some suitably mocking music playing from a PA (the laughing policeman perhaps).
Peter
What Jim said.
Leave them to walk alone, with tumbleweed blowing down the street. Possibly with some suitably mocking music playing from a PA (the laughing policeman perhaps).
Peter
Jim, that is just what I was going to suggest. Nothing would annoy these people more than everyone ignoring them. As you say the difficult part would be actually making it happen.
I agree that a dairy or even porcine assault on the protesters is not the wisest course of action. I like the above though-one suggestion: “Allah does not pay your JSA” would seem pertinent for Mr Choudray.
Ignoring them is obviously an option, but you don’t deprive them of an audience – 30 seconds of footage on BBC News can safely obscure the fact that there are no onlookers, if that’s what the editors want.
The analogy with kinetic warfare here is highly relevant – if one of the sides avoids conflict by not turning up at the battleground, the side that did turn up gains the territory by default. Ideological warfare is no different, especially when the opposition are being assisted by your own state-funded propaganda machine.
The West has been ‘leaving radical islam to walk alone’ for decades, and look where that’s brought us.
Pusillanimity is no strategy for survival, unless you want to be a part of a subordinate culture.
Sounds like (yet another) good reason for private streets to me.
It should be up to the owner of the street who can march down it – if the owner is the state one gets all this “citizens rights” stuff.
“That is avoiding the issue Paul – would you allow an IslamFascist march down a street you owned”.
NO.
Is that clear enough?
Well said: llamas, James, Bod ScotsToryB, Verity & Laird. Perry, violence is still violence with bacon or butter.
Of course this “citizens rights” (or rather “the rights of a subject of the Queen”) cuts both ways.
“As subjects of the Queen we have the right to march down the Queen’s highway”.
“Are you loyal subjects of the Christian Queen – are are you working for the globel victory of Islam?”
“Oh it is the latter – well out of this land you go, you have one day to pack”.
Of course (as Peter Hitchins is fond of pointing out) most of the Royal family have rather P.C. opinions (with the possible exception of Prince Philip although, sadly, even he is not the reactionary orge presented by the media).
So it is quite possible that Prince Charles and even the Queen herself do not see any contradiction between being a loyal subject and working for the world victory of Islam.
There are problems with the hereditory principle when it is used to decide who should be head of state.
Still better the Queen or Prince Charles than Barack Obama.
Accident of birth can produce people who have mental blindspots (or are just plain stupid – not that I am saying that either the Queen or Prince Charles are actually stupid), but elections can also produce quite dreadful results.
Especially as people vote on IMAGE (image as presented by the mass media) normally with little or no knowledge of either the policies of the party or individual concerned – or the political background or associations of key individuals.
Hopefully the decline of the “mass media” (which I fondly hope will become a rout this year) will make democracy more real – less based on image illusions.
So? I’m all for throwing real bricks but I’ll settle for bacon or butter ones. These people want to either kill us or enslave us and they’re pretty honest about that. We’re at war, literally, not figuratively, and that changes everything. I’m glad to see at least a few libbos out there understand that.
I’m all for not allowing our stated enemies the freedom to march in our streets at the same time our soldiers are dying fighting the people they support. And if we must allow them, then I’m all for confronting them physically.
“My suggestion for any audience at Wootton Bassett? Line the streets with the names of all those innocent Muslims murdered in blue-on-blue attacks. Caused by British soldiers? My arse.
Posted by James at January 4, 2010 04:44 PM”
Uh, that would be red-on-red that you mean James.
It shouldn’t be a problem getting a counter-demonstration against these bozos. I’m sure that the ant-fascists, (you know, the ones who march against the BNP, EDF or UKIP at the drop of a hat), have got their papier-mache puppet heads of Osama and Mullah Omar ready for burning, and are checking out the timetables for Wootton Bassett even as we speak, (so to speak).
Just like the anti-globalists who were burning effigies of Gore and Pachauri at Copenhagen last month to protest against the Big-Carbon fraud designed to establish global government by a corporatist monopoly.
The Choudary-bugger has now backed off: seems he now thinks he bit off more than he could chew….this time round.
The real enemies are of course the Western – and in particular the British – Enemy-Class. These have led sundry Choudroids and others to think they can say what they do and get away with slapping us all in the face metaphysically.
Perhaps something along the lines of “march by all means, but we shan’t turn out to watch, and also for every one of you that does march thus, ever, we will note down and kill and barbecue and make _you_ eat one of our own Enemy-Class….one day. Then, there will be nobody to speak for you.”
I don’t know really. It’s all a sad mess. If everyone agreed that filthy butchering murdering dictators and wannabe-Godlets were fair game always and everywhere, for asssaul, extermination and removal by liberal classical civilisations, then everyone would be better off.
So? I’m all for throwing real bricks but I’ll settle for bacon or butter ones. These people want to either kill us enslave us and they’re pretty honest about that.
So? The BNP want to enslave us by restoring National Service. I don’t find myself compelled to throw bricks at them – much as it might improve their mental health.
Up until the point that somebody acts or starts to act on their beliefs, I don’t think you’re in a moral position to facilitate violence towards them.
Uh, that would be red-on-red that you mean James.
No, blue-on-blue.
Very possibly, but then we have no word to describe what’s done with rocks or hand grenades.
If it was up to me, I’d give Choudary and his comrades 24 hours to clear out of Britain and never come back.
Or at least make him get a job.
I agree. And when the BNP actually start blowing up buses full of people to make their point, I’ll start urging Britons to attack their demos too, but they aren’t doing that are they?
But fundamentalist muslims are. They’re already acting on their beliefs, so I see no reason for so much restraint.
And that’s why I think we are not just well past the point where violence is justified, our army is already killing these bastards in Afghanistan, which I think counts as violence on our part already, no? So why do supporters of the same people our state is killing over there get a free ride in our own back yard?
After all the rhetoric, make sure of one thing, If you object to what these Islamic extremist wretches propose to do in Wootton Bassett and they are allowed to go ahead, make sure you are there on the day and we will see what we can do about it. This is about defending our homeland like our soldiers are doing. We owe it to them and to the ones who come back in coffins to show that we will stand up and be counted. They did and are and we should do the same. No quarter.
I agree. And when the BNP actually start blowing up buses full of people to make their point, I’ll start urging Britons to attack their demos too, but they aren’t doing that are they?
But fundamentalist muslims are. They’re already acting on their beliefs, so I see no reason for so much restraint.
There are two things to reply to here.
First is that, in so far as violence is concerned, Islam4UK have not, nor have they started (to my knowledge), to act on their beliefs. To express their beliefs, either by publication, discussion or procession, is – at least, for me – still some distance away from an act of violence or conspiring towards one.
Second is that the perpetrators of the 7th July London bombings were themselves killed in the incident and nobody else (to public knowledge) has been punished. Those fundamentalists aren’t the same as those from Islam4UK. They might say similar things, look similar and believe similar things, but they’re not the same. Therefore, unless you believe in collective punishment, it would not be right to be violent towards them unless they were somehow responsible for the 7th July bombings.
We need to hold the moral high ground, not only to reduce the amount of ammunition given to them to make ‘martyrs’ of themselves, but because we need to hold true to our values. It’s what makes ‘us’ better than ‘them’.
These guys are a self described front for Al Muhajaroun! And those guys are open supporters of every sunni fundamentalist outfit there is. How can you not see the links between these people? They count on our wilful blindness.
throw underpants at them, preferably with holes burned in them first
I am reminded of the English response to the custom of suttee. ‘You follow your custom and then we will follow ours’
I recommend a display of the Mo cartoons, a meeting of the Dawkins society, a personal appearance from Christopher Hitchens, walking of dogs, a bikini/wet t shirt competition, a bacon and pork fry up, and perhaps some sort of book flushing competition.
Film all of it.
I’m sure we are all aware that if anyone did have any sort of counter-demonstration, no matter how peaceful or witty, the police would come down on them like a ton of bricks. You’d be arrested, DNA’ed and fingerprinted at the very least.
That’s how it is in Nu Labor’s Nu Britain.
It’s easy for me to say, being in the US, but since NuLabor’s intent is to have everyone DNA profiled and fingerprinted anyway, the price doesn’t sound too high to pay. When all activity is a crime, the whole population will be criminals – except for the politicians, of course.
LEOs in some municipalities over here are starting to become a little more savvy (and much more cautious) about unjustifiably detaining citizen photographers, and maybe it’s time for that particular meme to jump ‘the pond’.
The issue is getting a critical mass of counter-attendees (we’re not demonstrating, we’re just attending), armed with cellphones that have cameras. It’s not like the Wooton Basset event can be hidden from the media.
These guys are a self described front for Al Muhajaroun! And those guys are open supporters of every sunni fundamentalist outfit there is. How can you not see the links between these people? They count on our wilful blindness.
And? I’m still not seeing your point. Until they actually engage or start to engage in acts of violence,I’m still not convinced of the need to throw bricks at them.
I’m sure there’s an army of Sinn Fein activists out there who might not be involved in terrorism or violence, but by one or two degrees are associated with people who are or have been. Why aren’t there calls for bricks to be thrown at them?
You make the mistake of thinking that I’m ‘blind’ or cannot see the link between Islam4UK and Al Muhajiroun or the dangers they pose – I can. My approach to them is just different to yours.
I spent much of my youth throwing non-symbolic bricks at Sinn Fein members. The lot of them belonged in prison next to the people they supported who wee blowing up pubs and shops. Just as pro-fascists were interned in the UK in WW2, pro-islamofascists should be interned now if they are UK nationals or expelled if they are foreign nationals. We are at war.
I spent much of my youth throwing non-symbolic bricks at Sinn Fein members. The lot of them belonged in prison next to the people they supported who wee blowing up pubs and shops. Just as pro-fascists were interned in the UK in WW2, pro-islamofascists should be interned now if they are UK nationals or expelled if they are foreign nationals. We are at war.
Well then we’ll just have to disagree. Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, like WWII, I simply do not agree with locking up people I disagree with just because of their beliefs – no matter how distasteful, vile or dangerous their ideas might be.
I agree. A pity, then, that the British and US governments have never formally declared it.
Mind you, although I realise the niceties of who to intern in war is largely academic, I do think its useful to be clear about with whom we are at war.
Wikipedia makes some useful distinctions
between ‘ordinary’ (law-abiding, respectful?) Muslims, those who are bent on political goals like Sinn Fein, (Islamists) and those who are Islamic terrorists. Although I suspect the distinctions, as is suggested, are too neat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
RichardtheLionheart …
The problem is a determination of whether an individual’s adherence to secular law trumps his adherence to the laws that are imposed by his faith.
This is the case whenever the state meets faith, but is particularly acute in the case of Islam, which like Communism, is a religious-political fusion, where both sets of ‘true believers’ recognize that their system ‘cannot work’ unless the whole world is subjugated.
How do you treat the large proportion of (say) UCL undergraduates who happen to believe that introducing a global caliphate is a good thing?
I’d consider that to be providing significant support and ‘legitimacy’ to the more hands-on efforts of their more activist compatriots, but is this sufficient reason to make them submit to some kind of arbitrary loyalty test to determine whether they’re going to be thrown into internment camps or not?
It becomes a very slippery slope when an individual has to put his hand on his heart and say that his loyalty to the state (or in the UK’s case, “The State”) is greater than his loyalty to his god (or non-god, if you’re of that particular bent).
First, they came for the theists. But I said nothing, because I was not a theist. Because you know that the minarchists and anarcho-syndicalists whose devotion to The State is deemed ‘insufficient’ WILL be next.
Is it a crime to wish that someone else would take a deep breath and blow up the Houses of Parliament? Is it a crime to wish that someone had the balls to blow up an airliner carrying Gordon Brown and his entourage? If it is, then there are a lot of people from all walks of life that are going to need to be banged up in pokey.
Because that’s the type of ‘test’ that making simplistic distinctions based on submissions to Wikipedia. And it’s why the distinctions made by politicians are irrelevant.
The way to get this started is for society, and not the state to reject Islamism. It’s going to be a long slog, but you can’t trust the politicians and the panjandarams to do this without fucking the whole thing up.
Excellent, Bod.
I think the whole thing is bullshit, Bod, to be honest. I am happy that we are at the point where we recognise that this is a war and the that the ‘fineries’ of the differences between Islamic sects are largely ignored to ensure that we win the war. What I was saying, really, (thanks for your help in enabling to focus my views) was, simply, ‘know your enemy’ – all the better to defeat him.
A declaration of war in any meaningful sense is the sole preserve of the political class, and in that context, we shall NEVER be ‘at war’.
You and I will never be called upon by our respective nations to sow salt upon the ruins of Carthage, and to hear the lamentations of the orphans, because Carthage is not just in Tunisia, it’s just down the road, whether the road is in Levenshulme in Manchester, Paris in France, or Dearborn in Michigan, and should push come to shove, your vote is precisely as valuable to a politician as the guy who is threatening to detonate himself in a shopping mall, and the personal danger in pissing you or me off is much much smaller.
The only way to take on this threat is to bypass the political apparatus. The fortunate thing the Anglophone West has is a relatively recent cultural heritage that can be leveraged to remind their populations what its grandfathers died for in the first half of the 20th century, and the possibility that their sacrifices were for naught.
I apologize for starting to make this sound like a PPB for the BNP or some other bunch of ‘little Englanders’ – I certainly don’t mean it that way – but it’s going to be society that whips this problem, not the politicians.
We are at war with the people who are trying to blow us up, because they are at war with us (when it comes to wars, it does not take two to tango). Who the British and US nation-states are at war with may or may not actually be those people however… so I am not all too hung up on the declaration of war thing. That really only works when states go to war. We are at war in Afghanistan, we are not at war with Afghanistan. Please remember we intervened in an Afghan civil war… it was Tajiks who took Kabul with our assistance, not the US or British Armies.
The guys who blew up people in London on 7/7 did not declare war in any meaningful sense, they acted as they chose to act. They did not work for a state. We are not at war with islamic states, we are at war with globalist islamofascism, which is an trans-national ideology, and thus we are at war with anyone who supports islamofascism, because it is adherents of islamofascism who are attacking us, not national armies.
The tapioca pudding or chocolate mousse suggestion was only a joke, you know. Of course they should be allowed to condemn themselves out of their own mouths/by their own actions providing noone else gets hurt that is the essence of freedom. It would hardly be a free society if we only tolerated what we approved of! I would question the wisdom of isalm4uk doing it there though.
These guys seem to have about the right measure of the situation:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/guardian-readers%27-heads-explode-in-wootton-bassett-dilemma-201001052349/
These guys seem to have about the right measure of the situation:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/guardian-readers%27-heads-explode-in-wootton-bassett-dilemma-201001052349/
Bod, in a democracy like ours when a law is passed it is effectively *society itself* which acts, as ‘society’ is merely an agency of the people and the sum of their actions.
As Mrs Thatcher said, there is no such thing as society, and it never acts. People are real, and they act when they see fit. Making laws is one of the ways in which they act. And when people get fed up with the antics of the likes of Islam4UK they’ll make laws stopping them.
As I said earlier, the Swiss have already started this process and the rest of the continent has too to varying degrees. The UK will catch up with the help of groups like Islam4UK. Their proposed Wooton Bassett march is very good news.
Perhaps the use of society was ill-advised, Pete, but I’d disagree that when a ‘democracy like ours’ acts it is effectively society speaking. Take a look at the news. Do those legislators you see on the screen accurately reflect the will of the people? At the very best, they represent the averaging of the will of the people.
While I’m quite a fan of Mrs. T (in hindsight), I think she was dead wrong in that particular respect. Society does exist, and as the French and Russian Revolutions show us, it’s quite capable of acting too.
Anyway, with that, I’m going to leave the podium, otherwise I’ll start getting mash emails from Nick Griffin.
Indeed, it shows nothing for the sort. Political activists and political professionals are what make laws in a ‘democracy like ours’.
Both prime examples of the point I made above actually. In both cases, France and Russia, these were places where civil society and social interaction were comparatively weak compared to the primacy of political action.
“in a democracy like ours when a law is passed it is effectively *society itself* which acts, as ‘society’ is merely an agency of the people and the sum of their actions.”
Utter nonsense. “Society” is the cumulative actions of the persons living within it. It is mores, customs, cultural norms; it has nothing (or very little, anyway) to do with laws. Laws are the creation of a tiny minority which thinks of itself as our overseers and rulers. In some instances there may be some overlap, but that is more chance than intent. The fact that we occasionally hold elections doesn’t change this; just look at the quality of the choices you get on any ballot.
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” — Emma Goldman