Saturday, January 21, 2012

This week's stuff

Some EDL stuff
Patrick Hayes in Spiked; New year analysis from the Indy; Flesh from Barking;

Chav hate and Stephen Lawrence
Paul Vallely, highly recommended.

LSE watch
The Commune on the Woolf report; Tanya Gold on the Nazi games.

MLK day
Morris Abram; Stuart Applebaum.

Fighters for freedom
London's funky Syrians.

Jean-Marie Le Pen
France's Ron Paul?

2 comments:

damon said...

I think Patrick Hayes and Spiked are going in the right direction with their EDL coverage, but not analising it fully enough. Both the EDL and those who are most opposed to them. Spiked are skimming over the subject too lightly.

Class does come into it somwhere I think.
As objectional and backward as the EDL are, they are still very much a part of a working class sub section. The most lumpen and backward part it may be, but I think that their opponents don't know how to deal with that aspect of their nature, and so have to go overboard with the ''Nazi/Fascist/Anders Breivik'' associations.

See the EDL speaker here at Barking the other day condemning the killers of Stephen Lawrence and being applauded for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlzbW5f0DbE

They're just thick people who don't like the way that multi-culturalism works in practice I think. And then say so and what they don't like about it.
They should be opposed, but not the UAF way I'd say.

bob said...

Thanks Damon. Semi agree with you. Maybe they are part of a working class sub section - and that makes it hard for liberals to deal with them - but they are a very un-typical working class sub-section, and their leaders are often pretty well off (e.g. Yaxley) and they are funded by and connected to well lubricated British, European and American counter-jihadi groups. I also think many are not really racist, and certainly many are not racist in straightforward, old-fashioned ways. And I certainly agree the UAF way of opposing them is totally wrong.

By the way, not sure why this post published itself in the past: was meant to be appear in the future! Must have typed the wrong numbers. I might re-publish at the end of the we