Tommy Robinson Calls Himself a “Centrist”. Should We Believe Him?
I want to return to the question of centre and extreme in politics. It struck me again recently that everyone is in the centre. I first thought of this years ago when I read Naim Attallah’s interview with Maurice Cowling – not easily available now – in which, and I depend on memory, Cowling (notorious for being an unrepentant conservative, called ‘reactionary’ by others though not by himself) said he was “in the centre”. This was obviously ironic, since you were probably not supposed to think so, but also interesting, because of course Cowling was as central to his own world as he could possibly be. Well, here is Tommy Robinson (at around seven minutes into this otherwise chaotic discussion):
“I’m not far Right. I don’t follow neo-Nazi ideology.”
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I think I can encapsulate it far faster. The Centre are the majority of the people and what the people want and think. Those who do not want what the majority want treat the majority with disdain bordering on hate. They are the Left and the Right; they are the ones that are the extremists.
They dismiss “Populism” as if it is some sort of dread disease from an alien planet. Yet Populism is, in essence, The Will Of The People. Those outside of the Populist Centre scheme to defy The People at different distances from the Centre. They are the problem in the Marble not the people.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Robinson, Farage, Tice et al are the only ones to represent The People and are, therefore, The Centre.
A simple example: how many people you personally know think Net Zero is anything close to sane? The Populists do not yet the Extremists at Right and Left do. Those who tend to rule have always been, in our history, nowhere near to Populist; they seek to tell The Centre (The Populists) what they must accept.
Those who do not want what the majority want treat the majority with disdain bordering on hate.
This is one of the most interesting developments of contemporary politics. It’s at the heart of our current anti-white government, and is the core ideology of the Anti-White Party (the Labour Party). How did we get into this situation?
Agree with nearly all that but there is no such thing as the right in Britain, rather you have national socialists (a few) and global socialists ,(the entire political class), both are left as they believe in collectivism. Right would be Ron Paul type who believes in abolishing central banks and against almost all collectivism. The ridiculous right/left model of politics places Hitler on the right to remove his record from the socialist family, there was actually nothing right wing about him, a self proclaiming socialist.
In the 1920s (and even somewhat earlier) everybody who sought political success called himself a socialist because the fate of the masses of (relatively) impoverished factory works so far politically dominated by the Marxists was the important social and political topic of the day. That’s a bit like today, where everybody is opposed to racism, negative discrimination against women and in favour of protecting the environment. Nevertheless, concluding that all these people agreeing on this being important political topics must have championed essentially identical political approaches for dealing with them would be completely wrong.
Too simplistic. The assertion that a party that calls itself ‘national Socialist’ means it must be socialist would also apply to the dictatorship of the German Democratic Republic, which of course was neither democratic nor a republic.
Of course, this assertion has been going on for many years but one thing its adherents can’t answer is this: if Hitler and his party were such fervent socialists why did they enthusiastically support Franco’s monarchist falangists during the Spanish civil war, and not one of the various leftist factions instead?
Hitler’s brand of national socialism was directly contrary to the Soviet Union’s Marxist-Leninist communism which Hitler viewed with disdain and as the enemy.
Franco’s war was against the communists.
My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
I’m not convinced. Firstly, Franco’s war wasn’t against the communists per se. Franco’s war was against the republic. The communists weren’t even the biggest organisation amongst those that supported the republic. The anarcho-syndicalist CNT was the biggest trade union and the second largest, the UGT was primarily socialist at the beginning of the war.
secondly, don’t you think It’s strange that he thought siding with monarchists was a better fit with his ideology? And don’t you think it’s also strange that the German (and for the most part, British) aristocracy were enthusiastic supporters?
See Smudger’s comment below.
And see my reply to it.
And you haven’t answered any of my questions.
You have not asked anything worth answering that is not already answered by Smudger.
Let’s not forget you think it is OK for police to literally kick a helpless man’s head in so I am not taking any lessons from you.
Smudger’s answer in no way explained how those reasons would be exclusive to socialists. It seems the reason you didn’t answer my question is because you don’t have a valid, coherent answer.
Your second comment is classic strawmannery. My point was the thugs who attacked the police officers should be charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer.
But they have not been charged.
Might that be because they were defending themselves lawfully against an unlawful arrest? It strongly looks like it as the video suggests is the case.
You continue to insist that a man immobilised by taser lying face down on the ground is not helpless and that it is OK for a police officer to repeatedly kick him in the head.
What part of ‘helpless’ don’t you understand?
It appears from the news reports that officer has been suspended from duty pending an investigation.
If kicking an helpless man in the head repeatedly is OK then why might the officer have been suspended?
Maybe you are a police officer who thinks that is OK and you want to be free to kick any of us in the head whenever you like?
If that is the case then maybe you should be fired? The public need protection.
Strawmannery again. British law does not allow for physical violence against police officers, for whatever reason. The fact they weren’t charged is the strongest possible evidence that there is indeed two-tier policing in the UK, and that our establishment is pathetically infantile in its approach to ethnic minorities.
Yes it does. In self defence.
Former London police officer who raped a dozen women over 17 years gets life in prison
Or that there is huge doubt over whether they acted within their rights or not.
So which force are you an officer for?
Tell us so all DS subscribers can try to get you convicted because I am disturbed by what you think is normal behaviour by a police officer.
Indeed, I speculate that you might even be an islamist extremist trying to foment a white backlash. We on DS will never do that.
You’ve just exposed your flawed and delusionally paranoid mindset for all to see with your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack.
I’m not and never have been a police officer. And I’m white, English and an atheist.
Resisting arrest is a crime, and police officers can use force against people who resist.
As a civilian you can only use force that is reasonable and necessary. For example, if the force you use is excessive or in response to historic violence, it won’t qualify as self-defence.
If there is evidence of an assault, but not enough evidence that the officer was acting in the line of duty, you may be able to argue self-defence, and that is clearly not the case here.
What is evidently confusing you is the kick to the thug’s head after the fact. The thugs still used violence to resist arrest before that event, and it is this that they should be charged for.
What kills your argument is that still no charges have been brought. So at least I have a scintilla of justification for the case I am arguing. And probably more.
You do not seem to understand what ‘ad hominem’ means.
And you do not seem to understand that repeatedly kicking a helpless man in the head is frightening behaviour by a police officer.
And a firearms officer as well. They are supposed to have self-control but the Manchester Airport incident proves that wrong.
No wonder an innocent unarmed man sitting in the driver’s seat of his stationary car was shot in the head in Croydon a while back.
A head shot is shoot-to-kill. Nothing more and nothing less.
That firearms officer used a gun.
The one you are defending used his boot.
No difference however except in effect. One man died and the other did not.
Keep on defending the indefensible.
It is nothing new but it is still wrong.
17 million Germans working for their government from 1930-45 did not defend the indefensible. They promoted it, acted it out and did it. Many more supported it.
Your straw man arguments are getting more deranged as you go on. It seems it is you who is defending the decisions of the establishment yet try to paint yourself as some kind of maverick.
Because I understand that a video showing two thugs resisting arrest and attacking police officers means charges should be brought against them doesn’t mean I think someone driving a car should be shot. Your leaps of mental gymnastics not only show a serious case of delusion, they also show that you have the debating skills of a gnat with severe learning difficulties.
ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Your accusations of me being a police officer or an Islamist weren’t directed at my argument but at me as a person. It seems there is only one of us who understands what ad hominem means, and it blatantly isn’t you.
Sadly you are embarrassing yourself in a number of ways.
You demonstrate the clearest inability to recognise an ad hominem.
You then also use hypocritically multiple ad hominem attacks and now we can all see a nasty streak emerging.
This is aside from refusing to acknowledge a firearms police officer repeatedly kicking an helpless man in the head is very serious misconduct and potentially a serious criminal matter under investigation.
So let me help you.
Inquiring whether someone is a police officer is an ad hominem? Quite bizarre.
You seem to think it being suggested someone might be a police officer is very bad.
It is not an ad hominem attack to make such an inquiry.
So you think police officers are bad people and you do not want to be identified as one.
Utterly bizarre.
The question was put in order to understand your motives and unreasonable approach which is plainly wrong.
And now everyone else can see the nasty side coming out as you get angry because you are losing the argument:
This comment is difficult to understand:
“Your accusations of me being ….. an Islamist weren’t directed at my argument but at me as a person.”
Goodness me. I am struggling to find anything I have written saying you are an “Islamist“.
You seem also to suggest all Islamists are bad people.
And frankly you have already said enough for people to make their own minds up about you, what you think and how you think it.
AFAIAK interacting further with you is a pointless exercise.
You appear to be unable to accept other people may have differing views to yours and that we all must accept your views as being a gospel version of the truth.
May I suggest you take an holiday?
We need it.
A few more points to add to the fire you have started. A strawman argument: my understanding of the meaning of this term is where one misstates an opposing argument to one which is easier to demolish and then demolish that argument to claim the opponent has a flawed case. Putting up a contrary case to demolish an argument is not using strawman arguments. It is arguing a contrary case. And when one’s opponent decends to abuse the opponent is demonstrating he has lost. Oh, and to the list above: “flawed and delusionally paranoid mindset” “pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack“ “the kick to the thug’s head“ “The thugs“ I must add these abusive comments of yours: “Your straw man arguments are getting more deranged” “you …. try to paint yourself as some kind of maverick” “leaps of mental gymnastics” “a serious case of delusion” “you have the debating skills of a gnat” “severe learning difficulties.” This is also bizarre and a strawman argument: “I think someone driving a car should be shot” I never suggested that. Additionally I made plain the point I was making regarding the innocent man shot in the head whilst in the driving seat… Read more »
“Indeed, I speculate that you might even be an islamist extremist trying to foment a white backlash. We on DS will never do that.”
It seems you are so insane you don’t even remember your own paranoid ramblings.
I just love it when people get abusive:
Example number 11 I believe to add to the prior list of 10.
And yet again you demonstrate your failure to understand what an ad hominem is.
Speculating about your motives is not ad hominem. And indeed an Islamic extremist doing what I speculate about might well deny being one, so denial does not solve the question.
And I could not be bothered to find which comment you are banging on about so I got you to find it for me.
Thanks buddy. Saved me some effort. Not insane after all.
PS wise advice is avoid carrying a pager.
I was thinking of offering to buy you a shovel but your comments here indicate you are already perfectly well equipped to dig your own hole
Angry? I wouldn’t waste my time and energy. But if it makes you feel better…
German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Wickepedia.
In the years following the Spanish Civil War, Hitler gave several possible motives for German involvement. Among these were the distraction it provided from German re-militarisation; the prevention of the spread of communism to Western Europe; the creation of a state friendly to Germany to disrupt Britain and France; and the possibilities for economic expansion
If you ignore Right and Left and Capitalist and Socialist you can replace them with Authoritarian and Populist., and then see who is the same
I agree that they are all possibilities. And none of which supports the notion that Hitler and his henchmen were socialists.
Clue’s in Hitler’s party’s name – National SOCIALIST or NAZI party.
German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Wickepedia.
In the years following the Spanish Civil War, Hitler gave several possible motives for German involvement. Among these were the distraction it provided from German re-militarisation; the prevention of the spread of communism to Western Europe; the creation of a state friendly to Germany to disrupt Britain and France; and the possibilities for economic expansion
I find this sentence irritating to be honest:
“I don’t know much about Tommy Robinson: but I think Stephen Yaxley-Lennon chose his name for good reason”
How can you write about what a person believes in, thinks, has and has not done without bothering to find out about the person? Robinson is on record stating why he uses a psedonym. The disdainful Populist Haters always make a point of stating “Yaxley-Lennon” in a sneering way. They invariably have never read or heard anything that he has ever stated. They simply loathe him because he represents everything they loathe: The People.
Actually I don’t know why he uses a different name, especially now everyone knows his real name. To be honest, I always assumed Tommy Robinson was his real name until fairly recently.
Why don’t you listen to his story in his own words in this compelling interview and then you will know why and why people are taking him seriously.
Why the Establishment Hates This Man | Tommy Robinson | EP 462
The Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
Jordan B Peterson – 8.17M subscribers
3,405,943 views 8 Jul 2024
______________________________
And this is also compelling viewing:
Silenced
50 million views since Jul 27, 2024 and that is just on the X version and does not include other sites like Rumble.
“I don’t know much about Tommy Robinson…”
At this point I switched off. Not the brightest comment.
And yet James Alexander decides to opine at length on the who and what of Tommy Robinson. A more sensible approach would have been to discuss popular political thought with side references to Tommy Robinson.
“Populism” is bandied about simply as a cheap sneer when the reality is that populism is really the common will.
Also interesting to note: When some bearded Richard Georg Duncecap III. chose to rename himself Lily Snowhite Mayflower to emphasise his inner femaleness, addressing him as “Come on, old Dick!” is supposedly a hate crime. Hence, by their own definition, the Yaxley-Lennonists are basking in hate crime. Hate must therefore be ok provided it targets the right people.
Cui bono? As Dr Alexander states he ‘does not know much about Tommy Robinson’ perhaps he should find out https://open.substack.com/pub/maajidnawaz?r=jx6c3&utm_medium=ios
In Maajid Nawaz’s latest podcast (his Substack transcription may not yet be available) he states that Tommy Robinson is being sponsored by the Israeli State in order to provoke large scale anti-Muslim sentiment and civil war in this country as Elon Musk is also agitating for and for which he may soon be summoned by Parliament. Why the provocation of civil unrest? To justify further punishment, censorship and control of the UK citizenry.
Majid is becoming seriously unhinged
Ever since MN woke up to the dodgy vax he has been bang on target. If you don’t like his message that is another story.
“Why the provocation of civil unrest? To justify further punishment, censorship and control of the UK citizenry.”
Which is a point I have been making repeatedly on DS for many months. It is absolutely blatant.
And as sure as eggs are eggs civil disturbances will erupt at the next Freedom / Patriot Rally in London on October 26th.
Sorry but any article that concerns itself with “racism” needs to define what the author means by that word and what he thinks others mean by it, and judge people by those criteria. Otherwise it’s a waste of time because we all take it to mean something different.
I’ve stopped using the terms “racism” and “racist” except in quotes, and I’ve started using the older terms racialism and racialist. “Racism” and “racist” have become anti-white attack-words that function as accusations of heresy, and are used to put white people on the defensive about being white, to bypass inconvenient facts, and to close down debate.
In general, “racist” is used in referring to white people who don’t think race is just a social construct, or who notice different outcomes correlating to race and don’t accept that these are due to “systemic racism”, or who want to preserve the white race and culture, or who are against mass immigration especially from non-white countries, or who just prefer in general to be surrounded mainly by white English or British people (or white people of whatever country they live in). What people who use the term “racist” seek to imply is that anyone who falls into one or more of the above categories wants to send non-white people to concentration camps, and kill them all, or enslave them.
According to the author, it’s a label people who believe themselves to be The Good People™ stick on those they believe to be The Bad People™ in order to label them as, well, bad. It doesn’t really mean anything. I think that’s an appropriate characterisation.
Historically, racism as we know it mostly means “how black Americans were treated in the USA up to the 1960s”. That’s how it became a “That’s bad!”-label with a life of its own. People not associated with the US civil rights movements also wanted to use this convenient term they learnt from it for their political opponents.
Tommy Robinson is a divisive character but he raises important issues which needs to be discussed. Apart from his staunch support for the Israeli regime and his disdain for the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims I quite like his courage against the Covid nonsense and other issues. I have been watching Luton Town F.C. ever since 1967 and the Town and Tommy Robinson are well known to us. That is why he is banned from the ground and the fans asked not to sing his name which they haven’t for some years. I’ve seen him at some away games and also seen him when we are lucky enough to play at Wembley. One match at Oxford City he was sitting next to his friend who was black, so I know he is not racist against ALL people of colour, just Muslims. The vast majority of the 2 billion Muslims in the world are peace loving. His book on Islam was repetitive and the same case could be made with the Bible and other religious books. I’ve read some of his other books and, if true, I agree he has been hard done by by the authorities. However, he brings division… Read more »
and his disdain for the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims
I’ve never come across a “disdain for the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims” in Tommy Robinson’s books and videos. Could you provide a link where he disdains peace-loving Muslims? Thanks.
Peace loving Muslims follow the Qur’an and TR has criticised it countless times.
TR is a “two tier” so-called journalist who only reports on crimes by Muslims and not similar crimes by other people.
Peace loving Muslims follow the Qur’an
I have a peace-loving Muslim friend who doesn’t follow all the Koran. For example, he doesn’t follow:
Koran 2:191 “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
Koran 3:21 “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends”
Koran 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
Koran 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran”
Koran 8:60 ” Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels”
Koran 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them”
Koran 9:5 “When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them”
Koran 9:123 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood”
Koran 22:19 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies”
Koran 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them”.
You can find equal nonsense in the Bible, Torah and the rest of the religious texts.
As a devout atheist I have no time for any of them.
But we don’t have Christian terrorists. There are some devout types in the US, like the ones who shout ‘God Hates Fags’ etc but they don’t usually kill people.
In relation to the Bible, I would be interested to learn please which sections call for Christians to take violent conquest or subjugation of all non-believers. Genuine question, I have not read the whole text.
A simple internet search brings this up at second on the list ……
https://www.openbible.info/topics/killing_non_believers
Acknowledged, but most of those listed do not do such; even if there were say 100, that would only be 0.3% of the total text. As opposed to c.67% of the Koran, as per Dr Moorthy Muthuswamy’s analysis. There is significant relativity there.
Have you read the quotes? Most are from the New Testament, dealing with issues thought criminal at the time (such as homosexuality and infidelity). Most of the quotes in this piece are not calling for killing.
Context dear boy, context! You have zero understanding of anything.
There is none!
If you are an atheist as you claim, why do you support the religious group “Muslims”? According to your “faith” they are as deluded as all the others? What do they have that Christians don’t except a protected text which is certainly nothing to do with love for your fellow man?
That may be true given TR’s background and declared support. But:
“About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity.
About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.”
– Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy
Actually the best example of peace-loving Muslims I can think of are the Israeli Muslims, who hate the jihadi terrorists just as much as the rest of the population, who also fight on the IDF even though they’re not obliged to and who were also slaughtered and taken hostage on Oct 7th by the neighbouring barbarians. They undoubtedly know what it is to live in a peaceful ( when not being under attack and bombarded with rockets, anyway ) and tolerant democracy, as opposed to a hateful ideology that worships death, governs using terror and violence, and is obsessed with killing Jews 24/7;
”We must never allow the haters to divide us, Jews and Muslims, fellow citizens of Israel. United by our common humanity and resistance to terrorism.”
https://x.com/EylonALevy/status/1833311311884914913
How can you be “racist” against Muslims given than Islam is a religion not a race, and there are multiple races/ethnicities that are predominantly Muslim? If you mean that he thinks all Muslims are bad because of the religion they follow, that’s a different matter. I doubt that’s what he thinks, but I know little about him so I may be wrong.
Chatting to Jordan Peterson he said how he was mates with Muslims.
Further, the term ‘Semite’ has also been distorted by the System, as it takes in a very large region including many other African and Middle-Eastern countries, languages, cultures and religions. It is not an antonym for ‘Jewish’.
“Antisemitism” seems like another unhelpful term, designed to shut down debate. I’m probably more “pro-Israel” than the opposite, but I don’t see why their actions should not be questioned. I’m not sure it helps their cause to label anyone who does so as “antisemitic” – a few might be, but many are not, and all it does is stop people thinking and make them entrench their positions.
Hang on a minute, why did Israel have to decide to erase Hamas, not the people, Hamas? Tjhrowing out daft claims does not make them true. Israel are not Bush and Blair in Iraq you know and nor do they go around chopping the heads off babies like your oh so innocent hero’s do.
The fact that you believe the fiction that Hamas chopped off the heads of babies shows you have succumbed to all the lies and propaganda and not worthy of my time.
You two don’t fall out over the Israel/Palestine nonsense. It’s none of our business, we have no interest there strategically and there is actually no good side anyway.
We think we have no interest there but apparently the head of McKinsey UK is also the head of McKinsey Israel. “They” seem to think we have interests in common.
Well done! Excellent burying of head in sand (or other places). We are but ants at your feet and not worthy of your time. Ever stop to think, MindHalf Full, that treating other people as worthless because their beliefs do not march in lockstep with your own only shows you up to be a bigoted and ignorant parl clutcher.
Sorry! Stupid question; of course you haven’t.
I repeat, anyone who believes the lies, propaganda and omissions of the truth is not a “sceptic” and unworthy of my valuable time.
You may value your time. I don’t!
If it’s so precious, go and spend it elsewhere. You’re always so unpleasant and rude and I wish you’d learn to be civil.
But you’re welcome here. I value your right to free speech, but please just don’t be such an arrogant tw…
We also want to know how the most secure border in the world, that could detect a cat’s fart at 200 yards, allowed in a bunch of noisy marauders with their trucks. Not to mention the microlights.
Distrust of Muslims and a general liking for non Muslim black people would accurately describe my views as well.
At this point it is undeniable that uncontrolled mass immigration a disproportionate amount of which are Muslim males most of whom make no effort to integrate or otherwise justify their presence here, is a disaster for this country.
And the refusal of the politicians to engage is deserving of severe opprobrium and dissent, so on this I stand with Tommy.
“and his banning from certain areas is for public safety”
He has been moved on by Police having a family dinner, that is a total abuse of power and something they would never do with the religion of peace.
“However, he brings division wherever he goes and his banning from certain areas is for public safety.”
Well if any of us speak against the “official” narrative we are likely to be condemned as being divisive so I hardly consider this to be a valid criticism. Furthermore, public safety issues arise as a result of those seeking to shut down Tommy Robinson and NOT for violence which he is usually blamed for – erroneously.
Tommy Robinson didn’t open the borders, he didn’t destroy the energy grid over an imaginary threat nor did he lock us in our homes over a cold. He is a useful ghoul for the actual extremists who rule this country permanently from London. Whoever TR is he hasn’t destroyed this country.
Hear, hear.
Nothing wrong with populism it is the will of the people afterall! Yet our wishes are constantly ignored or sneered at by the self-styled ‘elites’ – just do do they think they are? TR to me is a kind of marmite figure I do not agree with his stance on Israel, I cannot understand why he sides with the genocidal zionists so on that particular point we are on opposite sides, but no one can doubt his patriotism.
I think you really ought to lookup Genocide and listen to what Hamas say. Figuring out what From The River To The Sea means would be a good starter for ten on the road to joined up thinking.
I agree however is it our problem? I’m less concerned about the borders in the middle east, we should be far more concerned about our own invasion of our non existent borders.
Agreed…plague on both houses. People seem to forget the vaccine fascism in Israel of all places. What happened to the Nuremberg Code FFS. on a side note, killing of kids on whatever side can’t be justified beyond the normal confines & horrors of War, in other words, don’t target children.
Perhaps ‘mowing the lawn’ is something you should look up! Israel will destroy itself mark my words! Hamas were at one time funded by Netanyahu because they both shared a common outcome that neither wanted to ‘share’ Palestine.
Just so you know: “From The River To The Sea” is code for the planned Second Holocaust, just as “The final solution” was code for the First Holocaust.
Origin of ‘From the river to the sea’.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/from-the-river-to-the-sea/
Origins are one thing. Current usage another.
‘From the river to the sea’: Why these 6 words spark fury and passion over the Israel-Hamas war AP November 11, 2023
Here’s the man himself talking about the next big rally being organized for Oct 26th. I reckon this will be the biggest yet because this is after all these people, these concerned citizens, are being sent to jail, vast majority for absolute bogus reasons and zero justification, but also it’ll be after thousands of actual real criminals are being let out early, people who are way more dangerous to the British public than somebody posting something anti-establishment on social media. People are pissed and they have to use that to come together to display their unity and send a message to the government. Bless him, he’s passionate, but he’s 100% right in what he says. There is no justice system anymore. Instead they’re jailing political prisoners, essentially. The so-called ‘justice system’ is demonstrably nothing to do with justice or keeping the public safe. On the contrary. People who speak out in opposition and voice legitimate concerns are now deemed ‘public enemy number 1’ and knife-wielding maniacs, sex offenders, robbers and paedophiles are either being let out early or not being sent down at all as they’ll get suspended sentences and a bit of community service. It’s beyond pitiful and an… Read more »
The end of Robinson Crusoe is informative but little known. As unlikely as it may seem, he finishes up in Belgium, surrounded by a pack of 300 wolves slavering to tear him apart. Life could yet emulate art.
He’s leaving Friday!
A very strange article which seeks to unilaterally transform the generally accepted meaning of words into something completely different – in this case political Centrism is no longer taken to mean in relation to any Left – Right continuum, but rather part of a literalist visual metaphor; a marble with its glass equating to the state and coloured centre the majority of the population. In other words the term ‘Centre’ here has no even vaguely definable ideological connotations but simply reflects whatever trends the majority of a population buy into at any one time. Taken in that sense in reality the majority of the British population currently agrees with the state in most of its harmful policy agendas (Net Zero, recently the Covid lockdowns etc). Mass uncontrolled immigration might be an exception, though thankfully only a tiny minority take any sort of extreme nationalist or racist views on this. In other words the centre of Dr Alexander’s marble is mainly made from the same colourless material as its surrounding glass. So all such issues should be dealt with ideologically, practically, and above all morally (again re eg Net Zero) rather than statistically (also personalised) as here. My own position on… Read more »
“thankfully only a tiny minority take any sort of extreme nationalist or racist views on this”
Please explain what you mean by/give some examples of “extreme nationalist or racist views”.
Extreme nationalist = ‘Britain for the native British alone’, ‘Send them all back going back several generations’ etc
Racist = ‘People with darker skin tones can never fully develop civilised values / fully integrate into civilised countries so should all be deported’, ‘People with darker skin colour can never operate successful democratic systems and require authoritarian governance’, ‘Chinese people are incapable of innovation and can only succeed by stealing intellectual capital from the West’ etc.
[crosses fingers that this is not picked up by some clunky algorithm and I’m ‘cancelled’ or sent to prison for 20 years :-)]
I believe we would have been better off keeping Britain for the native British alone, on balance, and also believe that different countries with different races and cultures are a Good Thing (diversity!). I do not believe in deporting people who are here legally and who obey the law, because we invited them here in the first place. So I am 50% extreme nationalist.
I think different countries/races/cultures will continue to have different outcomes, no matter what, but I judge individuals of whatever race entirely as individuals and am not stupid enough to think they are all the same. 50% racist, or more?
I suspect my views are not uncommon.
We need to be in separate countries.
Also each country has its own traditions and culture, that is (was) the beauty of visiting France, Italy, Spain etc. Mass immigration is degrading these individual countries, some would say by design. And no I have no problem with different races, my girlfriend is black. What I’m saying is each country should keep its racial identity as dominant in said country.
Indeed- true diversity
Be careful. Remember the Nazi Pug…..The judge proclaimed “context is not important in this case”….What sort of f*cked up justice system allows such blatant abuse of justice!
“My own position on immigration is that worldwide free movement and integration (indeed the eventual abolition of the entire inherently divisive and conflict-promoting nation-state system) is the ideal, but on route towards that it is perfectly valid to restrict incomers based on scarcity of resources, refusals to accept domestic ethical standards re the egalitarian treatment of females, freedom of thought and belief, insisting on maintaining segregated communities, a stated desire to eventually impose your own religion / authoritarian political system on the democratic host country etc.” Well I think your two aims are mutually contradictory and/or cannot be achieved because most people are just not like that and never will be. We need to live in different countries – let’s give half the world to people who love or at least feel comfortable in their own culture mainly surrounded by people of their own race, and half to people who want a world of coffee coloured people all speaking the same language and having the same social mores. Race exists and at a macro level it matters enormously and influences outcomes. Perhaps thinking this makes me one of the “tiny minority” that “takes any sort of extreme nationalist or racist… Read more »
Actually Matt Goodwin speaks to this in this short clip;
”Matt Goodwin explains exactly where the problem lies in the UK today. Unfortunately it’s now impossible to express these thoughts without risking arrest.”
https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1833456603363684369
Even on Whatsapp now apparently. I was having a private chat with a mate, explaining how mass immigration is ruining this country. Mayne the Woke Paramilitary will knock on my door. Not that I give a toss because some of us have principles, that is why I have respect for people like Tommy.
“We need to live in different countries – let’s give half the world to people who love or at least feel comfortable in their own culture mainly surrounded by people of their own race, and half to people who want a world of coffee coloured people all speaking the same language and having the same social mores. Race exists and at a macro level it matters enormously and influences outcomes.” Everywhere that ‘racial’ (in reality these categorisations are simply part of a Victorian pseudo-science, like eugenics, craniology etc) segregation has been attempted – post Civil War US, South African Apartheid, to a limited extent the Britain of ‘No blacks, no Irish, no dogs’ etc – has resulted in only untold misery and ultimately complete failure. And that is because in reality – and with apologies for the cliché – we are all part of a single human race, with exactly the same sort of eternal soul residing within us. That doesn’t mean, however, that current cultural and ideological differences should simply be ignored, militant Islam given free reign to impose its misogynistic and tyrannical agenda across the world (including the UK) etc. But this is only valid and consistent if… Read more »
Well, history so far tells us that race matters at a macro level. But then I am a horrible racist and you’re a nice person, so we need to live in separate countries so you can pursue your utopian experiment while I try to live out the rest of my days in peace.
You don’t need “apartheid” if you don’t have mass immigration.
“But this is only valid and consistent if similarly harmful aspects of domestic extreme nationalism are challenged a the same time.”
Please give examples of “domestic extreme nationalism” and the harms they do.
“Well, history so far tells us that race matters at a macro level. But then I am a horrible racist and you’re a nice person, so we need to live in separate countries so you can pursue your utopian experiment while I try to live out the rest of my days in peace.”
I like the humorous aspect of this! On a more serious note I believe we are all essentially the same / essentially good, and my points are always purely ideological challenges rather than personal criticisms.
“Please give examples of “domestic extreme nationalism” and the harms they do”
Recent rioting targeting both police and immigrant accommodation.
Incidentally I do accept that there is at least an element of two-tier policing / justice system going on with those involved (including at a very minor / just comments made level) being treated far more swiftly and harshly then those taking part in at least partially terrorism and anti-Semitism promoting mass weekly marches across Britain.
“Well I like the humorous aspect of this! On a more serious note I believe we are all essentially the same / essentially good, and my points are always purely ideological challenges rather than personal criticisms.”
I intended no humour. Most humans are a mixture of good and bad in different measures and we are all different – you and I are VERY different. I try not to take things written by strangers in the internet personally. Sadly for me, your side has won.
“Sadly for me, your side has won”
Well I think you are overlooking large aspects of my position on this issue which are very far from being achieved (including our shared opposition to current immigration policy, though from different perspectives and to different extents), beyond that I can fully empathise with this feeling of being in a small ideological minority –
For example for decades now I have been challenging the Net Zero and general environmentalist ideology and agenda within a society that overwhelmingly buys into it. On the other hand if you truly believe in something then numbers in opposition should make no real difference (though they obviously do in a democratic and practical sense).
You seem to have some kind of long term utopian vision – something like what Thomas Sowell calls “the unconstrained vision”. I do not – what Sowell calls the “constrained vision”. We may agree on what to do in the short term, but can never agree on the long term goals, which are all that matter. As long as there are people with this “unconstrained vision” in the ascendancy, things are going to move more or less in the direction they have been moving in, just at different speeds. I don’t want “integration”.
The numbers make no difference to my belief, just to my life – made worse.
“You seem to have some kind of long term utopian vision – something like what Thomas Sowell calls “the unconstrained vision”. I do not – what Sowell calls the “constrained vision”. We may agree on what to do in the short term, but can never agree on the long term goals, which are all that matter. As long as there are people with this “unconstrained vision” in the ascendancy, things are going to move more or less in the direction they have been moving in, just at different speeds.” The current dominant ideology in the West, including UK, is the precise opposite of Utopianism (which incidentally I don’t buy into, only that we should do our best to make the world a better place in any small or big way we can, plus come to morality and practicality based conclusions on any major political and ideological issues we are faced with). The environmentalist creed has turned centuries of progressive thinking – human beings can use ingenuity and natural resources to create a condition of material security and plenty for all – on its head into ‘human beings are a blight on The Planet, industrialisation and exploitation of resources are the… Read more »
The predominant ideology at the top is for people with a lot of power and a lot of money to want to keep it and have more. They push the idea of a world in which we all live in harmony for their own ends, and enough people believe it to allow it to happen.
As put in yesterdays UK Column…DEI etc is Woke fascism.
“I don’t want “integration”.
The numbers make no difference to my belief, just to my life – made worse.”
No and neither do I. Having thousands of aliens thrust into my English town has done nothing but turn it into a firkin shit hole. Foreigners walking about in pyjamas and jabbering in foreign languages is not my Britain. I didn’t ask for this shit, I don’t want to pay for it and i didn’t vote for it.
The U.S is seeing the same, albeit from different countries and with slightly different ”cultural differences”. Not sure if you’re aware of what happened in Springfield, a town of 50,000 in Ohio. They had 20,000 Haitians dumped on them. Now the citizens have these migrants using all the resources, camping in their gardens and eating their pets, including decapitating geese and ducks from the park and eating them. Apparently it’s all about the upcoming election and to change a Republican majority town into a Democrat town. Here’s one such concerned citizen;
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1833134591076704691
”You’re right, guys. It’s all a ruse and a figment of everyone’s imagination. Illegal migrants always respect the law!”
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1833470298089308394
I think what this Springfield resident is saying about seeing the transformation of her town is easily translatable to anywhere else where there’s been a mass influx of ”cultural enrichment”. To say these people sound uncivilized would be an understatement;
”This should be a warning to us all… A resident from Springfield talks about how the Haitians there steal animals from farmers + Leave their heads at the side of the road.. Steal ducks from the parks to eat.. throw their litter everywhere, open containers in the store and help themselves.”
https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1833032860007043269
This woman is absolutely fried and genuinely torn between being neighbourly and grabbing the shotgun. It might come to that one day, but I guarantee the phrase ‘far right’ would be in the news that night.
For the English and British nationalists among us could you explain the “harmful aspects of domestic extreme nationalism” because I am not aware of any.
Your view on immigration is inheritantly destructive.
It has to be a mark of the success of propaganda that so many people say (of Tommy Robinson) that they don’t know anything about a man who has been in the news all the time for a decade or more.
Populism has been defined as the shadow of democracy. President Zelensky was elected as a populist. He must be the only populist leader that the Centrist leaders of the West like. Albeit out of necessity. If he were the president of Brazil he would we treated by them like Bolsonaro. It should have long been obvious that you can be anything as long as you’re a centrist. Now TR/YL wants to prove the point. Centrism is used rather like Lenin’s democratic centralism to impose a certain unity. The Centrist parties claim they want to ‘address’ the concerns of the ‘extremist’ ones. This really means bamboozling the electorate into thinking that something is going to be done about their concerns. Same old, same old. Sir K has already said that the rioters will not determine Government policy. So the UK following continental policies on immigration/migration is highly unlikely. As for the AfD, they are principally successful if what was the GDR (East Germany, the Soviet zone, not Nazi Germany). They are evidence that unification hasn’t gone too well. The firewall to be erected against them is, as has been pointed out by others, a wall against democracy. Isn’t it an extremist… Read more »
Tommy is a brave white working class man who has the courage to stand up while others
hide under their beds, an inspiration to us all
My parents generation fought against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Does that make them Extreme Left?
“A sceptic, even if feeling more solidarity with the catseye – as I suppose we all do (if only on the grounds that it is the neglected bit of the marble) – has also to maintain an equal and opposite sense that the glass marble is a necessary construction.”
We are so lucky to have enlightened thinkers like Dr Alexander who can sail in such a serene fashion over the grubby world of political conflict.
Because here is the problem: the more disconnected the elite become, the more the conditions for revolution are being built. And revolution completely smashes the marble and the cat’s eye too.
Ultimately it is the elite who need to wake up to this danger and smell the coffee.
“Ultimately it is the elite who need to wake up to this danger and smell the coffee.”
This is debatable. Kneel is certainly stirring up civil unrest and deliberately so.
Labels, labels and more labels. Meaningless unless you can describe where they stand. Not left, right or centre. But their philosophy and value system. It’s easy to put Farage and Robinson to the far right when their policies or values are just traditional. Shall I say classical? There’s nothing left or right about being loyal to your own culture and tradition.
Spot on.
As Dr Alexander states he ‘does not know much about Tommy Robinson’ perhaps he should find out https://open.substack.com/pub/maajidnawaz?r=jx6c3&utm_medium=ios
In Maajid Nawaz’s latest podcast (his Substack transcription may not yet be available) he states that Tommy Robinson is being sponsored by the Israeli State in order to provoke large scale anti-Muslim sentiment and civil war in this country as Elon Musk is also agitating for. Mr Musk may soon be summoned by Parliament for this provocation.
I have been a TRUE CONSERVATIVE all my life free speech, small government and capitalism etc. I haven’t changed, it’s just the Overton Window has moved so far left I’m now considered far right. The AfD are likewise labelled far right not because they are but because “the establishment” have gone far left!
Just to add – Mr Alexander you are spot on! Your analysis is perfect. We are all centrists!!!
My apologies – Dr Alexander. Bravo.
Blimey. What a lot of comments by 7:30 in the morning. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in politics are becoming meaningless other than to describe the socialist and communist dogma politics and the capitalist free market dogma politics. The problem that exists now is that to do what is thought best might mean borrowing bits and pieces of political approaches of all kinds – from left, right and centre. So averaging it all out in a vaguely mathematical way leaves us with a kind of liberal democracy of the current Uni-Party. It is neither quite left, nor right, nor centre. The picture of Tommy Robinson which is now emerging after some very sensible people have been listening to what he says and taking him seriously, is of a very clever determined man who was against the evil asian drug and grooming gangs which our security services were keen to allow to operate in order to get intelligence on religious extremist terrorism organised in the UK. This has been a pattern of behaviour of the UK security services as illustrated by the Kincora Boys Home scandal in NI and the North Wales Child Abuse scandal which led to the Macur review. It is… Read more »
Excellent post 👍
Thanks.
It kind of came together quite well and sums up a lot in relatively few words.
One thing is certain.
Robinson will grow in stature and influence as more people come to understand what drives him and why and the kind of man he is.
The one thing he is not is a quitter.
Many people if they were subjected to what he has been would be in a mental hospital drugged up to the eyeballs.
In these depressing times it gives us hope that there are people like him who do the extraordinary every day. And he has been frightened and fearful and depressed by it all but he has never given up but comes back repeatedly from setbacks.
In his case he just gets stronger by the day.
he is an example to us all. we sceptics should stand up for what we believe in and never give up hope. having learned about Tommy’s situation i keep wondering who else have i been hoodwinked into believing is not worth listening to?
The scale of misinformation from the government, Whitehall, government departments and especially but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care is shocking.
Same too in the legacy media and especially the BBC.
We are constantly fed garbage about people and organisations whose messages are not those officialdom and the legacy media want to be listened to.
Don’t forget that according to the BBC Hamas is not a proscribed terrorist organisation.
If two tier Keir calls the vast majority of the population right wing extremists, then I suppose Tommy Robinson can call himself a ” centrist “
We are all Far White.
The politicians and the people are two separate groups. Like any system, a political party evolves to be increasingly self-referential. It only forms in the first place for the efficiency of representation and efficiency increases self-referemtially. The Conservatives have given us a master-class in how this works in practice , and those who remain are shocked by their downfall.
Daily Sceptic readers find ourselves amazed at their tin ears, but it is like the BBC, which is destroying its privileged position by becoming a club for like minded members.
Andrew Bridgen called his fellow parliamentarians attention to their democratic duty and look what happened to him. Who is going to win this battle ? The people should in a democracy but it looks unlikely at the moment, and is unlikely in principle.