The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Christopher DeGroot Archive
Tommy Robinson and the Enduring Tragedy of Politics
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Protest in support of freeing Tommy Robinson at Trafalgar Square. Credit C. Suthorn/CC 4.0.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Morality is the weakness of the brain.” –Rimbaud

He’s no fool, Dominic Green. A Jazz musician, a lecturer in politics, and a lively and witty writer, Green is what used to be called a man of parts. It’s rather disappointing, then, that in “America, meet Tommy Robinson – if you must,” his August 1 column in Spectator USA, Green engages in facile moralizing and indulges his class snobbery toward Tommy Robinson where an exacting consideration of hard issues would be far more fruitful.

Those issues, in Green words, are “Europe’s crisis of Islam and immigration.” Tommy Robinson, says Green,

is a defender of free speech, and has contributed to the exposure of a scandal that the police, the BBC, and much of the mainstream media seemed unwilling to cover, the mass grooming and rape of underage white girls by gangs of men, almost all of them of South Asian Muslim extraction.

On August 1, Robinson was released from prison on appeal. Green gives the background of his imprisonment:

In 2017, Robinson was given a suspended sentence after broadcasting on Facebook Live the names and faces of four Muslim men during their trial on charges of raping an underage girl. That the men were found guilty does not alter the fact that Robinson broke the law. Broadcasting the names of people who are still legally innocent might prejudice a jury. It might even cause a prosecution to miscarry, and allow guilty suspects to escape conviction.

In May, Robinson repeated the offense during the trial of four Pakistani men in the northern English town of Leeds. By the end of the day, Robinson had been tried and sentenced to thirteen months’ imprisonment for contempt of court….

Lord Burnett, who freed Robinson on appeal today, called the haste with which Robinson had been arrested, sentenced and imprisoned at Leeds ‘a fundamentally flawed process’….

Robinson’s behavior, we are to take it from Green’s account, has been admirable in some respects but mixed on the whole. The man has been heroic where police and mainstream media were cowards, as indeed they remain, and he has suffered considerably for that. Yet he has also repeatedly broken the law, actions in which there were moral evils besides.

The full story is not so simple, however. “Broadcasting the names of people who are still legally innocent might prejudice a jury”—yes, very true—but a regular practice in British media, even so. When Robinson was charged with contempt of court, the BBC and the Daily Mail were still broadcasting the names and photographs of the accused in the case. In fact, it was from this list on the BBC website that, during the second trial, Robinson recited the names of the alleged rapists and sex traffickers on Facebook Live. Why no outrage toward the mainstream media? Probably because these are “respectable” sources—that is, politically correct—while Robinson is not. He was a vociferous agitator, too. No wonder he was subjected to a ‘a fundamentally flawed process’ and received only a four-minute hearing in court.

Given the manifest failure of British politicians and police to deal with “Europe’s crisis of Islam and immigration,” one may fairly ask, who if not the uncouth Robinson and his rabble of supporters should provide resistance to “the mass grooming and rape of underage white girls by gangs of men, almost all of them of South Asian Muslim extraction”? The madness of political correctness may be even worse in England than it is here in these States, where Green, a British export, now lives and writes, and with the usual fear of being thought “racist,” the police chose not to protect the most vulnerable among them. Lizzie Dearden, in a February 23 article in The Independent, reported:

Grooming gangs abused more than 700 women and girls around Newcastle with “arrogant persistence” after police appeared to punish victims while letting the perpetrators walk free, a case review has found.

After examining evidence on the abuse of hundreds of girls in the North-east, investigators concluded that local authorities claiming there is no grooming in their area “are not looking hard enough”.

Before 2014, police were responding to incidents on an ad hoc basis, with efforts by authorities trying to persuade victims to keep away from the abusers and change their behaviours.

The review found the approach led to “consideration of deterrent punishments of victims for being drunk and disorderly or for making false allegations when accounts were changed”.

“This sent an unhelpful message to perpetrators – they were unlikely to be prosecuted or prevented from continuing to abuse – encouraging an arrogant persistence,” it added.

“It also had a significant impact on victims who learnt that nothing would be done against perpetrators.”

On July 17, in the same magazine, Dearden gave us more disturbing details:

The government received information detailing the extent of grooming gang activity in Rotherham as far back as 2002 but failed to properly act on it, a review has found. The National Crime Agency’s ongoing investigation has revealed that more than 1,500 girls and young women may have been abused in the Yorkshire town between 1997 and 2013.

A report by Alexis Jay exposed “blatant” failures by police and the Labour-run local council, where officials feared racism accusations at the time. The independent inquiry said an unpublished Home Office research report from 2002 described the extent of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and a series of criticisms over the response “that should have raised concern”. The independent review of information passed to the Home Office in connection with allegations of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham between 1998 and 2005 was commissioned after Professor Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry suggested the department had been passed information about the scale of abuse in the Yorkshire town many years before anybody was convicted.

“Britain’s politicians and policemen,” Green observes,

are paralysed by fear of exacerbating tensions between British Muslims and non-Muslims. British governments have admitted Yusuf Qaradawi, an Islamist and anti-Semite, but have refused to admit the batty but less dangerous Pamela Geller. That’s just not cricket, and it shows how scared the politicians, civil servants and police are of a violent crisis—and how easily intimidated they are by the belligerence of the Islamists.

But for all that, Green does nothing to hold the British elite accountable for the policies that resulted in this parlous situation. “In a recent Sunday Times poll,” he writes, “24 per cent said they would support a new hard-right party that promised to halt all Muslim immigration.” Well, no wonder, one might respond, because however objectionable the new “hard right-party” may be, the mainstream right has been utterly incompetent in regard to “Muslim immigration;” and as Peter Hitchens has long documented, incompetent in general.

Green’s own response reveals much about how his character, and how little serious he is as a writer. “Who,” he asks, “would want to be associated with Tommy the free speech martyr?” “When a ‘Free Tommy’ rally marched on 10, Downing Street,” he goes on, “Robinson’s supporters were filmed giving fascist salutes, shouting ‘Sieg Heil’, and fighting the police.” Green’s general laziness and irresponsibility are well evidenced by this easy deflection and silly assumption of guilt by association, as if the characters of “Robinson’s supporters”—with whom he may or may not identify ideologically—proved anything about the man himself. Nice work, Mr. Green! Jacobin or The New Republic couldn’t have done it any better.

For all one can tell, Green is not troubled by the “‘blatant’ failures” of the British politicians, police and mainstream media. Nor does he explore what Lord Burnett, who freed Robinson on appeal, called ‘a fundamentally flawed process,’ or in other words, “the haste with which Robinson had been arrested, sentenced and imprisoned at Leeds.” Defending England, when those who are supposed to do so have evaded the most vital task—this is a project for which Green, so busy moralizing, shows no sympathy or appreciation. Though he doesn’t say so, the very difficult present situation in England—namely, the group conflict between Brits and Muslims—didn’t have to come to pass, because after all, it was never necessary for there to be any mass immigration of Muslims into England in the first place. Brits could have chosen to do what was best for themselves, a wise judgment that, before recent (read: exceedingly weak because so moralistic) times, would have gone without saying. Instead, they made the easy, the weak, the “moral” choice.

What certainly bothers Green, his column shows, are the unseemly elements in what he accurately describes as “the revolt of the majority.” Nor is that surprising, because like the “respectable” people who are culpable in this mess, Green himself is a politically correct empty suit. Thus, instead of assuming the hard work of substantive analysis of the issues—Islam and mass immigration—Green tells us that Robinson is

an ex-football hooligan, an ex-member of the racist British National Party, and the founder of the English Defense League, a motley of football hooligans and erstwhile BNP supporters who have turned from fighting each other and hating Jews and Blacks to fighting ‘anti-fascists’ and hating Muslims—the ‘counter-jihad’, as they call it.

Well, by his own account, Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, took on his pseudonym after a football hooligan of that name in order, as Green relates, “to spare himself retaliation from Islamists.” On July 25, 2011, the BBC reported that Robinson

led Luton Town supporters and chanted ‘EDL till I die’, as they clashed with Newport County fans in Luton [on August 24, 2010]….

Lennon, from Luton, was found guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting behavior….

District Judge Carolyn Mellanby told him: ‘I am entirely satisfied you were at the front of this group of angry Luton supporters looking for trouble when you were confronted by the group of Newport supporters who were also angry and fired up looking for trouble.’

Robinson, however, claimed that

I am being done for what I am saying rather than what I am doing….

In the last 12 months I’ve been banned from protesting, going to the football and my assets have been frozen. It is a police state…

It is because we are evaluating animals, it is well to observe here, that journalism, like the life of the mind generally and indeed life itself, is so very difficult. The sort of person we are—the result, to a significant extent, of our personal history and culture—inevitably determines our perceptions and therefore beliefs and moral judgments, usually unawares. Of this essential bias—which, I have argued, is intrinsic to reason itself—Green’s simplistic, moralizing perspective on Robinson is an instructive example. Get ready, America, he informs us, Robinson is “an ex-football hooligan”! Boston College, where Green is an adjunct lecturer in politics, may wish to have him do double duty, for as we see here, he would make a fine leader of bias response teams. With his profound sensitivity to racism and other evils, Green might plant himself at the university square during busy hours; there, at the sight of any microaggression, he could dispatch the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion by blowing a hearty burst of his characteristic hot air into his saxophone.

I would not, of course, deny that Robinson is “an ex-football hooligan,” nor do I think his culpability in the football fight is implausible. But there is something pretty curious about Green’s account: Although he notices that “the police, the BBC, and much of the mainstream media seemed unwilling to cover…the mass grooming and rape of underage white girls by gangs of men, almost all of them of South Asian Muslim extraction,” he nevertheless does not allow for the possibility that Robinson, who was willing to cover this thorny issue, might have been a victim for precisely that reason. Green does not consider the possibility that, just as “the police, the BBC, and much of the mainstream media” had failed to do their actual duty, as it were, lest they should be “racist,” so the police who dealt with Robinson at the football match on August 24, 2010, as well as District Judge Carolyn Mellanby, herself an agent of the State, might have been biased in their treatment of him. After all, it is surely not unreasonable to believe that the same politically correct motivation which kept “the police, the BBC, and much of the mainstream media” from investigating and prosecuting the evils in question,” might have prompted these persons to treat Robinson unfairly, to suppress and punish the pesky fellow. I am not saying that this is necessarily what happened. It may or may not have happened. My main point is that the situation is more complicated than Green gives us to understand. He is too confident in the truth of his assertions. He lacks rigor, a full sense of context, and most of all, a proper epistemic skepticism.

Contra Green, there is little connection between football players—or rather, “hooligans,” so offensive to his delicate nature—and the British National Party. There was a two-or-three-year period when the British National Party’s predecessor, the National Front, recruited at football games with some success, but that was in the late 1970s, before Robinson was born. Robinson did spend a year as a member of the British National Party, in 2004. About that time he has said: “I was looking for a way out, I was looking [for] somebody to be addressing this Islamic extremist problem….I didn’t Nick Griffin was in the National Front, I didn’t know non-whites couldn’t join the organisation. I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me.”

Young men, God knows, have a knack for making big mistakes. Laudably brave as Robinson is, it is still prudent to be somewhat skeptical of his explanation. It is a safer bet, I think, that his efforts with the English Defense League (EDL), which he founded in 2009, reflect better intentions on his part. Although the British mainstream press misrepresents it as a matter of course—akin to how the liberal press misrepresents Trump supporters and the Tea Party here in the US—the avowed purpose of the EDL is to defend England against what Green inaccurately calls “Islamism” (more on that shortly). Nevertheless, Robinson left the EDL in October, 2013, having become concerned about “the dangers of far-right extremism.” For by that time the EDL had been in a number of violent altercations with groups which the mainstream media tends to refer to as “counter protestors” or “anti-fascists.”

Here it is absolutely necessary to take a detached perspective and resist any quick and easy moral judgments. Only in this way can we grasp the immense complexity of the circumstances. First, we must be clear that these are group conflicts: Brits and other Europeans versus Muslims who, having immigrated to England, are abusing and sexually assaulting Europeans, mostly young women and girls. Further, Brits and Europeans themselves have protested against the EDL, thus providing another source of potential conflict, an in-group kind. We must also recognize that throughout history, for a group to abuse and sexually assault members of another group has always been a source of brutal violence in response, especially if the victims were women and children. Recall, moreover, the gross failure of the British police and politicians to endeavor to rectify this situation. Now, with all this in mind, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that engagement—violent, if necessary—by a group such as the EDL was necessary, and therefore, justified. This belief, I stress, should not be interpreted as “a rationale” for the “moral evils” of Robinson and his allies, because in the circumstances such a moral judgment is a categorical error. It does not apply. For again, group assertion was the only effective recourse; therefore, it would be irrational and self-destructive to refuse that recourse for “morality’s” sake. It is only too easy for Green to moralize concerning Robinson and the EDL, while not asking or answering the question, what is to be done? and doing nothing himself.

History, let us be clear, is constituted by group conflicts. Though today few of us may want to recognize it, people have always defined themselves and their interests by virtue of their opposition to other groups, that is, their competitors. Nor has this agon ceased, as our vexed time increasingly shows. And again, we know from the events that reliance on the law did not avail, the law’s agents having failed the citizens. The only alternative, then, to popular resistance, with people being willing to engage in violence if need be, would have been submission. And what an apt word that is in context, the word Islam itself denoting submission, and the religion itself aiming, by its very doctrine, to achieve world domination. For women, life under Islam is de facto sex slavery. “The mass grooming and rape of underage…girls by gangs of men, almost all of them of South Asian Muslim extraction,” is by no means ideologically inconsistent with the general treatment of women under Islam. What is more, there is abundant historical evidence that for centuries, Muslims have treated European women as an especial good to be acquired and enjoyed, first by means of the slave-trade, and now by sex grooming, which is obviously no different in kind from the former method. The sex trafficking and sexual assault epidemics are European-wide phenomena, and for England as for other European nations, it would be quite absurd and self-destructive to resist engagement and violence for the sake of not being “racist” toward your enemy.

Besides, EDL members include blacks, Asians, and other non-whites. For such diversity Anders Brievik, a wicked mass murderer whom Robinson has expressly condemned, has called the organization “naïve fools.” Robinson rejects being labeled a racist and anti-Semite. He considers himself a Zionist, in fact, and counts blacks and Muslims among his friends. Not to simplify or pardon the man in general, however: Robinson does have a history of crime independent of his activities with the EDL and the like nationalist movements. “I am a working class man from Luton,” he states.

I have made mistakes….[But] what has got me on to this programme is what I am seeing. My violent offence was 10 years ago as a young man. I have done things I am not proud of. But I have been to jail and I have seen militant Islamism in jail. It is a threat not being tackled….We don’t have people doing Nazi salutes, the pictures are manipulated, Islamism and Nazism are the same coin, we oppose both.

It is obvious that Green did little research for his article on Robinson. Indeed, he appears to be more interested in affecting a moral superiority to him than digging into his complicated history. Robinson, Green writes, has “false front teeth because his real ones got punched out, a conviction for drunkenly assaulting an off-duty policeman, and another conviction for mortgage fraud.” Seeing as Robinson may relocate to America, where he has the support of vulgar men like Steve Bannon, Green asks himself, “Should I apologise preemptively for Tommy Robinson?” Ah, good team members should expect nothing else, but alas for Green, the question finds him nostalgic for the old, better days:

Once, the British would have sent Robinson to Australia in chains. Now, there is every chance that British officialdom will be happy if market forces export him to America. He’s already made some powerful friends, and he likes the camera. He’ll probably chance his way into media prominence in the US as a defender of free speech and Western values.

So let me apologise once more. I didn’t think it could get any worse after Piers Morgan, but it’s about to. America, meet the Cary Grant of the alt-right.

Green, one imagines, is very pleased with himself for writing that, and doubtless such work will keep him well liked among the faithful and invited to their cocktail parties. But Time is likely to render a very different judgment, for Green’s is nothing but genteel conservatism, an evasion of exacting thought: which is precisely why this sort of thing is ever in demand. After all, the big money and social distinction are not obtained by being intellectually rigorous and morally principled—quite the contrary. That is the way to end up persona non grata.

Green reduces complex cultural and political movements to sheer caricature. Like a millennial student in his cultural studies class, keen to impress big fancy wise professor—to say nothing of his monkey-like peers!—he signals his disapproval of “popular revulsion at Islamism” and “old fascists in anti-Islamist clothing.” He accepts the false distinction between Islam and so-called Islamism. And yet, as Ibn Warraq shows in The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology (2017), what is called “radical Islam” derives from Islam itself. Hence Gad Saad, an admirably principled intellectual, and other serious scholars refuse to use that inaccurate phrase. It is possible, for God’s sake, to be truthful about Islam without thereby implying that all Muslims are bad. And the plain truth is that Islam as such is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world and with the liberal democratic West in particular. Europe, of course, is now learning that the hard way, having chosen, very like our own country in regard to the southern border, to act on blind pity and needless guilt where only sober, unflinching judgment regarding certain tragedy can do. This is, ultimately, the price the West is now paying for having become so rich, for enjoying so much material progress. For it is this that allows for the rule of the weak and unthinking. Stupid moralistic sentiments become dominant over severe, tragic decisions.

Men and women having turned their eyes away from the grim truth, their politics now take a darker turn. The populist and nationalist uprisings that we are witnessing throughout the United States and Europe teach life’s deepest, most enduring lesson: willful blindness, from which disaster may issue. Although he despised democracy, for Thomas Carlyle, the French Revolution, awful as it was, was only to be expected, the elite having exploited and betrayed the people, then as ever. So it is in our time. “The fruits of free trade policy during the last 25 years,” writes Pat Buchanan,

are the frozen wages of U.S. workers, \$12 trillion in U.S. trade deficits, 55,000 factories lost, 6 million manufacturing jobs gone, China surpassing the U.S. in manufacturing, all causing a backlash that pushed a political novice to the Republican nomination and into the presidency.

Whatever form government takes, selfishness and intractable delusion in the face of overwhelming complexity and one’s own evils are permanent aspects of our condition. Nationalist economics, and turning immigrants away for the sake of the common good—which is necessarily limited—are readily passed over for the sake of easier and less controversial gains, destructive though they shall prove in the end. From this grave background there arise men like Tommy Robinson, as necessary as they are unpalatable. Says Emerson:

Those who have most of this coarse energy, — the ‘bruisers,’ who have run the gauntlet of caucus and tavern through the county or the state, have their own vices, but they have the good nature of strength and courage. Fierce and unscrupulous, they are usually frank and direct, and above falsehood.

In our time, ‘bruisers’ like Tommy Robinson find their antagonists in the politically correct, in effete types like Dominic Green who, in the rotting decadent post-Christian West, make an enemy of him who is a hero, though properly mixed to suit the tragic whole. Not to imply that Robinson and the people, in a moral sense, consist of such better stuff than the loathsome elite. For that, too, is a sentimental delusion. As I wrote in an essay earlier this year for The Imaginative Conservative,

to understand the truth about human motives is also to understand just how limited and temporary social progress and reform must be. For the final truth is that in politics we receive a reflection of the evil we already are. In this context our disenchantment is an hypocrisy by which we obscure the primary one, ourselves.

Like others, Dominic Green—who has no skin in this game—will go on moralizing on the cheap. Meanwhile, the irony is that it falls to the very people to whom he blithely condescends—Deplorables such as Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon—to strive to preserve their countries from the disastrous effects of short-sighted elite rule. Smug, genteel chatterers like Dominic Green will not stick their necks out for anyone.

Christopher DeGroot is a columnist at Taki’s Magazine and senior contributing editor of New English Review. His writing has appeared in The American Spectator, The Imaginative Conservative, Jacobite Magazine, The Daily Caller, American Thinker, The Unz Review, Reckonin’, Ygdrasil, A Journal of the Poetic Arts, and elsewhere. Follow him at @CEGrotius.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Britain, Islam, Political Correctness 
Hide 70 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The oldest references I’ve seen to the term “politically correct” was when I was researching my dissertation on East German propaganda, largely true, concerning Nazi holdovers emerging in the postwar West German state. East German archives of the ’50s and ’60s often referred to “politisch korrekt” viewpoints. I’ve since heard that the term originated in Stalinist discourse prior to WWII.

    What it and identity politics now is is a sort of officially sanctioned proscription of free speech by the power structure which thereby reveals its essentially dictatorial nature. I think Tommy Robinson and his associates are exercising restraint on this issue. I think that mob vigilante violence is justified against these “groomers” and, though I know it would be illegal and a slippery slope since mistakes are likely to be made, I think this would be understandable and may be an end result if the politically correct fascist element continues to have its way in Britain and elsewhere. I think a line should be drawn against this alien barbarism.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  2. Rational says:


    It used to be said that the “sun never sets in the British empire” as they ruled countries all around the world.

    After Blair took bribes from his Jewish masters and opened the flood gate to the alien invasion, UK has entered the dark ages, with aliens attacking white women, patriots in jail.

    The Salem witch trials are here.

    The dark ages are here. The DARK ages are here. ALL DARK AGES are here.

    The Sun has set in the British empire and will always be set.

  3. When I watched the videos of the pro-Tommy protests at 10 Downing St, I saw a considerable number of blacks and Asians, a considerable number of women of all ages, and a considerable number of people willing to engage the police respectfully if vigorously. My point is that the media lies. Tommy Robinson strikes me as a very decent guy, maybe somewhat a showman, but also maybe somewhat naive and idealistic. As “vices” go, those aren’t so bad. My respect for him continues to grow. Maybe Bannon could give him some good advice though, and maybe that is already happening.

  4. ‘…The madness of political correctness may be even worse in England than it is here in these States…’

    ‘May be’? You need to follow England more closely. It’s been the political correctness leader for some time now.

  5. And the plain truth is that Islam as such is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world and with the liberal democratic West in particular.

    I’m getting very tired of seeing this sentiment expressed throughout the Alternative Right whenever the problems of Islam are being discussed; it could not be more inaccurate. Islam, being an irreligious religion of crude monism which reduces to a practical atheism, is entirely compatible with the modern world. It is the modern world, the modernity of a previous civilization, ossified and preserved until the present time, when it is beginning to harmonize with the materialism of the West which is falling into the same state—hence its resurgence.

    If Islam were truly incompatible with the modern world, that would actually be a point in its favor. I do not care for the modern world either, and I certainly do not care for these effete and buffoonish Western liberal democracies. It is not in the name of that that I am opposed to Islam.

    Those who decry Islam as “anti-modern” or “not compatible with liberal democracy” are engaged in mere word-mincing. They are trying to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be by presenting themselves as the true defenders of the Enlightenment. They do this because they are unwilling to oppose Islam with Christianity, which actually is anti-modern and anti-liberal. And in doing so, they reveal themselves to be no better than the liberal hordes whom they otherwise denounce.

    If they knew what they were talking about, if they were not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, they would know that to oppose Islam is to oppose modernity, democracy, and liberalism as well, because they are all fundamentally the same thing—they are all deifications of man and the idolatry of human passions. They are all rejections of truth and order. Islam and “democracy” are alike in being forms of piracy whose only purpose is to preach conquest to the masses and inflame them for reveries of destruction. They are thus entirely compatible in their practical ends, however much they may differ in their credal formulations. There should be no surprise whatsoever in the fact that the elites and atheists and liberals of the West are the ones most welcoming of Islam. They recognize each other the same spirit, they wink across the crowded room. What the modern “intellectual,” what the up-to-date Londoner or New Yorker calls his “reason” is precisely what the Arabian calls “Allah.” This union of the pussy-hats and the head-choppers, this affinity between Quran and Queer, is paradoxical only to one who is put off the scent by surface dissimilarities and has not learned to see into the depths of things.

    The flow of Islam into the West is entirely predictable under the present circumstances, and this devilish allegiance between the dark hordes of the desert and our own soulless oligarchs is a development most to be feared. It certainly needs to be fought, but it will not be so by Tommy Robinson.

  6. I see the following reasons for politicians not acting:
    – a naive belief that a multi cultural society can exist
    – indeed fear for something resembling progroms, or even civil war
    – not being able to understand that Islamic radicalism is seeing things as they are, the west terrorising Muslims al over the world
    – a naive belief that mixing of races, religions, whatever you want to call is, will result in a morally better human
    – a naive belief that we need young people in the aging west, at the same time stating that robotisation will make disappear most simple jobs
    – a naive belief that the west is responsible for the mess in most third world countries
    – not knowing that we in the west improved our standard of living by ourselves, hard work and democracy
    – last but not least, hoping to get the votes of those with an immigrant background

  7. Whose side are you on? Rapists or underage white girls.

  8. The problem with all the leaders of the “white resistance” is that they are not powerful or influential in their own right.

    Trump is the only one who is.

    The Left on the other hand, is bankrolled by billionaires, supported by mainstream media sponsors, includes the richest celebrities and enrolls the most resourceful think-tanks.

    Of course middle-class whites agree with everything being said because it is common sense.

    But the whites with the most legitimate complaints are the DEADBEATS who were unable or unwilling to sell their house, move out of the neighborhood, came from a poor background.

    These folks hardly have the money or power of a Soros.

    • Replies: @anon
  9. Robinson’s rage originated from the fact he was a Luton boy and the social engineers/political class decided that Luton would be good for mass-Muslim immigration. Consequently once-white working class communities found themselves outnumbered on their own streets by brown-skinned Islamists. This effect increased as whites fled, leaving the few whites who remained feeling like complete strangers in what once was their own country.
    It is fair and reasonable for people to feel strongly aggrieved about being placed such a situation by people pretending to represent their interests. The MPs who allowed and encouraged this development did not, of course, live inside the affected areas. The creation of Muslim ghettos all over the UK was a great betrayal of the British working classes.
    The horrible thing about Robinson is that has allowed himself to become an instrument of the very people who manufactured this situation. The Cultural Marxists who implemented, via their sympathetic banking connections, mass immigration as an instrument of societal division and a step towards globalism, were nearly all Jews.
    Jews, and Israel in particular, most assuredly RESIST ANY SUCH DIVISION within their own ranks. Robinson supports Israel. He loves its racism and ideology of ethnic purity.

    The man is an idiot or a paid shill or, most probably, both.

  10. The response by the Establishment & the PC generally to the concerted, consciously contrived almost systematic mass sexual assault by Muslim’s from the sub-continent against European white girls (children !) & women must represent the final stick on the pyer of Western “Culture”.
    So – the Establishment, the PC, feminists (!) are willfully, deliberately blind & silent to crimes they would not hesitate a nano-second to condemn were white males to commit them…because to do so might expose them to the charge of racism & the vague chance of somekind of racial backlash….Suddenly, we are back in the pre- 80’s & the convenient non-existence of mass child molestation.
    When the hypocrisy snake swallows it’s own tail, how long before it chokes to its own death ?

  11. Sir, you leave out one, albeit crucial part of the explanation: greed.

    Greed of the possessing classes.

    All those people were not imported out of good will in the first place, but rather to depress wages.

    As long as you concentrate on the do-gooders, you will not get to the root of the problem, because there will always be demand for cheap labour. The fact that the greedy love to hide behind the do-gooders does not alter this, as well as no amount of irritation the self assumed moral superiority of the do-gooders causes will alter this.

    • Replies: @S
  12. The last straw.
    We are now living in times, when ruling elite is considering telling the truth an anti government propaganda.

  13. Anonymous[348] • Disclaimer says:

    All those people were not imported out of good will in the first place, but rather to depress wages.

    So true. It positively mystifies me how many alt-righters still think of the big banks and corporations as their natural allies and friends.

    • Replies: @Christopher DeGroot
  14. Anonymous[348] • Disclaimer says:

    “Grooming gangs abused more than 700 women and girls around Newcastle with ‘arrogant persistence’ after police appeared to punish victims while letting the perpetrators walk free, a case review has found.”

    I see the War on Beckies has jumped the pond.

  15. Respect says:

    John 8:31-44 English Standard Version (ESV)
    The Truth Will Set You Free
    31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

    34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave[a] to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

    You Are of Your Father the Devil
    39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. DFH says:

    Jew scared of any sign of white collective identity example #342713

  17. Tommy Robinson is just another Zionist shill. As the author points out Tommy calls out the problems with the Muslim invasions but never addresses the “causes” of the Muslim invasions. Just as with the repair of anything mechanical, if you repair the problem but fail to repair the cause of that problem, you are doing nothing more than wasting time and money, guarantying a repeat failure. Don’t waste your time with clown as he just another co-intel clown.

  18. @Anonymous

    Thanks for your cynical but not unfair comment. I am quite aware of that interest and motive, and might have mentioned it in the essay. It’s something I have stressed in many pieces–in my stuff in Taki’s Magazine, e.g. To be sure, this is not a case of either-or. Sympathy and greed are not mutually exclusive. Doubtless both are factors here.

  19. TKK says:

    Why is Steve Bannon vulgar?

  20. Respect says:
    @jilles dykstra

    You are the one who is too naive . Western politicians know damm well what they are doing ,
    they are not so naive .

  21. @jilles dykstra

    It’s really quite simple, the implication of the “Earth Constitution” which states: Conscious that Humanity is One despite the existence of diverse nations, races, creeds, ideologies and cultures and that the principle of unity in diversity is the basis for a new age when war shall be outlawed and peace prevail; when the earth’s total resources shall be equitably used for human welfare; and when basic human rights and responsibilities shall be shared by all without discrimination;

    • Replies: @Respect
  22. What exactly is the author’s point? He just seems to ramble aimlessly.

    • Replies: @Russ
    , @Intelligent Dasein
  23. Jake says:

    “The madness of political correctness may be even worse in England than it is here in these States …”

    PC is worse in England than in the US, but the most PC parts of the US are as bad as England.

    In the US, the regions that came to be culturally dominated by the descendants of Anglo-Saxon Puritans are, and always have been, the most kooky Leftist, in whatever ways are fashionable at a given time. For example, the Feminist movement was founded in the Burnt-Over district of upstate NY, which had been settled almost 100% by New England Anglo-Saxon Puritans, and 100% of the major Feminist leaders until Jews started to get involved at the close of the 19th century were ethnically and culturally Anglo-Saxon Puritan through both parents.

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @anonymous

    So importing South Asians to UK was a bad mistake. You cannot deport them now. You can prevent more from entering the UK, but that is it.

    If I were a working class white in a South Asian neighborhood I’d sell my house and move. There’s really no other choice because South Asians are not going anywhere. Come to think of it, I’d sell my house and move to another country like Australia.

    Tommy states the obvious. South Asians can be dangerous. We all know this. Jews know this. Chinese know this. So what is the solution?

    • Replies: @Gordo
    , @Ragno
    , @Ace
  25. it was never necessary for there to be any mass immigration of Muslims into England in the first place. Brits could have chosen to do what was best for themselves

    If the native British had been asked, back in 1950, whether they wanted Muslim immigration—or any variety of Third World immigration—they would almost certainly have rejected the idea.

    But by continuing to support the Establishment parties responsible for mass immigration, the native British, at every general election, actually do choose the worst for themselves and for their children and grandchildren.

    As an Englishman, I long ago stopped voting for the Establishment parties, reasoning that if I voted for parties which promote mass immigration, I would be helping to bring about the disastrous consequences inherent in subjecting a European civilization to Third World immigration.

    • Replies: @S
  26. Anonymous[399] • Disclaimer says:

    Who cares what a Rabbi who was a popular teacher in the Jewish synagogues says?

    Luke 4:15 “He taught regularly in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.”

  27. S says:

    All those people were not imported out of good will in the first place, but rather to depress wages.

    As long as you concentrate on the do-gooders, you will not get to the root of the problem, because there will always be demand for cheap labour. The fact that the greedy love to hide behind the do-gooders does not alter this…

    Great point. Not to mention the divide and conquer, divide and rule aspect for corrupted indigenous and or alien power elites and their hangers on. It’s hard work (though ultimately edifying) to actually care about the people whom you are supposed to be representing, in this instance the historic Anglo-Saxon population of England.

    It’s a lot easier to play imported groups off both each other and the indigenous and play act that you care about everyone (and in reality truly care about almost no one) all whilst making a pretty penny from the value of the labor stolen directly and indirectly due to depressed wages overall via wage slavery, also known by that term of propoganda ‘cheap labor’.

    This makes a whole lot more sense when one realizes that chattel slavery and its trade rather than being abolished was instead monetized with the 19th century introduction by the British Empire and the United States of the cheap labor/mass immigration system to the world. Just as with chattel slavery and its trade, wage slavery (ie ‘cheap labor’ so called) is a primary source of economic and political power for the historic slave dealers, though now even more so, within the Anglosphere these being powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish peoples and their respective hangers on.

    To top it off you use the tax payers money from the general public to finance sjw’s and welfare subsidies to prop us this system though decidedly this system is not in the general public’s interest.

    In the past something like this took place with the Plantation in Ireland and or ancient Rome’s colonia.

    Wasn’t right or good for those targeted populations on the receiving end then either.

    ‘..the immigrants usually serve three main functions: cheap labor to replace native groups; settlement in the ‘frontier’ (periphery); and control over the natives and their land (Stasilius and Yuval-Davis, 1995). These dynamics generally result in the maintenance of hegemony..’

  28. Respect says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read

    right on target , they need to establish a new syncretic religion for a new wold order government

  29. Anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Christianity isn’t “anti-liberal.”

    “But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.”

    Sounds just like that other Jew Diane Feinstein.

  30. bjondo says:

    Whatever his name, he is a tool and a fool.

    Ibn Warraq is the pen name of an anonymous author critical of Islam. Wikipedia

    Certainly someone I trust regarding an analysis of Islam. On a par with Gad Saad.

    For women, life under Islam is de facto sex slavery. “The mass grooming and rape of underage…girls by gangs of men, almost all of them of South Asian Muslim extraction,” is by no means ideologically inconsistent with the general treatment of women under Islam.

    Hasn’t been my observation in the many Muslim majority countries that I’ve been to. Would seem to be Weinswinewood, NYC and DC.

    … there is abundant historical evidence that for centuries, Muslims have treated European women as an especial good to be acquired and enjoyed, first by means of the slave-trade, and now by sex grooming, which is obviously no different in kind from the former method.

    Pretty sure you mean Israel today and Weinswinewood and NYC and DC.

    • Replies: @renfro
  31. Notwithstanding the plight of the innocent white girls in the U.K., you deliberately insist upon terming those animals, who perpetrated the crimes and had gotten away, as South Asians instead of Pakistanis which they certainly are. Though they could be, strictly geographically speaking, categorized as such, they ceased to be culturally Indians as in Hindus when the perfidious Albion, not only broke up the subcontinent into parts for continued hegemony through its favorite part, Pakisthe, its Islam and Muslims vis a vis, the Hindus. So term it properly lest people get the wrong impression. They are Pakis!

  32. S says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    But by continuing to support the Establishment parties responsible for mass immigration, the native British, at every general election, actually do choose the worst for themselves and for their children and grandchildren.

    As an Englishman, I long ago stopped voting for the Establishment parties…

    I can only commend the bravery of your thinking.

    Unfortunately it seems all too many are not prepared to work through the cognitive dissonance necessary to come to such a logical conclusion, and instead continue to operate within the general seeming immediate safety of the Establishment two party system.

    While not in any way laudible their action in this is understandable. This apparently controlled predominantly two party system, as in controlled opposition of each other, though presented historically as being free and wholly independent, in this enters into the realm of the Big Lie, ie the lie being so big who could believe such a lie exist?

    Better to face hard truths however.

    In Britain of course there has of late been Labour and Tory, while in the US there has been a paralleling Democrat and Republican, sometimes in each instance broadly referenced as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, ‘left’ and ‘right’, etc.

    More broadly still since 1776 and 1789 there has been the massive influence of the respective Capitalist/artificial hyper-individualist American and French nascant ‘Red’ artificial hyper-collectivist revolutions on the two party system as it has evolved.

    And yet within (or without) the Anglosphere how many true believers of the ‘Right’ and ‘Left’, Republican and Dem, Tory and Labour, Capitalist and Communist etc. know that Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and it would appear Ben Franklin as well (amongst some likely others) were Founding Fathers of both the American Capitalist and French ‘Red’ Revolutions?

    All of these persons were heavily involved in the formation and/or evolution of both the 1776 and 1789 revolutions, being on both sides, and playing both sides of the same coin as it were from the very beginning, something that can be readily sourced.

    Had the 1776 derived Capitalist and most likely then at minimum north-west European in origin US infantryman and the 1789 derived Communist NVA ‘Regular’ grasped this (and though painful) fully dealt with the implications as they prepared to face off against each other in the la Drang Valley of South Vietnam on the morning of November 14, 1965, the cognitive dissonance alone that both likely would have experienced might well have been enough to cause both then and there to throw down their weapons, refuse to fight that particular battle, and find another way to deal with their differences outside of this controlled and manufactured dialectic paradigm.

    A shot not heard round the world.

    They and everyone else would have been much better off had they done so.

    ‘As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders…’

    ‘…Products of the European Enlightenment, Franklin and Jefferson were station masters of France’s American depot, as Lafayette was an agent of the French central station trained on the American revolutionary training ground. Seeding the revolutionary cloud was not a one-sided French venture, however. On the contrary: the seedtime of the French Revolution was during Benjamin Franklin’s ministry to France–and that American was the seed-planter.’

  33. As Peak Stupidity supported (unfortunately with words only) Mr. Robinson, the size and attitude of the crowds gave us much hope, as dicusssed here and here.

    No matter what this guy’s background, what he is now is a force for good. Seeing his getting these kinds of crowds up to defend the English people is something that I feel almost jealous about, as we here in America have not gotten that far yet.

    BTW, those who call him an agent provocateur, or some-such, should really go through the Does It Make Sense mental test a time or two. Would someone wanting to derail the movement be assigned to whip up these big crowds and go to jail for a while as a sort-of martyr? Does that make sense?

    Tommy Robinson has given me quite a bit of hope, as the problems that have been foisted upon us will not be fixed at the ballot box.

  34. In all the stories I have seen about the “grooming gangs” in Britain, it is almost always stated that the police and politicians did nothing for decades, because they were afraid of being called racist. As if that idea must be hammered home.

    Isn’t it far more likely that many of the police and politicians were the customers to whom the victims were being trafficked and prostituted? While I’m sure the Islamist gangs shared the victims among themselves as well, is it really likely that they kept it all to themselves, so to speak?

    Perhaps even those who did not desire to partake of the wares being offered, were often likely to take a bribe to look the other way.

    While I’m sure the fear of being seen as non-PC is quite strong in Britain, I somehow still think the fear of being jailed for bribery and/or child rape is rather stronger.

  35. Russ says:
    @Michael Kenny

    What exactly is the author’s point? He just seems to ramble aimlessly.

    Methinks the post-Disqus Takimaggists’ work is beginning to suffer from the lack of direct feedback.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  36. Jason Liu says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Great post. Islam is not the problem, western modernity is.

  37. renfro says:

    In 2017, Robinson was given a suspended sentence after broadcasting on Facebook Live the names and faces of four Muslim men during their trial on charges of raping an underage girl. That the men were found guilty does not alter the fact that Robinson broke the law. Broadcasting the names of people who are still legally innocent might prejudice a jury. It might even cause a prosecution to miscarry, and allow guilty suspects to escape conviction.

    I would have to agree in general that revealing names and pictures before and during a trial could handicap both prosecutor and defense—-But the msm also does it.

    I have no use for Robinson who only does it out of his hatred of Arab Muslims and affinity for Zionist and Israel.

  38. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    speaking of being politically correct..

    Is it possible those who helped the invading forces in Iraq are better said to be traitors than heroes?
    I certainly do not want the kind of people that would oppose my government in time of war to be my fellow countrymen. They are proven unreliable. I agree with Trump. Keep them out. what do you guys think?

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @renfro
  39. El Dato says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read

    The old moan of “he’s not as radical as me!”, chasing Trotsky at maximum speed.

  40. Gordo says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    You cannot deport them now.

    History tells us different.

  41. El Dato says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read

    And I would it add that’s its dank Internet Trotskyism because I sure don’t hear of people being dragged of because they are publicing saying that they want to address the “causes” of the Muslim invasion.

  42. Anonymous[142] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile in the Duh’Kay:

    ‘Potentially thousands’ of child slaves forced to work on illegal London cannabis farms

    I guess this is the first case of a borderline third-world country getting itself two aircraft carriers.

  43. renfro says:

    Non Muslim Asia is the hot seat of global sex trafficking. Particularly Thailand, Cambodia , China.

    The US , Germany and the UK busted up the largest global Thai sex rings in 2017.
    In US most sex trafficking in Calif and NY…..experts say now however it is also growing in smaller cities.

    Here’s a blurb….

    Germany smashes massive Thai sex trafficking ring in ‘biggest ever … › News › World › Europe

    Apr 18, 2018 – German federal police said they carried out the biggest raids in their history Wednesday against an alleged organised crime ring suspected of …

  44. T. Weed says:

    Who are these girls being “groomed” by these wicked Muslims, anyway? Can a girl from a good, safe home be “groomed” to be a prostitute? Isn’t it more likely that these are homeless, street girls from broken alcoholic abusive homes, taken advantage of by men who happen to be Muslim? Maybe because those men live in the same lower-class neighborhoods, and know the girls? And surely no one is so stupid to believe that such activity is a Muslim specialty. Sex trafficking has been carried out by whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, you name ’em.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @Alden
  45. Respect says:

    I agree , I read a very good book , in my opinion a key book : ” The American Religion ” by Harold Bloom , a Professor from New York , who describes very well the weird religious fundamentalist , puritan , protestant sects in New York State in the XIX century , and how they poisoned the USA .

  46. renfro says:

    I agree with Trump. Keep them out. what do you guys think?

    I think if some Iraqis aided US troops because they were against Saddam and we then abandoned them to their after fate ….then we just created an enemy out of a former ally.

    As Powell told Bush….’ ‘ you break it you own it”

  47. renfro says:

    You agree with the orange Daddy WarBucks spending our money in Saudi’s war on Yemen?

    Murphy Amendment Would Defund US Involvement in Yemen War
    Bill expected to come to vote early this week Jason Ditz Posted on August 19, 2018Categories NewsTags Yemen

    Trump vows to continue US funding of the Saudi war in Yemen.

  48. anonymous[622] • Disclaimer says:

    The Puritans being a Christian sect, you’re blaming the downfall of the West on Christianity. Which is a good start. Of course, the original kooky Leftist was that Jew Jesus.

    “Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.” -Wikipedia

    “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.” -Jesus

    So why are you following a Jewish Rabbi who had a burr up his tail about Gentile White Patriarchy?

  49. @Johnnie Walker Read

    Robinson’s main source of income til very recently was tech billionaire Robert Shillman !
    Yep, he really was Shillman’s Shill
    You couldn’t make it up.

  50. Respect says:

    Spain provided also substantial assistance to yankee independence . The 49th Spanish Viceroy of New Spain ( Mexico ) Galvez ( who gave his name to Galvestown , Tx , ) blocked the Missisipi to the english , and Spain gave a lot of money , a lot of mexican silver , and material to the yankees

    . Yankees usually kiss reverently french ass for their help , and unjustly , probably deliberately , forget spanish help . Those ungrateful yankees .

    Catholic ( at the time ) Spain , which included present Mexico , Cuba etc… , did not spread to the yankees the perverse european ideas of the french ” enlightened encyclopedists ” , that were resumed in the motto of french revolution : Libertè , Egalitè ,Fraternitè , which as we see now has turned up quite badly in Anarchy and liberty for the Oligarcs , Equalitarism ( of gender , race , animals etc… ) and Solidarity ( confiscatory taxes to the productive for the Goverment and bums , ngo`s )

    • Replies: @S
  51. @Russ

    What exactly is the author’s point? He just seems to ramble aimlessly.

    Methinks the post-Disqus Takimaggists’ work is beginning to suffer from the lack of direct feedback.

    Gee. Goad and Dalrymple are better than ever, Coulter too. You sure it’s a feedback problem? Maybe Coulter IS the problem, huh? She’s a chick, ya know. Christopher despises chicks.

  52. S says:

    Yankees usually kiss reverently french ass for their help , and unjustly , probably deliberately , forget spanish help . Those ungrateful yankees .

    Thanks for the very interesting post.

    No good deed it seems goes unpunished.

    Though I wish things were different, the historic record unfortunately demonstrates that the French king got ‘rewarded’ for his material help to the 1776 Revolution with agents from the newly formed United States (as mentioned Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Lafayette, not to mention apparently B Franklin, amongst likely others) aiding would be revolutionarys in France ultimately resulting in King Louis losing his government and his head.

    After the Revolution France now fighting a war with England as well as much of the rest of Europe, attempted to call in its substantial loans to the US which had helped greatly to make the 1776 Revolution possible. The US reneged on these loans declaring that revolutionary France was not now the same government which had made the original loans and refused payment. Not surprisingly and somewhat understandably this enraged the French and would directly result in France’s ‘Undeclared War’ upon US shipping circa 1800.

    Not too different with the Spanish.

    The US would ‘thank’ Imperial Spain’s support for the 1776 Revolution by materially aiding the revolutionary Bolivar, ‘the George Washington of South America’ which along with the one-two punch of the British sending thousands of ‘volunteers’ (unemployeed veterans of the Napoleonic Wars) to augment Bolivar’s army would result in Spain losing the entirety of South and Central America by 1824.

    Afterwards, not coincidentally, formerly Spanish South and Central America would become something like a big business park dominated economically by Anglo-Saxon interest, wicked Spain being kept from returning via the Monroe Doctrine. Spain would be further ‘thanked’ for its aid later in the century with the US conquest of Spanish Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines in the circa 1898 Spanish American War, not to mention the sinking of the bulk of its ocean going fleet.

    And when one delves into the idea of the 1776 Revolution being very possibly ultimately a planned and temporary geo-political false split between the British Empire and its North American colonies, the US and UK effectively in a certain sense re-uniting in 1900 with the ‘special relationship’, it begins to look as though in reality France and Spain were inadvertently aiding the British Empire in its plans whilst simultaneously weakening themselves.

    That’s not to say France and Spain had entirely pure motives in aiding the 1776 Revolution, ie they wanted to inflict real damage to the British Empire…even so.

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @Alden
  53. ohmy says:

    Maybe I read 800 of the 4500 words before I realized there is no need for this conversation. What there is a need for, if the accusations of gangs of rapists is correct, is vigilante justice. The victim’s fathers,, and their uncles need to eradicate the problem. How do they do it? Well, I think the killing of the alleged offenders is justified. It matters not if you’re white, or black, as a father you are bound by natural law to defend your children, whatever it takes. So get busy with it.

  54. @Michael Kenny

    What exactly is the author’s point? He just seems to ramble aimlessly.

    I think there was something in there about the need to have a set of big, round, hairy cajones. You know, like Ralph Waldo Emerson.

  55. Respect says:

    Of course the spanish and the french wanted to inflict real damage to a hostile pirate british empire . Presenly many latinamerican countries , and many countries around the world , want to take revenge of the aggresive , moronic and decadent yankee evil empire . No empire is forever .

  56. @exiled off mainstreet

    Politicheskaya Pravil’nost ( Political Correctness ) goes right back to Lenin, as the excellent book, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE THEORETICAL STRUGGLE (Auckland 2004 ) by FRANK ELLIS, makes clear. This short work is still the best on the origin and development of the concept. Get a copy if you can.

    Writing dissertations about 1950s East German propaganda ? I can see why you’ve been (self) exiled off main street. I supposes it’s a slight improvement on BA in Knitting Studies.

  57. @S

    Great points Johnny Rottenborough. Another topic never discussed when it comes to America’s war for independence is the inaction of the British Howe brothers(General and Admiral)in the first three years of the revolution. With a three to one advantage in soldiers, and those soldiers being some of the best equipped and trained in the world and with the help of a very capable naval fleet, in all reallity Washington and his rag tag Army should have been diposed of quite easily. For an indepth look at the “miracle” of America’s victory over England, which quite literaly was against all odds, I suggest a book by Sydney George Fisher titled “The True History Of The American Revolution”

  58. Ragno says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I actually prefer your response to De Groot’s essay. (And his essay was pretty good.)

  59. Ragno says:

    In 2017, Robinson was given a suspended sentence after broadcasting on Facebook Live the names and faces of four Muslim men during their trial on charges of raping an underage girl.

    Which is completely different to the MSM’s tactic towards, say, members of the alt-Right. (Most of whom have neither been convicted nor charged with any crimes.) (Yet.)

  60. Ragno says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    So importing South Asians to UK was a bad mistake. You cannot deport them now.

    Everything “cannot” be done, until it is. When Britain’s chattering classes and brainwashed children find their own being groomed, beaten and slain, the story will magically change.

  61. @Intelligent Dasein

    “to oppose Islam is to oppose modernity, democracy, and liberalism as well”

    I’m not sure what you intended by “liberalism” here because classical liberalism is essentially freedom from interference by individuals and the state, which is not what I would strictly call “deifications of man and the idolatry of human passions” even though I acknowledge that some persons might take the individualism that can arise from liberalism to the extreme of deification and idolatry.

  62. Alden says:
    @T. Weed

    Almost all the girls were removed from avusuve himes and placed in group homes. They weren’t homeless. For some treason the girls didn’t walk or take buses to school. The group
    home social workers had a fleet of taxes paid by local government that took the girls to school dr appointments whatever

    In Rotherham and most of the towns, the taxi drivers were Muslim men. Affirmative action city jobs for Muslims. Plus the group homes didn’t seem to have any rules one would expect, such as come home after school, everyone home for dinner at 5/30 or 6, no going out after dinner, homework tutoring in the evening evening.

    Th girls were just allowed to disappear for days at a time with no interference. The homes were run almost like brothels.

    The girls were threatened One had her tongue nailed to a wooden table. Others had gasoline poured on them.

    It really was more like coercion than the usual runaway teen girl recruited by a pimp.

    America has many of those group homes run by county child services. The kids don’t observe all the rules of course. But they are expected to scome home after school, stay home in the evenings attend school, and they have organized activities on weekends as well as doing a lot of housework.

    Many of the girls were only 11 and 12.

    English social workers and city council members are nuch, much more nauseatingly liberal and pro non White criminal than Americans.

    Another thing to remember is that many police are Muslims and women. They have affirmative action entitlement to promotions. The English police city council and child services women seen to have been insanely pro Muslim anti native English

    Anyone who has a government job in England has to be pro Muslim and anti English.

    Some of the girls lived in good homes. The Muslims targeted them after school buying them treats as a start. Then it escalated
    There were cases where the Rotherham police arrested parents for “wasting police time” when the tapes were reported to the police.
    Should be noted that it wasn’t just grabbing a girl and raping her once as happens in the US. It was controlling her through threats against her and family for years.

    The girls weren’t 16 and 17. They were 12 when targeted.

    England has always had child pre teen and teen prostitutes. In the 19th century there were street walkers as young as 8 and plenty of child brothels.

    • Replies: @T. Weed
  63. Alden says:

    The loan was13 billion French livres. It included our first gold and silver reserves which were sent to Philadelphia right before fighting broke out. I didn’t know we never repaid it.

    When they lost their American colony the British needed

    1 a place to dump convicts and peasants evicted because of the enclosure movement and turning mixed farms into sheep pasture.

    2. A big prosperous trade partner. Spain like Britain didn’t allow other countries to trade with their colonies.

    Hence the colonization of Australia for the convicts and surplus population and fomenting the revolutions in Spanish America. The newly independent countries opened to trade with the rest of the world, mainly England.

    Win win for England. They lost America but got Australia and New Zealand and trade with the much more developed Spanish America

    Don’t blame the French Revolution on Franklin Jefferson Lafayette and Paine

    Phillipe d’ Orleans was the George Soros of his time. He was the legal heir if Louis, his brothers and any sons died or if Louis abdicated. He was also the richest man in France and was the grain cartel. So he could manipulate the food supply.

    Virtually all the subversive revolutionary material was printed in shops owned by Orleans. Beaumarchais was just one of his propagandists.

    Franklin Jefferson Lafayette and Paine were just Orleans agents.

    The family made a serious attempt to gain the throne in the early 1700s. During a measles epidemic, Louis 14 sons, grandsons and all but one great grandson who became Louis 15 died. Many suspected poison of course.

    Louis 15 only survived because his nurses locked themselves and the boy in an apartment with some goats and laying hens for the boys food and waited. His parents had died of either measles or poison or both

    In 1830 the Orleans finally succeeded in overthrowing the last Bourbon King and became Kings until 1848.

    • Replies: @S
  64. Ace says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Who says you can’t deport anyone? The Hindus are deporting Bangladeshi refugees from 1970. The majority population runs things and has no obligation to foreigners. White people flee from thus truth like mice.

    Whites who threw open their doors to the “Commonwealth” were weak and stupid and the newcomers understood this perfectly. If they bet whites would never wake up, they bet wrong(ly).

  65. Ace says:

    ** uncouth Robinson **


  66. T. Weed says:

    I don’t know how much of this is true; I haven’t been to England for years. I doubt that a girl’s tongue was nailed to a table, unless she willingly stuck it out. But if the rest is true, it appears that Muslim gangs now rule England, and the native Brits are cowed into silence.

  67. S says:

    Thanks for the very interesting post.

    Re Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, I didn’t say they were entirely responsible for the French Revolution, but rather that they ‘aided’ the would be revolutionaries.

    Interesting too about Orleans and his financial interest in France, but was he himself perhaps being manipulated by larger financial interests based in London?

    Unfortunately, France appears to have lost much of whatever autonomy it may have had regarding both itself and its Revolution when Napoleon and the French Empire were finally smashed at Waterloo in 1815, France afterwards being reduced in effect to being something like a sattelite state of the British from the accounts I’ve read.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Christopher DeGroot Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.