Share |

Tuesday 18 October 2011

Ahmed Faraz: 'Queen of Hearts'

The recent prosecution of Muslim Ahmed Faraz for possessing inciteful materials including video footage of 81 beheadings, serves to illustrate the real ongoing threat from Islamists resident in the UK. Whilst service personnel die and are maimed in Afghanistan fighting a war that has no objective other than to save face for the governments involved, thousands of Muslim British passport holders plot to bring about their fantasy of establishing a Shariah-based state here in the UK. As another report recently revealed, the security services are aware of hundreds of such individuals who are willing to employ suicidal violence in support of their aims. We are lucky that to date they have been so successful in thwarting associated plots at an early stage.

As is evident from the BBC artist’s depiction of Faraz, he is what the Corporation would refer to as ‘devout’; viz, bushy-bearded and dressed in traditional Pakistani garb. The BBC, along with many other media outlets, would probably not set much store upon the fact that Faraz not only ran an Islamic bookshop and publishing outfit named Maktabah, but was also an Islamic Studies graduate of Birmingham University. Evidently, it would not wish to give the ‘misguided’ and ‘distasteful’ impression that Faraz’s penchant for collecting and selling DVD’s of individuals suffering the horrific Islamic ‘punishment’ of decapitation as well as Islamic literature advocating this and other forms of barbarism had anything to do with his confessional affiliation. Heavens no! How could anybody suggest such a link? The BBC would perhaps argue that such a claim would be about as valid as stating that such behaviour was characteristic of independent Birmingham booksellers.

Found amongst the DVDs was footage of Ken Bigley, the unfortunate Liverpudlian who was captured and beheaded in Baghdad in 2004. Faraz is facing charges on thirty counts of possessing material that was intended to ‘radicalise Muslims around the world’. Mohammed Sadique Khan, ringleader of the 7/7 bombers, is named as one of Faraz’s customers.

Unfortunately, it is quite clear that there is an appetite for this sort of material in Britain, for otherwise Faraz’s shop would not have remained a viable financial proposition for as long as it did. This would seem to suggest that this type of ‘extremist’ publication and video material possesses a far larger wider reach than the few thousand Islamists identified as willing to employ violence to achieve their ends.

A just sentence for Faraz would be for him to be stripped of his assets and British citizenship and returned to his familial land or origin, thereby enabling him to ‘live the dream’ of being a resident of a state governed by Shariah. Alas, such an option is not currently possible. 

On 13 December, the Birmingham Mail reports that Faraz was found  'guilty of seven counts of dissemination of terrorist publications and four counts of possession of information, likely to be of use to a person committing or preparing for an act of terrorism.'

Sunday 16 October 2011

Nationalism and the Counterjihad: a new Party?

In February this year there were rumours that the English Defence League (EDL) was about to ‘go political’ and to field candidates for election. This rumour, largely the product of a fleeting flirtation between the Daily Star and the EDL, was denied by Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon at the time, but following a low-key gathering in London late last month the prospect of a ‘new’ political force incorporating some form of EDL involvement has once again emerged.

Over the years, a number of ‘Counterjihad Summits’ have been held in various locations across Europe including Zurich and Copenhagen, but this September it was London’s turn to play host. A report written by ‘Baron Bodissey’ of the Gates of Vienna blog presents us with an interesting account of this gathering, and a tantalising allusion to discussions concerning 'the possible formation of a new political party in Britain.'

Earlier this year I cautioned against the EDL entering the realm of electoral politics, and nothing has happened since then to change my mind. It is a single-issue protest movement and as such could hope to garner no more than a tiny percentage of the vote. That is not to say of course that the concerns of the EDL are irrelevant, for that is far from the case, but it should instead seek to hone its message and to endorse a particular political party rather than seek to become one. The question then naturally arises as to which political party should receive its backing?

In February, I suggested that the best ideological fit with the EDL seemed to be the recently formed British Freedom Party (BFP), but after making such a suggestion on the Gates of Vienna blog, it was made clear to me that the Counterjihad movement could not take the BFP seriously because of the oft-recorded rants of leading founder BFP member Lee Barnes. Although Barnes sometimes forwards some excellent ideas, he is unfortunately prone to posting some frankly bizarre material on his 21st Century British Nationalism blog pertaining to conspiracy theories (Zionist NWO being the most-frequently commented upon) and syncretistic ‘spirituality’ encompassing a wide range of pagan and New Age elements, including the Mayan Calendar 2012 Doomsday ‘prophecy’. This latter-day champion of an anti-Zionist Blakeian mysticism, it was suggested, should continue to commune with the angels in the trees at the bottom of his garden rather than become a leading figure in a viable nationalist party.

A work by William Blake, not by Lee Barnes

I had high expectations of the BFP when it was founded, hoping that it would become the British equivalent of the PVV, but the rapidity with which a schism occurred within this BNP splinter party and the ill-humour and lack of grace that occasioned the formation of the even-smaller Freedom Democrats, led me to draw back from support and potential membership.

Returning to the recent Counterjihad Summit, 'Baron Bodissey' was shown around Luton by Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon before heading to London, where longstanding leading members of the European Counterjihad movement met on Saturday 24 September. It is worth quoting Bodissey at length:

On the morning of Saturday September 24, a Counterjihad leadership meeting convened in central London. A number of people associated with ICLA were present, including Paul Weston, Aeneas, Gaia, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, KGS of Tundra Tabloids, Henrik Ræder Clausen of Europe News (English), Liz of Europe News (Deutsch), and other activists from North America and Western Europe. There were representatives from Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and the USA.

The importance of the meeting was underscored by the presence of several leaders of the English Defence League. Tommy Robinson, Kevin Carroll, and Jack Smith were among those who conferred for the first time with a cross-section of the European Counterjihad.

The most important topic of discussion concerned the current political situation in Britain. The unprecedented repression directed at the EDL and other dissidents demonstrates that the authorities are frightened by mass opposition to Islamization and sharia, and are determined to use any means to suppress dissent.

The violation of the civil liberties of ordinary Britons seems to be a matter of supreme indifference to the oligarchs who rule in Westminster. When dealing with the opponents of Multiculturalism, all three major parties seem to be in complete agreement: dissidents must be squashed at any cost.

Participants from the Continent gave their own perspective, relating the struggle against repression in Britain to the larger European struggle against the illiberal regime in Brussels. Opposition to the European Union goes hand-in-hand with resistance to Islamization, because the immigration regime that is destroying European nations is guided and encouraged by the EU.

Everyone agreed that we are now at a hinge of history. What happens in the next few months or years is crucial to the future of liberty, democracy, and European culture. Prompt action is required, because the worldwide financial crisis will soon reach a climax and limit our choices.
It is interesting to note that participants in this gathering agreed upon a common position opposing EU membership and multiculturalism which fits neatly into a nationalist political paradigm. In recent months in particular, there have been some confused messages emanating from the EDL with respect to ‘multiculturalism’, with the movement at times opposing it and at others endorsing it. The EDL needs to take an unequivocal stand that firmly condemns multiculturalism, for if it does not, it will have misunderstood what is enabling the Islamisation of Britain and will not therefore be able to combat it.

Whereas only one (so far as I am aware) representative of a political party was present at the morning meeting of the Counterjihad Leadership – Paul Weston of UKIP – that afternoon they were joined by ‘several members of the British Freedom Party’ for ‘free-form discussions’ which ‘continued until late in the evening.’ The BFP attendees were not named, but according to a post on the British Democracy Forum, Lee Barnes, Peter Mullins and Simon Bennett were the representatives in question. It would be interesting to learn what passed between the participants, for so far as I am aware, initial approaches by the BFP to the PVV were met rather coolly, whereas the even smaller Freedom Democrats managed to send a delegation to the recent Die Freiheit Conference in Berlin at which Oskar Freysinger made his impassioned speech. Which of these two parties – the BFP or the Freedom Democrats – have been recognised as partners by the Counterjihad movement? What Bodissey writes seems to suggest that he believes that there is much common ground with the former:

The BFP shares a major common interest with ICLA and the EDL: we all believe that mass immigration and Islamization will destroy our countries. This was the issue that preoccupied us over drinks and food in one of Central London’s innumerable multicultural districts.

Bodissey concludes his report of the weekend gathering by stating:
The following day (Sunday September 25) the same group met in a different location in London. This was a broader meeting, attended by a number of additional British participants, including another member of the BFP and a representative from UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party). We elaborated on the previous day’s topics in informal discussions, some of which took place in sub-groups over food and drink.
The meeting adjourned early in the evening so that those who had travelled long distances could make their way home.
This is all very interesting and raises many more questions than it answers. The nationalist political scene in Britain, and in England in particular, is becoming increasingly fragmented with numerous micro-parties, campaigns and movements springing up as the BNP continues its slow-motion implosion under Nick Griffin’s disastrous stewardship. However, many decent nationalists outside of the Griffin clique remain within the BNP as attested to by the contributions to the BNP Ideas website set up by MEP Andrew Brons. Indeed, on Saturday 22 October the BNP Ideas Conference will be held at an as yet to be disclosed location in the East Midlands. Recent articles by veteran nationalist John Bean make it clear that he and many others now believe that the BNP is effectively finished, and that a new nationalist political party is required. Could this link in with the party proposal mentioned by Bodissey? 

The coming weekend should therefore bear witness to lively debate that will hopefully draw a line under nationalism’s decline in this country and contribute to its rapid and much-needed revival. New approaches are required, for more of the same will not do. As Einstein once remarked, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It is time for nationalists to awaken to contemporary reality, and to seize the many opportunities that it presents.

Friday 14 October 2011

Barnsley St Helens Result: Lessons for Nationalists?

The result from yesterday’s by-election in the Barnsley St Helens Ward was as expected: a secure Labour win with 75.1% of the votes cast going to the Labour candidate. Barnsley is, and has been for the best part of a century, a diehard Labour stronghold. Irrespective of the policies advanced by Labour locally or nationally, Barnsley residents keep returning Labour candidates. It is reflexive party political tribalism such as this that has for decades hindered the emergence of truly representative democratic politics in the UK. It is my contention that if traditional Labour voters were to vote in accordance with their policy preferences rather than with their familial party political affiliation, then we would be looking at a very different and far more interesting set of results, not only in Barnsley, but also nationally. The question that begs to be answered is: why do they not do so?

How representative of the opinions of local electors was this result? As the turnout was a meagre 20.53%, could we not interpret this as being a consequence of voter apathy, engendered by the belief that voting will change nothing, either because it is believed that the Labour candidate will always win, or because all of the candidates are essentially the same? Then again, it might be that ward-level elections are viewed as being essentially inconsequential. Given that in addition to Labour and the Conservatives both the BNP and English Democrats fielded candidates, it cannot be said that voters lacked a genuine choice. Moreover, there was also an Independent. Whereas Hope Not Hate gleefully noted the low percentage shares captured by the two nationalist parties and the decline in the share enjoyed by the BNP, nationalists should ask themselves why they are not succeeding in persuading voters to vote for them, particularly in areas such as Barnsley, which ought to be ripe for the taking.

What is preventing a nationalist breakthrough from taking place? Evidently, whatever the answers should be, one truth should be evident to all: current tactics have failed. This is a situation that we cannot allow to continue. Elsewhere in Europe, new nationalist movements are thriving. There is no reason that such a movement should not thrive in the UK, more specifically, in England.

Here are what I consider to be the primary interrelated factors inhibiting the growth of a viable and credible British/English nationalist political party: 1) a lack of public trust; 2) political fragmentation; 3) a well-organised and well-funded opposition; 4) mass-media hostility; 5) a legal regime that inhibits the expression of nationalist sentiment. What can be done to overcome these obstacles?

Public Suspicion
Why does the public generally mistrust nationalists? Painful as it may be to for some to acknowledge this, it is because nationalists are often their own worst enemies. Anyone who bangs on about the legitimacy of Holocaust Denial, subscribes to conspiracy theories derived from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or who possesses a curious ‘nostalgia’ for the political ideology that reigned in Germany between 1933 and 1945 ought to ask themselves whether they can really consider themselves to be a British or an English nationalist. The fact is, the public consider those who hold such opinions to be anathema to our national tradition. Likewise, fixating upon race and making this a central focus of your campaigning will not win you public trust, but opprobrium and visceral contempt.

As the goal of any nationalist movement and party should be to advance the interests of members of the national community, its supporters and activists should have the following at the forefront of their considerations: how do we achieve office? Without office, nationalists can do nothing on behalf of their people. To win office a nationalist party must first seek to secure trust. Trust can only grow from probity, transparency, honesty and accountability. To win elections trust of course is not enough, for you also need to be able to offer the promise of a better future to people. This, nationalism can truly achieve, and yet instead of focusing upon the economic, environmental and cultural benefits that nationalism offers, many prominent figures within the movement have instead fixated upon the pariah topics outlined in the first paragraph.

A credible nationalist party will focus upon economics: opposition to offshoring; the need for energy security; the promotion of domestic manufacturing; legal obligations to privilege nationals in the sphere of employment; crackdowns on corporate tax evasion; the revitalisation of our countryside through the promotion of rural employment in agriculture, conservation and afforestation; the promotion of social enterprises and mutuals with a focus upon increasing the well-being of local communities and the nation as a whole. Given the anti-globalisation sentiment of many members of the younger generation, nationalists should aim to tap into this and show them that nationalism rather than other ideologies offers the positive solutions to the problems that they perceive.

A popular nationalism will address and solve the problems of an overburdened transport infrastructure, a shortage of housing and pressure upon our countryside by implementing policies that will at first stabilise and then encourage a reduction in our population. This can be achieved through a combination of strict immigration controls and encouraging the departure of those who lack ethnic roots in the UK who actively identify against the native population. 

Naturally, the implementation of all of the above would be predicated upon our leaving the EU. Nationalists should make it clear at all times that they are anti-EU but not anti-European, for the two are quite distinct. Nationalists should be in favour of free-speech, and for this reason, amongst many others, should recognise the genuine threat posed both by doctrinaire Islam and cultural and demographic Islamisation. The voting public who live in areas with considerable concentrations of Muslim population are acutely aware of the reality of this threat, whereas many who live where there are few or no Muslims are in denial. When campaigning it will therefore be important to remember which aspects of the nationalist programme will possess the greatest resonance within a particular constituency, and election literature and campaigning should be tailored accordingly.

The aforementioned are just a few of the aspects of a popular nationalist programme which would exert considerable appeal if public trust were to be won. Such trust can only be won if nationalists distance themselves from conspiratorial cranks who give us a bad name.

So as not to try the patience of the reader, I will not at this stage fully elucidate the other four inhibitory factors that I have named, but instead provide a few headline thoughts.

Political Fragmentation
There are too many parties competing for the prospective nationalist vote: UKIP, English Democrats, BNP, British Freedom Party and other smaller parties and groupings. Fragmentation derives from two primary sources: ideological disagreement and personal rivalry. These need to be put aside for the sake of a common minimum nationalist programme to which all can agree. Much of what I have outlined as the core components of a positive nationalist politics are shared by all of the aforementioned, with the exception of UKIP which is economically Thatcherite and Atlanticist. This for me is UKIP’s fatal flaw: it is wedded to outmoded globalist ‘free-market’ economics. We need a single nationalist party to unite behind, otherwise we will get nowhere. 

The combined nationalist vote in St Helens was 19.3% shared between the BNP on 10.5% and the English Democrats close behind on 8.8%. This share of the vote is similar to the combined UKIP/BNP/English Democrats tally in the Barnsley Central By-Election earlier this year which came to 20.4%. This is the sort of baseline figure which I would expect a united nationalist party to build upon. 

A well-organised and funded Opposition
This is simply a fact of life, but consider this: in every European country where new nationalist parties are thriving they have to cope with just such an opposition. It is not therefore inevitable that such opposition will forever hold back nationalist politics in the UK.

Mass-Media Hostility
The same applies as to the comment vis-à-vis our general opposition.

A hostile Legal Regime
This, by definition, cannot be tackled until nationalists win power.

The first and second obstacles can be removed by nationalists themselves by uniting around a common minimum programme. If we are optimistic and assume that such a unity could be achieved, how then would we practically go about winning support? Firstly, we must remember that owing to the separate political dynamics which have evolved in the constituent parts of the UK our efforts and resources should concentrate upon England, for this is where the potential for our style of national politics is greatest and where the demand for national expression is least catered for in electoral terms. Furthermore, owing to limited finances and a restricted activist base, we should identify say twenty to thirty parliamentary constituencies into which we should plough 80% of our effort, whilst allowing candidates to stand elsewhere with minimal backing. We need a Westminster breakthrough in 2015, and given the manifest bankruptcy of globalism and its attendant system of economics, we should be in a position to achieve this. If we do not, there will be something deeply wrong with our approach.

A regular blog reader – Cygnus - suggested an excellent tactic for use when out canvassing for votes, in which particular types of voters would be challenged over their choice of party. This involves identifying say five policies apiece core to the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, and juxtaposing these with five policies offered by the nationalist candidate. It is my opinion that a policy platform containing the elements that I have outlined above would exert far more appeal than the discredited and unpopular non-choices offered by the three major parties, which are not so much in favour of “education, education, education”, as “immigration, immigration, immigration.”

The Barnsley St Helens result exemplifies in microcosm the problems of contemporary nationalist politics in England. It is up to you to see to it that these problems are surmounted. The full results for election according to the Barnsley Chronicle were:

1: Dave Leech, Raven Royd, Athersley, Labour Party: 1,257, 75.1%
2: Danny Cooke, Highstone Road, Barnsley, BNP: 174, 10.5% 
3: Kevin Riddiough, Sale Street, Hoyland Common, English Democrats: 146, 8.8% 
4: Clive Watkinson, Doncaster Road, Barnsley, Conservatives: 61, 3.7% 
5: Edward Alan Gouthwaite, Winter Avenue, Royston, of no party or group: 21, 1.3%

Thursday 13 October 2011

Saudi Dawah Centre opens in Vienna

What is the Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue? Under the cloak of ‘interfaith dialogue', the Saudis are using their vast fund of petrodollars to facilitate Dawah in the heart of Europe, in the hope and the expectation of the conquest by stealth of a city that twice repelled armed Muslim hordes in 1529 and 1683: Vienna. Whereas Muslim military might previously failed in the face of steadfast European resistance, the city gates have now been jammed firmly open to admit Muslims and their ideology, and those who would shut the gates and save the Austrians from dhimmitude, are vilified and slandered as Nazis by their compatriots.  The latter have been driven out of their senses, having drunk deep from the well of self-loathing, and internalised an ethno-masochistic cultural relativism that has found expression in the official dogma of multiculturalism. All that is white, male and European is denigrated. Freedoms hard won, are about to be thrown away through a sense of irrational and utterly misplaced ‘guilt’. 

The sons of Saudi Arabia, the fountainhead of Salafist hate, are sly, and intelligent enough to recognise which weaknesses they should play upon when dealing with Europeans. On the crudest level, their vast wealth can purchase the acquiescence of those who are willing to trade their principles, yet money alone cannot, thankfully, win over all. Where money fails, they seek to project their soft power via other means, and they have astutely identified European self-hatred as the Achilles’ heel of the continent’s peoples. Furthermore, they have learned to couch their barbaric demands in the language of ‘tolerance’ and ‘human rights’. Naturally, their twisted interpretation of these words leads them to signify the converse of that which they originally represented. ‘Tolerance’ for whom and of what?

Why does Vienna need to host a centre to ‘interreligious and intercultural dialogue’? Should not such a centre have been established in Riyadh instead of in Europe? It was Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, who opened the centre today, and its real intent was revealed by his statement that its function was to combat “extremist minorities within every religious and cultural community . . . seeking . . . to propagate notions of intolerance, exclusion, racism and hatred.” Note especially those last four words, conjoined with the formulation “cultural community”. He is making a direct demand for Europeans to open their borders to Muslim colonisation, insinuating that any objection to this on the part of our “cultural communit[ies]” (i.e. nations)  should be combated. His claim that this Centre will make Saudi Arabia a more tolerant society is utterly risible.

How far does the Centre’s ‘tolerance’ extend? Not very far it would seem. An Associated Press report states that:

What lies this Saudi Minister freely speaks! How tolerant his home country is! So ‘tolerant’ that women are unable to drive and apostasy is punishable by death. If the Americans truly were fighting a ‘war on terror’, they would have declared war on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan long ago, but they are not. Now that it has been opened, I eagerly await the announcement of the closure of the Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue. 

Monday 10 October 2011

Thornhill Protest against Muslim Hate

Congratulations are in order for Thornhill resident Shaun Maddox who last week organised a protest against Muslim attacks on ethnic English pupils at Thornhill Community Science College in Dewsbury. Reports state that between 12 and 20 people participated in a candle-lit protest in Valley Drive just outside of the school as an open evening was in progress, to draw attention to alleged Muslim attacks and to call for the issue to be addressed and dealt with. 

Maddox stated: “There is no community cohesion here at all. There seems to be a barrier between the white community and the Muslim community.” He added: “We need to address these issues and have an open public debate.” That is true enough Mr Maddox, as Muslims, particularly Deobandi ones as found in Dewsbury’s neighbouring Savile Town, look down upon you, your non-Muslim children and me as lesser beings. They see themselves as the lords of humankind. I think however, that you’d find that white Muslim converts would be just as hostile towards us as their melanin-enriched co-religionists.

The Headmaster – Mr Mitchell – rebutted the allegations of the protesters stating: “It’s a concern that people are telling untruths and making these unsubstantiated claims.” Are they “unsubstantiated” Mr Mitchell? They do, after all, seem to conform to a general pattern of young Muslim aggression that manifested itself recently in nearby Bradford with Muslim children stoning buses carrying non-Muslim pupils and the stoning of buses in Dewsbury in 2009. Other attacks perpetrated by Muslims against ethnic English residents, including the stabbing of a fourteen-year-old boy, also took place in the town that year. In another school far removed from Dewsbury in Wiltshire, a local bussing policy resulted in a Muslim gang terrorising a village school and almost killing one pupil named Henry Webster in a vicious hammer attack. To me, given this catalogue of Muslim aggression the allegations of violence directed against English pupils at Thornhill Community Science College should be properly investigated; otherwise, should this be covered up and allowed to fester, it will probably lead to wider-scale Muslim aggression as exhibited at St Bede’s last month.

Nick Griffin and the BNP or, more accurately, Nick Griffin is the BNP

This evening’s Panorama was rather interesting and revealing. It is perhaps hard to disagree with the sentiments of one female interviewee who described Nick Griffin as: “An absolute scumbag. I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire.”

For years, there have been questions connected to the financial probity of the BNP, and the joint ‘response’ of Griffin and Simon Darby to the arrival of a BBC camera crew to ask questions connected with the abuse of EU funds and other financial irregularities seemed to do little other than confirm that the allegations possessed a firm basis in fact. Why else would Griffin have read a feeble statement to the BBC before promptly fleeing, leaving Darby to handle the questions by not answering them and instead making a fool of himself by thrusting a microphone into the interviewer’s face? The rough ejection of the BBC from the venue underscored that the BNP luminaries within were not looking for reasoned debate or discussion.

Granted, the BBC is intrinsically hostile not only towards the BNP, but towards anyone with the vaguest whiff of British or English national sentiment, but this should not have served as reason for refusing to address the set of questions being fielded on this occasion, which were reasonable enough. What we were effectively treated to was the BNP mimicking the ‘no platform’ policy of UAF by refusing to engage with a hostile interviewer in reasonable terms.

Some nationalists, despite this and numerous other gaffes and structural faults within the BNP’s Constitution, still cleave to the party. It’s about time that they realised that Nick Griffin has absolutely no intention of relinquishing the reins of leadership and that there is only one way that the party will head under him: forever downwards. All decent nationalists still left in the BNP should acknowledge the bitter reality that they now find themselves in, quit the party and select other political vehicles within which to advance the nationalist cause. The BNP has degenerated into a cult of personality, and of a deeply flawed personality at that. It acts as a block to realising our nationalist aspirations, and as such, should be left to die a natural death.

Sunday 9 October 2011

UK Winter Forecast 2011-2012: Blowing Hot and Cold

At this time of year there are few stories more beloved of the British press than the anticipated character of the coming winter and, closer to the time, the prospects of a white Christmas or otherwise. Thus, the Daily Express excitably pounced upon a forecast by Exacta Weather yesterday morning to run the headline ‘-20C To Hit Britain’. That this headline should come hard upon the heels of our admittedly very welcome late September and early October warmth is rather predictable, for after all, journalists appreciate the sensationalist effect afforded by contrast.

Headlines such as this one are on the stocks and ready to roll at key times of the year, and include such hardy perennials as ‘Britain colder than North Pole!’; ‘Drought could see standpipes on the streets’; ‘Wettest summer since Noah’s Flood’; ‘Spring comes early as flowers bloom in November’. Journalists are, on the whole, sensationalist and unscientific, unable to differentiate between the two basic concepts of weather and climate: weather of course being the actual meteorological conditions that we experience day-to-day and hour-to-hour, and climate being average weather measured over decades or longer. Averages naturally mask much natural variability, and if our weather were always to be concordant with our climatic averages, we would live in a very strange physical universe indeed.

Meteorology has made great strides in its forecasting ability, and weather forecasts for the coming four to five days are now far more accurate than they were only a couple of decades ago, but long-range forecasting is still in its infancy. The Earth, after all, is an extremely complex system with a wide mix of variables – solar radiative output, ocean currents, jet streams, albedo, volcanism and many others – playing a role in shaping the weather and climate. To predict this winter’s weather for the British Isles will therefore be difficult, and to predict climate fifty years hence still more so.

So, where did the Express find its story? The source turns out to be a website called Exacta Weather which the paper quoted as follows:
James Madden, long-range forecaster for Exacta Weather, said: “I expect the most frequent and heavy snowfalls to occur across many parts of the UK during November, December, and January.
There could also be frequent and significant snow across northern regions and Scotland throughout this winter.
What does this tell us? The only surprises contained within the above speculation pertain to significant snow in November, which is reasonably unusual, and to the claims that records will be broken. How does Exacta Weather, or, more accurately, how does James Madden (because ExactaWeather is a one-man outfit – where’s Bill Froggatt when you need him?) arrive at his forecast? Does it differ from that provided by other forecasters? Well, no others have publicly made their predictions about the coming British winter available, but Netweather last month issued temperature charts for November and December (reproduced below) which although showing colder than average conditions, do not anticipate anything as dramatic as we experienced at the end of November and into December last year. 

On 12th October Netweather issued updates to its forecasts for November and December, whilst also giving a tentative look at January. Compared to the charts shown above, the forecaster has revised its temperature estimates upwards for the first two months, anticipating them to be normal or marginally below normal across the British Isles. As for January, as can be seen from the image below, it is predicting that the month will be significantly warmer than average. However, its forecaster Stewart Rampling speculated later in the month that February 2012 was likely to be the coldest month of the season for Britain, witnessing significantly below average temperatures.

Whilst not going so far as to divulge its long-range forecast for this winter, the BBC has picked up on a story relating to the Met Office, in which it admits that it is re-evaluating its approach to forecasting in line with recent discoveries relating to the role of solar ultraviolet radiation. Its output has been found to vary much more greatly than anticipated, and a reduced sunspot count which is associated with lower ultraviolet  emission tends to have an impact upon the jet stream in the northern hemisphere, disrupting the prevailing westerly airflow over northwestern Europe, making the likelihood of cold winters greater. The current sunspot cycle - the 24th to have been recorded in detail - is supposed to be approaching its maximum within the next two years, but the preceding sunspot minimum has been prolonged and exceptionally quiet, and the coming maximum is expected to be weak as can be seen in the graph below (for more details and the latest updates, visit the SolarHam website).

Many people claim that independent weather forecaster Piers Corbyn is particularly accurate and reliable, and as can be seen in the following video recorded at the end of October 2011, Corbyn sticks his neck out by making some very specific claims. In his forecast for Britain he asserts that we will experience extreme cold between 27 November and 28 December, but he is uncertain as to whether this will be as intense or even colder than last year. Last year the exceptional spell of cold weather arrived promptly from the Arctic on 24 November, and most of the country then experienced near-permanent sub-zero temperatures with only a couple of brief breaks until Boxing Day. Is Corbyn any more reliable than a soothsayer? Is he little more than a meteorological Nostradamus? In the end, his predictions did not come to pass.

This brings me on to an issue that generates a great deal of heat but little dispassionate analysis: ‘global warming’, or ‘climate change’ as it is now typically termed. Few other issues seem to arouse so much grandstanding by advocates for or against the set of phenomena said to characterise this anthropogenic (or not) process, with many members of the public, journalists and policy makers being incapable of the most rudimentary distinction between weather and climate outlined earlier in this piece. A hot end to September and beginning of October in England is no more indicative of a shift in climate than the cold late November and December were last year. To take either as evidence of a fundamental warming or cooling is to confuse weather with climate, but it is a mistake that journalists are eager to embrace. By way of an example, the Sunday Times has today run a story today claiming that 'Europe could be facing a return of the "little ice age"'. Even if this were to be the case, you need to bear in mind that this period was not uniformly cold, and did witness many hot summers and mild winters as well as the more characteristic bitter conditions that the label implies.

It is of the utmost importance not to confuse journalism or, more importantly, politics with natural science. That is to say, scientific methodology should not be mistakenly attacked for advocating a particular course of action when it does no such thing, for it is lobby groups, politicians and big business that warp the tentative findings of climate science and then demand that we adopt certain policies and strategies; all three attempt to use the science as a pretext for advancing their own pre-existent agendas. Thus, in the UK for example, our mainstream politicians have adopted ‘climate change’ as a pretext for hiking up domestic energy and fuel prices (thereby bringing in more tax revenue), for the offshoring of industry to non-European nations and increasing overseas aid whilst cutting all other budgets. The oil industry on the other hand funds ‘anti-warmist’ propaganda in order to safeguard its business interests, and much of what we read either for or against any particular changes in climate will most likely have been refracted through these competing interests. The science often gets lost in the mix.

The essence of science is scepticism: science seeks to falsify its own models to arrive at a better understanding of natural phenomena. Thus, if models suggesting that the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide has a catastrophic impact upon the global climate system prove to be false, then they will be ditched. If not, they will be retained. One excellent blog on weather and climate which I think adheres to objective and rational standards and will be sure to comment upon forecasts for the coming winter belongs to Look North weatherman Paul Hudson. Indeed, Hudson has written a post entitled 'Met Office wakes up to solar influence on climate' in which he welcomes this acknowledgement as a much-needed corrective to the organisation's previous neglect of this factor. If you have an interest in these matters, Hudson's blog is well worth a visit, even if the comments section does tend to degenerate into a slugging match between advocates and opponents of global warming, irrespective of the topic being tackled. 

What is crystal clear to me however, is that whatever the causation underpinning any observed shifts in climate, we in the UK and elsewhere in Europe need to find alternative energy supplies to imported oil, for its consumption generates vast wealth for our enemies: the Islamic petro-states. Oil wealth funds the propagation of Salafism through the mosques, madrassas and Islamic schools that have sprouted across Europe. Without oil wealth, countries such as Saudi Arabia would simply implode. Choke our foes of money, and our ideological war on our home turf becomes easier to win.

The real environmental crisis is a symptom not of ‘climate change’, but of unrestrained population growth. This growth is not a European problem, insofar as it is not a problem created by native European peoples and their descendants living in Australasia and the Americas, but a predominantly African and Asian problem. It is however a European problem insofar as we are being overwhelmed by a demographic invasion from Africa and Asia, and it is time that we put a stop to this. This growth in population, abetted by various religious fundamentalisms but most strongly by Islam, will be sure to bring untold misery and conflict in its wake. We live in a finite world with finite resources. Untrammelled population growth will bring death, famine, war and plague. These four however will not presage a transition into paradise, but a descent into a worldly hell. It somehow puts the forecast of a colder than average winter into perspective.

Saturday 8 October 2011

Leeds 'EDL'/Nationalist Flash Demo

Apparently, a breakaway faction of the EDL has staged a flash demo in Leeds today. Hull Infidels are certainly playing a role, as are Dewsbury Youth Infidels. Unsurprisingly, the Socialist Workers Party is claiming that its UAF Trotskyist front campaign managed to attract 100 demonstrators onto the soggy streets of Leeds this afternoon, whilst the EDL could muster no more than 70. Their version of events can hardly be adjudged to be non-partisan of course, so I shall post details here relating to alternative reports when they become available later today and tomorrow. However, the photograph at the following link does show a very small knot of protesters looking sodden and bedraggled in a miserably wet Leeds City Square, with the police clearly outnumbering the former. There may have been more there earlier or later, but then again, there may not have been. It was perhaps not so much of a 'flashmob' as a 'damp squibmob'.

It would seem that this wasn't exactly an 'official' EDL demo, but something sanctioned by one of its founders - Snowy - who has since broken away because of disputes with other members of the leadership over the direction of the movement. He posted the following details with respect to the aims of today's demonstration on the Infidels of Britain Facebook page:
Defending our culture against multiculturalism, immigration and Islamic invasion.
We will be protesting in City Square in Leeds which is a prime location opposite the train station, so anyone coming by car/coach please park somewhere near, there are lots of car parks behind the station.
There will be no meet up before the demo as this is a political protest not an all day piss up, so please start arriving at the demo site from 1200 with the demonstration starting at 1300. No one is saying you can't have a drink before but please remember no one listens to a piss head, we are doing this to get our voices heard. So if you feel like getting pissed then please go somewhere else, we are political activists and the issues we are protesting about are serious and not to be taken lightly. We will achieve nothing by acting like drunken thugs and there will be plenty of time after to have a drink and enjoy ourselves.
The police have informed us that there will be no barriers and no kettling but obviously there will be plenty of officers about and more on standby, we will have no problem from them as long as we behave in the correct manner. Our behaviour will determine how we are treated at future demonstrations, this is our chance to show people that we are serious about these issues and getting our point across so lets do it right. There will also be a number of stewards please respect them as they are our lads as well. You will be allowed to leave the demonstration in small numbers at any time to use the local facilities.

The demonstration will finish no later than 1600 when we will disperse and you can either make your way home or come for a drink at a local pub with the rest of us. Please feel free to bring any British flags etc with you.

Finally I hope you all have a safe day and at the end of it feel proud that we have done it right.


Keep the faith
According to the Casuals United blog the '[d]emo appears to have gone well, speeches done. Got info they are giving the MDL run around now.'

Displaying the customary demonisation of the EDL that we have come to expect from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Shields Gazette stated that:

Members of Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ), who set off from Jarrow last Saturday, joined a protest at Leeds University against a march by what is believed to be a splinter group from the extreme right-wing organisation the English Defence League (EDL).
Ben Robinson, YFJ chairman, said: “As members of the new Jarrow March, we want to show that we do take the threat of the right seriously.

This YFJ march itself is a peculiar affair, for so far as I am aware, its participants are not marching against globalisation and transnational oligarchical capitalism. This begs the question: why not? After all, these phenomena lie at the root of our current economic, political and cultural predicament. If the marchers truly wanted to solve these problems and build a better future, they would be marching for nationalism and not against it. Then again, can we blame them? Look at the age of most of these naifs in the first of the pictures below. In terms of their education and media exposure, they will have grown up knowing little other than the multiculturalist, globalist ethno-masochism which has been peddled with increasing fervour since 1997. Is it any wonder then that they have fallen into error, lacking as they do, the identitarian self-respect that would allow them to cast off the shackles of misplaced ethnic guilt?

I don't want these young people to be unemployed. They are my fellow countrymen and women, so I want them to be earning a decent living and to have a worthy future to look forward to. However, if they allow themselves to be gulled by the SWP and the so-called 'anti-racist' movement, they will find that they are marching themselves into oblivion.  

March of the Naifs against Nationalism instead of against Globalisation


Tuesday 4 October 2011

Bradford Car Park and Mill Ablaze

BBC Look North this evening reported that a Bradford multi-storey car park on Sunbridge Road was in flames. Pictures showed that the blaze had taken a firm hold of the building. The Telegraph and Argus however (from which the picture below is taken) state that the fire originated ‘in a large mill building just off ThorntonRoad, not far from its junction with Tetley Street.’

As of 7.55pm the BBC stated that the fire had led to the closure of the B6145 'between the A6181 Godwin Street junction and the Preston Street junction'. Traffic at the time was backing up in both directions. A BBC report from 8:36pm referred only to a fire involving a derelict mill, so it is possible that the initial report on Look North was based upon eyewitness accounts which mistakenly reported flames from inside the car park when they may in fact have been behind the building.

No explanation has yet been forthcoming as to the cause of the conflagration. Hopefully, there have not been, and will not be, any casualties. With this following on from the demolition of a great swathe of Bradford's city centre to make way for the construction of a shopping centre that seems doomed never to be, its aesthetic appeal will now sink to new lows. Video footage of the fire can be seen below, with the car park seemingly ablaze in the first of the two clips.

Monday 3 October 2011

The Politics of the eternal Mirage

The Conservatives will bring us a referendum over EU membership! The Conservatives will scrap the Human Rights Act! This, so the Daily Mail and Telegraph would have you believe, is what is going to happen. Really? David Cameron gave his “cast-iron” guarantee that we would be allowed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the Conservatives in office have pledged to cut immigration to the UK to “the tens of thousands”. What happened? You know well enough: no referendum over Lisbon, and the first year of the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition witnessed an increase in net immigration to the UK.

The Daily Mail’s near-hysterical jubilation over an announcement that there would be a debate in the House of Commons over whether or not to hold a referendum on EU membership would have the reader think that the UK’s withdrawal from the emergent superstate was a done deal. Quite clearly, it is not, for other than the miniscule cross-party ‘Better off out’ group (despite its title, it should not be confused with anything to do with Peter Tatchell’s hobbyhorse) in the Commons, who is there who would wish to ‘risk’ the public expressing its desire to leave the EU? Next to nobody. Both William Hague and David Cameron have been quick to stress their belief in the benefits of EU membership. The reality is, the only elements of the EU which they would like to see removed are those which accord some form of protection to people in low-paid and precarious employment. 

Theresa May says that she supports scrapping the HumanRights Act. This is about as meaningful as Obama saying that he supports a manned mission to Mars. Both May and Obama feel favourably predisposed towards these eventualities, but both know that they don’t stand a chance of coming about whilst they’re in office. Whereas the prospects of a manned Mars mission are held back by a combination of an absence of financial resources, an ailing NASA and a lack of real political will, the repeal of the Human Rights Act is blocked by the visceral opposition of the Liberal Democrats. Any move to jettison the act could put the Coalition in jeopardy, and that is why it is going to stay in force.

Thus, in an effort to portray the Conservative Party in a favourable light, both the Mail and the Telegraph have in effect run two ‘non-stories’ over the past week, tapping into the frustrated desires both of typical Tory voters and of the wider British public. “Are you thinking what I’m thinking?” Conservative talk about these matters and its reporting in the slavishly obedient Tory press should thus be perceived as nothing more than populist mood music intended to improve the image of the Conservative Party rather than being indicative of any actual intent, let alone impending political action. This, naturally, is highly cynical and what we have correctly come to expect of the careerist politicians in our mainstream political parties. This is the politics of the eternal mirage: the mirage of democracy.

Is the Conservative Party a nationalist party? No. Is the Conservative Party a patriotic party? No. Is the Conservative Party the cod-British façade of globalist financial oligarchy? Yes!

Sunday 2 October 2011

Luton’s vibrant video ‘Welcome’

Whilst we basked in belated summer’s welcome heat, the benign Sun beaming from on high, the malcontents of Luton troubled the eye with their shrouded forms, and the ear with their jarring speech and chanting foul. Bearded, wishing to be heeded, their presence, most certainly unneeded, imposing their message upon the passers-by, who would far sooner avert the eye, and hurry to some other place, for this was hardly to their taste. Why? Why should this have been? A parade of Muslims, once more obscene, described in doggerel, yet real, not another bad dream. In Bury Park they barked their chants, “Allahu Akbar” and sundry rants, about two Muslimahs stripped and searched, upon terror charges as is the policeman’s work.

These people go by many names, and show us kuffar but fierce disdain, but we shall not flinch from their parades, whether it be Al-Mahajiroun or Muslims Against Crusades. In other words, the stirrers were at it again in Luton’s Bury Park yesterday as shown in the video below. Welcome to Luton? No thanks. Is Stevenage any better?

Saturday 1 October 2011

English Democrats to contest Barnsley St Helens Ward

The contest for the St Helens ward situated in the Barnsley Central constituency is unlikely to be one that fires the imagination of hardcore political pundits let alone that of ordinary prospective voters. Nonetheless, it could be of some interest because both the English Democrats and the BNP are fielding candidates. The English Democrats are a small and growing civic nationalist party, whilst the BNP is a fast-shrinking and discredited ethno-nationalist party. However, whereas my awareness of the BNP’s terminal downward trajectory has been acquired from a number of years closely following events associated with the party, it is unlikely that many electors in Barnsley will be aware of such goings on (although that may change once the BBC Panorama programme on the BNP is aired).

Compared to the English Democrats, the BNP possesses a high profile and significant level of voter brand awareness. That said, this ‘brand awareness’ is generally speaking about as positive as that enjoyed by Ratners immediately after the infamous speech delivered by its Chief Executive in 1991. The BNP brand is toxic and the party is way past its peak in terms of performance having reached its natural electoral ceiling in the EU elections of 2009. Most seasoned activists have left, as have a significant proportion of the BNP’s more competent and high-profile personnel. Some of these – the most notable being Eddy Butler – have sought to join the English Democrats. Former BNP councillor Chris Beverly has already done so and become Leeds English Democrat Chairman. On the other hand, a number of long-established members of the English Democrats have been uncomfortable about this influx of former BNP members and a number of them have left as a consequence.

There have been rumours that Mark Collett either has joined the English Democrats or is about to do so. If indeed it transpires that he is or does become a member of the party, this in itself will be sufficient to destroy its chances of projecting a credible image to the electorate and making a breakthrough. Whatever his talents may be in the field of graphic design, few former members of the BNP are freighted with as much toxic baggage as Collett. Watch the following footage -‘Nazi Boy’, ‘Young, Nazi and Proud’ and Collett’s encounter with Combat 18 founder member Tony White - and take into account his remarks about enjoying “crushing people”, his stupid ‘children’s story’ about a malign Jew and inviting underage girls to his hotel room at the BNP’s AGM in 2006. Make up your own mind about the man, but in my opinion he’s not an asset to himself, let alone to anyone else. His views are as repellent as his character. If he worms his way into the English Democrats and they don’t eject him quickly, their hopes of electoral growth are finished.

Until there has been confirmation that Collett will not be permitted to join the English Democrats I am holding back from becoming a member. If Collett is admitted, the English Democrats must prepare themselves to be reviled as a pariah party and to lose any prospect of attracting decent professionals, for after all, why would the latter wish to have their reputations sullied by association – no matter how distant - with creatures such as Collett? It is precisely because of individuals of Collett’s ilk that Britain, and England in particular, lacks a credible nationalist party of the type seen flourishing elsewhere in Europe in the form of the PVV, Front National and others.   

Returning to Barnsley, Kevin Riddiough from Hoyland has been announced as the English Democrat candidate for the St Helens ward. He has stood as a candidate twice previously, including at the Barnsley Central By-Election earlier this year. Another South Yorkshire borough - Doncaster - is something of a 'stronghold' for the English Democrats, as one of their members - Peter Davies - is Mayor of the town and their performance across the borough in the recent local elections was serviceable, with them narrowly missing out on gaining councillors in a number of wards. Barnsley is similar to Doncaster in terms of its socio-demographic composition, and should therefore constitute natural territory for the English Democrats.

Quite how Riddiough and his party will fare in the months and years ahead very much depends upon how successful they are in reaching out to the large disenfranchised section of the indigenous electorate, which of course is predicated upon them ensuring that their reputation does not get tarnished by the presence of neo-Nazi narcissists such as Mark Collett. Furthermore, Steve Uncles appears to be something of a loose cannon, for his contact with Sinn Féin did the party no favours. 

With UKIP having recently adopted the policy of campaigning for an English parliament, the English Democrats need to get their act together quickly and increase their public visibility in a positive fashion. One encouraging sign which distinguishes them from UKIP (Lord Pearson excepted) and puts them more in tune with the concerns of a large percentage of English electors, is that the English Democrats website recently chose to highlight the issue of Islamisation through drawing attention to the aims and actions of the Association of Muslim Police (AMP), which seeks not only to display sectarian favouritism towards Muslims within the force, which in itself is bad enough, but to proselytise on behalf of Islam within the police and society at large. The AMP should be outlawed as an organisation hostile towards and subversive of the English way of life, and it is to the credit of the English Democrats that they have chosen to draw attention to the poisonous intent of this body. 

The Guardian ran a half-favourable article on the English Democrats Annual Conference last weekend, but it strikes me that the strategy of this paper and of the so-called ‘anti-fascist’ movement will be to allow the party to grow until within a year or two of the next General Election, and then put the boot in. How? It’s quite straightforward really, yet completely avoidable if the party is sensible with respect to which BNP members it admits. This precise strategy is already being aired on the self-styled anti-fascist ‘Lancaster Unity’ blog as displayed in this comment by someone calling themselves ‘UK Fightback’:

            2:57 PM, September 26, 2011
So, there you have it: either the English Democrats behave in a rational and circumspect fashion, or they enjoy a couple of years of growth and are then blown apart for the sake of a little short-term fillip in membership. Which is it to be?