Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Kill the allawabbit

Britain is rapidly becoming a full-blown police state. One of the latest and most egregious examples of that is the case of Lee Whitby. Police heard him slagging "allah" and for that he was arrested and fined. Slagging "allah" is, in the tiny minds of the English police, somehow "racist." It's a police state in Britain today.
A man has been fined for making offensive comments about Allah during the English Defence League protest in Leicester. Lee Whitby was found guilty of using racially aggravated abusive words during the protest in the city centre on Saturday, October 9.

During a trial at Leicester Magistrates' Court yesterday, the 27-year-old pleaded not guilty to chanting "threatening, abusive or insulting" words that were likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress."

Although he admitted making comments, Whitby said he did not believe they would have been heard by anyone other than police officers or fellow EDL supporters.

However, magistrate Rick Moore ruled that officers were likely to have been alarmed by the defendant's words.

[....]

"The only people that would have heard were the EDL.

"I was not aiming it at anyone. No-one around would find it offensive. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said it.

"I was just voicing my opinion at an EDL meeting with just EDL people around."

Alexandra Blossom, prosecuting, said the comments made were bound to cause harassment, alarm or distress because of Leicester's multicultural society and the fact the words were said in the city centre.

She said: "A number of people present that day were likely to be offended.

"It was a high-profile event and members of the public would have been in the city on a Saturday.

"The remarks are even offensive to police.

"A clear message needs to be sent out about using such behaviour in a multicultural city."

[....]

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Anti-Allah-outburst-earns-EDL-supporter-163-200-fine/article-2945233-detail/article.html

That's not exactly the end of this pathetic story. Some folks are going to push back. Here's an idea:

“Allah is Mohammed’s Imaginary Friend”

"We are launching a new protest campaign that aims to drive a wedge into the thin crack between leftists and the Muslims.

We’re going to do this with this image, and the slogan: “Allah is Mohammed’s Imaginary Friend”.

We aim for protesters to get arrested for having a picture that shows Mohammed talking to a giant bunny. In fact, participants must insist on being arrested, and on being tried.

By doing this we proclaim our fundamental rights, which were not granted to us, but were always ours, and are only now being taken away by the tyranny of state power.

These rights include the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the freedom of religion — including the right to have no religion at all.

We will go to jail for saying that Allah is imaginary."


The very word "police" comes from the word for state, i.e. "polis." Those who demand rule by the state demand a police state. That is a direct repudiation of democracy, the very word coming from "the people," i.e. the "demos. "Socialists, among others, are police-state worshippers. One cannot have it both ways. One is a democrat or one is a socialist.

I say "Fuck Allah and the camel he rode in on." And kill the wabbit!
http://www.spike.com/video/whats-opera-doc/2779535

8 comments:

CGW said...

I hereby slag allah repeatedly.

truepeers said...

The only alternative to rule by a state is rule by a tribe and its unquestionable myth/ritual. Democracy can belong to either. We've lived under states in the West for centuries, but professional police only came on the scene in the nineteenth century. Before then, criminal prosecutions were a privilege of those who could afford them.

We generally gain freedom when we get professional police and no longer have to invest our time and energy in policing our neighbors. But the freedom only lasts as long as the police share in our fundamental values as fellow members of the state and its covenant. The problem in the UK is that police no longer represent many of the people, no longer patrol with the ordinary man's common sense as arbiter, because they have bought into elitist hogwash and Gnostic fantasies re multiculturalism. Pace the Marxists, the police only really become full agents of the bourgeois state when the state and bourgeoisie turn Marxist.

American rhetoric is paranoid sometimes. Ordinary Americans of the tea party variety often don't see themselves as belonging to the state, owning the state. In republican democracy (or constitutional monarchy) the people should own the state; you shouldn't see government as fundamentally at odds with the people, except when, corrupted, it is.

Dag said...

Much Continental philosophy, including so-called social science, argues that the people exist by virtue of the State; that without the State there is no "people" at all, just rootless and cosmopolitan atomic being of no worth in themselves. That is what we see developing in America today, an importation of the German Revolution.

When Robert Peale created the London constabulary he got Bobbies, i.e. working class men from working class neighbourhoods, to patrol their own areas to objectively uphold a common law for all. In a sense they became as alienated from the world of work as did industrial labourers in factories. I see this as progressive, that all men, regardless of position or family or entitlement, are equal before the law, all the same before the same law. But what we get now is a professional class of Guardians in the Platonist sense, of men and women who support the State at the cost of freedom in the community. In effect, we get Germans running our localities. I see this as a very bad thing. It's a return to rule by (Philosopher) kings.

Dag said...

Allah sucketh!

truepeers said...

argues that the people exist by virtue of the State; that without the State there is no "people" at all

It's important to avoid libertarian nonsense (the idea that man could live without being bound either to tribe or state) without, on the other hand, thinking that "the people" are the creation of the state. The people surely create the state, any state, though not in a conscious act of independent social contracting (because how could the ability to contract have existed before the state that honoured it?)

Surely, the state first emerges haphazardly in the course of events, as a solution to a very real problem of tribal conflict, as a way of moving beyond a world where people are ruled by a tribal ritual order that no man can control, where the totemic mask is more important than the man who wears it at the ritually pre-ordained times in the course of life.

The state would have first emerged through the efforts of some wealth-collecting and gifting big man to gain status through gifting, which entailed his gaining more and more control of the centre of the erstwhile ritual order. But it cannot be simply the conscious creation of the big man alone; "the people" must simultaneously recognize and sign off on the creation as a solution to their shared problems of needing unity in face of violence (be these domestic or, more likely, external threats).

That's why early kingships are institutions in which the king can readily become the sacrificial victim of the people, when he doesn't pan out. The state cannot have been simply imposed by a big man, because tribal people could have made no sense of such an imposition absent their own fully-conscious participation (see Afghanistan as an example where tribal people can't readily make sense of a state however well-funded the attempt to create one from without!); "the people", as first created, must have been actively involved in experiencing and mediating the problem for which the state then became a sensible outcome.

Because of the nature of its emergence, in events that no one controlled, and that are not caused by some hidden conspiracy - i.e. not imposed with some kind of coherent central planning on the part of the nascent big man - and because the state appears as a solution to threats of violence, the early state must have seemed as somehow a gift of the divine, in whose grace the king reigned.

But we should now be able to get beyond the myths of state and philosophy and develop our anthropological common sense to better see how human institutions cannot be imposed or created by some all-seeing mind.

The modern republic depends on the emergence of a revelation that its creative covenant, or constitution, is only partly the gift of a God who self-limits in partnership with man. God helps those who help themselves. In tandem, the state and other good things emerge. We discover our rights, in the state; no one gives them to us.

That's why I don't care much for bad-mouthing the divine, in any language. Keep it for false prophets.

Dag said...

Anthropology is a distant field for me. I have some idea of how Modern Europe understands itself, and that is mostly as primarily State. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, i.e. the people who comprise it. The people are merely atomic parts that have no solidity or value beyond the fact that they are aspects of the volkscape. In short, people are not essential to the State unless they are "authentic" in a natural sense. They must be, according to this statolotry, "rooted" in the maxtrix of the soil and in the root of language. Blood and soil; language and tradition. The component parts are unimportant, only the whole being: that which gives definition, therefore identity as X to the being who comes and goes, deriving all his being from the whole, i.e. the State. One is not only existent due to the State giving life to the community and thus parents of the being, the State also gives specific identity to the individual who would otherwise be either something and someone else, or just as likely, would be an animal. The State is, to this kind of thinking, supreme, and the individual is next to nothing.

The State is a relative new-comer into history, and that's why I limit my discussion to Modernity. I am interested in how we make a life for the individual interdependent among other individuals, together creating a minimal effective state of citizens comprising the state rather than a State creating and authenticating is subjects.

In today's European wilderness we find the "authentic" being is exotica, i.e. a Third World exhibit meant, I think, to amuse the neo-feudal elite, the latter having become disgusted and bored by the independent, ungrateful, and disobedient and frankly effeminate peasantry. The State will outlast the man, and the State is god anyway, its representatives ruling by right, if not divine. That, it seems to me, is the way the system is practised and assumed, if not openly discussed.

truepeers said...

We are all anthropologists; it's not really a discrete field of some specific expertise but a concern of anyone who has ever had an ethical or religious argument, a rivalry with another. That being said, there are disciplines to develop as we all do to some degree.

You say modern Europe understands itself as state (though the state is not simply modern; it is part of all civilizations above the tribal); but that's only half of it. Don't forget the nation, or, for some Europeans minds, the empire (residually Catholic, universalist). State and nation are not synonymous and the legitimacy of the state is a question of how it supports or offends nation, or empire, depending on one's preferred religion.

And there are different kinds of nationalism in Europe. Blood and soil have been much more important to the German self-understanding than the English. American nationalism, to some degree its own thing, is nonetheless a variety of English nationalism it seems to me.

Here's a though experiment for you. Ask yourself if everything or anything you just said about Europeans and the state could be said about the CHinese notion of state; that is a highly stateist culture as you may know, rooted in the ways of a classical agrarian empire. TO the degree they are similar, or not, what do you conclude?

I would suggest that there are quite similar conceptions of the state in all classical civilizations. Modernity, to the extent it is a Western phenomenon characterized by the injection of Judeo-Christian thinking into the classical mind, adds a new dynamic dimension, such as the tension between state and nation. That's what makes Germany quite different from CHina, today.

In any case, the present system in Europe is falling apart. You may be trading in vague historical memories before you know it. Europeans are going to need more than these to make a future. They are going to need good "religious" ideas about how a state, any state, could ever have evolved the covenant by which it is successfully governed; that means they won't get far with resentful projections of one class against another. However commonplace, such resentments never really explain the emergence of the whole, how anything can be shared as a common source of sacrality. Europe will have to turn back to its religious roots, and hence to its distinctive anthropology.

Dag said...

Always a real joy to read your comments, Peers. I can't address anything at the moment, as I will be off to our group meeting in minutes from now. When I return I would like to dabble in responding to your ideas on religious revival. I think more and more that there you are exactly right, more or less. But for now, thanks for the comment.