Share |

Monday, 28 February 2011

Rajib Karim: the BBC’s ‘Geordie’ Terrorist (don’t mention Islam!)

It’s been almost a year since I posted on the arrest of Rajib Karim, and today I learn from the BBC website that finally he has been found guilty of plotting to blow up an airliner. From reading the initial BBC report last March, a casual reader could have been mistaken for thinking that Karim was a Geordie owing to the misleading language that it employed. The report opened as follows:
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.
Naturally, it omitted any possible link to Islam, for the ‘dhimwits’ at the BBC had screened out such nasty ‘doubleplusbad’ thoughts. Today however, even the BBC had to come clean and reveal the following:

Karim was committed to an "extreme jihadist cause" and determined to become a martyr, jurors were told.

The Bangladeshi national, who moved with his wife and son to Newcastle in 2006, had already admitted being involved in the production of a terrorist group's video.

Karim, a privately-educated IT expert from Dhaka, became a supporter of the extremist organisation Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) after being influenced by his younger brother Tehzeeb, the court heard.

He was described as a "mild-mannered, well-educated and respectful" man who hid his hatred for Western ways from colleagues by joining a gym, playing football and never airing extreme views.
Well, how grateful we all are to have been enriched by his presence. So, this ‘Tyneside man’ was a Bangladeshi national who’d only been resident in the UK since 2006? Well, that’s enough for the BBC to class him as a purebred British indigene, is it not? He’s so Geordie that he’s lucky that ‘Auntie’ didn’t take to calling him a British ‘far-right’ extremist in its reporting. The BBC loves to promote open borders.

And what about that idiotic BBC meme that the roots of jihadism lie in a lack of education, ‘social exclusion’ and poverty? Yes, ‘a privately-educated IT expert’ with a good job with BA really is hard done by isn’t he? We have millions of our own people unemployed, many of them with computing qualifications and experience, and yet BA privilege this wretched ingrate with no links whatsoever to this country. Our three main political parties are of course equally culpable in encouraging and facilitating this type of immigration (as well as all the others). What marvellous benefits this policy brings!

Well, we won’t be hearing any jokes being cracked about Karim or any of his Islamist pals on Radio 4’s ‘Now Show’ will we? It’ll be wisecracking all the way about ‘knuckle-dragging’ (don’t they just adore that term?) EDL supporters, or snorting derision directed towards ‘Islamophobic’ (sic) ‘Daily Mail readers’.

If you happen to work with any “mild mannered, well-educated and respectful” Muslim colleagues, watch your back (especially if they’re ‘Geordies’).

Sunday, 27 February 2011

“80 million Turks on the move, and it won’t be two-way traffic.”

So says Dennis Skinner in the following short clip when questioning David Cameron as to why the latter is such an enthusiastic advocate of Turkey’s accession to the EU. Skinner has never been renowned for his diplomacy, and whether you love him or loathe him, he always sticks to his guns. No supporter of the EU, he has refrained from joining the Better Off Out group of MPs (a mere 17 out of 650) presumably because most of its members are Eurosceptic Tories. Unlike the majority of Labour MPs (indeed, the majority of all MPs), Skinner has evidently cottoned on to the fact that mass Muslim migration is not a good thing, although of course he prudently (he wouldn’t want to lose his head now would he!) doesn’t frame it in these terms.

This exchange, and the two videos that follow showing the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary William Hague making a vigorous case for Turkey’s accession to the EU, are highly important, for they display the warped logic at the heart of policy making in this country today, which is endemic to the three main political parties and to the Civil Service. The mandarins in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office evidently either have no conception of the deleterious impact of mass migration (particularly Muslim migration) upon our society, or they view it as being of no consequence to their cosseted world of privilege which for the time being remains happily aloof from the daily experience of ordinary people.

Although Skinner’s questioning dates from some two months’ ago, it is highly pertinent to our current situation both because of Cameron’s recent bogus repudiation of state multiculturalism in Munich, and the developing Camp of the Saints scenario engendered by political upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East. With respect to the former, Cameron’s policies and policy intentions actually consist of a ‘muscular multiculturalism’ rather than ‘muscular liberalism’. You do not lessen the appeal of doctrinaire Islam by pumping vast sums of state money into funding Muslim faith schools in the UK and saying that they are a ‘good thing’. Neither is doctrinaire Islam weakened by deliberately facilitating a large increase in the UK’s Muslim population through making Turkey a member of the EU. Both of these policies serve only to strengthen doctrinaire Islam within the UK, which can in no sense be interpreted by non-Muslims as a ‘good thing’.

The EDL are thus being naïve in giving any credence whatsoever to Cameron’s recent mood music about clamping down upon Islamic ‘extremism’. Cameron’s policies will accelerate the growth of political Islam in the UK, whilst simultaneously stigmatising any dissent from those critical of Cameron’s de facto muscular multiculturalism. For Cameron, we critics of this policy are to be deemed ‘extremists’ and to be portrayed in the same negative light as Islamists, which should awaken any British or English patriot to the fact that the only thing Cameron and his Conservative Party are interested in conserving are elite privileges and the lack of accountability of the transnational banking and business oligarchy.

Cameron, Hague and the FCO are continuing to push exactly the same line with respect to EU enlargement as was pursued under the Blair and Brown administrations. Recognition of this continuity is important insofar as former Foreign Secretary and failed Labour Leadership candidate David Miliband made clear in a speech delivered on 15 November 2007 that not only should Turkey join the EU, but that the EU should look in the longer term to create a:
version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.
In an address delivered on 5 November 2009 in Istanbul Miliband stated:

I am pleased to be back in Turkey for my fourth visit as Foreign Secretary. Turkey is a key partner for the UK. And it's a European partner: I am very clear that Turkish accession to the EU is important and will be of huge benefit to both Turkey and the EU.
I'll be discussing this with Turkey's Chief EU negotiator Egemen Bagis later today, and along with a number of other foreign policy priorities, with Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu tomorrow.
Another failed Labour leadership hopeful, Ed Balls, was also a strong advocate for Turkey’s EU entry. Labour’s last election manifesto contained a disturbing passage pledging to secure Turkey’s membership, stressing that this was vital.

Miliband’s statement is very much in line with the EU’s Euromed Agreement which states:

The Union for the Mediterranean promotes economic integration and democratic reform across 16 neighbours to the EU’s south in North Africa and the Middle East.
This anti-democratic impulse towards simultaneous EU integration and enlargement is promoted not only by those in control of our political and diplomatic establishments, but also by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), the Open Borders’ Movement and our intellectually corrupted education system. The TUC vigorously lobbies for Turkey’s EU membership, and the Open University has just been awarded with an Advanced Grant by the European Research Council (ERC) to fund a project entitled Oecumene: Citizenship after Orientalism which describes its intent as follows:

Oecumene: Citizenship after Orientalism focuses on the tension between two different institutions: citizenship, the process by which belonging is recognised and enacted, and orientalism, the process by which European political institutions are considered originary and primary. What connects citizenship to orientalism is that citizenship has been historically seen as a Judeo-Christian institution contrasted against Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, and Hinduism. The project revisits questions of citizenship as political subjectivity in ‘orientalized worlds’ through genealogical investigations without orientalist assumptions. The aim is not only to uncover citizenship practices that remained either invisible or inaudible in other worlds but also to explore the possibilities of a renewed and expanded understanding of European citizenship.
All of the above aim at a single objective: the destruction (or, as I’m sure its proponents would see it, the ‘transcendence’) of indigenous European peoples and identities. Calls are already being made to admit large numbers of economic migrants (described as ‘refugees’) from the countries undergoing upheaval in the Arab world, and this is one way in which our societies can be undermined and Islamised. If any or all of the countries experiencing this wave of political upheaval become authoritarian states of an Islamist stripe, then this will be used as a pretext to let in more economic migrants arriving with the ostensible aim of finding ‘political asylum’. If any or all of the aforementioned countries should introduce some form of formal democratic process, then the advocates of Euromed will push for eventual EU membership for these states and the end result for us will be the same: mass economic migration from the Muslim world to Europe, Islamisation, the death of our liberties and way of life, and a drastic fall in the standard of living. This is why Turkey’s possible accession to the EU is such an important matter, and why it should not be permitted.

Saturday, 26 February 2011

Suicide Bomber self-detonates outside Moscow Supermarket

A number of reports state that today at 17:15 Moscow time a man drove up to one of the city's supermarkets in the Otradnoe district and blew himself up with a grenade after getting out of his Range Rover. Thankfully, nobody else was killed. Novaia gazeta reports that the bomber is believed to be a Russian businessman by the name of Evgenii Iurov. Eyewitnesses report that after he exited his car he mumbled something incomprehensible, tore up a cheque, and then detonated the grenade. However, according to Izvestiia, the grenade was detonated whilst the man was in the car. It is therefore unclear as to whether he returned to the car to blow himself up.

The motive for the bombing has yet to be ascertained. Was this simply a bizarre suicide prompted by factors which have yet to be uncovered, or was it a bodged Islamist suicide attack? If it was the latter, it was thankfully exceptionally poorly executed. Watch this space for updates.

Update 17:25
Another report states that members of the Moscow police view this suicide as most likely being prompted by a domestic dispute, for the man in question had quarrelled with his wife shortly before driving off from home with a hunting rifle. According to Life News Russia, the 42-year-old Iurov was a former traffic policeman. If these latter reports prove to be true, which seems highly likely, then we can discount any terrorist intent.  

Camp of the Saints Nightmare Scenario Looms Closer

As suggested in the recent post on Lampedusa, the 6,000 Tunisian illegal immigrants who appeared on its shores in a matter of days, appear to have been but the harbingers of a mass human wave that will surge out of North Africa and the Middle East and into Europe. Into our already rapidly fracturing European societies this will inject a vigorous and aggressive Islamising impulse, and embolden the incomers’ established co-religionists to become more strident (in the language of our governments and special interest lobby groups -‘assertive’) in demanding privileges within their host states.

Just as in the Camp of the Saints, an appeal is being made to our better natures; to our compassion for our fellow human beings, in the face of the bloody tyranny of Gaddafi. Some 1,000 Libyans we are told, have lost their lives in recent days thanks to Gaddafi’s brutality. Already, 22,000 have fled Libya for Tunisia, and a further 15,000 for Egypt. Now, United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has waded in to instruct the European nations ‘to keep their borders open to people fleeing Libya.’ If our borders are opened, those that come are highly unlikely to ever return to Libya. They will instead stay, and then demand that their immediate and then extended families are brought here to live in perpetuity with full citizenship rights. And we shall have to pay for them; accommodate them; acquiesce to their ‘cultural sensitivities’, and put up with an ever-increasing demand for Sharia compliance.

Instead of admitting an influx of Libyans, Libya’s neighbouring nations should consider enforcing a no-fly zone over the country. We however, should not be involved in such intervention. Humanitarian assistance in the form of food, tents and medical supplies should be supplied to those areas of Libya which have already sloughed off Gaddafi’s rule, but Libyans should not be admitted into European nations. We have no holding facilities, and our legal and immigration systems are set up in such a way as to make it exceptionally difficult to enforce automatic deportation of incomers once the situation in their countries of origin has stabilised.

Admitting Libyans and Tunisians as ‘refugees’ will simply lead in the medium term to a mass permanent influx of Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc into Europe which will deal a devastating blow to the freedoms and way of life of European peoples in our own countries. We will be barraged in the days, weeks and months ahead by propaganda in the mainstream media – particularly in the BBC – aimed at undermining our national sovereignties and admitting these outsiders. If this is permitted, this will inflict irreparable damage upon our societies, unless that is, the indigenous peoples of Europe react to show that they will not tolerate these people in their midst. Why should we surrender our lands, our liberties and our way of life to this de facto hostile colonisation?

Ban Ki-moon addresses the UN on the Situation in Libya

Friday, 25 February 2011

Explosion in North Leeds

A large explosion involving a lorry is said to have taken place in the Moortown district of north Leeds at the junction of King Lane and Nursery Lane. The details, provided by BBC Yorkshire’s Look North news programme this evening, were scant, but subsequent Tweets from locals suggest that a number of roads in the area have now been closed off and the lorry has remained on fire. There is no news as yet with respect to whether or not anyone has been harmed in the incident, but given that it took place in a residential area, it would seem that casualties are unfortunately likely.

Earlier in the week, another explosion hit the Pudsey district of Leeds, when a parked car was mysteriously blown up. According to the news report at Armley today, police believe fireworks may have been involved.

UPDATE: The BBC's latest report, claims that it was not a lorry, but a van that exploded in a residential area of Alwoodly. Thankfully, there are still no reports of casualties resulting from the incident which is believed to have occurred around 18:05 this evening.

Tuesday, 22 February 2011

EDL Blackburn Demo Promo Video - 2 April 2011

As a child, the first mention I recall of Blackburn was in the Beatles song A Day in the Life. Whereas headlines at the time of its writing in 1967 prompted John Lennon to forever record the atrocious state of Blackburn’s roads, were he to have referenced the town in song today, I am afraid that he would have found that the headlines would provide rather more lurid subject matter. Alas, the state of contemporary Blackburn fits all too well with the melancholy air of the final track of Sgt. Pepper.

The EDL are planning to gather in Blackburn on Saturday 2 April to highlight the town’s unwelcome links with doctrinaire Islam. A number of videos have been produced in association with this demonstration, but the one below (please try to ignore the poor grammar and spelling and concentrate on the facts that it outlines) is certainly worth viewing, for it demonstrates how this northern town of just over 100,000 people has been blighted by the coming of Islam. It is said to possess the third highest proportion of Muslim residents in the UK (circa 25% of the population). From amongst these 25,000 have issued all of the crimes and ills enumerated in this short Youtube clip.

For all of David Cameron’s spurious talk about the need to ditch multiculturalism, the reality is that the Government is pushing ahead with an expansion in the network of state-funded faith schools, many of these – including Blackburn’s Tauheedul Islam Girls High School – being Muslim faith schools. His words are but subterfuge designed to deflect public attention from the ongoing entrenchment of multicultural norms and practices in British institutions, law and public consciousness, which are actively promoted by his administration.

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Bloc Identitaire Anti-halal Protest at Villeurbanne (Lyon) KFC

We have seen KFC trial halal menus in a number of its outlets across the UK, and the situation with respect to the creeping Islamisation of the company's menu is just as evident in France. However, it would seem that at least in some instances branches of KFC on the other side of the Channel are not telling their customers that they are serving only halal meat. It is one such example of this practice which yesterday led members of Bloc Identitaire to mount a protest in front of a branch of KFC in the Villeurbanne district of Lyon. This action was prompted by the decision of this branch of the fast-food chain to sell only halal meat to its clients, whilst not mentioning this in any of its publicity or onsite informational literature.

A group of thirty Bloc Identitaire activists, some wearing pig masks and carrying placards, descended upon KFV Villeurbanne to voice their opposition to this branch’s unannounced halal-only policy, and to listen to a speech in which it was declared that non-Muslim customers were in effect being compelled to pay ‘a religious tax’. Quite rightly, Bloc Identitaire have described the actions of this branch of KFC as ‘a scandal’.

As outlined in a recent article concerning illegal Muslim prayers upon the streets of Nice, Bloc Identitaire activists are taking action to highlight and oppose Islamisation across France (the most visible sign of the rot caused to French society by the imposition of multiculturalism by the country’s political leaders). As defenders of France’s local indigenous cultural diversity, the members and supporters of Bloc Identitaire must be congratulated upon making a stand to preserve those characteristics of the French way of life that make their country unique, and such a wonderful place to visit.

Friday, 18 February 2011

Emmetts Solicitors: Enablers of Sharia in the UK

The Lancashire based firm Emmetts Solicitors evidently thinks that there is money to be made from promoting Sharia in the UK, hence its launch of what it bills as its ‘New Joint UK Civil and Sharia Family Law Service.’ Well readers, it is up to us to prove that rather than being a money-spinner, Sharia compliance will lose this firm our business. Any firm of solicitors that enables Sharia in our country should be boycotted. Do you want to ask why Emmetts Solicitors think that it is such as good idea to promote Sharia in the UK? Why not email them at

If you live in Lancashire and have formerly done business with, or are thinking of doing business with Emmetts Solicitors, it’s time for you to take your business elsewhere. This firm does not deserve to make a penny until it drops its Islamo-servile business model. What would the EDL make of this I wonder?

How about this as a new slogan for Emmetts: ‘Want to do business with a firm that is willing to treat women as second-class citizens? If so, Emmetts Solicitors is for you! After all, it takes the testimony of two women under Sharia to match that of one man.’

Maryam Namazie of the One Law for All Campaign has responded angrily to the news of Emmetts’s new business venture. She told that National Secular Society:
It is scandalous that lawyers meant to defend rights are now set on violating them by recognising and pandering to sharia law decisions on women.

Under Sharia, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's, men can unilaterally divorce by uttering a certain phrase thrice whilst it is often difficult for women to secure divorces. Marital rape is not considered a crime and violence against a disobedient wife a husband's prerogative. With regard to child custody – under UK civil law, the welfare of the child is paramount, whilst under sharia child custody goes to the father at a preset age irrespective of the child's welfare. Sharia law and UK civil law (however imperfect) are antithetical to each other so how can both be applied? In an ideal world, lawyers applying Sharia law would be disbarred. After all, the same would happen to doctors who hurt rather than helped their patients.
So readers, if Emmetts wish to transform themselves into a Muslim-only business, then they have made a very wise decision in embracing and enabling Sharia. Anyway, do watch its promotional video with its sub-trip hop cool ambient backing track, and visit the Emmetts Solicitors website. Seventh-century misogyny has never been so 'cool'! The law must remain secular. We must not allow Sharia to creep any further. Say no to Sharia. Say no to business with Emmetts.

Tuesday, 15 February 2011

Thilo Sarrazin targeted by UAF Protest Mob

Perhaps I am living in a parallel universe, but I had always understood that fascists opposed freedom of speech and expression and enforced their totalitarian worldview through thuggish street mobilisation to silence those with whom they disagreed. It thus seems paradoxical that an outfit by the name of ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (UAF) routinely employs precisely these tactics in order to shut down debate. Their net is cast very wide in their manufactured struggle against a non-existent ‘fascist threat’, and in the mould of their ideological forebears - Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and Lenin – they see nothing wrong in creating 'fascists' where none exist, so that they can, in their own crude parlance, be ‘smashed’. Thilo Sarrazin is but their latest target. Thankfully, so far as I am aware, he has yet to be ‘smashed’.

The cause of this latest paroxysm of outrage on the part of UAF was Sarrazin’s invitation to speak at the London School of Economics (LSE) by its student German Society. Sarrazin, a senior member of Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) and former executive member of the Bundesbank, caused a furore in Germany last summer through the publication of his book ‘Germany Abolishes Itself’. In this he correctly took aim at German state multiculturalism and diagnosed this as the source of many of Germany’s contemporary social ills, but it was his singling out of Islam and the large Muslim population of Germany and other European societies as being particularly problematic, that caused colleagues and foes alike to turn upon him.

Any native European who knows of Thilo Sarrazin’s ideas and is not infected with the bacillus of national and ethnic self-loathing, knows him to be a brave and principled politician who has spoken out on behalf not only of the German people, but of all European peoples and their right to preserve their national freedoms and identities. He is one of the few senior heavyweight political figures from a mainstream political party, to have spoken out against the threat to the well-being of our societies posed by multiculturalism and the Islamisation that this policy has encouraged. Such an acknowledgement of truth however, was sufficient for a coalition of mainstream politicians and mass media to viciously turn upon Sarrazin. Suddenly, for speaking the truth, he became a member of the phantom ‘far-right’. Apparently, any native European who thinks about social and political issues in a rational vein rather than in the prescribed politically correct categories is open to being dubbed ‘far-right’. We rationalist Europeans – Geert Wilders being another notable example – are all ‘far-right’ now.

So, back to the totalitarians of UAF and their shrill denunciations not only of Sarrazin’s right to speak, but even to set foot in the United Kingdom. What have they managed to do to better our society this week? As one would expect: nothing. Sadly, according to the Jerusalem Post, the screaming Trotskyites managed to force the LSE into cancelling Sarrazin’s address, with the University limply claiming that it did not have sufficient security to ensure the safety of the speakers. If this was the case, where were the police? Why were they not on hand to defend Sarrazin? If David Cameron’s speech about the need to ditch state multiculturalism meant anything other than generating headlines designed to pacify traditional Tories and other patriotic Britons, the policing would have been provided, and the UAF mob kept at bay. The fact that it did not demonstrates that institutional racism now infects our police forces and public sector from the very top to the very bottom: anti-indigenous and anti-white racism.

The Times Higher Education Supplement also reveals that a coalition of ‘right-thinking’ (as I am sure they would like to describe themselves) academics and students had also tried to prevent the “Integration Debate: Europe’s Future – ‘Decline of the West’?” from taking place on campus by writing a denunciatory letter stating:
The stigmatization of certain social groups by Mr Sarrazin threatens social harmony and social cohesion…Both warn of an allegedly looming Islamization of Europe and thereby join a group of Islamophobic publicists and politicians across the continent.
This type of approach is straight out of the Maoist little red textbook, and the fact that so-called academics would even dream of smothering not only free speech, but discussion of a vitally important and real problem that affects our societies today, illustrates just how overly politicised our higher education system has become. It is infested with those who peddle constant hatred of European culture, values, civilisation and, most importantly of all, native European peoples. They then attempt to instil this self-hatred into our young people, and to a large degree I am afraid to say, they are succeeding.

Thilo Sarrazin may not have been permitted to speak at the LSE, but he shall always find a welcome platform on these pages. He speaks on our behalf against totalitarianism, and for that reason if for no other, he deserves to be listened to. For those of you who have not watched the following subtitled video, I urge you to do so.

Monday, 14 February 2011

Video Footage of Tunisian Arrivals on Lampedusa

Unsurprisingly, Amnesty International, a once decent organisation that highlighted the plight of individuals under Communism, has pleaded for Italy and Europe to uncritically accept the economic migrants who have arrived on Lampedusa, naively trumpeting claims of political asylum as if they were fact. Nicola Duckworth, Amnesty’s Europe and Central Asia Programme Director stated:

While we recognize the challenges of dealing with very large and mixed migration flows, the relevant authorities must ensure that previous instances of asylum-seekers' rights being abused are not repeated.

The relevant authorities must ensure that all those seeking asylum should be able to access territory and fair, satisfactory asylum procedures and be informed of their rights.

No one should be forcibly expelled to a place where they face serious human rights abuses, or without adequate consideration of their circumstances and needs for protection. Any decision to detain a person should be considered individually.
On a positive note, at least the Amnesty report notes (disapprovingly) the Italian Government’s emergency measures to contain the situation. Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs has declared that Italian coastal patrols will be bolstered, as will mechanisms “that until a month ago were able to reduce irregular/clandestine migration to zero”. Good luck to the Italians. It sounds like they’ve been doing a good job recently.

Below is footage of this Tunisian human wave that is swamping this Italian island, presaging what could be a Camp of the Saints scenario for Europe if it is not dealt with appropriately (click here for background and details). Unfortunately, the Tunisians have responded angrily to the Italian request to send police into the country to prevent this exodus of putative asylum seekers. The reporter claims that there are many 'political refugees' amongst their number. If this is so, why are they fleeing a so-called new democracy? All should be returned to Tunisia immediately.

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Lampedusa: Gateway to Europe's Extinction?

As I have recently speculated elsewhere, the political upheaval in North Africa is being used as a pretext by Muslim emigrants to seek ‘asylum’ with a view to finding employment and settling in Europe. Their entry point is the Italian island of Lampedusa, situated a mere 70 miles from the Tunisian coast and long favoured by people smugglers as the destination for their illicit human cargoes. In recent years this phenomenon has grown ever worse, and because of the absurd so-called human rights legislation in operation across Europe (which tragically belittles this noble concept) once these migrants have arrived they have stayed and settled. Most of them are men. Muslim men (see pictures below).

According to the Malta Times 1,000 Tunisians arrived on Lampedusa last night alone, bringing the total for the past week to 6,000. These criminal entrants to the EU have of course claimed asylum, when in fact almost all of them without exception have come here for purely economic reasons. Amongst them are said to be a concentration of hard-core criminals released from prison during the recent revolution. The traffickers however are doing well, and profiting to the tune of circa 1500 per head.

Our native European societies can take no more of this. This human floodtide is only the beginning. What are we to expect from Egypt, Algeria and any other state to which unrest spreads? Anyone who sets off from these states for member nations of the EU will claim ‘asylum’ and we, the peoples of Europe, will be able to do nothing about it because our elites have us bound and gagged. They will force us to admit them, to pay for them, and to bear the negative social consequences of their coming. They shall expect us to voice our gratitude for this ‘enrichment’.

The Financial Times reports that Roberto Maroni, Italian Home Affairs Minister, has already appealed to EU Commission President Jose Barroso to help solve this problem. It seems that there will shortly be an emergency meeting in Brussels to discuss what to do. Although Roberto Maroni, being a member of Italy's Lega Nord, has the right ideas about how to tackle this problem (he has asked for the deployment of Frontex - the EU border security agency - just off the Tunisian coast), will the EU back him? He is quoted by the BBC as saying:
"I will ask the Tunisian foreign ministry for permission for our authorities to intervene to stop the flow in Tunisia".

"Europe is not doing anything, I am very concerned," he said.

"I asked for the urgent intervention of the EU because the Maghreb is exploding. There is an institutional and political earthquake that could have a devastating impact on the whole of Europe through Italy."
Even if Frontex were to be deployed, what would it do? Would it actually return migrants to Tunisia? This seems doubtful. I suspect that instead members of the self-serving EU oligarchy are already preparing to facilitate the mass influx of North African Muslims into Europe, and they will set their attack dogs upon anyone who dares oppose this process by branding them ‘racist’. What are we to do?

Although our countries, England and Holland in particular, are full to bursting point and in the grip of long-term economic decline, we will be expected to pay for this human surge both in cash and through a further decline in our general standard of living. These immigrants will add to the already powerful Islamising impulse at play in our societies, and the governing anti-national parties may use this fact to clamp down further on our rights to free speech and protest by branding us as ‘extremists’. Most of these immigrants are and will be Muslim men with Muslim male norms of behaviour towards women. What sort of tensions will this engender? These people must be turned back. The European nations must not be subjected to a Camp of the Saints scenario, although alas, it is one which seems to be unfolding with an alarming rapidity.

Why are we native European peoples denied the right to self-determination in our own homelands? Why must we always be made to submit to others? The time for such a subservient attitude before these unbidden and burdensome ‘guests’ has passed. We must turn them back. We can take no more. Roberto Maroni must persuade fellow ministers to arrange compulsory repatriation of all such immigrants by the Italian and allied militaries. If we do not come down firmly against this now, the consequences are too depressing to contemplate.

Saturday, 12 February 2011

Should the EDL field Candidates for Election?

This week, the Daily Star has run a number of articles on the EDL that in contrast to those routinely encountered in the British press and electronic media did not possess a condemnatory tone. Gone were the obligatory stigmatising tags of ‘far-right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, etc, to be replaced instead with neutral straightforward reporting. Naturally, for the Guardian and the New Statesman, both bastions of the cultural relativist Left, this was in contravention of their ‘no platform’ credo for the EDL. Commentators at both publications gave vent to their priggery by indulging in their distaste for the Daily Star and its plebeian preoccupation with “tits and bums” as if the self-righteous Guardian-reading classes somehow managed to routinely reproduce asexually, and were mortified by any thought of pleasures of the flesh.

Sophisticated the Star may not be, but I do not concur with the NUJ hacks of the ‘Grauniad’ and New Statesman that it should have to submit to their strictures of national-masochistic groupthink, and the fact that it has not done so this week is the reason why I for a change have looked into its content. Contrary to the assertion that its coverage of the EDL was ‘supportive’, it appears to have been perfectly balanced, unlike that of either the Guardian or the New Statesman. Whilst finding the EDL utterly beyond the pale, the latter publications found it perfectly understandable and agreeable for Islamo-Marxists Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq to have insulted the bravery of Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher through refusing to stand as part of an ovation in honour of his receipt of the George Cross. This was a gross affront to Croucher, who displayed exemplary gallantry whilst serving in Afghanistan by throwing himself upon a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. Whereas Croucher’s act was one of undoubted selfless heroism, that of Yaqoob and Ishtiaq was one of selfish politicking; a petty-minded gesture aimed at fishing for votes in the filthy pool of Muslim communal politics.

Contrary to what Yaqoob and Ishtiaq will aver, they will be happy that EDL leader Tommy Robinson has now vowed to bring the EDL out onto the streets of Birmingham on 19 March to show displeasure at the snubbing of Lance Corporal Croucher. The Islamo-Marxist councillors will adopt the usual ruse of misrepresenting the EDL as some kind of contemporary blackshirt movement in an effort to mobilise their ‘community’ (sic) by playing upon the fears of local Muslim electors. This was the first of the EDL stories run by the Daily Star this week. Next came the headline that caused consternation in other sections of the press, as pictured below:

This headline was prompted by Robinson’s response to a question as to whether the EDL would field candidates in local and national elections. He replied:

“We aren’t ruling it out. I think this country needs a party that’s not afraid to say things some would consider unpopular.”

“My hope is still that the Tories will take a tougher stance.”

“We are a single issue group and at the moment we would rather have a dialogue with the other political parties – but that could change.”
Hence, although he has not categorically ruled out the political option, he has displayed a politician’s judgement in the wording that he chose with respect to the future. According to the Star, a telephone poll indicated that 98% of its readers would be willing to vote for EDL candidates (no sample size or details of methodology were provided).

However, after running three neutral stories about the EDL over the past week (the third focusing on threats to behead Robinson and members of his family) the Star on Sunday reverted to the NUJ line and ran with the story 'Paedo Rap for EDL Leader'. The headline was prompted by the conviction of Richard Price - one of the EDL's former senior members - for downloading child porn. Price is no longer a member of the EDL. A second story on the EDL in the Sunday edition of the paper headed 'EDL - Not in My Name Says Hero', reverted to the normal press practice of dragging in the terms 'far-right' and 'inflammatory' to describe the EDL, highlighting Robinson's former membership of the BNP and describing the EDL as 'football hooligans'. Why this volte face? Interestingly, one blogger notes that the Star on Sunday possesses a different editor to its weekday sister paper presiding over a different team of writers. Evidently, the Sunday team bat for Islamo-pandering official consensus.

The EDL and Party Politics
My advice to Robinson and the EDL would be not to place any faith in the Conservative Party. There may be a few backbenchers who would go most of the way to meeting the EDL’s demands, but Cameron and his clique would in my opinion never consider acceding to the EDL’s programme. As Robinson himself notes, the EDL’s position as a single-issue group would not place it in the most favourable of positions to field candidates in electoral contests. Campaigning on such a narrow platform would in my opinion not prove to be a viable strategy, leading in all likelihood to EDL candidates gaining a few hundred votes in whichever seat they stood, but nothing more.

The EDL needs to see if it can find a political partner which possesses a more comprehensive political programme. It needs to find a party with libertarian anti-Islamist principles along the lines of the European freedom parties such as Holland’s PVV and Germany’s Die Freiheit. In fact, there is such a party in Britain, but at the moment it is small and little known. However, there is no reason why it should remain so, for were the public to gain knowledge of its platform and policies, its message would resonate and it could start attracting votes in considerable numbers. That party is called British Freedom, and consciously allies itself with the PVV and Die Freiheit. Its slogan - ‘It’s about Culture Not Colour’ – seems to me to align it perfectly with the stance of the EDL. I would therefore urge EDL supporters to visit its website and consider its policy position. Our old political system is broken, and the Westminster parties have proven themselves time and again to be unwilling to acknowledge let alone address the concerns articulated by the EDL.

Tommy Robinson and others within the EDL have built a genuinely popular grassroots movement at tremendous cost to their personal safety, so it would be a great shame if they were not to take the next necessary step in transforming this support into real and lasting political and social change for the better. This can be done, and if none of the Establishment parties change their ways (I consider that Cameron is simply posturing with respect to his alleged rejection of state-directed multiculturalism), then the EDL needs to back a new political party that answers both its needs and aspirations.

Thursday, 10 February 2011

Not so Nice in Nice: Muslims take to the Streets

Last year the public was alerted to the fact that a number of Parisian streets were being taken over by Muslims in contravention of the law and converted into an open air mosque on Fridays. Traffic was stopped so that prayers could proceed without hindrance, and the local authorities did nothing. Now, the same phenomenon has shown itself in Nice as the footage below clearly demonstrates. Following a brief Le Figaro interview with Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi, the clandestine footage (which runs from just over a minute into the video) shows scenes on the streets of Nice taken on Friday 4 February 2011.

The Niçois Identitarian movement, Nissa Rebela, responded to complaints from locals about the prayers because of media silence on the issue, and thus despatched someone to film the prayers. As in Paris, the authorities have failed to act, despite the Mayor Christian Estrosi declaring that prayers in the street are illegal. However, the President of Nissa Rebela Philippe Vardon notes that Estrosi coupled this declaration with a statement that new mosques had to be constructed. The members of Nissa Rebela do not approve of this creeping Islamisation of Nice, and have vowed to find a means of ending Muslim prayers on the streets.

Last year’s revelation about the Muslim Friday occupation of streets in the Goutte d’Or district of Paris led to the organisation of an imaginative and good-natured demonstration entitled Apero geant saucisson et pinard which brought together a diverse range of political groups and bloggers, including Sylvie François, Bloc Identitaire and Riposte Laïque, to give speeches, drink wine and partake of sausages in a celebration of the French love of the good life and freedom. Unfortunately, it is not only Paris and Nice which find their streets blocked by the Muslim faithful on Fridays; it's a phenomenon that's been catching on in other cities too, as can be seen from the footage below taken in Marseilles.

Front National President Marine Le Pen has voiced her objection to Muslims holding open-air prayers on French city streets, so it will be interesting to see what happens with respect to standing up against such activities on the streets of Nice. Will we see another broad-ranging coalition of French secular and patriotic groups come together in Nice as in Paris last June? Only time will tell.

For those of you not familiar with Bloc Identitaire it is worth noting that it sent representatives to the recent EDL demonstration in Luton, one of whom addressed the crowd expressing French solidarity in the Europe-wide campaign against Islamisation. His speech can be viewed below.

Save Our Forests Petition

Dear readers, if you happen to live in the UK you will be aware that the Coalition Government is planning to sell off our publicly owned forests and woodlands. It is my opinion that this would be an exceptionally bad move, and given that it was in no party manifesto, the public have not been asked for their opinion on this policy. It is plain to see that the public mood is against this privatisation, and instead favours the retention of Forestry Commission woodlands in public hands which will continue to ensure that all are able to enjoy access to this resource for recreation.

The Government has admitted that the transfer of this public asset into private hands would raise little money, and yet it still seems intent upon forcing this unpopular measure through. The Condem Coalition is using the budget deficit as a pretext for ransacking one of our few remaining common and treasured resources. This privatisation is being driven by ideology and private sectional interest, not by the will of the people. These forests and woodlands are ours in common, and should not be placed in the hands of any Westminster politician to dispose of. Please read the following statement from the 38 Degrees website, and irrespective of your ideological position, I would be obliged if you could join with me in signing this petition. Let us ensure that our woodlands are retained in perpetuity for the enjoyment and recreation of the whole nation.

The government is planning a massive sell off of our national forests. They could be auctioned and fenced off, run down, logged or turned into golf courses and holiday villages.

We can't let that happen. We need to stop these plans. National treasures like the The Forest of Dean, Sherwood Forest and The New Forest could be sold off. Once they are gone, they will be lost forever.

A huge petition will force the government to rethink its plans. If we can prove how strongly the public are against this, they will have to back down. Please sign the petition now.

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Feeling Impish and asking awkward Questions

Having happened upon a most distasteful article entitled ‘A New Zealand Woman’s Journey to Islam’ on the deranged ‘Colours of My Life’ blog (mostly green with splodges of blood red presumably), I felt moved to write the following in the vain hope that a Muslim might finally answer my Quiz for Muslims. This is the comment that I left:

I like to understand what Muslims think, which is why I have taken great care to learn about Islam. It's not like what the mainstream press says (ROP), but for some reason, no Muslim will answer this short quiz and give me straight non-evasive answers. Can you, or any of your readers? Enjoy:
Strangely, since I made taking the quiz and providing answers in full a precondition for any Muslim to post comments on this blog, not a word has been left by a Mohammedan. It'll be interesting to see for how long this silence is maintained. Having left my comment, will I get answers or a torrent of abuse? Any guesses? I’ll report back to you.

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Icelandic Volcano to Erupt?

Are you thinking of flying away from the UK’s winter weather to warm yourself for a week or two? If so, perhaps it could be time to think again.

Whereas last year’s eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull Volcano (yes, you do deserve a pat on the back if you can correctly pronounce its name) caused havoc with flights from the British Isles and across Europe, seismologists are warning that a series of earthquakes indicate that a far larger eruption could be in store in the near future.

Last year there was much speculation that Katla might well erupt following the stirrings from Eyjafjallajökull, for eruptions of the former have on at least three occasions in recorded history followed on from outpourings from the latter. This time though, it is not Katla that is threatening to disgorge ash and fiery magma, but the wonderfully named Bárdarbunga. The Daily Telegraph reports that:
The last recorded eruption of Bárdarbunga was in 1910, although volcanologists believe its last major eruption occurred in 1477 when it produced a large ash and pumice fallout. It also produced the largest known lava flow during the past 10,000 years on earth.

It is the second largest volcano on Iceland and is directly above the mantle plume of molten rock.
So, if it does go off we could be in for quite a display. Just watch out though should we be subject to another blocking high pressure system in the mid-Atlantic, for this could signal the return of northerlies or northwesterlies to the UK, dragging with them clouds of volcanic ash and once again closing down airspace over the British Isles.

The Icelandic Met Office has a rather unusual (from a British perspective) webpage which details earthquakes recorded over the previous 48 hour period. These are displayed on a map that also indicates the magnitude of the quakes and how many hours ago they occurred. It just serves to demonstrate what an incredibly dynamic island Iceland is.

Unsurprisingly, it would seem that some of those who are afflicted with Christian eschatological beliefs are (as they have done for the past 1900 or so years) seeing in this possible eruption and others around the globe portents of Armageddon, to which I would respond: no, it's just plate tectonics in action. Still, if you are of a sceptical cast of mind and would enjoy a little scoffing amusement at the lurid imaginings of such folk, why not treat yourself to a peek at the Bible Prophecy - Signs of the Times blog. The end is nigh! A popular refrain from 999, to 1660, 1666, 2000 and 2012, not counting the many, many other occasions when such beliefs have frothed to the surface and caused havoc and mayhem. Hey, look! Here comes an alien ship in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp! Quick, better shuffle off this mortal coil and get beamed aboard! Here comes the Reverend Jim Jones with the orange juice: it's so yummy laced with cyanide! The lesson: many people are very, very gullible.

Bárdarbunga Caldera

Monday, 7 February 2011

Geert Wilders Show Trial Recommences

If David Cameron had made the speech that he should have made on Saturday, it would have been rather more like that delivered by Geert Wilders today, than the half-hearted sop to popular opinion which so outraged multiculturalists. Scandalously, Wilders delivered the speech reproduced below in a Dutch court, where he is once again being subjected to a state show trial on the bogus charge of ‘hate speech’. The trial was initially dropped in October, but Wilders has been dragged back into the dock to be made an example of for violating the taboos of the ethnomasochistic Dutch ‘elite’. Stand firm for the freedoms of the European peoples Geert! Hat tip to Jihad Watch for posting the following translation:

Speech of Geert Wilders at the resumption of his trial in Amsterdam today:

The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. Everywhere the foundation of the West is under attack.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us since fourteenth centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-immigration, which will ultimately result in an islamic Europe - a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom loving citizens who criticize islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:

It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people - and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament - to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.

Sunday, 6 February 2011

David Cameron’s Speech on Multiculturalism: a Damascene Conversion?

The Prime Minister’s speech in Munich yesterday generated many a febrile headline and caused the sort of hyperventilating hysteria amongst leftists across the UK that one would expect. Its explicit message was that multiculturalism as a policy has failed, and has made a significant contribution to generating the homegrown Islamist terror threat that so bedevils our country today.

Unfortunately, although much of what he said in his speech appears on the surface to be driving in the right direction, I would argue that we should not expect too much by way of action to follow from this. There is a reason of course that he earned the mocking sobriquet ‘Cast-Iron Dave’, with his reneging on a promise to hold a referendum to allow the electorate to have a say on the Lisbon Treaty, and his subsequent failure to place an effective cap upon mass immigration. Both of these have reduced his ‘cast-iron’ promises to nothing more than a heap of rust. It is in this context that I think this speech was as much directed at placating the traditional Tory press and ‘Middle England’, as it was at determining the direction of future policy and actually tackling the roots of Islamist violence and antipathy towards our society.

Before reading further, please take time to watch the video below in full taken from the Vlad Tepes blog. It’s not too long, and intercuts passages from Cameron’s speech with some of his other recent utterances on the subject of Islam. The contrast is instructive.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism." (David Cameron, Munich 5 February 2011)
The sentiments in the above statement can only be applauded, and it is of course this soundbite that will be remembered from this speech. However, if it is to amount to anything more than a piece of mere verbiage designed to generate positive headlines in the traditionally Tory press which has no great affection for Cameron, then I would suggest that he needs to roundly distance himself from many of the statements on Islam that he has previously made. He did, did he not, once call for British society to integrate more with traditional Islamic values than vice versa? Also, he has promoted the highly voluble Sayeeda Warsi to a ministerial position despite the fact that she is unelected (an appointed ‘Baroness’ who sits in the House of Lords) and who has recently been berating ordinary middle-class Britons for their socially acceptable ‘Islamophobia’ (sic). I anticipate that we shall see far more of this in the future.

“The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not.” (David Cameron, Munich 5 February 2011)
Islamism is a movement which seeks the political implementation of Islam; nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, the Tories are already committed to overseeing an expansion in the network of faith schools and are now funding Muslim schools which will rear a generation of English-despising Muslims with a superiority complex coupled with the usual sense of Muslim resentment about the wider non-Islamic society within which they reside. The National Secular Society has done much to highlight the dangers of this policy.

Cameron’s reference to the situation in Egypt as a demonstration that Islam is not incompatible with democracy is rather precipitate, for the Egyptian revolution has yet to draw to a conclusion, and we do not yet know what sort of politico-legal settlement will result. It suggests that were he to have made this speech in early 1979 he would have applauded the Iranian Revolution, where secular parties and Islamists came together to topple the Shah, but only one party – the Islamist one - emerged to shape the future of Iran and its people, once it had established its hegemony through the bloody quashing of all internal political opposition. Unfortunately, this could happen in Egypt, as is demonstrated by the fact that the current adminstration is already holding talks with the Muslim Brotherhood regarding transitional arrangements.

The full text of Cameron’s speech is reproduced at the end of this article, so you can read and digest it at your leisure and draw your own conclusions. I however, remain very sceptical, and suspect that this Munich speech shares much in terms of its ideological myopia with an earlier agreement reached by another Prime Minister in this city many years ago. Those who protest against Islamisation, such as the EDL, should therefore continue to work towards their goals until we have ensured that this process is thrown into an irreversible retreat in our country. Don't trust Cameron. This apparent Damascene conversion maybe little more than an illusion.

Full Text of David Cameron’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference, 5 February 2011

Today I want to focus my remarks on terrorism, but first let me address one point. Some have suggested that by holding a strategic defence and security review, Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world. That is the opposite of the truth. Yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong. Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% target for defence spending. We will still have the fourth largest military defence budget in the world. At the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army. That is not retreat; it is hard headed.

Every decision we take has three aims in mind. First, to continue to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan . Second, to reinforce our actual military capability. As Chancellor Merkel’s government is showing right here in Germany, what matters is not bureaucracy, which frankly Europe needs a lot less of, but the political will to build military capability that we need as nations and allies, that we can deliver in the field. Third, we want to make sure that Britain is protected from the new and various threats that we face. That is why we are investing in a national cyber security programme that I know William Hague talked about yesterday, and we are sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.

But the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried out by our own citizens. It is important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group. My country, the United Kingdom , still faces threats from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland . Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and in Italy , and of course, yourselves in Germany were long scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. Last week at Davos I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism, and today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark. We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. Of course, that means strengthening, as Angela has said, the security aspects of our response, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

But this is just part of the answer. We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

This highlights, I think, a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face. There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. So, they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say, ‘Get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.’ But this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK and elsewhere have been graduates and often middle class. They point to grievances about Western foreign policy and say, ‘Stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.’ But there are many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who are angry about Western foreign policy, but who don’t resort to acts of terrorism. They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say, ‘Stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.’ But this raises the question: if it’s the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so many extremists in free and open societies?

Now, I’m not saying that these issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important. Yes, of course we must tackle them. Of course we must tackle poverty. Yes, we must resolve the sources of tension, not least in Palestine , and yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the Middle East . On Egypt , our position should be clear. We want to see the transition to a more broadly-based government, with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society. I simply don’t accept that there is somehow a dead end choice between a security state on the one hand, and an Islamist one on the other. But let us not fool ourselves. These are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all of the problems that I have mentioned, there would still be this terrorism. I believe the root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology. I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.

What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK , some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation.

Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated. In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere. In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. All these interactions can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply. Now, you might say, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

Well, I’ll tell you why. As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.

Let me briefly take each in turn. First, confronting and undermining this ideology. Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. Now, for governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with. Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement. So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home.

At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses? Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons? And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.

Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not. But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are, and that is completely unjustifiable. We need to argue that terrorism is wrong in all circumstances. We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are nonsense.

Now, governments cannot do this alone. The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam, so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam. So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast, often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview. Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.

Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

There are practical things that we can do as well. That includes making sure that immigrants speak the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum. Back home, we’re introducing National Citizen Service: a two-month programme for sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people. That way, common purpose can be formed as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.

So, let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. It cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence – confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries. Now, none of this will be easy. We will need stamina, patience and endurance, and it won’t happen at all if we act alone. This ideology crosses not just our continent but all continents, and we are all in this together. At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome. Thank you.

Saturday, 5 February 2011

Tommy Robinson Addresses EDL in Luton’s St George’s Square

In the first of these videos Tommy Robinson addresses EDL protesters in Luton’s packed St George’s Square. The second shows EDL supporters under police escort making their way to the town centre. The crowd appears well behaved and orderly. Finally, the third video features Robinson speaking to an ITN news crew and stating that he too regrets the cost of today’s police operation, but points out that the EDL has to make a stand because our politicians have not been addressing the issues with which the EDL is concerned. Strange, is it not, that the cost of policing EDL demonstrations is always brought up by the media which passes over the fact that much of this cost is engendered by attempting to contain aggressive and often violent UAF counter-demonstrators. It’s been a very busy week for Robinson and media attention for the EDL has never been higher, testimony to the resonance of its message with the general public.

First Video Footage of EDL Luton Demo

Below is the first piece of video footage to come to light from today's EDL protest in Luton (for an initial report please visit As you can see, it looks as if the EDL crowd were peaceful. It is said that the video was taken by a UAF supporter. Hat tip to Gates of Vienna for video.

Sky News Interview with Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) of the EDL

Following his interview with Jeremy Paxman on Wednesday evening in advance of today’s EDL demonstration in Luton, Tommy Robinson yesterday put up a good performance against a smug grinning Sky News presenter named Adam Boulton. In this he drew attention to a number of death threats against him and his family which have been made by Muslim militants and the fact that he and some other leading members of the EDL such as Guramit Singh have to live with 24-hour police protection. Despite clearly outlining the threats to his personal safety and his reading out a police message advising him to keep out of Luton today because of further threats to his life, Boulton kept asking him why he thought it necessary to assume a pseudonym and to have worn a balaclava at the first EDL demonstration. Might not the communication at the beginning of the interview have rendered such questions superfluous Mr Boulton? A video of the interview is posted below:

EDL Luton Demo: First Reports and Tommy Robinson’s support for David Cameron’s Speech on Multiculturalism

Initial reports coming in from the EDL demo in Luton today indicate that circa 2,000 police have been deployed to keep public order and prevent UAF protesters from clashing with the EDL. The Hope Not Hate campaign claimed that by midday around 1,000 EDL supporters had arrived, whereas the EDL itself is hoping to bring 10,000 protesters to the streets. It has also been claimed that some coachloads of EDL protestors have been turned back because the passengers were drunk. German, Dutch and Swedish Defence League flags have been spotted, highlighting the international links that the EDL has developed over the years.

Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate has written: 
EDL leader Stephen Lennon has said of Cameron's multicultural comments: "He's now saying what we're saying. He knows his base."

That just about sums up Cameron's ridiculous and badly timed intervention.
For all that Lowles says, although Cameron’s speech is billed as ‘rejecting multiculturalism’ in favour of a ‘muscular liberalism’, I can guarantee that this will be nothing more than an attempt to gain some favourable headlines in papers such as the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Given that press releases have referred to his wish to tackle ‘extremist ideologies’ (note the plural) I predict that subsequent policy will instead consist of a ‘muscular multiculturalism’ which will focus equally upon damning Islamism and British/English nationalism. You will recall Cameron’s injunction from a year or two ago for mainstream British society to learn from mainstream Muslim values. Witness also Sayeeda Warsi’s shrill prelude to the oncoming anti-nationalist witch-hunt with her admonition of members of the indigenous middle class for their so-called socially acceptable ‘Islamophobia’.

Cameron will focus as much upon attacking the EDL as he will upon Islamism. Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) will thus be fooling himself if he thinks that ‘cast iron Dave’ will do anything to seriously tackle Islamisation in this country. For example, the Tories are already committed to overseeing an expansion in the network of faith schools and are now funding Muslim schools which will rear a generation of English-despising Muslims with a superiority complex coupled with the usual sense of Muslim resentment about the wider non-Islamic society within which they reside. This is the reality of Cameron’s ‘attack’ upon multiculturalism. Cameron’s seeming shift on this issue should be seen in the same light as his promise to hold a referendum on the EU and to limit mass immigration, both of which were worthless verbiage. The fact that Cameron chose to make his speech on the same day as the Luton demo suggests that he is attempting to undermine the base of support for the EDL. In that respect Tommy, Cameron indeed ‘knows his base’ (click here for a more in-depth consideration of Cameron's speech).

Press Reaction
Press reaction to the EDL’s Luton outing has been predictably hostile, using the usual panoply of National Union of Journalists (NUJ) pariah terms: the Daily Mail dubbed the EDL ‘far-right’, called its protest ‘inflammatory’ and dutifully and uncritically reported the UAF chant of ‘Nazi scum off our streets’ which made the paper complicit in this defamation of the movement. The Daily Mirror called it ‘far-right’, and even went so far as to regurgitate Labour MP Sadiq Khan’s ridiculous accusation that Cameron’s speech about multiculturalism was tantamount to 'writing propaganda for the EDL'. The Guardian predictably ran with an hysterical edition featuring numerous articles on the ‘far-right’ EDL, with its harridan Suzanne Moore describing the EDL as using the ‘language of fake inclusiveness’ and as being ‘the mirror image of Al-Mahajiroun’. She once again deployed that tired old canard linking economic bad times and the rise of the ‘far right’: ‘Far-right movements will, of course, thrive during a recession.’ Nick Lowles of ‘anti-fascist’ campaign group Hope Not Hate was also afforded the opportunity to write an opinion piece on the EDL. The movement must be doing something right to whip up this near-universal torrent of opprobrium.

Always remember that the tactics used by the mainstream media, politicians and leftist campaigns against patriotic movements and parties opposed to globalisation and Islamisation can be summarised by the following acronym: SID. This stands for stigmatise, isolate and destroy. Whenever you read reports about the EDL or patriotic parties here or across Europe, remember to read them taking this tactic into account. Robinson's speech to the EDL crowd in Luton's St George's Square can be viewed here:

EDL Protestors at Luton Station (courtesy of PI News)