One Man’s “Extremism” is Another Man’s Struggle for Liberty and Justice

I had occasion to visit a small NHS facility recently. It was a lovely, quiet unit, with only about a dozen or so patients, those patients living, prior to discharge, in several large “bays” and a few individual rooms. The unit was surrounded by flower gardens with small flowering trees and a few classical statues. Beyond that (out of sight) was a very small town (little more than a village) and the countryside of Southern England. If you have to go to a hospital, you could do worse. So why am I blogging about this?

While waiting to go in to see the patient in question, I perused the literature rack by the nursing station. One leaflet caught my eye. I have it before me as I write. Under the NHS logo and the name of the NHS foundation trust running the unit at the strategic level, the title:

PREVENT

[the words contained within a shield device; with two hands –dark blue and light blue (the old KGB colour..ironic) and perhaps (?) representing white and non-white– clasped]. The leaflet was then sub-headed:

Preventing vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism

Inside the leaflet:

What is Prevent? Prevent is part of the government’s counter terrorism strategy; aiming to prevent people of all ages from being radicalised and drawn into terrorism.

The leaflet continues:

What kind of extremism does Prevent aim to deal with? It aims to deal with all forms of extremism; for example far right extremism, animal rights extremism and religious extremism.

So we see that “terrorism” has already been conflated with or replaced by “extremism”, an even less easily-defined idea. Moreover, we see that Islamist terrorism, the only kind actually posing even a slight threat to public order in the UK, is not mentioned by name (no doubt that would be called “Islamophobic”…) and only coyly implied, sub nom “religious extremism”. No doubt the Jewish Zionist fanatics, who go in their hundreds to be trained by the Israelis in Israel, are not considered “extremists”, “terrorists” etc. No, they just go to an alien society to be trained in the use of weapons and in the techniques of killing with bare hands (oh, and of course, how to “bring down” British MPs thought not to be pro-Israel or pro-Jew…).

Who are these “extremists” in pole position in the Prevent leaflet? Ah, yes, the “far right” (also left undefined, presumably social nationalists, those who hate mass immigration and the trashing of the UK by certain groups and types) as well as those who hate the cruelties inflicted on the animal kingdom by some humans and by human society; but let us now return to the leaflet:

What are some of the possible signs of radicalisation?

  • you may notice changes in the person’s behaviour or mood;
  • the person’s appearance may change and they may spend excess [sic] time on the internet;
  • the person may start to express extreme political or radical views;
  • the person may become withdrawn or have a change in their circle of friends.

So now we have travelled from “terrorism” and even “extremism” to people who have or may have merely “radical” points of view about, say, the disastrous effect that mass immigration has had on the UK, or about the exploitation and cultural contamination carried out by Jew-Zionists, or even about animal welfare.

The leaflet then asks what the reader might do should he or she actually suspect that another person has changed lifestyle or perhaps have acquired “radical” views:

  • NOTICE: Be aware of an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation, any change in behaviour or ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs an individual may have. [this section of the leaflet also contains the iconic alien-looking “all-seeing eye” motif…]
  • CHECK: If possible and appropriate check out any concerns with the individual…your line manager and the [NHS] safeguarding team. [this section of the leaflet contains a motif of a magnifying glass with a little humanoid figure inside the lens…]
  • SHARE: You need to share your concerns with the [NHS] safeguarding team. They can advise you on any relevant partner agencies who will need to be contacted. [note “will need to be contacted” not “may need”…presumably police, MI5 etc].

The leaflet then goes on to list telephone numbers and internet contact details, before ending with these dystopian remarks, which would not have been out of place in an early 1970s BBC Play For Today, or perhaps George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:

What happens to my referral? [“my referral”, note, not “my denunciation”, “my informing”, my accusation” etc…]. Prevent referrals are shared with the MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) or [name of city] SPA (single point of access) depending on where the individual lives. Referrals are then screened for acceptance in to the channel process.

What is channel?

Channel is a multi-agency process whereby professionals and partner agencies can share resources and expertise. The aim of channel is to work with the individual to reduce risk. If your referral is accepted into the channel process you may also be asked to attend the channel meetings to share relevant information as part of effective multi-agency working.

I have sometimes been accused of being, inter alia, a “grammar Nazi”, and am, of course, (also) appalled by the poor English displayed in the leaflet. I have no idea by whom the leaflet was written. Perhaps the Home Office and MI5 are now less likely to recruit graduates from Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps the near-illiteracy shown is just a function of the UK’s sliding educational standards. The main impression given, though, is that of a police state operation which would be recognizable to an official of Stalin’s Russia or any similar society. The saving grace is probably that it is not (though I am guessing) very efficient.

Indeed, shorn of the millennial “nudge”-government, fake “sharing caring” and armchair psychology nonsense, the leaflet could be seen simply as a method of recruiting agents…

Finally, think about where this leaflet was found– not in a prison, a government office, nor even in a university library, but in a normal NHS clinical environment in the heart of the South of England…

note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

 

 

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “One Man’s “Extremism” is Another Man’s Struggle for Liberty and Justice”

  1. Reversing the perspective, but retaining the terminology, it is the state that promotes extremism – Prevent is just its cynical device for doing so – whereas nationalists promote normalcy. Fascism is the ultimate state of normalcy, which is why it is opposed by unnatural people. Nationalism is a medium for the actuation of a fascistic (i.e. hyper-normative) community, which is to say, a community of individuals who are free, strong, independent, pagan, völkisch and heterosexual – in other words, a healthy state of affairs. That this should be regarded as “extremism” is merely testament to how any sense of normalcy has been inverted.

    However, one term they use about us is true: indeed we are radicalisers, in a literal sense. This is because we seek a return to a fundamental state of living that is natural for human beings.

    As for terrorism, that, I believe, was an invention of the French Revolution and was a technique first used by incorrigible statists such as those now in power. The law itself is simply an expression of the violent will of a minority over everybody else, which in turn depends on the fear of violence and its consequences (death, injury, imprisonment, bankruptcy, etc.) for ensuring, variously, compliance or acquiescence with a perverted and abnormal social order.

    The complaint the authorities have about non-state terrorists (i.e. freedom fighters) isn’t founded on any moral principle, it’s purely that they regard themselves as having a monopoly on legitimate force. Or to put it a different (and still more accurate) way, the operative branch of the ruling class – i.e. politicians and the judiciary – think they should be the only people allowed to use terror.

    Taking that theme further, and apropos, my only complaint about Islamic terrorists is their infelicitous selection of targets. Should the mad mullahs decide to target the ruling elites, I shall be pleased to disburse to them funds.

    Like

    1. Well, it is certainly true that the State arrogates to itself the right to use force and only allows others to do so by permission or grant, eg when citizens use “reasonable force” in self-defence.

      Like

      1. Agreed. Much of the problems that are now confronting us go back to the expansion of the state beyond what can be considered its legitimate role.

        Like

      2. I’m not sure I personally agree with Steiner’s Threefold Social Order – at the least, I’m politely undecided about it. Although I’m not a doctrinal Fascist, I lean towards philosophical and community fascism: in other words, I think there is merit in the idea of a society with unified hyper-norms resting on organic and customary ideas. I don’t believe in the modern liberal-statist or the functionalist notion of a separation of powers and discrete realms and spheres of social and private action beyond what is practically expedient. Instead, I believe in the Leader Principle.

        To my mind, everything is unified and synergised, and society should be intentionalist. National Socialism, as I see it, is the unifying creed: it is either a religion in itself, or the representation of a naturalistic religion of some sort: perhaps Creativity or something similar.

        I think there’s nothing at all wrong with liberalism, but it’s the reactionary type of liberalism that appeals to me in which men become supreme over Nature and control their own destiny, not the sort of positivist or statist liberalism involving a ‘designed but non-intentionalist society’, as seems to be espoused by Steiner. Unlike Steiner, I think the state should be minimised, albeit over a period of time; indeed, I regard state-minimisation as the inexorable outcome of genetic improvement. A ‘master race’ – i.e. men in control of their destiny – has no need for statism, or a welfare state, nor for a construed separation of powers and functions along the lines espoused by Steiner.

        I ought to add that I think Steiner’s philosophical ideas on religion were very interesting (and oddly, seem to be in contradiction with his civic ideas about religion), but that’s a whole other matter.

        Like

  2. autres temps, memes moeurs: their methodology invokes recall of this passage (from Bolshevism in Theory and Practice (1936) by Josef Goebbels):

    “The main achievement of the peasant policy carried out by
    the Bolshevists is the terroristic law of August 7, 1932, which,
    for any kind of “wrong” committed by a peasant enacts the
    death penalty, ten years of hard labour or forced labour sen-
    tences. Judeo-Bolshevism even abuses the relation of child to
    parent in applying this law. “lswestia” reports, on May 28,
    1934, how a girl denounced her father, who had kept
    back grain that had been commissioned by the collective.
    Under the terror law her father was subject to the death
    penalty. The child received official congratulation for her act.”

    Grudge informers, the staple of UK 2018.

    btw:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-head-of-the-serious-fraud-office-announced

    Like

    1. I agree completely. The ethos of the child informer Pavel Morozov, a case similar to the one you have cited, is now pervading the UK. You see it on Twitter, where some creatures ask others, about a tweet of which they disapprove, “is that reportable?”; no doubt they are the same type that crowd the Common Purpose courses for inferior careerists who want to lord it over better people.

      Like

      1. For me, the question is:

        Are they falling into a trap, similar to the one that the Weimarist Germans elite fell into in the early 30s? Germany was a ‘dictatorship’ in explicit law at least two years before Hitler became Chancellor.

        This may not be a popular view among Nationalists, but I tend towards the thought that the society becomes totalitarian like this, and the more powers the enemy arrogate to themselves, the better. They are just heaping up their own bonfire, surely. Political action is important, though. If there is no Nationalist presence in politics, even if just at a local level, there will be no traction.

        Like

      2. As you say. Anything to do with the Reich is twisted by Jews and others who, while not Jews, are under Jewish influence. Austria was no “democracy” before the Anschluss of 1938. It was a so-called “clerical-bureaucratic” dictatorship. I agree also with the view that political action is a necessity. At present, there is no credible social-national or eve simple “nationalist”party; there exist only fake national parties such as UKIP, For Britain, English Democrats etc. All tiny (even UKIP, now), and none credible in terms of policy, leadership and message. UKIP is not even truly nationalist, “For Britain” is a one-trick-pony only interested in Islamism, headed by a weird, bitter-looking Irish lesbian ex-secretary; the membership of the rest could be contained within a bus in each case (in some cases, within a minibus… or even a taxi).

        Like

      3. To clarify: When I ask you for your thoughts on Joe Owens’ developing methods, I mean in relation to your idea of social-national communities in England. Do you think community politics of the type Owens espouses is a possible nascent step towards SN communities? But any other thoughts you have would be appreciated. I am keen to discuss practical ideas.

        Like

      4. Having looked up the name, it seems to be a positive step, but if you see my blog posts on prepping, ethnostate, white flight etc, you see my views more generally. The two paths are not opposed, though, more (imo) complementary. Thinking of Clausewitz, I cannot see a way forward before a “secure base” is established. For me, that is more likely to be in some rural or small-town area, not in large cities, the way things are in the UK.

        Like

      5. Yes, I suppose whatever Joe Owens’ end goals and motives may be, the strategy he is pursuing could be replicated as a starting-point for Nationalists, even if just as a way of acquiring relevant skills in community-building as a ‘practice run’. These skills could then be put to use in an overt or covert social-nationalist community project.

        I’ve long thought that what’s needed is a group that could form at a national level and target two or three promising local council wards, putting in a heavy concentration of manpower and resources in an effort to gain a foothold in local government. If nothing else, it would be useful experience and could be an embryonic social-nationalist political party.

        I do like your ideas, but as I’ve probably mentioned before in the comments here, it all boils to practicality. There is a group called WIN (White Independent Nation) that espouses a broadly similar idea to yours, but there the problem is how to get it off the ground and achieve the critical mass and commitment needed. My impression (I could be wrong) is that WIN’s approach and attitude to recruitment was fairly passive. Maybe an active approach is needed, in which Nationalists build up a cadre of activists who learn the political skills that they will need later if a cataclysm happens and an enclave becomes a viable possibility?

        Like

      6. The problem with winning a few council seats is that, in itself, it accomplishes little. “Parties” such as the English Democrats have done that, with not the slightest wider success. Same with UKIP and BNP. You are right to note the importance of “critical mass”. That is why social nationalism needs a secure base geographically above all. UKIP failed from the electoral point of view because it was getting 1%, 2%, 5%, sometimes 10% (or even around 25%, I believe, in one or two places in 2015), but even at peak in 2015, was coming second or third all over England but not coming first anywhere (except in Carswell-Clacton, which was not a real UKIP victory). Better to win a few seats and fail miserably elsewhere than get 10% across the board. However, critical mass relies on population, on people concentrating residence.

        Like

      7. I take your point about geographic concentration, and I won’t contradict you on that; but my recollection is that the BNP made a huge difference to politics nationally even though they were initially only winning local seats and there support was spread out. In my view, what did in the BNP was enemy infiltration, without which they would now have MPs. If just one social-nationalist could win a competitive election in local government, it would throw the enemy into panic. I don’t pretend that it would change anything in the scheme of things, but it would be a start. Each time one of us is elected, it becomes easier for the public to accept us.

        Like

      8. Yes, if people started to get elected for “A Social-National Party”, meaning for a Westminster election (I disagree that a few isolated local election successes would help) it would make a difference, but that just begs the question (i.e. how to get them elected). The only way is for social national people to gravitate to certain known areas. Once there in sufficient number (even a few hundred in, say, a rural part of Cornwall would start to tip the balance), the councils can be taken. A few thousand in one Westminster constituency might affect the outcome enough to win in a 3 or 4 way split. I see no alternative to that general plan (of concentration of forces).

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s