Edward Howard

Edward Howard has 21 articles published.

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.

Islamist-linked Labour candidate and the wild bunch of the Lewisham by-election

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

As you are probably aware, on the 14th of June 2018, there will be a by-election in Lewisham East to replace the incumbent MP Heidi Alexander, who has now been picked for the job of Deputy Mayor under Sadiq Khan (presumably to cover for him as he vanishes when another violent attack happens in the capital, as you do).

From this, there is an upcoming by-election whereby a whole slew of candidates will be standing, fourteen in total. Pretty much every British political party under the sun is standing, sans the likes of very small parties like the English Democrats and also the various joke candidates one would often expect at a by-election like this.

So, who is standing? Let’s review the record:

The Green Party candidate is one Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, of who is mainly focused on being a clean air campaigner (nothing shocking there then). Her background mainly consists of being the head of a 6th form in Lewisham (being local in the constituency is a big boost already), and being involved heavily in education in her area in general, with her being a school governor too. Hence why one of her other main priorities if elected (to make schools to ‘be proud of’) should be no shock either.

Mostly harmless, right? But no. It turns out that she advocates that Britain has another referendum over Europe, arguing that Britain should have a ‘final say over Europe – with the option to remain in’. Presumably she forgot that we already had that nearly two years ago at this point, but there we are. It is possible that this candidate can do well, given that the Green Party have always finished up in the top five of the last few Lewisham results, but it seems very unlikely for her to win.

Given that the Labour Party has such a stronghold over this seat and that the Green Party are pretty much pointless at this time (given that all three of the major parties have bought into the climate change agenda, including Labour), she may do well, but a win is highly unlikely.

But what more would you expect from a party who are single issue to the point of being asinine and having only the city of Brighton and Vivienne Westwood propping them up? Not to mention, the whole anti-Brexit rhetoric of Debrah is something that will be seen from other candidates too. Brace yourselves.

Moving on, the Conservative candidate is one Ross Archer. Looking like the unholy love child of Martin Lewis and George Osborne, Archer’s main priorities for the area mainly are about stressing good education, improvements to the local railway network (which include extending the Bakerloo Line on the London Underground to not only Lewisham but surrounding areas, like Catford and Lower Sydenham, and to the zoning of the Grove Park Overground station), fly-tipping (which saw him campaign to stop the weekly bin collection by the Labour led council) and the football teams around the location (no joke). Another local candidate, it seems that Archer has been campaigning in the area for some time, not only here, but also in various campaigns about rubbish collection and attempted to become the mayor of Lewisham, only to lose to the Labour candidate.

He is most likely the candidate who will come second here. This seat has been held by Labour since 1992, and their candidates have usually come second in subsequent general elections, sans 2010 when the rise of the Liberal Democrats had them come third.

Ah, those were the days. The days when Nick Clegg seemed like a respectable politician and the media were comparing him to Winston Churchill, as opposed to the laughing stock he is now and his party for that matter. Anyhow, the Conservatives will most likely come second here.

There have been rare occasions when a Conservative takes a long-held Labour seat in a by-election (the 2008 by-election in Crewe and Nantwich being one such example), but given Labour’s stranglehold here, it is unlikely to happen.

There is also an independent candidate in the running under one Charles Edward Carey. A new candidate, his main focus is updating the Statute Law Database, which is the official database of laws made in Parliament. His problem is that it isn’t up-to-date (having been updated to the year of 2002), so the public are misinformed about what legislature currently stands. His main goal is to use this campaign to raise awareness of this issue.

While independent candidates have occasionally done well, the last time one was elected to Parliament was in the 2006 by-election in Blaenau Gwent and the last one generally elected being in 1997. That and his single-issue campaign and his very limited social media profile (he has on his Twitter account thirteen tweets at the time of writing) means that his chances are limited at best. Whether he has enough clout in the constituency to aid him is yet to be seen.

Meanwhile, the main focus of this election is the Labour candidate, one Janet Daby. Already, she seems like the most likely winner in this contest. The seat is exclusively a Labour safe seat as previously discussed, and various betting companies have placed her as the favourite to win because of it.

Admittedly on the surface, she doesn’t seem too bad. Her experience in politics (being the Deputy Mayor of Lewisham being the main representative here) and her background in social care and running a food poverty charity may earn her sympathy points.

That being said, she isn’t some harmless stooge for the Labour Party. Oh no, rather she seems rather dangerous in some ways, making her seemingly inevitable victory all the more worrying. Firstly, she is yet another type who hates democracy, advocating the UK stay in the single market after we leave the European Union. In other words, she advocates that the UK still accepts the free movement of people, EU laws and the vast fees the EU dumps on us every year. In other words, everything we voted against when we voted to Leave.

Given that most of the public wants to leave the single market (as indicated by a poll detailing most of the Leave voters wanting a hard Brexit which would mean leaving the Single Market), Daby is clearly a Remoaner. The cruel irony being that her fellow contenders in the Labour Party for this selection were more lenient on this issue, feeling that we should leave it to respect the result of the referendum.

Beyond that though, Daby has links to the extremist imam Shakeel Begg, of Lewisham Islamic Centre. Earlier this year, she had a general discussion with him at the centre. Given his extremist advocacy (of which included supporting Islamist fighters abroad and promoting religious violence, which he lost a libel case against the BBC over), it seems rather worrying, especially since all three Labour candidates shared a platform with him at some point. So here we have Lewisham’s most likely next MP: a Remoaner with links to Islamist extremists. Hip hip hooray!

The Democrats and Veterans Party are also standing here. Led by former UKIP leadership and Parliamentary contender John Rees-Evans, the party stands on broadly patriotic, libertarian and Eurosceptic values. Their candidate is one Massimo DiMambro, whose main policy is campaigning for direct democracy. While his locality to the area will again help (not to mention his previous standing in Lewisham Deptford under the UKIP flag), his single-issue stance and the various controversies surrounding his party already (mainly through their utter failure at the 2018 local elections and the deputy leader resigning soon after) probably will work against him as well.

Not to mention how his election campaign has only raised £370 out of the £1000 expected on Just Giving, which isn’t a good sign either. Not much in his favour it seems.

Speaking of libertarianism, the official Libertarian Party are standing here as well, with their candidate Sean Finch. He similarly stands on libertarian values to the Democrats and Veterans candidate as well, with free speech being the big aspect touted here.

However, unlike their Stateside cousins (whereby the American Libertarian Party is considered the third party in the States behind the Democrats and the Republicans), the Libertarian Party UK haven’t done much throughout the last decade and a bit from their formation, having only stood in both the 2010 and the 2017 elections and never gaining 1% in any of the seven seats contested.

It is rather telling how limited their resources are given they didn’t contest in the 2015 election (calling it ‘waste of time and funds’) and had the None Of The Above vote beat them in their first contested by-election in 2009 in Norwich North. Their lack of much support online (most notably with their interview with Finch gaining only 186 views at the time of this writing) doesn’t help either. So again, no real competition.

The Radical Party are also standing, with their Party Secretary Patrick Gray. Their chances seem rather limited as well. Given that their platform is based on left-wing doctrine (such as fighting against the likes of lobbyists, reducing the gap between rich and poor and general globalism), it seems rather pointless standing in a Labour safe seat, especially given that their big policies over remaining in the European Union and climate change are already taken by the Labour and Green parties respectively. Not a strong contender either, especially with a lack of a strong presence on the ground or on social media, and a sense of elitism in this candidate (a former Oxford boy) doesn’t go in his favour either.

The Young People’s Party are also standing, represented here by Thomas Hall. Their platform is one of mostly economics, inspired by Georgist thinking, mainly on the grounds of basing taxes on land instead of earnings, leaving the EU and bank reform. Like the Libertarian Party, all of their contested seats have landed them with less than 1% of the vote ever since their founding in 2012, and their main niche may not appeal to a wide core of voters. Not much of a chance here either.

To lighten the mood, a joke candidate is also standing in the Monster Raving Loony Party’s Howling Laud Hope, the leader of the party. Not much to say, beyond the fact that their various policies may be jokey and the rest of it (including replacing carrier bags with pigeons and introducing silent fireworks to avoid pets being frightened), but the sad truth is that they probably are more tenable than anything out of Westminster these days. Given that this is a joke candidate, listing their chances will be pointless.

UKIP are also standing with their London Assembly member and former leadership contender David Kurten. A first-time contender in Lewisham, this could be an opportunity for UKIP to recover its bad fortunes. After all, they tend to do well in by-elections, with last year’s result in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election being their best result in an otherwise disappointing year for the party. Kurten’s main stances (of campaigning for a ‘full Brexit’ and cracking down on crime) may win him support too. 40% of Lewisham did vote Brexit and that vote has to go somewhere, while the general crime increase in London (especially in Lewisham) may aid them too.

That said, the party’s diminishing fortunes, along with the controversy over Kurten (through some of the comments he made last year over gay children and the Stop The Khanage campaign material) are working against them here. Only time will tell as to whether they can pull it out of the bag here.

The Christian People’s Party is also standing, with their regular candidate Maureen Martin standing. Not much here to say either, as she has come last in the prior two elections in this seat, and there doesn’t seem much different here.

The Women’s Equality Party is also standing in their candidate Mandu Reid, a local resident and the founder of the Cup Effect, a women’s menstrual health NGO. An unashamedly feminist candidate, she was inspired to stand after the #MeToo campaign gained steam, feeling as though she ‘had to put herself forward’ afterwards. It doesn’t seem that she will get very far, given the very one-note nature of her candidacy and the party she stands for.

The Liberal Democrats are also standing with their candidate Lucy Salek. Previously a council candidate, she also is notable for her humanitarian work (including being the chair for the refugee charity AFRIL), which may go in her favour.

Meanwhile, she is also a staunch Remain type, which given that seems to be the only platform the party has these days isn’t a surprise. She plans to use a potential win to use it as a ploy to make a statement against Labour’s wishy-washy stance on Brexit, with party leader Vince Cable going as far to say that the party will use the by-election to ‘cut the majority substantially’.

The fuss over her supposedly misleading election material may work against her too. Given their recent uptake in the 2018 local elections, they may have a strong chance here. Then again, their lack of ability to break new ground following the 2010 general election seems to indicate otherwise.

Last but not least, we have Anne Marie Waters of For Britain standing. Previously a UKIP candidate for the area (coming third in the 2015 election there), Waters started the party in October 2017 after having left UKIP over her loss over the UKIP leadership election and the various top brass of the party calling her racist and the like.

Her previous standing may help her here, and many of the policies that she stands for this time round (including solving the housing crisis in the area and getting a hard Brexit too) may win over voters. Meanwhile, the endorsement of The Smiths’ former frontman and British icon Morrissey (of who called her a ‘humane Thatcher’) can’t hurt. Neither can the controversy.

Her standing has already caused a stir, most notably with the likes of various leftie groups threatening to disrupt her campaign and the Labour Party boycotting next week’s hustings over her being allowed to stand there, mainly because of her views on Islam. It may be possible that her prior standing may win back her old voters, not to mention all the fuss in the press may boost her profile. Only time will tell.

So, after all that, one must think what was the point of discussing this? Because of how crucial the outcome is. Beyond how the most likely next MP for Lewisham East is a Remoaner with links to Islamist extremism and the various single-issue candidates who can no more muster the true meaning of the cult classic Donnie Darko than they can electoral support, there is a compelling battle here, that being the one between UKIP and For Britain. Given the former’s seeming collapse in voter share and the latter’s slow rise (mainly through beating the Green Party and UKIP in some wards in the local elections earlier this year), the battle between the two big pro-Brexit and populist parties in Britain shall commence.

Will this mortal combat see UKIP rise from the ashes once more or show For Britain to be their replacement? Only time will tell.

Only one thing’s almost certain though: Janet Daby will be Lewisham East’s next MP, who is so problematic that it won’t even be good for her party’s leader. Ouch. Then again, her anti-Brexit stance and links to Islamist extremism will be the ultimate fatality for the British public.

Michael McIntyre gets ATTACKED in Sadiq Khan’s London

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Another day, another brutal gang attack in London. This time however, it isn’t Joe or Jane Public being violently attacked, but rather a famous celebrity and his family too.

In this case, famous British comic Michael McIntyre was the unfortunate victim. Here, he was targeted while picking up his son Oscar from his school in Golders Green. The moped gang proceeded to smash his Range Rover with hammers, threaten both McIntyre and his son with a knife and eventually steal both his £15k Rolex watch among other valuables. He then proceeded to care for his son.

One witness described what happened as ‘shocking’, while another opined how ‘normally the trouble is down the other end of the road towards Hampstead’, indicating that wealthy areas like Hampstead are becoming more targeted by such gangs because of their affluence.

To make matters worse, it signifies the increased volume of moped crimes in the city, with the amount increasing from 827 in 2012 to over 23,000 last year alone. It seems both ordinary and wealthier Londoners are being targeted for such brutal crimes, most notable with how the likes of McIntyre are now victims of such crime.

This is yet another clear indictment of both failures on behalf of police and government to tackle this problem. Along with a general increase in crime in the capital after Sadiq Khan became Mayor back in 2016, there are further calls for him to actually tackle this issue. While people like McIntyre can joke about the incident during more recent shows in Dublin during his current live tour, others are not so lucky.

So Sadiq, if by chance you are reading (of which I highly doubt), when will you actually do something to combat this problem? Instead of complaining endlessly about the Conservative party’s cuts to policing, how about allocate those resources properly? Scrap the over 900 officers dedicated to hate crime and place them in more resourceful areas. Bring back stop and search completely. Bring back police patrols. Be tougher on moped gangs. Do the things one would expect you to do as a Mayor of such an important city.

Because if you don’t, and continue to turn London into something resembling the State Of Nature both Hobbes and Locke warned about when defending the existence of a government or a mini El Salvador, Honduras or another third world Latin American country gripped by violent crime, you will be punished at the ballot box in 2020. Do your job Mr. Mayor.  

The REAL issue with the Irish abortion referendum result

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

As you may have heard, a referendum was held in Ireland, whose result has made abortion fully legal in Ireland. Up until this point, abortion has been mostly illegal in Ireland, due to the 8th amendment of the Irish constitution of which kept abortion illegal mainly through an 1983 referendum which established that amendment.

However, despite your feelings about the result, a more sinister undertone is afoot. That being the way that the liberal establishment will be using the referendum to push for a softening of the conservative cultures of the West leading to a more globalised world.

What does this mean? Well, given how the initial amendment was ratified in the constitution, it indicated that the Irish culture would be one based on religious conservative values. This referendum result (for better or worse) indicates that Ireland is becoming a more liberal society, one where traditional values are rejected and seen as backwards and bigoted.

This isn’t speculation either. Given how the gay marriage referendum was fought by its advocates and some of the obnoxious campaigners on the Yes side here both campaigned on a strong smear campaign to demonise the other side in this fashion seems to indicate that both results demonstrate how further away Ireland seem to be moving away from the traditional values that helped to shape its society for a more progressive and liberal route.

But so what, you may ask? Such shame inducing campaign has been prevalent in politics for ages, and even so the ends may justify the means, especially since it allows for more people like women and the LGBT community to feel more welcome in Irish society, right?

This may be true, but the elites who helped to push for this result don’t seem to be very much fussed about such positive outcomes but rather so that they can push their liberal agenda onto the masses.

This includes the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, the head of the Irish government. He had been pushing for Yes in this campaign, advocating it on the grounds of it would allow for women to be ‘trusted’ in the matter. Now while this seems like he is doing this on the grounds that he cares for both the rights of women and the Irish people, other cases put doubt upon this. For the former, neither him or his Fine Gael party have done much for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries, despite promises made by his predecessor Enda Kenny to do more, including a memorial remembering them.

Meanwhile, the way he has done his best to push the controversial Ireland 2040 plan through by media propaganda and allegedly paying the press to write positively about the policy (which would increase the country’s population by 1 million people, partially with mass immigration) despite objections from specific towns and even his own councillors (including one Brian Murphy who was disciplined by the party for his vocal criticism to the plan) doesn’t make him out to be one who cares for the opinions of those vastly different from his own.

His objections to a hard Brexit and complaining that Britain would be small on the world stage indicates this too. Rather he seems to be your typical ideologue who only celebrates results provided they go his way. The fact that he called the results a ‘revolution’ seem in this context rather laughable given that they were backed by establishment figures like himself which seems counterproductive to the idea of a revolution.

On top of this, the entire left-wing in Ireland seems to have completely collapsed on this issue, with the various left leaning parties having advocated a Yes vote. This wouldn’t be so bad, but given how similarly ideologue these parties are on the issue, it seems that again they care more about pushing an agenda than they do women’s rights.

The likes of Sinn Fein for example (having been linked with the IRA for many years) match this to a tee, especially given that their policy on abortion doesn’t seem the most liberal either. They also happily worked with the Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP of which they are best known, currently holding up May’s government in Westminster)  who have very harsh abortion rules too.

It hardly seems that these guys are compelled to help the rights of women, but rather to virtue signal instead, while not acknowledging their past failure on the issue.

Meanwhile the various extremely left-wing parties in Ireland like the Labour Party and the Workers’ Party only again seem fussed about pushing liberal agendas to jump on a bandwagon as opposed to anything involving women’s rights. Given that both have called for more refugees be welcomed into Ireland (the latter under the guise to make up for the West’s ‘foreign policy’ disenfranchising them), neither seem to care much for women’s rights at all. After all, if they really did care for women’s rights, why would either advocate policies that would undermine them by importing a culture which treats women like dirt?

Finally, the one and only George Soros has his hands in this pie too. This time, his Open Society Foundation helped to fund the various groups advocating that abortion be legalised in Ireland. Like Soros’ many other links to left-wing political causes (to funding Democratic candidates in the United States and groups of which target right-wing voices in the press) this seems to be a way to push his liberal ideology in Ireland. The pro-life campaign Ireland cried foul of his tactics here, which they said was ‘an attack on democracy’. As expected, the pro-choice campaigners defended the funds. Shame they didn’t kick Soros out of Ireland like Hungary did. So, this is where we stand. Ireland now stands at the risk of becoming far more liberal and the elites are using this result as a wedge issue to do so.

Now this article isn’t meant to demonise the legitimate Yes campaigners who worked to help women in their eyes. This article is not meant to make them to look like the villains, nor is it meant to demonise their hard work for doing what they thought was right. Nor is it meant to make the No side look holier than thou.

After all, the likes of the Irish Catholic Church (of who have a murky history in Ireland to say the least with their hand in the aforementioned laundries and separating mothers from their children because of religious matters being particularly reprehensible) and the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (who have links to the Muslim Brotherhood and have had extremist speakers held there before) were also fighting to keep abortion illegal and have questionable agendas of their own to say the least.

That being said, it does seem alarming the way that Ireland is veering away from traditional values and that seems to make it easier for the globalist elites who favoured this outcome to establish a more liberal agenda onto once more conservative countries like Ireland.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory about a New World Order by them turning the frogs gay or anything ridiculous like that. This is just a globalist liberal elite of who are using such opportunities to establish a more left-wing globalist society which will only benefit them when their agenda is fully complete. There are dark days ahead.

Who were the real winners of the local elections?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

With it being nearly a month since the local elections, it is time to reflect and look back at the results and what they mean for the country as a whole. From this, who were the real losers and winners of these elections.

Suffice to say it was not either of the major two parties. Despite high expectations for Labour they did only partially well. While still winning these elections, they did not have the landslide expected, with an increase of only 79 councillors and no increase in council seats. Meanwhile, attempts by Labour to wins seats like Wandsworth and Barnet went up in flames with the Conservative safe seats taking their toll. Most conversely, despite the high levels of anger aimed at the Kensington council over Grenfell and a political switch to a Labour MP in charge of the area, the Tories were still able to win said seat regardless.

So why did Labour not do very well this time round? Various reasons seem to have not helped, with areas like Barnet (which have a prominent Jewish community) regaining a Conservative majority because of Labour’s antisemitism scandal. Meanwhile, tribal voting in areas like Kensington kept the Conservatives in power in their councils. To add to this, one potential factor was that the youth vote that helped last year’s election gain strong results for Labour, even if they didn’t win, was not out in force in this election. Labour members admitted that one potential problem for the party that election would have been the low turnout among the youth, and that seems to have transpired, especially given the low turnout in general that accompanies local elections. This is only speculation of course, but hopefully helps some to understand why Labour were not the powerhouse they were expected to be this time.

Overall, while Labour did perfectly well (and doing the best in London for decades) they didn’t achieve the massive sweep they were expecting and fell short of their 2014 results, with those results including them gain nearly 5 times as many councillors and gained councils whereas here they didn’t gain any.

Maybe Corbyn mania is starting to die. This can only be a good thing.

Meanwhile the Conservatives held a huge sigh of relief. They didn’t get the massive crushing many were expecting. And while they lost 33 councillors and 3 councils, it was not the massive defeat expected, nor was it their results at the 2014 elections whereby they had lost 11 councils and 236 councillors. Their maintaining of safe seats and specific wards (like mine of Enfield Town Ward) was a major plus, meanwhile some occasional gains from Labour (like Gorse Hill in Worcester) gave them some boost in those areas too. So, the Conservatives performed OK here, albeit not incredibly strongly.

So, who were the real winners this time? It was neither the main two parties obviously. Rather, it was the party many assumed (including myself) were on a death spiral, especially after their tuition fees controversy, the animosity held towards Nick Clegg lowering their support and their irrelevance in a post-Brexit world with their anti-Brexit rhetoric. That would be the Liberal Democrats. This is mainly because of their results. They were the only major party to gain council seats (taking three off the Conservatives in Kingston upon Thames, Richmond upon Thames and South Cambridgeshire) and gained the most councillors at 75 next to Labour’s results. They certainly did better than they had done in the 2014 results, where they lost 2 councils and 310 councillors.

Why did they do so well then? Partially, the resentment towards the two parties probably helped, but in particular the disagreements between the Conservatives’ promise to deliver Brexit and the anti-Brexit attitude of many London areas (including the ones the Liberal Democrats won over the Conservative Party) made voting for a more EU friendly party the preferred option for those constituents. That would follow a similar pattern to the general election last year, with their aggressive anti-Brexit campaign (including the now infamous ‘Vote Her, Get Him’ poster) allowing them to gain some seats in Conservative seats like Bath and Twickenham for example, despite the former Conservative MPs backing the EU in the 2016 referendum. There is also potential that their moderate centrist platform may attract disillusioned Labour voters who are against the hard left in Corbyn’s lot, and some seats where Labour have strongholds increased their Liberal Democrat presence indicates this. However, this is only speculation.

Finally, who were the biggest losers in the election? That would be UKIP. They made the biggest losses of that time, with 126 councillors lost, maintaining only 3 councillors overall in Derby. The most obvious reason for this is that most people see UKIP’s mission as a done deal, trusting the main parties very strongly with Brexit. The infighting that has been going on in the last few months, especially with the Henry Bolton and Jo Marney controversy, has not done their image any good either.

In conclusion, these results establish one thing: Britain is once again a two-party state. Labour and the Conservatives are baying at each other’s seats for power, all the while the Liberal Democrats are just creeping up, destined to perhaps stay around longer than one first thought. It clearly shows that they aren’t going away any time soon. The collapse of the UKIP vote and the lack of any major results for any of the other minor parties (with only the Green Party gaining some more councillors at 8 in total) indicates this only further.

Lefties DEMAND RIOTS against President Trump’s visit to the UK

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

With President Donald Trump’s visit to the UK, it is safe to say that the many British politicians already up in arms are going out in full force to virtue signal against him, to maintain both their leftie street cred and to demonise someone who represents the epitome of their rotten ideology. A patriotic leader who wants to do best for his country, not just let it get forgotten in a globalised world.

That being said, that does not give credence to left wingers, whether they be politicians or otherwise to call for violence against a democratically elected President. This is especially hypocritical given that these same lefties have had no problem with prior Presidents either abusing their power in the Special Relationship (Obama anyone?) or the various dictators that have crossed our shores, whether that be Nursultan Nazarbayev (the corrupt leader of Kazakhstan), the current Saudi Prince and the leader of Egypt, who treats his populace like dirt, most notably exposed during the 2013 Rabba Massacre, which led to the death of hundreds of people.

Were there occasional protests? Perhaps (mainly for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia) but nothing on the same level of condemnation as Trump is currently receiving from our political class. No debates as to whether to let these guys in the country or not. No petitions to ban them. No complaining from the political class, sans the Labour Party and some Liberal Democrats occasionally criticising the Saudi Prince’s visit.

But apparently Trump is different. Because the left has deemed that he is literally Hitler, violence against him is a good thing. So upon announcement that he was arriving in Britain in July, various politicians on the left called for protests against him, which are inevitably going to turn violent.

Firstly we have London Mayor Sadiq Khan, of who instead of focusing on the high crime rate in the capital, is more bothered by getting involved in state affairs, something the electors of London did not elect him to do. Since he called the Vote Leave campaign Project Hate during the 2016 EU referendum, it is clear that not only is he willing to stick his nose in matters of which he knows nothing about, but also be very yelly about it.

Case in point when Trump’s visit was announced, Sadiq said in an interview with the Evening Standard that:

‘We have got a great history in our city of protests… we have got a great history in our city of bringing about change by protest, the key thing is for it to be lawful, for it to be peaceful.’

He expressed opposition to Trump supposedly spreading far-right propaganda and hoped that Trump would reflect on the supposed great leadership of the Mayor and how diverse London was. This is another of the personal attacks that Khan has expressed against the President, dating all the way back to 2016 during the Presidental election in which Khan openly backed Trump’s competitor Hillary Clinton and often demonised Trump, and advocated for him to be banned as well.

While those were petty innocuous statements made by someone who should clearly know better, advocating protests against Trump is not only worrying but also dangerous. With London already being a dangerous city as it is, is it wise for the Mayor to advocate more violence? Probably not, but for such idiots, the end justifies the means and if that can mean advocating that Londoners do not like Trump and further straining the relationship between Britain and the United States, it is worth the risk.

Meanwhile on a recent episode of the political chat show Question Time, both Labour MP Diane Abbott and Green Party MP and co-leader Caroline Lucas encouraged similar protests. When discussing whether Trump should be accepted as American President as opposed to being knocked down by the political class, both went full nutcase on us.

Abbott discussed the whole Trump tape controversy and that those who wanted to protest him have ‘every right to do so’. Meanwhile Lucas not only lied about him and whinged about his lack of commitment to climate change, she also advocated that the ‘best of Britain’ would protest against him, supposedly standing up for the ‘groups that Trump wishes did not exist.’

In case you are wondering, no we haven’t veered into full Idiocracy or The Onion territory, but rather typical political discourse within the UK. If you are wondering why our glorious nation is in such decline look no further than the laughable performance there.

On top of this, we have the delightful Guardian journalist Owen Jones singing from the same hymn sheet. On a Sky News appearance, he advocated protesting as well, on the grounds that people should call out Trump’s supposed misogyny and bigotry towards Muslims. At least unlike the other morons listed here, he is actually planning to attend the protest. Good on him for actually having the courage of his convictions I suppose. That is until he’ll probably bail the protests when it gets violent of course…

While it would seem like just your typical leftie whinging at this point, its connotations are rather sinister. Given how violent anti-Trump rhetoric and protests have consistently been since his coming to power, it shan’t be surprising to know that these supposed ‘peaceful’ protests will not be peaceful at all and will be used as an excuse to promote such behaviour, with these politicians and public figures advocating such violence for the sake of showing their disdain for Trump without having the gall to turn up themselves.

They cynically know that such violence will occur, but they do not care. It will not be them who will be affected. It will not be their supporters that will be attacked. It probably won’t even be their side who will be arrested or punished for advocating such behaviour, if some previous protests can attest to. They want to prove a point, and have no compunction on what that will cost. Again, the ends justify the means to these people, and if that means violence and rioting, they’ll happily go along with it.

All that we can say is that it shows the maniac behaviour of the left and that the only positive impact that can come from this is that more people will turn away from such lunatics in droves knowing that they can no longer have peaceful debate and discussion with their opponents and that must mean that their inherent ideas are bad. The embrace of extremism and violence by the left that has engulfed us arguably for the last few decades is finally coming back to bite them in the backside and we can only be thankful for that.

But for Trump, all we can say is Make America Great Again and that there are people in the United Kingdom who happily support you. These people do not represent us. They only care for themselves and their careers. Normal people love you. If you are reading this, know that you have the support of the silent majority on your side. See you July 13th.

Fed up with Sadiq Khant, Owen SoyBoy Jones, and John Bercow saying Trump can’t visit Britain? On the 13/14th of July get to the US Embassy to support March4Trump!!

Posted by Luke Nash-Jones on Monday, 7 May 2018

Is Freedom of Speech Dead? Are We Living in a Police State?

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Over a week ago now, I was attending the protest against the conviction of Scottish YouTuber Count Dankula. His crime? Telling an offensive joke, that being having his girlfriend’s pug do Nazi salutes to annoy her. While most would find such behaviour innocuous at best, Scottish courts disagreed, prosecuting Dankula under the Communications Act of 2003, section 127 of which prohibits ‘grossly offensive’ speech online.

The case itself was stupid and the whole thing a complete farce, but it brought something to the attention to the widest audience possible of which previously had been undiscussed for years. That being the slow erosion of freedom of speech in the UK.

This erosion has been a slow but steady process and will only continue more rapidly if it isn’t stopped. Dankula may be a high profile case here, but he isn’t the first. Several other cases have seen our freedom of speech undermined for the sake of political correctness.

Beyond Dankula, other cases surrounding online censorship include the YouTuber 6oodfella, who was similarly punished by Scottish authorities over a joke about Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe, and a teenager in in Croxteth was also found guilty under the same law as Dankula for posting supposedly offensive rap lyrics by Snap Dogg because they contained the n word. This was despite the lyrics being posted as a tribute to another teenager who had recently died in the area as opposed to something posted out of malice.

Not to mention how the screws of censorship are tightening up for those who criticise the religion of Islam. Tommy Robinson detailed such accounts in his 2015 book Enemy Of The State all the while the likes of Britain First’s leaders (Paul Golding and Jayda Frensen) have been convicted recently for religious aggravated harassment. Now while you may disagree with the viewpoints of these people (the loutish and aggressive behaviour of Britain First and their leaders in particular), their sentences were clearly not carried out as a way to protect the public from risk.

Rather their sentences seem more of a way to bury under the rug any criticism of Islam so that the authorities do not have to deal with an issue they have created for fear of being disowned by the politically correct press and leftie voting blocs.

But such cases are not confined to our own shores. Oh no, in fact many people have been banned from Britain not for being a serious risk to Britain’s land or being general thugs who have no right to be here. Rather their banning is more to protect the public from offensive speech. The horror! Michael Savage is perhaps the most high profile case here, with his various views leaving him banned by the Home Secretary.  

Meanwhile the rapper Tyler The Creator was also banned by then Home Secretary Theresa May on the grounds of his homophobic lyrics from his debut album. With the recent banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK, this trend of banning people on political grounds seems to be a trend that is not going to be reversed any time soon.

Meanwhile, the British Board of Film Classification similarly banned certain films out of clear political correctness. Take for example the 2015 horror film Hate Crime of which is about a group of Neo-Nazis attacking a Jewish family. Initially planned to be released for video on demand services, the film was banned on the grounds of its violence in conjuncture with the ‘verbal racial abuse’ of which it is carried out in.

The director James Cullen Bressack found the ban ‘unbelievable’ and felt upset that ‘censorship was still alive and well’, mainly because as a Jewish man, he had made a film of which was meant to ‘remind us that we live in a dangerous world’ where ‘racial violence is on the rise’.

It is clear that through the film’s ban that certain politically incorrect stories are being censored to protect supposed communities from increasing tensions as opposed to lay down some hard truths.

This is just the tip of the iceberg here. There are numerous cases like the ones mentioned above, and they currently are not being taken seriously as a threat to one of our most fundamental rights as a democracy: the right to free speech. If that is gone, it indicates that we are moving further towards totalitarianism, something not seen in this country since the days of Cromwell.

That is why the Day For Freedom actions were so important. Not just to show opposition to this erosion of our basic liberties but also to show the authorities that we are aware of what they doing to our liberties. The sooner this erosion stops, the better.  

Triggered Liberals start a Facebook Campaign against President Trump

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

Continuing with the liberal hysteria against President Trump, there is yet another campaign to resist him, as per usual. This time it is done through the medium of song. A Facebook campaign has been set up by anti-Trump Brits to get the 2004 song American Idiot by pop punk band Green Day to the top of the charts when he arrives to show how much ordinary Brits supposedly hate him.

The song first released in 2004 was a strong condemnation of the then Bush administration, something reflected in the parent album’s themes and lyrics. The album was a huge success at the time, topping the charts in numerous countries and going multi-platinum on both sides of the pond.

The band since then have not been shy to display their political views, mainly their frontman Billie Joe Armstrong, who backed Barrack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and has been a staunch critic of President Trump, often namedropping him in concert and calling for him to be impeached numerous times.

This campaign is following the same playbook, with the page posting various anti-Trump posts and heavily criticising any Trump supporter who calls out the author of the page, claiming that they ‘don’t care’ about the opinions of the dissenters. So much so that they are responding at all.

Social campaigns have been used before to advocate similar messages. This came to a head in 2009 when a Facebook campaign was used to get Rage Against The Machine’s Killing In The Name to Number 1 to prevent the then X Factor winner Joe McElderry gaining the top spot to protest the show’s then monopoly to get the token Christmas Number 1.

Similar themed campaigns continued years later to much less success, including getting AC/DC’s Highway To Hell and Iron Maiden’s The Number Of The Beast to Number 1. The former came to number 4 and the latter went to number 44.

A counter campaign has also begun on Facebook, advocating getting the 1984 song We’re Not Gonna Take It by Twisted Sister to Number 1 at the same time. That song was used frequently throughout Trump’s rallies, showing his anti-establishment stance and how that reflected the anger and angst of ordinary Americans towards it.

President Trump will officially arrive in Britain on the 13th of July 2018. Whether either campaign will be successful is yet to be seen.

What movie does Brexit remind me of?

in Brexit/Student Politics by

There has been much fuss over the last few days concerning Brexit Secretary David Davis telling business leaders in Vienna that Brexit will not lead to a ‘Mad Max-style world’, in response to fears that the incumbent Conservative government will use it as an excuse to tear up workers’ rights.

From this, such bizarre references led to much response in terms of others, comparing it to other films, most notably LBC host James O’Brien dedicating much of his show to that subject. So on that subject, I feel the need to comment, both as a film buff and a Brexiteer. Which film does Brexit remind me of? That would be of course the 1997 cult classic Event Horizon.

Now while this may seem like a bizarre comparison, let’s examine the plot for the film:

The film concerns a space crew, led by Captain Miller and Dr. William Weir. They have been assigned to investigate the recently discovered space ship Event Horizon, which has been missing for the past 7 years. This is something very important, especially to the likes of Weir who was the main architect of the ship.

Once on board however, they discover that things are not what they seem. Various crew members start having hallucinations, others are possessed and injured and when finding out why the ship has been missing for so long via tapes discovered and then unscrambled (in that all members were violently attacked, tortured and murdered due to the ship having opened up the gates of hell through the ship’s dimensional gateway), the crew mostly decides to leave completely. That said, getting out is not so easy.

Weir becomes attached and then possessed as well, becoming the film’s antagonist, attacking and killing several crew members, all the while doing his best to make sure the remaining members join him in hell. At the end, Miller and Weir fight, and Miller is the eventual victor, blowing up that part of the ship with bombs planted along the ship’s corridors.

The remaining crew members supposedly escape on the remaining parts of the ship, but after one still has hallucinations of Weir, the audience is left unsure as to whether they have escaped or are still stuck upon the Event Horizon.

Now let’s recount the background of Brexit:

In 1973, Britain economically weak and in the midst of some of the worst social problems of the 20th century (to the point where three-day weeks had to be introduced), joined the Common Market, which replicated the idea of a united Europe, an idea lost thanks to two World Wars, among other issues with the various European countries. Once inside however, the British realise that things are not all they seem.

Mass immigration from the EU’s free movement of people hurt both social cohesion and general wages, endless regulation hurt small businesses and threatened sovereignty, unelected bureaucrats running the show moved it closer to something antidemocratic with the European Parliament being sitting ducks as they were unable to enact legislation themselves and upon finding out where the bloc was heading (becoming an international superstate, with a national anthem, a currency and an undemocratic top unaccountable to anyone) decided to put pressure on the government in order to leave it.

Various attempts did not work, partially because the political elites not wanting to and an idea failing to reach a wider audience yet. Then eventually, after failed referendums and various parties failed to break the ice on the issue, UKIP forced the elite’s hand and a new referendum was granted, leading to the majority of people voting to leave the European Union. At the end, we had voted to leave the EU, using the democratic processes of Britain, and then subsequently trigger Article 50 in early March 2017.

The United Kingdom are meant to be leaving, but after various agreements and policies (such as the idea of a ‘soft Brexit’ constantly floating around and a transition period down the line), it seems uncertain as to whether Britain will have left at all.

A frightening parallel, isn’t it? In both cases, we have something that is initially seen as a good thing or a thing worth exploring and then upon finding out that actually said thing will be very detrimental, the main characters in these situations try to leave but their will is undermined at nearly every point. From this, it can be seen that Event Horizon is the movie most akin to the situation surrounding Brexit.

It disgusts me that the Cabinet (full of former Remainers I might add) are doing their utmost to make sure that we are half in half out of the EU. That is not what most Leave voters voted for and it is about time the government understand this and follows on through with the will of the people.

This is just to point out how the handling of leaving the EU by both career politicians and unelected bureaucrats are such a farce that it can be compared to a rubbish late 90s horror film, let alone the Mad Max series as Davis had suggested.

Runners up in terms of films that can compare to Brexit include They Live! (whereby a group of alien elites do their hardest to keep their populace down, much like the EU and their bureaucrats and the various European governments that kneed to their every whim) and Sweet Smell Of Success (whereby corrupt journalists push out lies in order to smear those they don’t like, as in the leftwing press propagating Project Fear throughout the Brexit campaign and still do so know, as this Guardian article can attest to).

Those films I can recommend, especially the latter, a legitimate classic that examines corruption among the media and political class, and the collusions between the two. In other words, the corruption we beat in voting to leave the European Union. Hopefully the government will respect our will and enact such public feeling accordingly. Only time will tell.

Corbyn, Johnson and Major BETRAY the British people

in Brexit by

This week, a former Prime Minister decided that democracy wasn’t worth anything since it didn’t go his way, a former Mayor and our current foreign Secretary made a mockery of the controversial Irish border issue and the socialist moron leading the Labour Party decided to betray the over six million voters who voted for Brexit in the Labour heartland of the North. It takes one of the most serious issues in British politics currently and turns it into a mockery to the point where most political comedy shows these days are envious.

To start, look at how the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn decided to stab the Brexiteer Corbyn supporters (not to mention the pro-Brexit MPs in his own party) by advocating that after Brexit, a Labour government would keep Britain inside the customs union. This would inevitably mean that they wouldn’t be able to make our own free trade deals and not actually connect with a wider global economy of which the EU doesn’t even make up a third of anymore, but who needs facts when you have the moronic politics of Corbyn’s Labour Party?

Needless to say, Corbyn’s desperate attempt to appeal to the various Remoaners in his own party did not go down well. While some business groups did welcome his suggestion, others turned against him including prominent party members, former member and former Respect leader George Galloway and even ardent Corbyn apologist James O’Brien, whom on his LBC radio show condemned Corbyn’s decision as a ‘different-flavoured porridge of nonsense.’

It’s telling that when even one of your most apologetic defenders calls you out for speaking utter tosh, you know there is something amiss. Because in just a few minutes, Corbyn managed to stab in the back his pro-Brexit supporters, his Brexiteer MPs and even his own prior Eurosceptic views. I would say this is Corbyn’s Ratner’s moment, except that most of his supporters probably are unaware of who Gerald Ratner was.

But on the opposite side, things were not much better. Next we had the Foreign Secretary, former Mayor of London and utter buffoon Boris Johnson advocate that to solve the Irish border issue over Brexit was not to point out how the EU’s own documents have various solutions to the matter (such as having a ‘low friction border’ of which would have such rules as release before clearance and deferred duty payments to keep a fast moving border) but instead be incredibly idiotic and advocate that because there is no border between ‘Camden and Westminster’, seemingly forgetting that boroughs are quite different from sovereign states.

When challenged on this by the interviewer Mishal Husain, Johnson just said that the comparison was fairly ‘appropriate’. What a p*llock. He seems to deliberately ignore how the EU’s own papers offer solutions to the issue which aren’t brought up at all in the mainstream press and ignores how similar borders exist like the US-Canada border for instance.

To make matters worse, when challenged on this in the House of Commons by a Labour Party who were ever so keen to tear Johnson a new one (including Corbyn joking about him mixing up the borders in the context of a leaked letter revealing a hard border in Northern Ireland could come to be) he ran off and left, leaving the far more competent David Lidington to clean up his mess.

That didn’t save him from the clamping jaws of the Labour Party, who constantly shouted, ‘where is he?’ and the Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry called his early exit an ‘absolute disgrace’, a ‘huge discourtesy to this house [of Commons]’ and pointing out his hypocrisy concerning how he was more willing to talk to the media ‘in the snow’ than his own opposition on the matter. Talk about broken clocks being right twice a day.

At the end of the day, the likes of the said Lidington and the DUP leader Nigel Dodds managed to do a far better job at defending the issue than the Foreign Secretary, with the latter in particular pointing out that there is already a similar soft border in terms of economics and how the government was already working to fix the issue, as their papers reveal. He also pointed out how those who use the Belfast agreement and the Peace Process to thwart Brexit were disgraceful. If only our foreign secretary had anywhere near the spine. Again, this shows what a sad state of affairs this current government is when people like him are in the Cabinet and given important roles, but far better MPs (like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Philip Davies, Theresa Villiers just to name a few) can’t get there. What a joke.

Finally, to wrap it off former Prime Minister John Major decided to stick his nose in, claiming that Parliament should practically ignore the 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union (ironically more people than ever voted for him in any general election he contested) because of the wellbeing of the entire populace, not just those who want to leave, although he argued that their worries should be appreciated.

So, in other words, Major claims to care about those who voted to Leave in an attempt to appeal to all, including Remainers, hence his support of a second referendum. The nerve of Major is astounding here. After advocating before the vote in 2016 that there would not be another referendum, he is now supportive of the idea, presumably because it didn’t go his way. How classy.

Meanwhile, for someone advocating a free vote because he wants Parliament to have an honest discussion over this idea, there was no free vote when it came to the Maastricht Treaty, whereby he not only enforced that the Tories accepted the treaty, but heavily penalised those who resisted (known as ‘Maastricht rebels’) with deselection and changing the rules after the 1997 election to crack down on dissenters and have them taken off any candidate list in the future.

So, it doesn’t seem that Major should be the one to criticise the government for not having a fair process on the issue . For a guy who cares about his whole populace, I don’t remember how his policies of joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the privatisation of British Rail aided everybody at all, the former wrecking our economy due to us having to leave it and the latter seeing train tickets and fares constantly going up even to this day. Another moronic hypocrite who cares nothing for the people of his country but rather what he can get out of it.

So, there we have it. Three major (pardon the pun) politicians reducing the Brexit process into one of the proudest moments in British history post World War 2 and post Suez into a laughing stock… yet again.

At least there was some good news this week. In response to Major’s lunacy, the ever reliable North East Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg pointed out the elitist tone and cynicism that accompanied Major’s speech, as well as all the lies he told to prove his point. He demonstrates again that he is a great statesman and clearly more fitting to be Prime Minister than Mrs. Slippery.

Meanwhile another attempt at Remoaner propaganda backfired when a poll conducted by Tony Blair’s Facebook page of which showed that 66% of those polled wanted to leave the European Union ‘at whatever cost’.

At least these are occasional rays of sunshine in a very dark time for British politics, where the (not) good, the bad and definitely the ugly when it came to Major’s unpatriotic speech set the political landscape in one not of optimism and freedom but of pessimism and a further wearing down of our freedoms to unelected EU bureaucrats. The British people deserve better than this.

Question Time viewer: Terry Christian makes a fool of himself on Question Time

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

Given the buzz around this week’s Question Time and Labour MP David Lammy’s appearance, all that one can say is that stupidity is infinite. And while this is most often the case with idiots like Lammy and his crazy defences of Oxfam and him whinging about muh colonialism, they are often more represented with the various halfwit celebrities that end up on there.

Enter Terry Christian. In case you don’t know, he is a media personality, hosting shows like The Word among other 1990s shows, and countless radio and newspaper columns. In other words, clearly the most fitting guy to discuss politics. However, the main problem with Christian was not that he is such a presenter way out of his depth, but rather was extremely rude and impolite, even by usual Question Time standards when opposing party members are constantly jumping down each other’s throats for political point scoring.

Where to begin? Firstly, the tone is set rather low when his biggest claim to fame according to Dimbleby is that Christian is a “longstanding supporter of Manchester music and Manchester United”. 

When discussing the non-existent gender pay gap after the non-controversy concerning Tesco paying their female shop assistants less than their male warehouse workers, Christian goes full blown lefty ideologue, complaining that someone like John Humphrys should not be paid more than his female counterparts when she is “doing the exact same job as him”. Presumably Christian is unfamiliar with the basic economic rules of supply and demand, as while Humphrys may be doing the same job, he is pulling in a larger audience (with his Today programme pulling in 6.97 million listeners according to The Independent), hence the higher pay rate. This is something Christian should know, given that he has been in the entertainment industry for over 35 years now.  

To make matters worse, he began complaining that because of Thatcher privatising many industries in the 1980s, you can no longer blame the government for the failure of private gas, electricity and water companies. The only thing the state could be blamed for in this regard is that they are not doing enough to regulate these companies, but that wasn’t what Christian was complaining about here. Why should the government be blamed for the inadequacies of private companies? Their failures concerning subsidies perhaps could come under scrutiny, but not the actions of the private companies, given that they do not own these companies. 

Then to cap it off, he paraphrases the whole no deal is better than a bad deal slogan and replaced it with “no leader is better than a bad leader”. Our political expert everyone; someone so stupid that they recontextualise something all the while missing the point of the original statement. Presumably he needs to read some Hobbes and Locke and their theories on the State Of Nature before he spouts such idiocy again. Oh, and he also relays the whole appeal to NHS argument whenever Leave Means Leave chairman Richard Tice talks about council tax not relaying all of the blame to government spending, arguing that “caring is expensive”. Well done, Terry. Would you like a cookie? All the while he pushes some decent points (about decreased council spending being a cynical ploy to push blame away) of which get buried under his moral grandstanding. Oh, and being a typical left winger would rather the foreign aid budget not be cut because it “wouldn’t be enough”. In other words, us on the left will endlessly moan about a lack of money for public services, all the while refusing to budge on issues like foreign aid because of some plight of it not being enough. However, £13.4 billion does seem like a good start to sort out some of our country’s financial issues.

He then further jumps on this idea of cutting the foreign aid budget when Richard Tice discusses making a choice between spending money at home or spending it abroad, arguing that for many people, using public services like social care isn’t a choice. Very true, but that doesn’t undermine the argument: why shouldn’t the foreign aid budget be cut? Given that a good chunk of the money goes to dictators not to the poor it should be sent to, surely it would make sense to cut it and spend that money over here instead. All the while, it wouldn’t cost us more in the long run Terry, given that since we won’t be spending money in that area anymore, we will definitely not have to pay money into that sector to cover up its cracks later. Is Christian literally this stupid when it comes to economics, or am I going insane here?

Moving on, when the case of John Venerbles’ anonymity being removed came up, his response was to cite an 1842 law which banned hanging kids under the age of 7 all the while being concerned with “how much punishment can you give them”. Given that Venerbles committed one of the most horrific crimes in British history and consistently reoffends, the way that our liberal justice system has treated him seems almost laughable, with constant re-arrests often not leading to any real jail time.

And then Brexit came up, where all hell broke loose. During a discussion about how a hard Brexit may cause a 16% lower growth rate in the North (Project Fear much?), Christian plays reductio ad absurdum, claiming that any scaremongering about a post-Brexit Britain is rubbish to a Leave voter (there might be a reason for that). Then he dismisses Brexit voters as simple. Presumably he counts the over 50,000 Leave voters in his town of Old Trafford in that. Talk about arrogant elitism. Then while becoming an EU ideologue, moaning about a low pound (conveniently ignoring the pound going down since 2014) and saying that there has been no upside to Brexit (ignoring the increased employment, big companies coming to invest in the UK, FTSE at record levels among other things), even Dimbleby called him “boring”.

That didn’t stop good old Terry though. Claire Perry, the Tory MP, when discussing that her party would respect the result of the referendum, Terry moaned about leaving the single market and customs union not being on his ballot paper. Then again, given that this is what most Brexiteers want, this is beyond irrelevant. You lost, get over it and grow up Terry. No wonder Perry got such a round of applause when she called him rude. The same thing was true when after he interrupted a nervous pro-Brexit girl about what laws she wants to see gone (the Common Fisheries Policy would be good start) and then a Brexiteer similarly called him out on his nonsense.

The cream of this crud however was when an audience member (quite rightly) asked “When will the hardline remainers of the political and media elite have some faith in this country’s ability to perform on the world’s stage?” Terry, clearly being triggered for being called out for what he is, went all defensive, bringing up how the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg back Brexit. Indeed they do. But given that they actually have faith in Britain, that was not the man’s point at all. It was for people like Christian who put down Britain at every opportunity because of Brexit, showing a lack of faith in Britain’s ability to play on the world stage, mainly through a collapsed pound, which has not been the case since after the referendum.

So in the end, Terry Christian represents another case of the leftwing establishment eating itself. Caring about paying for social care but wouldn’t cut the foreign aid budget at all to help fund it, hates Brexit despite the EU representing the big corporations they claim to hate and all in all rather stupid in the spaces he thought he was intelligent in. It’s no surprise that when he was called out, the audience applauded in delight. He should grow up and realise what he is: a has-been who should go nowhere near politics. Just another case of a left wing idiot making a fool of himself on Question Time. Sometimes I wish these fools would just Shut Up and Sing.

Go to Top