MICHAEL KINGSBURY vs TOMMY ROBINSON: GATEWAYS vs GATEKEEPERS

From mindless Tommytards to Aut Right sell-outs, I always hear the same cries that I am politically naïve or that I somehow do not understand what good-old Tommy Robinson does for the cause. Which cause these people really mean is a matter for debate. I and others have exposed Robinson on many occasions before (click on the Tommy Robinson link below), but I want to show the difference between convicted thug and fraudster Robinson and someone who is doing good work for the cause in the mainstream and acts as a genuine gateway to our political position. I speak here of the film maker Michael Kingsbury, whose work was introduced to me by James from Mjolnir at the Movies. For those who have never heard of him, Kingsbury has made a series of films called the Gulag Trilogy, consisting of Gulag Barashevo (2015), Gulag Vorkuta (2016) and Gulag Magadan (2017), in which he unflinchingly explores the white genocide project of the Soviet Union and its empire in Eastern Europe, the real Holocaust no one in the mainstream wants to mention.

 

 

Tommy Robinson, lest we forget, detests nationalists. In spite of his anti-Islamic rhetoric, his convictions for violence have been for assaults on Whites. His support for and funding by the Zionist Jewish supremacist lobby is well known, as is the fact he was also convicted for his role in the Deborah Rothschild mortgage scam. He has also put several trials of Muslim paedophile rapists in jeopardy, and therefore vulnerable white children in danger, for personal publicity stunts. Yet in spite of all this, his acolytes in the Aut Right insist he is a gateway to racial nationalism, when in fact, the opposite is true. Robinson is there not to lead people from the mainstream to our position, but to shepherd people who have made it over to racial nationalism back towards the extreme Leftism that has taken over the mainstream.

 

How does he do this? Firstly, he is well-funded and well-publicised. Robinson appears on talk shows, in news items, in books and articles in both the media and academia, and at highly-publicised events and demonstrations. Robinson has become a celebrity. Notably, he is also very much discussed in the Aut Right. This is an important fact to remember when contrasting the fortunes of Michael Kingsbury. Robinson might be portrayed as "the establishment's enemy", but he is an acceptable enemy, the enemy they want, and thus the one they publicise as their enemy in order to build him up falsely as a hero to those who are genuinely antagonistic to the establishment. The real enemies of the establishment, on the other hand, are totally ignored. The best way to deal with a real threat is to starve it of the oxygen of publicity. And this is exactly what is happening with Michael Kingsbury. 

 

There's no 'tard like a Tommytard....

 

 

Kingsbury appeared on the Red Ice podcast five months ago to talk about his films, garnering over 20,000 views, but since then has been ignored. It is to be expected that the establishment will inevitably ignore him, but has anyone heard a squeak about him out of the Aut Right? Why is it Tommy Robinson is mentioned in Aut Right podcast after podcast, but Michael Kingsbury's work is completely dismissed. Robinson's lackeys (particularly Leftist activist Lucy Brown) are regularly invited on Aut Right Superchat-fueled podcasts, whereupon said Aut Righters cosy-up to them, as though their ideas are legitimate. Robinson is often portrayed by Aut Righters as a necessary evil, as a necessary intermediary between the mainsteam extreme Left and the Right, but Kingsbury does exactly that job without compromising any of our aims and ideals. 

 

Whereas Robinson actively virtue signals against everything we stand for, barring his critique of Islamification, Kingsbury simply avoids hitting subjects the establishment has deemed "hatespeech" head-on. Instead, he cleverly turns establishment buzzwords back against them. In Gulag Vorkuta, he deconstructs the politically correct term "ethnic minority" by exposing the contradiction of Marxist newspeak, where the politics are deliberately posited to undermine semantics and destroy that which is ostensibly eulogised in post-Marxian dialectic, with buzzwords being used dishonestly and where the desired result of the politics is the reverse of the original meaning.

 

 

Even Robinson's critique of Islam is not the same as ours. His critique is that Islam is illiberal, whereas ours is that it is alien. Whether it is antagonistic or benign to European culture is largely an irrelevance; it is the fact that it is the product of non-European peoples and has entered our space via the immigration of non-European peoples that is at issue. Alien peoples can be benign for a time and then suddenly, as a racially conscious group, change in attitude towards a people they recognise instinctively as different. Let us take the Algerian War as an example. Algeria was a department of France, not a colony. This meant that the Arab population was just as "French" as the White European population. When Arab nationalism grew in the 1950s and many Algerian Arabs fought for independence, still others fought to remain part of France. Having lost, the "French" Arabs were resettled in the suburbs of Paris and Marseilles etc., as they would have been tortured to death had they stayed in Algeria. The newcomers were model citizens; the second generation were proud to be French; but the third and now fourth say that France is theirs and that they are Arabs. The native Europeans, of course, are not welcome in "their" territories, except for girls of breeding age.

 

You will notice I have neglected to mention the subject of Islam in the example. These Arabs, like almost all Arabs, are Muslims. It is rather superfluous to mention, though, because Islam is merely a cultural expression of Arab consciousness and part of the Semitic tradition. In other words, the culture is alien because the people is alien and not vice-versa. In South Africa, the Negroes are committing genocide against Boers, yet both come from a cultural background informed by post-Christian sensibilities. The principal difference between them is race. The understanding of that shared religious and cultural heritage is different because the peoples are fundamentally different by Nature. In any case, Christianity is borne of neither people, and therefore to both is a mere sheen. No one will address the fact that the reason both the Arab and the Jew are two of the major players in world affairs is because huge swathes of the world are culturally and religiously Semitised. Certainly, Robinson does not, but Kingsbury does.

 

 

 

The fundamental differences between peoples is something Kingsbury addresses in Gulag Barashevo. Whereas Tommy Robinson, as a typical liberal, negates the importance of such differences, Kingsbury recognises it as a key form of identity that is a source of strength and therefore a threat to the Leftist system. One sees here the similarities between liberal and Marxian thinking. Both liberals and Marxists like to virtue signal against so-called "racism", but what is "racism" but White European peoples demanding the right to define themselves as they see fit, without interference from outsiders? Is that not the right of all non-White peoples? Then why should it not apply to all peoples? And this is something Kingsbury talked about in his Red Ice interview. One sees again here how "racism" as a term is used ironically and cynically in the Left's genocidal projects. Religion too is addressed in Gulag Magadan, where ethnic Pagan identities, organic spiritual expressions of ethnic identities, are again a source of strength, as opposed to the one-shoe-fits-all Christian slave religion that again, like post-Marxist theory, denies racial identities given by biology.

 

 

Recently, Michael Kingsbury has come under attack from anonymous Aut Right internet trolls attempting to goad him into addressing the role Jews played in the Soviet Gulag system. Kingsbury has rightly sidestepped the issue, knowing full well that these trolls wish to see his works removed from mainstream websites like Amazon, IMDb, Twitter etc., so that the general public has no access to them. In any case, one cannot merely lay the blame on the Jews. Stalin was not a Jew; Khrushchev was not a Jew. There were plenty of White Europeans who participated all too willingly in the genocide of their own peoples, just as there are now. And here I come back to Tommy Robinson. The difference between Michael Kingsbury and Tommy Robinson is that Robinson is wilfully selling out his own people to Jewish interests, whereas Kingsbury simply avoids the JQ, which, in any case, was more complex in the Soviet Union than cartoon Nazis like his detractors would like.

 

 

 

The reason Robinson is a gatekeeper from and Kingsbury a gateway to proper Rightist positions is that Kingsbury's films act as a primer that allows for further research. The films guide the viewers towards unanswered questions for which the viewers must do their own research. Robinson, however, in constantly portraying Jews as benign influences on our culture and as our allies, is deliberately misleading a bewildered public like so many neo-con politicians before him. Kingsbury's films guide more intellectually curious viewers inevitably towards Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and therefore to his frank discussion of the JQ in Two Hundred Years Together. The critic Kingsbury mentions in the video above, "Curonian Veste", plays the cartoon Nazi and is an obvious fraud. As Kingsbury says, he wants Kingsbury to do that which he himself will not in the conversation. Suspiciously, among the usual bad news porn and Hitlerite stuff on his Twitter account, are many Retweets of Muslims like Sarah Abdallah and Hannibal Khoury, not to mention his support for Maurice "Morris108" Herman, a Youtube vlogger who lived off donations to feed his mixed-race family in Cambodia:

 

And another Aut Right stir-fry....

 

 

It has become my view over the last couple of years that the Aut Right is little more than the latest attempt at providing yet another safety valve by the establishment: more cartoon Nazi honey traps and LARPing and more Zionist neo-con nonsense to distract those disaffected by the extreme Left's social engineering programme. The choices offered by the Aut Right are anti-Semitic liberalism or philo-Semitic liberalism. This is why Kingsbury's work in the mainstream is important: because it offers something beyond liberalism, where the polemic of Semitism is not even considered. Our first task, in any case, is to define ourselves as ourselves, not in relation to the Jews. As more and more Aut Right vloggers dishonestly promote Tommy Robinson and his cronies, like Ann Marie Waters, Paul Weston, Jack Buckby and the like, it is refreshing that the cause of racial nationalism has seemingly found someone with integrity and talent. I hope, unlike so many, he does not go on to prove me wrong.

 

Lastly, I am going to make a plea for donations. I am not asking you to send donations to me, though, but to Michael Kingsbury. A podcast costs nothing to make, so do not let the con artists of the Aut Right guilt-trip you into parting with your hard-earned cash. If they had any integrity and were genuine about aiding the cause of nationalism, they would be making their podcasts for free and not taking valuable resources from a very small pool that could be used for good causes, instead of being spent on their very dubious lifestyles. Films, however, cost money. Technical equipment, scenery, sets and props challenge a film maker's budget. Kingsbury's work, for its flaws and limitations, is nothing short of extraordinary given his lack of funds. Your donations can help him continue and improve on that good work.