I suspect the police see "self-defence" as a usurpation of their roles and duties as police. That, if it's true, must rile them against such as the EDL.
Also, if the EDL and such defend anything, the police must see this as a conflict with them in that the police are primarily, again I suppose, agents of social control, regardless of what the social situation is. Police are seldom revolutionaries. They seem to crave at all costs, order, public and private. Thus, we can see such things as democrats being caged while Trotsyites are allowed to run wild, the latter being "allowed" in the socialist utopia that is England these benighted days. Trotskyites are favoured among the radical union of government and the day's order; democrats are not.
And if the democrats, i.e. the people, are defending the culture, then they are in a major sense provoking a reaction against the order, not to say the order, as is. This dissension puts the demos at odds with the defenders of the order. Defence creates a tension where otherwise there would be none.
Where, the police might ask, will defence end? Will defence come to more than placard waving? Will the people act in defence of themselves and their nation and culture in more and increasingly aggressive ways? I can see the police siding with Trotsyites for the simple reason that the police don't care who rules or what rules are the nature of the game. So far, and I suspect things will change soon enough, the culture will shift jihad and Trotskism out of general favour in the government, and then the police will favour such as the EDL. Till then, probably not so much. One must be patient.
As much as I hate Gandhi, I think this is an appropriate time to practice some public "passive/aggressive" civil disobedience. I will suggest also that being "though" isna matter of how much punishment one can deliver on another, but how much one can take without caving in and crying. Can EDL demonstrators take some real beatings without running amok? Can they show the world, if only through the Internet, just how tough they are by bleeding on t.v. cameras?
We should have the strength to crush the fascists' fists with our faces. All that takes is will of iron, not physical strength. And in truth, if not so pleasant, nothing makes a man a firmer believer in something than his having shed his blood for it.
It matters not a whit whether Muslims will trample passive non-Muslim resistance in Britain at this time. That is to be welcomed in some sense, in that it will motivate greater resistance among the passive/apathetic and the usual conformist-authoritarian citizen who sides with Force against the people as a matter of course once they see the disregard for custom and law being physically bloodied. Thus: most people will listen politely and nod in agreement with any lies the authorities tell them right up to the point they themselves are able to see that innocent blood is spilled unjustly. If Muslims beat up a woman in broad daylight and kick a man or shove a broken bottle at his neck, and if there is no counter-charge, then the outrage is shocking even to the usually antagonistic conformist in favour of "Order." This is not a game for dilettantes; it is a real and serious effort to destroy a counter-culture of dhimmitude and Left dhimmi fascism as dangerous as a take-over by jihadis themselves. It requires serious and disciplined people willing to suffer physically for the sake of the nation just as they would, perhaps will, in the face of any national emergency in war-time. That the government is the enemy of the people is neither here nor there: that the people are the nation and the government is the state is something to be learned in blood. That, played dramatically and properly in public for the sake of propaganda in war-time, is a serious and needed tactic that serious people have to consider as right. Public martyrdom. It's not for the sake of Muslims to add to their coup-counting; it is for the sake of steeling the masses to the inevitability of physical resistance against their usual resistance to challenges to routine and challenges to authority. If non-Muslims are beaten or even killed, this is a natural advance in the struggle we are engaged in. In the real world, that's the way it is. We don't have to like it, we just have to endure till we can change tactics.
That Muslims might, as we have seen in N.Carolina, for example, run over civilians with their cars, is a good thing for the people to witness, hard as it is for people run over. But the point is to show by example that the Muslims are the aggressors; and then, over and over, if it takes so long, slowly there will be a natural resistance to brutalizing of the innocent. It matters not that Muslims will become more aggressive in the face of passive resistance: that is to the good. We will see more, and more open, disgust against Islam as "Force," i.e the government, does less and less to protect the people from the harm of jihad. Then the people will refuse to believe anything the government claims, will stop supporting the powers that be simply because of a natural inclination to support any Power in power. Then we will see, having the names and bodies to prove our point, that the jihadis are a menace.
One would think that there are more than plenty as of 9-11 if not long prior. Such, obviously, is not the case. There needs be yet more blood spilled and more agony shown to the world and to the people particularly in this case of England before we can rightly take up an aggressive resistance against the jihad.
We can't rightly concern ourselves in this state of conflict over such sentimentalities as blood loss and lives lost on our side. That's a part of war, and this, as much as some vocally claim it to be so and seemingly only, really is war. War requires discipline and sacrifice and will, all based on intelligent action, not just stupid fury and rage.
We don't need to see any jihadi blood spilled at this time. We have to see our own blood shed. Feed the people with their own blood and they will grow from it into a genuine army of righteous avengers.
No, the police are not stupid; they are not intelligent either: they are in-the-moment pragmatic. The last thing a democracy needs is intelligent police. Intelligent police come up with ideas of their own, see things according to their independent lights, and have the skills, organization, and force to make it so: a police state.
David in Thailand claims, to paraphrase slightly, that police attempt to defuse the situation by removing the lesser pressure from the conflict: Islamic groups will quickly turn violent; anti-Islam groups do not-- even if provoked. Police prudently curtail anti-Islamic activities. For political expedience, since the presence of anti-Islamic groups are likely to inflame Islamic groups, police neutralise pro-civilisation groups to keep the peace. It's easy and generally effective. It's practical, prudent, and easier. The police can maintain an acceptable level of conflict and mayhem at low levels they can cope with. They remain in control of the otherwise out of control. It is our job to increase the unrest, not by engaging in counter-violence ourselves, but by adding blood to the fire. Our blood.
We would be wrong to think the police will recognize the justice of our positions. We will be wrong and foolish to think so. The police are not, and should not be, a moral force in society: they are a communitarian force of order-keeping. Ideally, right and wrong should mean nothing to the police, only the law should matter and its legitimate enforcement. We do not, in our democracies, desire a moral police force taking upon themselves the arbitration of the moral, taking that from the courts and parliament where it rightly belongs, that power being delegated to representatives of the people through elections. If it were to come to it, we should expect the police to enforce Shari'a in Britain. It is not the place of the police to mutiny against the government, regardless of what the government is, so long as it is legitimate, i.e. in firm and lasting control of the state. We do not want police deciding of themselves right and wrong. If they must, they should resign and be civilians. Thus, we have to look at the police for what they are, not who they are. The police is a tool of the state.
The police, as individuals, are meaningless to our position vis a vis jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. As a machine, we can determine the moves of the police before hand, can manipulate its limited moves in our favour, and gain our needed ends through effective use of the police. We can make the police make the public sympathetic to our cause by making the police helpless to stop the jihadis from attacking us. we cannot expect another man's hammer to be our friend: we might hope that soon we will own his hammer to use as we will. We might have to take a lot of beatings till he tires and we can grab it; but then, dear reader, it's our turn.
To have a turn and to return to our homeland ways, we have to be patient and strong enough to wait out the minor disruptions of this day's evils. The brainless Troksyites, the simpering hippies, the bo-bos, and the dole-sated rioters do not have the strength to maintain a war against us. They can only maintain a façade of control because we do not, as yet, resist effectively. We do not resist effectively because this particular war is one most are not familiar with in their daily experiences: the war of moralisms and sentimentality, the war of the Gnostics against the people. We face an enemy who wield a power of pseudo-religion over the people who do not, as yet, grasp the nature of the enemy.
At the risk of offending against the reason for our being here, some of us for many years now on a daily basic of genuine and dedicated service, Muslims are a tiny minority of savages, unsophisticated and weak primitives who cannot resist anything of Modernity concerted against them. Islam and its Muslim adherents are sh*t on a stick. Islam is a dead dog on the roadside of history. Muslims are scavengers in the modern world living by charity, doomed to starvation in a month's time if the Modernist world cuts off their donated food supplies. Muslims are garbage people incapable of living in this Modern world. They exist by our collective indulgence. They will die in a month should we determine to stop feeding them. They are not the serious threat we face: we are our serious threat. Islam is the sh*t covered stick our own Left dhimmi fascists use to beat the people into submission with. The police do not have an opinion. They care only for order. It's our own people who are our enemies first and foremost.
Before I proceed, allow me to point out that Islam is a world-threat, though I argue it is not a Modernist threat. By no means have I wasted my years in studying Islam: it is a threat to face in the greater world when that comes due. I feel that our first and essential enemy today in the Modernist world is not primarily Islam but is Left dhimmi fascism. There is the rest of the world that is Muslim, and that is a menace we must face sooner than later, armed and aware of it's true nature. But today, on the streets of Britain and Europe, on the streets of America, we face a more immediate threat: our own people. Our Anti-People. We face a force of the false religious: of Gnostics, fanatics and freaks; Irrationalists, anti-intellectuals, anti-Semitic and chthonic; we face creatures of a lost time reified today in the midst of shopping malls and freeways, people who are stark, raving crazy and know it not at all, seeing in their delusions only demons and hatred, Gods and Monsters, themselves-- and the others, others being us. Of course the police will stand aside and defer to such a force. Who would dare to rile such a mob in such a dangerous time? It had better be us.
I argue that we face a movement of religious fanatics, but not at base the Muslims: I argue we face a mob of Gnostics. We face a mob of Irrationalist lunatics under the spell of self-proclaimed, fervently held, and probably unshakeable "gnosis." We face a mob of anti-Christian religious fanatics.
As Swift writes, "One cannot reason a man out of something he didn't reason himself into." I have no sympathy for passive resistance on moral grounds. I'm entirely in favour of necessary violence, though not more. I am in favour of passive resistance if it will turn the passive mass of more or less apathetic authoritarians against the Gnostic mob, against them and toward us. Let the police do their best, as they will, and let us know how to play that same game to our own good favour.
Our time will come.
Traeh. I'm not too optimistic about the mass of Muslims as "just folk," as it were. I've lived among them for too many years to be naive or now even friendly. However, given my overt and oft stated hatred of Islam, (and no worry01, I am not a Muslim,) [Grrr] I do not hate Muslims simply because they are people who are Muslims. They are people first, and that, unless other considerations force themselves upon us, is that. But.
Islam is a slavery, as we know from simple etymology, and it is a horror against Humanness. I'm not interested in the false and sentimental moralisms of the Gnostic Left. Nor am I, (whoever you were who referred to me as a "rightwing religious bigot,) [you f***ing moron,] religious. I am, like most people, Muslims included, a normal guy with a private life. Part of that bundle of privacy that I call my life includes my culture and civilization, shared, necessarily and a priori, with others. It means I must defend and extend my own Humanness where I can to enrich my own life. I cannot rightly live a private life in the midst of a world of slavery, i.e. Islam. My private life means my life is devoted to ending Islam qua slavery. I can't live a good private life in a world of Islamic slavery. Maybe others can. I wouldn't know about that.
Now, who am I, and why do I think I know better how others should live, slavery being a culturally relative matter, a matter of successful adaptation among peoples in specific environs over time?
I'm just one man living a private life that I take to be based nthe notion that all men are created equal. In that I find a moral imperative, aghast as our anti-Kantians will be. That the good of Human freedom is axiomatic, and further, that I have a Will to Power that one must deal with by greater Will if they wish to defeat it. If, as I take to be axiomatic, that freedom and equality under the rational and positive law is good for me and others, then it is universally so without further argument. Those with a bigger gun or a faster draw are welcome to argue, should it come to that. I accept the truth of Robespierre's observation that "No one loves an armed missionary." I repeat, for those who didn't write it down the first hundred times, "Love is vastly over-rated." One must deal with reality; and such sometimes means dealing with Force, as Sorel puts it, i.e. government, or with Violence, i.e. with the temper of the people.
In short summary, my point is that we face a usurpation of legitimate governance of our democracies by a Gnostic elite of oligarchs who must, if we are to regain our liberties as citizens in interdependence, be overthrown, by whatever means we might require to do so. Assuming the good of self-governance of the people as a positive, which I do, the only worthy question is how one attains and maintains such a state. How, having attained the democracy of free-acting peoples in ones homeland, does one live in a world of slavery? I argue for a filibuster for universal Modernity. I won't get myself banned here again by explaining that further. I will conclude by saying that first e take back our democracies from Gnostic usurpers, and then we continue across the world till we are universally Modernist. In that there will be no end. We have much to look forward to.
Eleanor, thank you for so succinctly putting my case to the public. I will refer to a man who bears an uncanny resemblance to me, whose photograph I use as my own in many internet posts, the lovely and clever Jean-Paul Marat, who claimed that the French Revolution and the Terror could mostly have been avoided have the Jacobins simply killed ten thousand in the beginning, rather than having waited till it became necessary to kill a million.
I never know if these links will work. If not, please assume that I'm every bit as handsome as a dead French revolutionary from 1793.
Funny, you! I do like that.
I've been sitting at the feet of our leader for too many year now not to know pretty well the dangers of Islam, even if I hadn't my own personal history in the Middle East and the Muslim wars in Jugoslavia and other places not to go into at this time. and yes, I have not only been studying here and elsewhere on the Internet but have my own small and personal library that makes my floor sag under the weight of the material, much on Islam. I know the threat full well. I don't dismiss it or disparage it as total. I might find others who hate Islam more than I, but what's the profit in that? My hatred f it is that it destroys not only our beautiful Modernity, it destroys the Muslim people who suffer under it as if from a terminal and generational illness, which I have seen in person, congenital illness made real due to Islam and its cultures. I'm not sentimental, and I'm not, regardless of my call for "Machiavellian" pacifism, a non-violent guy. I'm particularly happy to use necessary and rational violence against Force.
My point is that the only reason Muslims in the Western world, increasingly including such places therein as India and others, is because we have a "Povertarian" collectivist movement of anti-Modernists who seem not to have actually read but who deeply love the works, as such, of Rousseau. We have a movement of children, a near crusade, of ugly religious fanatics who know nearly nothing but the catechism of what I refer to as the "German Revolution." Let me explain that briefly.
Muslims have only the power our own people give them, which is too much. Muslims have no organic power in the Modern world because they cannot match their needs to their productivity. Money, for example, is a power tool. To make and retain money on such as scale as needed to be as powerful in America as Muslims are today in America would require centuries of effort and success in the nation, but that would mean assimilation, cultural and social, into the fabric of the nation. Muslims don't have it by right of success in social terms, economic or cultural terms. They got the power they have by the majority ceding power to them. Muslims haven't earned their power at all. And because they haven't earned it, they have no genuine right to it. They can instantly lose it if the legitimate owners of the power Muslims have decide even on a whim to take it away. If suddenly people generally start taking Robert and Hugh, et al, seriously, then Muslims in America will find themselves with the organic, i.e. legitimate power of, say, Maronite Christians as a group. It takes hard-working generations to amass the social capital to become politically and economically significant in a nation as large and wealthy as America. Muslims have gotten their power illegitimately. In a moralistic play-act, some, those Eric Vogelin refers to as Gnostics, have seen, seemingly literally, to it that they, the post-Modernist (po-mo)Gnostics, should rearrange the organic nature of the nation, of Modernity itself, to suit their Gnostic visions of the pleroma. The po-mo Gnostics have decided, and have made real, a new political paradigm on the spot simply because their families over the generations have accumulated and passed on the social capital that the po-mo Gnositcs are now spending on transforming our societies into their Gnostic visions of the way they think we should live, i.e, our nations as Povertarian Utopias.
Muslims have only social capital lent. We are faced with an enemy of Modernity that is, for want of better terms, Hippies. These hippies are the children of a very wealthy and successful American revolution that has nearly alone created a Modernity the likes of which were never imagined in times even so short ago as 100 years. This world of ours, a world of, for example, plastic, is inconceivable to many people even today in the midst of it. I, my own self here and now, can hardly contain my delight in the face of plastic things on my desk. It is, for me, a wonder and a joy. To the rich benefactors of their families, i.e, hippies, the fact that I have beautiful things on my desk, or a desk at all, is a hateful thing to behold. That I have things I don't, as a working class man and child of peasants, deserve by right of class should have things of beauty, and worse, cheap plastic things of sort-of beauty, (for those with low philistine taste,) is an offence against the Natural Order of History. I'm a painfully ordinary guy, and yet, in the face of others superior to me, I dare to have plastic flowers in a coloured vase on a wooden desk. Aesthetically, I am, my existence, my way of living, all of it and me, it is an affront to those with "taste." I presume to be equal in my own mind to those who have more and better and entitlement to the good of Life. I do not know my place. I should, according to Natural Order, be poor and wanting. I should be poor; and hence I would then be "moral." But I have plastic flowers on my desk. This, in this miserable country I live in now, is winter, and I have no right to flowers at this, and likely any other time. I am supposed to be poor and grateful to my betters for anything they might give me. I should accept poverty as a moral good, leaving material things" to my betters who have a higher aesthetic sense and can fully appreciate what is good in the material world, leaving me t the "spiritual" things of ordinary received morality. I have "things." I don't act the servile role, and because I have things, I have distracted myself from my right role as a poor person. I, and most other people in our Modernity, are alienated from our right roles as "poor." we are not real people any more. We are phony-rich. we have taken on roles we do not deserve. They must be stripped from us. It is the moralism, (not a morality at all,) that I term "Povertarianism." According to this religiosity, (not a religiousness) all who offend against the noble poverty they should live in are sinners, greedy, and c. man, according to this hippie neo-feudalist vision of the natural Order, should be, as he once was, before our Modernist Revolutions, a farm animal, Owned and tended and used by his natural superiors. Freedom and privacy, i.e. ownership of ones own life as ones own property, is an offence to the Povertarian aesthete. Only he, the smartest and the wealthiest, should be smart and wealthy. The rest of us, living inauthentically, are like Sarah Palin, stupid and evil and so on. We are bad, clinging bitterly and inaesthetically to our guns and our religions and c. Our colourful lives, our colourful clothing and our colourful homes and stuff therein, is an affront to the aesthete elite. We should be returned to our natural states of poverty and gratefulness to our natural betters.
Now, it's a hard sell to make a Povertarian claim like that based on plain aesthetics. Even the elitist won't like himself saying it. So, he creates a patina of religion to justify his hubris. "Nature" is no longer a sufficient authority for him to claim superiority; he then uses "science" to justify his claim to our inferiority and our place in a state to slavery and poverty. He, the aesthete might claim that it is scientifically true that working class people are using up scare resources to the point of destroying the very planet we all live on. We should thus be poor to save the planet. e should give up the Modernist Revolution that has saved us from poverty.
On top of saving the planet, we would be "authentic" again, in touch with Mother Nature. We would be, ah the joy, happy peasants like my ancestors, happily wandering the Highlands, hand-spun kilts wafting in the balmy breezes of Culloden's bloodied heather. Ah, the natural porridge, the groats, the haggis. No more of that Earth destroying junk food at the supermarket, that "preserved" food from the far corners of the Earth at all times of the year. No Mc Donald's but the neighbours in the Highlands scouting our thin sheep for their dinner, we using the pot for ours we stole from them. Authentic!
The elite know better than to pull such fabricated wool over their own eyes. More, they have an aesthetic need to make a good tale of it all: Rousseau. For the sensitive man of breeding and high taste who desires us all to live our potential best, i.e. as farm animals in his benign care, noblesse oblige, appanage, we should listen to the way it was, la la la, in the time of the golden Age when people didn't encumber their souls with "plastic." People then, when people were "real" had fine lives of no possessions, just living for the moment, mating and frolicking and fooling around in bliss. Yes,like Rousseau says it was. Yes,we might all starve to death, but how romantic and authentic our short lives would be them. and ths philobarbarist nightmare is a pretty story as told by Rousseau and his hackneyed paraphrasers. Hippies across the globe have bought it and resell it.
But in the world of real activity, such a beautiful Utopia as Rousseau's doesn't quite work. The paradise of Bismarck's Prussian socialist paradise does though. If one uses enough force. If one can cajole enough fools into selling their freedom for authoritarian safety from the horror of being alone in the universe as private being. Act it Prussian but call it Rousseau. Call it, let's just say, Obamanation. Call it the German Revolution. None of that fancy French égalité, fraternité, or that damnable liberté. Let's call it Rousseau but let's make it Bismarck.
The Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and even the mostly psychotic French Revolution were and are a revolution of significance only matched by the slowly spread Agricultural Revolution. In all those thousands of years of life between, nasty, brutish and short, life was a horror. But life as horror with meaning: It was a life of binding, of belonging, of what some Italian peasants called fasciste, referring to an old Roman symbol of unity of peasants and Power. There was safety in belonging to the collective under the protection of the State. then came the Industrial revolution an its children of Individualism and privacy. a revolution the likes of which no one has seen in the mind ever till it happened, and for many it's worse, continues to happen: Freedom for people like me. I don't need no fucking master, and the master class know it and hate it. They hate me. They hate my low class freedom and my plastic flowers and my dinner at McDonald's.
How can they destroy my freedom if I'm too stupid to see the beauties of a Rousseauesque parardise? If they can't corral me into a Bismarckian commune? If they can't convince me of how unhappy I am being free to destroy the planet? they can give up some of their power to those who would destroy my free nation by violence and subversion. The elitists can flood my free nation with violent jihadis and then condemn me for "racism." they can refer to their gnostic wisdom, their vision of the beyond-the-beyond, and their state as Philosopher Kings to cement their authority over my nation and its force against my Violence.
I'm immoral. I'm stupid. I'm greedy. I'm inauthentic. I'm like Sarah Palin! I prove my ugliness by not being nice to Muslims. Maybe I should die. Maybe, since the police don't want any disruptions in the societies we live in, I should get the Hell out of town and live in the woods. Then perhaps, when we are all living like bandits again or starving on the commune, the Gnostics will see their visions of happy peasants toiling authentically in the fields where they belong, and all will be right again in the world.
But there will be me, a son of Walker! Walker, a walking nightmare of fury and murder and American manifest destiny in the whole of the world. Oh, unlike Marat, I'm not so pretty after all. Not so aesthetically pleasing that the hippies will ever be satisfied with looking at me toiling in their Gnostic fields burying my own for their enjoyment. No, no, no: Walkers walk; and if they trample, it's all to the good.