Wednesday, 27 July 2011
The EDL: guilty of not seeing into Breivik's/Norway’s future
Nick Lowles should be ashamed of himself for using the deaths of innocent Norwegians to justify and further his anti-democratic campaign against all right-wing groups. He daren’t speak out directly against the Conservative Party - as the ‘capitalist party’ he thinks it is - for fear of digging his own grave. Better one step at a time. However, he did accuse David Cameron of 'pandering to racists and fascists' when he gave that critical speech on multicultural fundamentalism.
As for Nick Nowles. This man wouldn’t just ban the EDL. He'd ban the BNP (obviously) too, along with the various stop-the-Islamisation campaigns. He would have Robert Spenser’s Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs closed down. Indeed the American far left has already got to work on Geller and Spencer in this immediate period after the Norwegian acts of terror.
Yet people are understandably keen to know what the precise relationship was between Breitvik and the EDL. However, many people seem to be forgetting something. Breitvik was an unknown until three days ago. He was a nobody. He may not have even had a police or a criminal record. So how could the EDL have known the secret beliefs and intentions of this man? He may well have visited England - and even protested with the EDL - and never said a single word about direct action and indeed about the political use of terrorism.
The EDL is not a group that can look into the future. The EDL simply couldn't have known that this man was a nutcase planning an act of destructive terrorism. He may have never said a word about any of this. So the Jeremy Paxmans and Nick Lowles of this world are basically saying that the EDL should have known that this man would carry out a terrorist attack in about a year’s time (i.e., after he had visited England last year). That’s how pathetic these attempts to smear the EDL are and why guilt by mere association is not guilt at all.
What if a supporter of Hope Not Hate/UAF decided to plant a bomb at the Israeli embassy in support of the ‘oppressed Palestinians’? What if he had said nothing about these plans apart from the fact that he supported the Palestinians. Would Hope Not Hate/UAF be found guilty by association for simply having him as a member of Hope Not Hate/UAF? And all this despite the fact that this fictional character had never actually come clean about his penchant for terrorism or for violent direct action to anyone except his closest co-conspiritors.
Ban the EDL and then...
Think about it. Nick Lowles is demanding that the Government classify the EDL as an ‘extremist group’. Let’s be clear here. A Communist is informing the Government about another group’s extremism. Yet Lowles is himself a Communist subversive - almost by definition.
Lowles doesn't believe in parliamentary democracy (or indeed in any kind of democracy).
He believes in the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.
The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ means the dictatorship of an elite which is ‘the consciousness of the working class’.
The ‘consciousness of the working class' is the/a Communist party.
And, finally, the Communist is made up of people like himself.
So it is absolutely no surprise that a thoroughgoing anti-democrat should spend most of his life slandering anyone who dare contradict any of his world views. His Stalinist instincts are showing themselves even without him having any real or direct state power. Imagine what this man, and his Communist friends, would do if they had concrete state power. Just imagine it for one moment.
And yet this revolutionary socialist is casting aspersions at the EDL. An EDL which believes in parliamentary democracy. (Even if it is unhappy, like Churchill, with many aspects of the present system; it's still ‘the best out of a bad bunch’.)
Why don’t journalists at least ask Nick Lowles some basic questions about his own politics?
Why are his attempts to limit the freedom of the British people never questioned in any general way?
Why don’t they ask him what his position on parliamentary 'capitalist democracy' is?
Why don’t they ask him what kind of political system he supports and would campaign for?
Why don’t they ask him what his position on Hamas is?
Why don’t they ask him what his position on Afghanistan is?
More importantly, why don’t they ask him what he would do if he had the real political power to deal with the EDL and other right-wing groups?
Indeed, why do they never ask him about anything along these lines?
So far, most regional and national journalists seem to be blissfully ignorant of his real political views and the motivating ideologies which underpin Searchlight/Hope Not Hate. (The same goes for Weyman Bennett/Martin Smith and Unite Against Fascism.)
Lowles is campaigning to get the EDL classified, by the Home Office, as an ‘extremist right-wing organisation’. Why? What exactly does he want from this extreme classification? It is simple (though Lowles cannot be too honest about this just in case he comes across as the Stalinist that he is).
Yes, you guessed it. He wants the EDL to be banned outright. After all, many extremist groups in the past have been banned otherwise there would be little point in the state classifying them as ‘extremist’ in the first place.
What happens when an ‘extremist’ organisation is banned? Some - or even lots - of its member and supporters become angry and disaffected about the denial of their democratic right to be a member of a non-violent organisation. It the EDL case it is an organisation whose literature does not actually contain a single word that can justifiably be deemed as extreme. The EDL can only be deemed extreme if you look at it through the lense of Marxist theory in which any criticism of an 'oppressed group' is by definition both 'fascist' and 'racist'.
What will a large number of the banned group do then? They will continue to protest and they will carry on discussing Islamism, sharia law, etc. on the Internet and in various public places. This will eventually lead to many patriots being arrested and then imprisoned. Then we will truly see the Stalinist repercussion of Lowles fear of free expression - our prisons will start to fill up with members of the EDL. (As well as with the members other patriotic and counter-jihad groups.) Thus Lowles’s Stalinism will, as it were, be made flesh. He will have behaved according to type. That type being a Communist/Stalinist despiser and destroyer of all contrary views.
Now all this may seem a little over the top. It may appear to be over the top because Lowles/Searchlight/UAF etc. don't have any direct or real state power. So clearly filling up our prisons with patriots and counter-jihadists will not be an easy task. But Lowles can still use the non-revolutionary state, the Government and councillors, to carry out selected parts of his Marxist agenda. He can campaign and agitate for more and more extreme actions to be taken against all right-wing or patriotic groups.
That’s what this man and his organisation wants. The question is whether or not the State, and local councils, etc. act on the demands of this hater of free speech. But they have already done so! They have done so by giving EDL members harsh and silly prison sentences for burning the Koran and whatnot. They have also placed 10-year banning orders on EDL members which forbid them from protesting or even accessing EDL material on the Internet. So, in that sense, Lowles’s Stalinist dreams are already becoming reality.
These are the facts about ‘cultural Marxism’ today.
That is, the revolutionaries in Searchlight/UAF, etc. haven't gained literal state power by any stretch of the imagination. However, Marxists have ‘won the culture war’ even if they have ‘lost the economic war’. They haven't actually gained direct state power - the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. So of course we don’t have a Marxist Government or even that many outright Marxist councillors.
That doesn’t matter. Lowles and his fellow Communists have cultural and ideological power. They have successfully shaped and formed how the state and local councils think about numerous issues, such as Islam, the behaviour of Muslims, ‘diversity’, ‘community cohesion’ and multiculturalism generally. That is, they have done exactly
what Gramsci (see image above) demanded. They have gained ‘hegemonic power’ in the councils, at the universities, in the BBC, in the Houses of Parliament and even, believe it or not, within the Anglican and Methodist churches (see 'interfaith').
This is what we are up against. And all this will explain why one day the EDL may indeed be banned.