Monthly archive

April 2017

How Leftists Ruin South Africa

in World News by

The first impression some have of Africa is remarkably primitive, depending on the region you specify. When simply talking about the continent, the image conjured is usually something like a tribe of Zulus chasing a pygmy across the Odagawa Basin. When talking about the North of Africa you might get the image of Berbers chasing a Frenchman across the Sahara and likewise, talking about the South, a white man running from a tribe of Xhosa.

The left has the same primitive views as those on the right, except whilst the right doesn’t care (except in the case of South Africa) the leftists seem to think they have the answer for the whole continent. As if Socialism is the duct tape of world affairs.

Africa is more diverse than anyone can even fathom. It is rare to find a country in Africa that has a majority ethnic group, unlike in Europe where we make fun of Belgium for daring to exist with two.

Zimbabwe has sixteen official languages, neighbouring South Africa has eleven and others keep to the language of their colonisers but even so they remain as linguistically diverse. No one seems even close to comprehending it, yet they see themselves fit to decide their people’s fate.

For example, when considering a division of South Africa, a solution preferable to some, people never consider how much of a fire starter it really is. No matter how you divide the country, someone’s going to get a raw deal. If you re-start the Boer states, almost all of the Afrikaners and about half of the whites will be cut off in the remainder. If you divide from the Cape, you get the same issue.

In Kraaifontein, a black majority borough of Cape Town, my girlfriend resides with her family. She is coloured, so much so that not one of her family members is either white or black, though we think she might be a bit Malay. She need only walk an hour or so before ending up in the coloured majority Flats. From then on she can walk on to Simon town, where the majority are white, or to Kayleisha where the black majority live in slums.

Whilst she does so she’ll pass Mosques, Churches; Kebab stores and Biltong dispensers. Some built in the Dutch Colonial style, others in a Brutalist 70’s style but most of the newer ones in an American-esque. Often, however, she stays where the people speak her language. Unfortunately she lives in the Western Cape where there exists no majority racial group, and where more than half speak don’t speak Afrikaans. All this in the Afrikaner’s heartland.

With a consistent campaign against Afrikaans, both in Education and in the media, the situation – already hindered by the aftermath of the Apartheid Fascists – has been made worse by a different type of fascist. The leftist kind.

Repeating claims that Afrikaans is the language of White Apartheid, despite being a language spoken mostly by Coloureds, the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) have stoked a campaign to remove it from Higher Education. Those who agree with the EFF but do not want to associate themselves with them instead claim that they want to remove the language to “make education efficient”. After all, Afrikaans is only spoken by a decreasing minority in the arse end of Africa. They do not, however, level that claim against Xhosa or Zulu, who are also a minority language on the world stage.

That, the constant demands for land repatriation, the defiling of Afrikaner symbols such as the statue of Jan van Riebeeck, the farm killings and the flight of most of the country’s intelligentsia due to “Black Economic Empowerment”, has made the Afrikaners very, very nervous about their future.

The Left wing media seems to be stoking these flames. In the aftermath of the state of the nation address, where once again members of the opposition in the assembly either left or where dragged out after they found armed guards inside the chamber, Huffington pPost published an article asking: “Should White People be Denied the Franchise?”

The troll who wrote it must’ve been overjoyed to find that his thinly veiled satire was published as legitimate by the leftist news-site. After finding out that it was fake, HuffPo pulled the article, but it didn’t stop the South African judiciary from investigating the matter, proving once again that it is the only branch of the government which seems to govern properly. The editor who published the article resigned, but the stain remains.

The leftists didn’t just shoot themselves in the foot, they made the mistake of trying on the Miss underwear whilst leaving the blinds open; showing not only their incompetence but their desire to push the leftist agenda above everything, even common sense. I doubt they’ll recover.

The lasting effect of this stupidity will be felt by hardest by the Coloureds, who often have to clean up after the EFF and ANC libtards decide to rampage a local statute they happen to hate.

However the conflict in South Africa is becoming increasingly less racial and even more political. Some see the struggle against the EFF not as a White & Coloured versus the Blacks, but Communism versus Traditionalists. To this end the DA, headed by the Black Mmusi Maimane, has defended the Western Cape and Gauteng against electoral incursions by the ANC and EFF. They offer an alternative to the Left and give hope to the considerable Centre-Right movement, stifling under Socialist control.

Progress is being made, but it is likely to get worse before it gets better. President Zuma, the ANC’s president of South Africa, has ruined the economy with reckless Ministerial shifts and incompetent spending. South Africa’s GDP growth is far below the continent’s average of 5.4%, meaning the resource rich country, which still holds one of the largest mineral deposits on earth and more coal than the rest of Africa, is lagging behind. Massive inflation, a low GDP and with confidence in the government at an all time low, the future for South Africa looks bleak, but outside intervention will not solve it.

Since this is an issue caused by Leftists, it’s only natural to ask they keep their mouths shut about it. Don’t post an article about how it’s all the white man’s fault or how it could all be solved with Communism. Your idiotic ideology is harmless in the first world, but in a country where violence is a way of life, you are actively contributing to the problem and I don’t think it’s too much to ask you keep your mouth shut. Likewise any contribution from the right must be made from a position of knowledge, not just a cursory glance at an article like this.

Hopefully then South Africa can be given what we give all adult nations. The responsibility to deal with their own problems in a considerate and logical way.

Breaking News: Essex students have voted to leave the hard-left NUS

in Brexit by

Essex Students Union has been voting for a second time on a motion to quit the anti-Semitic hard-left propaganda machine, the National Union of Students. Jake Painter of the Essex University Young Independence states that the motion has succeeded.

59% (602 students) voted to leave the NUS while 41% (424 students) voted to remain.

Last year a number of student unions across the country voted to disaffiliate with the NUS, including Loughborough University, Lincoln and Cambridge. Students are feeling increasingly unrepresented by the crazy NUS body which promotes ideas such as abolishing “racist” prisons.

The system is rigged: The majority of students do not get a vote for their supposed “President”, but rather each university may send only a handful of representatives to cast a ballot. Nearly the entire student “parliament” is basically Marxist, with conservatives unwelcome. The National Union of Students a farce, a Marxist echo-chamber.

Charlie Sammonds, Chair of the Young Chartists is not thrilled by the election of the new President of the NUS, Shakira Martin, earlier this week. Martin, claimed to be the voice of British students, actually did not go to university, but is self-confessed former drug dealer. She takes over from Malia Bouattia, whose controversial leadership saw student unions across the country become increasingly divided.

The outgoing president Ms Bouattia had faced damning criticism and a parliament-led investigation last year after she was accused of anti-Semitism by the Jewish student community. The then-leader denied the allegations, criticising media outlets for calling her “a racist, an anti-Semite, an Isis sympathiser, and more”.

Theresa May – Looking For Trade In All The Wrong Places?

in Brexit by

With Article 50 officially triggered on March 29, and a snap General Election called by the Prime Minister on April 18, is Theresa May making a mistake by putting all of her eggs firmly in the Brussels basket?

When I tune in every evening to watch the day’s latest news, I can’t help but feel frustrated with Theresa May placing such a huge emphasis on getting the best deal for Britain from our neighbouring EU countries. Despite the British people voting to take back control of our borders, our laws and our trade deals, the Prime Minister is still insistent on bargaining with Brussels, but at what cost? She believes that by calling an early general election, this will strengthen her stance when entering into EU negotiations. Of course I can’t blame her for calling a snap election, especially when the Conservatives are enjoying a 25 point lead over Labour according to a latest ComRes poll, making Theresa May the clear favourite to win and continue as Prime Minister. However, is she really right to prioritise a trade deal with a declining, bureaucratic EU over potential trade deals elsewhere? I think not.

It is no secret that the UK has a considerably high trade deficit with the EU; according to Full Fact, “the UK imported around £60 billion more goods and services from the rest of the EU than it exported there in the 12 months to September 2016”. Out of all 27 member states, Germany has the largest trade deficit with the UK, despite having the strongest economy in the whole of the EU. In 2015 alone, it sold approximately £25 billion more to the UK in goods and services than we sold to it. Considering the fact that Germany’s strong economy is heavily reliant on British trade, it would seem totally illogical for Germany to hinder such a trade deal from being signed once we have left the EU, particularly when no trade deal could jeopardise thousands of German jobs. With an election fast approaching in Germany as well, Angela Merkel will seek to ensure that German jobs are protected once they enter into negotiations with Britain. She knows that this can only be guaranteed so long as trade continues, even if it is with an independent Britain. Therefore, under the current circumstances, it is plausible to argue that they need us more than we need them.

However, the question that you are probably wondering whilst reading this, and the question I have been asking myself for some time, is if Theresa May decides to take a step back from her pursuit in getting the best deal from Germany and the rest of the EU, where else can she seek a potential trade deal? Under Article 50 legislation, the UK cannot formally enter into trade negotiations, or sign new trade deals with any nations outside of the EU. On the other hand, the legislation does not prevent the Prime Minister from holding informal talks with nation leaders outside of the EU. Therefore, should Theresa May decide to hold such talks, which I believe is in our national interest, where could she look towards? I have identified two potential options available to the Prime Minister.


Our friends in the Commonwealth would seem like an excellent destination to begin our nation’s search for new trade deals, not to mention the most logical. There are 52 member states, amounting to approximately 2.3 billion people who share our language, our values, and of course, our monarchy. One country in particular, India, has more recently entered the spotlight as a new Commonwealth report has come to light which claims that a post-Brexit trade deal with India would be worth an additional £2 billion per year to the UK economy.

The report, entitled ‘Brexit: Opportunities for India’ by author Rashmi Banga, states “this paper estimates that a free trade agreement (FTA) between India and the UK will increase India–UK trade by 26% per annum. The UK’s exports to India will increase by 33% p.a. while the UK’s imports from India will increase by 12% p.a.”. Despite the fact that India has been negotiating a broad-based trade and investment agreement with the EU since 2007, which is still inconclusive, the author concludes the report by stating “this proposed India–UK FTA may be easier to negotiate than the India-EU FTA, as some of the sticking points in an India-EU FTA may be easier to resolve”. Therefore, this report demonstrates that there are clear opportunities for Britain to engage with its Commonwealth partners and strengthen the economy, debunking the myths spelled by remain campaigners that the British economy would suffer as a result of Brexit.


Though the topic of trade was not on the agenda when the Prime Minister visited the recently inaugurated President on January 27 2017, President Trump did tell Theresa May in a White House press conference that he believes Brexit “will be a wonderful thing for your country”, and has previously expressed his interest in a potential new trade deal with a post-Brexit Britain prior to his election.

During the US presidential election, Mr Trump’s advisor Dan DiMicco stated that Britain will be offered a free trade deal before the rest of the EU if the Republicans win the US presidential election. In an interview, Mr DiMicco said that with the present Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership proposals on hold, “Britain would be at the front of the queue for any future trade deal once the UK has left the EU”. The comments made in regards to a UK-US free trade deal were in stark contrast to those made by President Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, who reiterated that Britain would go to the back of the queue for trade deals if we voted to leave the EU. The USA remains as Britain’s closest ally in the world, and Britain’s largest export partner. Now that the USA has elected a President who has demonstrated a clear interest in our country and has connections to Britain, perhaps the Prime Minister should take advantage of our special relationship as we head out of the EU and into the world. The USA imported $54.7 billion in goods from the UK in 2015 alone, and this figure could arguably increase once we have left EU trade barriers behind and are once again in control of our own trade deals.

We can say for certain that as a nation, we will face many new challenges to the way we trade once we have left the EU, but there is also clear optimism for the UK economy, a light at the end of the tunnel some might say, and that light comes in the form of a Commonwealth which is keen to do business with an independent Britain, and a USA led by a President who strongly admires Britain, and our decision to leave a declining EU. Like many others, I am uncertain about the direction our country will be heading in over the next few years. But what I do know is that I, along with 17.4 million people, voted on June 23 2016 for Britain to become a self-governing nation with a global outlook, free from the shackles of the EU. If Theresa May is elected to continue as Prime Minister on June 8 2017, the onus will be on her to deliver a Brexit which reflects this will.


Nationalism is on the Rise, regardless of a Le Pen win

in World News by

I was in a livestream with members of the People’s Charter during the first round of the French elections. It was a truly momentous occasion and I couldn’t have spent it with a better bunch. Yet when it came to me declaring “Nationalism had won” it seemed I was approaching the Overton window. But this has been the case for a while and Le Pen’s victory in the first round has simply helped cement it.

Nationalism, like Luke Nash-Jones rightly said, is a linear spectrum, whether prasticed by the left or the right. Sinn Fein for example is nationalist, just a more selective kind. The Labour party was also very Nationalist. Clement Attlee even quoted from William Blake, declaring, after his 1945 electoral victory, that “I will not cease from Mental Fight, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand till we have built Jerusalem, in England’s green and pleasant Land.”
Politicians even now, whether knowingly or not, occasionally evoke the feeling of nationalism when referring to “Our Parliament” and “Our Democracy”. I’ve seen George Galloway both extol Nationalism and denounce it, depending on who he talks to.

Many politicians did this because, if they didn’t, those who did would take command of the polls and the greatest mistake society ever made was to let them forget that. Nationalism is merely prioritising one’s people and culture above all else. It was in the absence of nationalism that today’s crony corporatism was formed and far from being the cause of war, nationalism seems to have been the only thing stopping it. Would Blair have wasted the lives of his own people if he owed any respect to them? Would there be such a broken welfare state if the state put the people first?

These question are at last being asked.

You may disagree with her fiscal policy, you may even think she will lose but regardless, Le Pen, a Nationalist, has beaten two establishment candidates and has breached a record for her party. The second round won’t be a walk-over like 2002. People will have to ask themselves the tough questions; most importantly they’ll have to ask: “Is Nationalism that bad?”
With the truth, the innate realities of nationhood and a growing popular movement on the Patriot’s side, it looks to be that Nationalism is finally influencing the zeitgeist.

But don’t think it will be a walk in the park. From the look of Berkeley, London and the staunch resistance of the Liberal Elite elsewhere, we might not live to see a Nationalist Europe. Furthermore it looks to be a far deadlier endeavour than first thought. Though we in Britain have mostly avoided violence so far, talks of civil war in America have been circulating for some time and with Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos looking to make another strike at Berkeley, it looks to reach a new fervour.

Like I always say, only time will tell if this has all come down to naught.

National Union of Students a farce, a Marxist echo-chamber.

in Brexit by

28-year old Shakira Martin has won the presidency of the National Union of Students, the Marxist propaganda machine that pushes Corbynite ideas onto universities. The outcome was already known. The system is rigged: The majority of students do not get a vote for their supposed “President”, but rather each university may send only a handful of representatives to cast a ballot.

Nearly the entire student “parliament” is basically Marxist, with conservatives unwelcome. The National Union of Students a farce, a Marxist echo-chamber. Though some students seized a media opportunity with stunts such as a centrist offering to lower the cost of Freddos chocolate bars, it would be impossible for a real conservative to win in such a biased system.

New NUS President Martin acknowledges this, “I want to put the NUS back into the hands of its membership and send the message to the heart of the government about what students want”. She claims that she was inspired to run in the election after noticing students felt increasingly disenfranchised and disconnected. Though we have yet to see if she really will bring democracy to the National Union of Students and stamp out Antifa-style aggression.

British student politics are dominated by an incredibly small percentage of students, often promoting radical ideas, such as the abolition of prisons. “Over the past couple of years, I’ve spoken to so many students across the country who have said that the NUS is out of touch with its members and out of touch with students and not fighting for the issues that students care about,” Martin said.

With Conservative Future having been harmed by the Mark Clarke scandal, and UKIP’s youth wing being rather non-existent, as yet to launch any real challenge to its effective ban across UK universities, campus politics is heavily dominated by Labour clubs who are backed by funds and activists from non-student trade unions. Some of these NUS representatives have backing by as few as 1% of their student body; some do not even attend hustings or present a manifesto. The irony is that these very Labour students protest the 52% support of Brexit during the referendum as being supposedly too low.

Only NUS representatives can stand for President. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the choices were a handful of hard-left Marxists, or the joker Tom Harwood, a centrist who runs a creepy Facebook group “Young Liberals” with a self-described “arch-Blairite”. Their progressive alliance of students is run by Blairites, LibDems and Corbynistas, who see themselves as the centrist answer to 4chan, and pathetically stalk our team, even harassing us in person. They have made the news for promoting necrophilia, sexual activity with corpses. They have been flagged by HopeNotHate for comments on white genocide.

The new President of the NUS takes over from Malia Bouattia’s controversial leadership which saw student unions across the country become increasingly divided. Last year a number of student unions across the country voted to disaffiliate with the NUS, including Loughborough University, Lincoln and Cambridge. The outgoing president Ms Bouattia had faced damning criticism and a parliament-led investigation last year after she was accused of anti-Semitism by the Jewish student community.The then-leader denied the allegations, criticising media outlets for calling her “a racist, an anti-Semite, an Isis sympathiser, and more”.

Open border activists are literally wife-swapping cucks, study claims

in Uncategorized by

Activists who want to preserve Western culture have often slammed the liberal elite as “cucks” for their open door approach to immigration. Many fake Syrian refugees have raped thousands of European women, while left-wing men, rather than fight for their families, have just watched, crippled by social stigma.

Hence the aptness of the phrase “cuck” that has been used to describe them, it meaning a man who lets another sleep with his wife. A new study claims that open border activists are literally wife-swapping. The likes of Tim Farron, Justin Trudeau, Tony Blair, and David Cameron, do not care if another guy takes their wife.

Commissioned by “libertine social network” Wyylde, the study of 4,000 French individuals found that supporters of multiculturalism are much more likely than the average Frenchman to share partners and have group sex, while Front National voters are more inclined towards sexual domination, spanking, and practices polling company IFOP says are derived from “porn culture”.

People situated “to the left of the [traditional] left” on the political compass, that would be the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, are “distinguished in particular by their experimentation in practices of a libertine nature,” the study said.

“Having a threesome” and partner-swapping are examples given in the commentary, which highlights that the proportion of swingers amongst far left voters (23 per cent) is more than double the average in France (nine per cent).

“[It is] as if their rejection of ‘the system’ is linked with a greater ability to overcome society’s prevailing standards of sexuality,” the polling company added. Perhaps that explains David Cameron’s supposed “romantic” encounter with a hog’s head.

Other sexual activities favoured by the far left, according to the research, are “encounters which lack any emotional dimension — such as one night stands”, and types of ‘polyamorous’ relationships in which participants each have multiple sexual partners.

The tendency amongst left wing extremists to swap and exchange their sexual partners could be driven by their “Proudhonian concept of property issues”, suggested IFOP, referring to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the anarchist theorist most famous for asserting that “property is theft”.


Incompetent Labour MP Doesn’t Even Know Which Year It Is

in Islamism by

Gareth Thomas, one of Labour’s top MPs, who runs their internal Co-op party, doesn’t even know which year it is. He thinks the general election is being held in 2018, over 12 months away, but is so scared of defeat, that he is out campaigning already.

Visitors to his Facebook page were quick to call out his error, but it still took him four days to correct it:

Don’t vote for these anti-British pro-Islamic terrorist Marxists who sold out the working class people.

Gareth, a competent MP, clearly on top of things, eventually realised days later his error and fixed it, but the damage was done:

The Labour MP and Co-op party leader was deleting comments but people had already seen:


UK National Security Strategy – Threats: Border Insecurity & Subversion (4)

in Brexit by

Threat appears in many guises. Emerging once again as a sovereign nation-state, the United Kingdom and its citizens face an evolving multiplicity of threats and hazards. Some clear, others ambiguous, to engage with these dangers in defence of the realm requires clear, strategic thinking.

We noted in the previous instalment that national security for the UK today fundamentally relates to a state of public trust that this array of threats is being sufficiently mitigated, such that the citizens’ everyday lives may continue, and their liberties remain intact. Through leaving the European Union, there now exists the opportunity to fundamentally reassert UK national security.

Clear threats are openly perceptible. The extraordinarily destructive power of nuclear weapons is widely known, and today the danger posed by them remains critically significant. Terrorism too by its very nature courts mass attention, loudly forcing its depraved shadow into everyday life. Both of these – and there are others still – represent an ongoing, clear threat to UK national security.

Many threats are ambiguous, with their nature and scope harder to define. As the cyber realm now increasingly integrates into both critical national infrastructure and the lives of the citizen, hostile states, mercenary hacking cells and sophisticated criminals alike pose a threat to the UK which – although often as amorphous as the internet itself – would be gravely unwise to underestimate.

This series maintains that effective national security strategy demands clear, limited objectives, whilst recognising the power in the comprehensive application of state and civil capabilities in the pursuit of those objectives. With this in mind, two key strategic threats to the UK as a sovereign nation-state in the 21st century will now follow.

Firstly: Border Insecurity. Underpinning that public trust critical to a contemporary conception of UK national security is of course the continued existence of the nation itself. Without borders, there can be no nation. As an island, the UK has not suffered from the same mass influx of hundreds of thousands of impoverished migrants – primarily fighting aged males from the Middle East and North Africa – as continental Europe has since 2015. We are now watching the tragically predictable results unfold across Europe.

However, as an EU member state, the UK’s sovereign authority over its borders has been relentlessly diminished and the impact of this felt across the towns and cities of the nation. While many immigrants have happily and successfully integrated into British society and adapted to British culture and values, globalist multiculturalism has also fostered ghettoisation and social disharmony. Such disharmony generates a serious, long term national security threat.

Following official withdrawal from the EU in 2019, UK borders can be effectively re-established, ensuring that both hostile persons and uncontrolled masses can be actively prevented from entering UK territory. At the same time, such border consolidation creates the crucially necessary space within which attempts can be made to repair the serious social disharmony already affecting citizens’ everyday lives. Sovereign borders underpin national security.

Secondly: Ideological Subversion. Deeply intertwined with the concept of the nation are also the core ideological and cultural values which unite the citizenry with a common bond. To undermine these values beyond repair is to destroy the nation. Sixty years ago, patriotism was proclaimed proudly. Today, pride in Britain and British culture is systematically crushed by a regressive, neo-Marxist ideology which has increasingly come to dominate the national education system and universities.

The Ideological subversion of Western society has over generations been borne from several key sources, most critically KGB Active Measures and Frankfurt School Critical Theory. The objective of this threat is to penetrate the minds of every person – particularly the young – and through disinformation induce them to regard the originally prevailing cultural-ideological basis of Western civilisation with rebellious contempt and disdain. This fractures British society, entrenches disharmony, and undermines national security, ultimately risking collapse from within.

Meeting this threat as a sovereign UK in the 21st Century requires a comprehensive strategic approach, utilising not only military-intelligence counter-subversion operations and the open media, but also a radical overhaul of the UK education system. To safeguard the nation’s future, it is imperative that younger generations are not indoctrinated with fundamentally subversive Marxist ideology, but are instead given a rounded and rational education. Failure to do this will have disastrous consequences in future decades.

These two critical threats to a sovereign UK are of course not exclusive, and there is much more to expand upon. However, if the UK is to effectively uphold national security as a sovereign nation-state, such fundamental considerations must come first. There can be no national security without the nation, and the nation exists not only on the basis of territory, but critically also within the minds of the citizens at large. As the UK leaves the EU, engaging these threats with strategic purpose is of existential importance.

A Post-Brexit Tax Haven. What’s not to like?

in Brexit by
A Post-Brexit Tax Haven

I find myself laughing at the multitude of reports in the mainstream press about the dangers of Brexit, with many claims failing to stand up to scrutiny and little more than scaremongering. Occasionally this descends into the downright bizarre, none more so than Corbyn’s rant about the risk of a post-Brexit Britain becoming a ‘tax haven’. He presents this as a threat, but is it really a bad thing?

Keep Reading

BBC lie that the Risitas meme is racist

in World News by

BBC News, centrist state-funded media, is freaking out that weaponised autism might help Le Pen win, terrified at the rise of the new rightwing youth.

Their French reporter Helene Daouphars, is a rabid feminist, anti-British, globalist shill, who has on BBC News demanded France dump its problems on Britain; she said it is unfair fake refugees feel obliged to accept benefits in France due to British border patrols.

The Beep commissioned her to make a desperate hatchet job piece, seeking to demonise any threat to open borders.

She selects extreme Twitter accounts to falsely portray that Pepe, and even Risitas, basically Internet memes, are supposedly white supremacist anti-Semitic hate symbols, but a black lady they interview tells them Pepe’s funny.

Kong Yamang who the BBC present as the leader of the Great Meme War in France has only 68 folllowers.

It features a glass of milk emoji, when it was Black Lives Matter activists who made milk racial, by saying it’s a bigoted product due to most sufferers of lactose intolerance being black.

Time to stop paying for this rubbish! #AxeTheTVTax

BBC false narrative of potential genocide by British fascists

in Islamism by

Taxpayer money has been spent on a highly inaccurate programme aimed at youth people which pushes the BBC’s false narrative that there is about to be some British fascist uprising and genocide of migrants. This is scaremongering.

As the girl in the TV production claims to face “family honour abuse”, the BBC are making a false comparison to ISIS supporters, to downplay the very real terror threat. The highly inaccurate globalist propaganda piece features a girl who grew up in a British xenophobic terrorist-supporting family that is shown murdering Muslims. This is not something that happens in Britain.

This is probably in response to the recent Britain First and EDL marches in London. While there may be hooligans tagging along to such protests, including violent lefty Antifa thugs, and the Britain First leader did certainly breach a court order, surely the BBC could have addressed those issues, and not highly inaccurate scenarios. The programme doesn’t feature things that really happen, such as mosque invasions, which violate private property rights.

It’s a incredible exaggeration, in fact, a downright lie, to insinuate that there are cells of British terrorists slaughtering Muslims; while actually there are protestors, mostly peaceful, exercising their freedom of expression enshrined in law – their right to express their political opinion whatever our view may be. The BBC is ignoring real violence, such as the rape of 1,500 little girls in Rotherham, and instead focusses on fantasy wars.

So much for being an impartial broadcaster. Imagine the uproar if the BBC ran a programme hypothesising other massacres, such as that London is a caliphate and Christians en masse are stoned to death – but such a genocide is something hate preachers actually call for; in fact, groups like the EDL would fizzle out if such hate was addressed.

Moreover, the BBC’s motives perhaps become clear as it portrays the Union Jack in a very negative light, as if it is some fascist symbol. Does it really want to address xenophobia, or to promote “multiculturalism”? The girl in the film is ashamed that she formerly liked the British flag, and that she had drawn it on paper, as if such was an evil thing to do.

Syrian refugee “felt oppressed” by Stop the War protest

in Islamism by

Syrian refugee, Hassan Akkad from Damascus, “felt oppressed” when shouted down by Stop the War anti-Trump protesters.

The protest in Downing Street on Friday evening was against the American attack on a Syrian airbase.

Mr Akkad left Syria in September 2015. He says he was imprisoned twice and tortured for protesting against Assad’s regime.

He says of the Stop the War protestors: “I didn’t see them protesting against the chemical attacks, I didn’t see them protesting against Putin bombing Syria for the last two years.

“I wanted to go to that protest and I wanted to observe.

“I went to the protest and I saw a group of 30 people with placards, not a single mention of Assad.

“All the placards are against Donald Trump and they’re repeating baseless slogans with their megaphones.”

He added: “I went to them respectfully and said, ‘Listen I’m a Syrian refugee who lives here and I have an opinion, it’s a protest about Syria I want to say something’.

“They didn’t even address me, they ignored my existence. With their megaphones they went louder and louder and the organisers told them to carry on.”

Three Critical Issues We Must Confront Post-Brexit

in Brexit/Islamism by

For decades, we have, in my personal opinion, been governed by complete and utter cowards, who when it comes to confronting harsh realities, prefer to indulge in pathetic virtue signalling & thought policing, instead of confronting the issues, and if that doesn’t work they run into their self constructed safe spaces. We live in a society where to both the media and political establishment, feelings matter more than facts, where avoiding causing offence matters more than the reality.

I believe that we must now take on the issues that our current politically correct establishment and liberal media are far too weak and spineless to address, the issues that the ordinary man and woman on the streets want urgently discussed and addressed. We must never be scared of offending the mainstream media and certain communities, most of whom will never vote for us. We must ensure that we always put our own culture, people, and national interest first. There is a extreme form of political correctness in our country, for example Rotherham child grooming and zero prosecutions on FGM.

Post Brexit there are three critical era-defining issues that we must have the bravery and courage to confront:

1 The societal and cultural side of mass immigration,

2. A failed policy of multiculturalism, a complete lack of integration and assimilation in every major British city.

3. The rise of Islamic Jihad and Sharia.

The introduction of direct democracy by parties, as has been adopted by UKIP, giving all members a direct say on official party policy will give a cutting edge and it will make the general public feel that their genuine views and concerns are being addressed. This has worked in Italy for the 5 Star Movement and it will work in the UK as well.

To those who believe that we should run a mile from the aforementioned issues and become more ‘mainstream’. I say to say to you “What will you say to your children and other future generations when the next Rotherham, 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster Jihadist attack happens, or when the next few thousand British born citizens look to go off and do the next Jihad for the next ISIS equivalent?”

There will come a stage soon when the demographics are far too big for the security services. Will you say that you refused to lift a finger because you were scared of being called “Racist” or “Xenophobic” or any other buzzwords that the leftists use to shut down the debate? What will it take for you to realise that there are very big problems in modern day Britain that must be confronted now, not in 20 years’ time or later. Time is running out for our country, and one day it will be too late.

UK National Security Strategy – The Sovereign National Interest (3)

in Brexit by

Strategy relies upon the foundation of key guiding interests. Without these, attempts at strategic thinking and action are liable to go round in futile circles. Now that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has been invoked, and almost certain withdrawal from the European Union set to officially take place on the 29th March, 2019, the fundamental columns of a Sovereign, UK national interest can now be established.

In the last instalment, it was recognised that the UK’s future, as well as its present, is inescapably global. But this global status can now begin to be very different to that which has reigned since 1972, where the unaccountable European Union with its bloated bureaucracy and suffocating regulations entrenched itself ever further into almost every aspect of the lives of the British people.

The opportunity for the rebirth of the UK’s global status as a sovereign nation state has profound implications. The practical process of negotiation and disentanglement is about to begin, and the UK’s position – despite the elitist naysayers and confused blue-faced teenagers – is looking strong. To many of us, this is unsurprising. We knew all along that the UK retains almost unparalleled diplomatic, economic, military and cultural links across the globe.

With this in mind, it is now possible to establish a clearer conception of the UK’s sovereign, national interest. In strategic terms, it is never wise to have too many overriding objectives, as they will likely conflict and dilute each other. Therefore, this article proposes three critical elements as the foundation of a clear, post withdrawal, sovereign UK national interest.

Firstly: national security. National security, of course, is the point itself of any national security strategy. However, there exists no specific consensus among UK policymakers or academia as to precisely what is meant by the term. Subsequent articles in this series will highlight specific security threats and suggest strategic approaches of engagement. At its core however, national security for a sovereign UK relates fundamentally to a state of public trust that our everyday, normal lives can continue, confident that the multiplicity of threats and hazards to those daily lives are being sufficiently managed by those who act in our continuous defence.

Secondly: global trade, not globalism. As a sovereign nation state, the UK will regain the power to forge trade agreements with countries all around the world: agreements which are negotiated by the UK and which therefore uphold the UK’s specific interests as the critical objective. Specific economic opportunities available to a sovereign UK will be highlighted in subsequent articles in this series, but broadly, the opportunity for renewed economic prosperity, launched from the already strong position that the UK enjoys, can now be seized in such a way as to project UK power, influence, and enrich British citizens beyond what was possible as an EU Member State.

Thirdly: British culture. Neglected – indeed often trampled upon – by the globalist politicians and eurocrats of the last forty years, British culture and values as the unifying beacon of this nation can now be reasserted as a foundational column of national security strategy for a sovereign UK. Culture and values serve as the pillar upon which perception of our interests is based, the lens through which we navigate the world both as individuals and as a nation-state. British culture was manifest on the 23rd June 2016, when the British people chose the boldness of liberty over quiet subservience. British cultural integrity must be upheld and defended. Let national pride and energy return, and watch the people put it into action.

These three points establish a fundamental basis for the national interest of the soon to be sovereign UK. The challenges ahead are not to be ignored, and neither are the opportunities. But without a clearly defined conception of the UK’s national interest as a sovereign nation state, there can be no national security strategy. The time is now to recognise those interests, and realise our sovereignty.

Clegg, Blair and Soubry Want to Create Centrist Bloc

in Brexit by

Nick Clegg has called on Blairites, Liberal Democrats, and the centrist Tory faction, to join together to mount an ideological response to Theresa May’s government. Terrified at the loss in the referendum by the globalist elite, Clegg wants to launch liberal bloc.

He suggested that Ken Clarke was closer to him than Brexit-supporting Tories. Some Tories agree – Remain campaigner Anna Soubry suggested someone ought to get on with creating a “moderate, sensible, forward-thinking” political party. Soubry, Chuka Umnunna and Clegg are leaders of the Open Britain, the pro-European lobbying group created out of the ashes of the official Remain campaign.

“Political parties are not sects,” said Clegg as he promised to work with anyone who sought to challenge the direction of British politics, arguing that Brexit was an “ideological coup” for small-state fanatics.

Welcoming Tony Blair’s new Institute for Global Change, which aims to re-energise the centre ground, he said, “I would welcome and embrace more thinking and writing and talking and speaking amongst liberal Conservatives, one-nation Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, centre-ground Labour folk who want to mount a proper ideological response to that.”

Clegg said it would be “flamingly obvious” to Labour in the south-west that the Lib Dems had the best chance of victory and to Lib Dems in the north that Labour did.


Go to Top