The Far-Right

Cancelling Agenda

The Far-Right Cancelling Agenda

July 2020

It is as plain as the nose on my face that the UK governments have an unwritten agenda to delete what they would refer to as the "far-right" movement but what many people would simply refer to as nationalism. Below we will look at a few examples.

Colston's Statue versus Andrew Banks

At the BLM protests riots on the 13th of June 2020 in London, Andrew Banks was photographed urinating NEXT to Keith Palmer's memorial. I am not saying his actions were right or wrong but simply stating a fact that the so-called evidence of him urinating shows that he is not urinating on Keith Palmer's memorial but in fact had the respect to urinate next to the memorial. Also, Banks was not tracked down by police once wanted but presented himself to a police station.

On the 15th of June he was found guilty of outraging public decency and sentenced to 2 weeks in prison. Within 2 days he was sentenced and in prison.

Let's now compare this case to the tearing down of Edward Colston's statue a week earlier on the 7th of June 2020. The photograph below shows the BLM mob pulling down Colston's statue. It is a high quality image that shows persons with ropes in their hands and pulling down the statue.

On the 20th of July the Police released the following set of photographs of persons they were wanting to question in relation to the damage done to Colston's statue. I acknowledge that the above referred to Daily Mail 22nd of June article contains photographs of persons wanted, but still as of the 20th of July the police were asking for information relating to the people who were responsible for damaging public property.

Let's compare Andrew Banks who was sentenced, appeared before a court, found guilty and imprisoned in the space of 2 days to the actions of the legal system which was still requesting for information for the people responsible for damaging Colston's statue after more than 1 whole month. After an entire month not 1 single BLM rioter responsible for toppling Conston's statue had been charged and sentenced, and there was just one instance of a person being cautioned. I accept that it could be argued that Banks presented himself to the police whereas the police had to spend time and resources tracking the BLM mob down, but I don't buy it and it stinks of the UK government being more focused on what it sees as cancelling the "far-right" movement but turning a blind eye to the violent and intolerant actions of the "far-left". The police force's own actions show little interest in pursuing the BLM mob that did significant damage to not only Colston's statue but other property right throughout the UK. Banks was considered a "far-right" football hooligan and one of Johnson's bovver boys whereas the BLM mob are considered a force for good in stripping the UK of its nationalism. We are not stupid and know this is the agenda.

I was pleased to read in the Daily Mail on the 13th of August that Iraq war veteran Trevor Coult was highly critical of the Metropolitan Police over their "double standards" regarding their lack of action against the BLM protester rioter seen trying to set light to the Union Jack on the sacred ground of the war memorial. No charge, sentencing or prison sentence was handed out to that cretin.

The next day after the above article appeared in the mainstream media and Iraq war veteran Trevor Coult embarassing the UK government, Astrophel Sang was charged with arson for attempting to set fire to the memorial flag:

Teen, 19, is charged with arson after ‘trying to burn Union flag at Cenotaph’, The Sun, 14th of August 2020.

A recap:

  • Astrophel Sang attempts to set the memorial Union Jack flag on fire on the 7th of June.

  • No charges or arrest for more than 2 months.

  • War veteran Trevor Coult speaks out about the sham on the 13th of August.

  • The next day Astrophel Sang is charged on the 14th of August.

Pathetic isn't it! When did the British police force have to be pressured into doing their job?

Urinate NEXT to a stone memorial when all the public toilets are closed and be sentenced to 2 weeks in prison. Perform 2 separate acts of vandalism against Nelson's statue in Norwich and receive no sentence and not be ordered to pay cleaning costs. How is justice seen to be exercised equally?

Student, 19, who twice defaced statue of Lord Nelson to 'start a debate' about slavery is spared jail, Daily Mail, 18th of August 2020.

Jae Ikhera, 19, sprayed 'V for Vendetta' on a statue of Lord Nelson in Norwich and pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal damage for two offences. She was given a 12 month conditional discharge by magistrates in the city and NOT made to pay any compensation for cleaning the statue or costs.

Andrew Banks was perceived as a member of the far-right. Whereas those that teared down Colston's statue, attempted to set fire to the memorial flag, vandalise twice Nelson's statue, etc are perceived as members of the far-left and treated very differently by UKGov, the police force and legal system. Thus we see the far-left bias to UK government, parliament and behind the scenes civil servants in Whitehall and beyond.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Bovver Boys

After 11 days of silence on the BLM riots, Boris Johnson wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph entitled Rather than tear some people down we should build others up. This was not an address to the nation on television or radio but in a national newspaper and one he used to work for; aside from what he said I found this some of the most bizarre behaviour from a Prime Minister I've seen in a long time. He opens the article by stating:

"It was utterly absurd that a load of far-right thugs and bovver boys yesterday converged on London with a mission to protect the statue of Winston Churchill. ..."

and the header photograph is the following:

The letter is also available on the 10 Downing Street website and I have provided a link and a copy of the full text of his 14th of June article at the end of this page.

If you actually take a good look at the photograph [and I wonder if Johnson took the time to study the photograph he approved for his own article] it in fact contains numerous ex-servicemen. These men took it upon themselves to take the time out of their lives to go and protect a piece of ground that they perceived as sacred and holy, because from their perspective they saw an utterly useless government and police force that were not preventing vandalism to the memorial. For that act these ex-servicemen were labelled "far-right thugs and bovver boys".

I remember when Johnson wrote his article in The Telegraph, and after reading it I thought to myself You are finished. I appreciate that other British patriots went along to the memorial to pick a fight but NOT all of those that attended were "far-right thugs and bovver boys". When Johnson wrote that article in The Telegraph he showed himself to be a man out of touch with the public mood and once that has happened you are finished.

Let's now have a slightly larger extract of Johnson's Telegraph article:

"It was utterly absurd that a load of far-right thugs and bovver boys yesterday converged on London with a mission to protect the statue of Winston Churchill. It was right that a good number should have been arrested. They were violent. They were aggressive towards the police. They were patently racist. There is nothing that can excuse their behaviour. ...

Why attack Churchill? What has the world come to when one of this country’s greatest ever leaders – perhaps our greatest - has to be shielded from the wrath of the mob? We all understand the depth of feeling that has been exposed by the killing, in Minnesota, of George Floyd. ..."

It is worth taking the time to study Johnson's article, as I have done at length; I have read it several times! And to be honest it shows a disordered mind, but that's my view and you can judge for yourself. See how he kicks off by attacking what he refers to as "far-right thugs and bovver boys" when he refers to the indigenous British White male but when making reference to the BLM mob that did extensive vandalism what does he say? He refers to them as a "mob" but does he call them thugs, far-left thugs and another name? No, he does not. Here we see a bias and leaning towards the far-left BLM mob and against the indigenous British White males who he calls far-right thugs and bovver boys.

In the previous paragraph I used the term "BLM mob" twice. Take a good look at Johnson's article and search for the keyword "BLM" - you won't find it! Why's that? Weren't they the ones vandalising statues and memorials? He goes out of his way to label the "far-right thugs" but just refers to the BLM mob as the "mob". How many examples of left-wing bias do we need!

I could talk all day about Johnson's all over the place article but here's one example. The title is "Rather than tear some people down we should build others up" and starts with tearing down, and presumably making reference to the tearing down of Colston's statue even though he later writes about the war memorial, but opens his letter by attacking not those that tore down Colston's statue but the "far-right thugs and bovver boys" who went to protect not Colston's statue but the war memorial! As they say: what the fuck!! His mind is all over the place, and this from a previous journalist and editor of The Spectator. In my opinion he lacks a certain clarity of thought.

Examples of the peaceful demonstrations in London of the BLM mob. As the saying goes, UKGov needs to "Get its shit together" because it has a rotten far-left-wing worm inside the woodwork that needs whittling out. But, Boris Johnson and Police Force - you keep blaming the far-right and labeling them "far-right thugs and bovver boys".

Football Hooligan versus Muslim Paedophiles

Football hooligan versus Muslim paedophiles - wow, what a comparison! Bare with me!

On the 24th of July 2020 James Healy was found guilty of assualting Owen Jones and sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in prison. Apparently, Jones accidentally spilt Healy's drink after which he confronted Jones and kicked him to the ground upon which he received relatively minor injuries to his back. I am not agreeing with Healy's actions but in my humble opinion the sentence of nearly 3 years in prison was completely over the top. Why was Healy's sentence over the top? To understand that you have to bring in the "far-right" and also homophobic aspects into this story.

Healy was referred to as "football hooligan" after a previous conviction. The acting judge stated:

"I therefore propose to sentence Mr Healy on the basis that this was a wholly unprovoked attack on Mr Jones by reason of his widely published left-wing and LGBTQ beliefs by a man who has demonstrable right-wing sympathies."

Jones claimed the attack was homophobic but Healy claimed he didn't even know who Jones was and so how could the attack be motivated by homophobia. Jones is on record as stating:

"As I wrote in my victim impact statement, prison is not a solution to far right extremism. He will go to a prison a violent far right extremist, and probably leave prison a violent far right extremist. There is no judicial solution to the far right: it is a political problem. The attack wasn't just driven by far right extremism, but was a homophobic hate crime."

Personally, I don't see the "far-right" and homophobic elements to this incident. A man kicks another man [a stranger and a person he didn't know] following an earlier incident of a spilt drink and suddenly it becomes a "far-right" and homophobic attack due to Jones being a left-wing activist and homosexual. Isn't that the sum of it? And doesn't this fit into the UK government's agenda of squashing "far-right" nationalism and hate crime?

Let's now compare Healy's 2 years and 8 month sentence to two other crimes, and this time crimes against the young, innocent and vulnerable, which you would assume would be taken far more seriously.

The one on the left is of Adil Rashid who groomed a 13 year old girl on Facebook and then had sex with her, even though it is illegal to have sexual intercourse with a minor. His sentence: 0 days. The judge stated:

"Sending him to jail might cause him more damage than good."

which could have been equally stated about Healy.

The one on the right is of Suleman Maknojioa who repeatedly molested a terrified girl of 11 as he taught her the Koran. His sentence: 0 days.

Call me old-fashioned but how does one even begin to compare a sentence of 2 years and 8 months for kicking a man to the ground and a 0 sentence for having sex with a 13 year old and sexually abusing an 11 year old girl? How are we supposed to compare these sentences? On the one hand we see a so-called "far-right" White male and on the other two Muslim males who slot into the anti-nationalism agenda. If I'm interpreting this incorrectly then please correct me.

And what about the more up to date case of Thsharif Ali who on the 31st of December 2019 kicked a woman senseless as she was on the ground:

Violent Moseley thug kicked woman in head in drunken 'rage', Birmingham Live, 31st of August 2020.

In sentencing him in August 2020, Judge Avik Mukherjee sentenced him to 16 months in prison but suspended the term for 2 years after noting that a probation officer had concluded there was a 'realistic prospect of rehabilitation' as well as the tighter restrictions on prisons currently and the heightened risk of catching COVID-19. The non-pandemic COVID-19 virus was less of a threat in August 2020 than June 2020 when Andrew Banks was imprisoned for 2 weeks for urinating against a stone wall, and yet 0 sentence for kicking an innocent woman senseless and so much so she feared for her life. You couldn't make up this bias.

The Alleged Rise of the "Far-Right"

Let me highlight the following two Independent newspaper articles that caught my attention:

Far right poses fastest growing terror threat to UK, head of terror police says, The Independent, 19 September 2019.

More white people arrested over terrorism than any other ethnic group for second year in a row, The Independent, 5 March 2020.

In September 2019 Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu stated:

"Right-wing extremism poses the fastest growing terror threat to the UK. Around 10% of 800 live investigations now involve far-right extremists – a “significant increase” on previous years. It’s my fastest growing problem,” he told journalists in central London. ..."

and now an extract from the 6 months later article in March 2020:

"The number of white terror suspects being arrested in the UK has outstripped those of Asian appearance for the second year in a row. Official figures showed that 117 white people were arrested on suspicion of terror offences in 2019, compared with 111 Asian suspects and 21 black suspects. The proportion of white people arrested exceeded the proportion of Asian people arrested for the second consecutive year, having not done previously since 2004 ..."

The above two extracts seem to contradict each other! Just 10% of investigations involved far-right extremists relating to terrorism and yet more Whites arrested. How can these statements co-exist? The only conclusion is that there were greatly more resources (per investigation) allocated to "far-right" terrorism than non-far-right terrorism. But why would that be for only 10% of terror investigations? Thus, we see a bias.

A second point I'd like to make relates to the statement: "The number of White terror suspects being arrested in the UK has outstripped those of Asian appearance ...". Let's do the numbers assuming an ethnicity breakdown of 85% White and 15% non-White. There were 117 Whites arrested and 132 (111+21) non-Whites arrested. Straight off, do you see what they did in only comparing Whites to those of an "Asian appearance". What is it with this country and its government and police force! Now, let's compare apples against apples for a population of 68 million with 57.8 million (85%) White and 10.2 million (15%) non-White. There were (117/57.8m)x100 = 2.024e-04% White terrorists and (132/10.2m)x100 = 1.294e-03% non-White terrorists. In other words, there were 6.39 more non-White terrorists than White terrorists. Thus, the above article and its underlying tone and the message coming from the UK government and its police force is misleading, and intentionally so.

Let's take a look at some data of terror attacks across the EU Fascist Block in 2017:

How prevalent is far-right extremism?, BBC, 19th of March 2019.

The Figure shows failed, foiled and completed terror attacks by affiliation in all EU member states.

Now I'm really confused because when we look across the whole of Europe, "far-right" terrorist attacks hardly even register and yet this is where the British police seem to be focusing their attention.

We've all seen footage of terrorists mowing innocent people down on London Bridge, people being stabbed at a London Conference, blown up at Manchester Arena, 3 men stabbed at Reading Park, and so on. Name one such instance in which the terrorist was White, and yet the police try and tell us that "far-right" Whites are the problem. You have got to be shitting me!

Check out the Terrorism in the UK Wikipedia page and compare the long list of Islamist terrorist to "far-right" terrorists. There is no comparison.

Next go to the List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain Wikipedia page and scroll through the terrorist attacks through the years. Since the year 2000 you will struggle to find a White terrorist. These are real acts of terrorism that resulted in numerous people losing their lives and others being seriously injured. Such as the Islamist suicide bomber Salman Abedi would murdered 22 and injured 139 at the Manchester Arena in 2017. The 2017 London Bridge attack in which 3 Islamists drove a van into pedestrians on London bridge before stabbing people in and around a pub, murdering 8 and seriously injuring 48.

Compare these non-White terrorist attacks that resulted in numerous deaths to the "far-right" terrorist convictions of Alice Cutter and Mark Jones who were sentenced 3 and 5.5 years in 2020 for being members of the banned club National Action. As far as I am aware from the reported news on this case they did not murder, abuse or torture a single person and were simply guilty of being members of an illegal organisation.

I am not supporting or not-supporting any of the above facts. I am simply comparing non-White and White terrorist acts. Anyone who compares such news reports and the language and tone of government and police statements is all too aware of the bias. They play up the White "far-right" and play down the non-White acts in this agenda to squash nationalism.

White Lives Matter

One of the amusing aspects to emerge out of the BLM push in 2020 was how anyone holding up an opposing sign of White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter was labelled a racist.

The 15th of August 2020 saw The Independent publish the article:

British far right ‘becoming more racist’ after Black Lives Matter protests, report finds, The Independent, 15th of August 2020.

As the title indicates, the BLM movement has made the so-called far-right more racist. Not more patriotic or nationalistic but more racist. Why I find this amusing is because the very nature of BLM is implicitly racist against anything and everything non-Black. So, we have the racist BLM movement making more racists. What is it about people in the 21st century and their love of the word racist? Hold a view that is considered against the acceptable left-wing socialist mainstream narrative and you suddenly become a racist. Not a defender of your way of life and centuries old culture but a racist. This is nothing more than the modern way of labeling your a conspiracy theorist when all else has failed and once the intolerant left have reached a point in which they refuse to continue the debate and simply want you silenced.

White Lives Matter is no more racist than Black Lives Matter but White Lives Matter must be cancelled out because the agenda is to squash nationalism.

Did you know that saying White Lives Matter is apparently racist?

The Real Threat

The real threat to the future safety of the UK is not from the so-called far-right and from the indigenous, patriot and nationalistic and proud British person, but instead from those who want to destroy the British way of life. Those who immigrate to the UK and then want to change the country. The 1.2 million illegals hiding out in the shadows in a world of crime because they are unable to contribute to the legal tax system. Some of the 155,000+ illegals/asylums/refugees who make their way to the UK believing gold apples grow on trees in English orchards but find a very different reality once they arrive here. Those who blow up and mow down with trucks innocent people. Those who stab 3 innocent men while sat in Reading park. Those who tear down and vandalise statues. Those who want to defund the police, remove capitalism, replace British law with Sharia law, etc, etc, etc.

People like those mentioned in the following 2017 article:

I'm not surprised there was a terror arrest in Newport – as a Welsh Muslim, I've watched Wales become a hotbed of extremism, The Independent, 21st of September 2017.

People such as:

  • In 2012, two Cardiff brothers – Gurukanth Desai and Abdul Miah – were jailed, along with Omar Latif, for plotting Mumbai-style terrorist attacks in Britain. They had plotted a Christmas bombing campaign from Cardiff with targets including the London Stock Exchange, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey.

  • Ruksana Begum – also from Cardiff, with a first-class degree in accountancy – who was jailed because she had two editions of Al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine on her phone.

  • Khuram Iqbal, from Cardiff, allegedly posted a series of links to extremist videos on his Facebook and Twitter pages and called himself the “father of terrorism”.

  • Muslim convert, Lee Griffiths from Swansea, jailed for five years for having a stash of bomb-making manuals, instructions on how to carry out “lone wolf” knife attacks, and copies of the Isis magazine Rumiyah.

  • In 2014 Reyadd Khan and Nasser Muthana left to fight in Syria. They became friends at a Cardiff school where Al-Manar Mosque was holding officially sanctioned sessions.

  • "Growing up in Wales, I never saw women in full face veils; now it is a common sight. As a feminist and somebody who believes passionately in equality, I respect the right of women to dress how they want. But the face veil is a drastic and puritanical move away from progressive values. ..."

  • ...

The real threat is not from the indigenous British citizen.

Rather than tear some people down we should build others up

by Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

The Telegraph, 14th June 2020

Prime Minister's article in the Telegraph: 15 June 2020; 10 Downing Street copy

It was utterly absurd that a load of far-right thugs and bovver boys yesterday converged on London with a mission to protect the statue of Winston Churchill. It was right that a good number should have been arrested. They were violent. They were aggressive towards the police. They were patently racist. There is nothing that can excuse their behaviour.

And yet it was also, frankly, absurd and deplorable that the statue of Winston Churchill should have been in any plausible danger of attack. It was outrageous that anyone could even have claimed that the statue needed protection. It was and is miserable to see his statue entombed in its protective sheath.

It is true that the monument has been covered up several times before, in anticipation of trouble, after consultation with the Mayor’s office and English Heritage, because the police believe that is the safest and simplest thing to do. But many people will look at that image and feel a sense of bewilderment.

Why attack Churchill? What has the world come to when one of this country’s greatest ever leaders – perhaps our greatest - has to be shielded from the wrath of the mob? We all understand the depth of feeling that has been exposed by the killing, in Minnesota, of George Floyd. No one who cares about this country can ignore the many thousands of people who have joined the Black Lives Movement to protest peacefully, as most of them have, in the last few days. It is no use just saying that we have made huge progress in tackling racism.

There is much more that we need to do; and we will. It is time for a cross-governmental commission to look at all aspects of inequality – in employment, in health outcomes, in academic and all other walks of life. We need to tackle the substance of the problem, not the symbols. We need to address the present, not attempt to re-write the past – and that means we cannot and must not get sucked into never-ending debate about which well-known historical figure is sufficiently pure or politically correct to remain in public view.

Where will it end? Are we supposed to haul down Cromwell who killed so many thousands of people in Ireland? What about Nelson and all the other innumerable reminders of this country’s imperial past? Take the case of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, whose portrait hangs in Room 15 of the National Portrait Gallery. He was a native of the Gambia who was known and admired in C18 London as a translator of Arab texts. He was also, originally, a slaver himself. Does that mean he should be purged from the Gallery?

My point is that our history is immensely complex, and modern Britain is a product of a vast conglomerate of ideas and beliefs – not all of which look good in the light of today. Yes, Churchill expressed all sorts of views over his immense career – and bear in mind that he entered parliament under Queen Victoria and left it under Queen Elizabeth - which are totally unacceptable to modern ears.

As it happens, he generally changed with the times. He changed his view on India, and her capacity for independence; and whatever he may have said about Islam in the 1890s, he also built the Regent’s Park Mosque in the 1940s. And above all – as so many have rightly pointed out – it is the height of lunacy to accuse him of racism, when he stood alone against a racist tyranny that without his resistance would have overwhelmed this country and the rest of Europe.

He was a hero, and I expect I am not alone in saying that I will resist with every breath in my body any attempt to remove that statue from Parliament Square, and the sooner his protective shielding comes off the better.

It is not just that is wrong to destroy public property by violence. I am also extremely dubious about the growing campaign to edit or photoshop the entire cultural landscape. If we start purging the record and removing the images of all but those whose attitudes conform to our own, we are engaged in a great lie, a distortion of our history – like some public figure furtively trying to make themselves look better by editing their own Wikipedia entry.

Would it not be better and more honest to ask our children to understand the context, to explain the mixture of good and bad in the career of Churchill and everyone else? And rather than tear some people down, we should build others up, and celebrate the people who we in this generation believe are worthy of memorial. We have brilliant sculptors and artists. Why should they not be commissioned to make fitting additions to the landscape and cityscape? Take the great courtyard in the Foreign and Commonwealth office, where stone statues of British explorers and imperialists look down from the niches. Many of the niches are for some reason unfilled.

Rather than tear down the past, why not add some of the men and women – most often BAME – who helped to make our modern Commonwealth and our modern world? Isn’t that a more cheerful approach?

This new vogue for politically correct iconoclasm is not just dispiriting, and unfair, and often ahistorical. Worst of all, it is a total distraction from the matter in hand. It does nothing for BAME people to go around mutilating statues, or campaigning against this or that cultural relic. There are far greater and more important battles.

In the last ten years we have seen a big expansion in BAME students at our universities; more young black kids excelling in the most challenging subjects at school. The struggle now is to turn that into the universal narrative and the universal expectation – a story of success and not discrimination. That means taking seriously the serious points that are raised by the marchers. It means addressing racism and discrimination, and stamping it out.

But it does not mean wasting time in delectable academic disputation about the life and opinions of every historical personality currently immortalised in bronze or stone.

Let’s fight racism, but leave our heritage broadly in peace. If we really want to change it, there are democratic means available in this country – thanks, by the way, to Winston Churchill.