The message is a little cryptic, but the fact that public
access to it has been blocked, temporarily or possibly permanently, indicates
that Blogger’s owners – Google – are susceptible to pressure to censor opinions
that are deemed to upset some people around the globe. Given the content of the
blog in question, it does not take a great deal to guess which particular
ideological constituency will have demanded that access be blocked: an Islamic
lobby group of one sort or another.
Some of the articles published on the GOV I have agreed
with, and others I have not, but agreeing or disagreeing with a set of opinions
set out on a platform such as a blog is no reason to have them either extolled
by all as ‘virtuous’ or condemned and censored for whatever spurious reasons
happen to be called forth by way of justification on the part of an ‘offended’
party. After all, to offend someone nothing more is necessary – at least in the
case of those who will not brook any dissent from their perspective – than to
disagree with their opinion.
Whether or not you happen to agree with the general thrust
and tenor of articles published on the GOV is immaterial: the decision to deny
public access to the blog strikes me as a violation of freedom of expression,
and that in itself is a sinister move on the part of the internet giant.
Although those who dislike GOV have attempted to smear it by association with
Breivik, who happened to cite it in his largely unread rambling ‘manifesto’,
GOV has not called for violence and in no uncertain terms condemned the actions
of the psychopath Breivik as soon as his identity became known. The blog
appears to be the latest high-profile element of the transnational
‘counterjihad’ movement to have been taken out. In the UK over the past 18
months we have seen Alan Lake/Alan Ayling dismissed from his job at the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Chris Knowles sacked from
his job with Leeds City Council for holding views deemed to be at variance with
its ‘diversity policy’. More recently, EDL founder and leader Stephen
Lennon/Tommy Robinson received a prison sentence for gaining entry to the US on
someone else’s passport, and a little over a week ago his relative and fellow
leading EDL member Kevin Carroll was arrested for what was alleged to be‘inciting racial hatred’.
As perhaps the best known of the ‘Counterjihad’ blogs,
taking out GOV strikes a blow against the loose network and movement that it
represents. It is a worrying development, for though it may be unpalatable to
what is deemed to be acceptable opinion, the concerns that it articulates with
respect to the various facets of Islamisation – particularly to the demographic
Islamisation of many European societies – are legitimate. Much of what has been
written on its platform differs little in its essential thrust from the
argument and evidence presented by respected journalist Christopher Caldwell in
his book ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the
West’ published in 2009. Thankfully, unlike ‘Baron Bodissey’, Caldwell has yet
to experience the chill winds of censorship, but Google’s latest exercise in
apparent censorship poses the question as to how much longer such dissident
opinions will be tolerated. In and of itself, the decision to block access to
the Gates of Vienna would appear to bear ugly testimony to the blog’s
protestation that Islamisation constitutes a genuine danger to the freedom of
both speech and expression. We can only hope that Google relents, and allows the
blog to once again reach a general readership as it has done over a number of
years.
Note: thanks to Ivan Winters for drawing this to my
attention.
As a rule of thumb, anything political with "Brussels" in the title sets alarm bells ringing, and in the culinary world, mention of the word "Brussels" together with "sprouts" can cause near panic in some for entirely different reasons. However, on this occasion, something positive took place in Brussels this week which brought together a group of like-minded people from across Europe, and some from beyond, to initiate what they term the "Brussels Process", which is defined on the Gates of Vienna blog as "a continuing series of events that will strengthen free speech and civil
liberties in the West, and provide an alternative to the notorious
“Istanbul Process”." The occasion for its launch was provided by the International Conference for Free Speech and Human Rights, initiated by the International Civil Liberties Alliance and hosted at the EU Parliament with the co-sponsorship of two MEPs: Philip Claeys (Vlaams Belang, Belgium) and Magdi Allam (UDC, Italy). The ICLA press release states:
On 9 July, the International Civil Liberties Alliance presented an
International Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Conference in the
European Parliament in Brussels. Over 100 people from numerous,
countries, cultures, and backgrounds took part in this milestone event
at which Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society received the
“Defender of Freedom” award.
The conference was organised in
response to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)’s Istanbul
Process, which seeks to institute a global blasphemy law that would ban
freedom of expression under sharia doctrine worldwide. Many governments
are actively aiding the Istanbul Process, rather than opposing it as
they should to preserve the liberties of their citizens. The European
Union’s offer to host the next meeting of the OIC’s Istanbul Process
shows that organization’s willingness to impose severe restrictions on
traditional rights and freedoms of citizens within the European Union.
The principal purpose of the International Human Rights and Freedom of
Speech Conference was to encourage an open and fact-based public debate
on these issues, and to provide policy guidance for political leaders,
especially those who themselves are raising the alarm over the OIC’s
totalitarian sharia doctrines against free expression, civil liberties,
women’s rights, homosexual rights and religious freedom.
The OIC Logo
The launch of such an initiative can only be applauded, and the list of speakers was impressive. As the Gates of Vienna blog has provided extensive coverage of the content of the speeches, as well as videos and commentary, you should visit that site for further detail. The video below (hat tip to Vlad Tepes), although produced prior to the launch of the Brussels Process, is well worth watching, for in this the speaker outlines the structure, goals and values of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), which underscores why the objectives of the Brussels Process are so important. Although this video was produced by the American 'Center for Security Policy' which has its own agenda, its content is sound.
Below is the full list of speakers at theInternational Conference for Free Speech and Human Rights:
Mark Steyn (Canada), commenter and author of “America Alone” & “After America”
Lars Hedegaard (Denmark), book author and President of the International Free Press Society
Prof. Hans Jansen (Netherlands), retired Professor of Modern Islamic Thought at the University of Utrecht
Mgr Ch.-C. Boniface, dit Pére Samuel (France), Bishop, Syrian-Catholic Church
Nidra Poller (France), book author and commenter on challenges from Islam
Alexandre del Valle, author, co-founder of the “Geopolitical observatory of the Mediterranean Sea”
Sabatina James (Germany), apostate from Islam and author of three books
Sam van Rooy (Belgium), editor of two books with essays on the dangers of Islam and of the crisis of the European Union
Pierre Cassen, editor-in chief of “Riposte Laïque”, author
Tommy Robinson (UK), joint vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party
Ingrid Carlqvist (Sweden), President of the Swedish Free Press Society
Magdi Allam (Italy), MEP, apostate from Islam, convert to Catholicism
Gavin Boby (UK), Law and Freedom Foundation
George Igler (UK), Discourse
Jean Maher, (Egypt) president of l’Organisation franco-égyptienne pour les Droits de l’homme
Conny Axel Meier German publicist, Chairman of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE)
Christian Jung, (Germany) writer and editor for blu-News
Ned May, a freelance writer, editor, and computer programmer living in Central Virginia
Alain Wagner (France), leader of the Stop Sharia campaign
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria), lecturer on Islamic politics and victim of sharia-compliant “hate speech” laws
Last July, shortly after the atrocity committed by Anders Behring Breivik, I concluded my piece on his crime with the following words:
Breivik may claim that his acts of murder were intended to defend the Norwegian nation and Western civilisation, but in reality this man has done nationalists and counterjihad activists across the whole of Europe a massive disservice: he has handed our enemies a huge propaganda coup. Although we have nothing to do with him and roundly condemn him, we will be stigmatised by association no matter how tenuous and unfounded it may be. Just as the Stephen Lawrence case was used by the last Labour administration to implement and embed its anti-indigenous racist kulturkampf in the UK, so will the advocates of multiculturalism and appeasers of Islam across Europe use Breivik’s atrocity as a means to accelerate and embed their multiculturalist project. This is happening already, as Channel 4 reports that the Metropolitan Police are to launch an investigation into Breivik's claimed links with the EDL. There is thus a considerable risk that the flimsiest of pretexts will be employed to limit the operations of the EDL, or even to proscribe it. How much further might our liberties be whittled away as we become a new phantasmogorical enemy within to which our security agencies will misguidedly devote their attentions? Breivik, contrary to his self-professed objectives, will thus go down in history as an enabler of the Islamisation of Europe.
My analysis and prognosis appear to have been correct, although for the time being the EDL continues to operate as a legal protest group. That said, two key figures in the development of the EDL – Alan Lake (Alan Ayling) and Aeneas (Chris Knowles) - have recently been suspended from their jobs for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Leeds Children’s Services Department, with the latter citing Knowles’s seeming contravention of the Councils ‘equality and diversity’ policy as the reason. Both Ayling and Norwegian blogger Fjordman – Peder Jensen – have been investigated for alleged links with Breivik. Neither of course belonged to Breivik’s fantasy reconstructed order of the Knights Templar, but this has not stopped the post-Breivik witch-hunters from employing Breivik’s crime as a pretext to call for security agencies to focus upon the activities and opinions of critics of Islamisation and other members of what they purposely misrepresent as the ‘far right’.
It is against this backdrop that the sinister implications of an interview on this morning’s Today Programme on Radio 4, together with a companion piece in The Guardian, should be considered. Matthew Goodwin, an academic from the University of Nottingham claiming to be a specialist in ‘far right’ politics, made it known via both his interview and the printed article that he believed in state censorship of the internet – with specific reference to blog content – to prevent the dissemination of ‘right wing extremism’. He claims that such blogs engage in ‘narrowcasting’, focusing upon topics such as the ideological and demographic Islamisation of European societies, and then makes a massive leap from criticising what he believes to be a paranoid Eurabian fantasy to claiming that such analysis of our current situation gives birth to ‘far right [by which he does not mean Islamist] extremism and terrorism’. When asked to provide examples of this ‘far right’ phantom menace, Goodwin named Breivik and Timothy McVeigh. Neither of course have anything to do with nationalist parties or movements in the UK or elsewhere in Europe, and are also roundly condemned by the Counterjihad movement. Goodwin states:
"What we simply know much less about is violence and also terrorism from within the extreme right wing subculture, and also the interplay between these different forms of extremism."
We don’t know about it because it doesn’t exist. It seems to me that Goodwin needs to invent this fantasy threat in order to secure funding to continue his academic research at the University of Nottingham. This story has more to do with his personal interest in career advancement and securing a research grant than in combating any putative ‘far right’ threat. To have slandered the EDL, the Gates of Vienna blog and others who share their concerns about Islamisation as potential ‘terrorists’ and ‘violent extremists’ is not only deeply distasteful, but intensely alarming. The question this poses is: for how much longer will any semblance of free speech be permitted on the internet in the UK and Europe?
We have already witnessed Ayling, Knowles and Jensen lose their jobs because of their political stance. How long will it be before others sharing their dissident analysis with respect to Islamisation and mass immigration are deprived of their livelihoods, misrepresented and transformed into pariahs? Might this not be linked to the huge amounts of Saudi and other Muslim petrodollar finance being sought to prop up the collapsing European economies? George Osborne, it would seem, has a $62 billion reason for allowing the Saudi proselytisation of Wahhabism in Britain, and who is to say that he, along with other members of his political clique, might not engage in a little censorship of domestic criticism of Islam for the sake of keeping the Saudis sweet?
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.
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’s acts of mass murder in Oslo and on the island of Utøya have stunned the Norwegian people and shocked the wider world. For what little they are worth in such a situation, we can extend our sympathies and condolences to the bereaved, but such sentiments can never make up for the loss of a loved one, or cure those irreparably maimed by wanton violence of this nature.
As the initial reports came in on Friday, I, like many others, initially suspected a likely Islamist motivation for the Oslo bombing, but as further information began to filter through about shootings at the political summer camp on Utøya, it became apparent that the motivations underpinning this twin atrocity lay elsewhere. Tomorrow, we will hear from the lips of thirty-two-year old Anders Behring Breivik himself what his intentions were in bringing a premature end to the lives of so many. Already though, certain details about his ‘motivations’ and ‘ideology’ are being released via the mainstream media.
Although we cannot be certain, it seems highly likely that this man acted as a lone psychopath, and despite his claims to be a Norwegian nationalist and a defender of Western values, he is nothing of the sort. Nor, for all of his assertions, will he be found to be part of the counterjihad movement. Although those who comprise and support the latter could be said to share certain key aspects of ideology with Breivik relating to their analysis of the Islamisation of European societies and the goal of countering this, nowhere is support given to the idea of using terrorism or any other form of violence to realise their goals. Thus, although to the mainstream media and general public who know little about this area of politics it may appear that Breivik was part of this movement which is routinely and inaccurately denigrated as ‘extremist’, ‘far-right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’, he was nothing of the sort. The counterjihad movement stands for positive values: freedom of speech and expression; one secular law for all; equal rights for men and women and freedom from the threat of violence. It is because doctrinaire Islam stands implacably opposed to all of these values that we oppose it. We do not advocate silencing opponents through the use of the bullet and the bomb, but we demand the right to freely criticise those who would deprive us of our freedoms and rights without being stigmatised as ‘extremists’. We are extremely reasonable, but that is where our ‘extremism’ ends.
Elements of Breivik’s analysis regarding the Islamisation of Europe and the role of the hegemonic memeplex of cultural Marxism propagated by multiculturalist political parties and mass media are indeed common to the thought of a wide swathe of counter-hegemonic thinkers, bloggers and activists across Europe and beyond, whether they classify themselves as nationalists, counterjihadists, identitarians, anti-globalists or straightforward freethinkers and libertarians, but that is where the similarities with Breivik’s position end. Nonetheless, these inconvenient facts are hindering neither the mass media nor pro-multiculturalist governments and parties across Europe from drawing incorrect conclusions, whether these be based upon ignorance, paranoia or a deliberate and nefarious intent to denigrate and destroy all opposition to their multiculturalist project. Thus do the powerful in our societies seek to turn this tragedy to their political advantage, by portraying Breivik as representative of a non-existent ‘neo-Nazi’ (sic) threat comprised of various nationalist and counterjihadist parties, groups and movements.
The risibly named ‘Hope Not Hate’ organisation has not been slow to capitalise upon the opportunity afforded by Breivik’s killing spree, and according to the Daily Mail has called for the EDL to be ‘formally classified as a far-right organisation’. There has even been an attempt to smear the EDL by implying a direct connection with Breivik, whereas there has been no such connection and the EDL has condemned his actions in the strongest terms. It is evident that since the implosion of the BNP, the salaried personnel within ‘Hope Not Hate’ have been looking for a new ‘phantom menace’ to justify its continued existence and campaigning, and have decided that the EDL fits the bill well enough for their purposes. This is despite the fact that the EDL has made it very clear where it stands and by no objective criteria could it be classed as ‘far-right’.
The BBC, as one would expect, has been employing the term ‘neo-Nazi’ in the most cavalier, inaccurate and, one is tempted to say, deliberately malicious manner since Friday’s events in Oslo and Utøya. Indeed, the ideology of anti-Islamisation itself has on a number of occasions been specifically labelled as ‘neo-Nazi’ by BBC television reporters since Friday afternoon. Well, it would seem that in that case, by the BBC’s definition, I am a ‘neo-Nazi’. We’re all ‘neo-Nazis’ now it would seem. What else would one expect from an organisation dominated by cultural Marxism? I can already hear the cries of ‘far-right paranoia’ ringing in my ears, but the fact of the matter is that within the past couple of months one of the regular contributors to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day – the Reverend Canon Giles Fraser – quoted not from scripture, but directly from the Frankfurt School Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse! Not only that, but he made it explicit who Marcuse was and why he was quoting him in an approbatory fashion. Multiculturalism and cultural relativism are cultural Marxism. The BBC espouses and promotes both vigorously, and is thus culturally Marxist in its thoughts and its deeds, both conscious and unconscious. There is no debate to be had on this matter.
The BBC and its ilk are thus happy to slander the counterjihad movement, although in reality, if its viewers, listeners and readers cared to take the time to look for themselves, they would see that the BBC is, to put it generously, not reporting the movement’s views accurately. For example, there is no hiding the expression of spontaneous, unified and natural repulsion on the part of leading and longstanding counterjihad blogs such as Gates of Vienna, Vlad Tepes and The Tundra Tabloids that arose in response to Breivik’s crimes as they became known. Indeed, it is worth quoting the Vlad Tepes blog on this score:
One thing is certain. If blogs like mine or Gates of Vienna or Fjordman etc. can be blamed for inspiring this monster — blogs that have never once advocated violence, that have been firmly against terrorism no matter who it was by, people like Geert Wilders that wish to preserve a culture of modern liberalism and pluralism against the mono-culturalist Islam and its totalitarian illiberal legal ‘system’ — if all these people are to blame, then how can those same people say that the Koran, which is nearly one long solid incitement to terror and murder, rape and taking of slaves, of manifest destiny and mass slaughter and theft of all things belonging to unbelievers, how can those same people who accuse we of the fledgling pro-classical-liberalism, pro-women’s rights and gay rights (to varying degrees, granted), how can they accuse us of being the inspiration to this one lone Norwegian mass murdering monster and yet absolve the Koran for its role in inspiring many of history’s greatest genocides, from the Nazi one (Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans) to the unimaginable genocide of Hindus, causing the Gypsy Diaspora, to Europe, and on, and on, and on.
Breivik may claim that his acts of murder were intended to defend the Norwegian nation and Western civilisation, but in reality this man has done nationalists and counterjihad activists across the whole of Europe a massive disservice: he has handed our enemies a huge propaganda coup. Although we have nothing to do with him and roundly condemn him, we will be stigmatised by association no matter how tenuous and unfounded it may be. Just as the Stephen Lawrence case was used by the last Labour administration to implement and embed its anti-indigenous racist kulturkampf in the UK, so will the advocates of multiculturalism and appeasers of Islam across Europe use Breivik’s atrocity as a means to accelerate and embed their multiculturalist project. This is happening already, as Channel 4 reports that the Metropolitan Police are to launch an investigation into Breivik's claimed links with the EDL. There is thus a considerable risk that the flimsiest of pretexts will be employed to limit the operations of the EDL, or even to proscribe it. How much further might our liberties be whittled away as we become a new phantasmogorical enemy within to which our security agencies will misguidedly devote their attentions? Breivik, contrary to his self-professed objectives, will thus go down in history as an enabler of the Islamisation of Europe.
New eyewitness reports from last Saturday’s posted at the Atlas Shrugs blog provide more insight into what occurred and reveal a situation in which it appears that the police deliberately sought to break up the mass of EDL demonstrators by preventing a number of coaches from reaching the rendezvous point. Furthermore, at least one of these coaches and its passengers was sent to an area where circa 200 Muslims lay in wait. Subsequently, a small group of EDL men were set upon. This is alarming enough, but the fact that they are reported to have had wives, girlfriends and children with them makes this police redirection of the coach reckless at best.
Another eyewitness account published at Atlas Shrugs discusses an unprovoked police baton attack upon a protestor which left him with a head wound. Also, rather sinisterly, the riot police penning in the main body of EDL demonstrators were said not to have been wearing identification numbers. Similar tactics are said to have been employed in the Miners’ Strike back in the 80s.
This provides some context for the later anger of the protestors and their breakout from the compound. Atlas has suggested that these reports are indicative of a deliberate police effort to manufacture a situation in which the EDL could be readily and brutally dealt with whilst simultaneously portraying it as an aggressive force. Our new masters in Whitehall have already made their thoughts on Islam and the EDL abundantly clear: Islam good; EDL bad, therefore they will be looking for ways of stigmatising and banning the EDL. We need to ensure that an alternative narrative to that provided by the authorities and the official media is preserved. If any EDL members who were present in Dudley on Saturday wish to leave their accounts of the day in the comments section, please do so as they’d be welcome.
According to Sky News, twenty people have been arrest at today’s EDL demo in Dudley. It stated:
Members of the 500-strong demo reportedly threw cans and bricks at officers.
Part of the town had already been sealed off ahead of the demonstration, that was due to take place on the same day as a Unite Against Fascism rally.
Sky correspondent Darren Little said trouble erupted after when EDL members tore down metal barriers.
However, ITN has reported that the number of EDL members arrested stands at twelve. It is possible that members of UAF or the newly formed Muslim Defence League were also arrested, as they were present to confront the EDL and many UAF supporters have been arrested for violent offences at other demonstrations. We shall have to await further details before drawing any firm conclusions.
Any violence is regrettable, and anyone deliberately committing violent offences should suffer the consequences. The EDL in turn has criticised the police for not allowing the demonstrators to march through Dudley as they did in Newcastle recently, which is reported to have passed off peacefully. However, an EDL eyewitness account recently posted at the Gates of Vienna blog states that the incident in which six demonstrators were knocked over by a car appears to have arisen as a consequence of a number of EDL members throwing bricks at cars, and drivers understandably panicking. This is a tragic incident which highlights the need for all involved in these demonstrations not to engage in mindless behaviour such as this.
Naturally I feel sympathy for the shopkeepers in the area who felt that they were unable to trade today as well as for Dudley residents who now have another costly policing bill to foot. However, it is the negligence of our political leaders and their unwillingness to recognise let alone tackle the problem of Islamisation that has led to this situation. I hope to see the day when it is no longer necessary for people in the UK to demonstrate against Islamism because the authorities will finally have realised that their job is to look after their citizens instead of pandering to the wishes of those who wish to destroy our liberties and way of life by using our indulgence and tolerance against us. Our country has never been part of the Muslim world, and never will be. Any attempt to force Islam upon us is an act of aggression and should be treated as such.
Wilders has once again demonstrated his integrity and willingness to stand up to Islamisation whilst most politicians are too spineless to even name the process let alone stand up against it. He has my full support in this endeavour which I hope will be a great success across the five nations in which it initially launches. Wilders is correct in his analysis and millions of us know it to be true and support him. Geert, you are the Free World’s hope, and we know that you will be true to the cause.
Reporting of Wilders’s bold and necessary initiative has typically been couched in the deliberately misleading and stigmatising language that one has come to expect as routine from the mass media: Sky described him as “far-right”, whereas the Daily Mail this time settled for a mere “controversial”. The comments beneath the article in the Mail demonstrate that he has hit a chord with readers of the paper. Prepare to stand with Geert when the International Freedom Alliance is launched. In the interview below he expands on his thinking underlying his decision to create the IFA. Count me in!
To date the activity of the anti-Islamisation and counterjihad movement in England has concentrated on marches, static demonstrations and public speeches. In terms of electoral politics, those wishing to vote against Islamisation have been limited for choice, for Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are all keen advocates of Islamisation. If you happen to live in Scotland or Wales, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru are both fully paid-up supporters of Islamisation.
The party with the most robust attitude towards tackling Islamisation is the British National Party (BNP). Next comes the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), as Lord Pearson is certainly aware that Islamisation is a problem that needs to be tackled, but the snag is that last autumn he offered to dissolve his party if Cameron would agree to hold a referendum on EU membership. Given that Cameron and the majority of the parliamentary Conservative party advocate Islamisation and support Unite Against Fascism (UAF), I therefore think that whatever Pearson’s personal beliefs UKIP are an unreliable proposition. That’s not to say that the BNP doesn’t have problems, what with seemingly interminable infighting and an unwillingness to adopt the measures that I have previously outlined as necessary for its survival and emergence as a credible moderate nationalist party. It’s a sad state of affairs, but the BNP needs to reform itself otherwise it is heading nowhere other than the penumbra of British politics where it will continue to attract the bilious outpourings of the occasional NUJ hack but little else.
We need to act quickly to stem and then seek to reverse the process of Islamisation. Underpinning its rapid advance are four primary factors: a Muslim demographic explosion predicated upon high differential birth-rates and mass immigration; a lack of awareness amongst influential sections of our indigenous population as to the true nature of Islam (i.e. the misplaced belief that it is just a religion like any other); a pro-Islam political establishment and official media broadcaster (the BBC) which share an ideological commitment to multiculturalism and a practical desire to pander to target voters and audiences in the hunt for votes in marginal seats or market share, and finally, a legislative framework that protects and privileges Islam as well as Muslim immigrants (legal or otherwise).
What can we practically do? The first step, which both you the reader (unless you happen to be a Muslim or someone with pro-Muslim sympathies) and I the writer have undertaken is to acquaint ourselves with the reality of our ideological enemy and how it operates. Awaken friends, family and the general public (if you happen to blog) to the reality of Islam, but be careful not to become a monomaniacal bore on this subject lest you run the risk of turning people off. Drip feed information over a protracted period so that you manage to effect a gradual alteration in people’s consciousness and attitudes. Ensure that you challenge your interlocutor’s use of vocabulary whenever they use the following terms routinely employed in an attempt to stigmatise us: “Islamophobia” (and all the variations thereof); “racist”; “far-right”; “fascist”; “extremist”. Get them to define what they mean when they use these words and deconstruct their definitions, showing up the logical absurdities of the manner in which they have been applied to the critics of Islam. Then point out that these very terms “extremist”, “far-right” and “reactionary” apply to Islam and not to those who oppose it. Unless they’re a member of the Socialist Workers' Party or some kindred leftist sect, the scales ought to fall from their eyes.
So much for what can be done on the personal level, but what can be done beyond this? People have come to the counterjihad movement from a variety of ideological perspectives which have manifested themselves in a number of different organisations and campaigns. Putting aside the party political opposition to Islamisation found in the BNP and UKIP, we have the following main movements and campaigns in England: the English Defence League (EDL); One Law for All (OLFA) and Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). Each of these attracts a different type of membership and support, although these do to a certain extent overlap and possess complementary agendas. In terms of broad ideological orientation we can characterise these groups as follows: EDL – English nationalist; OLFA – traditional universalist progressive left/Marxist-Leninist; SIOE – Classical Liberal/Libertarian/Western Culturalist.
The EDL’s base of support is drawn predominantly from the English working class who have been increasingly politically marginalised in recent decades. Understandably, it draws upon the one spontaneous popular manifestation of working-class culture that has not been taken over and controlled by the middle classes: football hooligan firms. The EDL has undoubtedly been successful in mobilising large numbers of supporters in acts of popular protest up and down the country, whereas its sister organisations the Welsh Defence League (WDL) and Scottish Defence League (SDL) have exerted less appeal in their spheres of operation. This is due to the fact that it is England that has experienced the brunt of Islamisation, whereas Wales and Scotland have to date largely escaped its impact. The focus of the EDL is very much upon dealing with Islamisation in England, and thus forms the core of its popular moderate nationalist stance. However, it expresses solidarity with the counterjihad movement in other countries and with Israel.
OLFA is co-ordinated by Maryam Namazie, an Iranian émigré and Spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain as well as a Central Committee member of the Worker Communist Party of Iran (WCPI). It draws together a disparate range of organisations and individuals, receiving support from the National Secular Society, British Humanist Association, women’s rights and gay activists. Notable figures who have supported OLFA rallies include the philosopher AC Grayling and the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Its focus has been narrowly channelled at opposing the introduction of sharia into the UK, as well as opposition to sharia in other states, particularly Iran owing to the significant presence of WCPI members within the organisation. It lacks the mass presence and support of the EDL, but is seen by the media as the (barely) acceptable face of the anti-Islamisation movement (although the media do not use this term). It is internationalist and cosmopolitan in orientation and predominantly middle class.
Lastly but not least we have SIOE, which grew out of the furore surrounding the publication of the Mohammed cartoons by Jyllands-Posten in the autumn of 2005 and the attempts by Muslims across the globe to get them banned. SIOE was thus founded by those seeking to uphold the most precious values of Western civilisation: freedom of speech and freedom of expression. SIOE recognises that Islam is completely incompatible with these values and is thus implacably opposed to our way of life and must be removed from our societies. In this respect, SIOE is the most ideologically purist of the strands of counterjihad present in the UK today. Its stance can be characterised as robustly civic nationalist and culturist in the countries within which it has a presence, but it also recognises the essential need of moderate nationalists in different states to work together to oppose Islamisation.
SIOE may be comprised of a comparatively small number of intellectual activists, but its clout and international networks that reach beyond Europe help to shape and define the direction of the counterjihad movement. Unlike OLFA, SIOE is willing to team up with the EDL where their agendas are complementary. European parties to which it possesses close ideological affinities are the PVV, Vlaams Belang and the Sweden Democrats. In the UK there could be said to be some ties to the English Democrats and UKIP. SIOE like the EDL is a proscribed organisation for BNP members. The SIOE’s main presence is in cyberspace through its network of counterjihad bloggers.
As you can see, the counterjihad movement in England and the UK more widely is fragmented but growing. It has displayed a diverse range of tactics including marches, rallies, speeches, petitioning, blogging and international conferences. However, the EDL, OLFA and SIOE have all been meeting increasingly vociferous and violent opposition from Islamists and their leftist confederates in UAF and the SWP. Although the existence of the EDL is now quite widely known of amongst the general public, the NUJ have deployed their arsenal of pejorative terms in order to try and place it beyond the pale of respectability. OLFA has attained a certain profile with a particular type of Radio 4 listener, but SIOE remains practically invisible for most of the public and misunderstood and deliberately misreported by the mass media.
So, returning to the question of what more can be done to counter Islamisation, I would like to draw your attention to some imaginative initiatives in France. Most recently we had the apero geant pork sausage and wine party/protest in Paris organised by Sylvie François, Bloc Identitaire, Riposte Laique and a coalition of assorted political groups and bloggers. Although the prefecture banned the protest from taking place in the Goutte d’Or as originally intended, over 1,000 people turned up for a good-natured protest in central Paris. This demonstrated the power of social networking, in this instance using Facebook, to arrange a novel mode of protest that captured the popular imagination and drew the French public’s attention to the fact that certain areas of Paris are now de facto and de jure no-go zones for non-Muslims.
Here in England we have witnessed an increasing number of businesses making themselves halal-compliant by phasing out pork products and introducing items produced using cruel halal slaughter techniques. This has led to calls for boycotts of KFC, Asda and Tesco amongst others. These have had a limited degree of success, but KFC has at least had to conduct a superficial PR exercise by abandoning its halal-only menu in a small number of its outlets, so it is to a certain extent sensitive to the loss of public reputation and trade that such boycotts can bring about. In France earlier this year, protesters in Lyon organised by Rebeyne! Les Jeunes Identitaires Lyonnaisreacted to the introduction of halal-only menus at one of their fast-food outlets – Quick – by turning up en masse at a local branch of Quick wearing pig masks, singing songs and chanting “we are all pork eaters” (it probably loses some resonance in translation!). See what happened in the video below:
Now, I am not suggesting that here in England we should carry out carbon copies of these French examples, but what they illustrate is an imaginative way of promoting the anti-Islamisation message. Given that people with dogs, including the blind, have been told that they cannot get onto buses or into taxis because either the driver or one of the passengers is a Muslim (see this story from the Daily Telegraph) how about organising a protest involving dogs? The British are renowned as a nation of dog lovers, so a mass dogwalk in a park that has been Islamised would be one way of reclaiming our public space in a good-natured fashion. Let guide-dogs lead the way! If we could combine this with an alcoholic tipple and sausages and bacon, so much the better.
We need to continue spreading our message and to gain a momentum that becomes unstoppable. The advocates of Islamisation are already mounting a risible effort to persuade us that Islam is wholesome and benign through the Inspired by Muhammad campaign, and only today the BBC devoted a good proportion of its Sunday morning programme The Big Questions to debating the question “does Islam need better PR?” This is unsurprising given that the BBC’s controller of religious programming is a Muslim, and the programme audience and panel had been selected to reflect a pro-Islam bias. Disgustingly, the New Statesman and Guardian journalist Mehdi Hassan was on hand to proselytise for the Islamic cause (for his dehumanising views on us atheists listen to the clip below).
We must not cease in our unwavering campaign of awareness raising to ensure that the gains that Islam has made within our shores are ultimately uprooted and that the process of Islamisation is thrown into firm reverse. Nothing in history is inevitable. We can be the makers of our own destiny should we choose to fashion a better future. In our societies we can turn Islam into what it should be: a historical footnote.
Between 2pm and 4pm this afternoon a rally against sharia and other religious laws is being held in London at the Richmond Terrace junction with Whitehall. The first report that I posted on this blog concerned the inaugural One Law for All protest which took place in Trafalgar Square in March 2009, and although I attended that event, I shall not be attending today’s. Why? Simply because its organiser – Maryam Namazie (pictured above speaking to one of her Worker-Communist Party of Iran colleagues) – has chosen to stigmatise most people participating in the counterjihad movement in the UK as “far-right”. I am not “far-right” and I’m fed up to the back teeth of this term being used to attack dissenting voices and positions in our society which are critical of Islam and multiculturalist dogma.
whilst racist and far Right groups like the English Defence League and the British Nationalist Party blame ‘Muslim immigration’ for Sharia law in order to further their inhuman agenda, it is people living under Islamic laws or the many who have fled Sharia and sought refuge here who are the principal victims of Islamism, and in the forefront of the struggle against it.
Furthermore, she also states that there is “an affinity between the far right and the Islamists”, that “[w]e will have nothing to do with the English Defence League” and that “[t]he right to asylum is a basic human right”.
She also links the campaign against sharia in the UK to a campaign against sharia in Iran. Much as I dislike Islam and its legal code, have we not already borne sufficient witness to the fact that we should not meddle in the affairs of Muslim states or go to war with them when our own political and cultural elites are capitulating to Islam in our home countries? We need to deal with Islamisation here in the UK and elsewhere in the non-Muslim world. Namazie’s position simply propels us in the direction of World War III at a time when our people are confused, weak in spirit and (rightly) cleave to life, whereas their opponents in the Muslim world see a ‘martyr’s death’ in jihad (which is what they would term such a conflict) as something to aspire to rather than fear. As matters stand, we would lose such a struggle because our leaders lack the requisite will to take whatever measures would be necessary.
Namazie’s stance on the much-abused concept of ‘asylum’ and immigration actually fuels our Islamisation. So, why is she advocating actions that will actually intensify conflict with Islam and undermine our rapidly vanishing demographic solidarity? Why is she fond of using the tactic of stigmatization exemplified in her ready resort to the use of “far-right” and “racist”? The answer is quite straightforward: because she is a hard-line doctrinaire Marxist-Leninist, a member of the Central Committee of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran. She therefore views the prospect of violent conflict as something very much 'inherent in the system' (as Marxists are wont to say) for she suffers from the Marxist delusion that such conflict would usher in a new era of global peace, prosperity and equality. It would not. It would usher in an age of death, misery, poverty and human decline.
In a reply to an EDL member who left a comment on her One Law for All website rebutting Namazie’s allegation that the EDL are ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’ Namazie shows her formulaic Marxist-Leninist logic kicking in (spelling and grammatical errors preserved):
Sorry we are not in total agreement.
Again the numbers of Black people someone knows is neither here nor there. I know a footballer – does that make me one or even mean I like football… not sure why this argument is being used as the main argument in defence of EDL – either there isn’t much more to defend or poor logic has taken hold of supporters.
You have Black people in the EDL – as you have white people in Islamist organisations. Not sure what that says about the organisations in question…
More importantly, you make a mistake comparing EDL with Muslims. Of course most Muslims are not terrorists and most British are not racists. But the EDL and polical Islam are rightwing political movements and ideologies that are inhuman and reactionary.
Finally, you should be very uncomfortable about the EDL rather than apologizing for it if you aren’t racist, which I am sure is the case. No other alternative – of course there is – you should be standing with us against both racism and Islamism.
The EDL supporters remind of the pathetic excuse of a European left that stand with Islamism because their enemey’s enemy is their friend. I think a lot of people are falling for this very poor logic in defending the EDL. Having said that though, I think people fall for organisations they have some affinity to.
There you have it. Namazie is no friend of those in the UK who seek to resist Islamisation via the only real means possible: moderate nationalism. We moderate nationalists are in Maryam’s words “inhuman and reactionary”, unlike the humane mass murderer Lenin of course! That is why I won’t be taking part in this afternoon’s protest.
Electors go to the polls in the Netherlands on 9 June to cast their ballots in the country’s general election. Nationalists and anti-Islamists across Europe will be watching with expectation to see how Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) fare. Although opinion polls indicate that the popularity of Wilders and the PVV has fallen slightly in recent months, they are still indicating an increase in support from the last election in 2006 during which the PVV secured nine of the seats in the 150-member House of Representatives. Even with a slight dip in support for the PVV, it is anticipated that they will take between 16 and 20 seats next month which would make them the fourth largest party. Last time they came fifth, but this time around the Netherlands’ Socialist Party is predicted to take 9 or 10 seats rather than the 25 that they won four years ago.
Wilders has of course gained worldwide renown for his brave stand against Islamism and the Islamisation of his country, but as well as drawing attention to the immense social costs that this has imposed upon the Netherlands, he has also been highlighting the economic expense of mass immigration. A new study released this month validates Wilders’s position, for it estimates that mass immigration costs the Netherlands a net 7.2 billion euros a year. This is a fact that the other Dutch political parties have sought to bury, so perhaps the release of these figures will assist Wilders in the electoral campaign and increase his projected share of the vote and number of parliamentary seats.
Scandalously, Wilders is currently facing prosecution in his home country for ‘hate speech’ owing to the content of his short film Fitna which shows Islamist terrorist acts juxtaposed with verses from the Qur’an which justify and call for violence against non-Muslims. This prosecution is baseless and clearly politically motivated. Freedom of expression in Western societies should be sacrosanct, although in recent years of course we have seen this right eroded owing to the ascendancy of multiculturalism, cultural relativism and political correctness which have assumed a hegemonic position amongst our governing elites. The loss of will on the part of our political, educational and cultural elites to defend our national cultures and broader Western civilisation has allowed Islam and its exponents to make headway and entrench itself in our societies. Wilders and kindred brave politicians, writers and artists across Europe are our only hope of resisting and rolling back the tide of Islam.
If the BNP is to make a true breakthrough in the UK it would do well to consider the position of the PVV and learn from its positive pro-Western pro-individualist and libertarian agenda. Mutterings about such parties and the wider counterjihad movement as being part of some fantastical ‘Zionist plot’ are very much misplaced.
For those who have not watched Fitna, the film can be accessed below.
