Share |

Wednesday 31 March 2010

Ban the Burka! Belgium leads the Way

Following on from the Swiss decision to prohibit the construction of minarets, a Belgian parliamentary committee has decided to ban garments that cover the face and make identification impossible. This will therefore include both the burka and the niqab, behind which ‘devout’ Muslims like to hide their womenfolk. The Belgian parliament will have to vote on this proposal in April before it passes into law, but there are concerns that the country could be challenged through opponents taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

With some 650,000 Muslims in the country, the Belgians can expect to encounter some sour grapes from those of them who are intent upon imposing their alien standards in the heart of Europe. The Telegraph quotes Denis Ducarme, a Belgian MP whose party – the liberal Reformist Movement – drafted the ban, as saying that:

"This is a very strong signal being sent to Islamists . . . I am proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter."
If this makes so-called ‘devout’ Muslims reconsider whether they should be residing in Belgium, then this will be an additional benefit of the legislation. Such people who are unhappy living in accordance with non-Muslim norms in non-Muslim countries should be encouraged to leave. There are plenty of places around the world where they can shroud themselves in cloth and live lives of Islamic misery. On that note, cheer yourself up with a satirical take on the absurdity of the burka by watching and listening to Burka Blue by the Burka Band, the bravest and hottest female act in Afghanistan.

Kizlyar Bombings: Salafists Suspected

Bombers have struck in the town of Kizlyar in Dagestan. All together, 12 fatalities have been reported as well as 23 injured. Apparently a crowd had gathered after the first bomb had exploded, only for a suicide bomber dressed as a policeman to rush in amongst them about twenty minutes later and detonate a device. The Voice of Russia reports that the Dagestani Interior Minister (identified as Dagestan’s President by Izvestiia) – Ali Magomedov – has stated that one of the bombers has already been identified, but no further details were forthcoming.

Coming as this did so quickly upon the heels of the bombings in the Moscow Metro, people will be speculating as to whether there was a specific link between the two. It is often said that such acts have been linked primarily to the struggle of Russia’s North Caucasian republics to achieve full independence, but others point to the internationalisation of Al-Qaeda style jihadism and its particular appeal to many young Muslim males in the area. This latter position is certainly the view of Novaia gazeta’s Iuliia Latynina, who argues that the emergence of jihadi ideology in the region over the past twenty years rests upon the idea that this is Muslim land that needs to be reclaimed for the Dar al-Islam. This is why, she argues, most terrorist bombings in Russia over the past 15 years have been centred in the Northern Caucasus and adjacent regions. Salafism has taken root, and it would seem that once again it is jihadis who have wrought their terrible and pointless work in Kizlyar.

Brown's Immigration Speech: Hearing, not Listening

As has become customary Labour practice, selections from Gordon Brown’s speech on immigration today have been fed to the press in advance. As the BBC notes, this is his third such speech since becoming Prime Minister. Its content is wearisomely, depressingly familiar. He says that he must “listen” to and “engage” with public concerns on immigration, yet he knows not the meaning of the word “listen”; he does not “listen”, he merely hears. “Engage”? What does this word mean? It means ignoring what he hears; what we see, feel and think. What we know counts for nothing. It means telling us again, and again and again, that we are wrong.

Tellingly, he says: “How we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself.”

My answer to this is no, it is not. It is not the manner in which it is conducted, but the substance itself – the issue of mass immigration - that is of such importance. Moreover, it is the question of the deliberate engineering of this human tide, and the annulment of national sovereignty that needs to be addressed and answered. These matters are portrayed as being of no importance by the likes of Brown, Cameron and Clegg, yet they are the very bedrock of our liberties and national democracy. These, it has been their intent to remove, and mass immigration, combined with absorption into the EU, have been their means of achieving this. Our sovereignty and national being have been stripped away, leaving what?

If you gradually replace the contents of a bottle of wine with water, does it remain a bottle of wine? It does not. If you replace the native British with myriad ethnic groups from around the world, does Britain remain Britain? No. It has become a Balkanised colony.

It is Brown’s belief, shared by all but a handful of Westminster politicians, that mass immigration is a good thing. Good for whom? Cui bono? Not us. Not the ordinary people of Britain.

When they, the advocates of this unbidden policy, cannot convince us, they hate us, and bring to bear a battery of fearful abuse: “extremist”, “racist”, “xenophobe” and “fascist”. Yet we are none of these. We are men and women of an independent cast of mind, who cannot and will not yield to the lies that we are fed from on high. We demand nothing more, than a return to a state of normalcy in our daily lives; a state in which we are free to speak our minds without fear of sanction or violence, in which we are sovereign; where our birthright is upheld. Today, sadly, this is not the case. Brown’s speech, and the cross-party consensus that it embodies, should be seen as nothing more than a cynical ploy to gull the electorate, an anodyne administered to a confused dying patient – the British people – to keep them quiet as they pass out of this world.

The BBC’s report on his speech is reproduced below:

PM urges united immigration front
Gordon Brown is to urge all parties to show a "united front" against those opposing immigration out of prejudice.

In a speech in London, the PM will say it is right for politicians to talk about the issue and address people's concerns about immigration levels.

But he will say debate must be measured and talk that immigration is "out of control" plays into extremists' hands.

The speech comes as a number of leading politicians challenged the main parties to toughen pledges on immigration.

The parliamentarians, including Labour MP Frank Field, have written an open letter challenging all the main parties to toughen their manifesto pledges.
The British National Party (BNP), which wants a stop to all immigration, except in exceptional cases, and to deport all illegal immigrants, won its first seats in the European Parliament last year.

Some Labour and Tory politicians blamed the BNP's breakthrough on the failure of their parties to address concerns about the impact of immigration on jobs, housing and social services.

'Right to talk'

Labour says the points-based system governing the amount of people that can come to work in the UK based on different criteria - introduced in 2008 - is fair, flexible and has contributed to a fall in immigration.

But the Tories say the current system is not working and have urged an annual cap to be set on immigration to reflect the UK's economic needs.

“ How we conduct this debate is an important as the debate itself ”

Gordon Brown on immigration

Conservative leader David Cameron has said net immigration levels - the difference between those coming into the UK and those leaving - have been too high in the past 10 years and need to be reduced.

In his second major speech on immigration in the past six months, Mr Brown will say people have a right to talk about the issue.

"As politicians in the mainstream of British politics, we have a duty to listen and engage with them - because if we don't people will listen to whoever does," he is expected to say.

"When we talk of fairness, it is right to talk of immigration and address people's worries and concerns.

"The question of who comes to Britain, and what they have to do to earn that privilege - it is something that should be the subject of open and responsible debate.

"But how we conduct this debate is an important as the debate itself."

'Standing together'
Mr Brown will say there is a consensus among mainstream parties in favour of immigration as a positive force in British society and a necessary contributor to economic growth.

"So I call on all those in the mainstream of our politics to stand together in the coming weeks and present a united front against those who don't value the diverse and outward-looking Britain that we stand for."

In November, Mr Brown announced plans for a points-based test for permanent residence and citizenship and more recently pledged to tighten the rules on student visas.

The Lib Dems have said immigrants should be encouraged to go to parts of the UK with specific skills shortages and which have the "will and resources" to accommodate them.

They have also called for improved border controls and for exit checks at all ports to be reinstated.

Tuesday 30 March 2010

I Am An Englishman

As this clip was taken from a television drama designed to stigmatise English nationalism, the character delivering the lines is made to lapse into a call for violence at the peroration of his speech and the camera work and music leave no room for doubt that we are supposed to be revolted by the man and the words that he speaks. Nonetheless, the speech itself is passionate, articulate and apposite. Elements draw upon Enoch Powell's speech "What England Means to Me" which was delivered to The Royal Society of St George in London on St George's Day in 1961. At the time, Powell was Minister of Health.

Watch, and listen to a speech that resonates with the contemporary concerns of the common people of England; a people ignored and reviled in their own land by a contemptuous and contemptible political elite.

Prevent Strategy: Muslims whinge so the indigenous British are to be stigmatised and targeted

The BBC reports the finding of the Communities and Local Government Committee that the government’s Prevent Strategy aimed at preventing “violent extremism has stigmatised and alienated Muslims.” How, may I ask, can you stigmatise people who stigmatise themselves through their violent bullying rhetoric of religious supremacism and hostile attitude to non-Muslim society?

One of the recommendations reported by the BBC cannot fail but bring a sardonic smile to the faces of all aware of Labour’s attempt to destroy British national identity and social cohesion via mass immigration and statutory diversity policies:

In turn, the Department of Communities could properly devote itself to dealing with the underlying causes of all forms of extremism and division in multi-ethnic Britain.”
So, are we to take it that it is going to place a moratorium upon all further immigration, abolish multiculturalism and deal firmly with Islamism? Hardly! No, instead a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government stated: “The government has made clear that all forms of violent extremism must be tackled and has increased funding to tackle white, racist extremism.” The cross-party dhimmi consensus was reiterated by Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats who declared: “The Prevent programme alienates and marginalises Muslim communities, and exacerbates racist bias and ignorant views.”

If anyone is ignorant, then it is Huhne, who is apparently unable to differentiate race from ideology (Islam) and ignorance from knowledge. The Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are united in their myopia vis-à-vis the Islamist threat, and continue in their pursuit of creating a non-existent far-right bogeyman with which to shore up voter loyalty. That strategy cannot hold for much longer. Ordinary people know that these three parties peddle lies about the state of our society today, and the gulf between political pronouncements and everyday experience grows ever wider.

There you have it: it is the white British who are to blame. Prepare yourself for the knock on the door at 3.00am. We know what they mean by “white, racist extremism”: any views or manifestation of political activity that do not chime with their multiculturalist, dhimmi Eurocratic dystopian nightmare. Prevent has of course been a failure, but not because it has alienated Muslims. It has been a failure because it has wasted £24 million of taxpayers’ money and has not sought to root out the cause of terror in the UK: Islam.

Clarification re Moscow Metro Bombings

As I wrote yesterday’s piece on the bombings on the Moscow Metro I drew upon a range of sources including the Russian-language versions of Izvestiia, Novaia gazeta and the English-language version of Pravda. The Novaia gazeta article stated the following:

“The explosion at Lubyanka happened as the doors closed on the second carriage; at Park Kultury it happened as the doors opened 5 carriages from the end.”
For those of you who read Russian, here is the original text:
Взрыв на Лубянке произошел при закрывании дверей во втором вагоне, на «Парке Культуры» произошел при открывании дверей, 5 вагон с конца.
As there was no mention of suicide bombers in this report at the time, I speculated upon the possibility that the explosions could have in some way been triggered by the door mechanisms of the respective carriages. Subsequent reporting indicates that this terrorist act was indeed perpetrated by two female suicide bombers, so I assume that this is based upon rather sounder evidence than my speculative inference vis-à-vis a potential trigger mechanism. Given that someone has left a comment at Sottnet linking to my article inferring that there has been some sort of deliberate effort to cover up the ‘fact’ that suicide bombers were not involved, I would like to state quite categorically that evidence strongly attests to the fact that this was an act conducted by two women.

Suicide bombing is an Islamist tactic of choice, and that is what we sadly witnessed in Moscow yesterday.

Monday 29 March 2010

Moscow Metro Terror Attack

Earlier this morning commuters on the Moscow Metro system were hit by blasts at two stations: Lubyanka and Park Kultury. According to an Izvestiia report, 23 bodies have been found at Lubyanka and 12 at Park Kultury, whereas Novaia gazeta puts the total death toll at 37. These figures are likely to rise, for there are also many wounded. Amidst the chaos created by this act of terror, the true scale of this tragedy will not be known for some time to come.

Eyewitnesses report the explosions as occurring when the trains came to a halt in their respective stations and passengers began to disembark. Novaia gazeta notes that the explosions seemed to have been linked to either the opening or closing of the doors, so this may have been the trigger mechanism for the devices. However, the English-language version of Pravda reports that two female suicide bombers were responsible. Neither Novaia gazeta nor Izvestiia have speculated at this stage as to the likely perpetrators of this act, but it bears all the marks of an Islamist attack. Only in November last year was the Moscow-St Petersburg Nevskii Express targeted by Islamist bombers causing a number of fatalities, so suspicion is likely to once again fall upon Chechen terrorists, who have over the years carried out many atrocities in Russia.

A Sky News report can be accessed below.

Sunday 28 March 2010

A Message from a Muslim (I presume) Reader of this Blog

I have an open comments policy on this blog as I believe in freedom of speech. This, after all, is one of the main reasons that I started blogging. Events here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe in recent years have caused me an increasing sense of unease, as our right to free expression has been increasingly curtailed and those who speak out about certain problems such as Islamisation, mass immigration and multiculturalism find themselves unjustly stigmatised and sometimes criminalized. Waiting in the wings are militant Islamists and their far-Left confederates who are all too happy to use violent intimidation in pursuit of silencing those who draw attention to their activities and goals. It would seem that one of these individuals (from Nottingham in all likelihood) paid a visit to this site yesterday, as you shall see.

This morning I was somewhat taken aback to read an exceptionally violent and threatening comment left after my piece calling for a boycott of KFC owing to the company’s introduction of halal-only menus at 74 of their branches in the UK. Obviously, some people will disagree with my stance, and I’m not stopping anyone from saying so; but I think you’ll agree that the following text (reproduced verbatim from the comments section) does not constitute a measured objection. The language employed is crude, but I thought it worthwhile drawing your attention to the deranged mentality characteristic of those who follow a literalistic interpretation of the Qur’an. Islamisation in the UK and elsewhere in Europe must be tackled with urgency, lest those of us who do not submit are murdered by these sadistic fanatics.

Here is the comment, followed by my reply:

Anonymous said...


27 March 2010 23:32

Durotrigan said...

Ah, "Anonymous" who left the message at 23:32 on 27 March, do you happen to be a follower of the "religion of peace" by any chance? Your comment says everything that we non-Muslims need to know about Islam. Incidentally, your grammar is execrable. Must you write everything in shouty block capitals? "NO BODIES" is suggestive of something non-corporeal, such as a spirit or a deity; the word you were struggling to find was "nobodies".

Your use of a term for part of the female anatomy conjoined with lopping heads off betrays your deep-seated misogyny as well as your psychopathic inclination to violence. It's also grammatically incorrect: "cunt" is a noun, not an adjective. Similarly, your reference to "LOWER CLASS TRASH" is not only factually incorrect, but also grammatically. Next time, please write "lower-class trash". Nonetheless, this shall be ignored, for we who oppose your barbarous ideology are drawn from all classes and are decent human beings, not "trash". Neither are you "trash": you are simply dangerously mentally unhinged; an excellent exemplar of the 'ideal' Muslim.

28 March 2010 11:07

Saturday 27 March 2010

Muslim News Awards 2010

Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic submission to Islam was once again demonstrated at the Muslim News Awards earlier this month with Home Secretary Alan Johnson taking the opportunity to court the Muslim vote whilst smearing indigenous opponents of Islamisation. Interestingly, the host for the evening – Ahmed J. Versi (editor and publisher of Muslim News) – had some telling things to say about the deliberate Islamisation of the UK by the mainstream political parties. It is worth quoting his introductory speech at length to highlight the detrimental impact of these measures and attitudes:

The incoming Labour government in 1997 was the first time that any Government made Muslims feel that their opinions were sought and valued.
Labour picked the first Muslim for a safe Parliamentary seat and appointed Muslim peers, as well as Muslim advisors for a host of initiatives.
There are now four Muslims in the House of Commons, all of them Labour. And we have the first Muslim minister attending the Cabinet, the Rt Hon Sadiq Khan.
The Government fulfilled many of our longstanding requests: A question on religion to be included in the national census of 2001; funding of Muslim schools; Shari’ah compliant financial products working within UK financial regulations; outlawing of religious discrimination at work place and in service delivery in public institutions and outlawing of incitement to religious hatred.
And the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, led the way in making senior cabinet ministers available for interviews with The Muslim News. His generous gestures ensured that the other parties followed suit.”
Although seen as positive by Mr Versi, in my eyes, the above measure constitute a damning charge sheet that should be levelled against Labour, particularly the repression of free speech associated with measures against so-called “religious discrimination” and “incitement to religious hatred.” This demonstrates that without the Muslim colonisation of our islands, these measures to limit our liberties would not have been introduced. One can only conclude therefore, that our society would be a better place without Islam.

Versi also does us the service of summarising the moves of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to submit to Islam:
“As for The Conservative Party, it is not today the Tory party of old.
William Hague while Leader of the Party, made significant efforts to turn the Party around and began to demonstrate a greater understanding of Britain’s diverse faiths.
It was under William Hague that we saw Britain’s first Muslim member of the European Parliament.
This change has continued under the current leadership of David Cameron.
There are now two Muslim Tory peers and one of them Sayeeda Warsi, is a member of the shadow cabinet.
And the Liberal Democrats too have made strides in supporting Muslim issues and they have one Muslim peer.
They aptly reflected the society’s feeling on war on Iraq by taking a robust stand against it.
Nick Clegg demanded that our Government and the European Union halt arms sales to Israel during Operation Cast Lead in which hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians, including many children were killed.
Whichever party comes to form the next Government, there is a pressing need for it to re visit policies that improve relations with the Muslim community and help rejuvenate community cohesion.”
Looking at this list of measures, changes, attitudes and demands, can you now doubt that our three main Westminster parties do not have the interests of the real British people – the indigenous British people – as their foremost priority? Versi’s last sentence is chilling, for once again it demonstrates the Muslim propensity to salami-slice away our liberties and values and replace them with their own. It shows that they will be persistently pushing for more privileges for Islam in this country to the detriment of everyone else. Will you vote for any party that accords special privileges to this bullying belief system and its followers, or will you express your desire for a peaceful country and society by voting for a party pledged to counter and reverse Islamisation? Why should some be made “more equal than others”? Why should we be increasingly made to feel “strangers in our own country”?

Alan Johnson’s speech reveals the prospect of a future intensification of persecution against those who oppose Islamisation. He stated:

But tackling extremism does not define the relationship between government and Muslim communities. Nor does it mean that the responsibility for tackling extremism lies only with the Muslim community. Like the threat from far right racists, it affects us all and it requires a united response.”
Who are these “far right racists”? Although we know them to be phantoms of his febrile imagination, unfortunately Johnson thinks that he has identified them in the ‘demonic’ forms of the BNP, EDL, SIOE and those who rightly and robustly criticise Islam. Johnson continues:

And we know that there are Muslim communities in the UK which are disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment, who struggle to access services or face discrimination and harassment because of their faith or ethnicity.”
Yes, statistically speaking Muslims are “disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment” but I would wager that my explanation of the reasons underpinning this situation is rather different to Johnson’s. It’s got nothing to do with “discrimination” or “harassment”, of which in reality Muslims are more likely to be perpetrators than victims. No. Their disproportionate poverty and unemployment are largely conditioned by a set of social attitudes and attributes arising from Islam. Furthermore, it is typical for neighbourhoods experiencing large-scale Muslim colonisation to experience considerable declines in property values, so even though Muslim and non-Muslim neighbourhoods may have the same type of housing stock and access to services, it is more likely that the Muslim one will be classed as “impoverished” simply because of the nominal lesser value of its properties. Benefit fraud is widespread amongst Muslim colonies, enabling restaurant workers and taxi drivers to support large families thanks to generous state subsidy. The indices of poverty are thus distorted and give an inaccurate measure of actual deprivation.

Internal causes of Muslim relative poverty include:
  • poor English-language skills causing underperformance at school
  • large family size arising from lack of contraception and the subordinate role of women
  • chain migration, which imports poverty, social backwardness and a lack of competence in the English language which bolsters a sense of affiliation to their ancestral ethnic homelands and hostility to indigenous Britons
  • female economic inactivity arising from women often being effectively imprisoned in the domestic environment by their menfolk and associated familial denial of educational opportunities
The existence of the Muslim News Awards and the reaction of the leading Westminster parties to its agenda shows that none of the latter, if you did not have your doubts for a host of other reasons, are fit to govern.

Wednesday 24 March 2010

UAF Mission Statement: a Pack of Lies

Strange is it not, that the UAF should post the following upon its website in its introduction to a section entitled The Facts about the BNP:
"Fascism stands for the murder of millions, the annihilation of entire communities and the destruction of democracy and human rights."
The UAF is run by Communists; Trotskyists, to be precise. Remember, when Polish patriots rose in an attempt to free Warsaw from Nazi occupation in 1944 before the Soviets arrived to crush their last hopes of national independence, the Soviets referred to the brave Polish resistance fighters as "fascists". Communists always refer to patriots as fascists, so this is what you must bear in mind when you read or hear their descriptions of the BNP.

Let us substitute one word for "fascism" in the above quote and see how it reads:
Communism "stands for the murder of millions, the annihilation of entire communities and the destruction of democracy and human rights."
Is that historically correct or incorrect? Well, Stalin murdered millions through civil war, collectivisation, purges and 'routine' political persecution. Ditto Mao and Pol Pot. Think of the millions of Ukrainians, Kazakhs and, indeed, ethnic Russians who died as a direct consequence of the famines engendered by collectivisation. Were not thousands of "entire communities" across the former Russian Empire destroyed through collectivisation and so-called dekulakisation? Of course they were. Untold millions died. Democracy? We all know what Communists think of democracy: it's only as good as the opportunities that it affords them in pursuit of the permanent seizure of power. It is, as Lenin would put it, a "means to an end". Human rights? Once again, Communists do not recognise such a category. For them, such a concept is merely a product of "bourgeois individualism".

Being cognisant of the above facts, I do not see how a rational and humane individual could support the UAF. Remember, Weyman Bennett, Joint Secretary of the UAF, is also a leading member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers' Party (SWP), and Derek Simpson, Joint General Secretary of Unite the Union (the major force underpinning the UAF) was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain until it disbanded in 1991. Can you trust such men to tell the truth about patriots in the BNP or the EDL, or those who seek to defend European values and culture against Islamisation such as SIOE or Geert Wilders? Of course not. Their pronouncements are designed to advance their communist agenda. For them, the routine dehumanisation of their political opponents is all grist to their Marxist mill.

Don't be fooled by the thugs of the UAF. They seek to accelerate the Islamisation of the UK and Europe in order to create civil war. Don't fall into their trap. We must respond peacefully, and defeat them using words; the truth will out. They will continue along the path of violence, but this is a path that we shall not tread. As more and more of the public see them for what they are, and even our corrupt mass media can no longer hide the truth, their raging voices will fall upon deaf ears, and people will turn upon them and rightly ask for these criminal agitators to be dealt with using the full force of the law. Win we must, and win we shall.

Interview with UAF's "Colin"

Listen to the following radio interview (thanks to Green Arrow) with someone calling himself "Colin", a UAF member who was amongst the mob who turned up to foment violence against the EDL demonstrators in Bolton last Saturday. What comes across is not only his complete intolerance of differing opinions, but his clear advocacy of violence against people who object to Islamisation or who do not share his general warped perspective. He tries to shout down a reasonable woman who also called the show to give a pro-EDL perspective, and says "it's time we put an end to your breed." Indeed, he goes so far as to say that he's racist against the English and that he doesn't believe in democracy, thereby betraying his hardline communist cast of mind.

It is people such as Colin and their Islamist confederates who represent the greatest contemporary threat to law and order in the UK. They are a menace to the physical safety of ordinary, decent law-abiding people. That the UAF is sponsored by the Labour Party and the trade union movement, as well as by David Cameron, speaks volumes. They are a political street army of the establishment; of the morally bankrupt Westminster order.

Monday 22 March 2010

Four Lions Trailer

Take a preview of the latest film from Chris Morris in which he looks at the absurdity of jihadism in the UK. For maximum enjoyment, see it at a cinema in an “enriched” and “vibrant” neighbourhood near you.

Sunday 21 March 2010

BBC offers Weyman Bennett Publicity

Today, the BBC once again demonstrated its innate bias against the anti-Islamisation movement in the UK through providing a platform for Weyman Bennett. Despite the fact that the Trotskyist UAF organiser was arrested yesterday and “charged with conspiracy to organise violent disorder” the BBC still saw fit to afford him an interview, whilst not doing the same for representatives of the English Defence League (EDL). Why did they do this? The reason, I would suggest, lies in its editorial stance which constantly denigrates indigenous Britons whilst placing incomers, ethnic minorities and Islam beyond criticism.

Thus, the BBC website was content to publish Bennett’s words as follows:

“I have been to more than 200 demos and never been arrested. There is no evidence against me. This is not a good sign for democracy. Officers came up to me as soon as I arrived and said they would arrest me. They are hostile to anti-racists and there needs to be an investigation. Police neutrality needs to be questioned.”
No evidence against him? The UAF have made a conscious decision to slander EDL members and supporters as “racists”, “fascists” and “Nazis” when in fact the EDL makes it quite clear that it is against “racism”, “fascism” and “Nazism”. These buzzwords have been chosen with the explicit intent of whipping up an emotional irrational frenzy amongst UAF members, turning the EDL and its members and supporters into dehumanised objects of hate. Bennett’s street army has been mobilised with the stated aim of cowing and silencing the legitimate concerns of a large swathe of the British population who desperately wish our elected representatives to make a stand against the Islamisation of our country. As members of our mainstream parties either ignore this issue or, even worse, actively promote it, it is no surprise that the neglected and stigmatised English working class has given birth to a popular manifestation of discontent in the form of the EDL.

Weyman Bennett and his ilk constantly portray themselves as victims. They are not. They are intent upon violence, and the fact that the vast majority of the more than 74 people arrested in Bolton yesterday were with the UAF crowd amply attests to this fact. The arrest of Bennett and others amongst his violent following who attacked the police was not a sign of “racism” but of the police doing their job well in restraining the UAF from bloodletting on our streets. The police should be commended for their handling of this operation, not bludgeoned with a politically-correct truncheon wielded by a Trotskyist who by definition has no respect for the concept of law.

Saturday 20 March 2010

Bolton: UAF attack Police and English Defence League

First they came for the BNP, then they came for the EDL. The Trotskyist-led UAF has again attempted to foment violence upon our streets in Bolton today, and yet our mainstream media continue to purposefully misrepresent the EDL (as they always have the BNP) as “racists”, “fascists”, “thugs” and the instigators of violence. UAF is invariably provided with the opportunity to put its side of the story to the media, who lap it up and regurgitate it in an uncritical fashion whilst demonising not only EDL demonstrators and supporters, but also anyone in this country who holds a contrary view to the sham orthodoxy that “Islam is a religion of peace”.

Are our media pundits truly so politically illiterate that they do not understand that despite the end of Communism in the former Soviet bloc, the Trots have dropped neither the core principles of their ideology, nor their devotion to violence? The fact that they have decided to ally themselves with followers of a seventh-century dark age irrationalist ideology worries them not, for they see Muslims as being able shock troops in their myopic utopian bid for power. If Trots cannot seize power (which they cannot) they will content themselves with violence, and to this end, they are causing no end of mischief through manipulating naïve members of the trade union movement to do their bidding. Trots view millennial violence as being a positive end-in-itself, so why does the media accord them such respect?

Religious leaders of all hues used the occasion of the demonstration to seek to shut down the freedom to express dissident opinions on our streets and in our daily lives through penning a joint letter to Alan Johnson asking him to ban the march. Thankfully, Johnson was unable to find a legal pretext to do so, but how much longer do we have before the Labour Party or the other mainstream Westminster parties finally snuff out our right to criticise any negative aspect of the multiculturalist dystopian project to which they all actively subscribe?

To criticise Islam is not racist. Neither does criticising the many negative facets of this ugly violent religion make the critic a “fascist” or a “Nazi”. An 89-year old WWII veteran (Bertie Lois) who joined the UAF counter-protest was quoted by the Telegraph as saying
"I fought the Second World War against these Nazis. What did I fight for if we let them? The EDL are the enemy. I would say to them 'you are the guys we fought for, what are you doing?'”
The question that the media should be asking is: why is this old man involved with a group of hardline Trotskyists who are attempting to destroy the political liberties that he ostensibly fought for in the struggle against Nazi tyranny? Might he himself not be a Communist? If not, he is greatly misinformed if he thinks that the EDL is comprised of neo-Nazis. I shall be charitable however, for the manner in which the EDL's position is distorted by the mainstream media would be enough to mislead any naif to fall for this revolting piece of black propaganda. This man is just misinformed. If he truly wanted to join the struggle against the closest contemporary political phenomenon to Nazism, he would be marching alongside the EDL.

As in previous marches, the BBC and the Times (owing to the influence of Arab oil money?) have been particularly misleading in their reporting, imputing the violence to the EDL, despite the fact that it was UAF directed and that the majority of arrests were of UAF members who had attacked the police. A similar thing happened last year at a UAF counter-protest at a Harrow mosque, where the fact of there being next-to-no demonstrators did not hinder them from attacking the police and staging a mini-riot. If there is any threat to public order and safety on our streets today emanating from an organised political campaign, it is from UAF members and supporters, not from the EDL.

It will be likely that we will not know the full tally of arrests until tomorrow, but early indications from the Telegraph are that circa 55 people have been taken into custody, and that all but a handful of these people were from the UAF group. The UAF, comprised as it is of hardcore Trotskyists, Islamists and misguided trade union members who have been dripfed non-stop lies for years, represents a genuine threat to our political liberties and right to peaceful assembly. We can but hope that the public in the UK wakes up to the reality of what this organisation is, and do not fall for calls to further erode our cherished right to free expression, which has already been severely curtailed by the Labour government and the unelected and unaccountable Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). I fear that our drift into a police state is accelerating. Still, at least we can take heart that an estimated 2,000 protestors turned out on behalf of the EDL today, as opposed to the 1,500-strong UAF mob, as well as the fact that Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of the UAF has been “arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit violent disorder.” I hope that Bennett is charged and receives an appropriate custodial sentence for his repeated attempts to unleash rivers of blood upon our streets.

Tuesday 16 March 2010

Bristol Evening Post runs unbiased Story on the BNP

Astonishingly, the Bristol Evening Post has run a story entitled Would you vote for these three BNP candidates for Bristol?” which does not resort to the usual NUJ approved smear tactics and misrepresentation. Instead, it names the BNP candidates who will be contesting the seats of Bristol South, Filton and Bradley and Bristol East. These are respectively: Colin Chidsey, David Scott and Brian Jenkins.

This is the first time that I’ve ever seen such straight and unbiased reporting of the party. The article even outlines the main policy pledges of the candidates under consideration which include: withdrawal from Afghanistan, the safeguarding of local jobs, withdrawal from the EU and a “better deal for pensioners”. The piece finishes with a lengthy verbatim quote from the BNP website dealing with the immigration crisis and the need to abolish “positive discrimination”. If the paper should continue in this vein and offer unbiased reporting of these candidates and their positions, it’ll be very interesting to see how they fair at the General Election.

Rajinder Singh shows off his BNP Membership Card

As widely anticipated, Rajinder Singh has become the first ethnic minority member of the BNP. Spurred to join the party by his desire to combat the Islamisation of the UK, he is pictured below showing his membership card (picture courtesy of the BNP website). Having sadly experienced the negative and violent impact of partition in India and lost his own father to Muslim mob violence, he is determined to help prevent the same sort of fate befalling the UK. I wish him success in this endeavour.

Saturday 13 March 2010

KFC Halal Outlets: Let KFC know what you think about its Policy

Take a trip to the following link to the KFC UK website. Here you can let them know what you think of their decision to convert the 74 listed outlets into halal-compliant eateries. Tell them that neither you, your family nor your friends will eat there until they ditch their halal policy. There are still more of us non-Muslims than Muslims in the UK, so withholding our spending power can hit KFC were it hurts. Let's make the UK a halal-free zone and put bacon back on the menu. Together, we can do it!

Friday 12 March 2010

Time to boycott KFC: Colne KFC goes Halal

Following Asda's decision to sell only halal products in its Isle of Dogs store late last year, the Islamization Watch blog reports that Colne KFC is now selling halal products only. This means that anyone who purchases chicken from this branch will now be eating inhumanely slaughtered poultry owing to the refusal of local Muslims to eat meat which has been produced using methods that seek to minimise suffering to animals as they are despatched. The branch has also stopped selling pork products.

Islamization Watch states:
The store, on North Valley Retail Park, is one of 74 KFC outlets nationwide to be chosen for a halal trial. Those in Burnley, Accrington and Blackburn are also taking part in the trial.
On its website, KFC states: "For some time, we have received requests to provide halal food in parts of the UK, and as a result of this we are running a halal trial within communities where we anticipate a strong demand for halal products."
A Facebook group opposing this policy has been set up, so if you are a member, I urge you to join it. Currently, there are more of us non-Muslim than Muslim consumers in the UK, so together we can drive businesses to ruin should they choose to introduce halal-slaughtered meat into their product range. We must not tolerate the creeping Islamisation of our nation. Boycott KFC. Boycott Asda. Boycott any business that introduces halal meat. Do not condone the barbarous intentionally cruel practices of a dark age religion by continuing to purchase products from KFC or Asda.

Thursday 11 March 2010

Sandhurst Mosque: Radio 4 pandering to Islam again

This morning’s Today Programme featured an item on Camberley Council’s decision not to allow an existing mosque in a Victorian school building to sprout minarets. Predictably, Sarah Montague was soon deploying words such as “Islamophobia” and “racism” to merry abandon, readily (and ominously) eliding the two. What is it that is so difficult for commentators of her ilk to grasp: Islam is not a race; it is a totalitarian religion that possesses followers from all races and actively proselytises amongst the indigenous British. Montague et al should therefore never elide criticism or dislike of Islam with the term “racism.” Furthermore, the real intent underpinning the creation of the word “Islamophobia” was revealed in Montague’s usage: to silence and damn criticism of Islam and its manifestations whilst simultaneously seeking to stigmatise and ostracise anyone who dares to voice criticism. To brand someone a “racist” in our society today is equivalent to according them the status of “heretic” in mediaeval Europe (or the contemporary Islamic world) or “fascist” in the Soviet Union.

I am glad that planning permission for minarets at the Camberley mosque has been refused, but nonetheless, I am saddened by the very fact that there is a mosque in the town. If you are considering voting for UKIP at the forthcoming General Election, I would ask you not to do so, for despite Lord Pearson’s views on Islamisation, these are not shared by Nigel Farage who stated "This was never about religion, but about the fair and just process that applies to everyone no matter what faith or belief." Farage’s utterance displays his willingness to politick for the Muslim vote, and thus demonstrates that if UKIP did gain MPs they would be just as unwilling to criticise (let alone deal with) Islamisation as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties.

Wednesday 10 March 2010

Rajib Karim and the Tyneside Terror Plot

Oh, what would we do without the impartial and ever-enlightening BBC which does its best to deliver us all of the salient facts?! This evening it reports that:

A Tyneside man has been charged with a series of terror offences, police in London have said.
Rajib Karim, aged 30 and of Newcastle, has been accused of committing three offences under the Terrorism Act.
The three charges span a four-year period, from 13 April 2006 to 25 February this year, and relate to offences inside and outside of the UK.
He is due to appear before London's City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said Karim had been charged following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division.
Karim faces two charges of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts and one charge of fundraising for the purposes of terrorism.
Notice any omissions? Rajib Karim: a traditional Geordie name, undoubtedly. Dig a little further and a Daily Telegraph report reveals that Mr Karim worked in a BA call centre and that he has also been accused of “preparing acts of terrorism abroad, thought to be the Yemen, and sending money to others “knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it would or might be used for the purposes of terrorism.””

So, the Telegraph edges a little closer to the truth, but still insists on referring to Mr Karim as being “from Newcastle.” Strangely, the religious inclination of the gentleman is not mentioned in either report. It’s touching how coy, how shy our media can be at times. Such a tease!

Somehow though, I don’t think that the Yemen has many links with Irish republican or loyalist splinter cells, Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movements (not these days at any rate), bomb-throwing anarchists, phantasmagorical far-rightists or unabomber-style anti-industrial deep greens. No. Mr Karim, it seems to me, is not motivated by these strands of terroristic ideology. Could anybody kindly suggest what may have underpinned Mr Karim’s intended atrocity? I really am at an utter loss. What could motivate a dyed-in-the-wool Geordie like Rajib Karim (ah, the name is so redolent of ancient Northumbria that you can almost imagine the Venerable Bede penning an entry on the arrival of the Karims sometime around 732!) to plan an act of violence against his fellow Newkie Brown-swilling men-about-“toon”? Perhaps Mr Karim could provide the basis for a new Viz character, spouting a suitably anodyne catchphrase such as "bombs oot for the lads!"?

Tuesday 9 March 2010

Lars Vilks: Irish Police disrupt Muslim Murder Plot

Cartoons. Amusing? Satirical? Intellectually stimulating? Topical? The best cartoons are all of these things, and the freedom to ridicule in pictorial form is one of the distinguishing marks of a free and open society. For some reason, many Muslims don’t appear to be overly keen on this form of art, nor indeed upon amusement, satire, intellectual stimulation or topicality.

Some cartoons are not that good; others just plain rubbish. Occasionally, (albeit rarely), they may even be deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the beholder, but none of these reasons is sufficient to merit the censorship of material, let alone threaten cartoonists with death. Still, those of you familiar with the Motoons ‘scandal’ which was whipped up by an Imam holding a Danish passport in 2006, will realise that there are vast swathes of people who describe themselves as Muslims who are willing to take great offence at any depiction of their paedophile prophet, so much so that they will kill to avenge a dead man’s ‘honour’.

Kurt Westergaard is the most famous of the Danish cartoonists who depicted Mohammed in a slightly unflattering light (i.e. accurate in terms of spirit, although not technology, for the type of bomb depicted in his turban was not available in the seventh century) who has since had to live in fear of his life, but it is a story relating to a Swedish cartoonist – Lars Vilks – that has hit the headlines today. Thankfully, the BBC reports that Irish police have intercepted a plot to kill Mr Vilks, and arrested four men and three women, all of whom are Muslims of Moroccan and Yemeni origin but now unfortunately holders of Irish passports. They had settled in Ireland using the common ruse of claiming refugee status. If indeed they genuinely do fear for their lives in their homelands, they should now be returned to meet their fate, for they saw no wrong in attempting to take the life of the innocent Mr Vilks.

How many plots and acts of violence; how much aggressive rhetoric and Islamist politicking will it take to wake up mainstream politicians to the menace of contemporary Islam? Alas, I fear that the majority of them will never awaken, for they are too obsessed with courting the vote of the burgeoning Muslim population and not giving “offence” to their prospective electors. Geert Wilders is bravely making a stand in Holland and garnering popular support, but will he succeed, and who else is strong enough to make such a stand elsewhere in Europe?

Now, when it comes to inflammatory imagery, which of the below would you say matched that description most closely? The Vilks cartoon is of the ‘Mo-dog’, whereas the octopus (slight tinges of anti-Semitism there?) is taken from the Muslim press. For further details see

Sunday 7 March 2010

Any Questions: Fawning to Mehdi Hasan's Islamist Agenda

Just what did the BBC think it was doing by broadcasting its most recent episode from an East London mosque, filling the audience with a Muslim claque to applaud the Islamist ranting of Mehdi Hasan and Ken Livingstone's dhimmi grovelling? How is it that the BBC, funded by you and I, can take it upon itself to give airtime to Hasan, and allow him unchallenged to describe atheists as "extremists", and to assert that people such as Richard Dawkins deserve as much opprobrium as Anjem Choudary? It may have appealed to the hooting and applauding Muslim mob in the mosque, basking in their ressentiment, but why was Hasan not challenged? I would not wish to censor him, for it is better for us all to know what he thinks as we are then better forearmed; but why did Dimbleby and the other panellists seemingly concur with Hasan's repellent rant?

As an atheist I am worried; deeply worried about the future prospects for my liberty and personal safety. A nascent aggressive bullying Muslim elite, exemplified by the likes of Mehdi Hasan, Shahid Malik and Salma Yaqoob, is taking shape and beginning to flex its muscle. These people shamelessly play the race, 'minority' and victim cards for all they are worth, seeking to cow potential critics through invoking the guilt with which most indigenous British people have been imbued by their (post)-Christian cultural inheritance. Indigenous members of our younger generation have also been indoctrinated with ethnic and national self-hatred in our classrooms and universities for many years now, and are thus even more open to being emotionally manipulated by Islamic supremacists.

Knowing that these words will bring to the fore powerful emotions that will short-circuit the logic circuits in the majority of those whom they accuse of  "Islamophobia", "hate", "bigotry", "discrimination" and "racism", Muslims cynically deploy them to their maximum devastating effect, to disorientate and verbally bludgeon their non-Muslim interlocutors. This is what we heard at play in Hasan's rant, once again peddling the pernicious myth of Muslims as collective 'victim', and Dimbleby, Livingstone, Kenneth Clarke and the naive Lib Dem lass from Cornwall all playing along with it.

Mehdi Hasan, senior politics editor of the New Statesman, a man with ready access to the national media: a 'victim'? Shahid Malik, MP and government minister: discriminated against? Salma Yaqoob, a bellicose Islamo-Leftist at the top of the Respect hierarchy: disadvantaged? Who are these wretched ingrates? Incomers who spit upon the values and traditions of the people whose country they seek to usurp and refashion in their own ugly image. What has happened to our media and political 'elite'? Why do they feign not to understand what is going on? Why, indeed, do they give it support? Why do they vilify Nick Griffin as being some sort of sub-human, when Mehdi Hasan, Malik, Yaqoob et al unselfconsciously spout venom day after day, and demand an end to our way of life and our liberties?

The Left? What is the Left? It is, apparently, now in thrall to the muscular appeal of seventh-century monotheism. It is dead.

Why does Hasan hate atheists and Dawkins in particular? This, for anyone who knows anything about Islam, should be no surprise: Islam demands that we atheists should either convert or be killed. It is an exterminist ideology, like Nazism. Yes, Mr Mehdi Hasan, a great deal of dehumanising language is employed by people with a certain ideological standpoint in the UK today, and they are not atheists; indeed Mr Hasan, you are so imbued with quranic literalist hatred that you revel in spitting out your description of us as "cattle" in the clip below. The BBC should be ashamed.

Saturday 6 March 2010

The Shame of Shahid Malik: an Appeal to the Voters of Dewsbury

I call upon all voters in the Dewsbury constituency to wake up to the unpalatable fact that in 2005 they returned a traitor to Westminster. If you are not a Muslim, do not vote for Shahid Malik at this year's General Election. Why not? Shahid damns himself readily enough with this explicit statement of his Islamist stance. This is at least the second time that he has done so, but unlike in his earlier speech posted on Youtube, in this latest clip you will find no trace of his former false coyness about his wish to see Parliament dominated by Islam.

If you are not a Muslim, he looks upon you as possessing lesser worth. He is more concerned about the well-being of his co-religionists in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Palestine than of his non-Muslim constituents. Don't believe me? Listen to the man himself in the following video. The Labour Party is finished. If you have been a member or supporter of the Labour Party, I call upon you to sever your links with this organisation and disown it completely, for it is now rotten to the core and possesses a deeply ingrained hatred of the English people and all that they hold dear.