Share |

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Muslims Against Crusades threaten Royal Wedding

The Muslims Against Crusades website has issued a rather ominous threat relating to the forthcoming royal wedding on 29 April. It reads as follows:

On 29th April 2011, what is probably one of the most anticipated events in recent years will be due to take place at Westminster Abbey; Prince William and Kate Middleton, will soon exchange matrimonial vows, in the presence of a global audience.

Unfortunately, Britain's continued interference in Muslim lands is showing no signs of abating; the plundering of resources, the murdering of innocent (Muslim) men, women and children and the forced indoctrination of the satanic democratic creed have become hallmarks of a brutal regime led by a very brutal dictator.

In the backdrop of all this, we find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the tax-payer.

His direct involvement with the murderous British military and eagerness to inherit the reigns of a kingdom built on blood and colonialism clearly demonstrate what type of legacy he wishes to leave.

In light of this, sincere Muslims have decided to organise a forceful demonstration, to once again highlight that as long Britain continues in its quest to occupy Muslim land and wage war against the religion of God (Allah) that we too shall continue in our efforts to undermine their regime and condemn all of their representatives, military or otherwise.

We strongly advise Prince William and his Nazi sympathiser, to withdraw from the crusader British military and give up all affiliation to the tyrannical British Empire.

We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare and that it will inshaa'allah (God willing) eclipse the protests in Barking, Downing Street and the events of November 11.
A ‘nightmare’? What kind of ‘nightmare’ do they have in mind? Is this just hollow posturing, or are these seventh-century paedophile-worshipping fanatics really issuing a threat to unleash violence? What are the police going to do about it? At the very least, I’d like the Met to use a liberal amount of pepper spray against members of MAC on the day, as it would be so touching to see them cry at the wedding of the royal couple. However, it might prove difficult to get this through burqa slits, so a hefty wallop around the head with a baton may have to suffice instead. If MAC supporters use violence, shoot them (at least with fast-acting tranquilliser darts).

So, brace yourself for the sight of poppy-burning garden gnome lookalike Emdadur Choudhury and his hirsute helpers going down a bomb with the guests and onlookers at the royal wedding. By all means, let MAC members self-detonate, but please make them do it in an area where they’ll cause no harm to anyone else. We’d love them to bits if they did us the favour.

Anyway, enjoy the wedding bank holiday everyone, and I thank the EDL in advance for their security operation. We know you won't let us down. Hat tip to Gandalf.

‘Moderate’ Muslims in UK demand Gagging of the Population

Although this Channel 4 report presented by Jon Snow isn’t new, it is certainly worth viewing again to remind ourselves of how moderate ‘moderate’ Muslims really are i.e. they are not. Given that 78% of Muslims in the UK demand that anyone who draws cartoons of Mohammed or insult him should either be killed or receive some other form of harsh punishment, this clearly demonstrates to me that 78% of Muslims are our enemy, and should be dealt with accordingly: kicked out of the country with no right of appeal. This applies equally to indigenous converts, who are the lowest of the low for they have chosen to embrace this wretched totalitarian creed. Quite how anyone can ‘insult’ the murderous paedophile Mohammed is beyond me.

Tariq Modood, a tenured Muslim academic at the University of Bristol, abuses his influential position to call for British society to make concessions to Islam. This is how he repays a country that offered him a home and a good living after he was ejected from Uganda. What an ingrate! He should be dismissed and sent packing. Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

Monday, 28 March 2011

Lampedusa’s Muslim Immigrant Nightmare Worsens

The Muslim demographic invasion of Europe is now well underway, with thousands more immigrants heading for the Italian island of Lampedusa and ruining the lives of the locals. Several successive waves have now brought circa 19,000 immigrants to Lampedusa in recent weeks, with 3,460 having arrived in the last three days alone. From Tunisia, Libya and even further afield they come (even some from sub-Saharan Africa).This must be stopped. We must make it known to our politicians that these people are completely unwelcome in Italy, France, the UK or any other European nation.

Almost all of the arrivals are Muslim male economic migrants. They must all be returned immediately, and not permitted to set foot upon the soil of any European state beyond the Lampedusan holding facility. Their intent is hostile: they come for our land, our jobs, our homes and our benefits. Somalis are amongst their number. If you live in Sheffield, how do you feel about the burgeoning Somali population being augmented still further? The prospect turns my stomach.

European nations have not been under such threat from hostile outsiders since the last gasp of Ottoman expansionism in 1683, although the current human wave more closely resembles the movement of peoples which helped to precipitate the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

The Associated Press reports that exasperated Lampedusan fisherman have taken a number of the migrants’ boats, and symbolically blocked the entrance to their harbour, although sadly, this is not likely to stop the ingress of the Muslim hordes. Local townspeople nonetheless cheered this action. I feel sorry for them. It is the Lampedusans who are suffering, not the hostile colonists from the southern shores of the Mediterranean. Hostile arrivals should be treated with hostility, and not given a beneficent welcome. We really can take no more. The only way to stop more coming is not to take a single one of these people. Send them back. If their states won’t take them, then they’ll have to seek 'asylum' in Neptune’s realm.

The BBC of course takes a sickeningly biased line as usual, describing these colonists as ‘refugees’ and demanding that European nations accept them. What’s British about the BBC other than the money extracted from licence-fee payers? Nothing! It would be more honest to entitle it the Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation. If you would like a sneak preview of your new neighbours, take a look at the following video of the latest North African colonists to arrive in Lampedusa.

Sunday, 27 March 2011

EDL Blackpool Demo Report: Justice for Charlene Downes

Whilst violence flared in London yesterday, the unjustly vilified EDL were holding a protest on Blackpool seafront to demand that the CPS re-open the investigation into the disappearance and presumed murder of Charlene Downes. On this occasion, no UAF or MDL were present to unleash violence, and thus it turned out to be a completely peaceful demonstration. As can be seen from the video below, the EDL are continuing to provide support to the Downes family, something which neither the justice system nor press appear to be willing to offer, and this support is not going to waver and evaporate. As the EDL organiser said of the case:
“We want it highlighted. We don’t want it brushed under the carpet just like any other case. We want the powers that be to know, the English Defence League is not going to forget this. We will keep coming back. . . . We will keep coming back, until at least this case is looked at again by the Crown Prosecution Service, and these scum are not going to get away with this one.”

“We want them to know that the casuals and the English Defence League; we know about them! We’re watching you! And in Charlene’s name, we won’t let you get away with it. . . We will never let you get away with it.”
Why was there media silence over this demo yesterday? It numbered hundreds of people, men and women who gathered together to highlight a just cause that needs to be addressed and resolved. If the victim had been a Muslim or a member of any minority group, you can guarantee that this crime would never be out of the headlines until justice had been done. But Charlene and her family belong to the most demonised section of the population – the English working class – so our politically correct multiculturalist media don’t want to know. They don’t want to acknowledge that the alleged perpetrators of the crime (captured on tape admitting raping and murdering Charlene then cutting her up to sell as kebab meat) belong to that officially protected and idolised section of the population – Muslims.

The UK has a significant problem with Muslim paedophiles who prey upon English girls and contemptuously abuse them. This grows directly from the example of their violent paedophile Prophet Mohammed. Increasing numbers of people are waking up to the fact that this is the reality that lies at the centre of Islamic tradition and doctrine, and no amount of state-sanctioned politically correct media brainwashing can cover this up. Anyone who has direct experience of living near to the Muslim colonies in our country today knows the official media and government line about Islam being just like any other religion to be a lie.

The Downes family are grateful to the EDL, and yesterday Charlene’s mother expressed this gratitude by saying:
“God bless you. You are our angels . . .You’re doing a great job. A job the police and the CPS are incapable of doing . . .We will fight, and fight on for justice.”
Next Saturday the EDL go to Blackburn, and the Downes family will be with them. This protest will continue, just as the EDL will continue to protest until justice is restored in this country, so that we are free from the malign influence of doctrinaire Islam. One day, we will once again be able to go about our daily lives, secure in the knowledge that this dark episode in our national story will have passed, and that Islam will never threaten our shores and our people again. As the organiser of yesterday’s demo said at the close of the protest: “No surrender and never forget!”

Saturday, 26 March 2011

The Flames of Anarchy illuminate Trafalgar Square

Bonfires have been lit in Trafalgar Square as anarchists battle with the police following an afternoon of violent attacks upon businesses in London’s West End that began whilst the TUC’s march against public spending cuts was taking place. Hundreds of police officers are currently engaged in tackling an anarchist flashmob. The BBC reports that a number of the violent agitators (my words, not theirs) in the Square were amongst those who carried out acts of vandalism against businesses earlier in the day.

Whereas the BBC is very willing to employ words such as ‘extremist’ and ‘far-right’ when referring to peaceful EDL protests, as well as highlighting the cost of EDL demonstrations (almost entirely engendered by UAF and Muslim counter protests), it is not describing today’s violent demonstrators as extremist or far-left, and neither is it complaining about the cost. I somehow suspect that the BBC will be eagerly seeking out anarchist ‘victims’ in the days ahead, in line with its irrational credo. Below is some footage from Trafalgar Square taken earlier this evening before things turned really ugly:

Muslim Militants march in Oxford Street

Once again, the bearded bigots and female-tented automata of Muslims Against Crusades, or one of their kindred groups, took to the streets of London on Friday 25 March in a ritualistic mass spouting of bile. This time, the ranting myrmidons of Mohammed were directing their ill-tempered outbursts at the UK, France and the US for intervening in Libya. Well, I don’t want our armed forces to be involved there either. I’d like them to be here at home, protecting the British people from hostile colonists such as members of Muslims Against Crusades and their ideological soulmates. Unsurprisingly, the BBC didn’t bother to cover the demonstration, as the sight of this bunch would jar with the official message that Muslims are innately cuddly and peace-loving. That really wouldn’t do. For the BBC, the Mohammedan must be allowed to bellow all manner of violent obscenities in the street and be permitted to trample upon the sensibilities of all others, for it would be ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘racist’ to offer the slightest whiff of criticism. And where were the absurdly named Unite Against Fascism (sic)? Why didn’t they stage a counter protest? Would any member or supporter of the UAF care to explain to us why they find Islamofascism so agreeable?

The protesters held aloft risibly worded placards bearing slogans such as ‘Democracy will bring oppression’, and amidst the cries of “Allahu Akbar!” could be heard the refrain of “man-made law go to hell!” As usual, they called for the implementation of Shariah here there and everywhere, but with specific reference to Libya on this occasion. They really aren’t a very agreeable bunch, but I think I have perhaps found a solution to their perpetual state of frothing fanaticism that could prove to be acceptable for all concerned. Why not offer them the opportunity of a ‘martyrdom’ operation in Libya? This bunch would just about fit onto a single jetliner. Give them enough fuel for a one-way trip to Tripoli, and let them plough into Gaddafi’s HQ at 560mph yelling “Allahu Akbar!” They’d love it, and we’d be rid of them for good.

The Q Society of Australia: combating Islamisation

I’m a little slow off the mark here, so thanks to Gary of the Mad about Mahound blogspot for drawing this story to my attention. A newly-founded organisation by the name of the Q Society of Australia has been set up by a group of writers and bloggers who have for years been documenting and highlighting the stealthy Islamisation of Australia. Its President, Geoff Dickson, states that the organisation has been founded to enable its members to take the campaign against Islamisation in Australia to the next level, to fully awaken the public to what is going on. As a collective, they can achieve more than operating alone.

Predictably, as with any organisation or campaign that opposes Islamisation and the totalitarian belief system that is Islam, the mainstream media are already sharpening their claws and claiming that the Q Society of Australia is a 'racist' and bigoted organisation. These are tired smears that for sentient non-Muslims are nothing more than playground insults, albeit ones alas backed up with the full force of the law and thus capable of ruining people’s careers and lives. The Q Society has, as can be seen from the video report below which features an interview with Vickie Janson, already attracted some media attention, but as in the UK, it is unfavourable. It also affords time to an anti-white Muslim comedian named Nazeem Hussein, who when questioned about the “Islamisation of Australia” pretends not to understand what the term refers to, although from his smirking expression and the glint in his eyes it is evident that he knows full well what this means, and you can be sure that he wholeheartedly approves of it.

Nazeem Hussein is of course an enabler of Islamisation, so why should we expect any different from him? He will use lies, smears and any other tactic that suggests itself in a given context to defame and undermine anyone or anything that threatens to reveal the reality of Islam and his motivations in promoting it. Scandalously, the Australian Islamist Monitor reports that considerable sums of Australian taxpayers’ money are being used to fund Hussein’s comedy routines, and thereby attack and undermine Australian values and culture.

I welcome the Q Society of Australia as an ally in the ongoing struggle to counter and reverse Islamisation. May its mission to preserve and protect Australia and its people as a civilised nation be successful. To Vickie Janson, Geoff Dickson and fellow members and supporters of the Q Society, I raise a glass and drink to your good health and success. Cheers!

The following extract taken from the Q Society’s website provides a good flavour of what it’s all about:
In opposing the Islamisation of Australia; we stand against the creeping infiltration of this socio-political dogma and its medieval concept of religious absolutism and a society controlled by despotic clergy; against a tainted world-view that embraces segregated communities, discrimination and apartheid based on gender and belief; against the model of a parallel judiciary based on barbaric Islamic 'justice' and Sharia 'law', against inhumane slaughtering and animal-cruelty to comply with Islamic Halal rituals.

Let us be very clear: Islam is not an ethnicity and Muslims are not members of 'the Islamic race'. Muslims come from all races and ethnicities. Identifying as Muslim in Australia and other free countries is a personal, arbitrary choice. Opposing Islam is no more racist, bigoted and xenophobic than it would be racist, bigoted and xenophobic to oppose radical Communism, violent Fascism, or medieval Catholicism burning unbelievers and witches on stakes.

In opposing the impositions of Islam, we equally oppose those who have been groomed to enable the spread of Islam in Australia by means of nihilistic multiculturalism, moral relativism and suffocating political correctness.

Any Questions: Sadiq Khan wants Dhimmis to die for the Muslim World

Tooting Popular Front (sorry, I meant to say Labour) MP Sadiq Khan’s appearance on Radio 4’s Any Questions, yielded some exceptionally dull and predictable responses. As one would expect from a Muslim MP, he was quite happy to make a case for British taxpayer’s money (and potentially lives) being wasted in our pointless intervention in Libya. When asked as to whether he thought that no-fly zones ought therefore to be logically extended to Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, he wouldn’t address the question, and instead blathered on at length about the UN Security Council’s sanction of the no-fly zone over Libya. Would Khan define what the objectives for this intervention were? No. Would he explain when the time would come for the intervention to end? No.

Different perspectives were forthcoming from Daily Mail columnist Anne Leslie and Communist RMT Leader Bob Crow. Surprisingly, the two of them were in agreement over the folly of the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya by NATO. Leslie quite rightly underscored the “ill-thought out” nature of the intervention, which at least in part appears to have been driven by television pictures and the misplaced idea of so-called ‘humanitarian intervention.’ Crow however, rightly noted that it was not this principle which constituted the primary driver for intervention, for if that had been the case, then there would have been interventions in numerous other places such as Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma: “this is about one thing and one thing only: oil. If you’re a dictator who supports the West, you’re fine.” Well, looking at Saudi Arabia, might he not have a point on this score?

Sadiq Khan argues in favour of intervention because he is a Muslim and Libyans are Muslims. This is a clear illustration of the lasting and embedded harm done to our society by the implanting of the hostile alien ideology of Islam, for its followers identify more closely with their co-religionists overseas than with the indigenous British people. The real British people have no interest in intervening in Libya or anywhere else in the Muslim world. Libya’s problems are not our problems, and there is neither reason for us to intervene, nor benefit to be gained from such an intervention. Libya’s problems should be solved by Libyans and Libyans alone. As this intervention is injurious to our national interests and national security and Khan supports it, Khan is a threat to our national security (as, to be fair, are Cameron, Clegg, Hague et al). He represents only a section of his Muslim constituents; he does not represent the will of indigenous Britons. Voters of Tooting: eject Sadiq Khan at the earliest possible opportunity. Elect someone who will seek to represent your interests, not those of the Ummah.

The TUC march against Cuts: why not against Globalisation?

An estimated 100,000 people are said to be heading to London today to participate in a TUC-organised protest against government spending cuts. Of course, there is a justifiable and palpable sense of anger at the axing of jobs and public services, but I wonder, how many of those people taking to the streets today actually comprehend what lies at the root of the cuts and the economic crisis that has brought them about? I am of course, referring to globalisation. Given that the TUC and the last government (as well as the current one of course) are vigorous advocates and enablers of this process, this protest is utterly misdirected and quixotic. If those who march today genuinely wish to defend public services and jobs, they should be marching against globalisation.

Whereas the BBC and other media outlets invariably highlight the expense arising from the policing of EDL demonstrations, there is no such mention of the costs of deploying 4,500 police in London today.

Disgracefully, one of the unprincipled architects of our current economic plight – Ed Miliband – will be attending the march, despite the fact that he has no alternative suggestions to remedy the budget deficit or our economic malaise. His profligate globalising policies would only serve to hasten our terminal decline. According to the BBC, Miliband yesterday stated
‘that “the voices of the mainstream majority” would be making themselves heard.’

“I think the government will be making a great mistake if they somehow dismiss all of the people on that march as troublemakers or just ‘the same old people’. They are not.” '
If you took part in this march today, please wake up to the fact that what you are doing will count for absolutely nothing if you do not actively oppose globalisation and instead seek to defend our national interests and national sovereignty.

Sunday, 20 March 2011

"You can never stop Islam. You can never, ever stop it."

So says Ibrahim Sadiq-Conlon, an Australian Muslim convert in an excerpt from the Australian show 60 Minutes. He heads a group named Sharia4Australia, evidently modelled on Anjem Choudhary’s Sharia4UK. They are like peas in a pod, both despising the nature of the societies in which they reside.

The reporter speaks not only to individuals involved in the Islamist movement in Australia and the UK, but also to Tommy Robinson and other supporters of the EDL. Once again, as in other recent television appearances, Robinson acquits himself well in the interview. It would seem that he is becoming quite a seasoned performer, and this in itself is encouraging, as he has now emerged as a confident and articulate representative of the anti-Islamisation movement in the UK today.

Encouragingly, the well-known journalist Leo McKinstry was also interviewed, voicing his support for the EDL and highlighting that something had to be done to counter Islamisation in the UK. Although the 60 Minutes report makes for interesting viewing, and generally shies away from demonising the EDL, it does unfortunately refer to the pressure group as ‘far right’ and the piece ends with the reporter delivering a paean to Australian multiculturalism. The whole piece is soured by his unfortunate injection of moral equivalence into the concluding remarks that refer to "extremism on both sides" in Britain. If he means that the EDL are being extremely reasonable, then I agree, but I really don’t think that that was his implied meaning.

Of course, the reporter couldn’t resist setting up an interview with Anjem Choudhary, who delivered just what we’d expect of him by stating that “Multiculturalism is anathema to Muslims and Islam.” What he really should have said, is that anything that is not Islamic is anathema to Muslims and Islam.

The Australian Defence League is still in its infancy, and has yet to acquire the momentum and popular support of the EDL. Hopefully, for the sake of all Australians, the ADL will put a stop to Islamisation of Australia before the rot proceeds as far as in the UK.

Saturday, 19 March 2011

Danish Integration Minister Soren Pind speaks Sense

Unlike David Cameron’s mealy-mouthed posturing over the redundancy of multiculturalism and the need for immigrant ‘integration’, the recently appointed Danish Integration Minister Soren Pind has spelled out quite clearly what he expects of immigrants: assimilate or you’re not welcome. Immigrants should adopt and identify with Danish values. Those who come to Denmark should become culturally Danish, and not seek to impose their values and norms upon Danish society.

The report below notes that, unsurprisingly, Pind’s rational views have not been shared by a number of Danish citizens. For some bizarre reason (echoes of the BBC here), the reporters visited a school near Aarhus named Langkaer Gymnasium to solicit the opinions of some of the pupils, and yet chose only to interview Muslims. The attitudes of these young people is thus unsurprisingly anti-Danish, and it becomes abundantly clear that when they enter adult society they will form a resentful fraction within Danish society that will make life worse for the native population because of their open hostility towards the Danish way of life. One of the boys says “but of course we should integrate in Denmark so we can work in Denmark and take an education in Denmark”. That remark is very telling: they are only in Denmark to take advantage of the benefits that the country offers, and to settle the Danish homeland and make it their own. They do not see themselves as obliged to offer anything in return, or to respect the values and culture of their host society. They are the offspring of hostile colonists who should be ejected. Muslims integrate into the body politic of a host society like shrapnel integrates itself into the body of an unfortunate veteran: they constitute an unwelcome, painful and debilitating presence.

Despite opposition to Pind in the Danish parliament from, amongst others, the Social Democrats, he has the backing of colleagues in the government. It would seem that at long last a European government is beginning to pursue the right kind of policies with respect to preserving the interests of its indigenous people. Don’t expect to see David Cameron or any other mainstream UK politician calling for, let alone implementing, such a policy.

Lampedusa’s Libyan Burden

Whilst the media’s attention has been transfixed by David Cameron’s successful efforts to entangle the UK in yet another conflict, this time in a civil war in which we have neither stake nor interest, the human traffickers of North Africa have seen this as a golden opportunity to make a killing. Cynically exploiting the EU oligarchy’s penchant for favouring exotic alien incomers over their own people, our deliberately lax immigration system and perverse human rights legislation, they have been ferrying North Africans of various nationalities across the sea to Lampedusa. The initial wave was Tunisian, but now Libyans make up the bulk of the most recent arrivals.

As with the earlier influx of economic migrants masquerading as refugees, this current batch, as can be seen from the video footage below, appears to be exclusively male. Why would European countries wish to accommodate thousands of men who possess a psychology shaped by a religion – Islam, naturally – that states that all women who are not covered up are basically whores who are ‘asking for it’ and get all that they ‘deserve’? The admission of such people into our societies will lead to an increase in violence against women, specifically our women. If this were the only reason not to admit them, it would be a compelling one, but there are many other reasons for keeping them out too.

This week’s Libyan invasion of Lampedusa has swamped the island’s holding facility for such incomers. With room to accommodate 850 economic migrants, it has had to contain 2,000. So far this year, 9,000 North African economic migrants have used political unrest in the Arab world as a pretext to enter Lampedusa with a view to gaining entry to the EU labour market. So blasé have the human traffickers become with respect to the EU’s unwillingness to protect its own nations from hostile alien settlement, that a Moroccan ferry appeared off the Lampedusan coast this week carrying 1,500 Libyans. We are told that it was turned back, but where will it turn up next? What would happen in future if a flotilla of such vessels appeared just off some European shore? This is invasion. If David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have an itch to employ our armed forces to protect our nations’ interests – as is their only proper use – then why do they not deploy them to prevent this human flood out of Africa? All of those who have arrived on Lampedusa this year should be repatriated to their countries of origin immediately. This is the only way in which we can send out an essential message: do not come, for you are not welcome and you shall not enter.

Unsurprisingly, the Independent earlier this week ran a leading article entitled ‘Europe has an obligation to these desperate African refugees’. It too makes reference to the ferry, but claims that it carried 1,800 people whom it baselessly denied were economic migrants.
Fortress Europe has closed its gates. This week a ferry left Tripoli carrying 1,800 people. The vessel was first turned away from Malta. Then it was refused permission to put ashore at Lampedusa, the small island south of the Sicilian mainland. The passengers on this vessel are not economic migrants, but refugees from a war zone. Most are believed to be North Africans who were working in Tripoli when the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi's regime began. Their mistake is to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, their mistake is ‘to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time’, for if ‘most’ on board were supposed to be North African migrant workers, why wasn’t the ferry ferrying them to their home countries? The idea that they were seeking entry to the EU as refugees is thus risible. These people are quite clearly economic migrants who should be returned post-haste to their countries of origin. The ferry ought to be escorted by military vessels to the nearest safe North African port where it can begin to unload its human cargo.

Still, at least the comments section attached to this Independent article reveals that at least a proportion of its readers vigorously disagree with the sentiments of the leader article. These readers appear to possess more sympathy with the attitude of Marine Le Pen, who rightly visited Lampedusa to highlight the plight of the long-suffering islanders who have had to cope with this unbidden human incursion from North Africa. The islanders' patience is wearing thin, and PI News reports that 100 of them have recently held a protest against North African migration to their island. Will the leaders of the EU listen? Sadly, I fear that they and the mass media will stigmatise the Lampedusan islanders as 'bigots'. More on the beginnings of this year's North African influx to Lampedusa can be found here.

Friday, 18 March 2011

Only Mad Dog Gaddafi and Cameron go out in the Libyan Sun

I was hoping that Russia and China would this evening block the quixotic idiocy about to be unleashed by the Prime Minister, but alas, this hope proved to be unfounded. These two key permanent members of the UN Security Council abstained over the vote which has now been passed 10-0 in support of employing “all necessary measures” excepting a ground invasion “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”. Still, perhaps it will be in their favour, because it will hasten the terminal decline of the United Kingdom and thereby bolster their international geopolitical influence.

As our planes could be enforcing a no-fly zone within hours, there are a number of questions that must be asked. What key national interest does the UK have at stake in Libya? The answer is quite straightforward: we possess no such interest in Libya. As Kelvin Mackenzie rightly noted on Question Time this evening, if we are to use military force against Libya, then why not against Bahrain and Saudia Arabia? Why not against Zimbabwe and numerous other states that we find disagreeable and which maltreat significant sections of their populations? Rational answers came there none, for there are none. The UK’s armed forces should be employed exclusively to protect our territory and our people. There may have been a case for an air strike against Libya in the immediate aftermath of Lockerbie, but there is no such case today.

The UK and France have stepped forward to proffer their air power in the first instance. Is this a case of senile former great power sibling rivalry? What are our respective governments doing? What do they hope to achieve? Are they really viewing the Libyan civil war through a grossly distorted, simplistic and moralistic prism? Do they seem to think that this is an unambiguous Manichean-style conflict between the forces of good and evil (i.e. Gaddafi versus ‘democratic’ rebels)? What denouement do they foresee? I see a swarm of Libyan refugees being given succour in the UK and France, swelling our hostile Islamic colonies and becoming a permanent unbidden and resentful presence. Do I see a stable Libya functioning as a Western-style liberal democracy? No. No I do not. I do not pretend to see anything, but I do not believe for one moment that the majority of the Libyan people are ‘just like us’ and ‘want the same freedoms as us’. Some will do, but most of them probably will not, and will instead cleave to the atavistic barbarous appeal of a Shariah-based state.

Do I wish Gaddhafi well? No. Do I wish the rebels well? Some of them, undoubtedly; others, certainly not.

The stance of the Conservative-led government with respect to this intervention demonstrates that something has gone deeply wrong with our foreign-policy establishment. From Blair to Brown, to Cameron and Clegg, the thread is unbroken; their foreign policies are seamless: military interventionism, globalisation and sovereign surrender to the EU and other transnational agencies. The leading lights of our governing parties are but the UK’s arm of an ugly, unresponsive and unaccountable globalist oligarchy. The time has come to kick them out. Only democratic nationalism can bring an end to this rot. There will soon be a viable political alternative, but in the interim, what further travails must we endure at the hands of these out-of-touch fools who dare to see themselves as our governing class?

As Iraq finished Blair, so shall Libya finish Cameron.

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Green Breast emerges from Keighley's Ghousia Mosque

Keighley, already home to the lowering presence of the recently built child-beating facility (see clip from Dispatches ‘Lessons in Hate’ documentary below) called the Markazi Jamia Mosque, large enough to accommodate 3,000 worshipping child-beaters, will shortly be joined by another factory of hate on Skipton Road. Draped in tarpaulins, the green dome of the Ghousia Mosque emerges from the drapes like a cheeky pert breast from beneath a burqa. When completed, the new mosque will be able to accommodate 400 worshippers. Like the Markazi Jamia, the Ghousia is affiliated to the ‘British’ Muslim Forum and represents the Bareilvi Sunni sect.

The construction of this mosque so soon after the Markazi Jamia, painfully illustrates the ultra-rapid growth of the Muslim population in Keighley. This is not good news for local people, already victims of Muslim paedophile pimps and depressed property prices generated by the burgeoning Muslim presence. However, for those of you looking to move but not wishing to leap blindly from the frying pan into the fire, there is an excellent online facility where you can check that you’re not buying in an area with a large Muslim presence: UK Mosque Searcher.

The UK Mosque Searcher provides a rough guide to areas to avoid, by showing where all of the UK’s existing mosques as well as those under construction are located. The presence of a mosque, as well as its size and type, serves as a good proxy measure for an area’s Islamisation. The UK Mosque Searcher allows you to search for neighbourhoods less at risk from Muslim paedophile pimping and also less vulnerable to declining property values generated by the presence of Muslim colonies. Fed up with scowling faces and verbal abuse hurled at you in ‘community’ languages? Why not use the UK Mosque Searcher to aid your relocation to what remains of England? Go on, give it a try!

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Nothing British about the BBC’s Midsomer Madness

The BBC is in uproar. Its indignant fury has been crackling through the airwaves of Radio 4, creating a new figure of hate for the baying multiculturalist mob: Brian True-May. What did True-May do to incite the ire of the broadcaster? What was he guilty of? Mugging? Murder? Assault? Slander? Being a bit off with somebody? Travelling without a valid rail ticket? Telling someone that her bum looked big in a particular outfit? No. The producer of ITV’s popular Midsomer Murders drama dared to deviate from the dominant ideology that may not be questioned without the culprit being professionally destroyed by stating:
"We just don't have ethnic minorities involved, because it wouldn't be the English village with them," he said. "It just wouldn't work."

Asked why "Englishness" could not include other races who are well represented in modern society, he said: "Well, it should do, and maybe I'm not politically correct.

"I'm trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don't want to change it."
Who could object to what True-May said, other than someone specifically intent upon the ethnocide of the English? For in truth, this is precisely what the BBC is engaging in: ethnocide. It is abusing its power to deliberately destroy the national cohesion of Britain, and the ethnic distinctiveness of the English. This is why it has singled out True-May for destruction. The English are the indigenous population of England and the BBC is attempting to destroy them as a coherent self-conscious entity. As Wikipedia states with respect to the concept of ethnocide:
Article 7 of a 1994 draft of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples uses the phrase "cultural genocide" but does not define what it means.[4] The complete article reads as follows:

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;

(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.
Unfortunately, this was not adopted, and for some inexplicable and bizarre reason, the native peoples of Europe, with the sole exception of the Sami, are not classed as ‘indigenous’. However, I would maintain that the BBC is guilty of all five practices defined in the UN draft on ethnocide, for it actively works to undermine our culture as well as our political and biological integrity through its advocacy of globalism, mass immigration, the UK’s absorption into the EU and Islamisation. These themes are drip-fed in a continual propaganda effort, both explicit and implicit, designed to destroy the historical reality of the English as a distinctive and united people.

If the BBC wishes to have ethnic minorities intrude their way into every facet of English life, and wants them to be accurately depicted in Midsomer Murders, how would it feel about a plotline featuring a murdering paedophile network in an extended family of Pakistani Muslims in Midsomer? Would that make them happy? There’s no pleasing some people! There's nothing British about the BBC.

Monday, 14 March 2011

Blackpool EDL Demo: Justice for Charlene Downes

On Saturday 26 March the EDL will hold a third demo in Blackpool to demand justice for Charlene Downes. On 1 November 2003 the fourteen-year-old girl kissed her mother goodbye and was never seen again. In 2007 Blackpool kebab shop owner Lyad Albattikhi appeared in Preston Crown Court charged with Charlene’s murder, after extensive police surveillance captured him on tape bragging of first having sex with and then killing Charlene. In conversation with his business partner - Mohammed Reveshi – Albattikhi admitted feeding her into a meat grinder and then serving up her body to customers in his kebabs. 

The Times reported:
More than 52 tape recordings were captured by covert surveillance of Mr Reveshi’s home and car between February and March 2004 by the police inquiry team set up after Charlene disappeared in November 2003.

The jury was told that in one conversation Mr Reveshi had said to his partner: “Well, hopefully I [done] it properly you know . . . he thought he saw me cutting her body up.

“Do you remember she was bleeding to death?” “Yes,” replied Mr Albattikhi. “So that she made a mess,” Mr Reveshi allegedly added. Later in the transcript Mr Reveshi allegedly says: “The last one then, it was the last deep one and then it was the [heart] . . . that finally killed her.”

At one point Mr Reveshi said: “I’m so worried and you was the one who killed her.”

In his opening address to the jury last month, Tim Holroyde, for the prosecution, claimed that a witness had heard Jordanian-born Mr Albattikhi joke with fellow takeaway employees about how the teenager had been chopped up, and how her body “had gone into the kebabs”. Mr Albattikhi, of Blackpool, denies murdering Charlene while Mr Reveshi, also of Blackpool, denies disposing of her body.
Unfortunately, despite this damning evidence, the trial collapsed in October 2009 due to bodged handling of the evidence and the failure of the jury to reach a verdict. Both Albattikhi and Reveshi were subsequently discharged. Christine’s parents have thus undergone the horrific ordeal of losing their daughter and having to sit through this gruesome trial only to see it come to nothing.

At the time of the trial’s collapse, the Daily Mail reported Karen Downes, Charlene’s mother, as saying:
'We feel badly let down by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service,' she said.
'We're no further on, we're back to square one. There is no closure.
'I was devastated when I saw the report. It's very upsetting.'
Lancashire Police apologised to the Downes family but said it remained a live investigation and its officers were still committed to solving the case.
The investigating team were guilty of a strategic and tactical failure in the management of the audio and video material they obtained, the IPCC concluded.
Proper records were not kept, material was not fully transcribed and the overall integrity of the material was not ensured.
The EDL demand justice for Charlene and her family and therefore will be gathering to protest in Blackpool at 1pm on Saturday 26 March. For further details, watch for updates on the Casuals United blog. Hats off to the EDL for seeking justice for the family of Charlene Downes when all others appear to have abandoned them. Let’s get the case reoppened and the culprits brought to justice!

The first of the EDL videos below is the official promo for the demo. The second features some additional information about what the kebab shop owners are alleged to have done since their acquittal.

Saturday, 12 March 2011

Of Burning Qur’ans & Poppies: Andrew Ryan, Emdadur Choudhury and the British Justice System

Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society has this week written an editorial entitled ‘Is there really one law for all? We’re about to find out’ in which he highlights the case of Andrew Ryan who has been arrested and ‘charged with religiously aggravated harassment and theft of a Koran’. Worryingly, notes Sanderson, this charge carries a potential seven-year prison sentence.

Ryan bravely burned a Qur’an in Carlisle this January, and following on from Emdadur Choudhury’s £50 fine for his poppy burning escapade imposed for causing “harassment, harm or distress” under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, it remains to be seen whether Ryan will escape so lightly. Thanks to the egregious ‘religious hatred’ (sic) legislation passed by the last Labour Government, are we to expect that Ryan will be treated as leniently as Choudhury? If not, why not? If Ryan receives more than a £50 fine for his act of burning a Qur’an (an act which is perfectly innocuous, as the pages of a book feel no pain) this will confirm that Islam is being accorded an officially-sanctioned privileged role in our society and legal system. How should we react if Ryan is punished? I would suggest that we write to our MPs voicing our objection both to the sentence and to the legislation that enabled this charge to be brought. I would also urge you to burn a Qur’an (however, do ensure that it’s your own and not stolen).

Terry Sanderson notes:
Mr Ryan is due in court on 24th March and it will be very interesting to see whether the judge in his case also thinks that "shocking and offending people is sometimes a necessary part of effective protest."

Naturally, some people think the Koran is "sacred" while others think it is just a sheaf of papers bound together like any other book. Will Mr Ryan get a £50 fine for burning paper or will he get seven years for offending the sensitivities of Muslims?

Let's see if the law thinks there is "offence" and "religious offence" and then, perhaps, "offending Islam" – all of which might bring very different punishments. One law for all? We'll see.
One law for all? This is the nub of the question. One law there must be and one law only, and it must never be Shariah. Good luck to Mr Ryan in his forthcoming court appearance.

Friday, 11 March 2011

Muslim Paedophile Swoop in Brierfield, Nelson

Yet again, as in Blackburn, Derby, Keighley, Rochdale and Rotherham, Muslim paedophiles have been targeting underage girls for sexual exploitation. Three residents of Brierfield in Nelson - Shiraz Arzal aged 24, Mohammed Imran Amjad aged 24 and Omar Mazafer aged 20 – were arrested during a police swoop on addresses across the town. Although the ethnicity of the abused girls has not been specified, it is almost certain that they would have been indigenous English, for these are the girls – ‘kuffar’ – that Muslim paedophiles actively seek out for abuse.

The Lancashire Telegraph details the charges as follows:
Shiraz Arzal ‘is charged with causing or inciting a girl aged between 13 and 15 to engage in sexual activity.’

Mohammed Imran Amjad ‘is charged with arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence and child abduction.’

Omar Mazafer ‘is charged with two counts of Section 39 common assault.’
Two of the three undoubtedly took a perverse delight in ‘emulating’ the example of their paedophile prophet Mohammed. Just when will it be publicly permissible to speak the truth, and point to the roots of this systematic Muslim paedophilia as lying at the heart of Islam itself in the ‘perfect’ example of the life of the Prophet Mohammed and his sexual usage of his child bride Aisha at the age of nine? Until Islamic doctrine is dismantled and the ugly life of its perverted prophet publicly held in contempt, this abusive pattern of Muslim paedophilia will not be broken.

Will Lord Ahmed of Rotherham leap to the defence of these perverse sexual predators? Is it time for the EDL to come to Nelson and protest against the phenomenon of Muslim paedophilia?

Tatarstan: ‘A whole generation is ready to conduct extremist activity’

Next year marks the 460th anniversary of the incorporation of the territory of Tatarstan into the Russian state. The fall of Kazan, the capital of the former Tatar Khanate, to the forces of Ivan the Terrible was memorably commemorated in the first part of Sergei Eisenstein’s allegory on Stalin’s paranoid court - Ivan the Terrible Part 1 - and marked the point when Russia finally put to rest its fears of domination from the East. Now however, it appears that a new fear is haunting Russia, as the country’s demographic crisis is leading to a decline in the absolute number of ethnic Russians, as well as their share in the state's population. On the other hand, its Asiatic Muslim population is growing in both absolute and relative terms, rather than shrinking.

Still from Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible, Part 1

This represents the continuation of a long-established trend, for differential Muslim and non-Muslim birth-rates were already a cause for concern within the Soviet Union as early as the mid 1970s. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the loss of the Muslim Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan left Russia shorn of a significant proportion of the USSR’s Muslim population. However, owing to Russia’s gradual historical territorial expansion across the northern expanse of Eurasia, many other traditionally Muslim peoples were incorporated into the tsarist state and its successors: Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanis (a label encompassing over thirty small Muslim ethnic groups) and others. These peoples have generally speaking remained concentrated in their historical homelands, and whereas amongst many of these groupings adherence to Islam at the popular level may have been historically superficial and officially frowned upon during the Soviet period, the past two decades has seen a resurgence in religious – particularly Muslim - identities.

As in other countries, Saudi money has underpinned the rise of the Wahhabist variant of Islam amongst many young Muslims in Russia, and jihadist ideology has been grafted onto a pre-existing nationalist rootstock in a number of cases. A recent article in Nezavisimaia gazeta entitled ‘A whole Generation of Extremists’ gives a clue to how significant the problem of jihadist ideology has become in Tatarstan. As in the UK, the Russian security agencies have discovered that a significant number of Islamists in the republic have journeyed to Pakistan and Afghanistan to participate in violent Islamist activity before returning home to attack non-Muslim targets in their homeland. So acute is this problem adjudged to be, that it is said to rank alongside poverty in its potential to threaten social stability in the republic. The local republican government is thus engaged in devising a new programme to forestall and combat the growth of violent extremism in Tatarstan. Although the word is not mentioned, the threat is quite clearly Islamic.

Last November three armed Islamic militants were killed by members of the Russian security forces in Tatarstan’s Nurlat’skii District. The three were suspected of planting a bomb beneath the car of the Director of Tatarstan’s branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) Centre for Countering Extremism. Luckily for him, the bomb failed to detonate. As in the UK, the Russian Government and mainstream media are coy about describing the phenomenon that they are dealing with, referring euphemistically to ‘extremism’ without appending the Islamic tag. As the Nezavisimaia gazeta correspondent Sergei Tarasov notes, loose deployment of terms such as the “struggle with extremism” («борьба с экстремизмом») by Russia’s political and security establishment runs the risk of enabling the deployment of repressive measures including lethal force, to put to an end any political opposition that might feasibly be described as ‘extremist’. We can see a direct parallel with respect to this abuse of language in David Cameron’s recent speech in Munich, which sought to bracket Islamism with a deliberately stigmatised domestic British patriotism as exemplified by groups such as the EDL.

Over the past five years more than 100 people have been sentenced in Tatarstan for involvement in terrorist and extremist activity. However, over half of these have already served their sentences and subsequently been released. Once again, although not specified, the article clearly implies that the majority if not all of these people were Islamic extremists. As in mosques in the UK which routinely disseminate hostile views of our society and values, the authorities in Tatarstan have detected a parallel trend in which a number of mosques have been preaching a Salafist interpretation of Islam which advocates violent jihad against non-Muslims. This has prompted sweeps of mosques and the confiscation of inflammatory Islamist literature.

However, in the opinion of Vladimir Belyaev, an academic at the Russian Academy of Political Sciences, the problem of Islamic extremism in Tatarstan can be tackled effectively without necessarily deploying lethal force.
Of course, there is [Islamic] extremism in Tatarstan, but not on such a scale as is stated. The problem can be solved without the application of any kind of extraordinary measures. For example, monitoring the situation on internet sites and in mosques. This would be sufficient.
Tatarstan, like many other traditionally Muslim areas of Russia, is witnessing a growth in Islamic militancy. Although the Medvedev-Putin administration may talk tough on dealing with this phenomenon, the fact remains that Putin possesses no ideological aversion to treating with Islamists. It was Putin after all, who backed Ramzan Kadyrov as Chechen President, a man who has campaigned for the introduction of Shariah to Chechnya, who has made the wearing of the headscarf obligatory and supports polygamy. Putin is a cynic whose primary interest is personal access to power, who although willing to play with the symbols of Russian patriotism and nationhood, clearly does not possess any especial regard for non-Muslim Russians. Witness also the close links forged between Russia and Iran under Putin and Medvedev. As in the UK, if ordinary Russians are to rid their country of the Islamist menace, they shouldn’t rely upon their corrupt politicians but ought instead to organise and take to the streets demanding that Islamisation be dealt with.

The Russian Federation, like its larger predecessor the USSR, is comprised of a number of ethno-territorial entities – ‘republics’ and so on – which are not majority ethnic Russian (russkii), and twenty years ago many analysts anticipated that the fledgling Russian Federation would fragment into its constituent ethno-territorial units. This did not happen, although Chechnya of course did attempt to break away from 1991 onwards. Now, it may be in the interests of patriotic ethnic Russians to divest themselves of their problematic Islamic territories and accord them independence. A consolidated ethnic Russian (russkoe) rather than a civic Russian (rossiiskoe) state could provide a preferable political unit to the existing federation with its array of hostile Muslim states in waiting. Of course, creating a Russian ethnostate would mark a retreat from the multiethnic multifaith imperial state that Ivan the Terrible set about creating through his conquest of the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan in the 1550s, but then again, perhaps that would be no bad thing for the Russian people.

Thursday, 10 March 2011

“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.

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Who should determine the Future of Libya?

This evening, the panellists on Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' debated the pros and cons and rights and wrongs of potential military intervention in Libya. Much of the debate thus centred upon a cluster of issues connected to state sovereignty, international law, Just War Theory and human rights. Ultimately, it was a debate that revolved around the central question of 'who should determine the future of Libya?'

For me, there can only be one answer to this question: the Libyan people themselves. Libyan sovereignty is under contention, with Gaddafi attempting to retain the state as his personal domain, whilst a popular uprising seeks to wrest control from him in the name of the Libyan people. Clearly, for a democratic nationalist the right to determine the future lies with the latter, not with a despot and his clique. What is equally clear however is that it is up to the Libyan people to determine that outcome and to establish their own post-Gaddafi government; it is not the business of the UN, NATO, the Gulf Co-operation Council, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference or any other nation individually or in league with others to determine the future governance of Libya. Those who seek to overthrow the Gaddafi order have made it quite clear that they do not want foreign intervention, and any contravention of this request constitutes a violation of national sovereignty and democratic right.
The clamour for foreign intervention against Gaddafi is growing, emanating from a number of governments and those who advocate the deeply flawed approach that goes by the name of ‘humanitarian interventionism’. Unfortunately, the British government is foremost amongst those advocating military intervention, and David Cameron has made clear that all military options are under consideration including the deployment of ground troops. My primary objection to such an approach has already been made: any such action would constitute an intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation-state, but there are many more good reasons not to intervene:
  • Firstly, there is no British national security interest at stake in Libya.  
  • Secondly, any intervention by the UK, NATO or any other Western state or coalition thereof would be used by Gaddafi to rally Libyans to his cause by pointing to this as evidence of a ‘Western imperialist’ plot to depose him and subjugate Libya to their interests.  
  • Thirdly, the argument that we should intervene upon so-called ‘humanitarian grounds’ is spurious, for if such grounds are to be used as justification to wage war on regimes around the globe, might not equal or better cases be made for war against North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma or China?  
  • Fourthly, Western intervention in another Muslim majority state would recruit even more zealots to the international jihadist movement.  
  • Fifthly, once Gaddafi was toppled, what objectives would any intervening power or coalition possess with a view to the reconstitution of the Libyan political order? Might it not prove to be as intractable and violent a quagmire as Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are the clear strategic objectives? There appear to be none. 
  • Sixthly, military intervention always involves ‘collateral damage’. Given this, even Libyans who might conceivably call upon outside powers to intervene, could subsequently come to hate and resent them.  
  • Seventhly, we are bankrupt and our armed forces have just been slashed and are militarily overstretched.
The case for the UK's potentially disastrous intervention in Libya appears to be driven by a fundamental lack of clear-headed strategic thinking regarding our national security. The Conservative Party, the FCO and RUSI all appear to have been infected by the globalist bacillus and its affiliated virus of 'humanitarian interventionism'. Our national security priorities should above all be national. We should thus focus upon securing our borders, eradicating pirates (yes, the pirates themselves, for without pirates there can be no piracy) and maintaining a suitable deterrent to ensure that we are never attacked by another state. Withdrawal from NATO should also be a top priority. We have no right to interfere in the affairs of other states, just as they have no right to interfere in our sovereign affairs. Libya for the Libyans, and Britain for the Britons. Show me someone who objects to that, and I’ll show you an anti-democrat.  

Monday, 7 March 2011

Garden Gnome fined for ill-tempered Poppy Burning

The Daily Mail reports that a humourless garden gnome look-alike by the name of Emdadur Choudhary was today fined £50 for burning a number of large plastic poppies during the two-minutes’ silence on Armistice Day and yelling “British soldiers burn in Hell!” In effect, he won't even be paying this fine as he's on state benefits. He, and about 35 other members of the cult of garden gnome impersonators – Muslims Against Crusades – staged their stunt with the intent of insulting Britain’s war dead and causing offence to their living relatives. It certainly caused some agitation amongst EDL supporters who were nearby at the time. Moreover, the Mail reports that:
Choudary was caught on camera unfurling several large plastic poppies on the ground before burning them at the end of the two-minute silence to honour the war dead

'If we set fire to a Qur'an there would be uproar and they would go after us but because this is Britain people just get upset. It is a futile sentence.

'For them to insult those who have given their lives for freedom is an affront. It is one law for them and one law for others.
Very Idle Speculations
What are the real reasons underpinning Choudhary’s anger and hatred for the society in which he resides? Apologists might point to such canards as ‘racism’, ‘relative deprivation’ or ‘British foreign policy’. Generally, the leftist exoneration of folk such as Chodhary invokes all of these justifications, but I have other ideas.

Digging out an old oil lamp I gave it a rub and out popped out a genie (I know, Choudhary would prefer me to refer to it as a jinn, but I’m sticking with our traditional anglicised version).

“Your wish is my command!” said the genie.
“Cheers. I don’t want you to do much; just find out what that Emdadur Choudhary has swirling around in that odd noddle of his, and report back. Is that a deal?”
“Of course, sire!”
And off popped the genie, to return half an hour later to report back on his conversation with Choudhary, and this is what he said (unfortunately, owing to the genie's residence in Bradford since his arrival from Mirpur in 1975, he communicated the message in his contemporary 'Bradistani', so I apologise to the reader if the passage is somewhat unclear):

“I, Emdadur Choudhary, do declare before the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon Him), that I and me brothers is standing up for us rights by fighting the kuffar in this Dar-al-Harb. I have chosen to take the path of righteousness, to practise Dawah and to be a soldier of Allah, ‘cos I feel very insecure about me ‘ight. I’m shorter than me mates! Someone also cut off part of me penis when I was even smaller, which 'as filled me and me mates with righteous Muslim anger (that's why it's done y'know). It's given me a right bad temper.
I am making a stand (I know, I’m not tall, so shut up about it!) for me mates, who like me, are gnomes; noble Muslim gnomes with ‘luxuriant’ beards, who have too often been ignored in your racist media. Why is all your gnomes white and kuffar? We’re gonna ‘ave ‘em big style ‘n’ smash ‘em up bro’! Gonna make ‘em and you respect us, ‘cos gnomes deserve respect. Why don’t your white gnomes prostrate themselves before Allah? And what is it with them gettin' on with fairies, like?! They ought to string 'em up from cranes like they do in Iran! Kuffar gnomes is gonna pay, Muslim gnomes is on their way!”
Celebrating Britain's Rich 'Diversity' of gnomic Heritage: which One's Choudhury?  

UAF Gnome - currently allied with Choudhary's Islamist Confederates in the MDL

  Choudhary captured in Duet with David Bowie

Sunday, 6 March 2011

Video footage of MDL and UAF Dupes in Rochdale

The first two pieces of footage showing the MDL turning out to confront the EDL in Rochdale yesterday illustrate that the so-called UAF counter-demonstration was predominantly a Muslim affair, with a few miserable Trotskyist indigenes being visible in the first piece as they make their way to the town centre. The second video features MDL supporters yelling a considerable amount of abuse at the EDL. Taking this into account, and their repeated aggressive chants of “Allahu akbar!” (as shown in a video posted yesterday) why did the police deploy a considerable number of dog handlers in front of the comparatively peaceful EDL static demonstration? These would have been put to better use keeping the MDL in order.

Saturday, 5 March 2011

EDL and MDL Rochdale Videos

Brought to you before the BBC, ITV or Sky, are three pieces of video footage from today’s EDL demonstration in Rochdale. The first of the pieces is the most interesting, featuring as it does a very vociferous group of what were ostensibly UAF counter-demonstrators, but as can be heard from repeated references to the MDL (Muslim Defence League) as well as chants of ‘Allahu-akbar!’, their Islamic affiliation clearly trumped any other political position. This follows the pattern set by a UAF contingent that morphed into supporters of Muslims Against Crusades at a London demo last summer (once again with chants of ‘Allahu-akbar!’).

The second and third pieces of footage focus upon the much more peaceful EDL demonstration, with plenty of mounted police and dog handlers in evidence. However, why were the MDL (hiding beneath the UAF banner) permitted to get so close to the EDL?

Accrington Stanley sign up Muslim Defence League Member?

I don’t follow these matters, but I see from the Muslim Defence League (MDL) Facebook site, that someone named Amir Ronaldo Skeenz claims that he will be making his debut for Accrington Stanley Football Club this Wednesday. Is that a real name? Is this true? If so, will there be any EDL members to give him an appropriate ‘welcome’ when he takes to the pitch? As you can see from his Facebook profile, it seems that he might suffer from a just touch of narcissism. Can you imagine the furore if an Accrington Stanley player (or a player from any other club for that matter), declared himself to be a supporter of the EDL? Are you going to let the club know what you think about this new player’s unsavoury off-pitch activities?

Thankfully, this seems to have been a wind-up by the improbably-named Amir Ronaldo Skeenz, as contributors to the comments section affirm, and this squad list suggests.

Initial Reports from Rochdale EDL Demo: Fireworks go off in EDL Crowd

Live reports state that as of 2.44pm today, approximately 600 EDL supporters had arrived in Rochdale for their protest outside of the Town Hall. This is double the initial figure of 300 reported by the police. Nonetheless, this is thus quite a small-scale demonstration compared to many that the EDL have staged, which is unsurprising given the low level of publicity that it has enjoyed.

As ever, counter-demonstrators are descending upon Rochdale, but they are reported to be far fewer in number. An estimated 50 to 100 SWP-led UAF counter-demonstrators are said to be heading from Stonyfield Park to confront the EDL protestors. Let's hope that the police keep them well back from the demonstration and do not fall victim to Trotskyist-inspired violence. It is a pity that their presence causes towns and cities hosting demonstrations to lose much of their trade for the day because of the violence that they unleash and then attribute to the EDL. Having said that, the large police presence is said to be permitting people to go about their normal Saturday activities in the town centre, which is a fact that can only be welcomed, especially during these hard economic times.

Shortly after 1.00pm, it was reported that fireworks went off in the EDL crowd. The report however, did not make clear whether these were thrown at the EDL (most likely) or otherwise. Reports also mentioned Muslim Defence League (MDL) protesters, but numbers were not provided, as well as MPAC members who were out trying to get Muslims involved in their lobbying activities.

According to the BBC, 24 arrests were made, although as in all of its initial reporting of such protests, it did not state whether these were of UAF, MDL, MPAC or EDL supporters. This is the standard tactic employed by the BBC, which seeks to imprint in the public mind the notion that the majority, if not all of the arrests are of EDL supporters. Previous experience has shown that the bulk of arrests tend to be from those attempting to prevent the EDL from exercising their right to free speech. Three people have been arrested for 'possession of an offensive weapon' and a further four for 'public order offences'.

EDL and Mounted Police in Rochdale

EDL Supporters arriving for Rochdale Protest

MDL shouting 'Racist Scum, I shagged your mum!' (picture courtesy Tim Brooks-Pollock)

Niqab-clad Exponent of anti-English Hate

Baying Islamo-Marxist anti-Free Speech Mob

Police escort Islamo-Marxist Protesters against Free Speech

EDL Rochdale Demo Promo Video

This video, released to explain the EDL's reason for holding a protest in Rochdale today, is illuminating. Once again, it details cases of systematic abuse of underage English girls by groups (often families) of Pakistani Muslim males. Quite why people continue to believe that this sickening problem is not specifically associated with doctrinaire Islamic ideology, I do not know. This problem must be removed, and our children protected.

Friday, 4 March 2011

Majed’s 'magic' World of Dawah in Rochdale

Not a great deal has yet been written about tomorrow’s planned EDL protest in Rochdale. All I will say to the EDL and their supporters at this point is: let it be peaceful; get your message across, and don’t be provoked. Lastly, but not least: good luck!

Understandably, others have a rather different perspective. For a change though, I am not going to dwell upon the slogan spouting Left who will of course be there to try and pick a fight, whip up hatred and generally cause mayhem whilst claiming all along that ‘it was the EDL that did it!’ Instead, I am going to look at the response of a local Muslim blogger to the EDL’s decision to protest in Rochdale.

Majed Iqbal describes himself in the third person as follows:
Majed is a well known figure in Rochdale (UK). He actively works on the ground at a grass roots level in shaping the views of Muslims on local, national and international issues and is fluid in airing his views through writing, media, and at organised events.
If Majed happened to be a resident of one of the North African or Middle Eastern countries currently undergoing political upheaval, the BBC would be inclined to describe him as ‘web-savvy’, ‘modern’ and a ‘democrat’. Unfortunately, like many of those upon whom they project these labels overseas, only the first of these adjectives applies to Majed. As you can see from Majed’s photograph below, he looks just the sort of Muslim chap that the BBC likes to pack into the Question Time studio or into Nicky Campbell’s Big Questions audience: opinionated, yet calm and assertive. He lacks the ‘luxuriant beard’ and ‘austere’ appearance that mark out more overtly ‘devout’ (doctrinaire) Muslims, which the BBC recognises might ‘frighten the horses’ so to speak. However, looking into his writings, we see that this is just what he is: ‘devout’. The horses ought to be frightened.

Nontheless, I’ll give Majed credit where credit is due, for he does not try to hide his opinions. He is quite honest about them. However, what he writes reveals the unbridgeable gulf between the doctrinaire Muslim mind – conditioned to mental submission and slavery – and the non-Muslim mind, which seeks liberty and freedom of thought. With Majed, as with Thatcher, you know where you stand.

Being of the ideological persuasion that he is, convinced of the intrinsic ‘merits’ and ‘superiority’ of Islam, Majed is unsurprisingly perturbed by the EDL’s decision to protest in his town of residence. He writes, in quite an unselfconscious and thus unintentionally amusing manner:

The EDL is an organisation which claims that Islam is problematic and that Shariah (islamic Law) which Muslims follow is extremist.
From this sentence we discover a great deal about Majed: he thinks that Shariah is an unqualified ‘good thing’ and is not ‘extremist’, which is an opinion that I hold to be a very bad thing. Majed outlines six personal recommendations for how the town’s ‘Muslim community’ should respond to tomorrow’s EDL protest. I reproduce his points three, four and five below in full, for once again, they give us an interesting insight into the workings of the Muslim mind. It is also important to note that he has rumbled the SWP’s game, and thus calls upon his co-religionists not to do the Trotskyists' dirty work for them.

Majed's Recommendations for Rochdale Muslims

3. Help us educate our youth

Our youth are our future, and we must not allow them to be easily provoked by racists or by hot-headed leftists, who get the Muslim youth to carry out their dirty work. We should remember that in the Bradford riots it was Muslim youth sent to prison for acts organised by right-wing racists and leftist opponents.

4. Be clear about what they are aiming for

It is nothing less than for Muslims to abandon the noble Islamic values, and become westernised. This was the same aim of the government’s PVE (Preventing Violent Extremism) programme. We have to know how to defend the ideas they attack. We cannot simply allow them to bully us to distance ourselves from Islam and the Shariah in this way. In particular, the Imams and Ulema have a role and a responsibility to teach the community the truth of Islam.

5. We must reach out to local non-Muslims

As a Dawah to Islam and to counter the twisted understanding of Islam they get from media outlets and politicians we must present Islam to non-Muslims. Local masjids should think about organising open days or Islam awareness days to present the correct view of Islam to non-Muslims and to dispel the many misconceptions people have about Islam and Muslims.
Are you relishing the prospect of attending an 'open day' at one of Majed's recommended Rochdale masjids? Pardon me if I turn down this invitation.

Majed can accurately be characterised, in objective language that the mainstream media would not care to employ, as a confident colonist and a Muslim cultural imperialist. He wishes to impose backward alien values upon our land and our people, and although of course opinion pollsters would report that Majed is all for 'integration' and thus claim that he is 'moderate' and all for upholding 'British values' (sic), it is 'integration' of a very specific type: absorption of our people into Islam. Neither this stance, nor the presence of people who advocate it, should be acceptable within our shores.

Majed advocates Shariah and the outright rejection of English/British/European/secular norms. He demands maintaining the separation of Muslim 'youth' from the rest of society, and calls upon the Muslim faithful to proselytise amongst us non-believers. Quite how he thinks that we possess a ‘twisted understanding of Islam’ I therefore do not profess to know. Shariah is barbarism. There must be one secular law for all in our country, and Shariah or any other religious law must never have any place in our legal system. Anyone who disagrees with this position ought to set up home in a country elsewhere that has a legal system compatible with their system of belief. Should the day come that Majed’s line of thought no longer has a toehold in our country, then the time will have arrived for the EDL to stop protesting and return to the football terraces. Until that time however, the EDL will remain a necessary presence on our streets, owing to our politicians' unwillingness to acknowledge that Islamisation is a problem.