Far-Right Extremist Laments Far-Right Extremist Group Being Too Far Right & Extreme

October 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm

Tommy Robinson today announced that he’s quitting the English Defence League as he wants to “Counter Islamist Ideology” though “Not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.”

Describing Tommy as an enigma is probably being a little generous. Usually enigmatic people are quite deliberately difficult to fathom but Tommy seems to be either accidentally difficult or just internally conflicted. Either way he’s led the increasingly violent, increasingly stupid and increasingly racist EDL for four years now. He’s been given a fair bit more air-time over that period than the genuinely baffling Nick Griffin, and four years later I still can’t quite figure out what his point actually is. Or was.

I do remember watching a documentary about him and Saiful Islam in Luton, and I remember thinking at the time that Tommy probably isn’t as racist, nasty or as anti-Islam as he likes to make out. That in fact it looks as though he and Saiful were the equally dominant and equally opposing forces at the same secondary school and that the two of them don’t genuinely believe what they’re saying. It almost looked like the EDL and Saiful’s little gang of backward followers was just a wild escalation to this playground duel that may well have began with one looking at the other’s girlfriend the wrong way.

He had a bit of a strange interaction with an Asian security guard during that programme, where he called him a ‘Smelly paki’ and told him to ‘go home’. The guard didn’t bite and Tommy just said ‘Nah, I’m only kidding mate, you’re all right.’ And weirdly enough, I saw a small little boy with a desire to be liked, or to be well known or famous. And perhaps that’s why he started the EDL. Maybe he was talking to his mate Kev (Carroll, his deputy leader of the EDL who also quit), talking about fame and they both reached the conclusion that he wasn’t particularly good at anything apart from his innate  ability to start  fights in empty rooms and shout a lot. And thus, the EDL was born.

With every passing pub-crawl or – to use EDL terminology – march, the group seemed to grow in violence and genuine confusion. It would have been fantastic if the various police forces that have had to deal with these drunken farces had kept some stats, as I’m sure they probably hurt more of their own than anyone else. As well as increasing in violence, Tommy himself ventured further away from criticising ‘Political Islam’ as he calls it (not sure what that actually is) and more towards criticising everyday Muslims. I could list a few of his more famous insults aimed in the general direction of Muslims, not extremists, but it’d be too easy.

My thoughts on the move he’s made today aren’t too deep, they’re pretty straightforward actually. His quitting of the leadership of the EDL does not mean that overnight he becomes less violent, more inclusive of Muslims or less Islamophobic. Tomorrow he will wake up the same person with the same ideas floating around in his head. But on the other hand I don’t think we should assume that he’ll never change or that he doesn’t want to.

I still think a lot of the things he’s done and said in the past are deplorable, despicable and in cases outright disgusting, but it isn’t for me or anyone else to judge him as a write-off or a lost cause. At this moment in time it’s probably safe to assume that Tommy probably harbours a strong disliking for Islam and Muslims, and by not at least giving him a chance to repent Muslims will only be proving him right. Of course we don’t need to prove anything to him at all, but if we were take a look at our own Prophet (Salallahu Alayhi Wasalaam) and the trials he faced in his lifetime, we will see for ourselves that he forgave much worse people who committed much more oppressive, much more disgusting acts than Tommy Robinson ever has.

So while it may look slightly comical that a Far-right extremist has left the far-right extremist group that he himself started up for being too far right and too extreme, we should at least give the man a chance to redeem himself. He might just prove himself to be a good guy after all. On the other hand he might not, but we will be much better off as Muslims if we at least give him that chance.

What Are Whites Doing to Combat White Crime?

October 6, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Wow, some things never change. It doesn’t seem all that long ago that I was writing this. And since then not really a lot’s changed, today the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live show asked the question that seems to be in vogue at the moment: ‘Do Muslims do enough to combat extremism?‘ It’s a ludicrous and infuriating question that actually hints at the possibility that Muslims at worst agree with extremist viewpoints or at best tolerate them. I won’t go over old ground too much, but there isn’t a great deal we can do about it. These extremist types are incredibly aware of the unpopularity and sensitivity of their own viewpoints, so generally only share their thoughts with like-minded individuals.

Also I noticed via this tweet from Mohammad Ansar, a story on the Quilliam Foundation:

 

The article talks about a forthcoming report from the Quilliam Foundation (set up by two ex-extremists interestingly enough) that pretty much decries all ‘mainstream’ Muslim organisations as Extremist apologists. It seems clear that Quilliam is smearing other organisations in an attempt to retain its Government funding, but this little episode does raise a difficult question for News and Television editors: ‘Which Muslims should we invite comment from?’

Unfortunately, it seems the balance at the moment is tipped in favour of those Muslims who think Islam and Muslims should drastically change to meet the demands of the West. Muslims who think that Islam and the West don’t really need wholesale changes to co-exist are largely ignored, how many can you name? On the whole is Islam is poorly represented in the mainstream press, possibly because the opinions of ex-Muslims, ‘Secular’ Muslims or ‘Moderate’ Muslims sell more copy as they are likely to pander to white audiences. I don’t often see ‘Muslim’ Muslims on TV, you know the ordinary Muslim who is interested in clean living, clean earning, worship, family and equality for all. If you do see ‘Muslim’ Muslims on TV, I tend to find it’s either teenagers who, like any teen, are a bit under-developed with their ideas or nervous to be on TV, or it’s nice people like Myriam Francois-Cerrah who seems to get rapturous applause on their rare appearances.

Of course I think representation of Muslims and Islam on the tellybox is more than just a little unfair but that’s nothing new and is highly unlikely to change any time soon. Islamophobia does play a big part in this, but I think we as Muslims must also accept that another aspect of this is the general negativity of Western Media. Negativity sells copy, media outlets are in fierce competition in an increasingly shrinking marketplace so as unfortunate and unfair as it is, Muslims just aren’t going to get much good press (unless we run 5,000m faster than anyone else). That doesn’t mean to say that we should lie down and accept it, we just need to understand that isn’t necessarily all about hatred of Islam.

That hatred does exist though, and it doesn’t always manifest itself in an obvious or direct manner. We only have to look at how often the ‘Do Muslims do enough to…’ question pops up in comparison to the ‘Do Whites do enough to…’. I have never seen any news outlet ever question the efforts of white people, despite the fact that as of June 2013 73.8% of prisoners are white. So 73.8% of all convicted prisoners currently serving are white. That kind of statistic really does beg the question:

What are White People doing to combat this?”

The answer of course is nothing in particular, but why is this question never asked? I’m white, so according to the logic of the BBC and other mainstream outlets, should I be out on the streets campaigning against White Crime? Maybe I could have a little niche of my own and go out campaigning against White Muslim crime, maybe I should cast a judging eye over every white person I see and if they look like they might commit a crime, ask them how they are? After all, it’s my duty as a white person to help combat the ever-increasing scourge of British society: White Crime.

Or maybe it’s my duty as a white person to pressurise minority groups into action over their criminals instead? After all, I pay my taxes and as a result am an asset to society. They don’t and they aren’t. Right?

A Party Political Broadcast

September 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm

How many people turned out in protest against Tory Policy on the NHS in Manchester at the weekend? Well, if you live outside Manchester you’d probably find that the BBC weren’t exactly forthcoming with their coverage of the protest. The number was in the region of 50,000, and goes a little way towards explaining why the Tories have erected an 8 foot metal fence around the entire conference zone. One suspects the real reason is actually that they just wanted to be kept apart from the riff-raff. I mean, how is one supposed to sup one’s £250 a bottle champagne in peace if Bob the binman can wander on by just yards away without some kind of barrier to keep him out of ones line of sight?

So the BBC’s coverage of the event can be found if you navigate from the main ‘News’ page, to ‘England’ and then ‘Manchester’. Unless you live in Manchester, it wasn’t on their home page and couldn’t be found on the News home page on the day, or today. In fact, in the Manchester section today it’s the fourth story. At best this level of coverage of a major protest against an unpopular government who aren’t just making ‘difficult’ decisions, they’re making outright evil ones, is pitiful. At worst the BBC could easily be accused of joining the illustrious ranks of the foreign ‘State-run News Networks’ the Beeb so often takes delight in mocking.

The BBC has clearly decided to offer up its support to David Cameron for Election 2015 and it’s barely even hiding it. If it is attempting to conceal its treachery then it’s doing a pretty bad job of it. But let it not be said that the BBC is bad at hiding things, it hid the Jimmy Saviles and Stuart Halls of this world for 3 or 4 decades and to show us that this was no fluke and that it hasn’t lost it’s touch, it’s currently hiding the Conservative Dismantling of the NHS. If your news horizons don’t expand beyond the BBC or other Mainstream networks, you might say: ‘What dismantling of the NHS?’

In which case my response can only ever be: ‘Precisely’. Not only is the BBC actively hiding the destruction of the lifeblood of Britain, something that is so undeniably and unquestionably quintessentially British, free healthcare that is, it is actually aiding and abetting in the propaganda war the Conservatives have launched to ensure that when you do find out what’s been going on, instead of rising up in pure rage, you merely conclude: ‘Well, look at the recent failures. Probably better off in private hands.’

The BBC has been only too willing to eat up every single piece of negative news being fed to it by its Tory paymasters. Don’t get me wrong, there’s an awful lot wrong with the NHS. Too many managers, not enough beds, not enough nurses, not enough Doctors, debt-riddled hospitals, hidden scandals and so on and so on, but selling it off to profit-making organisations with shareholders leads only one way. It leads to the American system of healthcare. It leads to a two-tiered system, where those who can afford healthcare, get healthcare. Where those not in employment cannot get access to basic healthcare. It leads to a further expansion of the gap between rich and poor, and exacerbates the effect this has by commodifying a basic human right, the right to healthcare.

If the NHS truly is failing, it’s failing because every 5 years politicians make a raft of unsustainable, unattainable, inappropriate, self-serving promises to ‘change’ the NHS, to reform it, bring greater efficiency, reduce queues and costs all at the same time. Each party brings with it their own ideas, ideas that generally lack some kind of consultation process with the people that work on the front-line, day after day. These are the people who know what the real issues are, who know where the real savings can be made and where the service provided can be vastly improved.

And in all this, the BBC willingly assists the Nasty Party. Long ago the BBC reached the point of ‘Mouthpiece’ for this government. Long ago it stopped challenging its policies and long ago it lost the little credibility it once had. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, after all this is the same organisation that has a long history of firing females as they pass the ‘acceptable’ age yet retain ever grumpier males long past their sell by date. This is the same organisation that in its desperation to remain as unbiased as possible, flows along with ‘public’ opinion, with government agenda. Instead of challenging public perceptions and opening itself up to calls of bias, it follows public perceptions instead and actually is biased. This is the same organisation that refused to air a charity appeal for the people of Gaza when Israel launched a vicious attack on it.

In conclusion, don’t trust the BBC. It doesn’t act in your interests. It acts in its own, which is to protect and to serve the government of today. This Dickensian Government that seeks to demonise the poor and further enrich the rich.

Tony Blair: White Saviour

September 25, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Remember that film – Being John Malkovich? I think there’s opportunity for a sequel of sorts there, we’ll call it ‘Being Tony Blair’. The storyline will centre around a young man desperate for answers to pivotal questions such as:

  • How does it feel to be right all the time, and to be surrounded by people who are so wrong all the time?
  • What does a peace envoy actually do?
  • How does Tony sleep at night?
  • What does Tony say in his confessions at church?
  • Did Tony know that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
  • Does Tony feel even a tiny single shred of regret at the deaths of a million Iraqis?

Actually, we probably know all the answers to those questions and the film only would serve as just another Tony Blair vanity exercise. He’d probably masturbate himself to sleep at the thought of his face appearing on billboards all over the world, he’d revel in the fact that an accomplished method actor would should choose to play him, and as such indulge him in his tales of politicking and war-criming etc.

So no, I won’t be pushing that project any further. But I will write about him. And as I do, I feel like the aura of slime that follows him everywhere has detected this and is now making it’s way towards me, ready to infiltrate my brain and remove those nasty images of Tony authorising the UK to bomb the f*ck out of Iraq  and replace them with images of him running gaily through a meadow with happy Iraqi children throwing flower petals through the air.

Well Tony, understated, quiet little Tony was in the Guardian today reminding us yet again of how he knows everything and we know nothing especially when it comes to the Middle East or, as Tony calls it, Israel. Today he was talking about Bashar al Assad, who the papers have been telling us for ages definitely used Chemical Weapons on civilians in August and is therefore a War Criminal. Understated, quiet little Tony was telling us that we should not let Assad off the hook if he doesn’t give all of his Chemical Weapons to the US (who have never, ever used Chemical Weapons).

What Tony also told us, and if you have some kind of beverage in your mouth please swallow fully before reading on, is that the UN Resolution is absolutely vital. If he breaches the UN Resolution, we have to ‘enforce the will of the International Community’. Yes you did read correct. Tony said that the UN Resolution was vital. Just like the one that the US and the UK obtained allowing them to go to war with Iraq. What number was it again?

Unsurprisingly Tony said that if he were Prime Minister today, he would have pushed very hard to be with America as an ally before going on to add ‘It’s the results that count. I’m not particularly concerned if we do it elegantly or inelegantly.’ I can only speculate as to what that actually means, but it certainly does not sound good. And I think that’s what angers me so much about Tony, it’s not just the illegal war that killed over a million Iraqis based on a Lie of Mass Destruction, or the repeated refusals to accept any blame, or the fact that the allies used Chemical weapons without punishment in Fallujah, or the fact that he has gone on to be a Peace Envoy in the Middle East. No, that all contributes massively, but what really angers me is the ‘White Saviour’ mentality he displays. He actually believes that the Western way is the best way and is seemingly prepared use any excuse to enforce that militarily or at least under-handedly.

This breed of ‘White Saviour’ to me doesn’t seem to be a million miles away from the desires of a fanatacist. He stubbornly believes that the Western way of life is perfect, that everything we do is right, that everyone different is wrong, that ‘we’ must do all we can to convince them of that and if we can’t? Bomb the fuck out of them. The only difference between Tony and the infamous fascists of the past is his public persona. In public Tony is unflappable, calm, cool, collected,scripted, speaks in a middle class English accent and rarely ever displays any negative forms of emotion whereas the fascist figures of the past are depicted as much more fiery, angry, heated, ranty, spontaneous, spoke with a foreign accent and were more likely to show their emotion.

This is how he manages to get away with it. I just hope the people of Britain aren’t taken in by his bullshit.

When Turkeys Vote For Christmas

September 24, 2013 at 7:47 pm

I’ve not been able to catch a great deal of the Labour Conference this weekend, mostly because I don’t really have any affection for these events whatsoever. It’s an annual get together for people of more or less the same political persuasion, where the leader or key ministers make faux-impassioned speeches written by somebody else. I did however manage to catch just a bit of Ed Miliband’s ‘Britain Can Do Better Than This’ speech, and I have to agree with him. Britain can do better than this. Whilst I agree with his new tagline, I probably won’t really agree with everything beneath it.

Having said that, I think Ed is actually heading in the right direction. Even if I don’t like his style, there does seem to be at least a bit of substance to his words. He has made some promising promises if you will, about defending the NHS, repealing the bedroom tax and now freezing energy prices. I don’t think he goes far enough if I’m being brutal, but I can understand why he doesn’t. If he goes too ‘radical’ too soon, he’ll be obliterated in the press and we’ll end up with a Balls vs Cameron election. So yes, he doesn’t go as far as I’d like but does seem to be showing that he is far more in touch with common people than Cameron. In recent polls energy prices haven’t been considered as a key factor at all, but that’s probably because it’s still summer-ish and the big energy companies have largely been out of the news for a while.

But as winter draws ever nearer, Miliband’s promise to freeze energy prices will suddenly seem far more appealing. Perhaps I’m in a minority here, but I’d rather Ed campaigned on issues that actually make a positive difference to individuals and the nation as a whole like stopping NHS privatisation, repealing a crippling ‘tax’ and making energy just a little less unaffordable than for him to campaign on an anti-immigration ticket. If he wants to show strength, he’ll tackle the real issues and confront the false issues that Cameron’s (admittedly capable) spin-machine has created. If he wants to be a genuine alternative to this draconian government full of privileged multi-millionaires instead of tackling issues that might make the people angry (rightly or wrongly) he’ll tackle the issues that cause people to struggle. The jury is still out on that one, but he appears to be headed in the right direction. I still feel that May 2015 will be about the lesser of two evils, I’m not even considering the Lib Dems as a potential candidate, and I actually feel that Cameron may win. It’s like the Mark Twain quote:

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

If Ed decides that tackling Cameron’s false issues is the best strategy for victory, he will be soundly beaten. Why? Because Cameron’s cronies invented them.

So going back just a little bit then to the energy price freeze, I noticed on the BBC website they had ‘Miliband Promises Energy Price Freeze’ as the heading for their story with the ever-so-comical sub-heading: ‘But Energy Firms Criticise the Plan’. If ever there was a ‘No Shit Sherlock’ moment, that was it. Can you imagine the conversation between the Journalist and the Spokesman?

Journalist: So Ed Miliband is promising to freeze energy prices for 20 months if he wins the election, what do you think about that?

Spokesman: Oh yes it’s great news. I mean, it will hit our profits, our shareholders will be unhappy and actually our share prices will also drop but apart from that it sounds great.

What the energy firms have actually said is a whole load of guff that shows that privatisation of such a basic need as gas and electricity was a truly awful idea. The retaliation was: ‘the policy could lead to power shortages, and jeopardise investment and jobs.’ Three things that Britons don’t really want to hear at the moment. Power shortages?? Job Losses?? No investment (ok well probably not immediately bothered by that) but the energy firms have indulged in a little bit of fear-mongering in an attempt to derail Ed’s plan. It will be interesting to monitor Ed’s stance on this leading up to the election, particularly as you can almost cast-iron guarantee that these energy firms will donate funds to the Conservatives in return for a promise of no such freeze.

Politicking and corruptive practices aside, the big firms that play host to profiteering exercises in Britain can donate to whoever the hell they like. At the end of the day, it is the general public who turn up at the ballot boxes and place their votes. It is our responsibility to ask ourselves two questions:

  1. Which party will make my life better?
  2. Will others need to suffer in order for that to happen?

If you genuinely think that having less people of colour in Britain (which is what Immigration is really about) is far more important than affordable gas, electricity, free healthcare, free schools and a fair society for all then I think you might need to evaluate your life. And if you think that privatisation of the NHS is a good idea, have a look at how much you pay for Gas, Water and Electricity currently. Have a look at the profits these companies make, and the amount of money they invest into greener, more sustainable energy sources. You may point to fracking potentially bringing in £billions into Britain, but realistically that isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference to you or I. We’ll see no savings, no investment and another surge in Energy firms’ profits.

So the Energy Firms quite obviously don’t like Ed’s policy, just as Turkeys quite obviously don’t like Christmas. Though you can at least have a little bit of sympathy for the Turkeys.

 

When The White Man Dies in Africa

September 23, 2013 at 7:33 pm

Mainstream media has been gripped this week by the events unfolding in a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Most people will only really know of Kenya as a place where cute short little people run  fast over long distances, and as a place where you can go on eco-holidays to spot Lions in their natural habitat, or if you’re really rich you can even go hunting for them instead (Lions that is, not people).

But Kenya has also been getting itself heavily involved in neighbouring Somalia’s troubles for quite some time now. In fact it’s just under two years since Operation Linda Nchi began, an operation involving the militaries of Kenya, France, Somalia, Ethiopia and (of course) the US. Linda Nchi entailed a military invasion of southern Somalia in pursuit of Al Shabab militants who had allegedly kidnapped some foreign tourists and aid workers in Kenya. The trigger point was the kidnapping of two Spanish aid workers with rumours pointing towards Al Shabab, but in all reality Kenya had been planning such an exercise for well over a year with co-operation from her Western ‘Partners’.

So from that alone you can probably surmise that Al Shabab have been around for a bit, and they have been seen as a significant threat to Kenya since their inception . They were designated a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organisation’ by the US in 2008 and have been at the heart of the ongoing violence in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. I won’t claim to be an expert on them or of the politics in the region, but what is clear is that for some time now innocent people have been dying. In just two days in August of 2010, three hundred people were killed in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu. Yes, that’s three hundred. But they were all black, all African. So it wasn’t really big news.

Now though Al Shabab are all over the news. In retaliation to ongoing Kenyan military operations in Somalia, they launched an attack on a shopping mall. And this is BIG news. Firstly, the attack has happened in a country of enough relevance to Westerners to actually care about. If it happened in Somalia, it would merely be just a footnote in time and history. But it’s happened in Kenya, a place where white people regularly travel. And worse still, we find that white people actually died in this attack. That immediately doubles the attack’s score on the International Media Richter Scale.

Of course I disagree with Al Shabab’s methods of retaliation, the people being killed are civilians after all. There’s no excuse for such a disgusting, vile act and there’s no place for it within Islam either. The stories emerging of people being told to recite the Shahada or die are horrific, they are an insult to Islam, an insult to everything it stands for. But equally disgusting is the coverage afforded to this event when compared with the coverage afforded to attacks, whether by Al Shabab or otherwise, in Somalia. The message this sends out is that the black pirate-people of Somalia are an irrelevance, an acceptable loss. Whereas our long-distance running friends in Kenya with their pet Lions, tourists and defence contracts with Western nations are an unacceptable loss. Couple that with White people being killed and it’s clear to see why the International ‘Community’ is having a mini heart attack.

Today David Cameron called for an emergency meeting of Cobra, Britain’s national emergencies committee after it emerged that six British people died. Quite what they will discuss is beyond me, it’s a curious case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. The signs have been there for all to see for so long now, with Kenya, the US and even Israel expanding military operations in and around Somalia, and Al Shabab not really enjoying that fact it was painfully obvious that something was going to give.

But don’t worry white people, it is the top priority of the US, UK and Israel to ensure that all white people visiting Kenya to see those Lions will remain safe. Expect to see increased military co-operation, maybe a few more foreign military bases, new arms deals to bolster the Kenyan armoury and perhaps even a fleet of drones hovering above Mogadishu. Expect a few thousand black Somali deaths (never civilians, always militants), maybe a few brave Kenyans will die in the ‘fight against terror’, but definitely no more White deaths.

When a black man dies in Africa, the world goes on. But When a white man dies, the whole world stops.

 

 

Clegg’s Battle for Relevancy

September 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm

In a way, you really have to admire Nick Clegg’s optimism. You see, he actually seems to think that people will vote Lib Dem in 2015. He thinks that after repeatedly breaking promises, after repeatedly voting for inhumane Tory welfare policies, after 3 years of practically nothing to show for their time ‘in power’ that people will actually turn up at the ballot box in May 2015 and put a little cross next to the local Lib Dem candidate.

Well, my personal hope is that the Lib Dems get obliterated at the polling stations. Clegg promised so much in the run up to the last election, he offered disgruntled and disaffected voters something that appeared to be a little different. He convinced many that he actually wanted to serve the people of Britain, to do all he could to get this country back on the right track. He persuaded us that he could end our stale two-party political system and bring about real change to the process. Then he took advantage of public indecisiveness – we wanted Brown out, but Cameron came across as a bit too much of a weasel to be trusted – and played at kingmaker for a week, looking for the best deal for himself.

He found it in a Whitehall back-room with Cameron, attempting to legitimise it by claiming that the Liberal Democrats will be the handbrake to the Conservative accelerator. Fast forward three years and four months and the conclusion is he’s been about effective as a ‘handbrake’ as an open-on-impact parachute. The Conservatives must have spent their time in opposition analysing the State, finding out what could be sold and what could be cut so that when Brown was deposed at election, they could set about dismantling it in double-quick time. Clegg was voted in on a Liberal ticket, so the electorate expected him to provide at least some resistance to the Conservative onslaught.

Again, looking back over the past three years, I find it difficult to pinpoint what exactly it is that the Lib Dems have actually contributed whilst ‘in power’. They sit there in the commons, voting alongside their ‘coalition partners’ – a vomit inducing term if ever there was one – whilst simultaneously claiming in public that they are all for fairness, and laying in to Cameron’s policies. All the while it is them and their shady little back-alley deal with Cameron that allows him to say this:

“We have a clear mandate to…”

No. No David. No you don’t. You did not win a majority, you clubbed together with a seemingly diametrically-opposed party, who sold out on their voters, and you are now acting as a mini-dictatorship selling off everything worth a bit of cash to Tory donors!

You most certainly do not have a mandate to do that.

So the Lib Dems face a difficult task at the next election, because in all honesty, they’ve been in power for three years now and all they’ve done is given the Conservatives the false legitimacy they’ve needed to rape the State.

Well done Nick, here’s to 2015. ;)

Banning the Burqa…

September 17, 2013 at 6:18 pm

I can’t for the life of me understand why a potential banning of Islamic face coverings is even being discussed within this country at the moment. Having read a bit of the press surrounding it, I still don’t fully understand the reasoning behind this sudden upsurge in public opinion backing it. A few questions immediately pop in to my head:

  1. Why do we want to ban it?
  2. What value does it serve to the British public?
  3. Have the needs of those who wear the veil been considered?
  4. What are the punishments for failing to adhere to the ban?
  5. HAVE YOU NOT SEEN FRANCE?
  6. Are you f**king stupid?
  7. Are you just a complete c*nt?
  8. Have you ever met a woman who wears the veil?

Why do we want to ban it? Fuck knows. It looks like a few upper-middle class white men think have formed an opinion (with very little basis of fact) that Muslim women are forced in to wearing it, therefore banning it will free them. It’s pretty clear that these upper-middle class white male types once saw a woman in the street wearing a veil and just didn’t like it. It’s also clear that the needs and desires of veil-wearing women have not been considered at all. Had there been any level of consultation with veil-wearing women the government and press would realise that veil-wearers often love their veil. Often their parents don’t actually want them to wear it, but they insist on doing so.

So, I can only assume then that the banning of the veil is all about Britain’s misguided lurch to the right. It’s all about populist faux-politics. Create a false issue, then deliver a false fix to the false issue and rake in the votes in 2015. Who gives a toss about those people actually affected, because let’s be  brutal here. If you don’t wear one, it shouldn’t make a blind bit of fucking difference to your life. If it does make a difference to you, then you’re probably an insecure, paranoid little Englander with shit for brains. And that answers question number two, it doesn’t serve any value to the British public whatsoever. It really does not make a difference.

Have the needs of veil-wearers been considered? Stupid question. Stupid, stupid question. The White Knights that are actually thinking about this kind of policy probably think that all Muslim women are poor little creatures who are forced to do this, or forced to do that. The fact is, they don’t even know a Muslim woman. They don’t know that Muslim women generally are given far more freedom by their faith than any other. The biggest oppression Muslim women face is from white cunts that think it’s ok to shout abuse at them and attack them in the street.

As for the punishment for failing to adhere to any future ban, well f*ck me. “So Mrs Akmal, due to your insistence on adhering to your beliefs instead of the ones we’re attempting to enforce on you, we’re going to fine you, imprison you or make you do community service.”

Have you not seen France? No further comment required.

Are you f**king stupid? Yes, if you think that banning a piece of cloth is a good idea then you’re not just stupid, you’re a f**king brainwashed moron. And yes, you’re a complete c*nt too.

Have you ever met a woman wearing the veil? No, but you really should. Because their views on the clothing that they choose to wear might just surprise you.

 

Taking Sides: Black or White

September 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm

It’s been quite some time since I last posted, mainly because I’ve been the subject of a mini spam attack. I don’t quite know why a Japanese designer bag retailer thinks people who visit my site would be interest in the latest Gucci, in fact I don’t know what makes them think anyone even visits.

In the time I’ve been away I’ve largely been trying to hide from the news. I find the way that news is presented to us quite offensive to me as a person. Mainstream media is a bit like the market trader who’s overstocked on poor quality, Chinese manufactured toasters. He/she’s desperate to get rid of them and expends a lot of energy on diverting the punters’ attentions towards these dreadful toasters. The trader tries to make you feel like you have much less choice than you actually do. This is essentially what our governments and press do day in, day out.

To test that theory, you need look no further than Syria. The next time you read, watch or listen to a news item about Syria pay close attention to what is actually being said. Try to imagine yourself as a customer, what are your options? What is your outlet of choice actually trying to sell you? Take closer look at the ‘product’, are they being transparent? Are they trying to conceal something from you?

In the case of Syria, the press are largely selling us two options:

  1. Military intervention in the form of airstrikes
  2. Do nothing, and let Assad kill more people with chemical weapons

If you believe what you’re reading/seeing/hearing, ask yourself this: If I was at the market, and this trader was trying to sell you a poor quality toaster, at an inflated price; would you be so insufferably stupid? Would you allow yourself to be led down the proverbial alley and mugged? Of course you wouldn’t. So why do the masses allow governments and media outlets dictate our choices?

Now go back to Syria, and this may seem a little crazy, try to think of some different options. Can you do it? Can your mind stretch beyond the simple binary equation of bomb/not bomb? Of course it can! Life isn’t quite as black or white as that, there’s a hell of a lot of grey in between. And buried deep within this large mass of grey, you’ll find the real options, the real choices. You’ll find that in all major news stories you’ll be given two options. Black or White. What’s it going to be? There are no alternatives. Choose now. Black or White. Don’t forget now, Black is so unpalatable you’ll be ridiculed if you choose it. White or Black. No pressure now. All your friends have already chosen. Black or White. Experts have chosen white already, what’s taking you so long. Black or White. Look at this photo, look what big, bad Black did to poor little White. WHITE or Black. Too late. It’s done.

Governments and Media revel in how stupid we are. In presenting information in a way that leads us deep into this alley, we become gripped with fear. We see we are being offered just two choices, even though we may think there is actually a third, much better, choice we are too far in to the alley. If we speak now, we’re certain to be beaten to a pulp. As we go deeper still, we find quickly that one of the two options becomes increasingly less viable. We have one option left, but it still doesn’t quite feel right. But all of your friends think it is, experts think it is, our Prime Minister thinks it is, so it must be… right?

It takes a bit of courage whilst in the alley to think the unthinkable, it takes courage to say ‘No, I’m not buying this’. But when you do take that step, you’ll find others who have made that step too. You’ll find that your own actions inspire others to think it too. You’ll find that whilst the world can be a horrible place full of horrible people, it’s also a wondrous place full of incredible people.

Once you’ve taken that step, then you’ll begin to see what our trusted sources of information have been concealing from us. We hear that Assad is the first to use Chemical Weapons since 2001. Really? What about Bush in Iraq, 2003? What About Israel in Gaza? We hear from President Obama that no nation would stand idly by and watch bombs rain down upon it, except Pakistan eh? We hear that drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen target and hit militants, yet we don’t hear that the US classes all males of military age as militants.

What do you think of that? Can it really be that Black or White?

What is quite frankly unbelievable is that Putin asked Assad: “Can you put your Chemical Weapons into neutral hands?’ and he said “Yes.” Our Government, our media never gave us that option. That wasn’t on the table.

Perhaps we’re sat at the wrong table.

Diplomacy Isn’t Working

August 26, 2013 at 11:46 am

I was speaking to a friend the other day about Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, whether or not what they did is justifiable and we naturally ended up talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. He was saying that the US still hasn’t learnt its lessons from Vietnam, that regardless of how good your military technology is, if you don’t know the surrounding area very well you’re going to be in for a long hard slog.

At first I agreed, it made sense. But then I got to thinking… Maybe they have learned their lessons. See my friend made the assumption that the US wanted a quick: ‘In, Kill the bad guys, Out’ strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But really, where’s the profit in that? The assumption he made implies that the US is a force for good in the world, that they genuinely wanted to help the Iraqis or Afghans, but is that really the case?

Of course not. Where people are involved, nothing is ever quite that simple. There may well have been an element of misguided ‘White Saviour Syndrome’ in the decision making process, but the lobbying system over in the US means that pretty much any decision made by government is guaranteed to have been corrupted by money and corporations at some stage. I wish that Snowden or Manning had stumbled across a document that revealed the decision making process behind the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but so far they haven’t released anything of that nature so all we can do is look at the situation, see who has benefited most and come up with some conspiracy theories.

If one thing is clear, the civilians on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan have benefited the least. Both countries are now former shadows of themselves, with Iraq now a hotbed of sectarian violence that long ago spiralled beyond anyone’s control and Afghanistan now a wreck of a country where nobody really seems to be in charge. It appears that America made some fatal miscalculations when considering what civilians in both countries actually wanted, if indeed their wishes were even considered. The American assumption was quite simply that everybody in Iraq would be better off without Saddam and that everybody in Afghanistan would be better off without the Taliban, and that they’d be the heroes for delivering such scenarios.

One has to wonder, do the key decision makers recruit Hollywood scriptwriters to devise their plans? It could well be the case that an Iraq without Saddam or an Afghanistan without the Taliban would both be better places, but what was clearly not considered was the method of their removal. An invasion by a foreign military force was only ever going to divide the populations, fear of the unknown does terrible things to societies, it brings out the absolute worst in humanity. This was not considered at all, but in all honesty, the situations we find in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly benefited the US.

I doubt there are any published statistics, but I can guarantee that while America has lost a lot of soldiers ‘fighting for the flag’ it has certainly made billions in profit over the course of these invasions. Remember that America is the largest exporter of arms in the world, what better way to advertise your products than a decade long occupation of a nation with such challenging terrain as Afghanistan and the removal of a notorious Tyrant from one of their biggest enemies? That’s before we even think about the oil contracts handed out to western corporations in the oil-fields of Iraq, there’s that famous map of Iraq, divided into five states: Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total.

So, from the military failings of Vietnam, America has learned that military failings don’t necessarily need to mean general failings. Like all good businesses, they’ve learned that in order to make money they need to stick to what they do best and then exploit the s**t out of it. And credit where credit’s due, they’re pretty good at invading other countries under false pretences.

Hence why I’m so nervous about the rhetoric emerging from the US and the UK on Syria. It’s pretty clear that Syria will be far better off without him in charge, he’s lost his grip. But is any kind of military intervention, be it airstrikes or troops on the ground, really the best way to engineer that? Have we thought this through? On the face of it, Syria is divided into at least three large groupings: Assad Supporters, Rebel Supporters and people that just want the fighting to stop. That third group is actually incomprehensible to Western political leaders and Western media outlets. We’re being force-fed this idea that in Syria, you either support Assad, or you support the rebels. But it’s pretty clear that both sides only have their own interests at heart now. Maybe that wasn’t the case initially, but it certainly is now.

What will happen should either of these two sides emerge victorious? Immediately, the scars of war will inevitably be so severe that the victor will oppress those who side(d) with the defeated. They will be rounded up and punished, that’s pretty much guaranteed and we’ve seen that in Libya and more recently following the military coup in Egypt. At the moment Syria appears to be a horrid place to live in, with continual fighting and shortages of food, water and healthcare. If the West believes that eliminating Assad will resolve these problems and make Syria a better place, they have another thing coming.

They should look to their case studies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember watching US troops tearing down Saddam’s statue in Baghdad in my Sixth-Form common room, my teachers watching on in shock, I was 17 then. Over a decade later, how does Iraq look now? Arguably worse. Any intervention in Syria will be catastrophic, because whilst in Iraq the tension was simmering away beneath the surface prior to the invasion, the tension in Syria is smashing your head in with a hammer.

And that is why I find everything that William Hague says on this matter frankly disgusting. ‘Diplomacy hasn’t worked’. That may well be the case, but if it hasn’t worked it’s probably because the West are s**t at diplomacy, not just because the Syrian factions are unwilling. This conflict started well over two years ago, and always looked to be one that could escalate to devastating effect. Instead of acting at the time, we’ve just watched with casual interest, and only recently has our interest been piqued. Has anyone even tried to get Assad and the FSA leaders in a room together?

For what it’s worth, my position on Syria is that there should be no military intervention whatsoever. We live in a world where support is not given out of the goodness of our hearts any longer, any invading force will undoubtedly want something in return. Imagine your house is on fire, and your neighbour has a hosepipe. You ask him for help and he says: ‘Sure, but only if you give me the deeds to your house.’ You’d be incredulous, but that is what Aid amounts to. It’s not free, it comes at a hefty price. A price that the aidee just can’t afford. But a price that the Americans routinely demand.

I think we should be calling for a ceasefire, not to destabilise Assad or the FSA but to stop any further civilian casualties, to get medical aid (with no strings) out there, to get food aid out there, to actually help those who need it. Not only should we call for this ceasefire, we should actually take action. Speak to Assad, speak to the FSA. Get them in a room, knock their heads together. Why are you cutting off your country’s nose? To spite your own face? It sounds incredibly naive, I know. But what other option is there?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: