UAF | Some good links

8 12 2010

The following was brought to my attention by a fellow compatriot and involves the Leftarded Army of Doom, ironically calling itself Unite Against Fascism (screaming ‘smashing‘ your political opponents sounds extremely fascist to me).

First LINK is to a list of emails on the UAF mailing list.  Enjoy yourself spammers.

Second LINK (scroll up to the first entry) I was nudged to from the first and will take you to a forum explaining UAF’s Modus Operandi.

Apart from adding that I find anyone who supports such a leftist organisations hell-bent on the destruction of Britain, well, fucking retarded.  A people makes it Nation so with members of these vile organisations belonging to these lands, is it any wonder we’re fucked?

Advertisements




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.





EDL v UAF | refered by Radio 5live

1 09 2010

In the Red, White and Blue corner, we have the English Defence League.  They claim to be against the ever-increasing influence of political Islam in Britain.

In the blood-red with one-hundred-and-twenty million little cowardice yellow stars on it that represent the victims of communism’ corner, we have the Unite Against Fascism degenerates.  Yes, I’m biased, so what?

EDL – calm and collective

UAF – rabid fascist

I’ve seen and heard enough about the State-sponsored deluded Brownshirts that unwillingly do the Establishment’s bidding, from the Green brigade to the Anti-this brigade, the fools, the damn bloody fools.

Kudos to a fellow patriot for the find.





BNP | Fulltime Anti-BNPers

16 05 2010

A campaign of hate directed at the British National Party in Barking, sanctioned by the Establishment, coordinated by Searchlight, promoted by the Mirror and performed by the deluded is the main reason why there was no political earthquake.

Since last June, when 1,000,000 Britons decided to use their democratic right and voted for Mr Griffin and Mr Brons in the EU elections, Searchlight’s chief Nick Lowles has organised the undemocratic use of subversion, indoctrination and incitement to hatred to oppose them.

So how did they do it?  From the dreaded Hope Not Hate blog hosted by the leftarded news-polluter, the Daily Mirror:

We have had brilliant support from pensioners, black and Asian voters, white voters, young voters, women and men. On Monday 385 people delivered 55,000 leaflets and even on polling day we had 175 people out knocking up the vote.

So saturating the area with anti-BNP literature for the run-up to the election and, with 175 people manning the polling booths, it’s no wonder the BNP polled so little.

Nick Griffin was belittled, vilified, treated like dog dirt and told he was a third-class citizen who wasn’t wanted in Britain.

Argumentum ad hominem it’s called, attacking the person instead of the argument and has worked throughout the centuries as people are too stupid or lazy to see the motive behind the comments.

The world is upside down.  That or there is definitely something in the water.





GE10 | BNP analysis

15 05 2010

It has been near enough two weeks since the result of the election and finally we are finding out how the Establishment fended off the Nationalist advance in Barking.

Thanks to the leftarded Guardian, find out it was not policy or personality that smashed the BNP in Barking but an Obama-style campaign of PR and intimidation coordinated by the Establishment’s agents.

The answer is a tale of determined activism by Griffin’s opponents, aided by the antics of his self-harming party. That activism began to develop a sharp focus two weeks after those Euro elections, when Lowles chaired a meeting of MPs, anti-BNP campaigners, church groups and trade unionists. He gave them a detailed breakdown of the BNP’s support. The message was stark.

“A decision was made to draw a line in the sand,” says one Labour party figure who was at the meeting. “The coming general election was going to be the defining moment. Everyone knew that if they won then, it would be almost impossible to remove them in the future.”

There was never a single anti-BNP campaign in Barking. There were meetings, events, leafleting initiatives run by Hope Not Hate – which coordinated much of the activity – and also by Labour and Unite Against Fascism. Hope Not Hate set up a base in derelict premises, and volunteers travelled across the country to prepare it for the coming battle; putting up a new ceiling, plumbing in toilets and setting up a print room. Some slept on the floors.

“The response was truly overwhelming,” says Lowles. “On one day of action, we had 541 people; on another, 385; and even on election day itself, 176 people came out to help get the vote out.” Many of the volunteers had not been involved in political activity before. “We had teenagers travelling up from Kent, old ladies from the other side of London turning out. It felt like a liberating experience for people who felt like we were doing something politically important.”

The Hope Not Hate campaign was supported by Joe Rospars, chief digital strategist for Barack Obama from 2007 until his inauguration, and his company Blue State Digital.

Rospars said it was the “best example” of a British organisation applying the lessons of the US presidential elections. “We are seeing a genuine community-based organisation, with people coming together around a common purpose,” he said.

Campaigners were able to identify the key groups least likely to vote for the BNP – women, pensioners and people from ethnic minorities. They built up an online volunteer force of 140,000 people, and Rospars advised on how to use them for maximum impact. In the month before election day, Lowles says more than 1,000 volunteers descended on Barking, delivering 350,000 specially tailored leaflets and newsletters.

At the same time, the Dagenham MP John Cruddas, and his neighbour who seemed most under threat, Barking MP Margaret Hodge, were fighting a parallel ground war against the BNP. Hodge escalated the effort she had begun some four years earlier to reconnect with voters Labour had lost to the BNP. Their rise in Barking had seen the then culture secretary heavily criticised by many inside her own party. For her, this election result represents a triumph for decency, and personal redemption.

“When Griffin announced in September that he would stand, that gave me a real scare,” Hodge says. “My husband had not long died, and I was still in grief. It was a tough period. I was quietly confident that I would win, but I really wanted to smash him. And I was really concerned about the prospects for the council.”

Hodge, with the help of volunteers from Unite Against Fascism, turned to the politics of shoe leather, knocking on doors and listening to people’s concerns. “‘What do you want to talk about?’ I would ask. It was up to them.”

Most talked about street cleaning, wheelie bins and antisocial behaviour, but inevitably many raised the BNP trump card of immigration. Even black residents raised the issue with Hodge. “I would say to them: ‘I can’t turn the clock back, but this is why the borough has changed, and we must make it work for all of us.’ Some people hated that. Some would understand. But they came to feel I was listening.”

Of  course the internal problems of the BNP didn’t help but the mobilisation and coordination between the Establishment and Vested Interests would put Robert Mugabe to shame.

And you still believe you live in a democratic country?





World | Leftarded Armies of Doom

11 05 2010

“Progressive Politics” will be a term we’ll be hearing a lot more if Labour and the Liberals team up.  But what is it exactly?  Simply put, the Progressives seek to social engineer everything we hold dear at the political level.  Of course, we get the government we deserve and the more people produced that can’t tie their shoelaces together, the more we will suffer at the hands of fools.

As my grasp of the English language is failing me due to the heavy workload along with the headache of worrying about Labour-Liberal degenerates coming out holding hands, an article sent to me from a compatriot worthy of reading from the fine Brussels Journal.

Can We Coexist With The Left?

Brussels Journal.  From the desk of Fjordman on Sun, 2010-05-09 08:59

The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”

A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.

Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.

As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.

As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show “absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.”

In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.

In 2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.

Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle. “And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.”

Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud. As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly siding with its Islamic enemies.

In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”

The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.

In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.

Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story. People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?

Let me add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.

In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.

the Left’s obsession with mass immigration and multiculturalism is complex, some who have the best intentions for those concerned but with an equal measure of those with ulterior motives.  The more division is society, the more need for leftarded social engineering plans to ‘cultivate and celebrate’ the transformation for NuBritons rather than highlighting the ‘displacement and disfranchisement’ suffered by TruBritons.  That is the end (desired?) result, the call for more governmental interventionalistic policies.  And to suppress dissenting voices, both subjects are dangled in front of their opponents in the vain hope that the argument can be closed down with accusations of bigotry.

For a lucky few, the benefits of immigration was the extra competition in the job market caused wages to deflate and rents to increase.  The burden of accepting those lower wages and higher rents was placed on the many but we live in a globalised world, where survival of the cheapest has replaced survival of the fittest.

Oh how I despise the Leftarded Armies of Doom.

“When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.”  Thanks to the Leftarded Deluded of Great Britain, the enemy are not only within, they are at this very moment, deciding who will rule us.





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.