Essays

A Free Country; Sticks and Stones

and the inevitable salvation of the British people

by Max Musson

RECENTLY, I was prompted to recall a conversation I had as a child with my parents during the ‘Cold War’ period in which my parents explained to me and my siblings the differences between the oppression that once existed in Nazi Germany and which still existed in the Soviet Union and the freedoms that we enjoyed here, in pre-war and early post-war Britain.

Key among those differences were freedom of belief, freedom of expression and the principle of habeas corpus, in which we were free from the threat of unlawful detention and imprisonment.

I remember my parents explaining how in those totalitarian societies people were coerced and punished for holding forbidden views, how they were imprisoned and criminalised for expressing forbidden views in public and how the secret police would arrive at the dead of night at the homes of those deemed to be enemies of the state, force entry, and drag away their unfortunate victims, never to be seen again, or at best only to be seen again briefly at show trials before being consigned to many years of incarceration or possibly sentenced to death.

My father had suffered devastating head injuries fighting for Britain during World War 2 — injuries that left him permanently disabled – and although the price he personally paid was grievously heavy, his words conveyed great pride and he drew much comfort knowing that his sacrifice had helped secure for his children, our nation, and generations to come, the freedoms he so cherished.

As a child, I can also remember the often repeated axioms: ‘this is a free country, I can say what I want’, and ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’.

The first of these sayings conveying the belief, widespread in the early post-war era, that having defeated totalitarianism, we were free to express whatever beliefs we chose, and the second, that in order to get on with one another in a free society, we should be thick skinned enough to tolerate others expressing views that we find offensive and with which we fundamentally disagree. That mere words alone should not be regarded as justification for feelings of outrage or distress. I cannot stress enough how often these sayings were repeated and reaffirmed by both children and adults during the early post-war period.

Oh, how times have changed!

Beginning with the Race Relations Act of 1965 and progressively through further legislation enacted since: the Race Relations Act 1968; the Race Relations Act 1976; the Public Order Act 1986; the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and the Equality Act 2010, a whole battery of legislation now exists, to curtail freedom of speech, to punish those who express views that others find offensive, and to exclude from public life those who hold beliefs opposed to government policy in this area.

The issues of race relations, multiculturalism, multiracialism and diversity are of supreme importance at this time and it is self-evident that the legislation referred to above is designed to stifle vocal opposition to the governments’ policy of facilitating mass immigration, and to prevent the indigenous White people of Britain from organising in our own ethnic interests.

For decades now successive governments have facilitated uncontrolled mass immigration into Britain against the wishes of the vast majority of our people and with apparent indifference to the impact that immigration is having on our nation.

Demographic studies show that if mass immigration and current demographic trends continue at the present rate we the indigenous British will be continually displaced and marginalised, and will become a minority in our own land by 2053. Continued mass immigration therefore poses an existential threat to the physical survival of our nation as a distinct people and it is right therefore that this is a subject that should be hotly debated.

Rather than allow this issue to be debated however, successive Labour and Conservative governments have, as I have already explained, enacted oppressive legislation in the hope of stifling any debate and in the hope of forcing us, against our will, as a nation along a path towards multiculturalism, multiracialism and endangered minority status.

Developing concurrently with the race issue described above has been the issue of terrorism — primarily the spread of Islamic terrorism to Britain and the need to prevent it.

Mass immigration from the Third World has brought with it people from Southern Asia, the Middle East and North Africa who are predominantly Muslim and a great many of which resent the many military interventions by European governments in the affairs of their homelands, and a minority of which are motivated to strike back at our governments by committing acts of terrorism against our people.

Given this state of affairs; the antipathy felt by most Britons towards the creation of a multiracial and multicultural society; the logistical strains that mass immigration places upon our society in terms of healthcare, education, housing and welfare provision; and the rising threat of terrorism and future insurgency by Islamic terrorists, any right minded government would have placed a halt upon any further mass immigration and would have sought ways to minimise the terrorist threat by repatriating or expelling as many of the immigrants sympathetic to the terrorist cause as possible.

Instead, successive British governments have chosen to allow uncontrolled mass immigration to continue, and have told us that we must stoically accept the ongoing threat of terrorism as a permanent facet of modern life, just as we have been told we must accept a permanent state of emergency within our health, education, housing and welfare systems as we struggle to accommodate the immigrants flooding in.

Furthermore, so fervently are our political elite wedded to the idea of turning Britain into a multiracial state in which the indigenous British are a dispossessed minority, that instead of taking the preventative action I have described, they have opted to impose a further battery of oppressive legislation upon us.

Since the turn of the millennium we have seen introduced: the Terrorism Act 2000; the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005; the Terrorism Act 2006; the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010; the Terrorism Prevention and Investigatory Measures Act 2011, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, granting our government police state powers that exceed any effected by the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

There are of course elements within these various pieces of legislation that are necessary at a time when there is a terrorist threat to the security of our nation. The problem however arises when legislation that was initially drafted and only reluctantly passed by parliament on the understanding that the most Draconian measures would only ever be invoked in the most extreme of situations threatening national security, is subsequently routinely invoked through expediency to allow the state to act in a wholly disproportionate way in response to the most insignificant of transgressions.

A further serious threat to civil rights and civil liberties arises when such legislation is applied in such a way as to stifle legitimately and peacefully held beliefs, and to criminalise those who hold peaceful and lawful dissident beliefs of which our government disapproves.

Such a threat was heralded by Theresa May, when as Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference in 2014, said regarding counter terrorism initiatives, “our policy doesn’t just focus on violent extremism, it deals with non-violent extremism too”.

She continued: “… I want to tell you about another change we intend to make. As part of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent has only ever been focused on the hard end of the extremism spectrum. So the Home Office will soon, for the first time, assume responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy that goes beyond terrorism.

“This strategy will be devised and overseen by the Home Office, but its implementation will be the responsibility of the whole of government, the rest of the public sector, and wider civil society. It will aim to undermine and eliminate extremism in all its forms – neo-Nazism and other forms of extremism as well as Islamist extremism – and it will aim to build up society to identify extremism, confront it, challenge it and defeat it”.

In the following year, under Section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the ‘Prevent’ element of the long standing government counter-terrorism strategy ‘Contest’, became a statutory responsibility for all public bodies, and whereas Prevent had only previously been aimed at preventing susceptible individuals from being drawn into ‘violent extremism’, i.e. ‘terrorism’, from 2015 onwards it would be used to target and disrupt the activities of groups and individuals regarded as ‘non-violent extremists’ – that is, people who hold views that dissent from those of the government.

The government set out their definition of ‘extremism’, defining it as: “Vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

At the beginning of Chapter 5 of the government’s 2015 document outlining their new ‘Counter-Extremism Strategy’, a chapter entitled, ‘Disrupting Extremists’, it states: “The majority of this strategy is about countering extremism by working in partnership with others, using our values – such as free speech – to confront and challenge extremist ideologies head on.

“However, in a small number of the most dangerous cases it is necessary to go further, and to use the law to deal with those facilitators and advocates of extremism who pose the greatest threat to others.

“We already have a range of powers to help us disrupt terrorism, the application of which are subject to an annual independent review. But there remain extremists in our society who cause an immense amount of harm, while being careful to stay just the right side of the law. In addition to strengthening our use of existing powers against such extremists, we will introduce new, carefully targeted powers to challenge the most active and persistent individuals and groups.”

So Draconian are many of the measures permitted under this counter-extremism strategy that many Muslim groups and civil rights organisations protested that Muslims faced religious persecution and the teachers unions refused to take part in the Prevent strategy at all. As a consequence the government took steps to pacify the critics by arguing that such measures are being applied even-handedly to counter both Islamic and ‘neo-Nazi’ extremism.

Clearly, what is described here is the creation of an iniquitous totalitarian system spanning the whole of our society. Such a system would however not be quite so iniquitous if it was applied even-handedly as government spokespeople claimed, but it has not been.

While the Prevent strategy targets Islamic extremists, or ‘Islamists’ as the government call them, a distinction is drawn between ‘Islamist’ extremists on the one hand and the rest of the Muslim community on the other, who are referred to as wholesome, responsible and respectable people.

In her 2014 speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Theresa May stated, “This hateful ideology [Islamism] has nothing to do with Islam itself. And it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain and around the world … So let the message go out from this hall that … we know Islam is a religion of peace and it has nothing to do with the ideology of our enemies”.

Significantly, no such distinction has been drawn between those who are peaceful and law abiding advocates for the indigenous White people of Britain, distinguishing us from those who are allegedly inclined to violence and terrorism.

All White advocacy groups, be they political parties, pressure groups, think tanks or community organisations, together with all individual White community activists and advocates, are labelled ‘neo-Nazi’ and therefore brought under the aegis of the governments Prevent counter-extremism measures without distinction. There are as far as the government are concerned, no moderate White advocates that are the counterpart of the “overwhelming majority of [moderate] Muslims” that Theresa May speaks of, and it is inconceivable that she would ever refer to ‘moderate, law-abiding White nationalists’, or assert that ‘racial hatred has nothing to do with White racial consciousness’.

Consequently, the vast battery of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism legislation that exists is only ever brought to bear upon Muslims who most definitely are Islamic terrorists and their fellow travellers, while outside of this, Muslims generally are free to act as advocates for the ethnic interests of their people, and become doctors, lawyers, teachers, police officers etc., serving both their own communities and society at large. However, anyone actively advancing the ethnic interests of the indigenous White people of Britain is only ever regarded as a dangerous extremist, barred from holding public office and harassed and bullied and made a social pariah through the use of control orders and disruption measures.

Over the last three years and the last thirteen months in particular there has been a concerted and unprecedented assault upon the groups and individuals campaigning in the ethnic interests of the indigenous White people of Britain.

We have seen a considerable number of White activists arrested during street demonstrations and following which, while they are detained, they have had their homes raided and all of their electrical devices, books and papers confiscated under spurious pretexts relating to counter-terrorism or public Order legislation.

Often, they are eventually released on bail on condition that they regularly report to a police station, or undertake not to attend any political meetings or events, or associate with political colleagues, and the bail periods are extended often for as long as 18 months before eventually, all charges are dropped, with ‘no further action’ to be taken.

These measures not only disrupt the legitimate political activities of the individuals involved, they disrupt their social lives and their work where their computer and telephone and papers they had stored in their homes are vital for their livelihood. The individuals concerned often lose their jobs and as a consequence their homes, and they lose contact with their friends as well as political colleagues and the stress this causes can have tragic consequences, as it did recently when White activists Paul Hickman became so depressed by the harassment he suffered at the hands of the police, he took his own life.

Paul Hickman was not a terrorist, he was a modest and mild mannered political activist who campaigned in the hope of bringing salvation to our people. He was a modest and mild mannered man who never hurt anyone, and yet, because he held views that our government have designated ‘extreme’, he was effectively stripped of his rights and the police were allowed to bully him to the point where he committed suicide.

As we enter 2018 we find that two high profile White advocates are currently undergoing prosecutions under the auspices of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). I shall not name the individuals concerned because their cases are still sub judice.

In both instances however, the prosecutions were initially considered by the CPS, who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges. There then followed private prosecutions brought by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) a front organisation for organised Jewry, and pressure was brought to bear on government ministers such that the hapless CPS was eventually dragooned into taking over the prosecutions once more at public expense. It cannot be overstated here how extra-ordinary it is, having already considered a case and rejected it as unsuitable for prosecution, for the CPS to do a vault face, not because of any new evidence found, but simply in order to placate the hurt feelings of a vexatious pressure group.

It is interesting to note that the words alleged to have given offence in these cases, primarily assert that Jewish organisations have too much power and influence within our society. It is instructive therefore that in twice using their presumably immense political influence to bully the CPS into proceeding with prosecutions that have already been judged to be inappropriate, one might be forgiven for concluding that the CAA would seem to have proven the truth of the words to which they object.

It is an often repeated aphorism that “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” and so if these prosecutions backfire as I suspect they might, the CAA may end up wishing they had paid attention to the earlier aphorism that I recalled, that “sticks and stones may break my bones, … ” because it is vitriolic disputes such as these court cases that are the ‘seed corn’ of anti-Jewish sentiment, especially where Jews are seen by so many to be so obviously favoured by those in corrupt authority. Far from preventing the rise of anti-Semitism, the actions of the CAA may ultimately be viewed as a primary provocation of such deplorable hatred.

Just over a year ago, the National Socialist group, National Action were proscribed by the Home Secretary and I don’t want to go into the rights or wrongs of that group’s aims or objectives or the tactics they employed, save to state that they were proscribed by the Home Secretary following her perception that they were ‘otherwise engaged in terrorism’ — essentially that they appeared to express moral support for the atrocious murder in 2016 of Labour MP Jo Cox by the mentally ill loner, Thomas Mair.

It is clear from the history of the drafting of counter terrorist legislation that measures intended to prohibit groups and individuals from expressing moral support for terrorists were regarded as very contentious at the drafting stage, and were ultimately only accepted into legislation on the understanding that they would only be invoked where the primary terrorist group concerned is an extensive organisation that is waging a concerted campaign and which presents a significant threat to national security. None of these conditions applied in connection with National Action, which folded very quickly once the proscription order was issued.

My purpose here is not to defend National Action but simply to assert that the proscription of that organisation was clearly a wholly disproportionate response to the miniscule threat they posed. A more proportionate response would have been to first ‘fire a warning shot across their bows’. The speed with which the founder of National Action, Ben Raymond, issued instructions to disband the group once the proscription order was issued, indicates that the offending comments would have been withdrawn promptly had the Home Office issued a warning such as I suggest.

That didn’t happen however and as a consequence of the needlessly heavy-handed application of the Terrorism Act, the police and the security services are now under pressure to find evidence of real terrorism to justify the action taken, and so we now have the unedifying and iniquitous spectacle of armed counter-terrorism police routinely breaking into the homes of apparently innocent people in the early hours, to spirit them away at gunpoint to be interrogated, and in most cases without there being a scrap of evidence to suggest that they have done any wrong or that they ever were members of National Action.

Again, the individuals concerned have had all of their electrical devices, their books and papers taken by the police and so even where they have not been remanded in custody, their lives will be severely disrupted.

The police appear to have compiled a list of people deemed to have been sympathetic to National Action prior to the group’s proscription, and these individuals are now progressively being arrested on a piece-meal basis, under the spurious pretext that they are suspected of continued membership of the banned group, and in the desperate hope of catching one of them out.

This is all the more unedifying and iniquitous when one realises that the innocent people unnecessarily caught up in these arrests will have their lives ruined by the experience in many cases, causing them to lose their livelihoods and their homes. Furthermore, when we realise that one of the individuals recently so treated was a first time mother nursing a one month old baby, the truly iniquitous nature of this process becomes all too apparent. To suggest that a young, first-time mother would put at risk the wellbeing of her small child by recklessly engaging in ‘terrorist’ activity, is frankly preposterous and betrays a desire to persecute the individuals concerned for their political beliefs rather than to counter any real threat of terrorism.

Ironically, the Prevent strategy employed by the government ostensibly to counter extremism, actually fails the test of upholding ‘British values’, in that it seeks to deny the democratic rights of those who campaign in the interests of the indigenous White people of Britain; it suspends the rule of law and the individual liberty of such people by allowing the police to disrupt their lives; and shows no respect or tolerance for the beliefs of White nationalists. The Prevent strategy is when judged by its own standards a form of extremism and one that causes more harm than the so called ‘neo-Nazi’ extremism it was introduced to prevent.

And as each successive wave of arrests takes place, prejudicing the lives and long-term wellbeing of the individuals concerned, and in circumstances where the individuals concerned are likely to be found to have done no wrong, a growing number of people will come to realise the Draconian nature and political motivation for these arrests, and that something dark and malignant festers at the heart of government and our political elite.

No longer will parents tell their children proudly of the freedoms we enjoy in this country and which are not available elsewhere under different regimes. Instead shamefacedly they will confess to their children that the freedoms past generations treasured, and once had the courage to fight to defend, have been taken from us by stealth, by a corrupt political class who do not serve the interests of our people, and who are complicit in trying to drive us into extinction.

It is noticeable that no one ever says anymore, ‘this is a free country, I’ll say what I want’. People now look over their shoulders to check who is listening before saying anything considered politically incorrect.

It is noticeable also that no one ever says anymore, ‘sticks and stones will break my bones …’, because we all know now that in the oppressive milieu in which we live, our words most definitely can and will be used to hurt us by vexatious protected minority groups, unless we are very careful.

Our children will be taught that those who strive for White survival are persecuted by our own government, that we are denied freedom of expression, and they will be taught to fear the ‘midnight knock’. However we must not be cowed by oppression, we must ensure that our future survival continues to be hotly debated wherever people meet and interact.

And in the minds of our friends and relatives, and our children and the children of our friends and relatives, a natural healthy yearning for freedom and justice will germinate and grow, and I believe they will be guided by that collective dream and will in future swell our ranks and help us bring about the revolution that will one day sweep away treachery and corruption and restore what we have lost: our cherished personal freedoms; freedom and self-determination for our people, and primacy of place in our own land!

* * *

Source: Western Spring

Previous post

Was the Virginia Amtrak Collision a Deep State Terror Attack?

Next post

18-Year-Old Italian Girl May Have Been Sacrificed in Voodoo Ritual by Nigerian Drug Dealer

2 Comments

  1. 6 February, 2018 at 2:51 am — Reply

    I can’t believe after reading this piece and the author’s personal experiences with the anti-free speech laws and private prosecutions in Britain that he never made the crucial distinction between the Soviet Union and pre-WW2 Germany, instead classifying them both as totalitarian regimes. Sad.

    As I understand it, Britain never had a literal Constitution, but rather a collection of centuries of case law that was referenced through time, generating “rights” and legal changes as it grew, but that there was no central document that spelled everything out. At least, that’s what I’d heard in the past. If true, that made the rights of Brits frighteningly malleable and entirely vulnerable within the judicial system.

    This is why Americans absolutely MUST defend the First Amendment ferociously because there simply is no other law on earth like it. With no other power to use on our own behalf right now, our voice is all we have. I believe this new meme of so-called fake news is setting the stage for placing limitations on speech in order to “protect” us from it. Don’t fall for it, and don’t promote the meme by using it in discourse. Call it what it’s always been: lies. It was Ernst Zundel who was prosecuted so famously in Canada decades ago for spreading “false news”. Sound familiar?

  2. 12 February, 2018 at 8:36 pm — Reply

    Hello ZachP, of course I am aware of fundamental distinctions between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, but in the early post-war period when my parents instructed me about totalitarianism, they were not.

    I have simply recounted their words to me and I have not chosen on this occasion to address the distinctions between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich because the true nature of the Third Reich is an entirely separate issue that has no bearing on the iniquitous and increasingly totalitarian nature of modern British society.

    You are correct however regarding the differences between the Constitution of the United States and the collection of constitutional treaties that comprise the British Constitution and which are feeble by comparison when it comes to protecting the civil rights of our citizens.

    You really must be vigilant in your defence of the First Amendment. If the first Amendment should be negated by the US Government, it would be a disaster for your people and a disaster for White people all around the world whose freedom of speech is indirectly protected by it.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.