Friday, 27 December 2013

The Fox's Prophecy

Something a little different for the Yuletide season, although not particularly related to Christmas. A tale of the fall of England and the following rebirth. Not a bad prophesy considering it is nearly 144 years old, especially the parts I have chosen to embolden.   (Hat tip to Unrepentant British Nationalist, circa 2008).

 The Fox's Prophecy

(Attributed to D. W. Nash - 1870)

Tom Hill was in the saddle,
One bright November morn,
The echoing glades of Guiting Wood
Were ringing with his horn.

The diamonds of the hoar-frost
Were sparkling in the sun.
Upon the falling leaves the drops
Were shining one by one.

The hare lay on the fallow,
The robin carolled free;
The linnet and yellow finch
Twittered from tree to tree.

In stately march the sable rook
Followed the clanking plough;
Apart their watchful sentinel
Cawed from the topmost bough.

Peeped from her hole the field-mouse
Amid the fallen leaves.
From twig to twig the spider
Her filmy cable weaves.

The waving of the pine boughs
The squirrel's form disclose;
And through the purple beech-tops
The whirring pheasant rose.

The startled rabbit scuttered
Across the grassy ride;
High in mid-air the hovering hawk
Wheeled round in circles wide.

The freshest wind was blowing
O'er groves of beech and oak
And through the boughs of larch and pine
The struggling sunbeam broke.

The varied tints of autumn
Still lingered on the wood,
And on the leaves the morning sun
Poured out a golden flood.

Soft, fleecy clouds were sailing
Across the vault of blue.
A fairer hunting morning
No huntsman ever knew.

All nature seemed rejoicing
That glorious morn to see;
All seemed to breathe a fresher life -
Beast, insect, bird and tree.

But sound and sight of beauty
Fell dull on eye and ear;
The huntsman's heart was heavy
His brow oppressed with care.

High in his stirrups raised he stood,
And long he gazed around;
And breathlessly and anxiously
His listened for a sound.

But nought he heard save the song bird
Or jay's discordant cry;
Or when among the the tree-tops
The wind went murmuring by.

No voice of hound, no sound of horn
The woods around were mute,
As though the earth had swallowed up
His comrades - man and brute.

He thought, "I must essay to find
My hounds at any cost;
A huntsman who has lost his hounds
Is but a huntsman lost".

Then round he turned his horse's head
And shook his bridle free,
When he was struck by an aged fox
That sat beneath a tree.

He raised his eye in glad surprise,
That huntsman keen and bold;
But there was in that fox's look
That made his blood run cold.

He raised his hand to touch his horn,
And shout a "Tally-ho"
But mastered by that fox's eye,
His lips refused to blow.

For he was grim and gaunt of limb,
With age all silvered o'er;
He might have been an arctic fox
Escaped from Greenland's shore.

But age his vigour had not tamed,
Nor dimm'd his sparkling eye,
Which shone with an unearthly fire -
Fire that could never die.

And thus the huntsman he addressed,
In tones distinct and clear,
Who heard as they who in a dream
The fairies' music hear.

"Huntsman" he said - a sudden thrill
Through all the listeners ran,
To hear a creature of the wood
Speak like a Christian man -

"Last of my race, to me' tis given
The future to unfold,
To speak the words which never yet
Spake fox of mortal mould.

"Then print my words upon your heart
And stamp them on your brain,
That you to others may impart
My prophecy again.

"Strong life is your's in manhood's prime,
Your cheek with heat is red;
Time has not laid his finger yet
In earnest on your head.

"But ere your limbs are bent with age,
And ere yours locks are grey,
The sport that you have loved so well
Shall long have passed away.

"In vain shall generous Colmore,
Your hunt consent to keep;
In vain the Rendcomb baronet
With gold your stores shall heap.

"In vain Sir Alexander,
And Watson Keen in vain,
O'er the pleasant Cotswold hills
The joyous sport maintain.

"Vain all their efforts: spite of all,
Draws nigh the fatal morn,
When the last Cotswold fox shall hear
The latest huntsman's horn.

"Yet think not, huntsman, I rejoice
To see the end so near;
Nor think the sound of horn and hound
To me a sound of fear.

"In my strong youth, which numbers now
Full many a winter back,
How scornfully I shook my brush
Before the Berkeley pack.

"How oft from Painswick hill I've seen
The morning mist uncurl,
When Harry Airis blew the horn
Before the wrathful Earl.

"How oft I've heard the Cotswolds' cry
As Turner cheered the pack,
And laughed to see his baffled hounds
Hang vainly on my track.

"Too well I know, by wisdom taught
The existence of my race
O'er all wide England's green domain
Is bound up with the Chase.

"Better in early youth and strength
The race for life to run,
Than poisoned like the noxious rat,
Or slain by felon gun.

"Better by wily sleight and turn
The eager hound to foil,
Than slaughtered by each baser churl
Who yet shall till the soil.

"For not upon these hills alone
The doom of sport shall fall;
O'er the broad face of England creeps
The shadow on the wall.

"The years roll on: old manors change,
Old customs lose their sway;
New fashions rule; the grand sire's garb
Moves ridicule to-day.

"The woodlands where my race has bred
Unto the axe shall yield;
Hedgerow and copse shall cease to shade
The ever widening field.

"The manly sports of England
Shall vanish one by one;
The manly blood of England
In weaker veins shall run.

"The furzy down, the moorland heath,
The steam plough shall invade;
Nor park nor manor shall escape -
Common, nor forest glade.

"Degenerate sons of manlier sires
To lower joys shall fall;
The faithless lore of Germany,
The gilded vice of Gaul.

"The sports of their forefathers
To baser tastes shall yield;
The vices of the town displace
The pleasures of the field.

"For swiftly o'er the level shore
The waves of progress ride;
The ancient landmarks one by one
Shall sink beneath the tide.

"Time honoured creeds and ancient faith,
The Alter and the Crown,
Lordship's hereditary right,
Before that tide go down.

"Base churls shall mock the mighty names
Writ on the roll of time;
Religion shall be held a jest,
And loyalty a crime.

"No word of prayer, no hymn of praise
Sound in the village school;
The people's education
  Utilitarians rule.

"In England's ancient pulpits
Lay orators shall preach
New creeds, and free religions
Self made apostles teach.

"The peasants to their daily tasks
In surly silence fall;
No kindly hospitalities
In farmhouse nor in hall.

"Nor harvest feast nor Christmas tide
Shall farm or manor hold;
Science alone can plenty give,
The only God is gold.

"The homes where love and peace should dwell
Fierce politics shall vex,
And unsexed woman strive to prove
Herself the coarser sex.

"Mechanics in their workshops
Affairs of state decide;
Honour and truth - old fashioned words -
The noisy mob deride.

"The statesman that should rule the realm
Coarse demagogues displace;
The glory of a thousand years
Shall end in foul disgrace.

The honour of old England,
Cotton shall buy and sell,
And hardware manufacturers
Cry "Peace - lo, all is well".

Trade shall be held the only good
And gain the sole device;
The statesman's maxim shall be peace,
and peace at any price.

"Her army and her navy
Britain shall cast aside;
Soldiers and ships are costly things,
Defence an empty pride.

"The German and the Muscovite
Shall rule the narrow seas;
Old England's flag shall cease to float
In triumph on the breeze.

"The footsteps of th' invader,
Then England's shore shall know,
While home-bred traitors give the hand
To England's every foe.

"Disarmed, before the foreigner,
The knee shall humbly bend,
And yield the treasures that she lacked
The wisdom to defend.

"But not for aye - yet once again,
When purged by fire and sword,
The land her freedom shall regain,
To manlier thoughts restored.

"Taught wisdom by disaster,
England shall learn to know,
That trade is not the only gain
Heaven gives to man below.

"The greed for gold departed
The golden calf cast down,
Old England's sons shall raise again
The Alter and the Crown.

"Rejoicing seas shall welcome
Their mistress once again;
Once more the banner of St George
Shall rule upon the main.

"The blood of the invader
Her pastures shall manure,
His bones unburied on her fields
For monuments to endure.

"Again in hall and homestead,
Shall joy and peace be seen,
And smiling children raise again
The maypole on the green.

"Again the hospitable board
Shall groan with Christmas cheer,
And mutual service bind again
The peasant and the peer.

"Again the smiling hedgerow
Shall field from field divide;
Again among the woodlands
The scarlet troop shall ride."

Again it seemed that aged fox,
More prophecies would say,
When sudden came upon the wind,
"Hark forrard, gone away".

The listener started from his trance -
He sat there all alone;
That well-known cry had burst the spell,
The aged fox was gone.

The huntsman turned,
He spurred his steed,
And to the cry he sped;
And when he thought upon that fox,
Said naught, but shook his head.

Monday, 16 December 2013

Going out on the lash with Choudhary?

 Going out on the lash with Anjem Choudhary?

"Get your 40 lashes here! 40 lashes! Get your 40 lashes ladies and gentlemen!"

Via some nationalist sites (as well as the Daily Mail), I have seen the news about (provocateur extraordinaire) Anjem Choudhary's latest publicity stunt relating to his advocation of upholding Sharia law on the sale and consumption of alcohol within the Brick Lane area of London.

Once of a day I might have got all in a lather about this kind of thing. However, I have to admit that in recent years I haven't had the inclination to really care all that much, despite the smug and mocking tones of Mr Choudhary being as irritating as ever.

Please let me explain my position, because I know I might be at risk of alienating some people with my opening preamble.

Of course, it grates on me that interlopers are demanding their own ways in our homeland. I think that tends to go without saying, for any nationalist. However, with things at the state they are currently in, particularly in London and 'Brick Lane', what, in all honesty, would the EDL or the authorities do about it if it was the entire London Muslim "community" backing this group, (which it currently is not)?

London is already lost as a 'white city' in a formerly homogeneous 'white nation'. Native whites in London are less than 45% - and falling/fleeing fast.

Who, in all honesty, believes that the EDL or the police 'service' (which is being slashed in numbers whilst the overall population is rising) can enforce what such a massive demographic get up to (and what they can demand and threaten) on the streets of London now and in the long term future?

Given that a vast majority of those who will be subject to their demands will be a mixture of other non-whites of various heritage (including their own kind who own curry restaurants and corner shops), many smug liberal whites and drunk student types who claim to like the "vibrancy" of London as it is today (and are thus part of the problem).... why should I really continue to care about what Anjem Choudhary (and his handlers) are up to there and enforcing upon them within Brick Lane?

Of course, the whole principle of this being able to happen in the future is wrong and I reject it. But as things stand, what exactly is going to be done about it by the state, the councils, the police, the government etc as they stand today?

Will the homosexuals, the 'recreational' drug users, the liberal hedonists, the occupants of the BBC dwellers in posher parts of the sprawl, the Guardian journalists, Chinese nationals, the  Jamaicans (and every combination of nationality possible) come rushing to our aid in robust defence of merry old England and the English people, in order to throw this particular demographic out of the country? I do not think so.

I tend to expect that the future governments of this country will capitulate to all this kind of thing as quickly as manure off a shovel when they are faced with the infeasibility of trying to enforce that millions of people adhere to "our rules" in swathes of land which are effectively now 'their own'.

I think that they will thus, in all likelihood, start saying that they need to police their own areas, that for public order they advise that certain behaviour is adhered to for maintaining good community relations.

I suspect that they will let property owners in those areas apply leases and such that would stipulate how the tenant must comply with the expectations of the contract and the wishes of the local population.

(There was a recent example of this where James Caan, the Muslim from the TV show 'Dragons Den', undertook a recent deal with a Dubai based investor to purchase a retail park, one which will be subject to "Islamic principles".  As usual - and as with this instance - such things will continue to get the blessing of local politicians who want to be seen to be 'securing jobs' etc by selling this country off to the highest bidders).

If people are employed by Asian owned companies, the companies will no doubt be allowed to issue a dress code for work - which means some form of head covering for women, trousers instead of skirts, and minimal to no make-up, etc. If you don't agree, you don't work there. That will be the position and the attitude. 

The government of the future will no doubt suggest that the existing Sharia courts can be expanded into other areas of law which may affect the wishes of the locality (which is how they got the ones they already have in the first place).

None of the above is 'sinister' - it will just be rolled out nonchalantly after a puff and a wheeze by people in the Daily Mail comment sections. 

But what if things do get a little more sinister in the future? Not necessarily from your everyday Muslim, but from a more fanatical section that is applying and enforcing the rules through fear?

Seeing as an area might ultimately start to get a reputation for beatings or assaults for people not wearing the right clothing or whatever, our own people will no doubt start to wear a headscarf in them voluntarily, 'just in case'; so as not to make themselves a target and perhaps even to be "polite" (if they are liberal minded enough).

I do not expect acid attacks for 'non compliance' to be prevalent for quite some time, but they have already happened here in Britain for different things, amongst their own people - as have beatings for non compliance to Islamic sensibilities, such as a teacher who was nearly beaten to death for teaching un-Islamic ways to students.

I suppose it is quite alarmist for people to suggest acid attacks and beatings will happen more often, but the point I wish to make is that the so-called "moderate" Muslims, just like everywhere else in the world, will generally be under the thumb and the fear of 'extremists' like that - whilst at the same time not being able to really argue with the basic Islamic sentiment behind it (such as the wider advocation of Sharia).

They may not agree with the methodology or the actions, but that does not mean to say they disagree with the ultimate ambition.

How can they disagree? They believe in Islam as a political and socio-religious tool. That is what it is all about. That is why they are Muslims! To expect them to support the opposite of that aim is fantasy land, like the current political leaders seem to live in with their notions of "shared values" and "muscular liberalism".

The claims made in the Daily Mail article (by the Quilliam Foundation) that the application of Sharia (and thus an overthrow of what we perceive to be democracy) is not the aim of Islam and Muslims is laughable. As is the assertion that Muslims cannot apply Sharia to non-Muslims.

Obviously, it is quite the contrary and self evident in many parts of the world that Islam is one of the only religious systems whose rules do tend to apply to everybody else when they are in a position to demand it!

Islam is different to the rest in many ways, such as how it claims the Koran to be the direct word of God via an interpretation by Mohammed. Many of us will know what the score is by now, so I need not get into all that.

However, where I differ with the general consensus and articles which I have seen on this event or stunt pulled by Choudhary, is that I noticed that the placards they were holding on the demonstration said things like "10,000 alcohol related deaths per year" and "save lives, don't drink alcohol".

He pushes it to the extreme, but I cannot really argue with some of that sentiment. On our own extreme, what am I supposed to do, praise the idiotic and moronic binge drinking culture that we see on our city streets of a weekend? Am I supposed to support that kind of society and hedonism just because the Muslims are not fond of it?

I like a drink of lager as much as anybody, but I am fortunate in that I can enjoy a moderate drink and not be part of the swill that I think is helping to drag down western society. Many other English people all over the country can socialise without getting silly. There is something sadly wrong in our culture though which encourages some of the worst behaviour. Why is there this need?

I should make it clear that I am not talking about alcoholics who are afflicted with a terrible curse, which is an illness. I am talking much more precisely about those who purposefully and wilfully indulge in the kinds of behaviour and attitudes we see on many a "fly on the wall" programme. The kinds of people who "don't care" what is going on in this country away from their social life and the 'here and now'. They are often no real friends of ours and our movement, aside from their default ethnic heritage.

In addition, look at the (albeit snide) picture that the Daily Mail have used for their fifth picture:

"I'z no idieea whash relly goi'n on, but 'Up the English!' Cheers!"

The newspaper is of course causing the usual mischief in my view, but is it all that good for our people to be seen like this? Is this a good advertisement of what we want to save and what we want to be like in the future? Are these people to be the heroes of our civilisational revival?

The man in the picture may be a great bloke, he may be on our side and much more clued up than he looks, and if so, I will stand aside him if the day ever comes. In the meantime though, generally speaking, is it good for their own well being, their health, their ability to focus on what is important (and what is being done to them)? I don't think so.

Is it giving us any moral high ground or real defence of what we are really fighting for? No, I don't really think it is.

Surely we need to do better, be seen to be doing better and making something better of ourselves?

As I have said before, that is one of the problems I have had with the EDL position, for they seem to automatically, or by default, defend aspects of our country and our culture that are in all likelihood doing us damage and a disservice, just because the Muslims are against it.

Although I can appreciate the point about deaths from alcoholism, the liver failures, the unsafe feeling at the disorderly night life of a weekend, etc, I do not share the position of the Muslims though.

Where I certainly differ from their placards is that they claim that banning alcohol is the answer - and that some hard line "Sharia" is the answer.  

They are wrong. Nationalism and a return to our own systems, cultures and expectations from society is the answer.

As ever, if we can use Choudhary to send people our way, then so be it. He is useful for that purpose. But let us not take the eye off the ball with all this "do as the Romans do" or "abide by our laws" kind of nonsense that tends to dominate the newspaper and comment section discourse, because it basically does not work that way.

This is because demographics is destiny, particularly in a democracy. There are now already enough "BME's" in this country to swing a general election away from our indigenous interests - if they wanted to do so as a bloc.

People need to start bearing this in mind, because the mainstream parties certainly are. They are working out how to appeal to this new future voter and how to be "representative" of the demographic change, in order to keep their parties afloat.  They could not care less about the indigenous British people and their survival. They are not going to back us or look out for our interests.

Nor should we take our eye off the people who let them all in at the first place and why.

It does not matter to me all that much whether we deal with the ultimate drivers or those who do their bidding, providing we shut it down one way or another. For example, there are many organisations and people getting rich off our demise and we ought to be working out how to start closing down their money chutes - whether it is immigration lawyers, charity groups, or whatever else along the route back towards the root of the problem.

(We can also choose to opt out of various systems and trappings as best we can, preferably backing our own new way ahead as an alternative instead).

The Islamists claim they have solutions for what they see as evil blights on society - and they are pushing them, as shown in the Daily Mail report. Yet what are our solutions to the collapse of our own societies and people - apart from simply being against what the likes of Choudhary are doing and having some kind of dream of shipping them all out on aircraft carriers one day?

What are we offering to the country - and what are we holding up to the nation as something worth preserving and worthy of securing a future of? 

Around us is the stench of failure, collapse, corruption, immorality, consumerism, selfishness - the noose woven by the 'liberal-left', globalists and particular vested (Jewish dominated) interest groups on both of those teams that have conspired to break down our civilisation and loot it. That is not what I want to secure and save for the future.

We often bring up past achievements, past inventiveness and past greatness when we are defending our rights to survive. But that is just that, the past. We are living on a memory and on the sweat and blood of those who have gone before us. What about now and the future?

I am as guilty as the next man for being no shining example. My zeal has fallen, without question. I have in recent years reached a point where I feel the need to just get on with my life and just bear in mind what I have learnt, in order to be prepared for events in the future.

It has become too exhausting to continue to care so much. I do still care, and I think I always will -  but in some ways I have had to moderate my care in order to start living a life of my own instead of perpetually feeling as though I am trapped into watching a nation commit suicide. It is not healthy or all that productive to live such a life. It helps nobody.

Although I consider Choudhary to be bit of a noisy publicist for a factional grouping (who could even be a subversive plant in society), in general, the Muslims are planning ahead and pushing ahead. They are looking 10, 20, 30 years down the line in many areas they live. They are setting their stall out and asserting themselves.

We, on the other hand, as a nation and a movement, seem to be eternally on the retreat and dealing with an aftermath of situations like this one shown in the Daily Mail report (that are borne from matters which have already got out of control) instead of dealing with ourselves as a society and making our own fate however best we can.

We need to be in the driving seat of where we are heading as a people, not looking onwards from the back seat of somebody else's vehicle (like Anjem Choudhary or indeed "the Zionists").

But then we get back to the same old question....what exactly do we do about it, how do we do it, and have we the will as a nation to succeed? 

That is what I think would be a better thing for us to focus on, not some mouthpiece behind a megaphone and his statements of issuing 40 lashes. Sure, it is important, but it is also important that we figure out what to do about it and how we are to present ourselves as a counter force.

Friday, 11 October 2013

Nationalism - an Entirely Different League?

 Nationalism - an Entirely Different League?

Tommy and Kevin being interviewed with the Quilliam Foundation

I have not written anything substantial for quite some time, but I wrote a comment to a website the other day and it became that long I thought I had better make it into an article instead. 

It is relating to the English Defence League and the the current brouhaha that everybody seems to be talking about lately.

Whilst I have not been involved with the English Defence League, it has always been an interesting phenomena to watch from the outside. I can therefore only offer my opinions as that outsider, but I hope that what I am about to write will make some sense, all the same.

Admittedly, I have never been a fan of the EDL as an organisation (and have previously argued why too many times to mention) but despite my concerns over the ideological nature of the organisation itself, I have always taken the view that there may well have been some decent members and supporters in the ranks -  albeit ideologically confused supporters at times, in my opinion.

Like many others, I heard the breaking news on the BBC radio news a few days ago that the leadership of the EDL were leaving the organisation. They were said to be leaving in order to join up with the Quilliam Foundation, as part of 'rejecting extremism' {both 'far right' and Islamic} and to 'tackle radical Islam' in a more serious or 'professional' way.

As somebody who still works for a living (and has little time to pour over the internal ruptures of such organisations), I have not really had chance or inclination to look any further in to it than is what is displayed on the surface, but again, all I can say is that I have a view on what the EDL was and why Tommy might have changed his approaches. 

I already seem to differ with some other nationalists on this, but this is not really new for me I suppose!
Unlike many comments I have seen lately over the matter, I do not really see it as some kind of revelation (or him being some kind of turncoat to his cause). People are suggesting that Tommy has been 'got at' or put under pressure, but I have no reason to suspect this at all, or suspect any shady or shadowy groups plotting and scheming in the background to his decision. 

Of course, for this article, I am going to be taking the EDL at face value and assuming that the motives of the founding members (and main support base) were genuine, albeit ideologically flawed or naive in basis.

It was interesting to hear them on the radio that day stating how they had come to the conclusion that street activity was no longer giving fruit to the organisation; that they felt such events were now stagnating and how they thought they ought to look into other ways to try and stop what they perceive to be the greatest threat to the future of this country - 'radical Islam'.

Given that the EDL was always flawed in their choice of focussing on the visible resultant faces of this nation's transformation rather than the hidden drivers (be it the Jewish element, economics or for plain arguments sake 'the government') - I believed a point would eventually come where they realised that marching up and down and jeering at the reds or Muslims over the police barricades would not have any solid affect upon the future direction of this country.

It is certainly true that they pulled in significant numbers on their rallies and demonstrations and I can only admire that this was done and made possible - it was much higher than many nationalist organisations seemed to have achieved. They were once recognised as having 'stolen back the streets' from the 'far left' - which is no mean feat.

However, when it comes to anything resulting from these noisy bursts of action (often directed against 'current news' affairs relating to Muslims), it is unfortunate that "empty vessels tend to make the most noise". I say this only because I do not see any long lasting resultant from their methodology or their demonstrations.

For an example of this flawed methodology, one has to ask how many hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been given the right of settlement in this country since the EDL was founded? How many more hundreds of thousands of births have been given by the Muslim demographic already entrenched in this country from Aberdeen to Ashford?

Have they ever marched outside the Home Office whilst demanding border control? Have they called for action to be taken to reduce the Islamic demographic expansion of what is already here, via repatriation or programs to incentive lower birthrates amongst the group (or higher birthrate in ours)?

Not to my knowledge they haven't. That is not their focus point. Islamic extremism is their focus point. The building of a Mosque or something is their focus point. 

Of course, the new mosque in terms of bricks and mortar is not really the problem though, despite it being another sign of conquest and triumphalism. It is the demographics that can command them in the first place which is the real element to grapple with in the long haul. 

I may well be corrected as I am not inside those circles, but I have not known of any pressure being applied by the group in terms of achieving long term and solid goals, things that would greatly change the trajectory of the future.

We seem to have had spot rallies over things which have already happened (and cannot be changed) and over things which will be tomorrows chip wrappings.....but the machine rolls relentlessly onwards regardless of their protestations. 

Even extreme events that spike the nation's attention fall prey to being the proverbial chip wrappings. 

Lee Rigby? Who is he? Already, the slumbering public have moved on like it never even happened. There has been a new series of Big Brother and Dexter since then, so the matter of somebody being hacked to death on British streets is long gone from their attention. You may receive an "Oh yeah", as they recollect it from the memory banks.

It is a sad fact, and horrible to have to point out, but history is spotted with these kinds of events -  and Lee is unfortunately just another marker along the transition of this country into being a different one entirely, in all aspects but that of geography. 

No doubt there are many good EDL people present who are sick of the way the country is
heading, but who may not know how to handle it or what to think.
They just want to take a stand -  so they are doing!

To be fair to the EDL and their support base, I think it is rather admirable to be taking some kind of stand against what is going on with the Islamisation of this country and Islamic extremists in particular. 

I say this because it is a problem, it does need to be challenged, and, admittedly, they were doing well at getting their general cause recognised and they were acting as some kind of magnet for those who sought to visibly and physically show some kind of opposition. 

I hold my hand up and say that it takes some bravery to put yourself on such a front line, to have your address revealed, be hassled by the police or to have threats put on your life. 

If it is all to be taken on face value, being so confrontational and an open target to both maniacs and the general state establishment is more than I have ever done. I am not knocking that side of the organisation or the wider support base.

The trouble I have had with it all is that, in my opinion, the message the EDL had from the start was always confusing and incoherent in basis. The closer you picked at it, the more it fell apart. 

For example, they were at it again during the radio interview I heard. They said that the threat they are against is "radical Islam" - and they were at pains to state that they were "not against ordinary Muslims". 

It takes a great deal of sophistry and mental contortion to try and sort the wheat out from the chaff without looking completely ridiculous. Unfortunately for the EDL, it is ridiculous and always will be ridiculous to try and draw these distinctions. 

For example, if a Muslim demands Sharia banking and refuses to sell alcohol in his corner shop, tends to support Hamas against Israel, but does not force his wife or daughter to wear the veil and fits in with 'the lads' every month when watching Manchester United play football - is he an extremist or not?  

(More to the point though, if the nation is filled with such people, does it even ultimately matter?!)

To some degree I know what Tommy and Kevin mean about 'ordinary Muslims' - because the reality is that (no matter what the hyperbole is by some people) not all Muslims are strapping on backpacks or mutilating their children. Not all of them are 'raping our children' or 'forcing their ways on our society' or whatever else. 

Living where I do at least gives me some idea as to how things actually are with these people. 

Yes, there are 'groomers'. Yes, there are drug dealers. Yes, there will be fanatics. There are certainly gangs. There are probably older males who are wife beaters, there will be some forced marriages, some cousin marriage problems with births, some car insurance fraudsters, some forced wearing of the veil, and all the rest of it. Even the liberal local press covers it all from time to time.

However, to use the rhetoric like we tend hear on EDL rallies or on general internet sites (which can suggest that they are all like this) is wrong headed and I think it actually makes the job of dealing with it harder.

This is because not only is it evidently false - but the fever pitch of 'patriotic fervour' can be greatly embarrassing and almost impossible to try and argue that it is typical of all Muslims (and still be taken seriously). 

If people can see and hear with their own eyes and ears that it is not like this generalisation, then they will tend to dismiss you as some sort of lunatic or "uneducated bigot" right from the start.

That is one reason why I have always considered it damaging to the cause when people run so hard with these exaggerated themes and stereotypes.

Yes, we who frequent nationalist websites will all know how things will end up, but that is a different argument to what many people perceive in the "here and now", which is, on current trends, a transition period between a White western nation to a mixed race, black and Muslim fused nation. 

Will the forced wearing of the veil become more normalised in the future? I think it will. Will we see more attacks and demands to comply with Islamic sensitivities? Undoubtedly.

The trouble is that its not yet like that; and many people out there still do not understand that demographics is destiny. 

These arguments we tend to get over the veil, or pupils at Muslim schools, or halal dinners, or 'unfairness' over whatever else, will not matter a jot in the future when they can command what is happening. 

"Oh No! Not another crazy British Activism analogy!"

Imagine you have a rugby pitch, a rugby team and a club house on the edge of the rugby ground. It might have been there for over 120 years. There are plaques on the wall, rugby themed decorations adorning the building, and so on. Everybody knows it is a rugby ground. 

Imagine that football was started to be played on the pitch too. Arrangements were made so that different groups had different times of use; and they generally accommodated each other and lived alongside each other sharing the same space. It was only a few games a season, so it was no big deal. Some people moaned, but they were seen to be petty and stubborn, just "set in their ways".

Imagine that the sport of rugby generally started to suffer a decline - a very slow decline. Although rugby players and their supporters were without doubt the mainstay of the venue, more footballers and football supporters were using the pitch and the club house than ever before - and eventually the two rival groups started to fend for the same places at the same time. 

That was just the way it was, it was nobodies 'fault'. The football crowd needed the venue more than they initially thought, and the rugby crowd had no real argument to make as to why the pitch and grounds could not be used when their own allocated slot was not being sufficiently filled.

Before you know it, the majority of the club house and bar is filled with football supporters rather than rugby supporters. 

Rugby memorabilia is slowly replaced with football memorabilia, the rules of the club house gradually need to be reformed to reflect the nature of the football players who now command the space more frequently than those rugby players who had established it. 

This, quite understandably, greatly annoys some stalwart rugby players and fans. They can not quite understand just how it had come to this!

Tell me, when these last rugby supporters in that club house stand up and say "Excuse me, this is a Rugby Club not a football club, we have rules and expectations here, you should fit in to our historic ways of doing things" - how seriously are they going to be taken?! 

Aside from the name of the grounds, it is no longer a rugby club, but a football club instead, and their opinions no longer count. In their minds, it is still a rugby club and still their grounds - but in reality, it is not.

This is the way it is with all these retarded debates over the viel, or "doing what the Romans do", or, being against "Islamic extremists only"

(The liberal-left will just say they are "both just sports", that "they both have balls and teams" and that it "does not really matter" as they are basically the same thing!).

Substitute "Islamic Extremists" for a handful of football hooligans at the 'Rugby' club house and you have the retarded arguments of the EDL (and many of the 'patriotic' populists that unfortunately tend to go with them). They are against the hooligans causing a fight, but otherwise okay with the state of the club?

This is where Tommy Robinson and the EDL have always had it wrong. 

The simple fact of the matter is that the more the country becomes demographically and religiously Muslim, via those "ordinary" Muslims he accepts, the more Islamified it becomes anyway - and the more vigour will be applied over 'their' territory and observance. 

It matters not a jot what they get up to when they command their own areas to such a great extent. It does not bring our own country or people back by somehow forcing them to live in accordance to our expectations. Nor does the pressure and narrative that they should do so alter the trajectory of this country.

It is ridiculous to me that Tommy and people like him seem to expect that 'the government' or 'society' or an ethnic minority group (like the English in Tower Hamlets) can somehow dictate as to how the Muslims live their lives. It just does not work that way Tommy!

It is not a matter of "extremists" - it is a matter of demographic weight as a whole, transforming society itself. The "extremists" and threats are just the extra layer that occurs as demands increase, whether those "ordinary Muslims" are supportive of them or not. 

They will, all in all, then be arguing with themselves and thrashing out their own issues - and we will increasingly not have a dog in this fight.

This kind of thing started to worry Tommy Robinson

When it comes to Tommy Robinson leaving the EDL, he was talking on the radio about how he had seen various pictures and messages from his supporters that he felt had become too extreme - and suggested that he did not want to be linked with that kind of organisation - or be held to blame if (or when) something happens at the hands of those kinds of individuals in the EDL. 

He specifically cited a man who lifted his jumper up to reveal a tattoo or image that showed a picture of a mosque being bombed. I assume he means the one in the picture above.

Although we English are renowned for our quirky humour and laughing in the face of adversity (and I am pretty sure that to the person concerned it was a sick joke and a statement, not a signal of intent), Tommy Robinson, quite rightly in my opinion, said he started to wonder just what he had helped create. 

It seemed to be dawning on him just where it all might lead to - and who might be getting their collar felt by the police, or who might ultimately be held responsible by society for ratcheting up such rhetoric and attitudes in his ranks.

In other words, he, his chums and his backers have done their job of riling up the patriotic elements of society - and now that they have watched it spiral out of their control and have seen it grow its own legs, they are getting out so that the ties are severed as to how it all came about - and so that they will not be held responsible for the situation they now fear they have set in motion.

I happen to find it true (and share his view) that this kind of rhetoric has got completely carried away and detached from reality in recent years. But this is what tends to happen with such groups.

As soon as you create a bubble, a following, a narrative, a "closed loop network" all telling each other what they want to hear and each element 'ratcheting up' their venom and such for the negative objects of their cause, the more they can get detached from the perceived reality of the wider population. 

It is not only done with the Muslims, but also Jews and Zionists or Bankers or whoever the collective target is. I am not suggesting the criticisms and some observations are not valid - I am specifically talking about the rhetoric and sweeping paranoia that would seem truly bizarre to anybody outside of that group discussing them.

This mental conditioning carries on until it reaches the point that people involved in it can hardly converse with anybody who is not inside that closed loop network. This process can only go on for so long before those involved lose sight of how they are both perceived and understood by other people. 

This is not really a good recipe for success, particularly if you have no solid theory or ideology on which to base your cause and back up your arguments.  

Nationalists have historically done okay on this defence because we do fundamentally have one, but it was always a problem (for me) with the EDL, because it was unclear and seemed to be all over the place with anything other than "extremist Islam".

For an example of their arguments having ideological holes (that can be easily poked through by the media) - I had an email sent to me a month or so ago advertising the EDL rally in Tower Hamlets (as it was said to be a "No Go Zone"). 

Fair enough, we have all heard what is going on. We know what they mean. But what if it was not a "No Go Zone" and there were no 'extremist' Muslims confiscating cans of beer on the street or whatever? What if the EDL had already seen their wish of "banning the burkha" come true - meaning that it was not quite so in your face 'Islamic' in the area of Tower Hamlets? 

Would they then be fine with Tower Hamlets as a racially and culturally alien place that is no longer English? If not, what would be their excuse as to why they don't like it?

This the kind of ideological incoherence that always left Robinson and his fellow deserter open to being undermined by the mainstream press, by Paxman, etc, not to mention the 'leftist' groups that opposed them - and all the other organisations that allegedly seek to "tackle extremism", like the Quilliam Foundation.

In fact, the EDL as an entity provided the exact type of fodder which these organisations sought, in that it gave off that simplistic message of how "if only they could be shown that not all Muslims in present society were limb amputating jihad warriors in the making, and we could reach some understanding about shared humanity, the problems of extremism on both sides will go away".

Hence we have the Quilliam Foundation, the alleged 'family dinner' with a Muslim family linked with the Quilliam Foundation......and all the kinds of "dialogue" we all know and recognise - related to how there can be "understanding" achieved between such disparate groups! 

It is like clockwork really, especially when the organisation in question (according to their website), tends to share the same ambitions as Tommy Robinson and the EDL. 

"Quilliam is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank set up to address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world. Quilliam stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy.

{...}Cultural insularity and extremism are products of the failures of wider society to foster a shared sense of belonging and to advance liberal democratic values.

With Islamist extremism in particular, we believe a more self-critical approach must be adopted by Muslims. Westophobic ideological influences and social insularity needs to be challenged within Muslim communities by Muslims themselves whilst simultaneously, an active drive towards creating an inclusive civic identity must be pursued by all members of society.

Quilliam seeks to challenge what we think, and the way we think. {...}"

Rather than being some kind of shock, or that Tommy has been "got at", the news just confirms my existing view of these two people (and the EDL organisation) as being perfectly fine with the racial and religious take over of this country - as long as there is no "fundamentalism" that poses a threat to the Cultural Marxist "liberal democratic values" orientated society we have today.

Whether the Quilliam Foundation is a trojan horse Islamic organisation established to smoothly transition this nation into being ever more Islamic, or some "Neo-Con" or "Zionist" leaning organisation claiming to seek and encourage "cultural understanding" and "prevent extremism" in the pressure cooker society they are building, I do not really know. 

Given the name of the organisation and the possible historical links with the name, I am certainly open to the idea that it is a trojan horse Muslim group that is talking in the way the establishment wants, with all this "religious freedom" and "democracy" stuff - in the full knowledge that once the balance tips it will be a different kettle of fish..... but by then, it will not matter of course.

We ought to know by now that things are not always what they seem, and that nothing should be trusted and taken on face value. They might be genuine, but it is always wise to look at things sideways from time to time. 

Dr Taj Hargey - Forthright Hero against radicals or an Engineer of Islamic Britain?

The imam Taj Hargey, who is often on our TV screens and radio stations coming out with some very "patriotic" statements against radical Islam and general Islamic culture (such as beards, veils, separation of men and women, etc), is another candidate who I would consider to be duplicitous in their intentions.

Whilst many EDL supporters or 'patriotic' types in this country may be cheering on Mr Hargey for his extremely forthright statements against Muslims partaking in all the Islamic annoyances that many people have in this country (including myself at times), one should also consider what this strategy of his might actually be doing! 

When he says things like: "We need to create an indigenous British Islam that is integrated into its own environment. It should stay true to Koranic teachings but is also erudite, egalitarian and enlightened"....

......Is he really on 'our side' or is he really on the side of more quietly establishing Islam as part of this country, noting the history of Islam and some of their success in the past via grafting on to a host society rather than standing noticeably apart from them? 

I think the latter may be true. No doubt his intentions are good in his view, but what is the outcome for us British natives? Is a pleasant eradication or a smooth supplanting to an Islamic nation any less of a bitter pill to swallow than one which is rocky?

(Dr Hargey, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with the Quilliam Foundation, I only mention it to make the point). 

X Marxs the spot: What's underneath? - Liberal? Neo-con? Islamic Trojan Horse?

Back to the stated aims of the Quilliam Foundation. 

When taken at face value by most people, the aims of "cultural understanding" and "preventing extremism" are all very fine and good - providing you do not care what ultimately comprises of a society and a nation (as long as there is no conflict on your watch).

However, from a nationalist perspective, it all becomes a kind of petri-dish project in which they intend to create 'Eurabia' or the 'globalised world' state as peacefully and as painlessly as possible.

This is again where I think Tommy, the EDL and others in that counter-jihadi bracket already have so much in common with these foundations - and always have had, even if they were not aware of it. 

It is therefore not that big a revelation to me that they might have been persuaded to move away from the EDL and to go more along the 'think tank' path undertaken by the Quilliam Foundation on this particular occasion. 

It also ties in nicely with the notion of presenting what Tommy Robinson calls "Neo-Nazi extremism" and "Islamic Extremism" as being on the same platform. Tommy himself is now being quoted in the press as being interested in countering 'the far right' and "Nazis" just as much as 'radical Islam'. 

What he exactly means by 'far right extremists' is unknown to me, but one hopes that he is only talking about those he calls "complete idiots" who are coming out with ridiculous statements of intended violence, such as the 'blow up all mosques' brigade. Unfortunately, I suspect he means anybody with "racial" views too.

I hopefully need not state the peculiar circular logic of this supposed synonymity between Islamic extremism and "far right extremism". 

This is where the necessity of the indigenous to defend themselves (and to thus look for "far right" champions) is a direct resultant of the wholly unnecessary impositions upon our country and our people.  

We are the ones having something done to us and have the right of defence from the outset, it is not correct to suggest that they are on a par or equal footing

To repeat then, the Quilliam foundation website states it wants to "address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world", that it "stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy", a "shared sense of belonging and to advance liberal democratic values" as part of "creating an inclusive civic identity" for "all members of society".

Globalised world, religious freedoms, liberal democratic values {read: the programme of cultural marxist dogma], and 'inclusive civic identity by all members of society'.......all the usual stuff championed by the establishment and a majority of Britons....but where does the future of the white race, white Britons, the continuance of the indigenous peoples of these Islands come into this? 

Nowhere. It does not feature into the picture, and it never will do for them. Nor did it come into Tommy and Kevins mind. Far from it. They are engaged in the exact opposite, particularly Kevin from what I have heard of his personal/family circumstances. They are not going to champion our cause or our issues.

They were happy to advance gay rights, they were happy with multi-racialism, multiculturalism, happy to wave Israeli flags, and generally happy to push all the same kinds of Cultural Marxist causes for society that have set about rotting this nation down for the best part of a century, just as long as "Islamic extremism" and "Islamification" did not get to pose a threat to those things.

That is why, for nationalists, I think it is all bogus and why the EDL was always a bogus organisation at the top end. 

If you are not nationalist, then the aims of the Quilliam Foundation (and many other organisations like it on the percieved 'right' the 'left' of the political spectrum) probably sound wonderful and an excellent ambition, for nobody really wants violence and war. 

(That is one reason as to why Nationalism is in many ways a safeguard for civil wars and conflicts, and something that ought to be championed, because mixing up societies does not have a good track record of peace, freedom, equal opportunities based on merit or just plain stability within a territory).

However, for those of us who know what the real score is (and who thus value what is really at stake), this 'harmony' and 'cultural understanding' bunkum is not enough. It is far from enough

In fact, it is an entirely different situation and an entirely different argument to that we are presented with by the EDL, the media, and these organisations. Nationalists are in an Entirely Different League.

We are the rugby players in the club house. The football trophies are stacking up, yet the wider rugby team and our own supporters are sadly talking about the wrong things and not quite understanding that their voice and demands will count for very little in the future. 

Are we really going to face the humiliation of stamping our feet and demanding that the new occupants of the club house continue to do things as we like and expect, only to realise that it is us who will have to leave?

Friday, 5 April 2013

Ceremonial Sacrifice
"When are you indigenous people going to have a piece of paper to say you are British, like us?"

It is a bit of a shame about Frank Field and his remarks in the newspapers today, which suggest that the 'white working classes' (and no doubt the rest of the indigenous/white hosting society) should also take up Citizenship Ceremonies in order to re-establish themselves a sense of identity in their own country. 

Perhaps he was being pithy and issuing a 'soundbite' to raise an issue, but perhaps he really meant it. 

I guess that is how bad it is getting. A nation so pumped full of foreigners and different hues, so detached from it's own sense of history and identity, so confused and dazed about what the hell has happened to the place since the second world war, that we need to be told who we are (and who we are supposed to be) in this new nation they still seem to call Britain.

To be fair, it was only a small comment and observation by Frank which seemed to grab the attention of the media. Stories have appeared in the Daily Mail, Birmingham Mail, Independent, Telegraph and elsewhere - all of which seemed to run with this thought.

(This is despite there being a whole conference given to journalists and others on subjects relating to the issues arising from this country which the talking heads and elites have thus far unnaturally manufactured for us).

Still, I am quite disappointed that Frank was entertaining these ideals - and the kinds of organisations who helped organise the event he spoke at. 

Saturday, 12 January 2013

A recent set of arguments I made

The reason for this article is to share a recent comment battle about our plight. Well, I say it was a battle - but I suppose you can only have a real battle when you get properly challenged and engaged by people who can counter-act your points and questions!

In this particular case, none of my questions or points were actually answered. Instead, I received a dialogue back of how they wanted things to be instead - and how generally vile and nasty I am for holding my views and positions. No surprise there, then.

That may well be their view, but why not show me to be wrong and not valid in what I say? It was made out that I was a 'moron' and too stupid to understand complexities, etc. Well if I am a moron and too stupid to understand things, then it should not have been so hard for them to actually answer my questions and discuss the points I was raising, should it?

At one point I was even told to "go jump in a lake" - which has to be the most babyish comment back to me I have ever received on what is supposed to be an articulate and intellectual discussion blog. For I was not arguing on some student room forum or 'cut and thrust' political site.

I guess that some people cannot handle another persons point of view in a rational way, so they reach for the name-calling and stereotypes instead.The usual screams that I was a "Nazi" and part of the "White Supremacist Brigade" were present, plus some other weird opinions and fabrications that are part of a manufactured stereotype image of anybody who is white and racially conscious.

Without rewriting the whole article and the context of it, in a nut shell, it was relating to the racial disparity when it comes to voting in America - and the suggestion that 'whites' may have to start looking out for their own interests too.

(The commentators I challenged did not really address the deeper nature and implications of main article either, they were more interested in sweeping the issue away and talking about how it is not tactical or practical to get into 'all that kind of stuff').

I will copy what I wrote here, and interject the nature of their responses here so as to make sense of my own replies.