Last week a post-doctoral researcher at a major British university emailed me to ask whether I was willing to be interviewed as part of “a cross European project looking at populist politics”. As he described it, “the project is looking at different manifestations of populism across Europe, and as part of the UK section we’re hoping to interview some writers from a number of conservative websites that deal with the UK and Europe more widely.”
After an exchange of emails, I consented to do a written interview. My conditions were that I would not answer any questions until any potentially loaded terms were defined to my satisfaction, and that I would publish the questions and my responses at Gates of Vienna. He agreed, provided that I refrain from identifying him, or his university, or the sponsors of his project.
I was expecting the usual terminology employed by leftist academics — “Islamophobia”, “xenophobia”, “racist”, “right-wing extremist”, etc. — which is why I insisted on having any such terms defined in advance. But when the questions finally arrived, I was pleasantly surprised to find them largely neutral in tone. The only phrase that needed to be defined was “far-right”, as used in the following question:
“GoV has been criticised in the past as promoting a counter-jihadist narrative that in turn promotes far-right violence (see attached report: Kundnani, 2012: 6). Do you think this is a valid or fair criticism? How would you respond to claims like these?” [emphasis added]
I wrote back and asked the interviewer: “What do you (or your sponsoring organization) mean by ‘far-right’?”
While I’m waiting for his definition (and working on the answers), let’s take a look at the attached report to get an idea of the quagmire into which the baronial boot has just stepped.
“Kundnani 2012” refers to a research paper entitled “Blind Spot? Security Narratives and Far-Right Violence in Europe” by Dr. Arun Kundnani. It is similar to other papers discussed in this space, such as the report the by International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), which has been dealt with at length here previously.
But this one seems to be even further to the left than the ICSR report. The author is a former fellow at the Open Society Foundations, that is, the heart of George Soros’ operations. The sponsoring organization is International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague, which describes itself as “an independent knowledge centre that focuses on information creation, collation and dissemination pertaining to the preventative and international legal aspects of counter-terrorism.”
In his abstract of the paper, Dr. Kundnani says this:
This paper discusses the challenges of countering far-Right political violence in the wake of the terrorist attack carried out by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway in July 2011. With brief case studies of Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium, it argues that classic neo-Nazi groups are being supplemented by new ‘counter-jihadist’ far-Right movements, which use various modes of political action, including participation in elections, street-based activism and terrorist violence. Building on recent interest among scholars and practitioners in the role of narratives and performativity in counter-terrorism, this paper argues that official security discourses tend to hinder efforts to counter far-Right violence and can unwittingly provide opportunities for counter-jihadists to advance their own narratives. When leaders and officials of Western European governments narrate issues of multiculturalism and radical Islamism in ways that overlap with counter-jihadist ideology, it suggests a need for reflection on the unintended side-effects of their security discourse. The paper concludes with a discussion of how governments can rework their security narratives to oppose far-Right violence.
As you can see, standard mind-numbing academic jargon pervades the script, with “narratives” and “discourse” playing important roles. Not to mention “performativity” — whatever the heck that is.
The obvious intention is the same one that has become so drearily familiar to us over the past two years: to make non-violent opponents of Islamization somehow responsible for the deeds of Anders Behring Breivik, no matter what intellectual gymnastics are necessary to shoehorn the facts into the desired “narrative”.
In the paper itself, Robert Spencer, Ba’et Yor [sic], and Fjordman are described as “conspiracy theorists”. Gates of Vienna draws some brief attention, as do David Horowitz, The Brussels Journal, and other Islam-critical writers and outlets with which most readers are already familiar.
As I skimmed the report, I noticed near the end (in Part 5, the “Annex”, on page 33) a list of “major incidents of far-Right violence in Europe since 1990”. The author tells us that “Based on the following cases, it can be provisionally estimated that 249 persons have been killed in Europe as a result of far-Right violence since 1990.”
In other words: If we look at the pre-Breivik figures, from 1990 to 2011 — a period of more than two decades, and as determined by a left-wing organization that might be expected to dig up every single relevant incident that could possibly be found — 172 people were killed in acts of right-wing violence.
To put this figure into perspective, consider this: In a single day in 2004, a single Islamic terrorist attack killed 191 people in Madrid. That is, one isolated Islamic terror attack in Spain killed 19 more people than all the (lefty-defined) right-wing terror attacks in Europe for more than twenty years.
It would in fact be hard to track all the deaths caused by Islamic violence in Europe since 1990, because there have been so many. They include not just terror attacks and individual murders such as that of Theo Van Gogh, but also “honor” killings and other forms of lethal violence that accompany Islam wherever it migrates.
And you can bet that ICCT isn’t even attempting to calculate this number. It’s much more important to them to monitor all those Nazis and fascists — those nasty “far-right” villains who are poised to assume power the moment the dedicated disciples of the Left relax their vigilance for even a moment.
So this is the milieu that we’re up against. I harbor no illusions that I’ll be changing anybody’s mind.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
“But, Baron,” you say, “why are you even talking to this fellow? You know what the final paper will look like, after all the ‘research’ is done. Why set yourself up?”
That’s a valid question. I’m aware of what we’re up against. And I realize that when you sup with the devil, you need a long spoon.
But if the outcome has been decided in advance, why not expose the process by which it is contrived to the light of day?
The report will arrive at the conclusions with which we are all familiar. We will in some manner be held responsible for what Anders Behring Breivik did, regardless of anything we might say or do. There’s nothing that can be done to change that.
So Gates of Vienna readers might as well have a look at the questions I am asked, and the answers I give, before the research paper is ever drafted or published.
I agreed to respect the confidentiality of the people and institutions doing the research, but that really doesn’t matter. Any major British university “looking at populist politics” is going produce more or less the same results. When you see a paper of this sort emerge from the academic cloisters of the UK, you may assume that the method of producing it was similar to the one that will be revealed here.
We’ll just take this as an opportunity to peek behind the scrim and see how these things are done. The flavor of the sausage is pre-determined, but a look at the sausage-making process may well be instructive.
Sup with the devil indeed, but you feel you must. I have a daughter doing statistics and I told her tonight I have no faith in “academe”. She agreed. I argued with her on global warming statistics. She agreed. I asked then why if she was so cynical why would she even continue, when she has already with an MA been offered good jobs. To get a good job. I asked if as a PHD she could get a good job. She said she might, but everyone has to start in the mailroom. With a PhD. She just wants the doctorate. I suspect I reached the end of my argument and since she has paid for every bit of it herself though scholarships and work, I have no say. I will say I am proud of her determination and hard headedness.
Take some well-deserved parental pride, too, in the fact that despite a life of education by the indoctrinated, your daughter kept her own intellectual independence. You played some role in that development, so bravo.
Mi’ Lud, I admir your bravery, I wonder what the received definition of ‘far right’ will be:
‘a term of vilification based upon a WW2 propaganda exercise (i.e. lies) in separation of Stalinist Communism from its near twin National Socialism’
or
‘ a group of people believing in minimalist central government’
The “Left wing” espouses a growing State control, which is essentially “fascistic” and “socialistic” by nature. Suppressing individuality, human freedom, and inborn “natural” rights.
The “Right wing” promotes individualism, a smaller State, and is thereby called “fascistic” to demonize it by the actual fascistic-leaning socialist crowd on the left.
Nazi-ism, AKA “National socialism”- has been considered “right wing” when it’s push for State socialism is a leftist ideal using violent means.
“Communism”, the logical end result of the socialistic ideal, is almost never criticized by the “anti-fascist” Left for its own violent State methods- from kulak killing engineered famines, mass deportations, gulags, show trials, purges, suppression of freedom, and the terrorizing Police State, ad nauseam, because the root ideology harmonize with the dogmas and wished-for aims of the Left (a force-Utopian-ized nation).
To now oppose an expansionistic, militant theocratic totalitarian- AKA Islam- (aiming at a communistic ideal of its own, creating a kind of global gulag run by mullahs [political commissars with Korans instead of Das Kapital]) is considered by the “no borders/one world” Leftist crowd as “right wing”.
Which means that the Left is utterly schizophrenic.
Since everything Islam proposes, the Left would otherwise oppose-e.g.: the inequality of women, the sanctified murder of homosexuals, the obliteration of freedom of conscience, the elimination of free speech, etc., etc.- but refuses to do so in the case of Islam because they are given a magical “Other” status as a “poor, oppressed, colonial victim/ brown-skinned minority” which can do no wrong, and dare not be criticized.
Islam attacks and weakens the surviving shreds of the West’s power, which the Left has always sought to undermine and end since the Soviet days, so the “anti-fascist” Leftists are now happy to continue this anarchronistic “anti-colonial” impulse in order to aid the theocratic-fascistic Muslim movement, and exonerate it from any guilt or serious scrutiny, essentially getting in bed with a devil- Islam- to destroy a greater devil, in their minds- The Arrogant West.
Even though they are products of the finest achievements West, and have inherited its civilizing benefits- from the basics like rational sanitary practices that permit the existence of cities, an educational apparatus that built up a culture of Reason and human liberation, encouraged scientific progress that discovered the bacterial nature of most diseases and laid the foundation of modern medicine, the Leftists scorn this miraculous ascent and cheer on the retrograde cries of a force that calls for a return the the 7th century.
Thinking they can steer this catastrophe for their own ends- a planet-spanning State of “benevolent” bureaucrats who will guide the reluctant individuals into harmony with their Total Planning Ideal.
The “Right” resists this collectivist coercion and is thus called “racist”, etc., for failing to fall in line and march toward Erewhon.
Where the State will, of course, dissolve itself and everyone will have a unicorn to milk and no human instincts will ever show up to upset the ever-harmonious Workers’ Paradise.
Standing against the ever-encroaching State and for human liberty and freedom of expression -against the literal fascism of militant collectivism (“fasces” means a yoked together bundle of sticks, or a police state’s idea of mandated “unity”) is vilified in the name of the Greater Good. Called “right wing”. And attacked by “anti-fascist”street gangs -who pose as “freedom fighters”- while disallowing freedom of speech or expression.
Irony is always lost on fanatics.
The Left has become such a parody or Liberalism that only a Voltaire or Swidt could contain or explain its absurdities.
Whether they seek Laputa or Cloud-Cuckooland, the Leftists fail to grasp that rushing toward an Illusion usually ends in a ditch. Sometimes called Bai Yar.
Or perhaps the Katyn Forest.
The end result of earlier “anti-fascists”.
When Hasan Al-Banna was assassinated, the New York Times reported that he was a fascist. When the first book on the Muslim Brotherhood was published (The Moslem Brethren, Ishaq Husaini, 1956) , the muslim author in several places descrbied the Muslim Brotherhood as an amalgam of Nazism, Communism and Salafism. Al-Banna himself held out only two men for muslims to emulate: Mohammed and Hitler. Said Qutb was profoundly anti-socialist (because of the tendeny towards atheism in socialism). Even the jew who went on to form the Socialist Workers Party was maintaining (around 1948) that the Muslim Brotherhood were fascists. And lets not forget, if one looks at the 1919 Fascist Manifesto, it reads like a manifesto of a european socialist party from 1999.
May I recommend What’s Left? How the Left Lost It’s Way by Nick Cohen.
Above errata:
“parody o[f] Liberalism” and “Swift” (as in Jonathan) not Swidt” and “Ba[b]i Yar”
(Baron/Dymphna -feel free to edit these into the text since I cannot)
It is amazing how Brevick has muddied the waters:
“Shortly after the Breivik terrorist attack in Norway, it emerged that a German neo Nazi group – the Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund (NSU, National Socialist Underground) – had operated for thirteen years without arrest, during which time eight people of Turkish origin, a Greek man, and a policewoman had been killed, despite federal and regional intelligence services reportedly having infiltrated the group. It remains unclear why the NSU was not intercepted earlier. However it appears that part of the problem was that efforts to counter right wing violence rested with regional states, which did not consider it a priority, in contrast to initiatives to counter the threat of jihadist violence, which were well resourced and centrally co‐ordinated at the federal level.”
This is a paragraph from the document mentioned above (Kundnani 2012) and shows the intellectual rigor (or lack of it) that we are dealing with.
This fragment contains several unproven assumptions
1. that Breivik was sane.
2. That he was in some way connected to the NSU (this connection is not made clear but one must assume that it exists in the mind of the author and his intended readership.
3. That the NSU was somehow associated in thes murders, apart from a presumption of guilt implied in the context, there appears to be no evidence supplied. (is Habeas Corpus suspended where the ‘Far-Right’ is concerned).
4. That the failure of the authorities to take action was due to bureaucratic ineptitude.
The academic left appears to have a formulaic approach to ‘oppressor’ groups (as opposed to ‘victim’ groups). We must assume that this is required in order to get the continuing research grants that bring home the bacon for the authors.
‘Jihadism’ is more than wealthy enough (and willing enough) to sponsor lies and propaganda, and leftist academe has shown that in the face of proffered ‘propaganda’ grants and a comfortable life, it has a total lack of integrity; google UEA (University of East Anglia) and Climate Change emails.
TRUTH is irrelevant, condemnation is vital.
“When leaders and officials of Western European governments narrate issues of multiculturalism and radical Islamism in ways that overlap with counter-jihadist ideology, it suggests a need for reflection on the unintended side-effects of their security discourse.”
Academia crazy paving the way for the charge of institutional counter-jihadism, memo to all Western European governments and SIS, in security discourse do not narrate the JIM profile as this may give succour to counter-jihadist ideology.
You are a brave man Baron, and I really like your question, what is far-right, a seating arrangement in the French chambers first off, nothing about policy, just something to define where you sit, wonderful. Perhaps they will get to the nationalist part, but there is a world of difference between a conservative nationalist and a nationalist socialist, to me there is no difference between a nationalist socialist or an internationalist socialist, but the first is defined as far right and the second as centre left, how amusing.
For me policy is everything and these definitions of far right are simplistic stupid terms that are there to be enable the more simple minded to discard valid policies and concerns at the point that a real extremist defines such issues as far right.
And another thing, I think you will also find that acts of violence by the anarchists, communists, Marxists and the like are much greater than anything carried out by people defined as far right, and that includes those following National Socialism, which to me is just the same as anarchists, communists, Marxists and the like.
Insist on them defining far right, its important to show just how hollow that term is!
DaffersD —
I think you’re right about the amount of violence deployed by hard Left “anti-fascists” and anarchists. They’re always beating up “Nazis” or torching their homes and cars.
However, you’ll notice that it is rare for any of their victims to die. Broken bones, bruises, burns, lacerations, concussions, yes — but actual death is uncommon.
I don’t think this is an accident. A death-by-beating gains much more attention in the press than a mere blood-letting, and is thus more likely to lead to increased scrutiny of who is doing what to whom, and is therefore not to be desired.
I think the antifas and the powers-that-be have an understanding about such matters, tacit or otherwise. The leftist thugs are tasked to do enough damage to intimidate, suppress, and silence the “far-right”, but not enough to draw attention to the process itself.
It’s a very effective method of mass control. Couple it with the near-total financial control exerted by the welfare state, and the result is the universal somnolence of the populace that has reigned in Western Europe for the past fifty years.
I agree, it does seem rather controlled, much more so when you find the state as in the UK actually backing the fascist but so called anti-fascists.
The example that really sets the scene is the extreme left group that tried to derail a TGV in France, as far as I can tell they were let off with a stern talking too.
This defines the far right now:
Law abiding
Supporting freedom of expression
Wanting real democracy, not the sham one in the EU
See the rights of the individual before the collective
Happy for religious freedom as long as the religion is not extreme
Appreciate their own culture and understand why other cultures have issues, but not afraid to see their own cultures issues
Support the equality of the sexes
Believe capitalism is the better system, as long as its controlled
The rejection of crony capitalism
Accept peoples sexuality, but feel marriage is between a man and woman
Recognise their own history, warts and all and do not need false warts added to their history.
That is the far right, which is rather amusing, in a sane world people like taht would be called model citizens!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327499/Jamel-The-German-village-inhabitants-expected-hold-far-Right-beliefs.html
ahem, far left, or is that far right, hmmmm, there you go the far right, so what is the definition for far right, I am dying to know what they define as far right!
Yes, when UKIPers and Tea Partiers and PVVers are considered Far Right…..ie libertarians and classical liberals, then the issue seems to me, to be that that problem lies not in the libertarians and classical liberals, but that the far Left is now the Establishment.
Joseph Stalin found these groups unacceptable as well.
When leaders and officials of Western European governments narrate issues of multiculturalism and radical Islamism in ways that overlap with counter-jihadist ideology, it suggests a need for reflection on the unintended side-effects of their security discourse.
Translation: When politicians tell the truth about Islamic doctrines and practices and multiculturalism, and by so doing acknowedge that the points raised by “counter-jihad” bloggers are legitimate concerns, they really “need to reflect” on how to tell lies and cover up what’s going on instead.
“it argues that classic neo-Nazi groups are being supplemented by new ‘counter-jihadist’ far-Right movements…”
Supplemented?
By sending them vitamins & protein shakes, perhaps?
“it argues that classic neo-Nazi groups are being supplemented by new ‘counter-jihadist’ far-Right movements…”
I try to make a habit of writing “National Socialist”, so that those who want to frame Hitler’s socialism as “far right” are made to do some hurdles.
If we lazily use the word “Nazi” then we are conceding the terms of the debate to the expert propagandists of the Left.
Apparently, even the National Socialists hated having their party name/ideology abbreviated. The word “Nazi” pre-existed the birth of Hitler, and had a meaning equivalent to “red-neck”, “trailer trash”, or “chav” in modern parlance.
By not explicitly spelling it out as National Socialism, we are joining in the communists attempts to smear their fellow socialists. We should resist that at all times. Make the commies embrace their inner National Socialist.
Whenever there is an islamic attack, or an honor killing, despite the majority of imams in the ulema promoting either violence or an extreme sensitivity towards critique on islam or their indignation against westernized muslima, I have never seen one report blaming any imam who was not directly in contact with the killer himself. And even those imams who have clearly influenced these horrible acts remain largely uncritized. Instead, Geert Wilders, Sarah Palin, and countless others have been treated as complicit in the acts of Breivik. The student should do a study on this phenomen instead, it shouldn’t be too hard to analyse differing reactions towards islamic and so called “far right” attacks.
In the report by Kudnani, he claims classic neo nazi groups are being supplemented by ” our” kind. This seems to imply the marginalization of neo nazi groups contributes to the popularity of the counterjihad, this is absolute nonsense.
We are often told by Muslims and defenders of Islam that it is somehow “Un-Christian” to criticize another religion. This meme is sometimes effective in shaming people who have legitimate issues with Islam to keep quiet. Here is an article that makes the argument that it is not only very “Christian” to denounce evil ideologies, but Jesus Himself did this. See: http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/show.aspx?aid=16483
You have the strange reflex of not reading my posts …… ?
Which is upsetting you, when I think that Breivik might have been close to other “Ops” than those with “bullets and explosives” ?
Maybe he had thought about this and often ………?
And it would have been exactly such which I showed which would have brought the change !
Seeing the “Leftist Devil” but not willing to see the “Rightest Devil”, too, and therefor hindering truth ?
Deep insights (or Archangel, et al.) —
I don’t have time to read your lengthy treatises in full. I simply scan them to determine whether they abide by our guidelines.
Telling me that your comment is “not off-topic” does not make it so. Determination of whether a comment is on-topic is entirely at my discretion.
To decide wheter to trust or to dis-trust MUST DEPEND on evaluation. Not reading (or: “quick-scan”…what`s this?) is pre-occupied decisionmaking …. is this the curse of the “Rightists” under which they bring themselves ?
PS.: You sure must have understood that I am not a Lefty either, nor “progressiv”, nor pragmatical, ……… just HUMAN !
I find it strange that anyone should demand that their posts be read. I don’t flatter myself that my posts are significant enough to merit any reply from anyone. I only post with the hope that a quick scan of what I write might flag up something for someone else to bear in the back of their mind.
On most far-left, most islamic, and most libtard websites/forums, anything I post (even just a brief question) will normally be deleted within minutes. Whilst people on “the right” might not reply to my posts, I do at least find that they are not summarily deleted, the way the fascists of the left delete them.
You missed the point, Joe. Destroying someones work which costed a lot of time is bad. Destroying it without reasoning is worse.
Which should be the common aim here for thinking on this Blog? Ending the murderish Ideology of Islam. No other Souls did more murdering than those under Islam …… sights may differ, but to delete sights on the matter is for sure antagonistic to the common aim.
I built my response on the theme which is a leftist attempts for a “covered attempt” for lieing on two Vids which were in the link of my original post.
“Baron” deleted the original post on two sets of argumentation. One very hollow one, that HE DECIDES which is on the theme and which is not and the even more upsetting one about the LENGTH, as if lenghty writings per se would be narcistic … or in any other way evil.
There were a lot of useable arguments in my post – this reasons made length.
Envy brings no solutions, especially the envy to hinder thoughts to be spread which are OFF the typical mindsets especially of such which search their way finally through AGGRESSIONS ……..
So easy to detect on whose side is arrogance and are the hollow and shallow sights.
Self-reflection is a major willingness for true peace loving souls !
If “Baron” has difficulties with his eye there is for sure someone who could read him my long text …. maybe this would also inspire the discussion which would help him.
To all:
I approved the above comment by “Deep insights” — the commenter formerly known as “Archangel” — so that you all can see what he was talking about earlier.
This is the last one of its kind. My patience and tolerance have worn thin. There will be no more like it, except possibly in News Feed threads, if I’m feeling generous, and it doesn’t annoy me too much.
Deep insights: for some strange reason you think that it is your prerogative to decide what sort (and length) of argumentation is appropriate here. This is not the case. If you want to hold forth in a manner that you feel is suitable, you may do so elsewhere. That’s why God gave you your own blog.
Since this researcher is basing his/her questions on the claim that “it can be provisionally estimated that 249 persons have been killed in Europe as a result of far-Right violence since 1990″, I suggest you have a look at the TE-SAT (Europol) analyses for the last 10 years or so. https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2013-eu-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report
The demonstrate that — Breivik aside — literally all the terrorist violence in Europe is by the Left (including ethno-nationalists like Sinn Fein, and Basque separatists), and Muslims. Breivik is the black swan incident. The white swans in european terrorism for over a decade have been left-wing.
My bet is that this Kundnani is defining these ethno-nationalists as “right wing”, when if you look at their political policies (beyond their demands for national identity), their policies are left-wing. Which is why in the UK it is the far-left who have supported ethno-nationalists in Ireland, Scotland, etc. And in Spain it is the left who have supported the Basque terrorists.
1. Re. Breivik: the cultural deconstructionists will not forever be able to gleefully feast on the singular atrocity of this madman, nor will they forever be able to tar the rational Resistance with his brush whilst at the same time wilfully and with malice aforethought ignoring the magnitude and frequency of the ongoing global depredations of Islam. It is just time, together with quiet courage and steely determination, that will see us through to that dawning when a full awareness of the real threat surfaces.
2. Re. Kundnani: the following is a (his) resumé from the Open Society Fellowship Program, which can be found here:
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/programs/open-society-fellowship/grantees/arun-kundnani
“Arun Kundnani is a British writer and human rights activist who will examine the shortcomings of the “hearts-and-minds” approach to militancy among Muslims in the United States and the United Kingdom.
To varying degrees, law-enforcement agencies in both countries have concluded that supporting “moderate” Muslim voices is an effective means of countering Islamic radicalism. With an apparent increase in “home-grown” terrorism in the United States, Kundnani believes that such policies will become a favored tactic for politicians pressured to take action against Muslim radicals. His project will look at how these approaches are likely to affect civil, political, and cultural rights in target communities.
Kundnani is the editor of Race and Class, published by the Institute of Race Relations in London. In 2009, he wrote a controversial and influential report titled Spooked: How Not to Prevent Violent Extremism, which explored the effects of the Prevent program, the British counter-radicalism policy aimed at Muslim communities.
Kundnani expects that his research will provide human rights advocates with a deeper understanding of the potential pitfalls of “hearts-and-minds” policies. His work will be of particular value to the Open Society Institute National Security and Human Rights campaign, as well as the organization’s initiatives on migration, the rule of law, and minority rights.”
Do draw your own conclusions, GoV’ers, but it really does tell me just about everything I need to know about him and his organisation. And, also, this Fellow’s ‘Fellows’, introduced on the right of this web page, are interesting to say the least.
Seneca III
Of course Baron it IS just possible that you have been approached by an academic with some just, and moral, cause. One who, perhaps, still wishes to conduct genuine, fair, and robust, research. Unusual thess days but surely must still be some left? We shall see.
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/05/obama-and-the-official-truth.php
I wonder if the actions of the Obama administration would fit this fellow’s definition, if and when he eventually provides it.
War-like actions in Stockholm suburb during Pentecost weekend
Car-burnings, school-burning, violence
stone-throwing, “allahuakbar”-cries
“Conflict between youth and police”, according to msm
You are a better man than me, dear Baron. I would tell the reporter to take a flying leap! But… there is always the possibility of good coming from your interaction and so I leave it in your much more capable hands to parry and thrust with a reporter.
Just this comment thread leads me to believe that the GOV community has it all over the rest!
I have been reading this site for many years now and commenters come and go. One thing remains constant, (as long as you don’t talk about Russia) the level of discourse remains high, actually most times above my knowledge of history…
So have at it Baron and best wishes!
Shouldnt these govenments be courting non-violent Counter-Jihadists and throwing money at them in order to combat violent radicalizaiton in the European-Christian nationalist-cultrualist movement?
Instead of demonizing peaceful Counter-Islamists, and harassing them with criminal legal procedings? Doesnt that just drive people to radicalize and perhaps contemplate violence as the only recourse?
Why is that a good strategy with regards to Muslim immigrants but not European Nationalists? It is almost as if the governments are trying to provoke violence so they can crack down on these political dissenters civil rights.
Funny that, isn’t it?
Thomas Jefferson, John Mill, and Adam Smith would be considered far-Rightists, these days.
Here’s how it might play out. You’ll defend traditional liberal values (individual liberty, free speech, etc.) as universal, beneficial, and appropriate to human dignity. They’ll twist that into a parochial narrow-minded Western patriotism. You’ll be labeled a “nativist” who opposes the culture of “the other”. Any pride in one’s nation’s traditional values is enough to be branded as “racist” and “nativist.” Any attempt to explain [classical] liberal values will be seen as a smoke-screen for an “us” vs. “them” nativism. Be forewarned but go for it.
Pingback: The Nature of Political Violence | Gates of Vienna
Pingback: Steynian 467nd | Free Canuckistan!
Pingback: What We Do And Why We Do It | Gates of Vienna
Pingback: BARON BODISSEY ANSWERS A LEICESTER UNIVERSITY RESEARCHER’S QUESTIONS……. |