Anne Maries Waters has appeared from nowhere to become the latest darling of those who do not wish to see the Islamification of Great Britain. I am always suspicious whenever the latest 'saviour' shows up - and I am right to be. Waters is currently founding her own party, 'For Britain', after losing the UKIP leadership contest, and spoke at the Traditional Britain Group meeting yesterday. She was very careful in her speech to concentrate on what she was against, but was very guarded about what she was for. There are very good reasons for that, for her vision for Britain is anything but traditional.
The media, of course, have been quick to demonise her as 'Far Right', a term that has become meaningless in both its overuse and misuse. The media, as ever, are creating a charade behind a charade. They seek to convince the public that anyone who stands against Islam is some kind of fascist, when it is in the fundamentals of Islam to conquer and enslave as laid out in the Qur'an. Let us be clear, I have nothing against Waters' anti-Islamic stance. The media demonise Waters as an alleged fascist not merely to discredit her in the eyes of the public, but also to build her up. What do I mean by that? I mean there is an increasing number of people who are becoming aware that the media have created a false consciousness in the masses (to turn a bit of Marxist terminology back against the Left). Yet those who have awakened to this are susceptible to believing that anyone the media demonises is necessarily a hero. This explains some of the hero-worship Hitler gets.
However, there are of course those who deliberately push Hitler-worship within the nationalist movement so that the media can 'legitimately' demonise it as 'neo-Nazi'. One such man might be Kevin Wilshaw, who, after forty years in the National Front in Britain pushing the Hitlerian angle, publicly came out last week on Channel 4 as a homosexual of partly Jewish extraction. He repudiated all his purported prior beliefs as hateful. The media narrative was one of him having had an epiphany, but given his ethnicity and sexuality, is it not more logical that he was never genuine and was there merely to push the movement into dead ends and create an easy target for the media?
Over to the other side of the Atlantic, at the Alt Right rally in Florida a few days ago, the person below turned up in full neo-Nazi regalia so that the journalists could take photos like the one below and write Leftist propagandist articles like the one I have linked to by the BBC. Of course, people of questionable ethnicity at the Daily Stormer and The Right Stuff have been pushing the Hitlerian angle for some time. They can get away with that in America, protected as they are by the First Amendment of the Constitution, but this nonsense has seen impressionable young men like Jack Renshaw and other members of National Action facing jail terms in Britain.
Anne Marie Waters is a false hero/villain set up by the media. She has always been a career politico, starting out life in the Labour Party, where she campaigned tirelessly for the promotion of homosexual causes. Her particular forté was campaigning for the Christian Churches to renounce their position on homosexuality and allow the annointing of homosexual clergy. Neither I nor Anne are Christians, but it ought to be of conern to the Traditional Britain Group, who gave her a platform. She only moved to UKIP when the Labour Party did not offer her a parliamentary seat to contest at elections. UKIP were only too happy to accept her, not because they wanted someone who they could demonise within the party as an extremist, as she ridiculously and illogically claimed during her speech at the TBG meeting, but because they wanted to tap into the politically correct area of 'alternative sexualities'.
Anne is backed by international imperialist Jewry, including Ezra Levant's Rebel Media. She has linked up with the likes of Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston, who are also funded by the Jewish lobby in Britain. The English Defence league, after all, was modelled on the Jewish Defence League and Israeli flags have always been seen flying proudly at events. Waters' philo-Semitism and LGBT activism can be seen quite clearly in her 2015 article "Israel and Gay Rights, The Truth", in which she eulogises Israel and attacks Britain for those states' historical attitudes to homosexuality:
As far back as 1963, Israel declared that it would not apply any of the homophobic laws on its books (much of them in existence due to British mandate). This was four years prior to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain. In 1992, LGBT people were protected from discrimination in the workplace – also before this happened in Britain. In 1994, same-sex partners were given the same benefits as straight couples in the private sector, and three years later in the public sector. The Israeli military rescinded any discrimination against gay people serving soon afterwards, and in 2002 the age of consent was equalised at 16. Lesbian couples were given the right to adopt each other’s children (conceived through artificial insemination) in 2005. There are openly gay judges, members of Parliament (the Knesset), and many LGBT public personalities and celebrities. Dana International, a transgendered woman, represented Israel in the Eurovision contest in 1998, and won. In 2012, Tel Aviv was voted (in an online poll) as the world’s number one destination for gay travellers.
Contrast all of this with the Palestinian territories and their leadership so beloved of the hard left. In the Gaza Strip, ruled with an iron fist by Hamas, not only are women subject to appalling treatment but homosexuality can result in death. In 2011, Hamas cofounder Mahmoud Zahar said, “You in the West do not live like human beings. You do not even live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?” Attacks are frequent in the Gaza Strip and gays live in fear; so much so that LGBT Palestinians commonly flee to Israel.
 |
| Waters, Robinson and Weston, three stooges for imperialist Jewry |
OK, I’ve now had a chance to read this.
ReplyDeleteIn the item you link, she’s supportive of Israel and their tendencies towards homosexual equality. If you also see her articles on sites like the Secular Society, she is more generally supportive of civil rights legislation across the board and by dint of this site opposed to Christian schooling. That’s reasonably standard for those coming from the Counter Jihad circuit.
On the other side of the fence, her articles criticising multiculturalism and attacks on the native white population, can be found going back at least 5 years or more, long before the recent decision to stand within UKIP (and thereafter leave and launch a new party.) It’s also my understanding that she attacks the transgender agenda (along with some feminists) and also, interestingly homosexual marriage.
So she’s effectively of a type that we can all recognise.
In your article on the subject you mention a few things, including:
She’s backed by international Jewry; is “going to offer us a Jewish controlled LGBTJQ+ Britain or an Islamic vassal state like Transylvania during the Ottoman Empire”; and is a false hero figure.
If she is backed by ‘international Jewry’ it doesn’t show in the attire she has purchased.
At the meeting to which she spoke, there was no hero worship, in fact at the questions at the end, about 7 of them were a mixture of openly hostile and silly. Past meetings of this group have been addressed by libertarians, civic nationalists/assimilationists, wet Conservatives (or rather classical liberals), men who whilst speaking out against the ‘great replacement’ are actually married to non-Europeans, farmers better known for putting buckshot in burglar’s buttocks or swearing on national television etc. All of them have brought some interesting elements to the table and none of them have been accepted as a saviour.
I tend to the view that this ‘controlled / paid for opposition’ attitude leads us to an overly conspiratorial and managerial view of the political process that is more divisive generally.
Some people there were supportive of her new political vehicle and from social media rmany others seem keen to join her new party and get involved. Other audience UKIPers were sceptical that a new party could achieve much - certainly my perspective. If it makes a splash at all, it will bring many people who see Islam as culturally incompatible together and drive a demand to have a discriminatory immigration policy put in place. A religious one but with a high ethnic element. It will also seek to make Britain more uncomfortable for those of a particular faith, so they consider other residential options. These things might not map uniformly with tradcon views, but they will certainly enable the advance of views that seek to expand cultural incompatibility to ethnic incompatibility and the awareness of a demographic existential threat. And clearly like UKIP, this micro-group's inevitable role will be to apply pressure on larger entities to take on board some of this, rather than ever being in a position to accomplish it itself.
For these reasons for the TBG group that describes itself as being a broad alliance towards traditionalist ends, I don’t see much of an issue.
I also saw many of the same people who support AMW today championing the Identitarians on Westminster Bridge and their opposition to the great replacement. There's a cross-pollination. Personally I had hoped she's stay in UKIP and open the cellar door and release those second and third rank captives where the likes of Crowther had thrown them and those solid conservative men could have gotten to work. It was not be be.
The website you mention that she has written for is that of the National Secular Society, which, since being headed by Terry Sanderson, has just become a front for LGBT lobbying against ALL religiosities, as with Waters' statement below:
ReplyDelete"When religious discrimination against women or LGBT people is accommodated, what exactly does that say to women and LGBT people? It is, as Power says, a message of inferiority – contamination even – coming from the religious believer, which is then legitimised by accommodation, rather than being condemned as the humiliating and degrading treatment of another human being."
However, she has indeed been against Islam from an LGBT perspective, I'll acknowledge that, and she has been a campaigner against female genital mutilation and child rape by Muslims. I have said in the article I have nothing against her anti-Islamic stance. It is the baggage she brings that is the problem.
By backed, I don't necessarily mean financially (although her attire I would attribute to her lesbianism). Waters has been close to Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston since they launched Pegida UK together. Their ties to the Jewish lobby are well-known. There is a very famous photograph of Weston wearing a yarmulke that regularly gets passed around nationalist websites and their slavishness can be seen in many erticles and interviews. Pat Condell is another one like that. Robinson works for Ezra Levant's Rebel Media and covered For Britain's inaugural meeting, moaning that no one from the mainstream media was there. Why would they be? In fact, judging by the room, very few people in general were there.
It is clear Waters wishes to tap into the nationalist vote. Are there not enough parties already out there I ask? Why does she have to have her own party led by her? It smacks to me of personal ambition and, yes, there will be backers. Every party has backers and needs backers. This is not conspiratorial so much as the fact that backers always have their own interests at heart. I would only back a party that is racially nationalist, for example. Jews generally back parties favourable to Jewish interests. It is no secret that Marine Le Pen has courted the Jewish lobby in France.
This brings me to that article about Israel she wrote, which is very much about courting Jewish lobby groups. You will notice she is FOR lesbian adoption here and also shows a willingness to denigrate traditionally British attitudes and morality regarding LGBT issues. The TBG can of course invite whomever it wants, but equally I'm free to question the relevance of these speakers to a traditional Britain, indeed if they are traditional at all.
As for being divisive, a line always has to be drawn somewhere at some point. Otherwise why not open our arms to the SJWs? Anne Marie Waters' primary concern is 'the LGBT community' and that puts hers at odds with mine. While I have no wish to see homosexuals who mind their own business thrown off tall buildings as under Shariah Law, equally I do not think homosexuals should be afforded rights of adoption, marriage, parades or any other propaganda for their lifestyle.
"It is clear Waters wishes to tap into the nationalist vote."
ReplyDeleteSure. And it also seems logical that much of her antipathy towards Islam has originally been rooted in sexual proclivity.
But as said above, her comments on Islam have also been framed in a 'white interest' context going back at least five years or more. She attacks Islamic penetration (pun unintended) by reference to the rape of white girls, accusations of racism as an attack on the justified complaints of white men, Islamic creeds as an eating away of white culture etc. And the logical conclusion of her views on Islam would be the restriction on those of Islamic faith being admitted here: no more people from Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh etc.
So we have a narrative of white self-interest and ethnically restrictive immigration policy.
A few weeks ago, AMW was odds-on favourite to lead Britain's third (really fourth) political party. A party with activists or members in every town in Britain and had crawled -awkwardly- from complete bumbling foot-shooting amateurism, to something resembling a more polished presence.
From a tactical point of view, there's something beneficial there to those who have more traditionalist ethnocentric/nativist and nationalistic points of view. Just as there is with those in Germany with Weidel.
There are many very solid people win UKIP that were not progressed due to Farage's backslapping yes-man culture and his holding the pass at weak tea civic nationalism.
Sadly the last few weeks have seen her lose that leadership and , imo, make a strategic error in leaving and starting a new party.
But the cards last week, and the benefit of having a leader of a major UK party as speaker seem clear enough for the foregoing reasons. Or at least, I am pretty sure that must have been part of the thought process going on there.
In mentioning Alice Weidel there, you make my point for me. Weidel is bringing up two children with her Sri Lankan lesbian lover. Would you describe this as traditional? I would describe it as child abuse. When one woman is playing daddy, the whole issue of whether they are against the cult of transgenderism becomes a moot point. And if this is now normal even among the TBG crowd, the Muslims have a point when they say we in the West have become completely degenerate and depraved.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you say, there were those with 'hostile' questions and they were right to be so. They probably wondered, as did I, what she was doing at an allegedly traditionalist meeting. In fact, I asked as much during the live stream on the TBG's Facebook page, but my comment quickly disappeared. I, on the other hand, have given you fair hearing on here.
This is not a political website, but a cultural one. We do not get involved directly with politics and do not engage in the subterfuge and shenanigens that entails, but merely say things as we see them. We shall continue to do so directly and honestly. As a last note, if Anne Marie Waters is the best person we can come up with to lead a party, the movement as a whole is in very dire trouble.
"Would you describe this as traditional?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't, far from it. As I said, perhaps not clearly enough above: "From a tactical point of view, there's something beneficial there to those who have more traditionalist ethnocentric/nativist and nationalistic points of view. Just as there is with those in Germany with Weidel."
Culturally right-wing and traditionalist people are attacked - as Powell presciently said decades ago - by attaching them to particular types, placed in boxes. Then these ‘types’ shortly become a Pavlovian shorthand. The msm and others in positions of influence within the liberal Zeitgeist just need to dangle these types as a demonstration of their being bad, or low-class, or echoing barbarity to ward off general interest and to place the thing and by extension its arguments beyond the pale.
This type of liberal-dissenter person we are discussing - provided they are anchored to a more traditional base (or are one of many speakers) - allow this tendency to be undermined. It is not so convenient to attack them using the same methods of old and in fact often uses the liberal Zeitgeist’s own value system against it by showing how its own values are undermined (FGM etc.) From a non-sexuality point of view, we might also mention Wilders.
When you are in a position of great influence, tiny ideological differences become more important within even ideologically pure movements. When you are generally heaving at an obstacle from a greater distance with less influence, then others in the general landscape can fulfil shorter-term tactical interests at the behest of a wider strategy. With a general population immersed in at least 50 years (and arguably centuries) of liberal rot then sometimes one may parley with Whigs or others.
In this article here it's clear that this wasn't the case of 'coming up with the best person to lead a party' but at best as you have suggested, provided a platform.
Anyway, let's draw this to a close? I can see we are not going to agree on this much.
No, I'm afraid we're not going to agree here. You were clear in your argument, and I responded to that here:
ReplyDelete"This is not a political website, but a cultural one. We do not get involved directly with politics and do not engage in the subterfuge and shenanigens that entails, but merely say things as we see them."
Perhaps here I wasn't clear enough. I understand what you're trying to do politically, but from a cultural perspective, it makes no sense, for you have legitimated her position on other aspects besides Islam. If that were to continue and more from the militant LGBT lobby were invited into the movement, things like homosexual adoption would be normalised. I personally think this might be a worse threat than Islam itself, for attempted destruction from without can be withstood when one has a healthy culture within, but inviting the destruction of one's own culture from within is pure folly. The argument is now closed.