‘A fight for the soul of the country’

On Saturday 16th May, central London saw two Marches: the so-called hard-right Unite the Kingdom March, led by Tommy Robinson; and the Pro-Palestine Nakba Day rally to commemorate the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

According to Sir Keir Starmer, organisers of the former march were nothing more than peddlers of hatred and division, seeking to incite violence, and he threatened them with the full force of the law.  We are, he said, in “a fight for the soul of the country”.  He was apparently not alone in this assessment.  Ahead of the march, His Majesty’s Government took the decision to block entry into the UK of eleven of the scheduled Unite speakers travelling from overseas, on the grounds that they were far-right agitators and enemies of the British people.

Sir Keir Starmer was unquestionably right – we are in a battle for the soul of the nation.  But the question is, whose side is he, and His Majesty’s Government, on?

It is certainly true that all eleven of the banned speakers, such as Belgian politician Filip Dewinter, are opposed to illegal immigration and the ever-growing Islamisation of our culture, while Dutch political activist Eva Vkaardingerbroek has spoken out vehemently against sexual abuse and the worryingly high number of rapes committed by illegal immigrants on young girls of the indigenous population; but none of them appear to have issued calls for violent harm or disorder.
And why is it so-called ‘far right’ activists are labelled such extreme enemies of the State, while a similar point – with seemingly far better reason – is not made about pro-Palestinian activists, who really are calling for the slaughter of Jews and for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map?  How is it that’s okay, but expressing support for Christian belief and values, and the rights of the indigenous white population, isn’t?

As it is, many protestors on the pro-Palestine Nakba Day march ostentatiously carried Palestine flags, while chanting, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, which is generally taken as encouragement to exterminate the entire Jewish race, and has most certainly contributed to the horrifying rise in anti-Semitism now evident in the country.  A sentiment echoed by other protestors on the march, who while not going so far as to call for the mass slaughter of Jews, carried anti-Semitic placards decorated with a red inverted triangle, generally seen as expressing support for the banned terror group Hamas.

By contrast, on the Unite March – composed, as Keir Starmer claims, of thugs and vicious extremists – there were no such violent threats.  On the contrary, there was simply a sea of waving Union Jack and St George flags, all expressing pride in England and support for our Christian heritage, along with worship songs and an altar call from the main stage for people to accept Christ.

How is it then that Keir Starmer can express such condemnation and loathing for Unite Britain supporters, branding them enemies of the State – but have no word of criticism for advocates of Islam who, in their expressions of hatred for Israel and the entire Jewish people, really are peddling violence and racist division? How is this okay?

Multi-culturalism is all very well if incomers willingly commit to assimilation in the host culture.  But, as is becoming all too obvious, Islam doesn’t.  Rather, Muslims demand that our culture first ‘accepts’ and then submits to their belief system and way of life. The recent attempt to introduce a definition of anti-Muslim hatred, branded Islamophobia, is manifestation of that. Though marketed as a tool to combat discrimination and hostility, the reality is that the regulations promote and embed the interests of a sub-culture, which subordinate the well-being and rights of ordinary British citizens to conflicting Muslim demands.  In practice, anything that calls into question the artificial narrative of multi-culturalism and imposed diversity is then condemned as racism and bigotry – which can mean only that, longer-term, the interests of the indigenous population will become even more subordinated to the countervailing demands of Islam, and calls for submission to Allah.  As instance of which, polygamy, though banned under UK law, already seems to be finding increasing acceptance, while Britain is seen as both the Western capital for Sharia courts, and the Western hub for Islamic finance.

It is this spreading Islamic dominance that Keir Starmer is promoting, when he condemns those who call for the recovery of British identity and values.  Such an approach can serve only further to destroy our culture.  The Prime Minister is entirely right when he says that we are in a battle for the soul of the nation.

But, as said above, the question is, which side is he on?