- Also check our best rated Biography reviews
Tommy Robinson Enemy of the State Paperback – 9 Dec 2015
Customers who bought this item also bought
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The other reason for its failure is its leader, Tommy Robinson. Not only did he clearly bite off more than he could chew but, by his own admission, he is “a bit all over the place, disorganised, random and unpredictable” (p. 129) and so is his leadership style: “We acted on a whim, my whim usually – in response to being offended at some piece of politically correct madness or other … there was no goal, no motive, other than to shout our opposition to what was happening to our communities, our towns, our cities” (p.179) ... "I wasn't a trained manager or organiser. We'd been running on adrenaline and instinct, not some sophisticated campaign plan" (p. 201) ... "I was drinking and doing drugs and probably going in a direction that I would have come to regret eventually" (p. 202).
There is also this string of strange and cringe-making blunders – from the documentary by Tom Costello to Tommy’s conviction for mortgage fraud, his failed attempt to enter the US on a false passport and his quixotic involvement with the Quilliam think-tank (named after a convert to Islam) – that betray an extraordinary degree of naivety, ignorance and lack of judgement.
The following statement on Costello – who made the Channel 4 documentary “Proud and Prejudiced” – epitomises the real Tommy Robinson: “… in fairness I knew from the start that he was very left wing and had been involved in anti-capitalist marches and stuff. But I liked him, and I really took him in … I thought a man that intelligent would be open to seeing another viewpoint … “ (p. 149). More realistically, perhaps, a committed far-left agitator like Costello might use a television programme to present a twisted view of the EDL and its leader.
The EDL’s strange lack of vision, direction and meaningful strategy was largely due to Tommy's personality and background. He proudly describes himself as coming from Luton’s working-class community where “black and white people have long mixed well” (p. 10). “Almost all” of his friends are “sons of immigrants” (153). Tommy himself is the son of Irish immigrants and his adoptive father is Scottish. His ethnic background and social environment raise the question as to what his connections with, and knowledge of, authentic English culture actually are.
This is an important point not least because Tommy’s opposition to Islamisation implies support for English culture, as professed at the time by the EDL website’s mission message. However, not only is it unclear when, where and how Tommy promoted English culture but the same website also declared itself in favour of multiculturalism. A later version that appeared before being finally taken down claimed to be “open to embrace the best that other cultures can offer”. Allegedly, “we will all be united by the enhanced culture that results”.
This “enhanced culture” appears to miss a key element of traditional English culture - Christianity. Despite the fact that the EDL emblem is centred on the cross and carries the logo “in hoc signo vinces” (Latin for “under this sign you shall be victorious”), there is no evidence of active support for Christian religion on the part of Tommy or the EDL. This is a shame because many believe that Islam has been able to advance only in the wake of Christianity’s retreat from people’s everyday life and that this may be reversed only by a return to traditional Christian values. Indeed, we can see a revival of tradition in the East. This is most visible in the Muslim world, but also in India where a Hindu nationalist party has won the general elections and even in Communist China where, after decades of suppression, elements of traditional culture and religion are enjoying rising popularity. Instead of clinging on to some multicultural utopia, we in the West must learn how to appreciate and promote the values and traditions that have made us great if we are to survive as a civilisation.
Immigration is another case in point. Tommy and his EDL declared themselves in favour of immigrants and immigration. But, like support for multiculturalism, support for immigration is counter-productive for a movement that aims to stop Islamisation. To add to the confusion, in 2013, Tommy announced that he will vote for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), an organisation professing to oppose both immigration and multiculturalism. This was another gimmick by Tommy that was as pointless as it was self-contradictory. Small parties like UKIP were in no position to make an impact on Islamisation - in the 2013 local elections UKIP failed to win control of any council. A more rational course of action with some prospects of success would have been for all opponents of Islamisation not only to vote for the Tories but also to join them and push the party to the right.
The EDL has always claimed to be a non-political organisation. But any street-protest movement like EDL is a political project: its public protests are a political action, its message is political as is its aim to draw a political response from the ruling establishment. In fact, for a small organisation like EDL to have any hopes of success, it needs the support of a political party. It just can’t be politically indifferent or neutral. It must take sides by either becoming a political party or attaching itself to an existing one.
Indeed, Tommy and the EDL did associate themselves with a political party, the short-lived and inconsequential British Freedom Party, with predictable results. They also unwittingly took sides – the side of the Left – by burning war-time Nazi flags and carrying banners reading “blacks and whites unite” and “National Front go to hell”. Tommy admitted that Nazism was no threat to present-day Britain. So why burn Nazi flags if not to appease the “anti-fascist” and anti-EDL Left and reinforce its agenda? Why attack the National Front and the British National Party? Are they secret supporters of Islam? Of course not. Unfortunately, they happen to oppose immigration and multiculturalism and this goes against Tommy’s self-contradictory and self-defeating agenda. In the process, Tommy forgets that whether he agrees with them or not, nationalist groups have the same right of “freedom of speech” that he claims for himself and his organisation. If people have the inalienable right to oppose Islamisation, then they also have the inalienable right to oppose the causes of Islamisation, one of which happens to be immigration.
If, as claimed by the EDL mission statement, “English culture has the right to exist and prosper in England”, then the English people, the people who created that culture, have the same right. It doesn’t make sense to defend English culture while being indifferent to the fate of the English people. Not all National Front or BNP supporters are racist. As a former BNP member, Tommy ought to know. Many are ordinary citizens who are concerned about mass immigration and population replacement and only associate themselves with those parties because no major party cares to address their concerns. These citizens are merely manifesting their inalienable right to exist and prosper in their own country, a right that Tommy, in common with the anti-English Left, seeks to abolish. Tommy happened to grow up in a neighbourhood where mixed relationships and mixed-race young people were the norm (p. 37) and this is the kind of “England” he would like to see imposed on the rest of the country – as long as there are no sharia courts.
It is such glaring logical and moral inconsistencies that make potential supporters think twice before getting involved with the EDL. The fact is that an organisation that aims to win the decisive support of the people must be seen to be on the side of the people. But whereas most Britons were firmly against multiculturalism and immigration (over 70 per cent), the EDL claimed to be in favour, thereby cutting the branch of popular support from under its own feet. As a result, it was left without a leg to stand on. While more and more people including leading members of the establishment like Tony Blair and David Cameron were beginning to realise the failure of multiculturalism, Tommy kept insisting that multiculturalism "worked".
The best way to judge a movement is by its achievements and it would be nice to see some positive results, after all these years. Unfortunately, as Tommy frankly admits in his book, his project was a complete failure. Here are the examples of “achievements” he can think of: he persuaded shop and restaurant owners to oppose the opening of a Muslim prayer room in Luton; he blackmailed a shopping centre into replacing “Iraq- or Saudi-style” toilets with western ones; and dissuaded “half a dozen councils” from re-naming Christmas “Winter Festival” (pp. 197-8). But the impact on Islamisation and the nation’s reaction to it has been zero. So he laments the fact that “nobody seems to be learning any lessons”, “no one is listening”, “Britain and the world continue daydreaming” and he wonders what it would take for the masses to wake up and start listening. Maybe he should begin by adjusting his message to one that the masses want to hear and start speaking out against immigration and multiculturalism, two of the main causes of the Islamisation of Britain and Europe. But this would involve listening and learning lessons, something that Tommy seems unable or unwilling to do.
Despite their best efforts to prove their politically correct credentials, Tommy and his EDL never ceased to be referred to as “racist thugs” in the Left-dominated mainstream media. The 11 GCSEs “including an A in maths” that he got in school have brought Tommy no closer to understanding “how our country ever got to that point, where simple patriotism and a respect for our heritage, values and tradition, could be deliberately warped into something nasty and perverse” (p. 147). He partly answers this question while apparently still not getting it: “the liberal elites that run schools, hospitals, local authorities and prisons, are imposing this behind our backs and without any kind of legislation. Why is this happening and why are we allowing it?” (p. 323). Maybe he should do some research and find out.
Here is a clue. The police and the media were not the only ones watching Tommy and his organisation. In March 2013 Chatham House organised a conference in London called “The Roots of Extremism: The English Defence League and the Counter-Jihad Challenge”. Key participants included Sunder Katwala, a leading member and former general secretary of the Fabian Society and director of British Future, an organisation aiming to turn Britain into a nation of immigrants dominated by multiculturalism and Islam. Chatham House a.k.a. Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and the Fabian Society are key players in devising and making public policy as well as forming opinion in the UK. They have close links to powerful banking and industry groups favouring immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation and have been promoting policies on those lines for many years. Details of their activities, influence and impact have been in the public domain for some time (e.g., “The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy” by I. Ratiu” that also addresses the problem of groups like EDL).
You might think the Chatham House conference would have been an opportunity for the EDL leadership to present the group’s views to the public. Typically, this opportunity was missed, as was the report published by the conference that contained some interesting data. The report found that there was a wide reservoir of public sympathy for anti-Islamisation movements. Crucially, it also showed that, contrary to Tommy’s “guess” that the majority of EDL supporters were “traditionally Labour party voters more than anything else” (p. 160), most EDL supporters were Conservatives (43 per cent Tories compared to 25 per cent Labour).
If we put the facts together, we can understand the EDL’s complete failure: while there is a lot of potential support for an anti-Islamisation or counter-Jihad movement like EDL, the majority of supporters are conservatives who, naturally, would support the EDL on Islamisation but not on multiculturalism and immigration. In practical terms, the EDL went against its own supporters, lost their backing and failed to make any impact. The EDL would have been more successful if it had followed the natural logic of a movement of its type and had opposed not only Islamisation but also multiculturalism and immigration.
Moreover, “not having the statistics” means running an organisation without a proper intelligence department. In the real world, it means not knowing who your real enemy (the shadowy groups that influence public opinion, social trends and government policy) and who your real friends (the conservative masses) are and, basically, not knowing what you are doing: there is no point protesting against something if you have no clear understanding of who is responsible for it.
The fundamental problem with the EDL is that it was a small protest group trying to be a nation-wide and even Europe-wide movement. Without sweeping changes in leadership, aims, strategy and tactics, this could never happen. Not only must a movement opposing Islamisation also oppose the causes of Islamisation – such as multiculturalism and immigration – and fight the groups that promote them but a movement aspiring to be nation-wide must address the concerns of the nation and promote its interests. It must also enjoy the support of the majority and understand what it takes to win the power and influence without which it cannot achieve its aims.
Statistics show that opposition to multiculturalism and immigration and support for anti-immigration movements is highest in areas with the lowest immigration rates. This means that a movement opposing Islamisation and its causes must first seek to form a strong base in low-immigration areas and then gradually extend its influence and activities to other areas. This is the only way a resistance movement can progress from a defensive position of weakness to one where power is distributed more evenly between the movement and its opponents and from that to a position of superior strength.
Otherwise put, in areas where the contestation of the public space (or territory) by non-indigenous groups and cultures has reached a level where the indigenous population and culture have been driven into a defensive position (e.g., some parts of Luton) the latter can't emerge from this position without outside help. The movement's weak position in terms of numerical strength, public support, financial resources, etc., debars it from playing a leading role and any attempt to do so amounts to the tail trying to wag the dog.
A movement following the EDL model and operating from a base where its leadership is subjected to constant harassment from hostile groups and repressive authorities is doomed to end up like a small street gang that has been overwhelmed and overrun by a more powerful, better-organised and more resourceful rival. Such a movement would barely be able to tackle the symptoms while completely missing the causes, sowing confusion, disunity and disorientation in the process and, despite all good intentions, doing more harm than good to the cause.
For an anti-Islamisation movement to prove equal to the task it would not only need to have a strong base. It would have to be revolutionary to bring about radical changes. It would have to be Christian to stop Islam. And it would have to be right-wing to defeat the Left. Movements like EDL that are none of these things are just a waste of time and can only serve to distract from what it takes to get the job done. In any case, revolution can't be "sparked off" as easily as some imagine. It requires a coherent ideology and vision, a workable plan and, above all, years of thorough preparation. Quite frankly, Tommy and his EDL have never had either the expertise or the resources.
Unsurprisingly, “Enemy of the State” seems to be ridden with about as many flaws as its author. Trivial details aside, it doesn’t provide much more information on the EDL or its leader than can be gathered from mainstream media and online sources. For the most part, it attempts to defend what it admits to be a failure. It makes no worthwhile contribution to the struggle against the forces that are tearing the country apart. Somewhat incongruously, it purports to show how the police and prosecution services made life miserable for Tommy while half of the time he is “trying to keep a straight face” over everything, “pis*ing himself” and thinking that it was all a “crack”.
Basically, the book is written in the style and language of a teenage member of some provincial street gang who is struggling to rise above a certain narrow worldview but is hampered by obvious moral and intellectual limitations. Invectives like the f word occur a few times too many, and quite unnecessarily, etc. Definitely not what you would expect from someone aspiring to be the leader of a national movement. It remains to be hoped that leaders of a more sterling calibre will step forward and take the movement to the decisive victory upon which the future of the nation depends.
Faye, Guillaume, "The Colonisation of Europe", 2016.
Friberg, Daniel, "The Real Right Returns", 2015.
Ye'or, Bat, "Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate", 2011.
Since writing this review two major events have taken place that tend to both support and illustrate some of the points made. The first is the EU Referendum of June 2016. The second is the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in November 2016. Both events have run into trouble from the outset.
British exit from the EU a.k.a. “Brexit” seems set to become a protracted process lasting at least two years and with uncertain results. On top of this, Prime Minister Theresa May has announced that immigration from the EU (not to mention the massive immigration from outside the EU which Brexit isn’t even trying to address) will carry on for years even after Brexit. This raises legitimate fears that Brexit may never happen or, if it does, not in the way intended by the majority who voted for it.
Donald Trump’s presidency is similarly running into trouble. His legislative agenda has already stalled and most of his election promises may never materialise – and not for lack of trying.
The conclusions that can be drawn from this are (1) that for the anti-Establishment opposition to achieve anything it must have a strong support base and (2) that even when successful in the early stages (as in the above referendum and election), the opposition will likely get stopped in its tracks by getting bogged down in an intractable political quagmire engineered by the Left who continues to dominate the whole system including the state.
It is abundantly clear from this that all attempts to bring about real change are doomed to failure unless they are first preceded and supported by radical changes in the general political culture, changes that require years of comprehensive political activism on all levels and in all areas of public life and that are rooted in a nationwide cultural and spiritual revival. This has been explained in detail by the Real Right as shown by Michael O’Meara (“New Culture, New Right”), among others. A revolutionary way out is the only solution.
I don't know Tommy, I have never met him, I started this book with an open mind, and the one thing that shone through is his pure honesty, when people are lying it is normally a story where only that person can verify it's facts, in this book Tommy tells the story, names the people who were there, calls people out on things and names them, if he was a liar as people have said in the negative reviews he would not been naming these people, mentioning who was at certain events etc but he does, I found this book gripping.
I struggle to understand why people call Tommy a racist, in this book he tells of growing up with Muslim, Black and Asian mates, good mates, not acquaintances, good mates, and still has a diverse bunch of mates today from all race and religions, so he is no doubt NOT a racist, I truly believe after reading this book that if Tommy married a black lady, carried a banner everywhere he went saying 'I have no problem with Muslims that adopt western values, I have a black wife and mixed race kids' he would still be labeled a racists, this book will frustrate you, no matter how much it is put out there that he is not racist he is always called one!
This book really opened my eyes, I was one who thought if you had done nothing wrong in this country the truth will come to light, I was very sceptical about people saying they were 'Stitched Up' but having read this I have changed my mind! This lad has made more sacrifices for the love of his country than the 10 guys, who wrote the negative reviews, will give in their lifetime, and I mean the 10 of them combined. I am never without a book, I don't read fiction, just biography and true crime, this book is up there with the best I've read, I highly recommend it! I ask you to start it with an open mind, look at what Tommy was saying 5-6 years ago, what he was hounded for, what he was beaten up for, what he was labelled a racist for, the politicians are saying them all now!! Take a look at your TV screens, watch the news of events around the world involving radical Muslims, then ask yourself this 'Was Tommy wrong or was Tommy right'
What I got was the true sense of a chap who has managed to use his hate filled bile to fund his jobless lifestyle by penning things like this for people to purchase.
It's disgusting that this mans book is on sale and its further disturbing that there are publishers who are willing to give this racist a platform to share is disgusting rhetoric.
This man is a wife beater (who happens to have her Muslim ex's name tattooed on her shoulder) and is also a convicted fraud and former drug dealer. To view him as the voice of reason in a very complex debate reflects more on you than him.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Most recent customer reviews