Saturday, April 03, 2010

An Interview with Trevor Kelway

EDL header

Later this morning the English Defence League will be staging a demonstration in Dudley, a borough near Birmingham in the English Midlands. The EDL is protesting the proposed building of a large mosque.

We’ll be reporting the news from Dudley as it trickles in later today. In the meantime, below is an interview with Trevor Kelway, one of the leaders of the English Defence League, by our EDL correspondent “G”:

Interview with Trevor Kelway
02 April 2010

Q: Let’s start with who the EDL are. Your website says: “The EDL was formed on the 27th of June, 2009 due to frustration at the lack of any significant action by the British Government against extremist Muslim preachers and organisations such as Islam4UK, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Forum of Europe, the Muslim Council of Britain — the list goes on”.

Is the EDL still primarily about pushing back the influence of extremist Muslim preachers and organisations? Have you developed any additional aims over the last nine months?
 
A: This is still our primary aim: to reverse the trend of Islamic extremism and its promoters. We are supportive of the wider aims within the UK — removing sharia law, prohibiting halal slaughter, and banning the burka.
 
Q: What are the EDL’s methods?
 
A: Our main strategy is one of peaceful protest. This is working marvellously, particularly after our successful demonstrations in London and Bolton. The British people can tell that self-discipline in the face of violent provocation is a strength. In this way we express views which are widely held amongst British people, but which media and government elites would prefer to silence.

We want ordinary people who discuss the issue in the café, to feel able to discuss it out loud without being branded racist or fascist. We’re trying to break the fear barrier, to encourage people to come out and to voice their concerns openly.
 
Q: Why don’t you want more sharia law in Britain?
- - - - - - - - -
A: We believe there should be one law for all in this country, and that law is English common law. It is divisive, and undermines British law, to allow alternative legal systems within one jurisdiction. It also encourages further self-segregation.
 
Q: How quickly have you grown since you started out in 2009?
 
A: We have grown fast since we started out, with a presence right across the country now. There has been a lot of interest in us from the wider British public, despite media suspicion. However, we have found that media interest in the Dudley demo this coming Saturday has been especially big. We think that interest will continue to grow, particularly as people see the self-control and order at our protests. We know our views are quietly shared by many ordinary people in this country.
 
Q: What challenges did you face at the start?
 
A: When we started out we received no contact from any counter-groups or media outlets. No-one asked what we are about. The sole reaction was to brand us as racists and hooligans, and other names. The result was to mislead some members of the far-right to want to join us. It also misled members of the far-left to think there was political capital to be made by attacking us. We have corrected both misconceptions. The far right now brand us as “race-traitors” — they have repeatedly threatened and physically attacked us.
 
Q: How do you think the EDL will continue to grow?
 
A: We think our continued growth will depend on our conduct at demonstrations. As people can see that we’re committed to peaceful methods, and feel comfortable joining us, we think we will continue to grow.
 
Q: The criticism that is frequently levelled at the EDL is that you are racist. Your website says that: “We, the English Defence League, are a grass roots social movement who represent every walk of life, every race, every creed and every colour; from the working class to middle England.” And that “Our Christian, Jewish, Sikh, and Hindu friends all have tales to tell with regard to Islamic Imperialism and ‘Orthodox Teachings’, in particular the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine of ‘killing unbelievers if they refuse to be subdued by Islam’.” What else do you say to this charge of racism?
 
A: The problems of Islamic extremism are experienced by many communities, not just ethnic English people — Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, and others feel threatened. It isn’t just a “white people’s” problem. This is one of the falsehoods put about by those who would prefer to silence us.
 
Q: Another criticism is that you are thugs. What do you say to this?
 
A: Well, just look at our record: at our last two demos there were a total of 132 arrests, but only 10 of those were on the EDL side. 2 of those 10 were allowed back into the protest with no charge, and a further three were at our own request, to remove undesirables — we cheered as the police removed them.

These figures are more significant when you see them as a percentage of demonstrators. At Bolton we had 2,000 demonstrators, as opposed to the UAF’s 1,500. In London we had 800, as opposed to the UAF’s 100. So, although we had almost double the UAF’s numbers on those two demonstrations, we had a tiny fraction of the arrests.
 
Q: What do you say about remarks that your members are incapable of reading, writing, or reasoning?
 
A: How have people come to this conclusion, I’d like to know? I would have thought that ordinary people are entitled to a voice regardless of whether they can read — perhaps the anti-fascists disagree! Generalisations like this are aimed at the fact that we have working-class members. We are a grassroots movement, representing ordinary citizens from all walks of life, with the courage to make a stand. We are glad to have been founded by such people, instead of by the smooth elites.
 
Q: At your last demonstration, in Bolton on 20 March 2010, the BBC reported 67 arrests 3 of which were EDL people. How did this come about?
 
A: We have stewards who help keep order on our protests. They are 100% EDL, and 100% committed to keeping the protest safe and orderly. They respect EDL supporters, and or EDL supporters respect them. Unlike the UAF, we don’t want violence and provocation. The aim is for a peaceful protest, and good community spirit. We want support from the people in the towns where we demonstrate, e.g. Dudley tomorrow.
 
Q: Afterwards, one of the EDL leaders, ‘Tommy’, discussed the demonstration in a Radio Five interview, along with Martin Smith one of the UAF organisers. What happened in that interview?
 
A: You can hear the attitude of Martin Smith: he refused to debate with us, kept talking down the radio interviewer, and repeatedly expressed the aim of preventing us demonstrating at all. People can see this for the intolerance it is. We don’t pretend to be PR smoothies, but we are prepared to discuss the issues openly. This is what you heard on that interview.
 
Q: What do the UAF do at your demonstrations?
 
A: The UAF aim is to prevent us peacefully expressing our views. First, by blocking the route of our protest — this is where a number of the UAF arrests occur. They also try to intimidate and provoke us with threats. Then they try to smear us with chants such as “Nazi scum off our streets”. What they reveal is their intolerance for opinions they disagree with.

In Luton last year Islam4UK demonstrated against returning British troops, calling them “butchers”. Two British patriots were arrested for defending our troops by calling the Islam4UK protesters “scum” and insulting Osama Bin Laden’s mother. Why are the UAF not arrested for more provocative and intimidating chants?
 
Q: Have EDL members received threats? From whom?
 
A: Yes, we have received an ugly array of threats from UAF people, Islamic extremists, and from white supremacists. These groups are united in wanting to silence us. Perhaps they should merge into one fraternal organisation. It would be interesting to see what they name it!
 
Q: What do you say to unconnected members of the public who don’t like seeing demonstrations in their towns?
 
A: We ask them to be patient. We have no other way of getting our message heard, so it is appropriate that we use demonstrations as the way to exercise our right to free speech. The disruption is overwhelmingly caused by the UAF’s determination to prevent us being heard, and not by our demonstration itself.
 
Q: What do you think the danger might be if no one took the stand you are taking?
 
A: Our point of view would never get heard. Politically correct elites want to ignore it, and so do many mainstream journalists. But there is widespread sympathy for our view amongst the general public. It is unhealthy for any political system to suppress widely held, and reasonable, opinions.
 
Q: Why do you think the establishment are so hostile towards you?
 
A: The problem we highlight is one which politicians have themselves created, and which they dare not face up to. They lack the backbone to address it. So they keep an undignified silence, and hope they can keep it that way as long as they are around. We are forcing them to face up to problems which they have made and which they lack the ability to solve. This is inconvenient for them!
 
Q: What is the police attitude towards the EDL? And your attitude towards them?
 
A: Our relations with the police improve with each protest we run. Our liaison with them is excellent. It is important to us that our demonstrations take place in an orderly way, and the police appear to understand this. After the embarrassment of the police heavy-handedness at a Scottish Defence League protest a few weeks ago, they appear to accept that our right of peaceful protest is legitimate.
 
Q: EDL demonstrations are notable for people holding Israeli flags. Why is this?
 
A: Israel is on the front line of Islamic extremism and jihad. We support them in their struggle for survival, against lethal attack and unwarranted criticism from many quarters. Even in England it is becoming shamefully difficult for Jewish people to wear a yarmulke, or to carry an Israeli flag, in public. We would like to tell our Jewish friends that one place where they can do so safely is an EDL demo!
 
Q: How can sympathisers help the EDL?
 
A: Come and have a look at our demonstrations. Visit our website and forum — see what we’re really about. Anyone can help, whatever their particular talent!
 
Q: Finally, what do you say to people who might be tempted to come out in support of the EDL, but are wary because of the criticisms they have heard against you?
 
A: Listen to our message, and to the substance of our protests, not just the reports of the more politically correct journalists and politicians.

If you are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism, this is the sole reason we formed our movement. Chat to our supporters online. See for yourselves. Try to see through the mist!

25 comments:

Gary Rumain said...

As a show of support, I've recently joined their forum.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

"What do you say about remarks that your members are incapable of reading, writing, or reasoning?"

That was part of the multiculturalists strategy to dumb down a large section of the indigenous population.

Other than a few honest teachers the gift of knowledge was denied to hundreds of thousands of students in the name of state education - state being the keyword nothing more than places of propaganda for brainwashing the masses.

The U.K. state education will have to be purged of the hardline practitioners of multiculturalism.

Henrik R Clausen said...

These UAF types have an uncanny interest in national socialism.

Someone should tell them that socialism is born bad.

Zenster said...

The problems of Islamic extremism are experienced by many communities, not just ethnic English people — Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, and others feel threatened. It isn’t just a “white people’s” problem.

Which makes it all the more difficult to understand why so many people simply refuse to unite in addressing this issue.

Not only can their be racial unity in opposition to Islam but their can also be religious solidarity in demanding reciprocity or linkage with respect to halting the further construction of mosques in non-Muslim lands without religious freedom and equal numbers of churches being instituted in Islamic countries.

Why there is this conspicuous lack of unity among races and religions in fighting Islam is a Mystery for the Ages™. Literally, all non-Muslim faiths and cultures have now suffered the ravages of Muslim invasion or colonization. It's long past tea to present a united front in opposing all further expansion of Islam and its barbarous practices.

doom-and-gloom said...

Zenster,

"Which makes it all the more difficult to understand why so many people simply refuse to unite in addressing this issue."

Because there is no connection between the attacks, sorry, the inter-community tensions involving those different ethnic/religious communities, they are all driven by unrelated conflicts. With the Hindus it's because of the conflict over Kashmir. With the Jews it's because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As for white Christians, it's because of the American neo-imperialism-colonialism and filthy capitalism, Western support of the Evil Zionists and the terrible oppression of and discrimination against Muslims by white racist islamophobes in Western countries causing poverty which results in alienation, justified resentment and crime. In Russia it's because of Chechnya. In Nigeria and Sudan it's civil war. In China and Thailand there are unrelated Muslim separatism issues. And on and on. It's just a coincidence. And don't forget these are all rare incidents by a miniscule minority who have hijacked a basically peaceful and unprecedentedly tolerant and socially progressive religion.


"religious solidarity in demanding reciprocity or linkage with respect to halting the further construction of mosques in non-Muslim lands without religious freedom and equal numbers of churches being instituted in Islamic countries"

Such linkage would be immoral because Muslim individuals in Western countries are not responsible for the actions of governments in Muslim majority countries.


"Literally, all non-Muslim faiths and cultures have now suffered the ravages of Muslim invasion or colonization."

Quite to the contrary - it's Muslims all over the world who are victims of imperialism, colonialism, oppression, racism and injustice. In the Middle East the evil Jews stole land from the hapless Arab Muslims who are the legitimate owners of every bit of land they ever stole from everyone else. And they are still suffering the longstanding consequences of the occupation by Western empires of what should have rightfully be a Turkish Muslim empire or an Arab Muslim empire. And the imperialistic Americans are meddling in their countries with armies and money, installing rulers and exporting American culture. In the Indian sub continent the Muslims are victims of Hindu aggression and the unjust occupation of Muslim majority Kashmir. Russia occupies several Muslim countries. In China and Thailand the Muslims rise up because of discrimination and oppression. And so on.

hadley said...

@zenster: the reason the other multicultural communities do not want to work with the EDL is simple: it is against multiculturalism. They also want to maintain their own protected communties that do not intermix and mongrelize with the English. How many white people want their children marrying into the dominant Xhosa or Zulu culture in South Africa and assimilating it as their own? About the same number of Orthodox Jews want their daughters assimilating with Christians in England: zero. Jews call assimilation and intermarriage in Western countries "the Second Holocaust". I am sure Sikhs and Hindus have similar terms.

Bottom line: they all want to form their own colonIes and follow their own laws in England, and many do just that. To them, any awakening of the English is a bad thing. Ask the Spanish Jews how well the expulsion of the Moors from Spain worked for them. Hint: it didn't. To this day there are orthodox Jews who long for the glory days of Jewish scholarship and culture under the Moors in Spain.

Bottom line: any growing awareness on the part of the English that the English people have a special right to the land and resources of England is a threat, no matter how much they dislike the Muslims. Because once a war breaks out they are as likely to be expelled (or Christianized) as the Muslims. They are no fools.

Zeke said...

The GOV does a great job reporting on the Islamic colonization of Europe, and those resisting. It is often easier to gossip about other peoples problems, rather than to admit your own. As an American our culture, too, is under attack. But the hostile minorities, but Muslims are a very tiny minority of them. For every successful Muslim attack in the USA there are 100 Mexican criminals molesting our kids, mugging our sisters and driving drunk, unlicensed and uninsured on our roads. And of course the situation with the black minority is much worse. A long string of group 'wildings' has been reported in the news. A group of adult men buy sex from a 15 year old girl who sells her sister to them.

What we already have here are violent, angry unassimilated minorities. To obsess over Islam in Europe is a relaxing break from the horror of everyday life for people in many cities in the USA. It would be nice for some Europeans to host The Gates of Detroit.

Here we cannot speak honestly about how we feel about our own rapidly approaching racial dhimmitude in our own nation.

doom-and-gloom said...

hadley,

"Jews call assimilation and intermarriage in Western countries "the Second Holocaust"."

That's because assimilation will lead to the disappearance of the Jewish people. Unlike Christians, Muslims and Hindus who count at least a billion believers each, there are only 15 million Jews in the world, and for millennia the Jews lived as minorities in many different countries. Today in the US half the Jewish marriages are mixed, and when you marry into the dominant culture your children are more likely to adopt the dominant identity rather than the Jewish identity. Then they too will marry non-Jews and their children will already lose any connection to the Jewish identity. You can see that in large numbers inter-marriage will erase the Jewish people, culture and religion (the genetic part isn't important to Jews, cultural identity and religion were always the determining factors in marriage).

The widespread inter-marriage in the US is indeed a cause for existential concern. In so and so generations there might not be Jews in America anymore. Seems many American Jews are not concerned about it at all. In Israel where the Jews are the majority there are only 5.5 million Jews. And Islam and the Left won't have that either.

But does the EDL oppose any kind of difference whatever? Are they going to force the Jews, Hindus and Sikhs to convert to Christianity and lose any trace of their identity and culture or either be expelled? Maybe they're going to force the Hindus and Sikhs to bleach their skins as well? I haven't heard anything that extreme from the EDL. One of their leaders is a Sikh and they have Jewish and Hindu members. It's people like you who scare off not only minorities, but also moderate people who would like to halt mass immigration, but not revive the Spanish inquisition or some race laws.

doom-and-gloom said...

Not so long ago I couldn't really understand the European fear of nationalism, I thought it was WWII history. But today I realize that there is a very strong element in Europe that if given the power, would take nationalism to an extreme. That what makes Europeans who object to it, mostly leftists, react so strongly to any hint of nationalism. They fear zeal, violence and war, of which Europe have already suffered too much. So they have taken it to the other extreme. And of course minorities will fear you. And of course your solution is to expel all minorities and have 100% racial purity and cultural and religious homogeneity. It's either total purity and homogeneity or multicultural diversity suicide. Maybe moderation just isn't a big part of the European psyche. It's always totality, absolutes, straight lines, black and white, nothing in between. No compromise or soft edges possible. Indeed ultra-masculine. Thank god I wasn't born in Europe. Better live or die here fighting for my life than helplessly and defenselessly be gathered and expelled or killed by the likes of you.

If Jews support or oppose certain politics because they profoundly fear the return of oppression, pogroms, expulsion or genocide then surely the only solution is to rid Europe of the Jews. I disagree "they are no fools". Jews are fools to have stayed in Europe after the Holocaust. Too daft, apparently, to take a hint. Whether they lived in this or that European country for 50 years or a thousand years, Europe is no place for Jews. If they have any sense they'll pack up and leave while they can, before the far right comes to power again. I'm sure in that you agree with me.

Sean O'Brian said...

But today I realize that there is a very strong element in Europe that if given the power, would take nationalism to an extreme

Like who? There are no large Judophobic far-right movements in Europe. Those of us who seek the restoration of our national independence are not comparable to the notorious nationalist movements of Germany and Japan of the last century.

Your supposed 'insights' into the European psyche are just the standard leftist/anti-European garbage that can be read in many mainstream publications and popular blogs. It is not original. Now where is the evidence for it?

Aside from a couple of anti-semites posting anonymously on the internet, who has advocated the things you say that many Europeans advocate (100% racial purity etc.)? Many of the less-than-philosemitic (to put it gently) commenters at this blog are North American.

Zeke said...

Gloom and Doom:
I can inderstand the desire of Jews to have a country of their own. I can also understand the desire of some Jews to discourage inter-marraige to keep your culture and traditions alive. These all seem like normal human desires.

I can therefore also understand the desire of the Danes to keep their country Danish, and not to have it swamped with Moslems.

As for white people in America many also feel these same desires to have our traditons, culture, and race continue to be a large majority in the land of our forefathers.

This doesn't mean we hate others, or want to drive anyone out of the country. It probably means changing or ending immigration. This is the same policy many in Europe desire and the Jews in Israel already enjoy.

doom-and-gloom said...

Zeke,

But why are you taking my words out of context? My response was to hadley - it was too long so I cut it in two. The type of nationalism I was talking about referred to extremism, not to everyone on this site or all the nationalists in Europe or elsewhere. Nowhere did I say I oppose Danish nationalism. On the contrary, I made quite clear in various comments on this site that I support moderate nationalism, but not the type of nationalism that is hateful of minorities just because they are different and want to keep their own traditions. And no, I don't refer to such traditions as horror killing, FGM, polygamy, gay-bashing, throat slitting of prophet-offenders, the wish to replace democracy with sharia law or the creation of no-go zones. But does living as a Hindu offend anyone?

My view of nationalism is defensive, as a way for a people to be free, independent, have some control over its fate and preserve its culture. My perception comes from a history of a persecuted stateless people, a hell that started after we lost our country to the empires, so it's defensive, I recognize the blessings of having your own country. That's why I support national self determination. Most Europeans don't have such a history, but you might have such a future if you don't preserve what you are lucky enough to have. And I don't believe the leftist vision is realistic at all. I oppose mass immigration because your national self determination requires that you will remain a majority. But from the same place I also oppose the oppression of existing minorities just because they are different which isn't the same as being hostile. Killing prophet offenders is very unfriendly. Having a holy cow and refusing to eat it isn't unfriendly, just different.

So to sum things up, I support a form of nationalism where you are the majority and therefore have control over your fate and can preserve your culture, while at the same time minorities also enjoy democratic freedoms and equal rights (I'm not getting into details now). I consider that a moderate opinion, a sensible compromise and a modest aspiration, as opposed to either a.) absolute nationalism, i.e. 100% ethnic purity and cultural-religious homogeneity, or b.) absolute non-nationalism, i.e. mass immigration, multiculti in the sense of having equally large groups from different cultures and creating large parallel societies within the state, or the belief that people in such an extreme mix of a society will live as absolutely autonomous and atomized individuals side by side in perfect peace and harmony forever and ever more. I consider both extremes a recipe for disaster. I think moderate nationalism makes sense and is the least prone to violence of all the options.

doom-and-gloom said...

Sean,

I've written a very long response, but decided it's pointless and mainly too long. I'll just say that maybe you don't notice it, but it's more than two commenters or just a few comments here. I don't know where each one of them is living, but some of them I know are European. But it's not only the people who write these things, but also the fact that usually nobody responds to it.

"The restoration of our national independence" is, I assume/hope, what I call moderate nationalism (see my reply to Zeke above) as long as minorities inside the country have equal rights and are free to keep their religion and culture (as long as they are not opposed to the state's law). The Muslim minority creates a special challenge to these principles, so maybe there should be some defenses nobody had thought of before. But what's the problem with Hindus or Jews keeping their own religions and cultures? The Jews in Israel will never dream to expect Christian citizens to convert to Judaism or give up their culture and costumes, and it would never occur to me to see these Christians as hostile or as "colonies" just because they keep their own traditions, so why do I have to read such crap on this blog?

But then you or anyone else here won't say anything when Hindu, Sikh and Orthodox Jewish minorities are referred to as "colonies" just because they want to keep their traditions (hadley's comment I was responding to). You will only criticize me when I respond to such attitude. And neither you nor anyone else here said anything when Jews were accused of "genocidal war against the Serbs", nor when Jews were accused of domination by means of mass immigration of non-whites while drugging the whites with Jew-made cheap entertainment, nor when there was talk about revoking full citizenship and voting rights of minorities (and women and non-property-owners), in the last case I think there was one who objected (except me) and I think he was an American, but I might be wrong.

The only one who consistently objects to pure Jew-bashing is Takuan Seiyo, but then, if I'm not mistaken, he has some Jewish ancestry, so on this blog this should qualify as "Jewish self-interest" (usually sinister stuff), even though he doesn't regard himself a Jew.

"Less-than-philosemitic" comments are quite common here and since people quite consistently don't express objection I conclude most active participants here agree with the very negative view of Jews, just like you conclude most Muslims support terrorism because so few of them express objection.

doom-and-gloom said...

Continued to Sean,

And as for supposed anti-European prejudice coming from the left or mainstream media, I don't believe the MSM on anything. I had a much better opinion of Euros before I started reading political websites on the Internet. Though I could never hate Europe as much as Europe hates me. My opinion on Americans, on the other hand, improved after reading their sites on the Internet. Naturally, it's also related to the fact that most Americans have at least somewhat positive opinion about Israel while most Euros have a negative opinion about Israel (based on polls and politics), but it's not only that.

And yes, Europe is quite extreme in my view, maybe not the common people, but the political atmosphere tends to polarities, which is why the US is more stable politically than Europe. I totally oppose white-bashing, but I don't consider it white-bashing. Just like some people here (again Takuan Seiyo) insist on criticizing Jews without Jew-bashing I insist on criticizing Euros without white-bashing. Though it might get a bit aggressive after swallowing that much "less-than-philosemitic" vitriol here.

Still came out too long...

Baron Bodissey said...

doom-and-gloom --

I can't speak for others here, but my silence does not indicate support for any Jew-bashers. Nor for white-bashers, Euro-bashers, or Christian-bashers -- I don't know if you've noticed, but we have plenty of the latter group here.

I don't have time to try to refute all the people here whose ideas I consider false, ill-considered, illogical, or misguided. I'd do nothing else but argue with commenters if I took as my mission the correction of all the error I find in these threads.

Others may feel the same way, and stay out of the discussion for the same reasons.

I mostly limit myself to trying to ensure that people obey the rules of civility in their arguments, however misplaced the ideas behind those arguments might be.

Beyond that, I will join the discussion occasionally with people who I feel are arguing in good faith, and who are willing to actually consider different or apposite points of view.

Sean O'Brian said...

Hi d&g,

Thanks for replying.

The only one who consistently objects to pure Jew-bashing is Takuan Seiyo, but then, if I'm not mistaken, he has some Jewish ancestry

But I seem to remember on a previous thread it was Takuan Seiyo who changed the subject from whatever it was (something about Muslims I think) to the topic of Jews and that was when the weeks-long hypercriticism of Jews at this blog began - when it might have been renamed Arguments About Jews (We are in a new phase of a very old argument). Ordinary people tend to avoid these kinds of discussions and don't want to get caught up in them as they are rather pointless. I can't devote much energy to them though I recall there were people other than T.S. who did successfully refute some of the loonier claims (Henrik, Baron).

And yes, Europe is quite extreme in my view, maybe not the common people, but the political atmosphere tends to polarities, which is why the US is more stable politically than Europe.

I wouldn't want European right-wing parties to go the American centre-right Whig/neconservative/Republican route. Those boys are good at opposing pure socialism, so fair dues to them, but that is only one facet of the huge myriad of problems in Europe. The Bush McDole crowd are not so good on sovereigntist and immigration restrictionist issues. They are basically globalists. Political stability in itself is not enviable. There should have been a wild outrage after the Fort Hood massacre but there was barely a blip on the radar. Islamisation, which is not socialism, will have to be dealt with in the US as well.

You have failed to name what constitutes the 'large element' of extremist far-right (presumably anti-semitic) nationalism in Europe so I'll take it as read that you retract that claim. Serious right-wing European parties often border on disrespectability but that is an indication (to me) that they're doing something right. Vlaams Belang and the National Alliance party (in Italy) have big Jewish constituencies. The EDL, as we see from this post, takes all-comers. Going through through every country one by one you would find a plurality of philosemitic, or perhaps just indifferent, parties. That, apart from a perhaps sizable amount of random nutters on the internet, is the overall reality.

Sean O'Brian said...

contd...

Naturally, it's also related to the fact that most Americans have at least somewhat positive opinion about Israel while most Euros have a negative opinion about Israel

Ah but look what at Caroline Glick wrote about Barack Obama in the Jerusalem Post two weeks ago: "His consistent castigation of Israel as obstructionist and defiant has led some surveys to claim that over the past year US popular support for Israel has dropped from 77 to 58 percent." Now imagine what effect a 30-year anti-Israel propaganda campaign would have on public opinion. You might counter that in Europe it's a chicken-and-egg debate but it's not. Read Bat Ye'or. The Arab oil money - and not the anti-semitism of ordinary people - is what prompted anti-Israelism to become official EU policy. This is what we are up against. The delegitimisation of European nations and the delegitimisation of Israel must both be opposed, perferably by people working in tandem. This would be the consistent thing to do. Leftist consistency in demonising America, Israel and traditional Europe is quite disciplined.

You will only criticize me when I respond to such attitude. And neither you nor anyone else here said anything when Jews were accused of "genocidal war against the Serbs"

I feel certain that somebody objected but can't find that particular thread now. I personally have included strong criticism of what I perceive to be unfair anti-Israeli attitudes on my blog.

nor when Jews were accused of domination by means of mass immigration of non-whites while drugging the whites with Jew-made cheap entertainment, nor when there was talk about revoking full citizenship and voting rights of minorities (and women and non-property-owners)

Jewish overrepresentation in open-borders movements is something that Takuan Seyio has brought up for discussion himself. If it's not significant in any way then there's no point in discussing it at all. Obviously it's something that people want to talk about though. I'm against Hollywood films but I think that if minorities produce corrupt entertainment (gangsta rap by blacks, for instance) that is a failure of the (white) majority culture to assert itself culturally. As for the rest I think it's great that people can discuss things like revoking citizenship and the voting franchise without censure, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. That this blog touches on far-out ideas sometimes is extremely intellectually stimulating.

I had a much better opinion of Euros before I started reading political websites on the Internet.

Which sites? Is it just the commenters on those sites? By the way, where are you? I thought you were American. Now I'm guessing you are maybe an Israeli.

Zenster said...

hadley: Bottom line: any growing awareness on the part of the English that the English people have a special right to the land and resources of England is a threat, no matter how much they dislike the Muslims. Because once a war breaks out they are as likely to be expelled (or Christianized) as the Muslims.

You are inaccurately applying an old template to a modern situation. One of the EDL's most eloquent speakers is Guramit Singh and I doubt very much that anyone (besides Muslims, that is), wishes to see him forcibly converted from his Sikh faith.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Sean O'Brian

"Now imagine what effect a 30-year anti-Israel propaganda campaign would have on public opinion."

Exactly what happened in the U.K.

When the "but I witnessed it on the B.B.C." brainwashed are challenged their anti-Israel arguments crumble.

doom-and-gloom said...

Sean,

I do believe there is a strong element that is ultra nationalist, such as the National Front in France. I also believe many, maybe most, Europeans are moderate nationalists (the way I defined it) at heart, even if they don't define themselves that way and don't think about it because they take being a majority and preserving your culture for granted. Most people just don't think things through, it's amazing to what degree people repeat slogans.

Today nationalism is seen in Europe as an old-fashioned idea and also as evil because of its historical context. Not so in places where there is a different historical context, such as India and Israel (not including the far left, mostly in the academia), where nationalism is associated with achieving freedom and independence, liberation from colonialist rule and oppression, and delivering the people.

One of the candidates for the British national anthem talks about Britannia ruling the sea. The Israeli national anthem talks about the 2000 years old hope to be a free people in our country. Context is very important - in the British anthem it's about power, in the Israeli anthem it's about salvation.

Also in Hebrew there are 2 different words: one denotes what I'd call moderate nationalism which is associated with being free and independent and your own master, and the other denotes ultra-nationalism which is associated with Nazism, fascism, the far-right, racism and so on. In English there's just one word, so it's automatically associated with ultra-nationalism.

So if you want to support and promote moderate nationalism in the UK today I guess it's quite difficult because of this context. Maybe you should start with the language, by absolving the word "nationalism". For instance, if you replace the term "far-right" with "ultra-nationalist" you create a differentiation between "nationalism" (moderate, good) and "ultra-nationalism" (extremist, bad, a tiny minority hijacking a religion of peace).

doom-and-gloom said...

Continued...

In the British political system today there's only one nationalist party, the BNP. And though it might cause some uproar here, I don't consider the core of the BNP moderate nationalism, although I recognize some of its new members and many of its new supporters don't support the classical BNP ideology, but simply don't have many choices. And I'm not relying on MSM smears. I've listened to Nick Griffin (there are also old videos on Youtube) and I don't believe he's changed his mind, I believe he changed the party's image. The question is why is the BNP the only representative of British nationalism in the political system? (I mean parties you can actually vote for, not movements like the EDL). Is it because nationalism is delegitimized to such an extent that only those, like the BNP, who are already in the fringe can afford to support any form of nationalism at all?

So you see, this is one of the things that cause extremism. On one hand you have an establishment that from my outsider point of view is radical in itself. An open ended policy of absorbing every year large numbers of foreigners IS radical, even though it became the mainstream in the West. It's a revolutionary idea, not a mild, small change. Another aspect of the establishment's extremism is the suppression of dissent. We're not talking about fringe groups dissent. There are good reasons for not providing a mainstream platform for people who claim the earth is flat or promote "deporting niggas". But here we're talking about the majority of the population that have some legitimate concerns. Polls in the UK (and many other countries) indicate that the majority would like to take is easy for a while with the mass immigration. And then you have a 10 years old boy brought before a judge because he called a kid he had a fight with "Paki"? Is this sane? I thought it was a matter for school and parents to deal with, not the police and the justice system. I won't get into all of it because you know it more than I do. But the extremist establishment created such an atmosphere that the mainstream parties can't even openly oppose mass immigration, let alone mention anything remotely "nationalistic".

So say that at some point enough Brits get tired of the mayhem caused by too many Muslim immigrants, then who can they vote for? The New Conservatives that now have taken a turn to the left as if one Labour isn't enough? No, it's either the UKIP (which I don't consider extreme) or the BNP. If you believe in racial purity and antisemitic conspiracy theories then Nick Griffin is the guy for you, but what about the many British moderate nationalists that have no representation because any type of nationalism is forbidden in the mainstream? The UKIP isn't a nationalist party (at least doesn't admit to be), so their only choices are either the anti-nationalist establishment or the ultra-nationalist BNP.

So do you see what I mean by polarities, absolutes, black and white and lack of compromise?

Sean O'Brian said...

I do believe there is a strong element that is ultra nationalist, such as the National Front in France.

There's the NF, the BNP and some woman in Austria who wants to be President but won't be. Very little compared to the myriad of moderate-nationalist parties all over Europe. I think the UKIP qualify as moderate-nationalist under your defintion, even if they don't use the word themselves. I'm described them as "nationalist-libertarian" before, a little clunky I know.

Anyway we're really just quibbling over what constitutes a "strong element". The BNP have much less representation than UKIP in the European Parliament and seem to me to be less popular than the EDL. I wouldn't trust Griffin either and it's handy that there are alternatives to his group. Though I'm Irish and here nationalism/ultra-nationalism is much more extreme than anywhere else in Europe.

One of the candidates for the British national anthem talks about Britannia ruling the sea. The Israeli national anthem talks about the 2000 years old hope to be a free people in our country. Context is very important - in the British anthem it's about power, in the Israeli anthem it's about salvation.

Ah but what is the actual context of James Thomson's 1740 anthem "Rule Britannia"? The key line is in the chorus about how Britons "never shall be slaves," which was a direct allusion to the Barbary jihad. North African pirates are estimated to have enslaved as many as 1.25 million Europeans and Americans.

So you see the song is not about power in the sense of blindly seeking supremacy but about how the Royal Navy liberated many Britons, Americans and other Europeans from the slavery and oppression of Islamic terrorism. Not so different from the Indian and Israeli experience after all.

Also in Hebrew there are 2 different words: one denotes what I'd call moderate nationalism which is associated with being free and independent and your own master, and the other denotes ultra-nationalism which is associated with Nazism, fascism, the far-right, racism and so on. In English there's just one word, so it's automatically associated with ultra-nationalism.

That seems like a very useful distinction. What are the Hebrew words? I think 'nationalism' and 'ultra-nationalism' sound too similar to each other. I like 'sovereigntist', maybe that will catch on.

doom-and-gloom said...

I don't know if you still read here...

The Hebrew words come from the same root, so they are not completely separate, but more like different positions on a scale - Leumiyut is mainstream moderate tolerant nationalism, what used to be normal once in Europe, and Leumanut is extremist, racist etc. But the distinction is very clear anyway to Hebrew speakers - when you say 'Leumanut' about a party or a person the average Israeli hears "bad", but 'Leumiyut' is good and when you say about a party that it is NOT 'Leumi' (from 'Leumiyut') it's actually an attack, the average Israeli hears "disloyal, supports the enemy". Oh, and we actually have an external enemy that wants to destroy us and fought conventional wars against us and now fights another kind of war, which is another very important difference between Israel and the West. In the West your left has this bizarre idea that external threats don't exist at all, nor can exist in the future, that any external threat is an invention of the government in order to control the people or to excuse an imperialist war, or is an invention by some radical party or a populist politician to achieve power. When Hamas people get to write op-eds in your newspapers they whine that evil Israel is starving them (do they look starved to you?), but on our TV they say to our face they'll never accept the existence of Israel ("Do you see any possible future vision of a Palestinian state living next to Israel in peace?", "In your dreams!"), and then you have rockets and mortars falling on your head and people running to the shelters twice a day. So in this atmosphere nationalism is always more popular.

Maybe 'nationalism' can't be absolved in Europe, so 'sovereigntism' sounds good. Language is really of vital importance, look what the left managed to do with PC. So I think you really do need a new word or a distinction that wouldn't allow the left to lap everyone with the BNP or Hitler.

I've also read an article in one of your papers some time ago about a recommendation to avoid patriotism in your education system, because all countries have done bad things in the past and there's really nothing to be proud of. That's how things are done. The communists said you only have to subvert one generation, and you're already a few generations behind. I read now that ministers recommend avoiding "Jerusalem" in religious ceremonies because it's too patriotic. Loving your country is also becoming a dirty thing now - you should all be ashamed of yourselves for being British! It's like if as an individual you did some bad things in the past you now have to commit suicide. But you also did some good things!

doom-and-gloom said...

Contd.

The leftist methods proved to be very effective over time, so you should use the same methods to subvert the current establishment. Language, redefinition of terms and ideas, the media, education, pop culture. Catchy positive slogans ("celebrate diversity", "cultural enrichment" blah blah). Pirate radio had some part in the 60s/70s revolution. It broadcasted music that couldn't enter the mainstream stations, and ideas along with it. In Israel we have several pirate radio stations, 2 of political nature - the now defunct (and not too subversive) Voice of Peace on the left which was very popular, and Channel 7, a religious right wing station. Maybe you need pirate radio stations all over Europe. It doesn't cost much to run a radio station unless you get caught too often.

Since you belong to the past and multiculti to the future you need to reverse that. Call what you have now "the establishment" and "the system" rather than the left. It's not left vs. right, but the old, tried and failed, not to mention boring, vs. the new and fresh. You are the young and bold ones with the new and cool ideas. Call the lefty politicians and academics "rich old farts" (which isn't too difficult in Britain now that Blair is gone. Maybe they're not old, but it's a rich fart charisma-less environment), and "the old order". And of course corrupt, which they've proved to be. You are the voice of the people - turn the "populist" slur on its head - you're all for "power to the people". Call the media and the education system "the matrix" (that's probably already in use). Use the slogan "Think for yourself!". And "Britons will never be slaves". "Change" type slogans always work, unless citizens are very happy - we actually had two parties called "Change". It worked not only for Obama, but also for Hamas - they didn't run in the elections as Hamas or The Islamic Movement, but rather as "Party for Change and Reform" or some such.

Pop culture. I know only one anti-socialist rock band, a veteran, but I don't know much current popular music (boring). There must be more bands, probably not famous, so you can give them air time on your pirate radio station. Of course, there should be many very funny right-wing comedians that will never get a job on TV. Empower British identity and pride not by using old patriotic slogans, but by telling young British listeners about British achievements and innovations in a compelling non-didactical way between songs. You should have, of course, your own news reports with a totally different slant than in "the matrix". Ideas should be challenging and thought provoking, and old ideas should have new packaging.

doom-and-gloom said...

Maybe I made a mistake. I'm quite ignorant and confused about all the "global" British identities. Don't know if I talked to an Irish-Irish or a British-Irish. Anyway, the same thing applies for all the West. The problem isn't who's fault is it or what went so deeply wrong or waiting for "Hell's Angels" to save the day. The problem is the left controls the education system, the media and pop culture (because the right let it happen). And in a democracy you need public opinion, so you need all these tools. And since the leftist methods are obviously so effective, the right should adopt them.