We are in the midst of a concerted and very powerful attempt to silence dissident voices in the western world, but only if those voices are from the populist Right. This attack comes from several directions simultaneously.
Governments are involved in this of course; we see the suppression and outlawing of Generation Identity in France, while in the United States the FBI investigates QAnon and the Proud Boys for “domestic terrorism” but ignores the mayhem and violence of Antifa. In this country we have a new report from the Commission for Countering Extremism, of which more anon.
The Corporate world, and in particular “Big Tech” has thrown its weight completely behind the Left. This became very evident after the Charleston church shootings by Dylan Roof in 2015, and has ramped up further since the Black Lives Matter protests last summer. Any organisation which advocates White interests or White survival has found itself deplatformed – thrown off Facebook, Instagram, Twitter – and deprived of funds by the closure of its PayPal accounts. Bank accounts have been closed by mainstream, High Street, banks – one organisation to suffer this fate being Western Spring. But it is not only the accounts of pro-White organisations which have been closed but of the individuals at the head of those organisations, as the leaders of Patriotic Alternative (PA) have discovered.
PA is an instructive case. Not only were the bank accounts closed but so too were the Facebook and Twitter accounts of this organisation and of the two principals – accounts which had gathered many thousands of followers. It so happens that PA is the subject of a case study in the report of the Commission for Countering Extremism published on the 21st February, drawing attention to the popular “Zoomer” sessions which PA has been holding for young people during the lockdown. These sessions, according to the Commission, are an example of “hateful extremism”, currently lawful but which the Commission believes should be outlawed. Is there a connection between this attention from the Commission and the abrupt, more or less simultaneous, termination of PA’s Facebook and Twitter accounts? I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be surprising.
The Commission, headed by Sara Khan (sometimes described as “No. 10s Extremism Czar”) and Sir Mark Rowley, a former senior police officer describes “hateful extremism” in these terms: – “hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in-group.” Does this apply to we Racial Nationalists? It is certainly meant to; the Commission directs at least half of its Report at what it calls the “extreme Right” and most of the rest at Islamism with brief glances at the far Left and at animal rights extremists.
Let’s unpack that definition of “hateful extremism”. We certainly do believe that the presence of ethnic minorities in our country is a “threat” (through miscegenation) to the survival of the White British. We also believe that that presence is a threat to the wellbeing of our people through competition for housing, jobs and benefits, and through higher crime rates sometimes directed specifically at White people, as in the rape gangs which have proliferated in parts of our country. Are we then the “in-group” and non-Whites the “out-group”? Yes, of course. But are our views “hateful, hostile or supremacist”? That is a subjective judgment – but let’s look at these words: “supremacist” is a word of very broad and fuzzy definition but it seems to be used to mean anything that White people do which the Left disapproves of, so if one accepts that definition of course we are guilty of “supremacism”; “hostile” – well, yes we are hostile to the presence of non-White people in our country; “hateful” – only if “hate” is the other side of the coin to “love” – love of country and love of Folk. In truth, hate is an entirely negative emotion but if we must hate anyone then it should be directed at those – of our own kind – who have permitted our country to become an increasingly foreign place.
If the proposals of the Commission are carried into law, we will have a fight on our hands. Fortunately, these proposals have run straight into a burgeoning campaign for freedom of speech, itself a reaction to the recent excesses of “cancel culture”. So, we shall see what comes of it, but even if nothing comes of it, the cancelled Social Media accounts are still cancelled. But that should lead to the evolution, and flourishing, of alternatives such as Gab and Parler – as the saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger!
Finally, and on another matter altogether, I couldn’t sign off without a word about the topic of the moment – the gruesome twosome (no, not Nicola Sturgeon and Alec Salmond, the other ones, in Californian exile). They are on about “racism” of course, more particularly an alleged query by an unnamed member of the Royal Family as to the then unborn Archie’s likely skin colour. Of course, to me, it seems like a harmless and natural subject for curiosity but then I don’t think like a member of the modern liberati. Anyway, thanks to them for keeping race alive as an issue because it’s our thing too – if from a rather different angle!