It is strange that the two Doctors from Exeter University, the home of the neurotic anti-Zionist Islam Pappe and a well-known far-left politics department, should hint a few times at what should be done to the EDL, but never explicitly state it. For example, in a roundabout way they say that ‘Westminster politicians [should] take the issue of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim violence seriously’. And do what exactly? Then they go on to say that ‘Westminster politicians should therefore reflect long and hard on the problems posed by the EDL’. Again, and do what? Then, finally, the two middle-class Doctors say the ‘Guardian has now produced evidence to clinch the case’. Which ‘case’ is that? Again, they don’t say. Is that because to be explicit on these matters would be to show others what red fascists they really are? They are calling for a complete ban of the EDL and yet more Government legislation on ‘Islamophobia’. What else could they be referring to? But they can’t refer to banning and increased legislation directly because this would make them seem to be the red fascists that they are. After all, the Guardian believes in freedom of speech… for the right people; and the restriction of power… for the wrong people. To talk about banning and increased legislation doesn’t sound leftist… Yes it does! Leftists have always believed in authoritarian and anti-democratic ways of stifling dissent and opposition, right back to Lenin and the Fabians.
Apparently I have ‘adopted sentiments from sections of the mainstream media and the BNP’. I didn’t know that. Did you know that? It is a strange claim though. I don’t read the mainstream media that much. I think the BBC is far too leftist and anti-Israel for me. And I don’t think I have ever accessed the BNP website or read more than a thousand words of that party. But the worst thing is how patronising this statement is. The plebs in the EDL, and no doubt everyone else outside the Guardian’s offices and the universities, simply and mindlessly ‘adopts’ other people’s views. The writers of this article, on the other hand, ‘take issue’ with things and ‘reflect long and hard’ on Islamism and the EDL. Aren’t they clever? Aren’t they so Guardian and so Islington? Fucking patronisers.
They also patronisingly claim that EDL supporters ‘time and time again cite mainstream Westminster politicians and media pundits as their sources and role models for their campaigns against Muslim extremists’. Come again? Are these the EDL supporters that don’t actually exist outside the feverish leftist minds of Mr Double Barrel Name ('Githens-Mazer’) and Mr Robert Lambert? Really? Most EDL-ers dislike our politicians precisely because they don’t see the Islamist menace. And now these two numbskulls are telling us that politicians and the media are Islamophobes just like the EDL! Pull the other one! Politicians daren’t say a single thing that is critical of Islam. Criticizing Islamic terrorists and radicals is not the same thing. Or are these Guardian journalists also saying that politicians shouldn’t criticise the Islamic loonies, like Choudry and others, as well? You know, I think they are. This is because they think that by criticising the Islamic loons that this will also have adverse affects on the ‘moderates’, whoever they are.
Thus they want a complete ban on all criticism of Islam, the Koran, Mohammed and even of Muslims. They do not say this explicitly of course. They cannot say this explicitly. But it is there in the under text.
What I have just said about my reading habits, etc. also applies to thousands of EDL supporters. So Lambert and Githens-Mazer should put that fact in their leftist pipes and smoke it! Is there anyone on the far left or the liberal-left that isn’t patronising and arrogant like these two privileged professors? Not in my experience.
What they think is true is true because Islamophobia Watch says it is true. You know, the website created by Eddie Truman and Bob Pitt, friends of Red Ken and once funded by tax payers’ money. The two geezers who were then part of Red Ken's London Empire . These Trots also suck Islamist shit in various leftist groups.
The problem with Islamophobia Watch is that the editor and writer makes a living out of discovering Islamophobia ten times before each breakfast. It also does the stuff politically. Thus if he hears of someone farting outside a mosque, then that will go down as an act of ‘outrageous Islamophobia’. If people recite the war-crazy rhetoric of the Koran in a critical manner, then that’s Islamophobia pure and simple. It's ten of the best for that Islamophobic piece of scum.
And I thought that the Guardian despised the Daily Mail. Not when one of its journalists agrees with it! That Daily Mail journalist is Peter Oborne. He too is against Islamophobia in a big way. That’s why he is a useful recruit to the cause of Islam and Muslims generally. He’s a kind of ‘Uncle Tom’ to the right wing. (That makes a change for the Right to have its own Uncle Tom. Most Uncle Toms or Poster Boys are designated so by the far left.)
Let’s have some more Guardian condescension to the uneducated plebs of all types (not just EDL plebs). Apparently, the ‘EDL can attract supporters who are genuinely adamant that they are not racist’. You know what this really means, don’t you? This:
The EDL can attract supporters who are genuinely adamant that they are not racist. But, of course, we know that they are. They’ve just adopted sentiments from sections of the media and the BNP, which they don’t realise are, in fact, racist and Islamophobic. Poor souls.
Is this a definitional thing? That is, if you are against Islamists, or even Muslims, then, by definition, you are a racist? If that’s the case, then I’m a racist. I am happily a racist. And there is nothing I want to do about the fact that I am a racist. Of course this Guardian definition of racism is a pile of utter shite. So, no, I am not a racist. Fluck this definition. It is a leftist tool to stop debate about Islamism, the Koran and all the rest. We will not swallow its shallow logic.
This article intriguingly, or even sinisterly, talks about Muslims having the right not ‘to compromise their religious or political principles’. Which ‘religious and political principles’ are they? That they should not compromise their belief in stoning for adultery? That they should not compromise their belief that Israel should be obliterated - or even compromise the actions which will be needed to bring this about? What about the Talibanisation of the UK? They shouldn’t compromise that principle and the actions required to bring it about? What about violent protests in the streets of the UK? Legit Islamic principles? Terrorism? The ‘cry of the Muslim oppressed’?
The two Islamophiles finish with an interesting fact which I didn’t know about. Apparently, in March this year, ‘academics’ (like them) and ‘campaigners’ got together in the Grand Committee Room of the House of Commons. They talked about the formation of ‘an all-party parliamentary groups on Islamophobia’. Frightening! I wonder what was said. Actually, I don’t think I want to know because these two Islamophiles have said too much already. However, they claim that the Guardian’s ‘evidence’ had ‘clinched the case’ at this meeting. Again, what ‘case’ was that?
*) The Groanian article: