Die Freiheit: the German Freedom & Counter-Jihad Party

Die Freiheit (‘Freedom’)

Die Freiheit, the German political party, is called, in full, Freedom Civil Rights Party for More Freedom and Democracy (Die Freiheit Bürgerrechtspartei für mehr Freiheit und Demokratie). 


Freedom was founded in October 2010 by the Berlin parliamentarian René Stadtkewitz.

Stadtkewitz was expelled from the Christian Democratic Union in 2010 after inviting Dutch politician Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom to hold a speech in Berlin. A number of other politicians, who left their respective parties, also joined Stadtkewitz.

Mr Stadtkewitz was born in communist East Berlin. As a young adult he worked in a factory making industrial equipment. After that, in September 1989 - two months before the fall of the Berlin Wall - he fled East Germany with his wife and son. He returned to Berlin after German unification in 1990 and joined the CDU in 1995.

Stadtkewitz is a former long-time member of the Berlin House of Representatives.

At Freedom's opening meeting Stadtkewitz said that the "established parties, unfortunately, are not ready to take a clear stand but instead abandon the people to their concerns”. He then went on to say that "Western civilization, for centuries a world leader, faces an existential crisis”.

At the heart of this existential crisis is Islam in Europe. Stadtkewitz said that “Islam is not just a religion, but also a political ideology with its own legal system”.

As a response to this clear-and-present threat from militant Islam, Freedom has called for the scrutiny of all German imams, mosques and Islamic schools, as well as for a review of Islamic organizations to ensure their compliance with German laws. Freedom also condemns all efforts to build a parallel legal structure based on the Sharia law.

Because of Freedom's position on Islam, it also rejects the Turkish accession to the European Union.

 At a 10th anniversary remembrance of the 9/11 attacks in New York, René Stadtkewitz said:

    “The three most important terrorists of the 9/11 attacks had studied in Hamburg and were also radicalized there. Germany must be made aware of this... [but] nothing has changed here. We must not only openly debate the political ideology of Islam; we must also consider the political consequences of such an ideology.”

In an interview with the websitePolitically Incorrect (PI), Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, commented on both the problems Europe faces and also the encouraging fact that various political parties are attempting to deal with such problems. In one part of interview Freedom and Geert Wilders PVV were discussed. Spencer said that these

“parties give me great hope that Europe is not dead, that Eurabia is not a reality and never will be, and that European people will reassert their freedoms and the human rights that are threatened by Islamic law.”

Young Turks

In an interview on Dutch TV, Rene Stadtkewitz took the interviewer around the Kreuzberg and Neukölln  area of Berlin. Stadtkewitz said that “these neighbourhoods are also called the largest Turkish city outside Turkey, a society in itself”. During the same interview, one of the co-founders of Freedom, Aaron Koenig, said that “the equating of criticism of Islam with ‘the right’ is completely wrong, I would really like people to resolve this for once”.  He then went on to say that “it is clear that Islam-criticism derives from the center of society”.

The zealots of mass - and unquestioned - immigration keep on telling us that all immigrants are a vital source of skills and productivity; yet in Germany, as in the UK, large amounts of the immigrant population are unemployed. This is especially true of Muslims. In Germany, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants are often under-educated and unemployed; which is a huge weight on Germanys welfare state.

The problems Germany has with Muslims are similar to ours in the UK, except instead of mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims, the Germans have a very large Turkish population. As Michael Stürzenberger, the spokesman of the Politically Incorrect (PI) group, and provincial Bavarian  Die Freiheit chairman since early 2012, puts it:

“Back then, Germany gave in to US pressure, and thus, Turkey was able to unload a portion of their 30% unemployed on us at the beginning of the 60s. They came as guest workers because our government back then hoped that they might sometime leave again. After all, there wasn’t the desire of having workforces with a foreign culture here for the long term. But they stayed, brought their relatives and married partners from Turkey.”

Stürzenberger went on to say why Germans had a problem with many Muslim Turks:

 “When people knuckle under such attempts at intimidation, the Muslim always feel more superior and as a result become even more audacious. A bar needs to be shoved across this aggressive behaviour. It needs to be made unmistakably clear to them whose land this is, and which rules are to be followed here. As Moslems they are in our eyes still tolerated guests, even if they might have been born here because we consider Islam to be a dangerous, hostile ideology.”

However, this is most certainly not a racial problem or a question of race. That is, many Turks have indeed assimilated themselves just very rarely Turkish Muslims. Stürzenberger says that

“all citizens of Turkish origin who have assimilated out of conviction, that is Kemalists, Christians, Atheists, many Alavites and those Moslems who don’t worry about the commands of their ideology and are willing to distance themselves from all of the components hostile to the Constitution, these are of course heartily welcome among us, and they aren’t the ones being described in this article. This, of course, also means those mostly non-Moslem immigrants from other Islamic countries who have assimilated as well.”

Policies

Of course not all of Freedom's policies are focussed on Islam or on Muslim immigrants. Nonetheless, if the Islamisation of Germany continues, Freedom's policies, along with everyone else’s policies in that country, won’t amount to much in the long run anyway.  

Here are some of Freedoms other core policies:

i) The introduction of direct citizen democracy based on the Swiss model.

ii) Euroscepticism

iii) Tougher measures on crime

iv) Support of Israel.

 v) Stricter social welfare policies.

    

The program of the party is modelled after the one of the Dutch Party for Freedom, founded and led by Geert Wilders.

Freedom's main problem with the German political system is that the German people

“share [a] fear that the current policy of ignoring citizens will, of turning a blind eye to serious social problems, of incurring escalating debt, and last but not least, that all of this within the framework of a wrongly constructed European Union, could ultimately jeopardize prosperity, liberty and even peace in Germany and Europe.”

Freedom explains its position on direct democracy by saying that “the political system in Germany has turned into a dictatorship of [the] parties”.  There is also a German problem with “a low election turnout and frustration with [the] parties”.

Freedom's solution to these problems is to “introduce a direct democracy as practiced in Switzerland with nation-wide referenda allowing Germans to vote on their constitutional law”.

The Latest News on Freedom

Bavaria's Interior Ministry has just announced, as of April 12, 2013, that the provincial Office of Constitutional Protection (Verfassungsschutz) will monitor Bavarian local chapter of the website Politically Incorrect (PI) and Freedom (Die Freiheit) in Munich. Bavaria is the first province in Germany to take this step.

Politically Incorrect has logged up to 10,000 visitors in one day.  The German website "criticizes Islam's aggressive and authoritarian aspects". Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, has cooperated with PI's Stefan Herre in Stop the Islamisation of Nations (SION) and has participated in an August 4, 2012, international "counterjihad" conference in Stockholm with Stürzenberger.

The Interfaith Movement in Muslim/Islamic Countries

In the UK, non-Muslims have created a massive “interfaith movement” which a small amount of media-savvy Muslims have taken advantage of. We’re always hearing about Community Cohesion and the necessity of Embracing Diversity from this movement. When an Islamic bomb goes off or yet another Muslim terrorist is arrested, the Church of Interfaith gets into full swing. When there's another case of Muslim grooming, the C of I assures us that there are also many gangs of Anglican groomers. When there’s a protest against a super-mosque, yes, you’ve got it, the Interfaith zealots will be there begging the builders to make the mosque bigger and higher.

So how’s the Interfaith Movement doing in Muslim countries?

A report was released on May 7th by the U.S.Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). It revealed that out of 15 nations which were the worst offenders against religious freedom, 10 were Muslim/Islamic nations.

In these Islamic/Muslim countries, non-Muslims are persecuted, imprisoned and killed for their non-Islamic religious beliefs. This isn't surprising since such persecution is written into Islam itself. That is, under sharia law all non-Muslims have a dhimmi status at best; at worst they are persecuted and often killed. The Koran itself has countless passagesof hate towards “unbelievers” and the hadiths are often even worse.

Since most Muslims in the UK are either Pakistani or of Pakistani heritage, let's start with Pakistan. 

In Pakistan there is a controversial blasphemy law. That will also explain why many British-Pakistani Muslims are agitating for blasphemy law here in the UK. Of course they don’t use those words – “sharia blasphemy law”. Instead they talk about “hate crimes”, “Islamophobia”, “racism” and whatnot. In fact Muslims in the UK have been so successful of fusing the criticism of Islam with racism that we’ve now got the  Religious and Racial Hatred Act of 2006.

Let’s stay with Pakistan. In that country there is massive persecution of all religious minorities, which often results in killings, arson and rioting. In the UK, there have been a couple of pigs’ heads left next to a couple of mosques and a few demonstrations against Islamisation.

(It's ironic that one day Pakistani Muslims in the UK will be interfaithing and enjoying peace and tolerance, and the next they will be visiting Pakistan, as they often do, and seeing some of the massive violence and persecution - carried out by their relations? - of non-Muslims. This is the case with specifically Christians, which happens there on a day-to-day basis. I wonder what the UK's Pakistani Muslims think about all this...)

Take Egypt, led by what Western governments deem to be the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has explicitly stated that the Muslim Brotherhood has systematically failed to stop violence against Egypt’s religious minorities, most prominently the Copts (Christian Egyptians). This is not a surprise because the Muslim Brotherhood has always been strong on persecution and even on assassinations and bombings (i.e., since the 1920s). This was hardly likely to have stopped once they gained power.

If we then move to Iraq and Iran, the Commission informs us that the imprisonment, torture and executions are daily occurrences for non-Muslims in these countries. As is the case with many Muslim/Islam states, a conversion to Christianity in Iran and Iraq is classed as a "crime against state security". This shouldn’t be a surprise because in Islam the state and religion are as one; at least that’s what Islam demands and what sharia law is there to bring about.

In Saudi Arabia all religious activities outside the permitted Wahhabism, an extremely conservative movement within Islam, are banned. Indeed in Saudi Arabia’s apartheid state non-Muslims have to drive on their own side of the road. That apartheid system encompasses all aspects of Saudi life. This is because the Islamic system of Dhimmitude enforces a system of apartheid on all non-Muslims in Islamic/Muslim states.

The Muslim countries which USCIRF also notes include Sudan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. These Muslim countries are classified as 'particularly worrisome countries'.

HOW & WHY LEFTISTS DON’T DEBATE ON FACEBOOK/INTERNET

“You will find that most serious non-Muslim critics know more about Islam that its non- Muslim [mainly Leftist] defenders.”

-          - Gert Wilders

“[The Left is] obliged to stand behind… facts that are totally beyond credibility.”

-          - Michele Foucault

“[Leftists] learned how to toe the party’s line on everything from international affairs to reflex psychology.”

-         

     - James Miller

On Facebook and the Internet generally the level of debate is often very low. (Although it's easy to sink low too if the person you are conversing with has done so from the very beginning.) This is less the case in the public arena, such as (live) on TV, on the radio, in a public forum, etc. The reason is that there is less embarrassment about using personal insults and ad hominems on the Internet because it is so faceless and you don’t really need to defend yourself. You can also stand behind positions that completely – and obviously! - lack any truth at all because, again, you don’t need to defend yourself publicly. In the public sphere, on the other hand, you do need to appear at least marginally credible. Hence you will hear or see Leftists defending:

acid-attacks, honour-killings, Turkish Muslims taking over entire districts of Germany (as well as flying the Turkish flag out of their windows), Shia blood rituals, Muslim grooming, Islamic terrorism, Islamic misogyny, Muslim racism, the burka/hijab,  Muslim ghettos, “communalist” politics (in the UK), the building of more mosques, Muslim criminals, Iran, Egypt … anything and everything.

The bottom line is that when Leftists politically disagree with you, they will sometimes - or often - say that they are against you for reasons which as not strictly speaking political. If your argument or post/comment is well-reasoned they may say that “has no structure”, etc. If it’s not well-argued and contains bad spellings, etc., they will call you a “knuckle-dragger” or “uneducated”.

Often this is simply their way of saying: I disagree with your politics. However, they often don’t comment on the political content of posts/comments. So if it were all about politics, then why don't they talk about politics instead of on the comment’s/post’s “structure” or its bad spelling?

Of the hundreds of comments I’ve seen, virtually none has been on what the poster or commentator actually said. Thus there are countless ad homimens, endless student sarcasms, talk about things being “badly written”, etc; but hardly anything about politics and what the poster actually argued or said. Often literally nothing.

This should be no surprise. People are emotional beings. And when politics is involved, this is even more the case. If you utterly reject and contradict someone’s political beliefs, which they hold deeply, and that person can’t argue or debate his case (which is often the case with student Leftists and older ones too), then of course he’ll be sarcastic, talk about “poor structure” or class you as a “racist”. Nonetheless, at the heart of all this bullshit, and all this dressing up of basic political differences, is the fact that you’ve spoken against the things they cherish, politically speaking. That alone will mean that they will do anything to destroy you and what you’ve said. On the streets it’s Leftist violence. On the Internet its endless six-form sarcasm, middle-class snobbery and talk about “bad structure”. But at the heart of all this bullshit is the hurt emotions and political anger of the Leftist – all dressed up in all sorts of contrived ways.

So Internet/Facebook users should get used to the fact that if people politically disagree with you, they will say anything in order to rationalise those basic and simple political differences and defend their own position. This is even more the case if the Leftist can’t debate or is politically dumb (which they often are). And because ego and emotions are strongly involved – literally anything will be said to destroy you and what it is you’ve posted…. anything, it seems, other than actual debate!

People are emotional beings; as well as political beings. And when emotions and politics come together, this is the sort of thing that happens.

What do people expect to happen? Your opponent won’t say:

Yes, you’re right. Everything I’ve strongly believed for years is wrong and you’re right.

That won’t happen. Not a chance. No one ever says that. Maybe they never think it either. People do change politically, sure, but not just like that: live and on air, as it were. And because ego and emotions are involved, they won’t show any change either – even if it did occur to them there and then. Don’t expect miracles; least of all from theory-intoxicated and ideologically fanatical  and pure Leftists.

How Hope-Not-Haters Destroy/Take Over Facebook Pages

This is just one method by which Hope Not Haters, or other Leftists, impose their No Platform Policy on Facebook.

Take Gilly Levett-Carpenter, Esther Angel, Gary Hastings and the rest of that gang of posh/snobby Leftists.

Esther Angel - at least that's one name she uses.

Gilly Levett-Carpenter

If they spot a Facebook page which dares to express views which they disagree with (they disagree with anything vaguely to the right of Nick Lowles of even Trotsky), then they will try to wreck it. It’s as simple as that really. This is how they do it.

First they report all supposedly “racist” and/or “fascist” (i.e, not extreme Left) contributors to Facebook for “abuse”, “false identities”, “racism”… whatever works for them. Then they try to do the same with the admins/mods of Facebook pages. If they get Facebook to ban the admin/mods, then they can effectively take the page over because there will be no one left to moderate it.

At times they try to become the moderators or admin themselves of these evil Facebook pages. They manage this, sometimes, by working as trolls pretending to believe the things that the mods/admin believe. Once they are made admin/mods, then there’s no turning back.

These haters of free speech will try or do anything to impose their No Platform Policy on Facebook (as well as everywhere else). Indeed there is a Leftist phrase which clarifies their position: “By any means necessary.” By adopting this by-any-means-necessary approach, these posh activists show us that they are indeed red fascists.

Inside Every Leftist is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out

Leftist Psychology

A Leftist will tell you that his dogmatism and totalitarianism (though of course he won’t use those words), as well as his policies and actions (e.g., ‘the no platform policy’), are vital because his very many enemies, as well as Das System itself, are so all-embracing, omnipresent and evil that such dogmatism and totalitarianism are required. Accordingly the ends, as so often with Leftists, justify the means.

That’s why many Leftists foam at the mouth and shout a lot. It expresses their foaming minds and hearts. Psychologically speaking, it’s often the case that, as Bertrand Russell put it, "fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty" and that "fanatics are seldom genuinely humane". Again, just look into the face of your average Leftist and ask yourself this:

Is his heart bleeding for the poor and oppressed, or is he simply foaming at the mouth about his enemies and because he desirous of their annihilation?

Think of the eroticised nature of so much ‘anti-Zionist’ action and rhetoric along with Israel monomania. Therefore hate (for Zionists, neo-liberals, etc. ad infinitum) and not love (for the oppressed, the Palestinians, etc.) is the prime emotion of the zealous Leftist. He finds the hatred “of enemies easier and more intense than love of friends”, as Bertrand Russell once again put it. Therein lies a profound warning to us all.

Then there is the pure moral outrage of the righteous Left .That’s another reason why so many Leftists foam at the mouth and why they accuse their  very many enemies of being ‘racists’, ‘fascists’, ‘fascist racists’, ‘racist racists’, ‘bigoted racists’ and all the rest. They have the Truth and everyone else simply opposes the Truth. That Truth, in this case, wasn’t written by Mohammed, it was written by Chomsky, Marx or whoever. It’s just as firmly held by these PC and Leftist puritans as it is by the straightforwardly religious. Look into the face of those zealous little Leftists. The faces of puritan outrage against all those who dare fall outside their tiny fold. Leftists have the Truth in its purest form. Hence the facial contortions which are manifested during speeches and demonstrations. Their hate is pure and unadulterated.

And just as radical Muslims see the world in terms of a Manichean battle between good and evil, so too do many Leftists believe that they are involved in a war with capitalism and all it sundries and cohorts. Consequently, just as militant Muslims say that all our problems will be solved when the entire world "belongs to Allah"; so Leftists believe that a pure and ubiquitous “progressivism”, or even just a plain revolution, will solve all our problems.

There will always be a rationalisation of such illiberalism or totalitarianism from Leftists. Such as: “We must not give a platform to…” this, that and the other. We must ‘crush’ or ‘smash’ this, that and the other. And there’s never any guilt because the numerous enemies are just so damn evil!

Word-Weapons & Tactics

Have you ever wondered why these Leftists accuse just about everybody (except blacks, Muslims, etc.), and every organisation, of being 'fascist', 'Nazi', ‘bigoted’, etc.?

One illuminating reason why they do so is for the same reason Stalin did so.

The thing about Stalin's frequent use of the word 'fascist' was that it was more a political tactic than an ideologically-inspired position. Accusing one’s enemies of being “fascists” works - politically speaking. And thus Leftists use this term - as well as many others like it - very often. According to Jonah Goldberg, in his book, Liberal Fascism, it’s the case that

"no one has to take a fascist seriously. You're under no obligation to listen to a fascist's arguments [surely he can't have arguments] or concern yourself with his feelings or rights [he has none].” (3)

Stalin, after achieving absolute power in the Soviet Union, engendered many enemies. (Most of whom were the fictitious results of his conspiratorial - or literally paranoid - mind.) Quite simply, the socialists who were aligned with Moscow weren’t enemies. The socialists who weren’t aligned with Moscow were his enemies. So how did Stalin deal with these enemies? Simple. He accused all of them of being “fascists”. (There were very many other word-weapons which Stalin used against his enemies: 'Zionist', 'cosmopolitan' [usually a Jew], 'reactionary', 'reformist', 'bourgeois', 'right socialist' and so on.)

Contemporary Leftists also use word-weapons. They include: 'Zionist', 'Islamophobe', 'racist', 'bigot', 'thug', 'neo-con', 'neo-liberal', etc. In other words, the average Leftist utilises a vast array of word-weapons which are often no less than Leftist soundbites. (These go along with soundbite phrases and even whole sentences - when they can manage them.)

The terrible and depressing thing is that this juvenile use of such word-weapons often does the job. After all the English Defence League and even UKIP can’t give talks at British student unions because such groups are deemed 'fascist' or 'essentially Nazi' by totalitarian students; as well as by some of their teachers and professors.

Take this specific example. Today it is impossible to criticise any aspect of Islam without being accused of being an 'Islamophobe' or a 'racist' or a 'Nazi' or a 'bigot' or a 'thug'. In addition, way back in the 1980s, even the British Conservative Party, not just its ‘New Right', was often classed as being 'fascist' by many Leftist groups.

Of course such Leftist student-like uses of the word 'fascist' against everyone - who dares to disagree with them - may result in its use ceasing to be taken seriously. In fact that has been the actual result for some people. Unfortunately many other people are still almost instinctively frightened or enraged when someone, or something, is deemed to be fascist. However, whenever the rest of us hear the word 'fascist' we should reach for our guns. (This is, of course, a fascist reaction to the use of the word 'fascist'!)

All this shows us that the average Leftist hardly indulges in political thought; despite the importance he gives to what is calls "theory". That theory, even though theory, is itself hardly or rarely thought about - certainly not by your average Leftist. Even when the theory is stated, it's still not independently thought about.

These soundbites, such as "blacks can't be racist", and word-weapons such as "racist" or "fascist", are used to stop their own thought; not only to stop debate. If you can encapsulate a political enemy in a single word (e.g., "racist"), or come out with a Leftist soundbite ("counter-jihadism is racism"), then you don't need to think at all. Most of all, you needn’t debate with someone who disagrees with you. He is too evil or "dangerous".

Virtually every Leftist has a tacit - sometimes explicit - commitment to a massive and universal ‘no platform policy’ (as first used by British student unions and Hope Not Hate) for all the people who they disagree with. They pretend that it's because the person they disagree with is so evil or "dangerous" that their No Platform Policy is legitimate. But you soon realise that far too many people fall under the policy. Consequently it is quite arbitrary and totalitarian.

This No Platform Policy is no more or less that the contemporary version of the Gulag. It's nowhere near as bad; but that's simply because these Leftists don't have the requisite political power to make their NPP as bad as the Soviet Gulag.

Despite all this, Leftists still have the audacity to say that they believe in freedom of speech... just not in cases of X, Y, Z, etc. That is, in the cases when it "offends people”, or when it “targets Muslims” or Islam, etc. But what's the point in believing in freedom of speech if you only believe in such a freedom for the innocuous or harmless expressions of it? Everybody believes in the right to criticise a certain TV programme or a particular make of chocolate bar. No problems there. Nevertheless, your commitment to freedom of speech can only shows itself in the controversial examples, such as criticism of Islam, the support of controversial views in genetics, positions on abortion, etc. This often means that Leftists only give a "platform" to those they agree with. But that’s not a commitment to free speech. When free speech is used against the Leftists’ own many sacred cows; then they soon change their tune about it.

Another neat way in which many Leftists rationalise their inherent totalitarianism is in the devious, or sometimes just plain stupid, ways in which they debate (if “debate” is the correct word at all here). For example, say that you express your support for X (e.g., for deporting a terrorist suspect), then the Leftist often automatically assumes that you must also support Y and/or Z (e.g., “deporting all Muslims” and/or not “allowing any immigrants into the country”). Alternatively, if you criticise X (say, Islam), then he’ll say, or imply, that it’s also your duty to criticise Y and/or Z as well (say, Judaism and/or the US use of drones in Pakistan). In theory, that would mean that if you criticise/support X, then you must also criticise/support everything else that is humanly possible to criticise/support. Even when the criticisable/supportable subjects mentioned by the Leftist are indeed connected in some way to your original subject, it would still mean that he must (implicitly) assume that you should have criticised/supported innumerable other things as well. This would have had the consequence, if the Leftist’s position had been followed, that you would have ended up writing or saying something else entirely; which is probably precisely what he wanted all along!

Searchlight/Hope Not Hate against the Entire Right

A good example of the inherently totalitarian nature of the Left in the UK is supplied by the “street activist” group and publication, Hope Not Hate/Searchlight.  Searchlight/Hope Not Hate describes itself as being ‘anti-fascist’.

SEARCHLIGHT/Hope Not Hate published its “annual review of Britain’s far right” a few months ago. One of its writers, Cato, is said to have investigated “a few of the ultra-right conservative groups”.

For a start, are there any right-wing groups which aren’t "far right" according to Searchlight/Hope Not Hate? If so, which ones are they? I bet they can’t name a single one.

In the 1980s, when Leftism was more honest and open, many Leftists classed the British Conservative Party as being "far right" and even “fascist”. (Chomsky not only calls Israel a “Nazi state”; he also says the same about the United States - which he thinks needs to be “de-Nazified”.) If that's the case - everyone who is right wing, or nationalist or patriotic, is actually far right according to Searchlight/Hope Not Hate. There are no fine gradations here. There’s absolutely zero subtlety or sophistication. Above all, it’s all a neat and tidy way of dismissing every person who disagrees with Searchlight/Hope Not Hate’s Leftist “analysis” (if that’s what it is) of every form of nationalism or patriotism.

Basically, every single Nationalist and patriotic group in the UK is on the Searchlight/Hope Not Hate (hit)list. This means that Searchlight/Hope Not Hate not only completely rejects all patriotic or nationalist groups, but also the right of patriotic or nationalist viewpoints to so much as exist.

So what is all this? What’s the undercurrent of the said article? This:

That there should be a (Leftist) no platform policy upheld on every single one of the groups and organisations listed.

This effectively means that Searchlight/Hope Not Hate demands an admittedly toned-downed version of the Soviet Gulag to silence the views it disagrees with or finds unpalatable. Of course it’s not literally the Gulag. It’s not as extreme or repressive. But that’s simply because the Leftists of Searchlight/Hope Not Hate haven’t got the requisite political power to bring about the New British Gulag they so yearn for.

These people ease their qualms about agitating for a No Platform Policy (the Lesser Gulag) because they convince themselves that the Right – not only the “Far Right” – is both evil (of course they never use the word “evil”) and politically dangerous. Thus it must be destroyed in all its forms and manifestations. As the Left often puts it, the entire Right must be destroyed “by any means necessary” (e.g., by “lying for Justice” or by calling all opponents “racist” or the now fashionable “Islamophobe”.)

It is of course the case that Searchlight/Hope Not Hate - and other soundbite Leftists - hates debate and has the same totalitarian mind-set which the real Nazis - not many of the patriotic groups it campaigns against - display.

Searchlight/Hope Not Hate is the inverse/reverse of the Nazism/fascism it is fighting against. Or, by another image, Searchlight/Hope Not Hate and the Nazis/fascists they fight meet, ideologically and often also in terms of “praxis”, on their respective extremes. They fight each other because they are rival political power-blocks fighting over pretty much the same bone. That's why both groups promise zero unemployment, new selfless leaders, the punishment of evil bankers, rights for the poor, death to "neo-cons" and "neo-liberals" and so on. That is, both Searchlight/Hope Not Hate Leftists and Nazis promise the world that they will "destroy capitalism" and create some kind of Utopia  - even if the word “Utopia", like “evil”, is never used.