First, I thought it was racial, and then decided it could not be, since I was made to feel welcome at dinners of TBG in its former guises.
Then I thought it was because of something I had said, and I do say so many things. However, because I do say so many things, I am not sure which of the views I have been known to express has caused so much offence and horror.
Despite persistent questioning over an extended period of time, my investigations and requests have yielded nothing I can get my teeth into.
"You are a loose cannon" was the most I got out of Gregory Lauder Frost as you can see at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-i-think-of-gregory-lauder-frosts.html when I, even if I were white and male would have refrained from spending nearly an hour advocating the repatriation of non-white British citizens without for once going into the question of how this was to be accomplished. If he wants voluntary repatriation, then GLF should join the BNP or say he votes BNP. If he wants forced repatriation he should join the NF or say he votes NF. But he is only a member of UKIP. I am not saying he has no right to say what he says, mind, merely pointing out that it is not politic now to say such things without expecting to be eviscerated by the liberal media for being so out of touch that he thinks saying that voluntary repatriation was a policy of the Conservative Party in the 1970s is enough to get him off the hook of racism.
In any case, what is the point of asking for things you know will be refused out of hand? I think GLF confuses complaining with effective activism.
I know I could be accused of doing the same thing myself, but I am always delighted when people challenge me and explain why I think what I do and what I propose to do to make it happen.
I speculated that it might have been my antifeminist views that might have caused my exclusion. Indeed, at one time I was convinced that that must have been it, but GLF assured me that they at the TBG were antifeminist too.
Although this response does not appear to make much sense, it seems that GLF is saying that he and TBG are indeed opposed to feminism.
But if so, then surely I should have been invited to give a talk on the subject myself at the TBG conference?
So what could it be, if the reason for my exclusion was neither because of my race nor my political views?
If one is accused of something it would be helpful to know what exactly one is supposed to have done. That is the whole point of habeas corpus, after all. If we are being accused of something terrible then that thing must be specified so that we can make some sort of an attempt to question the validity of that accusation. I am not saying that they do not have a right to exclude me, but it would be manly and honorable for them to give me a proper reason.
A TBG spokesperson confirms Heaton-Gent’s exit from the committee, along with Liam Stokes, an agriculture student, and Henry Hopwood-Phillips, who has described his political views, as “Spengler meets Zizek via UKIP” (Oswald Spengler was a German philosopher; Slavoj Zizek is a Slovenian thinker).
Hopwood-Phillips declines to answer questions. In an email, Stokes says he left the TBG when it became clear it was not “moderate, mainstream, or socially conservative.” Apart from Lauder-Frost, remaining committee members are Louis Welcomme, a Newcastle graduate who did not respond to emails [This is what the BNP do too!], and George Jones, who declines to talk about the TBG “without my lawyer present”.
Jack Buckby is a 20-year-old student once tipped as the next Nick Griffin, the party’s leader. He is also a TBG supporter and was invited to its Rees-Mogg dinner and subsequent AGM. Earlier this year, he was introduced by Griffin at a meeting of the Alliance of European National Movements, a far-right group also supported by France’s Front National.
“I think people view students as generally left-wing but that’s not the case,” he says. “I joined the BNP because it’s one of few places conservative students can go. Conservative Future is packed with left-wingers and dictated to by those with a modern, liberal consensus. It’s not for traditionalists.”
Buckby left the BNP a few months ago when the “open race hatred became unacceptable.” But he agrees with the TBG view that Mrs Lawrence is “totally without merit”. He says he “detests Islam” and fears Britain will become an Islamic state by 2050. In May, he launched Liberty GB. Its “plan to save Britain” includes halting all immigration for five years and abolishing the Human Rights Act.
A prominent recent study supports Buckby’s view that youth politics is veering to the right.
|The photo sent had a pose somewhat resembling Michelangelo's David but with a rather friendlier expression and an enormously larger member.|
Here it is, but cropped:
I fear it might get me into trouble if I displayed the photograph of his tumescent member which I fear would only excite murderous envy in other men, or worse, homosexually arouse them.
I remember complimenting him on his "magnificent erection" and I quite understand how proud he was of it, but it is not politic to do such things, surely.
Even older experienced career male politicians, who really ought to know better, seem addicted to this sort of behaviour.
Anyway, I thought nothing of this until months later when I found myself disabled from commenting on the TBG Facebook page. Despite quite extensive and persistent enquiries, I was never given an official reason in the form of "Your views on X was found to be objectionable and we do not wish to associate with you in any way at all."
All I ask is that they tell me which of my views are so beyond the pale that they render me not fit to attend their meetings when they are themselves already social pariahs.
If the reasons are racial, I would encourage them to say so.
I invite them to consider how much more useful it would be for them if I used my energy and talents to attack the liberal establishment, and I can only attack them more effectively if I have their support and endorsement.
My resentment is particularly directed at BDP Chairman Kevin Scott who also refuses to give me an official reason for my exclusion. I am not for one moment demanding that they must let me join their party or group, I only ask that they give me a morally and intellectually defensible reason.
If they are honest and admit that their reasons for excluding me are in fact racial, then I promise them I really will shut up and go away. I just want them to have the courage to say so.