The ramifications of wartimes are paradoxically positive at times, at least in the sense of leaving drastic changes open to realisable option. The attitude that women should not work, for example, was challenged in times of invasion and the closing of the British ranks. In the face of a national test of character the English are patriotic enough to abdicate ageing but deep rooted sensibilities in favour the common goal, and rightly so, admirably so. Scribed on the side of that most odious of capitalist testaments - without sounding too much like a bitter left-winger - Primark, are the words: "Smash the EDL, Bastard, Scum, Squat, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)." So one is thrown into some kind of turmoil as an Englishman, here we have a puerile flare-up on the skin of Britain known as the English defence league, and the question must be asked - as always is asked - who are the patriots? To use this language as quoted above, however, is to me something which should be avoided for a couple of reasons: The first is not to show the same reprehensible attitude of the thugs, the second is simply to do completely the opposite in order to make an intelligent stance. We could fight with sticks and stones or empty catch-all words but that would be just as redundant as stealing trainers on the pretence of revolutionary struggle. Reactionary and thuggish factions exist in the realms of ignorance, a given, the rhetoric pontificated by stuffed shirts on both sides of the fence is clearly the works of the childish, the simplistic, an insult to nationalism and an outrage on the patriot and the culture of right, or even culture itself. What we see here is a case of fire meets fire, the Hebraic law exerted in the most juvenile way possible - by foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs and throwing stones like drunkard teenagers; those with the Union Jack displayed quite grotesquely across their faces, a bandits bandana. Therefore why should the supposed noble opposition sink to those levels? Though the Englishman has notoriously been ill-at-ease when integrating with other cultures, he was happy to spread himself over one fifth of the planet's land and assume dominion over the natives. Now those ingratiating bigots masquerading as patriots are harking back to the days when the British boot was upon the black and brown faces and Europe was torn apart by fascism and claims of Nordic superiority and this is the name of patriotism! Of course there will be those offended at this point, to think of them as fascists when it is purportedly fascism they oppose. But I find myself asking, is there really a threat of Sharia law in Britain, well, anyone with eyes in his head can say quite emphatically that there is not, not in the slightest. There is no way, what-so-ever, that you could stop the British from drinking alcohol, no matter how many bedraggled, obscurantist and isolated talks those deluded sods of the Islamic right may give. So to punch a Muslim in the face, ostensibly as an act of British nobility, or defence no less, is an act of immaturity and abject ignorance. And yes, we should not let the Islamic right off the hook, but extreme right against extreme right is at best to throw water on the chip-pan. The greatest catalyst for extremism is the constant jingoism, and double-standard of the Neo-Con West; if one is to combat this one must go to the source, which is not its safe to say in the school yards or the playgrounds. And so how foolish still you look when waving the flag of Israel! Now that the empire has long since receded, even crumbled, what should be the British attitude? Should she act in the style of a nervous child, wailing every time the spoon is removed from her mouth, and striking her newer siblings, claiming unfairness, ill-treatment, arbitrary entitlement? What ever happened to "I want doesn't get?" Are we so intellectually and spiritually depleted as to be completely submersed in foolish anger at the hard-working immigrant? The same anger which should be firstly infused with intelligence and secondly aimed and the corrupt rulers and illogical machinations. Or even to lose the charitable soul that has become part of British culture? - British working class culture I might add. No, we can certainly do better than that, we are greater than that. The patriot is not a thug, if the patriot is anything in this country - to me - he is a dissident, a historian, and an intellectual who doesn't mock the ruling class but rather wishes to instil in the idle rich, as within the nation, the maxim "for better or for worse." And if this indeed is a war for the hearts and minds of the people, by God should it never be fought between these morons... if England is to close ranks and clench her fists, let her do it in a way that she could be proud of! "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me." -- Albert Einstein http://www.blottr.com/breaking-news/...e-celebrations
Fortunately there are few people naive enough not to see the EDL and it's odious 'leader', Robinson, for the ignorant racist bigots which they are. The best approach with morons like the EDL is to mock their idiocy, debate them into defeat (not difficult), and advertise their obnoxious fascism to the world. Like the BNP they make a pathetic attempt at public acceptance, but we all know them for what they are-skinheads in suits. As for the concept of 'patriotism', I've yet to hear a plausible reason for it or for the blind allegiance to a place where one finds oneself through an accident of birth.
I would really like to see you debate them in to defeat on the subject of islamic mass immigration. If you can convince that the suicide of western civilization is a good thing i will gladly admit that you're the greatest debater of all times. As for patriotism, the reason why patriotism is a good thing is because if you defend the country you live in, you defend its values and if you live in a western country those values are probably good values. This is something that backstabbing commies like you dont seem to understand. Defending the west from islamic barbarism is not tribalism of any kind, its the moral thing to do.
Defeating the EDL in debate is like taking candy from a baby. They have no 'debate' to offer-just Nazi rants. As for western 'values' I'm old enough to have seen them in action for over half a century; the insanity of Vietnam, the illegality of Iraq, continuous warmongering, the overthrowing of democratically elected foreign governments, the catastrophic crookedness of the banking fraternity, the immorality of the media and the frenzied Islamophobia of the idiot right-wing. If those are the sort of 'values' which you find attractive then I suggest your moral compass might need adjusting somewhat. And another thing; who gave you the power to discern what my political position is-Nostradamus?
Well go ahead then. Make the argument for islamic mass immigration. Im dying to hear it. The insanity of vietnam? You mean trying to prevent the deaths of 2 million cambodians? Illegality of iraq? You mean killing a dictator that had murdered close to 2 million people during his time in power? Continuous warmongering? Western countries are too pacifist already. Which democratically elected governments might those be? Iran, chile and..? As far as the "frenzied islamophobia" goes, you're the one whos being irrational here. Theres nothing irrational about fearing islam. Islam is a perverse death cult and the less of it we have here the better. I despise old hippies like you. You hate western countries but you would never even consider living anywhere else because you know that all the other countries are far worse. The day when the baby boomer hippies die off will be a great day for all of us.
snakestretcher There is indeed a very serious defect in Western culture and values when we are producing people who are happy to destroy our homogeneity and institutions and morally put us on the same level as Russia / China.
Deposing democratically elected governments? Try this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état I'll respond to the rest of your post, item by item, when I have time. There is much stupidity and ignorance there which needs addressing.
By bombing them? What in God's name are you talking about? America heavily bombed Cambodia in the early 70's killing hundreds of thousands and displacing many more along with destroying agricultural land as standard. It is argued, quite fairly, that Pol Pot's regime, the starvation and the genocide was a tragic result of that.
