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?


  1. Very good analysis though I suspect that the EDL were 'controlled opposition' from the start. The perfect foil to the equally controlled Hope Not Hate.

  2. There is nothing wrong with so-called 'gay rights'. This is one area of policy UKIP have got right and the BNP were very wrong. Nationalists in this country have not succeeded in gaining large numbers of votes because they insist upon mixing irrelevant hang-ups about certain topics (this subject is one of the biggest if not THE biggest) with the core of nationalist beliefs ie the preservation of our nation and its national self-government.

  3. I suspect you are Steven I think we have had this argument before on different sites.

    The thing is, traditional Nationalists have generally always been in favour a traditional family unit and those traditional values - and thus against general deviancy and perversion of those values, no matter where the source. This is where they see the line has to be drawn.

    Despite having this position (which may sound to be "bigoted", "hateful" or "stupidity" or whatever to folks like yourself) not many us traditional nationalists care about homosexuals as long as they just get on with their ordinary lives and cease agitating for recognition as being a substitute to a traditional family unit.

    This inevitably means being against 'gay marriage', them adopting children and all the rest of it - and of course, opposing all the 'Gay Pride' kind of marches which promote it (and which often contain actions and elements that should not be made into public spectacles in any decent society).

    What people get up to in their own sex lives is their business and certainly none of mine. However, when that boundary is crossed and they make their sexuality everybody else's business and seek to change the essence and meaning of society itself, it becomes our business.

    When the business is therefore the "gay rights" lobby and the pushing of an agenda I describe, nationalists are RIGHT to be against it.

    This is why I suspect my talking about the EDL and such being cultural Marxists and in favour of "gay rights" might have aggravated you - because, if it is you Steven, you continue to show no signs at all of appreciating what was planned to happen in society, what homosexuals were going to be used for by these people doing the planning, and therefore will still fail to see in what context being "against" that agenda is therefore directly applicable to nationalism.

    For there is an agenda at work here - albeit not always by gay people themselves. They are just part of a wider agenda. That wider agenda is to overthrow stable societies. The promotion of homosexuality, "equality" and the pushing 'group rights' like that is a defined and planned part of it.

    You many not quite understand that, I am not sure, but I cannot really help you out there except to give you the summary.

    Unfortunately, you have to learn what it is all about for yourself and then realise that not everybody who is taking ideological positions on these matters are acting on "hang ups" or otherwise "old-fashioned" or "backward" notions that you may currently assume to be the case.

    I'm not keen on folk who just mouth off about homosexuals all the time for no real reason either. Some articles I have seen about it on 'nationalist' sites are indeed too crude and far too blunt for my liking.

  4. (cont'd)

    I see no need for such approaches or positions - and nor do I subscribe to them or hold them to be examples of what we ought to be doing.

    It is certainly not where I am coming from with it all, that's for sure.

    It used to be said that homosexuals faced regular beatings, regular death penalties, were often prison or that they were routinely being sacked from jobs just for being gay.

    I have my doubts about how rife this ever was (as most people generally turned a blind eye), but even so, I don't think even the harder end of Nationalism advocates a return to such things, even if they ever did actually exist to the degree some claim.

    I have never seen such policies and positions advocated on any major "nationalist party" manifesto that's for sure - and nor would I support it having those policies and positions if it did. Nor have I ever seen such 'extreme' discourse populate major nationalist sites.

    The general victory for homosexuals being left alone, decriminalised, and treated with regular dignity on a 'one to one basis' has already been won a long time ago.....but it seems the "gay rights" wagon cannot stop rolling - and that is where the problem arises.

    There are limits to what should be accepted and acceptable - and it is the 'agenda' that is being waged (and the attitude of it all) that annoys a lot of people in nationalism.

    It is now above and beyond that of "live and let live", which the vast majority of people tend to do in their day-to-day lives. They are now pushing for the altering of society itself and what defines a society (and its beliefs) to whole new levels.

    I cannot blame some nationalists for being against what they see as corruption and corrosion of stability and corruption of what comprises of a "normal" unit and family life, even though I do share a view that they can go about the subject in a very poor way - one that unnecessarily alienates some section of the public.

    I use the word "normal" because that is the status of a good 95% of the population, making the rest, by definition "abnormal".

    Gay people suggest what they do is part of nature and I certainly do believe that they are often born that way and not, as John Bean of the BDP likes to suggest, "turned gay" or making it some "lifestyle choice".

    But a position of "normality" it certainly is not - and I have no problem at all saying quite plainly that it is therefore 'abnormal' in that sense of the word.

    If you saw a nationalist saying "gays are abnormal" I suspect you would not be best pleased and that you might see it as yet another insult or slur, but I don't see it that way for the reasons I state.

  5. (Cont'd)

    As a topic it has to be put in its context and place. It has its place and there are two sides which may need to compromise, yourself included.

    For example, to speak of "hang ups" (in contrast to some kind of "forward thinking" views of your own) is going to be raise the ire of some nationalists because they will perhaps view that accusation and assumption of their positions to be rather 'ignorant' and 'intolerant' in itself.

    I also happen to strongly share your view on priorities - and that in the grander scheme of things, worrying over something like 1.5% of the population so much is not a wise use of our time.

    (For that is all they are - not 7% or more - as many "gay rights" people often suggest to be the case - see

    At the most, when catering for the assumption that not everybody may be truthful about their sexuality, it might be around 5% - and tell me, how many of that fictional 5% would be 'nationalists' in all other regards of ideological importance anyway?

    It must be a fraction of a fraction.

    Sure, we can be more neutral on the matter, but that does not mean we have to join the "equality" bus, undermine our values and attempt to ride home on their agenda either!

    There is being neutral on "gay rights" and then there is a position of being ponies for advancing it through omission of having a position or by wilful acts of pushing policies and positions.

    When it crosses the line, that is when many of us have a problem with it.

    Not many people in the country care either way on gays or what the positions of different parties are on gays and gay issues. It is certainly not worth "courting" the gay and lesbian population of this country via abandoning traditional policies and positions borne of ideology.

    Personally, I could quite happily forego a fractional percentage of the population for the sake of keeping our movement on the right tracks and the wider ideology intact.

    This is just like I would not alter racial aspects of nationalism positions and our ideology just to suit people in "modern" "forward-looking" "progressive" Britain who are mixed-race or black, or to gain the support of their extended white or black family.

    I will say that again:

    "This is just like I would not alter racial aspects of nationalism positions and our ideology just to suit people in "modern" "forward-looking" "progressive" Britain who are mixed-race or black, or to gain the support of their extended white or black family."

    It is important to me that I make the link, because that might also be a matter of somebody's "opinion" of "focus" too.

    It may be somebody else's own "taboo" which they don't like about the cause, perhaps taking a similar "that is all old fashioned and should not be really talked about when we have a country to save" kind of viewpoint that "turns off the voters" who have "mixed race" sons, cousins, or other non-white extended family members.

    We cannot cater for everything and everybody and their nuances.

    Go down that kind of route and it is a foregone disaster before you even set off. We might as well kiss our asses goodbye now and stop wasting any more time fighting for our survival, because it will have to be open to anyone and anything.

    Some principles and values are there for a reason, no matter how small an issue they are in the bigger picture.

  6. (Cont'd)

    Gays are extremely low on my priority list, so when it does come up I think Nationalists should either be sticking to the promotion and protection of traditional pro-traditional family values - or not making such a meal of it at all (if there is no real need to do so).

    There is a difference between being pro-traditional family values, pro Christian, etc and being "anti-gay" and "hating gays" and banging on about sticking things up bottoms and all that kind of stuff which no doubt annoys you just as much as it annoys me. I don't like to see the nationalist cause clogged up with it all either.

    There are distinguishable aspects to make, much like there is a difference between being fine with treating gay people as general equals as human beings, not being nasty, not sacking them for their private lives, just being 'live and let live' etc - and, say, that of championing "gay rights" and pushing in that whole direction.

    So, there *is* something wrong with "gay rights" as an agenda - only it seems that you may not want to see it or acknowledge what it may be.

    Please bear in mind what I have said about the differences in context, what positions traditional nationalists like myself actually take, that many of us feel it should not take prime place or be the focus of policies and messages either.

    However, I hope you can appreciate that does not automatically mean that the baby has to be thrown out with the bath water and that, like with racial positions, we ought to seek "electability" by throwing our arms open to multi-racialism or whatever other popular "cultural Marxist" derived traits that are now deemed acceptable and to be actively encouraged as a "good" thing.

    It is about being sensible and decent and being able to advocate what kind of society and cause we are fighting for. I believe it can be done in a decent fashion without having to accept the positions and expectations driven by our opponents.

    Those who cannot go beyond crudity etc are not at all helpful to the cause if they cannot explain or express themselves as to why they see a problem with the gay rights agenda. I am actually with you on wishing to push all that kind of narrative to the background.

  7. (Cont'd)

    So, I would side with yourself on challenging their rhetoric and question them on how it is supposed to be "helpful" to advancing our cause and the understanding of our cause.

    I have done it before, and I would do it again.


    The following is not really important to be mentioned, but I will mention it anyway.....

    When nationalists see stories like the one in a local newspaper last week where the police are out patrolling gay 'cottaging' and sexual haunts - but not to arrest them for their disgusting open air activities in public, but to actually guard and protect them from recieving 'homophobic abuse' from those who are offended by their "lifestyle choices" and lewd activities! - do not be shocked to find a lot of "homophobic" commentary from much of the "nationalist community".

    It is that kind of "protection" and the resulting perversion of society and values that gets up peoples noses too, particularly nationalists.

    We are against that kind of thing, against that kind of activity, and against that kind of shaping of society where such a travesty of policing can even come to exist.

    By being against these things, no doubt to many, perhaps even yourself, we are having "hang ups" about gays, or otherwise focussing on gays too much.

    To the contrary, we have to fight against these kinds of things and the ideologies and agendas that push them forward.

    I am not sure you appreciate the nuances of this topic and how some of us in the nationalist movement can have complex levels of rationale against these wide ranging "gay" matters.