Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 1, 2017
The Roman Republic was born when a Roman woman, Lucretia, was raped by the Etruscan king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Humiliated, Lucretia killed herself. The outraged noble families of the city avenged their ravaged daughter and drove out their foreign overlords, establishing a new state that would endured for centuries and built an empire that would define Western Civilization.
The reverse is occurring in the United Kingdom. Once the seat of an empire on which the sun never set, the United Kingdom hosts an insular, hostile, foreign population that is colonizing the home islands. The “grooming,” assault, and rape of English girls in Rotherham and elsewhere, explicitly motivated by racial contempt, occurred for over a decade. More than one victim committed suicide. Yet the aristocrats of once-Great Britain, those with titles and those who simply enjoy wealth and power, did not rise in anger and revulsion to avenge their daughters. The public officials who looked the other way were not even punished.
What did rouse the guardians of British virtue to fury was President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. President Trump, as he often does, retweeted some videos he found interesting. They had been posted by Jayda Fransen, deputy leader of a small British political group called Britain First.
The result was outrage from the entire British political class. In one of the mildest reactions, Prime Minister Theresa May simply called President Trump wrong. Scotland’s First Minister argued a state visit planned by President Trump should be halted, explaining that the presidential retweet “risks legitimizing those who want to spread fear and hatred.”
Some politicians went further, with Chris Bryant of the Labour Party demanding Donald Trump be arrested if the President of the United States ever visits our ally. It should be noted that Mr. Bryant is a former vicar of the Church of England. The archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Communion, is demanding Donald Trump delete his tweets.
Other members of Parliament claimed the presidential retweets constituted a crime.
I asked the Home Secretary this morning if the US President or indeed Twitter have committed a crime for inciting racial religious hatred. The Home Sec says she will not comment on individual cases. I think he has committed a crime.
— Ian Murray (@IanMurrayMP) November 30, 2017
One of the strongest condemnations came from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who also wants the state visit cancelled. This is ironic considering a highlight of Mayor Khan’s career as a lawyer was trying to get the United Kingdom to lift a travel ban on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Khan described Minister Farrakhan as a “the leader of a vast section of the black community” and denied that Mr. Farrakhan was anti-Semitic or preached a message of “racial hatred or antagonism.”
What Mr. Khan evidently does consider a message of “racial hatred” include three videos of:
- A “Muslim migrant” attacking a Dutch boy on crutches
- Someone smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary while making pro-Muslim declarations
- A man being pushed off a roof in Egypt
The mainstream media have declared the videos “discredited,” especially the first. The Dutch Embassy noted proudly in a tweet that the lout attacking the boy on crutches had been “born and raised in the Netherlands.” That would certainly not stop him from being a Muslim. A Dutch source did deny the dusky attacker was Muslim, but offered no evidence or identification.
The other two videos show what they appear to show, with one probably taken in Syria, and the other during a time of political turmoil in Egypt. Those responsible for the killing in Egypt were punished years later.
But the real outrage seemed to be less about the videos and more about the signal boost President Trump provided to Britain First, universally described as a “far-right” group. Needless to say, Britain First goes out of its way to deny “racism.” Indeed, the first thing you will find at its website is a lengthy explanation of why the group is not racist, and a rather embarrassing collection of blacks supposedly attending the group’s rallies.
However, Britain First does insist on the “maintenance of the indigenous British people as the demographic majority within our own homeland” and the support of “Christianity as the foundation of our society and culture.” These views were self-evident until the recent past; today, they are virtually illegal.
Indeed, Miss Fransen is facing charges because of speeches she made during a rally opposing terrorism in Northern Ireland. The terse announcement by the police did not identify what Miss Fransen did that they claim is illegal. She had said: “The world is at war with Islam. Every single Muslim is obligated to kill you and your husbands and your wives and your children.” She also condemned the violence of Irish republicans, whom she described as “not Christian.”
Miss Fransen has been in legal trouble for other speeches. As Vice gleefully reported, she was convicted of a “hate crime” for saying Muslim men force women to cover up to avoid being raped because “they cannot control their sexual urges.” This, she added, was “why they are coming into my country, raping women across the continent.” She was also charged with “religiously aggravated harassment” because of “the distribution of leaflets and the posting of online videos during the trial of Muslim men who were subsequently found guilty of rape.”
Such rhetoric may sound uncouth to some, but it is hardly criminal in a free country. Even her most confrontational statements and tactics pale in comparison to the antics of groups such as FEMEN, which are celebrated by the same Western media that professes such outrage today.
Miss Fransen asked President Trump for help:
— Jayda Fransen (@JaydaBF) November 29, 2017
And she is right to do so. For Britain can in no sense be called a free country. Policing online social networking sites for “hate speech” is now a routine job for British law enforcement. As English author David Webb notes, such “hate speech” restrictions are far more strictly enforced against white men than against non-white minorities. These campaigns are cheered on by the mainstream and non-white volunteer commissars, who urge the police to become involved if they read things they don’t like online. More than 3,000 people were arrested for online speech in 2016. A determination of whether a “hate crime” took place depends on the feelings of the “victim,” meaning that even “unfriendliness” can justify charges.
Such speech laws are especially chilling because British police were recently given unprecedented powers to spy on the electronic communications of the Queen’s subjects. The number, variety, and reach of “equality laws” has also vastly increased since Tony Blair’s “New Labour” government opened Britain to mass Third World immigration. These laws are now being used to prohibit white people from applying for jobs within their own country.
Yet even as the traditional liberties of the English people have dwindled, security cameras are ubiquitous, police are trying to enforce “knife control,” and crime is increasing nationwide, with London now more dangerous than New York City. Police, unable to cope, are simply releasing suspects and “hoping for the best,” according to Police Federation chairman Steve White.
The threat of terrorism has also grown so dramatically that the security state is practically useless. The British press has reported tens of thousands of jihadists in Britain, and those are only the ones known to the authorities. Hundreds of “British” fought for the Islamic State while actual British soldiers were cursed and jeered by Muslims upon their return. Terrorism, of course, is the excuse for even further crackdowns on freedom of speech, which, naturally, can be directed against the “far right.”
Indeed, even as Islamic radicalism goes unchecked, attempts by the indigenous British to organize have been met with persecution, as people such as former English Defense League leader Tommy Robinson can testify. The British police also used what has been termed “exemplary sentencing” to break white working class resistance to Muslim immigration, with the British government imposing harsh punishments against any crimes perceived to be directed against immigrants. At the same time, the violent activists known as antifa enjoy all but unanimous support from the political establishment; former Conservative Party leader David Cameron signed the founding statement of Unite Against Fascism.
Given this repressive atmosphere, it’s not surprising that the only people in the country who can draw attention to serious problems are those like Miss Fransen who are called “far right” and who aren’t afraid of legal sanctions or media scorn. For example, it was the British National Party that first drew attention to the Muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham. Then-party head Nick Griffin denounced what was happening in a 2004 speech that was recorded by an undercover reporter. Not only did the reporter not appear concerned about the truth of Mr. Griffin’s words, he used his surreptitiously obtained evidence to have Mr. Griffin prosecuted.
Today, Muslim grooming gangs are still raping people in Rotherham as well as throughout the country. Yet anyone who speaks up about this or any other ethnic/racial problem has much to fear. A whistleblower could be attacked by Muslims themselves. He could be attacked by antifa. Or he could simply be arrested by a government that seems far more hostile to the indigenous population than those being imported to replace it. It’s hard to imagine even a Soviet government not only allowing such crimes against its people, but arresting those who complain about it.
As John Derbyshire pointed out:
At all points from the 1968 defenestration of Enoch Powell onwards, and still today, the attitude among the European governing and intellectual classes has been that everything will work out just fine so long as native Europeans stop complaining. If they won’t stop, they must be stopped, so that . . . everything will work out just fine.
Great Britain is at least as repressive as an Eastern Bloc country during the 1980s. In actively concealing crime, promoting disorder, and deconstructing the indigenous culture, it may be worse. Even Orwell’s subjects of Big Brother were never angrily told that it was an offense against equality to complain when their children were raped by foreigners. The hysteria of British politicians about President Trump should be treated with no more respect than Soviet boilerplate at a Party Congress.
The likes of Mayor Khan and Prime Minister May are infinitely more contemptible than General Secretaries Brezhnev or Andropov. The British government has long since shirked its duty to ensure the liberty and security of the British people, and it should not be regarded as any more legitimate than the government of East Germany or of the “Polish People’s Republic.”
The priority for the United States should not be to repair the “special relationship.” It should be to explore strategies to liberate our Anglo-Saxon cousins from what is a de facto occupation government. And as leftists are looking enviously at how British politicians have their political opponents arrested for dissident speech, this occupation government is more ideologically dangerous to American liberties than the Warsaw Pact states we faced a generation ago.