Pre-match analysis: July 18 #ReclaimAustralia/#UnitedPatriotsFront rallies #Melbourne

H0la,

A few brief notes before match day tomorrow:

1) Things kick off early in Melbourne, with counter-rallies being called for 10am ahead of the Reclaim Australia rally at 11am and the United Patriots Front (UPF) rally at 1pm. See : RALLY AGAINST RACISM – Stop ‘Reclaim Australia’ – Melbourne /// Melbourne Counter-Rally Against racism, Islamophobia and the far right.

If you’re coming out to join the protests tomorrow — and I hope all my readers in Melbourne do — please take care of yourself … aaand each other.

2)

sydneybus

The hate bus from Sydney has left. It’s half-full and includes both Shermon Burgess and — as a special SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS! guest — one of Australia’s most notorious neo-Nazis, Ross ‘The Skull’ May, along with a complement of Squadron 88 and Australia First Party members.

3)

You can download a copy of a neat li’l zine on the far right zine (readable) and zine (printable).

4)

• There’s been some reportage on Reclaim and the (UPF) and inter alia some attention is being paid to the fact that a Tory MP, George Christensen, will be addressing Reclaimers in Mackay. It’s unusual for an MP to address a gathering of racists and fascists of this sort, though Tory MPs do occasionally address and have addressed meetings of the Australian League of Rights and Ustasha mobs. Typically, if drawn to public attention, the MP protests ignorance and the matter is soon forgotten — only to be repeated some years later. Obviously, this is not the case with Christensen, who remains unapologetic for his commitment to joining those who wish to rid Australia of Muslims. Crikey (Abbott must pick a side on radicalisation, July 17, 2015):

Liberal National MP Greg Christensen has said he will attend a Reclaim Australia rally in Mackay on Saturday, one of a number of rallies planned around the country. Reclaim Australia is an odious and obsessive cult, focused on an imaginary “Islamisation” of Australia. The group urges discrimination against Muslims, spruiks bizarre theories of a secret “halal tax”, and has members who are — as a dissident member noted on ABC radio yesterday — “anti-Semitic and misogynist”.

Christensen is no stranger to controversy himself, and since he is a backbencher and likely to remain so, his determination to attend the rally may not be a huge problem for Tony Abbott per se. But it does show up the utter chaos of Abbott’s opportunistic positions on free speech and radicalisation.

On the one hand, this is a government that affirms the “right to be a bigot”. On the other, it treats radical and bigoted speech as a virus that promotes radicalisation and must be socially managed. Free speech is sacrosanct — except when it occurs unscripted on the ABC and exposes government ministers to scrutiny, at which point they are barred from appearing on it.

To ban ministers from appearing on the ABC is bad enough; to refuse to impose discipline on an MP for speaking on the platform of a noxious xenophobic group shows the hypocrisy in full.

There’s a long tradition of political parties guarding their boundaries by limiting where and with whom their members speak. If Tony Abbott and Warren Truss do not enforce this now then they are guilty not of liberalism, but of cowardice. They will have de facto painted Reclaim Australia as more “Australian” than the ABC.

Furthermore they will have established what many of us have long suspected: in the views of the Abbott government, “radicalisation” is something brown people do, and their speech can be treated as violence to be controlled. Meanwhile, free speech is a white thing, which must be protected.

We think free speech, including odious speech, from all speakers must be permitted — but it does not need to be endorsed, and this is yet another test of Tony Abbott’s character. Or what remains of it.

See also : Julie Bishop fails to condemn MP George Christensen for plans to attend right-wing rally, Fergus Hunter, July 17, 2015.

• James Gilhome has publicly denounced the United Patriots Front for being ‘racist’ and ‘violent’, further claiming that the UPF has conspired to bring weapons along to the rally tomorrow in Melbourne (presumably in order to, ah, further reinforce the patriotik message). See : Former Reclaim Australia member tells of feeling duped by far-right ‘patriots’, Clare Rawlinson, 774 ABC Melbourne, July 16, 2015 (and elsewhere). Note that Gilhome is also the person responsible for naming another person as the author of my blog. See : Anti-Islam rallies across the country this weekend could be violent, former right-wing organiser warns, Tom Nightingale, The World Today (ABC), July 17, 2015.

neilandfromm
Above : Neil Erikson pictured with Canadian neo-Nazi and Holocaust denialist Paul Fromm during his tour Down Under in December 2010.

Neo-Nazis Blair Cottrell and Neil Erikson (UPF) have obtained some media coverage during the course of the week, in Cottrell’s case being invited on to 3AW to have a yarn with Neil Mitchell (Anti-Islam rally organiser cannot guarantee protest will be violence-free, July 17, 2015). Neil failed to ask Blair about the Holocaust or the Jews what run the world which is a pity I suppose, but pretty much par for the course. As for Erikson, he has rather comically denied authorship of a video in which he praises the neo-Nazi murder of 16yo Carlos Javier Palomino in Madrid in 2007 (‘Anti-Islamist’ rally organiser shown laughing at death footage, Herald Sun, July 17, 2015). Previously: Anti-racism protesters warned to stay away from anti-Islam rally, The Age, July 14, 2015.

• Other reportage (July 17, 2015):

Anti-Islam rallies planned Australia-wide, SBS | Should a backbench Coalition MP attend a Reclaim Australia rally? ABC (The Drum).

Moar broadly:

Right-wing extremism equal to Muslim radicalisation, say academics, The Sydney Morning Herald, July 17, 2015 | Reclaiming Australia? Liberalism’s role in Islamophobia, Irfan Ahmad, The Conversation, July 17, 2015 |

::: SEE YOU ON THE STREETS! :::

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2019 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Anti-fascism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Pre-match analysis: July 18 #ReclaimAustralia/#UnitedPatriotsFront rallies #Melbourne

  1. John says:

    Referring to Reclaim Australia, Julie Bishop says “I don’t know anything about the organisation. I certainly haven’t been briefed on it” (from one of the ABC links).

    Is she suggesting the only time she knows what is going on in the world around her is when she is “briefed” on the matter?
    If so, then she is not suitable for the job.
    Otherwise she is lying, and, if so, then she is not suitable for the job.

  2. thomassavery says:

    What #noroomforracism doesn’t understand is that they created #reclaimaustralia. I explain on my new blog: https://saverysociety.wordpress.com/

  3. [Pseudonymous critic] says:

    Lol, god you live in a fantasy land, Andy. If you truly believe any of the message you spruik so mindlessly, why don’t you go for a little holiday to sunny Islamabad and spread your message of love and peace there. I’m sure they will love to see your smiling face and will be open to your socialist ideals. They are really big on people expressing themselves freely there and love to hear new ideas and also warmly embrace people who act a little different or look different.

    Or maybe try Cameroon, Algeria, Central African Republic, Egypt, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria Somalia, Tunisia, Uganda, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Philippines, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria or Yemen… (Edit there is a fair chance you will just edit out the list in another fine display of your protection of free speech or just as a blatant act to remove any impact of this statement).

    I hear all of these countries are having peaceful marches for unity peace and love, right now, and more are being scheduled for next week. So get your plane tickets ready… oh no wait… I meant armed Jihadist groups are actively participating in the murder of innocent people for just being different than they are, in an effort to establish Islamic control. Of course it’s going to be a peaceful Islamic vision, where everyone will be able to express their thoughts and ideas in freedom and worship however they choose. The peace and love marches will come after all of the people who disagree with this ideal have been eradicated and or silenced through beating, whipping, maiming, beheading (so many choices, so many heathens).

    It’s hard to believe how one can become so blind. But yeah those nasty Nazis [they’re] the current problem in the world. lol. I’m starting to think you live in a cave Andy with the thickest set of rose coloured glasses ever seen.

    But wait I know the defense against all of my points already. It’s simple, it’s all not true because it’s just racism.

  4. [Pseudonymous critic] says:

    @ John – Maybe the reason why our foreign minister isn’t aware of them is because the group isn’t on any terrorist watch list or doesn’t pose any known threat to national security. All I have seen them do is express a right to free speech which Antifa thugs seem to have such issue with.

    Maybe we need some Islamic type structure in place to stamp out these kind of radicals groups…

    Nope, definitely can’t see them on the list: There are a few Muslim organisations though, must be that damn racism again.

    http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Listedterroristorganisations/Pages/default.aspx

  5. Anto says:

    Now you are painting too uniformly with too large of a brush. Islamic Kurds are more libertarian, for example. You describe the nation as a container of liquid uniform shapeless people all sharing the same lunacy. That’s a bit cartoonish :).

  6. John says:

    Well Pseudo, you obviously don’t get it.

    The point is that most Australians know about them, and they haven’t been briefed or consulted any “watch lists”; anybody in a position of political responsibility would have to know of them. Christensen and Hanson certainly know who they are.

    So indeed she has to be lying about not knowing anything about them (think newspapers, TV, radio, social media); if she knows nothing then she is not up to the task, if she is lying she is not suitable to the task.

    As for expressing a right to free speech, that is not what is going on; Reclaimers are freely speaking crap and those who see it as crap (in this case the socially just antifa movement) are freely objecting to the crap.

    In fact it is the Reclaimers who are trying to shut down free speech, they do not want opinions contrary to their own expressed, or their lack of logical/legitimate reasoning exposed, which is what happens when their claims are rebutted; Reclaimers want their voice to be the only voice heard.

    Now let’s look at your reasoning for logic/legitimacy:

    “Bishop would not know about Reclaimers because they are not on a watch list”; you either can’t or don’t want to use reason or you deliberately obfuscate.

    I will assume you are a decent person who wouldn’t deliberately muddy the waters so it follows that you are unable to reason legitimately.

    Now it is not a crime to not be able to reason properly but it is a crime when you try to push this lack of reasoning into/onto the public domain; and this is what Reclaimers are doing.

    Consider that Tony Abbott claimed he intended to: ‘…”clamp down” on groups inciting religious or racial hatred…to target “hate preachers”…and individuals blatantly spreading discord and division…’ (That is certainly a fitting description of the Reclaimers movement).

    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/will-abbott-clamp-down-on-reclaim-australias-racial-hate-rallies-,7546

    In this day and age it is hard (for people like me) to believe that illegitimate reasoning is so pervasive, but wait, I know how you will rationalise this, you’ll keep telling yourself your head is screwed on right and that anyone who opposes you is a thug.

  7. inglourious_basterd says:

    Why would the hate groups be listed when they are doing Abbott’s work for him?

    However these freaks shoot themselves in the foot every time they are exposed to public gaze.

    Your Reclaimers and cronies are peddlers of an obscene and ultimately self-destructive ideology which has seen millions of people die over decades before, during and since the 1930s under Fascist regimes across the globe, haters of women, immigrants and sexual and ethnic minorities. Purveyors of vodoo economics and pseudo-histories.

    They channel Daesh not democracy.

    Losers all.

  8. Rashid says:

    @thomassavery

    From your blog:

    >>”So what is it that these people are pushing back against? It isn’t the multiculturalism that many assume. Reclaim Australia/UPF like to claim they are not racists, and I genuinely believe that most are not. Rather it seems to me that they are motivated more by a sense of having their voices on certain issues repressed by politically correct speech. Chief among these is the issue of Islam and immigration, and hence this is where the anger gets focused. This happens when it is so hard to have a discussion on certain issues they get relegated to what Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has called the “whisper zone”.”

    Yours is a curious and somewhat confused argument. You make two principal points, both of which are, with the greatest of respect, nonsensical.

    Firstly, what specific issues around Islam and immigration in Australia are currently being repressed by political correctness, and relegated to ‘whispers’? And where and how exactly is this repression occurring?

    Are you suggesting that state and federal laws relating to vilification, racism etc. are the source of this repression? Or are you implying that the views on such issues which are held by Reclaim/UPF (and shared by their non racist members), which do not enjoy majority public support, and which are challenged/countered/criticised when presented publicly – that such lacklustre support and counter narratives is itself evidence of repression?

    >>”When anti-immigration and anti-Islam views are shoved out of the political arena by political correctness it does not destroy those opinions or prevent them from spreading.”

    Anti immigration and anti Islam views are very much in the public arena. The former always have been and the latter is openly represented by the likes of LNP Senators Bernardi and Christensen. And there are of course a number of fringe political parties such as One Nation, Australia First, Australian Protectionist Party etc. Again, the fact that their ideas have failed to achieve as much political traction as they would like is not evidence of repression, but rather evidence of their ultimate rejection by the majority.

    In fact the current federal political climate, where apparently the DAESH ‘death cult’ is coming for all of us, where PM Abbott states that Australian Muslim leaders don’t talk peace and mean it often enough, where the speaker of the federal parliament enacts a burqa ban for ‘security’ reasons, where Senator Bernardi initiates an inquiry into food labelling focussed almost exclusively on halal, where government ministers are banned from an ABC show because a formerly convicted Muslim with odious views was allowed to ask a benign question which made them uncomfortable, but where a government MP (Christensen) can address a gathering of an organisation espousing bigotry (Reclaim) and that’s just fine, where any negative incident involving a Muslim is defined (by default) firstly in the context of their ‘culture’ and ‘beliefs’ and any involving a non Muslim defined firstly by their individual character and state of mind, where the constant drip feeding of fear and suspicion of Muslims, asylum seekers etc has become an accepted cultural norm in both the political sphere and a mainstream media in the business of sales rather than education ….. in such a climate, your claim of ‘political correctness preventing opinions’ appear nothing short of laughable.

    Secondly, your claim that “It is the left that has created Reclaim Australia”, due to the aforementioned alleged ‘repression’, is an exercise in shifting responsibility away from persons utilising free will. If the non racist members of Reclaim and UPF are only associating with such racist groups because no-one else is offering them agreement, sympathy or understanding, then such members are still personally responsible for standing under the banner of the organisation they’ve chosen to represent them. After all, you said it yourself:

    “Reclaim Australia is a fundamentally racist movement”.

    They (Reclaim) chose to (fundamentally) be so and their supporters chose to join them embracing or ignoring this. No-one with opposing views made Reclaim what they are, and no-one who has chosen to join them was made to do so.

  9. Sossle says:

    @ John

    “Now it is not a crime to not be able to reason properly but it is a crime when you try to push this lack of reasoning into/onto the public domain; and this is what Reclaimers are doing.”

    Under which law is that a crime do you have any evidence or citations for this “crime”?

    I can tell you one thing it is against the law to assault peaceful protesters no matter the degree in variance in belief or political spectrum. It is a crime to throw molotov cocktails at police officers for just maintaining civil order, as Antifa has done in the past and will likely do again in the future.

    I don’t think Bronwyn Bishop “Doesn’t know about them” or is anyway lying about the fact. They really just don’t weigh in on any real threat radar, except as perceived by people on the far left who need a scapegoat to use as a vehicle to push their own political agendas. Or for the apparent affinity by far right groups that see some common ground with Reclaim Australia. Even if at the end the two group’s core beliefs are quite radically different. The same as I am sure outright terrorist groups would support the “No Room for Racism” stance and the use of violent protest means. But that doesn’t mean that “No Room for Racism” is terrorist in nature. Can you see the difference there? Or do your prefer to believe the message painted for you by others about Reclaim Australia?

    I have no issue with Antifa or the left objecting to the views of Reclaim Australia. I do take issue with violence as the vehicle for that dispute. Very rarely is the side of what is “just” represented by the person saying I don’t like your viewpoint and my response to it to punch you in the face and kick you when you hit the ground while screaming racist. Or by promoting its agenda with pictures of youths brandishing baseball bats and overtly communist motifs. Ask yourself what would the fallout be if Reclaim Australia promoted their rallies with statements like bring your weapons and Eskys cobbers it’s time to beat some sense into anyone that disagrees with us. With a picture of a Southern Cross tattooed bloke sporting a blue singlet with a metal star picket over his shoulder and wearing a jaunty cork decorated Akubra. Nice red, white and blue colours and with a strong patriotic pose and the Australian flag flying in the background. I would say that would be inciting violence. Yet these same tactics are used by Antifa commonly as a means of promoting their rallies.

    You want to talk reason.

    Have a look at the 25 points that Reclaim Australia are promoting and tell me which are the points you disagree with. Shouting “that’s racist” isn’t reasoning or even an valid argument in most spheres.

    Neither is groups of hooded, masked thugs assaulting protesters and clashing with police. Let’s face it no matter what the rational, right or wrong point of view is, the use of violence for political agenda is only one very small step away from being overtly terrorist.

    And I guess you’re right John I obviously don’t get it. Lets hope that isn’t reason to resort to physical violence to convince me of my error.

  10. Sossle says:

    “• A handful of neo-Nazis attended the protest, including Glenn Anderson/Androvski and Felicity Sharpe (of her, more later). Diane Teasdale, the former President of the Australia First Party, was present, as was fascist meathead Daniel Jones. There were of course a range of other fascists present but their identification will come later.”

    How about reporting both sides of the story Andy. Here is Glenn Anderson’s reception at the Reclaim rally by the pro Reclaimers. Hardly warm, but very much deserved.

    https : // www . facebook . com / unitedpatriotsfront / videos / 137930883208039

    Or is that how it works around here Andy, half the story, half the facts, as long as it tells the story that you want to sell?

  11. Sossle says:

    So you are just a coward, misrepresenting the facts. The video doesn’t lie. Why would you intentionally break the link unless you want to make it as hard as possible for people to view it. I can see all those extra spaces you added into the link?

    Oh and I noticed you edited the story above to remove the inaccurate statements as pointed out. I wonder how many other half truths are floating about on this site. And where is the retraction notation? You can’t go back and just edit a story without notation after people have been commenting and reading the story. Oh of course you can, but most people would see it as dishonest and unethical journalism.

  12. Rashid says:

    >>”The video doesn’t lie.”

    Yeah but apparently ‘the removalist’, Australian Defence Leaguer Ralph Cerminara does.

    http://www.anzmi.net/index.php/updated-cases?pid=349&sid=409:Cerminara

    There’s also a ‘fancy meeting you here’ video of the easily recognisable, veteran Nazi supporter, Squadron 88’r Ross ‘the Skull’ May, being publically kicked off the United Patriots Front (UPF) bus, somewhere between Sydney and Melbourne. Apparently he had been lurking that entire time out of Cerminara’s view – perhaps under someone’s seat? Yeah, sounds reasonable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK7SNUos1lU

    So are these videos really ‘smoking gun’ evidence of Reclaim’s and UPF’s now bona fide abhorrence of white nationalism, anti Semitism etc? Or were these instead calculated photo op decisions for propaganda purposes, jolly japes as it were to disguise the true nature of significant portions of their membership?

    Are these videos of Ralph Cerminara, demonstrating this anti Islam movement’s absolute zero tolerance of anyone espousing such views? Or are they the deliberate sacrifice of a couple of high visible value individuals in the cause of obfuscation and credibility?

    After all, in the lead up to Reclaim Rally Mark 1, Nazi supporters were never told they weren’t welcome, but only that they had to cover up such visible insignia at the event. Apparently, in the euphoric throes of their ‘come one, come all’ recruitment drive, they imagined that such natural allies would be easily incorporated and managed without significant consequence.

    But where was this opposition to ‘Nazis’ by Cerminara when fellow ADL’r Shermon Burgess was urging his Facebook followers to attend and support a Squadron 88 anti mosque rally in Penrith in February of this year?

    And where was Cerminara’s opposition to ‘Nazis’ when Burgess was gloatingly urging his FB followers to check out the glowing review of Reclaim by the Nazi admiring white supremacists at Whitelaw Towers?

    And wouldn’t Cerminara logically be publically purging any and all persons with similar views from ‘the movement’, including the likes of the openly anti Semitic, pro white nationalists of UPF – Neil Erikson and Blair Cottrell?

    Or is it only a select few of the obviously visible ‘liabilities’ who will pay the price in Cerminara’s video quest to improve Reclaim’s image?

  13. John. says:

    Well Sossle, me thinks you have just shown not just your lack of reasoning but also you have revealed your willingness to muddy the waters with pseudo intellectualism; any logical reasoning person would understand that I was not referring to gazetted/legislated laws.

    If someone said to you “it is a crime that your mother didn’t drown you at birth”, you would know instantly that they were not referring to any laws, yet in this instance you choose to attempt to rebut me by asking for evidence/citations to support something that is obviously metaphorical.

    Ironic that you suggest that I prefer to believe the message painted for me by others about Reclaim Australia; I have been watching this develop for years, I have watched a picture paint itself, while you appear to hold a picture of the Reclaimers that others have painted for you.

    Now let’s see, the Reclaimers are claiming (and you suggest) that these right wing nut jobs have attached themselves to the Reclaimers, they are being referred to as splinter groups or spin offs; this is a complete turnaround of the truth.

    The propaganda, jingoism, and outright bullshit that became their 25 points (morphed and “refined” from 9) were mainly conjured up by the right wing nuts and seeded into the public domain via emails and FB posts (some disguised as jokes, others, jingoistic appeals to nationalism buried in contrived stories of crimes against our mores and lore) over quite a long period of time (share, if you’re not too scared); and, mostly, imported from outside Australia, but given an Aussie spin. (From my own observations.)

    Rather than the far right flocking to the Reclaimers, it is the Reclaimers who are trying to deny their own genesis by rejecting the very people who gave birth to them.

    I will accept that the true “ordinary citizens” who have responded to the Reclaimer “call to arms” do not understand that they have been moulded and shaped by the aforementioned ongoing barrage of far right rhetoric (FB etc.), and that they cannot understand why such accusations are laid on them; they genuinely believe the narrative they are caught up in is the discourse of Mr average everyday middle of the road fair minded person, however, again from my observations, they are wrong.

    So, with your statement, “…the apparent affinity by far right groups that see some common ground with Reclaim Australia”, it seems you hold a picture where the right wing nuts saw the opportunity and flocked to the Reclaimers and that their presence now is discrediting the Reclaimers (a painted picture); whereas I consider that the Reclaimer’s genesis is the right wing nuts (a picture that was not painted for me by others, but rather, unfolded before my very eyes)?

    To unpack those 25 points would require an essay, delving into all sorts of sociological concepts like group dynamics and social desirability, downward envy and othering, notions of crime and punishment, deserving/undeserving, denial and cognitive dissonance, discussion on how the modern education system is enslaving rather than liberating (by dumbing us down and then elevating our own opinion as to how “smart” we are), and some true history, for starters, but most importantly, critical thinking; apparently bequeathed to us by the enlightenment when it revealed the scourge of illegitimate reasoning.

    Just for a moment let’s look at this; “…the use of violence for political agenda is only one very small step away from being overtly terrorist.”

    Would you agree then that those 20th century Western industrialists who hired armed militia to shoot and kill striking workers were being overtly terrorists, or at the least, a very small step away? (I suppose you would like me to cite that… sorry not going to.)

    On another note, I find it amusing that you would assume the need to warn me not to “shout racist” and then declare the argument won if I do so, as I have noticed that Reclaimers have a cognitive problem; they hear “xenophobia”, but their brain claims they heard racist; they hear “you are reading right wing fascist/Nazi/fundamental Christian material”, but their brain claims they heard racist; they hear “you are letting emotion get in the way of reasoning”, but their brain claims they heard racist; ad infinitum.

    Now let’s juxtapose this with something; a reasoning person points out that a joke, completely out of context, about Muhammad and his wife (which has been doing the rounds for years, a favourite of, and sourced from, the aforementioned right wing ideologues), is based on and spreading misinformation and subliminally promoting and furthering anti-Muslim sentiments (and its influence can be seen in the Reclaimer’s rhetoric); the reasoning person not only gets called a supporter of paedophilia but is also accused of calling the “jokester” a racist (it’s easy to tell who is running on painted pictures, indeed another of those amusing pictures has it that anyone who opposes them is a leftie of some malign genre or another).

    Sossle, would you rather be known as a xenophobe or a supporter of paedophilia?

    I like this one Sossle; “…Lets [sic] hope that isn’t reason to resort to physical violence to convince me of my error”; it opens the door to what I consider my best insight into what the Reclaimers are (from my own observations).

    You see Sossle, I am not a violent person, indeed I am quite small and do not fight, I was raised not to hurt others (by fair dinkum Australians) and I have had to deal with bullies and stand over merchants most my life.
    One thing I have come to understand in particular is their rhetoric and how they position themselves in an argument (where they are wrong), and here I don’t mean academic per se, as, when a bully initiates what appears to be “argument” they are actually positioning to draw you into a fight, usually one where they claim you have offended them (a contrived insulting of their family or forefathers is a favourite); and then they start hitting you while at the same time accusing you of being the antagonist.

    So then, I have had to learn to spot their repertoire, I know bullying linguistics tactics when I see them; and the Reclaimer’s narrative is, first and foremost, that of the bully, and as far as I am concerned, all credibility tumbles from there.

    In other words, without even going into the utter stupidity behind the 25 points (nee nine, previously known as emails and FB posts, delivered by a white supremacist mailman), the notions and rhetoric behind them is also that of the bully; raising the inane, un-truths and the intangible to some kind of imperative reality and then declaring anyone who doesn’t accept their “argument” as not being a part of reality, indeed, it has become, accept this reality or none at all (note that family/forefathers and their deeds feature a lot and recall what I said about contrived insults).

    And here, the fact that Reclaimers easily adopt the position of the bully, and the nonsensical argument to position for a fight, does not bode well for their credibility in my eyes, indeed there is only three conclusions I can draw from this; they are either bullies, or cannot use reason, or both.

    By asking, you assumed, I have been led to disagree with the Reclaimers as a result of me hearing negative reports about them; you were wrong.

    By warning me off using racism you assumed the only argument I have against you is racism; you were wrong (though your brain may have heard racism in what I have said).

    By suggesting I would resort to violence, well again you were wrong, but note, these three positions you took are taken from the message the Reclaimers have painted for you.

    And let’s not forget your original request for “citation/evidence” attempting to belittle me and raise your own status by taking some imaginary intellectual “high ground”; this too is the form of the bully.

    But take heart Sossle, you may have been right about one thing; “…I guess you’re right John I obviously don’t get it”.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.