And, why are "anti-right wing youths" wearing face masks and "HH" logos? Heil Hitler?
What the hell is going on here? Why is Getty Images so ignorant as to portray these people as "anti-right wing"? Getty Images, for those of you who do not know, is, in part, the photographic equivalent of the Associated Press. That is, they function, in part, as a news source in images.
Anti-right wing youths taunt members of the English Defence League during a rally on September 5, 2009 in Birmingham, England. The English Defence League (EDL) are holding their demonstration in various locations around the city with minor scuffles amongst Saturday shoppers
(September 4, 2009 - Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images Europe)
Here's another source on the same image.
28 comments:
He's obviously a classically educated right wing hellenophile. Just look at the Nike logo. "Victory"
I love how those posts by Babba and Shiva, which were just incendiary montages of images got so many comments. And, here, my post which is easy to understand and poses a really important questions in clear and concise terms only gets one comment.
Amazing.
Maybe we have collectively lost our minds ...
Carpenters post notwithstanding.
maybe people are worn out. i can handle only one country's collapse at a time.
Good point.
I confess, Pastorius, that I haven't followed your post carefully of late. I do get a laugh from some of the commentary I read about photos, e.g. a fellow pointing and another in the same shot using both hand to hold up a flag: "Nazi salutes!"
And "H.H." Well, middle-class kids at the mall, as we all know, without the classically educated to inform them properly in "nike," are prone to veer toward the Naziesque "Helly Hanson."
It is a cruel world.
Funny joke, Dag, but what is your opinion. Is this guy a Muslim or a member of the UAF (United Anti-Fascists)? And, if so, do you think the HH means Heil Hitler to him, or is it simply a fashion statement?
Pastorius, as you know, labels of any kind on clothing are "shirk," a good example being "Nike." It is to assign to the universe another religious figure in competition with Allah, and hence verbotten, as we say in Koranic Arabic. If you don't believe me, "Ask the Imam."
No, it's hard to make this up.
Most people, from my experience, don't act consciously when they set out to dress themselves in the morning, by looking over the minutea of the labels on their clothes; and so one finds even Muslims wearing, against all good taste, Nike shoes with the "swoosh" still attached, even though the Imam says rip it off and burn it.
I know the fatwa, but honestly, how many Muslims know it? Few, is my guess, and rightly so. Why would they care to think it through? They don't have to be "subliminal" in sending their messages, they just hold up signs saying "Hitler was right," or they shout, "Jews to the ovens." They don't much care about subtlety. Why should they? They have a position and a message they're willing to kill and die for, so making it so subterranean that only the DaVinci decoder ring wearer can get it is to blow the point.
I have no idea, Pastorius, who that masked man is. "Tonto," if you speak Spanish, comes to mind.
If I may take up a bit more of your time, I'm working still on my magnum opus, recently retitled from "A Counter Enlightenment and Romance Genealogy of Left Dhimmi Fascism" to the far pithier, "A Genealogy of Left Dhimmi Fascism." I'm currently at page 78 of chapter five (of seven) titled: "Oikos, Part Two." The latter part of this chapter deals with the history of the nineteenth century pseudo-science of "Scientific Racism," also known as eugenics. I look closely at Athur de Gobineau and Francis Galton, Thomas Maltus, and others, so we can find in the pages of this world-transforming popular best-seller, just what it is we think we're referring to when we say "Racist." It's not what most people today think it is.
So too with my chapter, "What is Fascism?" I can talk you ear off about the history of fascism, Pastorius, and do so entertainingly and informatively. I have little patience, or even zero tolerance, for those who use the term without understanding. To accuse some English kid holding up a St. George's Cross flag of being a Nazi and giving a Nazi salute is mentally ill. I don't recall who did that, but it's a sign of the end of Reason, or the very foundation of Americanism, as I adore it in the person of Sarah Palin. but you must wait some time yet to see the work in print.
I hate to do this, but I am going to give away all suspense here and inform you and your readers that Chapter Six of my beautiful book is, if you're ready for this, "Oikos, Part Three."
I am amazed. You will be, too.
Meanwhile, I look daily at the EDL pages and up-dates to see what they're on about. Uner the influence of the writings of Eric Voegelin, among others, I now take a different position from that of most in that I see conspiracy theorists as Gnostics. I don't see the EDL as anything other than what they are: British working class people, i.e. middle-class, upset about the state of things in the same way as are those going to Tea Parties.
Some argue that the EDL are Nazis. I shrug. It's so wrong it's not even stupid, as a famous physicist once said.
All of us have a little bit to contribute to the general pot of Human understanding of the nature of things. I hope my effort will be valuable. It should stop man people from using terms like "Nazi" and "fascist" as pejoratives, if nothing else. I hope, too, that this will clarify a number of issues regarding the sense of "Left and Right." If so, we might leave behind the conspiracy thinking that "we" are the Sun in a Manichean universe.
More:
Lenin was one to argue that his group should pin the label "Convert" on anyone they could, and then sort them out later. He also argued and practised "splitting" for the sake of ideological purity. For those of us in this business, it certainly pays to know our Revolutions.
Before we rush to recruit all we can and then spend our time rooting out those not pure enough, perhaps we should examine our tendencies toward Gnosticism, as Voegelin describes it. I favor, so far, the EDL's efforts to raise an opposition to Left dhimmi fascism in Britain and elsewhere. Are they perfect? I rather doubt they have ny idea about my wonderful thesis of Left dhimmi fascism at all; so no they're far from perfect. But I live with it. I live with them not knowing what "racism" is, not knowing the difference between eugenics and xenophobia, not knowing the difference between the fascses and the tribe on the one side and the communion on the other, and not knowing the religio from the poligio. It ain't no perfect world.
Dag is making a very important point in that we need to understand what is going on now, not merely tack on labels from 1939. Nazism keeps getting recycled because its symbols still have so much evocative power. But it is not 1939, it is 2009, it's not the Nazis vs. the Bolsheviks any more. Hitler is dead, and the enemy is Islam, and those enemies of our enemy who are not our friends have to be recognized for what they are, not whatever label is handy. Fight this war, not the last one.
there are still 21 other images of people acting like Koranimals on my post
oo
debunkle
"Koranimals", another excellent word coined.
Dag,
It could be that the guy wasn't going for the Heil Hitler thing. Who knows? It is quite the coincidence though, considering this guy appears to be a modern day Nazi, or in other words, "An Anti-Racist Youth", as represented in the UK by Jihadists and the UAF.
Good to hear you're still writing. Are you still working with the other two guys?
Jaco
I brought this up from the other thread
You ask why "However, if anyone can explain to me why the UAF are wearing face masks and HH logos, that would be appreciated."
No body here can explain or would be willing to explain
Okay let me try
The UAF need to have a reason to justity themselves, They have to have proof there are nazis within the EDL so their attacks and violence are justified. The problem is, if there are any nazis
within the EDL they will be hard to find, because they are very savvy in hiding then selves, and wear expense brand names There fore the name casuals, they even go as far to remove all labels,so as to slip by police at football fixtures. They leave the bottoms on, so as to identify themselves to each other, be it friend or foe.
A Casual would not wear HH as it is a dead give away, the same so wearing green flying jackets and Dr martins
So how do the UAF/Searchlight get evidence that there are nazis in the EDL, easy, the get some-one to put on a green jacket, or HH garb and there we go nazi
For most people including you and Babbazee and most bloggers do not know all the quirks are easily taken in by this.
Luckily in this case this guy was caught on the media
So how many people where assuming the the guy was from EDL
I had already seen this picture before Babaazee posted it, and it was on an anti EDL site, as soon as I saw it alarm bells started ringing
Maccus, hello to you.
Pastorius, I still write frequently on the Internet, but due to a number of illnesses I've been absent from active blogging for some time.
Here's something I think we might all ponder, in light of my experience as a blogger: I seldom write about jihad any more, preferring to focus on what I term "Left dhimmi fascism." I still understand jihad and Islam generally as threatening to the world of Modernity, which I prize highly, making Islam a serious threat to anything and everything I hold dear; but I don't spend the time on it that I used to even a year ago. I think this is a pattern across the field we're in. Islamic terrorism has become "normalised" to the point we don't think about it as so important that it focusses us on its destruction. Not to write tht we don't care, but that it's not so imposing as it was even a year ago, in my case. Obama, for me, is a more serious threat to America and the Modernity I prize than is Islam. And, as I must be notorious for writing for so many years now, our own are our most serious enemies. That has become more acute since the run-up to the past election. Muslim terrorism seems less serious than the Left dhimmi fascism that has spread and entrenched itself in the homeland.
From the beginning of this stage of my life, when I returned to N. America in 2003, I've seen this as a matter of unlimited importance: that a significant segment of our own are in a dedicated struggle to destroy the Modernity that is America and are bent on restoring the primitive fasces of the deep Middle Ages. Now, after some years of reading, thinking, listening, and experiencing things, I have a fairly clear idea of what we face, and Islam is, to me, peripheral to our concerns. If I recall the Latin properly, it's, "Sic hoc ergo propter hoc." Concurrent with this, therefore because of this. Yes, but no.
I think the Left has created the jihad in its current manifestation, stumbling upon, by accident, a force, i.e. Islam, waiting to erupt into world-destroying, chaotic violence. Rather than promoting the previous attempts at Soviet world- hegemony, the Left has moved into new areas for fodder: Philobarbarism, Ecology, and Islam. Rather than a single effort to destroy Modernity by supporting Communism, we face that three-pronged attack as above.
I see this three-pronged attack as one waged by "Gnostics." In short form, I see those as Platonist "Philosopher Kings" or perhaps as social engineers in the sense of B.F. Skinner, as a prime example of creepiness. Thus, the Gnostic intellectual, not particularly intelligent, having a personal vision of the God beyond the demiurge, i.e. knowing the "real" truth, sees what we mere mortals do not; and he, being the elect intellectual, takes it upon himself, Platonically, to rule us all for our own good.
The Gnostic is one to see beyond-the-beyond, to know The Right after his deconstruction of the naive. The Gnostic is then a demi-god. A Dear Leader. For the political person without religion, he is God, no one above him, only sky. Just imagine. And such is why I am deeply concerned about America under the rule of Obama and his lot; why I am concerned that our own voted for this regime.
We have a rulership by Gnostics and atheists, using the latter in the sense of moral nihilists, no god but their egos, themselves gods in their own minds; and hence we have a theocracy of unrestrained controllers, e.g. B.F. Skinner imitators. We lose the separation of church and state in that we get a poligion, a political religion in place of politics, i.e. rule and polis, or city, and and the voluntary and transcendent communion of souls. We get a Leftist theocracy of moralistic, not moral, people who have no one higher than in the universe. They are not answerable to anyone other than themselves, certainly not you or I or any other lowly citizen.
I see this as a pseudo-religious crusade by Leftists to restore the historical fasces of the Human experience. These creatures are akin to the reactionary forces of the French Revolution, the reactionaries. They are the dispossessed aristocrats and (Church, i.e. cloistered academy) nobility longing for their restoration to their "entitlements."
The Leftists now bring us a three pronged assault on the demos, the people, in the pseudo-religious crusade for two things: poliginous purity, and aesthetic purity. This crusade is reactionary, and it is utopian, in the sense that one longs for the return to the Golden Age, a time of heroes and universal right order, i.e. before the demos had the right to rule themselves, and when they had no means to own their own lives as their own personal property, as we see mentioned in the statement at the head of this blog. We see a puritan/purist moralistic, i.e a phony moralism and sentimentality, in politics; a "Velvet Fascism" in the attempt to co-opt the people into restoring the feudal oikos, or "hosuehold" (economy); and an aesthetic interpretation of the poligion as seen b the Gnostic: That all people should live in a Rousseauesque community of the General Will as expressed by the Gnostic elite, and damned pretty to look at as the peasants dance in festive costumes and do pretty peasant things for the enjoyment of what Ortega y Gasset refers to as the Natural Nobility, rather than the democracy of what Virginian Wolfe terms "the gelitinous mass" of individuals.
It's our own people who make me nervous. I don't like anything at all about Islam, except for one thing; but I hate intensely many things about the Left dhimmi fascism of the current Gnostic poligionous. They are our serious enemy: they use, as I have argued numerous times over the years, the jihadis as proxies.
What the Left term "racism" is a hold-over from nineteenth century pseudo-science, no more common today than is, for example, phrenology or social work, penology, eugenics, labour/value alienation, ecology, or commodity fetishism.
Oh. I made a mistake there. The only pseudo-science we don't pay attention to is "Scientific Racism." I would have to hunt for ages to find anyone who would agree with de Gobineau's interpretation of the inequality of the races. No more luck with von Herder's theories of climatic influence on autarkic cultures, and so on. And yet,we witness daily a tide of accusations of "racism" as if anyone knows whereof they speak.
I hastily wrote that off the top of my head. Let me summarize, that the average Obama supporter is more a threat to democracy than is a horde of Nazis. Our own anti-Modernist, neo-feudalist, communiatarian social engineer is more a threat to us than any gang of organised Nazis will ever be. If one wishes to destroy America, convince Americans that it is their moral duty to be poor. No jack-boots involved, just moralistic and sentimental wheedling till people fall apart and cringe to death. That's what we face, and we face a growing number of idiots who think they think it's the best. Leftists. Dhimmis. Fascists.
Hello Dag and a very warm hello to you too
Strange you popped up here just now, as further back while ranting about the EDL I came to think about you, and gave you a mention
I missed your comment about me, Shiva.
I've often over the years now wanted to apologize for rushing in to write about you, when I first read your comments at Jihad Watch, in my enthusiasm for whatever point you made, confusing you with Khali. Same but different, eh?
Dag, it doesn't work without iron behind it.
Acorn, SEIU, those are the fluffy people.
Nobody is going to convince americans to be poor. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
Dag,
Should I post what you wrote above here at IBA on the front page?
Pastorius, I popped up here after this long absence because my old computer was so slow it wouldn't access you site. My new one does, and here I am.
In this time, i.e. since mid-April, I've been writing this book seriously, taking a break from late July to mid-
Sept. The book will be seven chapters, and I'm on page 78 of chapter five today. Each chapter comes in at over 100 pages of my tiny handwriting. So, this means I don't even have a first draft, just much more of the kind of thing I wrote as a comment, not polished material, but notes to type and work into literature next. With that in mind, my commentary here is some of what's in my mind, less organized than what I write at the office, and not at all polished.
But yes, if you would do me the favour of editing for style, please do put it up on the front page for me. This is not my final word on this topic, but it's what's on my mind over a few years of thinking. The general jotting down is enough to get my point across to the world for now. I'm happy to elaborate later if there are questions, and assuming I can find the answers in the text at hand.
Epa, I write bout apoverty as a Romantic philosophical position that I call "Povertarianism." If you do a google search you'll find a lot of my thoughts on it. It stems from the fall of the Roman Empire, according to the Belgian historian Henri Pirienne, when the Muslims closed trade routes between Western Europe and Eastern Europe and North Africa, thereby shutting down the needed trade to sustain cities and therefore commerce, driving the West European nations into autarky and communalism, subsistence agriculture. Without money, there was stagnation and depression and decline till the Veniceans, et al restored sea-trade and jump-started the Renaissance, breaking the monopoly of power of the Church and the landed nobility. Trade reintroduced cash, i.e. capital, into the European economy. Such as Th Aquinas were, and are, upset with the concept of money, preferring the peasant masses to live in poverty. So it is with socialists today, wishing us all to "get back to Nature," to "Think Small," and so on, all of which is to say that the Left intelligentsia wishes for a "moral" purity of social relations, i.e. where authenticity is favoured over privacy, where haring and caring communally is preferred to private life of making a living and being an individual. There is that Leftist pseudo-religious aspect, and also the aesthetic side, that the nobility don't like seeing the masses, i.e. me and those like me, having any independent movement: we mar the pristine landscape of the world as it should be for the aesthetically pure and elevated. For the aesthete, nothing is worse than seeing the great unwashed milling around their favoured places, whcih is to say, wherever they might cast their gazes. Better, for them, were we to wear colourful peasant costumes and do folk dances in the distance where the smell of us doesn't interfere with their enjoyment of life. But we have money, ergo mobility and individuality. The plan is to impoverish us all and make the world again like the manorial system of the Middle Ages. That's what I term "Povertarianism."
I allude above to one thing about Islam that I like very much. It is jihad. In my thesis I write that the Muslims have had 1,400 years to take over the world, and they haven't gotten too far at all; whereas we Modernists could, with the same jihad-like approach of violence and intimidation and co-optation, take over the world in a matter of decades were we at all interested. I'm promoting a universal Manifest Destiny, which in my own inimitable style I term: "Filibuster for Universal Modernity." It gets me banned for many sites across the aether. No pussy-footin'. That is the conclusion to my effort.
Pastorius, if you can streamline all that, please post prominently.
Good to see you all again. Hope to rerun more frequently now that I have a lovely computer.
Yalla, Dag.
Dag,
I have a book to recommend. I think you will enjoy Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals".
It's a history of major "Intellectuals". Men such as Tolstoy, Shelly, Rousseau, the Marquis de Sade, etc.
All of them monsters in their own way.
I love Paul Johnson, but as yo might imagine, I live in a socialist nation witha socialist core, this city, where the people don't read paul Johnson, and therefore don't have his books in libraries of bookshops. The market still rules. I can find hundreds of copies of anything Michael Moore; Paul Johnson, no.
Intellectuals is on my list,having read and enjoyed History of America and Modernity. Long books!
I've read much of his History of America. I have not read Modernity. I've also read quite a bit of his History of Christianity (another long book).
Intellectuals is a comparitively short book, at about 350-400 pages. As with all his work, it's so well-written that it's a quick read. He's an exciting writer, making everything vivid.
I have a feeling the man can write a book off the top of his head, don't you?
I like Johnson's work, aside from minor editing quibbles like misnaming figures and places in the rush of producing huge amounts of information, honest oversights one expects editors to catch. I like his easy style and common sense approach to reality. and the sheer amount of information is wonderful. Some might complain that he skims the surface and misses most of what happens in any given event. I agree with that. but his books are surveys and not monograms at all, so the criticism is misplaced. If he writes a line of tow, as he does on my relative William Walker, or if he writes a page or so, the point is not that he mssed all the important thing, it's that he mentions anything at all, that he writes books of over-view, giving the reader a cosmic scope from which the interested person can focus on in greater detail. Johnson is a serious historian, but his readers need not be. His readers can glean some interesting details and a good view of the whole. For most, that's more than enough. I studied American History in school for twelve years, an I learned more from Johnson's book on America than I did during those school years. Very much worth my while.
My work is general, in a sense, splitting the difference between a survey and a monogram. I hope to present a coherent view of the intellectual history, a genealogy of thought, of the Left. I'm not making anything more comprehensive than the next guy. It's too large a subject to do more than contribute on man's opinion of some thinking by some thinkers. Even then, I wonder how many readers will appreciate 20 pages or more on Fichte's version of nationalism and authenticity. One does ones best. Johnson does it well.
I don't use a possessive apostrophe in the word "ones." It's a pronoun like his, hers, ours, &c. I seem to e one of the few who omits it. Should I be castigated? I have little more to write on that, but I have at some later date, much to write about the EDL.
Till later,
Yalla.
Dag,
You said; Johnson is a serious historian, but his readers need not be.
I say: Yes, that's true. And, since I never really studied history until after 9/11, I need my history to go down easy. I'll read the difficult slogs later on in life.
Your writing is not, for some reason, difficult, even though it is dense.
I guess it's because you approach it with a Philosophical sensibility (something with which I am familiar) and a sense of humor.
I still blog with Truepeers and Charles, the former being not only oone of the smartest intellectuals in Canada but one of the finest stylists I know of. I think of Virgil when I read his work. His writing is dense, and it is impenetrable to many; but if one puts in the effort, even should one disagree with his central points, he is worth the effort.
Charles is a stylist in his own right, and more than that, a deeply honest intellectual outside the academic tradition. My Genealogy is heavily influenced by both these thinkers, though I explained to them they won't recognize in it anything they've said or written. Goes to show they ain't THAT smart. So I say, "Ha!"
They've never had a response to that yet. I win every time.
Post a Comment