A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Moderators: DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:09 pm

Racist tide in the Netherlands encounters opposition

The Netherlands are experiencing a wave of racist, sometimes openly violent, actions and street mobilizations, mainly against refugees and the sheltering of refugees. Street mobilizations with an intimidating character have occurred where municipal councils debate whether to establish an AZC (Asielzoekerscentrum, Asylum seekers centre) or an emergency refugee shelter in their city or town. Small scale violence against houses where refugees live occurs repeatedly. Meanwhile, official politics talks about the issue of refugees in a way that portrays them, not as people trying to escape the horrors of war and persecution, but mainly as “fortune-hunters” who only come to the Netherlands to find jobs and social security.

Combining street mobilization with political activity through parliamentary channels, that’s what Geert Wilders does, the leader of a party which is both the smallest and in some sense the biggest in the country. The smallest, because it has only one member, Wilders himself. The biggest, because he attracts more voters in opinion polls than any other politician. And his party is setting the debate, with mainstream politics shifting more and more to the racist right under its pressure. The fact that Wilders was again elected Politician of the Year a few weeks ago in a well-publicized opinion poll on public broadcasting is telling.


Image
Racist protestors on their way to the council meeting in Steenbergen.


Continues at: http://www.doorbraak.eu/racist-tide-in- ... pposition/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:10 pm

American Dream » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:32 am wrote:That's mighty white of y'all to say so!


I'd cringe way harder at an actual white person saying this (like JackRiddler) :eeyaa
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:50 am

jakell » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:59 pm wrote:
tapitsbo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:23 pm wrote:I think at this point we can safely say the decisive factor in whether a group gets the "fascist" tag is ethnicity.

These groups are kept on a short leash by security services, it seems. While they do murder from time to time as was pointed out in the other thread, they commit a vanishingly small fraction of such crimes, overall.

These wrongdoings are interpreted as a threat to the "common good", and therefore much more deserving of concern than most, which is interesting since these groups are so often state-sponsored (much like radical Islamism).

I find the thesis convincing that there is a taboo on organization among European ethnic groups because these peoples are supposed to be "guardians" of a (now crumbling) world order (this is an actual form of white supremacy which is maintained in part by the close watch kept on any possible autonomous groups forming among these folk.)

Part of the threat posed by these organizations is that they suggest Europeans are like any other groups.

Of course there is no plan to "do anything" about these groups as jakell suggests - they are used as necessary containment vessels by the state/establishment.

In coming years they will likely be granted increased power in Europe, but will always be tightly controlled as seems to be the case in places like the Ukraine and Syria...


I've only really properly spoken up here when an article on the UK (there have been a lot of these though) is posted as I'm pretty familiar with the far right here and, more importantly, it's trajectory.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe**, but I think a mistaken impression is given that there is strong parity with this and the UK (for dramatic effect maybe?), whereas in fact the far right never really regrouped after the failure of the BNP and are still pretty well scattered and non-functional, the attempt to replace British Nationalism with White Nationalism, although the obvious next step, is pretty flimsy.

**and especially Eastern Europe.


UKIP is treated with mocking scorn in the UK and the only people fearful of the Far Right are the "AntiFascist" Fear Porn addicts, whose intersection (or more accurately containment within) the Soros funded and generated (but Israel-exempted) "AntiFa" EcoSystem is already well-established.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:09 am

Via: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/glo ... -time.html

Germany needs young people. Its population is dwindling. It doesn't have enough of them to support a rapidly aging German population.

A smart solution to this shortfall would have been to actively recruit millions of young people from around the world -- from India to Tanzania to Argentina to Malaysia to the US.

Instead, for some reason, the people running Germany thought it would be a good idea to use the Syrian crisis as a way to bring millions of young people to their country.

It worked. Germany imported 1.1 m migrants last year.

However, if you dive into the details, it's clear this policy is very dangerous.

* Almost all (~800,000) of these migrants were young, single men (Canada, in contrast, refuses entry to young single men) from Syria. Insurgencies and terrorism run on a fuel of young men.

* These young men are culturally incompatible with EU/US standards re: women, homesexuality, free speech, etc. With a group this large and cohesive, cultural integration will be nearly impossible over any meaningful time period.

* Most of these young men (~500,000-700,000) have recent combat experience earned on the killing fields of a fractured Syria, fighting for a variety of bad causes. This makes them potentially dangerous.

Here's how I believe this will play out:

Social disruption will rise. We are already seeing this with recent attacks by roving gangs of immigrants in Cologne. Further, Schengen will disintegrate as transborder attacks by radicals ramp up. We saw this with an attack by a "German" migrant on a police station in Paris and the flow of weapons/attackers from Brussels during the Paris attacks last year.

Over the medium term? Terrorist violence. This population, and those that soon follow, will soon become the main conduit for extremism in Europe. Its large size, antagonism and cohesiveness will make it impossible to police.

Over the long term? As the demographics of these countries rapidly shift in favor of the new arrivals: open source insurgency. An insurgency that will spread far from the borders of Germany. An insurgency I'm not sure Germany, nor the EU, can win.

PS: What a missed opportunity for Germany and the EU. Instead of recruiting millions of economically and socially beneficial migrants from countries across the world...
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10023
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby Rory » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:36 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:09 am wrote:Via: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/glo ... -time.html

Germany needs young people. Its population is dwindling. It doesn't have enough of them to support a rapidly aging German population.

A smart solution to this shortfall would have been to actively recruit millions of young people from around the world -- from India to Tanzania to Argentina to Malaysia to the US.

Instead, for some reason, the people running Germany thought it would be a good idea to use the Syrian crisis as a way to bring millions of young people to their country.

It worked. Germany imported 1.1 m migrants last year.

However, if you dive into the details, it's clear this policy is very dangerous.

* Almost all (~800,000) of these migrants were young, single men (Canada, in contrast, refuses entry to young single men) from Syria. Insurgencies and terrorism run on a fuel of young men.

* These young men are culturally incompatible with EU/US standards re: women, homesexuality, free speech, etc. With a group this large and cohesive, cultural integration will be nearly impossible over any meaningful time period.

* Most of these young men (~500,000-700,000) have recent combat experience earned on the killing fields of a fractured Syria, fighting for a variety of bad causes. This makes them potentially dangerous.

Here's how I believe this will play out:

Social disruption will rise. We are already seeing this with recent attacks by roving gangs of immigrants in Cologne. Further, Schengen will disintegrate as transborder attacks by radicals ramp up. We saw this with an attack by a "German" migrant on a police station in Paris and the flow of weapons/attackers from Brussels during the Paris attacks last year.

Over the medium term? Terrorist violence. This population, and those that soon follow, will soon become the main conduit for extremism in Europe. Its large size, antagonism and cohesiveness will make it impossible to police.

Over the long term? As the demographics of these countries rapidly shift in favor of the new arrivals: open source insurgency. An insurgency that will spread far from the borders of Germany. An insurgency I'm not sure Germany, nor the EU, can win.

PS: What a missed opportunity for Germany and the EU. Instead of recruiting millions of economically and socially beneficial migrants from countries across the world...


Puts me in mind of that great documentary, Children of Men.
Rory
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:00 pm

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/swed ... ht-europe/

The Far Right Comes to Sweden

Swedish politics has taken a xenophobic turn with the explosive rise of the Sweden Democrats.

by Petter Larsson

Image
A Sweden Democrats subway ad.


“We are on track to win,” Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the radical right Sweden Democrats, told supporters at the party’s annual November congress. “In recent weeks we have seen how the other parties, and especially the Social Democrats and the Conservatives have approached our standpoints on immigration policy at a furious pace. Essential parts of our immigration policy are now being put in place by the Social Democratic government.”

Four days earlier, the red-green coalition government had presented a new package of drastic measures to lower the number of refugees granted asylum in Sweden, in an effort to mitigate increasing popular support for the radical right. Perhaps the Sweden Democrats are not on track to victory, whatever that means, but there is little doubt they have now established themselves as the country’s third largest party, and wield enough power to scare social democrats into doing their work for them.

If you want to explain the dramatic sharpening of Sweden’s asylum policy, it is not enough to point to the small country’s acceptance of more than a hundred thousand refugees (mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq) over the course of three autumn months. Despite the pressure this has placed on officials — imagine the US taking in 3.3 million refugees in the same short period — the recent reversal would not have happened without the political threat posed by the Sweden Democrats.

The Social Democrats and the Conservatives have dominated Swedish politics for nearly a century. Both now face a challenge from a party formed only twenty-five years ago as a violent Nazi sect. The Sweden Democrats took a mere 1,118 votes in its first election in 1988, and did not clear the 4 percent hurdle needed to enter parliament until 2010.

This remarkable development undermines many traditional theories explaining the success of radical right parties, most of them drawn from the experience of European fascism in the 1930s. It underlines the necessity of developing a new understanding of the social forces behind radical, populist right-wing mobilization in Europe, built on a study of the past two decades, in which far-right European parties have grown by seizing new political opportunities rather than merely responding to worsening socioeconomic conditions.

Most political scientists seem to agree that the popularity of the radical right has something to do with the emergence of multicultural societies, globalization, deindustrialization, and other tectonic social shifts. But theories so broad cannot be proved empirically.

Leading Dutch scholar Cas Mudde gathered dozens of recent studies into his 2007 book Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe and found no clear correlation between high rates of unemployment, immigration, or crime and the electoral success of radical right parties. These parties are, Mudde laconically notes, “unlikely to find fertile breeding ground in countries that are (perceived as) monocultural, crimeless, and without political problems, but neither do such places exist.”

Over the past two decades, Western European countries have charted largely similar social trajectories. Most of them also contain reasonably large portions of the population — often 15–30 percent — whose views align with those of radical right parties. But only in some of them, and only occasionally, have these parties managed to achieve significant electoral success.

Contemporary Sweden would not seem like a natural place for a radical right party to grow. The economy is in good shape. Government debt is the lowest it has been in four decades, and growth has held steadily between 2 and 3.5 percent for many years. In just twenty-five years, GDP per capita has risen by more than 50 percent. Unemployment, around 7 percent, is below the European Union average and is predicted to fall further.

The 2008 financial crisis only mildly affected the country. In the first year, GDP plummeted by ten points and unemployment rose by two. Compared to most other countries, however, the crisis was neither very serious nor prolonged.

Racist, homophobic, and misogynist attitudes have been decreasing steadily for decades. In European rankings, the country usually places first in immigrant friendliness and racial tolerance. The public’s trust in politicians has recovered after a long slump, and today polls at the 1970s level of 61 percent. As in most Western countries, crime is falling. The number of murders per capita has halved over the past twenty-five years, and property crime rates have dropped steeply.

No changes in the standard economic or social indicators can alone account for the success of the Sweden Democrats. The party is like the bumblebee — able, against all physical odds, to fly.

The Culture Wars

What has changed, however, is the political landscape. In Western Europe, the dominant line of political conflict has long been drawn between a socialist left and a liberal right. In both rhetoric and practice, this line has been particularly bright in Sweden. The country may well be the most secular on earth, with religion long separated from politics. It also lacks seriously politicized regional divisions and is relatively ethnically homogenous.

Crudely put, political battles in Sweden have typically pitted proponents of an exceptionally strong social democracy, drawn from the working class and a large portion of the middle class, against a center-right bloc led by the Conservatives seeking to lower taxes and limit the state’s involvement in the market. For much of the twentieth century, the Right’s accommodation to social-democratic hegemony was so pronounced that American readers could take the Swedish center-right for US Democratic Party figures.

Historically, cultural issues have not featured in the country’s electoral politics. As in the rest of Western Europe, this began to change in the 1960s and 1970s, with the rise of the new social movements. The left-right conflict over redistribution did not, of course, disappear, but it was gradually transvalued by disagreements between authoritarian and liberal ideals on sociocultural issues.

The first new political formation to emerge in response to these developments was the Swedish Green Party, which appeared in 1980. Claiming to have moved beyond the left-right division, party members built their entire platform around “new” issues. They were the children of the cultural revolution, and their program came to color the entire political landscape, as other Green parties did in parliaments across Western Europe.

The radical right parties that have emerged in Europe over the past two decades represent the cultural counterrevolution. They mobilize on the same issues as the Greens, but for opposing ends, seeking to reestablish traditional values, hierarchies, and ethnic homogeneity. Structured by mutual antagonism, these two party families have together reshaped Swedish politics.

The changing priorities of the mainstream parties have been followed by a shift in their respective class bases. The Greens and other cultural-liberal parties find most of their support in the well-educated middle classes, while the right populist parties tend to draw votes from male workers and those with lower levels of formal education.

Like their counterparts in Denmark, Norway, and Austria, about two-thirds of Sweden Democrats voters have backgrounds in blue-collar professions. They are not members of the country’s poorest or most vulnerable populations, but those clinging to the upper rungs of the working class. The typical Sweden Democrats supporter holds steady employment, receives a near median income, and owns a house.

It could be seen as a tragic displacement of the class struggle. The same lines remain drawn, but the conflict is expressed in narrowly cultural terms. One might say the Sweden Democrats and other radical right parties have created a sort of identity politics for white men with low education, who seek to overturn their cultural, rather than economic, marginalization.

Into the Mainstream

The breakthrough of the radical right came comparatively late in Sweden. In the early 1990s, an economic crisis far more serious than the 2008 recession hit the country, prolonging the economy’s domination of the political agenda for the entire decade and leaving little room for new issues or parties.

When the crisis subsided, the political landscape had shifted. The ruling Social Democrats had been pushed to accept the neoliberal dogmas of low inflation, budget surpluses, privatization, and supply-side labor policy.

The Social Democrats’ right turn was the first great movement into the new political frontier. In the same period, liberal cultural ideals firmly took root in Sweden’s political foundation, and the Social Democrats began to rebrand itself as a feminist, antiracist, gay-friendly party.

The second great movement began in 2005, when the Conservatives took a big step to the left. Party strategists finally accepted that they could only rarely win elections with an agenda that overtly challenged the welfare state and workers rights. They busily jettisoned the symbols that associated the party with the upper class, even issuing a ban on pearl necklaces for their representatives. They scrapped the tax cuts for which they had always fought, started to defend existing employment security laws, vowed to preserve public-sector funding levels, and even declared themselves the “new workers party.”

They also made concessions to prevailing liberal views on cultural issues. After winning the 2006 election, the Conservatives’ popular minister of finance, Anders Borg, called himself a feminist. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt took every opportunity to make antiracist statements. In power, the center-right government took steps to continue dismantling the military, enforced protections for gay marriage, and tended to support what is often described as the world’s most liberal rules for migrant workforce immigration.

By the 2014 elections, this double movement had progressed to the point where the traditional right-left divide between the major parties on economic issues had become thinner than ever. The leading parties sounded, and largely acted, like clones.

The Sweden Democrats could now convincingly portray themselves as the only real opposition to a united establishment out of touch with popular opinion. They established immigration as the proxy issue through which the conflict would be waged. When the votes were tallied, the party had won 12.9 percent, cutting into the Conservatives’ constituency and in the process securing a pivotal role in parliament.

For Sweden Democrats voters, politics is no longer primarily about the economy. With no party to fight for their material interests, they choose the one that pursues their cultural priorities — that promises to stop “Islamization,” crack down on perceived freeloaders and criminals, keep gays marginalized, bash “politically correct” elites in Stockholm and Brussels, and, in short, “give Sweden back to us,” as the Sweden Democrats’ slogan puts it.

The process that led to this new status quo in Sweden, in other words, resembles those that have delivered sizable constituencies to the UK Independence Party and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany. Perhaps it is the beginning of a long-term Americanization of European politics.

The 2014 election returns initiated a sea change within the center-right. With the Sweden Democrats capturing larger portions of the electorate, the party’s ideological framework has been normalized, and is now reinforced even by those hostile to its agenda.

It was only ten years ago that many newspapers lifted a ban on the party’s advertising and began to publish members’ opinion pieces. Now, media outlets across the country make sure to include the party and its platform in opinion polling, and take pains to avoid describing it as racist or xenophobic.

A handful of influential papers have shifted their editorial lines so far that they now almost resemble party organs, employing a populist rhetoric previously consigned to the radical right. Immigration, pundits bleat, threatens the welfare state; immigrants create social problems and commit crimes; refugees carry a Trojan Horse packed with Islamic State terrorists; a preening elite of unworldly do-gooders rule Sweden; and so on.

Increasingly, local politicians spring up to champion legislation of an unmistakably right-populist cast. At the national level, the small Liberals party, in coalition with the Conservatives, has flirted with anti-immigration sentiment by proposing language tests for citizenship, a ban on Muslim veils in schools, and narrower asylum eligibility.

Today, 55 percent of Swedes say immigration is the most important issue; the environment ranks a distant second at 13 percent. This in a country where until just a few years ago no issue could compete with education, health care, or jobs. Swedish politics is now trapped in a vicious circle. The larger the Sweden Democrats grows, the larger immigration looms in the public’s mind, and vice versa.

Three of the four parties that make up the center-right parliamentary bloc have concluded that they can stem the leakage of voters to the Sweden Democrats by taking positions that resemble the new party’s, and now vie to outpace one another in a race to the authoritarian side.

Over the course of just a year, the country’s political discourse has so drastically transformed in both tone and content that the Sweden Democrats’ worldview no longer appears as part of a radical fringe, but rather a prominent fixture of the mainstream.

For now, all major parties still refuse to explicitly cooperate with the radical right. But if this balance of forces persists for even a few more years, the Conservatives will be forced to choose between irrelevance and coalition with the Sweden Democrats, which would likely guarantee a stable right-bloc majority for many years to come.

Next Moves

The radical right has not passively inherited its success, but diligently labored to create an opening for itself. At least three moves have been key: working to remove the stigma around the party, establishing friendly media outlets, and rebirthing itself through a concentrated regional campaign.

The biggest obstacle facing the Sweden Democrats in their quest for mainstream respectability has always been the party’s origin in the fascist and white supremacist movements of the late 1980s. Well into the nineties, party militants, many of them drawn from neo-Nazi sects, marched the streets in uniforms under heavy police protection. The party’s rhetoric and its programs dripped with unconcealed racism, antisemitism, and contempt for democracy, making it anathema to all but a few voters.

The effort to break ties to street fascism and make the party presentable to the electorate have long been the Sweden Democrats’ overriding concern — especially since a younger, more professional leadership took over in 2005. The Sweden Democrats’ ongoing de-demonization project resembles the one led by Marine Le Pen for its French sister party, the National Front.

Biological racism has been replaced with cultural racism, which casts non-Europeans — Muslims in particular — as militants pushing values incompatible with supposedly organic “Swedish” ones. Antisemitism has been almost entirely abandoned and replaced by a more politically viable Islamophobia.

The Sweden Democrats actively cultivate the counter-jihadist conspiracy theory that Europe is facing an invasion of Muslim immigrants, who in time will destroy the welfare state and Swedish culture. Muslim immigration, party leader Jimmie Åkesson once said, is “our greatest foreign threat since World War II.”

The party is still full of adherents who cannot keep their mouths shut, and the de-demonization campaign has not been easy. Setbacks have included brazen expressions of homophobia and calls by local representatives to “eliminate” Minister of Migration Tobias Billström and to grant asylum to Anders Breivik, the Norwegian fascist terrorist who murdered seventy-seven people in 2011.

In response, the party has expelled scores of members and, in September, even severed ties with its youth organization, which the leadership viewed as embarrassingly extreme. It has managed to project an image of the party as not totally unblemished by racists and extremists, but now in the hands of a leadership doing all it can to clean out such odious elements.

De-demonization has also entailed a broadening of policy and ideology. The party has dropped several demands proven to be unpalatable, such as deporting naturalized foreign-born residents and reintroducing the death penalty (abolished in peacetime since 1921).

In 2011, the Sweden Democrats designated social conservatism as part of its official ideology, a pillar equal to nationalism in the construction of its new agenda. In recent years officials have developed new programs for almost every area of politics and added to immigration new concerns, including “law and order,” military defense, pensions, and elderly care. The party has now proven itself able to appeal to voters far beyond its traditional core.

Parallel to the Sweden Democrats’ ingratiating efforts, the larger radical right movement has established countless new internet propaganda channels. Most important are a few websites for daily news and commentary from a radical right perspective, most of them amateur blogs only recently professionalized. Together they reach several hundred thousand readers every week, a figure on par with that of the major broadsheets.

The radical right is well on the way to establishing a public sphere of its own, in which adherents can find their beliefs reinforced without challenge and budding fascists can be recruited. Since these outlets are officially independent from the party, Sweden Democrats representatives can reap the benefits while dissociating themselves from any crimes or distasteful transgressions committed by extra-party actors.

The final noteworthy move is the canny strategy the party adopted in the early 2000s. The Sweden Democrats entered the decade mostly unknown, financially weak, and still stigmatized by its association with the extreme right. It chose to concentrate its meager resources on the southern region of Skåne.

The area was well known for a receptiveness to fascist traditions reaching back to the 1930s. More importantly, there were already a number of small protest parties, many of them outspokenly xenophobic, with representatives in local governments. Some of these parties were persuaded to fold themselves into the Sweden Democrats, others joined them in alliances, and the rest were simply outcompeted.

In 2006, while the party only received 2.9 percent in the national elections, it conquered seats in one local government after another in Skåne, often with more than 10 percent of the vote. In the rundown, industrial town of Landskrona, the party took 22 percent.

These regional victories granted the party several million krona from the country’s tax-financed campaign system. More importantly, the party had proven itself a real political force, and its success occasioned sustained media debate. Skåne, and Landskrona in particular, became a national advertisement for the far right.

Nine years later the party attracts comparable levels of support nationally, counting more than 19 percent in opinion polls.

If the Left fails to halt their momentum, we may very well witness the greatest transformation of Swedish politics since the breakthrough of the Social Democrats in 1911. And it is a truly horrible one.
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:05 pm

January 2016: Bits and Bites

Image

Yeah, Paulie is now shilling with James Sears. Honestly, we're not quite sure who should make us feel more icky: imagining Fromm in his bondage costume or Sears in general.

Now, "Your Ward News" hasn't exactly been subtle in its racism and antisemitism, but Sears seems to have decided not to bother with even the vague pretext of using euphemisms:


Image


At least Paulie still dances around a bit, though his use of ALL CAPS makes us wonder if he is having a stroke:

WARREN KINSELLA SEEKS TO CENSOR YOUR WARD NEWS & CAFE

WARREN KINSELLA IS IS LIFELONG LIBERAL PARTY WARRIOR. HE HAS STYLED HIMSELF AS A `CHRETIEN ATTACK DOG`AND, OVER THE YEARS, WORKED THE BACKROOMS OF MANY A CAMPAIGN. BACK IN 1994, HE PENNED A HEAVY BREATHER `WEB OF HATE`: INSIDE CANADA`S FAR RIGHT NETWORK -- A SCREED, WIDELY DISMISSED AS `HILL OF DUNG,`IT WAS RIFE WITH ERRORS AND LONG ON NASTINESS.

OVER THE YEARS, THE CONTROVERSIAL KINSELLA HAS FALLEN OUT WITH MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING FELLOW LIBERALS.

HE HAS BEEN A LONG-TIME SIDEKICK OF BERNIE FARBER, FORMERLY COMMUNITY RELATIONS HEAD OF THE NOW DEFUNCT CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS AND DEFINITELY NO FRIEND OF FREE SPEECH. ``LIBERAL USED TO MEAN OPEN MINDED AND PRO-FREEDOM. THE LIBERALISM IS WARREN KINSELLA IS MEAN AND CENSORIOUS. HE IS THE ULTIMATE OPERATIVE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

HIS CURRENT TARGET IS A COMMUNITY MONTHLY CALLED YOUR WARD NEWS THAT IS DISTRIBUTED IN THE BEACH -- KINSELLA`S EAST TORONTO NEIGHBOURHOOD. IT IS EDGY, CONTROVERSIAL AND CHALLENGES POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND HAS EVEN QUESTIONED THE NEW SECULAR RELIGION OF `HOLOCAUST`.

KINSELLA IS BESIDE HIMSELF BECAUSE YOUR WARD NEWS IS DISTRIBUTED BY CANADA POST (UNDER CONTRACT). HE, LEFTIST POSTIES AND OTHERS WHO DON`T BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH HAVE PROTESTED.

THE LATEST CAUSE OF KINSELLA`S IRE IS THE FACT THAT DR. JAMES SEARS, YOUR WARD NEWS`DYNAMIC NEW PUBLISHER, IS TO SPEAK AT A CAFE MEETING THIS WEEK. KINSELLA IS CALLING FOR POLICE ACTION AGAINST YOUR WARD NEWS. ONE MUST SUPPOSE THAT HE IS SO LACKING IN CONFIDENCE IN HIS OWN RESEARCH THAT HE RELIES ON THE SCABROUS U.S. SMEAR GROUP, THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTRE, FOR A DISTORTED BLAST AT CAFE AND PAUL FROMM.^THE SPLC ARE WIDELY KNOWN AS `THE POVERTY PIMPS`THEY SPREAD WILD STORIES ABOUT A `NAZI`REVIVAL AND KLANSMEN AROUND EVERY CORNER AND SEPARATE A HUGE MAILING LIST OF RICH JEWS FROM MOUNTAINS OF MONEY. THEY SIT ON A WAR CHEST ESTIMATED IN EXCESS OF $130-MILLION.

THE SPLC HAS MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO TRY TO GET THE BEQUEST OF CANADIAN ROBERT MCCORKILL TO THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OVERTURNED AS IT IS ÀGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. CAFE HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE INTERVENER IN THIS CASE SEEKING TO UPHOLD FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

IN THE SPLC`S WORLD, AND PRESUMABLY KINSELLA`S, IF YOU DISSENT ON IMMIGRATION OR ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN FREE DEBATE ON IMMIGRATION OR HISTORICAL CLAIMS, WHY YOU MUST BE A NAZI. OH, SORRY, FROMM WAS BORN AFTER 1945, SO THAT MAKES HIM A `NEO-NAZI`.


Dude. Stop shouting. Seriously, it's not cool.



http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2 ... bites.html
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:54 pm

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2016/01/int ... -in-dover/

Interview: Opposing the Far-Right in Dover

On Saturday 30 January, fascists and assorted racists from a range of far-right groups will descend on the port town of Dover. Their aim is to incite racial hatred, primarily against Muslims, exploiting the so-called ‘migrant crisis’ to call for cast-iron border controls and white unity.

In response, antifascists from across the country will be turning out to oppose the far-right and its message. NovaraWire sent a reporter to interview Sam* from the Anti-Fascist Network (AFN), a UK-wide coalition of antifascist activists, about developments in the far-right and the growth of community-based antifascism.



NovaraWire: You are organising the second antifascist mobilisation we’ve seen in Dover in recent months. Could you tell us a little bit more about the organisations you are mobilising against? What happened the first time?

Sam: We’re mobilising against a coalition of far-right groups** which has developed in part as a reactionary response to the migrant crisis. The coalition is made up of nearly every group on the far-right which has a street presence, with the exception of Britain First. The two main groups behind this protest are the North West Infidels and the South East Alliance (SEA), although the National Front is also heavily involved, particularly Kent organiser Mark Freeman. Between them they’ve mobilised nearly every group which split from the English Defence League (EDL) and a handful of neo-Nazi groups. They’ve also been able to mobilise some of the more violent EDL groups who don’t seem to have a problem working with neo-Nazis.

Last time we were in Dover there were around 200 fascists from more than 13 different groups opposed by roughly 150 anti-fascists, predominantly from the AFN but also including some locals. We took the far-right’s rally point and were then attacked by the fascists who had formed up at a nearby pub. We successfully repelled the fascist attack before the police intervened. Safely behind police lines the far-right started throwing masonry at us from which a few people picked up minor injuries. We were surrounded by the police but broke out of the containment and blocked the route of the far-right march. We were then surrounded by police again who created a space for the far-right to go around us. Then the far-right broke through police lines and attacked our group again, throwing a range of missiles at us while we were surrounded by the police.

When it kicked off we lost some of our less militant support so at this point there were only around 80 of us trying to hold the street. Realising we were significantly outnumbered and having been unable to prevent the fascists from marching to the roundabout at the entrance to the port we decided to pull out of the area. This was actually the second time we had mobilised in Dover, the first time we were in town was in January 2015 where there was a much smaller turn out on both sides. There was a lot of shouting and a mass brawl on the seafront but not a lot to write home about. However, there was a far-right protest a few months before at which Nick Griffin [former leader of the British National Party] spoke and which was completely unopposed.

NW: How large is the threat from the radical right at the moment? What is the significance of this mobilisation?


S: Well the far-right aren’t really in a position where they’re anywhere near seizing power, but they’re a threat which the left needs to be taking seriously. Even in January, this could be the most significant antifascist mobilisation to take place this year and it’s probably more important than any of the mobilisations since the peak of the EDL.

Following the collapse of the British National Party (BNP) and the demise of the EDL, the far-right has been in a period of regroupment. The SEA is led by a Greek-Cypriot called Paul Prodromou who is obsessed with the idea of far-right ‘unity’; he’s been trying to bring together all the disparate parts of the far-right for years, often with little success. But the last Dover mobilisation was the first time something he’s been involved with has pulled significant numbers and the right think it was a big victory for them. If they get what they think is a victory again in Dover they will potentially be more unified; the organisational links developed at the last Dover protest will be strengthened, and there’s a risk something longer lasting will come out of the coalition.

Another thing people need to be concerned about is the far-right developing its capacity for violence against the left. The last Dover protest came about a month after London-based SEA supporters organised an attack on left-wing football fans in Thamesmead which saw a game get called off. Had that not happened they would probably not have been as confident as they were when we took their rally spot. Off the back of [previous demonstrations in] Dover far-right groups have been mobilising to oppose refugee solidarity events, in Portsmouth and Bristol in particular. They wouldn’t have had the confidence to do that if it hadn’t been for their perceived victories in Thamesmead and Dover.

If they get what they think is a victory again in Dover there is a very real risk for increased violence towards the left from the far-right, and this could move away from the terrain of antifascism and into other spheres the left organise in. If we get a clear victory in Dover we could put back the process of far-right regroupment and seriously dent their capability to organise against us. I’ll never forget seeing how timid Prodromou looked when he was hiding in a ditch at the first Dover protest we opposed. We want the whole of the far-right to be that timid, all the time.

NW: One of the positive developments in the AFN last year was the development of relationships with other, perhaps less militant organisations, and a real attempt at developing a mixed approach to antifascist mobilisation. How is this process developing?

S: Firstly, I think we’ve always advocated a mixed approach to antifascist mobilisations. If you look at our big mobilisations over the past few years they’ve generally all been community mobilisations where we’ve pushed for people to take direct action. I’m thinking here of ‘March for England’ in Brighton and things like the EDL’s attempts to march through Tower Hamlets and Walthamstow. When the SEA were protesting in Cricklewood in north west London we worked with community groups and trade unions in a group called North West London United.

But yeah, a couple of things have happened in the past year which have been really positive. One is groups across the autonomous/activist left affiliating to the AFN, the other is an influx of socialists and trade unionists off the back of the victory in Liverpool against neo-Nazi youth crew National Action.

Stopping National Action’s ‘White Man March’ was exactly the kind of mobilisation we want to be organising: a large community mobilisation supported by militant antifascists which collectively takes direct action to prevent the far-right from taking to the streets. Funnily enough this is what the better Unite Against Fascism (UAF) activists always used to tell us they were trying to do through UAF.

Now UAF has lost a lot of its influence in the wake of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) rape crisis, a lot of these antifascists have started working with the AFN and we also have fairly good relationships with a few grassroots UAF supporters. The collapse of the SWP has really hit UAF and it’s created a bit of an organisational vacuum in British antifascism which we’re trying to fill. We need more support from the labour movement but we’re doing alright.

NW: What can people do to help and how can they get down to Dover?


S: People need to support their local antifascist groups: get involved, give time and money, but most importantly make sure you’re in Dover. We need as many people as possible in Dover to ensure we outnumber what could potentially be quite a large far-right mobilisation. Last time the far-right had people from Scotland flying down to support their protest, we need to be matching that at least and getting everybody down there.

At the moment there are coaches going from London, Brighton and Berkshire [starting from Oxford] and more are being planned. If people can get to one of those areas tickets are relatively cheap. Manchester Antifascists are also sorting out some transport and I’m aware of a few other groups who’re organising stuff in their local areas. People should contact their nearest antifascist group, if there isn’t one people should look at the possibility of getting a crew together and driving down. There’s also public transport to Dover and if anybody feels like coming over from France it’s only a short ferry ride away.

NW: Finally, what can we expect to see from the far right this year? How is AFN developing to keep on top of this?

S: The group to watch are probably Britain First. They’re never going to unite the far-right but they are capable of hoovering up disaffected Ukip voters and the kind of people who went on EDL protests but don’t like neo-Nazis. PEGIDA UK will be a flop (again), the BNP will continue shrinking, the National Front will probably split again and National Action will carry on as if more than 3m people haven’t seen a video of black guys throwing bananas at them. As for the rest of the groups attending Dover, a lot depends on what happens on the 30th.

One of the big trends in the far-right over the past few years has been people getting involved in the EDL and then drifting further right. There aren’t really fresh people getting involved in the EDL now but a lot of people who passed through it will continue drifting to the right. We can expect to see neo-Nazi groups flourishing in relative terms and the EDL getting closer still to winding up.

We can also expect to see more violence directed towards the left. Last year saw a range of far-right attacks on antifascist and left-wing targets and we can expect these to continue and increase in intensity, unless the left starts taking antifascism seriously.

The AFN is continuing to organise against the far-right, monitoring their activity and intervening where necessary. We have been growing and as we get more organised and more people get involved we will have more successes. We’ve shown what we can achieve with a tiny fraction of the resources UAF had access to – imagine what we could achieve with a similar level of support from the labour movement.

*This name has been changed.

**Full list of far-right groups expected in Dover: National Front, South East Alliance, North West Infidels, East Kent Patriots, English Volunteer Force, Scottish Defence League, Right Wing Resistance, Berkshire Infidels, Bristol United Patriots, Bishop Auckland Against Islam, West Midlands Infidels, North East Infidels, Misanthropic Division, National Action, National Rebirth of Poland, and some current and former EDL groups.
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:42 pm

The above article is full of the usual contradictory statements such as:

"PEGIDA UK will be a flop (again)**, the BNP will continue shrinking, the National Front will probably split again and National Action will carry on as if more than 3m people haven’t seen a video of black guys throwing bananas at them"

"We can expect to see neo-Nazi groups flourishing in relative terms "

The 'neo nazi' angle is probably the one to watch, but it's forever vague and conveniently never gets fleshed out, just lots of mentions of those other groups who seem to be fading and yet a threat at the same time. One thing is for sure, if something solid does emerge and gets properly written about, you won't see it here except maybe in passing amongst the bewildering parade of variable quality stuff.

A proper course of action would be to see a follow up on such articles as the above, describing what actually happened at the event compared to their, (possibly inflated) predictions, same goes for that Scottish/European far right gig they are promoting in advance.


** They were talking this up in a recent article posted here.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby Searcher08 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:51 pm

jakell » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:42 pm wrote:
A proper course of action would be to see a follow up on such article as the above, describing what actually happened at the event compared to their, (possibly inflated) predictions, same goes for that Scottish far right gig they are promoting in advance.


** They were talking this up in a recent article posted here.


I agree.

My thoughts are that these organisations (both left and right) are probably composed of about 50% Special Branch and MI5 infiltrators who are on high rates of overtime and trying to work out who is who and who like a good punch-up once in a while.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:14 pm

TBH, I'm finding the tone and depth of such articles as the above to be an improvement on simplistic sloganising of the BNP-only days**, it's like they've finally realised that things have changed and they are going to have to do some proper thinking.

I think seeing them filtered through this 'pile 'em high' medium has given me a jaundiced view. It would be nice to see a proper breakdown of the alleged British neo-nazi menace, plus follow-ups of these sorts of events in addition to the standard predictions and dire warnings.

** I think the fact that it was an interview helped with this.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:41 pm

User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:56 pm

Almost unbearable irony!
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby brekin » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:45 pm

Was reading last night about prisoner/internment/concentration camps in Vichy France. Nothing changes. The Vichy government would fight with their masters in the Nazi government about how many Jews they would accept, how many they could deport to Germany, Poland, etc. This was pre-Final Solution. I was amazed at the extent of legal steps Vichy France took to out-Nazi the Nazis with French and migrant Jews. The Nazi thinking at the time was to get all Jews out of Germany (after confiscating all their property) but it became such a logistical and pr nightmare that when the Allied governments would complain about the treatment and conditions of Jews in camps and ghettos, the Axis powers would say ok we'll give the Jews to you (these even were orphaned Jewish children detained in transit camps) and of course, England, America all balked, quotas, paperwork, blah blah (if not in talk but in deed).

The Nazis after a time discovered that no one really wanted to take the now stateless Jews, and so realized that if they implemented the Final Solution, the extinction of a whole people could go through unimpeded, and with them most likely to become victors it could all be blown away in the fog of war. And as time went on they realized releasing large numbers of Jews that had been persecuting to other countries would create a dissident army anyways.

Seeing something similar with the stateless Syrian and other migrants is heart wrenching. They are basically made stateless by the War on Terror, and now country after country is basically saying again, "we don't want them, you take them." The sad fate of many Jews were spent in repeatedly trying to get papers to emigrate or get deported to other countries. Before the concentration camps, and even in the transit camps on the way there, many Jews and their families there and abroad were trying to gain admission into a friendly country. Just fucking sad that many are in the stateless position of having to spend their lives gaining acceptance into a country that really doesn't want them. God help them if Europe goes to war with ISIS.

Ironically, the big variation on the theme is that many now are risking their lives to get into Germany.

Image
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby semper occultus » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:47 pm

brekin » 22 Jan 2016 19:45 wrote:Ironically, the big variation on the theme is that many now are risking their lives to get into Germany.



......now this is irony.....

Netanyahu Rejects Calls for Israel to Accept Syrian Refugees
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data Dump

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests