The irony couldn’t have been stronger, nor the despair it engendered more stinging. For ten days the British government, the media, and hostile anti-White social elements had binged on feigned panic and self-satisfaction following the arrest and charging of seven young ethno-nationalists for ‘terrorism’ and ‘race hate’ offences (see here and here). During the course of this Orwellian ‘Ten Day Hate,’ few paused to consider the fact that none of the alleged activities of these individuals met any dictionary definition of terrorism. They were allegedly members of the non-violent, and dubiously proscribed organization ‘National Action.’ They had allegedly engaged in ‘racist’ online conversations. It was claimed they had placed ‘offensive’ stickers around a university campus. But were they terrorists according to the Oxford Dictionary, and most legal understandings of the term? Had they engaged in “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”? No such charges had ever been made by the British criminal justice system against National Action, and they have not been made against the recently arrested men.
But you wouldn’t have guessed that from the hyperbolic government statements that poured forth in the hours and days after the arrests. We were told that jailing these young men was a matter of grave national security. The Guardian enthusiastically waded into the fray, reporting that, because some of those arrested were soldiers, the nation should beware a mass ‘neo-nazi’ infiltration of the British armed forces. Interested parties began agitating for yet more non-violent White advocacy groups to be banned. The nebulous threat of ‘racist extremists’ was everywhere and yet nowhere.
And then, just we were reaching peak hysteria about the ‘terrorism threat’ from the ‘Far Right,’ reality reasserted itself, and the stickers and pranks were forgotten. A Muslim terrorist, later claimed by ISIS, left an improvised explosive device on a busy London train at Parsons Green with the intention of causing mass death and destruction. A further rebuke to the delusions of the masses, and the manipulations of the elite arrived in the form of the growing realisation that the bomber may have been working with a former ‘child refugee’ from Syria, a man who had been taken into the home of an elderly and cartoonishly altruistic British couple.
In the final act of this Islamic plot, the device failed to activate as its designers had intended. But in the chaos which followed the burst of flame and rancid smoke, Britons received a perfectly-timed reminder of what terrorism really is, and from which quarters it truly emanates.
The question remains, however: How did we arrive at a situation in which the priorities of the British police and security services are diverted with appalling illogic away from Muslim terrorism into the pursuit of White, non-violent political activists? It is my contention that it is absolutely essential to place the failure of security services and police to prevent this attempt at mass murder within the context of their activity over the last couple of years and their activity in the preceding ten days in particular.
The first point of note is the apparently extensive and wasteful use of police, security service, and armed forces resources in order to chase the paper tiger of ‘far right extremism.’ This fixation and waste of resources can, at least in part, be attributed to the growing influence of bodies promoting multiculturalism within these spheres. As I noted in my analysis of ADL-police co-operation before, during, and after Charlottesville, such groups are very keen to pursue and promote a narrative in which the advocacy of White identity and ideas contrary to their interests and intentions are officially recognised as ‘extremist’ and even ‘terrorist’ by nature. Achieving such a scenario via legislative means has proven difficult, but by encroaching into the educational and policy-forming aspects of these non-governmental (but very powerful) bodies, pro-multicultural groups can advance their agenda quite effectively.
The most common pattern appears to be that existing Leftist multicultural groups will invite police and prosecution officials to conferences or seminars that they arrange, in order to promote their ideas about ‘hate crime,’ ’unconscious White privilege,’ or ‘institutional racism.’ Alternatively, these multiculturalist groups will form offshoot organisations that will adopt a more consciously academic veneer. This pseudo-academic offshoot then attempts to penetrate the formal educational apparatus of police departments or prosecution bodies, eventually gaining influence in the direction and formulation of policy on issues surrounding race and the protection and promotion of the multicultural idea. An excellent example in this regard is the Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society, which is closely allied to the more informal, and avowedly Leftist, Stop Racism Canada. In Britain, the body most closely fitting this pattern is Hope Not Hate, which started as the side project of an editor of Searchlight, a self-styled ‘anti-Fascist’ magazine founded by the Jewish Communist Gerry Gable. If American nationalists don’t have enough opposition already, in the form of the ADL and the SPLC, Hope not Hate has recently announced it plans to expand its activities to the United States.
Such developments can also be accelerated with the assistance of hostile elites. In April, London Mayor Sadiq Khan launched an “online hate crime hub,” which brought various bodies together in order to attack free speech, promote the idea of ‘thought crime,’ and actively hunt for ‘racist’ transgressors on social media. Hope not Hate gleefully reported that “The Hub will be made up of five specially-trained Met police officers who will work with social media organisations, academic hate crime specialists and criminal justice partners to investigate online hate crimes in London [emphasis added].” ‘Academic hate crime specialists’ are invariably Leftist, often Communist, and frequently Jewish — an excellent example being Judy Katz, who formulated a program called ‘White Awareness Training,’ which was imbibed in true ‘Kool Aid’ fashion by American law enforcement and legal professionals. Katz’s program was built on the premise that “racism is a pathological condition from which white people suffer, and by which they are subsequently immobilized. The program concentrates on enabling white people to take responsibility for tackling their own racism and that of other whites at a personal level, and to act on this in their subsequent lives.” This is the kind of anti-White poison one can expect from Mr. Khan’s ‘academic hate crime specialists.’
Aside from direct intervention by hostile bodies in the policies and operations of law enforcement, another reason for the ongoing waste of terrorism resources is the prevalence of the ‘myth of the right wing extremist’ — the subject of my 2016 essay of the same name. In that essay I argued that although violent ethno-nationalists have existed, they are both extremely rare and often very much disengaged from the heart of the movement. Despite recurrent breathless claims, such as Kurt Eichenwald’s Newsweek article claiming that right-wing extremists are more dangerous than ISIS, the reality is far different. FBI agent Michael German, who spent years undercover with White identity groups remarked that “There are millions of racists in the United States. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are with organized white supremacist groups. Very few actually commit acts of violence.”
But the myth of the “right-wing extremist” is always greater than the sum of his parts. The ‘danger’ he poses is always said to have the implication of violence, but even a cursory analysis reveals that oppositional action is directed solely at his freedom of speech and his ideas. The ‘myth of the right wing extremist’ thus represents an attempt to take attention away from violent non-Whites, and also crucially to silence, discredit, and even criminalize White advocacy.
Disinformation is crucial to the maintenance of the myth. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the world’s leading producers of propaganda in this regard, primarily through its Intelligence Report and Year in Hate and Extremism. In the words of Alexander Cockburn, SPLC President Morris Dees “has raised an endowment of close to $100 million [now $302.8 million], with which he’s done little, by frightening elderly liberals that the heirs of Adolf Hitler are about to march down Main Street, lynching blacks and putting Jews into ovens. The fundraising of Dees and the richly rewarded efforts of terror mongers like Leonard Zeskind offer a dreadfully distorted view of American political realities.”
Such distortion is a defining feature of the myth of the right-wing extremist. Faced with increasing violence from immigrants and ethnic minorities, interested parties in government, the media, and academia have been forced to heighten the level of distortion still further, in order to maintain the pretense that a greater threat emanates from the Right. In Britain, this pretense led to the absurd banning of Richard Spencer on the same legislative grounds that had been developed to deal with Muslim preachers calling for jihad and the beheading of non-believers.
The myth of the right wing extremist has become ever more important because there is a palpable conscious straining by the government-police-academia-media nexus to present a narrative in which Muslims are not the sole terroristic threat on British soil — despite overwhelming evidence, in the form of body bags, suggesting that they are. Hope not Hate, and their friends at the Guardian, have been at the forefront in provoking a falsehood-fueled social panic about the Right in order to protect the image and status of multiculturalism and maintain the fashionable trend of being ‘tolerant’ — a task made more difficult when each new Muslim atrocity unhelpfully conflates the message of ‘tolerance’ with images of eviscerated children.
Faced with such a problem, the multiculturalists resort to lies. In the United States, the most egregious example was that of the Center for Investigative Reporting, which released a report in June claiming that there were more ‘right wing’ terrorists than Muslim terrorists in America [the Executive Director of that organization is one Robert Rosenthal, while its executive Chair is named Phil Bronstein].
In the UK, The Guardian led with a piece in November 2016 claiming that “a top counter-terrorism officer has said police fear the threat of far-right violence is growing and poses a similar danger to communities as other forms of extremism.” The officer made no such statement. In response to loaded questions in the wake of the murder of MP Jo Cox he had merely stated that “currently just under 10% of all Prevent [a government ‘anti-extremism’ education program] referrals relate to the extreme right-wing.” It is understood that these involved teenagers engaging in stickering and handing out pamphlets. Far from posing a “similar danger to communities as other forms of extremism,” the officer further elaborated that “the overriding threat remains from Daesh-inspired groups,” that is to say, groups derived predominantly from the Guardian’s much-cherished immigrant populations.
In late 2016 I made a prediction:
Faced with a White identity movement that remains, frustratingly for its opponents, law-abiding and peaceful, we can expect an elaboration on existing tactics. The meaning and definition of words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ will themselves be expanded to encompass non-violent entities and individuals in an effort to drag them into hastily constructed spheres of illegality and, thus, deeper social opprobrium and even prison sentences.
Unfortunately, in the wake of the ‘National Action arrests’ my prediction appears to be coming true much faster than I imagined. Young men who might once have been taken into the Orwellian ‘Prevent program’ (to have their capacity for independent thought annihilated) are now more likely to be summarily arrested, charged, and jailed as ‘terrorists’ — their innocence of any form of terrorism being inconsequential in the context of their assumed political beliefs. Influenced by the above-mentioned ‘educational’ efforts of hostile groups, charging and sentencing procedures are likely to be much harsher for those identified as ‘racists.’ [See the London Court of Appeal’s recent admission that the four year sentence of nationalist Lawrence Burns for Facebook comments had been “manifestly excessive.”]
An excellent example of the disparity between the treatment of nationalists and Muslims in alleged cases of terrorism concerns possession of the bomb-making manual The Anarchist Cookbook. Although available for purchase in the UK via Amazon, the British police have developed a habit of going on ‘fishing exercises’ whereby they raid the home of a ‘Far Right’ activist on the slightest available suspicion, in the hope that the individual will have been curious enough to have this publication in his possession. They then use the context of the individual’s political beliefs in order to construct a terrorism narrative.
Consider the case of EDL supporter Ryan McGee, a British soldier, whose home was raided “in an unrelated matter” before police found The Anarchist Cookbook — enabling them to arrest him under terrorism legislation and subsequently jail him for two years. Now consider that when two young Muslims were found with copies of “Anarchist Cookbook, 3.5kg of potassium nitrate and a quantity of calcium chloride,” as well as documents glorifying 9/11 and an apparent plot to “blow up” members of the British National Party, they were released without conviction after complaints of racism and Islamophobia.
Such events provide all the context and precedent required to understand how Britain could indulge in a week of arrests targeting Whites while simultaneously sleepwalking into an attempted Muslim-perpetrated atrocity.
Despite lingering material comfort, Europeans are currently experiencing warfare in both direct and abstract forms. Muslim terrorists continue to plan and perpetrate acts of large-scale violence against Whites. This is the visible war, the one that impacts most obviously and directly in our lives. But Whites are also under attack from another form of warfare — warfare waged in the realm of ideas and concepts. This latter form of warfare interacts with the former, making the violence more digestible or ‘tolerable’ for the host population. This abstract ideological warfare offers an unsophisticated but effective set of apologetics for Islamic violence — ‘not all Muslims,’ ‘don’t look back in anger,’ ‘beat violence with kindness,’ and yes, ’Hope not Hate.’ And perhaps most effectively, this set of apologetics has come to offer an alternative, if entirely fictional boogeyman — the White advocate. The White advocate as ‘folk devil’ has been decades in the making, of course. But he is now undergoing a further evolution — becoming a true social leper, a criminal, a ‘terrorist.’ He has had to undergo this discursive transformation because of the prevalence of real terrorists and murderers. In a way, he is made to atone for their sins.
It is unlikely that Britain will learn from Parsons Green, or see the irony in the Nationalist Action panic of the ten days previous to it. Most Britons will carry on with their lives, and will probably be untroubled even if the two Muslims suspects are released while the seven nationalists remain jailed for years to come. Altruistic old British couples will continue to adopt and nourish ‘child refugees’ from Syria. People will continue to believe that ‘right wing extremists’ are a dire threat to their safety. The masses will continue their failure to question how stickering, and talking with friends, became ‘terror offences.’
This is what happens when a people confuses full stomachs and nice cars with freedom. This is what happens when a people allows its narrative of self to be dictated by foreign tribes and treasonous psychopaths. This is what happens when all checks and balances fail.
I leave the last word to Alex Deakin, the young graduate who, when charges of terrorism were put to him days ago, replied: “I believe I am innocent. I am a prisoner of conscience.”