The Assassination of Jo Cox, MP

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, brexit, brexit poll, brexit vote, Britain First, Civilisation, computer, Defend the modern world, EU, eu poll, eu vote, Europe, Facebook, facebook facebook, far right, fascism, fascist, immigration migrant, Jo Cox, Jo Cox murder, Jo Cox shooting, media, media media, Multiculturalism, neo-nazi, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, shooting, Terrorism, turner diaries, Twitter, Violence, william pierce

The murder of Jo Cox MP, 41, has prompted a seething fury across Britain that will take a long time, perhaps many years, to fully dissipate. The mother of two young children, Ms Cox was carrying out her democratic business at a local surgery in her constituency of Birstall, Yorkshire, when a man by the name of Thomas ‘Tommy’ Mair shot her twice with a home-made gun, later kicking her as she lay dying and remarking (according to eyewitnesses) either ‘Britain First’ or ‘Put Britain first’.

In the Guardian newspaper today there are reports that Mr Mair maintained links with the Neo-Nazi National Alliance party in the United States, an organisation from which he purchased a substantial amount of material online. This material, according to the SPLC, included the squalid and nasty volume ‘The Turner Diaries’ by Dr William Pierce, a Jurassic anti-Semite and favoured author of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. And when he appeared in court for a preliminary hearing on Saturday, Mr Mair seemed to confirm his radicalism by stating his name as ‘Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. All things considered, it appears clear enough what motivated the killer to carry out his deed; fascism, unpolished and uncomplicated; a grudge against democracy.

Thomas ‘Tommy’ Mair

Since the murder was confirmed by local police, media outlets across Europe have been quick to seize upon the murder for explicitly political gain. It would be easy and conventional to beat them up for this, but it would also be dishonest. I made political capital out of Orlando on the day that it happened, as did many of the people currently complaining. We can at least be consistent. Like Orlando, this is an act of political violence with direct political implications. It must therefore be discussed in a political context.

What are those implications? Who deserves blame? Well, according to the continental media, the murder may have been connected to Ms Cox’s outspoken support for the ‘remain’ side of the upcoming EU referendum. This is based on the – not unreasonable – assumption that Mr Mair, given his rumoured nationalism, was/is firmly in the ‘leave’ camp. That, however, is where the evidence dries up. This is just an assumption. It may be an accurate one, but at the moment we simply don’t know enough to say one way or the other.

Others, most notably Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, have blamed a climate of anti-politics stretching back to the ‘expenses’ scandal of 2009. In case you’re unfamiliar with that scandal, it was centred on revelations that numerous MPs had claimed public money for highly dubious reasons, such as the construction of a moat around a personal residence, or for expensive holidays or alcoholic drinks. Since that crisis, public opinion of politicians in Britain has been gutterishly low. In Freedland’s opinion, this climate has swollen out of all logical proportions.

Anti-political sentiment is rife in the UK

“For weeks, months and years,” he wrote, “‘politician’ has been a word more spat out than said. MPs have been depicted as a form of pond life, routinely placed on the lowest rung of the ladder of esteem, trusted less than estate agents and journalists, the butt of every panel show gag, casually assumed to be venal, mendacious, vain, stupid or malevolent… These complaints are repeated so often, we barely notice them. They’re like moans about the weather, presumed to warrant no disagreement….We don’t yet know what was in the mind of the man who killed Jo Cox. But even if we cannot locate a specific cause in the nation’s political debate and claim this murder as its direct effect, we can say this: that if you inject enough poison into the political bloodstream, eventually somebody will get sick.”

Finally, Britain First, the facebook-based activist group/political party has been specifically blamed by many, especially in light of the comment allegedly made by the killer cited above. Ms Cox was known for her impassioned activism on behalf of the children of Syrian refugees. Britain First is a very straightforward anti-Islam collective. It isn’t outlandish to propose that Mair agreed with the latter’s agenda. A photograph allegedly depicting Mair holding a Britain First banner is also circulating on social media, although its authenticity has yet to be confirmed at the time of writing.

I personally think the truth is a mixture of the first two (although it wouldn’t surprise me if the last was also a factor). The EU debate has taken on a decidedly histrionic character, with words like ‘fascist’ and ‘traitor’ thrown about with little serious regard for their meaning. The anti-political sentiment of which Freedland speaks is very real. People up and down this country feel that they have been duped, lied to, taken for fools. The EU referendum is where it all comes out; an opportunity, as some may see it, for vengeance against the political class.

David Cameron announced a pause in campaigning on the EU referendum in the wake of Jo Cox’s death

But we haven’t been lied to nearly as often as we think. The problems our country faces are the result of policies enacted openly, with advance warning and after copious explanation. Mass immigration was never a policy cooked up in a dark, smoke-filled room. It has been debated and discussed for decades. Even if it was difficult to take advantage of, there has always been a semblance of choice available to the general public. That popular discontent has yet to be converted into a change in policy is the fault of the people as well as the establishment.

So why is dissent on the issue of immigration always ineffective? Why is always left to fester underground, setting the scene for hatred and violence?The answer, I believe, lies in how anti-immigration dissent is expressed and who expresses it. 

Anti-immigration advocates, in the popular imagination and sometimes in reality, are uncouth, scruffy, loud and aggressive. They wear camouflage jackets and baseball caps, have tattoos and speak with a heavy, unattractive regional stamp. Even if you agree with them, you might be hesitant to say so for fear of being grouped in with them. All the pretty, successful and clever people are left-wing. The right is for misfits and dullards, for the underclass. This snobbish sentiment has forced many middle class voters into a reflexive, insincere leftism; one not based in reason, but in status-anxiety and snobbishness.

Anti-immigration demonstrators

Jo Cox, whether one agreed with her opinions or not, was a beautiful and civilised human being. Young, bright, warm and tolerant, she was everything you would look for in a friend and hope for in a colleague. The urge to side with her against the nasty, bellicose and ill-mannered ‘leave’ campaign must now be overwhelming. 

I have always tried to treat the subjects I discuss on this blog with restraint and moderation. I try not to hurl insults or baseless accusations. If I advance a theory about something, I make sure to back it up with explanation and examples. Most importantly, I try to put forward my arguments using measured and clean language. Without wanting to sound immodest, that should be the standard approach to all political discourse. It is on the left. It should be on the right as well.

The murder of Jo Cox may is no small event. It may well go on to change the course of history, keeping Britain in the European Union and thereby saving the EU from implosion. If so, the failure of the British commentariat, not just the British establishment, to make the case against unlimited immigration will be to blame. We had a good case to argue, but we failed to make it in a sufficiently civilised and intelligent way. Had we done so, the likes of Tommy Mair would scarcely have been able to appreciate our arguments, while the likes of Jo Cox may have found reason to agree with us. We repelled the good and the clever, whilst attracting the dull and the reprehensible. If Britain votes to remain, if only in order to stand with Jo Cox and against Tommy Mair, I fully understand why.  

The case against mass immigration from the Muslim world is a liberal argument, not a conservative one. The Syrian refugees Ms Cox championed have views so conservative they make Nigel Farage look like a bearded hippie. We must resist the influx of Muslims in order to preserve our freedoms, our democracy and our modern way of life. If we put our case like that all the time, we might be surprised by how many allies we actually have.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Thinking Seriously About Fascism

Tags

Amazon, America, anders, BBC, Blog, blog blog, Breivik, Civilisation, Crime, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, demolition man, demolition man analysis, demolition man plot, Eugenics, Facebook, fascism, fascist, letters, Multiculturalism, myspace, nordic state, politics, q, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Scandinavia, social media, stallone, tennis, Twitter, United States

The much bemoaned rise of the extreme right in Europe is actually very easy to explain. The mass-influx of Muslims, most of them unwilling to integrate into Western cultures, has provoked a completely natural reaction. People want control over their borders again. It’s as simple as that.

With that said, some people are – as the media claims – using the present crisis to promote darker or more radical visions for the future. I’m talking here specifically of fascists.

By using this word I do not refer to those mainstream conservative figures unjustly defamed as ‘fascists’ by the liberal press. I’m not talking about Bill O’Reilly or Nigel Farage. I mean real, honest, self-declared fascists; people who see virtue and worth in the fascist movements of the past.

We are compelled, even commanded, to oppose fascism outright. Fascism is evil, destructive, genocidal even. It seems a simple enough thing to argue against, right? In this article I want to argue that, contrary to popular assumption, it isn’t easy to condemn fascism in an honest or consistent way. It’s very difficult in fact. Put another way, I want to argue here that fascism is rising in Europe in part because some of its tenets are inherently appealing, not horrifying.

One of the better known of the European neo-fascists is Anders Behring Breivik, the narcissistic butcher of Utoeya and noted lover of moisturising cream. From his jail cell in Norway, the killer has recently expressed a desire to create a completely new nation; one he would grandly call ‘The Nordic State’.

This new country, Breivik says, will be distinguished from the Nordic States currently in existence in two important ways. Firstly, only 100% pure-blooded Nordic people will be allowed to live there. Secondly, the government of the new nation will be dedicated to the replenishment of the Nordic species, sponsoring a rise in controlled reproduction, as well as overseeing eugenic processes aimed at raising the standard of the Nordic race to new peaks of human excellence.

It is my duty, and yours too, to both dismiss and condemn this racist proposal out of hand. And I do so now, reader, conclusively. I do not want the Nordic State to come into existence. I find the concept bizarre, untenable, politically naive and contrary to the realities of the modern world.

Anders Behring Breivik

Many people would leave the matter there. But I don’t think that would be fully honest. While condemning the concept in theory, I cannot honestly say that The Nordic State would not be remarkable in practice.

I am not an egalitarian. I do not believe the populations of the world are exactly equal in character, intelligence, creativity and behaviour. I believe that palpable differences, rooted in biology, explain almost all of the mysteries pondered by conventional sociological analysis.

Through this politically incorrect lens, I must recognise that the Nordic State would surely become, in time, the envy of the world.

A 100% Nordic society would have one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. It would have one of the lowest infidelity and teenage pregnancy rates on Earth. It would be among the cleanest, safest and greenest countries in history. The average IQ of the Nordic State would be the highest in Europe, leaving other Nordic states languishing in inferiority. And if, as Anders Breivik proposes, eugenic breeding were authorised by the Nordic State’s government, then the state would over time become the source of the world’s most impressive technological and medical advances. It would also be militarily supreme, since the technological edge allowed by superior intelligence will make for the world’s most efficient and sophisticated army. And so on…

Saab Aero X – A Swedish-manufactured car

My point is – knowing all this, how can we sensibly and rationally object to Breivik’s fascism? Seeing as the programme he suggests would have such dazzling results, what counter-argument might we manufacture to dissuade rational people from endorsing it? This is a vital question; one we must try with everything we have to come up with an answer for.

One tried-and-tested objection we might make concerns the moral costs of bringing such a project to fruition. Despite the touted benefits of a Nordic State, the fact remains that every Nordic country (with the possible exception of Iceland) is solidly multiracial. A fifth of Swedes are of mixed-foreign or foreign descent. What would become of these people in Breivik’s utopia.

At his first trial in 2012, Breivik claimed to be a ‘cultural nationalist’. He denied being a racist or a fascist and sought to prove this by saying pleasant things about Israelis, Slavs and other non-Nordic populations. This is no longer the charade. At his most recent trial (deciding a lawsuit the killer brought against the Norwegian state), Breivik’s courtroom salute, formerly closed-fisted, was explicitly and undeniably Roman. Breivik now states that he self-identifies as a ‘National Socialist’, a ‘fascist’ and a Nordicist.

Benito Mussolini

From this we might reasonably infer that Breivik (and his supporters) would deal with non-Nordic people in Nordic countries in the same way the original National Socialists dealt with non-Germans; that is to say, starve then, expel them or kill them en masse. This is obviously unacceptable to any orthodox moral philosophy. None of the benefits brought by a Nordic State would be worth the murder of millions, with all the political and moral degeneration such an action would bring.

But what if a Nordic State could be achieved without violence? What if – as Breivik suggested in a more moderate mood – a section of scarcely populated Northern Scandinavia was sectioned off for Nordic People, and the rest of Scandinavia left as it is? What would our objection be to that?

I’m really not sure.

A fundamental question that must be answered is ‘Does a race have the right to be left to itself?’ And if not, why not? If the creation of a 100% Nordic society brings infinite benefits for those deemed appropriate enough to live in it, why is there any moral objection whatsoever?

Why is segregation a bad thing? Whose rights are infringed by it? The answer, perceived by the majority to be clean-cut, is actually very difficult to express. As a commenter on a Neo-Nazi website put it:

“Why are Whites (and only Whites) expected to share everything with other races? Why are Africans allowed to have Africa, but Whites are allowed to have nothing? There is no obligation for me to associate with people I don’t like. It’s my life and I’ll live it how I want. How is this racist?”

Though I dislike the general tone of this comment, I find it difficult to rebut his arguments conclusively. This blogger recognises the infeasibility of Muslim settlement in Europe. But then Muslims are not the only immigrants. What intrinsic right do Japanese people have to settle in Europe? What right do French people have to settle in Norway?

An ethnic Scandinavian

I have little doubt that ethnically ‘pure’ nations would be less prone to civil conflict than multiracial ones. For solidly scientific reasons, a person is considerably less likely to want to harm or victimise someone if he/she feels a kinship with them. We naturally sympathise with those in whose design we see elements of our own.

Ethnically pure nations would also have a more harmonious social structure than multiracial ones. Since the social classes would be bound together with biological and sentimental links, class warfare would be made considerably less appealing.

And even fascist government is difficult to condemn clearly. Contrary to popular belief, fascism is not necessarily synonymous with Hitlerism. In its purest and most original form, fascism was merely a radical form of corporatism; a simply, mutually beneficial union of government and industry.

So what can we do? Perhaps the best argument against fascism – and against political simplification of all kinds – is not a moral argument at all, but a practical one. Breivik’s fascist utopia might be a cleaner, greener and more productive society than those prevailing in Scandinavia today, but it wouldn’t be a pleasant society. It would be boring, colourless, drab and orderly beyond desirability.

There are already numerous parts of the developed world in which only one ethnic type reside. Most of Wales is Welsh, for example. Most of Ireland is Irish. Most of the Faroe Islands are Faroese. If these are perfect societies then they will stand scrutiny to that effect. But they don’t.

Have you ever seen the movie ‘Demolition Man’ starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes? If you have, you will be aware of its strangely ingenious and philosophically stimulating plot. A cop of the present day is frozen cryogenically as a novel punishment for committing occupational manslaughter. When, after his term is served, he is released from the ‘cryo-penitentiary’ in 2032, he discovers that America has since achieved a perverse kind of techno-social perfection. In this future utopia, there is no littering, no crime, no swearing and no sexuality. It is a completely innocent society, where men and women of all ages are reduced emotionally to children. Everyone is happy, but only in a very shallow and naïve way. This new society, we  made to understand,  is nightmarish after a while. While it is safe and affluent beyond contemporary possibility, it is also fake, plastic and lacking in adrenaline. I have a feeling that Breivik’s Nordic State would eventually resemble this dystopia in many essential ways.

Imperfection is a natural and necessary part of human life and character. Without it we become machines – shiny and impressive, sure, but also soulless.

D, LDN

Notes on ‘Ride the Tiger’ (by Julius Evola).

Tags

4chan, Amazon, BBC, Books, Britain First, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, EDL, fascism, Italian, Italian philosophy, Italian works, Julius Evola, Literary criticism, Multiculturalism, Philosophy, politics, Ride the tiger, UK

I’ve been reading philosophy since I was 15 years old. Since my teenage years, my favourite writer has been Friedrich Nietzsche, the predominant poet of the German language and (in my view) the greatest thinker of the last 500 years. But for the last decade or so, I’ve tended to neglect philosophy in favour of history and politics. My degree is in Politics and Economics. I am a political blogger and we all live in a uniquely politicised era.

Julius Evola’s ‘Ride the Tiger’ is the first work of philosophy to distract my attention in many years. You may remember that this blog is named as a refutation of Evola – whose work ‘Revolt against the Modern World’ advocated a rebellion against industrial development.

That book, commonly regarded as his masterpiece, is garbage. ‘Ride the Tiger’ on the other hand, continues to fascinate me. At its heart, this book (described by some reviewers as a self-help book for fascists) ponders the right way for a person of intellectual and spiritual depth to survive an age of stupidity, dissolution and over-democratisation.

To try and allow the reader to learn this ‘correct’ way, Evola takes issue confronts Nietzsche directly by reforming the philosopher’s classical dichotomy of ‘Dionysian’ against ‘Apollonian’.

In case you are unfamiliar with that dichotomy, I’ll try to briefly explain it here.

For Nietzsche, to be ‘Dionysian’ is to live in slack obedience to reaction and emotion; that is, to follow the impulses of pure physiology and worldliness; to live, as it were, without rationalisation (Dionysus, incidentally, was the Greek God of intoxication and wine). Nietzsche often suggests more explicitly in his later work that the reader choose ‘life’ over ‘thought’ and his noted thought experiment imagining an ‘Eternal Recurrence of the same” is designed to provoke this way of thinking in the reader. ISIS and al-Qaeda for example, pursue a life of unrestrained impulse and barbarity. In this way, they are far closer to the Nietzschean ideal than many of his Western readers would care to admit.

The Apollonian spirit, by contrast, is an attitude to life and art that rationalises and ‘stands back’ from existence; one that refuses to follow impulse and places greater value on the mind and the realm of intellect. This is undoubtedly closer to the spirit of the modern age than the former concept, given that we are encouraged to sublimate our instincts into the pursuit of rational goals (wealth creation, civility, security etc…).

In Ride the Tiger, Evola suggests a fusion of both concepts – the construction of what he called Dionysian Apollonism. As this name would suggest, Evola advises us to take inspiration from both philosophies. We should live in a way that honours our nature and innate drives, but in a way that allows us to navigate our way through modern society.

Evola rejects the barbaric as infeasible and self-destructive. He suggests instead the pursuit of primeval goals in a disguise of civility. This is what ‘Ride the Tiger’ is chiefly concerned with.

The title of the book is derived from a Hindu parable. There are many variations on it, but the basic gist is as follows: Imagine a tiger is charging at you at great speed… Your first impulse might be to fight or ‘take on’ the beast. But if you do this, you will surely lose, since the beast is more powerful than you are. However, if you manage to leap on the back of the tiger and ride it, you may be able to harness its energy and strength for your own ends.

For Evola, the tiger is modern industrial society, something he hated with a terrible passion but which he conceded was too strong to oppose. Rather than commit suicide by attempting a futile revolution against it, we should instead try to play by its rules, integrate into its system, but all the while stay faithful to higher and more transcendent concepts.

I understand and concede that Evola’s philosophy is esoteric and strange and also that the Italian was a confused anti-Semite and political fascist. But this short, strange and beguiling work has the potential to haunt the thinking of the reader long after he/she has closed it.

D, LDN.

Obama, a Communist? Er…yeah.

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Barack Obama Communist, Christianity, Democrats Communists, English Defence League, fascism, Is Barack Obama a Communist?, Islamism, London EDL, No to Turkey in the EU

Is Barack Obama a Communist?

To answer yes to this question is to risk ridicule, and so most on the right disguise the affirmative response by calling him a socialist instead. Most on the left and many in the centre would say a flat-out no, thinking the idea absurd if not offensive.

But the reality is that not only is Obama a Communist, and an opponent of Capitalism, but he is surely one of the most talented in history – for he has managed to hypnotise even the most Conservative observer into stopping short of saying it.

True, Obama is far from a Communist of the old-style. But then that kind of Communism didn’t work so who would be?

No, Obama, together with our own EU labour movements, belongs very much to the movement of second-wave Communists; people whose philosophy can be backdated to the teachings of the New Left.

The words Socialist and Communist in this sense are not merely ‘connected’ but interchangeable.

How strictly does Obama play it?

Let’s see.

If there was a code of modern Communist conduct, it would probably read something like the following…

• 1. Never use the word Communist except in order to deny that you are one.
• 2. Never quote, credit or reference Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky.
• 3. Treat the accusation that you are a Communist as not only wrong but absurd.
• 4. Use where-ever possible the words ‘social-democrat’.
• 5. Link the charge of racism and excessive religiosity to those who accuse you of being a Communist.
• 6. Talk of ‘unity’ and of ‘one-nation’ governance. Mention ‘ending division’, and ‘bringing people together’ – this will sound much better than collectivism.
• 7. Construct a borderless ‘nation’ out of the poor. Make the poor of Canada relate -as if by blood and heritage – to the poor of America. Make the poor of America relate to the poor of Europe. Etc…etc…
• 8. Blame the wealth-creators for having not created enough wealth, the elite for not being elite enough. Ally with those who have not created wealth. Indulge their willful blindness. Appeal to their ego and to the romantic concept of the American ‘working man’ ( never, under any circumstances use the phrases ‘workers’ or working class.)
• 9. Mark, alongside your nation, any events created to remember the dead of Cambodia, North Korea and the Soviet Union. Behave as if the governmental errors and economic policies behind such deaths are incomprehensible to you.
• 10. In the same way a pimp tightens his hold around a prostitute, make the working and creative classes dependent on government funding.
• 11. In terms of foreign policy – if the nation is a third-world or poor country, deal with them kindly, and even when their behaviour prohibits you from allying with them, do not attack them. It will undermine the ‘nation of the poor’ narrative.
• 12. Divide the aspirational races. Connect together those who lag behind. Bind Hispanic immigrants to poor African-Americans. Divide aspirational Asians and Whites.

If this were the code of conduct for a modern Communist, then Obama plays it pretty close to the book, almost too close.

And it isn’t just America.

An unwritten law in politics dictates that what is in government will fall out of fashion, and what is out of government will come back into fashion. A right-wing government increases the chances of left-wing parties at the next election, and vice versa.  In Europe, although collectivism is out of government, it is very much in fashion. At our next election here in the UK, Labour’s Ed Miliband is favourite to sweep David Cameron’s Tories out of power and the Liberal Democrats into oblivion. In France the Sarkozy government has already given way to the socialist government of Francios Hollande. In Germany, Chancellor Merkel’s days may also be numbered, as left-liberal parties begin to bite at her ankles.

Wow.

The leader of the free world is leading it alright. But to where…?

D, LDN.

The Thankless Heroism of the English Defence League.

Tags

anti-Semitism, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, EDL, English Defence League, fascism, Feminism, Islam, London EDL, Resistance

Have you ever wondered as I have, exactly what would happen if a totalitarian government was established in Britain?

The phrase ‘totalitarian’ like its sibling ‘fascist’ is usually misused in the modern age and perhaps no more so than in the UK. There are people in this country leading free, mundane lives who believe that because of the CCTV camera at the top of the parking-lot wall, or the trail of speed cameras along the motorway, that we already have a taste of what these systems of government are like. They’re wrong of course, but then this is obvious. What is more interesting is to ponder as to why, if these folk really believe the UK to be in the grip of fascism – are they so passive in the face of it? If this really is a totalitarian state engaged in systematic national oppression, then why are they mowing their lawns and shampooing their dogs? Why aren’t they making shelters, gathering weapons and buying tinned food? Why aren’t they preparing – in other words – for an organized rebellion?

The answer to these questions is that it isn’t in their nature to be rebellious. Those who believe speed-cameras to be a harbinger of state-sponsored genocide are almost always middle-class Mail-readers. They are Surrey-dwellers who lead lives so comfortable that it would take the sound of their neighbours falling to the floor after government gunshots to rile them to political action. They would be truly useless in the context of any fascism deserving of the name.

And a genuinely fascist Britain is not a lunatic idea. It could happen. Indeed it might happen. Then, in the midst of a genuine police-state, we would have to rely on other sections of society to defend us.

The English Defence League have been a feature of British life for some years now. In that time, they have risen from obscurity to a position of national familiarity. There can be few adult Britons who do not know by now what E.D.L stands for, and what the organization was created to stand against. Every time a march is announced in a town or city centre, anti-Racist orgs and local police react in a swift and uniform way, giving the impression of a routine long rehearsed. Law enforcement are deployed on a large scale to control EDL marches. The recently incarcerated leader of the EDL Stephen Lennon, is already an old hand on international news networks and was among the first to be consulted for his views after the attack on the Norwegian labor party in 2011. As a political force, the group has eclipsed the fading BNP and is feared more by the Left than a plethora of other ‘far-right’ vehicles.

This is some progress for a group whose origins lie in one of the most downtrodden parts of the UK and who have had all the muck the media could scoop thrown at them since their inception. As to membership, the figures vary – but at the high-end, the EDL  (after just a few years of existence) could conceivably marshal a force of thousands should the need ever arise. Even if these numbers are swollen by the cowardly or insincere, anything above a thousand is still impressive in the crowded market of nationalist politics.

But what’s the point of the EDL? Sadly, more and more people are asking this question up and down the country. After a run of drab, unsuccessful marches in Walthamstow, Hartlepool and Cambridge at which the group was totally outplayed  by anti-fascists, and now – to compound this – the imprisonment of its leader, some are questioning whether the EDL can survive even another year.

I can understand these worries and also the view that the end of the EDL is nothing to be sad about. To be sure, if all the EDL was ever about was showing up in some rainy market town and shouting slogans – then nobody should mourn its dismantling. But this was never the promise of the EDL. The promise of this collective was to provide a reserve of organized resistance to something very real and ongoing – the unwanted and socially damaging Muslim presence in the UK.

Though it’s horrible to think about, at some point in the future, there will likely be another 7/7 type attack in the United Kingdom. When this happens, the British people will not, unlike on 7/7, have to rely on the stiffly PC maneuvers of the police to protect their local communities, but can take quick and visible action to let the world know of their anger. The middle-class anti-fascists who obsess over speed-cameras won’t be of any use then. It is a job that requires real, masculine anger, not hands-thrown-up-in-the-air exasperation and surrender. These brave young people, judged unworthy by the same nation they would have (in older times) been mistaken for, are not a menace. They are unpaid heroes willing to provide a public service; a social fumigation that – were it allowed to be successful – would benefit above-all the coffee-shop liberals who have most scorned them.

If it can hold itself together, the EDL can shine brighter in the future than it ever has before. With a demographic threat that can only increase, the resistance must for now, dig in and prepare for the nations darkest days. 

D, LDN, UK