'For years we've been told that grassroots political movements are the future, community activism the way forward, empowerment of working people a necessity if we're going to get meaningful change. But now thanks to globalism, one of the consequences of which appears to be mass migration there are movements, new movements that appear to be getting incredible traction. In my country, the UK, there was a massive march that seems to be a kind of Britain first, England first march. Let's together talk about this movement, its figurehead Tommy Robinson and work out is this a movement that can change Britain, change British politics, and is it a movement that is motivated by love or hate. Cuz certainly the legacy media will tell you this, that these movements are hateful, that they are racist. Some of you might have seen Tommy Robinson on Jordan Peterson and heard his biographical take on why he has the feelings and experiences he's had coming out of Luton with its complexity and with its the challenges that have come with a community. Community that houses both white English, black English and Muslim people. It's an interesting story and you can check that out for yourself. Certainly the march over the weekend got a lot of support. There was a counter march, and the counter march was of course an anti-racist march, but I'm wondering this this: is it possible to be anti-racist, pro community, pro religious freedom, pro English values, pro the working class - people that built a country - and anti-establishment power that benefits from division and uses that division to turn people of different religious and cultural identities against one another? Let's have a look at this story together...'
He's careful not to endorse the rioters, but does everything he can to legitimise their alleged grievances and make it all about them. Not a word about the innocent people who have been victimised in the street, or those who narrowly avoided being burned to death in that hotel. His first video on the topic went to the sage sources of David Icke, Alex Jones, George Galloway and Nigel Farage:
The Icke quote he uses includes this: 'cultures from other lands need to respect the culture they enter and not as some do seek to usurp it and impose their own' (8:20) ie: straight out of racist great replacement narratives, generating fear of the migrant 'other' as a prelude for violence against them. Brand uses the phrase 'resurgent nationalist movement' to describe what has been happening (3:59), and along with the above quote shows that he's happy to present the riots/protests in a positive light even when this stretches credulity to breaking point.
The argument about finding common ground between groups and not allowing yourself to be divided by the establishment is worthy, but to open the video with Yaxley-Lennon in front of a group of distinctly 'military-aged males' (see what I did there?) talking about how efforts to 'divide' or 'separate us' had been unsuccessful deliberately confuses the issue. Yaxley-Lennon & co want division, they thrive on it, and are not at all interested in finding common cause with Muslims, black people or migrants to fight against the establishment. Who does Brand think he has in mind by 'us'?
Brand has been terrible since the serial allegations made against him, for example he has all but ignored the Gaza genocide. He seems to be a simp for Musk, Trump and Peterson nowadays. Makes you wonder whether some sort of understanding has been reached with the big boys since he was put in the legal cross hairs.
Fails to mention Yaxley-Lennon being on the Zionist payrole
...a fact which is key to understanding what's really going on. Makes you wonder whether some sort of understanding has been reached with the big boys since he was put in the legal cross hairs
Agree, it seems he's completely compromised.
Some real journalism from Lowkey on this subject (sorry if posted before):
?si=P7FMe8W2mWGaUzZo
Re: Fails to mention Yaxley-Lennon being on the Zionist payrole
Well that's the last doubt about Brand removed; quite the journey/downfall depending on your view.
It's been obvious he's been repositioning for the U.S. Christian right for probably a couple of years now and this looks like his attempt to get in on the Tice/Farage grift.
Who knows what deals have been made in the background; the whole rape/s.a. news may have been done to give him a bit of a nudge to go along although he had already started going that way well before that.
Jeers indeed....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Went back and watched the part of the first video showing footage from the march in London, and it finishes with a snippet of a group of blokes singing the 'no surrender to the IRA' chant which: '[...]derives from the 1689 Siege of Derry during the Williamite War in Ireland.[1] The song is associated with unionism and particularly Ulster loyalism. It expresses opposition to the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), which carried out hundreds of bombings and killings targeting British security forces and civilians during the Troubles.[2] The origins of the song are unknown but it was chanted in British pubs in the 1970s and 1980s and has been associated with the National Front and the British National Party.[3][4][5]
The song came to be sung by Rangers F.C. supporters, many of whom have strong unionist beliefs, in contrast with the pro-Irish republican sentiments of many supporters of Celtic F.C., their Old Firm rivals. The song may have been popularised among English football fans after the Heysel Stadium disaster in Brussels in 1985, which resulted in a five-year ban on English clubs competing in UEFA competitions. Some English fans chose to follow Scottish clubs instead and Rangers, one of the more successful, attracted a sizeable English following.[2]' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Surrender_(to_the_IRA)
Pricelessly Brand then asks: 'are people allowed to be patriotic, are people allowed to be nationalistic' with the clear implication that he thinks they should be (though who he thinks does the 'allowing' in this case is unclear). But what kind of patriotism or nationalism makes this kind of aggressive insistence on defeating a resistance group in a foreign, occupied country? Surely this is the kind of racist imperialism that wants to enjoy the fruits of empire & colonialism and make sure all the costs remain externalised.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Yaxley-Lennon is the son of an Irish immigrant and has been making efforts to introduce his brand of hate into Ireland, focusing on making connections with confused simpletons from deprived areas. A group of them from the small but steadily growing 'far-right' in Ireland (who seem oblivious to the vile anti-Irish history of their new English chums) travelled from the Coolock estate in North Dublin to Belfast a couple of weekends ago to stand shoulder to shoulder with sectarian loyalist gangs hungry to burn immigrant businesses and beat up brown people. We're entering a new chapter of the machievellian divide and rule handbook and almost everyone is playing into this nightmare in some way.
Re: Brand whitewashes Yaxley-Lennon - there is an issue though
Dixon leaves the courtroom and is escorted back to the cells to await sentencing. Others are receiving 20 months for similar offences committed during the riots that spread across the country earlier this month. The chances of him sitting in his mum’s kitchen any time soon are slim.
The backdrop to this sorry scene is Teesside Magistrates’ Court, an antiquated building close to a downtrodden city centre. (My bold)
Zoe Beatty seems to lack the insight to remark further on this last sentence. Yet it is likely one of the most important remarks in her whole article.
If Brand seems to be apologise in any way for the violent and racist nature of these protests, I would certainly not agree with this, but if he's trying to point out some serious underlying issues, particularly in regard to incontinent levels of immigration, whether legal or illegal, in our globalist economy and world then I'd suggest we all need to take notice. If we don't reduce immigration to more sustainable levels, if the powers don't seem to even bother or take any notice of large sections of society, we are inviting more violence, unreasonable violence certainly, but predictable. High levels of immigration to a country experience economic and social stress already are like a pressure on society, building up,, and eventually blowing its top uncontrollably.
I am a bit surprised that the anti-globalist contributors to this site are not commenting on this matter. So Israel is contributing to stirring things up, but when the pot is already simmering away, it's not the main issue.
I think the issue the anti globalists have is that Brand seems to be shepherding anger at the impacts of neo liberal globalisation away from the perpetrators and onto other victims, portraying Mossad Steve as some champion of those who stand against the establishment, rather than the chum of Douglas Murray that he is, steering the mob away from the elites who are the authors of their misery.
Re: Brand whitewashes Yaxley-Lennon - there is an issue though
If someone appeared on the scene who managed to channel all the anger currently being targeted at "the other", i.e. brown people, and turned it towards the "system" and the establishment they would have a much different attitude and would make sure it was stamped out and had no snidely encouraging press coverage, etc.
Brand is, and has been, really transparent in his repositioning. He's not trying to point out the deeper issues; he's pointing at the brown-skinned person and telling everyone, "He wants to steal your cookie"...
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: Brand whitewashes Yaxley-Lennon - there is an issue though
I think that's right, CM - it's irresponsible, to say the least, to discuss the issue of (im)migration without addressing the way the elites use it as a way of controlling the masses and getting them to turn on scapegoats instead of focusing their attention on the 'authors of their misery' (as you put it). You can't just imply that they have legitimate grievances without taking into account the effect of endless tabloid smear pieces and politicians of all stripes using dehumanising language and racist dog whistles to refer to 'hordes' or 'waves' or 'swarms' of (im)migrants 'invading' the UK etc. That generated the atmosphere where people could feel like a violent response was justified, whereas other arguably more important issues are ignored, tepidly acknowledged or even ridiculed. Brand discusses none of that, presenting it as an authentic display of people power, a 'movement', maybe even motivated by 'love' (ffs) without questioning any of the dark currents that have been feeding into it for decades.
...how little you know what you are talking about.
English Ukrainian and "Jewish"( by which I assume you mean Israeli) nationalisms, are not Nationalisms in the sense of aspiring to Nationhood. After all they all already have recognised sovereign states.
Ireland likewise except in the North where the Nationalists oppose the gerrymandered rule of the province of Ulster against dominant Anglo rule. Likewise in Scotland where Anglo rule reigns supreme.
You may call Anglo rule " British" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that Scotland NI and indeed Wales can do nothing in the HOC that cannot be stopped in its tracks by the Anglo majority.
What you need to understand is that Nationalism in a sovereign state is not the same as Nationalism in an aspiring one.
In fact most Nationalists in aspiring sovereign states see supposed Nationalists in recognised ones as xenophobic rabble rousing ethnic supremacists: aka Tommy Robinson as opposed to genuine Nationalists who seek statehood.
Now I know this is difficult for you to understand because some public school rugger buggers in Edinburgh apparently gave you a fright on your day trip to Edinburgh, but the rest of us can, so why not you?
on August 15, 2024, 6:55 pm
