The True Right has always believed in strong leadership and the ability, as Thomas Carlyle wrote, of ‘great men’ to shape history. In his collection of lectures On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, Carlyle identifies six types of hero: the Hero as Divinity, as Prophet, as Poet, as Priest, as Man of Letters and as King. This is not limited to the Right, for the Left also has its heroes: its revolutionaries and men of theory.
What we have seen since the 1960s is a new breed of hero that has emerged, firstly on the Left, but now increasingly on the Right: the Hero as Activist. The activist’s name on everyone’s lips at the moment, especially since his recent arrest and imprisonment, is Tommy Robinson. But is he a hero, and will he shape history?
As you will no doubt have realized from the photo above, I do not think he is a hero for our times. In fact, I do not think he is in control of much of what he says. From the very beginning, Robinson has had a dubious relationship with organised Jewry in Britain and this has meant toeing the line of “diversity and inclusion” (see picture above). While his identification of Islam as a problem and direct confrontation of Muslims has been admirable and shows real bravery, divorcing the problem from the subject of race has not just been deliberate, but a conscious dishonest and political choice to align himself with Jewish interests.
The English Defence League, after all, was formed in the image of the Jewish Defence League, a terrorist group that aligned itself to militant Negro groups in America. From the very beginning, despite doing good work in exposing Muslim paedophile gangs, it also promoted multi-racialism and attacked genuine nationalists in Britain who had been exposing the same as “racists”. The EDL under Robinson had various groups within it, including a Jewish section and an LGBT one. In other words, the EDL promoted the same agenda as the government. This is not to say there were not any good people in the EDL. There certainly were, but they were coerced into toeing the PC line, with Robinson being convicted of headbutting someone he referred to as a “neo-Nazi” in 2011.
Indeed, when Robinson left the EDL in 2013, he cited “extremism” as being the reason and suddenly started working with the Leftist/Muslim think tank Quilliam and appearing on the BBC, no longer as an antagonist, but as one of the fold. In 2016, he was invited for a trip to Israel by Jewish Youtuber “Brian of London” (but obviously rather more of Tel Aviv), where he became a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda. He has since worked for Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, a Jewish Canadian internet media outlet that has promoted Israeli intersts in the Middle East and Jewish interests in the West, including the usual Jewish hypocracy of advocating a Jewish ethnostate while undermining ethno-nationalism in other countries. Let us be clear: Robinson has always undermined ethno-nationalism for Whites. Just last year during the Charlottesville march, he tweeted this:
Now, whatever one thinks to the Charlottesville march, most of those involved were not “Nazis”, and given Robinson’s familiarity with internet news sources, I’m sure he knows this. He also knows about Jewish power and influence in Britain, particularly as he once tweeted a link to the Traitor Within blog, which exposes Jewish supremacism. Robinson explained this away in that he said he believed the article linked to was about Labour’s immigration policies. Indeed, Robinson has always avoided Jewish influence on immigration into Britain, the anti-British nature of it and them and the forbidding of dissent, with the Board of Deputies of British Jews once proudly advertising their communiqu to Tony Blair of 17th December 1998 on their website, the highlights of which are:
The Board has been at the forefront of the development of proposals for race relations legislation in the UK… The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, has urged successive governments to enact and strengthen race relations legislation… It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.
The Board played a fundamental part in urging upon government the first Race Relations Act which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998…..
The social climate affecting racism and racial discrimination has also evolved during that period, and many proposals have been put forward for correcting deficiencies or anomalies in the legislation […] But there remains some scope for improvement.
We regard the proposals of the CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) for legislative change to be well thought out and substantiated […] We are pleased to welcome and endorse the CRE’s published proposals.
In particular we draw attention to proposed 1B, which recommends that the Race Relations Act should apply to all aspects of the activities of Government and all Public Bodies. We would support the extension of the RRA to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in forming public opinion on social issues…..
The Board can also see the case for new legislation to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds […] We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific legislation to outlaw Holocaust Denial…..
In addition to changes in the main body of national law, changes are needed in the rules and regulations of many institutions and organisations to decrease or remove discrimination on religious grounds.
I think that pretty much shows what organised Jewry in Britain has been up to in their own words. But onto the present case in hand, Tommy Robinson’s jailing, supposedly for speaking freely. Julie Lake’s article published here got it absolutely spot on: it was his own fault. I will go further: he went there with the express purpose of being arrested and imprisoned so that he could become “a martyr to the cause.” He knew full well that the terms of his suspended sentence received in Canterbury last year, where the judge was surprisingly lenient considering that even then he had been warned in Luton about interfering with ongoing trials, were that he would receive a harsh sentence if he attempted to prejudice another ongoing trial by reporting on it in such a way that prejudiced the jury. For those who do not wish to read the whole thing in the link: here are the highlights:
They were deliberate actions intending to take photographs of the defendants; they were actions which you continued to take, despite having been told that you should not do it, and I find, as a clear logical inference, that your intention on coming into the court building was to seek out the defendants, who you referred to in the way in which we have all seen and heard […] You made it abundantly clear, indeed it is abundantly clear that your mission and purpose was to try and film the defendants. The fact that you failed to do that was because we were able to take avoiding action. You then continued to film in the court building, even though you had been told not to, and these matters were then published on the media with, as I am aware, a very wide viewing rate, referring to the defendants by their religion and referring to them as “Muslim child rapists” or “Muslim paedophiles”…..
This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is — that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial…..
If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am…..
The question therefore comes down to what the appropriate disposal should be. In my judgment, an apology, although it is an apology which I accept and for which I thank you, is not sufficient. Neither do I feel in this case that a financial penalty is appropriate. It seems to me that this does need to be met with a custodial sentence. The only question in my mind is whether it might, in the circumstances and bearing in mind that which Mr. Kovalevsky has told me, and which I accept from him about the potential dangers that you might face were I to send you into custody immediately, and bearing in mind the need to ensure that this trial is kept on track, and bearing in mind the fact that, as he says, you will now be under no illusions whatsoever as to what you can and cannot do, whether it might be possible in your case to suspend the sentence of imprisonment which I would otherwise have imposed…..
The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you […] is one of three months’ imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.
Furthermore, it was made clear that the Leeds trial was under reporting restrictions, as stated in an article in The Examiner among other places from the beginning of the trial. Note well the words: “We understand the trial will carry reporting restrictions which would only allow any reporting on conclusion of the case.” The case is not yet concluded, as more are awaiting sentencing. And, as Julie Lake stated, the defendants’ lawyers may now be able to argue for a mistrial. What is as bad is that the whole case has now been forgotten in favor of the Tommy Robinson Show. His grandstanding has made himself the center of attention, and, while I understand the masses’ need for heroes, he has done it at the expense of what is really important: the victims and their families.
What has also disappointed me are the comments that went into moderation, with the utmost filth being written by the army of blind Tommytards — and I am not ashamed to say that I deleted them. I do not say that all who have fallen for Tommy Robinson’s charm and patter are Tommytards, but they need to find better heroes. I understand that the media have built him up as a legitimate rebel leader and working-class hero by constantly interviewing him and giving him air time. Jeremy Bedford-Turner was never given air time, who is currently serving twelve months for so-called hate speech. And where were the talking heads of the alternative media when he was sent down? Where was Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson and co. then? Why haven’t they mentioned Alison Chabloz’s trial? Oh right, the power they criticized was Jewish. And there’s the double standard. Their trials have been lobbied for by the very group that Robinson worships.
Here’s what I expect next: I expect leading politicians in Israel to criticise the British government over its handling of Tommy Robinson in order to gain the support of ordinary Britons for Israel and organised Jewry at large. This will mean they will be free to continue the promotion of miscegenation and decadence in British culture. Tommy Robinson’s celebrity will grow — expect a book out soon! And he will lead — oh yes, he will lead — us all to the promised land of kosher fake nationalism, along with the likes of Anne Marie Waters and her “For Britain” party.
And now, here is the real hero when it comes to exposing Muslim child-rape gangs — or rather heroine — who is sadly now deceased. She was Marlene Guest, a woman who worked tirelessly compiling dossiers of evidence and petitioning the police, media and government to investigate and prosecute those responsible, and to do their duty in protecting White children. She continued in her duty while battling cancer right up to her death at the end of 2014. It is a sad fact that the real heroes get no fanfare in the present age, for real heroes are given no air time, but it is my privilege to have known her.