In an unprecedented move, the British government has officially banned the "far right" organization, National Action, under U.K anti-terrorism laws.
The British government appears to be taking the threat posed by the far-right more seriously than in the past, leading to speculation other groups could be banned in the near future.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd is the one responsible for the decision and she explained her rationale thusly:
"This will mean that being a member of, or inviting support for, this organisation will be a criminal offence. National Action is a racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic organisation which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology, and I will not stand for it. It has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone."
The legislation which gives Rudd the authority to ban National Action is the U.K. Terrorism Act which was initially passed in 2000 but was amended in 2006 after the London bus bombings by Muslim terrorists. The law is basically the U.K.'s version of the Patriot Act but it's actually more stringent since the 2006 amendment allowed for the criminalization of "glorifying terrorism."
The former fedora tipping libertarians on the Alt Right must now be feeling a sense of vindication as legislation originally directed towards Islamic terrorists is now being used to target right-wingers who publicly denounce globalism. It should also be noted that Rudd is a member of the British Conservative Party and was appointed to her position by the Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, this past July. This once again illustrates that the traitorous cuckservatives are our greatest foe.
The significance of this ban must not be lost on the Alt Right. First, this establishes a dangerous precedent that right-wingers can be treated the same as Islamic terrorists and the supporters of this move are indicating this is only a start as they want to widen the ban to include some even more moderate entities like Britain First.
The other organizations banned to date were mostly Islamic ones related to overt acts of terrorism but National Action is not even being accused of committing any acts of terrorism. Supposedly National Action's worst offense, which laid the groundwork for the ban, was tweeting something that could be construed as supporting the murder of Jo Cox. Let that sink in for a moment. The legislation that gave the government the ability to ban this organization was drafted in the wake of an actual terrorist attack by Muslim immigrants but it is now being used to ban organizations that tweet out things liberals don't like.
If you actually review the details, you'll see that all National Action ever really did was engage in street demonstrations or other public events that were intentionally provocative and, like in the speech below, were strongly critical of both globalism and Cultural Marxism.
In essence, much of what they did in real life is no different than what many of us on the Alt Right do in the online world. The ban now makes any membership in the organization or association with it a criminal activity that subjects individuals to arrest and seizure of their related assets. National Action is now no different than ISIS in the eyes of the U.K. government.
What are the implications of this for the Alt Right in the States? The initial reaction most people have when pondering this question is to think that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us from facing a similar fate. Not so fast, goys! This legal researcher compared the U.K. legislation with past U.S. Supreme Court cases and concluded that similar legislation, if carefully drafted, could survive challenges of unconstitutionality. Also keep in mind that if the Democrats win the presidency again, a few Supreme Court appointments would be all it takes for the Court to carve out "hate-speech exceptions" from First Amendment protections quicker than they magically discovered the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed a right to abortion and gay marriage. And lets not forget that, much like the Conservative Party in the U.K., we have our own fair share of traitorous cucks in the Republican Party as well.
The Alt Right should learn from this and, regardless of where one is situated, avoid making any statements which appear to be endorsing or condoning violent acts. That one tweet from National Action was all the U.K. government needed as a pretext for proscribing them as a terrorist organization. This is not to say that we should tolerate such bans but we need to be as strategic as possible so as not to do our enemies' work for them. In terms of the ban, we should work politically to get it lifted and/or get similar bans imposed on far left organizations, like Antifa, who routinely engage in publicly advocating or condoning violence.
The truth is this should be a cause for concern for all of us. The shifting definition of "glorifying terrorism" appears to be broadening to include mere tweets beyond what was originally contemplated when the legislation was enacted. It is true that there is the beginning of a nationalist uprising in the western world, which included the Brexit vote and Trump's election, but the globalists are still in power and they're not giving up without a fight. Demographics have put right-wing voices like the Alt Right in a dire position and we need to act fast or we might find ourselves being on the receiving end of a similar ban in the future.