TRUE PATRIOTS SHOULD SUPPORT ANYONE VICTIMISED BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

TRUE PATRIOTS SHOULD SUPPORT ANYONE VICTIMISED BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Douglas Murray, who is a commentator who writes much good sense recently wrote the article below which is entitled “Will no one resist the new totalitarianism?” in which he quite rightly pointed out that we do need to stick up for all those being victimised as a result of politically correct witch-hunts. 

One of the grave weaknesses on the “Right” of politics is the cowardly tendency to try and propitiate the Left by making all sorts of Politically Correct noises and generally attacking others on the right i.e. “punching right”. 

There is also the absurdity of people on the Right saying that our side’s campaigners, lawyers, politicians, etc. should do all that they do for the love of country, free and unpaid. 

The interesting thing here is of course that nobody on the Left seems to suggest that left-wing politics should be conducted free and unpaid.  Far from it they make sure that even turning up to demonstrations gets you paid.  The great financial engines for the Left are of course the established Trade Unions.  More recently they have increased their reach by their takeover of most of the big charities.

These attitudes have left the Right of politics mostly bitterly divided and short of money.  The only exception to this being the liberal globalists in the faux “Conservative” Party who focus any money received on their personal careers and self-interests rather than on anything that might help conservatism or patriotism. 

I think what we need is more focus on creating organisations which can redress the balance.  Suggestions anyone?

Here Douglas Murray’s very interesting and sensible article:-

Will no one resist the new totalitarianism?

Some of Alastair Stewart’s friends will fight for him — but too many of us will let him simply disappear

I’ve been thinking a lot about totalitarianism recently. It’s unsettling, for as I do so, I notice its seedlings in every day life. And these are the same seedlings which, in the past, grew into horrible, magnified obscenities in totalitarian societies.

In particular, I’ve been considering two haunting observations made by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at the outset of The Gulag Archipelago. The first is the question of why people did not resist more when they were taken away in the night. Why did they not scream, tear up the earth, scratch the eyes of the men who had come to take them? And — if they had to leave their home – why didn’t they make sure that the people who had come into their home bore the scars of having done so for the rest of their days? Why did the captured even tip-toe down the stairs, as they were asked to do by their captors, in order not to disturb their neighbours?

The answer to this lies in a question. As Solzhenitsyn puts it: “At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one’s belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner?” In part, the reason nobody resists is the same one we learned from Communism’s evil twin: if people have no conception of what is about to happen to them, then they will do whatever they think is needed to keep themselves alive to the next stage.

When people were rounded up, they still hoped that this was the beginning of a process which would be resolved or righted at some point: that the misunderstanding would cleared up, or that the indignities could not get any worse. Until the whole world knew about what could happen, almost nobody imagined the end they would endure.

Solzhenitsyn relates the tale of one woman in the Twenties, early in the reign of communism in Russia, who was supposed to have been seized in a Moscow street. But she started screaming and fighting, and such was the commotion in the middle of a crowd, that the men assigned to take her away abandoned their task. But even her imagination of what was possible turned out to be limited. For she returned home that evening — which allowed the men to take her away privately, in the middle of the night, and send her to Lubyanka.

Solzhenitsyn’s second question-observation is even more haunting: why did people not intervene more to stop their friends, family or simply fellow-citizens from being taken away? In some ways, this is the more disturbing observation. We may grant that people have the best perspective on their own fate and will know best what might save themselves. But when people see women being plucked off the pavement by agents of the state, why do they continue walking?

Solzhenitsyn approaches this question through a bitter counterfactual. “How we burned in the camps later”, he says, thinking how different things might have been if the security operative who went out in the night to make arrests hadn’t known he would ever return to his family again. What if he hadn’t known whether he would return alive. What if, during the mass arrests in Leningrad, when one quarter of the city was arrested, people had lain in wait and attacked the people who had come to arrest them and their neighbours? What if they had waited on the staircase with “axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand”?

You might say that not everybody is given to physical violence or physical courage.  Why, then – and in some ways this is the worse question – weren’t the tires of all those Black Maria sitting with a solitary driver (waiting for the human cargo to be brought out of the building, into the vehicle and from there away) spiked? How is it that a whole public with such a cause (their relatives and friends being taken away in front of their eyes) couldn’t do what hoodlums easily manage with no motivation whatsoever?

It was, says Solzhenitsyn,  because the people “didn’t love freedom enough. And even more — we had no awareness of the real situation.”

It may seem strange, and even slightly obscene, to make a leap from the worst days of the 20th century to the seemingly incomparable situation in developed democracies today. But the behaviour of people under totalitarianism is, I think, recognisable today in the normal behaviour of normal people in our supposedly normal times.

In a culture which is often described as a ‘cancel culture’ — one in which people are liable to be rendered at least unemployable at any given moment — these behaviours manifest themselves still. Anyone who doubts this should read this piece by Mike Tunison on Medium. As Tunison says, he was one of the men whose name was — wholly wrongly — put on a list published online in October 2017 purporting to list around 70 men in the media described by the author as ‘Shitty Media Men’. The document was an anonymous list of unvetted, unchecked claims about dozens of men in the media in America whom the author or authors claimed to have a reputation for being sinister or violent towards women.

The list did the feverish rounds of the internet in the same way that similar lists did in the UK and elsewhere. The media was high on the octane of exposes. Having been silent about cases of real abuse, nobody had time or interest in questioning documents like the list that Tunison was on. And so, with no apparent justification, other than the misfortune of his having crossed the path of someone with a grudge, Tunison’s life was turned upside down. He was made unemployable in the career to which he had chosen to dedicate his life. Jobs he did apply to could see the claims made against him online and step silently away. Finally, last year, he landed a job as a janitor. Is no one interested in this or the injustice it screams?

A similar scenario will doubtless emerge in the UK, with the dismissal of the broadcaster Alastair Stewart after decades of work for ITV. On the basis of a quotation from Shakespeare, which one person online claimed was clear, cloaked racism, a career of decades is over.

Some of Stewart’s friends will fight for him, perhaps. Others will look away, sufficiently worried about the implications of even being ‘adjacent’ to someone accused of racism. But is nobody interested in the means by which this was done?  Consider the implications of the phrase I wrote above. A case of clear, cloaked racism.  So clear as to deserve the end of somebody’s career. Yet done ‘with the cover’ of a quotation. Meaning that the crime which is so clear, so blazing and so self-evident is also only in the eye of the beholder, only discernible to a particular eye. In other words, not remotely clear.

The people who suffer these injustices tend not to come out fighting, screaming and scratching their way back to safety. They tend — like Tunison – to submit to the madness which has washed over them, partly in the hope that they will some day claw their way back. It’s hard to grasp, at the time, that this is it and that they need to fight for everything. Who would believe that a life could be destroyed, every personal relationship shaken or ended, because of an anonymous list published online?

In the same way, when a nationally famous figure is accused of the great crime of the age, they rarely believe that the people for whom they have worked for for decades — the people they gave up their weekends for, their spare evenings, the times they could have been with their family for — would drop them in a matter of hours for a crime which cannot be explained and whose nature is wholly subjective. For that would mean everybody in the world would be able to take out anybody else, if they had sufficient desire to do so. And surely that world would be unworkable.

Well it would be, and it is. But it is possible not only because the victims do not quell and shake and scream enough but because we – the public – allow them to disappear one by one. We do not slash the virtual tires of those who take them away. We do not pick up whatever cudgels we have to hand to beat back their accusers. We just sit, as the anonymous lists and the unprovable complaints pile up and up, simply hoping all the time that the dishonest players and anonymous accusers will never come for us.

If people want to understand why totalitarianism works, the seedlings are all around us.

'The Times' describes Leave votes as:- “Xenophobic Insurgents”!

 

The Times Political Editor describes Leave votes as:- “Xenophobic Insurgents”! 

I couldn’t let Francis Elliott, the Times Political Editor, get away with outrageously describing Leave voters as “Xenophobic Insurgents” without responding.

Here is my letter to him:-

Dear Mr Elliott

Re: Times Article, July 18^th:- “Tory turmoil could lead to Far-Right revival” 

With respect, your heading betrays the unanalytical nature of your article.  You used the smear expression “Far-Right” which is intended to obscure rather than to highlight actual policy positions.  You then claimed a “revival” despite the fact that for several decades now there has not really been any patriotic or nationalist challenge to the British Political Establishment Lib/Lab/Con which has dominated “British” politics since the Second World War. 

You rightly discuss the likely consequences of the Conservative Party’s destruction of its own creditability over Brexit as either competent or patrioticor honest.  It is also true that, if Corbyn’s Labour was to be given a chance at government, Labour would prove to be internationalist, anti-patriotic, multi-culturalist and pro-immigration.  This is virtually a checklist of the very things that English blue collar workers most despise.  Such a Labour Government would be very likely to complete the divorce between the traditional “white working class” and Labour – a path which has already been trod by almost all of Labour's sister parties in Western Europe!

The anomaly of the UK State is that it is a unique, unfair, unequal and illogical mishmash of nations.  This constitutional anomaly has to be sorted out before England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland can become fully normal modern democratic nation states. 

If in the process of sorting this out our politics can shed our grandiose “Legacy Parties” and replace them with a modern party structure where policies chime with the various blocks of ideological opinion rather than cut across them - as our current ones do – then so much the better.  Whether that amounts to “fertile ground for xenophobic insurgents” well that is – “hard to know”! I will leave you to resolve your own loaded question!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Here is Mr Elliott’s article

Tory turmoil could lead to a far‑right revival

Leave voters’ sense of betrayal over Brexit and fear of immigration create the perfect conditions for a new protest party

Our views on race, immigration and Brexit are full of contradictions. But taken together, this jumble of prejudices and ideas is about to change the shape of British politics.

The return to dominance of the two main parties, which saw Labour and the Conservatives share around 80 per cent of the vote, was one of the most surprising consequences of the referendum two years ago.

It left many in the centre ground pining for a new party. But it now seems likely that it’s on the right, rather than on the middle ground, that a new force will appear.

In three recent polls, Ukip has seen an uptick at the expense of the Conservatives. It could be the first sign of the governing party’s electoral coalition unravelling as voters react negatively to Theresa May’s Brexit compromise agreed at Chequers.

Although Ukip is the current beneficiary, the moribund party riven by factionalism looks no more able to revive itself than the Liberal Democrats. Prepare for a new organisation entirely.

At first sight, immigration doesn’t appear to be a factor in the discontent felt by voters. The number of Britons identifying immigration as the most important issue has declined steeply since 2016, while the number identifying Brexit has risen on a similarly striking gradient. But taken together, concern about immigration and the delivery of Brexit mark those who feel disenfranchised by the Westminster establishment, and explain the outrage felt by some voters towards Mrs May’s Chequers plan. It is an uncomfortable truth that just over a quarter of respondents in a recent British Social Attitudes survey said they were “very” or a “little” prejudiced towards people of other races.

Brexiteers react with fury to any suggestion that race played a part in the vote to leave the EU. They are also the first to suggest that a betrayal of the referendum result will unleash an ugly populist backlash.

Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire, is the latest to sound the alarm. “The Chequers deal has disenfranchised voters,” she tweeted this week. “People tell me . . . that it was the ‘last straw’ and if a charismatic figure stood heading a new party they would vote for him/her. Sounds like we could be heading for our very own Trump/Macron/Robinson.”

She was criticised for appearing to treat Tommy Robinson, former leader of the far-right, anti-Muslim English Defence League, as a mainstream politician. Robinson was jailed in May for contempt of court and his appeal against his sentence is due to be heard today. As Ms Dorries later made clear, her tweet was a warning, not an endorsement.

But Robinson’s anti-migrant creed has no shortage of high-profile supporters. Here is Donald Trump, speaking alongside Theresa May after their Chequers summit last week, on the damage the president believes migration is doing to the cultural fabric of Europe: “I just think it’s changing the culture. I think it’s a very negative thing for Europe. I think it’s very negative,” he said.

“And I know it’s politically not necessarily correct to say that. But I’ll say it and I’ll say it loud. And I think they better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security.”

Sam Brownback, the US ambassador for international religious freedom, is reported to have warned Sir Kim Darroch, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, that “if Britain did not treat [Tommy] Robinson more sympathetically, the Trump administration might be compelled to criticise Britain’s handling of the case”.

Mr Trump’s son, Donald Junior, has tweeted support for Robinson. A US think-tank, Middle East Forum, helped to organise a rally in support of him in London and sent a Republican Congressman, Paul Gosar, to speak in his support.

Robinson is just one possible candidate to lead whatever replaces Ukip as the repository of protest votes, powered by alt-right cash. Generation Identity, an Austrian nationalist movement, is hovering at the political fringe. With slickly produced YouTube videos and clean-cut provocateurs, it is waiting to leap on any grievance in Britain that can serve its narrative of an apocalyptic clash of civilisations.

It is worth imagining what British politics will be like if Mrs May does, after all, squeeze a version of her Chequers compromise through Brussels. For most of the period between March 29, 2019, when we formally leave the union, and the next general election in 2022, Britain will be paying its full dues to an organisation over which it has no control. What’s more, every politician other than Mrs May will have a vested interest in stoking discontent over the terms of our departure. It is probable that she won’t even be in No 10 to defend it four years from now.

If this isn’t fertile ground for xenophobic insurgents, it’s hard to know what is. For the Tories, it could get even worse. Those now urging a delay in our departure next March are ignoring one large obstacle. If we are still in the EU, Britain must take part in elections to the European parliament next May. These polls are already causing great anxiety in Brussels, where the Commission fears they could return a majority of Eurosceptic MEPs from across the member states, with fatal consequences for the federalist dream.

Senior ministers say that Brussels will find a way to refuse any request to extend our negotiating period because it fears that Britain’s participation in the Euro-election would only inflame the Continental populist revolt.

Just as likely, they know that the Conservative Party would suffer an almighty drubbing in such a poll because it would be outflanked on the right by a populist nationalist party offering a “real Brexit”. That day of reckoning may simply be postponed until the next general election. By then, Labour may find itself in a corresponding bind to the Tories, if a new centrist party ever gets its act together.

The outcome of that election will be determined by which of the two main parties suffers most from the unravelling of forces responsible for their current dominance.

Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-turmoil-could-lead-to-far-right-revival-thw8slrq5

RIGHT WING WOES IN LEWISHAM EAST!

RIGHT WING WOES IN LEWISHAM 

It was always a bad idea for any sort of patriotic party to be standing in the Lewisham East by-election.  Let me explain why and please bear with me in being brutally honest about it.

When I was aware that the Labour MP, Heidi Alexander, was stepping down and causing a by-election in the Lewisham East constituency, I was immediately very doubtful as to whether it was worth the English Democrats standing there.  Although I should say that I would never discourage any of our members from standing even in the most unpromising areas if they really want to do so and have the necessary resources to do so.  Even in the most discouraging constituencies there may be some potential converts to the Cause of England!

Lewisham East is certainly such a seat.  Looking at the 2011 Census results Lewisham is a place where relatively few people identified as being “English” and surprisingly few even identified as being in any sense multi-cultural “British”.  

Since 2011 the misleadingly named “Conservative” Party (which actually is led by “Liberal” zealots) has continued with the unrestricted, uncontrolled mass immigration of New Labour and so every single year since then half a million or more immigrants have come to England, many of them settling in places like Lewisham.  That together with “white flight” or the continuing movement of English people out of such places, has led to a near total population displacement where the indigenous English population is largely absent. 

In an area where the indigenous populations are still there, what we see across Western Europe is that the patriotic and nationalist vote rarely exceeds 50% and is usually not more than 30%.  

Because of the way electoral politics works people should not get discouraged at that percentage because a block vote of 30% of the electorate would generally get the candidate elected.  That is of course unless the 30% is split up amongst various parties, as is the case at present in England, with the Conservative Party in particular always standing as a spoiler even in the most unpromising seats for the Conservative Party. 

The “Conservative” objective in doing so is of course to prevent any other party from breaking through, even where they do not actually want to win that constituency.  

This Tory strategem is very much like the Aesop’s Fable of ‘The dog in the Manger’!  

The top of this article is the picture of ‘The dog in the Manger’. Here is that story:-

“A Dog was lying in a Manger full of hay. 

An Ox, being hungry, came near and was going to eat of the hay. 

The Dog, getting up and snarling at him, would not let him touch it. 

“Surly creature,” said the Ox, ” you cannot eat the hay yourself, and yet you will let no one else have any.””

Sure enough in Lewisham the Conservatives and most of the parties to the Left were putting up what is now rather curiously (in such constituencies) still called ethnic minority candidates even where the real ethnic minority in such a constituency would be “White English”!

UKIP put up a black “ethnic minority” their popular London Assembly Member David Kurten.  

The new and it seems politically naive ‘Democrats and Veterans Party’ put up the splendidly named Massimo Dimambro who had 2013 votes in Lewisham Deptford for UKIP in 2015.

Anne Marie Waters who is the Leader of her own new UKIP splinter party which she has called the anodyne “For Britain” very unwisely put herself up to stand in this constituency.  She got 266 votes this time under her new flag compared with the last election where she stood in the constituency then as UKIP candidate when she got 3886 votes!  

Judging from comments on social media it would seem that some of her supporters had got sucked into thinking that she might have been able to do well in this constituency.  For the reasons that I have explained above that was always going to be difficult. 

I had predicted that UKIP, For Britain and the Democrats and Veterans Party together would not get 5%.  In the event combined they got 3.2%.  

Even adding in the Conservative spoiler Candidate's 3,161 the total Right of center vote was only 3874 which is 12 short of just UKIP's vote in 2015.

A point of debate was which of them would avoid being beaten by the Monster Raving Loony Party.  In the event the ones beaten by the Loonies were the Democrats and Veterans Party. Anne Marie Walters managed to avoid that fate by a margin of 173 votes. 

It would be interesting to see what the paltry results in this by-election will have on the future development of UKIP, The Democrats and Veterans Party and in particular on the For Britain Party, whose leader Anne Marie Waters had staked so much of her credibility on making a reasonable showing here.

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

On Friday the 15th September there was another Islamist terror attack in England on London’s Underground. The home-made bomb partially went off at Parsons Green Tube Station.


When it was first being reported very shortly after it had happened, there were various pictures and clips which had been filmed on people’s mobile phones put up onto the internet in which you could see what was happening, including the above picture of the bomb.


The initial reports were of people who were in the carriage and who heard it go off who said that it wasn’t a bang, it was a sort of “whoomp”. There was a smell, smoke and some flames. People were desperate to get off the tube train and there was a wild panic to get off the station away from the train in which people were injured in the ensuing stampede.


At first the mainstream media were talking up the possibility that this attack could have been done by “Far-Right Extremists”. As their hopes of that faded there was an increasing unwillingness in the mainstream media, whether it be Sky, ITV or BBC, to report on what type of people were thought to be the perpetrators.


Even though it has since become clear that the people who have been arrested so far are young male Muslim “refugees” it is only recently that it has become crystal clear that the principle suspect is one of the Syrian child refugees that so much fuss was made about to bring them over to England. This was regardless of such and with no attempt to vet whether they were dangerous or not. Well now we know of course that at least some of them are going to prove to be dangerous Jihadists! So much for the effectiveness of our British authorities in showing any interest in looking after our own People!


One thing however that was striking on the day as reporting of the news story progressed on Friday was that, by the 6 o’clock BBC Radio 4 news, the BBC was reporting that the bomb had “exploded”, that there had been a “wall of flame” and that “29 people had been injured”, the obvious implication being, to anybody who didn’t know better, that the people were injured by the bomb, rather than as they actually were by the panic and stampede to escape from the station. The bomb of course did not “explode”. The videos at the time showed that there was not a “wall of flame”, at most the flames were a foot high and perhaps only six inches high.


What better example of fake news could you get than this distortion from the BBC?


The question that then arises is why would they do it? But then you have to think what Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has been saying in response to Islamist attacks in London. After the car ramming and knife attack on Westminster Bridge he said:-


"Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days - no reason to be alarmed. One of the things police and all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be.


"I'm reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world.


"But we always evolve and review ways to make sure we remain as safe as we possibly can."


After the van rammings and knife attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market he said:-

“Our city is filled with great sorrow and anger tonight but also great resolve and determination because our unity and love for one another will always be stronger than the hate of the extremists.


“This is our city. These are our values and this is our way of life. London will never be broken by terrorism we will step up the fight against extremism and we will defeat the terrorists.”


And:-


“I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.


“London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life.


“We always have and we always will. Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism.”


In stark contrast to these remarks however, after the attack on Muslims near the Finsbury mosque, he said:-


"The Met have deployed extra police to reassure communities, especially those observing Ramadan."


The moral of these quotations seems to be that, whilst Muslims must be protected whatever the cost to taxpayers, the rest of us must simply get used to being attacked by Islamists.


This agenda is confirmed by what he is reported to have said in New York:-

“Living with terror attacks - like the one that hit New York at the weekend - is 'part and parcel of living in a big city'.


'It is a reality I'm afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.


'That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice.”


In short what people like Sadiq Khan want to happen is that the general population accepts the story that these sorts of Jihadi terror attacks are now simply part and parcel of living in a big city, rather than what they obviously actually are, accordingly to common-sense: Which is the consequence of the British Establishment allowing unrestricted immigration by large numbers of unvetted Muslims, often from very troubled parts of the world, who too often bring their wars and their Jihadi mentality with them!


It should also be noted that when Islamists get involved in suicide bombing or other suicidal terrorist activity, their focus is currently being completely misunderstood by the authorities and, in particular being mis-reported by the mainstream media.


What we have to understand is that a Jihadist deciding to undertake such a mission is thinking of it not in terms of a “suicide mission”, but of a “martyrdom operation”. This explains why the London Bridge terrorists were wearing fake suicide vests. The point of doing so was to make sure that the police wouldn’t try to capture them and instead would shoot them dead!


It should be remembered that the point of a "martyrdom operation" is obviously to be martyred and is therefore done in reliance on the statements in the Koran and the Haddith that he who dies in Jihad will automatically go to Paradise and be rewarded by Allah with celestial virgins in a jewelled palace for eternity!


Jihadists truly believe that this is what will happen to them if they die in Jihad. So if their life has not been lived fully accordingly to Muslim law then they are a person who is more likely to feel that a "martyrdom operation" will get him to paradise, despite his sins, than if he had lived a blameless life.


It therefore makes no sense for commentators to talk about the fact that some pf those Jihadists who commit martyrdom operations have not lived strict Muslim lives!


We need to realise that the killing of unbelievers in a "martyrdom operation" is not the goal of the operation; it is merely the goalposts which enable the goal to be scored. That is getting into Paradise by being killed whilst on Jihad.


No wonder the mainstream media do not want people to understand what is going on because if they did then maybe the demand to end Muslim immigration would rise from its current opinion poll rating of about 47% to a pitch where almost everybody who was not a Muslim would be saying no to any further Muslim immigration!