Nationalism and the Counterjihad: a new Party?

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

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

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

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

A work by William Blake, not by Lee Barnes

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone agreed that we are now at a hinge of history. What happens in the next few months or years is crucial to the future of liberty, democracy, and European culture. Prompt action is required, because the worldwide financial crisis will soon reach a climax and limit our choices.

It is interesting to note that participants in this gathering agreed upon a common position opposing EU membership and multiculturalism which fits neatly into a nationalist political paradigm. In recent months in particular, there have been some confused messages emanating from the EDL with respect to ‘multiculturalism’, with the movement at times opposing it and at others endorsing it. The EDL needs to take an unequivocal stand that firmly condemns multiculturalism, for if it does not, it will have misunderstood what is enabling the Islamisation of Britain and will not therefore be able to combat it.

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

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

Bodissey concludes his report of the weekend gathering by stating:

The following day (Sunday September 25) the same group met in a different location in London. This was a broader meeting, attended by a number of additional British participants, including another member of the BFP and a representative from UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party). We elaborated on the previous day’s topics in informal discussions, some of which took place in sub-groups over food and drink.

The meeting adjourned early in the evening so that those who had travelled long distances could make their way home.

This is all very interesting and raises many more questions than it answers. The nationalist political scene in Britain, and in England in particular, is becoming increasingly fragmented with numerous micro-parties, campaigns and movements springing up as the BNP continues its slow-motion implosion under Nick Griffin’s disastrous stewardship. However, many decent nationalists outside of the Griffin clique remain within the BNP as attested to by the contributions to the BNP Ideas website set up by MEP Andrew Brons. Indeed, on Saturday 22 October the BNP Ideas Conference will be held at an as yet to be disclosed location in the East Midlands. Recent articles by veteran nationalist John Bean make it clear that he and many others now believe that the BNP is effectively finished, and that a new nationalist political party is required. Could this link in with the party proposal mentioned by Bodissey? 

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

Should the EDL field Candidates for Election?

This week, the Daily Star has run a number of articles on the EDL that in contrast to those routinely encountered in the British press and electronic media did not possess a condemnatory tone. Gone were the obligatory stigmatising tags of ‘far-right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, etc, to be replaced instead with neutral straightforward reporting. Naturally, for the Guardian and the New Statesman, both bastions of the cultural relativist Left, this was in contravention of their ‘no platform’ credo for the EDL. Commentators at both publications gave vent to their priggery by indulging in their distaste for the Daily Star and its plebeian preoccupation with “tits and bums” as if the self-righteous Guardian-reading classes somehow managed to routinely reproduce asexually, and were mortified by any thought of pleasures of the flesh.

Sophisticated the Star may not be, but I do not concur with the NUJ hacks of the ‘Grauniad’ and New Statesman that it should have to submit to their strictures of national-masochistic groupthink, and the fact that it has not done so this week is the reason why I for a change have looked into its content. Contrary to the assertion that its coverage of the EDL was ‘supportive’, it appears to have been perfectly balanced, unlike that of either the Guardian or the New Statesman. Whilst finding the EDL utterly beyond the pale, the latter publications found it perfectly understandable and agreeable for Islamo-Marxists Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq to have insulted the bravery of Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher through refusing to stand as part of an ovation in honour of his receipt of the George Cross. This was a gross affront to Croucher, who displayed exemplary gallantry whilst serving in Afghanistan by throwing himself upon a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. Whereas Croucher’s act was one of undoubted selfless heroism, that of Yaqoob and Ishtiaq was one of selfish politicking; a petty-minded gesture aimed at fishing for votes in the filthy pool of Muslim communal politics.

Contrary to what Yaqoob and Ishtiaq will aver, they will be happy that EDL leader Tommy Robinson has now vowed to bring the EDL out onto the streets of Birmingham on 19 March to show displeasure at the snubbing of Lance Corporal Croucher. The Islamo-Marxist councillors will adopt the usual ruse of misrepresenting the EDL as some kind of contemporary blackshirt movement in an effort to mobilise their ‘community’ (sic) by playing upon the fears of local Muslim electors. This was the first of the EDL stories run by the Daily Star this week. Next came the headline that caused consternation in other sections of the press, as pictured below:

This headline was prompted by Robinson’s response to a question as to whether the EDL would field candidates in local and national elections. He replied:

“We aren’t ruling it out. I think this country needs a party that’s not afraid to say things some would consider unpopular.”

“My hope is still that the Tories will take a tougher stance.”

“We are a single issue group and at the moment we would rather have a dialogue with the other political parties – but that could change.”

Hence, although he has not categorically ruled out the political option, he has displayed a politician’s judgement in the wording that he chose with respect to the future. According to the Star, a telephone poll indicated that 98% of its readers would be willing to vote for EDL candidates (no sample size or details of methodology were provided).

However, after running three neutral stories about the EDL over the past week (the third focusing on threats to behead Robinson and members of his family) the Star on Sunday reverted to the NUJ line and ran with the story 'Paedo Rap for EDL Leader'. The headline was prompted by the conviction of Richard Price - one of the EDL's former senior members - for downloading child porn. Price is no longer a member of the EDL. A second story on the EDL in the Sunday edition of the paper headed 'EDL - Not in My Name Says Hero', reverted to the normal press practice of dragging in the terms 'far-right' and 'inflammatory' to describe the EDL, highlighting Robinson's former membership of the BNP and describing the EDL as 'football hooligans'. Why this volte face? Interestingly, one blogger notes that the Star on Sunday possesses a different editor to its weekday sister paper presiding over a different team of writers. Evidently, the Sunday team bat for Islamo-pandering official consensus.

The EDL and Party Politics
My advice to Robinson and the EDL would be not to place any faith in the Conservative Party. There may be a few backbenchers who would go most of the way to meeting the EDL’s demands, but Cameron and his clique would in my opinion never consider acceding to the EDL’s programme. As Robinson himself notes, the EDL’s position as a single-issue group would not place it in the most favourable of positions to field candidates in electoral contests. Campaigning on such a narrow platform would in my opinion not prove to be a viable strategy, leading in all likelihood to EDL candidates gaining a few hundred votes in whichever seat they stood, but nothing more.

The EDL needs to see if it can find a political partner which possesses a more comprehensive political programme. It needs to find a party with libertarian anti-Islamist principles along the lines of the European freedom parties such as Holland’s PVV and Germany’s Die Freiheit. In fact, there is such a party in Britain, but at the moment it is small and little known. However, there is no reason why it should remain so, for were the public to gain knowledge of its platform and policies, its message would resonate and it could start attracting votes in considerable numbers. That party is called British Freedom, and consciously allies itself with the PVV and Die Freiheit. Its slogan - ‘It’s about Culture Not Colour’ – seems to me to align it perfectly with the stance of the EDL. I would therefore urge EDL supporters to visit its website and consider its policy position. Our old political system is broken, and the Westminster parties have proven themselves time and again to be unwilling to acknowledge let alone address the concerns articulated by the EDL.

Tommy Robinson and others within the EDL have built a genuinely popular grassroots movement at tremendous cost to their personal safety, so it would be a great shame if they were not to take the next necessary step in transforming this support into real and lasting political and social change for the better. This can be done, and if none of the Establishment parties change their ways (I consider that Cameron is simply posturing with respect to his alleged rejection of state-directed multiculturalism), then the EDL needs to back a new political party that answers both its needs and aspirations.

‘Die Freiheit’: Freedom from Islam for Germany?

A new political party has been founded in Germany: Die Freiheit (Freedom). Its founder, René Stadtkewitz had previously been in the CDU but was expelled last Tuesday following his invitation to Geert Wilders to speak in Berlin. Given the recent controversy in Germany connected to the publication of Thilo Sarrazin’s book ‘Germany Abolishes Itself’ and its heavy criticism of Islam and Germany’s Muslim minorities, the indicators are that such a party could exert some appeal amongst sections of the German electorate. Following Sarrazin’s ostracism by the German political class which has resulted in his expulsion from the SPD and his announcement that he will be stepping down from his membership of the Bundesbank board before the end of September, might he not be tempted to join Die Freiheit?

The Islam in Europe blog quotes Stadtkewitz as saying: “Islam is not just a religion, it’s also a political system. Islam is intolerant towards those who think differently.” He states that although the name of his new party is similar to Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party (PVV) that the two are not (at least yet) linked, although the new party is said to be a “civic, liberal party” which would seem to ideologically align it with the PVV.

The 45-year-old Stadtkewitz has announced that the first elections to be contested by Die Freiheit will be those to the Berlin House of Representatives in the autumn of 2011. At the party’s core is the aim of reconnecting with voters who feel alienated from the established parties through a commitment to direct democracy modelled on the Swiss pattern, a prioritisation of personal freedom, reducing immigration and encouraging integration of Germany’s immigrant and immigrant-descended population: “To those who share our liberal values and are integrated with us, you are very welcome” but those “who would like to introduce the Sharia and treat women as second-class should not be tolerated.”

The other members of Die Freiheit’s founding trio are: Marc Doll (33), a former CDU security policymaker who resigned from the party yesterday, and Aaron Koenig (46), a journalist and former spokesman for the Pirate Party, the aim of which was to guarantee freedom of information on the internet. Pictured beneath they are from left to right: Marc Doll, René Stadtkewitz and Aaron Koenig (picture courtesy of PI News).

Geert Wilders addresses Jubilant Supporters

In the following address Geert Wilders is quite rightly in buoyant mood following the PVV's surge from fifth to third largest party in the Dutch Parliament, taking circa 15.5% of the vote compared to 5.9% in 2006. Most commentators had predicted that the PVV would win 18 seats, but the 24 secured today show that the party's message against Islamisation and mass immigration and for the Dutch people and European values resonated strongly with the electorate. Hopefully this will provide Wilders with at the very least a clear chance to communicate his message far more effectively to the public and possibly to enter a coalition government.

Following this strong result there is no reason to suppose that the PVV will not be capable of becoming the largest parliamentary party when the country next goes to the polls. Congratulations to Geert and all of his party members and supporters! Celebrate tonight, and prepare to help build a better future for the Netherlands. You have provided inspiration and hope for nationalists across Europe. 

Geert Wilders the Kingmaker?

Geert Wilders's PVV did well in yesterday's parliamentary election, more than doubling its number of seats from 9 to 24 making the party the third largest in the 150-seat chamber. Although the results will not be finalised until later today, it is clear that Wilders will be placed in a strong position following the Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) emerging as the largest party with 31 seats, just edging ahead of the social-democratic Partij van de Arbeid, PvdA which secured 30.

It is clear that no party will have an overall majority and that left-leaning parties will not have sufficient seats to create a coalition on their own. Importantly, according to Deutsche Welle, Mark Rutte, leader of the VVD, has indicated that he would not rule out the possibility of forming a coalition with the PVV and has described the PVV results as impressive. The PVV and the VVD have strengthened their positions considerably since the last election in 2006, taking their number of seats from 22 to 31 and 9 to 24 respectively.

We can but hope that Wilders emerges as the power broker in the new government and secures a position for his party and policy platform. Wilders's strong showing demonstrates that all is not yet lost for native Europeans in their ancestral homelands. This is the positive side to the story, but there is however a negative one, for the PVV's strong showing may generate another pulse of Muslim emigration from the Netherlands to the UK, so prepare yourselves for another bout of 'enrichment' which will be falsely reported as 'European' migration.

Electoral Prospects for Geert Wilders and the PVV

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.