Uncle ‘Tommy’ and his Anti-English League
The latest espial machinations of the British treason state are proving a little obvious, even for the more obtuse or thick-headed. Even those treasured British qualities of subtlety and understatement have been cast aside for what might be indelicately called DDR tactics, in a desperate scramble to neuter a golem that has, frankly, spiralled out of control. Thus, that well-known and successful [MI5/Special Branch*] asset, Stephen Yaxely-Lennon, aka. ‘Tommy Robinson’, has now – finally – bowed to the inevitable and assumed his rightful place in that unfortunate Pantheon of high profile race traitors – in the process, confirming all that was suspected about him by anyone with multiple functioning brain cells.
Tommy’s confessional press conference, now well and truly down the memory hole, was positively Orwellian. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but it appeared to me that our ersatz ‘Winston Smith’ was sweating and shaking throughout proceedings. ‘Tommy’ seemed agitated and worried, and at times distracted, almost as if he had just undergone some kind of lengthy inquisition and torture at the hands of sinister, black-clad interrogators. But whatever had just happened in Room 101, what transpired at the hastily-arranged press conference was, in its own little way, quite extraordinary, and outrageous too. In the manner of an errant member of the Politburo who had just been caught selling tractors on the sly, ‘Winston’/’Tommy’ informed us frankly of his ‘thoughtcrimes’ against the ‘Party’ and how he would repent for these gross felonies by (inter alia) helping the ‘Thought Police’ rat out ‘racists’ in the organisation he had led.
Now, it’s easy to sneer, but this article will only do so a little bit – for entertainment purposes. ‘Tommy’ deserves it a little because of that disgusting pledge he made to betray his own followers. No doubt he has had his role to play for the State security services, and will continue to, just like (most probably) our ‘Nigel’ in UKIP, but one also suspects in Tommy’s case the devices of knaves inflicted on an earnest, well-meaning dupe rather than anything more sinister. There are, after all, degrees of treachery and not all traitors derive glee or satisfaction from their own duplicity, however egregious. It’s true that ‘Tommy’ did his best, and received all kinds of threats against both himself and his family for his trouble. Which of us would care to step into his shoes? It would be indulgent and hypocritical to overlook this. Having such a high profile, and furthermore, facing the prospect of yet another criminal trial this month on the usual trumped-up charges, with the looming possibility of a custodial sentence, it is inevitable that he would feel the strain and might be persuaded to accept a ‘respectable way out’. Who can blame him for this? I can’t. That is not to excuse his oblique treachery, nor the very obvious collusion in which he has partaken for his own benefit, but in his defence it is worth pausing to reflect that his motives might have been more personal than is widely appreciated.
So ‘Tommy’ joins his anti-English friends in a well-paid state sinecure, probably as a sort of ‘expert’ on ‘anti-racism’, or some such. He is no more nor less qualified than others found supping from that Faustian chalice. Despite this, I must confess to having a soft spot for dear ‘Tommy’, with his tanning shop (slightly amusing in the circumstances, but on a more serious note: also admirable in that he ran his own business); his strained vowels, which are unmistakably from the English Home Counties; his avuncular mannerisms; and his Everyman tendency to say “I’m just a bloke from Luton town, innit”, whenever he is asked to consider some imponderable. No doubt that was the idea: I was supposed to relate to ‘Uncle Tommy’. Alas, I and many others were not taken in, and there are a number of reasons why the true nature of the EDL was obvious from the start. Nevertheless, it’s important to assess the EDL phenomenon on its own merits and consider, objectively, what are the real lessons to be drawn.
The first problem with the EDL was its unfocused and confused message. It was never precisely clear what this amorphous organisation actually stood for, other than being vaguely against some of the more overtly nastier and militant elements of Islam. The controlled media often asked ‘Tommy’ whether the EDL was against Islamic infiltration of the West generally or just extremist Islam? Agonised studio discursions followed in which countless hairs were split and many hands were wrung. Islam is not the same as ‘Islamism’, we were informed. Most Muslims respect ‘British values’, we were assured. ‘Tommy’ was told it’s naughty to confuse ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ Muslims with ‘moderates’ and he shouldn’t do it again, or presumably he’d be off to bed without any supper – or maybe off to prison. Lots of people clapped, whooped and cheered, but most of us watching at home were baffled, and none the wiser. In reality, all this was bumbling semantics, the purpose of which was to distract the more gullible and credulous from recognising the plain truth. ‘Islamism’ shares the same goal and objects as Islam, and the apparently ‘moderate’ mass of Muslims are nothing more than a Trojan Horse for ‘extremists’. What the ‘extremists’ desire is the same as what the ‘moderates’ desire – that is, total demographic displacement of Europeans in favour of Muslims. The difference is that the ‘extremists’ are honest about this, whereas the ‘moderates’ are dishonest about it and try to keep it to themselves. The problem the Muslims have is that it’s all rather obvious, and so a means is needed to distract people – hence ‘public debates’ between ‘reasonable’ Muslims and false opponents or state-run dupes, like Uncle Tommy.
Rather than sticking to a simple and truthful message, the EDL acquiesced in the media’s dissembling agenda which elides the, essentially, semantic distinctions between ‘extremist’ and ‘moderate’, ‘literalist’ and ‘reformist’. In so far as Islam matters, the real issue was and remains the demographic threat that Muslim populations represent for European civilisation, and the way in which Islam acts as an ideological front for racial interests that are opposed to ours. This did not seem to matter to the EDL, as it allowed Muslims to attend its marches; it grovelled before Muslims in fake debates on the telescreen; and, it openly courted support from influential individuals and organisations within the Muslim community, who were sympathetic to the goal of combating what the media like to call ‘extremism’.
The EDL was also wrong-footed by the pro-Israel/Zionist tendency. It is this lobby that are the true cheerleaders for the encroachment of Islam and general mixed-racialism in European societies. That is not to say there is no place for an anti-Islamic or anti-Jihadist organisation that focuses purely on the Islamic threat, but it is to say that such activities should be a way of introducing the masses to the real existential threat to whites – Israeli nationalism and Zionism – which use Islam as a means to undermine the racial integrity of European societies. Yet this point was completely missed or overlooked. Instead, the EDL did the precise opposite: going out of its way to court Zionist and Jewish support. EDL followers were to be found flying and displaying the Israeli national flag on official marches, completely unchallenged. The message seemed to be much the same as that touted by many ‘respectable conservatives’ – yawn – in both Europe and North America: i.e. that the Jews and Europeans are somehow natural allies against Muslims, rather than bitter enemies.
One could, perhaps, understand all this if the EDL were operating tactically and merely paying lip-service to Islamic and Zionist interests for pragmatic reasons. Given the political climate, this might even be seen as inevitable for such a high-profile group, but ‘Tommy’ went far beyond mere formalities. He accepted funding from Jewish backers; permitted a Jewish division of the EDL to be established (as well as a Hindu division); and, gradually – and absurdly – turned himself into a kind of unofficial conciliator with the Muslim community, publicly-declaring the EDL to be anti-racist and anti-fascist. The man was a muddle-head and a dupe, but when assessed coolly, his active connivance with the interests and personalities of those he putatively opposed can be seen as a harbinger. Uncle Tommy was running nothing more than an Anti-English League, the effect of which was to legitimise the arguments that the EDL should have been vigorously opposing.
I have not yet mentioned, but now will, the EDL’s comical embrace of the various fetishist messages of the liberal metropolitan Left. Supposedly, the EDL had a pro-homosexual division, among other ad hoc absurdities. To the greater part of the population, it may seem curious that I should be troubled by this. Isn’t this the 21st. century after all? Shouldn’t we all be tolerant and understanding now? The problem is not with tolerance, which is a positive feature in society – provided it is tolerance of things done privately and which only inflict the most marginal personal and social harm. The difficulty here is with the new modish anti-tolerance that corrodes the original virtue. The very defence of civilisation requires that our values should not only be conserved and maintained, but preserved and passed down to future generations. That, in essence, is what reasoned traditionalism is: a belief in the permanence of a civilizational code that each generation seizes, then fashions and refines to the distinct needs of its own time, but leaves coherent and undisturbed for the next generation. Homosexuality is a threat to all this. It is a threat to our survival, especially in present circumstances, in that Europeans are facing an unprecedented demographic assault. Thus, to defend the propagation of homosexuality reflects only surface coherence about ‘tolerance’. Looked at properly, the Anti-English League was working for our extinction, happily adding dry mote and wood to the pyre while busily fussing about Muslims.
Why do the EDL, and Western cultural dissidents in general, feel the need to backslide like this? The reasons are legion, but the key points can be summarised as follows. First, it is evident that there is no longer any significant support in the West for racial politics, whether conservative or radical. There is, among the Everyman, a seed of reactionary and reflexive race awareness that might well have been germinated before now and could have flowered under different circumstances, but its potential has been irradiated by a toxic political class. Even the most mild, reasoned opposition to immigration is characterised as ‘racism’. It certainly is racism – the accusation is true – but the disinhibiting power of the accusation is such that most are dissuaded from acting on their natural, latent tendencies. Other social and cultural issues that are tangentially racial are treated in the same way. For example, justified scepticism concerning equality for homosexuals, along with traditional support for the promotion of age-old conjugal relations is viewed as ‘gay-bashing’. This pressure from above, percolated through powerful media, has contributed to a climate in which a ‘street movement’ such as the EDL, regardless of the original sincerity or not of its founders, becomes a watered-down reactionary force, constantly having to make concessions to ‘popular’ modish sentiment. In fact, such sentiment is not really ‘popular’ at all, as the EDL’s successful record in organising demonstrates, but the EDL was never a conscious movement with a clear and focused message, and so the very real concerns of its marchers have been lost and, to outsider, look like clatter and din.
Thus the EDL neither contributes to, nor stems from, consciousness at the street and workplace level. Oddly, a ‘street movement’ that was apparently (and in some ways, actually) raised from ordinary people served to embody neither class consciousness nor race consciousness and, in time, just degenerated into a convoluted form of escapism – a kind of ‘lifestyle politics’ mixed-up in brawling, drinking and shouting. Those marchers who stood behind the EDL banner may as well have gone on holiday to Majorca and done their shouting and inane sloganeering there. They were as aimless as their parents, who, in their own formative years – the Sixties – marched for similarly escapist slogans of peace and free love.
That’s not to say it was a complete waste of time. Just as the Sixties provided an influential counterweight to a reactionary Establishment, the very physical reality of the EDL and its presence on the streets, has provided a visible symbol of resistance, but just as the Sixties generation later became practising neo-thatcherites, the EDL organisation has, in the fullness of time, become a creature of the people it was, in principle, meant to oppose; and, its own marchers will, in time, meld into the mixed-racial masses. The same thing, in different ways, has happened, and is happening, to other racially-attuned opposition movements. Take the BNP, which was extensively-liberalised, especially under Griffin. To an extent, the reforms of the Griffin era were actually quite sensible when viewed in the context of a party with serious electoral aspirations, but the BNP of today is no longer a Nationalist party. Whatever pretence it might make at being otherwise, the BNP is now part of the mixed-racial Establishment and serves its agenda, albeit as a rebel rather than a favoured son. The National Front, likewise, promotes an agenda that is right-wing rather than Nationalist and that serves to legitimise the very structures that have brought about a mixed-racial society in the first place. That is not to mount a slur on all the people involved – especially in the National Front, which consists of sincere people. What applies to Uncle Tommy applies also to others: not all betrayals are carried out consciously, or even willingly. Many so-called ‘traitors’ act out of genuine motives and are just misguided, but the point is that those who campaign for ‘democracy’ eventually become institutionalised and committed as democrats, a position that directly conflicts with the revolutionary nature of Nationalism.
Nationalism is fascist, not democratic. To be a Nationalist is to recognise the natural order of things and that the best must be at the forefront of society. Democracy, by contrast, is about recognising the lowest common denominator and allowing the weakest to dictate to the rest of us. This is what our society calls ‘moral’ and this is how our society really is. This implicitly requires a rejection of Nature and a celebration of mediocrity. The Uncle Tommys and the ‘democratic’ leaders of the BNP, etc., are quite at home in this democracy. They enjoy its perks and have borrowed the language of the modish Left, deploying it with glee and bleating like sheep about their ‘rights’ and the need for ‘integration’ of all and sundry.
Why does this happen? While it is not solely a British phenomenon, it is true that in Britain any genuine political racialism and fascism has long been drowned-out by the ‘voices of moderation’. That is not to say we never hear fascist or racialist arguments – in fact, there are plenty – but they normally take on the form of pale imitators of the real thing: mostly, right-wing demagogues and ultra-Tory civic nationalists posing as ‘men of the people’. In this respect, the anti-racists and anti-fascists are actually correct. Whether or not Nigel Farage, for instance, is a real and actual racialist is a little beside the point, since his arguments do point logically in that direction anyway. Alas, no amount of UKIP posturing, in or out of office, will ever lead us to a Nationalist position. To point in that direction is not the same as to lead us there, since the means being employed are democratic and thus redundant. More ‘moderate’ politicians, in both the Labour and Tory Party, will also deploy ‘national’ arguments and narratives when it suits them – an obvious example that springs to mind is the 2010 Labour slogan, ‘British Jobs For British Workers’, which was apparently originally used by the National Front some thirty years before. At a deeper level, most politics are still practised within a ‘national’ frame of reference. Yet these narratives are entirely false and counterfeit, as there is no longer any national (i.e. racial) consciousness behind them. Appeals to nationhood are not for the advancement of a progressive society in which identity is recognised and celebrated, but only for the encouragement of blind obedience to some profitable scheme or other. Mr. Farage, for instance, is a creature of capital. He will be told quietly to have a care, though, lest he go too far with his arguments and damage Britain’s relationship with one of the world’s largest trading blocs. In short, Nationalism in Britain, such as it is, remains a force for ruling class interests, not working class interests. To an extent, this is a problem around the world – Nationalism being a worldwide impulse – but it is also fair to say that the type of frustrating Potemkin Village politics we have in Britain is a peculiar Anglophone problem, and in our case, reflects a structural problem in the British political ferment.
Unlike on the Continent, there is no autonomous, trade unionist or syndicalist basis for broader pro-European nationalism in the United Kingdom. There is no Nationalist current on the Left, for instance. We seem to be entirely a Movement of the political Right. I wonder if this is either desirable or healthy? I, for one, certainly do not feel ‘right-wing’, and though I fully-appreciate the malleability of such terms, in most respects I have common cause with the Left and even with Marxists. To me, Nationalism is an indigenous impulse and belongs to the working people. The real dividing line ideologically is on the matter of Race. Yet it is on that sole issue that so much now hangs. It seems to be a Marxoid ploy to eradicate human identity, but this invidious scheme has little or nothing to do with real Marxism or indeed the genuine, indigenous working class movements that have characterised Britain – the Diggers, the Roundheads, the Chartists, the suffragettes, the Social Democratic Federation, and so on. I, too, belong to that seditious working class tradition known as ‘socialism’, yet I see nothing of that reflected in Nationalism today. Consequently, there is nothing of our ideas in the workplace among workers themselves, and so we cannot relate to the struggles of ordinary people. Instead, we have Union Flags and bulldogs and Daily Mail (i.e. Jewish and Zionist) opinions. The ‘Movement’, such as we are, is essentially elitist and lacks organic dynamism. Our strength in numbers on the web is clear and is much commented-on, with veiled hints of repression here and there, but just as with the EDL, our flaw is that we have been captured by the opposition and are being turned and used for the opposition’s purposes.
Beneath the surface, we have yet to realise our real mission, which is not about plastic flags and ‘Pomp and Circumstance’, but about the real Britain and the real Europe of working people who share a common heritage and civilisation. This requires that we link our racial protest to the material protests of ordinary people. I believe the only way to do this is through the strategy of building race conscious communities, from which a new Popular Nationalism can be raised-up that is preoccupied not with idealistic patriotism, cartoon ‘Nazis’ and other flights of fancy, but with the more mundane material needs of white people, including their survival.
The EDL, for years the only street protest movement going, has provided a depressing mirror on our current state, but we must learn from its ultimate failure. It was unanchored in any conscious community or workplace agitation. Thus it emerged in a bubble, fuelled by understandable media sensationalism about Muslims burning poppies rather than genuine grievances relating to people’s lives. It seemed to be a street movement, yet many of its marchers were from the ‘affluent’ end of the working class: middle-managers, technicians and professionals, a demographic we sorely need, but also a group that tends make up the hobbyists and holds to reactionary views. Consequently, the protests always had a hint of hyper-reality about them, with the ‘plastic’ civic nationalist emblems and the over-the-top rhetoric. They were easily contained because the EDL were nothing more than an elaborate and perspicacious stunt – a very successful prank, and very English in that respect – and thus eminently containable. In the end, it provided little more than an outlet for a type of reflexive or casual racism, which is widespread but easily tackled by the Establishment, capitalists and the Left through formal repressive measures and media suffocation strategies.
For his part, Uncle ‘Tommy’ may have started-out on his political journey as a dupe, and he may now be a traitor, but to his credit, he has wised-up massively. He now seems to realise the limitations of unanchored street protesting (and also its dangers to his own life, limb and finances, hence his ‘conversion’). Pursuing a ‘democratic’ strategy and begging the British treason state to make changes that it doesn’t want to make and which no longer have wide public support is akin to howling at the Moon. It’s not that the maintenance of a street movement would be misguided or is inappropriate. Rather, it’s that such tactics represent ‘putting the cart before the horse’. Unless undergirded by a strong community of ideologically- committed and race-conscious people, it’s little more than feathers blowing in the wind, and ripe for manipulation by state controllers.
For Uncle Tommy then, all that’s left is a ‘satisfying’ (and no doubt well-remunerated) ‘career’ as some kind of ‘race relations’ waffler. Think of it as akin to being ‘kicked upstairs’. Tommy has outlasted his usefulness to the Politburo now, and the choice is that he can either stick to his ‘principles’ (trumped-up charges, then prison, etc.) or just take the money and be pensioned-off. He predictably chose the latter, and to be fair, that’s what ordinary men like him are expected to do. His only hardship is that he must grin and bear it while being associated with the disingenuous utterings of his new colleagues, but that’s no more than what is expected of any employee with a modern employer in our wonderful, enriched society. The answer for those who care for the preservation of European civilisation is a massive and concerted effort to build race-conscious communities, with the more traditional avenues of electoral politics and street activity having complementarity rather than centrality. The PLE concept is the model and we are now already seeing derivations of it from skilled and talented emulators across the White National Community. It is my respectful contention that if we are to preserve anything of our Race, these efforts must be the focus of our collective physical, intellectual and psychical energies.
This was another article published last year on the website of White Independent Nation. Although the events it refers to are no longer current, and if I were to write this again I would phrase some of it differently, I do think the general message of the article is nevertheless still ripe. We must not allow ourselves to get sucked in by these populist movements again. We must retain our focus. The article ends with an appeal to the generic PLE concept, though I would favour the specific model offered by White Independent Nation. I would, however, now suggest that whites should broaden out their strategy to building a new alternative sub-culture: what I call the White Alternative.