An Enemy not an Ally: Maryam Namazie

Last week, the One Law for All (OLFA) campaign issued a report entitled ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’, co-written by Adam Barnett and Maryam Namazie. This, I have taken the time to read, ingesting both its text and subtext. Whereas the stated aim of the OLFA campaign – one secular law for all in the UK – is one which I wholeheartedly support, the same cannot be said for the content of this report which betrays a clear anti-English, anti-British, anti-White and anti-European bias. Whilst it attempts to pass itself off as an objective ‘report’, this piece of pseudo-scholarship is actually a piece of thinly disguised polemic attacking the fundamental right to national self-determination, positing in the process a highly distasteful and tendentious ‘link’ between the recent atrocity committed by Anders Breivik and organisations and personalities which the authors have chosen to label as ‘far-right’. Thus Stephen Gash (Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and English Democrats), Anders Gravers (SIOE), Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (counterjihad bloggers) and the EDL find themselves bracketed in with Combat 18 and Blood and Honour.

That the aforementioned should be the case becomes rather clearer when we consider that the founder and head of OLFA – Maryam Namazie – whilst routinely described by the mainstream media as a campaigner for ‘secularism’ and ‘women’s rights’, also happens to be a member of the Central Committee of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran. Given this party's Marxist stance, it should come as no surprise that it and its members are intrinsically hostile to the concept of national self-determination and the right of peoples to their national territories. Thus, from the perspective of Namazie et al, simply to object to the mass colonisation of non-Islamic nations – particularly European ones – by carriers of the Islamic ideological bacillus is defined as a ‘far-right’ position; indeed, any objection to mass immigration is summarily dismissed and stigmatised with the pariah label of ‘far-right’. Theirs is a form of language crafted to purposefully shut down debate through smearing those who hold views that they deem to be ideologically unpalatable. It is for this reason for example, that the OLFA report mentions the anti-Islamist movement’s concerns over Islamic immigration and high Muslim birthrates, yet only does so as a means of condemning those who express these views as ‘far-right’. The report simply does not address these very real and pressing demographic problems, preferring instead to adopt a moralistic and condemnatory tone, declaring objection to these processes as being forever off-limits because to conceptualise them as problems is deemed by the authors as ‘racist’. ‘Racist’. Has any word been so much abused and debased as this one over the past forty years? For OLFA, it would seem that you and I my friend, are “all racists now”. We are “far-right”.

The absence of intellectual rigour within the OLFA report, as well as its polemical nature, spring directly from Namazie’s Marxist-Leninist ideology and agenda. For anyone acquainted with Marxist theory and the sad historical record of its application, it is quite clear that Namazie is attempting to use the ‘one law for all’ issue for the straightforward purpose of promoting her wider Communist worldview, which is clear to see in the ‘Enemies Not Allies’ document. This ‘enemies not allies’ theme had previously been aired by Namazie at a public seminar in January this year, and drew some interesting criticism from Douglas Murray.

That a report produced by a Communist should contain wilful distortions of the truth is not surprising, but some of the ‘facts’ that it cites are frankly incorrect. For example, on page 40 it claims that the English Democrats advocate ‘secession from both the EU and the United Kingdom’. Whereas the party does call for England to withdraw from the EU, it argues for an English Parliament, not necessarily for the dissolution of a UK-wide parliament. The English Democrats contains unionists as well as those who would prefer to see the dissolution of the union, but it most certainly is not party policy to formally dissolve the UK.

Stephen Gash and Anders Gravers of SIOE are both described as ‘racists’, with Gash being accused of  ‘clear racism in statements and deeds’. The following excerpt from page 42 of the report illustrates the malicious and fanatical intent of the authors to play the race card despite the overwhelming evidence (even cited in the report!) that these men are not by any credible definition of the word ‘racists’. Thus, they state that SIOE claims not to be racist because of its slogan:

“‘Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!’ and because ‘co-founder of SIOE, Anders Gravers has fathered two mixed-race children with two women of different races’. These examples further trivialise racism (such as the use of the word ‘stupidity’ when racism dehumanises, kills and destroys people’s lives) and are tactical for purposes of appearance.”

Read those last six words again: ‘are tactical for purposes of appearance’. What?! So, Anders Gravers has sired mixed-race offspring with two women as a tactic ‘for purposes of appearance’? For me, that one statement demonstrates beyond any doubt that the objective faculties of Maryam Namazie and Adam Bennett are somewhat ‘challenged’ to put it in the euphemistic PC speech that we are enjoined to use these days. Namazie and Bennett stretch the reader’s credulity beyond breaking point with such an absurd assertion. So intent are they to brand all opposition to Islamisation and mass immigration as ‘far-right’ that they ignore the truth and attempt to foist upon the reader the most egregious distortions of reality. Elsewhere in the report however, there is substance to some of the allegations relating to other figures (Mark Collett and Nick Griffin for example – bad apples both and a blemish upon the nationalist movement), but in essence the function of the report boils down to this: OLFA is the only legitimate means of protesting against political Islam in the UK; join OLFA, or we’ll slander you as being a ‘far-right racist’. Sorry Maryam, but this atheist, secular blogger doesn’t subscribe to your distorted Communist rantings about a ‘far-right’ ‘Christian’ ‘anti-Muslim’ conspiracy.   

Shamefully, as well as containing factual inaccuracies, deliberate character assassination and ideological distortions, the OLFA report seeks in its concluding section to use the recent atrocity perpetrated by Anders Breivik as a pretext for highlighting the ‘dangers’ of the ‘far-right’ as it defines it, stating:

Though the far-Right appears to target Islamism, they are two sides of the same coin. Islamism is also very much an extreme Right movement . . .There is fundamentally little difference between Anders Behring Breivik’s Knights Templar and the EDL or SIOE. What they want is the same; their tactics are different. The EDL and SIOE are merely better at duping the public. (p. 60)

Groups like SIOE and the EDL are as hateful as the Islamists; they are enemies not allies. Clearly, our enemy’s enemy is not necessarily our friend. (p. 62)

What disgusting and baseless slurs! The authors of the report could stoop no lower than to bracket the EDL and SIOE with the mass murderer Breivik and Islamists. Well, the dissemination of big lies is an integral part of the Communist tradition, and Namazie reveals herself to be very much at home in playing the part of a Leninist vanguardist in this respect.

Although one might be tempted to pen a riposte titled ‘Enemies Not Allies: OLFA’ I will not do so, for I know that most supporters of OLFA will not be ideological clones of Namazie and Bennett, and will instead possess a broad range of ideological backgrounds and affiliations, a number of which I would far from condemn. Maryam Namazie no more represents the stance of secularists than Mark Collett represents that of anti-Islamists and nationalists. ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’ is a deeply flawed and opportunistic report that if read at all should be done so with a very critical eye.

One Law for All Seminar – Enemies not Allies

On 26 January the One Law for All campaign hosted a debate at Conway Hall in London. Its provocative title ‘Enemies not Allies’ made it clear from the outset that one of the objectives of the organiser – Worker Communist Party of Iran Central Committee member Maryam Namazie – was to seek to place beyond the pale elements of the counterjihad movement such as the English Defence League (EDL) and Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). However, one of the speakers invited onto the panel was the conservative (small 'c' rather than party affiliated) commentator Douglas Murray.

Unlike Namazie, Murray approached the theme of discussion with a refreshing lack of prejudice, and instead of damning the EDL and portraying it and its supporters in the blackest of possible colours, he rightly drew attention to the irrationality and deliberate nature of leftist ‘no platform’ policies, as well as the Left’s tendency to force opponents and rivals into predetermined ideological boxes without looking at what they actually believe in and how they behave. I have already covered the differences in orientation and approach of the various movements and parties that take a counterjihad stance in a previous article - England: an Anatomy of the Counterjihad and Lessons from France – as well as some of the more notable demonstrations by One Law for All. Like Murray, I am in favour of collaboration irrespective of ideological differences.

What emerges in the initial half of the first of the following videos is Murray’s spirited advocacy of working with the EDL (he speaks until approximately 6:40). In the second video, he robustly demolishes the refrain so commonly heard that ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’ Namazie however appears to be a politician cast in the old Stalinist mould of the type who branded Polish patriots 'fascists' because they didn’t want their country overrun by the Soviets. The One Law for All campaign may have a noble goal in fighting against Sharia, but Namazie’s willingness to condemn the EDL and SIOE as ‘far-right’ and ‘racist’ in an offhand fashion demonstrates her unappealing Marxist-Leninist credentials.

Lack of Clarity in BBC Report on Violence and Arrests at Leicester Demonstrations

The latest available BBC report on yesterday’s EDL and UAF demonstrations in Leicester reveals that some ugly violent incidents marred the day and a number of arrests were made. However, as you will see from the excerpt reproduced below, the report is written in such a way as not to reveal who was arrested and why. An anonymous commentator on my blog has claimed that some EDL members engaged in acts of violence, and I would be surprised given the numbers involved (the BBC’s revised estimates now stand at 2,000 for the EDL and 600 for UAF) if the demonstration had been entirely peaceful. Let me once again however make it clear that I do not condone violence, but I support the EDL’s right to protest peacefully. Anyone who deliberately initiates and engages in acts of violence must expect the full force of the law to be brought against them.

Given the BBC’s editorial hostility towards the EDL and the anti-Islamisation movement in general, it is therefore surprising that it does not mention how many of the thirteen arrested were from amongst the ranks of the EDL. This suggests to me that as in Bolton earlier this year the majority of arrests were of UAF counter-demonstrators. Indeed in Harrow on 11 September 2009 UAF demonstrators and hothead elements in the local Muslim population attacked the police at the site of a demonstration planned by Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), even though the demonstration itself didn’t take place. Likewise, not long after that they attacked the police in Luton with a variety of items including fireworks even though there was no EDL protest. Unite Against Fascism has a long history of seeking to stir up anti-English hatred and initiating violence in pursuit of its Trotskyist violent revolutionary strategy, as the guiding members of UAF such as Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett are members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) Central Committee.

Even the BBC cannot gloss over the reality of UAF violence, hence its report only makes mention of one specific incident of directed violence, and this was against two EDL coaches which were leaving the city. For me, “throwing stones and bricks” at vehicles is simply inexcusable, for serious injury or death could have resulted. Read the excerpt below, and draw your own conclusions:

Thirteen men have been arrested during two protests in Leicester, which sparked the biggest police operation in the county for 25 years.

The English Defence League (EDL) held a static demonstration and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) staged a counter-protest on Humberstone Gate East. 

Riot police moved in after several fireworks, bottles and coins were thrown.

There were also reports of violence away from the demonstration site.

Gangs were seen throwing stones and bricks at two coaches carrying EDL supporters as they left the city.

Those arrested at the main protest site were aged between 30 and 42 and were not from the Leicester area

The Muslim Defence League: the Birth of Leftist/Islamist Squadrismo

A neglected garden soon yields itself to vigorous weeds, and that good fruit which we might have hoped to harvest and savour is strangled by creepers and couch. Thus it is with our society today, for our Government has neglected to devote itself to the cultivation and preservation of our sweet and fragile liberties, and through inattention has allowed them to be overshadowed by a more vigorous, robust and demanding growth, which has caused them to shrink for want of light. Islam is the ideological equivalent of Japanese knotweed: invasive, fast growing, difficult to control and prone to crowd out the natives. Alas, unlike Japanese knotweed, the Government does not recognise that Islam too needs to be strictly controlled and eradicated from our islands.

In recent months we have seen the proliferation of Islamist groupings in the UK: Shariah4UK; Muslims against the Crusades and Ummah Rise. Now we witness the birth of something new and potentially much larger named the Muslim Defence League (MDL), presumably in anti-homage to the English Defence League. The MDL has provided a formal opportunity for leftist Islamist collaborators to link with the Islamists in an anti-English axis. That such a crystallisation of these disparate forces united by their hatred of Western liberties should occur comes as no surprise, for the two have long been working together, their alliance having been cemented by the creation of the EDL in 2009. The most striking demonstration of this convergence and the morphing of the UAF into an Islamist vehicle was provided by the joining of a UAF contingent chanting “Allahu akbar” with Muslims against the Crusades demonstrating against the One Law for All protest in Whitehall last month.

Presumably, we are likely to see the MDL take to the streets in an attempt to attack the EDL. At the time of writing, its Facebook group was listed as having 1,392 members. An EDL member had earlier managed to successfully hack into the site and delete links with many supporters, so this number is likely to rise significantly in the near future. The EDL will be protesting in Dudley again tomorrow – Saturday 17 July 2010 – so I anticipate that this will give us our first initial sight of the MDL.

The lines have been drawn and the opposing parties are forming up. Our politicians still refuse to recognise the problem of Islamisation and are actually contributing to its furtherance. It is therefore very much in the hands of ordinary people to express their opposition to this process, and at the moment we have the EDL, SIOE and the One Law for All campaign all giving voice to a variety of concerns connected to Islamisation. Hopefully these positive forces should soon be supplemented by whatever national sub-division emerges from Geert Wilders’s multinational anti-Islamist coalition. As can be seen from examples of the MDL’s imagery below, together with the name of “Chechnyan Wolf” (a British Beslan anyone?), we can quite safely conclude that it is not intended to be a peaceable organisation. We should therefore expect it to behave in the manner of a band of squadristi. I fear that tomorrow we will witness the MDL venting its rage upon the police. All being well, its members will not manage to break through and clash with the EDL.

The BBC's Perspective on ‘Ummah Rise’

The BBC has decided to provide some advance coverage of the Ummah Rise demonstration in Cardiff this afternoon. Unsurprisingly, its take on this demonstration is markedly different in tone from that which it adopts whenever it is writing or broadcasting on any aspect of the counterjihad movement or its supporters. Whereas when covering demonstrations by the English Defence League (EDL) or Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) it gives extensive interviews to opponents of these organisations/movements which then frame its reporting of these events, and makes sinister utterances about the rise of the “far right” and “racism”, in this instance it has afforded an interview to Muhammad Abu Yaffir, the organiser of Ummah Rise.

Yaffir claims that the motivation for the demonstration arises from moves in the past year to criminalise some of the more overt manifestations of Islamisation (although of course he does not use this term to name this process) across Europe such as the Swiss minaret ban and moves to outlaw veils and burqas of various types in Belgium, France and Barcelona. He states: "Muslims feel very strongly about these laws being introduced across Europe." Well, some might, but if they don’t like our laws, customs and way of life, why don’t people such as Yaffir absent themselves and set up home in a social milieu which they would find more agreeable such as Somalia, Afghanistan or Pakistan? The reason that they don’t is that they are Islamic colonists; hostile imperialists intent upon taking our cities, our towns, our land and our states and making them their own. This is what Muslim respondents mean when they respond to questionnaires asking if they feel Britain to be their country. Of course they do! They think that it is their land and not our land. Their land to control, dominate and ultimately rule. This doesn’t fit the BBC narrative though, to which I now return.

The BBC uncritically regurgitates everything that Yaffir states without questioning a single utterance: "Wherever Muslims feel pain anywhere in the world it is our responsibility to respond to their needs.” Really? By protesting against us in our own country? Why?

“This isn't just about Muslim women being asked to cover their faces, this is an ideological attack on Islam and Muslims” states Yaffir. "The laws being proposed are a form of oppression and we will respond to this oppression.” So, he baldly states that he and his fellow demonstrators reject our laws and will break them. This is quite simply because he and other doctrinaire Muslims believe that their legal system – Shariah – is superior to our own and should replace it. He is not therefore objecting to “an ideological attack on Islam and Muslims” as he says, but to any opposition, or voicing thereof, to their goal of imposing the Islamic system upon non-Muslim peoples in their own homelands. Yaffir and his co-demonstrators are totalitarians who seek to impose an alien inhumane system of life, law and governance upon non-Muslims everywhere.

It is shocking to be compelled to fund an organisation – the BBC – which actively works to the detriment of the interests of the people – the British – after whom it is named. The BBC has lost all authority and is no more balanced in its reporting than Pravda was under the Soviet system. The BBC constantly and unerringly parrots a multiculturalist discourse that panders to Islam and seeks to portray Muslims as ‘victims’ and Islam as a non-threatening ideology. This discourse is of course false, but we see it being reproduced here yet again in the BBC’s reporting of this afternoon’s Ummah Rise demonstration.

England: an Anatomy of the Counterjihad and Lessons from France

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 Lyonnais reacted 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.

Muslim News Awards 2010

Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic submission to Islam was once again demonstrated at the Muslim News Awards earlier this month with Home Secretary Alan Johnson taking the opportunity to court the Muslim vote whilst smearing indigenous opponents of Islamisation. Interestingly, the host for the evening – Ahmed J. Versi (editor and publisher of Muslim News) – had some telling things to say about the deliberate Islamisation of the UK by the mainstream political parties. It is worth quoting his introductory speech at length to highlight the detrimental impact of these measures and attitudes:

“The incoming Labour government in 1997 was the first time that any Government made Muslims feel that their opinions were sought and valued.

Labour picked the first Muslim for a safe Parliamentary seat and appointed Muslim peers, as well as Muslim advisors for a host of initiatives.

There are now four Muslims in the House of Commons, all of them Labour. And we have the first Muslim minister attending the Cabinet, the Rt Hon Sadiq Khan.

The Government fulfilled many of our longstanding requests: A question on religion to be included in the national census of 2001; funding of Muslim schools; Shari’ah compliant financial products working within UK financial regulations; outlawing of religious discrimination at work place and in service delivery in public institutions and outlawing of incitement to religious hatred.

And the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, led the way in making senior cabinet ministers available for interviews with The Muslim News. His generous gestures ensured that the other parties followed suit.”

Although seen as positive by Mr Versi, in my eyes, the above measure constitute a damning charge sheet that should be levelled against Labour, particularly the repression of free speech associated with measures against so-called “religious discrimination” and “incitement to religious hatred.” This demonstrates that without the Muslim colonisation of our islands, these measures to limit our liberties would not have been introduced. One can only conclude therefore, that our society would be a better place without Islam.

Versi also does us the service of summarising the moves of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to submit to Islam:

“As for The Conservative Party, it is not today the Tory party of old.

William Hague while Leader of the Party, made significant efforts to turn the Party around and began to demonstrate a greater understanding of Britain’s diverse faiths.

It was under William Hague that we saw Britain’s first Muslim member of the European Parliament.

This change has continued under the current leadership of David Cameron.

There are now two Muslim Tory peers and one of them Sayeeda Warsi, is a member of the shadow cabinet.

And the Liberal Democrats too have made strides in supporting Muslim issues and they have one Muslim peer.

They aptly reflected the society’s feeling on war on Iraq by taking a robust stand against it.

Nick Clegg demanded that our Government and the European Union halt arms sales to Israel during Operation Cast Lead in which hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians, including many children were killed.

Whichever party comes to form the next Government, there is a pressing need for it to re visit policies that improve relations with the Muslim community and help rejuvenate community cohesion.”

Looking at this list of measures, changes, attitudes and demands, can you now doubt that our three main Westminster parties do not have the interests of the real British people – the indigenous British people – as their foremost priority? Versi’s last sentence is chilling, for once again it demonstrates the Muslim propensity to salami-slice away our liberties and values and replace them with their own. It shows that they will be persistently pushing for more privileges for Islam in this country to the detriment of everyone else. Will you vote for any party that accords special privileges to this bullying belief system and its followers, or will you express your desire for a peaceful country and society by voting for a party pledged to counter and reverse Islamisation? Why should some be made “more equal than others”? Why should we be increasingly made to feel “strangers in our own country”?

Alan Johnson’s speech reveals the prospect of a future intensification of persecution against those who oppose Islamisation. He stated:

“But tackling extremism does not define the relationship between government and Muslim communities. Nor does it mean that the responsibility for tackling extremism lies only with the Muslim community. Like the threat from far right racists, it affects us all and it requires a united response.”

Who are these “far right racists”? Although we know them to be phantoms of his febrile imagination, unfortunately Johnson thinks that he has identified them in the ‘demonic’ forms of the BNP, EDL, SIOE and those who rightly and robustly criticise Islam. Johnson continues:

“And we know that there are Muslim communities in the UK which are disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment, who struggle to access services or face discrimination and harassment because of their faith or ethnicity.”

Yes, statistically speaking Muslims are “disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment” but I would wager that my explanation of the reasons underpinning this situation is rather different to Johnson’s. It’s got nothing to do with “discrimination” or “harassment”, of which in reality Muslims are more likely to be perpetrators than victims. No. Their disproportionate poverty and unemployment are largely conditioned by a set of social attitudes and attributes arising from Islam. Furthermore, it is typical for neighbourhoods experiencing large-scale Muslim colonisation to experience considerable declines in property values, so even though Muslim and non-Muslim neighbourhoods may have the same type of housing stock and access to services, it is more likely that the Muslim one will be classed as “impoverished” simply because of the nominal lesser value of its properties. Benefit fraud is widespread amongst Muslim colonies, enabling restaurant workers and taxi drivers to support large families thanks to generous state subsidy. The indices of poverty are thus distorted and give an inaccurate measure of actual deprivation.

Internal causes of Muslim relative poverty include:

• poor English-language skills causing underperformance at school
• large family size arising from lack of contraception and the subordinate role of women
• chain migration, which imports poverty, social backwardness and a lack of competence in the English language which bolsters a sense of affiliation to their ancestral ethnic homelands and hostility to indigenous Britons
• female economic inactivity arising from women often being effectively imprisoned in the domestic environment by their menfolk and associated familial denial of educational opportunities

The existence of the Muslim News Awards and the reaction of the leading Westminster parties to its agenda shows that none of the latter, if you did not have your doubts for a host of other reasons, are fit to govern.

UAF Mission Statement: a Pack of Lies

Strange is it not, that the UAF should post the following upon its website in its introduction to a section entitled The Facts about the BNP:

"Fascism stands for the murder of millions, the annihilation of entire communities and the destruction of democracy and human rights."

The UAF is run by Communists; Trotskyists, to be precise. Remember, when Polish patriots rose in an attempt to free Warsaw from Nazi occupation in 1944 before the Soviets arrived to crush their last hopes of national independence, the Soviets referred to the brave Polish resistance fighters as "fascists". Communists always refer to patriots as fascists, so this is what you must bear in mind when you read or hear their descriptions of the BNP.

Let us substitute one word for "fascism" in the above quote and see how it reads:

Communism "stands for the murder of millions, the annihilation of entire communities and the destruction of democracy and human rights."

Is that historically correct or incorrect? Well, Stalin murdered millions through civil war, collectivisation, purges and 'routine' political persecution. Ditto Mao and Pol Pot. Think of the millions of Ukrainians, Kazakhs and, indeed, ethnic Russians who died as a direct consequence of the famines engendered by collectivisation. Were not thousands of "entire communities" across the former Russian Empire destroyed through collectivisation and so-called dekulakisation? Of course they were. Untold millions died. Democracy? We all know what Communists think of democracy: it's only as good as the opportunities that it affords them in pursuit of the permanent seizure of power. It is, as Lenin would put it, a "means to an end". Human rights? Once again, Communists do not recognise such a category. For them, such a concept is merely a product of "bourgeois individualism".

Being cognisant of the above facts, I do not see how a rational and humane individual could support the UAF. Remember, Weyman Bennett, Joint Secretary of the UAF, is also a leading member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers' Party (SWP), and Derek Simpson, Joint General Secretary of Unite the Union (the major force underpinning the UAF) was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain until it disbanded in 1991. Can you trust such men to tell the truth about patriots in the BNP or the EDL, or those who seek to defend European values and culture against Islamisation such as SIOE or Geert Wilders? Of course not. Their pronouncements are designed to advance their communist agenda. For them, the routine dehumanisation of their political opponents is all grist to their Marxist mill.

Don't be fooled by the thugs of the UAF. They seek to accelerate the Islamisation of the UK and Europe in order to create civil war. Don't fall into their trap. We must respond peacefully, and defeat them using words; the truth will out. They will continue along the path of violence, but this is a path that we shall not tread. As more and more of the public see them for what they are, and even our corrupt mass media can no longer hide the truth, their raging voices will fall upon deaf ears, and people will turn upon them and rightly ask for these criminal agitators to be dealt with using the full force of the law. Win we must, and win we shall.

Harrow Mosque: Violent Muslim Mob Whipped into Frenzy of Hate by UAF Thugs

According to media reports, more than 1,000 hyped-up Muslims and soi-disant anti-fascist protestors descended upon Harrow Central Mosque today to attack a Stop the Islamisation of Europe protest. The SIOE protest was being held to object to the Mosque’s planned extension and construction of 40-metre high minarets. Other groups such as the English Defence League planned to gather outside the Mosque at 5pm today, and had notified the police of their intentions in advance. However, at 6.33pm, the following three paragraphs were posted on the SIOE homepage (spelling mistakes and grammatical errors preserved from the original):

“In this moment Stephen Gash is being told by a senior sergent of the police to call off the demonstration in Harrow. He has been arrested to prevent a breach of the peace…

More than 1000 mainly muslims are gathered infront of the SIOE demonstration and they stop people to attend the demonstration.

If you are on your way to the demo, don’t go, it’s being called off right now. The police can’t handle the muslim counter demonstraters. The senior sergent said that he doesn’t want any of his policemen killed.” [1]

As you can see, the police were understandably concerned that a major breach of public order was underway, but the fact of the matter is that violence was neither planned nor initiated by the protesters. Unite Against Fascism (UAF) had teamed up with thugs within the Islamic population in an attempt to crush dissent and stigmatise the protestors as “far-right” and “fascist”, which are the standard labels that it employs to try and dehumanise anyone who disagrees with their Islamo-Marxist agenda. Naturally, the mainstream media organs have colluded in this misrepresentation, so one has to read current reports of this situation with caution. It is probable that as I write, unrest continues on the streets of Harrow.

Wherever the UAF turns up, it initiates and incites violence, as today’s events sadly attest. UAF still subscribes to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of violent class struggle, and its membership labour under the misapprehension that by allying with hyper-reactionary Islamist elements and undermining our society through mass immigration, they can create a violent revolutionary situation via which they will usher in their Socialist/Communist Millennium. In reality, if pushed far enough this will lead to a miserable civil war which will benefit nobody, other than the violent sadists who cloak their hatred in the language of fraternal love, whether it be that of the Ummah, or of the Proletariat. Paradoxically, it is people such as these, possessed of a rigid Manichaean cast of mind who cannot cope with the complexities of reality and history, who 70 years ago would have been attracted to Nazism had they been born in Germany. They are votaries of violence masquerading as progressives.

The BBC has reported that 8 people have been arrested, none of them being anti-Islamist demonstrators: “Seven people were arrested for possession of offensive weapons including a hammer, a chisel and bottles of bleach. . . . Another person was arrested to prevent a breach of the peace.” [2] As well as attempting to attack the peaceful demonstrators, the Islamist/UAF mob vented its irrational hatred on the police, with the Guardian and BBC reporting that officers were hit by bricks and bottles. As in Luton where another Islamist mob recently attacked the police, a number of fireworks were also thrown.

Members of the mob had been drawn from far afield. One 17-year old Islamist youth by the name of Mahmood Abdullah who had travelled from Morden told the Independent: "We don't want to start a fight but we're willing to defend our brothers and sisters if we have to . . . We want to show them that for every protestor they bring, we'll bring ten." [3]

Abdullah’s comment is telling. It shows us that we are no longer able to criticize Islam in the UK without being threatened with violence. As Enoch Powell predicted, we have in effect become strangers in our own land. It is time to take our country back, and time for our European neighbours in Holland, France, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere to take theirs back too. We need to tackle the Islamist menace that grows more aggressive and assertive by the year. This can only be done peacefully and via political means. And believe me, it can be done. All that it takes is an act of will. Millions of acts of individual will which together will provide the assertiveness necessary to reassert our sovereignty and sense of collective national identities.

Of course, absolutely every political party and individual in Europe that questions the madness of the demographic and cultural Islamic colonisation of our countries is branded as “far-right.” We have reached a peculiar tipping point in our history, where the indigenous peoples of Europe can choose either to commit collective suicide in the face of an implacable alien threat that calls itself the “religion of peace” (sic), or to reassert themselves through implementing moderate nationalist policies. The EU superstate and its multiculturalist elite stands in our way, and wishes to entrench Islamisation through expanding its borders to take in Turkey, and then to later admit states from the southern shores of the Mediterranean. This must never be allowed.

We now stand in a position of being pilloried as “far-right”, “fascist” and “racist” simply for opposing the deliberate dismantling and destruction not only of our indigenous cultures, but of our liberties too. There is no liberty under Islam, only slavery. If you think that standing up for traditional English liberties and free speech is “far-right”, then I stand guilty as charged. If you are a dogmatic Leftist, let me state clearly and emphatically that the Holocaust did take place and that it was a great evil, no more nor less so than the other terrible acts of mass murder of untold millions committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all men of “the Left.” “Left” and “Right” have lost their meaning. They do not fit our contemporary political, social, economic or ecological realities. They belong to another era, as does the notion that the UAF, Searchlight, Antifa and the trade union movement are fighting a recrudescence of fascism in the UK. This is pure propagandist nonsense. If we truly wish to avoid bloodshed and the mistakes of history, let us not give in to the bloody ideologies of Islamic expansionism and Marxist class struggle.

Once again, I urge supporters of the EDL and kindred groups such as SIOE to back the formation of a moderate and assertive nationalist politics in the UK that rejects completely the claims of Islam within our shores. As in my initial posting of 5 September, I ask you to support the British National Party at the ballot box, and to join it if your livelihood is not currently threatened by doing so. There is no other political party in the UK that is guaranteed to take an assertive stand against Islamisation.

Protests such as those held today serve only to hinder our cause. The Labour Party has distorted your actions and will continue to do so, and is likely to use your protests as a pretext to push through draconian legislation further eroding our right not only to protest, but also to intellectual dissent. Witness for example this quote from John Denham in today’s Guardian: "I think that the English Defence League and other organisations are not actually large numbers of people. . . They clearly, though, have among them people who know what exactly they're doing. If you look at the types of demonstrations they've organised … it looks pretty clear that it's a tactic designed to provoke and to get a response and hopefully create violence." [4]

UAF’s paymasters are in power. Remember that, and act in a circumspect manner.

Sources:
[1] SIOE website. Can be accessed from my Sites of Interest section.

[2] “Eight arrested in mosque protest”, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8251598.stm See also “Rightwing and anti-fascist protesters riot in London”, The Guardian, 11 September 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/rightwing-anti-fascist-protesters-riot

[3] “Right-wing protestors target Harrow mosque”, The Independent, 11 September 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rightwing-protestors-target-harrow-mosque-1785797.html

[4] “Minister warns of 1930s-style fascists on Britain’s streets”, The Guardian, 11 September 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/11/minister-warns-facists-streets