Share |

Thursday 15 January 2015

Review: ‘Angry, White and Proud’, Channel 4, 15 January 2015

“I saw my first dead jihadi when I was ten years old.” (Paul, commenting on his childhood recollection of a Muslim Turk who had crossed the Green Line in Cyprus). 

“Don’t tarnish us all as racists, bigots, Nazis.” (Andy, speaking after recounting how his son died at the age of 19 defending one of his comrades whilst on his first tour of duty in Afghanistan).

“There’s no threats of violence. Yet.” (Colin, reflecting upon the possible direction of future direct action by splinter groups within the nationalist movement).  

The narrator opened the documentary by revealing that he had spent a year getting to know the individuals whose personal perspectives and stories formed the primary subject matter of the programme. That he had successfully gained a degree of trust was apparent from the sense of ease with which the subjects of his piece spoke about their personal motivations for involvement in anti-Islamist direct action. It was thus an insightful piece of journalism infused with human interest, and a degree of sympathy for individuals who often indulged in actions and behaviours that would ordinarily elicit little other than unease, if not outright revulsion.  

The film provided a snapshot of just one of the small groups – the South London Infidels (SLI) – to have emerged from the fragmentation of the English Defence League (EDL), and from what was on display here, the EDL of old appeared to be very moderate by comparison. Although each of the SLI members interviewed claimed a political motivation – specifically an anti-Islamist one – for their actions, it was evident that for some this was indeed simply a peg upon which they hung their innate anger, as was made most clear by Colin, who at the beginning of the programme revealed that he had been a “tearaway as a youth”, before graduating to football hooliganism, the ‘Far Right’ (interestingly he here interjected that it could just as well have been the Left, as they’re “both the same”) and anti-Islamism. He stated that he had joined the nationalist movement six years ago and that he hated Muslims “with a passion!” Together with someone named Jason, he had set up the SLI. 

Apparently, Colin’s own mother habitually refers to him as “a dick”. Towards the end of the programme, he had gravitated towards more hard-core interpretations of nationalism, associating himself with individuals sympathising with the Golden Dawn, as well as Combat 18. He had come to believe that the formation of some kind of militia or ‘task force’ to deal with the Islamist threat was both desirable and inevitable. So far, so bad. Colin confessed that “I’m in a bit of a bad place at the moment”, before later going on to admit that he didn’t like himself, and that he’d directed his self-hatred outwards in anger channelled through the comradeship of the groups to which he had attached himself. Worse still, he claimed that he knew of violent actions that had recently taken place, but that he was not prepared to divulge details, as he did not wish to incriminate his sources or the perpetrators of these violent acts. He was thus the living embodiment of the far-right extremist that everyone loves to hate: the belligerent, self-loathing ex-football hooligan skinhead turned defender of patriotic values, advocating violence against his objects of hate. To top it all, he was half Italian and half Irish.  

Paul, another SLI member, was born in Tottenham of Cypriot parentage, hence his nightmarish childhood recollection of an incident in Cyprus. In talking about the group’s demonstrations, he stated: “We’re not looking for violence, but believe me, if we’re attacked, we’ll defend ourselves.” He said this ahead of a demonstration in Brighton shortly after St George’s Day, where it was anticipated that there would be a confrontation with counter-demonstrators. Paul and his fellow SLI members were not to be disappointed on this score, as ‘anti-fascist’ campaigners and ‘nationalists’ got into a bit of a ruck and threw sundry pieces of street furniture around a Brighton street. Neither a good day for the locals, nor the police. The violence that was traded between the two sides seemed to bear witness to Colin’s comment that the Far Right and the Far Left were in this respect alike. Paul however, disowned one tenet of traditional ‘Far Right’ belief: “No, I’m not a racist. I think that’s offensive.” Although, unlike Colin, Paul did not advocate the formation of a militia, by the end of the documentary he stated that he thought that “we will end up in a sectarian war,” and that this would inevitably lead to the formation of a militia if the Government fails to act sufficiently strongly to combat radical Islam. 

The SLI activities that were shown – marching in Brighton and latterly in Rotherham in connection with the cover-up of mass child abuse by Pakistani taxi drivers because of ‘cultural sensitivities’, turning up outside of Regent’s Park Mosque to confront Anjem Choudary, and appearing at a Muslim Brotherhood bookshop – all seemed to involve a great deal of shouting, ill temper and the threat (sometimes the use of) violence. It was a depressing display. Clearly, many who are involved in this group and others like it are in it primarily for the adrenaline kick that they obtain from indulging their violent impulses, but others – such as Andy – have evidently become involved in these groups because they feel that their concerns regarding Islamism are not being adequately addressed.
All in all, it made for dispiriting viewing. Islamism could be tackled and defeated quite easily in this country if our political leaders possessed the will, but it seems that with few exceptions, they do not. “Why not?” you may ask. It would appear that the unwillingness to act derives from a combination of factors, such as the internalised belief that multiculturalism and cultural relativism are ‘a good thing’, a desire not to alienate Muslim voters, and, most importantly of all, the socially corrosive impact of Saudi and Qatari capital, and the vigorous export of Wahhabi ideology by the Saudis. Out of the high-profile electable political parties, UKIP might be willing to tackle some of these problems, but, I suspect, not all of them.


  1. I doubt that UKIP would tackle any but the most superficial aspects of it seeing as they are just a globalist Tory Thatcheite party. When Lord Pearson was the leader, he seemed to have a bit of an idea about the problems radical Islam can cause. It's hugely depressing that Britain in 2015 has no credible nationalist party for people to vote for (something we share with only one other country in Europe now ie the Republic of Ireland).

    I doubt this situation will improve either as the British Democratic Party is virtually stillborn and they hardly bother to put-up candidates for election. Not that this matters a great deal anyway, as this party seems to me to be merely the old BNP under a new name. I did consider joining it but if you look at its website and facebook page a Mr Mike Newland (ex BNP) seems intent on snuffing-out any real debate about homosexuality and shares the homophobic opinions of the old party. One poster (John Shaw) wants the party to turn the clock back to the 1980's and bring back Mrs Thatcher's notorious and inherently unworkable Section 28. If only nationalists in this country done the sensible thing and had a relatively liberal line on the subject like Marine Le Pen's party does in France then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be regarded by the public as highly authoritarian 'fascists' intent on prying into people's private lives and wanting to establish a very authoritarian state and we would be perceived as genuine and moderate nationalists who would be 'safe' to vote for.

    This Mike Newland is probably the BDP's moderator and from the way he has reacted to a poster called 'Steven' on the website is certainly no democrat. We need a new nationalist party that is moderate, genuine and STOPs ranting and raving about the unchangeable sexual orientations of a very small percentage of the population. Your proposed party sounded good. It's a real shame it never came into existence as we need a party like that more than ever.

    1. I agree that Lord Pearson was more clued up on this matter than Farage. I'll be writing something in-depth on my current thoughts regarding UKIP and the wider political scene in the coming month. I also agree with you that I do not see a party to which I can lend my full support. When it comes to the General Election, it will have to be a case of pragmatism and casting my vote for the candidate who stinks the least.

      As for the broad outlines I proposed for a new party a couple of years' ago, it seemed that what united people the most - and possibly the only thing that united them - was what they were against rather than what they were for, which is a pretty sad situation. By way of illustration, my first and third articles on this theme received - and continue to receive - a very considerable number of hits, but the second, dealing with policy proposals, elicited a much more lukewarm reaction. Other than opposition to mass immigration, the EU and Islamisation, there seemed to be little regarding a unifying set of interests, and you cannot build a coherent political party without sound policy positions anchored in some sort of broad philosophy regarding the social good and economic policy.

      Any new party in which I would wish to be involved would have at its core something positive to strive for, rather than simply being opposed to the three aforementioned issues. Yes, they are important, but so are employment, industrial policy, education, pensions, housing, the environment and intellectual freedom. If there is nothing positive to be said about these things, it is best to avoid party politics altogether, and simply to address these three problems via pressure groups and campaigning.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.