Lauren Southern Banned from UK

I don't know about the Nazi part (her xenophobic cultural nationalism comes close, but she rejects white supremacy and Anti-Semitism), but the sociopath label (more broadly Antisocial Personality Disorder) fits Lauren like a glove. She describes herself as representing the "Ayn Rand bitch style of libertarianism," but the Islamophobia she espouses and button pushing pranks she revels in go far beyond anything Rand would countenance. She is openly tied to two radical alt-right groups, Defend Europe and Génération Identitaire which interfere with humanitarian vessels trying to rescue migrants drowning at sea by shooting flares at the vessels and yelling hate slogans (a practice which she and our resident BBLB try to defend with the unbelievable pretext that they are trying to save these refugees from exploitation), and has also been associated with fellow sociopath Milo Yiannopoulos and far right media mogul Ezra Levant. Sociopathy is the unifying bond behind all of these these demagogues, in particular a propensity to instigate violence by over-the -top button pushing, creating drama out of thin air, and twisting what others say. If challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger the other way, as both a smokescreen to being detected and an attempt to confuse the situation. Sound familiar?

 

Okie

You pretty much cover it - what I would add is the lack of clarity over any type of rational solutions to what they see as problems.

I mean take the opposition to Muslims and Islam. I’ve been told several times by many on the far right that they are not against all Muslims just the bad one the dangerous ones, then at other times other members of the far right (even the same one) tell me the problem is Islam as such and therefore condemn all Muslims.

So then you have far right activists saying or doing things designed to piss off all Muslims it’s just plays right into the arms of those recruiting for radical Islam.

But others in the far right seem to claim they want Islam to become as moderate, liberal and secularised as many Christian sects are today. Well first I’d dispute that, in that there are many people that call themselves Christian that are not moderate, liberal or secularised and the other thing I’d say is you don’t move to that goal by stunts and rhetoric aimed at provoking and marginalising all Muslims.

They say they are being ‘provocative’ to try and start a conversation, but a conversation with who and over what?

Anyone here knows how difficult it is to have a rational or even honest conversation with many right wingers who often come across as badly equipped for such conversations, so to claim they want to have such conversations seems disingenuous at best.

I get the feeling that when many of them say they want a ‘conversation’ what they really mean is they wish to ‘preach’ or ‘propagandise’ without being interrupted or challenged.

So this is where I wonder about what solutions they are proposing because many don’t seem to have any rational ones, it’s like they just wish Muslims would just go away, either leave places like Britain or just stop following Islam. How would that translate into political policy other than those that lean to the authoritarian (banning Islam and forceful deportations?)

So what do they actually want done, if there is an aim beyond just pissing people off with ‘provocative’ publicity stunts and insulting rhetoric, what is it?

 

I don't think they necessarily want anything done about Muslims. Muslims are too useful as a target for rallying mob support. Lauren is a "shock jock" and a shil for unbridled capitalism (there's money in that) and for her employer, alt-right media mogul Ezra Levant. Like Trump, she thrives on division. Her book Barbarians: How Baby Boomers , Immigrants and Islam Screwed My Generation is a case in point--trying to stir up inter-generational conflict as well as anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiment among millenials to sell the book and put herself on the map as a champion of whatever. She's a female Milo Yianoppolous or a Canadian Anne Coulter, only younger and more activist. Like Anne and Milo, Lauren peddles in anger and winding people up--for attention, fun and profit.

 

But it doesn't even come CLOSE to matching at all. And I've already explained to you why several pages ago. The UK is not your private property. And Lauren isn't insighting violence.

At first it was funny watching you desperately try to assert yourself by repeating the same drivel over and over again. But now it's just getting tiresome and pathetic. Repeating yourself doesn't make your follies any more correct than the first time you shat them out.

 

I've been following Lauren's work for almost 2 years now. While she is a part-time troll, I think she does an excellent and brave job covering stories the mainstream cable news networks won't even dare to shine any light on. Such as the human rights atrocities against farmers taking place in South Africa, or the racism of social justice barbarians giving liberalism a bad name.

I like trolls. They start conversations where no other journalist is ballsy enough to go to.

Yawn.. This Bob character is putting me to sleep.

I don't even know what "Hate Speech" is. What's your definition of "Hate Speech?"

 

Shaun King, one of the leaders of BLM, is a white black supremacist. Who turned down $20 grand to get a DNA test to prove his blackness.

BLM is a Soros funded propaganda machine to promote warfare between the black community and the police force. Black communities need more policing to ensure that their communities are safer (since you don't want them to own guns, after all). When you propagate the mentality that all police are racist and hunt black people for sport, you create more division. You make police departments less likely to enforce crime in black areas. If you're an officer who arrests or even shoots a guilty black suspect, and the media spin machine lies and paints you into a racist, like the next Darren Wilson, then your life is over. The riots BLM starts, destroys infrastructure and makes living conditions in black communities even worse than before.

The Democrat party used to make the same apologietic remarks toward the KKK less than 100 years ago. Maybe in 100 years from now, the DNC will deny ever being a part of such a hateful movement such as BLM, like they do today withe the KKK

 

Why is it that Europe and western civilization that has to be the nesting grounds for the majority of them? Why can't nations like Saudi Arabia, Japan, or South Korea be obligated to take in any of them? Why aren't those "alt-right" ethnostates accused of racism? It's about Poland, isn't it? Such a country full of racist Polack motherfuckers, ain't dat right?


Most refugees that've been interviewed are not even from war-torn Syria. But from places ranging from Senegal to Pakistan.



By the way, she doesn't work at Rebel anymore.

 

A lot of people are willing to start conversations that no one else wants to... probably because these conversations are lies/hateful/destructive/in poor taste/ignorant.

 

I will repeat this as it is relevant to the next posts -

6

Bob your wife’s ex-boyfriend doesn’t think it a provocative question to ask why your wife is such a ‘dumb, ugly, cock-sucking whore bitch’ as he has been telling everyone around town because in his view that is a completely rational thing to say as he thinks it totally true.

Oh and your wife who is a peaceful loving woman most of the time thinks Bob is a shriveled dick who she wishes would die a horrible death, because he is so hateful toward her.

Bob is now on your doorstep, you know if you let him in Bob is going to be ‘provocative’ and do everything he can to get into a shouting match with your wife, you know it might even end up in a physical fight and you know that besides the possible property damage someone could get injured, hell you might even be hurt.

So do you let him in?

*

6 replied he would let Bob in

*

You and your wife are not the only people living in the house.

There is Vinny your older teenage boy from a previous relationship – he is sullen and hates women and really dislike your wife, he can also get excited and when he gets excited he can lash out, but you keep an eye on him and try to keep him out of trouble.

Then there are your other two kids from your present marriage Jack and Jill younger teenagers they have their differences with their mother but respect her.

You let Bob in and he does exactly what was expected and begins to verbally abuse your wife – you do nothing to stop this as is your want. You see Vinny getting excited and in a minute he is joining in abusing your wife, Jack and Jill begin shouting back at Bob and that is making Vinny visibly angry.

You look out at the front garden where neighbours are standing having heard the shouting so you don’t see who throw the first blow but when you look back into the room, you see you wife huddled in a corner sobbing, Vinny fighting with both Jack and Jill and standing apart is Bob, laughing. Bob walks to the door and as he passes you he tells you that its all your wife’s fault and if you don’t do something about her he is going to come back and do the same thing next month, he then goes out and begins telling the neighbours that your wife is to blame for everything and that they should all be careful of such bad women before setting off down the street whisling a happy tune.

So the police arrive and arrest the kids, you have to pay bail and lawyers’ fees and medical fees for their injuries and you have to buy new furniture to replace the broken stuff and your wife is now suffering from depression and hates you.

Bob is now across town at another person’s door asking to be let in so he can abuse another man’s wife do you recommend the husband letting Bob in (oh you have already answered yes).

So the new question is who is to blame for what happened?

Is it your wife for just existing and being hated by Bob?

Is it your kids for getting riled up or reacting to Bobs actions?

Or is it you for letting Bob in, I mean you knew what he was going to try and do?

*

6 has implied he would blame his kids and wife, not Bob

 

6

Of course it doesn’t match perfectly it wouldn’t be an analogy otherwise, but to me is more of a parable a simple story to examine a larger and more complex issue, it was to see what you would do in a personal situation.

I can see why you don’t like the Bob thing, I mean your answers to it don’t show you in a very good light – as someone that would let his wife be abused by a trolling bully like Bob and stand back and do nothing and even take Bob’s side over that of your own kids.

As I’ve said parables like these can show what kind of personality a person is and has shown what kind of personality you have, and you don’t come out well and I can understand why you don’t like that.

Again you really need to calm down, yes I can see why you don’t like the parable, it show up to all the world what kind of person you are but I’m not to blame for that. Have you never realised what kind of person you are?

 

6

In my experience trolls hate honest debate and usually run away from it or refused to be drawn into it.

They usually just pump out propaganda point and ignore valid criticisms and shy away from rational debate.

Well speech that tries to spread hate, you should know about it you often do it when talking about Muslims and lefties.

Again have you not noticed that about yourself?

We don’t really take you or what you say that seriously I mean hell this is the internet, but in the real world the kind of comments some people utter on twitter or bulletin boards can arouse anger and even worse reactions, that why most people don’t make them in public. But we all know there are some that have an agenda or wishing to seek attention do try and be provocative in public.

 

6

What are you on about – I’d never heard of this guy before today and when I looked it soon became clear he was being attack by things like Breibart and that dickhead Milo fucking Yiannopoulos – its seems to be more about far right propaganda than a legitimate argument.

Really or are you just blindly falling for far right propaganda? You really need to think more and accept without question less.

Again this is just far right propaganda

Black communities need good policing that they can support and which respects them that is the point BLM is trying to make.


Are you claiming that the US doesn’t have racial problems?

We have covered this hundreds of time already, yeah we get it you want to smear the Democratic Party as racist, but come on man this far right propaganda just plain didn’t stand before and doesn’t stand now.

Again this isn’t a conversation it’s just another far right propaganda rant. It’s about trying to spread fear that white Christian Europe and western civilization is being destroyed by a brown Islamic conspiracy, just as once the same kind of agenda once shouted about the heathen Jewish conspiracy and the ‘diluting’ of the pure blood.

If you have a legitimate and rationally based argument please present it this constant far right drumming is getting boring.

 

6

Ok can you reply to my other post and its question about Islam and Muslims?

So this is where I wonder about what solutions they are proposing because many don’t seem to have any rational ones, it’s like they just wish Muslims would just go away, either leave places like Britain or just stop following Islam. How would that translate into political policy other than those that lean to the authoritarian (banning Islam and forceful deportations?)

So what do they actually want done, if there is an aim beyond just pissing people off with ‘provocative’ publicity stunts and insulting rhetoric, what is it?

 

You don't start conversations by telling somebody "Your mama has sex with German Shepherds". You start a fight. Same with saying the same thing about the Virgin Mary in an Irish bar in South Boston. Same with telling a bunch of Muslims "Allah is gay!" What serious conversation could anyone start with that piece of nonsense? This is the very essence of "fighting words", which U.S. courts don't regard as protected speech.

Of course they can, but they won't. Europe and western civilization took them in. Why did that happen? Because they have liberal immigration policies, because of their humanitarian ideals and the fact that secular types don't have many babies so they took any potential labor force they could get. I'll horrify liberals by suggesting they should perhaps have been more selective in taking in large populations whose cultural differences make them difficult to assimilate. However, most of these people are refugees from Middle East conflicts the West had a role in creating. The United States doesn't have nearly the problems Europe does, because our Muslim immigrant population is so much smaller. Fact is, what's done is done, and the host countries have to deal with the results. They can ghettoize Muslims, treat them bad, an create a fertile ground in which terrorists can operate. That's what Lauren is about. Or they can go about it intelligently, by actively encouraging dialogue and promoting understanding. Many of the Muslims are fine people, as you occasionally acknowledge, and can serve as role models and opinion leaders for the others. And maybe we can learn from them. I've attended services at the local mosque, and am impressed at the devotion manifest in the worshipers. Most want to pursue their lives and worship in peace like the rest of us. The situation calls for delicate handling, not trolls. Anyone with a brain can see that Lauren, Milo and your other heroes aren't about solutions. They're about creating and exploiting problems to advance a revolutionary right wing political movement that wants power. What is your solution?

 

I'd add that a lot of the cultural and ethnical diversity of Europe is down to Europe’s colonial past, the British control of India (and what is now Pakistan) accounts for much more of our Muslim population than that from the middle east. It’s also why we have the largest population in Europe of practicing Hindus and most of our black population came from the Caribbean but also from our old African colonies. We have Chinese from Hong Kong, Greeks and Turks from Cyprus and so on. Its the same in other countries for example most of the Muslim population in France is due to the French having had control of much of North Africa but also once controlled Syria and the French control of Vietnam accounts for France having the largest population of people of Vietnamese descent in Europe.

 

Speaking of billionaire-funded propaganda machines, an instructive book on the subject is Jane Mayer's Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. In it, she details the role of the Koch brothers and the Olin and Scaife families in funding the propaganda mill that includes prominent conservative scholars and pundits like Alan Bloom and Dinesh d'Souza. Of course, the Mercers, who provide the support for Breitbart and the Alt Right should also be included. Poor Milo apparently is no longer on the payroll since his pedophile remarks. The wealthy elite in the United States has had amazing success in posing as champions of the common man since the log cabin politics of Harrison and Tyler by the Whigs in 1840. The hired propagandists of today's billionaires have had similar success convincing the blue collar workers that it wasn't the cutting of social programs, tax cuts for the rich, union busting or outsourcing that is responsible for their woes, but those foreigners, uppity blacks, feminists, and campus liberals.

 

Okie

I’ll try and get a copy of the Jane Mayer's book but for me it doesn’t seem that hidden, I’ve commented before that while right wingers seem to believe in numerous imagined secret left wing conspiracies they then ignore what seems like a very real right wing one going on right under their very noses.

Here is something I wrote her a few years back

if you want something to base a good conspiracy theory on try the Mont Pelerin Society it has had a much greater impact, and it’s been real not imagined.

Virtual all the most influential right wing and neo-liberal think tanks founded since the society first meet in 1947 can trace their origins back to that group.

As someone has pointed out “When the Mont Pelerin Society first met, in 1947, its political project did not have a name. But it knew where it was going. The society’s founder, Friedrich von Hayek, remarked that the battle for ideas would take at least a generation to win, but he knew that his intellectual army would attract powerful backers. Its philosophy, which later came to be known as neoliberalism, accorded with the interests of the ultra-rich, so the ultra-rich would promote it.”*

The Heritage Foundation (founder by the MPS member Edwin Feulner), Cato Institute (foundered by the MPS member Edward H Crane), all the Koch backed groups (Charles Koch is a member), Milton Friedman was a member, I could go on and on…

*George Monbiot: How the neoliberals stitched up the wealth of nations for themselves


But as I’ve pointed out

“The wealthy elites of the US (and most of the world) fearing the rise of communist ideology and the increased interest in left wing political ideas around the globe began to support anti-left wing groups and policies, which by definition were conservative or even further to the right.

It wasn’t so much a conspiracy as a group’s conscious reaction to a perceived threat to it ideological and material position.”

*

The thing is that wealthy interest groups and individuals have had an influence on government policy especially in the US for years and this actually then fits in with the low levels of secularisation in many areas of the Middle East and the rise of radical Islamic ideas.

So on to the next thread.

 

Here is another post from a few years back –

*

What has to be remembered is that the present rise in Radical Islam is in no small way the result of western (especially US) interference in the Middle Eastern region.

*

After the First World War there was a rise in secular ideas in the Middle East that was reformist, progressive, liberal and very often left wing.

The problem was that after WWII the US increasingly saw anything ‘reformist, progressive, liberal and left wing’ as ‘communist’ or the gateway to ‘communism’

They moved to undermine such movements which advantaged the more conservative and religious elements.

For example in Iran there was the left leaning democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh which was overthrown by an Anglo-American coup that put in power the Shah. Many argue that it was the purge of left wing elements under the Shah - fully encouraged and assisted by the US - that allowed the mad mullahs to so easily get control in Iran after the popular revolution because secularists who had been mainly left wingers were diminished and weak.

A similar thing happened in Afghanistan; if you see pictures or film of urban Afghanistan in the 1970’s you can see young people that don’t look that different from young people in London or New York around the same time. Women could openly walk in the streets in dresses talking freely with men, and people went out to bars and discos were they danced to western music. They were the product of reforms that had begun in the 1920’s.

The political conflict was between educated left leaning reformists and often less well educated rural religious conservatives.


When socialists came to power after the authoritarian rule of Mohammad Daud, the US began supporting the conservative religious groups. This escalated as the situation progressed, and when the Soviets became more involved US anti-communism become aroused and with the aggressive form of that policy that came about with Reagan the situation went out of control.

But warfare in Afghanistan continued even after the soviets had been driven out, as warlords fought for power then fought against the Taliban (who rose to power because of dislike of the corrupt and brutal warlords). Kabul was reduce to rubble - the urban, educated, western looking progressives had either fled or been killed. Women didn’t go out and if they did they wore the burka, talking to a man who was not a close family member could bring about a beating, bars were closed and music banned.

Things might have been very different if western governments and especially the US had supported the moderate left, like the Parchamis back in the 1970’s, anyway we’ll never know. What we do know is that Soviet support of the socialists and US support of the conservative religious groups brought about the situation, that continues today.

*

We then get to the influence of Saudi Arabia and the promotion of hard-line Wahhabism. The spread of Wahhabism was another product of the Afghan war not only did many hardliners go off to fight the soviets in Afghanistan (like Osama bin laden) but wealthy Saudi Wahhabist’s financed many schools in the region that promoted the doctrine and some of them became even more radical and hard-line. This was known by the US but since the people coming out of these schools were very anti-communist they gave the policy there tacit support.

*

Oh and don’t get me started on the fuck up that was the occupation of Iraq…

 

And so on to a rift on the above i wrote a bit later -

As I pointed out earlier there was a time when secular ideas were attractive to many in the Middle East (and many other places) but what was attractive were the reformist, liberal and progressive ideas of the left.

The problem was that even when not communist or even socialist those ideas were often seen as dangerous by anti-communist western governments, who often took action against them.

Basically what the reformers wanted was to undermine the old power structures which were conservative (and often more religious in many cases tribal and/or based in patronage) through equalizing mechanisms and the distribution of wealth (land reform, nationalization of resources, as well as bringing in universal education, welfare, healthcare etc).

It had appeal because it was about helping the community as a whole.

The capitalistic alternative doesn’t have that appeal because it didn’t seem to do anything about tackling inequality (often seeming to entrench or increase it) while been all about ‘corrupting’ and ‘soulless’ consumerism. And it put a lot more emphasis on the individual the problem with that it can emphasize difference,

The neo-con dream that a neo-liberal/free market system could be imposed on Iraq and be welcomed with open arms backfired badly, it just made a bad situation worse. And made the US look less like liberators and more like ‘crusaders’ playing right into the hands of Muslim extremists.

So historically the US did a lot to undermine left wing secularism in the Middle East has no attractive alternative for people to get behind so it was no wonder that the winner in that region has been religion.

Secularism grew in Europe and the US (sometimes referred to as The Enlightenment) because secular ideas seemed more attractive than the religious alternatives (less so in the US after the rise of Social Darwinism, but that is another story), religion seemed brutish and violent after many years of religious wars and in many places churches were seen as corrupt and venal.

In the US this brought about the separation of the church and state along with constitution rights. In Europe the French revolution promoted the whole human rights angle and lead to the growth of socialism.

I think there will be a backlash against the extremists but that does not mean that what then appears is secular or progressive (especially with Wahhabism so well financed)

So to repeat if ‘we’ are to tackle the rise of religious ideas (and I’m not talking about the extremists they are just criminal nutjobs) then ‘we’ need secular ideas and societies that seem like attractive alternatives.

Wahhabism spread because it set up schools and taught its ideas, what is wanted is a secular alternative.

The problem is that the secular neo-liberal/free market ideas that are dominant at the moment in the west and especially in the US seem to many to be corrupt and venal.


In basic terms ‘we’ have to make secular ideas more attractive than the alternatives. The problem in my view, is that at the moment the ideas that dominant the western ‘liberal’ countries (especially the US) don’t seem that attractive.

 

To sum up - the right wing wealth supported anti-left wing policies of the west and the US especially are the main reason for the decline in secularism amongst Muslims and the rise of Islamic radicalism.

The ideologies promoted by the right are not attractive to many as they only seem to be about promoting the interest of wealth at the expense of everyone else and those of the far right (al la Lauren and 6) come across as extremely irrational, deeply selfish and often racist.