Straw Jack | Trees and Acorns

9 01 2011

Mr Straw is coming into some flack due to his utterance that Pakistanis see white infidels as easy-meat.  The Meeja are determined to muddy the waters and refuse to see the main fault.

It is the constant and willing collusion between those who proclaim themselves defenders of the truth.  The Government, the Police, the Media, even Charities were in on the act.

If they are willing to mislead us on these important issues, how on Earth can we even begin to trust them on the small issues.

Multiculturalism and the fragmentation of society into large semiautonomous groups have reverted Britain back to the tribal mentality that Pax Britannia had once stemmed.

Each new tribe has a new rulebook, each has their own outlook and it was inevitable that after being allowed to abuse British hospitality in other areas, it was only a matter of time before they pushed into other abominations.

When do we say enough?  Do we wait until we begin to experience what Congo does?  If that is too far from you, have a gander at Norway.  Should we wait until that then?

Jack Straw is from a family of  arseholes.  From his perverted brother to his dopey son, the man is a charlatan.  Slagging off the English one minute, slagging of the Joey’s next, the man has no loyalty except to his controllers.

And people vote for this shite?  They must have had a right old chuckle when they gave the plebs the vote.

Advertisements




Leftarded Fallout | They cannot make up their mind

9 01 2011

With the media circus that has flared up around the issue of certain sections of society preying on defenceless children, the Left do not know where to look.  As Rod Liddle points out…

A bizarre report on the Asian child abuse court case on the BBC last night, which spent most of its time attempting to exonerate the Pakistani community as a whole, including clips of Pakistanis saying “actually, we probably shouldn’t abuse kiddies” and a white child abuse campaigner saying hey, look, it’s not Pakistanis who are the problem, etc etc.

This was broadcasting as a form of crowd control; undiluted propaganda. The fact is that some Pakistani men think it perfectly ok to abuse white girls and there are still gangs out there right now doing so. When Nick Griffin mentioned this fact, many years ago, they tried to prosecute him. When Radio Five covered the story five years ago they were eviscerated for it.

The praise the Left give towards Wikileaks verges on Sainthood, yet God damn those who expose any non-approved fact.  The indignation they display to the public to counter distasteful information stresses the concept of Controlled Media.  All this fallout amongst them shows just how vain and contradictory their ideals are.  And so, they are lashing out at anyone who might try to make political capital out of it, be racist, even the beloved Stooge of Labour, Straw Jack!

Most telling though is the one man you’d think the Controlled Media would be trying to hose down would be Nick Griffin, currently lending a hand to Derek Adams campaign in Oldham.  Instead, we have his views regurgitated, twisted and manipulated by those apologists and appeasers.

A recap of what has so upset the meeja darlings from the spectrum I’ve found are running with; Former home secretary says gangs of Pakistani men see young white girls as ‘easy meat’ (Independent);  Jack Straw, the former home secretary, has sparked a fierce row over his claim that some British Pakistani men regard white girls as “easy meat” for sexual abuse (Telegraph);  Labour MP Vaz says it is wrong for former home secretary to stereotype entire community over sexual assault case (GulfNews)

This is where I despair at all the criminologists.  The majority of crime victims, no matter what the crime, be it robbery or rape, are usually chosen for their perceived weakness and wrongs.  And the ones doing the choosing are by a large, opportunistic degenerates whose only resemblance to bravery happens when in a gang (or getting the Police or Armed Services to do it).

However, with rape and other sexual offences, it doesn’t help if the Koran advocates treating non-believers as fair-game.  Nor does if help with the constant promoted degradation of women by the Satanic Gods in the Meeja Industry (From Hollywood to Fleet Street).

It would be wrong to isolate this as an immigrant problem, yet the biggest immigration problem is that whenever they have a problem, it’ll be oppressive to point it out.

See where I’m going.  The problem is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in a MULTICULTURAL environment.

They keep going around and around in circles asking is this the result of one thing when it is a combination of many aided by Cultural Marxism disguised as Political Correctness.

(((Click image to enlarge)))

Never forget what Harriet supports!

Never forget what Hodge was head of!

The enemy is not outside the gates no more.  They were imported here by the Enemy to divide us, making it easier to destroy Our Heritage and replace it with a New World Perversion.

Just say NO!





BNP | Battle of Barking

2 12 2010

An honest review from a commentator named Overlord of the ‘Battle of Barking‘ documentary by that recently aired on More4.  Found this in the comment section at the bottom of the drivel Benji Wilson sprouted.

I watched the battle for barking last night, and frankly it disgusted me.

The filmmaker obviously was trying to portray Hodge in the better light but honesty I think the BNP came off better.

It is true that they did come across as a bit thick and lonely, but they have genuiene grievances about what has been inflicted on this country. It seemed to me that most of the white people filmed seemed to support them. Hodge herself seemed to admit this, when she told her team to ask constituents whether they would go for BNP or Labour. If they admitted BNP, she said it was best to focus on other voters. Ignore the BNP voters.

Then the only campaigning we saw from Hodge was meeting ethnic groups either in their churches or mosques. Her grovelling in the mosque was sickening. She would talk to the odd white person on their doorstep, but the group diplomacy seemed to be reserved only for ethnics.The only time she met white people in any sort of a group was the multicultural street party in the photo above. And obviously there were lots of ethnics there too.

Some of the things she said to people about the BNP were very dodgy and bordered on lies or incitement. She told a group of Africans in church that the BNP would send every one of them home. She said something similar to a the mother and baby in the picture above. Then came a white man with an asian wife. There she did not say they would send her home but they would cause her trouble.

Then we saw groups of youths aggressively attacking the BNP with impunity. If not actually hitting them they would be shouting and swearing aggressively right in their faces. Calling them “white C###s”. Spitting at them again and again. Spitting is assault. Throwing fruit at them. A few punches were definitely thrown at the BNP too. Serious violence was only averted by the BNP constantly moving location. They were not free to stand where they chose. Much of this was in the build up to the fight that was reported in the news just before the election. That news report made out that the BNP were to blame. From the documentary it is clear that the youths were spitting at and goading them all day long.

To me the documentary showed that the establishment stoked a deliberate campaign of intimidation against the BNP. The BNP were demonized and dehumanized. Ethnic minorities were wound up with claims they would be deported, and it was made clear that the BNP were fair game for the youths. The BNP could not fight back as they would instantly be labelled thugs, and no doubt actually be arrested, unlike the youths.

The establishment media always make much of Griffin’s minders. They are used a proof of his thuggishness. However, as the documentary showed, if Griffin did not have security, he would likely be dead. And no doubt the police would miraculously have no leads on the suspects.

Some bloody democracy.

Too right, some bloody democracy.  All I saw was the State-sanctioned illegal actions of everyone BUT the BNP.  From the immigrant to the political whore named Hodge, I was sickened by the depths plunged by the Labour Party, although not surprised, and the Battle of Barking is a very appropriate title considering the amount of dirty tactics employed by the Red Machine.  From soliciting BIGGER donors to employing THIRD-PARTY GROUPS to denounce their opponents’ cause…  Labour’s campaign should be investigated by the Fruad Office.

Even worse is the official declaration (Kudos GV) of the “England doesn’t exist in the EU” malarkey.  We’re nothing but cattle, although don’t taste as good, can be milked all the same.

Another sore spot must e the Lord Nelson pub located in Brighton that will soon be opposite a Mosque due to the Somali influx, which will no doubt increase racial tension, yet do the council give a damn?  Do they fuck (source HERE).

And I wish I could leave you on a lighter note, except Brian Gerrish, the thorn in Common Purpose’s paw has loads (seen six so far) of speeches regarding that political Beast that can be found HERE.

Stay angry, one, it’s good for the heart rate, and two, it’ll keep you warm.  The more we’re nibbled at, the more difficult it will become to remain gentlemanly, and then the fireworks.  Just hope the riots wait til the summer cos I don’t fancy stepping out in this weather.

Damn, only good thing about snow is seeing the face of some of my newly arrived equatorial neighbours.  Damn, only good thing about my equatorial neighbours is their dress sense.  Come Sunday, it looks like a walking forest of bright-colored floral curtain-like wraparounds with contrasting heads poking out.  Jeez, some of ’em even smell of coconut, which is damn better than the usual BO encountered by supersized Africanoes, main reason I avoid public transport in the summer.





EU | One-way street political warfare

12 05 2010

With the Lisbon Treaty firmly in place with all the possibilities wanted by Eurocrats, the sweet-talking and reassurance of a team ethos has ended with Anglophobic reactions from the French once more.

I want OUT of the European Union.  Main reason I support Nationalism is that it keeps my tyrants local.

For the love of God, how much longer must we put up with the disdain shown towards us from our Parliamentarians in regards to the undemocratic Eunification Project?  And more importantly, how on earth can we throw our lot in with the Europeans?  This is a continent that contains tribes who, since naming of our isles the Pretanic Islands, have only ever sought to conquer Her.

The mind boggles, especially after reading that a French politician who is supposedly on of our ‘team’ once again plans to destabilise Her Auld Enemy with financial warfare.

Britain must fend for itself in event of crisis, French official warns

By Angela Monaghan, Economics Reporter.  Published: 12:20PM BST 11 May 2010

Britain should not rely on EU help in the event of a renewed financial crisis after refusing to sign up to the bulk of a €500bn (£429bn) rescue package for the eurozone, the head of the French financial markets watchdog said.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet said the UK would have to fend for itself if ongoing political uncertainty led to a meltdown in the financial markets.

“The English are very certainly going to be targeted given the political difficulties they have. Help yourself and heaven will help you. If you don’t want to show solidarity to the eurozone, then let’s see what happens to the United Kingdom,” he told Europe 1 radio.

Mr Jouyet, European affairs minister from 2007-2008, was clearly angered by the Chancellor Alistair Darling’s refusal to pledge funds in an attempt to protect the euro, by failing to agree to provide troubled eurozone countries with €440bn in loans or guarantees.

He said it was a clear sign of the divisions within the European Union. “There is not a two speed Europe but a three speed Europe. You have Europe of the euro, Europe of the countries that understand the euro…and you have the English,” he said.

However, Mr Darling did agree to contribute to a €60bn extension to an existing European Union facility to help those countries in particular difficulty.

The International Monetary Fund has agreed to provide a further €250bn.

The bail-out agreement boosted markets around the world on Monday, including the FTSE 100 which closed up 5pc – the biggest one-day jump since December 8, 2008.

Part of that gain was unwound on Tuesday morning, with the FTSE 100 down 1.8pc at 5291. The pound was down at around $1.48.

As political uncertainty rumbled on, with no new government in place, analysts at Morgan Stanley said investors should sell the pound, targeting $1.35. It said the prospect of a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would hit sterling.

“We have decided to initiate a short pound-dollar position,” said Stephen Hull, global head of currency strategy. “This coalition would probably find it difficult to make the required tough spending cuts to the public deficit, risking a downgrade by the rating agencies in coming months.”

I agree with the Frenchman on one point though.  It is time we helped ourselves and cut all ties with those who seek to defraud us.

We could start by withholding the £15bn Alister Darling magicked out of thin air for the Euroloan to bail-out Greece, we have our own house to worry about.  Actually, we could withdraw from the Political Straight Jacket that is the European Union, once more resulting in a bountiful saving of billions.  After that, we could reinstate Britain’s coastal territories and fishing rights, goodbye landlocked Luxembourg’s fishing fleet.  And then finally, to seal off Europe completely in case of another plague, plug up the channel tunnel.

We’re friends with these people?

Once more, we need out of the Eurozone completely.  No referendum, just a complete political withdrawal.  I’ve seen how the EU hierarchy handle (more like blatantly interfere with) democratic referendums and from experiance.  Just as bad as our recent General Election that was a fitting tribute to South African politics.

I wouldn’t trust the Political Establishment to oversee a Pot Noodle’s progress in the microwave, let alone deMOCKracy.





OBV | Black Britain Decided?

29 04 2010

From my previous posting regarding the supremacist organisation Operation Black Vote, have finally got some news of the event.

And just like the National Black Policeman’s Association and Operation Trident, this is another racist front organisation supposedly supporting Equality yet working towards the opposite and enforcing the need for Race Relations.

Parties woo black voters at rally

(UKPA) – 1 hour ago

Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats attempted to woo black voters at a lively rally on Wednesday night.

Hundreds packed the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster, central London, for the Black Britain Decides event organised by Operation Black Vote.

The campaign group said the votes of black and ethnic minority people could have a “defining impact” on the outcome of the General Election.

Harriet Harman, Labour deputy leader, shadow chancellor George Osborne and Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable addressed the rally, while Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg both recorded messages which were broadcast in the hall.

Actor Kwame Kwei-Armah hosted the event, fielding questions from a vocal audience and using humour to keep control of the crowd.

The politicians were grilled on issues such as police use of stop and search powers and the DNA database, with those attending the event expressing concerns about disproportionate targeting of black people.

During the three-hour event they also spoke of their parties’ beliefs and pledges to make British society more equal and described personal experiences and motivations to bring home their message.

Asked what would be done to deal with a situation where a black man was five times more likely to be stopped by police than a white man, Ms Harman said: “I think that there is great concern, including in the Metropolitan Police, to make sure that there is not a sense of unfairness about the way stop and search is happening. I know there is a great deal of concern about that.”

She said it was important to balance the public’s desire to feel safe in the knowledge knives were not being carried on the streets with the need for fairness.

Kwei-Armah prompted cheers and applause when he ended the exchange by saying: “I think it’s very clear to Harriet and the Labour Party that people feel very strongly about the DNA database and it’s something, if you are elected, they would like to see reviewed.”

Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

And major kudos goes to Federica Cocco for covering the event and providing photos that can be found HERE.  Also provided the following blurb which I thought needed highlighting.

Harriet Harman, George Osborne and Vince Cable attended the Black Britain Decides rally organised by Operation Black Vote (OBV) in the Methodist Hall in Westminster. The rally was organised in partnership with Peace Alliance, church leaders, business leaders, activists and many other eminent members of the British community of black and ethnic minorities (BEM).

Up to 120 marginal seats could depend on the black vote, organisers say.

As prominent members of the three main parties spoke of their policies in favour of enhancing equality and justice, they faced tough and challenging questions from the audience, particularly on stop & search and on the national DNA database.

Okay for the Establishment to pander to the NuBritons to further the Internationalist Agenda yet evil for the Nationalists to oppose it on behalf of TruBritons.  Reminds me of High Street Banks, will bend over to gain your custom but once you’re in the vault, will move straight onto the next sucker.

The Western World hoovers up citizens like the Devil collects Souls.  Saints or Sinners, all are welcome to toil for the Internationalist Dream of Financial Salvation.

Some novel advice from myself regarding the ‘dissprotianate’ Stop & Search policy that so oppresses the yooth.  Tell your yewts to cease dressing and acting ‘Gangsta’, drop the South Central slang and STOP becoming one-man crime-waves.  Damn, not only do the Policeman get their own grouping but also the crooks!!!

Operation White Vote – for one day, we may just well regret it.





Divide & Rule | The case against coalitions and consensus

28 04 2010

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: April 26th, 2010

The single most important feature of democracy is this: that voters regularly get a chance to turn the rascals out. Think for a moment about the countries that don’t enjoy representative government – Cuba, say, or Iran – and you’ll see why it matters.

Conversely, the chief argument against coalitions, and electoral reforms that give rise to coalitions, is this: that they tend to ensure that most parties are in power most of the time.

The Westminster system, as favoured in most Anglosphere countries, encourages a clear division between government and opposition. This division helps keep the state small and the citizen free. The party that is out of office has every reason to resist the expansion of state powers, while the party in office is wary of building a government machine that must one day fall into the hands of its opponents.

Across much of Europe, by contrast, proportional representation allows defeated politicians to bargain their way back into office. Some parties, especially liberal and centrist parties, are almost always in power, however small their share of the vote. Such factions have no interest in reducing the prerogatives of government or the privileges of politicians. Opposition falls by default to protest parties such as Belgium’s Vlaams Belang or Austria’s Freedom Party, which exist mainly as expressions of public discontent rather than as alternative administrations.

At the same time, party lists protect politicians from the consequences of their unpopularity. As long as MPs are near the top of their lists, their jobs are secure. This naturally encourages legislators to suck up to their party leaders rather than to reflect the wishes of their constituents. The political class as a whole becomes snugger and smugger.

Political scientists call the phenomenon “cartel democracy”. Austria is a fine example of the genre: its Christian Democrats and Social Democrats prop each other up like two exhausted boxers. Under a system known as the Proporz, Austrian public sector posts are carved up between the Black and Red factions, ensuring that neither party wants to reduce the government payroll.

Italy used to be an even more extreme case. In the old days of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, an Italian party membership card was a gorgeous artefact, medalled and beribboned. Everyone understood its purpose: it was an IOU, to be cashed when the relevant party took power. Silvio Berlusconi’s popularity owes much to the fact that he brought an end to that racket, and introduced a voting system designed to ensure a Westminster-style pendulum.

How perverse, then, that just as others find merit in the Westminster model, Westminster itself might ditch it. If the newspapers are to be believed, voters want a hung parliament.

I’m not sure the newspapers are right. What I’m finding on doorsteps – and I’ve spent a lot more time on them than most columnists – is what G K Chesterton called “our scorn for all men governing”.  People feel, with reason, that their politicians have become a caste apart; that Parliament fails to reflect their views; that MPs have become spokesmen for their parties in their constituencies instead of the other way around.

A coalition government would formalise they very abuses to which voters object. If the problem is that Parliament ignores public concerns on such issues as immigration and Europe, the solution is not to make the Liberal Democrats a permanent fixture of government. If the grievance is that MPs are too remote from their constituents, the redress is not a party list.

A ministry of all the talents, an end to partisan bickering, a national consensus – such have been the justifications of every dictatorship in history, from Bonaparte’s onwards.  A free country must have the ability to sack its leaders, cleanly, peaceably and decisively. Unless I am mistaken, we intend to exercise that right on May 6. Let’s not surrender it immediately thereafter.

Just what the Establishment want, Divide & Rule.  Well done fellow Britons, for we shall all be European if the Status Quo remains.  Just numbers in an ever diversive nest justifying the need for more parental control.

Doncha just love Geo-Politix?






Dr Rankin | Antifascism and Vested Interests

28 04 2010

A rather lengthy read from Dr Aidan Rankin expanding my earlier post regarding the Government-financed, Union-supported, Third-Party rent-a-mob in the Unite Against Fascism Freedom brand.

Although I do not agree with it all, there are plenty of interesting points made.  More importantly, it is from someone who has the Dr moniker.

‘ANTI-FASCISM’ IS THE NEW FASCISM

When I hear the word ‘fascist’, I do not think of the assorted pub bores or the few full-blooded bigots who are the stereotypical activists of the ‘far right’. Nor do I think of half-drunk, testosterone-driven skinheads in tight-fitting jeans or combat trousers, bawling out anti-immigrant slogans richly spiced with obscenity. Least of all do I think of the thousands of disgruntled Labour supporters, ordinary men and women in working class enclaves, who have given the British National Party its newfound electoral clout. None of these people are fascists, in any meaningful sense of the word. They are victims rather than aggressors – victims of failed liberal social experiments, heartless economic programmes and, above all perhaps, of betrayal by a Labour movement that was set up specifically to defend them.

The left, and many being present liberals and Tories with them, would like us to visualise fascists as aggrieved, poorly educated working class whites – white males in particular, since they are a double negative for the Politically Correct. Such progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion. Likewise, the true heirs to fascism are not skinheads, bigots, or BNP-voting former socialists. They are the BNP’s sworn enemies, the ‘anti-fascist’ shock troops of the left, whose slogans of contrived defiance, melodramatic gesture politics and emotional blackmail reach far beyond the Marxist coteries where they originate.

At Burnley, where the BNP made its strongest local government gains this year, the paradox of anti-fascism was apparent in a demonstration by the Anti-Nazi League, images of which were widely disseminated in the press. Piously anti-racist and inclusive, the protesters were overwhelmingly white and middle-class. Proclaiming the virtues of tolerance, their eyes shone with the purity of hatred that is the prerogative of extremists the world over. In that almost archetypal left-wing demo, the chants and clenched fists of the scruffy young men, the screams and hot tears of the even scruffier women, the banners calling for political parties to be suppressed (in the name of tolerance, presumably) expressed something larger than a Lancastrian quirk. For anti-fascists base their campaigns on a sense of outrage that anyone, anywhere should dare to disagree with them. In their appeal to feeling over reason, force over argument, such activists resemble most those phantom Nazis they are claiming to ‘fight’. This is why, in a stroke of post-modern irony, anti-fascism is the new fascism.

There is, in British – and especially English – political culture, a rich vein of sentimental radicalism, to which anti-fascist slogans appeal. It is from this section of politics and society that anti-fascist campaigners derive emotional (and, crucially, financial) support. Unlike working class communities, they do not see the violent, arrogant face of anti-fascism, any more than most of Germany’s Mittelstand witnessed directly the violence of the Brownshirts. This strand of radical thought, ironically, has its origins in the imperial epoch, amongst a burgeoning middle class influenced strongly by evangelical Christianity, which believed that it had a duty to ‘save’ benighted natives. The missionary impulse usually placed concern for the Empire’s subject peoples, and their material or spiritual well-being, well above concern for the indigenous working class. Typical of such philanthropists is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of looking seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like many a modern liberal, Mrs Jellyby neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the (fictitious) African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its ‘development’.

The world of Non-Governmental Organisations is replete with Mrs or ‘Ms’ Jellybys. But in a post-colonial age, the phenomenon of immigration has brought their concerns closer to home. Today’s Ms Jellyby is just as likely to work for the race relations unit of a local authority as for a Third World NGO. For ‘ethnic minority communities’ have become the new Borrioboola Gha. They are to be patronisingly helped and pitied, even given special rights, but their members are not to be treated as individuals and the reality of their cultures is to be ignored or scorned. As the white liberal person’s burden, the black or brown skinned citizen is supported as long as he reads from a Politically Correct script and shows gratitude and obeisance to those pressure groups that ‘care’ about him. It is into this Jellyby Syndrome, a legacy of the missionary age, that anti-fascist groupings successfully tap. Guilt-ridden liberals confuse the violent cant of anti-fascism with humanitarian concern, much as the violent cant of fascism was once confused with appeals to tradition and order.

But the missionary impulse does not end with ethnic minorities. In anti-fascist campaigns, there are vestiges of earlier evangelical missions, aimed at the indigenous population, with a view to controlling and pacifying it. Working class communities are treated by anti-fascists, and their liberal apologists, as benighted white tribes to be civilised and subdued. The evangelical fervour present in anti-fascism accounts for the lachrymose quality of its activists, whose tearful appeals are often a prelude to acts of violence or demands for censorship. This is a characteristic they share with fascists, who were the most emotional and least reasoning of political campaigners. Like evangelical temperance campaigners of a bygone age, anti-fascists appear to be trying to save working class people from themselves. Their particularism, expressed through opposition to large-scale immigration, is labelled as ‘racism’ and treated as a new form of vice. Their patriotic gut instincts, and their wish to preserve the traditional character of their neighbourhoods, are dismissed as ignorant prejudices, from which white working class men and women must be emancipated just as their forebears were emancipated from drink.

Like evangelicals, anti-fascists seek to liberate by a combination of moral pressure and legal force. Anti-fascism is, however, a radical secular ideology that allows no possibility of repentance or absolution. The evangelical Protestants who joined temperance or anti-vice campaigns were often oppressive and insensitive, but their zeal was frequently held in check by a concern for individual souls. Anti-fascists, by contrast, have no such concerns. They seek to save communities, by changing their collective consciousness or forcing them to conform. Their ideology allows for no concern for individuals, except for attack or denunciation. This contempt for the individual, the white, male worker in particular, allows the anti-fascist to reconcile two contradictory demands – for civil disobedience (including violence) and for the massive extension of state power.

Anti-fascist propaganda makes frequent address to the history and mythology of the left, to which the movement volubly lays claim. Searchlight, anti-fascism’s house journal, make frequent reference to the Spanish Civil War, carrying photographs of heroic resistance fighters and carrying interviews with stalwarts of the International Brigade, now elderly and impressive. Other photographs evoke the memory of ‘The Battle of Cable Street’ and similar events where in the 1930s when working class Jewish communities stood up to the Blackshirt followers of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. There is in these images an explicit and false assumption of continuity. It is false because in both the Spanish Civil War and Cable Street, a high level of working class self-organisation was involved, and with it a genuine aspiration towards a just society.

Searchlight, by contrast, bases most of its activities on accusation, smear and incitement to hatred – often class hatred directed at working class racists. This was not always so. Its founder, Maurice Ludmer, was a thoughtful ex-Communist Party member for whom the education of working class communities was important, and who believed in freedom and dignity for individuals of all backgrounds. Anti-fascist campaigners today, including Searchlight, refuse to concede to their opponents – especially working class opponents – any sense of human dignity. Working class racists are described routinely as scum or products of the sewer, in a curious echo of the Nazis’ twisted denunciations of Jews and other ‘enemies’ of the Volk. Searchlight still, on occasion, carries intelligent, thoughtful commentaries, especially on events abroad, but in its refusal to compromise with or attempt to win over its opponents, it perpetuates conflicts of a social and racial character.

This latter attribute it shares with the Anti-Nazi League, which is far more explicit in its advocacy of violence and its hatred of the white working class. At one level, the ANL sets itself up as a secular missionary organisation for anti-fascism. At another, its overwhelmingly bourgeois or petty bourgeois activists set out to create an atmosphere of intimidation and violence when they descend on areas such as Burnley. Like a fascist movement, the ANL is explicitly committed to the abolition of free speech. Its activities make it the heir less of the Cable Street battlers and more of the BUF interlopers. Like the Blackshirts, ANL protesters assume the ‘right’ to descend on working class areas, threaten and harass their inhabitants, incite and engage in violence.

The Anti-Nazi League is linked intimately to the Socialist Workers Party, the best known and most aggressive far left faction in British politics since the demise of orthodox Communism. Unlike the Communist Party, the SWP is opposed to the parliamentary road to socialism and advocates violent revolution. The SWP worldview regards all existing political institutions as outgrowths of ‘capitalism’. Neither capitalism itself, nor its institutions, can be ‘patched up’ or ‘reformed’. The party’s struggle, therefore, is as much against ‘reformist ideas and leaders’ as against the capitalist economy:

The state machine is a weapon of capitalist class rule and therefore must be smashed. The present parliament, army, police and judges cannot simply be taken over and used by the working class. There is, therefore, no parliamentary road to socialism.

This rhetoric of class warfare disguises a critique of parliamentary rule identical to that of the Italian Squadristi, Mussolini’s foot soldiers who closed the Italian parliament and installed a fascist state. To Mussolini, parliamentary rule was so corrupt – and, indeed, ‘bourgeois’, that it could not be patched up. The fascist ideal of the Corporate State was based on representation by trade. This policy finds strong echoes in the SWP, which seeks to replace Parliament with a series of ‘workers councils’. It also resembles the modern anti-fascist obsession with group rights, whereby racial minorities (and all ‘oppressed communities’) are represented collectively by activist pressure groups that claim to speak for them. Whilst resembling fascist politics, the SWP’s position differs dramatically from that of Marx, who especially in his later years strongly favoured the parliamentary road. Even Lenin, who was always a pragmatist, believed in the use of any expedient institutions, including parliaments. In ultra-left groupuscles he saw only an ‘infantile disorder’.

Another far left faction that has had a seminal influence on the anti-fascist movement is the International Marxist Group (IMG), whose luminaries included Tariq Ali. Long defunct now, the IMG played an important role in the student agitation and violent demonstrations of the late 1960s, many of which called to mind the behaviour of young Stormtroopers in the colleges of Weimar Germany. Crucially, the IMG rejected the white working class as hopelessly reactionary and saw the new revolutionary elite as students, ethnic minorities and feminist women. The ideology and tactics and ideology of anti-fascism today owe much to the IMG’s profoundly anti-working class and anti-white prejudices.

These far left groups have based their politics on interpretations of Trotsky’s ‘permanent revolution’, a purist doctrine of continual change akin to that of Mao’s Cultural Revolution – and Hitler’s Third Reich. To the Führer, the Nazi ‘revolutionary creative will’ had ‘no fixed aim, … no permanency, only eternal change’. On the left, anti-fascism has risen to prominence at precisely the time when socialism lacks permanency and continuity, whether as an ideal or a practical programme. In their strident emotionalism and ritualistic denunciation of opponents, anti-fascist campaigns act as a substitute for a coherent left-wing ideology. The same was true of fascist movements, which aimed to replace the left by appealing to more basic psychological impulses of fear, envy and hatred.

Anti-fascism shares with its alleged opposite a belief in the cleansing or redemptive power of violence. They share as well an obsessive preoccupation with race. Indeed it could be said that organisations like Searchlight and the ANL do more than even the BNP to keep racial awareness alive. Both fascism and anti-fascism are uncompromisingly modernist movements, concerned with narrow categorisation and so unsuited to a post-modern age of complexity and permutation. Searchlight, for example, was horrified when some Hindu and Sikh community workers refused to be classified alongside Muslims as ‘Asians’. Here were ethnic minorities daring to defy the pressure group definitions. In reality, the violence and nihilism of anti-fascist activists are almost laughably remote from the conservatism of most ethnic minority populations.

It is easy, and tempting at times, to dismiss anti-fascism as a peripheral fringe interest, irrelevant to our lives and thoughts. However its crocodile-tear appeals are in some ways more effective than those of the more traditional far left. Anti-fascists claim to be opposing a political evil. In so doing, they evoke memories of that evil and the wrong done to millions of our fellow human beings. Many people of good will, therefore, fail to see that they are being manipulated. This is why ritual denunciations and balkanising ‘group rights’ are in danger of pervading public life. The subjectivist definition of a racist incident in the MacPherson Report – any incident that the victim or anyone else ‘perceives’ as racist – has all the totalitarian characteristics of anti-fascism, yet few dare to describe it as totalitarian for fear that they might be smeared as ‘racist’. Likewise, the attempts of New Labour apparatchiks to unearth political ‘information’ about the Paddington rail crash survivors had all the furtive and perverse instincts of a Searchlight campaign. Such influences have touched conservative politics as well. In the interests of inclusiveness, the Tories tend increasingly towards reverse discrimination and group rights, forgetting that many black and Asian people want freedom from racial politics.

Anti-fascism, like its fascist precursor, is primarily anti-human and misanthropic. It despises its supposed constituents as much as its sworn enemies, and has a vested interest in promoting racial conflict. When we recognise that fascists and anti-fascists are as one, their rhetoric of hatred will lose its power.

Aidan Rankin is co-Editor of New European. His book, The Politics of the Forked Tongue: Authoritarian Liberalism was published in 2002 and is available from New European Publications, 14-16 Carroun Road, London SW8 1JT, price £9.

copies of this document may be obtained from

Cliff Edge Signalling Company
P.O.Box 36, Rye, Sussex, TN31 7ZE England
Tel/Fax: 01793 226397
Email: orders@cesc.net

And judging by this earlier article, actually expands the point further.

Gays should come to live in Yorkshire

Aidan Rankin, New Statesman. Published 08 May 2000

Aidan Rankin speaks up for the provinces where he can still be just “not the marrying kind”

In my Yorkshire market town, the greengrocers, a family from just across the Lancashire border, refer to me as “not the marrying kind”. That’s because I am in my mid-30s and have never been seen with a woman on my arm. They’d never call me “gay” or “homosexual”; but then, the worst encounter I have experienced in the three years I have lived here was with a middle-aged religious fanatic who wagged his finger at me in the pub and spat that “London was a hotbed of sodomites”. Then I bought him a drink and he quietened down.

In Yorkshire, we gays get on with our lives. We do not need to heed the activists who wish us to throw discretion to the wind and drop any form of restraint. We do not have to listen to gay rights organisations such as Stonewall, which see us as an “identity” rather than an individual.

That Yorkshire is a gay-activist-free zone may explain why I encounter practical tolerance there – a tolerance that would be more widespread were it not for the arrogant activists who threaten the tolerant compromise between majority opinion and minority preference on which civilised life depends.

You can see why Stonewall and similar groups must operate the way they do: if we stop thinking about “gay issues”, the need for professional lobbyists disappears. This is why they must codify everything, classify everyone, identify new forms of “prejudice” and “combat” them.

Metropolitan liberals, who know nothing of quiet provincial tolerance, side with the activists because that is easier than thinking about real people. To them, “gays” who refuse to co-operate with the equality agenda are akin to those ungrateful poor relations who turn up their noses at token recognition in a will. Politicians, Tory as well as Labour, now proclaim that equality is more important without tolerance. But what is the use of equality without tolerance? What use is “partnership registration” at the town hall if such gestures break up friendships, or if they work against the grain of local life?

It is a moot point, anyway, if “equal rights” enforced by law work better than the many informal structures of tolerance. The uproar over the repeal of Clause 28 suggests otherwise. It is rumoured, too, that the Equal Opportunities Commission will issue guidelines for employers (written by Stonewall) recommending “gay and lesbian groups” at work. Such moves are vigorously supported by trade unionists and Labour politicians, who do not even ask us if we want such “groups”. Were they to do so, they would make an ideologically inconvenient discovery: most of us find the idea an intrusive nightmare.

In similar vein, an ex-RAF friend told me that he, and homosexual colleagues, opposed the presence of openly gay servicemen. They respected those officers who kept their sexuality to themselves far more than those who knowingly broke the law and “ran to Europe”. Group rights are like the Procrustean bed: comfortable only after the individual has been twisted and chopped to fit in.

I was barely a year old in 1967, when homosexuality was legalised between consenting adults. Yet I acknowledge this legislation as one of the civilising moments of 20th-century politics. Crossing the boundaries of party, it represented British liberalism at its most generous and humane. It was based on individual freedom under the rule of law. More than that, it reflected an ideal, Voltairean in origin, that freedom means the right to cultivate one’s own garden, to pursue one’s own interests in peace. It was the product of a tolerant society, secure in its values as rural Yorkshire is today, but as London is not.

Stonewall’s campaigning, by contrast, rejects this liberal ideal of privacy. It also shows the gay rights movement’s bossy, pedagogic tone. The current obsession with single-issue “rights” is rooted in the expansion of higher education and, with it, the triumph of simplified theory over accumulated wisdom, “professionalism” over practical expertise, and easy slogans over complex human problems.

Stonewall announces itself as working “for lesbian and gay equality”. In plain English, this simply means “equality” between male and female homosexuals. This is a meaningless concept, and does little except draw attention to the gay movement’s uni-sexism: the assumption, utterly unfounded in practice, that homosexual men and lesbians are part of a common culture.

Whereas consenting adult laws are about individual freedom, “gay rights” are about herding disparate individuals together into an ersatz ethnic minority with self-appointed leaders. There are genuine minority groups, based on shared ethnic origins, religion, region or even a shared hobby. But who would think of lumping together Tony Benn and Ian Paisley, or Ken Livingstone and Frank Dobson, as members of the “heterosexual community” and judging them accordingly? That is what homosexuals are expected to accept.

Just over a year ago, a disturbed young man placed a murderous nail bomb in a Soho gay pub. His action reminds us all that prejudice can kill. Yet there is also a fearful symmetry between the nail-bomber’s logic and that of “politically correct” liberalism. The violent bigot and the PC ideologue alike do not see individuals, only members of groups to be respectively reviled or given neatly packaged “rights”, whether they asked for them or not. To fight prejudice, we must go back to liberalism’s founding principles: freedom and privacy. Rights-conscious metropolitans should go to the countryside to learn about tolerance.

The writer is a research fellow in politics at the London School of Economics

Another article written by the good Dr also in the New Statesman is ‘Escape from UKIP‘ regarding his time as a member of said Party, and it isn’t good for Ukip.

As always, it is good to listen to different perspectives.  Bad to enforce them and too much trouble to bother unless we have everyone electronically monitored.

So we need to find middle-ground or keep our daggers sharpened, and I don’t fancy going through life looking over my shoulder.  Did that once already.