SQUADISM - A SERIOUS MISTAKE IN LEIGH
I think this was a bit of a political disaster.
As one of the organisers of the anti-BNP protest in Leigh last weekend described what happened:
“Master Race, your having a laugh!” was just one of the many chants that taunted BNP Boot Boys, previously wielding crowbars, truncheons and baseball bats in Leigh town centre, as they were forced, under Police protection, to tow away their wrecked Landrover, which was literally ‘hammered’ by a larger force of similarly tooled-up anti-fascists from the AFA. The AFA also over turned the Liverpool BNP Branch’s “Save Our Culture” trailer it was towing, which blocked traffic on St.Helens Road for almost an hour. …
The response to the appeals issued by myself and others, from students from Salford University and the Salford Left Forum, United Against Fascism, the AFA and from local anti-fascists, including members of the Socialist Workers’ Party, Socialist Party, Community Action Party, Labour Party and Respect, at such short notice was tremendous, so much so in fact that the anti-fascist forces were able successfully see off four of their nazi ‘flying’ storm troopers - who were just about to attack those assembling for the anti-fascist counter protest, and give their Landrover, trailer (and one of the BNP thugs) something of a ‘hammering’ in the process. They certainly left Leigh with their tails between their legs, with many shouting after them as they left “….and don’t come back!
The BNP fund raising event had already been moved by the BNP. So there was already a victory. Greater Manchester Police had visited three venues and told them that if they hosted the BNP event, their drinks licence may be withdrawn. So political pressure to isolate the BNP was already working.
Yet here we have the left boasting about a ” larger force of similarly tooled-up anti-fascists from the AFA”.
This is a disastrous approach. Given the relatively high level of support for the BNP, such a self-indulgent “military” approach to disrupting their meetings does nothing to undermine them politically. There simply doesn’t exist mass popular support for the idea of physically preventing the BNP from organising, and instead of doing the hard spadework of discussing with people face to face, and persuading people not to support the BNP, our “brave heros” substitited themselves for mass political work. The task is to isolate the BNP by building a political coalition to marginalise them, which means winning the middle ground to the idea that the BNP are an extraordinary political party that all democrats need to work together to defeat. Will that task now be easier or harder?
The BNP are now laughing literally at us, for giving them such an easy propaganda victory. It gives the opportunity to the BNP to pose as persecuted, and it gives the impression to the mass of undecided people that there is no difference between the BNP, and the anti-fascists. The picture here (left), taken from a BNP web-site shows BNP member, Tony Ward, who has obviously suffered quite serious injury. Now I am sure that Mr Ward is no angel, and I have little or no personal sympathy for him. But the BNP are now able to use the attack upon him to make themselves seem respectable, and make the anti-BNP campaigners look undemocratic. As the BNP web site puts it:
“This disgusting attack highlights the need for a real change of government in Our County. For far too long, members of the British National Party have been subjected to threats, intimidation and violence by the governing parties and their associates who seek to destroy a credible, legal and legitimate opposition political party.”
How effective is our message that the BNP are tainted with connection with hooligans, when the anti-fascists attack the BNP with hammers? There is no substitute to defeating the BNP politically, and the last thing the left needs is this sort of macho self-indulgence.
I agree.
Comment by David T — 16 March, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
I thought that the BNP attacked the anti-fascist protesters first and that the fighting back was just a response to that violence.
Comment by Mc Nally — 16 March, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Just to clarify, the wording of that persons statement “Similarly tooled up anti-fascists” can’t help.
I for one am not against pushing the Nazis off of the streets physically if it can be done. However I also don’t condone bringing weapons to demonstrations. But it is important to look at the situation on the ground. The article that you quoted even says “BNP Boot Boys, previously wielding crowbars, truncheons and baseball bats in Leigh town centre”
I think it is easy to judge a situation when you weren’t there. I know that if I was in a similar situation in Stoke where I knew the Nazis had an event planned for that day, and there had been armed Nazi thugs walking through the town centre, I’d make sure I was ready for a scrap, and probably have some steel toe capped boots on to stay safe.
Obviously a small group of anti-fascists looking for a scrap with the Nazis can’t replace mass political action…but is that REALLY what happened there on Saturday? I don’t think it was.
Comment by Mc Nally — 16 March, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
In which case, why are the organisers boasting of a “larger force of similarly tooled-up anti-fascists from the AFA. “
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Incidently, if this wasn’t pre-meditated squadism, and was really a case of self defence, then it is even more stupid to issue a press release implying that you were tooled up and ready to rumble! An even more egregious own goal.
But It is anyway hard to see how a landrover could be smashed up and a trailer overturned under the heading of “self defence”, which only gives you the right to use reasonable force to protect yourself
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
At least the BNP wants to try and control immigration. If The Labour Party put strong ideas in place to stop mass immigration in this serious economic downturn, the BNP would not be gaining More and More support. Let’s also be honest here because anyone can turn up in England without identity papers and get Political Asylum. Also the system is abused in so many other ways that it would take up much time to write about. Someone needs to take immigration very seriously as it is becoming a Time Bomb.
Comment by Leo — 16 March, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
I think putting the “Similarly tooled up anti fascists” is a travesty of a headline. But the action itself I find hard to criticise given that the Nazis were walking round with crowbars and baseball bats in the town centre!
I’m just going to take a little time out to point out that what Leo is saying is dangerous and wrong. Not just anyone can claim asylum. I knew a guy from Afgahinstan who tried to claim asylum here and was turned down and deported. He came back a few years later, didn’t claim asylum, but didn’t want to be dishonest and tried to get a job, then was deported again. On his second time returning to Afghanistan he was killed.
People die trying to get into this country and we welcome them by saying things like “Someone needs to take immigration seriously…its a time bomb.”
Immigration is not a time bomb. I welcome anyone from overseas. I didn’t ask to be born here in the UK, I have no right to say who can and can not stay here. All workers are in the same boat, and until we stop pushing people out of that little boat and realise that its the ruling class that are fucking us over, we’re doomed as a species!
Comment by Mc Nally — 16 March, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
theres not been enough mc hammer jokes in my mindd
Comment by xyz — 16 March, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
From my understanding the BNP squad, armed with bats, extendable truncheons and dogs attacked a small number of anti-fascists. They were then dispersed by other anti-fascists who arrived on scene.
Anyone who condemns this is totally unserious about fighting the Nazis. The positive results were evident on the night. The locals who had been observing the fascists and were initially sympathetic to them, were by the end, jeering them and telling them to get out of town.
Leo is clearly a fascist. I don’t know why Nazis are allowed to post on here.
Comment by bill j — 16 March, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Tony Ward is far from being “no angel” a full time Nazi of long standing.
Comment by bill j — 16 March, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Sorry Bill, Im no fascist. Maybe you should go and meet a few and get into their minds and learn what a fascist is.
Comment by Leo — 16 March, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
How could you turn up with a claw hammer to a counter demo, and not be looking for a fight?
We shouldn’t be providing the BNP with martyrs.
Comment by David T — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
I don’t really have too much of a problem with what happened in Leigh last weekend. And I certainly don’t regard it as a political disaster - the BNP were driven out, which is always good news!
But the question of squadism and substitutionism that Andy raises is an important one. I basically take the view that armed groups of comrades who are prepared to confront the Nazis physically really need to be under the control of the anti-fascist movement as a whole. I am not really in favour of self-referencing groups of “left-wing heavies” galloping about the place deciding for themselves when and where these confrontations take place. This sort of thing can then degenerate into “squadism” (fighting in pubs, or at football, or whatever). Of course, the crucial factor is always the level of our organisation and I don’t know enough about this with regards to Leigh. I would be interested if comrades could post about this. How was the decision taken to physically confront the BNP on this occasion? Did AFA go it alone, or was there some attempt to build an agreement to confront them? In any case, perhaps this issue is something that can be discussed in the anti-fascist movement across the UK in the coming period. We all know that these types of situations are bound to reoccur time and time again now as the BNP seek to exploit the recession.
I don’t think Leo is a fascist. He is just someone who needs to familiarise himself a bit more with socialist arguments about immigration and anti-fascist activity. Will you, Leo?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
The BNP are laughing at you, and they will continue to laugh at you. I’m not a Nazi, a thug, nor am I a fascist, in fact I have very little interest in politics at all. But, I do support the BNP though, for my own reasons, and you think you have some kind of “moral duty” to cave my head in with a hammer.
I’m a father of three very young girls, and a political / Nationalist history stretching back months - not years! Does this make me fair game in your warped minds if I attend a BNP meeting?
You have no idea of the irony that you are the Nazis. I could probably be persuaded away from the BNP with a few good political points and counter-arguments, but you have the opposite effect and drive me further towards them.
Comment by Brian James — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
If I tell you that are other BNP members - who get up to activity, like murder, solicitation to murder, bomb-making, wife-beating, GBH, fraud, attacking Eddy Butler… not to mention entering members’ homes by deception to make off with their property and bugging their private conversations, will that put you off?
Comment by Theo Saurus — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Everyone who I have spoken to about this who is, on the whole, non-political, thinks its bloody great that the BNP bloke got a kicking.
I doubt very much whether the sight of a BNP activist in the aftermath of getting his face smashed in, will gain them support amongst anyone who isnt already of that persuasion
Comment by Bob Latchford — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
No, because I know 99.5% of what you claim is untrue. You are either deliberately lying or if you really believe that you have been lied to / brainwashed or both. You all get hyped up believing that people like me dress up in German war uniforms, do nazi salutes and worship hitler.
The simple reality is that you have been lied to and all these claims are utter nonsense. I do conceed however, that perhaps the very early BNP did have a few lunatic attached to it, but those people are long gone.
Comment by Brian James — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Bob, clearly the people you mix with (non-politically) are as thick as you then, lol.
Comment by Brian James — 16 March, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
He mixes with Jamaat-e-Islami, the MB, and Socialist Action.
So, yes.
Comment by David T — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Brian
They are not long gone though are they.
Look at mike Howson, the 45 year old head of the young BNP, who was exposed by journalists at the Bath Chronicle having links to openly nazi web-sites on his own web-page.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Poster at 14 - “I could probably be persuaded away from the BNP with a few good political points and counter-arguments” …well I’m sure you could do this yourself, with a bit of research! But here is a start:
1) Many new recruits to the BNP eventually find that its core members are not simple patriots - instead these have a history of far-right activism that stretches back into the BNP’s Tyndallite origins - which were neo-nazi. There is a mismatch between the party’s current electoral support and public face and its core and original membership and mission. The racial nationalism of the BNP would be a disaster for the British people if they were to get anywhere near power.
2) Nationalism obscures the real struggles we face. It is the greed of bankers and capitalists that threaten our livelihoods and stability. Therefore, in many ways it is the British ruling class are the main opponents of the British working people. Yet nationalism would have us unite in the ‘national interest’, Nationalism is another way of putting us under the capitalist jackboot. Today we have a plastic nationalism waving a plastic union jack - which is the product of an alienated and rootless population. Its only ‘history’ is romantic fairy stories of the old kings and queens. There is nothing of the history of the working peoples of these islands. The peasant uprisings, the brutal Norman aristocracy, the English Civil war and the birth of English radicalism and republicanism, the origins of the labour movement…all this is our real history - and will be obliterated by a monolithic and plastic ‘British Nationalism’ that celebrates only our rulers story.
3) We also face problems that are global in scale - global capitalism, global climate change, etc. We cannot resist these by retreating into nationalism (economic or political). A nationalist state will be a prisoner of the logic of national competition within the rules laid down by global capitalism. And the ordinary working people would be made to pay the price of this competition that would be both military and economic. Capitalism is global - but uses nationalism to divide and rule.
Comment by baz — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
post # 22 - thats the voice of the rue believer the ‘war on terror’ manufactured by the Bush clan for their new world order! Nice one!
Its like Orwell’s 1984 - the powers that be need you to believe in an enemy - so that they can rule you and rob you!
The ‘global Islamic threat’ was manufactured after the ‘global communist threat’ collapsed 20 years ago!
The Muslims will never be united. The Shia-ite Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the west bank are the bitter enemies of Wahhabists like ‘Al Quiada’! and it goes on…
I dont want to live under either an Islamic state or a BNP fascist state! - but I think in Britain there is more chance of a BNP fascist state. Thats the threat I’m gonna oppose.
Comment by baz — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
baz
i deleted the comment you were responding to at #22,
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
This cannot be repeated too many times, in my opinion . . .
“Only one thing would have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.” Adolf Hitler
The left in this country has a fine tradition of fighting the Nazis. Most of us have understood the organising “principle” of the BNP from the very beginning and we will continue to draw the appropriate political conclusions.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
I’ve heard contradictory reports about what happened in Leigh and if the organisers think that the BNP were attacked by a mob from ‘the AFA’ it sounds like they haven’t got much of a clue either.
AFA (Anti-Fascist Action) is an organisation which has not existed since 2001.
Comment by Duncan — 16 March, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Why was my comment removed? Was it because of the truth in the context or due to the fact you want your dhimminitude so badly?
Comment by wullie — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
If you enjoy Communism sooooooo much, why not move to a Communist country?
China would have you, but then again……
Comment by david g — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Also add this to your reading list, EURABIA it is happening if you can’t see that then you are fools.
Comment by david g — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Thanks for the post andy, but it does not yet seem entirely clear what happened. Can someone not provide the full story of this event?
Comment by non-partisan — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
There appears to be a suprising number of people who claim to be nazis that seem to read this site, do they not have their own sites to talk nonsense on?
Comment by Anonymous — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
No, it’s a batshit theory from crackpot theorist Bat Ye’or, as is the nonsense concept of ‘dhimmitude’. But nice to see some BNPers at least have finally got over their hatred of all Jewish people enough to co-opt their theories into some kind of mad British nationalism.
Comment by Rory — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Eyes wide shut Brian?
As recently as 2005, Griffin was a keynote European speaker at the European American Conference.
Over three hundred white supremacists gathered in New Orleans for the “2005 European American Conference,” convened May 20 - 22 by David Duke. The theme of the conference was the unification of Europeans and Americans in opposition to Jews, who were demonized as blood suckers and parasites who dominate media and government around the world. A significant number of politically affiliated European racists addressed the crowd, including Nick Griffin and Simon Darby from the far-right British National Party, Karl Richter and Marcus Haverkamp from Germany’s far-right National Democratic Party (NPD), Vavra Suk and Lennart Berg of Sweden, Jean-Michel Girard of France’s far-right National Front, and Deirdre Fields of South Africa. It remains unclear whether these disparate American and international white supremacist groups will be able coordinate their anti-Jewish rhetoric and cooperate in their activities, but the simple fact of their participation in Duke’s New Orleans meeting is a significant development in the world of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.
Yet they currently paint themselves as “no longer anti-Semitic”. Hmmm.
Comment by Theo Saurus — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Few things on this
1. To best of my knowledge, AFA were not involved here, and anyone purporting to be “AFA” are not. For all intents and purposes, AFA no longer exist, having rejected militnat anti fascism as the hoepless dead end it is 12 years ago.
2. The weaponry used, (knives, iron bars, baseball bats and hammers) against the BNP is a huge escalation- something which has not been seen for , what, 15 years from antifascists. Its an act of complete stupidity by those involved- especially as the BNP were not tooled up, and basically havent been since they withdrew from the streets in 1994
Nonsense like “the BNP turned up with bats,truncheons and dogs and were in the process of assaulting a small group of peaceful LOCAL protestors, including women and children, who had gathered outside the pub where the BNP meeting was to take place” is a lie, and you know it. Have you thought of writing for Searchlight? On maybe Lancaster Unity?
3. No political alternative is offered to the BNP in Leigh, whol polled 14.5&% in the Leigh South ward of Wigan Council in May 2008. Where are the left?
4. The left did not stop the BNP meeting in Leigh, the police did.
I think most antifascists will see Leigh for exactly what it was, and attempt to pull antifascism into a direction it does not need to go. The battle is to build a working class political alternative to take them on at the ballot box, where the battle will remain
The battle against the BNP remains as political as it did last Thursday
Comment by JimPage — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Lovely language did you learn that from your middleclass mother?
Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation - also a theory?
I guess 14 page bibliographies don’t do it for you (did you even make it that far to the end of Eurabia or did you just read the review?).
I guess your history lessons stopped after 1945 - wouldn’t want your fragile minds to explode.
David G has an interesting point. Why not move to a communist country? If not China then what about Cuba? I’m sure you can all discuss it in Arran at the end of the month - if you’re invited of course! Wouldn’t want the minions embarassing the “leaders” eh?
Comment by Charlie — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
Looking at the history of fighting Fascists in this country, it wasn’t done by purely peaceful means.
I think it was great what happened, imagine if it happened in every town in Britain, the BNP’s support would be completely broken.
We need to build broad alliances to isolate the fascists and at the same time we need to kick their heads in. The main section of anti-fascism needs to be the hope not hate style bringing the community and bourgeois parties together tactic, together with a more underground tactic of physical violence.
The two tactics need not be taken by the same people, and the broad alliance tactic should certainly condemn attacks like this publically, while smiling in secret.
Therefore, I condemn this terrible attack…..
…:)
Comment by George W — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Anyone who condemns this is totally unserious about fighting the Nazis.
Comment by bill j — 16 March, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Lets get one thing straight. Anyone who advocates a repeat of this is probably a state nark, trying to wind up the left into trying to seriously hurt unarmed fascists with deadly weapons is a quick way to jail. I dont think it is responsible on any level to lie to fellow socialists, as you have by saying the BNP were tooled up, as a justification for the indefensible actions of those involved. Admit it, this is one of the biggest mess ups recently by Antifascism for years
Those who are totally unserious are those who fail to support the idea of a working class political alternative to combat them at the ballot box.
Comment by JimPage — 16 March, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
Were any of you there
they assaulted various comrades
it was collective self defence
they were attacking the protestors
we were trying to defend themselves.
we would of been beaten to a pulp if it wasnt for afa. i dont condone violence but we were unarmed. the fascists had bats and extendable trunchons(illegal weapons). afa stopped them. enough said
fuck off aswell franzen because you sent everyone to one of there possible venues(ellesmere pub)
it was full of them
\talking about getting the balaclavas and axes out.
they were there waiting to attack the left.
it should be us speaking to the police not the otherway round
get a grip…if your about left unity…stop critisizing the left…ill repeat…were you there? no? then refrain from fuckin commentsalfordleft
Comment by eyewitness — 16 March, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
I am all for a counter-demonstration against the BNP but I concur with Andy who thinks that this was a “serious mistake.” One should not forget that the majority of the population are law abiding and opposed to fascism. Many, and I hesitate to use the word, “ordinary” people are opposed to the BNP and what they stand for. Some of those may well either voluntarily or be persuaded to attend a counter demonstration to a BNP rally. The problem is that many of those who may be interested in attended such a counter-demonstration may well be put off because they do not want to be associated with violence.
Chanting “Master Race, your having a laugh!” at the BNP is all very well, but to be “tooled-up” and looking for a fight is another thing entirely. If Andy’s report is reasonably accurate, this counter demonstration was more than a PR disaster, it was a disgrace.
Comment by Mikey — 16 March, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
#39 I agree with you entirely. I hope everyone protesting is OK.
A couple of questions you might be able to answer for me . . .
i) Re AFA. Some comrades have pointed out that AFA has formally disbanded some years ago. So who were these “AFA people” then? Old members of the organisation? New people who want to revive it? Or perhaps even people who had known of the group in the past and just used their name for the demo?
ii) it all sounds like a very spontaneous reaction to what the Nazis were doing. That is fair enough. But were there any discussions between the various groups about tactics etc in the days leading up to the counter-demo?
Thanks.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 16 March, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Issues with the original post:
1. Probably the references to “AFA” mean “AntiFa”
2. Leaving links to hate sites “live” is very poor practice as it boosts their search engine rankings - the oxygen of publicity.
As for the politics of the action.
The BNP attacked campaigners and were beaten off. For their trouble, their car got tipped and fash cadre got hit. What’s the part that people have a problem with?
a the BNP’s attack
b the physical response from AntiFa and others
c a car being turned over
d BNP using it for propaganda purposes
Clearly a & d aren’t in the control of anti-fascists. People who would condemn (b) should picture themselves in the equivalent situation (and remember Cable St & the 44 Group). I think (c) is fair game after the BNP attacked. It might not fit the state’s definition of “self-defence” but that is an issue for the state.
Comment by milgram — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Naruto/Peter Franzen says: “At about 6:25 pm. a Landrover towing a Liverpool BNP advertising hoarding pulled up on St. Helens Road, Leigh near to Bridgewater Street, where anti-fascist demonstrators, including women and children, were peacefully demonstrating.
“A gang of BNP Nazi storm troopers armed with baseball bats, hammers, and other offensive weapons piled out of the Landrover and proceeded to attack the peaceful and unarmed demonstrators. Known Nazi BNP thugs were identified by eye witnesses.”
If this is true, then the attack on the BNP was entirely justified.
But Jim Page insists that’s not true. He says: “It’s nonsense” and “a lie.”
If he’s got it right, then a physical attack on the BNP might be a tactical/political error in the circumstances.
But how do those of us who weren’t there know who’s telling the truth?
So Jim Page says: “the BNP turned up with bats,truncheons and dogs and were in the process of assaulting a small group of peaceful LOCAL protestors, including women and children, who had gathered outside the pub where the BNP meeting was to take place” is a lie,
Comment by anon — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
#42 Peter, maybe you can answer my questions at 41? Cheers.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
it can be verified by numerous witnesses. its a fact and it is a shame that the media when reporting only used bnp sources.
jim page is a fool. they attacked innocent protestors
and no franzen. im not bnp. u were stood in the middle of them wernt you? you told everyone to go to the ellsemere and nearlly got everyone killed…should of done your homework before sending us into a death trap
where were you when it was kicking off?
i’m fine. i was lucky. i defended myself and others. i didnt hgave a weapon. i was there to peacfully protest. the bnp are liers…they were all tooled up wand there aim was to smash the protest like there fascist counterparts.
i would say a loose oranisation that may or may have not come out of the back of afa. there was evidence which i wont circulate as it is not my responsibillity…however may have only been coincidentally there…or at least with weapons…coming home from work perhaps….
also if you look to history…one of the reasons why mosleys fascists didnt become a massive force is because they were physically beaten and discredited on the streets.
also a capaign of hate has been launched against one of the peacefull organisers. his picture and address have been circulated around the internet for attack. family memvbers have had to have panic buttons fitted in there homes…
the bnp are calculatedly trying to attack and even murder his family….
Comment by eyewitness — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
#47 “also if you look to history…one of the reasons why mosleys fascists didnt become a massive force is because they were physically beaten and discredited on the streets.”
Yes, quite right. The National Front were defeated in the same way in the 1970s. We must never forget these lessons.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Ignoring David Toubes racist slurs at #19 (speaking up in favour of Palestinians on his website now makes me a supporter of Islamists) its worth pointing out that eye witness acounts show that this wasnt a premeditated attack by an AFA-esque group, this was an instant reaction to aggressive BNP thugs spoiling for a scrap, so whilst Andy Newman and others may think it not wise for people to defend themselves against these thugs, I wonder what he would have done if faced down by these people. I doubt they were in the mood for political debate
Comment by Bob Latchford — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Local press coverage - a different story to Andy’s Blog Post (and the BNP’s spin).
Hammer horror
16 March 2009
By Chris Wilkinson
Wigan Today
http://www.wigantoday.net/wigannews/Hammer-horror.5074581.jp
Violence erupted when BNP supporters and protesters clashed outside a Wigan pub.
One man – BNP member Tony Ward, 48, – was hit on the head with a hammer during the incident outside the Bridgewater Arms in St Helens Road, Leigh.
Eyewitnesses claim that BNP supporters and anti-BNP activists fought during what had begun as a peaceful protest against the party’s plan to hold a meeting at a town centre nightclub.
Community Action Party founder Peter Franzen joined the protesters who were chanting anti-BNP slogans shortly after the violence erupted.
He said: “The peaceful demonstrators were terrified. There were some youngsters and women among the group, some of them were clearly scared and fled.”
Accounts differ but eyewitness reports suggest that a number of BNP activists, travelling in a four-wheel-drive and towing a trailer, confronted the protesters who had gathered on St Helens Road.
It is believed that they were, in turn, confronted by anti-BNP activists, some of whom were armed, and who were apparently separate from the protest group.
Police were called to the scene shortly before 6.30pm following reports of a fight and discovered a trailer had been overturned.
During the incident Mr Ward was hit with a hammer. He attended hospital for treatment, but was not seriously injured.
A 25-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm and bailed until May 26.
The protesters had gathered in Leigh after it emerged towards the end of last week that party members intended to hold a meeting at the Pure Club in West Bridgewater Street.
It is believed some were students and others were members of various political parties, including Respect and the Socialist Workers Party.
BNP leader Nick Griffin had been scheduled to speak at the Battle for Britain road show meeting.
But it was cancelled at the last minute when, according to police, the venue’s owner changed his mind, fearing negative publicity and public order trouble for him and other businesses. Mr Franzen, who joined the protesters just after the incident erupted, said the BNP are not welcome in Wigan.
He said: “They are not welcome anywhere. We know who they are and what they stand for and we know that their new found respectability is just a façade.”
Comment by baz — 16 March, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Look,
I wasn’t there, and I don’t know what happened. My report is based upon what one of the local organisers of the anti-BNP protest himself issued as a staement.
In the immediate aftermath of the violence, one of the oganisers of the anti-BNP campiagn in Leigh published a statement saying:
So whatever actually happened, at least one of the organisers has reported that anti-facists were tooled up with weapons similar to the BNP’s “crowbars, truncheons and baseball bats”, and this individual boasts that one of the BNP members was litteraly “given a hammering”
Now I have no doubt whatsoever that the BNP were violent, and that the whole situation was scary. I have no doubt that most of the anti-BNP protesters were responsible and concerned citizens. But according to the statement issued by one of the organisers, at least some of the anti-fascists turned up armed and looking for very serious violence.
So to issue a statement praising the use of a hammer to attack a political opponent is stupid.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Andy this sounds like one guy, ‘boasting’, not enough evidence to rush into condemnations of ’squadism’ when it appears from various eyewitness accounts this was entirely justified self defence. That if anything deserves our respect and thanks rather than overhasty judgement.
Comment by non-partisan — 16 March, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
non-partisan.
The issue here is not only what happened, but also what the political aftermath is,, which includes what we say about it.
If what actually happned was legitimate self-defence, then issuing a statement boasting that it was something different is irresponisble.
I am all for self defence, but the question remains of whether there was a group of anti-fascists who were heavily armed or not. And given that one of the organisers of the anti-fascist protest claims that this is what happened, I don’t think we can so lightly assume that it didn’t. Especially as this nazi did get hit with a hammer, and the landrover and trailer were overturned. Neither of which sit happily in my defienition of reasonable self defence, and indeed both constitute serious threats to public safety.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
But see Andy, you’ve titled the article “Squadism - A serious Mistake in Leigh” implying, without getting your facts, that the demonstrators were acting in an inappropriate way.
Now it has turned out that you were wrong…again.
Comment by Mc Nally — 16 March, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
But how am I wrong?
One of the organisers issues a statement saying that a heavily armed gang of anti-fascists literally “hammered” the landrover and one of the BNP member’s and so there has been an explicit public statement in praise of squadism. So the issue of squadism clearly is in play, and is a disaster.
My facts came from one of the main organisers and an eyewitness of the Leigh anti-fascist protest. He claimed that a group of anti-facists were armed in an equivelent way to the fascists, and that they hit a BNP member with a hammer. If those claims are unture, then why issue a statement saying it?
And the landrover was attacked with hammers, and the trailer was turned over blocking a road. How were these issue of self defence?
Issuing the statement praising squadism is itself a political mistake that provides the BNP with ammunition to claim the left are anti-democratoc, and also opens the anti-fascist campaign up to police surveilance and interference.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 March, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
The issue here is not only what happened, but also what the political aftermath is,, which includes what we say about it.
(Which is why you check out all the facts before rushing to judgement.)
If what actually happned was legitimate self-defence, then issuing a statement boasting that it was something different is irresponisble.
(agreed, but doesn’t change the actual nature of events, and while calling this claim irresponsible its important that we identify the right, and NEED for self defence)
I am all for self defence, but the question remains of whether there was a group of anti-fascists who were heavily armed or not. And given that one of the organisers of the anti-fascist protest claims that this is what happened, I don’t think we can so lightly assume that it didn’t. Especially as this nazi did get hit with a hammer,
(there are other accounts that claim the hammer and other weapons were removed from the fascists but you CHOSE to highlight the version you first saw)
thand the landrover and trailer were overturned. Neither of which sit happily in my defienition of reasonable self defence, and indeed both constitute serious threats to public safety.
(The turning over of the Land Rover and trailer- serious threats to public safety? I would think a legitmate act of outrage and anger after defeating a viscous and pre-planned fascist assault.)
Where I agree with you, is that there is need for a discussion around the role of violence in any opposition to the fascists. My own view is that in general violence from the workers movement should always be as a defense, wether on picket lines , demos, or against the fascists. There is a need to be able to use this defensive violence to make sure we have the political and physical space to operate in public. Against the fascists in particular it is no bad thing that as a part of defending themselves the activists in Leigh also taught the BNP thugs that we will not hand over the streets to them.
Like you I am only responding on the basis of what has been printed here, including from the eyewitnesses- so I could be wrong- but I would need very good evidence to condemn activists who come off better in a ruck with the BNP.
Finally, and here I can almost hear your outrage. Using weapons, wether taken in preparation or not, for self defence is for me entirely justified.
As an aside, I remember walking round Birmingham ( I think it was smallheath with MAF a regular contributor on here.) in 78/79 when there were regular fights with the NF in the area. I loaded my pocket with a halfbrick, just in case. It wasn’t needed on that occasion, but I wouldn’t blame anyone (though I recognise it is illegal, and not good advice) for doing the same in similair circumstances.
There is a world of difference between this and ‘squadism’ which I would disagree with as a strategy.
As I said, like you I am going from info provided here, but find your rush to judge a bit like jumping to conclusions to make a point (anti-squadism) that you feel important.
It is also a disaster Andy if the workers movement is not confident and assured enough to use violence appropriately.
Comment by non-partisan — 16 March, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Sorry also meant to say, this was not meant as an attack on you, just part of the discussion.
Comment by non-partisan — 16 March, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Andy, you ask how is it self defence? I see it in this way . . . the fascists are trying to build a presence in Leigh - and that constitutes a threat to every working class person who lives there, or thereabouts. We can say the same about everywhere else that they are trying to build right now. Effective self defence requires that the fascists are driven off, in one way or another, wherever they attempt to organise. Now, as it happened, the fascists were tooled up last weekend in Leigh (they are not always) and they began attacking our side (they don’t always do this either) . . . so the anti-fascists there had no choice but to “tool up” as well. We really do have to win these confrontations while the fascists remain relatively weak. Not being “tooled up” on this occasion may have lead to a defeat and many more injuries on our side.
If they hadn’t been “tooled up” and if they hadn’t attacked our demonstration then different tactics may well have been appropriate. If we could not occupy their venue beforehand (”no platform”) then maybe a noisy picket may well have been the best bet. This may not have stopped the hardcore fascists going in but it would certainly have made members of the public think twice about attending.
I don’t agree with your characterisation of what happened in Leigh as “squadism”. To me “squadism” is when you have groups of comrades who routinely organise themselves separately from the main anti-fascist organisations with the sole intention of having rucks with fascists wherever they might find them (in pubs, at football, as well as on more “political” occasions like marches or rallies). It is not clear to me at all that this is a particular problem in Leigh, or anywhere else for that matter.
I actually don’t think that it is very helpful to boast about “taking a hammer” to a Nazi or whatever, as that report does, but by the same token, I don’t think it is very useful either to portray a victory against the Nazis as a defeat, or a political catastrophe. From what I have read Leigh must go down as an important victory for our side. We will need many more such victories in the coming period.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 16 March, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Deeply pathetic. The people who attacked the BNP are not socialists in any meaningful sense - they are self-indulgent thrill-seekers, seeking to legitimise their childish antics by pleading anti-fascist necessity. Instead of handing the fascists a propaganda victory (please note how the BBC reported the incident), why not do the hard work of winning the political argument among voters?
Irresponsible adrenaline junkies GTF.
Comment by Zorro — 16 March, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
I was there. This was a justified and courageous act of self defence. Shame on anyone who says different.
Comment by bill j — 17 March, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Bill, given your track record you are not the most credible witness.
The politics of the situation are clear. Whether or not this was self defence, the subsequent issuing of a statement praising people for being tooled up and attacking someone with a hammer are a big political own goal.
If it was self defence then the correct approach is to stress how terrible the violence of the fascists was, not revel in the violence ourselves.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 March, 2009 @ 12:08 am
In response to Andy Newman’s article “Squadism - A Serious Mistake in Leigh”
I think Andy is right to question the wisdom of certain actions taken in Leigh by local anti-fascists on Friday 13th (and in its run-up) based on reports of the event, and especially the one made by me, which is referred to in his article, which is somewhat sensationalised.
In retrospect, I think I would have penned it somewhat differently now, but there’s no advocacy of “squadism” in it!
I actually only got wind of that Nick Griffin was coming to speak in Leigh less than 48 hours before the event was about to take place.
In the thirty odd years I’ve been politically active in the town, including as Trades Council President back in the 90’s, we’ve never had someone so high up in the Nazi hierarchy openly pay us a visit, and my immediate response to being told about it (which was around 10.00pm in the evening) was that it wasn’t going to start now. I consequently issued an immediate appeal for the largest possible mobilisation to stop the thing from happening and to “help… kick Nick Griffin and his Nazi scum bag mates out of our town.”
The UAF I would assume issued an appeal of their own as did the SWP.
I e-mailed a large number of people on the Left using this wording believing a mass mobilisation to do precisely that, is what was called for, and ultimately the balance of forces on the day would be the determining factor in relation to whether that could be achieved or not, (Sorry if that’s the wrong line these days. I’ve been out of it for a few years! When did we drop “No platform for Fascists then?”)
I did however revise this wording altogether (which I recognised might be potentially misconstrued) from my the subsequent press release to the North West media and other contacts with a call “….to mobilise to oppose this event taking place, and to tell Nick Griffin and his nazi scum-bag mates to stay out of the town.”
My original wording was however picked up, having been posted on the Labournet site, and according to the BNP constituted a call to arms” and an “incitement to violence” and makes me responsible for the whole thing. As a consequence they are also calling for me to be charged by the Police.
So yes, I could have more thoughtfully phrased my earlier e-mail appeal. But it was hardly a call to arms was it? and of course “kicking Nick Griffin out of town” not meant actually meant literally.
I know I didn’t go personally ‘armed’ to the thing, unlike the four BNP members in the Landrover did according to several reliable eye witnesses, witnesses who would have been severely injured themselves other than for the intervention of a larger group of anti-fascists who prevented that from happening.
I described this group as AFA, but I’ve subsequently been told they were disbanded in 2001, so I’ve really no idea who they were.
I also said they were tooled up, but I didn’t actually see any of them personally, as I only arrived at the scene a few minutes afterwards. My report was based on the accounts of several eye witnesses who were pretty hyped up after experiencing the entire event close up. What occurred being reminiscent in my mind of the type of thing AFA might have done in the past.
It’s also possible that these anti-fascists disarmed the BNP thugs, I don’t know? It all happened very quickly according to all accounts. But I do know the BNP guys came off worst and that their Landrover got a hammering, and their trailer got turned over.
I also know that the students who came from Salford University were pretty happy whoever it was that turned up or they’d have likely been given a good beating along with some of the others assembling to peacefully protest at the time.
I also know that the choice of venue for the anti-fascists to assemble at and which was passed onto and advertised by me, - the Ellesmere Pub on St. Helens Road, was infiltrated with BNP supporters before most of the anti-fascists arrived, and indeed the initial confrontation started in the pub before moving onto the street, at which point the BNP Landrover and trailer turned up and one of the guys in it started to video what was going on. I also know there was no police presence there at this time either.
Needless to say the arrival of the BNP Landrover and trailer at that point incited the crowd assembled, which was growing by the minute.
It is precisely then that several eye witnesses say that three others got out of the Landrover, one armed with a crowbar, one with a baseball bat and another with an extended truncheon.
All the other stuff, which others say we should be doing rather than physically confronting the BNP, proceeded after the incident, with UAF and other anti-fascists taking to locals, many of whom perhaps initially sympathetic to the BNP actually jeered them as their Landrover and trailer was towed away.
In reality my own expectation at the beginning, was that the thing would be called off beforehand, either via direct Police pressure on the landlord or a combination of that and the BNP being faced with the prospect of facing a large counter-demonstration which would draw attention to their small base of support in the area, and deter many of them from attending.
Indeed I found out from Searchlight that it had in fact been formally cancelled about an hour beforehand. So like others have commented achieved the desired objectives none the less.
Finally, that a few of BNP members/supporters self-evidently were prepared to ‘mix it’ with anti-fascist protestors close to their allegedly cancelled BNP “Battle for Britain Roadshow” venue came as something of a surprise to me, since that’s not supposed (as others have stated) to be their line any more either. However, I am happy they were seen off by those already assembled and assembling (notwithstanding of course the unfortunate injury to the BNP guy).
Plus we can’t be held responsible for how the BBC reported the thing, a report which failed to mention a single account from an anti-fascist eyewitness concerning the weapons carried by the BNPers.
Anyway, since then, as alleged instigator of the violence on the night according to some in the BNP, my name and former address (at which my wife and 8 year old daughter still live at) has been posted on a number of neo-Nazi web sites prompting the Police to take a number of measures to protect them against possible reprisals directed at me.
Interestingly enough, and this is for the guy who asked where the Left is in Leigh, the BNP got my old address from the election leaflets I put out as a Respect member in neighbouring Atherton (on the Greater Manchester Respect web site) last May (along with my photograph) in which I got 222 votes (6.7% of the vote).
If that there were any mistakes made in Leigh, which of course there were, then I bear the consequences of most of them already, but there is no advocacy of squadism by me as represented by Andy.
I tend to believe mass mobilisations are the right tack and not individual heroism or special operations by small squads of activists, but agree with others who have talked about the need for workers defence groups to defend our meetings and demonstrations from potential attacks such as this one. The key thing of course is accountability, which of course they would need to be to the local trades union and labour movement.
I still think what happened in Leigh was a victory for our side, and “BNP member hammered in Leigh” less worse a headline than “Anti-fascists battered in Leigh”
Comment by Steve H — 17 March, 2009 @ 12:43 am
By the way, I do not want to take away from the comments section on this blog, but I have written a guest for Harry’s Place concurring with the view of Andy Newman in his main post. It can be seen at the following address for anyone interested:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/16/“tooled-up-anti-fascists”/
Comment by Mikey — 17 March, 2009 @ 12:48 am
I have fond memories of Leigh. I once spent a great deal of time there supporting the miners who were fighting to save the last pit in Lancashire - Parkside Colliery. This was in the last great battle against pit closures at the beginning of the 1990’s.
I was saddened to hear that the BNP nazi scumbags were to hold a rally there…and really pleased to hear that they called off their rally and were driven out of town.
Good to know that the left still organises in that part of Lancashire! Keep it up. And we should stand by Steve!
Hey - on the topic - this was always my favourite tune when I was a lad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqasu5MATRQ
Play it loud to the fash!
Comment by baz of Lancashire! — 17 March, 2009 @ 1:06 am
Steve Hall - you reap what you sow. You could have anticipated that the BBC would portray the hammered BNP trashbag as the victim. You could have anticipated that your ex-wife and kid would become targets. You could have anticipated that your macho posturing would not persuade a single person not to vote BNP.
You didn’t bother - because you’re an idiot. And your mealy-mouthed back-peddling now doesn’t change that.
Comment by Zorro — 17 March, 2009 @ 3:14 am
Interesting that the word squadism has cropped up again as it was coined by the SWP when they decided to close down ANL mark 1. Although they claim Blair Peach as a martyr he had in fact been suspended from ANL membership two weeks before the police killed him for squadism which they were using to kick out elements they couldn’t control.
Don’t confuse AFA with a recently revived group Antifa which has a website and was recently involved in a stupid attack on a BNP meeting in a church hall next to Bethnal Green tube station in East London.
Like Andy Newman I wasn’t there but having got a few previous myself for fighting the NF I would agree that these are the tactics of the past. If people are going out to these events on a permanent basis then they, if we agree with some of those posting here, have to be tooled up all the time because no one can predict when it will all kick off. You are then open to always being arrested for going equipped.
In recent years it has generally been a few rogue elements on our side that have started things especially younger elements living out what they see as the glory days of the past.
I think that we will have to let the dust settle on this one to see what actually happened but it has done the anti BNP campaign no good. The only people coming out as the victims are the BNP. If anything scuppered the NF in the 70s it was the Tory element who joined after Edward Heath honoured the passports of the East African Asians and who could stomach the Tory Party no longer but were then appalled by the violence. When Thatcher made her swamping speech they started to head back to the Conservative Party.
It has to be remembered that Mosely was defeated politically, yes of course Cable St had to be defended and the 43 Group after the war took on a revived Union Movement but it was the failure at the ballot box that finished Mosley losing his deposit in North Kensington after the Notting Hill riots.
The press cuttings after Blair was killed show how the NF and ourselves were depicted as opposite sides of the same coin and that climate led to the verdict of death by misadventure. Bear that in mind. Yes they have to be opposed but there is absolutely no excuse for carrying a hammer on anti fascist activities these days.
This is a one off I hope because if there are repeats it is only a matter of time before there are serious injuries or a death.
Comment by terryfitz — 17 March, 2009 @ 6:18 am
Thanks to Steve H for his post #61 (and no thanks to the rather scabby “Zorro”). I think before we have tactical discussions about how the night went, the first thing to say is that Steve is 100% right that
“BNP member hammered in Leigh” less worse a headline than “Anti-fascists battered in Leigh”
And to jump to conclusions about “squadism” is just irresponsible.
From everything I’ve read and heard, it sounds as if the activity was about right, if maybe the way it got described at times was a bit unfortunate.
Comment by KrisS — 17 March, 2009 @ 6:49 am
It strikes me that if mobilisation and planning was reduced to Steve H issuing a press release (admirable as it was) and ‘assuming’ that UAF and the SWP would issue an appeal as well, then those who turned up on the demonstration were placed at risk.
We had a similar problem in Bristol the weekend before when an email was sent out by the TUC saying that searchlight were calling on people to ring a hotel where BNP had booked a meeting for Sunday night, and a pub the carpark of which their members were supposed to be attending a rendez vous prior to the meeting. No problem with doing this, and as a result the booking appears to have been cancelled.
The email also called on people to assemble in the car park. But there were no phone numbers in the email forwarded to me on Saturday morning apart from the general TUC switchboard number in their confidentiality disclaimer.
Two Socialist Party members were able to go out at short notice , but despite ringing round I could not get a mobile number for anyone else who was going, and we took a decision that turning up in a rural car park at dusk without knowing who was in any other vehicles that arrived was madness.
What happened in Leigh suggests to me that that decision was probably correct.
Steve has said that his initial choice of words was mistaken I agree. He also says that in the circumstances he and the other people on the picket were pleased that the unknown defenders turned up, i’m sure I would also agree.
But much more than this I think that the lesson is that not planning so that there were more than 30 people present and that that they were adequately stewarded and defended (with the use of force necessary to repel any attack from the BNP) by people acountable to the movement was a much much bigger mistake than a few ill-chosen words in a press notice or email.
That was not Steve’s mistake it was the collective mistake of the movement. Steve tried to do something and should not be made to bear the blame. Though I hope that with hindsight he’s agree that doing it as an individual was probably a mistake.
In the cirucmstances the fact that an unknown number of unknown caped crusaders turned up was probably a good thing. What was not a good thing was that they do not seem to have been accountable to the movement in any way, and that means that they may not have turned up and something far worse could have happened.
Comment by paulm — 17 March, 2009 @ 7:32 am
Agree very much with PaulM. When I get various e-mails about a demonstration etc. that I’ve not been involved in, I kind of assume there is some organisation setting it up.
The notion of individuals sending out e-mails calling for pickets of fascist meetings that can be dozens strong, without really thinking through how many will turn up, how to ensure safety, or who will organise it is quite worrying.
As is the idea that some anti-fascists may now be looking to attack the BNP (though the exact events at Leigh seem quite unclear - whether they were intending to attack the BNP or simply defending themselves and innocent people isn’t obvious). Obviously I am pleased that protestors didn’t get seriously hurt by the BNP, and they are very capable of doing that. But if the future is going to be both them and us turning up to demos with weapons - well, we’re in a pretty nasty place.
And Andy is completely right that this is a bit of a political disaster. It’s played totally into their hands.
Comment by reader — 17 March, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Perhaps this would be a good time to define what the “movement” is as paulm seems to think that it is a definite thing with a centre and a coherent thought out strategy that people are “accountable to”.
In my forty years of involvement it has always been a very amorphous decentralised thing but no less effective for all that. I have always argued that if can’t guarantee the numbers then don’t call it on. I remember on a particularly badly attended leafleting in south London some years ago being chased down a railway line by Richard Barnbrook and a few others when I was caught on my own and this has happened to several people over the years.
I would say that there are basically three strands to what is going on. The first is the Searchlight/Hope Not Hate one which is long term campaigning involving local communities with locally focused campaigns countering the various issues that the BNP will use. What they are doing in Bradford is different to what they are doing in Barking and Dagenham.
Broadly speaking this strategy is working as Griffin is now no longer talking about the “break through” but of the “quiet revolution”. It must be put into perspective that they still have only just over fifty councillors and one on the Greater London Council and even if that is too many they are being held. This of course is taking a lot of effort but it is working.
There is then the UAF/SWP strategy, if it can be called that, of waving placards,having pop festivals and jumping up and down shouting nazi scum off our streets. It had a very limited success in the 70s and nowadays it is worse than useless.
There also seems to be remerging, with the reformed Antifa, the squadist tactics of AFA/Red Action which were ok when C18 and Blood and Honour could put a few hundred on the streets but is totally counter productive now. It is still unclear what happened in Leigh but I think it is time to start looking at what is working and what is not.
There is also the possibility that the fascists who were tooled up were in fact not BNP atall but free lancers who just wanted to have a fight and are attracted to areas when there are activities. This was certainly the case with Oldham in 2001. Although Griffin turned up he was most unwelcome, that element see him as a traitor, and it was C18/B&H and football hoolies who kicked the whole thing off.
The Searchlight tactic of identifying the premises from intelligence gathering and then organising mass phone ins and pressurising the councils over licencing is working and is the one to follow. It saves a lot of effort and is a lot safer. It also ties up the BNP with a lot of wasted effort and the demoralisation of members who are aware that the organisation is penetrated.
It would be good to see a discussion on the strategy and tactics developing instead of people just slagging each other off. I think this is important because of course Leigh is in the Euro constituency most at risk of falling to the BNP which is exactly why Griffin is standing there. In the South East we are still campaigning but we don’t face anything like the threat they do in the north west.
Comment by terryfitz — 17 March, 2009 @ 8:29 am
We have to go back to some basics. Fascism is an armed movement, different from ordinary racists in as much as it seeks to run the streets through violent confrontation. That was demonstrated once again in Leigh.
Tactics of self defence are therefore appropriate against it and always will be. As was demonstrated in Leigh. Was that a disaster?
Only if you think driving off a fascist attack is a disaster.
Andy Newman denounces our side for defending itself. Given his record, what do you expect?
Comment by bill j — 17 March, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Bill
What I want to see is the BNP politically discredited and defeated. That is the principle we shoud be working towards
You seem resistant to analyisng the specifics of the current situation, and instead seem to think the BNP are the NF of old.
For one thing “running the streets by violent confrontation” seems very low down the BNP’s current agenda.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 March, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Bill j is living in the past. Forget about fascism and nazism being used by capitalism in crisis as well as Spain, Weimar German, Cable St and all of the other left baggage. The SWP/UAF have got a booklet out with useful tips on how to defeat the BNP. One of them is to read what Trotsky wrote on fascism in 1937! Which planet are these people off?
Griffin has changed the whole nature of the far right in this country but unfortunately sections of the lef are still shouting No Pasaran and think they are on the barricades outside Madrid in 1936. I agree with Andy that the BNP must be defeated politically. It is unglamourous hard work but is the only way forward.
Just had a call about what actually happened, it seems to be firming up. It seems that Liverpool gangster, drug dealer and Griffin minder Joey Owens wound up some BNP people that the protesters were a bunch of spotty students. However when they got down there a lot of other people came out of the pub and they got hammered. It does increasingly seem that the BNP provoked it but that doesn’t alter the fact that we have now got a situation where anti fascists have bashed someone with a hammer and Griffin is making a big thing out of it. Still, a useful debate about the way forward.
Comment by terryfitz — 17 March, 2009 @ 9:36 am
Check out www.northwestnationalists.blogspot.com. There is a lot of information on it.
Comment by terryfitz — 17 March, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Comment #65 here by terryfitz: “Don’t confuse AFA with a recently revived group Antifa which has a website and was recently involved in a stupid attack on a BNP meeting in a church hall next to Bethnal Green tube station in East London.”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2919#comments
Comment #30 by terryfitz on that thread about the Bethnal Green church: “All in all a good day and a bit of an embarrassment for Griffin and friends.”
Forgive me for concluding that you have the consistency of runny diarrhoea. Perhaps you would firm up a bit if you stopped making arguments of convenience depending on which part of the left you’re attacking at any particular time.
Comment by Mike v2.0 — 17 March, 2009 @ 10:42 am
#69 #72 Very interesting comments, Terry, but I have to disagree really. You say that we have to forget about the past - I really think that would be a disaster.
I can agree that the BNP are currently following a quite different strategy from that of the NF in the 1970s and I can agree that the sort of “community campaigning” that Searchlight is doing should be an important element in our anti-fascist activity today. But there are still going to be sporadic confrontations such as the one that occurred in Leigh and our side should still be trying to “no platform” the fascists wherever we can (e.g. trying to occupy public spaces where they want to hold their events etc). And there still will be occasions where it will make sense for anti-fascists to organise marches and “wave placards”.
The other thing is that many commentators suggest that this recession looks like turning into a depression that could last many years. It may be that other, more aggressive and street-oriented currents within fascism revive at a certain point, so then our collective experience of fighting the Nazis in the 1970s would be very pertinent indeed. I’m in South London and a few years back we used to get the National Front (Blackham’s mob, if I recall correctly) marching in Bermondsey regularly on St George’s Day and that was all very reminiscient
of the 1970s.
I also think that comrades can still usefully read Trotsky - ha-ha! There is always a place for theory - and fascism can still be used by capitalism in times of crisis. Of course it can! But the ruling class are being well served by New Labour and significant parts of the trade union bureaucracy at the moment so they don’t really need the likes of Griffin too much. Should the left revive substantially in the next few years then those calculations might change somewhat.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 17 March, 2009 @ 10:46 am
I’ve only got to comment no.61 and am running out of energy to read more, so probably shouldn’t post this, but have a number of responses.
I was a rank and file member of AFA in a very different corner of the country in the late 1990s. AFA was wound up, not because it saw “militant anti-fascism” as a dead end (as one commenter claims) but because it saw physical confrontation as a lower priority in the current climate. The comrades described in Steve H’s mailing as “the AFA” are not, therefore, formally AFA. I don’t know if they are Antifa (”Continuity AFA” as some people call them), as some commenters suggest, or simply AFA veterans.
For militant anti-fascists, physical confrontation and ideological struggle are not an either/or. The priority now is clearly a political battle with the BNP in the communities where they operate. But that does not rule out physical confrontation when it is appropriate, such as when BNP thugs think they can operate with impunity in our neighbourhoods, when they walk around tooled up round leftist demonstrations, when they are launching physical attacks on us.
They try and portray themselves as respectable nationalists, but the old thuggery is not far below the surface and it doesn’t hurt to remind people of that every now and again.
Comment by Bob — 17 March, 2009 @ 11:04 am
One interesting thing on this, and thats the motivations of the BNP who turned up and that is by ex Liverpool BNP organiser Joe Owens, who alludes to there being agent provocateurs in the Liverpool BNP branch- and names one of them (see comments on thread on the NW Nationalists site)
Its interesting that both militant fascists and militant antifascists (and no one seems to know who they were) both appear at the same place, at the same time, for the first time in 15 years
Now co incidences can happen, but this whole events stinks of spooks winding up militants from both sides to go on the offensive
Comment by JimPage — 17 March, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
I personally think that Socialists should be concentrating more on the actions of the armed Nazis in the BNP who oppenly attacked anti-racist campaigners, instead of devoting vast quantities of time debating about the wording of a report that a comrade put forward and the possible political repurcussions of it.
Stop commenting on how bad this could be seen, and actually get out there and make sure that EVERYONE knows that ARMED NAZIS ATTACKED ANTI RACIST CAMPAIGNERS! That should have been the title of this article.
Comment by McNally — 17 March, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Yes, McNally - except that the ‘anti-racist campaigners’ themselves characterised the incident thus:
“Master Race, your having a laugh!” was just one of the many chants that taunted BNP Boot Boys, previously wielding crowbars, truncheons and baseball bats in Leigh town centre, as they were forced, under Police protection, to tow away their wrecked Landrover, which was literally ‘hammered’ by a larger force of similarly tooled-up anti-fascists from the AFA. The AFA also over turned the Liverpool BNP Branch’s “Save Our Culture” trailer it was towing, which blocked traffic on St.Helens Road for almost an hour.”
Sqaudist prats.
Comment by Tombola — 17 March, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Good response so far to what I have said and I will get back to you all tomorrow today being St Patrick’s day.
I have been totally misunderstood as to what I said about the past and I think that the reason for this is that many if not most people out there are Marxists which means, of course, that you do not understand history.
Mikev2.0. What are you on and what the fuck are you on? I was on the observation when Antifa attacked the BNP in front of the BNP getting themselves arrested for no reason at the church in Bethnal Green.
There is to be an application for a silent vigil at the spot in Southall where Blair Peach was killed by the Met and I will get back with details. It will, we hope, take place on the nearest Saturday to his murder which is next month.
Comment by terry fitz — 17 March, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
I think people can read what you wrote for themselves in that earlier thread terryfitz. You fully supported the attack at the time - “all in all a good day”. Now you say it was stupid. Make your several minds up.
Comment by Mike v2.0 — 17 March, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
terryfitz is also an expert on the Second World War, or would be if he could tell the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 from the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. But he can’t.
Comment by Faust — 17 March, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
It’s quite mistaken to call this squaddist. Squadism was about elite squads rather than broad counter-mobilisation. Squadism depoliticised the struggle and took it underground. That is not what happened in Leigh. Comrades in Leigh publicly worked to mobilise broad opposition to the BNP.
>>How could you turn up with a claw hammer to a counter demo, and not be looking for a fight?
I, for one, can answer this: if you’re engaged in an anti-fascist mobilisation then you have to anticipate the risk of a violent confrontation and be ready to defend yourself. I’ve been on numerous mobilisations over the decades and (while a hammer seems pretty hard to explain to cops) Luzozade bottles, walking sticks, groin protectors, Kubotans can be useful for self-defence.
Comment by Duncan — 17 March, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Interestingly, Joe Owens, of Liverpool BNP fame, has a completely different report of what happened to the one Andy has posted here:
Just heard from a reliable source it was the bnp who drove down to confront the reds in Ellesmere public house. Bnp then got a hiding.
Comment by Duncan — 17 March, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Andy’s strategy - sign the joint letter from Searchlight! That’ll learn ‘em!
Comment by Crikey! — 17 March, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
#69 Having had to deal with the nazis a lot in the 1990’s, I have to agree with post 69, and some earlier ones, these things are often badly organised, and when dealing with Nazis, it’s easy to end up getting a kicking thru’ bad organisation.
Nazis are very violent people, most of us on the left don’t know how to react to violence, and it’s easy to fall into thinking that being equally violent is the answer, but of course it’s not.
It can’t ever be about the left physically fighting the right, because we can’t win that way, I have rarely found a socialist who is willing to use the same level of violence as the nazis (which is probably a good thing), so raising the ante just isn’t going to do it, as we’ll never be able to raise it high enough.
I think it’s a bit unfair to attack the demonstrators in Leigh, as it sounds like this was a small group, rather than a political tactic. It probably was a relief for the deomonstrators when someone turned up ready to step in and defend them, but of course, the answer is to have a lot more demonstrators, so the BNP couldn’t attack them. But that’s easy to say of course, and not so easy to do!!
Comment by Disgruntled Unison Member — 17 March, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
#77 Yes Ive been wondering the same thing myself, although I dont know about the ’spooks’ it looks like very much like a pre-arranged punch up, quite different from our recent encounters with the BNP, and I dont think the full story has been told yet.
I dont think the episode is a setback for the left in itself - from experience of these things the BNP both taking a hiding AND being associated with street violence will damage them much more in the eyes of their contradictory bae of support of both hardcore fascists and potential ’something must be done’ voters.
It would be a mistake to rely on mystery vigilanties rescuing us from them in the future though. I agree it is politics, not squads where the battle is at the moment
Comment by Danny — 17 March, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
In view of some of the ill-informed comments posted on here I make no apologies for repeating the facts for the record:
It was reported in the press that the BNP had called off their Leigh meeting on due to alleged threats against the venue owner by the Police.
However, according to the press reports Dave Rowland, the owner of Pure nightclub, said that no meetings could be held there by any group as the club is currently under re-furbishment.
http://www.wigantoday.net/wigannews/BNP-meeting-cancelled.5069761.jp
It therefore appears that the BNP meeting in Leigh was only ever a publicity stunt to portray themselves as victims of the New Labour/Police establishment.
Nevertheless local anti fascist groups and individuals decided to continue with their peaceful protest against the BNP, just in case the BNP meeting was going ahead.
A group of about 30 unarmed protestors, including women and children, war veterans, local clergymen, two local Councillors and individuals representing a broad cross section of local political parties and groups and the community at large were in attendance.
At around 18:20 hours three or four car loads of BNP thugs armed with iron bars, baseball bats, and extendable truncheons arrived with German Shepherd dogs.
They also had a Landrover towing a trailer mounted with a Liverpool BNP advertising hoarding.
They started filming, threatening and taunting the demonstrators and when the children started crying some of the demontrators left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=u8yZ63rX26Q&eurl=http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/03/hammer-attack-on-liverpool-bnp.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0dbmUlF8Mk&eurl=http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/03/nick-griffin-talks-about-claw-hammer.html
An unidentified group of anti-fascists then arrived and confronted the BNP thugs and prevented them from attacking the peaceful demonstrators.
Tony Ward, the man who “claimed” to have been hit with a hammer is allegedly the BNP cameraman. Judging from the appalling quality of the film the BNP’s filming techniques are not quite up to the standards of Joseph Goebbels.
Another person believed to be present at the scene during the violence is Liverpool BNP member Peter Quiggins, AKA Peter Tierney.
Click on the link to see his video posted on You Tube in which Quiggins states “the Tsunami is coming and its called BNP”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhxC9gcXS2E
For the avoidance of doubt the 2004 “tsunami” killed over 300,000 people. Some unofficial estimates have claimed that approximately 1 million people may have died directly or indirectly solely as a result of the tsunami.
The BNP have gloated on several websites that their meeting was successfully held in St. Helens, seven miles away.
They have also widely publicised the alleged attack on one of their members.
What the BNP have failed to explain is just what four carloads of armed BNP thugs from Liverpool with their dogs and their advertising road show were doing in Leigh on Friday evening when their meeting was due to be held seven miles away in St. Helens and why were they filming the peaceful protesters?
The comparisons with pre-war Nazi Germany are impossible to avoid.
I myself have been posted on a Nazi website with the false allegation that I was responsible for a hammer attack on a BNP member.
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/03/say-hello-to-peter-franzen-man-who-may.html
So please stop whinging and whining and criticizing the anti-fascists who put their necks on the line to defend us all.
The armchair revolutionaries who can’t stand the heat should get out of the kitchen.
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 17 March, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Cde Zorro,
Do you always participate in debates like this with such venom? I can’t say I find your comments at all constructive.
I certainly don’t mind people criticising me for my views or my actions, especially when they’re from the Left. Indeed I thought I did a pretty good self-criticism of my own a short-comings in the run-up to the event, and in terms of my report of what happened, and that there was nothing mealy mouthed about it, nor was it back peddling. But to call me an idiot, well - that really is just childish name calling.
Is this how you talk to people when your doing all that painstaking day-to-day anti-fascist work you say is what’s really needed to politically defeat the BNP? For someone who lectures others on the correct way to go about their political business I think you still have a lot to learn - just like I do - only what you need to learn is in much more basic areas.
First of all how can I possibly anticipate how the BBC or the media will report anything? And secondly, and implicitly arising out of that, should my actions be guided by how the BBC reports it anyway?
The newspapers in particular, make up whatever stories the like, often without any reference to the facts whatsoever, and in this case the BBC self-evidently put out a totally one sided, pro-BNP account of what happened, without reference to anyone that witnessed events from the opposing side, which at the very least is poor journalism!
The BBC of course say that they aren’t politically biased, and many people believe that, but they are biased about most things in reality, not least in their general acceptance of the entire current bourgeois political and economic set up. Indeed are almost a PR wing for our much beloved monarchy.
Witness also how their alleged impartially, recently prevented them from showing the DEC Appeal for Aid for Gaza. I suppose that DEC should have anticipated that though. Or maybe they’re a bunch of idiots? Also the BBC’s coverage of the Viva Palestina convoy. They gave lots of prominence to the arrests on the M65 “on suspicion of terrorism” but virtually no coverage at all to what the convoy was about.
In terms of their coverage of the Miners Strike well, no doubt Cde. Zorro would have seen a stop to all that by castigating the miners’ flying pickets on day one. Heaven forbid all that heavy duty mass picketing, clashes with police, brick and stone throwing - what a PR catastrophe!! Shit a few chanted “Kick Out the Tories” too!
Oh and what about the daily back to work tally? “X miners went back to work today bringing the total now working figure to Y”? Was that just reporting the facts?
Shocked at the BBC’s report - you have already tried and convicted those who took part in this action, principally because one of them is said to have had a hammer. You sound just like Neil Kinnock castigating the “stone throwers and battering ram carriers” during the Miners Strike. Mind you maybe now I see the light! That’s why we lost the miners strike - bad PR and consequently public opinion went against us? It played its part of course, but it was hardly decisive, and it’s not decisive now either.
Think you and others should challenge the BBC’s account rather than castigate this group who beat off the fascists in Leigh (however tooled up or not they were) since it is now being put about (including on this blog) that BNPers deliberately drove down from Liverpool to physically confront anti-fascist protestors assembling in and outside the Ellesmere Pub who they, it is said believed would be ‘a bunch of spotty students’.
The meet up place by the way was not decided on by me, but is where I was told by Peter Franzen (who had been told by a member of the Wigan SWP and the UAR) anti-fascists were to assemble, and this account would very much fit in with the facts, as the pub was infiltrated with BNPs as early at 6.15pm when the first anti-fascists arrived. What were they there for all the way from Liverpool? And why did the Landrover and Trailer also appear at the scene around the same time? Hadn’t they heard that the BNP fundraising event had been cancelled? The BNP say the Leigh venue was ‘red-herring’ all along, in which case what were they doing there at all other than to start a fight, which they did in the pub and which then carried on outside.
As it is pointed out by others, in announcing an assembly point for any type of protest by anti-fascists, there is always a risk that the fascists might get wind of it and intimidate and/or attack those arriving early. Andy and a few others say that type of thing isn’t the BNP’s current line so it shouldn’t have been a problem, but it was this time and the media should know that, also that at least three of them were very much tooled up as I have already described (and have informed the local press of) and they can have come to Leigh with only one purpose, which was to physically confront anti-fascists starting to assemble at the Ellesmere Pub for a peaceful anti-BNP protest.
Think you should ask whether this is a change in tactics by the BNP? If it was it certainly was a big mistake on their part.
Concerning the anticipation of the effects of my recent actions in relation to my ex-wife and daughter becoming potential targets for reprisal. According to Andy and others the BNP don’t go in for that kind of thing anymore, so what is there to anticipate? What I do anticipate is what I did this week, last week, last month, next year is winning me political friends as well as enemies whatever I do and that there is always a risk that people close to me might come under threat as a result.
What should I do about it? Stop fighting for my socialist beliefs? Give up or do as I have, take appropriate protective measures?
Concerning anticipating my “macho posturing” not persuading a single person not to vote for the BNP? Cde Zorro do you need to resort to this pathetic name calling malarky? I’m a 51 year old grandad and I’d actually rather have just gone down to the pub on Friday in all honesty rather than have had to mobilise against Nick Griffin in my own backyard. Why do you accuse me of such a thing?
As it happens I actually went to the event knowing the BNP “Battle for Britain’ meeting had been called off, and therefore knowing a victory had been accomplished. Whether that was as a result of Police pressure and/or fear of a large anti-fascist mobilisation (which I did my bit for in terms of e-mails, phone calls and word of mouth) matters little, Griffin was denied a platform in the town.
However, many of those assembling likely wouldn’t have known that yet, so my expectation was of turning up and letting people in on that news if they didn’t already know. Just prior to leaving my home however (at around 6.15) I received a phone call to say that there were BNPs all over the centre of Leigh. It didn’t sound good and it struck me that there might be some fighting if that were so, with anti-fascists turning up for the counter-demo possibly picked off on route.
When I arrived just after 6.30, along with lots of other anti-fascist protestors, it was all over with, the Police having just arrived (it would appear that weren’t expecting anything like this to occur) moments beforehand. People were hyped up, a couple had been punched in the pub, but most of those directly involved were pretty happy that they’d avoided a beating as a result of the intervention of a group of anti-fascists who’d been prepared to wade in and see the BNPers off.
As I say I don’t have any idea who the “mystery vigilanties” were, but their actions in my opinion were totally justifiable as far as I can see in this instance.
Does this mark a return to squadism? How would I know? It’s not something I advocate personally or know much about.
My strategy is to mobilise people in their hundreds and in their thousands, wherever possible, to resist the BNP as Searchlight and the UAF/UAR etc are already doing with their leaflets, canvassing, meetings and so on, as well as to organise mass street demonstrations, rallies and the like.
But in addition to that as a movement we should also be prepared to defend ourselves physically if they attempt to attack us rather than getting beat up or running away. Not to do that is what would be stupid in my book!
Based on the experiences in Leigh and in order to avert a possible return to ’squadism’ I think it’s about time that the trades union movement created its own defence organisation to ‘handle’ such eventualities, after all the BNP are already taking about setting up their own private security company to provide guards for their own meetings and events.
Most of all of course we need to get over to the public, that despite the attempts to portray themselves as a respectable democratic simply ‘Nationalistic’ political party that stands up for white British workers, the BNP are in fact latter day Hitlerites, who if they were ever to come to power would lead the country into barbarism, death camps, economic isolation and ruin, and ultimately into war with virtually everybody else in the world.
Cde Zorro please stick to the points at issue and cut out the childish name calling.
Comment by Steve H — 17 March, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Steve: “in relation to my ex-wife and daughter becoming potential targets for reprisal. According to Andy and others the BNP don’t go in for that kind of thing anymore”
I don’t think I have said that Steve. I think there is every reason for caution, and I hope that you and your familly are safe.
The BNP contains many violent and unstable characters, and we all need to be careful. But my view is that we mustn’t be intimidated from politically opposing the BNP, and the more publicity there is of the threat, the less likely they are to carry out any reprisal.
What I have said is the violent street politics is not central to the BNP’s strategy in the way it was for the NF of old. That does not minimise the possiblility of very nasty things being done by the violent thugs in the BNP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 March, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
@ Andy Newman #90 “That does not minimise the possiblility of very nasty things being done by the violent thugs in the BNP.”
Are you kidding? Who turned up intent on pre-meditated violence, sufficiently armed with hammers, crowbars and caused structural damage to a landrover, one of the most robust vehicles on the road?
You call the BNP thugs yet revel in dishing out violence with the direct intent of disrupting democracy. I can only surmise that:
a) You have no confidence in being able to articulate your own message
b) The BNP in not resorting to your type of behaviour have a message that they can successfully convey without resorting to violence and without descending to your level
c) Robert Mugabe would recognise and applaud your behaviour
Proud of yourself? Think you’ve stopped people voting BNP? Think this is a winning formula in preventing the BNP gaining power in June? No, didn’t think so.
Comment by Simon — 17 March, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Andy Newman
I don’t know who you are and from your post number 71 I don’t know what planet you are on.
Your statement “You seem resistant to analyisng the specifics of the current situation, and instead seem to think the BNP are the NF of old.
For one thing “running the streets by violent confrontation” seems very low down the BNP’s current agenda” clearly demonstrates that you are not in touch with reality.
Contrary to your bogus claims the BNP are far worse than the NF of old and their unprovoked violence in Leigh is clear evidence to anyone with half a brain of their intention to run the streets by violent confrontation.
If you cannot acknowledge this then please do us all a favour and get out of the way.
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 18 March, 2009 @ 12:00 am
steve H
Congratulations and thanks again for your support for the anti-fascist demonstration in Leigh.
The BNP were routed and it is a credit to all concerned.
Real support on the streets when it is needed speaks volumes more than the empty rhetoric posted by BNP apologists and armchair revolutionaries on this website.
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 18 March, 2009 @ 12:14 am
Peter,
I am sure that you are a very sincere and committed anti-facsist, and that you are speaking from your own experience.
However, when looked at on the basis of evidence from the whole of the country it simply is the case that the BNP do not have a general strategic perspective of establishing a militant presence on the streets through provocative marches, and street violence in the way that the NF of old did.
That is not to say that there are no violent people in the BNP, nor is it to say that BNP are not involved occasionally in political violence. BUt mostly their violence nowadays is of a more insidious and covert form, threats, bullying and picking on individuals. What we do not characteristaicly see is the BNP turning up mob handed looking for a ruck.
Notwithstanding the events in Lleigh, it would be a serious political mistake to assume that the BNP are returning to violent street confrontation as bread and butter of their politics, and it would be a huge mistake to assume that tactics applicable to combatting the NF 30 years ago are appropriate now.
The BNP are a more serious threat in many ways than the old NF, but they are not the same.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 March, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Andy Newman
Please do not insult my intelligence with your comments.
The BNP came to Leigh with German shepherd dogs and armed with baseball bats extendable truncheons and iron bars.
Just whose side are you on?
Peter Franzen
Leader Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 18 March, 2009 @ 12:35 am
Let’s try to bring a little light, as opposed to heat, to this discussion.
Firstly I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. If, and I say if, the BNP were tooled up and looking to attack people, then it is clearly right to defend oneself with the appropriate means.
Secondly, the participation of bourgeois anti-fascists, if that is what they are, David T and Mikey, is a nonsense. You can’t oppose fascism and support racism! And they spend most of their time defending Israel and all its works. To boast of posting something on the overtly anti-Muslim Harry’s Place, demonstrates that Mikey’s ‘anti-fascism’ is only an internet phenomenon.
Thirdly there is a need for some analysis of the present situation and how it differs from previous periods. All of these things are a question of tactics, not principle. The principle is removing fascist political parties from the scene. Tactics is about how to best go about it.
So yes, Moseley was defeated through the use of force BUT ALSO through mass mobilisations, of which the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 was the prime example. Over a hundred thousand people mobilised whilst the Jewish bourgeoisie (of which the said David Taube and Mikey are good representatives) opposed that mobilisation.
In the 1970’s the National Front were also defeated by mass mobilisations which used force, e.g. the Battle of Lewisham in 1976. It was above all the fact that Black youth joined the counter demonstrators in the afternoon which turned the tide. Being there at the front I’m in a position to know.
The 1980’s were a time of sporadic activity by a rump NF and BNP. In that situation AFA were able to deal with them, often through what Andy terms squadist
tactics. I was on the Executive of AFA at the time and it barely pulled through at times because of internal divisions and also the destabilising activity of Searchlight, which is very much in the camp of those who believe in relying on the State to combat the fascists.
But have times changed and if so how? I would have thought that was obvious. The BNP have attracted significant support and have, for the first time ever for a fascist party, over 50 council seats. Therefore, regardless of the precise circumstances at Leigh, though I am dubious about whether the BNP were indeed tooled up as described, my inclination is similar to that of Andy. The use of weaponry like claw-hammers, seems to me to be a political mistake, to put it lightly. What is needed now is a militant, mass opposition to the BNP, for whom the economic and political climate is right. An opposition based on the working class, despite its own weaknesses, militant certainly but not adventurous.
If there is indeed a grouping that has decided to confront the BNP using what is extreme violence of an almost terrorist nature, then that poses real dangers, especially if it is used as a substitute for mass action. Not only will it lay itself open to police repression but it may also lead to political isolation for the most advanced anti-fascists.
I am well aware that the BNP, despite its respectable tactics at the moment, is quite capable of its own form of terrorist attacks. Being the most prominent target on the Redwatch Southern Reds site, which is effectively run by the more activist wing of the BNP, interestingly in the form of an article by Atzmon (who David T and Mikey parley with and go for drinks with) I’m well aware of what their true intentions are. But that is all the more reason not to uncritically quote Hitler in an entirely different period. To be seen to give the BNP legitimation by portraying them as the victims is also a mistake. The problem is that there is no unified anti-fascist movement which isn’t also passive e.g. UAF. But the answer to the UAF is not to become adventurists.
And one of the major problems in all of this is a weak and divided left.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 18 March, 2009 @ 5:20 am
I think though there is a danger, in Andy’s argument, of falsely counterposing self-defence and building a mass movement.
The main weapon against the BNP has to be patient persistent work not only in building a base of opposition to racism and fascism but more crucially in taking up campaigns for working class services, jobs and the other burning daily concerns of working class communities.
However, when the BNP target activists or Black people, gay people or trade unionists with physical violence it is absolutely necessary to defend ourselves. In that sense I agree with Peter that if as he says they came under attack- and he was there- that the action of antifascists in Leigh was correct and commendable.
It doesn’t take away at all from the need for rebuilding mass opposition to capitalism- and within that a revitalised left- but if we are not ready and able to engage in organised mass self-defence against attacks on Black people and trade unionists, whether from the fascists on the sidelines or the state, then that is hypocritical and will expose us as windbags not ready to put into action our rhetoric
Comment by Jason — 18 March, 2009 @ 6:39 am
Tony Greenstein’s attack on me is useless. Unlike him, I have never had my works praised by the far-right National Front. Sussex Front devoted virtually a full page article entitled “Book Review” dedicated to one of Greenstein’s pamphlet. The review discusses “Greenstein’s excellent and painstaking researches” and referred to it as “vital reading” before going on to refer Greenstein’s “thesis” as a “seminal work, as important in its own way as was Harwood’s “Did Six Million Really Die.” The effusive praise from the National Front continued: “fascinating and vital reading for the student of modern history,” “his booklet is good. Read it and see!” (Philip Drax, “Book Review” Sussex Front, January 1983, p. 9)
Greenstein also specifically referred to Alfred Lilienthal as a “reputable historian” despite the fact that Lielienthal himself questioned the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank, had signed a petition supporting a known Holocaust denier, and who himself was promoted by the National Front. (Tony Greenstein “Antisemitism Through the Looking Glass: The UJS Thought Police,” RETURN No. 3 June 1990 pp. 21-25. The diary of Anne Frank was questioned by Alfred Lilienthal is his book, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace, (North American Inc, 1982). The pages references are P. 481 and P. 849n71 The known Holocaust Denier that Lilienthal gave support to was Robert Faurisson. In 1980 Lilienthal had was one of the first signatories to a petition supporting him. Source: Werner Cohn “Chomsky and Holocaust Denial” in Peter Hollier and David Horowitz eds. The Anti-Chomsky Reader (Encounter Books, 2004) P 125 and P. 154n17)
Moreover, Tony Greenstein admits to have consorted with Stephen Brady, a leader of the fascist National Front! (http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=934)
So a man praised by the far-right and favourably compared to a Holocaust Denier by them and himself was praising a man who gave support to Holocaust Deniers and also consorted with a National Front leader has the audacity to tell me that my “‘anti-fascism’ is only an internet phenomenon.” The guy is clueless.
Comment by Mikey — 18 March, 2009 @ 7:51 am
I have to say I think Steve Hall and Peter Franzen are more accurate in the core BNP’s tendency to degenerate towards violent confrontation and are right in their general approach to tactics here. It may not have been the best planned or organised protest but to condemn it as “squadism” is wide of the mark.
The BNP may not be the NF of the 1970s in that they have a more sophisticated approach by attempting to simultaneously project themselves as a “respectable” party AND being prepared to physically intimidate opponents and black people through racist attacks. It may be that there is a slightly different dynamic between the north and south of the country, but up here in Lancashire where the BNP have become more entrenched in councils and sections of the dispossessed, there is still evidence of their willingness to engage in physical force thuggery and last Friday is a prime example. While Tony Greenstein makes some good general points, the reality on the ground is, and will continue to be, messier.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 18 March, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Squadism is squalid and counter-productive in the current context. Why do I get the impression that some people on here wish it wasn’t?
The Left must guard against this tendency to macho paramilitarism. Armed self-defence is vital when fascists are trying to control the streets but in the present situation it is an absolute PR gift to Griffin.
Comment by Peyton Place — 18 March, 2009 @ 10:01 am
I hope it is all right to put this link here. There may be some comrades who are unaware of it . . .
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/books/when.html
A very interesting contribution to our debate plus reviews. If you go right to the bottom then you will find another link which gives more info on the book itself.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 18 March, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Mikey demonstrates exactly why he doesn’t get it. Leave aside the controversy over historians who don’t fit within Mikey’s permitted orbit, and Lillienthall is a right-wing historian who is widely quoted (though Mikey doesn’t object to the Kristols and neo-con historians who justify US barbarities or Zionist massacres). The NF magazine ‘review’ is old hat. Sussex Front the mag of the Brighton NF regularly attacked me, including printing my name and address. It was only when they realised I was also anti-Zionist that they printed a ‘review’ so that patsies like Mikey could also join them in their attack on me. Mikey though is so dishonest he can’t even quote fairly from the ‘review’ concerning the fact that they were writing it in order to give Zionists ammunition with which to attack me!
But at least the NF knew that I was their opponent. I doubt they ever heard of Mikey, David T or the other clones he hangs out with. And why should they - he’s never done anything except post his ‘anti-fascism’ on the Internet, hence why he has nothing to say about anti-fascist tactics.
It is an equal deception from someone who is a pretty poor propagandist to say I ‘consorted’ with Brady. Brady was a leader of the Strasserite NF in the 1980’s as well as a UDA/UVF member. I certainly talked to him and I also exchanged blows with him. Mikey would run a mile at the very thought of physical confrontation with fascists, because like all his bourgeois friends he opposes physical opposition to fascism or opposition to a state that protects them. Bombing Palestinian civilians is more to his taste.
Quite what Mikey, who is not a socialist but a reactionary ideologue, is doing on a socialist blog beats me. But maybe its because even his own political friends find him an embarrassment.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 18 March, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
It’s true that we were not properly prepared or organised on this occasion.
An anti BNP protest was cobbled together late in the day and, fortunately thanks to outside intervention, the BNP were defeated in Leigh.
But lessons have been learnt.
We will be better prepared for the violent Nazi/Fascist thugs next time.
We know who the Nazi/Fascist scum bags are they are and where they live.
Their names, addresses and profiles will soon be posted on the internet for everyone to see.
Also I will be campaigning for a “Peoples Defence Force” (PDF) to be set up in every town in Wigan starting with Leigh, to defend local citizens against further BNP/Nazi attacks and violence.
If you wish to set a “PDF” in your area please contact me @ peter.franzen@community-action.com or phone me on 01942 706600 or 07916 334425
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 18 March, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
I see Greenstein is still promoting Lilienthal despite the latter’s support for a Holocaust Denier and despite the fact that he was giving Holocaust deniers ammunition with his questioning of the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank.
Despite his claims, Greenstein is wrong about the reasons why the National Front gave such praise to his own filthy little pamphlet. They reviewed it because the author of the review claimed it was “the most intriguing book” he had read “in a long time.” The reviewer concluded that Greenstein’s “booklet is good. Read it and see!” The National Front were of course completely antisemitic and completely anti-Zionist. So far from writing the review to give Zionists ammunition to attack him with as Greenstein alleges, in the review, the reviewer refers to “mad dogs of Zionism” and “lunatic Zionism.”
It is interesting to note that Greenstein confirms that he spoke to National Front leader Brady. One wonders if it was in one of those chats that Greenstein asked the National Front to review his pamphlet.
Greenstein now goes on to argue with no evidence whatsoever that I am not a socialist. The reason why he makes that statement is that he assumes I am a Zionist and according to Greenstein, socialism and Zionism are an “impossible contradiction.” Of course Greenstein knows very little about socialist Zionism and in his 26 page pamphlet on the matter, both Nahman Syrkin and Ber Borochov only get the most fleeting of references.
(Tony Greenstein, Socialist Zionism: The Impossible Contradiction (London: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, n.d. c 1986)
Comment by Mikey — 18 March, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Mikey #100 - I have to admit to being befuddled. Now we have 60 years of ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, collective punishment, the pillage of another people’s resources, the expropriation of their land, the slaughter of civilians being described as socialism.
Whatever next?
Comment by John Wight — 18 March, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Mikey est a las primera mastabador del mundo.
Comment by Lame — 18 March, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Hydra-headed monsters?
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627
Comment by Mikey — 18 March, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
You’d better believe it.
Comment by John Wight — 18 March, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
A matter of time before Tony Greenstein managed to find a way to turn a punch-up in Leigh into an occasion for a battle against the eternally evil Israel and ad hominem attacks on “Zionists”… Interesting, too, the sudden outbreak of agreement between Andy Newman and the “bourgeois anti-fascists” of Harry’s Place…
But Tony is right about the right strategy for fighting fascism: physical confrontation BUT ALSO mass political mobilisation. However, this formula works the other way around as well: political mobilisation BUT ALSO physical confrontation. It is not an either/or question. We can debate whether this particular incident was spontaneous, planned well, counter-productive, etc. And we need a clearer picture of the sequence of events in order to judge these questions. But two facts cannot be denied.
*First, that anti-fascists have the right and moral responsibility to stop the BNP organising by whatever means are available, including claw hammers.
*Second, that physical aggression from the BNP towards anti-racists should not go un-answered.
Comment by Bob — 19 March, 2009 @ 8:50 am
“matter of time before Tony Greenstein managed to find a way to turn a punch-up in Leigh into an occasion for a battle against the eternally evil Israel and ad hominem attacks on “Zionists”…”
Thats odd. My impression was that a bunch of right wing trolls tried to turn a discussion about how to deal with the threat of the Nazies, into a string of completely spurious accusations designed to prove that those engaged in Palestinian solidarity work are Nazies who have no right to campaign against the BNP. Still, perhaps I misread something…
Comment by johng — 19 March, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Actually johng, your impression is incorrect and yes you are correct in your guess, you did “misread something.” I commented on this blog stating that I had posted a thread concurring with Andy Newman on Harry’s Place. That hardly makes me a “troll” if I am agreeing with the main poster! That led to Tony Greenstein making a ridiculous comment that I cannot be opposed to fascism if I support Israel.
Of more interest to me is that fact that whilst Greenstein comments that in the 1980s he was on the executive of AFA, he fails to mention that in 1986, Vicky Phillips, the then president of the National Union of Students, argued that Greenstein’s involvement in AFA,”brings the whole organization into disrepute.” (Simon Rocker “Phillips waves the flag”, Jewish Chronicle, December 26, 1986)
Comment by Mikey — 19 March, 2009 @ 11:20 am
“fails to mention”. Vicky Phillipes was a right wing member of the executive prone to attacking the left. The very tone of your absurd attacks demonstrates that not only are you not on the left, but that you know almost nothing about it. I agree with Greenstein that its really wierd when HP types like yourself try and keep up this pretence. I know nothing of Tony’s activities in the early 1980s and have no particular desire to engage in these personalised smear campaigns which for you guys are a substiture for rational argument. But the desperate and absurd attempts to prove that someone should be driven out of the movement or not taken seriously (with a range of completely hatstand allegations about Tony being close to the BNP, laughable arguments about how he is not ‘qualified’ to discuss left Zionism, and now his ‘failure to mention’ that a student union bureacrat once said something less then flattering about him more then twenty years ago)just because you don’t like their line on Israel is silly. In general I think its fair enough on a left wing site to point out that someone who is an HP type opponent of the left has a bit of explaining to do if they come on to a left wing site.
Comment by johng — 19 March, 2009 @ 11:27 am
I posted on this thread in the belief that it was about the BNP and events that occurred in Leigh last Friday.
Instead it has degenerated into a puerile debate about “socialist zionism”, a contradiction in terms if ever I’ve heard one. Come to think of it didn’t the Nazis call themselves socialists too.
Perhaps the Zionists posting on here should create another thread where we can all debate the true nature of Zionist/Israeli state terrorism, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
Peter Franzen
Leader Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 19 March, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Bob is wrong. I have no interest in bringing Palestine within this debate. I actually believe that if Zionists are prepared to work with us on fighting fascism, despite their backward politics generally, then one should do so. It’s called a united front. However very few of them do so because you can’t support racism on the one hand when it comes to Palestinians and then oppose it with regard to one self. Apart from the fact that Zionism has as its basis that anti-semitism and fascism cannot be fought. And of course the record of collaboration with fascism and anti-semitism is well known.
One example of someone who veered between Zionism and anti-Zionism was Steve Cohen, a good anti-racist comrade who has just died. He was a member of the Jewish Socialists Group and we had many a polemical disagreement, though unlike Mikey he wasn’t obnoxious or loopy but he was a committed anti-racist. I intend to put up a tribute to him on my own blog but there are exceptions.
However Mikey is a different case altogether. He went out of his way to collaborate with Gilad Atzmon, and out and out anti-Semite, in order to provide information on myself. Because to most Zionists, like Mikey, it isn’t anti-Semitism but anti-Zionism that is the problem. Just as he quotes from an NF ‘review’ that was specifically written to attack an anti-fascist.
A flavour of Mikey’s relationship with Atzmon can be gleaned from here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1706#comments Comment 53
For Mikey to write about anti-fascism when he has never done one single thing other than act as messenger boy for Atzmon and now the NF is absurd. He was the kind of collaborator whom the Jewish Resistance in Warsaw shot as a precondition to fighting the Nazis. I don’t suggest shooting Mikey, merely ignoring him as he is an anti-communist
The key question is not allowing adventurism to undermine and weaken the fight against the BNP. The BNP have followed a very clever strategy and the Left would do well to learn from them. They are not primarily based on street politics now. The best contribution the Left could make was to get itself together and start taking up the reemergence of mass unemployment
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 19 March, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
#107: “Vicky Phillips, the then president of the National Union of Students, argued that Greenstein’s involvement in AFA,”brings the whole organization into disrepute.” (Simon Rocker “Phillips waves the flag”, Jewish Chronicle, December 26, 1986)”
Pardon me if I don’t take anything seriously that was uttered by the appallingly right-wing Vicky Phillips!!
Johng at #108 is right, re her attacks on the left.
And I remember only too well the awful debate on Palestine at NUS conference late 1987 when she was President.
Comment by Louise — 19 March, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
johng
I see you now attack Vicky Phillips by arguing that she was a “right wing member of the [NUS] executive.” This of course ignores the fact that she was elected as President as a member and supporter of the National Organisation of Labour Students. Right wing may be relative and it is possible that for you anybody to the right of Ho Chi Minh maybe considered “right wing.”
Regarding Tony Greenstein qualification to discuss left Zionism, he is clearly not qualified to do so as his pamphlet Socialist Zionism: The Impossible Contradiction is, in itself, an absurdity. When I recently re-read that travesty of history, I cannot recall seeing the name Moses Hess mentioned even once. If I missed it and it was mentioned, then the reference must be tiny. Hess was of course an important figure in socialist Zionist history and not only that, Hess was responsible for influencing both Marx and Engels on Communist ideology.Indeed it has been argued that Marx obtained the idea that “religion is the opiate of the masses” from Hess and that Hess was involved in assisting Marx and Engels with the Communist Manifesto.
But when it comes to violence, I am well aware that Greenstein can be a violent person as he once kicked me very hard for no apparent reason:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/25/tony-greenstein-man-of-violence/
Tony Greenstein I see continues to suggest that the review by the National Front was written to attack him - but in the majority of the review it is full of praise - Such as that for his “excellent and painstaking researches.” The NF argues that his Greenstein’s thesis was a “a seminal work, as important in its own way as was [Holocaust Denier] Harwood’s ‘Did Six Million Really Die.’” Praise indeed from the fascists of the National Front! (Harwood’s real name was of course Verrall.)
Greenstein goes on to argue that I have a relationship with Atzmon because I met him in a pub. Greenstein fails to mention as he knows full well that my subject of interest is anti-Zionism and I have met many anti-Zionists, some of whom his own ideological comrades and on occasion they have invited me to their house to discuss anti-Zionism! The fact that on one thread (which if anyone reads the original in total form -
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
they will see that I used that conversation to extract from Paul Eisen his real views about gas chambers at Auschwitz: “Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.” My comments about Roland Rance was that I was to research his writings separately, much of which I have now done.
Whilst attacking me for meeting Atzmon to carry out research, he makes no denunciation of johng, a supporter of the Socialist Workers Party, a party that did so much to promote Atzmon that they continually invited him to perform at their annual Marxism event!
Nor does Greenstein attack Roland Rance who admitted in an edit to Wikipedia talk pages (2 September 2007), that he has gone to hear Atzmon play live, he had listened to his CDs, read his books, corresponded with him and “met him several times.”
But above all, Greenstein does not comment on the fact that he sent Atzmon a friendly email, where he argued that he would be delighted to hear Atzmon play the saxophone!
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony’semail.htm
Finally, Greenstein accuses me of being “the kind of collaborator whom the Jewish Resistance in Warsaw shot as a precondition to fighting the Nazis.” We should recall that it was Greenstein who was sending emails to the alef list last year (January 27, 2008) praising the PFLP. This was the same PFLP who hijacked an El Al aeroplane and amongst other terrorist actions planted a bomb in a Jerusalem supermarket killing two youths and wounding over twenty others. Based on this when worrying about who is collaborating with anti-semites, Greenstein should look in the mirror.
Comment by Mikey — 19 March, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Mikey you might remember the miners strike, Kinnock etc. Or perhaps you don’t. In any case your clearly not in any sense on the left and nor does anything you say even make sense whatever political position you hold. You’ll convince no one here.
Comment by johng — 19 March, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Louise,
If you remember the debate on Palestine/Israel (motion number 104) at NUS Conference December 4-7 1987 in Blackpool, you will recall that the position of the National Executive Committee was submitted as the main motion in that debate. This motion was supported by the National Organisation of Labour Students leadership (Neil Usher et al.) as well as by Vicky Phillips and other members of the NUS NEC. On the vast majority of points, this motion was completely in line with the views expressed by the General Union of Palestinian Students - GUPS (a student body aligned with the PLO).
The motion and all amendments submitted can be seen in NUS conference document reference CD15 published by NUS for that conference.
This motion was so biassed that it is no surprise that it was vigorously opposed by members of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS). Moreover, recognising how biassed that motion was were left wing members of NOLS who gathered in a group known as SSiN (Socialist Students in NOLS) which in itself had strong ties with the Trotskyist Socialist Organiser. At the debate itself, amendment number 1 which was a 2 state position put forward by Shena Simon College and others was in line with the views of SSiN. This amendment fell to whooping cheers by supporters of NOLS. However Amendment Number 2 was that put forward by colleges that had a policy in line with Union of Jewish Students that argued in favour of peace and mutual recognition. This very fair motion won the support of not just of UJS members but also of members of SSiN and various others and was passed by conference. NOLS were outraged by this and when it came down to voting on the final motion the whole thing was voted down. It was indeed an “awful debate” and did not need to be so had NOLS supporters on the NEC put forward a less biased and more fair motion to begin with.
Comment by Mikey — 19 March, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Nothing like middle-aged trots rehashing student union debates from the 1980s to remind us why the left is fucked.
Comment by slapping forehead — 19 March, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
#111 “But when it comes to violence, I am well aware that Greenstein can be a violent person as he once kicked me very hard for no apparent reason:”
Priceless.
How old are you Mikey ?
I’ve got a 5 year old granddaughter, that’s about her level.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 19 March, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
johng,
I certainly do remember Neil Kinnock. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that his 1985 conference speech against Miliant was one of the greatest ever political speeches in living memory and I am not the only one to think so:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2008/12/labour-party-conference-speech
A different speech by Kinnock was rated so highly that the current US Vice President used a speech that distinctly seems so to have copied Kinnock.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2607505/Joe-Biden-plagiarised-Neil-Kinnock-speech.html
Kinnock did phenomenally well modernising the Labour Party after what Kaufman described as “the longest suicide note in history” of the 1983 Labour Party election manifesto. Indeed it is to the credit of Kinnock, who got rid of the party within a party of Militant and other modernising acts that enabled Labour to move forward and ultimately Tony Blair, a great Labour Prime Minister to be elected.
Yes, Kinnock was left-wing, but I do accept that he was to the right of Mao Zedong and other murderous Communist Party leaders around the world.
Comment by Mikey — 19 March, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
If you remember the debate on Palestine/Israel (motion number 104) at NUS Conference December 4-7 1987 in Blackpool, you will recall that the position of the National Executive Committee was submitted as the main motion in that debate.
You must have a great social life Mikey.
Just saying like.
Comment by Duncan — 19 March, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
“certainly do remember Neil Kinnock. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that his 1985 conference speech against Miliant was one of the greatest ever political speeches in living memory”
ye gods.
Comment by johng — 19 March, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
“I see you now attack Vicky Phillips by arguing that she was a “right wing member of the [NUS] executive.” This of course ignores the fact that she was elected as President as a member and supporter of the National Organisation of Labour Students.”
Ah yes NOLS in the 1980’s, what a crazy bunch of Bolshevik-Leninists they were!
The organisation whose leaderships sole reason for existance was to keep the dreaded Trots in the LPYS in line and to slavishly promote Kinnocks sell out policies that gave birth to New Labour.
The organisation who have given us those champions of the common people: Caroline Flint, Jack Straw, the Milipeed brothers and of course that tireless champion of hardworking billionaires everywhere, Peter Mandelson.
Mikey would be quite offensive if he wasn’t so hillariously clueless about the left.
Comment by Neil — 19 March, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
“A different speech by Kinnock was rated so highly that the current US Vice President used a speech that distinctly seems so to have copied Kinnock”
Well there’s no arguing with the current US vice-president is there. Not unless your a ‘murderous communist’ who dares to disagree with Neil Kinnock. I agree with Neil that it can be amusing reading this crap, but its also quite scary. The guy is clearly a stalker and an obsessive.
John Wight has a point.
Comment by johng — 19 March, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
socialist unity my arse.
you should re-name this website the friends of Israel
Comment by peter franzen — 19 March, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
and we all know what a bunch of thieving murderous fascist scum bags they are
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLJ155314
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5939611.ece
Comment by peter franzen — 19 March, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
NOLS were pretty to the right when I came across them as a Green Party student in the 1980s…Kaufman while he was one of the icons of the Labour right has been a stern critic of the excess of Isreal, in politics some times you can agree with people on some issues and disagree on others…Tony Greenstein of course is a star, I am very proud that Green Left have worked with him!
Measure the abuse Tony gets and you can see he is doing something good…
Comment by Derek Wall — 19 March, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
26. & 31. Dhimmi status isn’t really a “Jewish theory” so much as a historical phenomenon. Rhetoric about future “dhimmitude” is, however, a very useful zionist and islamophobic preoccupation
Strangely, pointing this out on Andy Newman’s blog gets one labelled despicable….who knew?
Comment by Jodley — 20 March, 2009 @ 12:08 am
#115
Sorry Mikey, but I have repressed the experience of that particular NUS conference circa 1987 as the trauma was too great esp. witnessing the right-wing’s tactics.
Oh, just one thing … SSIN… (Socialist Students in NOLS)indeed I was a member and was a member of the minority current in it that fundamentally disagreed with Soc. Organiser on 2 states re Palestine and Ireland.
#122
Indeed… NOLS have produced so many fine upstanding carin’ and sharin’ right-wing drones…opps…sorry …individuals who fight for social justice ..like…oh yeah, Jim Murphy… for one, shafting the poor and attacking the welfare benefits system…surely not he..? Stephen ‘I am paying my Poll Tax” Twigg, Lorna Fitzsimmons…. and so on.
Whatta shower!!
#116
Who are you calling a middle aged Trot…?
Comment by Louise — 20 March, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Thanks Derek.
Trust Mikey to condemn himself out of his own mouth!
But Mikey is too coy. He says:
‘Greenstein goes on to argue that I have a relationship with Atzmon because I met him in a pub.’
Now that’s not quite what David T said on March 19, 2007. In a choice little piece on ‘Gilad Atzmon and Jewishness’ David T wrote:
‘Last week, Mikey invited me for a drink with Gilad Atzmon.
Mikey’s thoughts on Gilad and his worldview follow, below.
Gilad was, I have to say, utterly charming and a delightful drinking companion. He arrived with a copy of his album “Exile” and his new work, Artie Fishel and the Promised Band. On the way home in the taxi, we played the first of the two albums. My taxi driver thought it excellent, and so did I….
Is Gilad Atzmon a racist? Not in the narrow sense of being preoccupied by genetic differences between people, certainly. He is rather, I think, a ‘cultural essentialist’: if such a term exists. He and I talked about the distinction he draws between those cultures which are grounded in the “soil”, and which are “authentic”, with those which are not. Hence, muslim, arab and Palestinian cultures pass the authenticity test, while “jewishness” is not, and is accordingly pernicious. There is something of “blood and soil” theorising about Atzmon’s worldview: minus the “blood”, that is. Redemption, for Atzmon, is possible for jews who abandon “jewishness”.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/19/gilad_atzmon_and_jewishness.php‘
So you see. Atzmon of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and much else besides, isn’t a racist - merely a ‘cultural essentialist’. Quaint or what?
And again Mikey is being too coy about his work for Atzmon, because never let it be forgot, the main enemy for Zionists is not anti-Semites, who they’ve always got on with very well, but anti-Zionists. Hence the following delightful repartee:
‘Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga.
You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can’t.
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
G
Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/ ‘
Touching, is it not? Mikey’s contribution to the Palestinian Solidarity movement is priceless for providing titbits of information to Atzmon on his Jewish opponents!!!
Yes it’s true that NOLS and people like Phil Woolas, Aaronovitch, et al criticised me. Vicky Phillips comments were dismissed out of hand by Anti-Fascist Action but who cares what these racists said?
But I forgot. I am a man of violence. Now as my good comrade, Roland Rance, will confirm, at the AWL-Machover/CPGB debate a clearly het up Mikey insisted on eyeballing us and screaming and frothing in our faces. Literally the man is mad. When the next week, at a public meeting, he tried to trip me up, I moved his foot out of the way and apparently his shins felt in some pain. I can’t explain it. Maybe he is ultra-sensitive. But as his friends on HP urged him, go to the Police and complain about assault. For some reason he chose not to do so. Instead he quotes from himself in the comment above!! Very reliable.
Just as he quotes from the NF against an anti-fascist. Now for my sins I was the Secretary of the ANL in Brighton when it was strong and we led a determined campaign to put the fash back in the sewers. Not that Mikey or his Zionist friends were around, they were too busy condemning us for anti-Semitism!!! I myself was arrested on more than one occasion trying to teach the fascists some manners but I don’t complain about that or having to move house when Sussex Front did a 2 page ‘expose’ with my address. That is the price you pay. Just as today I top the bill on the South Coast version of Redwatch whereas the BNP and their ilk are unlikely to have even heard of Mad Mikey.
Mikey of course has never taken part in or participated in any anti-fascist actions or mobilisations. He hasn’t even read a copy of the National Front paper he quotes from, since it was something that the Union of Jewish Students put out which he has lapped up. However I will quote one or two things in it which will put it into context, since Mikey is likely to obsess about it some more if I don’t. I might add that nowhere in this ‘review’ is a single argument or line or word of my pamphlet quoted!
‘TONY GREENSTEIN, AS most readers of ‘Sussex Front’ well know, is a leading light in the local Trotskyite ‘Anti-Nazi League’. Tony Greenstein is a Jew…
Many non-Jewish Nationalists oppose Zionism, Zionism – or Jewish Nationalism – in turn opposes non-Jewish Nationalism yet these otherwise virulent opponents share the same basic beliefs in Race and Nation. However, anti-Nationalists, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, oppose Nationalism of either variety and in doing so risk association with either or both brands of Nationalism….
One can argue with Greenstein’s conclusions but not with the valuable data his researches have unearthed. We have crossed swords with Mr. Greenstein in the past and will undoubtably do so in the future. Trotskyism is political rabies and the Greensteins of this world are its infected carriers, but that fact should not obscure the personal courage shown by Greenstein in assembling and publishing his thesis, a seminal work, as important in its own way as was Harwood’s “Did Six Million Really Die”.
Doubtless Greenstein will be savagely mauled by the mad dogs of Zionism for his authorship of this booklet, as if it was written by Richard Harwood himself… Greenstein’s personal fate at the hands of lunatic Zionism is a matter of indifference to us…’
I think that gives the flavour of this review. It was written in order to provide ammunition for what they term ‘the mad dogs of Zionism’ against someone who was, in their words, the ‘leading light’ of the opposition to them. And Mikey, being someone who follows well in the tradition of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semites and now it would seem fascism, is happy to pick up the baton.
But maybe Mikey can answer a question. Why is it that the most fervent supporters of Israel’s blitzkrieg on Gaza were the British National Party, whose only qualms were that they didn’t go far enough?
And can Mikey explain why Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a thoroughly Zionist organisation, said in the Guardian of 10th April 2008 that:
‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’?
Mikey also forgets that he posted the following on Aaronovitch’s Times blog:
”Dear David,
An excellent article. It is not without point that the likes of Tony Greenstein have been intimidating Jewish Students at NUS conferences for virtually 30 years. He claims to be acting in the name of “anti-Zionism” but spends his time harassing Jews.’
Which led to The Times paying me, a £1,000 libel cheque which was sent to the Friends of Bir Zeit University. Arguaby the only good thing that has resulted from Mikey’s miserable life.
As people have perceived, Mikey is my Internet stalker. As he himself explained, in a letter I received from Alistair Brett, The Times solicitor:
“I was a student myself in the period X-Y and I can assure you that when I heard Greenstein speak, I felt very intimidated - and yes I was a Jewish student. In fact my current fascination with collecting information about Tony Greenstein and trying to deconstruct all of his arguments, psychologists might put down to getting some revenge for the stress he caused me with his pamphlets and speeches as a student.”
I’m extremely sorry to have caused poor Mikey such stress by opposing all the things he supports, but he’s going to have to get used to it!
But I forgot. In my pamphlet on Zionism and Socialism I forgot to mention Moses Hess and his influence on the development of ’socialist’ Zionism. It is true I forgot to mention him, primarily because no Labour Zionism groups emerged until the end of the 19th century, primarily as a response to the Bund, the mass anti-Zionist Jewish Workers Party, whereas Hess died in 1875. So I will make amends by quoting from his best known work, the pamphlet ‘Rome & Jerusalem’, Philosophical Library, New York, 1958, p.10. Cologne May 1862.
“Race struggle is primary; class struggle is secondary.”
‘I have even heard it said quite seriously that the Indo-Germanic race improves its quality by mixing with the Jewish race.’
‘The Germans hate the religion of the Jews less than they hate their race - they hate the peculiar faith of the Jews less than their peculiar noses… reform, conversion, education and emancipation, none of these open the gates of society to the German Jew, hence his desire to deny his racial origin.’
I’ll leave it to Mikey to work out why I didn’t include those particular aspects of ’socialist’ Zionism!!
And yes, I had some very good comrades in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who assassinated the fascist General Rehavam Zeevi, leader of Moledet a party that advocated expelling Palestinians from Israel and the Territories into Jordan. They were a secular, leftist Palestinian group and although I didn’t agree with much of their politics it is sad that they have declined and the Israeli sponsored Hamas largely supplanted them. Mikey’s crocodile tears over 2 Israelis killed by them in a supermarket contrast with his failure to condemn the killing of over 400 children in Gaza recently and some 1,400 in total.
But as John and others have pointed out, Mikey is a freak whose only social life seems to be drinks out with his pal Gilad Atzmon!
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 20 March, 2009 @ 2:31 am
I wasn’t aware that anyone who has posted to this blog has done anything amiss.
Your record and that of your followers Tony Ward is well known. Don’t you still have Tony Lecomber, the mad bomber, amongst your entourage?
Perhaps you can tell us what the purpose of Redwatch is in asking for information on left-wing and other targets and then come back and be all sanctimonious.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 20 March, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
#129 Andy, can we just “no platform” (i.e. delete) this Nazi low-life please? We shouldn’t be getting into a debate with him on here.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 20 March, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Erm . . . ha-ha!! Re 129 and 130. I am not actually calling Tony a Nazi low-life here - I have met Tony on quite a few occasions and he is a very nice chap! I don’t want him kicking me in the shins either. Ha-ha! But there was another post at #129 from the fascist from Leigh (the one with a big headache!) earlier on today.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 20 March, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Greenstein seems to distort information and get his information wrong from start to finish.
1. Greenstein gets the link wrong to the page on Harry’s Place. He is using a link that has not worked for nearly a year. The correct link is as follows:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2007/03/19/gilad-atzmon-and-jewishness/
2. Greenstein implies with the way he has copied the extract from that post by David T that the the words extracted are my “thoughts.” This is not the case as anyone can see by checking the post as these are the thoughts of David T. My thoughts were further down in the post where I made the observation, “If [Atzmon’s words] sounds like it comes straight out of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion that influenced Adolf Hitler and modern day neo-Nazis, it does, but Atzmon does not care that it is a forgery because as far as he is concerned it is a fact either American Jews or Zionists are controlling the world.”
3. Greenstein argues that Zionists “always got on with very well” with anti-Semites. This is of course complete nonsense and a figment of his information.
4. The extract of the thread conversation on Peace Palestine that I had with Atzmon does not imply in any way that I was working with Atzmon. Indeed the information that I wrote about Greenstein on Peace Palestine is not that dissimilar to the information I have given on this thread as anyone is free to check for themselves.
5. It is interesting that Greenstein refers to Vicky Phillips, David Aaronovitch, Phil Woolas and the National Organisation of Labour Students (NOLS) are all “racists.” Who they are racist against and why they are racist he does not say, he just makes a ridiculous statement that is not backed up with any evidence and writes it as though it were accurate.
6. Greenstein accuses me of “screaming and frothing” at an AWL meeting. Again that is completely inaccurate. I turned up late to that meeting as I had been on an anti-fascist walk around the East End of London with David Rosenberg. When I got to the meeting, I was quiet inside but I did hear Roland Rance deny that he and his comrades say “Smash Israel” or “Destroy Israel” despite the fact that one Tony Greenstein had written to the Weekly Woker and said “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.”
The relevant links for this point can be seen on the following thread:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/16/roland-rance-exposed/
7. Greenstein states “I moved his foot out of the way and apparently his shins felt in some pain. I can’t explain it.” In other words he kicked me quite hard. But this is not the only violence of Greenstein as in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle (July 10, 1981) Sam Jacobs, the Chairperson of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) alleged Tony Greenstein was “witness to at least two separate violent confrontations with members of the UJS.” In a response to that letter, the Jewish Chronicle published a letter from Greenstein on July 24, 1981 where Greenstein admitted to a physical confrontation.
8. Greenstein categorically states, “Mikey of course has never taken part in or participated in any anti-fascist actions or mobilisations..” This is an outright lie. I have been a long campaigner against fascism and I recall in the late 1970s going on a demonstration with my whole family against the National Front as a starter.
9. Greenstein claims that I have not “even read a copy of the National Front paper” that I quoted from but relied on information from the Union of Jewish Students. This is false as I have a copy of the article from Sussex Front right next to me as I write and I can assure him and anyone else that I have read it in full.
10. Greenstein argues that “nowhere in this ‘review’ is a single argument or line or word of my pamphlet quoted!” This is another distortion of the truth. Quite clearly on the top left had of the page of the review is a copy of the front page of Greenstein’s filthy pamphlet, Zionism: anti semitism’s twin in Jewish garb. And in it can easily be read the following quotation from Greenstein: “Hitler’s illusion was, that he could physically liquidate Europe’s resistance against fascism. Begin’s and is generals’ illusion is, that they can physically liquidate the PLO and the Palestinian resistance against Zionist occupation.”
11. Greenstein argues that the review “was written in order to provide ammunition for what they term ‘the mad dogs of Zionism’ against someone who was, in their words, the ‘leading light’ of the opposition to them.” This is false. The reason that the review was written was to encourage its members to purchase and read Greenstein’s pamphlet as the conclusion makes abundantly clear: “his booklet is good. Read it and see! A paltry subscription to the Labour Party’s local funds is a small price to pay.”
12. Regarding Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies and her comments about the BNP, I do not know why she said what she did. If Greenstein is so interested to find out why, maybe he should email or write to her and ask for clarification. Irrespective of why Ms. Smeed made her comments, it was clearly not in line with the policy of the Board of Deputies. Even the article that Greenstein refers to where he read Ms. Smeed’s comments explains: “The Board of Deputies, the London Jewish Forum and the Community Security Trust have launched a campaign with other ethnic minority and cultural groups and the Hope Not Hate campaign to combat the BNP threat.” Moreover, as the article makes very clear, Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies said “Despite all its attempts to portray itself differently we know [the BNP] is still the same antisemitic, racist party it always was.” He added: “We, in the Jewish community, will not tolerate any form of racism or prejudice … I would be thoroughly ashamed if any member of the Jewish community voted for them.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race
13. Greenstein admits that in his 26 page pamphlet on Zionism and Socialism that he “forgot to mention Moses Hess.” That might be like writing a 26 page pamphlet on Communism and forgetting to mention Karl Marx! However the reason that Greenstein probably “forgot” to mention Hess ws that in Rome and Jerusalem, Hess commented that it can be demonstrated that the ideas of socialism and Zionism “coexisted side by side [and] complemented each other” as Shlomo Avineri, commented on page 246 of his book Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism. This is of course an idea that Greenstein refuses to accept.
14. Based on all this, it does not surprise me that Greenstein admits that he has “some very good comrades in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” This is of course the same Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) that used Carlos the Jackal who shot Joseph Sieff of the Marks and Spencer family in London. You can often judge a person by the friends they keep.
Comment by Mikey — 20 March, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Tony Greenstein has a proud record of challenging both Zionism and anti-semitism. Good for him.
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 March, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
#133
Derek, well said.
that one sentance is a complete and adequate response to the essay at #132.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Thanks Derek and Andy. The only point I’d comment upon or rather emphasise is Mikey’s bafflement at the fact that the BNP are so supportive of Israel. Such coyness. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the BNP doesn’t like Muslims and the Israeli state doesn’t much like them either?
The rest of the nonsense is not worth responding to, but I apologise. Mikey once went on a day out with his family on an anti-fascist demonstration - apparently - a mere 30 years ago!!
And yes, I did ‘forget’ to include Hess in a pamphlet on socialism. I thought I made it clear that someone who believes the race struggle is primary is not a socialist. Clearly Mikey has a different notion of what socialism is!!
It’s no surprise that Mikey has devoted his life to clearing the memory of the arch-collaborator with the Nazis, one Rudolf Kasztner.
It’s not that he is a propagandist for everything that Zionism stands for and Israel does, but he’s such a remarkably bad propagandist.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 21 March, 2009 @ 4:24 am
Mikey tells us he is interested in telling history accurately amd then tries to label the person who led the anti-fascist fight to rid Brighton & Hove of the National Front as some kind of fascist sympathiser!! No doubt Ernst Zundel, David Irving and Robert Faurisson are also interested in telling history ‘accurately’.
Why should anyone oppose Zionism? Now let me think? Could it be the expulsion of the Palestinians and confiscation of their lands, which even avidly pro-Zionist historians like Benny Morris accept? Or could it be the system of land ownership in Israel today, 93% being off-limits to non-Jews? Or maybe a foreign policy that sought out South Africa under Apartheid, Argentina under the Junta, El Salvador under the death squads and Guatemala under Rios Montt (they also established kibbutzim there - over the bodies of over 100,000 Indians)?
Or maybe it’s the latest blitzkrieg in Gaza where we are now hearing of the wanton murder and cruelty of Israeli soldiers who mowed down defenceless Palestinian civilians. Take this for example, on the latest fashion in tee-shirts of IDF soldiers. A lovely example is the tee-shirt with ‘1 shot - 2 kills’ with a pregnant woman in the cross-hairs.
Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html
By Uri Blau
But at least Mikey admits to being a racist. After all he goes on about 2 dead Israelis in a supermarket bomb but has no words of condemnation for over 400 Palestinian children killed. Because of course they were not Jewish.
So Mikey. I don’t think we need take lessons on fighting fascism from an out and out racist like you.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 21 March, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Mikey belongs to the Madeliene Albright school of politics which holds to the view that the massacre of children is ‘worth it’ in service to the doctrine of might is right.
He asks what is wrong with Zionism? If 60 years of murder, ethnic cleansing, racism, expropriation and occupation hasn’t answered that question then one can only weep for his lack of humanity.
Comment by John Wight — 21 March, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
As a recent new visitor to this site I make a few observations:
(1) Some of you display an almost complete inabilility or unwillingness to keep to the thread which I remind you is “SQUADISM - A SERIOUS MISTAKE IN LEIGH”
(2) You appear to be obsessed with pseudo intellectual pointless debates about socialist and/or Left Zionism. Of which there is no such thing, as Zionism by its very nature is both racist and fascist.
(3) You also appear to be obsessed with personal arguments and vendettas going back decades.
Those of you who unwilling to face the real battles against the Nazi BNP and fascism why don’t you just clear off to the Labour friends of Israel?
Is it perhaps that some of you are on the payroll of MI5 or Mossad?
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 22 March, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Hi, as a new visitor to this site, basic internet courtesy should make you realise that it’s not up to you to impose rules on how threads are conducted.
Threads drift. Have you never used the internet before? Discussions go off on all sorts of tangents. You only end up making yourself look stupid by bumping a thread that was pretty much finished. It’s ridiculous for you to strut around acting as if people aren’t serious about the BNP just cos other issues get discussed.
Comment by external bulletin — 22 March, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
post 139 Comment by external bulletin — 22 March, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Thanks for your advice .
However I’m not a stranger to the internet.
If you want to go off at a tangent and discuss the semantics of so-called socialst zionism and ancient personal vendettas between aging trotskyists/zionists then why don’t you just start another thread or two?
Comment by peter franzen — 22 March, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Or is it as I said before?
That perhaps some of you are on the payroll of MI5 or Mossad?
Frankly reading some of the comments on here I have no doubt of that.
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 22 March, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Well I am Tony Ward and all your lies will be exposed for what they are. Because it is you lot that are the mindless thugs and lash out before thinking or in this case reading. The Land Rover in question was covered in posters warning of on board cctv cameras, check your pictures. Had you taken the trouble to read first perhaps the first thing you should have smashed was the recording equipment. Now after the court cases are over and the footage is given back to us we will post it and everyone will see there were no base ball bats, crow bars only the leg of a microphone stand used in self defence. We did come tooled up but with videos not weapons, we knew you couldn’t resist putting on a show for us.
Comment by Antony Ward — 22 March, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
#142 How’s your head, Antony Ward? ha ha ha ha ha
Comment by anticapitalista — 22 March, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
It comes as no surprise to see BNP cameraman Tony Ward coming on here to the support of his fellow pro-zionists.
Could it be that Tony Ward is also on the payroll of MI5 and/or Mossad?
Peter Franzen
Leader of the Community Action Party
Comment by peter franzen — 23 March, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Oh I hope so Franzen. I hope so.
Hey. I’ve been reading your party manifesto. You cannot be a very honest man for this political site does not want which you say you wish to preserve.
1″Working with police and the council to reduce crime,”
2″ …supports investment in creation of local jobs for local people..”
3″A lack of affordable housing in Wigan for people trying to get into a house of their own.”
4″Congestion on our roads and lack of investment on local public transport.”
5″Congested roads”
6″Neglected education and young peoples’ facilities”
I’ll answer in turn:
1: You are implicated in THIS crime!
2: Local people means RACIST!
3: Supply & Demand. Import ppl, demand goes up.
4: More population ‘cos you want them all here.
5: As above.
6: Multi-lingual schools means the better kids have to wait for the others to catch up.
Nothing adds up with you Franzen.
Churchill once said the new fascists will be calling themselves the anti-fascists.
AS GOES THE BNP BEING “TOOLED UP”. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
I saw the the film on the BBC of your lot rushing Tony Ward. Including you, Franzen/Thug.
No court in the world would call that self defence.
Comment by Andyj — 1 June, 2009 @ 12:05 am
I’d just like to say thanks to the UAF for the Hammer attack. The election of Nick Griffin in the North West was within a couple of hundred votes of the Greens or UKIP getting in instead. Without the publicity you gave us on that night I think Nick not getting elected and only one BNP MEP in this economic climate would have demoralized the party so bad we would never have recovered. Now thanks to you we are invigorated and now have access to power and funding. Without you we couldn’t have done it! Now if you could just bump Nick off and give us a martyr before the next elections that would be super, thanks.
Comment by Tony Ward — 28 June, 2009 @ 6:12 am