Four demos in one day: Halifax, Plymouth, Middlesborough and Cambridge. This just shows what strong support the EDL has. Yet every local newspaper will no doubt have features which include people saying: ‘We don’t want EDL outsiders in our town.’ You see, the EDL are always outsiders. They have been outsiders in every town and city they have protested in. So how can the EDL be from nowhere? EDL supporters and members must come from somewhere. Indeed EDL supporters, in actual fact, come from Cambridge, Halifax, Middlesborough and Plymouth; just as they came from Bolton, Bradford, Luton, etc. at previous demos.
One thing which shows the level of support the EDL has are the multitude of comments these regional newspapers get from local supporters. After nearly all the news items or features on various EDL demos, there are always loads of responses from EDL members. These responses, or ‘comments’, usually rectify some of the mistaken views of the EDL; as well as show the level of support we have generally.
And most comments, almost without exception, make it clear to readers that the EDL is not ‘far right’ or ‘racist’. There are plenty of political groups which cater for fascists and racists - so why would racists and Nazis join an explicitly anti-fascist and anti-racist group like the EDL? Of course Leftist conspiratorialists will claim that these extremists have ‘infiltrated the EDL’. Either that, or they are trying to hijack the movement. But all these claims contain the patronizing and arrogant assumption that the average EDL supporter can be easily led in the direction of fascism or racism without much of a problem. In other words, most Leftist ‘analyses’ of the EDL portray us as thick, gullible and easily manipulated.
Then again, UAF/SWP, Searchlight, etc. also patronizing assume that people join the EDL because they are unemployed, on a low wage, or cannot afford really nice cheese. Therefore, the rest of the analysis goes, we need 'people to blame' for the economic crisis or for the ‘austerity’ we are now facing.
And that's why we blame ‘Asians’ or Muslims. We are taking out our frustrations and economic impotence on ethnic minorities as well as on immigrants. This is, of course, a classic Marxist analysis of the average EDL supporter. And, as is usual in these cases, it is grossly simplistic and materialistic.
Not only that, the Leftist analyser of the EDL miraculously escapes from these social and economic determinants of what we believe. That is, SWP/UAF, Searchlight, etc. activists can think for themselves. Their views aren't completely determined by their class or by economic reality. They have True Consciousness; whereas EDL supporters have ‘false consciousness’. This particular example of EDL false consciousness is the belief that Muslims or immigrants are to blame for our financial or economic problems. Again, how does the SWP/UAF member escape from False Consciousness? Simples. He reads Chomsky, Socialist Worker, Marx or whatever.
So what about the middle class members of the EDL? Well, they are also accounted for by SWP/UAF, Searchlight, etc. These people, like Alan Lake, are 'manipulating the frustrations and the anger of the working class'. This, again, patronisingly assumes both False Consciousness and working class gullibility.
Also: what about working class members of the EDL who are in good jobs and who are doing OK? Why are they joining the EDL? Who knows, perhaps Leftists will now say they are suffering from 'bourgeois pretensions' or that they are just plain nasty (towards Muslims) people.
In all these cases, the Left simply disregards the power of ideas. They cannot comprehend, or they pretend not to comprehend (for political reasons), that people are against sharia law, or the proliferation of mosque-building, or the burka, etc. for reasons that have nothing to do with economic reality. The EDL just believes that sharia law is brutal and barbaric. That the burka is not about ‘female freedom’ or ‘modesty’ etc. but is a sign of the wearer’s commitment to Islamism.
So if anyone has a problem with the EDL, they will need to confront us on what we really stand for, not on what we ‘secretly' or 'really' stand for (i.e., after Marxist analysis).
What do we stand for? -
i) We stand for our right to protest against the Islamisation of our country.
ii) We stand against halal meat being given, surreptitiously, to unsuspecting members of the public (e.g., in a recent case, to students at Cambridge university).
iii) We are against the proliferation of new mosques being built; specifically until Muslims start getting their mosques in order and ridding them of Islamist control or influence.
iv) We stand against sharia law running in tandem with British law because we know that the innocuous cases of ‘civil’ sharia law are bound, eventually, to lead to the ever-increasing shariaisation of the Muslim - and the non-Muslim! - community.
v) We stand for the rooting out not only of Islamoterrorists and their supporters, but also of those Islamic organisations and individuals which rationalise, legitimise and even sympathise with Islamoterrorism.
vi) We stand against Muslim self-ghettoisation (or self-apartheid) because these areas have become no-go areas in which non-Muslims dare not venture.
vii) Indeed we stand against all the examples of Islamisation which are squarely at odds with our political system and our social traditions and history.