Share |

Saturday 30 June 2012

EDL Dewsbury Demo Video Footage

The first of the videos illustrates the strength of the policing operation in Dewsbury today, whereas the second shows EDL member Tony Curtis delivering a speech outside of Dewsbury Town Hall, followed by Tracy Bird. The third shows protesters marching to their assembly point and provides a good impression of the numbers involved, which were modest and seemingly in keeping with the lower end of police estimates. For some seemingly inexplicable reason, a number of demonstrators attacked members of the police cordon. Such behaviour must be condemned, and thankfully does not appear to have led to any police casualties and only involved a minority of those in attendance. Information on the background to the demo and how it progressed can be accessed here.



EDL Dewsbury Demo 30 June 2012

Today the EDL will be holding a demo in Dewsbury, a town, which although of a modest size, seems to generate rather a lot of bad news, albeit news that is generally ignored by the national media. Two of its publicity-hungry residents – Sayeeda Warsi and Shahid Malik – are of course well-known to the public, and will certainly be unhappy about the EDL coming to town today. Given Dewsbury’s recent history (about which I shall be writing shortly in a separate piece), it comes as no surprise that it should have attracted the attention of the EDL which outlines the grounds for its decision to demonstrate in the following manner:
On June 30th The English Defence League will stage a peaceful protest in front of Dewsbury Town Hall.

We will be protesting about the problems that Dewsbury has with both militant Islam and with Muslim integration in general, as well as the continued failure of both local and national politicians to even acknowledge that there are these problems.
This is a fair statement, yet certain local MPs and opponents of free speech have called for the demo to be prohibited and the SWP has, as is its wont, formed a local front group in the town named ‘Dewsbury Unity’ to mount a counterdemonstration. Recently elected Respect MP George Galloway and Labour MP Mike Wood penned a joint letter to West Yorkshire Police Commissioner Sir Norman Bettison asking for the EDL to be banned from protesting in Dewsbury, but thankfully this request was not granted. The statement released by the SWP-directed ‘Dewsbury Unity’ is worth quoting to highlight the absurdities of their propaganda which is swallowed wholesale and regurgitated by the mainstream media:
The EDL is a racist group dedicated to attacking Asian people and Muslims. Islamophobia – bigotry against Muslims — is as unacceptable as any other form of racism. Its aim is to divide us by making scapegoats of one community, just as the Nazis did with the Jews in the 1930s.Today the EDL threaten Muslims. Tomorrow it could be Jewish people, Hindus, Sikhs, black people, lesbians and gay men, travellers or East Europeans. There is no place for Nazis, racists or the EDL in Dewsbury’s multiracial, multicultural and multi-faith community.
ITV's Calendar News proved to be dutifully 'on-message' in this respect, and in its report on the demo this morning gave a platform to Batley and Spen MP Mike Wood to state his opposition to the EDL whilst not allowing a right of reply to the EDL. The EDL were naturally described as 'far-right', whereas the undoubted far-left nature of the opposition controlled by the SWP was completely glossed over. As with the recent BBC coverage of the forthcoming EDL demo in Bristol, the cost of the policing operation in Dewsbury was emphasised, once again failing to note that one of the primary reasons for such heavy policing is the willingness of the EDL's opponents to unleash violence. In contrast to ITV, the BBC did not even bother to run a news item on the Dewsbury demo.

Readers will perhaps ‘appreciate’ the clip of Shahid Malik at the end of this article addressing a Muslim conference in which he states how he would like to see a Muslim Prime Minister (presumably himself) in the UK one day, as well as many other Muslims in leading positions in parliament. Updates relating to the progress of today’s demonstration will be posted below as news comes in. 

EDL March in Dewsbury: 30 June 2012

'Live' Updates:
The anti-EDL Hope not Hate blog noted in a post at 11:38 that Dewsbury seemed strangely quiet for a Saturday as EDL supporters began to arrive in the town. As of 12:25, the blog was claiming that the EDL had brought in about 200 demonstrators, rather than the 450 estimated by the West Yorkshire Police. The EDL Forum on the other hand was reporting a total of 1,000 EDL supporters. The actual figure is likely to lie between the two extremes, with what seems to be a relatively low turnout perhaps being partly attributable to the unappealing prospect of getting drenched in a thunderstorm. The EDL Forum asserted that only 30 UAF counter-protesters had turned out, although estimates from their opponents have not yet been forthcoming. If true, this would be a staggeringly low number considering the amount of resources, funding and media backing behind the anti-EDL effort. 

As of 13:17, it had been reported that the police had arrested one EDL protestor. Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson was said not to have been able to attend today's demonstration because of "domestic issues". Presumably, this is why the speeches came to an early close, with proceedings having been wrapped up by 14:05. The original finish time had been scheduled for 15:00.

Keen to make political capital out of the EDL's visit to Dewsbury, the Leader of Kirklees Council Mehboob Khan, currently under investigation according to The Huddersfield Daily Examiner for interfering with Freedom of Information requests from the public, has stated:
The cost of the EDL rally is the best part of £500,000 to the tax payer, outrageous and the EDL should be made to pay full cost. Thank you to decent local people for their unequivocal rejection of EDL propaganda. They are not welcome in Dewsbury.
Now, what may be the cost of Khan's alleged meddling with Freedom of Information requests to the democratic integrity and accountability of Kirklees Council? This is not the first time that Khan's integrity has been called into question, as in 2007 he ran up a bill of £2,000 for personal calls made to Uzbekistan using council phones. Somehow, on that occasion he managed to rough out the storm and go on to greater political success.

We never see council leaders asking for trades unions to cover the costs of policing demos, or indeed, holding the SWP front group UAF to account for necessitating such heavy policing at EDL protests. Quite clearly, Mehboob Khan has had a bad week politically, and is looking to appeal to his people's bloc vote to keep him in office. Evidently, he is also hoping that he can curry favour with the wider electorate, but if recent allegations prove to be substantiated, this could perhaps be the beginning of the end for this Labour politician's political career.

Five arrests and a small counterdemonstration
West Yorkshire Police issued a statement after this afternoon's protest, thanking the organisers of both the EDL demo and counterdemonstration for ensuring that both were "peaceful". It confirmed that the EDL protest was approximately 450 strong, whereas only circa 50 individuals turned up to the counterdemonstration. There were also "five arrests for minor incidents" although it was not clarified who had been arrested. Clearly, given the significant resources behind the SWP-organised and trades-union endorsed counterdemonstration which was provided with positive coverage by the mass media, the EDL can be adjudged to have emerged as the 'victor' in today's contest. Although the EDL demo was not large, the weakness of the 'Dewsbury Unity' effort was just as, if not more, telling.

Video footage from the demo can be accessed here.

EDL Supporters in Dewsbury


Mounted Police escort EDL in Dewsbury   

Tuesday 26 June 2012

Sayeeda Warsi plays the Race Card

Why was Sayeeda Warsi created a life peer at the age of 36 in 2007? What has she done to merit the title of ‘Baroness’? A failed Conservative candidate, who specialised in immigration law who is said to have opportunistically selected the Conservative Party because it seemed to offer her the best chance of career progression, and who has spent time working for Pakistan’s ‘Ministry of Law’. How does that experience and background translate into the right to hold such an honour, or to take on the role of Chairman of our governing political party? The number of better-qualified candidates is legion, so why was she selected? What does she have to offer, that others could not? In what manner does she purport to defend and advance our national interests? How can she speak, with any authority, on behalf of the nation, or of the English?

I ask these questions today, as Warsi once again takes up the baton to fight on behalf of maintaining the right of chain-migration from outside of the EU, using the spurious pretext of familial reunion, which of course is only invoked when those in question wish to be reunited in our country rather than in their familial country of origin (remember the case of Rashida Chapti?). Warsi has knowingly chosen to play the race card, claiming that Theresa May’s proposed immigration reforms ‘could be considered racist’ because of the stated intent of preventing ‘UK citizens earning under £40,000 to bring in a foreign wife or husband,’ although this has subsequently been reduced to £18,600 with a £2,200 allowance for each child. Warsi claims that this will effectively be a ‘whites only’ policy.

Now, might this outburst from Warsi have something to do with the fact that she is currently under scrutiny for ‘possible breaches of the ministerial code’ and thus may be considering a forced return to her old field of legal practice, immigration law? What would she do if she couldn’t return to the profitable business of expediting Pakistani chain migration? Quite clearly, Warsi is not fit to hold a position of political influence in this country because she actively undermines the first principle of democracy – the right of a people to political self-determination – by seeking to change the human fabric of the body politic itself, thereby denying our right to national self-determination. It should be up to us, and to us alone, to determine who may live here and who may be granted the rights of citizenship. We should not be in a position, where decisions upon the allocation of such a status are within the gift of an individual possessed of a cleft identity, who in ethnic and religious terms clearly identifies more with her ancestral familial homeland and culture, than with the native people of her country of residence. Her stance and actions pave the way for national dissolution through mass immigration, as advocated recently by European-nation despising Peter Sutherland

How many conservatives with a small ‘c’ genuinely support what the Conservative Party has become? Do they really think that it seeks to represent them today, being as it is pro-EU, pro-mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism? Isn’t it time that they started looking around for other political options to support? 

Monday 25 June 2012

EDL Bristol Demo 14 July 2012: the Background

Bristol, to the best of my knowledge, has not previously hosted an EDL demonstration. In years gone by, the idea that Bristol would come to host a large Muslim population was unthinkable, but today that situation has sadly changed. In Totterdown a mosque has appeared, its minaret dominating the local skyline like a missile aimed at the heart of the city. The largest resident Muslim population is Somali. Estimates that have frequently appeared in the media claim that the Somalis could number some 30,000, whereas a Bristol City Council document published in November 2010 was of the opinion that the range was more likely to be between 6,600 and 10,000. Whichever figure is selected, it is too high a number. What benefit accrues from their presence in Bristol? Why are they there, rather than in Somalia? If current trends continue, the Somali share of the population will grow rapidly, for in 2009 it was reported that 3.8% of Bristol schoolchildren were Somali, or one out of every 25. In 2001, the equivalent figure was only one in every 500. This growth has been fed both by immigration and high Somali fertility.

Totterdown Mosque (courtesy of Nicksarebi)

It comes as a surprise that there is a Council of Bristol Mosques, to which five mosques are affiliated, which nonetheless seems rather modest given estimated Muslim numbers. The first data from the 2011 Census will not be published until 16 July, but strangely, this will not contain any information on religion or ethnicity. It is therefore difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the size of Bristol's resident Muslim population, but one site propagandising Islam with the assistance of the BBC, using public funds provided by the local authority and Government Office South West, claims that there are 35,000 Muslims in the city. For those of us who knew Bristol 20 or 30 years ago, the emergence of such a population is staggering, as it has seemingly sprung out of nowhere.

What is the protest about?
Whereas elsewhere the EDL has generally used specific events that have occurred within a given locality as grounds for a demonstration, this does not seem to be the case in Bristol. The EDL explain their decision to hold a protest in the city on 14 July 2012 as follows:
The EDL are going to Bristol.  We are going to Bristol because we wish to draw public attention to Islamic grooming, the refusal of Muslims to integrate into British society and the increasing attacks by Muslims on non-Muslim Britons.

We are coming to Bristol to raise awareness of these problems and to call for a unified country under one democratic government, one law and one society grounded in British culture and traditions.

We want to call attention to the creeping Islamisation of Britain, with the increased use of halal meat whether non-Muslims want it or not.

We want to make people aware that our way of life and our culture are under threat from people who don’t care for our culture, country or humanity. They don’t care for our religions, politics, way of life, culture or traditions. They want to recreate 7th Century Arabia in Britain and they will lie, subvert and even kill to do it.
Given the experience of many other English towns and cities, as well as the general process of demographic Islamisation unfolding across the country, drawing attention to what has happened elsewhere and this general phenomenon could be adjudged to be worthwhile. However, it would perhaps be more effective were the EDL to highlight the deficits of multiculturalism and immigration policy, for without multiculturalist policies combined with mass immigration there would be no problem with Islamisation in this country, because the conditions that allow it would be removed at a stroke. Certainly, Stephen Lennon’s own statements regarding multiculturalism have been unclear, for on a number of occasions he has described the EDL as “multicultural”, whilst at other times criticising “multiculturalism”. It seems that he sometimes conflates “multiculturalism” and “multiracialism”, for the EDL is certainly multiracial, although predominantly English. The two are related, yet distinct.

The EDL's Opponents in Bristol
Although the EDL gives expression to many of the general public’s officially repressed suspicions and concerns relating to Islamic issues in England today, the EDL has no friends in high places, and has to confront three primary sources of opposition emanating from: 1) mainstream politicians and the mass media; 2) the self-styled ‘anti-fascist’ movement encompassing the trades unions and a range of far-left fringe groups and campaigns: UAF, Hope Not Hate, Searchlight, Love Music Hate Racism, various ‘unity’ front groups for the SWP and sundry independent anarchist groups; 3) Islamists and the wider Muslim population. All three forms of opposition intersect, with each attempting to make parasitic political capital out of the EDL. None of the EDL’s opponents are interested in portraying what the EDL really is, and the ‘anti-fascist’ propagandists of the second group enjoy the uncritical attention of the media. All however are united in their mutually profitable desire to manufacture the sense of a ‘far-right’ threat, whilst ignoring and facilitating the spread of the real ultra-reactionary ‘far-right’ in the form of Islamism.

Returning to the specifics of the Bristol demo on 14 July, the opposition from the first group enumerated has already been not-so-subtly voiced by the BBC, which stated in a story run on 14 June:
Why did it open this story referring to the cost of the demo? How many BBC reports about forthcoming demonstrations, involving trades unions for example, are prefaced with such information, particularly citing such large figures? Although the article makes reference to the counterdemonstrators who oppose the EDL, it does not make clear that police concerns over public disorder arise largely from likely attempts by the Trotskyist SWP and anarchist-related self-styled ‘antifascist’ groups to provoke a violent clash with the EDL. Why did it choose to omit this information? Of course, there have been violent incidents at previous EDL demonstrations involving their supporters, and these cannot be justified, but a far larger number of their opponents have been arrested for public disorder and assault. Although the BBC did on this occasion refrain from describing the EDL as ‘far-right’ (a very rare honour for the broadcaster to withhold this slur), its reporting of the forthcoming march has in no way been balanced.

However, in the video below taken from an episode of the BBC’s Sunday Politics West, the EDL is repeatedly described as ‘far-right’, although the additional policing costs are cited as £500,000 rather than the £1 million stated on the website.

The opposition of the second group, which can be subsumed under the heading of ‘antifascists’, has manifested itself in a number of ways. An online petition has been set up, calling for the EDL demo to be banned. As of the evening of 25 June, this had attracted 1,970 signatures. The SWP-dominated UAF has also set up a front campaign named We are Bristol which is supported by leading members of a number of trades unions including: the CWU, FBU, NUJ, NUT, PCS, RMT and Unison. Other supporting bodies include the Bristol Labour Party; Bristol Anarchist Federation, Bristol Antifascists and Bristol Queercafe. Representatives from this SWP front group met on 11 June to discuss tactics for opposing the EDL’s demonstration. In support of this, they have produced various pieces of inflammatory campaign literature that I have reproduced below to give the reader a flavour of the far-from-peaceful mindset of these so-called ‘antifascists’.

The first below displays a very ugly and angry figure wielding a baton of some sort, smashing a swastika which presumably is supposed to represent the EDL. Hardly, you would think, an image produced to encourage peaceful counter-protest. The second image once again employs the hackneyed and inappropriate image of a swastika, this time being smashed by a rather beefy fist. Peaceful? If you believe that black is white and that white is black then I suppose you could construe it as ‘peaceful’, yes. Unintentionally amusing? Well, perhaps, given that it states “This is a no go area for all fascists, racists, sexists and homophobes”. In that case, why do they wish to demonstrate against the EDL? Surely their statement is far more applicable to Islamists? Still, there’s no reasoning to be had with these antifa types. The last two images below are of an antifa leaflet produced in the city. Although not as crude in style as the first two, they contain misinformation and the absurd insinuation that the EDL is some sort of “street army” being used by big business to distract the public’s attention from the evils of the capitalist crash. Utterly fantastical, there is about as much substance to these antifa allegations as there is to David Icke’s humanoid lizard conspiracy theory. 

UPDATE 9 July: The SWP front group 'We are Bristol' has been very successful in spreading its message, as although the city's council leader - Simon Cook - has declined to participate in the anti-EDL demonstration, he has stated: "We have made absolutely clear that we do not agree with their extremist views and do not want them in Bristol." However, unlike the SWP and UAF he added: "They are not a proscribed organisation and have a right to march." The 'This is Bristol' website which ran the story once again quoted the alleged £500,000 price tag for policing the EDL demo. Cook's even-handed position has upset both Islamophobia Watch and MPACUK.

Bristol's Antifa Propaganda Gallery

Saturday 23 June 2012

Ed Miliband and Peter Sutherland: united in anti-European Bigotry

In political, economic and demographic terms, we are living through remarkable times. The news, whether it be domestic or international, is almost uniformly bad. And yet amidst this maelstrom, the helmsmen of the emergent global economic and political order continue to chart a course that they set long ago, cognisant of the storms that their policies must surely engender, yet happy for us to suffer the ill-effects of their globalist tempest, utilising the naïveté of those who believe in the ideal of a global village, to aid in their construction of a global prison, from which none, they hope, will be permitted to escape.

Bound by fetters of debt, intellectually and emotionally crippled by decades of propaganda instilling self-doubt, guilt and self-loathing, the peoples of Europe – in particular those of the West, for those of the East have not yet fallen prey to this singular psychopathology – edge towards embracing oblivion in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. Globalisation, they are told ad nauseum, is not only inevitable, but also beneficial. We are told so by our politicians and our bankers; by our broadcasters and big business; by our press, trades unions and ‘anti-racism’ campaigners. From the dope-addled hippy, to the calculating corporate fascist; from the Trotskyist subversive to the Islamist longing for the introduction of a universal caliphate, all yearn for the destruction of nations and peoples, specifically, of European nations and peoples. As such, they are united in a desire to snuff out freedom and political will. They are the totalitarian advocates of a post-political future, in which choice is removed, and individuals become the objects of administration, rather than the subjects of politics. The detail of each of their globalist visions may be divergent, but their consequence is the same: the purging of human agency from history, and the end of freedom for all but a narrow stratum of a governing global oligarchy.

Strange, is it not, that those of us who oppose this process, are the ones stigmatised with the label of ‘fascist’? Only the genuine political self-determination of peoples across the globe, can serve as both the guarantor of human freedom, and the preservation of true cultural diversity. Agencies of supranational governance, the free movement of global capital and transnational corporations guarantee something quite different: perpetual insecurity and the end of freedom.
It is against such a backdrop, that speeches given earlier this week by Ed Miliband and Peter Sutherland should be viewed. Miliband, naturally, requires no introduction, but the figure of Peter Sutherland is altogether more shadowy, although out of the two, it is Sutherland who wields the more genuine power. What is the influence of an MP or an aspirant Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, compared to that of such a man as Sutherland? Non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International; Bilderberg Group Steering Committee member; UN Special Representative on Migration, Head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development? Still, it matters not that Miliband’s existing and potential power should be the lesser of the two, for both men share a mental outlook and policy platform, neither possessing any notion of responsibility to, or affection for, the peoples and nations of Europe.

Miliband’s speech, like his recent speech on Englishness, was essentially devoid of content. Its intent however, was just the same as its forerunner: to generate headlines conveying the impression that he cares about the ostensible topic under discussion. Whilst sections of the media and some trades union spokesmen have dutifully complied with this charade, feigning outrage over his touching upon such topics as national identity and immigration, both speeches delivered the same message as found expression in the policy of the last Labour Government: immigration and globalisation are positive, and should be promoted as such. This can be demonstrated through reference to key elements of Miliband’s speech reproduced below (I have added emphasis in bold).
Excerpt 1: “Britain must control its borders but it must always face outwards to the world.

The Britain I believe in is a confident and optimistic country, not one which is insecure and inward looking.

If people are looking for a politician who says immigration is just bad for Britain, that's not me.

I believe immigration has benefits, economically, culturally and socially.”

Excerpt 2: “I am the son of immigrants and I am hugely proud of it.

I will always talk about immigration in a way that is true to who I am, to my heritage, to my mum and dad.”

Excerpt 3: “Providing a refuge for those fleeing persecution.

And a new approach to immigration based on building a different kind of economy.
An economy that doesn't leave anyone behind.

That continues to attract people from abroad who contribute their talents to our economy and society.

That offers proper wages and good conditions.

That's the kind of economy that will enable Britain to compete with the world.”
In summary the core message of Miliband’s speech was this: Labour made a gaffe in selling mass immigration from the EU accession states to the public and this backfired electorally, not because the party believes this to have been wrong, but because it handled its propaganda maladroitly. The Labour Party needs to repair its image with its traditional indigenous (although Labour’s upper echelons would never use such a term) working-class supporters, who have to a considerable degree deserted Labour; it would still like their votes. By talking about “immigration” in a manner which suggests to the public that Miliband is recognising Labour’s mistakes and addressing their concerns, whilst in reality simply acknowledging that there had been public disquiet and then reiterating the message that Labour still advocates mass immigration and thinks that it is beneficial, Labour hopes that it can pull the wool over the public’s eyes and win back the support of ex-Labour voters without changing policy. Miliband wishes to change the presentation of policy, whilst retaining its essence: open borders and the deculturisation of the United Kingdom, especially England.

Another highly noteworthy aspect of Miliband’s speech was the target that he selected in his discussion of mass immigration: white Central and Eastern Europeans from the EU member states of the former Soviet bloc. Nowhere did he have a critical word to say with respect to the far larger, as well as more culturally and economically problematic, influx of immigrants from Asia (predominantly Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Africa (e.g. Somalia and Nigeria). It seems that he is perfectly at ease with this mass settlement. Why? Although it is true that mass immigration from the EU accession states of the former Soviet bloc has lowered wages, increased unemployment and placed an increased strain on housing, education, health and utilities, there is not so great a cultural gulf between these immigrants and the host population as that between us and the incomers from Asia and Africa. Although the press are keen to run stories about ‘East European’ or ‘Romanian’ criminal gangs, these are predominantly Roma, and thus should not be conflated with ethnic Romanians or other immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe.

So, why is it, taking into consideration the additional problems associated with significant elements of the immigrant populations from Africa and Asia, that Miliband chose not to focus upon them? Given Miliband’s glaring omission, it could give the impression that he has some issue with white European peoples that he does not have with non-Europeans. In this respect, his sentiments are very much at one with those of Peter Sutherland, who according to the BBC told the House of Lords this week that:‘The EU should "do its best to undermine" the"homogeneity" of its member states.’ His recommendations, that fly in the face of the bloody experience of history and of many ethnically cleft states around the world today, were not backed up by evidence, but rather by mere assertion, resting upon some spurious sense of deferential morality that places the interests of peoples outside Europe, above those of Europeans. Thus it was that he insisted that: 'the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural. He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.’ 

Sutherland’s stance is utterly brazen. Those who have accused the Bilderberg group of attempting to swamp European states with non-European immigrants have been accused of being ‘conspiracy theorists’, but in Sutherland’s statement and in the policies of the UN, the EU and the UK Government, we see the same open-borders globalist logic at play, and it betokens a dark future for all Europeans. He continued:
It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.
He also ‘urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue - criticising the UK government's attempt to cut net migration from its current level to "tens of thousands" a year through visa restrictions.’

How, in substance, does Sutherland’s position differ from that of Ed Miliband’s? I see little if anything to distinguish these two advocates of an open-borders Europe, the future of which they would seem to believe ought to belong to the peoples of Africa and Asia. What is it that imbues these men with such an animus towards Europeans and their democratic right to national self-determination? Their views alas, represent the dominant perspective in elite – or more accurately, oligarchical – decision-making circles. It is thus up to true democrats in each European nation to make their opposition to this intent and associated policies known, so as to preserve a future for our peoples, our liberties, distinctive cultures and overarching civilisation. Without our active opposition to globalism, our progress, indeed our existence, is finished. A new political party, founded upon such democratic anti-globalist principles, is coalescing in Britain right now, and will be ready to contest the EU elections in 2014.

Ed Miliband: Globalism Repackaged

Flood Warnings swamp West Yorkshire

Yesterday, it was the turn of the North to bear the brunt of June’s inclement weather, with up to 100mm of rain falling in northwest England bringing about flooding in Oldham and Wigan. As of 08:05 this morning, the Environment Agency had 49 flood alerts in place for Northeast England (encompassing Yorkshire) and 46 for its Northwest district. Most of the warnings for the Northeast were concentrated in West Yorkshire, with the River Calder alone possessing 29 flood alerts, the River Spen 4 and the Aire 3. Thus far, Calder Valley has thus experienced the worst of the flooding, with both Mytholmroyd and Todmorden hit. A number of properties in the centre of Brighouse also suffered from the effects of the rising waters in the early hours of this morning.

The BBC reports that rail services between Leeds and Manchester on the Calder Valley route have been suspended, and that services between Leeds and Wakefield have been affected. There appears to be a lull in the rain in the area currently, although more is forecast. The Met Office has issued severe weather warnings for the Northwest and parts of West and North Yorkshire until 9.00 Sunday morning. However, the forecast thereafter for the next few days suggests that the area could eventually enjoy some respite from the deluge. When will summer finally arrive? One week in May makes for a pretty miserable season.

In recent years, we seem to have veered between extended periods of rain, drought, cold and warmth, with the unusual position of the jet stream being blamed. Some theories attribute this to weakness in solar activity, others to a warming Arctic and a consequent decrease in temperature differentials in the Northern Hemisphere, expressed in a more sluggish jet stream prone to get stuck in a particular position for longer. More on these speculations can be viewed here.

Friday 22 June 2012

Peter Sutherland: a real-life Vogon?

Ah, those Bilderbergers! Nothing to fear from their behind-the-scenes secret discussions and decisions, eh? Before commencing with a rather more considered response to Peter Sutherland's genocidal recommendation that 'The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states,' has anyone else noted the startling resemblance between the UN's Special Representative for Migration and Goldman Sachs International Non-Executive Chairman and the Vogons? Maybe David Icke's nutty lizard conspiracy theory is wide of the mark, but perhaps he should switch to considering a Vogon conspiracy instead? The pictures and attitudes speak for themselves.

Advocate of anti-European Genocide - Peter Sutherland


Wednesday 20 June 2012

Higher Education: Benefits, Costs and Propaganda

“Education, education, education.”
For many years, young people in this country have been brought up with Blair’s mantra of “education, education, education” ringing in their ears, and one form of education in particular – university, or, more strictly speaking, higher education – has been championed as the path to upward social mobility and prosperity. With this view in mind, policy has been directed towards the mass expansion of higher education (HE) – its ‘massification’ as some term it – with Labour having set the arbitrary goal of by 2010 persuading 50% of young people to study towards and achieve a degree. Initial movement towards this target proved to be more sluggish than the Blair administration had intended, leading to a rescoping of the 50% target so that it was broadened to apply to any “higher education qualification” which could encompass sub-degree qualifications such as the misnamed foundation degrees (i.e. a vocationally-focused qualification equating to the first two years of degree study), HE diplomas and certificates.

As time progressed, the constant repetition of the message that HE would lead to higher lifetime earnings, a better lifestyle and social mobility, was taken up by much of the mass media as well as schools, colleges and universities. This was accompanied by a rush away from manufacturing and the traditional extractive industries in the deluded belief that the key to wealth generation lay primarily with a vastly expanded service sector, and the UK’s participation in what the Leitch Report termed the ‘global knowledge economy.’

Children, knowing no better, came to internalise this message, and many academics, who have no such excuse, did so too. Yet, what underpinned this policy? What solid data was there to justify this claim that obtaining a degree, or an “HE qualification”, led to greatly improved earnings and life chances? What does the data suggest with respect to graduates who have come through the system in recent years? How do their prospects fare with respect to those of earlier generations? What, if anything, has this policy achieved?

Academic inflation and the debased currency of a degree
Many recent graduates will of course be able to provide a personal answer to a number of these questions, but what is striking about the whole thrust of this policy, often badged as “widening participation”, is the manner in which it has debased the currency of a degree. This debasement has taken two forms: firstly, the rapid expansion in the number of graduates has lessened the market value of a degree owing to their oversupply; secondly, the academic content of many degrees has been downgraded to cope with the inadequacies of the contemporary schooling system, which has left a certain proportion of the current undergraduate body with inadequate skills. The marketisation of HE is likely to exacerbate these trends still further.

For the past couple of decades, we have witnessed the annual headlines relating the latest year-on-year increase in the grades of GCSEs and A Levels, and yet those with direct experience of working in the university sector have not noted an increase in the calibre of the student intake. One of the reasons for this trend is of course the modularisation of A Levels, the ability to retake the said modules on several occasions, and the gearing of teaching towards passing the test, rather than towards the development of critical engagement with, and internalisation of, the subject matter of A Levels. Michael Gove has however announced that he intends to tackle these problems, with a move back towards a more rigorous approach based upon examinations rather than coursework, and a limited opportunity to resit.

We need more mathematicians: the sums don't add up!
Despite the fact that it was recently reported by the CBI that only one in five jobs in the UK are said to require graduate-level skills, the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) issued a report earlier this month calling for increased government investment in the university sector, claiming that this was necessitated by the UK sliding down the international league in the production of graduates, whilst China and India are investing heavily in increasing the supply. It highlights the particular need for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) graduates, singling out mechanical engineering in particular. However, other evidence suggests that a significant proportion of graduates in these disciplines are unable to find employment in a sphere related to their subject, so what is being claimed appears to diverge from reality. Why should this be so? If it is the case, as the UCU claims, that employers are reporting a shortage of STEM graduates, should not more effort be put into helping match graduates with appropriate employment opportunities near the end of their studies, rather than simply increasing the number of graduates? If STEM graduates find themselves underemployed upon graduation, this is neither good for them as individuals, nor for employers nor for society at large; it represents a shocking waste of potential, as well as of time and money.

Another debatable claim contained in the UCU report, was that state investment in higher education should be increased because it is highly cost effective: whereas it claims that it costs the state an average of £18,800 to educate a graduate, the return in increased earnings over a lifetime is said to be £180,000. If this were true, the Government would provide higher education for free, but, as should be evident, it plainly is not the case. Even grander claims were being made about the increased earning potential conferred by graduate status in the early 2000s, with one figure widely bandied around from 2001 onwards claiming that graduates earn circa £400,000 more than non-graduates over a working lifetime. This eye-watering figure was employed to bolster the Blair administration’s Aimhigher initiative which was launched in 2004, but this statistic was, unsurprisingly, arrived at through rather dubious means, based as it was upon the highly selective interpretation of data relating to a cohort of graduates born in the early 1950s. Needless to say, the prospects that faced such graduates, who then comprised but a tiny fraction of the population, differed considerably from the massive numbers (and proportion) of graduates coming out of the system today. Our economy has also been eviscerated in the intervening period, with job insecurity becoming the norm and lifetime career structures and their earning potential destroyed by the opening up of the economy to full-blooded globalisation.

Raising the bar, destroying the premium: the betrayal of the Blair generation
One of the stated objectives of the last Labour Government’s mass expansion of higher education was the promotion of social mobility, the opening up of opportunities for young people with no familial experience of university education. It was thus touted as a route into the professions and, more generally, to prosperity. However, as has already been alluded to in the reference to the low percentage of job roles requiring graduate-level skills, this approach was at best wrongheaded, and at worst, immoral. Rather than serving as a means of social advancement, the acquisition of a degree has often led to young people from these backgrounds entering the same types of roles that they would have done had they left school following the completion of A Levels or GCSEs, with the same types of salaries. An oversupply of graduates has led to a lessening of the wage premium offered by employers, with many roles and occupations that were once open to individuals with a handful of decent O Level passes, now demanding a degree. Likewise, graduate professions have raised the bar, now often demanding Masters or Doctorates, resulting in more debt for the student, more years spent out of the labour market, and a lower return on their investment. Academic inflation has run rampant, greatly devaluing the currency of a degree, the cost of which has simultaneously increased significantly.

What then, is higher education for? For anyone who would wish to study because they are motivated by the love of their given subject, I would say take the opportunity, but do not expect it to provide you with a route to a better life and higher earnings, because very often it will not.

Special interest groups, distortion and the need for clarity and reform
It seems clear that one of the primary motivations underlying the UCU report is the understandable desire of UCU members to protect their livelihoods. Owing to the rapid expansion of the university sector, higher education institutions are now big employers playing significant roles in the economies of the towns and cities in which they are located. Any downsizing in the sector could thus have a notable negative impact upon some local economies. For the past three years, pay in universities has effectively been frozen (with the egregious exception of university vice-chancellors, a number of whom earn well in excess the salary of the Prime Minister), staff numbers have been cut and the radical overhaul in the tuition fees system has led to a great deal of uncertainty with respect to the viability of some institutions in their current form. It is understandable therefore, that this report should seek to forward the claim that an increase in funding for higher education should be made a national priority, but it is precisely for these reasons that the conclusions it draws should be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism, given their tendentious nature. 

Should higher education be for the benefit of students, the country and the economy, or for that of vested interests within the university sector? Unpalatable as it may be, it would seem that our higher education sector suffers from overcapacity, and that rather than seeking to increase absolute numbers of graduates and the proportion of young people gaining degrees, we should instead be looking to redeploy staff in higher education elsewhere in the economy. The big question of course, is where? Young people should be given better opportunities in FE colleges, learning useful skills that will make them marketable and afford them a decent living. The one thing that does seem rational in the UCU report, is its emphasis upon protecting STEM subjects. To secure a meaningful economic recovery we need to harness the full potential of our graduates in these disciplines through promoting a hi-tech research and manufacturing based economy. We need to create jobs that generate new wealth, not jobs in the service sector that are parasitic upon the recycling of existing capital, or borrowing it from the international money markets.

Higher education in this country needs to be reprofiled and retooled. Young people must be provided with the most objective information available with respect to the likely implications of studying a certain degree; the doors that it will open, and those that it will not, together with genuine information relating to salary expectations and career progression. Contrary to offering a leg-up to children from working-class backgrounds, the policies of the last Labour Government and its successor have spun them an unrealistic yarn and led to everyone running faster to effectively stand still. This, coupled with Labour’s (and the Condem’s) vigorous pursuit of globalisation, leading to increased job insecurity and downward pressure on wages, has constituted a betrayal of the Blair generation.

Whether £27,000 of debt for tuition fees, coupled with many thousands more for living expenses incurred whilst studying, and the thousands potentially lost through not working during this period are adjudged to be worthwhile in obtaining a degree, must be left to the individual, but the decisions that they take should be based upon objective information and evidence, not upon the self-serving data supplied by the higher education sector itself, or by government. Cynics might say that getting students to pay for a degree is a cost-effective means of removing them from the unemployment statistics for three to five years whilst simultaneously making them pay for the privilege. 

Toulouse Gunman: Schizophrenic or Islamist?

A gunman reported to have taken four hostages in a Toulouse bank today is claiming to be a member of al-qaeda, whereas the local authorities claim that he is suffering from "schizophrenia." The Daily Telegraph reports that three gunshots have been heard, but thankfully there has been no news of injuries or fatalities.

The gunman himself - "Boumaza" - claims that he has taken the hostages for "religious" rather than financial reasons, so it can only be hoped that French police manage to bring this situation to a swift and safe conclusion, given the favoured Islamic method of executing hostages. One hostage was released earlier this afternoon.  At the time of writing, Boumaza is not reported to have made any specific demands, which perhaps lends credence to the official line that he is suffering from schizophrenia. His sister, who is helping police with negotiations, says that her brother reacted very negatively to being taken into social care as a child, becoming angry with and fearful of the outside world.

According to, the gunman has been arrested after an exchange of fire during which he was wounded. None of the hostages are said to have been harmed. A video report from the scene can be viewed below.

Police in Toulouse

Tuesday 19 June 2012

Jimmy Carr: Laughing all the Way to the Bank?

Some people, apparently, find Jimmy Carr a very funny man. Others, it seems, have always found him to be rather smug and oleaginous. Following today’s revelations about his Jersey-based tax scam, in which he has been found to have squirreled away a fortune of £3.3 million on the island using the K2 Scheme to pay only 1% tax on his earnings, some might say that he is a smug, oleaginous hypocrite. Surely not? After all, look at what he says in the video below. A hypocrite? Would 8 out of ten fat cats come to such a conclusion? For the mechanics of the scam, refer either to this article in The Daily Telegraph, or this one in The Daily Mail. We await his redemption and resurrection in The Guardian at some point.

Monday 18 June 2012

Le Monde celebrates ‘La Diversité’ in the French National Assembly

Le Monde, one of France’s most influential newspapers of a centre Left editorial inclination, has today been indulging in the type of reporting so beloved of the ‘diversity’ industry in the UK, noting with approval the influx of a fresh phalanx of non-indigenous deputies to the National Assembly:
Essentially ‘white’ until now, the National Assembly is going to reflect the colours of France a little more after the legislative elections of Sunday 17 June. Eight deputies of African, Maghrebian, Asian or Brazilian origin are going to join those elected overseas or originating in the departments on the banks of the Palais-Bourbon. All these newly elected members issue from the ranks of the Socialist Party.
Of these, five are Maghrebian: Kader Arif (Haute-Garonne); Malik Boutih (Essonne); Kheira Bouziane (Côte-d'Or); Chaynesse Khirouni (Meurthe-et-Moselle) and Razzy Hammadi (Seine-Saint-Denis), and thus illustrate the rapidly shifting demographic complexion of France. It is to be expected that they will lobby for the inclusion of more of their kind, as has happened at Westminster with the active approval of the globalist governing parties.  

The left-wing daily Libération was also moved tocomment in a positive fashion regarding this increase in ‘la diversité’ in the National Assembly, but as is the case with multiculturalists across Europe, the election of another eight ethnic minority deputies was not enough to satiate the paper’s appetite. As the publication of statistics on the ethnicity of France’s population is outlawed, the paper forwards some estimates of its own, bemoaning the fact that whereas "only 2%" of National Assembly members are from such backgrounds, CRAN (the Council of Black Associations) estimates that “the blacks, the Arabs and the Asians present in the Hexagon represent more than 10% of the French population.” How very appropriate then, that all of the new deputies from such backgrounds are representatives of the Socialist Party, which has pledged itself to grant votes to foreigners, something which the Front National has decided to oppose through launching an internet petition

The French National Assembly: a little less French Today

Sunday 17 June 2012

Front National Victory: Marion Maréchal-Le Pen elected

Whilst it seems that a recount is underway in Hénin-Beaumont, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen has been elected as the National Assembly Deputy for the 3rd District of Vauclause, polling 42.09% of the vote. Her losing rivals were the UMP's Jean-Michel Ferrand and the Socialist Catherine Arkilovitch. At 22, she becomes France's youngest ever member of the National Assembly.

Elsewhere, the lawyer Gilbert Collard put in an impressive performance in the 2nd District of le Gard, winning the seat for the Front National with 42.82% of the vote, a healthy increase on the 34.57% that he polled in the first round. His rivals - Katy Guyot of the Socialist Party and Etienne Mourrut of the UMP - took 41.56% and 15.63% respectively.

The most spectacular result for a French nationalist candidate today belongs to ex-Front National member Jacques Bompard who has won in the 4th District of le Vauclause, taking 58.77% of the vote, well ahead of his Socialist rival Pierre Meffre on 41.23%. Bompard has his own identitarian party named the Ligue du Sud, its name seemingly inspired by Italy's Lega Nord (Bompard was initially listed as an FN victor in this article owing to his erroneous allocation to the party by Le Monde's election results page).

Elsewhere, Florian Philippot failed to take the 6th District of la Moselle, but put up a very creditable performance in a close contest, scoring 46.3% against the Socialist rival's 53.7%. Stéphane Ravier had an exceptionally close race with the Socialist Party candidate Sylvie Andrieux in the 3rd District of Bouches-du-Rhône, taking 49.01% against 50.99%. Valerie Laupies also came with a hair's breadth of winning, taking 48.71% of the vote compared to her Socialist rival's 48.71% in the 16th District of Bouches-du-Rhône.

Despite Marine Le Pen's knife-edge loss to her Socialist opponent Philippe Kemel, with the candidates securing 49.89% and 50.11% of the vote respectively, it has been a dramatic evening for the Front National, for it has managed to take two seats under the first-past-the-post system. This is a considerable achievement for the party, although of course it does not take its representation in the National Assembly close to that which it enjoyed in the 1986 election, when it managed to gain 35 deputies under proportional representation.

Marine Le Pen's programme of modernisation has evidently paid off for the FN, but although today's breakthrough has been symbolic, the party is as yet at a far remove from real power. Nonetheless, it has demonstrated the principal that a credible and well-organised moderate nationalist party can win under a first-past-the-post system. If it had not been for the anti-FN pact in Hénin-Beaumont which led to Jean-Luc Mélanchon bowing out of the second round despite qualifying to participate, then Marine Le Pen would have tonight won a seat. The FN has also encountered other types of underhand opposition, as exemplified by the action of postal workers in the Var who refused to deliver flyers for FN candidate Genivieve Blanc. According to the Riviera Times, although 4,000 euros had been paid to distribute the 54,000 flyers, the postmen refused to do so on political grounds, claiming that they would not help a 'far-right' candidate, thereby demonstrating their anti-democratic credentials by impeding the chances of a legitimate candidate.

Three other FN candidates stood in the second round in the urban constituencies of the Pas-de-Calais and polled respectable percentages, each in a one-to-one battle with a victorious Socialist Party opponent. The FN candidates and percentages were: Freddy Baudrin (3rd District) - 40.48%; Monique Lamare (10th District) - 36.59% and Charlotte Soula (12th District) - 43.17%. For a party of this type, these were excellent scores, and illustrate that the FN does possess what it takes to become a party of government, given the clear appeal that it exerts to sections of the French electorate.

Time for the FN to make a significant electoral breakthrough is of course running short owing to France's rapidly changing demography engendered by mass immigration and the explosion in the population of immigrant descent. With this in mind, the FN has recently launched a petition (see here) against granting voting rights to immigrants, which is a policy supported by both the Socialist Party and former President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Marion Maréchal Le Pen

Breaking News: Marine Le Pen - Recount in Progress?

According to a report in Le Monde, there is some dispute as to the result in the constituency of Hénin-Beaumont being contested today by Marine Le Pen. It appears that the contest has seen the candidates polling neck and neck. Whereas the Socialist Philippe Kemel thinks that he has won, the Le Monde correspondent Abel Mestre claims that Marine Le Pen has requested a recount, owing to there being a margin of only 118 votes between the two candidates.The shares of the vote stand at 50.11% and 49.89%. 

Elsewhere, the Front National did win seats, as can be seen here

Front National launches Petition

Given that the French elections are currently in the news, it seemed an appropriate time to take a look at France’s Front National (FN) which is hoping to gain its first members of the National Assembly under the first-past-the-post system today. A visit to the party’s main website reveals that the FN has launched a petition in response to the desire of both the Socialist Party and Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP to grant voting rights to foreigners resident in France. This of course undermines the first principal of democracy, and the FN has rightly launched its campaign to try and stop this move dead in its tracks.

Whilst Nicolas Sarkozy is often portrayed, particularly by the British media, as someone who has flirted with the fringes of policy accorded the pariah label of ‘far-right’, his quotes in favour of granting foreigners the vote highlight this for the misleading propaganda that it is. Sarkozy may have ‘talked tough’ on immigration and immigrant crime, yet he acted very softly on these issues, for he is a globalist, and as such, no supporter of the historical rights and interests of the French people. Reproduced below is a translation of the Front National’s introduction to its petition against the right of foreigners to vote in French elections (responsibility for any errors in translation being entirely mine). Although I agree with their cause, not being French I did not see it fit to sign. However, if you are French, you would be advised to add your name to the list of supporters. I hope that the FN succeeds in this endeavour, but fear that it will not.
Petition against Foreigners’ Right to Vote

On the eve of the senatorial elections, the first declaration of Martine Aubry, the First Secretary of the PS [Socialist Party], has been to reaffirm his attachment to the right to vote for foreigners and of making this an absolute priority.

This demagogic position does not have to conflict with the UMP since Nicolas Sarkozy has declared: “I wrote in 2001, in my book, that I was favourable towards the right of foreigners voting in municipal elections.” Then again: “I do not find it abnormal that a foreigner in a regular situation, who works, pays taxes and who has lived for at least six months in France, may vote in municipal elections. I am opening a debate in favour of a measure that I think is just.”

Totally disconnected from the French people and discredited, the UMP and the PS are searching above all to reconstitute a client electorate at the least cost.

While Nicolas Sarkozy and the Socialist Party are favourably disposed towards the right to vote for foreigners, the Front National is resolutely against this for obvious reasons:

1) Since the French Revolution, nationality and civil rights have been related. Now, to accord the right to vote to foreigners would make citizens via the backdoor, by providing a right to date reserved for nationals that would be in total contradiction of the republican spirit!

2) The argument consistently stated that “since the foreigners pay taxes, they must be able to vote” is totally fallacious. In effect, there is already a return for their taxes, which are the various benefits (school, social security, health and justice. . . )

3) The Front National is for the sovereignty of peoples, and recognises the right of all peoples to be able to decide their own destiny, the French the foremost!

The recent Tunisian elections are a perfect illustration: if the right to vote for foreigners is granted, the Tunisians settled in France would be able to vote in French elections while they are already participating in elections in their own country. They would thus benefit from a right to vote superior to that of French nationals.

4) Whilst French identity is constantly portrayed in a bad light, all that is common to the French is being chipped away little by little, and they are forced to share a right that is common to them which contributes to maintaining a sense of belonging to the French nation!

For all of these reasons, the Front National is launching a great national petition to oppose the right to vote for foreigners:

Front National to take 7 Seats?

The Galliawatch blog reports that the Front National could stand a chance of taking seven seats in the National Assembly in the second round of elections in France today. Below are the seven seats in question, together with the names of the FN candidates and their shares of the vote garnered in round one of the elections last Sunday:
  • 11th district of Pas-de-Calais - Marine Le Pen , 42.36%
  • 3rd district of le Vauclause - Marion Maréchal Le Pen, 34.6%
  • 2nd district of le Gard - Gilbert Collard, 34.57%
  • 3rd district of Bouches-du-Rhône - Stéphane Ravier, 29.87%
  • 16th district of les Bouches-du-Rhône - Valérie Laupies, 28.98%
  • 6th district of Moselle - Florian Philippot, 26.34%
  • 4th district of le Vauclause - Jacques Bompard, 23.51%
This list, originally compiled by Le Figaro, indicates those seats where the FN could have a chance of winning, rather than those in which it is thought that they will win. Of these, the one contested by Marion Maréchal Le Pen looks set to provide the party with its best prospect, simply because unlike in Marine Le Pen’s constituency, her opponents have not decided to field a single candidate in opposition to her candidature. It thus seems most likely that the FN could take one seat today, but it would be no surprise if it were to take none at all. It has a tough fight on its hands, but the modernisation of the party carried out by Marine Le Pen appears to have paid dividends in giving it the semblance of a chance of winning under the first-past-the-post system. However, given that the UMP has toughened up its rhetoric (although not its policy) on immigration in response to the rise in the popularity of the FN, it is an unfortunate likelihood that this will have served to stymie the prospects of the FN in this election. 

Saturday 16 June 2012

German Defence League and Pro-NRW Duisburg Demo

The German website Politically Incorrect reports that a demonstration was held in the German city of Duisburg yesterday by the Pro-North Rhine Westphalia Movement and the German Defence League. About 40 protesters turned out to demonstrate against the construction of the largest mosque in the city – which also turns out to be the largest mosque in Europe - in the Marxloh District. As is the case with anti-Islamisation demonstrations in Britain, this was met by a counterdemonstration comprised of a combination of Muslim residents and self-styled ‘anti-fascists’, which on this occasion happened to be about 100 strong. The police however did a good job and managed to contain the potentially violent Islamo-Marxists.

The placards waved by the joint antifa/Turkish Muslim counterdemonstration depicted Tony Fiedler – Head of the Pro-North Rhine Westphalia Youth Wing – with blood running from his nose, the consequence of a recent attack upon Fiedler perpetrated by ‘anti-fascists’ which left him with a broken nose. The slogan on the posters read “Marxloh hates Pro NRW”. That the counterdemonstrators truly are filled with hate, can be little doubted. Contrast the pictures of the demonstrators below and ask yourself which group of people would be more likely to indulge in acts of violence.

An article praising the mosque can be found on the sinisterly named website Cities of Migration, a site that promotes the cultural and demographic dissolution of cities in the Western World through mass immigration. It says of the mosque:
‘The plans for the mosque included a meeting center and venue for the local people. The community center has a separate entrance from the prayer areas, designed to make non-Muslims feel more comfortable coming in. The mosque also has extra large windows (as suggested by a Catholic priest on the consultative panel) as a detail intended to promote transparency. The entrance hall includes an open arena for dialogue between the Muslim community and followers of different faiths as well as an information centre, an internet cafe along with a conference and reading halls for both Muslims and non-Muslims.’
Of course, a mosque such as this will seek to attract non-Muslims as it is simply a technique to attempt to convert Germans to Islam. It would be naïve to think otherwise. Indeed, Deutsche Welle reports that over the past week police raids have been carried out on over 70 premises across Germany to tackle the threat posed by the recently banned Solingen-based Salafist group Millatu Ibrahim and ideological affiliates. Solingen itself is situated in North-Rhine Westphalia, and the decision to ban Millatu Ibrahim was taken upon the grounds of its opposition to ‘Germany’s constitutional order and endangering the public peace.’

Another Salafist group has been distributing free Qur’ans in many German cities, with Gulf News noting that this has been part of ‘their drive to convert non-Muslims, a campaign that has involved handing out 25 million copies of the Quran in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.’ The same article cites an estimate of approximately 2,500 Salafists in Germany who support ‘violence against state institutions’.

That North-Rhine Westphalia is a centre of German opposition to Islamisation should therefore not come as a surprise. The Islamic population is flexing its political and cultural muscle, with some doctrinaire Muslims being willing to resort to violence as a means of advancing their ends, as demonstrated by recent violent clashes between police and Salafists in Solingen in May. Yet, despite this real threat, the so-called ‘anti-fascists’ label those Germans who oppose Islamisation as ‘far-right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ and ‘neo-Nazi’. Despite there generally being no grounds for such stigmatising labels, the anti-democrats of the Left are quite happy to employ them in their general quest to destroy nation-states. As such, the operation of the ‘anti-fascist’ movement in Germany bears striking parallels with that of UAF in Britain and MRAP in France.

Pro-NRW wishes to draw attention not only to Islamisation, but also to the anti-white racism and violence that takes place in Germany. The contrast between the conduct and attitude of the two groups of demonstrators yesterday, clearly illustrates the essentially peaceful nature of Pro-NRW, whereas the same cannot be said of their ‘anti-fascist’/Muslim opponents.

'Anti-Fascists' - Marxloh hates Pro NRW!!!

Pro-North Rhine Westphalia anti-Islamisation Demonstrators