Share |

Tuesday 19 October 2010

Reflections on British Nationalism and the Foundation of the British Freedom Party: Part 2

Recognising the Boundaries of Belonging
Since the advent of the Blair era in particular, mainstream politicians and journalists have repeated the mantras that “Britain is a nation of immigrants” and that “the British cannot define themselves because we don’t know who we are”. The first of these mantras is of course an act of tendentious distortion, comparing distinctly unlike phenomena taking place over vastly differing timescales. The second is an out and out lie, unless the referents of this statement are taken to be those who happen to be recent immigrants (i.e. those who have arrived in the post-WWII era) or their descendants.

Although Daniel Defoe’s poem of 1701 – A True-Born Englishman – is often cited as a precursor to the contemporary multicultural dogma, in truth Defoe wrote this piece specifically with a view to ridiculing a wave of anti-Dutch xenophobia then abroad in England that extended to attacks on ordinary law-abiding residents of Dutch descent. It is worth quoting the most famous passage from the poem to set the context:

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het'rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend'ring off-spring quickly learn'd to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus'd betwixt a Saxon and a Dane
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv'd all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.
Note that Defoe compresses the history of 1800 years into 14 lines, enumerating the various peoples who had had some input into the genetic and cultural inheritance of the English. Nowhere does he make reference to Saxon, Danish or Roman ‘communities’ as this would have been (and still is) errant nonsense. All of these strands, drawn from closely related European peoples, had become woven into a single people who saw themselves as a distinct nation: the English. The historical migrations of peoples to the British Isles took place over millennia, and although open to various interpretations, recent studies suggest that the genetic input from elsewhere after the Neolithic period was relatively modest. The closest genetic relatives of the English, particularly those resident in the West of the country, remain the Basques, even though there is nothing in recorded history about any Basque migration. Our ties reach back into deep prehistory (see ‘The Origins of the British’, Stephen Oppenheimer, 2006).

I raise the question of genetics not because I believe that the English are a ‘pure race’, for this is in the same realm of fantasy as the idea that we are ‘a nation of immigrants’, but because it highlights the reality of the current politically motivated desire to erase English identity and English conceptions of nationhood. There is a real continuity, genetic and cultural, between the people who inhabited what we now know as England in prehistory, and those who today know themselves to be the English. However, we English only exist for many in the media and political class when there is call for an imperialist bogey, for somebody to blame for the woes of the world and to pay for them. Then suddenly, we become all too readily identifiable, even though the architects of the imperial design were the ruling stratum who dispossessed our own humble forebears of their rights to common land and an independent existence.

In England, the English constitute a readily identifiable indigenous people, and as such we deserve the right to political self-determination and primacy within our own land. Is it so wrong for us to demand this right in line with indigenous peoples elsewhere? I think not.

Who then, I hear you ask, is English? The answer is straightforward: if you are a UK citizen who lives in England and you have to ask yourself the question “Am I English?” then patently you are not. If the question should pop into your head “Am I Pakistani, or am I English” or “Am I Nigerian, or am I English?” then you are not English, but a resident Pakistani or Nigerian UK passport holder. In such cases you hold the same civil rights as every other citizen, but you are in no respects English, and it is precisely because of this cleft identity, this split loyalty, that you should not have a determining voice in the future of England, for it is not your land to dispose of. Such people have an ethnic homeland as we do, and should not see it as a right to colonise and take ours.

For someone to simply turn up in the UK and to receive citizenship under our current immigration regime does not in any way magically impart to them the quality of being ‘British’, ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Scottish’ or ‘Irish’. Whereas in bygone centuries those who settled here gradually lost their ties with their lands of origin and were absorbed into the host population and dominant culture through intermarriage, those who have come in recent decades have not done so. Why is this so? The reasons are quite straightforward and are derived from the radically different set of historical conditions that have arisen since the Second World War. These have militated against the absorption of incomers and promoted a heightening of perceived difference as well as its perpetuation, and can be characterised as political, legal, technological, sociological and economic. Importantly, there is also the scale and pace of immigration to consider. This dwarfs anything previously described in the historical record and in itself has thus acted as a barrier to the absorption of incomers.

Political factors militating against absorption into the host society and identification with its culture include: the official promotion of multiculturalism through schooling, employment law, the mainstream media and the university system. These are underpinned by ‘hate’ laws. Ethnopluralism is vigorously promoted as are minority religious beliefs associated with non-indigenous peoples. Anyone opposing the official multiculturalist dogma is stigmatised and barred from taking positions of influence in the state sector.

The word ‘revolution’ is much overused, but its application to communications technology in the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is apposite. New modes of transport including intercontinental flights facilitate the mass transit of people from Asia and Africa to the UK, whereas distance and expense would previously have debarred such a movement of people, as would have the many states that lie between our islands and their lands. Telecommunications ensure that once immigrants arrive here they never have to feel that they our out of touch with their country of origin: the telephone and satellite television followed by the internet have allowed diasporas to keep in touch with the mother country without feeling any great psychological need to adapt to the culture of their new home which is itself denigrated and denied by the UK’s political and cultural oligarchy (the same situation can be found across most Western European countries).

Sociologically, immigrants increasingly cleave to their own identities and cultures because of the aforementioned factors. Some groups, such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, constantly replenish and reinforce their ancestral cultures through the importation of ill-educated rural dwellers (usually close relatives) from their homelands via chain migration. Our law allows for so-called ‘family reunion’. I’ve nothing against family reunion, but shouldn’t it be in the family’s land of origin? Looking at the increasing social fragmentation and atomisation of the receiving society, these immigrants tend to feel more comfortable in their own ethno-communal networks and cultural contexts. Although some people from such backgrounds have come to identify with and adopt the host culture, most have not. This is particularly true of those with Muslim identities who tend to define themselves against indigenous British norms and values.

Economics plays a role in the promotion of ethnic fragmentation and mass immigration because immigrant labour can be used by those within our ruling oligarchy (I prefer to use this term rather than ‘elite’, because I do not think that the oligarchy necessarily contains our ‘best’, even if some of them may be amongst our ‘brightest') to make handsome profits by undermining domestic labour rates. In summary, multiculturalism and mass immigration are favoured by those who control the levers of the economy because these mechanisms can net them huge profits. Whereas ordinary indigenous Britons suffer, members of the ruling oligarchy can afford to insulate themselves from the deleterious impact of their policies by living in exclusive residential areas (often rural) and by sending their offspring to private schools where they do not have to mix with the polyglot multifaith multitude that are a significant burden on state schools.

Having outlined the reasons why there are now many UK citizens who have no sense of affiliation with the native peoples of the British Isles, I can however say that there are many people in England (Scotland and Wales too) who can recall that some of their ancestors entered the country from elsewhere such as Poland or Italy, but over the generations have been assimilated through intermarriage and adoption of the native culture. I regard these people as English, certainly more English than someone who can trace their ancestry here back ten generations who has converted to Islam. Those who convert to Islam consciously turn their backs not only upon their nation but also their ethnicity, their culture and Western Civilisation: there never has been and never will be such a creature as a Muslim Englishman or woman. The concepts are antithetical. A non-Muslim individual of Jamaican descent who loves England and English culture is more English than an ethnic English Muslim convert, for the former has chosen to embrace our heritage and identity, whilst the latter has spat upon it. Such an example I take to illustrate the concept of cultural nationalism.

Sunday 17 October 2010

Reflections on British Nationalism and the Foundation of the British Freedom Party: Part 1

Following months of rancour within the BNP, a group of reformists has announced the creation of the British Freedom Party (BFP). Its founding has been precipitated by their failure to effectively challenge Nick Griffin’s hold on the leadership of the party and to introduce mechanisms for the democratic formulation of party policy and the appointment of key personnel. Furthermore, there were questions connected to a lack of transparency relating to party accounts and allegations of an absence of financial probity at the top of the party.

Thus, the imperative for the emergence of the new party was not ideological, but procedural. The BFP is therefore presumably what its founders would have liked the BNP to have become had the Nick Griffin/Jim Dowson clique either stepped down or been dislodged. That said, one of the leading voices amongst the BFP is Lee Barnes, the BNP’s former ‘legal eagle’, who fell out with Griffin then swiftly fell in with the reformist camp led by Eddy Butler who sought to challenge Griffin for the party leadership. Being a prolific blogger and commentator on nationalist forums, Barnes has to date been the main source of information about the BFP and its ideological stance. For Barnes, the BFP is not a party founded upon racial nationalism, ethno-nationalism or civic nationalism, but upon cultural nationalism. In effect, this is a beefed-up civic nationalism with a greater emphasis upon the cultural assimilation of the immigrant population.

The objectives of the BFP published on the Advanced Ape blog are certainly ones to which I subscribe:
The objects of the Party shall exist to defend and restore the freedoms, traditions, unity, identity, democracy and independence of the British people, to establish full sovereignty over all our national affairs by restoring the supremacy of the British Parliament, to withdraw from the European Union, to promote democratic British nationalist principles, to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural interests of the British people and to preserve and promote the ancestral rights and liberties of the British people as enshrined in the British Constitution.
The BFP now enters a crowded field of parties touting for the nationalist vote, for besides the BNP there are also UKIP, the English Democrats, the National Front (NF) and the England First Party (EFP). There are probably other miniscule groupings that I have not mentioned, but if I’ve not heard of them, you can guarantee that they certainly will not make a breakthrough. Besides these, we have the anti-Islamisation street movement of the English Defence League (EDL). None, in my opinion, possess the right mix of policies, objectives and organisation to be able to make a mainstream breakthrough at the current time. All lack credibility. What is equally clear is that there has never been a greater need for a moderate nationalist party to break through into the mainstream. Before proceeding to outline why, it will first be necessary to clarify my terms.

Why Nationalism? What is Nationalism?
I recognise that my reasons for favouring nationalism will not be shared by many others who describe themselves as nationalists, and this of course grows out of the fact that what is meant by the term ‘nationalism’ is hotly disputed and possesses a wide variety of definitions. So, before venturing further I shall provide a definition of what I consider to be a ‘nation’ (as those of you familiar with theoretical writings on this subject will note, my position shares a great deal with that of A.D. Smith), but given the limited scope of this piece I shall at this stage neither go into great depth nor provide bibliographic citations in line with standard academic practice as used in the Harvard System.

An ethnie is a group defined by a combination of common biological descent, common culture and common history. These are the preconditions upon which a collective ethnic sentiment is forged and rests; without these, there can be no distinct ‘we’. A nation is a politically mobilised ethnie that is either in possession of a state, is actively seeking statehood, or has lost statehood and is seeking its restoration. Mobilisation thus proceeds upon the basis of securing the interests (however they may be defined) of the nation as a whole. Nationalism therefore represents the purest form of democratic politics, for the nation and the demos and their interests are identified as one. Without seeking to further the interests of the nation, politicians of whatever stated hue are acting against the well-being of the demos, and are thus by definition anti-democrats. Politicians and journalists who act against the interests of the nation use pejorative terms such as ‘populism’ and ‘demagoguery’ to stigmatise the genuine articulation of the people’s interests and opinions by anti-oligarchic rivals.

Nationalism therefore, is nothing more than the political pursuit of the well-being of the members of a given nation. It is the purest expression of democratic principles and thus stands opposed to oligarchy and globalism. Thus, unlike what its leftist detractors claim, nationalism is not an ideology of ‘hate’; nationalism is not ‘xenophobic’; nationalism is not synonymous with imperialism (in fact, genuine nationalists deplore imperialism for they recognise the rights of other nations to self-determination and free political expression) and nationalism is not ‘racist’. Nationalism defines itself in a positive fashion by pursuing what is best for the people collectively, not through seeking conflict with other nations.

Nationalism seeks to liberate the potential of all members of the nation, not of any one class or special interest group. This is why those on the Left detest nationalism, for they are wedded to the belief that international class identities trump all others, and that nations should be ‘smashed’ to usher in their Socialist or Communist Millennium. Nationalism stands for pluralism and true diversity, whereas the visions of leftists and capitalist globalists seek a totalitarian uniformity.

I therefore define myself as a nationalist because I wish to see the best for the members my nation collectively; the nation provides the best context in which individuals can flourish and reach their full potential. I wish to see other peoples also concern themselves with building better lives and futures for their own nations. Nationalism represents the best path for the whole of humanity, and does not in and of itself lead to conflict.

Nationalism is not imperialism. Nationalism is not fascism. Nationalism is not Nazism. Nationalism does not entail ethnic cleansing. Nationalism is democracy in action. Nationalism promotes the conservation of resources and the environment. Nationalism is diversity.

Globalism generates hate. Globalism generates conflict. Globalism facilitates economic imperialism. Globalism is oligarchy in action. Globalism promotes the degradation of resources and the environment. Globalism is uniformity.

Which Nation is Mine?
For all of the above reasons I am a nationalist, but of what type? I am English. In those three words there is much significance, for although I also see myself as British, as European and more widely (moving into the realm of ideological belonging) a Westerner and a rationalist, the ‘English’ element denotes what I consider to be my nationality. Strangely though, although the English are arguably one of the oldest nations, they do not currently possess a statehood of their own, being instead cemented into the UK and the EU. Within the UK the Scots, the Welsh and the Unionist and Republican populations of Ulster all possess their own distinct forms of in-group ethnic sentiment as well as political expression in their own assemblies and, in the Scottish case, Parliament. The English on the other hand, have to make do with Westminster which of course represents the whole of the UK. In this respect therefore, the English can technically be said to lack a political existence as a nation.

Devolution has created a situation in which distinct political dynamics have been established in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales (the situation in Ulster has always been different), which mean that they increasingly see themselves as separate from England. They also have their own ostensible nationalist parties in the form of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, which are in reality defined exclusively through opposition to England and the English because otherwise they embrace multiculturalism and do not therefore behave in the manner of true nationalist parties. The launch of a British rather than an English Freedom Party thus seems to me to be a tactical mistake. England has borne the brunt of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation, and it is in England that there exists the greatest pent up demand for a true national democratic party. An English Freedom Party could still be a unionist party, but, any continuation of the United Kingdom needs to be one that is ratified by its composite nations and, irrespective of its outcome, England needs a parliament of its own.

Tuesday 12 October 2010

Ugly Violence Taints EDL Leicester Demo

The following video clip looks damning and very ugly indeed (hat tip Goodnight Vienna). There is absolutely no excuse for violence such as this by people claiming membership of or support for the EDL or any other group. If anyone knows who these men are, they need to have the book thrown at them. They tarnish the reputation of anyone who speaks out against Islamism in our country. By all means protest against Islamisation, but never ever behave in a fashion such as this. Target the ideology, not people. There is a world of difference between advocating a particular political position and this repellent behaviour.

What on earth did these idiots hope to achieve? They are not fit to be considered fellow Englishmen. I'm just glad that nobody in the restaurant came to any physical harm. Good luck to the police in finding them.

Monday 11 October 2010

BBC plugs ‘We are One Leicester Peace Festival’

Yesterday the BBC gave a plug to the above ‘festival’ held in Leicester following Saturday's demonstration by the EDL. As is evident from the video report below, the BBC’s claim that “Thousands of people showed their opposition to an English Defence League (EDL) protest in Leicester by holding a festival of peace in the city” seemed to be rather overstating the numbers involved.

Unsurprisingly, the so-called ‘Bard of Barking’, otherwise known as Billy Bragg, was on hand to provide out-of-tune singing and some predictable quotes for the cameras. Bragg stated “Down the generations each generation has had to confront the racists and the fascists, you know that my parents’ generation in the war, my generation in rock against racism and a new generation today with the English Defence League.”

Once again, Bragg deploys the standard smears against the EDL, claiming that they are “racists and fascists”. The BBC of course is happy to broadcast these lies as they dovetail neatly with its own deeply ingrained cultural relativist Islamoservile editorial stance. Interestingly, an online article on the event also quotes Bragg as stating:
I'm here because I am a patriot. I have come to Leicester because I care about this great, multicultural city and I am proud to be English. I wanted to come here and say it is not acceptable for anyone to use the symbols of my country to intimidate everyone else.
There you have it: Billy Bragg the lover of multicultural Leicester. Indeed, Bragg is so enamoured of the contemporary urban multicultural experience that he upped sticks from Barking and settled in Dorset. Mercifully, Dorset is still what Greg Dyke would describe as being “hideously white” or, more accurately, English. So, perhaps deep down Billy Bragg really is an English patriot acting in bad faith, which is why despite his words in praise of multiculturalism he has firmly turned his back on it in practice. When you move back to Barking or make your home in Leicester or Bradford Billy, then we may accord some credence to the cant that you currently utter.

Sunday 10 October 2010

Chris Lough delivers EDL Leicester Speech

The video below shows Chris Lough delivering his speech at yesterday’s EDL anti-Islamisation demonstration in Leicester. Listen to his words. I for one cannot hear anything in what he says that suggests that either he or the EDL are the bunch of neo-Nazis that their detractors claim they are. The simple fact of the matter is that UAF, the mainstream media and our political class lie about the EDL; they seek to stigmatise them because they are a grassroots movement which dares to speak the awkward truth about the advance of doctrinaire Islam in our country.

The organisers of UAF – the SWP – think that they can use Islamists to foment a climate of radical violence in our country with a view to undermining our state and society, thus they support them. The mainstream media are uncritical of doctrinaire Islam because its personnel are so steeped in cultural relativism as a goal rather than a method that their critical and moral faculties have become neutralised. Our mainstream politicians will not deal with the problem for a combination of reasons: fear of losing votes in constituencies with high concentrations of Muslims; uncritical adherence to cultural relativism and, lastly but by no means least, fear of radical Muslim violence were they to recognise and address the problem.

EDL and MDL on the Streets of Leicester

The following videos taken in Leicester yesterday illustrate the scale of the police operation in ensuring that rival demonstrators from the EDL and UAF did not clash. One element present in Leicester that the mainstream media chose not to highlight was the so-called Muslim Defence League (MDL), which sprang into being earlier this year in anti-homage to the English Defence League. Like the EDL, this is more an idea and an amorphous movement reliant upon social networking technologies than an organisation with a strictly defined hierarchy. It will of course have its key activists and agitators, but the MDL is no monolith.

However, unlike the EDL the MDL draws the bulk of its street presence at protests from amongst the locally resident population, from Muslim ‘communities’ as the mainstream media likes to refer to such neighbourhoods.  Thus those labelled as members of the MDL in the videos below may in some cases see themselves as such, but in many instances I am sure that the people you see will be resident Muslims either looking for a fight or coming out to ‘protect’ one of their mosques which they were misled into believing would be subject to EDL attack. As I outlined last month, this piece of police ‘intelligence’ appears to have been fabricated with the express intent of banning the EDL from protesting in Leicester. This naturally caused unnecessary and unwarranted alarm amongst Muslim residents and generated a climate of fear that stoked the violence that occurred yesterday.

Lack of Clarity in BBC Report on Violence and Arrests at Leicester Demonstrations

The latest available BBC report on yesterday’s EDL and UAF demonstrations in Leicester reveals that some ugly violent incidents marred the day and a number of arrests were made. However, as you will see from the excerpt reproduced below, the report is written in such a way as not to reveal who was arrested and why. An anonymous commentator on my blog has claimed that some EDL members engaged in acts of violence, and I would be surprised given the numbers involved (the BBC’s revised estimates now stand at 2,000 for the EDL and 600 for UAF) if the demonstration had been entirely peaceful. Let me once again however make it clear that I do not condone violence, but I support the EDL’s right to protest peacefully. Anyone who deliberately initiates and engages in acts of violence must expect the full force of the law to be brought against them.

Given the BBC’s editorial hostility towards the EDL and the anti-Islamisation movement in general, it is therefore surprising that it does not mention how many of the thirteen arrested were from amongst the ranks of the EDL. This suggests to me that as in Bolton earlier this year the majority of arrests were of UAF counter-demonstrators. Indeed in Harrow on 11 September 2009 UAF demonstrators and hothead elements in the local Muslim population attacked the police at the site of a demonstration planned by Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), even though the demonstration itself didn’t take place. Likewise, not long after that they attacked the police in Luton with a variety of items including fireworks even though there was no EDL protest. Unite Against Fascism has a long history of seeking to stir up anti-English hatred and initiating violence in pursuit of its Trotskyist violent revolutionary strategy, as the guiding members of UAF such as Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett are members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) Central Committee.

Even the BBC cannot gloss over the reality of UAF violence, hence its report only makes mention of one specific incident of directed violence, and this was against two EDL coaches which were leaving the city. For me, “throwing stones and bricks” at vehicles is simply inexcusable, for serious injury or death could have resulted. Read the excerpt below, and draw your own conclusions:
Thirteen men have been arrested during two protests in Leicester, which sparked the biggest police operation in the county for 25 years.
The English Defence League (EDL) held a static demonstration and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) staged a counter-protest on Humberstone Gate East. 
Riot police moved in after several fireworks, bottles and coins were thrown.
There were also reports of violence away from the demonstration site.
Gangs were seen throwing stones and bricks at two coaches carrying EDL supporters as they left the city.
Those arrested at the main protest site were aged between 30 and 42 and were not from the Leicester area

UAF in Leicester: Noisy, Repetitious and Tedious

In my previous post you will have seen video footage of the EDL demonstrating in Leicester yesterday, so I thought that I’d also ‘treat’ you to the sight of the Socialist Workers’ Party guided UAF counter-demonstrators who turned up in Leicester. The chanting makes it evident that these people have been so wound up and indoctrinated that they mechanically reproduce the same old slogans coupled with emotions of self-righteous hatred wherever they go. Up goes the old and misplaced shrill refrain “Nazi scum, off our streets!” Well, if they were truly interested in ridding our streets of the nearest contemporary equivalents of what they describe as “Nazi scum”, then they really ought to be joining with the EDL and protesting against Islamism, but these folk just don’t get it. They really don’t get it. Why is the world filled with vapid, empty-headed, dangerous anti-rational fools?

Saturday 9 October 2010

What really happened at the EDL Leicester Demo? Video Footage and Reflections on Press Reports

UPDATE: If you are looking for information on the EDL Demo  in Leicester protesting on behalf of Rhea Page and other English victims of racism on 4 February 2012 please visit the video and article here: 

This is something upon which I can only speculate, for I was not there. That said, I shall endeavour to provide a more objective perspective than you will find given by any NUJ hack (who in all likelihood also was not present) from the information that is at hand.

The Home Secretary Theresa May had banned the proposed EDL march which meant that protesters were confined to the Humberside Gate East area of the city where they were kettled in by a large number of police officers kitted out in riot gear, with mounted police and dogs also at hand. As is now expected at all EDL demonstrations, UAF mounted a counter-demonstration in the city. The Daily Telegraph estimates the number of supporting demonstrators at circa 1,000 and 700 apiece respectively, which is pretty much in line with the scale of previous protests. However, a later estimate on the BBC website claimed that there were 2,000 EDL protesters present, which is a very large turnout, but its later report on associated violence and arrests lacked clarity. Altogether, some 1,400 police participated in the exercise with many being drafted in from neighbouring forces, netting them some handsome overtime payments.

The BBC report on the demonstration was rather temperate in the language that it employed compared to its previous treatments of the EDL, starting off with a couple of interviews with Leicester residents, including a black middle-aged property developer named Mark James who reflected:
The EDL invited me in to hear what they had to say and I was ready to go in, but the police said I couldn’t, it was too dangerous, it could provoke trouble.

You hear and see terrible things about Islamic extremism, so you can see why people would not want that.

And the neighbourhood I live in here in Leicester is mostly Muslim and every community has its own racism - you don't always here about that.
It seems to me that Mr James is a reasonable man who has a mind of his own and who is keen to find out the facts of the matter for himself rather than relying upon media reports. After moving on to an interview with a young woman from Stoke who expressed sympathy with the EDL, the BBC then relapsed into autopilot and sought to associate the EDL with Nazism. I must confess to being flabbergasted that the BBC always manages to find someone who fled from the Nazis and who is willing to tar ordinary English men and women with this vile and baseless association, but once again they did, this time in the person of Maria Ronner who “grew up in Germany in the 1930s”. What Ronner herself says is not actually that damning, but what is of great interest is the manner in which the BBC hack prefaced her observation. First I shall provide her words, and then the prefatory sentence provided by the BBC:
"I heard about this demonstration last night and did not like what I heard, but I was very curious to see what it was really about," she said.

"I have a great interest in the multicultural society. A great interest. It is important to see how people can understand each other, can learn."
What had she heard and what was she told? I should imagine that she would have been fed the lie that the objectives of the EDL are racist, fascist and far-right, etc, so one can naturally understand that this old woman would “not like” what she “heard”. She had been primed to feed the BBC with the lines that they so desired: the EDL are the new Nazis. However, she didn’t go that far, which is why the BBC journalist saw it necessary to write “But a set of experienced eyes viewed the banners with suspicion” ahead of the quotations. “Banners” and “experienced eyes”? What banners? The EDL carry flags, do they not? Flags of St George. English flags. Not “banners” emblazoned with eagles and swastikas. In what way were Maria Ronner’s eyes “experienced” in this respect? Did she see Nazi stormtroopers marching with crosses of St George against Sharia law in 1930s Germany? I don’t think so. Once again, the BBC displays its typically tendentious reporting, designed to elicit hatred of the EDL and by extension of the English as an ethnic group in line with NUJ guidelines. Still, this report was a model of balance compared to the shockingly poor and partisan quality of the following interview with the ersatz Labour ‘Lord’ and MP ‘Sir Peter Soulsby’ shown below:

The AFP claims that there were eight arrests of protestors today, but as on previous occasions, it did not spell out whether all or any of these were from the EDL or UAF. One set of protesters which the mainstream media ignored were the so-called Muslim Defence League (MDL) who intended to attack the EDL. If you would like to view footage of their activity yesterday including a clash with a small group of EDL protesters take a look at EDL and MDL on the Streets of Leicester.  The videos below give a flavour of the main EDL demonstration, but for some reason the ITN report appears to lack sound.

Tuesday 28 September 2010

Breaking News: Multiple Terror Attack Plot Intercepted

Sky News has been the first to break the news of an alarming and sensational plot designed to simultaneously wreak bloodshed in cities across Europe, including several unnamed British cities of which one was intended to be London. Thankfully, the intelligence services have kept one step ahead of the plotters and prevented its implementation. The question is: how many other such plots are brewing? If you are a commuter on the rail and underground networks of Britain, France or Germany, remain ever vigilant. Your life and the lives of those around you may depend upon your heightened state of alertness.

Although not describing any of the details of the plot, CNN claims that a significant spike in the number of drone attacks against targets in Pakistan – some 20 in the past month – has been directly connected to the attempt to disrupt its implementation. This is more than double the monthly average of such strikes. The Herald Sun also reports that eight Algerians linked to the plot have also been arrested.

Sky’s full report is reproduced below:

Intelligence agencies have intercepted a terror plot to launch Mumbai-style attacks on London and other European cities, according to Sky News sources.Sky's foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall said militants based in Pakistan were planning simultaneous attacks on London and other major British cities.

The group - thought to be linked to Al Qaeda - were then planning similar attacks in France and Germany.

He said the plot was in the "advanced but not imminent stage" and the plotters had been tracked by spy agencies for some time.

Intelligence sources said the planned attacks would have been similar to the commando-style raids carried out in Mumbai.

South Park offers Muslim Sensitivity Training

You just have to watch the following clip. Brilliant! Hat tip to the English Defence League Extra blog.

Monday 27 September 2010

UFOs sighted in the Headlines

Everyone enjoys a good UFO tale, and today has produced a pretty top-notch one in the form of a news conference given by a number of US airmen including Charles Halt, a former USAF Chief Colonel who was once in charge of RAF Bentwaters and was a witness of the famous Rendlesham Forest UFO incident. Many have since claimed that the airmen were spooked by beams from a local lighthouse, others however, Halt included, think that what they saw was something rather less earthly. Halt claims that the unidentified craft landed in the base’s nuclear storage area.

The Daily Telegraph quotes another participant in today’s Washington press conference, Captain Robert Salas, as saying that
The US Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it.
He claims that on 16 March 1967 a UFO deactivated nuclear missiles at the Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana:
I was on duty when an object came over and hovered directly over the site.
The missiles shut down - 10 Minuteman missiles. And the same thing happened at another site a week later. There's a strong interest in our missiles by these objects, wherever they come from. I personally think they're not from planet Earth.
Was there some significance to holding the press conference today? Are they plugging a book? Is there some other agenda at play here, or are they telling the truth? I am open-minded (but as Dawkins would say, not so open-minded that my brains fall out), but err on the side of scepticism.

Now, let us for the sake of argument assume that their testimonies are suddenly taken seriously by national governments and media irrespective of their facticity: what implications would such a revelation have? Would it be used as another argument to promote globalism and a transnational architecture of governance? I suspect that the answer would be yes. Would it be a useful means of generating fear globally and thus ushering in an era of greater social and economic control by the nascent global oligarchy? It would seem so.

Leaving aside the usefulness of the acceptance of such a fact, or indeed a fiction, to those who favour the construction of a global government, I suggest that it would also tap into eschatological fantasies of both religious and secular varieties (see this link to a piece entitled 'The Coming Strong Delusion' for an example of such beliefs). The three monotheisms originating in the Middle East all subscribe to the notion of a Day of Judgement and the deliverance of humanity by some supernatural saviour. The global promotion of the acceptance of the reality of advanced extraterrestrial intelligences at work in our world could prompt an outpouring of eschatological hysteria as Jews, Christians and Muslims each await or prepare for the coming of their respective Messiahs and the Mahdi. Perhaps Ahmadinejad would look forward to prostrating himself before the Twelfth Imam in the form of a ‘grey’ from the neighbourhood of Aldebaran before enlisting his help in the battle against Dajjal? Beware their efforts in ‘cleansing’ the world of impure ‘elements’ (i.e. you and me) were any of these to get it into their heads that Judgement Day was at hand. It would have the potential to get rather bloody.

Greens would love to embrace the alien myth as this would underscore their belief in the necessity of creating a harmonious united globe, which would once again play into the hands of the emergent globalist oligarchy. So, much as I do enjoy a good UFO story, I hope that today’s report continues to be regarded as such rather than a reality, for if it is accepted as the latter, prepare yourself for the final onslaught of the real enemies of humanity: the globalists, whether they undertake it alone or with extraterrestrial assistance. Welcome to a world of everlasting helotage!

Below is a Fox News report on the story featuring an interview with one of the witnesses:

Tell Subway what you think of its Halal Menu: ditch it or we’ll ditch you!

This evening I take a brief look at the manner in which the Subway chain sanitises its sale of halal meat to its customers by using language that skirts around precisely what halal means. So, first things first, below I have cut and pasted the text from its website that seeks to drum up custom through proudly announcing its decision to introduce halal meats:

SUBWAY® stores always encourage customer feedback. So following a strong demand from our Muslim customers, SUBWAY® stores in the UK and ROI introduced certified Halal meats in specific stores. When you see the symbol you can be reassured that only Halal meats are served in that SUBWAY® store.

At this time, only a limited number of stores serve Halal meats.

What is Halal?

In Arabic, the word Halal means "permitted" or "lawful" and defines anything that is allowed or lawful according to the Qur'an. It is often used in the context of food - especially meat - to indicate that the food has been prepared in accordance with Muslim principles and techniques.

Do all SUBWAY® stores serve Halal meats?

No. At this time only a limited number of SUBWAY® stores serve Certified Halal meats. For a list of participating stores please contact:

How do I know if a SUBWAY® store serves Halal meats?

Look for the SUBWAY® Halal symbol. It will be displayed on the stores front window, the menu panels and the front counter.

Is it the same great taste?

The meats served at Halal SUBWAY® stores have been produced to meet SUBWAY® stores high standards in taste, look and quality. The objective was to ensure the taste of the Halal products matched the taste of the SUBWAY® stores "Gold Standard" meats.

If you have any further questions with regards to the products or procedures used at Halal SUBWAY® stores or if you wish to send us your comments / feedback please email:
Well, there you have it: ‘In Arabic, the word Halal means “permitted” or “lawful” and defines anything that is allowed or lawful according to the Qur’an.’ No mention of slitting a conscious animal’s throat and watching it slowly bleed to death whilst uttering some Mohammedan incantation. Why don’t they post a video of halal slaughter on this webpage so that customers can see precisely what halal meats imply?

Given that our politicians will do nothing to outlaw halal slaughter in our country or prevent the importation of meat and poultry produced in this way, then we must speak to business in the only language that it understands: the language of profit and loss. If Subway and others (KFC, Asda, Harvester, etc) think that they can force this food upon us, let us make it quite clear that we’ll not be purchasing their products any longer. Go elsewhere for your fast-food: to Burger King, McDonalds or your local chippy, for none of these use halal meat. Let Subway know what you think of their pandering to those who insist upon unnecessary cruelty in animal slaughter by telling them precisely what you think of their policy. Fire off a few emails to

Let’s spell it out to Subway: ditch halal meat or we’ll ditch you! Help Subway see sense. Boycott Subway until it ends the sale of halal meat in the UK. Our politicians won’t do it for us, so we must do it for ourselves. Each week we should choose a halal-compliant business to bombard with emails and letters of complaint. Let's take them out one by one and make Britain a halal-free zone!

Sunday 26 September 2010

Are there Four Million Muslims in the UK? According to the Retail Sector, Yes.

Successful retailers are canny about customer preferences and purchasing power, and no specialist trade publication in the retail sector would last for long if it published information which did not assist its readership in increasing turnover and profits. The information contained in a lengthy feature entitled ‘Halal here we come’ which was published last month by the Online Meat Trades Journal is therefore of interest to more than the meat sector, insofar as its analysis of the Muslim market in the UK reveals some surprising statistics.

As the Mail on Sunday revealed last Sunday, millions of non-Muslim Britons are being sold halal-slaughtered meat and poultry without this fact being advertised, and Muslim consumer habits reveal why this is the case. According to the Online Meat Trades Journal the halal meat market in the UK is worth up to £2 billion per annum, but it laments that most [of this] meat is imported and sold via ethnic retailers.’ It therefore sees considerable scope for the domestic industry to up its share of the halal sector and thereby increase its turnover and profits as outlined in the following revealing paragraph:
The huge halal meat sector may be on the verge of further development. Up to four million Muslims, representing 3% of the UK population consume an estimated 27% of lamb and 40% of poultry produced (according to supplier Janan Meat). Given this and the fact that the European halal food market is worth approximately 15bn (£12.5bn) serving over 50m Muslims a population estimated to have grown by more than 140% in the last decade (according to Halal Industries Group) it is little wonder that mainstream retailers and wholesalers want to tap into halal.
Note the reference to “up to four million Muslims” in the UK. The 2001 census suggested that there were 1.6 million Muslims in the UK, whilst in January 2009 the Times published figures which illustrated that the resident Muslim population was growing ten times faster than any other sector of society, and had by the end of 2008 risen to circa 2.4 million. Clearly, we are witnessing a terrifyingly fast growth of this population, and the more of them that are here the stronger will be their lobbying for the free ingress of their co-religionists from overseas.

The article is also candid about the spectacularly rapid growth of the Muslim population across Europe. Demographic Islamisation is happening and it is translating directly into enforced cultural and political Islamisation as well as modified business practices. Given the figures relating to the percentages of poultry and lamb purchased by Muslims in the UK, why would large producers and abattoirs opt to have a non-halal supply chain when maintaining separate feeds adds to costs and halal slaughter remains (for some illogical reason) legal, particularly when it is the halal sector that is growing the fastest? This not only has to be stopped, but to be reversed: halal slaughter in the UK must be banned, as must be the importation of all animal products derived from this practice.

The non-Muslim apologists for halal slaughter often avoid confronting the matter by claiming that slaughtering animals is painful anyway. However, this assertion is a non-starter, for as a degree of suffering is unavoidable in animal slaughter, why make this suffering worse by slitting the creature’s throat and bleeding it to death rather than stunning? This leads on to the second of the rationalisations used by the apologists: in the UK halal slaughter involves pre-stunning. Although this proviso does exist, many Muslims do not accept that pre-stunned animals truly are halal and thus insist that stunning is not employed. Bizarrely, our law allows for halal slaughter without pre-stunning. The confusion surrounding this issue is illustrated by the comments of Rizvan Khalid (an executive director of a halal processor) on the Food Standard Agency’s (FSA) guidelines on halal slaughter in his interview with the Online Meat Trades Journal:
"I don't see how the FSA can enforce the guidelines, because although good, they are only guidelines."

The issue of whether to stun or not makes it difficult to implement one set of guidelines, he says. "Having studied the stunning issue from a scientific and a religious point of view, I can see the benefits of both." The 'default' practice at Euro Quality Lambs, where an average 15,000 animals a week are processed, is to stun. But for some customers animals are not stunned. "Some consumers only accept non-stun, but some will accept stunning as long as it does not kill the animal," he says. "But the determining factor is not the stunning itself, but how you handle and restrain the animal for stunning or for immediate slaughter." With such diverse and different requirements from customers and consumers, it is difficult to come up with one set of guidelines, he believes.
This illustrates why you should not purchase any meat or poultry labelled as halal. Sadly, some of our major supermarkets are greedily adapting their practices to the growing halal market and thus both Tesco and Asda have been making special efforts to introduce halal ranges.

The fact is that the option of choosing whether or not you eat halal meat is quickly disappearing as Islam’s demographic ascendancy forces its doctrinaire demands upon the rest of us whilst our politicians refuse to recognise let alone tackle the issue. If when you are eating out and no guarantee can be given that your meal does not contain halal-slaughtered produce I would recommend that you either opt for whichever pork-based option is available, stick to game or the vegetarian option. When buying fresh meat, purchase from a reputable local butcher and not a supermarket.

Saturday 25 September 2010

Politicised Leicestershire Police Force wants to ban EDL Leicester Demo

According to a report appearing in this morning’s Leicester Mercury, Leicestershire Chief Constable Simon Cole has claimed that members of the English Defence League (EDL) are planning to attack a mosque in Leicester as part of their protest in the city on 9 October. Anyone who is aware of what the EDL really stands for knows that it would never do such a thing, and it is crystal clear that this baseless assertion by Leicestershire Constabulary is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to ban the march. Nonetheless, it would seem that this allegation has helped to marshall the votes of the city's councillors, for the BBC reports  that they have voted unanimously for a ban on the march. The Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to take a decision on this request in the coming week, and it seems predictable what the outcome will be.

This assertion that the EDL march poses a “major threat” to public order is based upon a putative intelligence report from 8 September. EDL demonstrations have never involved attacks upon mosques. By releasing such alleged ‘intelligence’ the police are stoking tensions amongst highly volatile elements within the Muslim population and generating fear where none should be. This is tantamount to inciting hatred against members of the EDL. The Leicester Mercury quotes the police report as follows:
Intelligence dated September 8, 2010, indicated that the EDL intend to come to Leicester and attack a mosque before marching into the Highfields area, which represents the highest resident population of the Muslim community.

This reflects previous intentions of EDL processions, such as that within Leicester, where actions were targeted to cause disruption to the Muslim community by provoking serious public disorder.
The police plan is to use these assertions as the basis to apply to the Home Office for a ban on the EDL protest, although as in Bradford last month they would be powerless to prevent a static demonstration from taking place so police overtime payments shouldn’t be too detrimentally affected. Nice money if you can get it on the back of stoking tensions in Leicester. Whilst on the subject of stoking tensions, UAF are planning a ‘counter-demonstration’ which will feature the usual lies about the EDL designed to try and recruit deluded doctrinaire Muslims into their Islamo-Marxist axis with the ultimate aim not of combating what they term ‘racism’, but of overthrowing the state through non-democratic means.

According to the UAF website, their meeting in Leicester on Thursday evening was attended by about 200 supporters who listened to a number of speakers trotting out the usual tired cliches of so-called ‘anti-racism’ in support of multiculturalism and Islam. The words of Leicester councillor Patrick Kitterick illustrate the type of combative leftist posturing so beloved of those whose comprehension of the complex reality of the social and political worlds around us is limited to slogans and formulaic Marxisant literature:
We’ve got to defend the city. We can’t let the EDL turn it upside down. October 9 will make us all stronger, not weaker – on Saturday we’ll defend the city from the EDL.
Unusually, Hope not Hate (another Communist controlled professional ‘anti-racist’ (sic) outfit headed by Gerry Gable) will be holding what it terms a ‘peace vigil’ on the evening preceding the protest! The leaderships of Hope not Hate and UAF fell out a number of years ago, so it is a surprise to see them both planning to campaign in Leicester in October.

The alarmist police report has already generated quotes from prominent talking heads within Leicester’s Muslim ‘community’, such as from Suleman Nagdie (Chairman of the Federation of Muslim Organisations) and Ibrahim Mogra (associate Imam at Evington Muslim Centre) denouncing the “planned attack”. Are these men really so misguided as to believe that the EDL would plan an attack on a mosque, or are they cynically using this phantom threat as a means to get the EDL protest banned so that they can continue unimpeded in their business of proselytising for Islam in Leicester?

Quite rightly, Guramit Singh the EDL organiser of the intended Leicester protest has rebutted the police claims re a planned mosque attack and has stated:
We are coming to Leicester to peacefully demonstrate and we denounce attacks on any mosques. We are here to fight militant Islam, not moderate Islam. The intelligence provided by the police is incorrect.
In a week during which six men have been arrested on a baseless charge of inciting 'racial hatred' for burning copies of the Qur'an in Gateshead, I wish good luck to Guramit and to all members and supporters of the EDL in making the Leicester demonstration one which is peaceful and successful despite police and leftist attempts to stifle free expression. May you continue to alert the public to the real threat to our way of life posed by an active and growing Islamism.

Suspected Bomber aboard Toronto to Karachi Flight

The Associated Press has reported that a Boeing 777 flight has made an unscheduled landing in Stockholm owing to a tip off that one of the passengers was in possession of explosives. It has been announced that the suspect is an ethnic Pakistani Canadian citizen. Bomb technicians and police are heading to the plane, but as yet there is no intention of closing the airport. Kansas City News reports that the 273 passengers are now being evacuated. Astonishingly, the BBC coverage of this story does not even mention the fact that the suspect is a Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin (this was the case as of 09:22 UK time; the BBC may relent and add this detail later). This is typical of the BBC’s unwillingness to link acts of terrorism or suspected terrorism to Islam, Muslims or even Islamism.

If the suspect turns out to be an Islamist suicide bomber, the question has to be asked: why hasn’t he detonated himself? Did he have a change of heart or a failure of nerve? Did his device fail? Is this man another ‘underpants’ bomber? Is this just a false alarm?

Details at present are scant, but the manner in which the tip off was delivered was unusual: according to CNN it was given by a woman who called Canadian police from a payphone in Canada who then relayed the information to the crew of the plane whilst it was in Swedish airspace. The report quotes Stockholm Police spokesman Kjell Lindgren as saying: "They landed here because they said that someone onboard was carrying something that wasn't allowed, some explosive or something. We don't know exactly what it is yet."

The video report below is taken from Sky News:

Thursday 23 September 2010

Thoughtcrime in Gateshead: Qur’an Burning reveals Police enforcing Shariah Law in the UK

An astonishing series of arrests has taken place in Gateshead, with two arrests taking place on 15 September and four more on 22 September. The BBC reports that six men have been arrested and released on bail for videoing themselves burning copies of the Qur’an on 11 September, with the subsequent video being placed on the internet. To the best of my knowledge, the books that they burned were their property, and like all books did not possess a central nervous system and therefore felt no pain. The burning Qur’ans were not used to set light to anything else, so what crime, in heaven’s name, are these men supposed to have committed?

The police arrested them “on suspicion of inciting racial hatred”. How many more times do the fools who initiated these arrests need to be told that Islam is not a race? Would they have been arrested if they had burned copies of the ‘Communist Manifesto’, ‘The Wealth of Nations’ or ‘Mein Kampf’? I think not, for like any clod even ‘plod’ can recognise that Communism, free-market economics and Nazism are not races.

What this case illustrates is the corrosive impact of the embedding of ‘diversity training’ (sic) in police forces and councils across the country, part of New Labour’s poisonous legacy which has been taken up with verve by the successor ConDem Government. The statement in the following excerpt from the BBC report possesses all the hallmarks of the ‘diversity’ groupthink and anti-democratic inclinations and practices of Common Purpose:
In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole.
"Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."
While the police are busying themselves prosecuting citizens for exercising their right of free expression, cases of burglary and violent crime go unsolved and people’s lives are made hell by anti-social elements. The police in the UK have been corrupted by political interference and can no longer be considered an agency that seeks to protect the public. It has been transformed into an agent of political repression, monitoring and prosecuting instances of ‘wrong’ thinking. We no longer live in a free society. We can but hope that if this case is taken to court it is thrown out by the jury. Here is the video:

Wednesday 22 September 2010

Ramadan in Moscow: is Islamisation catching up with Russia?

When the Soviet Union was still in existence, many senior policymakers were concerned about the implications of differential fertility rates in its constituent ‘republics’, for it was clear that at some point in the near future these would lead to a situation in which the USSR would become more than 50% Muslim. Such a pattern was already startlingly evident by 1970 when the census revealed that the RSFSR’s birth rate was already at sub-replacement level with an average of only 1.97 children per family. In Ukraine, the situation was only slightly better with the equivalent figure being 2.04, but in the Muslim republics of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan the corresponding figures were respectively 4.63, 5.95 and 5.64. These sorts of contrasts of course are witnessed today across Western Europe, where indigenous Europeans are outbred by an assortment of Muslim immigrant populations: Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in England; Algerians in France and Turks in Germany to give but a few examples. The English, the French and the Germans are breeding at sub-replacement levels, whereas the resident Muslim populations are exploding.

Being reliant upon a conscript army the Soviets were concerned about the potential impact of demographic Islamisation upon the reliability of its armed forces. This was also an issue in which the Americans were interested, but from their perspective, the resultant tensions that demographic Islamisation would generate within the Soviet Union should be welcomed as it would help to undermine its stability.

When the USSR fragmented in 1991 the Russian Federation emerged as a fully-fledged independent state shorn of its former ‘Muslim’ republics of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. However, although the proportion of Muslim citizens in this new state was lower, its Muslim population was still significant. The territorial entities that had been the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics of the RSFSR remained constituent parts of the new Russian Federation, and a number of these contained peoples which had traditionally been Muslim: Bashkortostan, Chechnya, Dagestan and Tatarstan being some of the main examples. Of course, to describe the majority populations of these territorial entities as ‘Muslim’ in any meaningful sense at the time of Russia’s independence is to ignore the deep impact of decades of Soviet socialisation and atheistic campaigning which had led to a decrease in religious practice. Nonetheless, a component of the ethnic and national reawakening which swept the Soviet Union and its successor states was a turning towards traditional forms of religious identity.

In English, we fail to distinguish between ethnic Russians – russkie – and Russian citizens – rossiiane. Whereas russkie were traditionally Orthodox Christians, many rossiiane – Bashkirs, Tatars, Chechens, Dagestanis – were traditionally Muslim. The example of Chechnya and the growth of Islamism in that republic has been well documented. Islamism has fused with ethnic identity, and has even been embraced its current President (Ramzan Kadyrov) who has made the wearing of the headscarf mandatory for women in Grozny whether they’re Muslims or not, advocates Shariah and supports polygamy. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is well disposed towards Kadyrov, and it was his backing when he was President that secured Kadyrov his political position. This highlights the bogus nature of Putin’s alleged Russian patriotism.

As well as possessing large officially recognised Muslim populations, there are also many illegal immigrants in Russia drawn from the USSR’s former Muslim republics. Being the centre of Russian economic life Moscow acts as a particular magnet for such people, so much so that an estimated 2 million people living in Moscow are now Muslims. Although the Bolsheviks committed many dreadful acts of wanton destruction and removed many of the city’s Orthodox churches, a number of these beautiful buildings remain, but for how much longer? Muslims now wish to use them for worship and are demanding that more mosques be built to accommodate their growing numbers. Many readers of this blog will be familiar with the video footage of Muslims in Paris blocking the streets with their Friday prayers, but the video below taken in Moscow on Eid ul-Fitr depicts a scene that dwarfs anything yet seen in France. An estimated 55,000 Muslims blocked one of Moscow’s major thoroughfares – Prospekt Mira – to pray in a demonstration of Islamic strength and assertiveness, which must surely have produced a sense of unease amongst the group of russkie videoing this event from the rooftops.

Ethnic Russians are not reproducing at replacement level, and as elsewhere in Europe it is the swelling Muslim population that is displacing them. My sympathies are with the plight of ordinary Russians: we are in this together.

Prospekt Mira swamped by Muslims

Monday 20 September 2010

BBC Bias paints Sweden Democrats as Devils Incarnate

We, the television licence payers of the United Kingdom, have the right to demand that the BBC executes its duty to the public as defined below:
The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.
Can anyone read the above passage and honestly say that BBC news coverage fulfils these stated objectives? I would contend that it does not. By way of example, I draw your attention to its systematic abuse of language; an abuse used to tap into the British public’s conditioned reflexes of loathing that come to the fore when the terms ‘far-right’ or ‘racist’ are deployed. The BBC uses these terms in an attempt to destroy the credibility of its chosen targets, and to elicit a sense of contempt for people and organisations thus labelled in the minds of its readers, listeners and viewers.

I first became aware of this BBC tactic some eight years ago when it was illustrated with crystal clarity by its reporting of the then popular Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Given that Fortuyn was a professor of sociology, an outspoken advocate of Dutch liberal values, a hitherto member of the Dutch Labour Party and openly homosexual, how might you choose to define his politics? Liberal? Certainly. Left of centre? On some issues, undeniably. Far-right? ‘Far-right’? Since when have liberal centrist politicians who choose not to describe themselves as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ been classified as ‘far-right’? Well, according to the BBC, the Guardian and the majority of other mainstream media outlets, this was the appropriate label for Fortuyn. Thus labelled and demonised, Fortuyn was to die at the hands of a leftist assassin.

What ‘sin’ had this man committed to be afforded the pariah label of ‘far-right’? What egregious act had he undertaken? What sacred value had he violated? The answer is simple: he had transgressed a taboo that none in the contemporary Western world may violate without becoming an object of officially sanctioned universal hate: he had spoken the truth. This is the truth that has subsequently been spoken by Geert Wilders; by Thilo Sarrazin and by the Sweden Democrats, and whenever this truth has been spoken, the BBC has been there ready to stigmatise, distort and dehumanise. Its aim: to destroy both messenger and message; hence its ready recourse to the terms 'far-right', 'populist', 'intolerant' and 'irrational'.

The truth is this: multiculturalism is a failure; mass immigration has a negative impact on receiving societies; Islam and Western values are fundamentally incompatible. Doctrinaire Muslims are permanently ill at ease in Western societies and are spurred by their ideology to undermine their host’s social structures and norms with a view to replacing them with an Islamic alternative using whichever means, peaceful or otherwise, that they find expedient at a given time. Anyone acknowledging these facts will be described by the BBC, the Guardian and the entire political and media establishments of the Western world as ‘far-right’. It would seem that to apply rational objective standards is to be ‘far-right’. I stand ‘guilty’ as charged.

Fortuyn’s melancholy ghost stall haunts the BBC (or is it just that BBC journalists are too lazy to avoid recycling tried and tested stock phrases?). Following Fortuyn’s assassination in 2002 the BBC website stated:
Fortuyn's anti-Muslim views, calls for an end to all immigration and pledges to come down hard on crime struck a chord with voters despite the country's celebrated reputation for liberalism and religious tolerance.
Compare the above to today’s reporting of the Sweden Democrats electoral success:
The party appears to have tapped into voter dissatisfaction over immigration, says our correspondent, with the result undermining the image of Sweden as a tolerant and open-minded country.
Note how the BBC implies that any attempt by the Dutch or Swedish electorates to defend their national integrity or identity is thereby defined as innately illiberal, intolerant and narrow-minded. In what way is seeking to defend your own country against Islamisation any of these things? The attitudes, values and practise of doctrinaire Muslims on the other hand are all of these: illiberal, intolerant and narrow-minded. As this clearly illustrates, you don’t need to be Spock to realise that the BBC is essentially illogical.

Sunday 19 September 2010

Sweden Democrats win Seats in the Riksdag

The Associated Press states that exit polls indicate that the Sweden Democrats have taken 4.6% of the vote in today’s national election. If this figure were correct, it would give the anti-Islamisation party circa 20 seats in Sweden’s 349-seat Riksdag. However, it is believed that the party could fair better still, possibly securing 6%, for its spokesmen claim that their voters are always less willing to publicly admit whom they voted for owing to fear of stigmatisation. Indeed, the Tundra Tabloids blog reports that the cumulative vote in the 3433 of Sweden’s 5668 electoral districts counted thus far does give the Sweden Democrats 6%.

This is an excellent night for the Sweden Democrats, for despite having had to face a united opposition from all of the establishment parties and mainstream media, they have broken through into the Riksdag. This means that it is unlikely that any one party will be able to form a government. However, as in the Netherlands where Geert Wilders’s PVV could have held the balance of power, it is highly improbable that any of the other parties would wish to include the Sweden Democrats in a coalition. Still, they have now given indigenous Swedes a voice despite media blackouts, leftist intimidation and assault and a ban on party meetings. Congratulations are in order for Jimmie Åkesson and his party, for they have provided another ray of hope for the peoples of Europe. I wish them well in turning back the tides of Islamisation and mass immigration in Sweden.

Halal Britain: Islam’s Subversion of Animal Welfare in the UK

The Mail on Sunday has revealed the shocking extent to which catering in the UK has become Islamised. It transpires that not only do Muslims get the halal meat and poultry that they desire, but that it is also being sold to unsuspecting non-Muslim consumers who would rightly object to the manner in which these animals were slaughtered. Strangely, one of the biggest culprits in selling halal meat to unsuspecting customers is the brewer Whitbread! Apparently, more than three-quarters of its poultry sold via its Beefeater and Brewers Fayre outlets turns out to be halal. The Mail quotes a Whitbread spokesman as saying:
We don’t specify halal as a requirement in our procurement. We base our decision on quality and price. It just turns out that we source that amount of chicken from suppliers that happen to be halal. It is not mentioned on any of our menus because we don’t think there is customer demand for that information. But if people started asking, then we would definitely provide it. 
Well, that’s yet another company that joins my list to boycott along with KFC and Asda because of their halal compliant policies. Will you join me? It is scandalous that our advanced norms of animal welfare are being undermined by the practise of barbarous dark-age religious codes for which the Government (whichever mainstream party it is drawn from) makes special exemption for them. It is galling and utterly irrational that special exemption to animal welfare standards should be granted to religious slaughter that incurs needless additional suffering to animals. Halal slaughter should be banned in the UK, as should the importation of halal meat and poultry. If Muslims see the consumption of halal produce as integral to their way of life they can quite easily up sticks and make their home in another country where these backward practices are an accepted societal norm.

Other organisations that owned up to serving halal meat and poultry to unsuspecting non-Muslims included:

· All Bar One
· Ascot Racecourse
· Cheltenham College
· Guy’s Hospital
· Harvester
· Marlborough College
· Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
· St Thomas’ Hospital
· Toby Carvery
· Wembley Stadium

We need to ban halal slaughter in the UK, but until this ban becomes a reality, I urge you to write to all organisations that force halal food upon their customers and clients demanding that they stop doing so. Wherever possible, boycott any business that sells halal food and find an alternative supplier. Islamisation has gone too far and it must be rolled back. Say no to the Islamisation of Britain. Say no to the Islamisation of Europe. Say no to halal produce. Say goodbye to unnecessary cruelty.

There are a number of campaigns to ban halal slaughter in the UK. If you would like to get involved, the following links are useful:

· Facebook British Anti Halal Campaign
· For vegetarians there is the Viva Campaign against Ritual Slaughter
· British Humanist Association’s Campaign against Ritual Slaughter

Saturday 18 September 2010

Sweden Democrats to make Poll Breakthrough?

The media is abuzz with anticipation that the Sweden Democrats Party may make history in this Sunday’s national elections by breaking through the 4% threshold required to gain representation in Parliament (the Riksdag). This is significant insofar as the party’s strong anti-immigration and anti-Islamisation stance has led it to being classified as ‘far right’ by its detractors which has resulted in predictable attacks from the media and leftist groups. Some of these attacks have not been limited to the written and spoken word, but have taken the form of physical assault and violent protest by leftist demonstrators.

As one would expect, the UK’s Guardian newspaper is alarmed not by the Islamisation of Sweden, which it is intent upon portraying in glowing terms (echoing Orwell’s characterisation of England in its description of Malmö’s suburb of Rosengård with its 'well-signposted cycle paths on which stately middle-aged women in headscarves pedal their groceries home'), but by the rise of the Sweden Democrats. The tone of the Guardian’s Andrew Brown belies the newspaper’s actual lack of tolerance and respect for individual freedoms and personal safety in its casual and offhand description of a violent leftist attack upon a Sweden Democrats member:
Last Friday two masked men attacked David von Arnold, a party candidate in Malmö, outside his flat and carved a swastika into his forehead. The respectable media largely ignored this as it ignores the party as a whole.
In this passage Brown thus implies that it is ‘respectable’ to ignore acts of extreme political violence if such acts enforce the multicultural dogma that the biens-pensants of the Guardian see as being the only one to which people should subscribe. To deviate from this ideology of decadent ‘liberal’ self-hatred is deemed beyond the bounds of decency by the Guardian. It is a million miles away from the self-assured, self-respecting, pro-Western liberalism espoused by Geert Wilders whom the Guardian deliberately misrepresents as some sort of neo-Nazi.

Other articles in the New York Times, the Economist and the EU Observer ponder the rise of the Sweden Democrats and see it as a sign of growing dissatisfaction with some of the less savoury aspects of the country’s long-established model of social democracy amongst a section of the Swedish electorate. As in other European countries, Sweden has witnessed a large influx of Muslim immigrants in recent decades, many entering as refugees and asylum seekers, and as elsewhere they have adhered to their Muslim identity which they see as being superior to the culture of their host society. Muslim rape of indigenous Swedish women has become an issue, and certain areas of Malmö have become Muslim enclaves where non-Muslims would rather not set foot. Even Swedish ambulances won’t enter such areas without police escort. These problems are illustrated in the two videos below, the first of which is a Fox News report on Islamisation in Sweden (it starts in Swedish but switches to English after 15 seconds) whereas the second contains footage of the Muslim riots that hit Malmö in December 2008 (this starts off as a series of stills, but moves onto video footage just after a minute in).

The Sweden Democrats under the leadership of the youthful Jimmie Åkesson (he is only 31) wish to tackle such problems by cutting immigration by 90% and rejecting multiculturalism in favour of strong assimilationist policies. Opinion polls are currently showing that the party enjoys the support of more than 4% of the Swedish electorate, but Åkesson is bullish and thinks that the party could win as much as 8% of the vote tomorrow.

Speaking to the New York Times, Finance Minister Anders Borg of the Moderate Party echoes the contemptuous attitude of mainstream politicians for the views of ordinary indigenous peoples across Europe by failing to address the issues of Islamisation and the negative impact of multiculturalism by instead attacking the Sweden Democrats: “These kinds of parties, they thrive on uncertainty and political crises. They need to create turmoil and chaos, so we will push hard to their voters: is this really a responsible choice?”

Are the Sweden Democrats responsible for the Muslim rapewave perpetrated against indigenous Swedish women? No. Are the Sweden Democrats responsible for Muslim riots and no-go areas in Swedish cities? No. Have the Sweden Democrats been behind the soft asylum laws, pro-mass immigration and multiculturalist policies that have facilitated Islamisation and the marginalisation of Swedish indigenous interests? No. Have the Moderate Party and other Swedish parties that have formed governments in recent years supported and facilitated all of the above? Yes. So, who has created real “turmoil and chaos”: the Sweden Democrats or the country’s mainstream political parties including the Moderate Party? The responsibility clearly lies with the latter. The Sweden Democrats wish to deal with the problems created by Islamisation and multiculturalism, whereas their opponents pretend that such problems are a fiction created by unprincipled ‘far-right’ populists for their own putative nefarious political objectives.

The Sweden Democrats have managed to further offend the multiculturalist sensibilities of the Swedish Establishment by producing an imaginative election broadcast depicting burqa-clad mothers racing for benefits ahead of an indigenous Swedish pensioner. Despite it being a fair representation of an unpleasant reality in contemporary Sweden, the broadcast was banned. View it below and see what you think. Let’s hope that tomorrow the multiculturalist consensus in Sweden lies in tatters as the Sweden Democrats return members to the Riksdag.

Readers may also be interested in an enlightening article entitled 'Sweden: Banana Monarchy or Kretinostan?' written by a Swedish pensioner and posted at the Gates of Vienna blog.