It is a core foundational claim of left-wing political discourse, that Fascists violently seek to attack the working class and oppress all political opposition. This claim is false and ideologically motivated to intentionally deceive the public by painting a false picture of those who present alternative political arguments that are not accepted in the mainstream political arena, especially the political opinions of Nationalists.
The main instigators of political violence have always been the Communistic elements and their dupes who attempt to deny a political platform to any alternative viewpoint that they don’t agree with.
It isn’t just what they call Fascist organisations that they try and shut down through violence and intimidation, but mainstream political party’s as we have seen recently with supporters of the bearded Bolshevik Jeremy Corbyn who attacked a Conservative convention in Manchester. They have also attacked UKIP who can hardly be called a Fascist or Nationalist organisation, however the violent political left fear their message and so try to silence it. They are terrified of the public resonating with a political party that does not conform to the leftist doctrine of ‘class struggle’ and so use the only tactic capable of stopping that message being heard which is organised political confrontation and violence.
This intolerant element of violent left wingers have always employed the tactic of violently suppressing political opposition and do so under the mask of ‘standing up to hatred’ when the hatred on display is all theirs. They know that their ideological worldview cannot stand up against the Nationalist message and the historical reality of Communist dystopia and so attempt to make up for that shortcoming with intimidation.
The radical left have mastered the art of making themselves appear to be the victims of ‘fascist violence’ and ‘fascist oppression’ when in reality Nationalists are simply fighting back against organised red violence simply to have their message heard. When the far left successfully have a Nationalist meeting or demonstration stopped through the threat of, or acts of violence, they claim a ‘moral victory’ over the ‘evil’ Fascists, but when Nationalists fight back and inflict a defeat on the reds, it is described as an act of ‘Fascist violence.’ One minute they are the victims of ‘violent Fascists’ when Fascists merely fight back to ensure that they are heard, the next they are victorious and moral ‘crusaders against Fascism.’ They are the epitome of deviousness and deception. They are like the cowardly bully who goes around intimidating children on the playground getting an egotistical and masochistic thrill out of violence, but when somebody strikes back and bloodies the nose of the bully, the bully runs to the teacher claiming to be the victim.
The Communistic left present a false narrative of Fascist political violence when it is they who organise and initiate it. They get away with this time and again because of a sympathetic media who only ever report favourably on those ‘valiant and moral anti-fascists’ completely ignoring the fact that it is the Communistic anti-racists who cause the violence due to their desire to stop all political opposition that is opposed to them. They are what they claim Fascists to be. They operate on the tactical basis of Marcusian Repressive Tolerance, which basically means that they only tolerate political opinions of the left, and do not tolerate any political opinions that run counter to that Communistic narrative. They create the violence, blame Nationalists, the media run with it, and the public are presented with false reporting on any given event in which Nationalists and those who oppose them come into contact. The enemies of Nationalism seek to create a violent situation so that they can then blame the Nationalists knowing full well that the media will never report on the true causes of the disturbances.
In an article in the Evening Standard of 30th February 1927, C.F.G Masterman, the ex Liberal cabinet minister, commented on the ‘new phenomenon’ of ‘organised rowdiness’ at political meetings and referred to an ‘electoral reign of terror and intimidation’ organised by Communists and Socialists in the East End of London. (1)
This tactic was seen regularly during the days when Sir Oswald Mosley and his BUF (British Union of Fascists) attempted to take their message to the streets. They were routinely attacked violently by mobs of Communist Jews and other assorted leftist groups. Meetings were repeatedly interrupted and heckled, missiles were thrown and every attempt was made to violently suppress freedom of speech. Various weapons were used to attack the BUF meetings and as a result of the very serious threat of violence against the organisation, the Blackshirts stewarded their own meetings and met Communist violence with steadfast and resilient Fascist opposition which was geared towards ensuring the success of meetings and speeches given by Sir Oswald Mosley and other prominent BUF members. In essence the Blackshirts were the defenders of freedom of speech in the face of a concerted campaign of Communist violence against them. The worst of the violence occurred at the Olympia in 1934 and eventually the repeated acts of Communist political violence led to the 1936 Public Order Act and the banning of political uniform. Many people believe this to have been because of Fascist violence, when the opposite is true. The Blackshirt stewards aim was to ensure that BUF speeches were heard and that meetings were free from Communist mob rule. If it had not been for the seriousness of the Communist attacks at BUF meetings then the BUF would not have needed stewards to fight back. The Blackshirt stewards were a defensive force protecting freedom of speech, they didn’t go into working class areas to attack people, they went to gain the support of the working class. They never went to attack Communist meetings and break them up, they were forbidden to do so by Mosley himself. So they were purely a defensive outfit and not the marauding Fascists attacking everyone who didn’t agree with them as the media and left make out, that badge goes to the Communists not the Fascists. Again, when the Fascists inflicted a defeat upon the violent Communists, as they did at the Olympia, the Communists made out that it was they who were the victims when they had been planning to cause violent disruption at the meeting for weeks.
“…a Fascist march through a working class area was a visible, open act. But when bricks were hauled at it what did anyone know about those hurling them? Who were they? Where did they come from? It looked like a ‘spontaneous’ expression of anger. But usually it wasn’t. The court and police records leave no doubt about the extent of Communist organisation of disruption, the calculated use of violence as a tactic to discredit Fascism.” (2)
If we look at the political climate in the 20th century and into the 21st century, not much has changed. The overwhelming majority of political violence seen on the streets is a result of far left attempts to shut down political opposition.
It is supported by the trade unions and Communist front groups such as the UAF (Unite Against Fascism), Hope Not Hate and the SWP (Socialist Workers Party.) These groups whip up animosity amongst their members against political opposition, and fully support physical confrontation to enforce the denial of freedom of speech.
Nationalist organisations that hold protests are routinely attacked and opposed by these groups who claim to want tolerance, and who say they support freedom of speech, however they support neither tolerance nor freedom of speech when it comes to political opposition and it is then that they are shown for what they really are.
A prime example of this would be the violence seen in Brighton over recent years as a result of the far left attempting to stop the March for England group who have marched annually to celebrate the patron saint of England. The far left attacked this march in their thousands just as they did in Liverpool when hundreds of Communists and Anarchists attacked a planned white man march in the city. The march would not have been violent, it would have been a small march followed by speeches and then would have dispersed peacefully, yet the violence seen on the day meant that the march could not take place. The red mob was working in tandem with the police and local council and the media glorified the red violence making out that the orchestrators of political violence to be ‘morally justified.’ It speaks volumes when an entire establishment of a major British city enables and supports Communist and Anarchist violence on its streets. The facilitation of red violence by the police under the instruction of local government is a disturbing development and should be an eye opener to the public.
The general public however are unaware of this strategy of the far left and governmental institutions. They fall for the positive media portrayal of the far left bully boys because of the false reporting on events such as what happened in Brighton and Liverpool. If the public were presented with a headline that read: ‘Communist and Anarchist violence attacks freedom of speech in Liverpool’ then they would think differently. However they are told that ‘good people’ turned out to show that ‘racism isn’t welcome in this city’, yet Communist political violence apparently is acceptable and the public are not told the truth about why violence erupted on their streets. They go away thinking that the Nationalists were responsible when again the exact opposite is true. The Communists achieve their goal of orchestrating violence and then pin the blame on the Nationalists.
It takes relatively few people to whip up the aggressive hysteria needed to create the scenes in Brighton and Liverpool and in numerous other instances of far-left violence. It can even be done by local government and media as was seen in Liverpool with the appearance of a fake letter claiming to be from National Action threatening that the city would burn if their march was stopped. However the letter was not sent by National Action, and was probably sent by a leftist agitator to create hostility towards the march. The local media posted about the false letter and as a result the people of Liverpool were up in arms over what the media made out to be a ‘nazi invasion’ although it wasn’t the people of Liverpool who caused the violent scenes, it was the mob of Anarchists and Communists who were facilitated by the police.
“To anyone unfamiliar with the Communist Party it has always seemed inherently implausible that a party with such a tiny membership (it was scarcely more than 5000 in the early 1930s) should be responsible for all the mischief attributed to it. The mistake arises both from understanding the numbers of people actually required to whip up a disturbance and from ignorance of the Communist Party’s modus operandi”. (3)
When these far left organisations speak of tolerance, they are intentionally misleading people into thinking that they genuinely support it and fight for it, when in actual fact they oppose it and fight against it. Nationalist organisations have no interest in political violence, they merely want to have their message heard, violence is counter-productive to that message, so it would make no sense for Nationalists to initiate violence that would dilute their message, ruin their image and turn the public away from them. What is reported as being Nationalist or Fascist violence, is simply a reaction to being attacked, and the realisation on the part of Nationalists that to have a message heard needs to be prepared to counter violent attempts to shut them down.
“If the established parties hoped to kill fascism by ignoring it, the Communist Party hoped to use it for its own ends. Unable to make any significant headway on economic issues, it hoped to enlist workers and intellectuals under its banner in an anti-fascist crusade”. (4)
The street thugs of the left and their allies in local and national government and the media, rely on the agitation of the working class through deception. They claim that the working class is being targeted by ‘evil fascists’ who are the ‘sword arm of the state’, when it is the white working class being targeted by the state and it is the useful idiot left who are their sword arm. It is a common left-wing fabrication that ‘Fascists’ go around attacking the working class on behalf of the state, this is the picture they have to present otherwise they have no potential for support. What you have to remember is that if it were not for the deceptive dialectic of ‘class struggle’ then the left would have no recruitment ground, nobody to entice into their phoney cause. They keep the working class in a constant state of agitation using false propaganda to deceive the working class into thinking that Nationalists are their enemy when Nationalists are predominantly working class people themselves and see that it is the white working class being destroyed through state enforced multiracialism which the left fully support. This alone is enough to see the deception that the left operates on. They claim to oppose the state, the bankers and the corporations who they say exploit the working class, but they support the policy of enforced multiracialism by the same people, which is destroying the white working class.
Nationalists hardly ever turn up to oppose left wing demonstrations or meetings, because they are an irrelevance and Nationalists don’t fear their message, they don’t feel the need to silence that message despite the fact that more people have died as a result of the pursuit of left-wing egalitarian social ideals than have ever been killed under Nationalist ideals.
The main reason for the political violence displayed by the left is predominantly a result of fear. They fear that their discredited, illogical and unnatural worldview will be exposed by intelligent and articulate Nationalists so attack all Nationalistic events to prevent them from being heard by the public. They fear the public will see them for what they really are and fear that their divisive ‘class struggle’ nonsense will be rejected in favour of racial unity over class division and national disintegration. The strength of the left lies in its manipulation of the working class and in particular the white working class. They fear that Nationalists and the Nationalist message will resonate with those within working class communities if allowed a platform for that message to be heard. This is why you will always hear the left claim that a proposed Nationalist march, demonstration or event in a working class town or city is an ‘attack upon the working class.’ They attempt to rally and organise the working class into a force that works against freedom of speech in the far-left interest. They say that Nationalists seek to divide the working class, but what they really mean is that the Nationalist message is a threat to their own far-left agenda and can only be stopped by organised opposition with aggressive and violent intolerance or Marcusian Repressive Tolerance.
Another thing you will find is that the left will not only attempt to agitate and mobilise support in white working class communities, they will go into predominantly non-white communities to whip up anger and violent intent towards any proposed Nationalist event. Then when the non-whites and their left-wing agitators and enablers engage in violence, it is blamed on the presence of Nationalists or the report is intentionally misleading claiming that Nationalists were the ones causing the trouble. If the Nationalist message was so full of hate, and the white working class communities would outright reject it, then surely the left would allow the Nationalist message fall on its own sword. They would stand back and allow the white working class community to ignore the message. However they feel the need to use violence instead, they aren’t willing to take that risk. The imported masses of non-Europeans are considered by the left to be revolutionary allies. Herbert Marcuse said it himself when he said:
“It will be a world historical revolution because of the emergence of powerful revolutionary potential in the third world.” (5)
The third world hordes are a left-wing tool used to deconstruct homogeneous white European nations. They are a means to an ideologically motivated end. They are turned into a revolutionary force against us within our own homelands and our own infiltrated institutions and these far-left organisations are inciting them against us.
There are many many examples that could be given to show the real progenitors of political violence, far too many to put into this blog, but just to give you the reader an idea of what we are talking about, here is a selection of examples of political violence being used by the far left to shut down freedom of speech. This is the standard operational procedure of the left who try and make up for their inadequacies in the realm of debate by resorting to physical attempts to stop debate and freedom of speech from taking place.
Communist and Anarchist Mob Violence in Liverpool, orchestrated by the local council, media and police force.
Former leader of the BNP attacked by over 100 anti-fascists.
Communist front groups the UAF and SWP try and supress freedom of speech.
Leftist violence in Brighton attempting to stop March for England.
(1) Robert Skidelsky, ‘Oswald Mosley.’
(5) “The Movement in a New Era of Repression: An Assessment” University of California, Berkley, February 3rd 1971