Patriots, Traitors and Invaders

Patriots, Traitors and Invaders

by Matthew Bracken, dedicated to Tommy Robinson

Here’s a tale of Quisling traitors,
Sold their country to invaders.
The first was shot in forty-five,
But many more are still alive.
When was there a referendum,
Ere our traitors thought to send ’em?
Rivers of blood would be the cost,
Enoch was right, now Britain’s lost.
Bombs and bullets, acid and knives,
Vans on pavements destroying lives.
Showing rape gangs now forbidden,
Poor old Tommy he’s in prison,
While to jihadis flats are given,
And ISIS killers all forgiven.

Hitler’s Nazis could not manage,
What our Quislings done in damage!
If Churchill were around today,
I’m confident that he would say:
“In older and more modern time,
Treason must be capital crime,
Patriots must be supported,
And invaders all deported,
Till our girls walk unmolested,
After British metal’s tested.”
Will saving Blighty come too late,
Before the Saxon learns to hate?
If saving’s coming, it can’t wait,
Or Islam will be Britain’s fate.

44 thoughts on “Patriots, Traitors and Invaders

  1. I notice that Calliope visits GoV quite regularly. Have you thought of setting aside a post and inviting entries from your readers on the subject of you know what? It could be like the Mohammed Cartoons Exhibition, but without the violence. As an, ahem, published poet I’ll chuck a couple in.

  2. “Till our girls walk unmolested,
    After British metal’s tested.””

    “metal” should be “mettle”, right?

    • Etymologically speaking, “metal” and “mettle” are the same word. Their spellings didn’t diverge until the 17th century, when “mettle” gradually became the standard version of the word when applied figuratively, to a person’s character.

    • “Mettle” today simply means resolve or determination.
      “Metal” in this context means steel weapons.
      “Metal’s tested” means the steel weapons are actually used to accomplish Churchill’s goals listed above that line.
      Mettle without metal is just resistance, not a fight for victory.
      Jews in Polish ghettos had plenty of mettle but no metal.
      Look where mettle alone got them.

  3. I recall Dymphna’s remarking some time back, that the brand of Christianity represented by the Church of England is not the kind over which people kill one another.

    I would extrapolate from this, that it speaks to something in the British (and especially the English) character, with its love of moderation. This can be a good thing; civil wars are particularly horrible. However we need to find our backbone soon, and the misinformation, and lack of comprehensive and objective coverage of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam, here and elsewhere, by the BBC and others, is delaying that moment, which may mean it never comes, or that it may be unusually brutal when it does. Neither option is particularly to be wished for; innocent people will suffer either way.

    • No, that’s not what I meant. England became tolerant of religion when religion had ceased to be its foundation. Thus the fates of Thomas a Becket (Henry II), Thomas More (Henry VIII), or Tyn(s)dale were crucial hinge points in British history. The common man danced from loyalty to loyalty as frequently as commanded by the monarchy.

      When Britannia ruled the waves the names it bestowed on the people it conquered or dealt with couldn’t be used today. But when it was flush with power the names for, say, the Chinese or African or Irish are quite startling to modern ears.

      Because now Great Britain’s greatest heresy is not concerned with religious dogmas. Instead, it has claimed the cultural Marxist religion for its own. In this it is like much of the rest of Europe, banning the speech of those who go against its dogma. The list of things one may not say out loud is one that every Brit knows by heart. But religion? Meh. Say what you want…as long as it’s not about Islam. Islam and neo-Marxism are sadly joined at the hip.

      • Sorry, I misremembered. The (current) C of E’s message is unlikely to have people rioting, though!

        • The part of the C of E that isn’t corrupt is sleeping under the pews. The cup is empty.

          Maybe it’s a slow mo karmic working out of the C of E’s beginnings. ‘enry VIII couldn’t resist sacking all those wealthy monasteries and convents. Unfortunately, that meant many people starved – but hey, now England has all those picturesque ruins.

          • And hundreds of former Catholic, now Anglican churches and cathedrals which are not ruins, and one of our great glories.

          • Right. But the history books will tell you that ‘enry was interested in collecting all the wealth of those he destoyed. And now, maybe the Brits could turn over some of those huge, empty cathedrals to, say, the Orthodox Church, which could actually make use of them instead of raking in a few shekels as tourist attractions.

    • May I suggest that in the future, when you wish to make a point, you give your own summary of your point rather than simply linking to dense, 17-page document without a clue as to your objections to it. I don’t know what the Barcelona Declaration is, never heard of it, and I’m not about to look into it without at least some clue as to your reason for posting its link.

      • “Dense” doesn’t even begin to describe the Barcelona Declaration. Makes the ObamaCare bill look easy to read – and they both intentionally obfuscate.

        Fjordman told me about this atrocity when it first came out; attempting to read it made me dysphoric in the extreme. As I recall, the BD was either the EU Constitution itself or served as the model. The punishments for speech violations were dire – up to and including the loss of medical care, housing, pension benefits, etc. IOW, one became a non-person if convicted. See Germany.

  4. Should keep a small counter widget going somewhere on page ” n days in jail and counting” just to remind, as with the amount of news that goes on topics get forgotten.

    Unusual that Hannan stepped in on Tommy in the way he did, he tends to go towards freedoms and knock establishment a certain amount… anyway there is a good rebuttal of his position at :

    Here is another questionable event… ” two second” conversation with Muslim councillor “helps get” three months of jail sentence for renouncing EDL.

    Not that I care one way or the other of private loyalties in this, the point being law granting unseen influence and possible corruption of justice.

    • Hannan is married to a Muslima. He is NOT well-disposed towards the Counterjihad.

      • It’s a shame then, because he is otherwise highly intelligent and articulate, and often stands against entrenched authority in the name of personal freedom.

        I suppose he necessarily recognises law as final arbiter, being in the realm of lawmaker, and so his attention will go towards respect of process. He did not have to comment on this case though, in fact there is an article of his linked in to his tweet feed that supports the sentence, an article which is not convincing because it just does not address the fundamental discussion

        That is more or less what the media ban on Tommy ( if not the case he was following) itself aimed to achieve.

        Technically Tommy did not stream from court, and neither of participants in a trial but people on their way to participate in a trial. Yes, there is a difference – otherwise he is saying that anyone taking a photo of the accused anywhere in public ( cctv e.g.) is guilty, in fact he is saying even the accused walking in public where they can be seen makes everyone else guilty. This line of thinking does not stand. If he wants to prejudge intent then we are into the realm of thought crime…and as there is no triable case to be made without acts as evidence – Tommy was actually keeping to the terms imposed by his previous sentence, the court was prejudiced by its own previous opinion which should not have been projected onto his most recent acts where they were not in breach … so we head into the realms of dictatorial authority expanding onto public freedoms.

        Again, it is a shame he is so muddled on this.

        • Hannan is confused between moral uprightness and the duty to react to such abuses and effectively technicalities, which is what one has come to expect from less well educated and informed generations. In my day there was the much vaunted “Average Man on the Clapham Omnibus”- a paragon of public commonsense and virtue. I actually met and heard the great Lord Denning Master of the Rolls.

          Denning was of the opinion that a duty lay within us all to be lawful and ensure justice be done and seen to be done! He would have had great sympathy for Tommy Robinson and outrage at the double standards of modern “Lawfare”, that are in their very nature voided by their clear misuse by the State to silence a greater crime of mass paedophilia. Before I became an Archaeologist, I studied English Law.

          The principle has always been, that no law nor decision based upon its false premise can stand. There is evidence within the arrest of Robinson to show premeditated intent to silence him. The Americans call this type of operation “entrapment”, or a “Sting” to use cruder terminology.

          The Left have a tendency to create retrospective actions and laws. Denning said clearly in Judgement that backdated laws are bad law. “It is the judges that make the common law. Do you know how they make it? Just as a man makes laws for his dog. When your dog does anything you want to break him of, you wait till he does it, then beat him for it. And this is the way the judges make law for you and me.”[1] When Lord Denning came up with the neighbour principle[2], had he developed a new law or had he only recognized and enforced a law that had already existed, but which his predecessors had failed to discover? A quick look at the question and the answer would most likely be the first for most people…

          Tommy Robinson instinctively recognised a gap within the law and how it was applied- with clear and intended prejudice by an increasingly Islamified state the UK now represents. He should not have been kidnapped by state enforcers that are guilty now of common assault at the very least but more that likely abduction. Law is not simply a technicality and practice that Hannon and others appear to treat it but a living evolving entity- “the spirit of the law” is what is meant herein

          Tommy is that modern man on a Luton Omnibus, simply doing what we should all be doing- ensuring that the Rule of Law and the freedoms they protect, or are supposed to are not the playthings of extremist thugs in “Parliament” with a pro-Islamic agenda, nor wordsmiths like “Ain’t No Flies On Me!” Hannan.

          A wrong has been done and the average decent man demands justice be done and seen to be done. Hannan simply plays the epitome of the slippery legal technician that represents most modern lawyers these days. I prefer the older style when law was a vocation, not a political ladder to make a name for oneself.

          • There’s a huge problem for your interpretation of the law in a diverse society. In a relatively homogeneous culture, you can have a valid common understanding. Government officials and prosecutors who ignore the common mores stand out, unless they operate in secrecy.

            But, in a diverse society, you no longer have share mores, and therefore, the details of a law become crucial. What you consider to be common ethics are not viewed as important by a significant segment of the multi-cultural society.

            Not being familiar with British affairs except through GoV, I know nothing of Hannan, but observe the oddity of his being married to a Muslima. Generally, Islam forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. Exceptions can always be made in the case of hijrah though, where any deception or breaking of sharia law is accepted as long as it is for the purpose of the advance of Islam.

          • I may be wrong about Hannan being married to a Muslima — I may be confusing him with Grover Norquist, who is DEFINITELY married to a Muslima — but Mr. Hannan is certainly no friend to our movement. He’s a Turcophile, among other things. I just went back and dug up our piece on him from back in 2014:

            ‘Last year Mr. Hannan referred to the AKP — the fundamentalist Islamic party headed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan — as “democratic, Muslim, free-market and popular”.’

            And that sounds like Grover Norquist, actually — “conservative” means “free market”, and not much else.

          • I think you are both right there…but you move away from duty and morality towards a technical imposition of an ever expanding legal code and at some point it will visibly fail. The law, in the sense of a book of law, does nothing, it just sits on a shelf, only people are capable of breathing life into its meaning – so it is ALWAYS a human force that is instrumental, the only question is what kind – one that resides in technical detail or one that more closely resides in moral sentiment.

            The truth is that once the law is written in a form that excludes traditional moral concepts, there is little or no place for a judge who would otherwise adhere to them.

            That is a sad thought.


            Well you had me searching on Hannan and I do not think his wife is muslim. Hannan, no matter what opinion anyone holds on him, has been absolutely instrumental, since his youth even, in getting UK out of EU, so I really feel not to criticise him. The Friends of Turkey theme…well that is maybe a one off, in general he talks in neutral terms ( which won’t suit you maybe) to further right. So some examples of the spectrum :



            I just say that because personally I think there are other characters much more deserving of your kind of attention.

            He plans to leave politics shortly I think.

      • To phrase the presence of accused in public as implying the guilt of society due to reporting restrictions, by looking at fundamental values :

        People record (see) the world around them, report (communicate) it to others, as well as broadcasting (speaking) their view.

        Therefore according to the reporting ban, anyone who communicates or speaks of what they have seen (an accused) is in contempt of court.

        This is not an illusionary statement, as the sentiments of people, their perceptions, are strongly shaped by imposed implication of possible guilt. People go silent just because something is considered taboo, and that sense of taboo may start with reporting restrictions which are recgnisable as applying to an individual’s own actions.

        At the extreme of judging Tommy by presumed intent only, just seeing (recording) the accused in public would make a person guilty.

        Who is the guilty in broadcasting though, the broadcaster or the listener? Digital broadcasting does not imply anyone is watching – everyone may be tuned to another channel, no one may be following a live stream. So does placing a point of view where someone might see it count as reporting or broadcasting in its fuller sense? We are not talking of shouting from a street corner here, where passers-by may not escape the words, but instead placing a point of view where it is accessible to those who choose to tune in to it. That really implies a transmission of any “guilt” of the broadcaster by association to the listener, assuming any listener is capable of choosing to tune out at will. So it is really a communication ban.

        The point used to justify this ban is the possible prejudice this might cause to a jury.

        However if you do not want any part of the whole of society and its total natural communications to inadvertently be heard by the jury in case it might influence it, you only have two choices. You either coercively silence the whole of society, or you create a circumstance where the twelve jurors cannot/do not listen to/hear society.

        That is you either spend your time jumping around, with mistrials, taking control of the whole public domain, or you oblige jurors to stay away from all media during a trial, to the extent that they actively change their routine and “connectedness” for that duration.

        The correct answer of those two seems very very simple to me.

        Maybe the truth is closer to “authority” not wanting a naturally “prejudiced” society, that is to say it seeks to fit the whole of society into and as per the role of potential jurors in any future case. It misses a point though, court is not society, and society is busy independently judging its own actions by the millions every second of every day, as it needs to – if allowed.

      • He’ll announce his conversion when it suits him down the road, like many of the now-cautious traitor elite, who put their wet fingers in the wind every day of their lives.

        • Either Daniel John Hannon MEP has converted to Islam in order to marry a Muslima (if she is/was? – her maiden name was Sara Maynard) according to Sharia and simply hasn’t declared, or his wife is no longer a Muslima having left the cult and is thus in perpetual danger of being killed by her family or any other Muslim who has an opportunity. That is Sharia.

          The other possibility is that this is a marriage of Muslim/Conservative political convenience with Hannon being ostensibly British whilst having both feet firmly planted inside the Muslim tent thus giving his wife immunity from ritual slaughter in the cause of the advancement of the Umma as a whole.

  5. This poem was originally read by Matthew Bracken on an Infowars/Prison Planet broadcast, where Bracken frequently fills in for the show. In the Infowars/Prison Planet video, Bracken puts the poem into context. Is the mention of Alex Jones for some reason taboo at Gates of Vienna?

    • No, Alex Jones isn’t a taboo subject here. We were just out of commission when he read the piece, but had already been sent a copy to post. The B particularly liked Matt Bracken’s accompanying image. IIRC, some Alex Jones material has made it into our newsfeed since one particular contributor likes him.

    • Quite right, I sent it to GoV first, but the site was down past the airing of my appearance on the AJS, which only comes every other Monday.

      • Strictly speaking, the site was up, but the hosts were down! A goat must have chewed on the server box down the road from us. Or something.

        • That goat won’t fly. You know very well, Mr. B, that it was the darn deluge what done the damage. Remember when we saw Noah’s Ark go floating by?

  6. A victim of a terrorist attack contacted the British Prime minister asking why Sharia Law was being condoned, the Home office gave this reply.

    “British values are muslim values.. The Government are determined to promote these values actively.. Muslims are crucial to British history and British life today..”

    Imagine this response to an IRA atrocity?

    • Searched that^tfw&

      and it seems credible even if not sourced, has not been denied by home office.

      Alt news sources who want to remain credible should set up an independent clearing house that serves all, tagging news as verified, credible, dubious, false. Before linking news that may ruin credibility publishers would have something to fall back on, the rating – if they include it with the post . It is quite possible some false news is purposefully generated to catch the publisher out.

      So for example the above @Saperkins tweeted

      as true and of concern, still not corrected.

      It is important, false news will send serious people away and they will not return to that source, or political theme even.

      Further down the replies to the tweet linked there is a comment showing OIC relabelling “religiophobia” into being a contemporary form of racism.

      It isn’t, it is sectism or sectophobia if we want to generalise and not include islam in particular.

      What stands out is that Islam is a sect, and so sectist, but nationalists are not sectists per say, they uphold national identity (nation – land of origin) so maybe territorial dominion by cultural origin and descent (which is basically a territorial tribal community, a base reality of means of survival, conservation and evolution). You cannot surpass the latter in any academic gobbledegook either – it is only people saying “Hey – this is ours !”.

      The twist or irony is that those DEFENDERS are being labelled as practicing sectism, and hence racism by the new definition , because they notice an outside sect appearing in their surroundings and reject it.

      So maybe being called racist, if you use the OIC definition, is actually a compliment – it would mean people who oppose (invading) sects.

      See what the revisionists have done by playing with words and definitions, apart from creating confusion (which is part of their aim – multifusion ) they have shot themselves in the foot. Duh.

      • I’m struck by the huge focus on avoiding being labeled. It’s like people are afraid to be labeled by any term that smacks even remotely of …being disapproved of by other people.

        The term “racist” has long since lost any original usefulness, and is now mainly used by blacks who are upset that someone disagrees with them, or by people wanting to justify violence, or by people who simply want to shut up debate.

        The original definition of racist was one who refused to deal with a qualified individual because of his color. In fact, that definition, while seeming to to be logically indefensible, may actually no longer be so dysfunctional. For instance, if you wanted to preserve a certain race, say whites, you might refuse entry to Asians to a community you were forming. You might acknowledge the Asians were perfectly peaceful, productive, and would contribute material value to your community, but turn them down simply because they were not white.

        As long as racist actions were carried out by private individuals and not by the government, I see no real objection. The Supreme Court in 1948 declared the courts would no longer enforce “restrictive covenants” in real estate, by the real estate contract specified negroes could not buy the property. That decision was perfectly justified: government has no place enforcing racial provisions.

        However, Chicago real estate agents used “redlining”, where there was an informal arrangement to not sell property in certain areas to certain people. Of course, redlining is a major focus of the affirmative action brigade, and is criminally illegal. But, I see redlining as simple freedom of association. Private decisions to indulge one’s opinions, or even one’s prejudices or racism, should not be a concern of the government.

        The flip side of the coin is that if you’re living in a redlined district, and, say, wanted to marry a black, that’s your right and you have every right to expect the usual protection from the police.

        Where I’m going is that the boundary between what is considered fashionable or “correct” and what is considered legal, is being made fuzzy. Someone outed as a “racist” stands to lose his job and his physical security, because of the inefficiency of government agencies to perform their primary duties: ensure the physical security of the individual.

        • Redlining was used to serious effect in St. Louis – the city. Essentially, their actions ending up chasing black people out into St. Louis County where housing was cheaper, causing a lot of dislocation and suffering. The jobs were in the city, but the houses were too expensive. No transportation out in the county’s ninety hamlets/jurisdictions so everyone had to get a car or bum a ride. The small towns all have differing speed traps, and the costly court appearances for traffic violations have been a revenue boon to those places.

          The whole thing is an unethical morass…I believe I read this sad tale in City Journal before that shooting in Ferguson (F is in St. Louis County, as are hundreds of liquor stores). I’ll see if I can find it.

          • To be honest, Dympthna, I don’t know what your point is. Redlining is a somewhat ham-handed way of preserving the value and characteristics of a neighborhood, including a safe environment.

            If fact, a good way for black communities and white communities to co-exist is to practice redlining. It allows different peoples to live in proximity, developing their own institutions, and giving their own identity to their neighborhood.

            Your statement that redlining….ended up chasing black people out into St. Louis County “where housing was cheaper” is curious. Does that mean that redlining artificially raised the prices of housing? If blacks were on the whole less affluent than whites, it stands to reason they would congregate in the cheaper housing areas. I fail to see any injustice.

            The Heather MacDonald article you cited strongly suggested that black drivers were disproportionately stopped because they disproportionately committed traffic offenses that result in being stopped: driving without insurance, driving with illegally-loud car speakers blasting, driving with illegally tinted windows. The MSM version, which MacDonald debunks, is that blacks are forced by poverty to depend on cars for jobs, but because they’re poor, they’re targeted by a prejudiced police because they’re black and poor. The reality is that these drivers are not obeying the laws.

            When you come right down to it, redlining is freedom of association. Freedom of Association is absolutely vital to develop neighborhood identity, extended family groupings, coherent communities and a supportive environment.
            Role of Extended Family in Childraising

            Under informal (not enforced by courts) redlining, blacks may not be able to live in certain neighborhoods, as will non-Orthodox Jews, low-income whites, etc. You may start having neighborhoods coalesce, so you have a distinct Polish neighborhood, distinct Serbian Greek Orthodox, whatever. The neighborhood will be concentrated enough with one ethnic or religious group that it can support institutions like churches that might otherwise not be able to exist there.

            If you want to live with people in a mixed-race, mixed culture environment, there wouldn’t be a thing stopping you from moving into those types of areas: but again, your geographic choices would be limited.

            I do not consider myself under any obligation to ensure that an affluent, decent, honest, law-abiding black will be able to live anywhere he wants. I think the harm coming from real freedom of association is far outweighed by the increase in the quality of life and family settings that would result.

          • The reality is that these drivers are not obeying the laws.

            That is the endpoint, but the lived reality is more complicated than that. With ninety different jurisdictions, each with its own speed laws, the roads to St. Louis are a vast speed trap. Work is lost by attendance at court and the courts are over-crowded because the revenue generated is an easy way to scrape by.

            St Louis County is a sad, balkanized place.

        • Well in theory at least (smiling), being a racist should be no different than being say a botanist.

          You really have to wonder who is trying to emphasize the racial aspect and why in any dispute, and if they should be allowed to. I also see no reason an individual should not decide on racial grounds, as long as they are civil about it.

          In Spain for example, to some locals British are guiris… and you know the attitude of taking advantage, criticism, and distrust that goes with that… but as long as it is not openly hostile, we just smile through it and have our own little laugh also. The idea of complaining about racism just does not occur to most expats, though more lately there are British visitors (leftish) who will happily judge the Spanish, in their own country, for being racist towards say Africans or Muslims… and they are often… and they don’t care for otherwise… and until more recently they were also very straight with them, offering a low position but with a basic dignity that is rarely found elsewhere, even in the welfare states. That world is changing now.

          • “You really have to wonder who is trying to emphasize the racial aspect and why in any dispute, and if they should be allowed to.”

            Clarification – meaning multiculturalists emphasize the racial aspect, even if it is in a claim to impose equality.

            “Allowed to” was meant in conversation – do you cede to their view or not. It was not meant in terms of imposing legal restriction etc.

  7. Today many educated Muslims want to leave Islam but are afraid that they will be killed by their fellow religionists. Hence the Muslims must be first shown a safe path so that they renounce Islam but does not arouse suspicion among their fellow Muslims. See

Comments are closed.