Free Tommy Robinson?

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK.
User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Tom Rogers » Wed May 30, 2018 2:09 am

I'm conflicted about the Tommy Robinson affair.

I've never taken to him. That's not because of his clumsiness - I wouldn't mind that as it's compensated for in other ways. It's also not because he is a pseudo-nationalist: I think his activities, though based on watered-down and confused beliefs, do help to change the political climate and provide a route to more serious viewpoints. The reason I dislike him politically is due to his association with organised Jewish interests. I've already made it clear on a different thread what my view is about Jews as a class: that I don't blame them or other non-whites for what is happening to the White Race and the different nations of Europe, I blame whites. That view manifests in different ways: for instance, I don't blame Pakistani Moslem men for 'Rotherham', I blame white people for it, including white girls who willingly consort with strange men. I know that's harsh, and perhaps unfair, but this is a war, not a tea party and white people need to be strong in mind, body and spirit: in short, 'moral' in the proper sense of the term. The point being that the state will not rescue us, so unless white people take responsibility for their own actions, both as individuals and as a class, then nothing will change and the White Race, its meta-culture and its various phenotypes, ethnicities and national and regional cultures, will eventually die out. This is what leads me to a reactionary liberal and anarchistic position, though that is an altogether different matter. Returning to the matter in hand, I am suspicious of people, like Robinson, who take money from organised Jewish interests. It also hasn't escaped my attention that Robinson rose to prominence at about the time that Britain's only successful nationalist party, the BNP, was being sabotaged. More points can be made - I have at least several other suspicions about him, including about his true racial and ethnic origins - but that will do for now.

So there is that side of things. Then there is the case itself. The reporting restriction on R. v Yaxley-Lennon has now been lifted (as of 29th. May 2018), so those of us who have an interest in it can discuss it. I have to say, Robinson's arrest, trial and imprisonment do seem justified on the face of it. To understand why, one needs to have some knowledge and understanding of the way English criminal procedure works, including both in terms of law and also socio-culturally. Let me stress that here I provide merely an overview of the legal position, and I deliberately do not cover all of the points, even if somewhat relevant, as this is not intended to be some sort of legal analysis.

In contrast to the usual practice of most jurisdictions in the United States, the rules on reporting of English criminal trials are very strict. The most obvious difference is that trials here are not filmed; in point of fact, even court artists cannot do their work inside the precincts of the court: they must work from memory. The rules on reporting of criminal cases are enforced through the laws on contempt. The taxonomy changed in England nearly 40 years ago: reporting on matters sub judice traditionally fell under the common law sub judice ("under justice") rules, but as a result mostly of a statutory codification in 1981, now comes under the broader heading of contempt of court. A person is in contempt of court if he shows disobedience or disrespect to the court or its officers. Of specific relevance here is that no-one may report on an ongoing criminal case (i.e. between the commencement of proceedings in the shape of an arrest or summons and their conclusion at sentencing) in such a way that it may undermine the administration of justice. To be in contempt of court in this sense is a criminal offence that can - and very often does - result in imprisonment. This is a strict liability offence, meaning no actual intent to harm justice is necessary for punishment to be imposed, it is enough merely to report on a case in a particular way that undermines justice. The word 'report' in this context means any published comment whatsoever, not just in the professional media but theoretically any published comment whatsoever anywhere in the world - which is why I didn't post this thread until the 29th. Of course, as one would expect, in practice the media will often ignore or circumvent strict contempt laws to a degree. Like any legal standard, the courts cannot pursue everybody: punishments are selective. Despite their pretence otherwise, in truth there have been clear instances of flouting, normally in high-profile murder cases: a well-known example was the behaviour of the media towards a suspect, later cleared, in the investigation of the murder of a lady called Joanne Yeates. Nevertheless, the standard in law is strict and it has to be said that journalists in England are generally careful to respect these laws. The reason for the reporting restrictions in that, just as in most other jurisdictions, the right of the defendants to a fair trial is sacrosanct and any reporting of the case that undermines this right can be regarded as undermining justice and can jeopardise the trial itself, and if the defendants are found Guilty, the conviction can be appealed on this basis. The reason for the particular strictness of the reporting rules in England arises partly due to the impracticality of routinely sequestering juries in England and partly due on account of a deep cultural aversion in England to 'mob-driven law' and 'trial by media'. Sometimes judges take special measures to enforce the contempt laws. I won't exhaust these here, but it's sufficient to mention that these measures can include blanket reporting restrictions that limit reports of the trial to some degree or even ban reporting completely; and, can also take the form of what is known as a postponement order, whereby the judge restricts or bans reporting not just of the case under consideration but certain other cases to follow in the future that may involve some of the same defendants and witnesses.

On to Tommy Robinson. He was filming outside a court during a live trial in regard to which a postponement order had been imposed. In the very first ten seconds of the video, he is in contempt of court: he approaches defendants, clearly identifies them, and goads and mocks them. There can be no question of his guilt. The judge is now being criticised for only watching a few seconds of the stream, but that's all he needed to do to see that Robinson was in contempt. It's a very simple matter. His original arrest for breach of the peace was also lawful and correct and it was perfectly lawful that he should be brought before the court later that same day and imprisoned for contempt. That is how contempt proceedings work. It was also entirely proper for the judge to impose a further ban on the reporting of these contempt proceedings, in order to protect the continuing trial that was the subject-matter of the contempt. Robinson was given 10 months immediate imprisonment for this contempt, plus a previous suspended sentence was activated, meaning a total of 13 months in prison. None of this is out of the ordinary. His actions potentially jeopardised criminal proceedings, and so from a strict legal point-of-view, he has received his just deserts.

However, this is where I am conflicted. It's one thing to talk about the law and take the legalistic and juristic view of things, but there's more to this than that. We need heroes - and heroes aren't perfect. It seems to me that if we white British are going to change our situation, we do need to start standing up to authority. We need political ability and elected local councillors, etc. - yes, certainly - but we also need working-class men like Tommy Robinson who, perhaps seem a bit clumsy and oafish to 'respectable' middle-class people, but are prepared to do what is necessary, even at risk to themselves. And on reflection, there is no necessary contradiction in acknowledging that Robinson's imprisonment is legally-correct, but that we should support him and applaud his defiance.

I have pondered the possibility that Robinson is essentially a Jewish or Zionist agent, but it occurs to me that somebody working in that capacity would not willingly submit themselves to terms of imprisonment as part of some sort of psyop 'stunt'. I do think it is probable Robinson is working to an agenda other than the interests of the white British, but that agenda - most probably anti-jihadism and concerned overall with Israeli security - is not necessarily wholly contrary to the ethno-nationalist cause, and I also think it likely that Robinson personally is not wholly cognisant of who and what he is working for. Anyway, when I say we need more men like Robinson, I stress I do refer here to men like Tommy Robinson, not necessarily Tommy Robinson himself. Tommy Robinson may not be 'it', but he represents a type that is badly needed. He does not fear prison. Thus, as a heroic figure, I applaud him more as a myth and archetype - a representation - than for what he really is personally. If we had but a hundred men like him, of comparable courage and brawn, but with superior intelligence to go with it, we could take back this country for its people. Yesterday, I saw some of the potential of the white British - those few who will not be beaten down - and I saw what the white British can do with heroic leaders and what could happen when a man like Tommy Robinson stands up to power. They went to central London and protested outside Downing Street, telling those traitors what they thought of them. Think what would happen if we had merely a hundred 'Tommy Robinsons'. That's why, for all his faults, I must stand by him. Just as the insurrectionary crowd in Jerusalem at Passover screamed to the Romans not for Jesus, but for the wild man: 'Give Us Barabbas!', I say: FREE TOMMY ROBINSON!

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Tom Rogers » Wed May 30, 2018 7:12 pm

I've been grappling in my head why, despite not taking to Tommy Robinson, and despite his legal wrong-doing at the court, I still back him and can defend him, whereas I cannot support Alison Chabloz and Markus Meechan, despite the fact that, unlike Robinson, neither has done any wrong whatsoever. It's a gut feeling, and over many years and in light of both good and bad experiences, I have learned to trust my reflexive judgement. But is there any underlying principled distinction to be articulated?

An important distinction that I think can be made between, on the one hand, Tommy Robinson, and on the other, individuals like Alison Chabloz and Markus Meechan, is found at the psychological level and is partly behind my differing responses to each type of activist.

Robinson is a leader. He stands up to authority. He leads men and he also submits to the leadership of other men. He has simple ideas and sees the world simply, and he says what he thinks. He has a wife, a home and children whom he provides for. He is a man.

Chabloz and Meechan do not really stand up to authority. They don't lead. They perhaps have a more complex picture of the world than Robinson does, and I would say they are both more intelligent than Robinson: at least, in the academic and creative sense (which is not to say either is specially bright). But they are not leaders, they are not manly.

Robinson is about confrontation, using violence if needed. He believes in the strong defending the weak, and in standing up for what you believe.

Chabloz and Meechan are more about provocation, using intellectual devices such as discussion, name-calling, frivolity, gossip, and innuendo.

Robinson uses social media and other technology as a tool only. He is hardly a technophobe, but he takes the fight to the streets. He doesn't just sit in an echo chamber preaching. He doesn't just sit behind a computer.

In contrast, Chabloz and Meechan thrive in echo chambers, both actual and virtual. Social media, and closed meetings and events, are their operative environment.

Essentially, Robinson's is the masculine form of activism, stressing the active tense and rather aggressive; Chabloz and Meechan, in contrast, represent the feminine, and seem quite passive, even masochistic at times.

Robinson fulfils, or strives to fulfil, the hero/anti-hero archetype. Things don't happen to him. He happens to things. He is a personage and larger-than-life in the fullest expressive sense.

In contrast, Chabloz and Meechan are rather mediocre personalities, and in a sense, their situations are just things that have happened to them. Once their legal affairs are concluded and the dust has settled on their petty melodramas, they will most probably drift back into obscurity and quasi-normal lives.

I have to say, as much as I dislike Robinson politically, I do respect him.

In contrast, I have little or no respect for Chabloz and Meechan, despite both showing a certain amount of courage.

I think it all boils down to the fact that Robinson is "serious", whereas Chabloz and Meechan are frivolous. I think it's also a gender thing, which is related to the serious/frivolous dichotomy sometimes found in politics. The social media arena is gossipy and feminine and I dislike it strongly. I can't take women and effeminate men seriously, and by extension, I also struggle to regard homosexual men favourably. I'm not proud of this because it's a rather irrational prejudice, but there it is. It's what I think. Hence, I struggle to take Chabloz (a woman) and Meechan (a sort of socially-liberal faggy New Man type) seriously.

There is 'something' axiomatic or heuristic that comes out of all this, an underlying lesson, that I can't quite put my finger on and articulate clearly. I will get there, but for now, let me put it across this way:

I think where I am going with this is that I have more respect for and view more favourably the Simple Man who tells it like it is and who gives you the sense that, if and when he has to, he can back up his 'talk' with fists. That's why I respect Robinson and men like him. That said, Robinson is not the Ultimate Man in the political sense. The Ultimate Man is Byronic: he combines leadership, political and physical abilities, with a strong intellect. I make this observation with great respect to Robinson, but he is not the complete package.

But being the Simple Man can be a virtue, and in this case, it definitely is, I think. Robinson is unequivocally manly: he can lead, he can also follow; he doesn't pretend to be academic or even at all intelligent. He simply calls it as he sees it, and those who cross him can face up to him or shut their faces. Robinson is, for the moment, our Barabbas. I care little for Alison Chabloz, an hysterical female, or Markus Meechan, who looks like a fag and has fag-like views. I do care about Tommy Robinson because he stands for something. When we regard him, we can say: There is a Man. And even while I may disagree with him about things, I can say: There is a Man of sacrifice and principle. A real man! A man's man. And even if he turns out to be a total fraud, he would still have represented those things and given me hope and heart, just for a while.

User avatar
Physiocrat
Site Admin
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Physiocrat » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:27 pm

I have some admiration for Robinson as you do yourself. The ideal sort of character I think for a movement would be someone like Richard Spencer (yes, ideologically problematic and strategically) but he has a certain manly quality like Robinson however he is much more intellectual.

With respect to the restrictions on reporting, I think the law is itself unjust. If we are to have government courts, justice must be public and clearly public. That the courts could restrict the reporting of his sentence for a time is frightening. Further, I think Robinson is highly likely to be far more harshly dealt with in this case for obvious political reasons. I'd have to dig into it but I would be surprised if this type of contempt of court is ever really prosecuted.

Oh and yes, Free Tommy!
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

Millennial TM
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:36 am

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Millennial TM » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:41 pm

He'll be unsafe in prison too. Free Tommy indeed.

One reason that the state hates Tommy, as he admits, is because it's damn expensive to police his gatherings. This is how he was able to get a stage, screen and PR right outside Whitehall, the police are forced to offer a compromise as he has significant leverage. They can't stop a public gathering, but they have to pay for security.

I disagree with Tommy on various issues (censoring/revising the Quran for example, if that's still his policy) but he's a man I have enormous respect and admiration for. His big tent has been broadening pretty rapidly lately, and his ability to gather great populist support for what are basically classical liberal virtues (he calls it nationalism, I don't know how accurate that really is though) is very impressive.
"The crowd is untruth"

Millennial Transmissions

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Tom Rogers » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:49 pm

c.f. Joe Owens' video:



He's both right AND wrong.

He's right that it's all a load of bollocks, Robinson is not on our side, and Nationalists need to be focusing in the main on politics.

But Owens has a tendency to simplify things rhetorically for the sake of comprehension - a necessary thing, to get through to his intended audience, but with the result that he takes his own logic too far and doesn't stop to consider that there may be advantages in allowing the state and the enemy to pursue these tactics. There's a nuance to this, which is difficult to grasp and which I will (briefly) try to elucidate.

Tactically, what Robinson does is not mutually-exclusive with real political activity, and it's not a zero sum game. Even if Robinson is a fully paid-up state agent, or an agent of Zionists or whatever, there's a risk inherent to his masters in what he does. Nothing is without its downside. In much the same way, The Daily Stormer could well be an enemy psy-op, but if so, then the enemy is taking a very significant risk that the effect will be the opposite of what was intended: in attempting to discredit Nationalism by association, it's not in doubt that a large number of young white men have been radicalised beyond reach by Anglin's website. In other words, if the enemy has created the Alt Right, The Daily Stormer, 'Tommy Robinson' and much else besides, they have created a monster. Much like Frankenstein could not control his diabolical creation, they surely cannot control the results, outcomes and consequences of what they have spawned, some of which will be positive for Nationalism, some of which won't be so positive.

Yes, there are spies, and I personally believe that it was the state and the enemy working covertly that destroyed the BNP in the period between late 2008 and mid-2010. As Owens rightly points out, it's important to be vigilant about this in future, which is one of the reasons I like his videos; but at the same time, I think espionage tactics are ultimately unproductive for the state and the enemy. Actually, spying and informing on Nationalism and other modes of covert disruption and psychological operations are pretty dumb tactics to rely on. It's the inverse of those on the militant Right who eschew politics - an equally short-sighted perspective. True, espionage and psy-ops killed off the BNP, but it did not and cannot kill off Nationalism: from a strategic perspective, all it can do is hold back the tide, acting as a dam. The question is: Are the Alt Right, Tommy Robinson, The Daily Stormer, Red Ice Radio, etc., etc., the metaphorical dam? Some are, I think, and some aren't. But it is only a dam. Even the best-built dam will eventually fail, ceteris paribus. We can't be stopped. We can only be held back.

For me, when confronting state/enemy psy-op shenanigans, it's a question of how it can be exploited. In Robinson's case, if he can be used by the enemy, then he can also be used by us - quite easily. It just requires a bit of thought. For one thing, Robinson is actually popular. That's a weapon, and it's not a weapon pointed at us. It's deliberately pointed at Moslems, because Robinson serves not anti-white interests per se, but anti-Moslem interests which happen to be incidentally anti-white. As much as I agree with Joe Owens in the generality, I think he underestimates the extent of racial feeling among whites. It's latent, but it's there. As I think I stated in my original post, I don't pretend Tommy Robinson is the answer, but somebody like him is.

Millennial TM
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:36 am

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Millennial TM » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:23 pm

The BNP folded because they hit diminishing returns and the fringe/less committed supporters recognised that it wasn't going anywhere. Anti-nazism is too ingrained in the British conscious for a nationalist socialist movement to get off the ground. Post-holocaust, an explicitly fascist or national socialist movement will never attract more than a marginal following. The French NF worked because of the switch in leader from Jean to Marine, and the fact that Marine has convincingly disavowed her father's Tyndall-esque nonsense. Nick Griffin has too much of an explicitly Hitlerite past that is well documented, and he has never fully denounced holocaust denial (I don't mean in other people, but his own current beliefs). He refuses to answer questions about it. And the BNP is too tightly associated with Nick Griffin to most British people, that acronym is dead as an electoral ideal. Even Bowden couldn't save them.

The EDL of course became an avenue for anti-immigration anger (for some anyway) that was free of the racist stigma and therefore very attractive. By the time UKIP began gaining real leverage it was lost for the BNP. And I'm quite convinced that For Britain will keep them down, stealing a lot of their potential support base (if not their members and activists). I have no suspicion of espionage, Griffin and other significant BNP players (Collett more recently) lost because they were on the wrong side of history, and the British public won't forget.
"The crowd is untruth"

Millennial Transmissions

User avatar
Physiocrat
Site Admin
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Physiocrat » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:53 am

Infiltration of the BNP is perfectly possible but its main demise would seem to be Griffin's mismanagement and poor performance on Question Time. An explicitly nationalist party to be successful needs to strike the right tone from the beginning. Any history of boot boys or admiration for the 3rd Reich in any form will always be brought up and prevent mainstream acceptance of the party.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Tom Rogers » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:08 pm

Millennial TM wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:23 pm
The BNP folded because they hit diminishing returns and the fringe/less committed supporters recognised that it wasn't going anywhere. Anti-nazism is too ingrained in the British conscious for a nationalist socialist movement to get off the ground. Post-holocaust, an explicitly fascist or national socialist movement will never attract more than a marginal following. The French NF worked because of the switch in leader from Jean to Marine, and the fact that Marine has convincingly disavowed her father's Tyndall-esque nonsense. Nick Griffin has too much of an explicitly Hitlerite past that is well documented, and he has never fully denounced holocaust denial (I don't mean in other people, but his own current beliefs). He refuses to answer questions about it. And the BNP is too tightly associated with Nick Griffin to most British people, that acronym is dead as an electoral ideal. Even Bowden couldn't save them.

The EDL of course became an avenue for anti-immigration anger (for some anyway) that was free of the racist stigma and therefore very attractive. By the time UKIP began gaining real leverage it was lost for the BNP. And I'm quite convinced that For Britain will keep them down, stealing a lot of their potential support base (if not their members and activists). I have no suspicion of espionage, Griffin and other significant BNP players (Collett more recently) lost because they were on the wrong side of history, and the British public won't forget.
The BNP was brought down by state and enemy infiltration, full stop. There had always been subversion and covert sabotage, and it came to a head once it became apparent that the BNP were becoming a mainstream national quantity. I'm afraid that what happened is that once Griffin and Brons won their European seats, the efforts to subvert and destroy the BNP from within went into overdrive. I saw this happen and I even know who was involved in one or two cases. Also, back in the 1990s, I was personally-acquainted with a police officer who infiltrated the BNP and used to go round the country giving speeches about it. At the time, I was not a nationalist: in fact, I was very leftist in my politics, but even I was appalled at what he had done. The reality is that the state, enemy organisations and the media have worked in concert to destroy the political hopes of authentic ethno-nationalism in this country. That is why we now only have pale imitations and incompetents, not just in marginal nationalism, but in mainstream politics as well, among the 'respectable' parties. Dissent has been crushed.

I will grant that Griffin himself was never a very appealing leader and always rode on the back of natural support, mostly among the white working class and lower middle class, and of course it's also true that the image of the BNP was a factor, but all political parties have this problem in some form, actually. They all have to re-brand every once in a while. It's not in itself a good or bad thing. Labour had to in the late 80s and early 90s. Labour today also has problems. Corbyn isn't a particularly attractive leader politically due to being genuine and not bland like the others, but Labour sticks to Corbyn. The BNP had already changed a great deal under Griffin: a disparaging moniker aimed at Griffin while he was leader by some hardcore nationalists was 'Nu BNP', meant to imply with negative connotations that Griffin was nationalism's answer to Tony Blair. And the BNP would have had to change still more, and Griffin would have had to step down at some point. That said, I think the extent of 'anti-fascist' and 'anti-racist' consciousness among the British is exaggerated. It's largely media driven. It's not a notion derived from objective sources. If it were, then there would be, among other things, an acknowledgement of the ways in which mainstream politicians have had to appease fascistic and racialist sentiment in Britain for decades. The BNP were popular and with the right approach, could have become still more popular. If they were still around now (not in today's form), they would be picking up a lot of support and I think they would have at least one MP. The reason I think this is partly down to an ex-post facto comparison I would make with UKIP.

UKIP succeeded in their goal of securing a referendum on the EU by acting as a gingering force, but what's not being acknowledged is that the result of the Brexit referendum was largely down to mass immigration. The Brexit vote was a nationalist vote. It wasn't that UKIP succeeded in any field of argument - in fact, with the exception of Carswell, who wasn't a true UKIP'er, they didn't even win any seats at Westminster competitively - it was simply that UKIP were a proxy BNP, and when it came to that support translating into a referendum result, many ordinary white people in England and Wales, and many in Scotland and Northern Ireland too, voted 'racist'. The political system in Britain does not express the true views of the British people. No doubt the electoral system is a factor in this, but it's not an excuse: minor parties like the SNP and even the Greens seem to manage well enough. The real reason UKIP could never succeed in replacing the BNP is that they are too ideologically-divided and lacked the needed cohesion, with the result that - even today - their spokesmen are too willing to backslide. That, I believe, and not the excuse UKIP use of the first post the post electoral system, is the reason for their failure to become the main anti-Establishment political force. They just don't have the testosterone.

A real nationalist party that uses modern, user-friendly political techniques and is kept free of enemy infiltration, I think could make big inroads.

User avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Jon Irenicus » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:15 pm

UKIP without Farage has proven to be useless.

I agree that the Brexit referendum was by and large an immigration one; hence why had it been left to say Carswell, Hannan or Johnson alone, the vote to leave probably would not have been as successful, since they're all pro-mass-migration.

Yet, looking at the headlines today, there is news about Sajid Javid expanding the number of "high skill immigrants" coming to the country is prominent, yet again... no doubt spurred on by some pseudo-emergency which the government could've planned for, had it genuinely wanted to do so.
Former overlord of the original Mises forum.

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Free Tommy Robinson?

Post by Tom Rogers » Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:59 pm

An example from a different context, but which makes essentially the same point:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.2800707

While not proven, it is plausible that just a few British agents within the Provisional IRA influenced its direction. That said, whether the IRA could have sustained political violence much beyond the early 1990s is, I think, highly contestable. Arguably other more conventional intelligence efforts (i.e. informants and touts) were what did for the IRA, and by the early 1990s, they were effectively finished on account of that alone. There was also the 1987 Enniskillen bombing, which was a propaganda disaster for the Irish Republicans - as well as a terrible human tragedy - and which I think was the beginning of a decisive switch away from violence.

In the case of the BNP, it was noticeable how many unforced errors the Party made and how clumsy the propaganda often was at all levels: with clumsy spelling mistakes and typos and a general impression of amateurism that went beyond the occasional error. I think it's fairly obvious they were compromised from the beginning.

Post Reply