The Arab Spring and Euromed

How might these two be linked? The first, an outbreak of mass popular unrest in many countries of the Arab world, in which political Islam plays a significant role; the second, a process initiated by the European Union without the consent of indigenous Europeans for the managed mass ingress of Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. Are there indeed, any links? No sentient member of the adult population in our country can have failed to have heard of the Arab Spring, yet how many of our citizens have heard of Euromed? Euromed is after all, not something that has been widely publicised, for were it to be so, our people would vociferously object to it; not that this objection would necessarily make any difference to policy of course, for the strong opposition of a majority in Britain to mass immigration has not lessened the intent of the globalist parties – Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative – to facilitate this process. 

Euromed – or the Euro-Mediterranean Process to give it its official title – lists the following as its primary aims:

• Create a common area of peace and stability through political dialogue
• Construct a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free trade zone
• Promote the rapprochement between peoples by encouraging social, cultural, and human exchanges between cultures and civil societies; The partnership has two complementary dimensions:

• The bilateral dimension: the EU carries out substantial co-operation activities bilaterally with each country, the most important being the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements.
• The regional dimension: one of the most innovative aspects of the Partnership, covering the political, economic and cultural areas of regional co-operation.

With respect to the first of these aims, one can have few quibbles, for the citizens of EU member states surely do not wish for conflict with the states of North Africa and the Middle East. However, once we move away from the first of these goals, the implications for the people of Britain and the other member states of the EU become rather more worrying, for after all, was not the EU itself sold to the peoples of Europe as a free trade area rather than a superstate? The second bullet point in effect lays the economic foundations for political union between the EU and the majority Muslim states of North Africa and the Middle East. Indeed, this intent is alluded to in the third major strand promoting the ‘rapprochement between peoples’ which in effect amounts to the colonisation of a demographically ageing Europe by the high fertility peoples from the southern and eastern littoral of the Mediterranean.

The political tumult in the Arab world which became known as the Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December 2010, rapidly spreading to other countries in the region and ultimately leading to the overthrow of governments in Tunisia, Egypt and – with the assistance of foreign intervention – Libya. By the time the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union met for the 3069^th time on 21 February 2011, significant unrest had manifested itself in fifteen Arab states and the EU was readying itself to declare in favour of the anti-establishment forces now flexing their muscles in these countries, irrespective of the nature of the movements involved.

This meeting adopted a number of conclusions, the first of which made the following tenuous claim: “Europe and the Mediterranean region share a common history and cultural heritage.” Well, if we except the history of conflict that has bedevilled the Mediterranean since the arrival of Islam, this region actually shares nothing in terms of a common cultural heritage and history since the demise of the Roman Empire. I would contend that despite the intense efforts of the early Church to eradicate much of Classical philosophy and scholarship, it is the European nations that today owe much to Ancient Greece and Rome, whereas the rational influence of Classical Antiquity is far more attenuated in those states that fell to Islam. In reality therefore, non-Muslim European peoples and Muslims inhabit fundamentally different psychological and cultural universes. Contrary to the assertion of the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU, there is thus no meaningful “common history and cultural heritage”; we belong to two separate civilisations.

On 29 August 2011 the Council of the European Commission issued a press release regarding its establishment of a ‘humanitarian presence’ in Libya. Amongst the measures it enumerated were:

• Assistance to the people fleeing Libya
• Assistance to refugees who cannot go back to their home country and Libyans fleeing Libya

One of the primary partners associated with this activity was the International Organization for Migration (IOM) which was founded in 1951 with the slogan of ‘Migration for the Benefit of All’. As is evident from this slogan, it can hardly be adjudged to be a neutral body with respect to the question of international migration which is attested to by the following statements taken from its website:

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society.

As the leading international organization for migration, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to:

• Assist in meeting the growing operational challenges of migration management.

• Advance understanding of migration issues.

• Encourage social and economic development through migration.

• Uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.

Strategic Focus:

1. To provide secure, reliable, flexible and cost-effective services for persons who require international migration assistance.

2. To enhance the humane and orderly management of migration and the effective respect for the human rights of migrants in accordance with international law.

3. To offer expert advice, research, technical cooperation and operational assistance to States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, in order to build national capacities and facilitate international, regional and bilateral cooperation on migration matters.

The Italian island of Lampedusa has this year been swamped by tens of thousands of immigrants issuing from Tunisia, Libya and sub-Saharan Africa using the turmoil of the Arab Spring as a pretext to claim ‘political asylum’ in the EU, whilst in fact being economic migrants. Many of these have clearly stated that they wish to settle in Britain, in particular, England.

Underpinning the goals of Euromed is the misplaced assumption that people are little more than interchangeable economic units, with the cultural identities that they carry counting for little, and that no culture can be judged to be superior to any other. Thus, think the policy makers of the EU and the advocates of multiculturalism, it matters but little if the imported population differs radically in its mentality and customs from native Europeans. It is the opinion of the author that this supposition is both fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Culture matters greatly.

Now that Qaddhafi is dead and Libya finds itself under a National Transitional Council; that Tunisia has become a democracy, and Egyptians head to the polls for their national elections on 28 November, the formal preconditions for Euromed’s transformation are being laid: the establishment of democratic forms of governance. The ultimate aim of both Euromed and the British foreign policy establishment is the accession of the Arab states of the Mediterranean littoral and Turkey to the EU; a greater Europe in which European values are effectively replaced by Islam, and the European peoples by Afro-Asiatics. In effect, this Euromed hybrid would not constitute so much the rebirth of the Roman Empire, as a renewed Caliphate with universal ambitions.

Cameron, Hague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are continuing to push exactly the same line with respect to EU enlargement as was pursued under the Blair and Brown administrations. Recognition of this continuity is important, insofar as former Foreign Secretary and failed Labour Leadership candidate David Miliband made clear in a speech delivered on 15 November 2007 that not only should Turkey join the EU, but that the EU should look in the longer term to create a:

version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.

Such a move would be suicidal for Britain and the peoples of Europe. It would be far more rational and beneficial for us to orientate ourselves towards a Euro-Siberian geopolitical axis, rather than towards a North-South Euro-Mediterranean one. Alas, our foreign policy establishment and that of the EU is instead intent upon manufacturing a non-existent enemy in the form of Russia.

The precise ideological complexions of the governments that emerge from the unrest of the Arab Spring have yet to fully reveal themselves, but there exists one certainty: Islamism will play a large if not a predominant role in the politics of these countries. Already in Tunisia we see a coalition government led by the Islamist Ennadha Party; in Libya, Islamists play a significant role in the National Transitional Council and fighting has broken out between rival militias; and in Egypt, the prospect of an Islamist victory in this month’s elections looms large. Egyptian secularists and Copts live in fear of the rise of Islamism, and whereas apprehensions on this score have hitherto focused upon the long-established Muslim Brotherhood, another allegedly more ‘radical’ Islamist party – the Nour Party – linked to Saudi Salafists, has emerged and is causing even greater concerns. Its supporters are reported as having torn down election posters for the Muslim Brotherhood, and whereas Nour is Arabic for “light”, any success on the part of this party of light would serve to bring only the darkness of religious obscurantism to Egypt. According to the Financial Times, Saudi finance is believed to underpin its rise.

Why did the UK intervene in the Libyan conflict? This intervention was ostensibly launched in the name of the principle of ‘humanitarian interventionism’, invoking Qaddhafi’s prospective slaughter of Libyan rebels as a casus belli. Although there was a degree of apprehension amongst sections of the press and some politicians with respect to the wisdom of this move, the public mood at the time was manipulated in a sufficiently skilful manner by the ConDem Coalition so as to win majority support for air strikes. Al-Qaeda militants were known to be amongst the rebels, yet our government took the decision to enter the conflict on their side. The reasons for this are undoubtedly complex and beyond the scope of this particular article, but the implications of the creation of façade democracies in a number of North African countries and their recognition by the EU states are significant. Firstly, it bestows legitimacy on the new governments in the eyes of EU policy makers; secondly, it allows the peoples of the region to express their natural political preference for Islamism; and thirdly, it paves the way for these states to move towards political association with, and eventual membership of, the EU, thus sounding the death knell of European civilisation. Is this what you want? Would this make our lives better? I think not.   

The Member States of Euromed

“The Muslim community provides a huge vibrancy and richness to British life”. Ed Miliband

Thus said the leader of the Labour Party in a recent interview. Like his brother, the Islamophiliac David, Ed believes in promoting multiculturalism red in tooth and claw and is probably tattooed with a halal kitemark: 100% dhimmi. In response to a question from the editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J. Versi, as to what his “relationship with the Muslim community” will look like, Miliband replied:

I want to make a new start with the Muslim community. The Muslim community provides a huge vibrancy and richness to British life. It is very important that we acknowledge that and it is something that I am seeking to do that as a Leader of the Labour Party. I want to do and will do, in terms of my outreach conversations with the Muslim community. I had very interesting experiences when I was Minister for Voluntary Sector in talking to various groups that were involved in the Muslim community.

Of course, I’ve never trusted either of the Miliband brothers, or for that there political home – the Labour Party – for many years. Nonetheless, it is worth repeatedly drawing our people’s attention to the fact that Miliband the younger, just as Cameron, Clegg and Simon Hughes, is very actively courting the Muslim bloc vote. All are willing to maintain and extend Muslim special privileges in doing so, irrespective of Cameron’s cynically calculated public condemnation of state-promoted multiculturalism.

What is Miliband referring to when he refers to “a huge vibrancy and richness”? Any suggestions? A few curry houses and mosques sprouting like toxic toadstools? The abuse of language by the advocates of multiculturalism in recent years has come to stigmatise previously innocuous terms such as ‘diversity’, ‘vibrancy’ and ‘enrichment’, for they have been employed as euphemisms for ‘Balkanisation’, ‘aggressive and shrill minority assertiveness’ and ‘erosion of indigenous culture and confidence’. And what does Miliband imply when he says that Labour must “acknowledge” these putatively positive contributions? Additional legal concessions to Islam and targeted investment in ‘deprived’ Muslim colonies (‘communities’ in newspeak)?

It was sad to see the return of a Labour candidate to Barnsley Central recently, with 63% of the 37% of voters who bothered to turn out putting their cross in the Labour box. People in places such as Barnsley need to wake up to the fact that this inherited tribal party loyalty is long since past its sell-by date. Their Labour Party of old died decades ago, and embraced the principles of the New Left with its obsessive focus upon ethnic minority special privileges, jettisoning its previous concern with the bread and butter issues of the daily welfare of the working people and the protection of their jobs and standard of living.

The mainstream Labour Party view today is that Barnsley fully deserves its pariah label as a ‘racist town’, simply because it still contains an overwhelming majority of English people. They would much prefer Barnsley if it were to have a large ‘vibrant’ Pakistani ‘community’. How about some Somalis with an admixture of Kosovans for good measure? Who knows what the future could bring: a sprinkle of Libyans and Tunisians perhaps? Barnsley folk however, are I daresay all too aware of the ‘vibrancy’ of nearby towns and cities such as Dewsbury, Bradford and Sheffield, and would rather cleave to the pleasantly non-vibrant social milieu of England in its pre-‘enrichment’ years. The Milibands of this world however, will never deviate from the view that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and that the English are essentially a vile bunch of ‘racists’. Don’t vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Look elsewhere for parties to support, which care about our country and our people, and do not seek to provide privileges to aggressive minority interlopers.

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron, Hague and the FCO are continuing to push exactly the same line with respect to EU enlargement as was pursued under the Blair and Brown administrations. Recognition of this continuity is important insofar as former Foreign Secretary and failed Labour Leadership candidate David Miliband made clear in a speech delivered on 15 November 2007 that not only should Turkey join the EU, but that the EU should look in the longer term to create a:

version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.

In an address delivered on 5 November 2009 in Istanbul Miliband stated:

I am pleased to be back in Turkey for my fourth visit as Foreign Secretary. Turkey is a key partner for the UK. And it's a European partner: I am very clear that Turkish accession to the EU is important and will be of huge benefit to both Turkey and the EU.

I'll be discussing this with Turkey's Chief EU negotiator Egemen Bagis later today, and along with a number of other foreign policy priorities, with Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu tomorrow.

Another failed Labour leadership hopeful, Ed Balls, was also a strong advocate for Turkey’s EU entry. Labour’s last election manifesto contained a disturbing passage pledging to secure Turkey’s membership, stressing that this was vital.

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

The Union for the Mediterranean promotes economic integration and democratic reform across 16 neighbours to the EU’s south in North Africa and the Middle East.

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

Oecumene: Citizenship after Orientalism focuses on the tension between two different institutions: citizenship, the process by which belonging is recognised and enacted, and orientalism, the process by which European political institutions are considered originary and primary. What connects citizenship to orientalism is that citizenship has been historically seen as a Judeo-Christian institution contrasted against Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, and Hinduism. The project revisits questions of citizenship as political subjectivity in ‘orientalized worlds’ through genealogical investigations without orientalist assumptions. The aim is not only to uncover citizenship practices that remained either invisible or inaudible in other worlds but also to explore the possibilities of a renewed and expanded understanding of European citizenship.

All of the above aim at a single objective: the destruction (or, as I’m sure its proponents would see it, the ‘transcendence’) of indigenous European peoples and identities. Calls are already being made to admit large numbers of economic migrants (described as ‘refugees’) from the countries undergoing upheaval in the Arab world, and this is one way in which our societies can be undermined and Islamised. If any or all of the countries experiencing this wave of political upheaval become authoritarian states of an Islamist stripe, then this will be used as a pretext to let in more economic migrants arriving with the ostensible aim of finding ‘political asylum’. If any or all of the aforementioned countries should introduce some form of formal democratic process, then the advocates of Euromed will push for eventual EU membership for these states and the end result for us will be the same: mass economic migration from the Muslim world to Europe, Islamisation, the death of our liberties and way of life, and a drastic fall in the standard of living. This is why Turkey’s possible accession to the EU is such an important matter, and why it should not be permitted.

Labour Leadership Hopefuls: a Comparison

Well, the aspirant candidates for the Labour leadership are now busy setting out their stalls and I for one must confess to being deeply underwhelmed by the entire process. Why? It’s the policy stupid (or should I say, lack of it).

So, given that nobody else has bothered to prepare a guide to Labour leadership contenders for British nationalists, I thought that I’d devise one of my own, comparing the stances of the candidates on a range of key issues of concern. Are you excited? Me neither.

Anyway, so who are the contending 'colossi' of the bogus flat-cap, abandoned whippet, prawn cocktail munching, ‘Allahu akbar’ appeasing, globalist, warmongering, British betraying Labour Party? They are: Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, David Miliband and Ed Miliband. Four of these have held ministerial portfolios and they were all dreadful at their jobs. However, I would like to start this ‘analysis’ by ditching any concern for policy and having a straightforward snipe at personalities. We take can look at the ‘substance’ of policy ‘differences’ later.

Diane Abbott, as you know, is black and a woman to boot. This obviously qualifies her to be leader in the eyes of the majority of Labourites because none of her opponents are black or a woman. If she lost, the Labour Party would be ‘racist’ as well as 'sexist' wouldn’t it, which couldn’t possibly be right, right?

Two of the contenders have peculiar untrustworthy eyes. There is something of the goldfish about Ed Balls and his bulging ocular orbits, whereas Andy Burnham for some reason brings to mind a soft toy with his wide lachrymose eyes. I’m not convinced that ‘Tiny Tears’ Burnham is altogether human, and it’s probably the case that he was fabricated from plastic in a dodgy Chinese mannequin plant: “squeeze me and I cry.” Both Balls and Burnham are rumoured to be English, but they would probably go the extra mile to deny this fact.

Then we have the Miliband brothers, scions of leading Marxist Ralph, writer of The State in Capitalist Society which used to be (and probably still is) compulsory reading on undergraduate sociology and politics courses. Just for fun, I’m going to borrow a piece of nasty yet appropriate jargon from the period of high Stalinism: these two are what jovial Uncle Joe would have referred to as “rootless cosmopolitans”. True to “rootless cosmopolitan” form, the elder Miliband brother was a disaster as Foreign Secretary and seemed to view his task as being the dismantling of any concept of the national interest that remained rather than its furtherance.

Anyway, let’s move on to boring old policy. I say “boring” because none of these Labour droids will actually possess any policy differences, and the line that they take will be uniformly anti-national. Still, let’s check and take a look at their stances on the following: Islamisation, mass immigration, the EU, multiculturalism, political correctness and globalisation. Having carried out an exhaustive analysis of their respective positions I can tell you that each and every one of them is rabidly in favour of every single one of these. Oh hang on, it does seem that I may have rushed to a precipitate judgement, for ‘Tiny Tears’ Burnham dissented from one of these positions when the Archbishop of Canterbury made his idiotic statement in favour of Sharia. Burnham is quoted as saying:

This isn't a path down which we should go... the British legal system should apply to everybody equally. You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That would, in my view, be a recipe for chaos, social chaos.

Still, he like Balls and Abbott has only been whingeing about white Eastern European immigration, so his policy position would continue to fan the flames of Islamisation as immigration from the Muslim world would in effect be unimpeded.

So, there you have it: Labour of our grandparents RIP. A plague on all their houses. I don’t give a hoot who becomes the new leader of the Labour Party: same old Labour, same old lies.

Gordon Brown Lies about Immigration (again)

Gordon Brown cynically attempted to pull the wool over voters’ eyes today by pretending that he was doing something to regulate mass immigration. However, he is fully aware of the fact that he and his party have deliberately engineered mass immigration and that they remain totally ideologically convinced of its merits. The measures that Brown announced today were, as  Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch noted, “trivial”. They will do nothing whatsoever to stem the rise in our skyrocketing population, and in reality they are not intended to do so.

Brown, and dishonest fellow Labour Party member Alan Johnson, are pretending to listen to ordinary Britons’ concerns about immigration and making soothing noises about this matter purely because they know that people utterly disagree with their policy and are considering voting for the BNP. This is the sole reason that Labour has even bothered to introduce meaningless and completely ineffective ‘controls’ on immigration. The Labour Party remains committed to the very core of its being to the destruction of our national fabric.

Nobody should be gulled into thinking that Labour is for one moment sounding a genuine note of contrition vis-à-vis the immigration scandal. It is a party of globalist internationalists. They lied about the Lisbon Treaty and they have presided over our national absorption into the emergent EU totalitarian super-state. Miliband and many others now wish to swiftly facilitate Turkey’s entry to the EU, which will hasten the Islamisation of Europe and our country. They prostrate themselves before Islam, and use the pretext of the “war on terror” to gag and monitor us all. They hate England and the English with a particular vehemence, and thus give it and its people no recognition either institutionally (in the form of an English parliament), or even on the census form. Frank Field should leave the Labour Party, for he does himself no favours by remaining part of this morally, intellectually and literally bankrupt entity.

Gordon Brown. We have heard what you said today and we know you for a liar. Your time is coming to a close, and someday I hope that you are brought to account for your deliberate destructive assault upon my nation.

Reference: "PM to 'tighten' migration rules', BBC, 12 November 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8356226.stm

David Miliband: a Traitor and a Fool

David Miliband is a traitor. This man is a dangerous extremist who must be removed from office. He created a team within the FCO to pump out anti-UK propaganda in order to facilitate the removal of our national sovereignty and our subsequent absorption into the EU. This in itself is treachery, but his plans for the EU and their consequences for the historic peoples of Europe are even worse.

Miliband the elder is a strong advocate of Turkish entry to the EU. He wishes to see Middle Eastern and North African Muslim states become associates of the EU, and for them to gain eventual full membership. If he is not removed, our fate will be dhimmitude. Like locusts, these hostile aliens will eat up all that is of value in our nations and transform them into unrecognisable wastelands. Our ways of life, our cultures, our freedoms, our histories shall all be destroyed. Their memories shall be execrated and erased. We as European peoples will become lesser beings in our own lands, lorded over by implacably cruel Islamic overlords who will compel us to convert or murder us in our millions. Geert Wilders knows this, as did Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. All have been slandered by the British media (particularly the BBC) as "right-wing extremists", "racists" and "fascists".

If you have ever voted for the Labour Party or are still a member, wake up! Miliband and his colleagues wish to lead us into a perpetual bondage the like of which our people have never known. The atrocities of William the Bastard would pale before those that would await us under Islamic domination. Islam divides humans into believers and non-believers, a categorisation akin to the Nazi ubermensch/untermensch or the Communist proletarian/bourgeois dichotomies. In each case, members of the former categories are given dominion over the lives and fates of members of the latter. In each instance, the second of each pairing is singled out for annihilation in a quest for ideological purity.

The difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim is nothing more than a matter of time: the former is prepared to wait to achieve domination through demographic means, whereas the latter aims to force the pace of the process through acts of political violence. The approaches therefore respectively resemble those of the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Both paths lead to the same destination: the annihilation of we non-Muslims.

This terrible future is not inevitable. We can stop it peacefully, but we can only do so by first becoming aware of this threat and then taking control of our borders and giving no concessions to Islam in the UK and the other states of Europe: no more Muslim immigration; not one more mosque and no inward investment from Saudia Arabia channeled through so-called religious 'charities'. We must alter the teaching of our younger generation so that the truth about this odious anti-human ideology is known from the outset: Islam is an imperialist death cult. Islam is an enemy of reason. Islam is the scourge of women. Islam is an ideological cancer. Islam is not the answer to anything.

Watch Miliband prattle here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9cufg_david-miliband-calls-for-better-rel_news

See him bleat how we must "understand Islam" and respect that there are many ways of living our lives in accordance with "universal values." It matters not that what he says is nonsense, a mere act of doublethink. Of course, he does not mean "understand" in the real sense of the word; what he implies is that we should "defer to", "submit to" and "surrender to" Islam. This man is a liar. This man is a fool with no understanding of geopolitics and no respect for the indigenous citizens of the country in which he resides. He is a self-interested careerist; a dunderheaded cosmopolitan who does not understand that Islam is like cyanide: the smallest drop added to the most innocuous of drinks transforms its nature for the drinker quite radically.

He calls for a "coalition of consent" between the Islamic and non-Islamic world. This is an excursion into meaningless and dangerous fantasy. There can be only three explanations for his attitude: 1) he does not comprehend what Islam is and the deep intrinsic significance that it possesses for its adherants; 2) he is a closet Muslim convert; 3) he is an unprincipled sociopath. Then again, he could be all three. For further details, take a look at the following Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6329983.ece