Edward Howard

Edward Howard has 50 articles published.

SHOCK As Knives and Alcohol Sold to Little KIDS in London

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

In truly shocking news, over 2,500 test purchases of which were carried out by London Trading Standards (in conjunction with local councils and the Metropolitan Police as a part of Operation Spectre to reduce such crime over an 18 month scheme) revealed the age-restricted items being sold to children, with 14% of the shops selling knives and 12% selling alcohol among the 285 illegal sales recorded.

Punishments for such illegal knife purchases usually lead to six months in jail or a £5000 fine. Given the recent 12% increase in knife crime over the last twelve months (among a broader increase in crime in London too), and it already makes a bad situation all the more worse off.

The Metropolitan Police called such behaviour ‘unacceptable’ all the while deputy mayor for policing and crime Sophie Linden stated that:

The only way we are going to rid our streets of these dangerous weapons is by working together to stop them getting into the hands of young Londoners.

Sadly, the police are more interested in non-criminal “hate crimes”.

DISGUSTING: Labour Shadow Home Secretary SLAMS Chequers Deal As Too Anti-EU

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

In a recent statement, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Emily Thornberry has called the Chequers deal ‘nonsense’ and Labour shall block any deal with the European Union that forms on that plan.

She felt that the plan was ‘full of red tape’ and ‘would not work’, all the while highlighting that for her party, it failed the six tests the party has set when it has come to Brexit.

Thornberry has become the first major Labour politician to confirm that Labour shall not accept this deal, with the party itself stating that its plans on the matter remain the same, and other members like their Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Keir Starmer only up to this point suggesting that Labour would not accept a deal based on the Chequers arrangement.

Whether this shall be the final nail in the deeply unpopular deal is yet to be seen.

Popular TV show used as PROPAGANDA to DEMONISE patriots

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

In yet another unhealthy dose of cultural Marxism, state-owned broadcaster Channel 4 once again demonises patriotic Brits of who are worried and fearful about the rise of Islamic extremism in our society, and those of us who want to feel pride in our country as well.

In a show called Ackley Bridge (of which is about the day to day goings on about the multicultural eponymous school in a fictional Yorkshire town of the same name), the eighth episode displays severe hatred towards patriots and those worried about the rise of radical Islam in British society, under the guise that we are all supposedly far-right neo-Nazis who simply hate all Muslims. Seriously.

It starts off pretty badly in this sense, with a campaigner handing out said leaflets outside the school, whereby he yells about how the UK has become a ‘dumping ground for Muslim extremists’ and to join his group’s rally on that following Saturday, not to mention to keep ‘England English’. When confronted by staff (one of whom accuses him of distributing ‘racist propaganda’ in a school environment), he is sarcastic, states that the material isn’t racist (which it isn’t, because Muslim extremists aren’t a race, unless one views all Muslims as extremists of course, which is absurd on that notion alone) and advocates that he has ‘free speech’ rights (which he does). One staff member then threatened him with violence, stating that if the campaigner comes to the school again it won’t only be the ‘flyers he’ll lose’. To show how evil and racist the guys are, they have England tops on with a St. George’s Cross. How lovely.

Now already we are in crap creek with the distortion and lies about the populist right and their opposition towards radical Islam. To my knowledge, those on our side who hand out flyers to crowds usually don’t do it on areas like school gates and such, nor are we usually fond of having a violent confrontation with people we disagree with. Case in point, when me and others at the MBGA team were threatened with violence from the Stand Up To Racism conference last year, we calmly left the place (not that they didn’t try, but that’s a story for another time). We don’t go out and cause trouble, especially near schools as that doesn’t get us anywhere. Now there are problems with Islamist grooming gangs behaving in such a fashion, most notably in Bradford as Katie Hopkins recently exposed, but we on the populist right don’t behave in such a passive aggressive manner for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, we want to stop such gangs from conducting such despicable behaviour, and does Channel 4 have a problem with that or something? If so, it speaks very loudly of their moral code as opposed to ours on the populist right.

Besides, the seemingly hostile attitude of the aforementioned staff, especially the threat of violence was totally uncalled for. I can appreciate the campaigner was being rude and passive aggressive, but he wasn’t refusing to leave the premises, and from this, suggesting violent attacks against him for handing out flyers that some may deem offensive is not only alarming but extremely out of line. As conservative commentator Ben Shapiro once stated when faced with similar threats of violence for expressing a naughty opinion ‘that seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion’.

To make matters worse, this condoning of unprovoked violence with people you disagree with is a constant theme all throughout this episode. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

After a brief altercation between two prominent characters in this episode, Nasreen and Samantha, among other elements, a group of students examine the leaflet of which they mock for suggesting that halal meat funds terrorism (which it does, more rather its certification as halal does), the two main characters in this episode kiss and start to form a bond of which shall become more significant later on in selling the anti-patriot propaganda.

After more plot development transpires in the episode in which Nasreen discusses how we live in a ‘Brexit, austerity Britain’ of which puts minority groups in ‘twin shackles’ of racism and homophobia – couldn’t resist, eh Channel 4? – and she has Samantha’s number written on her arm by Samantha – oddly looking like the numbers written into the arm of Donnie Darko’s in the golf scene in the 2001 cult classic Donnie Darko, but I digress – Nasreen meets Samantha at her house after talking via text. As Nasreen arrives at the house, we get an ominous shot of the St. George’s Cross flying from the house’s window (every leftie’s favourite whipping boy at this moment) and then have a discussion when they mention the shoe theft, do silly chicken jokes (apparently, this show decided to become The Room for a short time) and make love. Very nice.

After detailing her experiences with a friend, we finally see the rally take place in which… nothing really happens. The protestors yell about how it is ‘their England’ and want to protect their country for the sake of defending what their ‘grandfathers and grandmothers’ fought for in World War 2 which is freedom above anything else. Why Channel 4 would immediately insinuate that this is a bad idea is befuddling. Just because they are talking about Islamist extremism (of which is a major problem in UK, and with Islamic terror plots being stopped frequently, there’s no dancing around the issue) doesn’t delegitimise their cause. Funnily enough, they make no statements against all Muslims, nor be actually racist towards minority groups, all of which makes me wonder what part of this Channel 4 finds objectionable.

I can appreciate the left hates any criticism of Islam at all (mainly because they feel it demonises all Muslims – of which says a lot more about their worldview that it does ours on the populist right) and feel that such marches target all Muslims, all the while feel that probably these terrorists have grievance given evil European colonialism (no I am not making this up), but none of that holds up to scrutiny. The populist right are against radical Islam not all Muslims, given how an idea can be entirely separate from a person who supports it, because Sharia law’s regressive views on government, how women should be treated, how minorities should be treated (especially in the LGBT community) not to mention how intolerant it is to other worldviews, is not something a civilised, liberal democracy should bow down to. These marches and such only come about because whether it be Islamist terrorism, grooming gangs among other issues, the elite seem to remain silent all the while endlessly preaching about how Islam is a religion of peace (without bothering to read its holy books of course) and that anyone who objects is an evil bigot and Islamophobe. When this anger brews, a peaceful protest against it is perfectly legitimate, and to demonise patriots who share fears about the way extreme Islam is seemingly being ignored by our political class is utterly despicable. After all, if we can’t express such views in a peaceful manner (of which are totally legitimate), what is the alternative? Starting a riot? Confronting the authorities in aggressive ways? Or would Channel 4 prefer us to shut up for the sake of preserving their utopian leftie vision of a multicultural society, regardless of the harm that may do and the inevitable anger that may rise from it? I bet so, and from that, what an utter disgrace. It’s no surprise that the broadcaster is state-funded then; its views parrot the views of the liberal elitist class.

Not to mention how the protestors are so crudely stereotyped; often fat, wearing English flags, often bald resembling skinheads associated with actual far-right groups like the National Front and looking and acting like typical football hooligans. For a political side who claim not to judge the actions of a group by stereotypes about them, the left happily abandon that against their opponents, don’t they?

Moving on, Nasreen’s sister advocate throwing eggs unprovoked at the protestors, on the grounds that they supposedly ‘deserve it’. No they don’t. While one may find the views of someone or a group objectionable, immediately resorting to violence to counteract them not only shows you to be the overly aggressive one, it gives your opponents (no matter how awful they may be) the upper hand morally. The constant advocacy for unprovoked violence against peaceful protests and campaigners in this show is truly alarming.

To make matters worse, once Nasreen notices Samantha there (being a lesbian character, I assume this is a dig against the Gays Against Sharia group), she decides to say screw morals and throw eggs at the protestors, including Samantha. This leads to a chase scene where the group follow Nasreen through a shopping centre, quickly losing her. Now again, this is out of order and highly inaccurate. Once again, throwing eggs into the faces of your political opposition for peacefully protesting is not only wrong, but immoral. If they don’t throw the first punch, why should you fight back? Offensive tactics like this is the reason why many left-wing groups like Unite Against Fascism and the aforementioned Stand Up To Racism are not heavily popular to many; they advocate violence against people they disagree with hence making them look like violent thugs, no matter how obscene the opposition is.

Meanwhile to my knowledge, patriots don’t follow angry lefties who try to violently attack them; they let them go or let the surrounding police officers deal with them. From experience, I have noticed that patriots at rallies, no matter how angry they are, don’t fight against or follow lefties trying to cause a scene. At the Day For Freedom, me among many others in the MBGA team were left in a pub after the main event when we noticed some angry left-wing thugs outside with brass knuckles. Instead of fighting them, we let the police come and arrest them. At a recent Gays Against Sharia march I attended at Stockon-on-Tees, lefties from Stand Up To Racism who tried to storm the crowd to presumably attack the speakers were dealt with by police. Those attending the meeting, despite also being very angry about Sharia like the protestors in the programme, didn’t follow them back. To portray us on the populist right as angry Neo-Nazi skinheads deliberately wanting to attack people from ethnic minorities is not only wrong, but embarrassingly laughable, and also arguably snobby as well to working class patriots unhappy with the elite not wanting to tackle radical Islam and being sneered down by them for doing so. Also note the intentional sad music and contrasts between a baby in the group and the grown men, indicating the loss of innocence the toddler shall suffer by going down this road. Unbelievable. Talk about propaganda.

Then we get the final confrontation between Nasreen and Samantha over the latter’s political views. After a lazy ad hominem attack of ‘racist’ doesn’t fly (given as Samantha points out, she has slept with an Asian woman), the writers try to make Samantha seem dumb by her not knowing the difference between Indian and Pakistani culture when calling Nasreen’s house the former despite her heritage being the latter. Samantha then points out some legitimate grievances; her mother getting called a ‘slapper’ when passing the local mosque because of her skirt being too short or her grandfather getting spat at in a mostly non-white area, all the while pointing out that its only the extremists her group want kicked out, not all Muslims. Such problems are real, and clearly not right, and it speaks worryingly to the mindset of the writers that these problems and pointing them out (especially the extremists being kicked out) is racist and non-legitimate. Nasreen’s response is to claim that there are some who treat her bad for being ‘brown’ which is also wrong. Not to mention how the other way round Samantha was talking about her grandfather being spat upon was by people invited into the country, hence that attitude is also unacceptable and while may also underlie existing tensions too, is weird one would hold animosity like that when being welcomed into another country full of people one has the animosity towards, while the white people behaving badly also doesn’t help matters either. Either way it is unacceptable, but weird how pointing it out one way is seen as racist.

A cringey discussion of halal comes up, when Samantha states that she doesn’t want everything to become halal as it ‘funds terrorism’. Nasreen denies this, claiming it isn’t true (which it is) and Samantha discusses how her ‘grandfather’ told her that; implying that she is a misguided person wrongly being brainwashed by extremists and doesn’t understand the truth about certain issues. This is once again a disgusting smear against the British populist right who mostly do know their facts about Islamic extremism and hence use such fears to peacefully protest. There is a reason most of the populist right in Britain don’t subscribe to the views of say Timothy Scott, given that he clearly knows nothing about it, as opposed to someone like Anne Marie Waters, Douglas Murray, or Katie Hopkins who does. This is a lazy smear tactic by the left; in that their opponents are only being lied to by someone else and could be shown down the right path. What a disgusting smear.

The conversation ends with Samantha saying that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with wanting to ‘keep Britain British’, of which is treated with shock with Nasreen who argues that ‘you can be more than one thing’ when referring to her Pakistani heritage (of which no-one was arguing against). Once again, the populist right are portrayed as Neanderthal-esque bigots of who hate people of other races and cultures and should embrace multiculturalism. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve our culture, especially when it has been arguably the liberal elite who has been happily watering it down for the last fifty years or so, as someone like journalist Peter Hitchens points out. That doesn’t mean one can’t respect other cultures, but why should that mean accepting diluting our parent culture to do that? Legendary comedian John Cleese pointed this out when discussing London’s changing demographics.

After sweeping Sharia’s proven homophobia under the rug too, Nasreen talks about how anti-Islam marches leave her scared for weeks, usually being called a ‘terrorist’ or told to ‘go back to her country’ because of people like Samantha. Again, this is indefensible behaviour, but Enoch Powell pointed out, such behaviour underlines already existing racial tensions, and can’t be blamed simply on one expressing a politically incorrect view. Not to mention how the populist right themselves don’t subscribe to such views, and can’t have the guilt by association fallacy attached to us over that while we would condemn this sort of behaviour in full. No-one is saying all Muslims are terrorists, and we on the populist right don’t encourage that worldview, so what gives Channel 4 the right to smear us this way when discussing how all those who are anti-Sharia in their eyes anti-Muslim bigots? The hypocrisy of the left is stunning to witness.

They for the rest of the episode try reconcile such differences (despite Samantha showing continued commitment to Nasreen by refusing to share her identity about their relationship coming to light, so that people won’t ‘harass her’ too), but to no avail, all the while Samantha gets called a racist for attending the march along with a friend, including by a teacher. Lovely. And the episode further cements how Samantha is out of touch and a loner because she admits that she came from a mostly white area during her early school years and she hasn’t got many friends, thus continuing the false portrayal of patriots as lonely outsiders with nothing to do that the left loves to spin. Thus ends the episode sans the aforementioned family drama over drug addiction.

So that is the end of the episode; ugly, disgusting propaganda of which demonises patriotic right-wingers for wanting to fight against Sharia on the grounds that supposedly hate all Muslims, are aggressive towards minority groups and are uneducated bigots. Forgive me if you’ve heard all this before, and it isn’t funny anymore, especially being pushed on a popular TV show with frequent consistent over a million views in terms of viewing figures, especially when the left at large and those uninitiated with politics may just swallow such views at face value.

But to portray innocent patriots as bigoted is wrong given we have no problem with racial minority groups, with even some people from those groups (most notably YouTubers like Red Pill Phil and Jonaya, of who has attended several marches on our side). To portray them as aggressors is also wrong, given that we peacefully march against acts of terrorism and grooming gangs, all the while idiotic lefties happily do all the dirty work when it comes to the violence at these rallies, of which they stoke. To portray them as sad loners of who are being led down the wrong road by extremists is also wrong, given that we do know our stuff about these issues, as opposed to many of our leftie opponents who don’t and from this shall smear well meaning patriots as Neo-Nazis, as if we are one in the same. It is about as laughably misguided as a typical non informed music journalists listing hard rock bands like Queen, Kiss and Rush into a documentary about heavy metal; it is utterly painful to watch.

This is especially true given that the far-left and the alt-left are never given equal coverage in these shows, despite them behaving far worse.

To make matters worse, unlike something like the abysmal The Battle For Britain’s Heroes of which was mostly irredeemable as both a documentary and as propaganda, Ackley Bridge is not too bad on its own. It’s well made, has great acting, and as talked about before, does handle tricky issues like drug addiction in a smart and hard hitting way. And even stuff like the chemistry between Nasreen and Samantha is well done and feels real. Hence why such a lazy swipe against genuine patriots who care for all British citizens is so infuriating in a show that clearly means very well.

All it shows is that even half decent shows can fall flat on their faces when dealing with political subject matter it knows nothing about. The sooner shows like this stop doing that the better. It shall make these shows more watchable and make us appreciate the other qualities of the show beyond their idiotic propaganda motives, something our overall culture could learn as a result.

WEATHER WARNING: Great Britain prepares for Hurricane Helene

in World News by

The storm formerly known as Hurricane Helene is set to hit the UK early next week, with the worst damage from these storms coming down on Monday and Tuesday, of which shall probably die out by Wednesday, according to the Met Office.

However, they have warned that such a storm is a ‘danger to life’ mainly through how the high winds shall lead to strong winds, leading to the Met Office issuing a yellow alert over the storm. It is a part of several tropical storms, including Hurricane Florence, of which has already led to evacuations in area like Virginia and the two Carolina states in the United States of America, according to the Daily Express.

From this, various bridges, airports and ferry services are expected to be shut in the worst affected areas (of which includes Ireland) too.

According to Surrey Live, the hurricane is a Category 2 type, of which is expected to reach Category 3 before dying down on Wednesday.

On the storm and the damage it may bring, Met Office meteorologist Emma Smith elaborated:

Helene is moving up from the Atlantic towards us. Hurricane Joyce is also in the Atlantic so we need to see how those two systems are going to move around each other because that could have an impact. It looks like Helene will move towards Ireland on Tuesday morning. It’s possible that the west coast of Wales and Cornwall could get some winds as well, but we will get a clearer picture of what to expect very soon.

Smith, 2018

So you are warned about such weather over the next week.

A NEW PARTY? Vince Cable hints at the creation of a new centrist party

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

In a recent interview, current Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable has hinted at the idea of his party potentially changing its name to attract centrist Conservative and Labour MPs who are alienated by the seemingly pro-Brexit stance of the former and the hard left stance of the latter.

While against the idea himself, Cable stated that he was in talks with eighteen MPs (six of which are Conservatives and the other twelve Labour) to develop such a party, all the while stating that in case the ‘tectonic plates move’, the Liberal Democrats have ‘good relationships’ with the other MPs.

He cited French President and banker Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party En Marche as an inspiration, albeit it shall not share the same title, with Cable acknowledging that 95% of the British public ‘do not speak French’. En Marche won the most seats in the 2017 French legislative elections, all the while Macron won the French Presidency in the presidential election in the same year, in an intense campaign against National Front leader Marine Le Pen.

This comes after Cable planned to also change the party’s rules to allow a non-MP to lead the party (as he himself isn’t planning to lead the party come the 2022 election in Britain) and allow non-members to vote on motions at the party’s conference next week.

He also suggested that the new name would be something like the New Liberal Democrats, highlighting that the party still retained its values of being liberal and socially democratic too.

This isn’t new for the party. Indeed, the party’s modern form as the Liberal Democrats was originally a merger between the long established Liberal Party and the then recently former Social Democratic Party, of which was a split of the Labour Party after many in the party (mainly the ‘Gang Of Four’ of Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams) felt it went too far to the left under their then leader Michael Foot. At the 1983 election, the Liberals and the Social Democratic Party formed an electoral alliance (of which some argue caused the left wing’s vote to become split, leading then Conservative Party Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to win a landslide victory), of which then begot the Liberal Democrats in 1988.

The move also has some precedent, with various polls indicating the public want a new centrist party.

What the party’s stance on Brexit is at the moment is unclear, and of grave concern indeed.

Britain shall ‘NOT PAY’ the Brexit Bill: Raab puts his FOOT DOWN

in Brexit/Patriotism by

In a recent interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has warned the European Union that Britain shall not pay the current EU divorce bill (of which is up to £39 billion at this point), unless the political bloc fulfils ‘its side of the bargain’, by offering a trade deal with us.

The former pro-Leave MP, of who replaced David Davis in the role of Brexit Secretary after he resigned over his disappointment with the Chequers deal, stated that there wasn’t a possible way to pay off the Brexit Bill if the European Union doesn’t uphold its end of the offer by giving Britain a ‘future framework’ after we leave the bloc in March of next year.

Such a statement comes among a furtherly divided government over the situation surrounding Brexit (with an alleged conspiracy of 50 MPs planning to remove Prime Minister Theresa May over their displeasure of her handling of Brexit), not to mention Michael Barnier stating how a settlement between Britain and the European Union could be reached as early as November 2018.

Either way, Raab putting his foot down against the bureaucratic EU is a nice change from the seeming capitulation that the British government has so far undertaken towards them, culminating in the Chequers deal, of which as Leave.EU points out, is not truly leaving the European Union at all, as we are still subject to their rules and regulations over trade among other aspects, including maintaining open borders with the bloc.

Whether this is just simple grandstanding for now is yet to be seen. All I can say is that it is at least nice to have a government representative playing a different tune to the endless brownnosing the government has so far done over Brexit.

Let’s hope they can continue this line of rhetoric so we can leave the bloc on a strong footing. Only time shall tell however.

Sajid Javid REJECTS Abortion Buffer Zones

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

In a recent move, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has rejected calls to introduce buffer zones outside of abortion clinics, of which would’ve prevented pro-life protestors from gathering outside of them.

The reason is that for Javid, the protests were usually ‘passive’ in nature, infrequent overall and while acknowledging some wrongdoing on the behalf of some of these protests (including handing out model foetuses at these protests), admitted that legislation already covers for any bad behaviour at such protests, most notably the Public Order Act 1986, of which Javid cited in his argument.

For now, the issue for him is ‘under review’. The review began under his predecessor Amber Rudd, following controversies surrounding alleged disturbances at such protests.

Reactions to said changes have been very mixed.

On the one hand, Clare Murphy, director of external affairs at British Pregnancy Advisory Service, was impressed that the government recognised that such protests could ‘have a profoundly negative impact on women seeking healthcare’ and suggested that further co-operation with the government was the only way to resolve the issue.

On the other hand, Richard Bentley, managing director at the Marie Stopes UK charity, felt that such a conclusion didn’t go far enough to resolve the issue, all the while Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott stated that ‘this is a disgusting failure to uphold women’s rights over their own bodies’, and that ‘Javid must urgently reconsider’ and that he had given ‘the green light for women to be harassed and abused for exercising their right to choose’.

DISGUSTING: Fundraiser CONVICTED for stealing Lee Rigby’s charity money

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

In a recent turn of events, a fundraiser who was collecting money via a charity single as donations to the late soldier Lee Rigby’s family has been convicted for fraud.

Gary Gardener was convicted for two counts of fraud at Leicester Crown Court over the charges, of which involved a charity single to commemorate the life of Rigby, a single of which he knew would be a ‘flop’ to push forward ’emerging music artists’.

This money came around at charity events of which the Rigby family attended. He also claimed to Rigby’s son Jack that other fundraising events that he was conducting would set up Jack ‘for life’, and eventually raised £24,000, of which Rigby’s family never saw, despite endlessly trying to get in contact with Gardener over the money. Instead, he used the money to become the top producer of said single, pay off his overdrafts and according to the Coventry Telegraph, blow it on more expenses. Rigby’s widow Sarah claimed that she ‘never received a penny’ from the single’s profits.

The lorry driver initially denied wrongdoing, despite having blown £1000 on a recording studio for the single, and £3000 for a launch event of which included big name acts, like the pop band Boney M.

He was cleared of a third charge of fraud whereby he failed to keep a record of the amount he raised at fundraisers.

The fact that anybody can be defrauded, let alone the family of a murdered war hero is disgraceful.

It also shows how low some are prepared to sink to make a quick profit.


in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit/Patriotism by

In a recent turn of events, prolific anti Islam activist Tommy Robinson has been rejected from the UK Independence Party after an initial proposition advocating the idea of him joining the party has been turned down by the party’s chairman Tony McIntyre.

In his statement (cited in Kipper Central), he discussed how that conference motions must be put forward by a UKIP branch, and the motion was therefore blocked as it only was put forward by two party members (their Family And Children Spokesman Alan Craig and prominent member of the party’s youth wing Young Independence Reece Coombes).

This is his statement:

I have made it a point during my tenure as Chairman of the Party to adhere strictly to the Party Rules, as they are the backbone of the Party. I believe strongly in freedom of speech and would suggest that this motion is presented to the next Autumn Party Conference via the correct channels. I take full responsibility for this error in judgement as it is mine and mine alone.

Blackman, 2018

Some who support the motion argue that since it was an emergency motion (of which according to the party’s rulebook, can be put forward without the backing of a branch due to a ‘major political change’ within UKIP), it should have been put forward regardless. This includes Coombes.

Now letting Robinson into UKIP has been met with mixed reaction.

On the one hand, he has major support from the party, mainly through prominent members conducting interviews with him and the likes of leader Gerard Batten and peer Lord Pearson defending him during his recent run in jail over his charging with contempt of court.

That being said, persons such as Ben Walker of the UKIP NEC have commented on Robinson’s varied past. Some object to him being a member of three groups proscribed from the party, including the British Freedom Party, the British National Party (of which he left as they wouldn’t accept his black friends to one of their meetings) and the English Defence League, of which he led from 2009 until 2013.

Whether this shall mean Robinson is permanently banned from UKIP is yet to be seen.

What is wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

Mass hysteria has struck once again. Following Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision to not seek ‘assurances’ as to whether two members of the Beatles group of Jihadis shall not be executed when they arrived at the United States, utter hell and fury has poured out of the left.

We have had the left endlessly complain about how it was abhorrent that Javid’s acceptance of the death penalty was horrible, from thinkpieces outlining how Britain’s opposition to such a punishment should be maintained, to MPs like Diane Abbott and David Davis complaining about how ‘abhorrent and shameful’ it is to be potentially allowing the death penalty against such people and how ‘unnecessary’ it was to let the Americans off the hook in this regard respectively, to a mixture of the two, most notably with a LBC discussion between one of their hosts Shelagh Fogarty and Lord Carlile, of which the latter called Javid ‘completely wrong’ on the subject matter. The outrage has been so strong, that it has even led to the mother of one of the terrorists launching a legal case against his decision.

But in many a view (including my own), one question has to be asked: why is it wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

Firstly, it seems like a perfectly sound punishment for people whose mission it is to kill for their cause no matter what, given that they are fighting in their eyes a holy war against the West. Need we forget that the likes of the Jihadi Beatles aren’t exactly saints (obviously), especially given how one of them (Jihadi John), has executed numerous people in cold blood, including prominent American journalist James Foley in Syria. This is perhaps the most notorious of their crimes, all the while they have a rap sheet nearly a mile long, including executing various people (including some journalists), hostage taking, torturing dissidents among other heinous acts. In fact, the two specific Beatles going to be extradited (George and Ringo), were known for promoting extreme views before joining ISIS and taking part in many of the disgusting activities ISIS got up to. I could appreciate the argument against them receiving the death penalty if they were vulnerable guys and open to rehabilitation, but given that they are jihadists of who shall happily kill and butcher in the name of spreading their evil ideology, they are clearly beyond reform. They believe they are soldiers in a holy war against the West, and from that, only understand the language of violence. Kill or be killed is their attitude, something a typical prison sentence isn’t going to satisfy. Now while I understand some would argue that giving them the death penalty is giving them what they want as Islamic martyrs, surely at least getting rid of some of the extremists means that not only is some of the enemy defeated, but it shall also show be appropriate given their reprehensible behaviour.

It also shows that we have the upper hand against these guys, something simply jailing them shall not bring. There was a reason for example that during World War 2, Britain refused to release Nazi Prisoners of War for the longest time, and even when the war was over, it took time for the relatively left wing Labour government of Clement Atlee to free them. There was also a reason that during the Falklands War, no mercy was given to Argentinian enemies. If we as a free, democratic country want to show that we shall not tolerate the behaviour of barbarians like ISIS, we should show them that we shall not tolerate their vile behaviour under the guise of showing diplomacy. And especially given that the leaders of our great nation have been foolish enough to allow ISIS terrorists back into the country, give them council housing (amongst a housing crisis I should add), and even constantly pander to the ideology that has caused numerous terrorist attacks on our soil, it is about time that Britain found the spirit of Churchill and put our foot down against an irredeemable enemy who wants to change our way of life.

So one must wonder why the left (and some on the centre-right like Davis) advocate that the jihadists be let go. After all, I don’t recall their reaction to such a punishment being as hostile when the likes of Dylan Roof who (quite rightly) initially received the death penalty for the deaths he caused during the clear case of terrorism during the 2015 Charleston church shootings. Nor would they probably complain if the likes of say Thomas Mair had received a similar punishment. I think there are various reasons for this, and none of them good. Firstly, I think the whole idea that the West is currently collectively treading on eggshells around the issue of Islam applies here. There is no reason we shouldn’t be sending these jihadis to death in the United States, but unfortunately, the whole notion of Islamophobia and offending progressive types comes about here. This partially comes from the idea that progressives (for whatever reason) feel as though the Islamic world and (by that extent) Muslims as a whole are oppressed and that any sort of criticism against them is picking on a minority group. This in turn leads to Islamic terrorists being seen as reactionaries and freedom fighters, of which in the left’s eyes is a reaction against European colonialism and the various foreign wars against Middle Eastern countries since then. As prolific author Raymond Ibrahim points out, progressive types feel that Muslim violence is a direct result of Muslim grievance of both European colonialism and American imperialism (both of which are supposedly encapsulated by the state of Israel), and from this, the violence Islamic extremists carry out while not justifiable, is unsurprising given what we in the West have done to them, of which to them indicates that their proverbial revenge is at least vindicated in that regard. From this, it can be seen that any attack the West launches against jihadists in retaliation is just further abuse of that part of the world, and extolling more suffering against those living throughout it. That is of course absurd, given how people in such areas are the most vulnerable to jihadist attacks, given that the most frequent Islamic attacks occur in the Islamic world, but that’s besides the point. Not to mention how the bigotry of low expectations undoubtedly play a part here too. The idea that because the culture that inspires Islamic terrorism has different standards to that of the far more peaceful Western culture that they fight against, that it is inherently wrong to apply our standards of law against them. As journalist Melanie Phillips points out, the left (as exemplified by her former employees at sh*trag The Guardian) feel that it is racist to judge other cultures by the standards of the West as a whole, apart from Israel of which they regard as part of the West. From this, any attempt to judge Islamic terrorism by our own standards is racist and wrong and we should treat them with not ambivalence, but rather different standards, hence why applying the death penalty to them is us in the West misunderstanding their culture according to the left. Moral relativism in action, and boy does it stink.

Meanwhile, other explanations may be more damning as to those the left share a proverbial bed with. As Tommy Robinson points out, some of the left feel that they can use Islam extremism to achieve a communist state in the end. This mainly comes around from how, like Islamic extremists, the radical left hate the law, the police and the state hence why they are in bed with radical Islam for you, even though they shall eventually turn on them too, on the grounds that they hate religion too. Casein point, the actual jihadists who have been big names within leftie movements. Take for example the various Islamic extremist groups who work with Stand Up To Racism and the Labour Party. For the former, one prominently featured guest at last year’s SUTR conference (of which I’ll be detailing my experiences there in a future article, of which you can get a sense of what went down here) was the director of CAGE Moazzam Begg, who was a former Gitmo prisoner and had called Jihadi John a ‘beautiful young man’, all the while SUTR worked with him and his group. Meanwhile, the Labour Party invited into Parliament a group called MEND (of who the think tank The Henry Jackson Society call ‘extremist’) and whose head supported the killing of British soldiers. To rub salt into the wound, this was during the time of year when most wear a poppy to show respect to fallen soldiers.

So I feel that there is no good reason as to why jihadists shouldn’t be given the death penalty. They are extremists who live by their moral code of kill or be killed, and given that they are waging holy war against us, we have every justification to fight fire with fire, so to speak. But given the left’s sympathies with radical Islam, both in the supposed legitimacy of the grievances of the jihadists and the way they can use their ideology to get into power themselves, it is unsurprising that there has been yet more pho-outrage against allowing jihadists to be put to death, let alone criticise the jihadists at the centre of it all at all.

It shows that the left are guided by deceit, ridiculous emotional arguments and very questionable ethics in place of facts and practicality. The sooner their power wanes, the better.

But on a final note, good on Sajid Javid for actually approving this in the first place. While clearly put into the role of Home Secretary as a diversity hire in response to the whole Windrush Scandal and the laughable accusations of racism it brought against the Conservative Party, he has seemingly proven his worth so far. He has finally proscribed Hezbollah as a political organisation in this country while his predecessors twiddled their thumbs on the issue and helped to block a plan to create a customs partnership with the European Union after Brexit in the House of Commons, feeling it would harm British trade worldwide. He has even said that the grooming gang issue in Britain has to be fought head on, regardless of race.

If he continues down this route, he may prove his salt just yet. Heck, even former Conservative MP Norman Tebbit praised Javid on the grounds that he felt that he was a ‘man of action and principle’ in the current ‘mess’ that was this Parliament. This indicates a positive future for Javid at this point.

I wish him well.

New poll shows that the public still wants to LEAVE the EU

in Brexit/Patriotism by

It turns out that the United Kingdom is still as Eurosceptic than when it voted to leave the European Union on that crucial day of June 23rd 2016.

In a poll conducted by Number Cruncher of which surveyed 1,036 eligible voters, it shows that overall 52% still want to leave the EU, while the amount of people wanting to remain in the EU was at a much diminished 36%.

In said poll, there were five options given. Those five being between a Hard Brexit, a Status Quo of remaining in the European Union, a No Deal Brexit, Don’t Know, a Soft Brexit and Join Euro, the European Union’s main currency.

Of these options, 30% picked a Hard Brexit, 13% want a No Deal Brexit, and 9% want a Soft Brexit, indicating that overall 52% want some form of Brexit.

Meanwhile, 29% picked Status Quo and 7% picked Join Euro, adding up to 36%.

Only 13% picked Don’t Know.

This clearly indicates that a Eurosceptic tide in this country has yet to be quashed, despite a two year long propaganda campaign by the elite to try and convince us of otherwise.

But it is clear that the people want out and are not going to fall for the elite’s lies and tricks anymore. To sum up, all I can say is that on behalf of the British public, I say who do you think you are kidding Mr. Juncker, if you think old England’s done? It is far from over for our great country, and we have to keep fighting for it at much as possible, something this poll indicates we shall do.

OUCH: London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s approval ratings at ALL TIME LOW

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

In a recent poll conducted by polling company YouGov on behalf of the Queen’s Mary University, it found that London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s approval ratings had fallen dramatically over the summer.

At the end of April, his approval ratings as to whether he was doing a good job or not were at 52% overall, and now at the beginning of September, they are at 44%. Meanwhile, over the same amount of time, his disapproval ratings went from 30% to 40%, up 10 points over the matter of a few months. The Don’t Know section didn’t change much, dropping one point from 17% to 16%.

Philip Cowley, Professor of Politics at the university, said this about the poll:

In April 2018, Sadiq Khan was still ahead among those aged 50-64, working class Londoners, those living in outer London and white voters. He’s now behind among all of these groups. When we first started polling, he was one of the most popular politicians in Britain. Such was his cross-party support, he even had net positive support from Conservative voters. Those days are long gone.

Cowley, 2018

This suggests that Khan, despite once having the likable personality to have won over the majority of Londoners including members from his opposition party, has lost a lot of support over the last few months, of which seems he shall never get back.

This could be attributed to the high rise of crime over his tenure, among other things, but this is just speculation.

The poll also found that former UKIP leader Nigel Farage (who has previously teased about standing for London Mayor in the 2020 elections) wasn’t necessarily a popular candidate for the position, with only 22% supporting him for the job, and a further 62% opposing it. 16% stated that they didn’t know.

DISGUSTING: Pakistan’s Prime Minister CAMPAIGNS for blasphemy laws

in Islamism/World News by

In a further crackdown on freedom of speech, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan is now campaigning for blasphemy laws, including attempting to revive a campaign to advocate for global legislation on the matter.

To make matters worse, the Pakistani senate has also advocated to crack down further on blasphemy within its own nation, a practice which has already led many to be killed in Pakistan under the death penalty.

According to Humanists UK, an organisation committed to ending blasphemy laws, this is one of many attempts by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (consisting of 57 countries, including Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq) over the last two decades to push for such legislation.

A statement by Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson read as follows:

Blasphemy laws are a violation of the human right to freedom of expression. They prevent legitimate and necessary criticism of religious beliefs, leaders, and institutions, and in extreme cases legitimise vigilante violence and state persecution of the non-religious and religious minority groups. Humanists UK and others have fought for many years to oppose attempts to impose such restrictions through the UN and will continue to do so. We are seriously concerned that Imran Khan’s administration, just weeks into office, is already trying to use international blasphemy restrictions as a strongman policy to appease the ultra-conservative and religious fundamentalist factions of Pakistan.

He is quite right. In a time when freedom of expression is seriously under threat due to Islamic extremism (leading to such unfortunate incidents as the 1989 fatwa against The Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie and the 2015 attacks at the Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris), pushing for such dangerous laws on the world is pandering to these extremists (of which the article points out is the audience Khan is appealing to in his own country) and letting them win.

This is especially true given that Pakistan is currently in a struggle between more secular ideals and religious fundamentalism, where even reformers like Salman Taseer (the former governor of the Punjab region of Pakistan) was killed by someone in his own security personnel, and this clash is something Georgetown University scholar Haroon Ullah explained very well in a PragerU video about Pakistan.

Khan is not only being seriously reckless by pandering to these extremists, but pushing it on a global scale is completely reprehensible. This is an alarming precept for freedom of speech, and one that we must all be on guard at against at all costs. Losing freedom of speech is utterly perilous, and hence we should defend it at all costs. As George Orwell once said ‘if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’.

It is time people like Khan accepted this. He should have kept playing cricket instead.

CRAZY Labour MP wants to make misogyny a HATE CRIME

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

When you thought idiocy in the Labour Party and among feminists couldn’t get any sillier, it has. During the debate over the completely useless upskirting bill, Stella Creasy (currently the Labour and Co-operative MP for Walthamstow) has added an amendment to the bill that advocates that misogyny be an aggravating factor, thereby making it a part of where the case the judge in a court of law has to consider when sentencing someone over upskirting.

In other words, effectively make misogyny a hate crime in the UK, thereby meaning more freedoms are being drained away in the process. What a great time to be alive eh?

Now before I get away backlash for this, I completely appreciate that upskirting is a disgusting, lewd practice that should be frowned upon, but at the same time whether it needs the force of the law (already stretched to breaking point it seems) is another matter entirely.

Meanwhile, Creasy is using this as a way to further push making misogyny in general a hate crime. This is her statement:

“Upskirting is a classic example of a crime in which misogyny is motivating the offence. We protect women in the workplace from discrimination on grounds of their sex, but not in the courtroom – with upskirting, street harassment, sexually based violence and abuse a part of life for so many it’s time to learn from where misogyny has been treated as a form of hate crime and end this gap.”

This is yet another case of a miserable feminist MP abusing her position to control society and its culture to make women a protected class, while portraying men as all evil sexist pigs. Given how that is ironically sexist towards women (implying women aren’t capable of protecting themselves without the power of a stronger power to do so), it seems weird that any so called feminist pushes for legislation that permeates a stereotype of women being weak on their own.

Then again, she is a Labour MP; the party that helped to cover up various Muslim rape gangs of who targeted both young white and Sikh girls, endorse segregated meetings between the sexes in Muslim majority areas, pushes legislation of which favours transgender men at the expense of female safety and wouldn’t even accept the manifesto of Britain’s main feminist party; the Women’s Equality Party unlike all of the other major parties according to a former council candidate for said party.

The Labour Party has been dead for ages and has been pandering to identity politics since the late 1980s to make up for its shortcomings. However long it takes for that niche to fall off is anyone’s guess. Hopefully this bill shall be defeated in Parliament like it was the last time it was proposed and some freedom (what little we have left) shall be maintained.

On a final note, this also shows why feminism is now unpopular among women nowadays, with only 38% of American women identifying as feminists, and only 7% of British women identifying as so. Pandering to endless middle class feminist causes as opposed to something the majority of women of whatever class can back is very alienating especially when it hurts both women and men in equal measure. Spiked writer Ella Whelan in a recent edition of Question Time heavily criticised such a bill for increasing the size of the state and intervening for needlessly in women’s lives, and despite being criticised for it by screeching social justice warrior Afua Hirsch who lied to her over women being sexually harassed during work (more about her here), she had a point. Feminism is useful for the state to not only look good in front of voters, but the draconian measures they push help to make the state gain more power, something measures pushed by the likes of Creasy aid. Her book on the problems with third wave feminism is titled What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism. All I can say is if that is what women truly want, the sooner it does, the better. It is about time third wave feminism comes to end or radically changes to be about more than authoritarian japes against law abiding citizens who want to get on with their lives. That is one of the many steps we can take to help to make Britain, along with the rest of the West, great again.

Why is the establishment pushing Love Island on us?

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Unless you have been living under a rock over the last few weeks (God bless you if you have been), you shall have noticed the endless publicity and promotion of the reality show Love Island down the throats of the masses for the last few months.

It has gone beyond the usual cabal of general reality shows being promoted and then swiftly disappearing. In this case, even mainstream political broadcasting has gotten in on the action. It has been featured or referenced in numerous news programs, including Newsnight, Question Time and most frequently on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, in which the show seems to be more frequently pushed than on any other program. Even high profile politicians have gotten in on the act; casein point the Conservative Party pushing it by promoting their own type of water bottle as seen on the show, with anti Labour slogans such as ‘don’t let Corbyn mug you off’. They removed such an idea later on. Meanwhile Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn threw in his support for one of the contestants too.

Now why is the show being pushed so much? It is no different from any other rubbish light reality TV nonsense, and seems completely separated from politics, right?

Well, it is more connected than one thinks, and its popularity also speaks very badly of our culture too.

But firstly, I shall discuss the obvious reasons why it is so popular. As a silly reality TV series, it provides light relief from the harshness of everyday life and its drama and confrontations endlessly delight many. And given the harsh climate of the world today, where stories about Islamic extremism and the governments of Europe becoming more authoritarian, such fluffy nonsense provides an easy escapist feeling for the masses to feel calmed. As John Harris and Paul Joseph Watson have pointed out, as the world gets darker, the masses want less challenging material to eat up and vice versa. Hence why for example in the 1990s, where politics in the West was mostly peaceful with the end of the Cold War and general peace in most of the Western world (sans the former Yugoslavia), a culture of angst developed in all forms of media. Whether it be music with grunge, movies with serious political thrillers, TV shows about conspiracy theories like The X Files and Twin Peaks took off and video games of which dealt with heavier subject matter such as violence like Mortal Kombat, government conspiracies with Resident Evil and psychological horror like Silent Hill became widely popular. Now in a darker world, light reality shows like this, along with dumbed down pop music, derivative superhero movies, underwhelming and safe triple A video games, and short comedy skits on YouTube are like easy digestible junk food for the masses. Quick, easy and most importantly not good for you, it is mass produced for the masses’ garbing mouths.

But a more sinister reason is that such shows are more useful as a distraction tool for the masses, hence its endless pushing on political shows. While I’m no fan of political theorist Noam Chomsky, he is occasionally right when it comes to our society and culture at large. More specifically, his discussion of how the media endlessly pushes sports like football when it doesn’t have any meaningful impact on anyone’s life is useful as a tool to divert the masses away from things that matter and which can make them think. In short, he states how he felt that:

It offers people something to pay attention to that’s of no importance and keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about.

Now while I feel he was perhaps too harsh on sports (given that it helps to aid a sense of local pride within a community of which can be important for cohesion in areas like Manchester and Tottenham), with reality TV I could not agree more. Reality TV shows are not important and is so light and fluffy that it provides escapism from reality and allows people to put their energy into something that doesn’t matter to their lives, as opposed to more important factors relating to socio-economic issues that they could do something about. Hence why the likes of these politicians use this show as a way to get people on board with their programs, like say how an advertisement of a water bottle because it is linked to a show they like can then develop an unwavering bond later on to those with such a link to popular culture. Manufacturing consent you could say. After all, given the potential Brexit betrayal and the government’s refusal to do anything about a decaying society at the moment, gaining people on side via shows like this is surely a lot easier than actual good policies alone.

It also is useful to the establishment as it provides them with yet another excuse to not do anything about the continued watering down of British society as a whole. As Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens has pointed out, it shows that our culture is at such a low point that the once extremely taboo (that being unstimulated sex on TV) is now commonplace on national TV. Not to mention how the degradation of our language and society being pushed by a show like this doesn’t help matters too. Given our elite seems to be on the globalist gravy train, anything that undermines British values of restraint and conservative attitudes to sex (something the show pushes to a tee) is something that should be spread around. So it shreds our moral fibre too, thereby making us more accepting of our cultural decline to make way for a more globalist world.

On that note, it allows for some people (albeit not all) of those who watch such shows to become easier to control as a citizenry. Now while I don’t doubt that many of the people watching these shows are perfectly well minded, there are those who watch these shows who could be impressionable of who have no idea about what moral boundaries there are. Shows like this which advocate for hedonism and promiscuous sex (neither being good things obviously) are clearly going to damage the moral fibres of those who feel impressionable and are swayed by whatever is popular and acceptable by dominant cultural shows like this. So if this show advocates that such negative character traits (along with the bickering and sociopathic tendencies of these contestants) are OK, it must be OK to do it in everyday life right? Eroding our moral fibre makes us easier to control as it means we can no longer be as outraged as we once were at societal changes that can negatively affect us, so it is easier to bury under the rug.

So all in all, shows like Love Island are pushed by the establishment based on how their initial quality of being light escapism can be used as a means of distraction, and a way to render our moral and cultural fibres corroded for good.

We need to reject such rubbish as this if our society is to prosper once again. In times where a society unravels, moronic stuff like this often referred to as ‘bread and circuses’ becomes widespread. The original quote comes from a Roman scholar of who used it to demonstrate how Roman politicians used cheap food and entertainment to maintain power because their actual policies couldn’t do so alone anymore.

When we eventually say no to nonsense like this, it shall be for the better is all I’m saying. Because if not, we are just being mad, literally mad all the while watching our glorious nation busily heap up our own funeral pyre without turning our eyes to it.

That is what societal poison Love Island is, hence why our corrupt establishment pushes it as much as they can. It is time we said no to this.

Could Tommy Robinson be joining UKIP?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit/Islamism by

In a recent turn of events, a blog is claiming that political activist Tommy Robinson could be joining the UK Independence Party. The National Executive Committee of the party are going to potentially debate a motion first put forward by their Family and Children Spokesman Alan Craig, of which has to be given the go ahead by the party’s chairman Tony McIntyre and the party’s NEC this Sunday.

The proposition reads as follows:

Conference believes that Tommy Robinson is a global figure who stands in the long English tradition of anti-establishment rebels with a cause from Robin Hood to the Suffragettes; admires his campaigns both for #FreeSpeech and to expose the authorities’ decades-long silence and inaction over the industrial-scale child sexual abuse by rape gangs; and requests the NEC to consider offering him membership of UKIP.

– Craig, 2018

It seems that the possibility of Robinson (otherwise known by his real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) has been eaten up by several UKIP members, including prominent member of their youth wing Young Independence Reece Combes and Nathan Ryding, the chairman of the youth wing, and member of the NEC of who shall support the motion tomorrow, according to Kipper Central.

Craig has put the motion forward on the grounds that he was now a ‘global phenomenon’ who backed important campaigns and now was a ‘kipper at heart’ to be welcomed. At this point, if the greenlight is lit on this proposal, the NEC shall give him the option to join at their annual conference, after consulting their members and discussing the motion again.

Meanwhile, Robinson has thrown his own views out there on the subject matter. In a video titled ‘My message to UKIP’s NEC’, Robinson outlines how thankful he is to UKIP in their backing of him in the ongoing court case against him over his controversial jailing where he allegedly was guilty of contempt of court, a ruling currently undergoing a retrial for later this year.

He also states however that he doesn’t appreciate how UKIP does not ask its members for approval as to whether he should join or not, but rather leaves that to the NEC initially. He feels that the status symbol that he has gained could be beneficial for the party, and that UKIP were missing out on a ‘political revolution’ by not allowing him in.

At this current stage, Robinson is not allowed in UKIP, as he has been a member of two groups of which are on the party’s proscribed groups list; the anti-Islam activist group the English Defence League (of which he led from 2009 to 2013 in a very public resignation) and the far-right British National Party (of which he quit upon finding out his black friends were not allowed to attend the party’s meetings). That being said, the move to let him join has some precedent if it goes ahead; both UKIP leader Gerard Batten and peer Lord Pearson have been interviewed by Robinson in the past, with the former sharing a stage with him at the Day For Freedom rally back in May 2018.

Whether this motion goes ahead is yet to be seen. But if it is, it could mean that while the party shall inevitably get a heavy backlash from angry leftists, some think it could gain UKIP a swell of working class support it desperately needs. Whether it can help the party to recover from its bad fortunes is another matter.

BREAKING: President Trump CUTS foreign aid to Pakistan and Palestine

in World News by

In a show of strength, President Trump and the Pentagon cuts $300 million of foreign aid to Pakistan and $350 million to Palestine.

The reasons for such cuts vary. Firstly, for Pakistan, both Trump and the US government at large have shown worries about the way that Pakistan has dealt with Islamic extremism, not to mention a potential anti-American sentiment in the country. According to Reuters, the specific reason for Trump cutting the aid to Pakistan is because of how allegedly, Islamabad (the capital of Pakistan) has become a safe haven for Islamic militants fleeing Afghanistan, a claim of which the country denies.

The idea of cutting foreign aid to Pakistan has been floated around for a while in the United States. As far back as January of this year, President Trump urged to cut aid, given that he felt that the Pakistani government had given the US nothing but ‘deceit and lies’, and the continuing money they give the country should do so ‘no more’. On top of this, Senator for Kentucky Rand Paul has previously advocated to taking foreign aid money from Pakistan to pay more the emergency relief for the various hurricanes the US experienced last year, all the while has attempted to pass such a bill in the Senate but up to this point no avail.

Meanwhile, such a slash could be reversed if the country changes its behaviour towards such a problem, the US have stated. Given that now they have a new Prime Minister in former cricketeer Imran Khan of who has promised to crack down on both corruption and Islamic extremism in the country (all the while maintaining good relations with the United States), such issues may only be temporary.

For Palestine, the reason is more to do with fiscal issues and the aim of the cash not being met. According to The Times, the aid was being cut because of how fiscally unsustainable it was, all the while failing to solve the situation of the Palestinian refugees over the disputed territory in Gaza. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has condemned the cuts for being apparently ‘shameful’.

So in another show of strength for the US, Trump is putting his foot down yet again over mismanagement by previous administrations under the notion of globalist politics and supposedly looking good on the world stage instead of becoming a major player on it. Once again, Trump is putting America first and is proving once again why he is the best American President of the 21st century and the best one we have seen for a few generations.

If only other world leaders world take note.

Why is the media pushing child drag queens so much?

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

A while ago, I was watching an episode of the chat show Loose Women as background noise while doing my day to day routine.

From this, I couldn’t help but notice that one of the central stories was titled: ‘My 11-Year-Old Son Is a Drag Queen’. During said segment, it mainly focused on a mother (of who looked like she should be at the latest anime convention) embracing her son as a drag queen after noticing that he could ‘lead [a] happy life(s)’. Meanwhile, there is a big reveal as to the child in drag (how lovely), the kid talks about how being a drag queen gives him ‘confidence’ and he even does a twirl for the audience. Bless. The panellists also lap it up too of course.

Now while such a bizarre spectacle would be odd on its own standalone status, it is also part of a significantly worrying trend in our society; the promotion of child drag queens.

Not only have we had Loose Women promote such weird behaviour, we have also had many other examples of the mass media pushing these young children (or should that be exploited) over the last few years. The early morning breakfast show This Morning having not one, but two main features whereby child drag queens were the main subject, with one discussing how awful it was that a 14-year-old kid wasn’t allowed to go on to perform in his school’s talent show after the headmaster (quite rightly) cited legal reasons about how because of the child’s age, it wasn’t legal for him to perform drag in front of other children. Various stories about how young children are opening their own drag clubs, including one story in the Daily Mail about how a 10-year-old child in New York opened up one himself. Elle Magazine presenting such people on their YouTube channel. This is only the tip of the iceberg mind you, given there are other examples of such confusing behaviour being promoted by the media at the large.

There are numerous reasons for this behaviour being promoted, and none of them are particularly positive, mainly in what they say about our culture or society at large.

Now before I continue, I have no problem with general drag acts or queens for that matter. To my knowledge, there is nothing particularly harmful about they’re doing and have a culture all of their own which doesn’t try to impose ideas on to others or anything of that kind. I take the libertarian view on such a matter; if they aren’t interfering with my life or causing any harm to those around me or in general society, I have no problem with it.

I happily draw a more conservative line however when children are involved. Given that they are some of the most vulnerable and impressionable people in general society of who don’t fully understand the world around them, forgive me if I have a problem when their safety is potentially threatened by something which is potentially harmful. Given that out liberal society has already seemed to happily throw them under the bus when it comes to pursuing their progressive agenda, whether that be through ignoring the various Islamic grooming gangs who rape thousands of them in various cities or having many young black children grow up in fatherless homes because of how a large welfare state has given no incentive for such communities to develop strong families (something even Tottenham MP David Lammy pointed out), it is no surprise that they happily let this potentially psychologically damaging behaviour fly.

At best, the implications of the increase in the promotion of this behaviour is simply the left (of who dominate our society at large) making up for lost time in the worst way possible. It seems that ever since former Olympian and participant in the distasteful and also damaging piece of TV turd nugget Keeping Up With The Kardashians Bruce Jenner became a woman back in 2015, there has been a huge attempt to push transgender rights and figures in general life to make up for the fact that the left up until that point hadn’t said much about transgenders or the like and were probably terrified that as the side who supposedly care about the little guy, they had ignored one major minority group for the longest time. Hence why whether it be bringing drag queens into nursery schools to discuss gender fluidity with the students, to the council of Brighton and Hove sending out letters to parents asking which gender their child most felt comfortable with, such attempts to push the transgender agenda into politics (of which in part encompasses the drag queen lifestyle) are clearly the left being over the top and making up for alleged lost time not sticking up for transgenders at large. Hence the acceptance of more peculiar lifestyles such as people who are non-binary or do drag for example. The left are going crazy for seemingly ignoring this minority, and such blinding acceptance of these lifestyles (best encapsulated by the various hosts of media outlets and journalists and such) is an atonement of sorts for doing so.

The other reasons are not so positive. Firstly, it signals that our culture is in steady decline, with more perverse lifestyles of which were once seen as risqué and harmful being increasingly seen as normal and acceptable. As InfowarsPaul Joseph Watson points out, given how our culture has increasingly become more depraved under the postmodern notion that high culture is the same as lowbrow culture (often inspired by the likes of the pseudointellectualism of the Frankfurt School), our culture as a result in turn becomes more debauched. While child drag queens aren’t the most depraved aspect of this societal change, they are part in parcel (London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s favourite chestnut) of such a shift. Child drag queens are seen as more normal in a society increasingly more acceptable to more radical ideas in the vain attempts to be more open and liberal, all the while making the general population more numb to such ideas, and hence even more bad and disgusting ideas aimed at reducing the moral fibre of the West. If it takes clear exploitation of children to push this idea forward than so bl**dy be it in the lefts collective mind.

Not to mention how this is linked in with the societal normalisation of paedophilia as well. After all, dressing in drag is at the very least experimental in a sexual nature; mixing around with gender only being one part all the while experimenting with how one can look convincing as an attractive part of the opposite sex inherently means that a sexual element plays a role here. So it should come as no surprise that the potential sexualisation of children being pushed by the dominant media is linked to the normalisation of paedophilia in our society. Already this is pretty alarming, all the while the main reason for this clearly is how the top echelons of society is full of paedophiles. Whether it be how in towns in Rotherham and Telford some councillors have either given character references for groomers or allegedly had sex with children respectively, the Roman Catholic Church has allowed paedophile priests to get away with their behaviour for decades through cover up, various sex ring bust ups (including Operation Yewtree and Marc Dutroux) have included members of the elite in implication or otherwise, how Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Orgy Island’ had a similar protection by elites among other cases. Hence indicating that such behaviour running rampant makes the top brass’ disgusting behaviour all the more normal, so they won’t be cuffed for their illegal behaviour.

Finally, the other reason the media is pushing this is potentially the most damning of all. In a culture whereby any sort of meaningful basis (national identity, gender, religious values) is either gone or endlessly demonised, we have an increasingly lost generation of who feel they have nothing left. To make matters worse, as opposed to previous generations, there is no outlet for a generation to express their angst. Whereas the likes of cult classic horror films, heavy metal and violent video games helped to keep generations in the past able to express their self-loathing in a positive manner, now they have barely anything to do so. Film has been utterly watered down into nothingness beyond bland blockbusters and rubbish overrated dramas, any heavy metal music (among other alternative genres from the mainstream, including alternative rock for that matter) never get the airtime and more mainstream overproduced nonsense is pushed and video games have been infiltrated by social justice freaks, as the whole #Gamergate controversy proves. With nothing left, experimenting with gender seems to be a last avenue for a generation lost in terms of identity and culture (not to mention #Comicsgate, but that is a story for another time). And given how allegedly brave and daring it seems to be a drag act in this day in age, it isn’t hard to see that this seems to be the only avenue left for many lost children and young adults, with the media’s promotion legitimising it in ways unimaginable ages ago. How the mighty has fallen.

So it seems that the main reason such behaviour is promoted by the media at large is an indictment on our culture. It shows that our culture is perverse, promoting more debauchery than ever before. It shows that the underlying sexual aspects of it adds to a worrying aspect of a normalisation of paedophilia within our society, of which aids the top brass of our society who revel in it. And it shows that our culture is so lacking in substance and offers so little to the next generation that such odd behaviour is seen as an only way out.

It is an utter indictment of what our society has become: groundless, tasteless and overall rotten. Shame on the mass media for promoting this sort of behaviour and a shame on our establishment class for allowing society to fall so far to get this low point in Western culture.

It further indicates a cultural revolution, something akin to a modern day Renaissance, it definitely needed. The sooner that happens the better. The sooner this sort of behaviour is more seen as the off putting and rarely seen as it should be, the healthier our culture will once be again, and all the better for it.

Electoral Commission ‘can’t register’ Henry Bolton’s One Nation

in Brexit/Islamism/Patriotism by

In another blow to the long line of them to the political career of former UKIP leader Henry Bolton – culminating in him getting ousted by his former party for the whole Jo Marney controversy – his new party One Nation has been rejected by the Electoral Commission according to Sky News, mainly on the grounds that its name clashes with that of an Islamic charity based in Leicester and West Yorkshire.

The charity is one of which gives international aid, mainly through education and healthcare, in countries like Syria, Bangladesh and Sudan. According to the Electoral Commission, the reason why the party can’t be commissioned at this time is because it suggested that the electorate ‘could reasonably believe the proposed party to represent, or be to affiliated with, the charity of the same name’.

Mr. Bolton has seen the event through two lens. On the one hand according to Kent Online, he is rather frustrated with the party not being able to stand candidates in future elections, but has conceded that the party can spend more time to develop policies, while the decision is being repealed.

If the party is to be launched, it has been described as one of which will be Eurosceptic, all the while upholding our national identity. Whether this is a huge stopgap for the party is yet to be seen.

It shall also be the third registered party from a former UKIP leadership contender following the 2017 leadership election. The first one to be initiated was the Democrats and Veterans party (firstly called Affinity) by one John Rees-Evans, and the second one being For Britain, launched by Anne Marie Waters.

Whether all these pro Brexit parties shall cause the Brexit vote to be spread too thin is yet too be seen. All it demonstrates is that the public’s grievances over the European Union are at last being somewhat listened to, albeit by smaller parties at this point. Hopefully one of them can eventually gain substantial political office. Let’s wait and see.

Close but no cigar: Looking back at England’s performance at the 2018 World Cup

in Sports/World News by

Well we tried, but in the end it wasn’t good enough. England in the 2018 World Cup were beaten by Croatia in the semi-finals, all the while being beaten by Belgium in the third-place game to come fourth overall.

It was an overall fun ride; watching the England team perform the best that they have done in years was so satisfying even if they were playing against teams that played dirty like Panama and Columbia, both of which we crushed during the competition.

It was a great team with a great lineup: the likes of Harry Kane, Kieran Trippier and Karl Walker performed terrifically, especially with the various goals they scored. It was a brilliant team headed up by one Gareth Southgate, giving many of his former critics (including myself, I’ll admit embarrassingly) a chance to eat their words with how strongly he coached and managed the team overall. His commitment overall was stunning; even going as far to make his players sing the national anthem to encourage a mood of team spirit among other tactics of which clearly showed their effect on the pitch as after game after game England delivered, even if their occasional

In the end, they had the whole country behind them; permeating an atmosphere of support not seen in decades. Through the MSM, public figures and general public support, there was a proud sense of patriotism and backing for a terrific team and their continuing progress in the tournament. I can still remember watching the various celebrities and politicians discuss England’s success, both on shows like the game commentaries through video clips and an edition of Question Time which indicated the positive spirit our society had towards the team. The song Three Lions was being played heavily, many people waved their England flags (including myself in my car it must be said) and the general mood of the country was an optimistic one at that point.

But then the penny dropped. England left the tournament after they lost to Croatia 2-1 in a disappointing semi-final match.

Admittedly, watching the Croatia game was quite painful; the early triumphalism that accompanied Kieran Trippier’s 5 minute free kick was sadly deflated later on in the game when after heavily defending their stance for over an hour, Ivan Perisic on Croatia’s side scored leading to their victory in extra time when Mario Mandzukic scored 109 minutes in. It was utterly painful to watch, and requesting the day off work to watch it was in hindsight not a good plan.

To be fair, it was nothing to be sniffed at. After all, it had been England’s first semi-final in a World Cup since Italy in 1990 where they lost to West Germany, the last time the latter team played before Germany became reunified later in the year. They also came fourth in that tournament too, losing to the hosts Italy in by 2 to 1. This is also the first semi-final the team have played in since the 1996 Euro Championship held in England, where they lost to Germany with ironically the current manager Gareth Southgate having lost the game by missing a penalty, leading to a 6-5 victory to Germany upon a 1-1 deadlock for the game.

So while it may have not been coming home, this significant upgrade in their play especially compared to just a decade ago whereby they didn’t even qualify for the Euros in 2008 is something to be admired indeed. Hopefully this bodes well for future competitions.

Bring on the Euros 2020 I say.

Facebook anti-Trump campaign BACKFIRES INTENSELY

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Patriotism by

As you may be aware, there was a campaign on Facebook to get the 2004 song American Idiot to Number 1 in light of Donald Trump’s first UK visit as American President. Me, among others, felt that the campaign itself was a stupid idea; it was more endlessly silly anti-Trump virtue signalling over his state visit from a country which is supposedly his closest ally and needs as much help from him as it can get post-Brexit, especially with the new trade deal he is willing to give us.

But putting my opinion aside, the end result was pretty hilarious to say the least. Despite the campaign attempting to get the 2004 song to number one, it came at a paltry 25, being beaten out by the various trendy artists of our current year like Jess Glynne and George Ezra.

To make matters even more hilarious, when based on official sales alone (given that the Official Charts Company complies both individual sales, downloads and online streaming – a system which is inherently silly and which I have started a petition against which you can sign here) the song came in at number 2, making it even more funny as to the massive backfire this entailed.

So which song clenched the Number 1 slot, you may ask? That would be the classic football anthem Three Lions by Baddiel, Skinner and The Lightning Seeds. Nice to see that the people chose to place a song which celebrated their nation at number 1 as opposed to virtue signal against a leader of another.  

Reuters SLANDERS the pro-Trump rally as far-right

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Patriotism by

More lies, damned lies and smears from the mainstream media now. As you may know, either through attendance or media coverage of it mainly through our company’s livestream of it, there was a pro-Trump rally held outside the US Embassy in Vauxhall last Saturday.

This was not only to show that there are Brits who do support Trump and his agenda (shock horror) but to also show displeasure at our own current system of affairs by comparison. Trump was praised, the likes of wretched career politicians (namely Theresa May, Sadiq Khan and John Bercow) were lambasted and it was a great day all around. Many made speeches (including myself) and it was a great show of affairs, with at the very least hundreds showing up to show support for the 45th President’s visit to our glorious isles.

That being side despite how peaceful it all was, it wasn’t like we were going to receive positive coverage for the event, given the anti-Trump bias that seems to be affecting British culture, politicians, atmosphere and most of all the press at the minute.

It would have been one thing if they just heavily covered the anti-Trump protest and left ours out completely. But while that was mostly the case, one particular outlet had the gall to call our peaceful protest far right.

In a recent article by Reuters titled ‘English far-right activists applaud Donald Trump in central London’, they denounce the peaceful pro-Trump rally as far right. Why? Because of the innocuous connection this one had with the pro-Tommy Robinson rally. Really, I’m not joking.

They emphasise this connection heavily throughout the article, not only slandering Robinson with the lazy label of him being supposedly far right too (of which has seemed to stick for many years without any facts to back that up whatsoever), but also using a guilt by association fallacy by making all those attending far right for backing him too.

They also lie here as well; they claim that the main point of the rally was Tommy Robinson being jailed. For anyone who actually attended the event, they would know that this wasn’t so. The main point of the rally was to show support for President Trump and nothing else. Nothing in the iconography on the main stage nor any of the speeches discussed that. At best, we occasionally diverted in our speeches to complain about the EU and mass immigration (like Martin Costello’s excellent speech, which you can see here) but nothing about Robinson, of which the article crudely describes him as a ‘jailed activist’. At worst, it was a pro-Trump rally through and through, and linking it to Robinson as if he was the main focal point behind the rally is absurd, especially given that this event had been planned months before his arrest. Heck, it even had to be cancelled once before when Trump threw in the towel on a state visit earlier this year supposedly over the ‘bad deal’ the US embassy was, or what was more likely the anti-Trump feeling some sections of the country had, including our own capital’s mayor Sadiq Khan. I don’t blame him for bailing out when he did to be honest.

I understand one could argue that a lot of the placards being handed out often had #FreeTommy messages written on them and that some of the crowd had similar iconography all the while screaming Tommy’s chant on occasion. While true, that is on those participants, who have the free will to wear such iconography and chant such chants if and when they choose. We as the rally’s organisers were not pushing for such an angle mostly, and the only reason we had #FreeTommy messages on the placards was simply because of convenience; we were heading to the latter rally afterwards (albeit individually because of the limitations that had been placed on us through the Public Order Act by the Metropolitan Police) and it made it easier for us to produce such placards (admittedly I didn’t attend the #FreeTommy protest soon after, but from what I could gather, it was swimming with such placards).

Bottom line is that people coming to the rally were the main ones with the pro-Tommy Robinson agenda in mind as opposed to the organisers. From this, to claim that the overall rally was about Tommy Robinson is laughable at best and vestigial at worst.

And the only far right people that were there was Generation Identity people of who usually hold placards at these protests reading about how ‘Real Men Fight Back!’ in the context of Tommy Robinson’s arrest. That being said, those at MBGA News try to distance ourselves from that group as much as we can, all the while I can distinctly overhearing Luke Nash-Jones (our editor-in-chief here and one of the main organisers for this event) whispering about how bothered he was that the ‘Nazis’ had shown up, referring to the GI people there. I think I also saw Luke along with other organisers and police officers trying to tell the gentleman about to wield the banner to vacate the space, but to no avail. So again, even the actual far right at this rally were turned away from it as much as possible. In short, to claim our event was far right based on some individual nutcases is utterly groundless.

It is a shame that we keep getting slandered this way by the MSM, but that is the way it goes for now until we can get our foot through the door, so to speak. To make matters worse, we can’t do very much here; unlike other press outlets, they aren’t members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, meaning one can’t send complaints to them over this as one would expect to.

All we can do is show passive resistance to these outlets for now, whether it be by boycotting them or just being aware of the narratives they are spinning in general. And they wonder why trust in the mainstream media in Britain is dying? Such propaganda like this is the reason why.

The elite is full of paedophiles. Why do you think they promote it so much?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Ah Facebook. Once a shining light of hope in terms of sharing connections and information, it is now a cesspool of vulgarity, lies and having an addictive quality akin to that of cocaine. These criticisms among other issues are why the crew here at the Make Britain Great Again will be having a protest against such problems with Facebook, Twitter and the BBC, later on this week.

We (including myself) will speak against such problems in an effort to raise awareness and hopefully change it, and even if the protest falls on many a deaf ear, the important nature of it is reason enough to complain.

Now one main criticism that we have is the double standard Facebook imposes when it comes to censorship. This is because while they go out of their way to censor fake news and hate speech, this often resulted in moderate conservatives getting pulled from the platform. This included posts on our Facebook page, most notably ones about criticising paedophiles, something we heavily criticised during one of our livestreams.

One reason I suggested to explain this blanket ban was because of how the elite was crawling with paedophiles, and criticism of such behaviour would be subsequently seen as unacceptable on that platform. This article is a description of such behaviour.

Let’s examine the nitty gritty here; for years there has been an attempt by the MSM and our culture at large to promote or downplay paedophilia for whatever reason. This isn’t some tin foil hat conspiracy either. There have been numerous examples of such behaviour in recent years. Most notably, this came in form of the media outlet Salon giving a platform to Todd Nickerson, who openly admitted to having a thing for children, culminating in a video whereby he declared that he wasn’t a monster, described his sick fantasies about loving children all the while having a dreamy looking clip of a young girl in a ballerina costume in the background. He criticised anyone who (quite rightly) called him out on his behaviour as part of the ‘vile right-wing hate machine’. Because apparently right-wingers worried about young children getting raped by disgusting individuals like Nickerson are cranks who should have people turn their noses up at them, more so than the actual paedophile here. Salon quite rightly then unpublished the articles after much uproar.

Meanwhile, BBC Three (the outlet of our public broadcaster aimed at a teenage audience I might add) released a similar article called ‘Paedophiles need help, not condemnation – I should know’ where an anonymous individual (surprise, surprise) discussed how paedophiles like the author were misunderstood and wouldn’t want to harm children. That’s nice and all, but why is our public broadcaster giving a platform to people like this who openly admit to sexually preferring children and treating disgusting elements in our society like paedophile online relationships (with the author discussing how he found a woman online who was LIKE HIM), given that such people are clearly those who should be looked at by a doctor, not emboldened by a public broadcaster, especially given the harmful message that it sends out, that being paedophilia is OK?

Meanwhile, various Hollywood movies have had similar messages about paedophilia. Most notably 1997’s Lolita actually asked the audience to be sympathetic towards the main character WHO WAS A PAEDOPHILE, not to mention how he abducted the title character to pursue his romantic relationship with her after her mother died. The film was so controversial at the time that it took time to get distribution in both the USA and Australia, all the while the British Board of Film Classification brought in experts and child psychologists to assess whether the film was harmful or not.

In 1999, American Beauty was released and focused a good chunk of the run time on a main character (now laughably played by alleged paedophile Kevin Spacey) who was stalking his teenage daughter’s friend because he had a crush on her, all the while treating his wife like dirt. And while the character doesn’t go through with the deed, the fact that the film didn’t criticise his behaviour is rather telling. Admittedly, it was quite uplifting to see him shot in the back of the head at the end of the film. Ten years later, The Hangover made several inappropriate jokes about a baby engaging in lewd sexual acts like masturbation for example. 2017’s Call Me By Your Name has received heavy criticism from conservative commentators for supposedly endorsing a paedophilic relationship between a 17 year old boy and a 24 year old student. The left didn’t care though. They ate up the film (mainly because it was a ‘powerfully affecting portrait of first love’) and comedian Jimmy Kimmel brought up the film at the recent Oscars ceremony whereby he stated that films like that are made to ‘upset [Vice President of the United States] Mike Pence’. Ah, the left. Laughing and cheering at their own jokes because no-one else can, typical of bad comedians in general.

Speaking of the left, their hero Peter Tatchell co-wrote a book called The Betrayal of Youth back in 1980, which called generally for the legalisation of sex with children, while his chapter (as activist against child rape, Luke Nash-Jones, frequently points out) questioning whether 16 was the right age of consent, and wrote similarly about such behaviour both for the Outrage! Campaign (which itself campaigned for lowering the age of consent) in 1996 and in 1997 for The Guardian whereby he advocated that ‘not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful’. While he has distanced himself from such works later on (advocating that he wouldn’t have co-written the book had he known about the genuine paedophiles involved in it) he still maintains that people shouldn’t be arrested for their behaviour for having sex with minors, even if he stated that he disagrees with the act itself. Whether he is serious or just covering his own back (especially given the flip-flop views on paedophilia) is unclear. Meanwhile MP Harriet Harman (the arch feminist in Westminster) has been linked along with various other MPs to Liberty, which was linked to the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was calling for child sex and lobbied heavily for it.

So, you may be wondering why paedophilia, a reprehensible act made illegal in most decent countries, is being promoted heavily by the dominant culture at large. The reason? Because the elite (who dominate the important facets of society) revel in it. Make no mistake; a good chunk of the top brass in society get up to such behaviour. The most prominent example is how the various Islamist grooming gangs sweeping up and down the country are covered up by the elite who regularly run the councils ignorant of such behaviour until it is staring at them right in the face. Usually, it would be out of pathetic fears of being called a ‘racist’, but sometimes the reasoning is a lot sicker than that. Take for example how in Rotherham, a councillor gave a CHARACTER REFERENCE for one of the accused groomers in a town whereby accusations had been ignored by the authorities for nearly 2 decades until the Jay Report forced their hand, even if such nasty behaviour is still operating in the town. There are also accusations of how police officers got involved with the groomers in their sex with minors, similar to how in Telford, councillors were among the accused when it came to allegations of prominent grooming gangs stretching as far back as over 40 years.

So not only are the authorities scared of being called racist because of their fear of not wanting to be hostile to a foreign culture, feeling that they shouldn’t judge bad behaviour from a different culture but also because some authorities share similar urges and sympathies with the groomers in question.

Meanwhile, Muslim grooming gangs are only scratching the surface when it comes to elites being involved in the sexual conduct of minors. Take for example another religion, that of Catholicism, more specifically how the Catholic Church had numerous priests have sex with minors and covered it up for decades too. The 2015 film Spotlight is the best representation of this abuse and the lives it helped to destroy. To this day, the behaviour still goes on, and the various priests involved haven’t been prosecuted because of their elite status, and the reluctance of the various Popes to act against this reprehensible behaviour.

On top of this, various cases of sex child trafficking ring busts often involve the elite. Take for example the launch of Operation Yewtree, whereby former BBC presenter Jimmy Savile had various accusations about him (entering the hundreds) covered up for years by his friends in the entertainment industry and political friends. The subsequent investigations of Operation Yewtree led to several arrests, including those of glam rocker Gary Glitter (himself already convicted of possessing child porn in the late 1990s) and publicist Max Clifford, who then died in prison to no tears spilt.

Meanwhile, in 2008 financer Jeffrey Epstein was convicted for soliciting prostitution from girls aged as young as 14, mainly through his ‘Orgy Island’ whereby he would go to have sex with young girls, all the while having celebrity friends (like former US President Bill Clinton and actor Kevin Spacey) come along with him. There is also allegedly a similar scandal among British MPs yet to be uncovered, meanwhile former British MP Cyril Smith has similar accusations spanning decades, and alleged attempts to cover up his deeds were heavily criticised by Wigan MP Lisa Nandy. Australia has an allegedly similar problem with its MPs too. Meanwhile Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page abducted and potentially raped a 14-year-old groupie and former Judas Priest drummer Dave Holland was convicted in 2004 for having sex with a minor.

And if anything good came out of the #MeToo movement, it finally brought down titans within the movie industry who had gotten away with their bad behaviour for decades and exposed a legitimate rape culture in the industry, which up until that point had been dismissed as conspiracy. The most notable example of this being how film director Roman Polanski has often been excused for drugging and raping a young girl in the 1970s (leading him to flee the United States) by Hollywood actors at large, who signed a petition to allow him back into the United States. The fact that it took the #MeToo movement to have him removed from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says a lot to the sympathy he has in Hollywood.

The contrast between the reception of director Elia Kazan winning his honorary Oscar (whereby various Hollywood lefties sat down and didn’t applaud him because of his involvement with the House Committee of Un-American Activities to weed out communists in the film industry) and to Polanski winning the Best Director Oscar in 2002 for The Pianist (whereby the audience were in seemingly unanimous in applause and some in standing ovation) speaks very loudly of both their sympathy to Polanski, and the backwards moral relativist politics of Hollywood, whereby disagreeing with someone politically is far worse than raping a child.

So, in conclusion, our elite is full of paedophiles and is using their power to promote that sort of behaviour. The only thing we can do about it at the time being is to demand change, both by boycotting any facet of popular culture that endorses paedophilia all the while voting out corrupt politicians and councillors who get involved in that sort of behaviour, and to expose it later on.

That is the simple solution. A more concrete one is to have tougher sentencing for such crimes when they are exposed. This is most notable in arguably bringing back the death penalty, which has been abolished for over 5 decades in the UK and is needed once again to get rid of these rats. After all, it seems strange that the rise of such people in our media and establishment has exploded with the correlation of abolishing the one guaranteed deterrent against it. And while one may say my suggestion is a tad extreme, I would argue that tough times call for tough measures. We need to establish the rule of law again in the West otherwise such behaviour is only going to carry on and on. The banning of exposing such behaviour by Facebook is one symptom of a very wide problem, which will only get worse as the years go by if nothing is done to tackle it.

Freedom at Threat: Enfield Council Taken Over by Labour Cronies!

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

What could be worse than a moronic Labour led council? A Labour led council of which promotes diversity and pandering to certain voting blocs!

This is applicable to the one in Enfield. According to The Times, this cronyism is applicable to how the Labour led council has seemingly been taken over by both members of the Alevi community (a religious minority group consisting mainly of both Kurds and Turks), not to mention relatives of a convicted felon.

In the article, it details how through a process of deselection the council made sure that many currently serving councillors were replaced by people from this community to pander to a voting bloc, despite that demographic only making up 10% of the borough’s population.

This, combined with how various members of the Kurdish and Turkish community joined the party before the selection process, means that now the council now consists of 40% Kurds, Turks and Turkish Cypriots, being vastly overrepresented in it.

To make matters worse, some of these councillors are related to a former one; one Nesimi Erbil, who represented Labour for the Lower Edmonton ward, who had to stand down because of two suspended prison sentences; the first in 2014 for fraud and the other in 2016 for a public order offence.

His extended family who have seemingly infiltrated the council include a daughter, a niece, a nephew, someone connected through marriage and two related to his cousin, a man who is the chairman of the British Alevi Federation. One of the people related to the cousin (Saray Karakus) is now the Mayor of Enfield, as well as a Labour representative of the Haselbury ward. There are also other unspecified ones consisting of business associates or relatives.

This level of cronyism and diversity hire has also led to new-time councillors taking up positions given to more experienced councillors, such as planning chairman and cabinet member for the environment. It seems that such backhand deals are seeming to trump any sort of meritocracy in Enfield Council these days.

And before anyone defends such cronyism on the grounds of ‘diversity’, it turns out that black councillors are also getting the short end of this behaviour too. Take for example how according to one councillor, all six black councillors were deselected (despite Black British making up 17% of the overall borough, more so than the other demographic groups, overrepresenting their proportion in Enfield Council now) in favour of Turkish candidates.

The situation is apparently so bad, that the Labour NEC have been informed of the problem and are now investigating such behaviour in the council. Previous attempts to question such nepotism by Conservative council leader Joanne Laban were shut down, due to the supposed ‘personal’ nature of the questioning and how they didn’t relate to council matters. Even current Momentum members and centre-right members of the Labour area have shown opposition to this takeover, along with other Turkish members of the council. The main party are also investigating the issue on both sides.

So, in short, we have a council taken over by heavy cronyism and nepotism, whereby any sort of dissent is not tolerated.

You know what makes this worse? This is my council.

Now while thankfully I never voted for Labour at these elections (instead for two Conservative councillors and one UKIP candidate – I was even planning to run for my party For Britain but to no avail) it does seem alarming that such corruption such exist for any party, let alone one of the most prominent in the country.

Hopefully this issue should be sorted, especially with the investigation going on with contributions from the Labour Party themselves. The various MPs of the Enfield Borough have not commented on the incident yet.

Justine Greening isn’t “conservative”; She’s a REMOANER CUCK Giving AWAY Her Nation

in Brexit by

Following on from the disastrous Chequers deal that the Conservative government have coughed up over leaving the EU, many various reactions have sprung up. Leave voters are dreadfully unhappy, Remain voters are still unhappy and it seems to please no-one at all.

Henceforth fresh calls to have another referendum over the decision in the first place, deviously packaged as giving the people a say on the final deal. Ignoring the whole problem of the British people have already voted for both the decision to leave the EU, knowing the type of Brexit they want in the process (a small clue: a really Hard one) and voted for the Conservative Party who ran on a platform on giving us a hard Brexit back in 2017 and won albeit in a minority government (not to mention how the Labour side also implied it too in their manifesto), one prominent Conservative Member of Parliament ringing the bell for this is Justine Greening.

Representing Putney in Parliament and a pro-Remain supporter during the 2016 referendum campaign, Greening has called for a second referendum, firstly by stating that the only way to crack the Brexit deadlock in Parliament is to ‘throw it back to the British people’ and secondly in an article for The Times whereby her main argument for a second referendum is on the grounds that the deal pleases no-one and to gain legitimacy for any sort of Brexit deal at all, we should have another referendum on the deal.

Sounds all well and good, right?

Well, not exactly. Greening is clearly still a Remoaner here, and this pushing for a second referendum is just doublethink for essentially trying to force the UK to go back into the EU. This isn’t just some tinfoil hat nonsense though either, as in the second article, her agenda is laid out in black and white.

In the video, she discusses how because any decision on Brexit will be voted down because of the heavy divisions in the House of Commons over the issue, only the British people should be allowed to determine the course of Brexit. Again, given how British people voted for the Conservative Party to carry out a hard Brexit based on their manifesto (including the majority of Leave voters) it is the fault of the Conservative Party alone for not following on through with their promises and not the people for electing them.

Meanwhile, she seems to fail to acknowledge (as most Remoaners do) that most of the British people who voted for Brexit voted for a Hard Brexit. They already made the decision. You are lying to cover your own pro-Remain, pro-EU agenda and you aren’t that good at hiding it.

Meanwhile the article intends to be more subtle, but it is hilariously even more blunt in how pro-EU it is. The article only somewhat addresses the fears of Brexit voters whether it be over not fully satisfying their will or not getting the change they want.

However, she seems more bothered by former Remain voters, as if they’re the ones who won the damn referendum in the first place. She complains at how disappointed they will be over not being in the EU anymore but still having to follow its rules and how disenfranchised they will be following us supposedly leaving next year (cutely inserting how her constituency of Putney mostly voted Remain – pandering much?). Again, since they didn’t win, their fears are not the number one priority here.

The priorities should be Leave voters who want their will respected and are constantly feeling disenfranchised by the government ignoring their mandate, to the point where even the likes of columnist Melanie Phillips (ironically of the same newspaper) warning that they’ll give up on politics completely. But no, Greening is more bothered by her own selfish desires over the EU which conveniently match many of the politicians in our system and various middle class Remoaners, many of whom are in her own constituency, than Brexit voters. A typical narcissist, and like all narcissists, utterly idiotic too.

This can mainly be seen when she plays her hand at the end of the article; advocating that a second referendum must include an option to ‘stay in’ the EU. In other words, she clearly doesn’t respect the results of the referendum and will clearly do anything she can to diverge the will of the people.

She is pushing a policy of which will undermine a democratic referendum because she didn’t like the result and will not stop until she gets the result she wants. Her erroneous comparison between such a result and those of mayoral elections and stating it is a ‘unique chance to settle the European question for a generation’ are just a smoke screen to cover this fact. The mandate of a Mayor like say Sadiq Khan isn’t being constantly undermined by an elite class who wants to overturn it. The European question has already been settled for a generation and they voted to leave. You lost, get over it.

Thankfully, it seems that the British public doesn’t agree with the stance of people like Ms. Greening. Most Brits are unhappy with this Chequers deal which clearly serves as a pretext for this second referendum and most Brits are happy to crash out of the EU with no deal. Justine Greening clearly doesn’t represent the majority of people, only those in her elite class, as Peter Hitchens pointed out.

In conclusion to Justine Greening, you lost. Get over it. Oh, and at the same time, join the Liberal Democrats. Hell, I’ll even link their joining page just for you, if you so much as be happening to read this. Leave the decision as it is and accept your defeat. You don’t represent the majority. Your attempts to cover your pro-Remain, pro-EU and anti-Brexit agenda is about as laughable as The Young Turks’ creator and host Cenk Uygur trying to claim he no longer denies the Armenian genocide, when the evidence clearly showed otherwise, mainly through the distancing language he used to describe the incident as all deniers do.

Politicians like you are the reason most people don’t trust politicians. You are a true liar and only in it for yourself and only have power because you are a member of a certain party which has enough clout from eons ago to keep people like yourself in office. Respect the will of the people, and if you don’t, kindly resign from politics and get a real job.

It will do you some good to actually understand the pain and strife of the working class you happily stabbed in the back with your behaviour.

It’s not too late to save Brexit! – Boris Johnson makes one final plea

in Brexit by

‘It’s not too late to save Brexit.’ – Boris Johnson makes one final plea for the government to carry out the democratic will of the people!

In recent times, you may have seen how the government have seemingly undermined Brexit at every turn with their new Chequers deal. It practically gives away all of our powers in terms of trade and jurisdiction back to the EU as if we never left it in the first place. Meanwhile, in terms of immigration, it slyly discusses how it will allow our country to ‘control’ immigration (as opposed to reduce it, clearly something Theresa May’s government has a hard time either doing or wanting to do it seems) and even though it alleges that it will keep the European Court of Justice out of UK decisions, the ‘common rulebook’ proposed means that our trading laws will be decided by that body, not us as explained by journalist Charles Moore in a recent episode of Question Time.

In layman’s terms, it is disastrous and proves further how a split Conservative government headed by a former Remainer more bothered by pandering to the EU who treat us like dirt as opposed to other world leaders who want to treat us well (like Donald Trump of who has offered a good trade deal with us) was never going to work here. All it will lead to is more of a showing of Britain being weak on the world stage, and the EU making even more unrealistic demands of us, as they already have over Chequers.

All I am saying is that we would be better off if say Andrea Leadsom had won the 2016 Conservative leadership contest, and it is rather telling when even former Remain campaigner Piers Morgan complained at how disingenuous it was to pivot this as the Brexit deal when it clearly is anything but.

But there is hope. In his resignation speech as Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson gave a passionate speech defending Brexit, of which included the now famous phrase that ‘it’s not too late to save Brexit’. He continued to detail how we should be continuing to fight for the Brexit ‘we fought for’ and clearly one, and feels that we should adopt the more pro-Brexit spirit that May undertook at her Lancaster House speech as opposed to the ‘miserable, permanent limbo’ of her Chequers plan.

I hope he is right. I am no fan of Boris Johnson. Not a particularly good London mayor I feel, even if he is miles better than our current one, as was Ken Livingstone. Nor was he particularly good Foreign Secretary. Nor is he much of a conservative. And he is way too soft on issues like mass immigration I feel.

That being said, he was a sterling ally during the Brexit campaign, and I do admire what is clearly still strong ambition to have us leave the EU, even throwing his own Cabinet job under the bus to do it. I am impressed that he still continues to hold the tide in favour of Brexit even if the Prime Minister doesn’t, and I hope he continues this ambition after summer recess is over.

Because if he and other Brexit supporters in the government don’t, Brexit will turn into a shambles whereby the Remoaners in the Cabinet have the upper hand and do their best to ensure we will have Brexit in only name. This shouldn’t be happening. It will be final nail in the coffin in proving that Britain is a democratic nation, not one whereby the elites call the shots. It will also mark another time in history whereby Lancaster House serves as a prelude for an undemocratic betrayal to occur.

All joking aside, we need to hold pressure against the government to ensure that Brexit is fully delivered. Leaving the EU, the single market and the customs union, of which is what the British people clearly supported. We need our mandate carried out.

The only problem is that we don’t seem to have a voice in the government now. The Conservative Party is led by a former Remain campaigner, pandering more to one side of a deeply divided government and the EU than the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit. The Labour Party is stuffed full of Remoaners, led by someone not knowing whether they’re coming or going over Brexit (despite their former Euroscepticism), especially fearing the wrath of working class voters (not to mention his own pro-Brexit MPs) who voted for Brexit. The Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru among others are against Brexit and seem to want to do anything to undermine that outcome.

And despite how strong both UKIP and For Britain are on the subject, they don’t have anywhere near the kind of clout or support to gain government power or to subsequently put the government’s feet to the fire over Brexit. We are stuck up crap creek without a paddle over this currently, and tribal voting for such parties only makes such problems harder to solve. As in as long as these parties hold power, their attempts to thwart Brexit will still come thick and fast.

These brave MPs on all sides, including Johnson, seem to be our last line of defence over Brexit. Let’s hope they have enough power to allow a true Brexit to go ahead. Because if not, we are just being literally mad, and watching our nation busily engaged heaping up its own funeral pyre over our once proud democracy going up in smoke to please the few. We live in utterly depressing times indeed.

Who knew a former star of The Apprentice would be so woke on politics?

in Brexit/Patriotism by

Well, here’s a surprise. A prominent celebrity actually both acknowledging the political realities of their country while also being balanced and pragmatic?

It seems like a rare trick these days, especially given the collective collapse of the leftist celebrity class over both Brexit in Great Britain and Donald Trump’s Presidential election in the United States, but one particular celebrity has managed to pull it off.

Michelle Dewberry, who won the famous reality show The Apprentice and is quite frequently featured in the British media (most notably on Sky News’ The Pledge), recently made a video about the whole Tommy Robinson fiasco titled ‘Free Tommy Robinson Movement’, of which is many descriptions, but most of all surprising.

Surprising in how carefully thought out it is.

Surprising in how balanced it is.

Surprising in how rational it is.

And surprising in how fair it is.

In the video, Dewberry discusses how she first brought up the subject during an episode of The Pledge (kudos on her for doing so too) and then discusses her general thoughts on the subject matter. While she acknowledges that she felt that Tommy’s behaviour was wrong and deserving of the conviction he received, she was worried by the ‘alarming’ speed in which he was arrested not to mention how she feels that the whole #FreeTommy movement was emblematic of a wider issue: the working class of Great Britain constantly being ignored by the establishment (especially about, as she sees it, their worries about Islamism and those in power ‘going against their will’) and wishing to have their voices heard at any cost.

She then uses the subject as a follow on through to discuss other ways the working class over the last few years have shown their frustrations at being ignored in this manner. Most notably, she brings up the rise of UKIP in 2013-4 and how that made the then Conservative government panic into delivering a referendum on the EU issue. On top of this, she discusses as to how it related to the (quite real) fears of both immigration and how it changed communities through its lack of integration.

Given that the EU was at least partially to blame for this (making up half of all immigration to the UK, according to Migration Watch), the people turning against the EU made rational sense as Dewberry explains.

She also brings up the failure of both the major parties on this issue (describing both her disappointment with the Conservative government’s handling of Brexit, especially since they were seemingly unprepared for a Leave vote, and bringing up former Prime Minister David Cameron’s disgusting ‘fruitcakes’ comment over UKIP voters) and then shows how through similar actions by the political class (mainly London Mayor Sadiq Khan calling the then upcoming pro Tommy Robinson protest as ‘extreme far right’ on Good Morning Britain) still worry her.

This is because while she acknowledges that some far right cranks do show up at these events to cause trouble, most of them are ordinary decent people who have felt disenfranchised for years over such issues and are still being ignored and slandered by the establishment class.

The sort of decent person who voted for UKIP. The sort of decent person who hates the EU for legitimate reasons. The sort of decent person who hates mass immigration despite not having the problem with the individual immigrant, but rather as a collective, some groups refuse to integrate, tearing the social fabric of our society to shreds. The sort of decent person worried about Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs in their towns, and how the authorities have covered up such cases for decades for fear for being called racist. The sort of decent person worried about frequent Islamist terrorist attacks. The sort of decent person willing to stand against these elements, despite the establishment smears.

She then concludes the video on a warning, but with a partially optimistic outlook too. She warns that if such people continue to be delegitimised as shoved to the sidelines as ‘far right’ they will eventually gravitate towards such groups, undermining legitimate moderate conversations we should be having over the subject matter.

Such fears are not unfounded. After all, just less than a decade ago, the British National Party had developed enough clout to win two European Parliament seats in 2009, and threatened to take the seat of Barking in London during the 2010 general election, making it arguably the most hotly contested seat in that election. Given that she rightly acknowledged that there is arguably no one eligible to vote for in the current political system, a rise in support for another extremist party isn’t something that seems impossible to fathom.

So, you are probably thinking why does this matter? All this was is a perfectly good video examining the problems with the political climate in Britain today. What makes it stand out?

It is because for the first time in a while, a prominent figure in British press and culture is speaking out against such problems without being scared of all the smears one will inevitably receive. She is giving a voice to the voiceless. She is understanding the issues worrying the working class in Great Britain today and is using her clout to voice such fears to an audience of potentially millions.

That is what makes this so special. Michelle Dewberry is expressing views and fears of which most won’t dare talk about. Most of the establishment class these days of which she criticised takes the standard lame left wing views on an issue and yet because of their inflated egos somehow think they are being rebellious.

There are numerous examples of this. Blur and Gorillaz frontman Damon Albarn degrading Great Britain as a ‘small, tiny place’ and warned about it becoming isolated after Brexit. The Boomtown Rats frontman and Live Aid organiser Bob Geldof and his cronies literally sticking it to hard working fishermen over their hatred of the EU wrecking their livelihoods ruined by the EU stealing their fishing grounds.

Footballer and sports commentator Gary Lineker constantly slandering Brexit voters all the while patronising his countrymen of who dared showed caution at letting adult men into the country under the guise that they were supposedly children. And of course singer Lilly Allen slandering Brexiteers, hating old people, milking the Grenfell Fire tragedy for the sake of cheap political points all the while claiming the abused victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs would have been abused anyway.

Director Ken Loach castigating the British government for keeping out ‘child refugees’ while not seeming to care for the poor children in this country. Pink Floyd bassist Roger Waters stating in an interview that he thought the UK was ‘better’ than what it was after it voted to leave the European Union.

This even includes historical examples too. Actress Vanessa Redgrave slandering Israel as a bunch of ‘Zionist hoodlums’ in an Oscar acceptance speech who criticised her for her involvement in the documentary The Palestinian which supported Palestinian terrorists. Columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown accusing all white British people as ‘destroying peoples’ discussing the fears that many of them had towards mass immigration, erroneously connecting it with the former British Empire.

I could go on and on, but you get my point.

The underlying point is that I find Michelle Dewberry to have been incredibly brave to have realised this video. Up until this point, the only people discussing such views on a mass scale were other the occasional MP or MEP or some journalists (like Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray and our staff here) who were willing to express uncomfortable truths because they were truths and were needing to be given a voice too.

The opposing side don’t. All of them with their supposedly brave views that match their rich trendy friends are cowards. They think themselves as rebels, akin to the brave French men and women who sacrificed their lives in the French Revolution to free themselves from tyranny, but are more like the aristocrats in that scenario; rich, out of touch, pompous, wallowing in their wealth, corrupt, liars, fools and unprepared for the working class revolt soon to come rudely knocking at their door. Maybe that’s why they dismiss them as racists all the time. Who knows?

But in the end, I want to thank Michelle Dewberry for standing by her beliefs and wanting to stand with the working class and help them. A woman who clearly never forgot her working class roots. A woman who stands by what she believes in despite the endless smears she will inevitably receive. And one so invested in politics, she stood in the 2017 general election as an independent pro-Brexit candidate.

We need more people like her to stand up for the bottom, because none of these others will seem to bother and will continue to smear them to keep their gravy trains quick and clean. This video is a lovely antidote to elitist attitudes and the nicest surprise in terms of a celebrity’s political views since legendary Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson came out in support of Brexit.

And as a side, Michelle if by chance you are reading this, know that us on the populist right will happily welcome you on our side. Whether that means joining a party like For Britain or UKIP, or going your own way, just keep fighting the good fight. Good, honest people like yourself don’t come around nearly enough.

Democracy dies in Turkey: Erdogan is re-elected

in World News by

It seems that Europe has another dictator on the horizon. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been re-elected to serve a second term as President of Turkey, having already served as Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014 when he became President, and has been involved in politics for some time in that country.

The only problem is that Erdogan seems very intent from moving Turkey from a mostly secular and liberal democracy to an Islamic theocracy, not to mention spreading the problem across the continent of Europe and the Middle East.

His government has heavily cracked down on free speech in the country, most notably with protests in 2013 which complained about his authoritarianism as Prime Minister, of which led to their heavy clampdown and the killing of 22 protestors. Not to mention how various journalists in the country (foreign or native) have been imprisoned with impunity.

According to Reporters Sans Frontieres (known in English as Reporters Without Borders), Turkey is ranked 157th out of 180 when it comes to press freedom, ranking bellow other despotic countries such as Zimbabwe (ranked 126th), Alegria (ranked 136th), Myanmar (ranked 137th) and Tajikistan (ranked 149th).

Not to mention how the site also lists how out of all countries in the world, Turkey has the most journalists currently imprisoned, with 30 in total, with some arrests dating as far back as 2016. Such infamous cases include the Altan brothers of Ahmet and Mehmet for sending ‘subliminal messages’ in an interview which supposedly influenced the country’s failed military coup back in 2016 and Zeynep Kuray who was arrested in 2017 over her Facebook posts.

It seems that he has no sympathy towards these journalists; indeed as late as his recent UK state visit (of which drew much controversy and occasional protests) he decried the journalists imprisoned as ‘terrorists’. Meanwhile, foreign figures aren’t safe either; Erdogan threatened to jeopardise the EU migrant deal with Turkey if Germany didn’t arrest comedian Jan Bohmermann over calling the leader a ‘goat-f*cker’.

Other Turkish comedians (like one who compared Erdogan to the Gollum character of The Lord Of The Rings franchise) were jailed too; that specific example led to Peter Jackson (the director of the acclaimed live action trilogy of the books) defending the comedian. This represents the dangerous power Erdogan wields internationally as well as domestically, but more on that later.

The guy also has a Stalin streak within him as well: back in 2016 after a failed military coup against him, Erdogan started to purge various people within higher ranks in society who he deemed traitors. This included having over 50,000 people arrested and 160,000 fired from their jobs as a result, not to mention a heavier crackdown on the press as discussed earlier. There was a backlash from the international community about this, noting how his lack of fair trials during this period were tyrannical. The internet was also purged during this time: most notably Wikipedia was banned in the country because of the supposed ‘offensive content’ carried by the website. The move was criticised by the website’s co-founder Jimmy Wales who noted on Twitter how he would always ‘fight’ for the Turkish people’s ‘right’ to access of information.

Meanwhile, he also fired academics and slandered them for signing a petition, which called for him to stop the military crackdown on ethnically Kurdish areas in the eastern part of the country, most notably places like Sur. Finally, as recently as this year, he also sacked 18,000 officials, including military personnel, police officers and academics, for alleged links to US based cleric Fethullah Gulen. As we can see, opposition is not tolerated in Erdogan’s Turkey.

Meanwhile, like all despots, he has a thing for expanding his power. Back in April 2017, he backed laws which made it virtually illegal for the executive branch of government to be held accountable by the legislative branch via investigation.

To add to this, a recent referendum was held, of which would give Erdogan powers including those of changing the current Parliamentary system into a Presidential one, with the position of Prime Minister being abolished in its entirety, all the while with changes to the amount of seats held in Parliament from 550 to 600, Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors and the increased executive powers the President would have. That referendum, worryingly, went in Erdogan’s favour with a 51% Yes vote to these changes to 49% No vote to them. The referendum’s victory was controversial, given that apparently, prominent No campaigners were censored by the state, while the Yes campaigners had better access to state sponsored materials and campaigning.

Finally, he also has a worrying amount of power across his borders. Firstly, his power to threaten governments like what happened with the German comedian, which led to the comedian’s subsequent poem which mocked Erdogan being deleted from its original website, and him having to be protected by police because of retaliation from supporters of Erdogan.

The British magazine The Spectator subsequently made a competition in protest of the incident whereby they had other writers mock Erdogan, with the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson winning the contest.

Meanwhile, he has various links to Islamist parties across Europe, including the Dutch party DENK, of which refused to criticise the despot’s crackdown within his home country, and also deny the Armenian genocide of which acknowledging in Turkey is a criminal offence.

Meanwhile, the Justice Equality Party in France face similar accusations. Not to mention their meddling in Syria is also heavily worrying. This is most frequently seen with their bombing of Kurdish positions, but came to a head back in 2014, when they notoriously shot down a Russian plane, of which the Russian President called it a ‘stab in the back by accomplices of terrorism’.

While relations between the two have since healed, the lack of care by the likes of Erdogan over international relations seems alarming. Erdogan has also been alleged to have given sarin gas to the rebels in Syria to carry out chemical attacks to blame on the Assad regime. The main reason for this is potentially to serve Erdogan’s goal to restoring the former Ottoman Empire, both given his party’s description of advocating neo-Ottomanism fitting in with Erdogan’s statements about there being no moderate Islam and his support for terrorist groups like ISIS of which could aid that goal. There is a reason why Turkey is a state sponsor of ISIS after all.

Given all this, the threats that the Turkish government is laying against the Austrian government over the latter’s recent closure of mosques and expelling of extremist imams from the country shouldn’t be dismissed too lightly.

So here we are; a supposed secular country being ruled by a tyrant who cares far more about power and spreading his influence across the globe than anything else. Dissidence will not be tolerated in Erdogan’s Turkey; only utter compliance and obedience. He is one of the most dangerous men in the world currently, giving even the likes of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a run for their money. It seems that with his re-election, only a bullet could put a permanent stop to his danger. The fact that his own military tried to overthrow him should scream loudly as to what a threat he poses and how the bullet solution previously mentioned had been seen as a last resort before and could be again.

The cruel irony is that Erdogan started life out as a footballer, specifically for the Kasımpasa team. Usually when an idiotic footballer discusses politics, they whinge about how bigoted and racist the opposition is, and then go back to selling crisps to the general masses. Instead here, an idiotic footballer has gone on to become one of the most dangerous men in the world. Let that sink in. And then weep at the fact that this man has been re-elected and will continue to spread havoc across the globe to complete his evil agenda. We live in seriously dark times indeed.

Why the populist right needs to distance themselves from Generation Identity

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Patriotism by

Admittedly, there are certain times within a movement’s history when one has to draw a line in the sand. This is naturally a good thing of course; indicating where one’s limits lie in terms of what is acceptable among the movement not only helps to define it but also allows for the movement to be seen as moderate to weed out any extremist people who may latch onto it; trying to make themselves seem more moderate when they are anything but. This is what I believe among other people within the populist right, is what we need as a movement to do to the identitarian group Generation Identity.

Why is this? There doesn’t seem to be anything inherently wrong with them; they peacefully protest alongside genuine patriots who care about their country, support our side in many of our causes including reducing mass immigration and freeing Tommy Robinson and are heavily proactive most notably in stopping NGO boats escorting economic migrants to Europe. So, what could be wrong with that? The problem is what their main goals are as opposed to the other campaigns they support. The group seemed about as steeped in racial identity politics as your typical Stand Up To Racism idiot or your average Richard Spencer alt-right supporter for reasons of which I’ll discuss shortly.

Now while there is nothing wrong with criticising mass immigration or Islamic terrorism, and one shouldn’t be called racist for doing either. That being said, we shouldn’t at the same time backing people steeped in identitarianism or actual otherwise we are no better than our social justice warrior counterparts on the left, making it a difficult balance at times. I for one regret and felt immensely guilty for bringing up how I was one of the few white British people at my workplace during my first contribution to the Red Pill Factor livestream, especially given how well my fellow colleagues treat me there, of who I deeply apologise to if they are reading this.

It is because I was reducing them to their racial and national traits when I shouldn’t have. It was unnecessary because it didn’t really fit the conversation beyond the fact we were discussing immigration affecting the British workforce as a whole. People are far more than just their race or nationality; they are their character more than anything else. Judging them solely on their race or nationality is inherently wrong.

Hence why us on the populist right cannot support GI. If we claim to be not racist and such, we shouldn’t be associating ourselves with a group who advocates as a main policy ethnopluralism, as established on their website (of which I read so you don’t have to). This idea, first established by French philosopher Alain de Benoist and coined by Henning Eichberg advocates for countries divided by ethnicity. In other words, a fancier way of advocating racial segregation.

The idea had also found favour among the extreme French movement the Nouvelle Droite (meaning New Right in English) and the alt-right in the United States, so much so that even Richard Spencer gave Benoist a platform at one of his events despite the latter distancing himself from such movements. Both have already received much heavy criticism for their openly racist and extreme views, and it’s not like Generation Identity do much to be more moderate on the issue.

After all, they suggest that such a policy would be good because it supposedly ‘warms tensions’ between cultures. This sounds utterly absurd, given that one of the main problems that both Great Britain and Western society has as a whole is how migrant communities are creating tension among the native population by refusing to integrate.

The balkanisation of the West if you will and forgive if I would not rather our glorious isles resemble the former Yugoslavia in the 90s because of such idiotic policies. Having a system like this in place also seems alarmingly racist and akin to other systems of its kind, like say the Apartheid system employed in South Africa for the longest time or racial segregation in the southern areas of the United States during the Jim Crow era. From this, it would seem bizarre why those on the populist right would want to attach ourselves with such a movement at all based on its profoundly illiberal and racist policies, given we claim to stand against both.

Meanwhile, like many other far-right groups, Generation Identity are steeped in historical iconography. Take for example their symbol, of which represents the Lambda, of which King Leonidas used in the Battle of Thermopylae to fend off Persian forces, despite being vastly outnumbered and eventually losing to the latter forces. If that sounds at all familiar that is because it most recently adapted into the 2006 film 300 starring Gerard Butler, and the application of a military conflict to a fight against bad government policies over immigration seem as bombastically absurd as half of the historically inaccurate fantasy in the Zack Snyder film.

Meanwhile, they also pride themselves on Reconquista, whereby they see their fight against the left and their hegemony as akin to how Visigothic kingdoms recaptured the Iberian Peninsula, of which had been conquered by Muslim armies. This again seems laughably absurd given that they seem to be talking of how bringing actual conflict against the left and general immigrant groups as opposed to just using political action to solve their issues. In both cases, we have a group using historical examples of famous battles to not only justify their actions, but imply a war is on their hands and will use any action necessary to win.

That may sound absurd at first, but consider this. They both attempt to block boats carrying migrants from entering ports in countries like Italy for example (not necessarily wrong but shows that this group are willing to go an arguably unnecessary extra mile for their cause) and ITV’s documentary Undercover: Inside Britain’s Far Right (when it wasn’t trying to demonise For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters as a far right Nazi for criticising Islam) revealed how their members often have combat training all the while boost about having self-defence skills. It seems that as opposed to most of the populist right of who peacefully protest and campaign against ideas we don’t like, GI take it a step further and actively prepare for and carry out exercises of which causes actual disruption and confrontation. This clearly isn’t a group based on the non-aggression principle and it seems that they will resort to violence to achieve their aims.

Their general policies beyond the obvious problems with ethnopluralism also should send alarm bells ringing. They discuss the demographic crisis of which Europe is currently facing and then conflates with the conspiracy theory around The Great Replacement (of which isn’t real, but that is an argument for another time). To solve this, they suggest supposedly ‘reconquer’ cultural vacuums inherent in our societies. And while I am all for reasserting national identity into Great Britain, the idea of supposedly doing it by conquering our lands (whatever that means is hard to say even though it sounds worrying) sounds like aggression and fits right in with the more overtly aggressive stance the group is taking on such serious issues.

Meanwhile, they also advocate rebuilding an ethno-cultural identity without as they say ‘falling into xenophobic reflexes’ which seems impossible given that the inherent policy pushes race above everything else. Also, they stress that they want to determine political discourse through ‘meta-politics’, whereby they outline the determined discourse for ‘direct and concrete’ political decisions later on. This seems slightly authoritarian and again against the more liberal outlook of the populist right movement which accepts people and isn’t planning to determine how political discourse is carried out among our movement, provided the content isn’t extreme.

Finally, discussing general identity, they seem to further establish segregation by suggesting that the only way to maintain our own culture is to reject other cultures mixing with it whatsoever, of which again sounds authoritarian as while there are inherent problems with multiculturalism, completely rejecting and not allowing it at all seems to be extreme in the other direction, and ignore some of the benefits it can bring. The fact that their political outlook is not only authoritarian but makes me sound like your typical social justice warrior can’t be a good thing indicating the inherent problems in the ideology of GI.

Meanwhile, their spokespeople are not ones to inspire confidence in this movement either. Most notably this applies to Martin Sellner of who is arguably the face of GI, all the while being the head of the Austrian affiliation. Now while I will protect Sellner’s right to free speech and heavily criticise his banning in the UK earlier this year (of which I defended his right to speak his ideas in a speech I made at The Liberalists UK’s Count Dankula march) I can still heavily criticise his ideas because of the problems they have. Not only does he apouse a lot of GI’s bogus ideas (mainly The Great Replacement at talks like his Traditional Britain Group back in 2017) but also used to be heavily involved with the Nazi scene in Austria too, of which he was a part of until 2011. And while now it seems that he has claimed to have changed his tune, it seems that his views haven’t changed much at all, given the identitarian politics of GI.

Meanwhile, other supporters have been bluntly open about the racism within GI. Melanie Dittmer of Rhineland Idenitarians has said such wonderful thoughts such as ‘if you throw all the colors together, you end up with brown’ and when asked by a German-Arab reporter as to what the difference between her and Dittmer were, the latter proudly (and unironically) replies with ‘the blood!’. And while one may argue I am simply using the guilt by association fallacy, my response would be that the inherent ideas of GI are bad as it is, so it’s not like the movement were already beyond the pale before having cranks like Sellner and Dittmer metaphorically s*it the bed. Meanwhile, the fact that they are faces of this movement also indicates that the group of GI aren’t terribly bothered by having these cranks be the spokespeople for their movement either.

So, their constant clinging on to us, whether it be through marching with us with their flags or banners or standing shoulder to shoulder with us during campaigning is a massive problem. Not to mention how many of the moderate voices on our side have seemingly bought into their message hook line and sinker. For example, Canadian journalist Lauren Southern hangs around with the likes of Sellner quite a bit, and is now joining him in suing the UK over their recent ban there. Meanwhile, the youth branch of UKIP Young Independence initially invited him to speak for a talk, of which was decisively cancelled after much outcry. Both Southern and UKIP are some of our more famous and moderate voices, which makes their hanging around of guys like these worrying, especially with the former having expressed sympathy with the alt-right before. Their association to us only gives fuel to the fire of the left who hate us and will use any tactic to silence us.

After all, they are a racial identitarian group of who espouse illiberal policies all the while bizarrely constantly comparing historical conflicts to nowadays, indicating that they are willing to use violence and intimidation to get what they want. And finally, they seem more bothered by racial separation, of which is not only inherently racist and discriminatory, but also creates more of a problem with racial and national segregation in our society of which is already creating enough tension within our communities as it is.

In short they are no different to far right parties or groups like the British National Party or the National Front in that sense (their pseudointellectualism and slicker presentation meaning that they aren’t fully far right, of which is common among the alt-right), they are no different to the intolerance of left wing identitarian movements and their use of history to push ethno-nationalist propaganda is no better than the likes of Nazi Germany who pushed the greatness of the Aryan race or the Greek party Golden Dawn pushing the Battle of Thermopylae and the image of the Spartans down their voting bloc, especially given GI’s inherent illiberal values being similar across the board.

So, what can we do?

We do need to start distancing ourselves from GI. After all, doing such an act can be good for our movement. UKIP were decisive in kicking out various Nazi types who tried to join. Tommy Robinson struggled for years to remove actual racists from the English Defence League of which kept them out later on. General conservatives in America started to distance themselves from the alt-right once it became clear how extreme they were. And Anne Marie Waters blocked GI’s Jordan Diamond from attending her events when his position became clear. If we stand by our principles distancing ourselves as much as possible from GI will be a good start. Because if we don’t, all we are doing is playing into the left’s hands of who will smear us over these fringe individuals infiltrating our movements. Don’t think this is a small issue either.

Remember all the nonsense they gave us over the video of Ali Dawah being attacked by the Democratic Football Lads Alliance at the Day For Freedom? Or their whinging about Stefan Molyneux’s connection to that event too given his statements about black people in the past? They will jump on any opportunity to sink us. We can’t give it to them. We need to distance ourselves from GI as much as we can. After all, if we endlessly rightly criticise the left for supporting identitarian lunatics like Black Lives Matter and Stand Up To Racism, surely we should be setting an example. That is why the populist right needs to distance ourselves from Generation Identity. If we don’t, we will suffer slowly but surely once their true intentions become clearer and clearer by the day.

Petrol bomb attacks plague Northern Ireland

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Recently, Northern Ireland has been struck with fire bomb attacks, targetting the town of Derry, specifically the Fountain with over 30 being thrown at police alone.

Various politicians and senior officials have condemned the violence. This includes both Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein figures, while Superintendent Gordon McCalmont thanked those who helped to stop the attacks, calling it ‘an attack on our whole community’.

It seems that religious tension is part of the reason why such attacks have been frequent in this area. Democratic Unionist Party leader Arlene Foster called for police to aid people within this area, which is a highly Protestant area.

Whether this means more attacks on this area will become the norm is yet to be seen.

What is does show though is that one of the main problems with Northern Irish society – the religious differences between Protestants and Catholics – has yet to go away, despite all the progress made up to this point.

Football’s coming home! England beat Columbia to reach the 2018 World Cup quarter finals

in World News by

It has finally happened. After some extremely intense playing on the pitch, sometimes against heavily aggressive teams like the match with Panama, England are in the quarter finals of this year’s World Cup.

This makes it the first time the team has managed to get into the quarter finals of said tournament since the 2006 World Cup in Germany, where we lost on penalties to Portugal.

This makes both a breakthrough for the team and shows some real promise on our part. Now we are in the last rounds of the tournament, one can only hope we will finally win the tournament again, like we did in 1966.

The fact that the usual heavyweights like Germany and Spain have been knocked out in underwhelming performances for the teams makes this all the more likely.

This has been one strange World Cup and one great one for us so far. Our win of 4-3 on penalties against Columbia makes a potential victory all the more likely. Maybe this time it is truly coming home.

Ron Paul Embroiled in Controversy Over Deleted Racist Tweet

in World News by

Recently, former US Representative and Presidential nominee Ron Paul has been in heavy controversy recently given how his Twitter account reposted a legitimately racist cartoon which complained about cultural Marxism.

To this, he received a heavy backlash on the site from various Twitter users, even though it was deleted from his account shortly after it was uploaded because of the racist content involved.

As Paul later revealed, the account isn’t run by him, and this reposting was done by the person who runs it, and once it was discovered that this was the case, the tweet was deleted and replaced with one of a normal anti-PC picture.

Now why is this important one wonders? Surely it was a simple mess up by an intern running some famous person’s Twitter account. What is the harm?

Well the far left is the harm. Instead of either acknowledging that the event was a mess up and moving on or laughing at the absurdity of it all, they are using it as a springboard to whinge about Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s-1990s of which were supposedly racist too (even though he claims no responsibility for what was published in those letters mind you), the Republican party being racist and Paul himself being racist too.

In other words, the left lost their minds about a completely innocuous topic because their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so high now that their supposed rational thinking goes out the window once they can use anything to bash their alleged enemies.

So here we have the left in 2018: complaining and overreacting to a simple mistake on a prominent right winger’s Twitter account… because he is right wing. Want to know why they are failing so badly these days? This mass hysteria is exactly it.

Moped gangs PRETEND to be Traffic Police to trick drivers

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

When the problems with moped crime in London couldn’t look like they could get any worse, now they are resorting to impersonating traffic police to trick drivers to pull over and subsequently threaten them for valuable items.

According to the Evening Standard, police are now warning of such behaviour, attributing it to a specific incident in the Chelsea Embankment whereby a cab was caught by said impersonators, who claimed the cab’s passengers had run a red light. Once the group didn’t identify themselves and called the police, the gang drove off.

Meanwhile, such gangs adopt police tactics such as having blue flashing lights and usually resort to threats to gain what they want.

Apparently, such issues are already adding to an intense problem for the police in the explosion of moped crime of which has sprung up from 827 in 2012 to over 23,000 in 2017 alone.

Many people have been the unfortunate victims of this during this epidemic including the author of this article, and the fact that both those living in working class and upper-class areas of London are being affected heavily by this, makes it a huge problem across the board. The recent mugging by British comedian Michael McIntyre and his family further put this point home.

Now while the police have solutions to combat this issue, such as using decoy bikes and remote-control spikes, it seems that the recent explosion of this crime has roots that go further than what has been discussed.

Between the recent claims about the lack of resources to deal with low level crime such as burglaries and the powers that be advising officers to avoid chasing moped gangs because of health and safety, it seems that the police have their hands tied behind their back in terms of any blunt solutions to these issues which is stopping any progress from being made in stopping the issue.

Add to this a mayor more bothered with giving resources to hate crime hubs and diversity hiring strategies for the Metropolitan Police than solving actual crime, and you have a recipe for disaster. The clashing of immigrant communities in certain London boroughs and the high levels of poverty in the capital highlights this further.

This all builds an atmosphere which not only inevitably leads to general crime, but its increase as well, and one theory in particular demonstrates this. The Broken Windows theory was one coined by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling of who discussed how when general anti-social behaviour is allowed to go unpunished, more serious crime becomes acceptable. In essence, if one broken window wasn’t fixed, it would lead to the other windows being broken, as ‘one unrepaired window is a signal that no-one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.’

The fact that police do not investigate low level crime such as burglaries much anymore and that only 7% of overall robberies are being solved is a testament to this. The fact that no-one in the capital seems to be bothered by high levels of poverty either speaks to this also.

Which is why the only solution is to bring back tougher policing. As the author of this article said in a recent MBGA News livestream, bring back police patrols. Bring back stop and search. Bring back tough policing. Have better motor services. Reopen police stations, some shut under Sadiq Khan’s watch.

If this tough policing worked for both New York and Glasgow, the former used the idea of Broken Windows in their policing as well, there is no reason why it shouldn’t work for London.

Meanwhile, socio-economic issues need to be examined. Given the high levels of poverty in the capital, there should be a bigger effort made in giving opportunities for people. For example, given that there are thousands of young people involved in gang activity with police saying the average age of those carrying out moped crime being just 15, maybe there needs to be better opportunities for them so they don’t resort to crime. Reopening closed youth clubs would be a good start, all the while fixing the issues for youth apprenticeships for instance would be a wise move too.

All the while mass immigration needs to be examined. The creation of various migrant ghettos throughout the capital has subsequently created division among racial and tribal lines, often leading to high crime rates throughout these areas.

Reducing the high levels of immigration into the capital is necessary to not only slow down the growth of these divisions, but make it easier to deal with within our own borders as well. It should also allow more demand for housing, already strained partially because of mass immigration, not to mention how all the dirty Russian, Chinese and Gulf money owns a good chunk of the property market, creating a monopoly whereby properties remain empty, all the while becoming increasingly expensive for your regular Londoner.

Like Canada, it has created a situation whereby first-time buyers are increasingly locked out of the property market, hence why this dirty money needs to be at first examined and then removed from the market altogether.

Such suggestions could aid the dire socio-economic conditions of the capital at the minute, which plagues it like a virus.  

These are just suggestions at this point. But given such problems exist in London, someone needs to start addressing them, especially given how the current Mayor seems unable to do so. London deserves better than being a series of poor immigrant ghettos where crime is becoming the norm and no-one in power seems to give a damn about it. London deserves better than this.

Cameron’s aides TOLD Obama to say Brexit means ‘back of the queue’

in Brexit/World News by

You read that correctly. Over two years after the EU referendum was called in favour of leaving the bloc, one of the most infamous moments of the campaign whereby the then US President Barrack Obama threatened British voters that they would be put at the ‘back of the queue’ for trade talks if they dared to vote to leave has been proven to be a deliberate propaganda tool on former Prime Minister David Cameron’s behalf.

Talking to the Today Programme, former Obama aide Ben Rhodes discussed how the situation came to be:

“Yeah well we had come here to try to help the Remain campaign and we had a meeting with Cameron and his team and we were all in violent agreement about the negative consequences of Brexit. And talking about the conference they were going to hold together, we were discussing the arguments for the Brexit campaign.

“And some of the arguments were this idea that the United States could just negotiate a new deal with the UK quickly and we all agreed that’s unlikely to happen. And as Obama was saying that someone on the British side said we’d end up being at the back of the queue and Obama said that is completely right and then he was asked [by David Cameron] it would be good if you could repeat that point in the press conference.”

In other words, all of the smears and jokes the left made about Leave campaigners being suspect of how an American President would use a British term of ‘queue’ instead of the American equivalent of ‘line’ are now at the butt of the joke. Along with the recent confirmation of the £350 million going to the NHS as promised from former spending from the EU and it is not a good time to be a former Remain campaigner, especially those who endlessly complain and whinge for a second referendum like the losers they are.

Maybe that’s why a moronic EastEnders star slagging off the process of leaving is what is dominating the headlines of the pro-EU media so much. Strange.

The sooner current President Donald Trump gets on with his promised quick deal with us, the better it will be for our great country and the more this whole episode will become more laughable.

Famous YouTubers join both UKIP and For Britain. What does this mean?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

Over the last week or so, there has been a collective shift for the main pro-Brexit populist parties in Britain in that various famous YouTubers have signed up to them. On the one hand, the likes of Sargon Of Akkad, Count Dankula, Paul Joseph Watson and Milo Yiannopoulos have joined UKIP. Meanwhile, the likes of Reverend Simon Sideways have joined For Britain.

What does this mean for both parties? On the one hand, it provides good news for both parties. For UKIP, this is probably the best news for the party since they helped to win the EU referendum back in 2016. This increased attention they have received as a result hasn’t gone unnoticed all, with them gaining between 500 to a thousand new members from the increased exposure.

All the while, having various prominent members of the sceptic community of YouTube may give them some more street cred among those watching their videos and the populist voting crowd of who lost faith in UKIP, feeling that they were a single-issue party. Meanwhile, former leader Nigel Farage may be far from thrilled at this news, because he recently lashed out at the current leader Gerard Batten over the latter’s hard stance on Islam .

Meanwhile Sideways may not be as prominent, but it still gives For Britain a major boost. He has a subscription base of 22k people, all the while being heavily featured in videos about huge protests, like the recent Gays Against Sharia protest in Bristol and the pro Brexit rally in London to celebrate the second anniversary of the result. Now the party has more than Morrissey’s endorsement, which can only be a good sign.

But will the support mean anything in the long run? While the increased support it will undoubtedly give both parties might give both a short-term boost, one could argue as to whether it will sustain them.

Neither For Britain or UKIP have taken the position of opposition government. Both had a poor performance in the recent Lewisham East by-election, for example, David Kurten gained only 380 votes (being beat by the likes of the Women’s Equality Party can never be a good sign for any party). It seems unlikely that the voting public are that bothered by the political right at this point.

The fact that only at most a thousand new members have joined UKIP because of this YouTuber exodus (despite having millions of subscribers between them, not to mention the general followings they have besides that) is not proof that the general public en masse is deserting Labour for the purples. Sargon’s infamous use of the word “n**ger” probably won’t help gain votes.

Add to that how Batten will be standing down early next year, and the Members of the European Parliament for the party losing their jobs because of Brexit, and this only seems like a small term gain for the party as opposed to anything substantial.

For For Britain meanwhile, it may mean something more significant. The increased support they are receiving from big names like Sideways and Morrissey may give them more clout in the political mainstream, which may aid them later on. Whether they can use this to boost their future election prospects is yet to be seen.

Their decent performances in the 2018 local elections and their unremarkable performance in the aforementioned by-election in Lewisham East (where they were beaten by UKIP, indicating that they are still the main Brexit party around), it seems that they have a long way to go before hitting huge electoral success yet. Not to mention controversy about one of their former local election candidates having to be ejected from the party because of his links to the proscribed Neo-Nazi group National Action indicates that they still have a problem with such people clinging onto them for political gain, which won’t do the party any favours in the future.

What it overall shows however is the changing world we live in. The pull a party can gain from having famous Internet personalities is something to marvel at, showing huge progress from the days of traditional celebrities announcing their support for a political candidate or party.

The old celebrity class is losing favour with the masses, especially the various entertainment personalities showing signs of mental collapse over the likes of Brexit and Trump, and the appetite for more rational and fresh voices in politics is growing. Whether UKIP or For Britain can use this to their advantage is yet to be seen.

Brexiteers were right on the NHS: The £350 million payment is finally realised!

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

One of the main promises of the Vote Leave campaign (the infamous £350 million for the NHS promised in much of the campaign material) has finally been realised. Despite being brushed off by the likes of Nigel Farage as a ‘mistake’ and it being mocked by Remoaners for two years after the referendum, the promise has finally come to light.

Prime Minister Theresa May has stated that in light of the 70th anniversary of the National Health Service will receive an extra £600 million pounds, partially from a supposed dividend from the money we will no longer have to pay into the EU as part of our former membership of the bloc.

This is great news, especially since it finally vindicates Leave voters and campaigners from being bludgeoned by Remoaners who constantly claim that the slogan was a lie to delegitimise Brexit (because it’s not like the Remain side ever lied at all, oh no).

Taxes are also allegedly meant to go up as well to pay for it, which is clearly spiffle and scaremongering. Previously, half of the money we gave the EU came back to help the NHS. Now, all of it will return to us, meaning we have TWICE as much to spend.

Paul Johnson (the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies) has stated that all of the EU contributions will be used up by 2022, mainly through the EU divorce bill and government commitments to fill gaps in EU spending. However, soon we will be free of that behemoth! Meanwhile Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has admitted that even if Brexit doesn’t give us this economic boost, the extra funding will be provided anyway. 

So, despite all of this, it at least seems that the NHS will get extra funding when we leave the EU.  

When will Nigel Farage let his little baby grow up?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

As you may be aware, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has openly criticised their new leader Gerard Batten for his hard stance on Islam.

In a recent party meeting, Farage discussed how while Batten’s new direction on criticising Islamic extremism was welcome, he felt that his supposed attack on the religion would mean that UKIP would ‘lose’ any support. He also stressed gaining the support of moderate Muslims.

While many would find it surprising that Farage would openly attack the party for such issues (for which I believe it would have the backing of the majority of the British public), the sad truth is that it doesn’t surprise me much at all.

This is because Farage, as great as he was as both UKIP leader and the one to get Brexit rolling, has seemingly been doing everything he can to push the party back. Why do I think this you may ask?

It is because he seems rather terrified of either the party moving on beyond Brexit (why this is, I don’t know; our Editor-in-Chief asks if Nigel is concerned about his image for his media career) and has subsequently demonised anyone who has tried to bring change into the party. This also isn’t helped by how he seems to weed out anyone from the party who doesn’t share exactly his view.

Most of his feuds have been out of line. This fall out with Batten being one example, showing his complete unwillingness to tackle one of the most important issues in our country of which could win votes for the party, and make sure those votes didn’t fall in to the hands of actual far right parties.

His public feud with Clacton MP Douglas Carswell over funding, that some suggest would have been spent on jobs for Nigel’s favourites. Then there is his infamous clash with Neil Hamilton AM over whether his mistress Alex Philips should be parachuted in Wales; awkwardly for Nigel, Welsh UKIP said no. Democracy in action!

Not to mention, his (or more likely the party’s) removal of the likes of anti-globalist Godfrey Bloom and Winston McKenzie from UKIP because of their non-PC attitude caused huge fallout, with the former stating that Farage had ‘lost touch’ with his grassroots supporters in the party and the latter openly (and wrongly) called the party racist over the debacle.

Now I fully appreciate that the likes of Bloom and McKenzie were probably not the shall we say presentable types that UKIP may have wanted to have standing for the more professional party they were becoming in the earlier half of this decade, but they were local party supporters, not to mention electable.

Bloom was a Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber for a decade, and McKenzie did come third in the seat of Croydon North, both in the 2012 by-election in that seat & the 2015 general election. His blunt dismissal of both of them may have been excusable, one may argue, because he was planning to professionalise the party. That would be wonderful had the subsequent candidates been worth their salt, but more on that later.

Despite what one’s feelings are on both Bloom and McKenzie being fired from UKIP are, at least one could argue that they were doing it to make the party look professional, which their gaffes prevented UKIP from doing. However, many UKIP members would feel otherwise. 

As for Anne Marie Waters, she may have been politically incorrect, some would say she needs to be more so, but she was also deadly serious, and anyone who campaigned with her back in last year’s UKIP leadership election (including myself) would know.

She cared about important issues like Islamist extremism, on top of issues like public sector funding and holding the authorities (the police most notably) to account. I believe she was the perfect person to take UKIP forward after its complete tanking in that year’s earlier general and local elections being blamed on its supposed one issue stance.

The way she was treated was shocking to me. It seems weird that Farage was so angry about Waters. While there was some controversy within UKIP regards her choice of campaign team, it was Waters herself that Farage attacked, as he claimed that she was a ‘racist’ after she lost, and even hoped that she would leave the party as soon as she lost. What a charmer!

I find this to be most inconsistent. After all, she had said similar statements about Islam back in 2015 when she was standing as a candidate in Lewisham East for UKIP and no one complained there (she came third). Meanwhile, Farage had no qualms about backing the likes of Marine Le Pen, the Alternative for Germany party and Donald Trump, of who all had similarly critical views on Islam, and ran on those platforms. Hell, Trump managed to win the Presidency, so Farage’s views that such a view is unelectable isn’t true either.

Not to mention how he also backed the Republican Senate candidate for Alabama Roy Moore, whose views on Islam are far more extreme than anything Waters expressed (unless you think calling Islam a ‘false religion’ and arguing that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to stand for public office aren’t extreme views – neither view advocated by Waters it should be said). Meanwhile, Moore’s other views (including those on various tragedies in the US being committed because of the lack of belief of God in the States and homosexuality) are far more extreme than anything Waters could have cooked up. So, one must wonder why Farage had such a problem with Waters at all.

It was most likely because he couldn’t control the party from the outside with his stooge Bolton, or have as large an influence as he used to. Despite stepping down as leader after the 2016 EU referendum declared a Leave victory and denying various chances to re-run, he seems to have a huge sway as to who is in charge and their limitations. He is still leader of the EFDD. From this, most of UKIP’s leaders post-Farage have been singing from the same hymn sheet.

That would be fine had this worked out for the better for the party, but it hasn’t, with even the likes of prominent UKIP member Suzanne Evans saying that Farage had ‘terrible judgment’ over it.

The likes of Carswell and Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP in 2014 may have been seen as great advances for the party at the time (of which Farage was initially positive about for the former and called the latter a ‘great result’) but when Farage seemingly implied that they were career politicians jumping on the UKIP bandwagon, it got rather messy with public feuds between both politicians and Farage, with him even calling the latter returning to the Conservatives ‘very dishonourable’.

Not to mention his backing of former leaders Paul Nuttall and Henry Bolton. The former may have been possibly competent, or maybe a weak yes-man, but was clearly the captain of a sinking ship of who didn’t have the resources or the public support to stop it sinking completely.

And the latter (who Farage claimed was a ‘man of substance’) is now disgraced, through his infidelity to a very racist woman and is now under such grand delusion, is now starting his own party, making him this decade’s Robert Kilroy-Silk. At least Farage called Henry’s behaviour ‘stupidity’ I suppose.

That is why his constant intervention post his leadership is such a problem; it’s stopping the party from growing into a post-Brexit party that can truly challenge consensus politics and do something. I understand that he is passionate about Brexit (what British patriot isn’t), but there are other problems affecting Britain outside of that.

His refusal to move beyond Brexit and weed out anyone who does threatens to sink UKIP into political Britain, leaving a power vacuum where actual far right parties can spring on, which is never a good thing.

There are rumours that Nigel Farage may stand as a Democratic Unionist Party candidate in Northern Ireland in the next general election, a move which has been compared to Enoch Powell’s one whereby he left the Conservatives in 1974 and subsequently stood for the Ulster Unionist Party later that year, winning the seat and holding it for 13 years. And while this comparison is probably one just to further demonise him as evil and racist like Enoch supposedly was (which he wasn’t), it is apt here. And maybe it is for the best.

Until he can let his baby grow up in UKIP, it will ultimately struggle not to be stagnant and will strive against political oblivion. This will only lead to bad times in the future which will give the far right breeding ground. So maybe it is time for Farage to keep his promise about staying out of politics. It’ll do him and his party some good.

Who Are The Fascists? Review of Snowflakes’ SHUTDOWN of Lewisham Hustings

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

If you aren’t aware, there was a large amount of concentration over the Lewisham East seat in London over the last month. This owed to their recent by-election, triggered by the resignation of Heidi Alexander, their former MP, who became Sadiq Khan’s deputy Mayor.

This isn’t about the by-election in general or campaigning but rather a specific event during it. That being the (probably now) infamous hustings that occurred on the 12th of June, whereby various fools from Stand Up To Racism (that wonderful bunch) showed up to protest against the For Britain candidate Anne Marie Waters.

You’ve heard the stories; a bunch of angry cretins were protesting (AKA yelling incoherently, violently blocking and pushing people to stop them from getting in), one cohort managed to get inside and disrupt the event and the hustings was shut down very early because the police had instructed it be so. This is a personal recounting of those events.

So, as I said, I attended the hustings to support Anne Marie Waters and her party For Britain, which were located at a Salvation Army hub in Catford. After arriving at the local train station, I was wondering where it was. I didn’t want to use my mobile phone to find the address, fearing it would be snatched by a moped gang or something like that.

Thankfully it didn’t take me long and one specific indicator helped dramatically. That indicator? Various SUTR campaigners outside the location yelling slogans about showing solidarity with their Muslim neighbours and how racist Anne Marie Waters was, with the latter turning to dust if it had been put under any scrutiny.

Getting in the main entrance was a no-win situation as not only were the protestors blocking it, the door had been locked anyway. I joked with a fellow FB supporter about potentially using a battering ram to get inside. So, as I was standing there feeling rather amused by the surroundings with fellow For Britain supporters, the burning question came; how would one be able to get in exactly?

Thankfully, there was another entrance one could enter, which others were using. The problem was that these campaigners were blocking that entrance too and shoving those daring to get in.

Despite this, I decided I would at least try to get in. I didn’t come all the way I had travelled for nothing, and wanted to enter the event, and wasn’t going to let a bunch of millennial thugs stop me. As I and some others were waiting in a fine but squashed queue, one could see the true nastiness of this group. There were people shoving those trying to get in with no impunity, and the police weren’t doing much to calm the group or stop their behaviour.

There was a demented millennial soyboy yelling at people directly in their faces when entering that they were fascists or something of the like. And there was also a black man criticising another for attending, feeling that he was supporting those who would deplatform him, like what had happened in the past, and the one being criticised wasn’t buying it and acknowledged what had happened before, feeling as though the people he was supporting wasn’t anything like what was being described to him.

To make matters worse, entering was (unsurprisingly) a real pain. A guy in front of me had already been pushed rather violently and I was subsequently pushed in the knock-on effect, which nearly led me to break the fence of someone’s house behind me. Thankfully I mostly kept my balance, which stopped that from occurring.

I then saw that instead of being let in one at a time, the people in front of me were simply playing chicken as to who was going to try to run and shove their way in there next. It became rather laughable when even the Libertarian candidate in front of me (a nice guy it seemed who was rather happy despite the situation he was in) was being called a fascist by this group, who had some large object on him too, which I jokingly thought could be used as a battering ram against these fools.

Then it was reluctantly my turn. I made a quick dash and those people tried their best to shove and push me away. Adrenalin was pumping throughout me like there was no tomorrow. Thankfully this will and a black supporter of For Britain (who I recognised from leafletting) aided me in.

To the people behind, they were yelling about me being fascist and that I should be ashamed of myself and the like. I gave them a middle finger in response and told them to ‘kiss my **s’. I felt smugly proud that I had managed to beat these fascists at their own game.

This however didn’t last. When arriving in the hustings, it was pretty typical. People were conversing, eating (I helped myself to free food too) and getting ready for the event to start.

Then the event started. It was a good start; essentially the host explained that he was formerly of 38 Degrees and now was a part of Bring Back Democracy, the latter group hosting the event. He then explained the rules of event. Again, perfectly typical. He explained why the Labour and Conservative candidates for the area hadn’t decided to show up (according to him the former didn’t even respond to the group at all – which he called ‘arrogance’ on her part – and the latter had ‘other commitments’) and then started the hustings.

All was going well, but something rather bothered me; Waters hadn’t shown yet. At this point, I had assumed she was running late. This had happened at UKIP leadership (the far more peaceful I might add) hustings in London last year, where she showed up a few minutes late. Either that or she was trying to get in with having to shove through the ridiculous lot outside. At one point later on in the hustings, I heard louder shouting from them, which I had assumed had been her showing up and trying to enter, but to no avail.

So, all of the candidates made their individual speeches. It was mostly the sort of politician small talk that one would expect about helping the area, the people and fighting for specific rights, based on the group (like the Womens’ Equality Party fighting for women and UKIP fighting for Brexiteers, as you would expect).

There were a few highlights though. The Monster Raving Loony Party candidate was rather funny and joked about voting for him to attack the politicians where it hurts (the ‘ballot box’) which got a few chuckles from the audience, including me. The UKIP candidate David Kurten had to deal with an annoying heckler, supposedly one from the Lewisham Anti-Racist Group, who whinged and moaned about racism and then tore Waters’ paper identification up, giving us a very bad Sinead O’Connor impression. The inevitable boos and anger she received from the crowd coupled with the applause and cheers she got when a police officer escorted her outside was nice to see.

It was good that despite differing political alignings, no one cared about the mad ravings of a mad loon who should have been in the most nearest retirement home. No wonder Kurten’s response (about how funny he found it when white people lectured him, a black man, about racism) received cheers and laughs from the audience alike. The Libertarian candidate sticking up for Waters by saying how it proved his point about how ‘we can’t exercise our free speech’ (who it turned out couldn’t be there tonight as the police had advised her not to come) earned similar sympathy.

But then the curtain dropped. The organiser of the event then sadly told us that the police had been told by higher ups to pull the event. No specific reason was given (surprise, surprise). The disappointment was immense, especially since we all walked out after only half an hour or so of the hustings. Only the introductions for each candidate who had attended were done at this point.

People were mostly disappointed, but also disgusted and rightly so. How could the police let these lunatics on the outside win? How dare they let that outside dictate who should and shouldn’t show up. And I don’t blame individual officers for this. I blame the higher ups for allowing the event to be called off at all. Maybe their higher ups have agendas of their own. Who knows?

So, after seeing the disappointed faces upon leaving (including some candidates, like the Monster Raving Loony Party one giving a wry grin) and talking with another millennial from the area (who had been sitting next to me and had been discussing how he was planning to vote for either UKIP or For Britain in the upcoming by-election), I decided to head off. Despite overhearing that most had gone to the nearest pub, I had no intention of staying. I was so fed up and disheartened and I wasn’t planning to have a solemn drink over it, especially with people I mostly don’t know, and besides, I wasn’t excited for the inevitable fallout from the SUTR that was eventually going to come our way, so I headed off.

It all should have ended there, but oh no. This mob had one more trick up their sleeves. While on my way back to the nearest train station, I was singing very loudly along to the Killing Joke song Pandemonium which I had recently heard and one of the SUTR mob saw me across the street. If you have seen previous videos about this group, including our own, you know who I’m on about. The tall bald guy who looks like an Eastenders reject and does security for them (presumably because the soyboys in SUTR wouldn’t be able to handle an actual fight on their own individually, despite provoking them so frequently).

Already having spooked me last year when the MBGA News team infiltrated their event and found out I was an infiltrator, I decided to cut my losses and not look at him. All was going well. I was nearing the station and about to go when he yelled ‘oi’ and attempted to take a picture of me, presumably thinking that I was a FB supporter, which I was, but he didn’t know that at the time.

The fact that he assumed this without any impunity (like say I was a Liberal Democrat supporter for example, who were going down the same street as I was) speaks very much of his worldview. I looked away as quickly as possible. They cackled like the evil people they were, and I entered the station. I then went to the other platform and hid, simply because it had looked like they were still following me (and my appropriate train was there too, which didn’t hurt).

Forgive me, but I wasn’t wanting to get into a shouting match or a potential fight against a few Nazi scum (isn’t that what they fight against? Oh well). I then left, but felt extremely paranoid about it afterwards. Overhearing some people on the train back initially made me think that they were a part of them, but then was relieved to find out that they weren’t on their side. I then was in a state of paranoia for the remainder of the night, and it still slightly haunted me for days afterwards.

So that is my story. All I can say is that not only was the behaviour of the supposed anti fascists and anti racists truly something to behold and was rather bitter that the event had been closed down, what really bugged me was that the authorities allowed it to happen. Not only had they let this mob be aggressive and violent towards their political opponents, they handed a victory to them. What does shutting down this event indicate for them? That they’re winning. If stuff like this continues to happen, it will only get worse for the state of free speech in this country to those who lean right and even those who lean left but have one or two anti PC views. It was a shambles.

Shame on the higher ups of the police for shutting the event down.

Shame on the Labour Party for not condemning this sort of behaviour and encouraging it by portraying their opponents as fascists and Nazis and subsequently boycotting events to justify their actions.

Shame on those involved in these idiotic protests who don’t have a thought of their own and are so scared of differing opinions, they resort to violence and intimidation to silence opposition, like the cowards they are.

And shame on those who could have done something but didn’t. They didn’t stop these protestors from getting out of control. They didn’t stop their passive aggressive behaviour. They didn’t allow free speech to take place, one of our sacred rights that we lose at our peril. If their right to protest can be defended (even though to my knowledge anti social behaviour didn’t constitute protest – unless you find shoving people, yelling in their face and being generally aggressive not such behaviour not to mention violating the Public Order Act 1986 which prohibits such behaviour), why can’t we have the right to conduct peaceful assembly?

A total shame that this was allowed to happen. I guess when you listen to fools, the mob rules.

Donald Trump SLAMS Theresa May as ‘too politically correct’

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

In recent times, American President Donald Trump has called British Prime Minister Theresa May ‘too politically correct’ before the G7 Summit in Canada, indicating that her attitude towards him (among other elements) would prevent him from having meaningful talks at that Summit.

He apparently has grown tired of Mrs. May’s ‘school mistress’ tone, not to mention how whenever in discussion with him (mainly via phone calls) he resents her discussing policy as opposed to having a broader agenda, and feeling as though her demands are taking advantage of the special relationship between the US and the UK.

He also seems to resent her criticising him in public whenever she feels that he has stepped out of line, calling her ‘too politically correct’ over her supposedly refuting his claim that there are no no-go zones for the authorities (of which there are).

In response to these criticisms which Trump has allegedly made, Mrs. May had this to say:

‘I just get on and make sure that I’m delivering. That’s the job of any politician.’

This seemingly antagonistic relationship between the two world leaders is a far cry from prior encounters between the two. Theresa May after all was the first world leader to meet Trump following his inauguration, where they infamously held hands and riled much controversy among the left in Britain who hate Trump.

Trump had also previously been willing to do a quick trade deal with Britain post-Brexit. Whether this exchange throws that into jeopardy is now in question.

But Mrs. May wasn’t the only world leader in Trump’s sights involving the G7 Summit. Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, was heavily criticised by Trump for being ‘dishonest and weak’ over the recent trade wars between the two countries. There was also tension between him and the French President Emmanuel Macron, also in contrast to the strong relationship the two had previously had.

Mr. Macron had this to say about Trump prior to the summit:

‘You say the US President doesn’t care at all. Maybe, but nobody is forever.’

His comments seem to indicate that his impact as a world leader doesn’t matter, as one day, he’ll be out of office. He also joked about his country becoming supposedly more isolationist.

Given Trump’s comments and his behaviour at the G7 Summit, whether this will further harm the Special Relationship is yet to be seen. Whether this behaviour will be reflected at his Singapore meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un is also yet to be seen. And finally, whether Mrs. May will take Trump’s criticisms on board and will actually try to work with him is yet to be seen. One can only hope that is the outcome. We shall see.

Channel 4 releases disgusting propaganda that SLANDERS Britain’s heroes

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Just when you thought Cultural Marxism in Britain couldn’t hit a lower point, it has. Channel 4 in their infinite wisdom decided to air more anti-British, pro-globalist, pro politically correct propaganda in the form of The Battle For Britain’s Heroes, presented by one Afua Hirsch, Guardian columnist, The Pledge contributor and utter whinger. Here, we have her yet again calling for statues to be removed, particularly those of Winston Churchill and Nelson’s Column, the latter of which she has been calling for since August last year following the Charlottesville protests in the USA whereby the statue of Confederate soldier Robert E. Lee was also removed.

So yes, in other words Afua is someone whose main focus and USP is moaning about racism. Kind of like Munroe Bergdorf and Weyman Bennett then; as in people who would never get any real job in their lives so sell social justice whinging to make up for it. Amazing. The fact that society seems to cater to these people so much speaks loudly of how far down the progressive rabbit hole we currently are in.

Back to the programme. First, she starts on Nelson. Immediately, she complains about his pro-slavery views (as if such views, though abhorrent, weren’t common at the time, which they were among the ruling class) and that she got more than she ‘bargained for’ when writing such a column advocating for the removal of his statue.

Forgive me for not playing the violins when one writes a provocative article written from the lens of an SJW cretin. It would be like complaining about being shot in a warzone. She complains about this abuse for a good few minutes (I thought this was meant to be a history documentary challenging perceived history) making her the centrepiece here. So, like a typical SJW she paints herself as the victim, being the narcissistic fool she is. She moans about mean tweets and the like, and of course cherrypicks the most obscene.

Following on this, we get back to actually challenging this perception of Nelson being a hero (calling him on the ‘wrong side of history’ for being pro-slavery – really). Firstly, she uses guilt by association law to establish that he was the leader of the Navy in the West Indies where slavery thrived (which doesn’t establish him endorsing slavery), using the same tactic to establish that he admired slave owners and their wealth (which again doesn’t establish him endorsing slavery) and does that again to establish his marriage into a slave owning family (which yet again doesn’t establish him endorsing slavery).

Meanwhile, throughout this part, all context is removed. We have no idea what his relation to the trade was at this point, nor do we know that the people he knew and married were good people or not. There were nicer slave owners, even if the business itself was utterly abhorrent. So, no context is given and instead we are left with this ridiculous display of propaganda to make Nelson into an evil soul because he had links to the slave industry and slave owners. Nothing about endorsing slavery, him owning slaves or him being directly involved in the slave industry at this point.

But it gets better. When it is revealed that he helped to defend slave owners in the West Indies, she complains that he ‘should have known better’ and that when the person defending his actions on the grounds that his views were more of a reflection of the 18th century and not a defect to him, she complains about the lack of ‘basic compassion’ Nelson had towards Africans. Funny how the African kings who often were the ones selling the slaves to the various Empires lacked that compassion.

Finally, the man defending Nelson ends the conversation by saying that he didn’t have time to advocate anti-slavery views as his day job was to defend Britain from the French, which had he failed, would have occupied London. When she then complains about him telling only ‘half the story’ after the conversation is over and him being in ‘denial’, what that translates to is that he doesn’t hate Nelson as much as I do because of slavery. Because throughout that exchange, he didn’t deny links Nelson had to the slave trade, but instead showed that applying modern values to them is ridiculous (which it is) and that his main asset was defeating Napoleon, of who was a far bigger advocate of slavery and butchered his way across central Europe to maintain an Empire.

She then confronts a ‘Twitter troll’ about the abuse (no joke) in a pub, whereby signs about the Navy wanting men are displayed (just to get shots of toxic masculinity in motion I guess). Suffice to say, it doesn’t go well. She first complains about being ‘nervous’ meeting a Twitter troll (again, no joke) and then he thoroughly destroys her by talking about how if we start taking down historical statues, where does it stop? All she does in response is whinge about how personal his Twitter attacks were. It ends with him jokingly advocate that he would rather he be locked up in response to her trying to poison the well against him by making him out to be behaving irrationally. All fine and well then, and what a great laugh it is for the audience. Wait, isn’t this meant to be about tearing down statues and challenging history? Not complaining about mean Twitter trolls?

Moving on, she then changes tact a quarter of the way through. After seemingly having an epiphany about not being fond of destroying statues after seeing the destruction of Nelson’s Pillar in Ireland by the IRA in 1966 where she feels sentimental, she decides the debate must change to include Nelson’s pro-slavery outlook (which she hasn’t proven).

Still feeling that Nelson’s history is being concealed (despite an Admiral literally telling her that the facts are already out there), she decides to make such history visible through a ‘guerrilla projection team’ by putting chains on his column. All that happens is that some sightseers take pictures and yet more historians tell her the obvious: this is bad and will divide people. The only person siding with her is one Kehinde Andrews, who shares her views about destroying history based on supposed racism (another one of the types who base a career on victimhood as explained above) and a former director of the British Museum who complains as well about slavery and how ‘selective’ we are about our history. Hate to see what his tenure at the British Museum was like.

Then another leftie trope props up: because of how multicultural and ‘diverse’ we are, we should alter the views of the statues to reflect this. God help us. The moronic Rhodes Must Fall campaign comes up, whereby she interviews ‘one of the few black students studying at Oxford’ (apparently Oxford University is also racist now) who by his accusations of Cecil Rhodes being a white supremacist (which aren’t true by the way) and stealing South Africa’s resources (as in finding them before the indigenous population could), was advocating for the campaign, and showing that Oxford are setting their standards low these days. God forbid when one of these idiots gets into the high offices of government. He then lies through his teeth with fake quotes and states that South Africa’s history is not taught in schools (which it is, I remember clearly in primary school) and then openly shows how much he hates Britain by saying that Britain’s ideas of being great should be challenged. Funny how he hates the country he lives in and the university he attends, but still hypocritically wallows in both. Funny also how South Africa’s myth of a rainbow nation and Nelson Mandela’s awful past (which included pouring petrol into tyres around black people’s necks to kill them) is not discussed either, especially given how the latter has a statue in London too. But given that Afua has defended both Mandela and his recently deceased wife, why should one be surprised?

After being schooled by yet another professor over her crusade (see this keeps happening here), she then turns her sights to Bristol and on Edward Colston, mainly because she failed on the whole Rhodes Must Fall argument. This mainly includes her meeting a street artist (the cream of the crop when it comes to intellectual debate I’m sure) who has been ‘correcting’ history by reminding people that Colston was a slave trader. Here, she condones illegal street vandalism (of a statue no less) because it is ‘responsible’ to lecture modern day Brits about how guilty they should feel over the slave trade. Her only complaint here was that the act was ‘criminal’ and that it was a wet night. What a plonker.

She then travels to Germany (the wonderful multicultural love-nest that is Germany) to examine how they confront their history as opposed to Britain with Hitler speeches playing in the background. We’re off to a bad start here. It gets worse when she compares Germany removing Kaiser and military statues after the Second World War to how Britain doesn’t at all. Here she makes a false equivalence: Germany behaving like this after World War 2 signified their transition from a military dictatorship whereby symbols reflecting that were removed to show this whereas Britain has no such transition to speak of. It’s a false argument. Meanwhile, we also see Nelson Mandela’s statue being shown as one not to remove. Given that he was a terrorist, it seems weird that she would whitewash his history, eh?

Speaking of World War 2, she finally goes after Winston Churchill. After relying on diary evidence that he allegedly claimed that Indians were beastly (not exactly concrete proof of anything), she then brings up the old false chestnut that Churchill was responsible for the Bengali famine, which killed millions of Indians. She states that ‘no help’ came from London (not true either, with Churchill often begging other countries for food to supply the starving Indians) and ignores how the minister for supplies at the time, Huseyn Shurawardy, had policies which led to the hoarding of rice supplies, according to Stephen Weir’s book History’s Worst Decisions. His rejection of aid from countries like Canada was based on the length of time the food would reach India, therefore being ineffective as opposed to racism.

When asked about what it says about Churchill’s legacy, instead of responding rationally in that his quick response showed how heroic he was (with some commentators arguing that the situation would have worsened had he not been so forthright with his response) Churchill was apparently ‘nasty’. What an insult. Not only to Churchill, but to the millions who died in the Bengali famine too, whose legacy to be exploited like this is beyond rational political discussion.

She also then has the gall to say that the bombing of Dresden was not for the better, given the civilians it killed. Again, ignoring the context of it being wartime and the Nazis happily bombing London and its people to kingdom come and it becomes furtherly insulting.

After getting schooled yet again (this time by one Jacob Rees-Mogg), she then goes full vanity project with a museum of her own, allegedly exposing Churchill, called Churchill Unveiled (how risqué!). After some discussion involving the Blightly café (whereby the main protestor and the owner debate), her overall conclusion is that we should be objective about history, and not remove statues at all. Given how extreme her views have been up to this point, that conclusion seems fairly rational. Who knew?

So, there we have it. A disgusting piece of anti-British propaganda that for all its claims about wanting to be objective about history, is disgustingly one-sided in how it slanders some of Britain’s biggest heroes. It has no consistent argument, arguing for the removal of statues at first and then talking up more objective outlooks later. Her views are utterly weak and hence she gets utterly destroyed by everyone she confronts. She comes across as unlikable and narcissistic, encouraging illegal vandalism for the former and complaining about her mean tweets for the latter.

Her conclusion seems dreadfully out of place with the rest of the programme, and worst of all, it skews history in a disgraceful manner. Nelson being pro-slavery overall and Winston Churchill being an evil, vile racist are both unfounded and this programme doesn’t support that in any way, all the while exaggerating the negative sides of both Edward Colston and Cecil Rhodes.

Funnily enough, statues she didn’t advocate removing include Gandhi (who held very racist views of black people), Abraham Lincoln (who believed in the inherent superiority of white people over black people) and Nelson Mandela (who led the armed wing of the African National Congress and killed innocent blacks, often violently I should add), whose statues still stand proudly in Parliament Square, with no criticism whatsoever. Funny that.

Shame on Afua Hirsch for her lying and shameless propaganda trying to demonise Britain’s heroes. Shame on the press for giving such shows good coverage. And mostly, shame on Channel 4 for sharing such nonsense which she couldn’t even defend on early morning breakfast shows. Shame on all of you. A plague on all your houses it shall be then.

I’d rather much watch Lucy Worsley’s show about the Suffragettes instead. At least there you are taught actual history, not skewed history by someone with an agenda. Shame on all those who were involved in this pigswill (apart from those refuting the propaganda) and I hope they all sit in the nearest corner and ponder whether it was all worth it.

Go to Top