Share |

Sunday 29 November 2009

No More Minarets in the UK!

Inspired by the example of the Swiss people today? The BNP were so taken with the striking design of the Swiss People's Party's minaret-ban campaign poster that they have produced their own version for the UK. This features a quote from the Turkish Prime Minister, as well as the policy positions of the UK's three largest Westminster parties on Turkey's EU membership. Does the imagery within the poster really look "sinister" compared to the quote from Tayyip Erdogan? Surely it is Mr Erdogan's statements that should cause us concern, not honest imagery about the imperialistic nature of Islam.

Swiss Minaret Ban Confirmed

Congratulations to the Swiss public for voting in favour of banning the construction of minarets in their country. Exit polls revealed the near certainty of a yes vote for the proposal, and a BBC report just released has confirmed that this is indeed the case: 57% voted in favour of the ban as did 22 out of the country's 26 cantons. Predictably however, the BBC's reporting of this story has highlighted so-called "Islamaphobia" and harped on about this decision blackening Switzerland's international reputation. For me, this decision simply underscores that the majority of the Swiss voting public are no fools when it comes to the matter of Islamisation.


Swiss Minaret Ban Imminent?

According to a number of reports, exit polls indicate that the Swiss have today voted in favour of banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland. If this does indeed turn out to be the case, I would like to express my admiration for the Swiss people's sound common sense. This initiative of the Swiss People's Party isn't xenophobia, but an example of the Swiss standing up for their own values and identity. Let's hope that it encourages Muslims to stay away from Switzerland, and for those already resident there to reconsider their position and hopefully leave. I can only but hope that in the years ahead more countries in Europe, including the UK, will pass such measures, but at present such a prospect seems miserably unlikely.

Below is an ITN report on the campaign to ban minarets which, alas, is dhimmi in sentiment. Note the fact that it only bothers to show interviews by voters who are "shocked by the initiative." Hardly an example of unbiased reporting:


Nevskii Express Bombing: Islamists or Combat 18-Nevograd?

An article appearing on the website suggests that a group calling itself Combat 18-Nevograd has claimed responsibility for the Nevskii Express bombing. The claim itself purports to be made on behalf of “an independent cell of Combat 18 in the city on the Neva” [i.e. St Petersburg] which has dissociated itself “from the official centre in Moscow (Blood and Honour/C18 Moscow)”. The anonymous author describes Combat 18 in Russia as “a terrorist group of white lads, which from the outset was involved in [acts of] street violence and terror against enemies of the white race.” [1]

Further excerpts from the declaration give a flavour of the febrile state of mind of its author:

We, the autonomous military group Combat 18, claim responsibility for the “Nevskii Express” explosion. Further – greater! The time has come. We declare that the war will touch every resident. In this war there will be no non-participants and no innocent victims. There will only be our supporters and our enemies.” [2]
That anyone or any group claiming to be of a Russian nationalist persuasion should choose to indiscriminately kill its own people seems bizarre, and would seem to call into question the credibility of the claim. Is it the product of a lone crank, or of the small dangerously deluded group of which he claims to be a member? Whoever this person is, he is no friend to the Russian people.

The idea that this act could have been carried out by anyone claiming to be a Russian nationalist has been roundly rejected by Aleksandr Belov, leader of Russia’s Movement Against Illegal Immigration. In an interview with Novyi Region Moskva, he argues that it is likely to have been carried out by Chechen terrorists, rather than by some shadowy group of violent ultranationalist cranks.

In support of his view Belov notes that: 1) articles have already appeared on a number of Chechen websites claiming responsibility for the bombing; 2) a trial of Chechen terrorists charged with an earlier bombing of this train service in 2007 is currently underway; 3) the attack coincided with the start of Eid al-Fitr [3]. As Belov notes, there thus appears to be ample circumstantial evidence to identify the likely suspects as Chechen Islamists. Alas, this is but the latest in a long sequence of Chechen terrorist atrocities endured by the Russian people, and I fear that it will not be the last.

References: [1] Cited in
[2] Cited in

Saturday 28 November 2009

UKIP Targets Barking

The Times reports that UKIP is to stand a parliamentary candidate to contest the Barking constituency at the upcoming General Election. Paul Wiffen is said to be its favoured choice, and with Lord Pearson at the helm as UKIP's newly elected leader, it is hoped that it will exert a greater appeal by focusing upon attacking Islamism following Lord Pearson's recent comments on this issue. However, UKIP's decision to stand in Barking with the expressed intention of confronting Nick Griffin is in reality a myopic move, for it will only serve to split the nationalist vote and in all likelihood allow Margaret Hodge to cling to power.

UKIP should not stand in Barking. Its expressed intention of doing so is detrimental to the national interest, and indicates that UKIP is willing to place narrow party interests before those of the nation. If UKIP were truly  interested in confronting Islamism, it would step aside to allow Nick Griffin a clear run at this parliamentary seat, for he stands a real chance of winning and would certainly not be afraid to speak out on this issue at Westminster. A vote for UKIP in Barking will in effect be a vote for the treacherous millionairess Margaret Hodge.

If any of you are thinking of voting UKIP, I would urge you to cast your vote for the BNP instead if the latter are standing in your constituency. If there is a UKIP candidate but no representation from the BNP, then by all means vote for the former, but do bear in mind that only a vote for the BNP will guarantee that your ballot will be counted towards the election of a true nationalist candidate who will not sell out your interests as an indigenous Briton. Vote BNP in 2010.


Friday 27 November 2009

Anti-EU Demonstration: Parliament Square, 28 November

This is a call to all who oppose the annulment of our national sovereignty which is about to be brought into effect by the Lisbon Treaty as of 1 December this year.




Friday 20 November 2009

Rajinder Singh: Future Sikh Member of the BNP

Already, the implications of the forthcoming changes to the BNP constitution are generating headlines which could adumbrate a change in direction for the mainstream media’s reporting of the party. What, after all, will it do with the “racist” smear tag when people such as Rajinder Singh, who are sympathetic to the BNP’s platform, join and become fully paid-up members?

Mr Singh, a retired schoolteacher who is also a Sikh, is widely touted to become the first ethnic minority member of the BNP. He has been a supporter of the party for the past decade, and makes it clear that he is a strong advocate of the party’s anti-Islamisation stance, for he himself suffered familial tragedy with the death of his father (killed by Muslims) during the partition of India in 1947.

I very much welcome Mr Singh’s impending membership, and hope that other Sikhs sympathetic to the BNP’s central platform will lend the party their support and hopefully become members. In my opinion, the BNP would be wise to offer Rajinder Singh the opportunity of standing as their parliamentary candidate in Southall at the forthcoming General Election if he should be interested in the proposal. Admittedly, at the age of 78 he might understandably not wish to immerse himself in full-time political campaigning, but I do think that his candidature should be given full consideration. In the video below, Rajinder speaks for himself:

For reactions to Rajinder’s forthcoming membership see:

Monday 16 November 2009

Manchester Muslims arrested in Police Terror Swoop

Another day, another arrest of a group of suspected fifth columnists planning to commit acts of terror against British targets overseas. A story befitting lead billing on the BBC News website you might think? No. Instead we see “Officer ‘abused Iraqi prisoners”. So, where precisely do you think it might be located? Second billing? In the top stories section? Headlining the regional news portal? Well no actually. It’s not even featured on the BBC News frontpage. The story is instead relegated to the Manchester regional page under the heading of “Five arrested during terror raids” [1].

What does the BBC say about these five? Does it give us some clues as to their identities or backgrounds? Yes. Apparently they were men aged between 21 and 62. That’s it. No other details. Why?

Thankfully, other news outlets have been slightly less coy in their treatment of the story. The Times timorously edges towards the truth when it almost casually mentions that “properties in inner-city areas [of Manchester] with large Muslim populations have been sealed before a lengthy search.” Furthermore, “Neighbours spoke of front doors being knocked and shouting at around 4am. One described a man of Pakistani origin being led away.” [2] The Daily Telegraph homed in on the truth a little further when it reported on “a 62-year-old man arrested at his home on Willows Lane, Deane, Bolton, [who] taught the Koran at a number of mosques across the region. "I'm surprised. He carries out spiritual sessions twice-a-week. He is very spiritual," said one source within the Muslim community.” [3]

Surprised”? Why was the source “surprised”? The “source” stated clearly that the man “is very spiritual”, which is Muslim code for describing someone who is a rabid kufr hater. This elderly fellow is said to have preached at a number of mosques in the Northwest, so we can be rest assured that if indeed he proves to have been involved in a terror plot, he will have been spreading his ‘spiritual’ message widely and freely to all of those wonderfully ‘moderate’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘devout’ people in his congregations. How very reassuring. Over now, to a message from Greater Manchester Police:



Sunday 15 November 2009

BNP Membership Change

Yesterday, delegates at the BNP’s annual party conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of amending the party’s constitution to allow non-whites to become members. The wider party membership will also be balloted on the proposal, and Simon Darby anticipates that the final text of the amendment should be forwarded for approval at an EGM either in December or early in January.

This proposed change is hugely significant for the BNP, as it will allow members of ethnic minorities sympathetic to its aims to join. Through making this provision UAF, Searchlight, Antifa, the mainstream political parties and media will no longer be able to claim that the BNP is a racist party. In bringing a case against the BNP the EHRC has handed the party a huge opportunity. It will now be able to brush aside all of the usual accusations of being a racist organisation lying beyond the pale of civilised political life in the UK. Importantly, once the membership criteria are changed the BNP will be able to overturn bans on membership for those working in the police and prison services, and to forestall moves to proscribe membership for those working in other professions such as teaching. Nonetheless, it is likely that the globalists within the trade union movement will still attempt to find various pretexts for hounding party members and supporters out of their jobs wherever they work.

Despite the forthcoming change, it should not be expected that the vitriol and violence employed by opponents of the party will suddenly cease. This opening up of the party’s membership may lead to an initial period of confusion amongst its opponents as to how to tackle it, but it is probable that the stream of lies and smears will continue. Don’t be surprised if someone is commissioned to produce a tendentious television documentary entitled something along the lines of “The Ugly Face of the BNP” to be screened immediately prior to the next General Election, deliberately designed to undercut the party’s momentum.


Saturday 14 November 2009

One Law for All Press Release: Protest on 21 November

The following message was recently received from the "One Law for All" campaign which opposes Sharia law here in the UK and elsewhere in the world. If you are interested in protesting against Sharia, please read the following press release and consider attending this peaceful demonstration:

One Law for All campaign is organising a rally on Saturday 21 November 2009 at 1200pm in London’s Hyde Park. The rally aims to oppose religious laws in Britain and elsewhere, show solidarity with people living under and resisting Sharia, and to defend universal rights and secularism.

Simultaneous acts of solidarity and support for the rally and its aims will take place in countries across the world including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Nigeria, Serbia and Montenegro and Sweden.

Moreover, winners of the campaign’s art competition exposing the discriminatory nature of religious law and promoting freedom and equal rights will be announced at the event.

One Law for All Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie, commented, ‘Sharia law is becoming a key battleground, particularly because it is an extension and representation of the rising threat of Islamism. Sharia matters to people everywhere because it adversely affects the rights, lives and freedoms of countless human beings across the world. Opposing Sharia law is a crucial step in defending universal and equal rights and secularism and showing real solidarity with people living under and resisting it everywhere. November 21 is yet another important day for further strengthening the mass movement needed that can and will put a stop to Sharia once and for all.’

For further information on the campaign, please visit

Friday 13 November 2009

Glasgow North East By-election Result: Labour see off SNP Challenge and Tories narrowly trump BNP

The Labour Party have held onto former Common’s Speaker Martin’s Glasgow North East Seat with Willie Bain increasing their share of the vote from 53.3% to 59.3%. The SNP failed to repeat the coup that they pulled off last year in capturing Glasgow East, coming in second slightly increasing their share of the vote from 17.7% to 20%. Turnout was a record low for Scotland, a mere 33.2% compared to 45.8% at the 2005 General Election, evidence perhaps of voter disillusion with politics following a turbulent year for Labour and the mainstream parties.

The BNP very nearly managed to grab the headlines, for it was for a time thought that they would take third place, but in the end it was a close call, and they came in fourth with 1,013 votes just behind the Conservatives with 1,075. A considerable amount of publicity, most of it negative, was devoted to the BNP during this campaign, with representatives of the mainstream parties all lining up to voice their “abhorrence” of the party and its candidate. Labour of course played up the BNP challenge in an effort to galvanise its weary and disillusioned supporters. Nothing succeeds for an old Labour hand like a rallying call to “smash fascism” [sic]. This was not natural BNP territory, but the party did manage to increase its absolute vote as well as its share, taking 4.9% on this occasion compared to 3.2% in 2005.

The Liberal Democrats did not stand for election when the seat was last up for grabs in 2005, and their terrible result tonight (they came sixth with 2.3% of the vote) suggests that they should have saved themselves the expense of fighting the campaign.

Although Gordon Brown will take cheer from this decisive victory, its message cannot be transposed to the UK scene more widely, for in this by-election campaign Labour focused on many issues specific to Scotland, and was to a certain extent able to play the part of an opposition party owing to the SNP administration in Holyrood which has recently made some unpopular decisions in Glasgow.

Thursday 12 November 2009

Gordon Brown Lies about Immigration (again)

Gordon Brown cynically attempted to pull the wool over voters’ eyes today by pretending that he was doing something to regulate mass immigration. However, he is fully aware of the fact that he and his party have deliberately engineered mass immigration and that they remain totally ideologically convinced of its merits. The measures that Brown announced today were, as  Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch noted, “trivial”. They will do nothing whatsoever to stem the rise in our skyrocketing population, and in reality they are not intended to do so.

Brown, and dishonest fellow Labour Party member Alan Johnson, are pretending to listen to ordinary Britons’ concerns about immigration and making soothing noises about this matter purely because they know that people utterly disagree with their policy and are considering voting for the BNP. This is the sole reason that Labour has even bothered to introduce meaningless and completely ineffective ‘controls’ on immigration. The Labour Party remains committed to the very core of its being to the destruction of our national fabric.

Nobody should be gulled into thinking that Labour is for one moment sounding a genuine note of contrition vis-à-vis the immigration scandal. It is a party of globalist internationalists. They lied about the Lisbon Treaty and they have presided over our national absorption into the emergent EU totalitarian super-state. Miliband and many others now wish to swiftly facilitate Turkey’s entry to the EU, which will hasten the Islamisation of Europe and our country. They prostrate themselves before Islam, and use the pretext of the “war on terror” to gag and monitor us all. They hate England and the English with a particular vehemence, and thus give it and its people no recognition either institutionally (in the form of an English parliament), or even on the census form. Frank Field should leave the Labour Party, for he does himself no favours by remaining part of this morally, intellectually and literally bankrupt entity.

Gordon Brown. We have heard what you said today and we know you for a liar. Your time is coming to a close, and someday I hope that you are brought to account for your deliberate destructive assault upon my nation.

Reference: "PM to 'tighten' migration rules', BBC, 12 November 2009,

Wednesday 11 November 2009

Militant Islam in Dewsbury Part 2: Demography, Ideology and Insularity

Deobandi Islam came to Dewsbury in the 1950s with an influx of immigrants from Pakistan and India who came to work in the town’s woollen mills. They settled predominantly in Savile Town and Ravensthorpe [1]. This is a tale familiar to many of Britain’s northern towns and cities, and, as elsewhere, these exotic seeds later bloomed into so many fleurs du mal.

Dewsbury’s own deathly blooms included 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan, who worshipped at the town’s Markazi mosque [2]; Waris Ali, a Ravensthorpe resident convicted at the age of 18 for planning to bomb BNP members [3], and Adnan Hussain, who threatened a woman by saying “he knew people who would “slit her throat”” simply because she refused to sell him cigarettes [4]. All products of the oft-termed “austere” interpretation of Islam favoured by the Deobandis and their religio-political offshoot: Tablighi Jamaat. Deobandi Islam is not on the fringes of Muslim life in the UK. Far from it. According to a Times report published in 2007, some 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques were run by followers of this branch of the faith [5].

Dewsbury's Markazi Mosque

Once they had founded their colonies, Dewsbury’s Muslim newcomers kept to themselves. Turning inwards, they cleaved to their ancestral Islamic beliefs and practices rather than assimilating to the host culture and population. Why assimilate to the latter, when they clearly believed that their own beliefs and ways were, in their perceptions, so self-evidently ‘superior’? Endogamy and chain migration maintained their biological cohesion; the mosque and the madrassah enforced their ideological unity; assaults and intimidation cowed the non-Muslim population and maintained their enclaves’ nascent territorial integrity. The enclaves expanded as the local English population sought to vacate properties in their immediate vicinity, thereby facilitating Muslim expansion. In this way did they build demographic, cultural and spiritual outposts of Gujarat and Pakistan. One instance amongst many. Heaton was once a pleasant place (so I’ve been told).

Tablighi Jamaat, which runs Dewsbury’s Markazi mosque, is the force behind plans to construct the London ‘mega-mosque’ and has been attributed as the radicalising influence which led Kaheel Ahmed (a doctor of Indian origin) to die in his attempted car bombing of Glasgow Airport in August 2007. Tablighi Jamaat’s European headquarters is found in Dewsbury, and its core beliefs go a long way to explaining the motivations underpinning the repeated attacks upon Dewsbury’s non-Muslim population. A Times article published in September 2007 stated:

Tablighi Jamaat was founded in 1926, in India, by a Deobandi scholar, Muhammad Ilyas, who wanted to raise Islamic awareness among rural Muslims in south Asia. He promised them that by obeying Islamic laws and following the example of the Prophet Muhammad in their personal lives they would one day “dominate over non-believers” and become “masters of everything on this earth”.”

Ishaq Patel, Tablighi Jamaat’s first amir (leader) in Britain, is said to have been on pilgrimage in Mecca when Ilyas’s successor gave him a long-term mission to win “the whole of Britain to Islam”.” [6]

Members of Dewsbury’s Muslim colony thus take in such views with their mothers’ milk, and they are reinforced day after day, week after week, year after year in the local mosques and the Markazi adjunct known as the Institute of Islamic Education. Tightly bound by these ideological ties which cultivate an attitude of supremacy and hatred towards the non-Muslims who live around them, is it any wonder that we see them attack the innocent? Those who would have you believe that these Deobandis are victims of racist discrimination, poverty and relative deprivation are either deliberately lying or deeply ignorant and self-deceiving. The violence at the heart of Dewsbury is cultivated and legitimated by Deobandi Islam, and it cannot be stopped by ploughing money and resources into these so-called ‘communities’ (i.e. colonies). Take away Islam and you remove the source of the violence.

Dewsbury is of course the constituency of disgraced Labour ex-Minister Shahid Malik (who has called for a Muslim PM in the UK (see video below)) and home to his Conservative parliamentary rival in the 2005 General Election ‘Baroness’ [sic] Sayeeda “I would fail the cricket test” Warsi. Hopefully, the voters will punish Malik at next year’s General Election. For want of a better means of expressing dissatisfaction it would be satisfying if the BNP vote were to rise, and martyr Malik will lose his seat.

The BNP have polled well in Dewsbury where they have stood in a succession of elections, taking a new high of 5,066 votes - 13.1% of those cast - in 2005 [7]. How any non-Muslim voters could cast their ballot for Malik again, I do not know. Such voters would do well to voice their dissatisfaction with the unwillingness of the local authorities and West Yorkshire Police to recognise, let alone confront the town’s Islamist problem, by delivering, for want of a better choice, a strong vote to the BNP in 2010. The Deobandi bullies will not be beaten unless someone stands up for their victims: the non-Muslim people of Dewsbury.


Militant Islam in Dewsbury Part 1: The Violent Assertion of Islamic Territorialism

A recent spate of attacks against non-Muslim residents in Dewsbury highlights the existence of no-go areas within the town: de facto emergent secessionist Muslim enclaves, into which others enter at their peril. This unpleasant reality conflicts with the vacuous assertions to the contrary by the West Yorkshire Police, who have also dismissed claims by victims of this recent violence that these assaults were clearly “racially motivated”. These denials bring to mind the refusal of West Yorkshire Police to attribute a racial component to “Asian” (code for Muslim) gang assaults upon white English pensioners in Bradford earlier this year.

The worst of the incidents that has taken place over the past few weeks involved a 14-year-old boy – Joseph Haigh - who was attacked by a gang of 10-15 Muslim youths who left him unconscious after inflicting a deep head wound with a brick, stabbing him in the hand with a screwdriver, loosening two of his front teeth and stealing his bike. Although stabbed in the hand, he could be said to be ‘lucky’, for his assailant was aiming at his face. The boy was later found unconscious by a passer-by. His father Jonathan said:

It was a racist attack. They were calling him ‘white trash’ and white this, that and the other. This is why people are angry about what is happening in this country. If it had been an attack by whites on an Asian lad it would have been a definite race attack. When it’s the other way round they don’t want to know.” [1]

A 46-year old labourer - Robert Dyson - was set upon by a mob of Muslim men whilst returning home one Friday night in late October. In this unprovoked assault he was surrounded, punched in the face and then knocked to the ground where he suffered repeated kicks from his tormenters. A hospital visit was needed to repair the damage to his split lip and a gashed ear [2].

A week after the attack upon Mr Dyson, a young white man of 18 was set upon by a gang of about ten masked “Asian” (i.e. Muslim) youths who knocked him to the ground and began kicking him. They ran off when a middle-aged white couple interrupted the assault. The next afternoon (a Sunday) a number of white drivers had their cars stoned as they passed along Savile Road. Once again, the perpetrators were described as “Asian” (aka Muslim). One of those targeted – Andy Cutler aged 36 – stated:

They were just targeting white drivers . . . As far as I’m concerned it’s racist and it needs to be reported.” [3]

This latest outbreak of attacks follows a similar wave which occurred during August, when three white boys (one aged 12 and two aged 14) “were attacked by Asians [Muslims] who demanded to know why they were walking through Savile Town.” Two weeks later a bus was attacked with stones. Windows were smashed and one of the passengers was injured. The wounded man emerged from the bus and attempted to chase away the young assailants and “was asked why he was going about shouting in ‘their area.’” [4]

From the attacks outlined above there are clear common denominators that indicate that young male Muslims within Dewsbury are using violent intimidation to mark out territory that they see as a nascent jurisdiction unto itself. That the victims of this Muslim violence (invariably described as “Asian” in the mainstream media, which is a grievous slur upon people of non-Muslim Asian extraction) are all white could lead one to mistakenly label these attacks as being “racist”. Strictly speaking of course, one should more accurately describe these awful crimes as being Islamist rather than racist, for although the young Muslim thugs happened to target white Britons (whom they particularly detest) in each of these incidents, they would I am sure be just as happy to attack any other kufr who pitched up on ‘their’ turf.

Indeed, in February 2008 violence flared between Dewsbury’s resident Pakistani Muslims and more-recently arrived immigrant Gypsies (usually mislabelled as “Hungarians”). They even went so far as to clash with an all-male influx of co-religionist Iraqi Kurds in 2007, in a display of atavistic rivalry over access to Pakistani females [5]. As any impartial reader can gather from this depressing list of unprovoked violent attacks, there is one component of Dewsbury’s population that is endowed with a spirit of hatred towards all other residents, and appears to be growing bolder in asserting its presence: Deobandi Islam. In the second part of this piece, I shall outline how this particularly unpleasant and violent species of Qur’anic literalism came to take root in the town, and what this betokens for politics in Dewsbury.


Monday 9 November 2009

Revolution Muslim: Home of America’s Homegrown Jihadi Fruitcakes

As can be seen in the following CNN news report, the US possesses an outfit - Revolution Islam - full of homegrown jihadist loons who are quite happy to revere Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Two of the most outspoken of these objectionable loudmouths are converts to Islam. No-one who is not mentally unhinged and/or attracted to violence voluntarily converts to Islam. Watch for yourself and draw your own conclusions. How will the American people react?

An Earlier Windrush?

Hat tip to Sir Henry Morgan for this cartoon.

Sunday 8 November 2009

Boycott ASDA: Teach it a Lesson for its Halal-only Policy on the Isle of Dogs

Halal slaughter causes needless pain and suffering to animals, and that it is permitted to take place in the UK today is a scandal. I am unhappy to see that the management of ASDA’s Isle of Dogs store has decided that henceforth only halal meat will be available from its fresh meat counter.

The Sunday Express reports that

Asda insisted it was “responding to customer demand” and had done a deal with a local halal butcher to reflect the ethnic make up of the area’s population. Yet figures show that while the borough of Tower Hamlets is almost half Muslim, the Isle of Dogs is about 80 per cent non-Bangladeshi. Workers at the store said furious non-Muslim customers would not [buy] meat derived from cutting the throats of animals and letting them bleed to death.”

This is but the most recent example of the creeping Islamisation of the United Kingdom, one that in this instance is passed off as “responding to customer demand”. Consider this: if we have now reached a stage where the presence of a concentrated body of so-called mainstream Muslims can result in the imposition of shariah-compliant practices, it is only a matter of time before their demographic weight translates into the imposition of other aspects of shariah which will also be forced onto non-Muslims. Islam is incompatible with all other social systems and we must do all that we can to resist and turn back the encroachment of Islamic practices in our country.

ASDA’s bottom line is its bottom line. If the company wishes to respond to customer demand, then let us show it what we want by shopping elsewhere and demanding that it drops its halal policy. I pledge to boycott ASDA. Write to ASDA to express your dissatisfaction with its decision to promote inhumane treatment of animals and state that you’ll not shop at any of its stores until it is reversed. For information on the British Humanist Association’s campaign to end halal and kosher slaughter without pre-stunning visit

Reference: “Asda in Halal Storm”, Ted Jeory, The Sunday Express, 8 November 2009,

Saturday 7 November 2009

Kimberley Munley: Major Hasan’s Nemesis

Police Sergeant Kimberley Munley is an exceptionally brave woman. A true heroine who put her life at risk to successfully bring a halt to Nidal Malik Hasan’s murderous rampage at Fort Hood. In doing so, she was shot twice by the gunman, but somehow managed to shoot him four times and bring him down. Many people owe her a great debt of gratitude, and I hope that she receives the honours that she so richly deserves.

References: "Investigators try to understand reasons behind Major Hasan’s rampage", The Times, 7 November 2009:

"God is great: Last words of Fort Hood gunman before being shot by police heroine", David Gardner & Liz Hazelton, The Daily Mail, 7 November 2009:

Friday 6 November 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan urged US Muslims to “rise up”

The truth is out. Colleagues have revealed that the US Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan reacted gleefully to news of deaths of soldiers killed by suicide bombers and stated that his fellow US Muslims should “rise up” and attack the US for its foreign policy. In a Fox News interview Colonel Lee (one of Hasan’s colleagues) stated that Hasan had said "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square."

Why was a man with such views permitted to remain in the US Army? We all know the answer: multiculturalism. Only a dyed-in-the-wool multiculturalist would not understand why Hasan – “a devout Muslim” according to a local imam – held such a deep animus towards his fellow non-Muslim American citizens. Faizul Khan, an imam who knew Hasan whilst he was resident in Washington, said of his conversations with Hasan “Mostly we were discussing religious matters, nothing too controversial, nothing like an extremist.” That’s right. Nothing like an extremist in a Quranic context of course.

Any Muslim who actively subscribes to and follows the tenets of their faith, believes that affiliation to the ummah – the global community of Muslims – trumps any affiliation to nation. To permit such a man to serve in the military, particularly at a time when the US is fighting a war against a number of Muslim majority states, highlights the folly of multiculturalism. Likewise, here in the UK, the armed forces and the police are encouraged to recruit more Muslims. Naturally, thankfully not all of them will be like Nidal Malik Hasan, but are we truly being wise when we encourage their recruitment to our military and security services? Are we not undermining their cohesion and effectiveness, as well as posing a risk to the physical safety of non-Muslim members of the armed forces?

For commentary on the Hasan case, please visit:

“Muslim army major kills 12 and injures 31 in shootout with troops at U.S. military base”, David Gardner, Daily Mail,

“Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'”, Philip Sherwell, Daily Telegraph,

“Profile: Major Nidal Malik Hasan”, BBC,

“Deadly shootings at US army base”, BBC,

Fort Hood Shootings: Major Nidal Malik Hasan

What a surprise. It transpires that the main perpetrator of today's atrocity at Fort Hood - Major Nidal Malik Hasan - turns out to have been a Muslim convert. Now, I wonder why a man such as Major Malik who  converted to such a 'peace-loving' religion as Islam should have gone on to murder so many of his comrades? Any ideas? For further details see

It would seem that he may have been 'inspired' by Tuesday's shooting spree by an Afghan policeman in which five British soldiers were murdered and a number of others injured. Will these two incidents prove to be the precursors to a wave of such attacks?

Thursday 5 November 2009

The Lisbon Treaty: David Cameron and the Death of British Democracy

So, David Cameron will not hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. No surprise there. Did anyone really expect him to offer this to us? Come now, surely you weren’t fool enough to fall for Dave’s “finger of fudge”?

Admittedly, it would not technically make ‘sense’ to hold a referendum on a treaty that has already come into effect and reduced us to a de facto province of the EU, but there would be nothing preventing Cameron from offering us a referendum on continued EU membership following a Tory victory next year. This of course, is not strictly true, for there is something very powerful preventing him from offering us this option: his belief that our absorption into the EU fledgling superstate is a desirable end in itself. What does this betoken for the Conservative Party?

We are entering very interesting and uncharted territory in domestic politics, for the two main political parties have now adopted policies that have effectively alienated their traditional core supporters. Many Tories are naturally Eurosceptic, and Cameron’s willing acquiescence in the snuffing out of our national statehood will not endear him to them. This comes on top of his unwillingness to set a cap upon immigration; ethnic-minority favouritism, all-women shortlists and an embrace of political correctness and multiculturalism which has underpinned these shifts. The focus of contemporary Conservative economic policy, like that of the Labour and the Liberal Democratic parties, is upon unfettered globalism, with no regard for its corrosive impact upon our traditional social fabric and culture.

What therefore, can we say is truly conservative about the Conservative Party? Very little, I would suggest, for the leading lights within the parliamentary party seek to preserve little more than their own personal interests, and those of the rootless transnational capitalist elite which advocates the EU project and globalism more generally. Other than these interests, their policies favour only a tiny minority of the very wealthy within our country. It may pose as a libertarian party (which it is, compared to the Labour Party) and Cameron may employ some of the language of one-nation conservatism and state that multiculturalism is bankrupt, but all of these are but baseless soundbites designed to appeal to traditional Tories. The reality of the contemporary Conservative Party is that it is forwarding an agenda that is diametrically opposed to the objectives and interests of many of its core supporters.

The polls published on the UK Polling Report Blog ( show that the Conservatives have been enjoying a significant lead in the polls since Brown wavered over holding a snap General Election in the autumn of 2007, but dig a little deeper and this lead is more fragile than the headline figures would suggest. The Conservative lead is based more upon voters’ dislike of the Labour Party, rather than any positive regard for the Tories or their leadership. Now that Cameron has alienated the Eurosceptic voting public, what impact will this have upon voting patterns at next year’s General Election? Will significant numbers of Conservative voters desert Cameron for UKIP or the BNP? Could this deny the Conservatives the victory that seemed, until recently, they were almost certain to win? It is difficult to say, for the Labour Party seems to be on the same trajectory as Lloyd George’s Liberal Party: ever downwards.

Labour’s demise rests upon its loss of an animating purpose that chimes with the mood and interests of the native British people. The Labour Party has viciously turned upon the working class and the indigenous population of the British Isles (especially the English). It has vigorously pursued the privatisation agenda, and woven itself into the oligarchical nexus of globalist capitalism. It has nothing positive to offer the indigenous working and middle classes of the United Kingdom. It has pursued policies that have attacked the cultural, ethnic and economic fabric of our country. It is bankrupt, both literally and ideologically. Consequently, chunks of its traditional support have sheared off.

Many Labour supporters amongst the professional middle classes have been wooed by the Cameroons, the Liberal Democrats or the Greens, whilst significant numbers of the dejected English working class have turned to the BNP: “the Labour Party your grandparents used to vote for.” Very large numbers of traditional Labour voters have simply stayed at home and given up on voting. I see nothing in the direction of Labour policy that will cause people (other than of course its imported pool of voters from Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere) to actively support it at the polls in 2010. Those who have traditionally voted Labour but have in recent years given up on voting would be, in my opinion, open to voting for the BNP if only they knew what its policies were.

So, our two main political parties, used to taking turns in governing our country, find themselves in the peculiar position of having alienated their respective core constituencies. Both back the anti-democratic EU oligarchical project, so is it any wonder that people are switched off by mainstream politics, and think that their votes count for nothing? Which of the two main parties will lose most support: Labour or Conservative? One thing is for certain: the party that forms the government of the United Kingdom in 2010 will lack an effective democratic mandate, for it will not in any meaningful respect represent the will of the indigenous people of this country.

In the longer term, both Conservative and Labour parties are finished unless one or the other embraces nationalism. If they do not, another party will step out of the shadows to take its rightful place in Westminster.