Share |

Sunday 31 July 2011

To Rashida Chapti

Dear Mrs Chapti, I know that we are not formally acquainted, but I would like to extend my sympathy to you in your current predicament. Clearly, you are most unhappy about being separated from your husband and six children, and given that it is some fifteen years or so since you first came to England from India, and a full six years – according to Radio 4’s Today Programme – since you settled here, this sense of separation must be causing you some distress. Such distress in fact, that one of ‘our’ benevolent and public-spirited human rights lawyers has chosen to take up your case on your behalf. Believe me, I really do respect your right to a family life, and I fully encourage you to bring about a successful and permanent family reunion.

Mrs Chapti, if I am not mistaken, your love for my country must be great for you to have undertaken such an extraordinary course of action. Indeed, your husband too must be in possession of a pronounced love for my people and culture, as exhibited by your declaration that he as yet knows nothing of our language, and furthermore, has no intention of learning it should he take up residence here. You are a shining beacon Mrs Chapti, whose light shines out to countless millions! Indeed, these millions eagerly await the outcome of your case, for they too are keen to claim their ‘human rights’. How flattering it is in these times that the world should possess such a host of  ‘Anglophiles’!

By means of your wilful determination, you have managed over a decade and a half to master English so fully that you were unable to utter a single syllable of the language in your Today Programme interview, and thus had to have recourse to a professional interpreter. The efforts to which you must have gone to maintain such a profound state of  ignorance are nothing less than staggering. Moreover Mrs Chapti, believe me, I do understand that it can hardly be possible for your husband to afford English classes, for evidently such lessons must demand a titanic effort of saving, given that they must exceed the expense of you making regular transcontinental flights back to India. It is in full cognisance of your situation that I therefore proffer a suggestion which would yield an outcome that I am sure all of us would find thoroughly agreeable, and put an end to your state of psychological and emotional discomfort. Go home Mrs Chapti. Go home. Your husband and children are waiting for you. Whatever could stand in your way? 

Rashida Chapti - "a ravishing beauty" (Blind Pew)

Saturday 30 July 2011

The Scimitars of Southend

Do you see what I see? Heavens no! It would appear that the logo for Southend Airport incorporates three scimitars. What is this: the UK’s first Shari’ah compliant airport? Oh dear, this fevered Islamisation business is getting out of hand. I’ll be seeing pictures of a smiling Saladin instead of Colonel Sanders on KFC takeaways next. Quick, pray bring me ice and water with which to abate this fever!

Well, according to the BBC it would appear that Southend Airport is about to get a major boost from Easyjet, which is scheduling an additional 70 flights a week from the location. Come now Stelios, will you not have a word with the airport authorities about a new logo, for after all, being of Greek Cypriot extraction you can’t be that keen on the sight of Turkish scimitars, surely? Hmm, then again, looking at the surname of the Monaco-based tax exile, perhaps he might not object: Haji-Ioannou. Haji! Time for more ice and water methinks. 

Wednesday 27 July 2011

Rape: a 'Gift' from Norway's Multiculturalists

The following Norwegian news report on rape in Oslo is exceptionally sobering. Watch and reflect upon the repeated mantra of our own multiculutural political and media 'elite' that mass immigration from non-Western societies constitutes 'enrichment'. Is this assertion really credible? What is indisputable is that this immigration has done Norwegian society irreparable harm, and those who have enabled it - such as the Norwegian Labour Party - should finally acknowledge that this policy has been a failure. This policy must be reversed, and the women whose lives have been blighted by these crimes deserve an apology from those who put it into place and continue to support it.

Tuesday 26 July 2011

Stephen Lennon's latest Newsnight Interview

Below you can watch Jeremy Paxman repeatedly attempt to make unjustified insinuations about the EDL and its supposed links with Breivik. At times it would seem that the uses to which the Breivik case is being put resemble the manner in which the Nazis used the Reichstag fire to clamp down on political opponents. Could Breivik come to fulfil the same function as Van der Lubbe for the multiculturalists of the West? Perhaps. 

Paxman is the cod rebellious mouthpiece for the official multiculturalist line and is thus determined to smear the EDL, with his sneering condescension being nothing more than an expression of the Establishment's desire to crush the movement and drive the concerns of its supporters deep underground. He and his confederates are wilfully blind and deaf to the problems that the EDL highlight, and are determined to fix in the public imagination the vicious fantasy that it is a 'far-right' and 'neo-Nazi' 'extremist' movement. Such a portrayal goes beyond misunderstanding, and represents a clear and calculated assault upon the real concerns and views of a large swathe of the English population. Nonetheless, Stephen Lennon, alternatively known as Tommy Robinson, acquits himself pretty well, as he did in his first interview with Paxman back in February which can be viewed here. May he long continue to do so.

Sunday 24 July 2011

Reflections on the Norwegian Atrocity

Friday’s acts of mass murder in Oslo and on the island of Utøya have stunned the Norwegian people and shocked the wider world. For what little they are worth in such a situation, we can extend our sympathies and condolences to the bereaved, but such sentiments can never make up for the loss of a loved one, or cure those irreparably maimed by wanton violence of this nature.

As the initial reports came in on Friday, I, like many others, initially suspected a likely Islamist motivation for the Oslo bombing, but as further information began to filter through about shootings at the political summer camp on Utøya, it became apparent that the motivations underpinning this twin atrocity lay elsewhere. Tomorrow, we will hear from the lips of thirty-two-year old Anders Behring Breivik himself what his intentions were in bringing a premature end to the lives of so many. Already though, certain details about his ‘motivations’ and ‘ideology’ are being released via the mainstream media.

Although we cannot be certain, it seems highly likely that this man acted as a lone psychopath, and despite his claims to be a Norwegian nationalist and a defender of Western values, he is nothing of the sort. Nor, for all of his assertions, will he be found to be part of the counterjihad movement. Although those who comprise and support the latter could be said to share certain key aspects of ideology with Breivik relating to their analysis of the Islamisation of European societies and the goal of countering this, nowhere is support given to the idea of using terrorism or any other form of violence to realise their goals. Thus, although to the mainstream media and general public who know little about this area of politics it may appear that Breivik was part of this movement which is routinely and inaccurately denigrated as ‘extremist’, ‘far-right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’, he was nothing of the sort. The counterjihad movement stands for positive values: freedom of speech and expression; one secular law for all; equal rights for men and women and freedom from the threat of violence. It is because doctrinaire Islam stands implacably opposed to all of these values that we oppose it. We do not advocate silencing opponents through the use of the bullet and the bomb, but we demand the right to freely criticise those who would deprive us of our freedoms and rights without being stigmatised as ‘extremists’. We are extremely reasonable, but that is where our ‘extremism’ ends.

Elements of Breivik’s analysis regarding the Islamisation of Europe and the role of the hegemonic memeplex of cultural Marxism propagated by multiculturalist political parties and mass media are indeed common to the thought of a wide swathe of counter-hegemonic thinkers, bloggers and activists across Europe and beyond, whether they classify themselves as nationalists, counterjihadists, identitarians, anti-globalists or straightforward freethinkers and libertarians, but that is where the similarities with Breivik’s position end. Nonetheless, these inconvenient facts are hindering neither the mass media nor pro-multiculturalist governments and parties across Europe from drawing incorrect conclusions, whether these be based upon ignorance, paranoia or a deliberate and nefarious intent to denigrate and destroy all opposition to their multiculturalist project. Thus do the powerful in our societies seek to turn this tragedy to their political advantage, by portraying Breivik as representative of a non-existent ‘neo-Nazi’ (sic) threat comprised of various nationalist and counterjihadist parties, groups and movements.

The risibly named ‘Hope Not Hate’ organisation has not been slow to capitalise upon the opportunity afforded by Breivik’s killing spree, and according to the Daily Mail has called for the EDL to be ‘formally classified as a far-right organisation’. There has even been an attempt to smear the EDL by implying a direct connection with Breivik, whereas there has been no such connection and the EDL has condemned his actions in the strongest terms. It is evident that since the implosion of the BNP, the salaried personnel within ‘Hope Not Hate’ have been looking for a new ‘phantom menace’ to justify its continued existence and campaigning, and have decided that the EDL fits the bill well enough for their purposes. This is despite the fact that the EDL has made it very clear where it stands and by no objective criteria could it be classed as ‘far-right’.

The BBC, as one would expect, has been employing the term ‘neo-Nazi’ in the most cavalier, inaccurate and, one is tempted to say, deliberately malicious manner since Friday’s events in Oslo and Utøya. Indeed, the ideology of anti-Islamisation itself has on a number of occasions been specifically labelled as ‘neo-Nazi’ by BBC television reporters since Friday afternoon. Well, it would seem that in that case, by the BBC’s definition, I am a ‘neo-Nazi’. We’re all ‘neo-Nazis’ now it would seem. What else would one expect from an organisation dominated by cultural Marxism? I can already hear the cries of ‘far-right paranoia’ ringing in my ears, but the fact of the matter is that within the past couple of months one of the regular contributors to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day – the Reverend Canon Giles Fraser – quoted not from scripture, but directly from the Frankfurt School Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse! Not only that, but he made it explicit who Marcuse was and why he was quoting him in an approbatory fashion. Multiculturalism and cultural relativism are cultural Marxism. The BBC espouses and promotes both vigorously, and is thus culturally Marxist in its thoughts and its deeds, both conscious and unconscious. There is no debate to be had on this matter.

The BBC and its ilk are thus happy to slander the counterjihad movement, although in reality, if its viewers, listeners and readers cared to take the time to look for themselves, they would see that the BBC is, to put it generously, not reporting the movement’s views accurately. For example, there is no hiding the expression of spontaneous, unified and natural repulsion on the part of leading and longstanding counterjihad blogs such as Gates of Vienna, Vlad Tepes and The Tundra Tabloids that arose in response to Breivik’s crimes as they became known. Indeed, it is worth quoting the Vlad Tepes blog on this score:
One thing is certain. If blogs like mine or Gates of Vienna or Fjordman etc. can be blamed for inspiring this monster — blogs that have never once advocated violence, that have been firmly against terrorism no matter who it was by, people like Geert Wilders that wish to preserve a culture of modern liberalism and pluralism against the mono-culturalist Islam and its totalitarian illiberal legal ‘system’ — if all these people are to blame, then how can those same people say that the Koran, which is nearly one long solid incitement to terror and murder, rape and taking of slaves, of manifest destiny and mass slaughter and theft of all things belonging to unbelievers, how can those same people who accuse we of the fledgling pro-classical-liberalism, pro-women’s rights and gay rights (to varying degrees, granted), how can they accuse us of being the inspiration to this one lone Norwegian mass murdering monster and yet absolve the Koran for its role in inspiring many of history’s greatest genocides, from the Nazi one (Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans) to the unimaginable genocide of Hindus, causing the Gypsy Diaspora, to Europe, and on, and on, and on.
Breivik may claim that his acts of murder were intended to defend the Norwegian nation and Western civilisation, but in reality this man has done nationalists and counterjihad activists across the whole of Europe a massive disservice: he has handed our enemies a huge propaganda coup. Although we have nothing to do with him and roundly condemn him, we will be stigmatised by association no matter how tenuous and unfounded it may be. Just as the Stephen Lawrence case was used by the last Labour administration to implement and embed its anti-indigenous racist kulturkampf in the UK, so will the advocates of multiculturalism and appeasers of Islam across Europe use Breivik’s atrocity as a means to accelerate and embed their multiculturalist project. This is happening already, as Channel 4 reports that the Metropolitan Police are to launch an investigation into Breivik's claimed links with the EDL. There is thus a considerable risk that the flimsiest of pretexts will be employed to limit the operations of the EDL, or even to proscribe it. How much further might our liberties be whittled away as we become a new phantasmogorical enemy within to which our security agencies will misguidedly devote their attentions?  Breivik, contrary to his self-professed objectives, will thus go down in history as an enabler of the Islamisation of Europe.

Thursday 14 July 2011

Suspected Minsk Metro Bomber detained in violent Confrontation with Police

Viktor Dvorakovskii, an ethnic Russian Wahhabist convert and prime suspect for the 11 April bombing of the Oktiabr'skaia Minsk Metro station, has been arrested in the settlement of Inozemtsevo in the southern Russian district of Stavropol. The 23-year-old Dvorakovskii, who was born in Dagestan in the city of Makhachkala, became a convert to ‘radical Islam’ at the age of 20, and has been evading the Russian special services since they began searching for him in March after he accidentally blew up his own flat with an improvised explosive device. His wife and three-year-old child were in the flat at the time and were wounded.

Viktor Dvorakovskii: the Minsk Metro Bomber?
(Picture: Itar-TASS)

According to Izvestiia, last night’s detention of Dvorakovskii occurred quite by chance when a local police patrol spotted a man behaving in a suspicious manner who then attempted to hide himself in some bushes next to a kindergarten. Upon being asked for his identity documents, he threatened to blow up the police and promptly threw a bomb at them which landed to the side of the group concussing one of the officers. The patrol opened fire and a second device exploded blowing off Dvorakovskii’s right hand. A local resident told reporters how she heard Dvorakovskii yell “Allahu Akbar” before the sounds of two detonations rent the night air. At the time of writing, the latest reports stated that he lay comatose in hospital, bearing wounds sustained from the second bomb blast and a number of small-arms rounds. What was left of his right hand was amputated by surgeons.

At the time of his arrest it was thought that Dvorakovskii was planning an imminent suicide attack, albeit a relatively small-scale one. Recently, it had been thought that he was already dead, following a suicide bombing in Makhachkala on 10 May this year. This took place in similar circumstances to last night’s encounter, with a police patrol happening upon a man “acting suspiciously” who then detonated an explosive device killing one of the officers. Dvorakovskii, who is reported as having received paramilitary training alongside other jihadists in the northern Caucasus, is also said to have had links with a number of other perpetrators of Islamic terrorist acts in Russia, including another ethnic Russian Wahhabist – Vitalii Razdobud’ko – who was responsible for the Domodedovo Airport bombing as well as a double suicide bombing alongside his wife in Gubden, Dagestan on 14 February this year. This bombing killed three policemen and wounded 26 others. Razdobud’ko, his wife Maria Khoresheva and a number of others, had also been involved in a foiled plot to bomb multiple targets in Moscow this past New Year’s Eve.

The cases of Dvorakovskii, Razdobud’ko and his wife illustrate that what lies at the root of Muslim terrorism is Islamic doctrine, not the straw men of ‘racism’ and ‘relative deprivation’ which the British mainstream media routinely wheel out by way of ‘explanation’. It is depressing that ethnic Russians find themselves under attack from this common threat, but if Dvorakovskii was indeed responsible for the Minsk bombing, it is good news indeed that he has been apprehended and now lies in a coma. The members of the Russian police patrol who tackled him must be congratulated for their bravery. May they have every success in hunting down and eliminating all others who follow this vicious jihadist ideology.

Wednesday 13 July 2011

Whose ‘Boat People’?

The BBC, it must be said, often has a rather peculiar manner of phrasing things. By way of example, take yesterday’s online BBC coverage of the ongoing influx of predominantly North African Muslim migrants into the EU via the Italian island of Lampedusa. How would you describe them? Economic migrants perhaps? Settlers? Colonists? Well, all of these terms, which I would contend contain at least a strong if not overwhelming element of facticity, are evidently beyond the pale of ‘polite’ BBC discourse, because although truthful, they smack far too much of what ‘Auntie’ might term ‘intolerance’ for its liking.

Such an accurate characterisation of this process would be certain to elicit something far shriller from the Guardian and other media outlets of its ilk: shouts of ‘racism’, with plenty of stigmatising baseless imputations being made with respect to the character and moral worth of anyone who dared name and detail this process of colonisation. For such a person, the Guardian possesses an arsenal of derogatory epithets, including ‘far-right’, ‘fascist’ and, should the breach of ‘moral’ decorum be deemed to be exceptionally excessive, ‘Englishman’. Granted, I was being facetious with respect to that last word, but I am certain that anyone who so chooses to consciously acknowledge the fact of their ethnic Englishness and not be ashamed of it would not be seen as a ‘right-thinking’ (dreadful phrase is it not?) individual. Anyway, I digress from my original subject to which it is now time to return.

Which geographical/cultural adjective or adjectival phrase might you use as a headline for an article dealing with boatloads of migrants issuing from North Africa and landing on the shores of Lampedusa? North African? African? Arab? Maghrebian? Muslim? If one were to employ the genitive, would they be North Africa’s, Africa’s or the Maghreb’s boat people? Well, the BBC was of the opinion that none of these characterisations would do, and instead judiciously selected a genitive phrase which spelt out where it clearly believes these people belong. Its full headline was ‘Italy is rocky shore for Europe’s boat people’. Note its elision of Europe and the EU as is its wont, for its output would seem to be guided by a desire to deliberately equate being anti-EU with being anti-European. These are of course two separate matters altogether. I, for example, am strongly pro-European and anti-EU. The BBC on the other hand, is strongly pro-EU whilst being viscerally anti-European (witness its constant demonisation of Poles and neighbouring Slavic and Baltic peoples when reporting on immigration).

So, the BBC has decided that the African colonists belong to the continent of Europe. I would beg to differ, but I shall perhaps refrain from employing a term that a certain Muammar Gaddafi has used to describe his people whom he exhorts to migrate to Europe: “locusts”. It must be said however, that I would laugh heartily were the BBC to use such a term in a non-ironic fashion in describing this mass migration.