Thursday, 5 April 2012
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
I, the Leader
Earlier today I was reading a lengthy book review by the late John Tyndall, of John Bean's nationalist memoir, Many Shades of Black, in an old copy of Spearhead which Richard Edmonds very kindly sent me.
It was very informative of the various schisms and secessions which have troubled the nationalist movement over the last half century and more.
It occurred to me that a part of the problem, if one accepts that the disunity of the nationalist movement is a problem, has been the will to power of nationalism's leading actors themselves. Their strong sense of mission and equally powerful self-belief, has sometimes blinded them to the rightful claims of others to consideration and to respect for their particular point of view.
It almost seems as though being acknowledged as 'the leader' has been more important to certain individuals than the size and nature of what it was that they led. If they could not receive this acknowledgement, which they regarded as their due, within one nationalist organization, well then, they would try another, or even start their own, with themselves as its first member.
Of course, it is one thing to lead a breakaway from a genuinely democratic party, because one cannot get one's own way and quite another to lead a breakaway from a pseudo-democratic party, because the will of the majority of its members has been thwarted by a corrupt and oppressive leadership. The first suggests a monumental self-importance, while the second indicates an understanding of the value of democracy.
Then there is the tendency of some leaders to wish to stay long past the time in which their leadership has been of value to the party they have led. All sorts of mental gymnastics may be engaged in to justify what is, when it comes down to it, pure selfishness and immaturity on their part.
There is the feeling of entitlement: "I've given my whole life to nationalism and I deserve everything it can give me", etc. This often manifests itself as a childish jealousy towards newcomers to the movement, particularly should they happen to be talented. Yet surely it should be the concern of any leader worthy of the name to welcome and to encourage new blood and fresh talent, particularly from other parties. For a leader to do otherwise than to bring on new talent is to consign the party they lead to stagnation and ultimately to extinction.
One of the brickbats, which nationalists often hurl at one another during nationalism's periodic splits, is that of being a 'state plant' or agent. Such an accusation is almost invariably impossible to prove, other than by a confession of guilt on the part of the person accused. Such confessions have sometimes been made, usually some time after the event and often as a means of promoting a book which they have written about their activities. How much of any such book is fiction may not be easy to ascertain.
The mutual distrust which is engendered by the knowledge that such agents exist is, of course, harmful to party solidarity and morale, as is no doubt intended. The damage is increased when innuendoes are made which cannot be substantiated. Those who make such innuendoes, wittingly or unwittingly, do the enemy's job for him. If nothing can be proved it is far better not to show suspicion, than to alienate a colleague by letting him see that he is not trusted.
Reasonable security measures are certainly always necessary. Paradoxically though, without a sea of paranoia in which to swim, the work of any state agent would become much more difficult.
Most despicable of all, of course, is the leader who attributes any dissent or opposition to the work of state agents. Such an obvious and self-seeking ploy should not deceive a child, let alone grown men.
It was very informative of the various schisms and secessions which have troubled the nationalist movement over the last half century and more.
It occurred to me that a part of the problem, if one accepts that the disunity of the nationalist movement is a problem, has been the will to power of nationalism's leading actors themselves. Their strong sense of mission and equally powerful self-belief, has sometimes blinded them to the rightful claims of others to consideration and to respect for their particular point of view.
It almost seems as though being acknowledged as 'the leader' has been more important to certain individuals than the size and nature of what it was that they led. If they could not receive this acknowledgement, which they regarded as their due, within one nationalist organization, well then, they would try another, or even start their own, with themselves as its first member.
Of course, it is one thing to lead a breakaway from a genuinely democratic party, because one cannot get one's own way and quite another to lead a breakaway from a pseudo-democratic party, because the will of the majority of its members has been thwarted by a corrupt and oppressive leadership. The first suggests a monumental self-importance, while the second indicates an understanding of the value of democracy.
Then there is the tendency of some leaders to wish to stay long past the time in which their leadership has been of value to the party they have led. All sorts of mental gymnastics may be engaged in to justify what is, when it comes down to it, pure selfishness and immaturity on their part.
There is the feeling of entitlement: "I've given my whole life to nationalism and I deserve everything it can give me", etc. This often manifests itself as a childish jealousy towards newcomers to the movement, particularly should they happen to be talented. Yet surely it should be the concern of any leader worthy of the name to welcome and to encourage new blood and fresh talent, particularly from other parties. For a leader to do otherwise than to bring on new talent is to consign the party they lead to stagnation and ultimately to extinction.
One of the brickbats, which nationalists often hurl at one another during nationalism's periodic splits, is that of being a 'state plant' or agent. Such an accusation is almost invariably impossible to prove, other than by a confession of guilt on the part of the person accused. Such confessions have sometimes been made, usually some time after the event and often as a means of promoting a book which they have written about their activities. How much of any such book is fiction may not be easy to ascertain.
The mutual distrust which is engendered by the knowledge that such agents exist is, of course, harmful to party solidarity and morale, as is no doubt intended. The damage is increased when innuendoes are made which cannot be substantiated. Those who make such innuendoes, wittingly or unwittingly, do the enemy's job for him. If nothing can be proved it is far better not to show suspicion, than to alienate a colleague by letting him see that he is not trusted.
Reasonable security measures are certainly always necessary. Paradoxically though, without a sea of paranoia in which to swim, the work of any state agent would become much more difficult.
Most despicable of all, of course, is the leader who attributes any dissent or opposition to the work of state agents. Such an obvious and self-seeking ploy should not deceive a child, let alone grown men.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
I do
Dear marriage supporter,
In this email:
•A great start
•Next steps
•What you can do
A great start
You are one of over 350,000 people who have signed our national petition for marriage so far. That makes it the biggest petition since the general election. It shows that the Government has badly misjudged the mood of the nation, and that you stand together with hundreds of thousands of others in supporting marriage. Well done to everyone who made this happen.
We have stolen a march and started a national debate in the media about redefining marriage. Previously, this debate has been restricted to the elites - to special interest groups, politicians and party advisers. Nobody asked the public what they thought. No major party put it in a manifesto. It wasn't part of the Programme for Government.
But we have given the great British public a voice, and hundreds of thousands of you have said loud and clear: we don't want marriage to be redefined. We have run a professional, disciplined and measured campaign. We have well and truly planted our flag for marriage.
Next steps
It's a great start, but we are not resting on our laurels. We are confident that public opinion is moving our way. We will be taking further steps to progress the campaign.
The Government has launched its consultation. We will analyse the consultation documents, and advise you on the best way to engage with it. Please stay tuned for that. In the meantime, there are things you can be doing to really help the campaign.
What you can do
1. Grow the petition. Here are some practical ideas:
•Go through your email contacts. Select friends who you think would sign the petition. Email every single one with this link: http://www.c4m.org.uk/ and ask them to sign it.
•If you are on Facebook or Twitter, share the petition with your friends and urge them to sign. Again, post links to http://www.c4m.org.uk/.
•Not everyone is on the internet, so download a petition form to print out. Ask your offline friends to sign the paper petition form, then send it in to us using the address on the form.
•Some marriage supporters have been mentioning the paper petition to their friends at work, you could also do that.
•Others have been taking the paper petition form door-to-door down their street, and the response has been very positive. Give it a try.
2. Stay informed. Here's how:
•Follow the Coalition for Marriage Blog. We post short, regular snippets about the campaign. Quite often you'll see things here that you may have missed elsewhere. Please share what you read with your friends.
•Follow the News page on our website. On that page we post links to what the media are saying about the marriage issue. It's an excellent way of keeping yourself up-to-date with the latest developments.
•If you use social media, please follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
•Please read our emails. You care about marriage. We care about marriage. So let's keep in touch. We can't stop the redefinition of marriage without you. Together we can make a difference.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
In this email:
•A great start
•Next steps
•What you can do
A great start
You are one of over 350,000 people who have signed our national petition for marriage so far. That makes it the biggest petition since the general election. It shows that the Government has badly misjudged the mood of the nation, and that you stand together with hundreds of thousands of others in supporting marriage. Well done to everyone who made this happen.
We have stolen a march and started a national debate in the media about redefining marriage. Previously, this debate has been restricted to the elites - to special interest groups, politicians and party advisers. Nobody asked the public what they thought. No major party put it in a manifesto. It wasn't part of the Programme for Government.
But we have given the great British public a voice, and hundreds of thousands of you have said loud and clear: we don't want marriage to be redefined. We have run a professional, disciplined and measured campaign. We have well and truly planted our flag for marriage.
Next steps
It's a great start, but we are not resting on our laurels. We are confident that public opinion is moving our way. We will be taking further steps to progress the campaign.
The Government has launched its consultation. We will analyse the consultation documents, and advise you on the best way to engage with it. Please stay tuned for that. In the meantime, there are things you can be doing to really help the campaign.
What you can do
1. Grow the petition. Here are some practical ideas:
•Go through your email contacts. Select friends who you think would sign the petition. Email every single one with this link: http://www.c4m.org.uk/ and ask them to sign it.
•If you are on Facebook or Twitter, share the petition with your friends and urge them to sign. Again, post links to http://www.c4m.org.uk/.
•Not everyone is on the internet, so download a petition form to print out. Ask your offline friends to sign the paper petition form, then send it in to us using the address on the form.
•Some marriage supporters have been mentioning the paper petition to their friends at work, you could also do that.
•Others have been taking the paper petition form door-to-door down their street, and the response has been very positive. Give it a try.
2. Stay informed. Here's how:
•Follow the Coalition for Marriage Blog. We post short, regular snippets about the campaign. Quite often you'll see things here that you may have missed elsewhere. Please share what you read with your friends.
•Follow the News page on our website. On that page we post links to what the media are saying about the marriage issue. It's an excellent way of keeping yourself up-to-date with the latest developments.
•If you use social media, please follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
•Please read our emails. You care about marriage. We care about marriage. So let's keep in touch. We can't stop the redefinition of marriage without you. Together we can make a difference.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Bradford West: a notice of eviction for the old order of politics
The election of the preening jackanapes and sham socialist, George Galloway, to represent the electorate of Bradford West, is good news for British nationalists because it is bad news for the Establishment.
It is bad news for the Establishment, not because of the nuisance value of Galloway to the government and official opposition, but because it indicates the growing volatility of the electorate nationally, and their deep dissatisfaction with all three of the Establishment's parties, as well as its pseudo-nationalist safety valve, UKIP.
The British National Party had no candidate in the by-election. Furthermore, its 2010 general election result (which saw its candidate lose their deposit) in the constituency was considerably worse than its 2005 result, which saw it easily save its deposit.
For this to happen in the BNP's post-industrial heartland demonstrates that there is something seriously amiss with the party, and that it is no sudden illness but, on the contrary, a chronic degenerative disease.
The Democratic Nationalists saw their candidate's tiny share of the vote in 2010 become still smaller, despite the absence of competition from any genuinely nationalist rival.
Contrary to what some commentators have suggested, Bradford West does not herald the dawn of the new era of identity politics. It is as well to remember that at least half of its electorate remains English and that many of them voted for Galloway. He would not have won the election but for their votes, a fact he would do well to bear in mind. Equally, the Kashmiri and other Muslims who voted for the 'infidel' Galloway would no doubt have preferred, in an ideal world, to have voted in accordance with the dictates of bradree and chosen one of their tribal elders to represent them.
This was not then, the dawn of the age of identity politics. That is yet to come and we must be patient. It was perhaps, though, the first stirring of a 'peasants' revolt' against the political Establishment. The voters of Bradford West said "A plague on both your houses" to parliament and the plague was George Galloway.
For nationalism properly to exploit, for the benefit of our people, the growing public discontent with the old order, it first needs to put its own house in order. It should do so without unnecessary delay.
Bradford West by-election, 2012
Caused by: the resignation of sitting Labour MP, Marsha Singh
Turnout: 32,905 (50.0%) -14.9% on the 2010 general election
Respect gain from Labour
Majority: 10,140 (30.9%)
Swing: 36.6% from Labour to Respect
George Galloway Respect 18,341 55.9 +52.8%
Imran Hussain Labour 8,201 25.0 -20.3%
Jackie Whiteley Conservative 2,746 8.4 -22.7%
Jeanette Sunderland Liberal Democrat 1,505 4.6 -7.1%
Sonja McNally UKIP 1,085 3.3 +1.3%
Dawud Islam Green 481 1.5 -0.8%
Neil Craig Democratic Nationalists 344 1.0 -0.1%
Howling Laud Hope Monster Raving Loony 111 0.3 N/A
Source: Wikipedia
It is bad news for the Establishment, not because of the nuisance value of Galloway to the government and official opposition, but because it indicates the growing volatility of the electorate nationally, and their deep dissatisfaction with all three of the Establishment's parties, as well as its pseudo-nationalist safety valve, UKIP.
The British National Party had no candidate in the by-election. Furthermore, its 2010 general election result (which saw its candidate lose their deposit) in the constituency was considerably worse than its 2005 result, which saw it easily save its deposit.
For this to happen in the BNP's post-industrial heartland demonstrates that there is something seriously amiss with the party, and that it is no sudden illness but, on the contrary, a chronic degenerative disease.
The Democratic Nationalists saw their candidate's tiny share of the vote in 2010 become still smaller, despite the absence of competition from any genuinely nationalist rival.
Contrary to what some commentators have suggested, Bradford West does not herald the dawn of the new era of identity politics. It is as well to remember that at least half of its electorate remains English and that many of them voted for Galloway. He would not have won the election but for their votes, a fact he would do well to bear in mind. Equally, the Kashmiri and other Muslims who voted for the 'infidel' Galloway would no doubt have preferred, in an ideal world, to have voted in accordance with the dictates of bradree and chosen one of their tribal elders to represent them.
This was not then, the dawn of the age of identity politics. That is yet to come and we must be patient. It was perhaps, though, the first stirring of a 'peasants' revolt' against the political Establishment. The voters of Bradford West said "A plague on both your houses" to parliament and the plague was George Galloway.
For nationalism properly to exploit, for the benefit of our people, the growing public discontent with the old order, it first needs to put its own house in order. It should do so without unnecessary delay.
Bradford West by-election, 2012
Caused by: the resignation of sitting Labour MP, Marsha Singh
Turnout: 32,905 (50.0%) -14.9% on the 2010 general election
Respect gain from Labour
Majority: 10,140 (30.9%)
Swing: 36.6% from Labour to Respect
George Galloway Respect 18,341 55.9 +52.8%
Imran Hussain Labour 8,201 25.0 -20.3%
Jackie Whiteley Conservative 2,746 8.4 -22.7%
Jeanette Sunderland Liberal Democrat 1,505 4.6 -7.1%
Sonja McNally UKIP 1,085 3.3 +1.3%
Dawud Islam Green 481 1.5 -0.8%
Neil Craig Democratic Nationalists 344 1.0 -0.1%
Howling Laud Hope Monster Raving Loony 111 0.3 N/A
Source: Wikipedia
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Three Asians charged with child sex crimes
BULLFINCH UPDATE: Six men appear in court
THREE men have appeared in court so far today after police raids on an alleged child sex ring in Oxford.
The men - who can now be named for the first time - appeared at a magistrates’ court.
Thirty-one-year-old hospital porter Akhtar Dogar, of Tawney Street, East Oxford, faces three charges of rape, one of conspiring to rape a child, three of arranging the prostitution of a child, one of making a threat to kill and one of trafficking. [Emphasis mine].
His 30-year-old unemployed brother Anjun Dogar faces one charge of conspiring to rape a child, one of arranging prostitution of a child and trafficking. [Emphasis mine].
Twenty-six-year-old security guard Kamar Jamil, of Aldrich Road, Summertown, faces four charges of rape, two of arranging the prostitution of a child, one of making a threat to kill and one of possession of cocaine with intent to supply. [Emphasis mine].
They were remanded in custody to appear at Aylesbury Crown Court on Friday, March 30.
Three more defendants in the case are facing court this afternoon.
They are a 37-year-old man who faces two charges of conspiracy to rape a child and one of supplying a class A drug to a child, a 32-year-old who faces one charge of rape and a 26-year-old man who faces 10 charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child.
The charges follow a series of dawn raids across Oxford on Thursday, under the codename Operation Bullfinch.
The investigation was launched after Oxfordshire County Council staff began [!] to fear why several girls were disappearing from their homes.
Authorities believe 24 girls aged between 11 and 16 may have been affected.
Seven other men have been released on police bail until April while enquiries continue.
Oxford Mail
THREE men have appeared in court so far today after police raids on an alleged child sex ring in Oxford.
The men - who can now be named for the first time - appeared at a magistrates’ court.
Thirty-one-year-old hospital porter Akhtar Dogar, of Tawney Street, East Oxford, faces three charges of rape, one of conspiring to rape a child, three of arranging the prostitution of a child, one of making a threat to kill and one of trafficking. [Emphasis mine].
His 30-year-old unemployed brother Anjun Dogar faces one charge of conspiring to rape a child, one of arranging prostitution of a child and trafficking. [Emphasis mine].
Twenty-six-year-old security guard Kamar Jamil, of Aldrich Road, Summertown, faces four charges of rape, two of arranging the prostitution of a child, one of making a threat to kill and one of possession of cocaine with intent to supply. [Emphasis mine].
They were remanded in custody to appear at Aylesbury Crown Court on Friday, March 30.
Three more defendants in the case are facing court this afternoon.
They are a 37-year-old man who faces two charges of conspiracy to rape a child and one of supplying a class A drug to a child, a 32-year-old who faces one charge of rape and a 26-year-old man who faces 10 charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child.
The charges follow a series of dawn raids across Oxford on Thursday, under the codename Operation Bullfinch.
The investigation was launched after Oxfordshire County Council staff began [!] to fear why several girls were disappearing from their homes.
Authorities believe 24 girls aged between 11 and 16 may have been affected.
Seven other men have been released on police bail until April while enquiries continue.
Oxford Mail
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
