Category archive


Popular TV show used as PROPAGANDA to DEMONISE patriots

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Brexit/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHOCK As Tories BAN Patriotic Legend Steven Woolfe

in Brexit/Patriotism by

CCHQ has rejected Steven Woolfe’s application to join the Conservative Party. Prior to joining UKIP in 2010, Woolfe had served as a Tory councillor in North Wales.

Woolfe is well liked in Tory circles, so their members will not take kindly to this decision, especially after CCHQ welcomed the defection of UKIP MEP Amjad Bashir with open arms in 2015. The Tories have fewer members than the SNP, so can they really afford to be turning former members away like this?

It would seem that Woolfe’s association with Arron Banks’ ‘Blue Wave’ movement was CCHQ’s main sticking point with his application. The phrase “Conservative Grassroots Mutiny” in their promotional material did not go down well…

A Conservative spokesman has confirmed: “Steven Woolfe’s application for membership of the Conservative Party has not been accepted.”

A frustrated Steven Woolfe is not “bemused” by the situation, particularly given the Tories’ efforts in the past to win back moderate UKIP supporters. He is still waiting to hear back from CCHQ as to why he has been rejected. Woolfe remains one of the best-connected eurosceptic British MEPs in Brussels – does it make sense for the Tories to be spurning his offer of support?


in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit/Patriotism by

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

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

This is his statement:

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

Blackman, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

What is wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish him well.

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

in Brexit/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

Only 13% picked Don’t Know.

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

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

SHOCK And Confusion As The Labour Party BACKS Luke Nash-Jones

in Patriotism by

To my surprise, Labour Party officers are promoting my Facebook page on official Labour outlets. (No, I have not joined their Party, and have no plans ever to.)

I find this hard to believe, but it’s real >>

If the post is removed, here is an archived copy of the page, featuring the post >>

The post featured praise, with calls for Luke Nash-Jones to become Labour leader!

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, my carefully-worded message, albeit right-wing, addresses the serious problems that working class Britons face. High unemployment. The housing crisis. Rising crime. Everyone, be they capitalist or socialist, feels this pain and suffering ignored by the political parties.

These well paid politicians do publicity stunts to show off, trying to out do each other at being politically correct. The people of Britain don’t want that. We want someone to speak about real problems. To speak about that pain we feel.

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

in Brexit/Islamism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook anti-Trump campaign BACKFIRES INTENSELY

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

Reuters SLANDERS the pro-Trump rally as far-right

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court of Appeal Orders Tommy Robinson to be Freed on Bail

in Patriotism by

Tommy Robinson had been sentenced to 13 months in jail for contempt of court – but has won his appeal. Court of Appeal orders Tommy Robinson to be freed on bail.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and two other judges in London quashed a finding of contempt made against Robinson at Leeds Crown Court in May when he was sentenced to 13 months in jail.

For months, activists such as Janice Atkinson MEP, Raheem Kassam, and Luke Nash-Jones of Make Britain Great Again, have campaigned for Tommy Robinson to be freed

The judges ruled that the process that convicted Robinson was flawed, and he will be released pending a rehearing.

Tommy will be on bail and face a fresh hearing at the Old Bailey to decide whether he criminally risked defendants’ right to a fair trial.

Meanwhile, anti-fascist protester Paul Sillett exchanged chants with supporters of Robinson:


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

in Brexit/Patriotism by

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

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

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

Surprising in how carefully thought out it is.

Surprising in how balanced it is.

Surprising in how rational it is.

And surprising in how fair it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are our heroes?

in Brexit/Patriotism by

Theresa May was lucky last night (17 July); she only survived the EU vote due to the likes of Frank Field, John Mann and other brave Labour MPs who realised that the prospect of a snap summer election, brought on by a no confidence vote, should the government lose, would bring the probability of a Corbyn government and its disastrous consequences. The disaster will not just be Brexit, it will mean the utter annihilation of Britain as a sovereign nation and reduce us to minions on the world stage. It will cost us our liberty, our happiness and our birth- right.  It will be for keeps.

Where are our heroes? For now, we have a cabinet, devoid of the big guns of Brexit, Davis and Johnson, and packed out with oleaginous yes-men like Hunt and Gove.

Where are our heroes? Not your common – or – garden backbench Tory MPs, terrified of the looming reality of a summer not spent in Tuscany but on the campaign trails in the shires and in the hostile metropolises. They are well aware of the seething anger of the 17.4 million of us fed up to the back teeth of vacillation as disinginuity that brands this Tory administration as the weakest since the war.

Where are our heroes?  Today we await Boris Johnson’s resignation statement, which can either be a death-blow to May and the bugle-call to arms or, sadly, the effective end of Johnson’s ambitions for good if he backs off the fight.  I want him to use his brilliance with words to tear May apart in the Commons.  I want to hear the Tories rise up and roar and back him to the hilt.  But I fear that the lure of the Tuscan landscape may prevent that.

Time will tell.

Where are our heroes? The Chequers farce has exposed the Tories for what they are, and these self – serving backtrackers are just buying time.  The summer recess is a near three-month period of non-news and a forgetful and bored public will be fed a diet of Love Island and Royal bullsh*t to keep their minds off the catastrophic disaster that will befall them should a fake Brexit be foisted upon them during the winter.

Where are our heroes? The Remoaners have not and will not stop now. They smell blood like the baying hyenas they are.  They know that should an election be forced, as it surely will if our totally incompetent PM remains as leader of the Tories and the country until conference season, that a Labour administration, with or without Corbyn, will certainly reverse Brexit by fair means or foul.  Traitors like Adonis, Blair, Cable and their media sidekicks like Owen Jones, Alistair Campbell and the rest will, through the power of broadcasting totally dominated by the left, twist, lie and cheat to a degree as yet unseen in their insatiable quest to reduce us to a vassal state, flooded with cheap labour, emasculated militarily and force-fed diversity and depravity; all that 1984 predicted – and tied to the EU for ever.  Never forget the power and influence that a constant diet of doom and gloom paid for and sponsored by foreign troublemakers can have on our tired people.

Where are our heroes?  There are no sporting events to raise our spirits in the near future – it’s strongly rumoured in Westminster circles that Theresa May breathed a sign of relief that England failed to bring back the World Cup as she feared the boost it would give the Brexit cause – but we cannot rely on short term injections of adrenaline to keep our morale up, we need to realise, all 17.4 million of us, that we are actually in an existential war.  If we lose, we go under. If we win, we may, if we can sort ourselves out, and fast, see a resurgence of national pride and glean the benefits of a smart exit from the shackles of Europe.

Imagine a Britain where a few things start to change.  With reduced migration our wages will go up.  With free trade with the USA and the Commonwealth food prices will go down.  We can redirect taxes to infrastructure and capital projects, including rebuilding our Navy, building houses for the British and creating a better NHS.  We can give the globalists, the oligarchs and the bent media the slap in the face they deserve and get our bloody identity back.  Don’t you want that?

So where are our heroes?  It’s you, you and you… all of you reading this who are the foot soldiers of the movement to Make Britain Great Again. Don’t despair if BoJo doesn’t fight hard enough today but rejoice if he does, and don’t spend the summer in despair if we haven’t seen the back of Theresa May and the Remoaner traitors just yet, because we WILL prevail.

Now, enjoy your two weeks holiday and get ready, because the second Battle of Britain is about to begin.  Don’t say you were not warned – get prepared!  Organise locally, get on the streets when asked to help or protest, and don’t think you are alone.  Fight hard, fight dirty if needs be and drive home our message.

Why the populist right needs to distance themselves from Generation Identity

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Patriotism by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what can we do?

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

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

The Britain of the future needs Trump and vice-versa

in Patriotism/World News by

The bombastic and extraordinarily sharp, 45th President of the United States, finally made his appearance in British territory this past week. His visit, although initially meant as informal, did include a visit to the queen at Windsor Castle, meetings with other royals, and of course he also held what was described by The Atlantic as a “rather strange” press conference with Prime Minister May. Trump’s presence created tension in central London as a few hundreds of protesters gathered with the usual excuses of having to moan about xenophobia, misogyny and hatred. All b*llocks of course, in the strict sense of the word.

Overall however, Trump’s visit to Britain was a success as he stood in front of cameras, right next to May who appeared rather weak next him, and told the world that he was ready to reinvigorate his alliance with the British people but also criticised Britain and all of Europe for not being tough enough on immigration, especially illegal immigration from Africa and the Middle East which is completely destroying the social fabric of western civilisation rather swiftly unfortunately. We all already know this.

Trump complimented the Queen and the greatness of his British friends and allies. He also came off as more articulate than expected as he did not budge on clarifying his position on the NATO question, the dangers of liberalism intertwined with globalism, and Russia, during his full interview with Piers Morgan. Morgan, who is certainly not an ultra-conservative, interestingly enough spent the last few days defending Trump’s policies and getting into a fierce argument with self-proclaimed Communist Ash Sarkar on live television and social media.

Sarkar is the classic rude, hipsterish, socialist woman product of the environment of degrading multiculturalism created in the slums of British metropolis. She organised the mass anti-trump protest. Nonetheless, those dirty lefties are not the only ones that had the stage in London, as a large group of students and young professionals organised a pro-Trump event at the Trump Arms, where they re-created a pub atmosphere in an aesthetically pleasing right-wing social gathering. This was also a success, and proof that the flame of the conservative youth still burns steadily.

The irony is that most of these lefties protesting Trump do not even know what they are protesting against, as surely some the real ideologies on the far left would find ground for agreement with Trump on certain issues such as the economy, NATO, Russia and foreign policy in Syria. Trump has been no friend of big, savage globalist capitalism, and most of his economic policies have helped the once left-voting working class in America which is fed up with losing its right to jobs because companies move their manufacturing abroad, to China and India. His protectionism, or economic nationalism can serve as a good example to Britain.

The Tories should learn from him on this matter, if they ever will. Let us give back jobs to the British in Britain first, before worrying about anyone else. Regarding NATO, yes it is absolutely clear like Trump himself pointed out – that European powers like Germany are not exactly playing by the rules when it comes to being part of NATO. The USA, has been getting ripped off, not because they are the ones that basically keep NATO alive by pouring money into defence for us all, which is what they always have been doing, but really because the attitudes of others that are part of  NATO have been outrageous.

Take Germany for example, Merkel has been complaining about fearing Russian military expansionism and economic imperialism on one hand, while at the same time making deals worth billions for the construction of a gas link already taking place that facilitates commerce between Germany and Russia, through Poland. Basically the Germans have been buying Russian gas without checking with the other actors of the EU and certainly without asking itself too many questions. Trump knows that Russia is a key ally in the Middle East (especially Syria), and has played its part in fighting Islamist terror and preventing the Islamification of Europe.

Trump’s nationalist America seems to have come to terms with the fact that we do need to get along with the Russians for a series of reasons, nobody wants more wars and proxy wars, which is something the current establishment Conservatives in Britain need to understand if they wish to continue being a leading force. We have much greater enemies than Putin and Russia. Some of the Corbynite socialists protesting Trump in London know this – and often even sympathise for Russia and despise high finance sponsored globalism as much as Trump does but they will protest him anyways because they are idiots and give more importance to Trump’s comments on women’s genitals rather than focusing on his economic policies. Again, those policies have helped so many ordinary working people.

Britain needs Trump. Trump needs Britain, And we also all need NATO, to defend us in case of an attack by unfriendly nations with unsettling leaders, more so China and North Korea rather than Russia and Iran for that matter. In any case, there is no doubt we need to sit down with the Americans and revisit the NATO agreement, to make sure it works for everyone and the USA won’t be paying vast amounts to those who complain about an imminent threat by a country and then go on and make deals with them.

Britain has no choice but to work with Trump who will most likely win a second term, and secure a free trade deal, opening up a window of opportunities in a world of great possibilities. What a time to be alive. As Brexit negotiations continue, Trump and Putin meet to discuss geopolitical scenarios, and NGO ships are getting turned back in Mediterranean, we are faced with one of the greatest moments in the history of mankind. Now is the time where we need to play our cards right. Now either we heal as a nation or we perish.

Go to Top