The TUC march against Cuts: why not against Globalisation?

An estimated 100,000 people are said to be heading to London today to participate in a TUC-organised protest against government spending cuts. Of course, there is a justifiable and palpable sense of anger at the axing of jobs and public services, but I wonder, how many of those people taking to the streets today actually comprehend what lies at the root of the cuts and the economic crisis that has brought them about? I am of course, referring to globalisation. Given that the TUC and the last government (as well as the current one of course) are vigorous advocates and enablers of this process, this protest is utterly misdirected and quixotic. If those who march today genuinely wish to defend public services and jobs, they should be marching against globalisation.

Whereas the BBC and other media outlets invariably highlight the expense arising from the policing of EDL demonstrations, there is no such mention of the costs of deploying 4,500 police in London today.

Disgracefully, one of the unprincipled architects of our current economic plight – Ed Miliband – will be attending the march, despite the fact that he has no alternative suggestions to remedy the budget deficit or our economic malaise. His profligate globalising policies would only serve to hasten our terminal decline. According to the BBC, Miliband yesterday stated

‘that “the voices of the mainstream majority” would be making themselves heard.’

“I think the government will be making a great mistake if they somehow dismiss all of the people on that march as troublemakers or just ‘the same old people’. They are not.” '

If you took part in this march today, please wake up to the fact that what you are doing will count for absolutely nothing if you do not actively oppose globalisation and instead seek to defend our national interests and national sovereignty.

"You can never stop Islam. You can never, ever stop it."

So says Ibrahim Sadiq-Conlon, an Australian Muslim convert in an excerpt from the Australian show 60 Minutes. He heads a group named Sharia4Australia, evidently modelled on Anjem Choudhary’s Sharia4UK. They are like peas in a pod, both despising the nature of the societies in which they reside.

The reporter speaks not only to individuals involved in the Islamist movement in Australia and the UK, but also to Tommy Robinson and other supporters of the EDL. Once again, as in other recent television appearances, Robinson acquits himself well in the interview. It would seem that he is becoming quite a seasoned performer, and this in itself is encouraging, as he has now emerged as a confident and articulate representative of the anti-Islamisation movement in the UK today.

Encouragingly, the well-known journalist Leo McKinstry was also interviewed, voicing his support for the EDL and highlighting that something had to be done to counter Islamisation in the UK. Although the 60 Minutes report makes for interesting viewing, and generally shies away from demonising the EDL, it does unfortunately refer to the pressure group as ‘far right’ and the piece ends with the reporter delivering a paean to Australian multiculturalism. The whole piece is soured by his unfortunate injection of moral equivalence into the concluding remarks that refer to "extremism on both sides" in Britain. If he means that the EDL are being extremely reasonable, then I agree, but I really don’t think that that was his implied meaning.

Of course, the reporter couldn’t resist setting up an interview with Anjem Choudhary, who delivered just what we’d expect of him by stating that “Multiculturalism is anathema to Muslims and Islam.” What he really should have said, is that anything that is not Islamic is anathema to Muslims and Islam.

The Australian Defence League is still in its infancy, and has yet to acquire the momentum and popular support of the EDL. Hopefully, for the sake of all Australians, the ADL will put a stop to Islamisation of Australia before the rot proceeds as far as in the UK.

Danish Integration Minister Soren Pind speaks Sense

Unlike David Cameron’s mealy-mouthed posturing over the redundancy of multiculturalism and the need for immigrant ‘integration’, the recently appointed Danish Integration Minister Soren Pind has spelled out quite clearly what he expects of immigrants: assimilate or you’re not welcome. Immigrants should adopt and identify with Danish values. Those who come to Denmark should become culturally Danish, and not seek to impose their values and norms upon Danish society.

The report below notes that, unsurprisingly, Pind’s rational views have not been shared by a number of Danish citizens. For some bizarre reason (echoes of the BBC here), the reporters visited a school near Aarhus named Langkaer Gymnasium to solicit the opinions of some of the pupils, and yet chose only to interview Muslims. The attitudes of these young people is thus unsurprisingly anti-Danish, and it becomes abundantly clear that when they enter adult society they will form a resentful fraction within Danish society that will make life worse for the native population because of their open hostility towards the Danish way of life. One of the boys says “but of course we should integrate in Denmark so we can work in Denmark and take an education in Denmark”. That remark is very telling: they are only in Denmark to take advantage of the benefits that the country offers, and to settle the Danish homeland and make it their own. They do not see themselves as obliged to offer anything in return, or to respect the values and culture of their host society. They are the offspring of hostile colonists who should be ejected. Muslims integrate into the body politic of a host society like shrapnel integrates itself into the body of an unfortunate veteran: they constitute an unwelcome, painful and debilitating presence.

Despite opposition to Pind in the Danish parliament from, amongst others, the Social Democrats, he has the backing of colleagues in the government. It would seem that at long last a European government is beginning to pursue the right kind of policies with respect to preserving the interests of its indigenous people. Don’t expect to see David Cameron or any other mainstream UK politician calling for, let alone implementing, such a policy.

Lampedusa’s Libyan Burden

Whilst the media’s attention has been transfixed by David Cameron’s successful efforts to entangle the UK in yet another conflict, this time in a civil war in which we have neither stake nor interest, the human traffickers of North Africa have seen this as a golden opportunity to make a killing. Cynically exploiting the EU oligarchy’s penchant for favouring exotic alien incomers over their own people, our deliberately lax immigration system and perverse human rights legislation, they have been ferrying North Africans of various nationalities across the sea to Lampedusa. The initial wave was Tunisian, but now Libyans make up the bulk of the most recent arrivals.

As with the earlier influx of economic migrants masquerading as refugees, this current batch, as can be seen from the video footage below, appears to be exclusively male. Why would European countries wish to accommodate thousands of men who possess a psychology shaped by a religion – Islam, naturally – that states that all women who are not covered up are basically whores who are ‘asking for it’ and get all that they ‘deserve’? The admission of such people into our societies will lead to an increase in violence against women, specifically our women. If this were the only reason not to admit them, it would be a compelling one, but there are many other reasons for keeping them out too.

This week’s Libyan invasion of Lampedusa has swamped the island’s holding facility for such incomers. With room to accommodate 850 economic migrants, it has had to contain 2,000. So far this year, 9,000 North African economic migrants have used political unrest in the Arab world as a pretext to enter Lampedusa with a view to gaining entry to the EU labour market. So blasé have the human traffickers become with respect to the EU’s unwillingness to protect its own nations from hostile alien settlement, that a Moroccan ferry appeared off the Lampedusan coast this week carrying 1,500 Libyans. We are told that it was turned back, but where will it turn up next? What would happen in future if a flotilla of such vessels appeared just off some European shore? This is invasion. If David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have an itch to employ our armed forces to protect our nations’ interests – as is their only proper use – then why do they not deploy them to prevent this human flood out of Africa? All of those who have arrived on Lampedusa this year should be repatriated to their countries of origin immediately. This is the only way in which we can send out an essential message: do not come, for you are not welcome and you shall not enter.

Unsurprisingly, the Independent earlier this week ran a leading article entitled ‘Europe has an obligation to these desperate African refugees’. It too makes reference to the ferry, but claims that it carried 1,800 people whom it baselessly denied were economic migrants.

Fortress Europe has closed its gates. This week a ferry left Tripoli carrying 1,800 people. The vessel was first turned away from Malta. Then it was refused permission to put ashore at Lampedusa, the small island south of the Sicilian mainland. The passengers on this vessel are not economic migrants, but refugees from a war zone. Most are believed to be North Africans who were working in Tripoli when the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi's regime began. Their mistake is to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, their mistake is ‘to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time’, for if ‘most’ on board were supposed to be North African migrant workers, why wasn’t the ferry ferrying them to their home countries? The idea that they were seeking entry to the EU as refugees is thus risible. These people are quite clearly economic migrants who should be returned post-haste to their countries of origin. The ferry ought to be escorted by military vessels to the nearest safe North African port where it can begin to unload its human cargo.

Still, at least the comments section attached to this Independent article reveals that at least a proportion of its readers vigorously disagree with the sentiments of the leader article. These readers appear to possess more sympathy with the attitude of Marine Le Pen, who rightly visited Lampedusa to highlight the plight of the long-suffering islanders who have had to cope with this unbidden human incursion from North Africa. The islanders' patience is wearing thin, and PI News reports that 100 of them have recently held a protest against North African migration to their island. Will the leaders of the EU listen? Sadly, I fear that they and the mass media will stigmatise the Lampedusan islanders as 'bigots'. More on the beginnings of this year's North African influx to Lampedusa can be found here.

Only Mad Dog Gaddafi and Cameron go out in the Libyan Sun

I was hoping that Russia and China would this evening block the quixotic idiocy about to be unleashed by the Prime Minister, but alas, this hope proved to be unfounded. These two key permanent members of the UN Security Council abstained over the vote which has now been passed 10-0 in support of employing “all necessary measures” excepting a ground invasion “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”. Still, perhaps it will be in their favour, because it will hasten the terminal decline of the United Kingdom and thereby bolster their international geopolitical influence.

As our planes could be enforcing a no-fly zone within hours, there are a number of questions that must be asked. What key national interest does the UK have at stake in Libya? The answer is quite straightforward: we possess no such interest in Libya. As Kelvin Mackenzie rightly noted on Question Time this evening, if we are to use military force against Libya, then why not against Bahrain and Saudia Arabia? Why not against Zimbabwe and numerous other states that we find disagreeable and which maltreat significant sections of their populations? Rational answers came there none, for there are none. The UK’s armed forces should be employed exclusively to protect our territory and our people. There may have been a case for an air strike against Libya in the immediate aftermath of Lockerbie, but there is no such case today.

The UK and France have stepped forward to proffer their air power in the first instance. Is this a case of senile former great power sibling rivalry? What are our respective governments doing? What do they hope to achieve? Are they really viewing the Libyan civil war through a grossly distorted, simplistic and moralistic prism? Do they seem to think that this is an unambiguous Manichean-style conflict between the forces of good and evil (i.e. Gaddafi versus ‘democratic’ rebels)? What denouement do they foresee? I see a swarm of Libyan refugees being given succour in the UK and France, swelling our hostile Islamic colonies and becoming a permanent unbidden and resentful presence. Do I see a stable Libya functioning as a Western-style liberal democracy? No. No I do not. I do not pretend to see anything, but I do not believe for one moment that the majority of the Libyan people are ‘just like us’ and ‘want the same freedoms as us’. Some will do, but most of them probably will not, and will instead cleave to the atavistic barbarous appeal of a Shariah-based state.

Do I wish Gaddhafi well? No. Do I wish the rebels well? Some of them, undoubtedly; others, certainly not.

The stance of the Conservative-led government with respect to this intervention demonstrates that something has gone deeply wrong with our foreign-policy establishment. From Blair to Brown, to Cameron and Clegg, the thread is unbroken; their foreign policies are seamless: military interventionism, globalisation and sovereign surrender to the EU and other transnational agencies. The leading lights of our governing parties are but the UK’s arm of an ugly, unresponsive and unaccountable globalist oligarchy. The time has come to kick them out. Only democratic nationalism can bring an end to this rot. There will soon be a viable political alternative, but in the interim, what further travails must we endure at the hands of these out-of-touch fools who dare to see themselves as our governing class?

As Iraq finished Blair, so shall Libya finish Cameron.

Green Breast emerges from Keighley's Ghousia Mosque

Keighley, already home to the lowering presence of the recently built child-beating facility (see clip from Dispatches ‘Lessons in Hate’ documentary below) called the Markazi Jamia Mosque, large enough to accommodate 3,000 worshipping child-beaters, will shortly be joined by another factory of hate on Skipton Road. Draped in tarpaulins, the green dome of the Ghousia Mosque emerges from the drapes like a cheeky pert breast from beneath a burqa. When completed, the new mosque will be able to accommodate 400 worshippers. Like the Markazi Jamia, the Ghousia is affiliated to the ‘British’ Muslim Forum and represents the Bareilvi Sunni sect.

The construction of this mosque so soon after the Markazi Jamia, painfully illustrates the ultra-rapid growth of the Muslim population in Keighley. This is not good news for local people, already victims of Muslim paedophile pimps and depressed property prices generated by the burgeoning Muslim presence. However, for those of you looking to move but not wishing to leap blindly from the frying pan into the fire, there is an excellent online facility where you can check that you’re not buying in an area with a large Muslim presence: UK Mosque Searcher.

The UK Mosque Searcher provides a rough guide to areas to avoid, by showing where all of the UK’s existing mosques as well as those under construction are located. The presence of a mosque, as well as its size and type, serves as a good proxy measure for an area’s Islamisation. The UK Mosque Searcher allows you to search for neighbourhoods less at risk from Muslim paedophile pimping and also less vulnerable to declining property values generated by the presence of Muslim colonies. Fed up with scowling faces and verbal abuse hurled at you in ‘community’ languages? Why not use the UK Mosque Searcher to aid your relocation to what remains of England? Go on, give it a try!

Nothing British about the BBC’s Midsomer Madness

The BBC is in uproar. Its indignant fury has been crackling through the airwaves of Radio 4, creating a new figure of hate for the baying multiculturalist mob: Brian True-May. What did True-May do to incite the ire of the broadcaster? What was he guilty of? Mugging? Murder? Assault? Slander? Being a bit off with somebody? Travelling without a valid rail ticket? Telling someone that her bum looked big in a particular outfit? No. The producer of ITV’s popular Midsomer Murders drama dared to deviate from the dominant ideology that may not be questioned without the culprit being professionally destroyed by stating:

"We just don't have ethnic minorities involved, because it wouldn't be the English village with them," he said. "It just wouldn't work."

Asked why "Englishness" could not include other races who are well represented in modern society, he said: "Well, it should do, and maybe I'm not politically correct.

"I'm trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don't want to change it."

Who could object to what True-May said, other than someone specifically intent upon the ethnocide of the English? For in truth, this is precisely what the BBC is engaging in: ethnocide. It is abusing its power to deliberately destroy the national cohesion of Britain, and the ethnic distinctiveness of the English. This is why it has singled out True-May for destruction. The English are the indigenous population of England and the BBC is attempting to destroy them as a coherent self-conscious entity. As Wikipedia states with respect to the concept of ethnocide:

Article 7 of a 1994 draft of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples uses the phrase "cultural genocide" but does not define what it means.[4] The complete article reads as follows:

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;

(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.

Unfortunately, this was not adopted, and for some inexplicable and bizarre reason, the native peoples of Europe, with the sole exception of the Sami, are not classed as ‘indigenous’. However, I would maintain that the BBC is guilty of all five practices defined in the UN draft on ethnocide, for it actively works to undermine our culture as well as our political and biological integrity through its advocacy of globalism, mass immigration, the UK’s absorption into the EU and Islamisation. These themes are drip-fed in a continual propaganda effort, both explicit and implicit, designed to destroy the historical reality of the English as a distinctive and united people.

If the BBC wishes to have ethnic minorities intrude their way into every facet of English life, and wants them to be accurately depicted in Midsomer Murders, how would it feel about a plotline featuring a murdering paedophile network in an extended family of Pakistani Muslims in Midsomer? Would that make them happy? There’s no pleasing some people! There's nothing British about the BBC.

Blackpool EDL Demo: Justice for Charlene Downes

On Saturday 26 March the EDL will hold a third demo in Blackpool to demand justice for Charlene Downes. On 1 November 2003 the fourteen-year-old girl kissed her mother goodbye and was never seen again. In 2007 Blackpool kebab shop owner Lyad Albattikhi appeared in Preston Crown Court charged with Charlene’s murder, after extensive police surveillance captured him on tape bragging of first having sex with and then killing Charlene. In conversation with his business partner - Mohammed Reveshi – Albattikhi admitted feeding her into a meat grinder and then serving up her body to customers in his kebabs. 

The Times reported:

More than 52 tape recordings were captured by covert surveillance of Mr Reveshi’s home and car between February and March 2004 by the police inquiry team set up after Charlene disappeared in November 2003.

The jury was told that in one conversation Mr Reveshi had said to his partner: “Well, hopefully I [done] it properly you know . . . he thought he saw me cutting her body up.

“Do you remember she was bleeding to death?” “Yes,” replied Mr Albattikhi. “So that she made a mess,” Mr Reveshi allegedly added. Later in the transcript Mr Reveshi allegedly says: “The last one then, it was the last deep one and then it was the [heart] . . . that finally killed her.”

At one point Mr Reveshi said: “I’m so worried and you was the one who killed her.”

In his opening address to the jury last month, Tim Holroyde, for the prosecution, claimed that a witness had heard Jordanian-born Mr Albattikhi joke with fellow takeaway employees about how the teenager had been chopped up, and how her body “had gone into the kebabs”. Mr Albattikhi, of Blackpool, denies murdering Charlene while Mr Reveshi, also of Blackpool, denies disposing of her body.

Unfortunately, despite this damning evidence, the trial collapsed in October 2009 due to bodged handling of the evidence and the failure of the jury to reach a verdict. Both Albattikhi and Reveshi were subsequently discharged. Christine’s parents have thus undergone the horrific ordeal of losing their daughter and having to sit through this gruesome trial only to see it come to nothing.

At the time of the trial’s collapse, the Daily Mail reported Karen Downes, Charlene’s mother, as saying:

'We feel badly let down by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service,' she said.

'We're no further on, we're back to square one. There is no closure.

'I was devastated when I saw the report. It's very upsetting.'

Lancashire Police apologised to the Downes family but said it remained a live investigation and its officers were still committed to solving the case.

The investigating team were guilty of a strategic and tactical failure in the management of the audio and video material they obtained, the IPCC concluded.

Proper records were not kept, material was not fully transcribed and the overall integrity of the material was not ensured.

The EDL demand justice for Charlene and her family and therefore will be gathering to protest in Blackpool at 1pm on Saturday 26 March. For further details, watch for updates on the Casuals United blog. Hats off to the EDL for seeking justice for the family of Charlene Downes when all others appear to have abandoned them. Let’s get the case reoppened and the culprits brought to justice!

The first of the EDL videos below is the official promo for the demo. The second features some additional information about what the kebab shop owners are alleged to have done since their acquittal.

Of Burning Qur’ans & Poppies: Andrew Ryan, Emdadur Choudhury and the British Justice System

Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society has this week written an editorial entitled ‘Is there really one law for all? We’re about to find out’ in which he highlights the case of Andrew Ryan who has been arrested and ‘charged with religiously aggravated harassment and theft of a Koran’. Worryingly, notes Sanderson, this charge carries a potential seven-year prison sentence.

Ryan bravely burned a Qur’an in Carlisle this January, and following on from Emdadur Choudhury’s £50 fine for his poppy burning escapade imposed for causing “harassment, harm or distress” under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, it remains to be seen whether Ryan will escape so lightly. Thanks to the egregious ‘religious hatred’ (sic) legislation passed by the last Labour Government, are we to expect that Ryan will be treated as leniently as Choudhury? If not, why not? If Ryan receives more than a £50 fine for his act of burning a Qur’an (an act which is perfectly innocuous, as the pages of a book feel no pain) this will confirm that Islam is being accorded an officially-sanctioned privileged role in our society and legal system. How should we react if Ryan is punished? I would suggest that we write to our MPs voicing our objection both to the sentence and to the legislation that enabled this charge to be brought. I would also urge you to burn a Qur’an (however, do ensure that it’s your own and not stolen).

Terry Sanderson notes:

Mr Ryan is due in court on 24th March and it will be very interesting to see whether the judge in his case also thinks that "shocking and offending people is sometimes a necessary part of effective protest."

Naturally, some people think the Koran is "sacred" while others think it is just a sheaf of papers bound together like any other book. Will Mr Ryan get a £50 fine for burning paper or will he get seven years for offending the sensitivities of Muslims?

Let's see if the law thinks there is "offence" and "religious offence" and then, perhaps, "offending Islam" – all of which might bring very different punishments. One law for all? We'll see.

One law for all? This is the nub of the question. One law there must be and one law only, and it must never be Shariah. Good luck to Mr Ryan in his forthcoming court appearance.

Muslim Paedophile Swoop in Brierfield, Nelson

Yet again, as in Blackburn, Derby, Keighley, Rochdale and Rotherham, Muslim paedophiles have been targeting underage girls for sexual exploitation. Three residents of Brierfield in Nelson - Shiraz Arzal aged 24, Mohammed Imran Amjad aged 24 and Omar Mazafer aged 20 – were arrested during a police swoop on addresses across the town. Although the ethnicity of the abused girls has not been specified, it is almost certain that they would have been indigenous English, for these are the girls – ‘kuffar’ – that Muslim paedophiles actively seek out for abuse.

The Lancashire Telegraph details the charges as follows:

Shiraz Arzal ‘is charged with causing or inciting a girl aged between 13 and 15 to engage in sexual activity.’

Mohammed Imran Amjad ‘is charged with arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence and child abduction.’

Omar Mazafer ‘is charged with two counts of Section 39 common assault.’

Two of the three undoubtedly took a perverse delight in ‘emulating’ the example of their paedophile prophet Mohammed. Just when will it be publicly permissible to speak the truth, and point to the roots of this systematic Muslim paedophilia as lying at the heart of Islam itself in the ‘perfect’ example of the life of the Prophet Mohammed and his sexual usage of his child bride Aisha at the age of nine? Until Islamic doctrine is dismantled and the ugly life of its perverted prophet publicly held in contempt, this abusive pattern of Muslim paedophilia will not be broken.

Will Lord Ahmed of Rotherham leap to the defence of these perverse sexual predators? Is it time for the EDL to come to Nelson and protest against the phenomenon of Muslim paedophilia?

Tatarstan: ‘A whole generation is ready to conduct extremist activity’

Next year marks the 460th anniversary of the incorporation of the territory of Tatarstan into the Russian state. The fall of Kazan, the capital of the former Tatar Khanate, to the forces of Ivan the Terrible was memorably commemorated in the first part of Sergei Eisenstein’s allegory on Stalin’s paranoid court - Ivan the Terrible Part 1 - and marked the point when Russia finally put to rest its fears of domination from the East. Now however, it appears that a new fear is haunting Russia, as the country’s demographic crisis is leading to a decline in the absolute number of ethnic Russians, as well as their share in the state's population. On the other hand, its Asiatic Muslim population is growing in both absolute and relative terms, rather than shrinking.

Still from Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible, Part 1



This represents the continuation of a long-established trend, for differential Muslim and non-Muslim birth-rates were already a cause for concern within the Soviet Union as early as the mid 1970s. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the loss of the Muslim Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan left Russia shorn of a significant proportion of the USSR’s Muslim population. However, owing to Russia’s gradual historical territorial expansion across the northern expanse of Eurasia, many other traditionally Muslim peoples were incorporated into the tsarist state and its successors: Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanis (a label encompassing over thirty small Muslim ethnic groups) and others. These peoples have generally speaking remained concentrated in their historical homelands, and whereas amongst many of these groupings adherence to Islam at the popular level may have been historically superficial and officially frowned upon during the Soviet period, the past two decades has seen a resurgence in religious – particularly Muslim - identities.

As in other countries, Saudi money has underpinned the rise of the Wahhabist variant of Islam amongst many young Muslims in Russia, and jihadist ideology has been grafted onto a pre-existing nationalist rootstock in a number of cases. A recent article in Nezavisimaia gazeta entitled ‘A whole Generation of Extremists’ gives a clue to how significant the problem of jihadist ideology has become in Tatarstan. As in the UK, the Russian security agencies have discovered that a significant number of Islamists in the republic have journeyed to Pakistan and Afghanistan to participate in violent Islamist activity before returning home to attack non-Muslim targets in their homeland. So acute is this problem adjudged to be, that it is said to rank alongside poverty in its potential to threaten social stability in the republic. The local republican government is thus engaged in devising a new programme to forestall and combat the growth of violent extremism in Tatarstan. Although the word is not mentioned, the threat is quite clearly Islamic.

Last November three armed Islamic militants were killed by members of the Russian security forces in Tatarstan’s Nurlat’skii District. The three were suspected of planting a bomb beneath the car of the Director of Tatarstan’s branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) Centre for Countering Extremism. Luckily for him, the bomb failed to detonate. As in the UK, the Russian Government and mainstream media are coy about describing the phenomenon that they are dealing with, referring euphemistically to ‘extremism’ without appending the Islamic tag. As the Nezavisimaia gazeta correspondent Sergei Tarasov notes, loose deployment of terms such as the “struggle with extremism” («борьба с экстремизмом») by Russia’s political and security establishment runs the risk of enabling the deployment of repressive measures including lethal force, to put to an end any political opposition that might feasibly be described as ‘extremist’. We can see a direct parallel with respect to this abuse of language in David Cameron’s recent speech in Munich, which sought to bracket Islamism with a deliberately stigmatised domestic British patriotism as exemplified by groups such as the EDL.

Over the past five years more than 100 people have been sentenced in Tatarstan for involvement in terrorist and extremist activity. However, over half of these have already served their sentences and subsequently been released. Once again, although not specified, the article clearly implies that the majority if not all of these people were Islamic extremists. As in mosques in the UK which routinely disseminate hostile views of our society and values, the authorities in Tatarstan have detected a parallel trend in which a number of mosques have been preaching a Salafist interpretation of Islam which advocates violent jihad against non-Muslims. This has prompted sweeps of mosques and the confiscation of inflammatory Islamist literature.

However, in the opinion of Vladimir Belyaev, an academic at the Russian Academy of Political Sciences, the problem of Islamic extremism in Tatarstan can be tackled effectively without necessarily deploying lethal force.

Of course, there is [Islamic] extremism in Tatarstan, but not on such a scale as is stated. The problem can be solved without the application of any kind of extraordinary measures. For example, monitoring the situation on internet sites and in mosques. This would be sufficient.

Tatarstan, like many other traditionally Muslim areas of Russia, is witnessing a growth in Islamic militancy. Although the Medvedev-Putin administration may talk tough on dealing with this phenomenon, the fact remains that Putin possesses no ideological aversion to treating with Islamists. It was Putin after all, who backed Ramzan Kadyrov as Chechen President, a man who has campaigned for the introduction of Shariah to Chechnya, who has made the wearing of the headscarf obligatory and supports polygamy. Putin is a cynic whose primary interest is personal access to power, who although willing to play with the symbols of Russian patriotism and nationhood, clearly does not possess any especial regard for non-Muslim Russians. Witness also the close links forged between Russia and Iran under Putin and Medvedev. As in the UK, if ordinary Russians are to rid their country of the Islamist menace, they shouldn’t rely upon their corrupt politicians but ought instead to organise and take to the streets demanding that Islamisation be dealt with.

The Russian Federation, like its larger predecessor the USSR, is comprised of a number of ethno-territorial entities – ‘republics’ and so on – which are not majority ethnic Russian (russkii), and twenty years ago many analysts anticipated that the fledgling Russian Federation would fragment into its constituent ethno-territorial units. This did not happen, although Chechnya of course did attempt to break away from 1991 onwards. Now, it may be in the interests of patriotic ethnic Russians to divest themselves of their problematic Islamic territories and accord them independence. A consolidated ethnic Russian (russkoe) rather than a civic Russian (rossiiskoe) state could provide a preferable political unit to the existing federation with its array of hostile Muslim states in waiting. Of course, creating a Russian ethnostate would mark a retreat from the multiethnic multifaith imperial state that Ivan the Terrible set about creating through his conquest of the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan in the 1550s, but then again, perhaps that would be no bad thing for the Russian people.

“The Muslim community provides a huge vibrancy and richness to British life”. Ed Miliband

Thus said the leader of the Labour Party in a recent interview. Like his brother, the Islamophiliac David, Ed believes in promoting multiculturalism red in tooth and claw and is probably tattooed with a halal kitemark: 100% dhimmi. In response to a question from the editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J. Versi, as to what his “relationship with the Muslim community” will look like, Miliband replied:

I want to make a new start with the Muslim community. The Muslim community provides a huge vibrancy and richness to British life. It is very important that we acknowledge that and it is something that I am seeking to do that as a Leader of the Labour Party. I want to do and will do, in terms of my outreach conversations with the Muslim community. I had very interesting experiences when I was Minister for Voluntary Sector in talking to various groups that were involved in the Muslim community.

Of course, I’ve never trusted either of the Miliband brothers, or for that there political home – the Labour Party – for many years. Nonetheless, it is worth repeatedly drawing our people’s attention to the fact that Miliband the younger, just as Cameron, Clegg and Simon Hughes, is very actively courting the Muslim bloc vote. All are willing to maintain and extend Muslim special privileges in doing so, irrespective of Cameron’s cynically calculated public condemnation of state-promoted multiculturalism.

What is Miliband referring to when he refers to “a huge vibrancy and richness”? Any suggestions? A few curry houses and mosques sprouting like toxic toadstools? The abuse of language by the advocates of multiculturalism in recent years has come to stigmatise previously innocuous terms such as ‘diversity’, ‘vibrancy’ and ‘enrichment’, for they have been employed as euphemisms for ‘Balkanisation’, ‘aggressive and shrill minority assertiveness’ and ‘erosion of indigenous culture and confidence’. And what does Miliband imply when he says that Labour must “acknowledge” these putatively positive contributions? Additional legal concessions to Islam and targeted investment in ‘deprived’ Muslim colonies (‘communities’ in newspeak)?

It was sad to see the return of a Labour candidate to Barnsley Central recently, with 63% of the 37% of voters who bothered to turn out putting their cross in the Labour box. People in places such as Barnsley need to wake up to the fact that this inherited tribal party loyalty is long since past its sell-by date. Their Labour Party of old died decades ago, and embraced the principles of the New Left with its obsessive focus upon ethnic minority special privileges, jettisoning its previous concern with the bread and butter issues of the daily welfare of the working people and the protection of their jobs and standard of living.

The mainstream Labour Party view today is that Barnsley fully deserves its pariah label as a ‘racist town’, simply because it still contains an overwhelming majority of English people. They would much prefer Barnsley if it were to have a large ‘vibrant’ Pakistani ‘community’. How about some Somalis with an admixture of Kosovans for good measure? Who knows what the future could bring: a sprinkle of Libyans and Tunisians perhaps? Barnsley folk however, are I daresay all too aware of the ‘vibrancy’ of nearby towns and cities such as Dewsbury, Bradford and Sheffield, and would rather cleave to the pleasantly non-vibrant social milieu of England in its pre-‘enrichment’ years. The Milibands of this world however, will never deviate from the view that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and that the English are essentially a vile bunch of ‘racists’. Don’t vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Look elsewhere for parties to support, which care about our country and our people, and do not seek to provide privileges to aggressive minority interlopers.