Jesus Owen, get a grip

Britain’s far right is desperate, angry, cornered, and dangerous, as the Finsbury Park atrocity may well show. In just a year, the number of far-right extremists referred to the government has jumped by nearly a third. Social media abounds with frothing far-right fanatics, screaming about betrayal and vengeance. Both Muslims and the left are firmly in their sights – and we urgently need a strategy to deal with it.

There really are times when it’s random nutters driven by the voices in their heads…..

76 comments on “Jesus Owen, get a grip

  1. I was listening to someone defending the Government’s Prevent campaign and they were saying that more right wingers get referred than radical Muslims. He gave the example of a headmaster referring a 13 year-old boy.

    The interviewer didn’t ask if this was because headmasters don’t fear a backlash if they refer someone with right wing views rather than the consequences of referring radical Muslims. But it was the Beeb so it probably didn’t enter their heads.

  2. Someone needs to gently ask a BBC interviewer what is meant by right wing. The Darren Osborne types presumably believe immigration is a problem needing a government solution rather than be dealt with by markets. That’s quite close to being left wing. Imv, of course.

  3. Not sure if he isn’t right though. I’d hardly describe myself as right wing. Certainly not in the strong big authoritarian State sense. More an anarcho-capitalist. But I’m becoming increasingly sick of the way the left mix politics with violent intimidation to get their way. And convinced the way to deal with them is on equal terms. Violently intimidate them out of existence. Open warfare. Give them back what they’re handing out & see if they like it.
    So I’d have no qualms about backing folk like the EDL. They may be thugs, but they’re my type of thugs. The time for pacifism’s long over. If it wasn’t always a polite term for surrender.

  4. @Matthew L
    I thought we were discussing the left, not the raghead nutters. Who are, let’s be honest, politically of the far right, if they’re anything.
    But I’ve voiced the opinion here, before. It wouldn’t be a bad thing for Western liberal culture if it wasn’t so welcoming to people from a culture want to destroy it & subjugate it. Treat them as they treat others. ‘Cause you’re sure as hell not going to change them

  5. “random nutters driven by the voices in their heads…..” Sounds like a good description of (some) Muslims, and the voice in their heads was Mo.

  6. And I used to drive past the Finsbury Park mosque, every day, when the hook handed c*nt was strutting his stuff there. I was living the other side of the park. And am quite aware of what a nasty shower of shit it hosts. Some geezer gets an urge to park a Transit on a few of them, my indifference is profound. Any one passing the hat round for the hire costs’ll get a well spent tenner.

  7. Ironic to publish that on a day when the streets of London will be frothing with spittle-flecked screaming far-left loonies who will smash stuff up.

    Or just incredibly un-self-aware.

  8. Any violence at the “Day of Rage” will be blamed on the police, naturally.

    Anyway, good luck getting lots of people enraged when it’s 30C.

  9. Presumably, the costs of van hire will be going up.

    So you might have to pony up a score soon.

  10. If Corb and the gang think a mega-riot is the road to power they are somewhat mistaken.

    The message clearly is support Jezza or violent thugs have it in for you.

    The scum of the left have only EVER had their chances to do evil given them by the bungling of others. On their own merits they have taken over nothing and they ALWAYS fail in the end.

    The only question is how much blood and treasure will they spill before they are done.

  11. He must have been provoked. That’s the only reason that terrorism happens, isn’t it? That’s what we get told over and over by lefties, right? Right?

    It’s certainly going to concentrate the mind of the pro-Sharia Muslims who turn a blind eye to plotting violence. Up until now, they haven’t felt at risk of criminal sanction or violence against them for doing so. A few white nutters randomly targetting Muslims because they kill white people is going to make them think about whether they want to keep doing this.

  12. Owen “Short Trousers” Jones really is working himself into a fine lather isn’t he, and getting paid for it too.

    It’s like being paid to wank, isn’t it Owen.

  13. “If Corb and the gang think a mega-riot is the road to power they are somewhat mistaken.”

    They do & they’re not, Mr Ecks

    “The message clearly is support Jezza or violent thugs have it in for you. ”

    So more compromises will be made to the violent thugs & Jezza & his cronies will be nearer power.

    This stuff does actually work. That’s why they do it.

  14. @BiS – does it actually work? When have lefty rent-a-mobs ever changed government policy?

    Even the thick end of a million polite people in the Countryside March back in the day achieved trois fois rien

  15. Socialism has never marched or rioted into power without other non-socialist idiots doing the groundwork by creating a mess that the scum of the left have cashed in on.

    If you know of a counter-example BiS I would be interested to hear it.

  16. “Even the thick end of a million polite people in the Countryside March back in the day achieved trois fois rien”

    The important word there is polite. It’s a general rule in life. You get very little by being polite. Except a nice cup of tea.

  17. The Poll Tax facilitated a group of Tory traitors internal putz-ch(sic). It did not bring ZaNu to instant power and it was over a badly thought out scheme of Thatcher’s without widespread support.

    The riot could have been ignored but it merely helped give a rationale for the Tory EU-sellout treason-team to do what they wanted to anyway.

  18. Hook-handed cunts saying despicable things and inciting ‘hateed’ in public: good, democracy in great shape. Tommy Morrison, a complete cunt who apes Jeremy Corbyn with the use of the term ‘innocent’ victims as if there are other victims who deserve it somehow: good, democracy in great shape.
    Hook-Hand or Anjem Chowdery or Tommy Morriston inciting violence: lock the fuckers up and throw the key away.

    Either way, how about we get a grip on ourselves?

  19. Geoff T: Blaming the police will be interesting, given that Corbyn wants 10,000 more of them….

    Of course, the Left will say that they need a different type of police….

  20. There was also a huge anti-war march in 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq. Nothing changed, obviously.

    I was but a nipper at the time of poll tax, but I understood the reason it was dropped wasn’t the riots, but the widespread evasion of the tax?

  21. — “Hook-Hand or Anjem Chowdery or Tommy Morriston inciting violence: lock the fuckers up and throw the key away.”

    You do realise that, in that very statement, you are yourself advocating and inciting violence?

  22. NauticalNick: “Of course, the Left will say that they need a different type of police…”

    Haven’t we already got the Left’s ‘different type of police’?

    After all, the type we have now refuse to acknowledge a complaint about calls to ‘Drive the Jews into the sea!’ at an AlQuds march, yet are happt to nick the son of the van hire company for an off colour remark on Facebook about the Finsbury Park mosque incident.

  23. “Either way, how about we get a grip on ourselves?”

    In your case Ironman–as Frankie Howard pointed out, that’ll make it worse…

    And it is Tommy Robinson not Morrison(s)..

  24. Nautical Nick: we already have a different type of police.
    TM wouldn’t be in trouble if she had stressed quaint values like equality before the law and the protection of free speech excepting actual incitement to violence which should be prosecuted without exception.

  25. Don’t think fires and mad religious types are political. And generally speaking it is the lefties that go out shouting about it. The righties tend to be more circumspect.

  26. Ironman–Robinson’s crime was calling it like it is as far as our dear imported friends go.

    Don’t worry about it–you have so much more to apologise for you SJW-lite leftist stooge.

  27. I’m glad to see Ecks commenting, given that his ranting is indistinguishable from the attempted murderer driving the van. Are there any other regular commenters who haven’t been seen since Monday morning?

  28. Is this the first ‘atrocity’ in history in which no-one was killed? How does it compare to the ‘incidents’ in Manchester and Borough Market?

  29. Matthew L–So you have knowledge of the speech of the Van man do you? Beyond what the papers say he said?

    So please tell us where my comments parallel his. Lay it out so all of us can see the exact parallels.

    You are another SJW-lite loser who has some small glimmer of sense in economic matters but still spews cultural Marxist bullshit about waycism.

    So lets hear it Numpty.

  30. Well no, Matthew L. One distinguishes Mr Ecks by the significant lack of bodies surrounding him*. And one of the few things I’d criticise him for is, he’s always very careful not to advocate physical violence.

    * We do presume Mr Ecks is male, don’t we? On no other evidence than the honorific. And he probably is. Although I still harbour distant hopes there’s a Tank Girl clone lurking behind his stirring words.

  31. Ecks,

    You know it’s possible to disagree with you without being a Social Justice Warrior right? For example some of us think that no-one’s colour or religion should be used to label them. You seem (and I am only going on comments read here, so happy to be wrong) that we should treat Muslims differently. Wierdly that puts you on the same songsheet as those lovely social justice warrior types, who also want Muslims treated differently – you might differ on how you want them treated, but you are allies in this stupid tendency to divide us into tribes on single characteristics.

    So maybe actually address the bloody issues, not throw insults around – you might have a better chance of coming across as a reasonable person and less of coming across as a potential loser nutjob in the way Matthew L seems to read your comments.

  32. BiS,

    I’d like to presume Ecks is Intersex, mainly because I have no idea what that is and it sound vaguely similiar. But he (xe?) may well just be the proverbial dog behind the keyboard.

    And for the record, I’m a trained impala (male obviously – female impalas only comment in herds, and find it difficult to type without horns). Not sure why someone trained an impala to leave irritating comments on blogs, but humanity are a funny bunch.

  33. There was plenty of anti-Muslim violence on Saturday; after the India Pakistan cricket match. All over social media, but you see it’s the wrong sort of anti-Muslim violence, because it wasn’t white people doing it, so it doesn’t count. So not reported. God I hate the BBC.

  34. After all, the type we have now refuse to acknowledge a complaint about calls to ‘Drive the Jews into the sea!’ at an AlQuds march, yet are happt to nick the son of the van hire company for an off colour remark on Facebook about the Finsbury Park mosque incident.

    +1

  35. There was plenty of anti-Muslim violence on Saturday; after the India Pakistan cricket match.

    I didn’t hear about that. That’s a shame: the Pakistanis played brilliantly, and deserved the win. Did the Indian fans disagree?

  36. “You know it’s possible to disagree with you without being a Social Justice Warrior right?”

    Only if you aren’t an SJW–or SJW-Lite which both Tinribs and MatthewL have shown themselves to be on many occasions. Unless they don’t actually mean the things they say.

    ” For example some of us think that no-one’s colour or religion should be used to label them. ”

    Have never mentioned skin colour.

    Either you subscribe to a set of beliefs or you don’t. If you claim to support cults that proclaim certain values then there is good reason to believe you are in support (either active or passive) of those values. Where those values are actively evil–as they certainly are in the case of–lets say –oh I dunno–socialist shite–then those who advocate and agitate for those values should and indeed MUST be opposed.

    I am willing to countenance talk about their basic human value and why violence is wrong etc. But that is not a blank cheque when faced with creatures whose history shows very well how far they will extend that same “human value” to you. That is not at all.

    “You seem (and I am only going on comments read here, so happy to be wrong) that we should treat Muslims differently. ”

    What you propose that what is an organised and increasingly weaponised mass be treated as individuals. But this only wanted when it is to the disadvantage of those opposed to them. When special favours are granted to the client groups of the left there is no talk of individualism then. Members of one cult are being used and manipulated to the advantage of another.

    “Wierdly that puts you on the same songsheet as those lovely social justice warrior types, who also want Muslims treated differently – you might differ on how you want them treated, but you are allies in this stupid tendency to divide us into tribes on single characteristics.2

    In happier times I would have agreed with such Libertarian type sentiments. But a war looms. It has already begun although there has been no declaration.

    How far would we have got with WW2 thinking on your lines. The Germans–altho tools of mass evil–are individuals whom we have no right to shoot or drop bombs on etc.

    “So maybe actually address the bloody issues, not throw insults around – you might have a better chance of coming across as a reasonable person and less of coming across as a potential loser nutjob in the way”

    I have addressed the issues countless time.

    I don’t like evil doers or the stooges of evil. So I will fling whatever insults I deem fit. I see no shortage of them from my opponents.

    There is a time and place for the Libertarianism you expound.In happier and less troubled and dangerous times I agree with it myself. But at the moment it is a losing proposition. If you like you can be the idiot who wins the “moral victory” but gets his head kicked in . I would rather win outright.

  37. “I was but a nipper at the time of poll tax, but I understood the reason it was dropped wasn’t the riots, but the widespread evasion of the tax?”

    Yes. Very easy tax to evade, very expensive to collect. And really unpopular. The riots were just a bunch of thugs who liked smashing stuff up, although the media have always tried to make out it was popular resentment.

    In reality, marches, whether peaceful or violent have never made much difference in democratic countries. We have a press, ballots and so forth. The civil rights movement (which did have to march because of disenfranchisement) has led everyone to think that marches change things.

    I think the only use is perhaps as a tool for raising awareness of something. It can generate some media attention. But you have to then have something solid behind that. Marching just because your people lost a vote that has been debated for months or years is not going to change anything.

  38. “A few white nutters randomly targetting Muslims because they kill white people is going to make them think about whether they want to keep doing this.”

    You’re joking I hope? Anyone who’s decided they’re going to mow down a bunch of people with a vehicle and go on a stabbing spree or blow themselves up is in no way going to be discouraged by a few random nutters targeting Muslims.

    It’s only really going to have an impact on the moderates and give fuckwitts like Owen more excuses to bitch about the menace of the right.

  39. “Very easy tax to evade, very expensive to collect. And really unpopular. ”

    S’funny that. Don’t remember it being unpopular at the time. Thought the “unpopular was just how the BBC choose to refer to it.
    But then I, along with a lot of the people I knew were in the most expensive local authority the country. I seem to remember my payments, as a single occupier, falling by two thirds. Couples,with or without kids didn’t do quite as well. What was not to like? One paid for the services one consumed. If redistribution of wealth is needed, it gets done at national, not local level.
    Last time I paid council tax in the UK I got a meagre 25% off for being single, despite using a trivial amount of local services. 25% off of an eyewatering assessment, compared to what I pay here. One reason I F’d O.for good.

  40. Owen Jones? eesh… honestly – what *is* the point of the MSM continually inviting the little twat onto the airwaves – as in who exactly does he speak for?

    Didn’t some relative of the van driver at Finsbury claim he’d asked to be sectioned in the run up to his deed?

    Given the propensity of the MSM to posit lone wolves and mental issues – the mental state of the Welshman seems to have been pretty much ignored…. now I wonder why that is?

    If it’s true that Ms. May is planning some “anti Islamophobia” / hate speech legislation there will be trouble – a LOT more trouble…..

  41. @Ecks

    ‘There is a time and place for the Libertarianism you expound.In happier and less troubled and dangerous times I agree with it myself. But at the moment it is a losing proposition. If you like you can be the idiot who wins the “moral victory” but gets his head kicked in . I would rather win outright.’

    Can’t say I always agree with Ecksy, but this is obviously right.
    We’re all – I think? – basically liberals who believe in live and let live. But if the other side doesn’t, as I’ve said before, it’s like trying to play rugby with a cricket team. You are just going to get fucked up. Currently, a side is developing that wants to field a rugby XV against our cricket XI. Regrettably we are going to either have to accept some temporary limitations on our liberalism, or get fucked over.

    @Ironman

    ‘Hook-handed cunts saying despicable things and inciting ‘hatred’ in public: good, democracy in great shape. ‘

    See, this is what I’m talking about. If it’s hook-handed cunts doing it inside Finsbury Park mosque, and inspiring hatred of other people, who gives a shit? But what if the hook-handed cunt is standing outside Ironman’s house shouting about how people should hate Ironman, and what if the hook-handed cunt has followers who are even now sharpening a knife and planning to gut Ironman like a rabbit next time he leaves his house, and what’s more don’t mind dying in the process because a book written 1400 years ago says it’s cool. Is Ironman now so sanguine? No. His sanguinity is allowed only on the basis of the odds. By definition, he knows it will happen to someone, but it’s not very likely to be him.

    If you accept that there’s a Laffer Curve to this shit then you cannot make a moral argument because somewhere along the curve – when the risk becomes too great for you personally to stomach – you fall in with everyone else.

    If you don’t accept there’s a risk, or accept it whatever scale it is, you’re just stupid and, frankly, you deserve what you get.

    Increasingly, I think a significant proportion of my countrymen are going mad. I understand why Islamists and Maximilian Kolbe do what they do – they believe that sacrificing themselves gives them a ticket to paradise. Why atheists and nonbelievers are happy to die for the cause of socialist illiberalism I do not know.

  42. “Very easy tax to evade”
    Wasn’t that one of the benefits? If you didn’t pay it you couldn’t be on the electoral register. Disenfranchisement of arsoles. Again, what’s not to like?

  43. “Regrettably we are going to either have to accept some temporary limitations on our liberalism, or get fucked over.”

    Such must come from a (hopefully temporary) change of heart. Not orders from Fish-face May or any others. Altho’ Fishy’s orders would be against not for us.

    If police state measures are needed they should fall on the “community” causing the problem not the rest of us.

  44. There has been a war with the ROP for 1300 years. Sometimes hot sometimes cold, I’m good with anything that either destroys it or less plausibly reforms it.The fellow travelers of the left wish to use it as a vehicle for their usual social and economic disasters to be enacted when in reality it would consume them all, its a war we need to win.

  45. @Watchman,

    Everyone who does not agree with everything Ecks says is leftist SJW Muslim-cuck cultural Marxist scum. You are in for a long battle, which you will lose, if you want Ecks to debate rather than froth at the mouth.

    For the record, Ecks is a transsexual lesbian.

  46. Ian Reid / Tim Newman,

    There are some videos of the Indian / Pakistani post-cricket clashes in the Leicester Mercury, and a couple more in the linked twitter posts. Looks more like a stand-off than an actual brawl.

  47. Getting upset Biggie?

    Good.

    If enough of your fellow cucks get upset enough to think your adopted home might even survive.

    As I recall you haven’t actually wielded much in the way of logic in our “debates”. Mainly because what you call logic is an innate sense of your own rightness and incredulity that other viewpoints might exist.

  48. SMFS does disappear from time to time.

    I think his duties as Archbishop of Canterbury get in the way of posting on occasion.

  49. BiG

    He has been known to go off the radar periodically in the past. Nothing from Arnald for probably a couple of years now, either….

  50. Interested: Why atheists and nonbelievers are happy to die for the cause of socialist illiberalism I do not know.

    You’re on to something in pointing to atheists and non-believers – a category which encompasses most of the left and the CoE clergy. It’s much easier to discount the power of islamist faith if one has no faith of one’s own and so be hopelessly misguided.

    I suppose Owen Jones has to keep churning out this stuff in order to be able to buy his ankle-socks but I fear that a homosexual apostate would find the going tough when the muslims get around to seizing the left’s hand of friendship.

  51. Jones surely knows that every last mincing cm of him, right down to his puckering chocolate starfish is HARAM?

  52. ‘The fellow travelers of the left wish to use it as a vehicle for their usual social and economic disasters to be enacted when in reality it would consume them all, its a war we need to win.’

    Well said. The Left will take any help they can get, even from people who will kill them when the opportunity comes. World Government is worth whatever it takes, EVEN IF IT IS A CALIPHATE.

  53. ‘Both Muslims and the left are firmly in their sights – and we urgently need a strategy to deal with it.’

    Cause you see, the far (sic) right – British citizens – are the enemy. Muslim invaders are not.

  54. Ecks,

    Show me one example where reducing freedom has worked to win more freedom for anyone? I wouldn’t even argue that Britain post either world war was as free as it was before either war. So your argument is simply an argument for tyranny – loud calls for the temporary abandonment of key values to deal with a perceived threat, and you seriously expect government to allow those values to be restored. Not only do you have the same classification systems as a social justice warrior, but you seem to have the same trust in government – you do seem to be their mirror opposite from where I’m standing.

    We should get rid of idiots who preach hate and terror, but not at the expense of allowing people to get rid of me for experessing views that disagree with the extremism you seem to advocate. And your route seems to be that threat to me.

  55. “For example some of us think that no-one’s colour or religion should be used to label them. You seem (and I am only going on comments read here, so happy to be wrong) that we should treat Muslims differently. Wierdly that puts you on the same songsheet as those lovely social justice warrior types, who also want Muslims treated differently – you might differ on how you want them treated, but you are allies in this stupid tendency to divide us into tribes on single characteristics.”

    Colour? No idea what you mean. Trying to drag evil racist labels into it is very left of you.

    Religion? All well and good when your religion does not contain a political ideology focused upon world domination and subjugation of all other belief systems. Odd that you don’t think that people with antisocial characteristics should be treated differently. Since muslims are a population with a much larger proportion of such people than the regular European population (the others being apostates), and since we can’t tell those apart, then it makes a great deal of sense to treat muslims differently. For example by limiting immigration from Islamic countries.

  56. “Show me one example where reducing freedom has worked to win more freedom for anyone? I wouldn’t even argue that Britain post either world war was as free as it was before either war”

    The comparison is not with Britain before the war; it is with Britain after Nazi occupation or collaboration.

    The war needed to be fought and won. That doing so included some suspension of civil liberties and some state expansion was a regrettable but necessary evil.

  57. These objections are moronic. Can it be actual libertarians making these arguments? It’s like the the kind of thing 6th form libertarian kids might believe before joining the real world.

  58. “Show me one example where reducing freedom has worked to win more freedom for anyone?”

    I haven’t suggested reducing freedom for indigenous Britons. Only for imported folk and only such “communities” as endorse and support by action and inaction the attempted destruction of Western values and civilisation. In short the Mid-East and SubSahara.

    ” I wouldn’t even argue that Britain post either world war was as free as it was before either war.”

    Agreed. People should have demanded their freedoms back. But they chose to kiss the state’s arse in exchange for a welfare wonderland that wasn’t. As Bart Simpson said “I didn’t do it”.

    “So your argument is simply an argument for tyranny – loud calls for the temporary abandonment of key values to deal with a perceived threat,”

    Not for native Britons and those migrants who have mostly assimilated–west Indians/Chinese/hindus/Sikhs etc.

    ” and you seriously expect government to allow those values to be restored.”

    Since I am NOT advocating removal of any freedoms from the bulk of society there won’t be anything needing restoration.

    ” Not only do you have the same classification systems as a social justice warrior,”

    By your theories a cohesive group openly facilitating violence could not be dealt with because it would violate the rights of individual members of the group if action were taken against the entire group. Socialist thugs are bad but no action can be taken against a group of socialist thugs because any action against any individual socialist thug would violate his individual rights.

    ” but you seem to have the same trust in government –”

    I have zero trust in govt. But since they won’t be taking our freedom I dont need it anyway.

    you do seem to be their mirror opposite from where I’m standing.”

    Where you’re standing has a big sign saying “Loserville”. And that is were you are heading trying to fight a mass movement one at a time.

    “We should get rid of idiots who preach hate and terror,”

    Which is itself an attack on personal freedom and freedom of speech. So you merely pretend to be different than I.

    ” but not at the expense of allowing people to get rid of me for experessing views that disagree with the extremism you seem to advocate”

    When and were have I advocated “getting rid” of you for your advocated views? I don’t even much care what our dear bearded friends SAY. I am concerned with their actions. They can keep their freedom of speech but not the vote nor certain other benefits.”

    . “And your route seems to be that threat to me.”

    There is no threat to you from me at all. Let alone in comparison with the threat of tyranny and death you stand in if your “treat ’em as individuals” daftness fails to defeat the mass evils opposing it.

    As it will.

  59. @Watchman

    ‘Show me one example where reducing freedom has worked to win more freedom for anyone? I wouldn’t even argue that Britain post either world war was as free as it was before either war.’

    In 1940, Hitler had Op Sealion all ready to go. Young men accepted the suspension of their civil liberties to take off in Spitfires and Hurricanes and kill Germans. Later, others sailed over from the US and helped us and the Russians and others crush Hitler.

    The correct comparison is not what Britain was like post WWII as compared with 1939, it’s what Britain would have been like if Britons have behaved like a bunch of silly, spoiled, childish cunts and refused to fight to keep Hitler out of the UK on the basis that it was an infringement of their civil liberties to die for their country.

    I mean, I dare say it fucking was, but what was the greater risk?

    Where you are right is that politicians and illiberal wankers will always try to seize and hold ground. Once you’ve fucked off the Nazis, you ought to turn your attention on the homegrown shits. Ditto the Islamists. But first you deal with the fucking Nazis and the Islamists.

  60. Bloke in Germany: There’s no way SMFS would leave his shed long enough to hire a van. His comments clearly show that he hasn’t interacted with real people since the mid 70s.

  61. “I haven’t suggested reducing freedom for indigenous Britons.”

    Unless they’re Marxlamic tit-suckers, of course.

  62. Section 26 is likely the biggest threat to your freedom Meiac.

    That or your salt and marxlamic vinegar crisps going down the wrong hole.

  63. @Matthew L,

    As you see, even Jesus can’t beat Ecks. What hope do the rest of us have?

  64. You can’t even stop Mer-cow importing extra rapists for your women Biggie.

    I am the least of your problems.

    Get yourself a shooter before you live to regret it.

  65. “In 1940, Hitler had Op Sealion all ready to go.”

    Not really.

    Not disagreeing with your post, but Sealion was never close to ready. No boats. Royal Navy ready.

  66. I’m not saying Hitler was not a risk. I’m saying the freedoms we gave up to fight him were not restored entirely, and we still live with the consequences.

    So if for a risk which is clearly not Hitler (I don’t see an army massing on the French coast (there’s not tanks and things for a start – just a lot of aimless young men), I don’t see giving up freedoms being worthwhile. After all, taking away freedom has such a successful track record against terrorism organisations anyway – oh, shit, the recommended way to beat them is to take away their support, not strengthen it.

    However you want to phrase it, removing freedoms to save the indigenes or a culture (not particular individuals, but a collective note – the Ecks and tomsmiths of the world deal in collectives, not individuals) is facism. And it is exactly the same as what the social justice warriors and the islamicists practice, just with different beneficiaries. Play their games if you want, but I’ll sit it out and put my contempt on all of you equally.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.