Monday, December 28, 2009

It's always the same these days. One rule for them and another for us. I'm sick of this country,'

A warning to Sharia-promoting Muslims; Europeans are not nice people when they are pushed and backed into a corner:

Their aim? To drive out Islamic extremism. Their weapon? The thugs of Britain's most violent football gangs

English Defence League protest march en route by train to Manchester from Bolton

Some of the most violent football hooligans in Britain head towards Manchester to support a march by the burgeoning English Defence League (EDL), while a woman dressed in a black hijab appears intimidated

On Platform One at Bolton station a mob of around 100 men punch the air in unison. The chant goes up: 'Muslim bombers, off our streets, Muslim bombers off our streets...'

Their voices echo loudly and more men suddenly appear; startled passengers move aside. The group march forward waving St George Cross flags and holding up placards. The throng of men around me applaud. A train heading for Glasgow draws up on the opposite platform and the men turn as one, bursting into song: 'Engelaand, Engelaand, Engelaand.'

Some of the men hide behind balaclavas, others wear black hoodies. A few speak on mobile phones, their hands pressed against their ears to block out the cacophony.

'It's already kicking off in Manchester. This could be tasty,' shouts one. These are some of the most violent football hooligans in Britain and today they have joined together in an unprecedented show of strength. Standing shoulder to shoulder are notorious gangs - or 'firms' as they are known - such as Cardiff City's Soul Crew, Bolton Wanderers' Cuckoo Boys and Luton Town's Men In Gear.

The gathering is remarkable, as on a match day these men would be fighting each other. But it is politics that has drawn them together. They are headed for Manchester to support a march by the burgeoning English Defence League.

The police are here in force, too. 'Take that mask off,' barks a sergeant to one young man. He does so immediately but protests: 'Why are they allowed to wear burkas in public but we're not allowed to cover our faces?'

'Just do what you're told,' the policeman snaps back.

An EDL demonstrator is arrested at Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester

An EDL demonstrator is arrested at Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester in October

'It's always the same these days. One rule for them and another for us. I'm sick of this country,' a man standing next to me says in a West Country accent.

He draws on a cigarette then flicks it to the ground in disgust. He starts to complain again but when the tannoy announces the arrival of the train to Manchester Piccadilly he raises his hands above his head and starts another favourite.

'Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves... Britons never, never, never...' His companions join in. As the train comes to a halt the crowd surges forward.

The carriages are almost full so the men pack themselves into the aisles followed by policemen speaking into radios. A group of lads drinking beer at a table eye the new contingent warily.

One man wearing a baseball cap clocks their fear and reassures them.

'It's all right lads, nothing to worry about. We're protesting against radical Islam. Come and join us.'

Further up the carriage another bursts into song.

'We had joy, we had fun, we had Muslims on the run,' he starts up. Nobody joins in and a couple of his mates tell him to 'shut up' as they point to a woman dressed in a black hijab sitting at a table.

A man standing close to her is masked and holds a placard. It has a picture of a Muslim woman crying with red blood streaming down her face. 'Sharia law oppresses women!' the slogan reads.

The rise of the English Defence League has been rapid. Since its formation at the start of the summer the group has organised nearly 20 major protests in Britain's cities, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Luton, Nottingham, Glasgow and Swansea.

Its leaders are professional and articulate and they claim that the EDL is a peaceful, non-racist organisation. But having spent time with them, there is evidence that this movement has a more disturbing side. There is talk of the need for a 'street army', and there are links with football hooligans and evidence that violent neo-Nazi groups including Combat 18, Blood and Honour and the British Freedom Fighters have been attending demos.

Violence has erupted at most of the EDL's demonstrations. In total, nearly 200 people have been arrested and an array of weapons has been seized, including knuckledusters, a hammer, a chisel and a bottle of bleach.

As the EDL gains support across the UK, Muslims have already been targeted in unprovoked attacks. In the worst incident, a mob of 30 white and black youths is said to have surrounded Asian students near City University in central London and attacked them with metal poles, bricks and sticks while shouting racist abuse. Three people - two students and a passer-by who tried to intervene - were stabbed.

Following the Manchester protest, when 48 people were arrested during street violence, the Bolton Interfaith Council Executive issued a stark warning that race relations were under threat and Communities Secretary John Denham compared the EDL to Oswald Mosley's Union of British Fascists, who ran amok in the Thirties. In response to these fears, the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit, a countrywide police team set up to combat domestic extremism, has been investigating the EDL.

'The concern to me is how groups like this, either willingly or unwillingly, allow themselves to be exploited by very extreme right-wing groups like the National Front and the British Freedom Fighters,' Metropolitan Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson has said.

Welsh Defence League members burn an anti-Nazi flag in Swansea

Welsh Defence League members burn an anti-Nazi flag in Swansea

I had met the English Defence League for the first time in Luton three weeks before the Manchester demonstration. After several calls, key members agreed to talk on the condition that I did not identify them. We met at a derelict building close to Luton town centre. Eleven men turned up. All wore balaclavas, as they often do to hide their identities, and most had black EDL hoodies with 'Luton Division' written on the back. They'd made placards bearing slogans such as 'Ban the Burka'.

The group's self-proclaimed leader, who goes by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, did most of the talking. A father of two, Robinson explained the background to the rise of the movement.

'For more than a decade now there's been tension in Luton between Muslim youths and whites. We all get on fine - black, white, Indian, Chinese... Everyone does, in fact, apart from these Muslim youths who've become extremely radicalised since the first Gulf War. This is because preachers of hate live in Luton and have been recruiting for radical Islamist groups for years. Our Government does nothing about them so we decided that we'd start protesting.'

Demonstration by the English Defence League in Birmingham

EDL demonstrators in Birmingham in September

Robinson could barely conceal his anger as he explained that the spark for him had been the sight of radical Muslims protesting when soldiers paraded through the town on their regiment's return from Afghanistan in May.

Following the incident Robinson set up a group called United People of Luton and, after linking up with a Birmingham-based organisation called British Citizens Against Muslim Extremists and another called Casuals United (largely made up of former football hooligans), they realised there was potential for a national movement.

'We have nothing against Muslims, only those who preach hatred. They are traitors who should be hanged and we'll keep taking to the streets until the Government kicks them out.'

More than 100 divisions have been set up across Britain and a careful co-ordination means the EDL is becoming efficient and a potential catch-all for every far-right organisation in Britain.

Robinson admits that he has attended BNP meetings in the past. Another prominent member and administrator of Luton EDL's Facebook group is Davy Cooling, a BNP member. Sean Walsh, an activist for the EDL in Luton, is a member of the BNP's Bedfordshire Facebook group.

Even within the EDL there are concerns over links to extremists. A former member called Paul Ray recently claimed that the group had been hijacked by BNP activists, including a man from Weston-super-Mare, Chris Renton, who helped set up the EDL website. Ironically, Ray himself has extremist contacts, including a German former neo-Nazi who is friends with Northern Ireland Loyalist Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair.

Casuals United was the brainchild of Jeff Marsh, a convicted football hooligan from Cardiff City's Soul Crew, one of the most feared gangs in Britain. Marsh operates behind the scenes, orchestrating activities with both Casuals United and the Welsh Defence League, a sister group of the EDL.

The public face of Casuals United is another Welshman called Mickey Smith. An avowed football hooligan, he is banned from Cardiff City's football ground. Together, Marsh and Smith organise the 50 or so gangs actively recruiting members across the UK.

The EDL insists it is separate from Casuals United, but dig a little and it becomes clear they operate hand-in-hand. Joel Titus is a cocky but politically naive 18-year-old Arsenal fan of mixed race. He tells me that the EDL youth division he runs has over 300 members across the UK.

'We want to hit every town and city in Britain,' he says.

Titus became involved with the movement through Casuals United. And according to anti-fascism magazine Searchlight, his role is to recruit football hooligans.

He sticks to the 'peaceful movement' mantra but a text I later receive from him ahead of an EDL demo in London reveals his involvement with the hooligans. It reads: 'Right lads, the "unofficial" meet for the 31st (London) is going to be 12 o'clock at The Hole In The Wall pub just outside Waterloo Station. I will be there just before that. Remember lads were (sic) going as Casuals Utd and if you could obtain a poppy to wear it would make us look good even if we are kicking off. lol. Cheers lads. Joel "Arsenal" Titus.'

EDL members meet at a rendezvous pub

EDL members meet at a rendezvous pub before travelling to Manchester

Alarmingly, the EDL is becoming more sophisticated and those orchestrating its activities at the top are far more astute than its foot soldiers. I meet two of the EDL's key figures in a Covent Garden pub - a respectable looking man called Alan Lake, and a man who goes by the moniker 'Kinana'.

Lake is a 45-year-old computer expert from Highgate, north London who runs a far-right website called Four Freedoms. This summer he contacted the EDL and offered to both fund and advise the movement.

'Our leaders in this country no longer represent us,' he says.

Lake's aim is to unite the 'thinkers' and those prepared to take to the streets. He describes this marriage as 'the perfect storm coming together'. Lake says that street violence is not desirable but sometimes inevitable.

'There are issues when you are dealing with football thugs but what can we do?'

He criticises fascist organisations, however, and says he will only support the EDL so long as it doesn't associate with the BNP. When I ask about extremists hijacking the movement, he says: 'There are different groups infiltrating and trying to cause rifts by one means or another, or trying to waylay the organisation to different agendas. The intention is to exclude those groups and individuals.'

These men are outwardly intelligent and their political nous combined with the brawn of the casuals makes them a quasi-political force.

Britain's neo-Nazis realise this. For Kevin Watmough, leader of the neo-Nazi British People's Party and a former member of the National Front, the rise of the EDL is reminiscent of the Seventies.

'The protests remind me of the National Front marches, but I wouldn't march with the EDL because they have blacks as supporters,' he told me.

But other neo-Nazis have joined EDL demos. These include members of Combat 18 and the British Freedom Fighters, who later posted videos of themselves on the internet.

Watmough lives in Bradford and can recall the 2001 riots, which came about as a result of tensions between whites and Muslims. Bradford, along with Oldham, another tinderbox northern city that witnessed riots in 2001, is a stated target for the EDL and Casuals United in 2010. Tension is likely here and in other towns where the EDL is also promoting spontaneous flash demos and the occupation of building sites for new mosques.

Professor Matthew Goodwin, an expert on far-right organisations who has advised the Home Office, says that the police are right to monitor the EDL and to take them seriously.

'(The EDL) is now well-organised and not just a minor irritant. It has become a rallying point for a number of different groups and to have them marching through sensitive areas is a major concern.'

Communities Minister John Denham has also condemned the rise of the EDL: 'If you look at the types of demonstrations they have organised, the language used and the targets chosen, it looks clear that it's a tactic designed to provoke, to get a response. It's designed to create violence. And we must all make sure this doesn't happen.'


Unknown said...

I was present at the Muslim protests in Luton against our brave troops who had returned from Afghanistan. The protests themselves did not upset me but their placards accusing the troops of murdering children etc did. The EDL was born from the frustration of these extremists taking advantage of our principles of freedom of expression (whereas sharia law denies anyone from criticising the Mohammed) and the failure of the government to tackle the problem. As a proud Brit I have a lot of sympathy with the EDL but it must, as Alan Lake says, distance itself from the BNP. The aim of the EDL must be to galvanise enough support amongst the wider British public to influence mainstream politicians who do not have the courage to stand up to the radicals for fear of inciting violence.
Following the recent arrest of the Nigerian who tried to blow up the Northwest Airlines plane on Xmas day we should start by lobbying the government to have more stringent checks on overseas students coming to study in the UK and impose a legal duty on all University principals to report extremist activities (they had shamefully refused to cooperate with the authorities).The Nigerian was probably radicalsed at the UCL in Londistan and its only a matter of time before another strikes. We must all unite (including moderate muslims who wish to live peacefully amongst us) against those radicals who encourage and carry out terrorist acts against innocent citizens of the Western world.

christian soldier said...

quote from the article:

'Our leaders in this country no longer represent us,' he says.

I would state that in regard to the elitists 'leaders' and bho -that we we have here in the U.S.///

what is a football hooligan? Is it sarcasm or a real group with in the group?

Anonymous said...

Dang! And here I thought soccer was for sissy men in silky short shorts! While I still haven't forgiven England for that whole Church of England thing, these guys do make me smile.

Pastorius said...

That's funny. The injury dramatics notwithstanding (stretchers for leg injuries) soccer players are a tough lot, imo.

Just Cause said...

"In England, apparently, white people join these gangs and act like fucking idiots."

We've been here before Pastorius, you have no understanding of English football culture illustrated perfectly by the quote above!

Gangs are NOT organised by skin colour but by football club affiliation. Also, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh teams also have gangs too, it's not just an English phenonomen. On the surface the main focus is organised violence and rivalry between clubs and at matches however higher up the chain in the firm there would those involved in organised crime. Race is rarely an issue that would prevent someone from joining a gang, I've seen plenty of gangs full of all walks of life and skin colours.

Most firms operate an 'honour' system similar to the mafia whereby most violence stays inter/intra gang. They are not just wandering bands of idiots preying on those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - anybody caught doing this would be punished by other gang members as it bring unneccesary police attention to gangs' other activities.

Plenty of books have been written about football firms - I would recommend reading one before blindly accepting the media's take of them.

Epaminondas said...

just cause you are describing reasons why huminz should be eliminated by alienz.

Any way you care to describe it, it's POINTLESS violence.

Even Red Sox fans don't behave this way towards yankee fans

revereridesagain said...

JC beat me to it, I was waving my arms and yelling noooooooo... it's football not "soccer"! Soccer is something involving suburban moms with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other driving SUVs full of kids to what used to be baseball practice.

I hurt for Britain. You're government has failed you as ours is failing us. At some point the government has to do its one proper job or it comes to people having to defend themselves however best they can. We dodged a bullet a couple of days ago, but there are more coming and who knows which one will finally wake people up here?

USMC said...

If the EDL can steer clear of racism I think they will be useful. The UK is very close to a street war with Muslims.

The Muslims are preparing for something big here and over there (UK).

Many Muslims believe their "time has come". With the Brits grabbing their ankles and the U.S. electing Barack Hussein Obama any Muslim should feel greatly encouraged.

However, the push back against Islam will stun them. My buddy says "they(Islamists) don't fear America but they will fear Americans!"

Great article by the way.

Anonymous said...

Guide to British games

Rugby is a game where the rules allow violence on the field and its peaceful off the field.

Football (soccer to those of you who are Atlantically challenged) is a game where the rules require peace on the pitch and the violence occurs in the stands

Anonymous said...

Why the hell aren't any of the MSM going around asking for the Muslims
"Why do they hate us?"

The Crescent News Network (CNN) was showing nothing else after 9-11 except the wanker Friedman going around the Middle East asking "Why do they hate us"

Autumn_Auburn said...

Quoting midnight rider:
"Well Rah Rah sis boom bah Autumn Auburn."

Am I a....?

Self-proclaimed Infidel. The worst kind, an American pagan to boot. According to their holy book, I shall be granted a special place in hell.

Why should I be okay with that?

Why should I be tolerant of those who wish to destroy my county and kill my people?

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out...? Not quite. But I'm not about to let them tell me what to wear or who I can be seen in public with.

They are trying to take over the world. That's what Allah wishes. And I don't know about you, but I'm not okay with living in dhimmitude, and I damn sure won't convert.

Anonymous said...

'Sharia law oppresses women!'If they dont feel oppressed who are you to say so? If they want to wear burka who are you to stop them. just like when you want to go nude shopping in tesco who are they to say no nudist..for god sake go nude if you feel like showing off your civilizations..It is a free country and they are free to practice what they believe and you are free to go naked if you want to...hooligans are hooligans and you can call them nice names and say nice things about them but they are into hooliganism. See you in south africa..the african lions are waiting..we still remember apartheid rule..

Pastorius said...

You said: We've been here before Pastorius, you have no understanding of English football culture illustrated perfectly by the quote above!

I say: I'm sorry. I simply do not understand the idea of joining a gang. I hate the herd instinct.

In fact, that is why I do what I do here.

IBA is, as I see it, absolutely against herd instinct.

Pastorius said...

But, if as you say, the hooligan gangs are not aligned by race, then I stand corrected.

midnight rider said...

"Why should I be okay with that?

Why should I be tolerant of those who wish to destroy my county and kill my people?"

You shouldn't be, of course. If you want to protest and march abd speak out against it all well and good. Beat to smash shop windows, beat a shop owner or intimidate a woman on a train because they're muslims and you wish to broadbrush them as individually meaning you harm is thuggery for the sake of itand as abhorrent as their religion.

"Start training, folks. War is coming-they're bringing it to our streets. Learn to fight. Learn to use weapons. Get prepared."

Something I've said all along. With carbine Colt or Kabar if I have to. But not against an individual who does not threaten me or our way of life.

"But I'm not about to let them tell me what to wear or who I can be seen in public with."

Though you assume you can tell them what to wear or who they can be seen with.

If they willingly want to wear a hijab that's on them. If they want to associate only wiht muslims, that's on them. AS LONG AS THEY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, DON'T TRY TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON ME AND MINE I DON'T CARE.

But the question is, when you say "not quite", exactly where do you draw the line? Do you think it's okay for men in hoods to intimidate a woman like that?

And, of the people in that picture, who is the one whose face you can see clearly?

midnight rider said...

"'If they dont feel oppressed who are you to say so?"

The problem with that statement, anon, is that the oppressed tend to be somewhat reticent about speaking out and standing up, fearing further oppression.

Other than that, thought, I can't say I disagree with the rest of your comment. 'cept that precious few would want to see Pasto or Epa or I running around nekkid. . .

Pastorius said...

I appreciate MR's subtlety.


for my part,


The Hijab? Well, I hate it, but whatever.

The burqa is absolutely dehumanizing.

Dag said...

England avoided a revolution in 1831-32 only by a miracle. The English haven't had a Modernist Revolution like the Americans, nor anything like the revolutions of France or Russia. The English revolution that did happen, nt the Industrial Revolution, is akin to Bismarck's Prussian/German Revolution, i.e. a gradual state socialism imposed on the masses rather than a proletarian socialist revolution. Like but not same. England had a revolution of statism with slowly deteriorating Liberalism. England is not a democracy, and English who act against the state do not do so in terms of party but in terms, to this day, of class. Not so with the Irish struggling against English imperialism. The English have to struggle in terms of which elitist clique will rule them. They do not have a democracy, thus, when the Fabians, f.i., turn on the working class, it is for the working class to turn to traditional methods of resistance to oppression, i.e. riot. Thus, I see the EDL as the current version of the Peterloo marchers. Those who call the EDL Nazis and such, have a class hatred of the working class, from my view.

Pastorius said...

I wouldn't know, as I have not spent enough time there.

However, it seems to me these people do not much think about what they actually stand for.

If the "upper class"/"intelligentsia" were doing their god damned job, then we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the EDL.

Dag said...

It is elite rule, exactly. England is not a democracy in the sense is America. We have a republic of The People, and England is a monarchy ruled by class elites. England is still living in its own version of the feudal age. They did not have a people's revolution since Watt Tyler. Even Cromwell was an elitist. It remains so in England today. Elite rule. The people vote for elitist representatives. It's not America. People have little or no say, as we see in the "replacement population" programme today in Britain. Tradition is "rioting." Do Americans riot? Not much; and even then it's not authentic, it being European importation. In England, rioting is vox populi.

Look at "football" fans: In America they pay a fortune to go to a massive stadium to watch professional giants in combat; in Britain it's often a chance to change from the pub to drinking outdoors with ones mates. And football itself, in America, is a big investment, with body armour and a field and lime-lines and so on; whereas in the rest of the world it's a ball and enough space for poor people to kick it around in. Same with politics: we can afford the best because we're rich; and the English have the minimal needs of a ball and a patch of ground to call their own.

Gangs? Look at the size of America and the trains and cars we have, the aeroplanes and the drive to go and see. Compare that to the size of England where it costs your vacation money for the year to have a car to go not very far at all. People mostly stay home because they're foreigners in the next village. There is no "Go West, young man" to go to. There's no California, no new start, no new land. Bank holiday in Brighton. A caravan at the Isle of Man. Oh, not allowed! So it's the local pub. No retirement in Miami, nor at Portsmouth. For the English, there isn't much choice. They live with it and live as Englishmen, not as Americans who, if they don't like Cincinnati, can go to Phoenix.

It's class-bound, and those of the lower classes have each other as mates. They live with it, and when the elites don't do the right thing, since there is no democracy to speak of, the working classes hit Cato Street and riot. The elites respond. That's government. Basic like football.

Autumn_Auburn said...

Quoting midnight rider:

Something I've said all along. With carbine Colt or Kabar if I have to. But not against an individual who does not threaten me or our way of life.

I agree with most of your post.

Indeed, I'm not about to walk down the street killing anyone who looks Muslim. But then, I don't have honor killings in my back yard, either (that I'm aware of, anyways.) If I lived with the violence and hate that non-Muslims have to tolerate in other areas, I might be a little more prone to it.

Islam is a religion of conversion and expansion-by force when necessary. We have to protect ourselves. We have to stand up for our beliefs.

I'm totally a Libertarian. Do what you want, just leave me alone has always been my motto. The problem with saying "live and let live" in this situation is that they won't give you the same respect. They are moving into various levels of government, trying to change laws, trying to undermine our way of life.

I would love nothing more than to believe that the radicals are the "minority" and that the majority just want to be good neighbors. But I just don't think this is the case, unfortunately. If it was, then we would see more "moderate" Muslims speaking out against the crazies.

We are the infidels and they have a duty to save our souls.

midnight rider said...

"I'm totally a Libertarian. Do what you want, just leave me alone has always been my motto."

Now you're talking my language.

I say we'll get along just fine as long as your ways don't hurt anyone and you don't try to force them on me or mine. Until then I will leave you in peace, though I may protest and speak out against your religion or form of governance.

But the moment you do THEN there will be real trouble.

Dag said...

I have to wonder about those who claim to be in favour of libertarianism. I'm not attempting to cast stones here; I hope to point out that what seems liberal and proper on one level is deeply dishonest and nihilistic on another. That without a core belief system, i.e. one that precludes you from allowing another a freedom he might likely desire, you might find yourself in favour of allowing the good to prevail in doom. Take this example, for the sake of argument:

You might all be familiar with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s claim that: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," and we might all applaud the libertarian sentiment; but he is also famous as a Supreme Court Justice for his majority ruling in Bell v. Buck (No. 292 Argued: April 22, 1927 --- Decided: May 2, 1927) on the state- enforced sterilization-- on eugenic grounds-- that Cary Buck (State of Virginia, 1927) was unworthy of having children, she being "feeble-minded":

Mr. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County by which the defendant in error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her sterile. 143 Va. 310. The case comes here upon the contention that the statute authorizing the judgment is void under the Fourteenth Amendment as denying to the plaintiff in error due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.

Dag said...

Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, &c.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who, if now discharged, would become [p206] a menace, but, if incapable of procreating, might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society, and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, &c. The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.

More at:

That great libertarian Holmes said, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough...."

In America 30 states over the course of roughly 30 years (c. 1907-40) sterilized over 60,000 people for the good of the nation, appr. half of those in the State of California.

This eugenic programme was conducted in a great surge of Progressive and Libertarian optimism, allowing the sterilization a few to allow for the greater freedom of the many. Those "feeble-minded" were an assault on the nation's good graces, a fist swung at the nose of "a better class of people." Those who had nothing better to offer than relativism were left to wonder what went wrong. Today they'll stand mute in the face of genetic engineering/selection.

I'm not religious, but I find more sympathy for Christians than for those who have no core beliefs at all. Liberty is often licence. I'm not so sure I like that.

Islam, like other poligions, i.e. political religions, e.g. Communism and Nazi-ism, is a communitarian totalitarianism. It's not a belief system: it is a non-belief system; it is for those who cannot believe in doubt as potentially good; i.e. it is for those who have no faith.

I have to ask if this is how people see the EDL? They might not be libertarians. Is that a bad thing?

Autumn_Auburn said...

Quoting Dag:
>>I'm not attempting to cast stones here; I hope to point out that what seems liberal and proper on one level is deeply dishonest and nihilistic on another.

The problem with being libertarian is that you never completely agree with anyone. It isn't dishonest or nihilistic. It's selfish and self-centered.

There are a lot of other libertarians out there that I do not agree with; this is my prerogative.

But to answer your post about forced sterilization of "feeble-minded" people... That's a sticky wicket. My step-sister should have been. She is a horrible, abusive, drug-using prostitute. She had 5 children, all to draw welfare checks so she could buy more drugs. They were each systematically taken away from her and adopted out. The state of California RARELY takes people's children away permanently. But they did with her. I think in some cases, maybe it should be done.

Quoting midnight rider:
>>I say we'll get along just fine as long as your ways don't hurt anyone and you don't try to force them on me or mine. Until then I will leave you in peace, though I may protest and speak out against your religion or form of governance.

The problem with the "live and let live" approach is that by the time it comes (literally) to your front door, it is already too late. Yes, protest. Yes, speak out. For now, this is all we can do. But keep your eyes open and be aware of the situation surrounding you.

midnight rider said...

OK, it's late & I've been drinking with friends so this may be clumsy but here goes.

Aubur Autumn -- we seem to be thinking and saying the same thing albeit it somewhat differently. So my apologies for jumping on you for your initial comment.

"The problem with the "live and let live" approach is that by the time it comes (literally) to your front door, it is already too late."

If anyone shows up at my front door, or my neighborhood etc trying to relieve me or mine of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness they are likely to be met by gunfire as one dumbass very nearly found out this summer (read if you are unfamiliar with the story).

Dag -- describing oneself as libertarian as I do does not necessarily mean subscribing to the current Libertarian Party ideals. It does not mean you are not Christian or have a core belief system (although I may be misreading your comment regarding that). It does mean a government big on National defense and really small on everything else. Few to none entitlement programs or government handouts. "What? You're 200 pounds overweight? Yes, you qualify for disability you never have to work again and we'll pay you for that". No joke. I have a sister in law like that. Get on a fucking treadmill says I why should I support your fat ass. My view of governement would give RahmaPelosObamaReid as well as most Republicans nightmares.

Addressing the state forced sterilization question itself it is NOT something I would support although in the cases of rapists and especially child rapists I would have to agree BUT my form of state forced sterilization is much cheaper. About 75 cents each. .45 acp transiting the cerebrum front to back. In the case of someone like Auburn's sister there are other ways to deal with it wihtout resorting to forced sterilization.

Dag said...

Somewhere in his book The House of Intellect, J. Barzun writes that a lack of societal boundaries condemns the probable loser to being a definite loser. If there is no end to the harm one can indulge in so long as it doesn't harm another, then the harm will probably continue till there is no hope of salvation at all. And then ones children too might suffer the same fate. We can look at the person and see a life of misery, but it's never determined; there is still hope that if one is castigated there will be a lack of outright abandoned deviance. But it means others have to care about it. It takes some courage to be mean-spirited and hard on losers "who have a right to..."

I see this in terms of Muslims living anywhere, but particularly in the West; that they have no boundaries because we live in a multi-culti phantasy of "Live and let live." Muslims can then, without boundaries, do as they please, becoming permanent and total losers in this brave new world. What do we believe in enough to tell them meaningfully to stop? Can Muslims act in any way they please so long as they don't bomb aeroplanes in mid-flight or such? Niqabs OK? FGM? Where do we stop? If we stop at household confinement of Muslimas, why not at something positive like demanding a secular education for Muslim females? Is society a collective concern? Is it a tyranny of the majority to demand social behaviour from minorities such as, for example, drug-users? But what then of a Mulsim majority in the West? If we do what we do and to Hell with anything else, what will we do when the majority is Muslim? Who will we be to say they are wrong?

Re. Carrie Buck: Who gives the state the right to decide who is or is not "feeble-minded?" And why would that be grounds for forced sterilization? If we leave questions like this to the state, letting them do because they don't do to us, then what kind of people are we? Feeble-moraled? If we don't have a moral core; if we are libertarian, as it were; if we allow no rules but those that please us or don't harm us immediately, we leave open the rules of government to decide for us what we didn't decide; if we don't have a systematic belief in right and wrong according to universal morals, then we end up with anarchy.

Look at how G.K. Chesterton defines anarchy, not as "no government" but as government that is insane, that has no beliefs. He writes that we can all break rules if we wish to do so exceptionally, and we can live normally with it. We can, on New Year's Eve, stay up too late. If we sleep till noon every day, that is anarchy.

"The State, like the house-holder, is sane if it can treat such exceptions as exceptions. Such desperate remedies may not even be right; but such remedies are endurable as long as they are admittedly desperate. Such cases, of course, are the communism of food in a besieged city; the official disavowal of an arrested spy; .... Of these exceptions, some are right nd some are wrong; but all of them are right in so far as they are taken as exceptions. The modern world is insane, not so much because it admits the abnormal as because it cannot recover the normal."

Is the EDL a neo-Nazi gang of thugs who ant to coerce minorities? Is anything not "libertarian" fascistic? Or is it possible that to preserve what is commonly if vaguely termed normal is to the general good of even probable losers?

Dag said...

If we don't know what we prize from moment to moment, having no moral core or sense of absolutes beyond which we refuse, then what is to stop a government from deciding for us that what we haven't saved as ours is theirs?

Do we leave our social morals, i.e. our norms, in the hands of "experts"? If we don't know, or have some fairly clear idea of the Agathon, then what do we know in the face of expertise? Maybe the government, comprising the best minds in the nation, should tell us what we haven't considered ourselves. Maybe trans-fatty acids are bad for us and we are too feeble-minded to know. It might not harm us to have the government ban them for us. We might be grateful. We might be free from harm, thanks to the experts. That would be liberty of sorts.

Maybe banning "fascists" is a freedom from harm. Experts like Charles Johnson seem to think so. Those who believe that Western culture is worth preserving are intolerant of destroying it. The EDL might not "live and let live." I don't actually think so, but it is conceivable that they would organize effective resistance to the destruction of English culture. That would be intolerant of its destruction/ or, to the creation of the perfect Islamic society of Britain and the world. The EDK would have to earnestly believe in right and wrong. That would mean that they believe those who do not believe as they do are wrong. It would mean they have boundaries of some sort. That alone would negate their good standing as libertarians.

Believing in rational/ positive/ and common law as it is codified in English law is non-libertarian. It's discriminatory and exclusive. It's a set body of beliefs. Sometimes it is outright stupid. But it is, and still is after all this time, normal.

If all is contingent or relative, then maybe the Danish(?) parliamentarian is right, that we should be nice to Muslims so that when they take over, they'll be nice to us. Nothing is sacred or meaningful in any deep sense if we have no boundaries we must defend. People who would drift will drift, and such is la vida. I call it nihilism.

But there is never nihilism. There is always some power seeking space, seeking to fill the emptiness. Without a belief, there is a hole in the universe that something will fill: Shari'a, drug-abuse, anarchist government by experts....

For now, at least, I'll think of the EDL as better than not.

Dag said...

I was typing over you as you posted your comment. I'm just musing here. Nothing conclusive and I'm always open to reconsideration in light of a good argument.


midnight rider said...

Incidentally, what you're calling football over there we call rugby over here. It is a far different game than soccer, much rougher, but, at least here, with much stricter rules governing said roughness to prevent serious injuries.

My daughter played rugby 3-1/2 seasons in college. She was a flanker and a hooker. Along the way she suffered numerous concussions, a broken nose, a broken finger, and countless dislocated shoulders that, even now, will dislocate if she turns a light switch on wrong. None of the injuries caused by unecessary roughness or foul play type situations.

She loved it.

She has a t-shirt that reds "80 minutes. 15 positions. No protection. Wanna ruck?"

I believe that's that sport we're talking about here.

Autumn_Auburn said...

Quoting midnight rider:
>>Aubur Autumn -- we seem to be thinking and saying the same thing albeit it somewhat differently. So my apologies for jumping on you for your initial comment.

No worries. I'd hazard a guess that I'm a little more paranoid than you are; so my views are a probably a little more extreme. But then, my husband and in-laws are ex-military, right-wing, Reagan republican, borderline militia types. So, I have opportunity, tools and ideas to prepare for Armageddon (and can openly share these ideas with those around me.) *raise a glass to FREEDOM*

Dag ~ I can totally see what you're saying. I know it sounds wishy-washy, but I really do believe in personal freedom. You're right, anarchy isn't the answer and I'm not advocating that. Yes, we have to have rules and for a long time, our rules worked.

The American Constitution is a beautiful, perfect thing. And if people would stop messing with it, this country would be much better off. I personally think it needs to be stripped back to it's original state with the original amendments and then leave it be. A lot of stupid laws need to be undone, in my opinion. But I digress...

We are now faced with a group of people who are using our rules against us. They are twisting them and perverting them and using them to their own evil ends. They are undermining our system so that they can put theirs in its place. This is unacceptable.

Am I advocating violence? In some cases, yes. I can sympathize with the EDL. I can understand why they are doing what they're doing. They have been pushed to the limit. When you have muslim hate groups on your street corner screaming for your death... When you have muslim hate groups beating up your children in school for eating a bologna sandwich... When you have muslim hate groups subverting your laws and demanding that their laws replace yours... I can understand why they have to stand up and say "enough is enough!"

I am lucky enough to be sitting here in my cozy house, in a relatively safe neighborhood, away from the problems of the city. If I wasn't, I might be out there organizing street patrols, myself.

You're right, Dag-the universe dislikes a vacuum. Will we let sharia in, or will we fight to keep it out?