Not a thousand words, but here is a picture of Britain today.
British soldiers returning from war with their police escort.
Not quite 1918 or 1945. This is what the liberal/left have reduced our country to in 2009.
Weep for England.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom Of Speech
Shortly after Gordon Brown became the unelected Prime Minister of Great Britain in 2007, he made a speech outlining his views on liberty and freedom, which included the following phrase:
“The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty – by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather than reduces the sphere of freedom.”
If one can ignore the tortuous and robotic prose for a moment, let us fast forward to February 2009 in the aftermath of Geert Wilders banishment from Britain, to hear Labour MP Keith Vaz, the Minister For Europe, state on national television his own particular viewpoint on the sphere of freedom:
“We don’t have absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom, because I myself have voted on laws preventing people inciting racial hatred and violence.”
Mr Vaz, an immigrant of Yemeni/Portuguese extraction, is clearly proud of the part he has played in restricting the ancient and bloodstained freedoms of Britain. No doubt Vaz is pleased the dark days of 1990 are now behind him, when he wrote to the Guardian to claim “there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech” as he attempted to ban the publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.
Unfortunately for Vaz, freedom of speech actually existed in 1990 and Rushdie’s book was duly published. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the subversion of British law carried out by Vaz and his ilk means it no longer does in 2009 – witness the Wilders travesty - which rather damns Gordon Brown’s apparently admirable speech as typical socialist spin, if not deliberately disingenuous propaganda.
It is unsurprising that Keith Vaz should raise such words as “racial hatred and violence” in relation to Geert Wilders, this being the default fallback for Muslims with a grievance (a body of people whose members far outnumber Scotsmen of a sunny disposition) but Wilders was not barred in order to prevent the incitement of racial hatred and violence, he was barred because his words and film would:
“…threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.”
This leads to all sorts of questions. The first surely being the blind assumption of community harmony; the second asking which part of the allegedly harmonious community is threatened by the mere presence of Mr Wilders; the third wondering if “therefore public security” is just a more inclusive way of saying “therefore Muslim violence” whilst the not inconsequential fourth and final question can only be - is it actually legal?
Taking one at a time, let us look first at Britain’s harmonious community.
MI5 believe there are up to four thousand potential terrorists and thirteen thousand Al Qaeda sympathisers living in the UK, many of whom are earmarked for the export market (who says British manufacturing is dead) leading the CIA to devote an astonishing 40% of their anti-terrorist US homeland security operations against suspects not in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Waziristan, but in Britain itself - a country described by one CIA operative as “a swamp of Jihadis.”
It is rumoured that the terrorist attacks in Bombay (or Mumbai if you read the Guardian) involved a number British Muslims operating under the banner of Lashkar-e-Taiba otherwise known as the Party of the Righteous or LET, who are ranked alongside Al-Qaeda in terms of a potential terrorist threat by Barack Obama’s counter-terrorist advisor Bruce Riedel, who has stated:
"The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.”
British born Muslims make an estimated four hundred thousand trips a year to Pakistan, where as many as thirty threats against Britain are being monitored at any given time. MI5 is struggling to keep track of them all, quite understandably, as is the newly formed UK Border Agency (motto: we are closed on weekends and bank holidays) so it is obvious that those who wish to destroy us can flit in and out of terrorist training camps in Pakistan to, say, the House of Lords in London, at the drop of a hat.
Despite the oft repeated insistence by British politicians that Islam is a peaceful religion, vast sums of money are thrown at Muslims in the UK in an attempt to stop them blowing the rest of us up.
In 2007 “communities” Minister Hazel Blears earmarked fifty million pounds to invest in “cohesion promotion and tackling community tensions.” Ah, those good old harmonious community tensions. Blears bent over backwards as she sprayed money at Muslim “experts” stating: “Nobody has a duty to assimilate themselves but I do think we need to understand how each other lives” prompting the bearded experts, who recognise fear, defeat and Dhimmitude when they smell it, to swiftly trouser the money whilst opining it would do little good as Muslims are instinctively suspicious of any help from the British government, what with them being the infidel and all that.
In it’s overarching desire to be geographically inclusive, my government does not limit its financial largesse to the British mainland alone. When Gordon Brown visited Pakistan recently, he handed over a cheque for six million quid to promote love and peace, whilst the British Foreign Office - who once sent gunboats to troublesome countries - has bankrolled a series of TV adverts for broadcast in Pakistan in which famous Muslim personalities implore those who wish to colonise and convert us to cease forthwith, and to understand and respect us instead.
We Dhimmi Brits can even look forward to a constructive debate on "the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values.” I know, I know, it sounds like something out of the Richard Littlejohn school of “you couldn’t make it up” but I am at a total loss for words here. One can only imagine how constructive the debate would remain if the liberal debatee attempted to date the Muslim debatees sister, or even better, attempted to roger the Muslim himself.
So I think we can safely say there is little or no community harmony in Britain.
In terms of who should feel threatened, it is unlikely to be any of Lord Ahmed’s 10,000 band of brothers, or any other member of Britains Muslim community come to that. It is something of a giveaway really, look to the man surrounded by bodyguards with a price on his infidel head; Mr Geert Wilders himself, the lone surviving Dutchman of outspoken anti-Islamic sentiment.
And what of Public Security? A giveaway again. The British government does not really believe that Wilders is going to strip to the waist and engage in fisticuffs with his Allahu Akbar-ing adversaries. They know as well as the rest of us that a day in the House of Lords is more likely to consist of G&T’s with ice and a slice, than GBH with malice aforethought. I don’t really believe that Mr Wilders, a European parliamentarian, was planning on bringing his gang, or posse, to the House of Lords intent on bashing anyone who shows him “disrespect” unlike Lord Ahmed, the implausible new leader of Britain’s Muslim Street.
Was the banning of Geert Wilders legal? The law used was written specifically to counter Islamic terrorism, rather than countering a man warning us of Islamic terrorism. But as with most recent laws, many of which originate in Brussels, they are vague and catch-all in their character, and deliberately so, in order they may be used against anyone the government disapproves of.
It would have been so much more honest of the British government if it had said the following:
“We understand the content of the film Fitna to consist of the written words of Islam alone,
the spoken words of Islam alone and the physical actions of Islam alone.”
“Sections of these written and spoken words are in direct contravention of British and European laws pursuant to the incitement of racial or religious hatred.”
“We appreciate that Mr Wilders is an elected European politician who does not posess a criminal record and is therefore entitled to visit any EU country he so wishes.”
“We appreciate that Mr Wilders has never called for violence against the Muslim community and that even if faced with violence would seek lawful protection rather than unlawful retaliation.”
“We acknowledge the threats of violence that would impinge upon the public security of Great Britain have come not from Mr Wilders, but from an unelected Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed.”
“We tacitly acknowledge that allowing Mr Wilders the opportunity to argue Islam is an inherantly violent and intolerant faith will cause 10,000 violent and intolerant Muslims to take to the streets of London.”
“We appreciate that the barring of Mr Wilders from Great Britain would necessitate the manipulation and distortion of laws passed to counter Islamic terrorism in order to silence a man warning us of Islamic terrorism.”
“We appreciate that bending British democracy in the face of Muslim threats will have dangerous and far reaching consequences.”
“However, after careful and considered discussion with a number of politicians who have not seen the film Fitna, notably Minister for Europe Keith Vaz and foreign Secretary David Milliband, we would like to close with the following statement…
....The British government is acutely aware of the 2 million plus Muslims within Great Britain, a percentage of whom are fanatical fundamentalists who, quite frankly, frighten the life out of us. Were we to agree that Fitna contains Koranic verses which contravene our laws against inciting racial or religious hatred, then by default we would be forced to arrest 90% of British imams who quote exactly the same verses in mosques all over Britain. This would lead to civil unrest or even civil war if we proscribed certain passages from the Koran itself. It is far easier therefore to distort and misrepresent existing anti-terrorism laws in order to preserve a temporary peace, even if it means shooting British democracy and freedom through the heart, ourselves in the foot, and missing Geert Wilders by a country mile.”
“The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty – by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather than reduces the sphere of freedom.”
If one can ignore the tortuous and robotic prose for a moment, let us fast forward to February 2009 in the aftermath of Geert Wilders banishment from Britain, to hear Labour MP Keith Vaz, the Minister For Europe, state on national television his own particular viewpoint on the sphere of freedom:
“We don’t have absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom, because I myself have voted on laws preventing people inciting racial hatred and violence.”
Mr Vaz, an immigrant of Yemeni/Portuguese extraction, is clearly proud of the part he has played in restricting the ancient and bloodstained freedoms of Britain. No doubt Vaz is pleased the dark days of 1990 are now behind him, when he wrote to the Guardian to claim “there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech” as he attempted to ban the publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.
Unfortunately for Vaz, freedom of speech actually existed in 1990 and Rushdie’s book was duly published. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the subversion of British law carried out by Vaz and his ilk means it no longer does in 2009 – witness the Wilders travesty - which rather damns Gordon Brown’s apparently admirable speech as typical socialist spin, if not deliberately disingenuous propaganda.
It is unsurprising that Keith Vaz should raise such words as “racial hatred and violence” in relation to Geert Wilders, this being the default fallback for Muslims with a grievance (a body of people whose members far outnumber Scotsmen of a sunny disposition) but Wilders was not barred in order to prevent the incitement of racial hatred and violence, he was barred because his words and film would:
“…threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.”
This leads to all sorts of questions. The first surely being the blind assumption of community harmony; the second asking which part of the allegedly harmonious community is threatened by the mere presence of Mr Wilders; the third wondering if “therefore public security” is just a more inclusive way of saying “therefore Muslim violence” whilst the not inconsequential fourth and final question can only be - is it actually legal?
Taking one at a time, let us look first at Britain’s harmonious community.
MI5 believe there are up to four thousand potential terrorists and thirteen thousand Al Qaeda sympathisers living in the UK, many of whom are earmarked for the export market (who says British manufacturing is dead) leading the CIA to devote an astonishing 40% of their anti-terrorist US homeland security operations against suspects not in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Waziristan, but in Britain itself - a country described by one CIA operative as “a swamp of Jihadis.”
It is rumoured that the terrorist attacks in Bombay (or Mumbai if you read the Guardian) involved a number British Muslims operating under the banner of Lashkar-e-Taiba otherwise known as the Party of the Righteous or LET, who are ranked alongside Al-Qaeda in terms of a potential terrorist threat by Barack Obama’s counter-terrorist advisor Bruce Riedel, who has stated:
"The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.”
British born Muslims make an estimated four hundred thousand trips a year to Pakistan, where as many as thirty threats against Britain are being monitored at any given time. MI5 is struggling to keep track of them all, quite understandably, as is the newly formed UK Border Agency (motto: we are closed on weekends and bank holidays) so it is obvious that those who wish to destroy us can flit in and out of terrorist training camps in Pakistan to, say, the House of Lords in London, at the drop of a hat.
Despite the oft repeated insistence by British politicians that Islam is a peaceful religion, vast sums of money are thrown at Muslims in the UK in an attempt to stop them blowing the rest of us up.
In 2007 “communities” Minister Hazel Blears earmarked fifty million pounds to invest in “cohesion promotion and tackling community tensions.” Ah, those good old harmonious community tensions. Blears bent over backwards as she sprayed money at Muslim “experts” stating: “Nobody has a duty to assimilate themselves but I do think we need to understand how each other lives” prompting the bearded experts, who recognise fear, defeat and Dhimmitude when they smell it, to swiftly trouser the money whilst opining it would do little good as Muslims are instinctively suspicious of any help from the British government, what with them being the infidel and all that.
In it’s overarching desire to be geographically inclusive, my government does not limit its financial largesse to the British mainland alone. When Gordon Brown visited Pakistan recently, he handed over a cheque for six million quid to promote love and peace, whilst the British Foreign Office - who once sent gunboats to troublesome countries - has bankrolled a series of TV adverts for broadcast in Pakistan in which famous Muslim personalities implore those who wish to colonise and convert us to cease forthwith, and to understand and respect us instead.
We Dhimmi Brits can even look forward to a constructive debate on "the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values.” I know, I know, it sounds like something out of the Richard Littlejohn school of “you couldn’t make it up” but I am at a total loss for words here. One can only imagine how constructive the debate would remain if the liberal debatee attempted to date the Muslim debatees sister, or even better, attempted to roger the Muslim himself.
So I think we can safely say there is little or no community harmony in Britain.
In terms of who should feel threatened, it is unlikely to be any of Lord Ahmed’s 10,000 band of brothers, or any other member of Britains Muslim community come to that. It is something of a giveaway really, look to the man surrounded by bodyguards with a price on his infidel head; Mr Geert Wilders himself, the lone surviving Dutchman of outspoken anti-Islamic sentiment.
And what of Public Security? A giveaway again. The British government does not really believe that Wilders is going to strip to the waist and engage in fisticuffs with his Allahu Akbar-ing adversaries. They know as well as the rest of us that a day in the House of Lords is more likely to consist of G&T’s with ice and a slice, than GBH with malice aforethought. I don’t really believe that Mr Wilders, a European parliamentarian, was planning on bringing his gang, or posse, to the House of Lords intent on bashing anyone who shows him “disrespect” unlike Lord Ahmed, the implausible new leader of Britain’s Muslim Street.
Was the banning of Geert Wilders legal? The law used was written specifically to counter Islamic terrorism, rather than countering a man warning us of Islamic terrorism. But as with most recent laws, many of which originate in Brussels, they are vague and catch-all in their character, and deliberately so, in order they may be used against anyone the government disapproves of.
It would have been so much more honest of the British government if it had said the following:
“We understand the content of the film Fitna to consist of the written words of Islam alone,
the spoken words of Islam alone and the physical actions of Islam alone.”
“Sections of these written and spoken words are in direct contravention of British and European laws pursuant to the incitement of racial or religious hatred.”
“We appreciate that Mr Wilders is an elected European politician who does not posess a criminal record and is therefore entitled to visit any EU country he so wishes.”
“We appreciate that Mr Wilders has never called for violence against the Muslim community and that even if faced with violence would seek lawful protection rather than unlawful retaliation.”
“We acknowledge the threats of violence that would impinge upon the public security of Great Britain have come not from Mr Wilders, but from an unelected Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed.”
“We tacitly acknowledge that allowing Mr Wilders the opportunity to argue Islam is an inherantly violent and intolerant faith will cause 10,000 violent and intolerant Muslims to take to the streets of London.”
“We appreciate that the barring of Mr Wilders from Great Britain would necessitate the manipulation and distortion of laws passed to counter Islamic terrorism in order to silence a man warning us of Islamic terrorism.”
“We appreciate that bending British democracy in the face of Muslim threats will have dangerous and far reaching consequences.”
“However, after careful and considered discussion with a number of politicians who have not seen the film Fitna, notably Minister for Europe Keith Vaz and foreign Secretary David Milliband, we would like to close with the following statement…
....The British government is acutely aware of the 2 million plus Muslims within Great Britain, a percentage of whom are fanatical fundamentalists who, quite frankly, frighten the life out of us. Were we to agree that Fitna contains Koranic verses which contravene our laws against inciting racial or religious hatred, then by default we would be forced to arrest 90% of British imams who quote exactly the same verses in mosques all over Britain. This would lead to civil unrest or even civil war if we proscribed certain passages from the Koran itself. It is far easier therefore to distort and misrepresent existing anti-terrorism laws in order to preserve a temporary peace, even if it means shooting British democracy and freedom through the heart, ourselves in the foot, and missing Geert Wilders by a country mile.”
Friday, 13 February 2009
Who is Lord Ahmed
Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least, away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.
In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons’ and Hitlers’ of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling it’s great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.
Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle aged, rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.
Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?
Step forward Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.
But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s resume.
Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the tax paying British public and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.
In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.
In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and multi-faithed country that Britain is now priveliged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.
In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at, wait for it, The House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.
When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew hating momologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!
According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-semitic publication, and and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: No Jews. Just Right.) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.
But such associations hold no fear it would seem for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less than moderate Islam, associated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-semitic variety.
In July 2005, after four self detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. Having exploded no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?
In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue it’s then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.
In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh - a British prison - for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.
Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.
Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive” however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.
In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdies’ crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.
In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:
“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”
In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of it’s Holy Book’s Unholy Words and it’s Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.
A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer great Britain.
Or so we thought.
Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.
I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary school teacher turned Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans – one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.
Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it, even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.
Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words sedition and treason.
Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of her folly. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.
Paul Weston 2009.
In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons’ and Hitlers’ of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling it’s great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.
Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle aged, rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.
Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?
Step forward Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.
But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s resume.
Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the tax paying British public and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.
In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.
In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and multi-faithed country that Britain is now priveliged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.
In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at, wait for it, The House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.
When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew hating momologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!
According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-semitic publication, and and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: No Jews. Just Right.) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.
But such associations hold no fear it would seem for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less than moderate Islam, associated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-semitic variety.
In July 2005, after four self detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. Having exploded no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?
In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue it’s then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.
In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh - a British prison - for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.
Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.
Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive” however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.
In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdies’ crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.
In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:
“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”
In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of it’s Holy Book’s Unholy Words and it’s Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.
A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer great Britain.
Or so we thought.
Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.
I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary school teacher turned Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans – one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.
Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it, even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.
Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words sedition and treason.
Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of her folly. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.
Paul Weston 2009.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Wilders In Wonderland
When Alice fell down a rabbit hole and embarked on her adventures in Wonderland, she discovered a thoroughly surreal environment in which the White Queen was able to advise the Mad Hatter that… “quite often subjects are punished before they commit a crime, rather than after, and sometimes they do not even commit it at all.”
Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.
Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.
Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large.)
If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blonde mane flowing over his animal skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.
But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared a criminal by his very own countrymen.
It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film “Fitna” does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.
He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.
According to Gates of Vienna correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.
The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.
The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.
No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which he invites them to draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.
This may also turn out be something of an embarassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?
“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”
Quite.
In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam, and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent that the "right" can then use against the "left."Are the liberal/left not aware of this?
Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a phyrric victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.
What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.
This is not the case of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:
“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”
Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to.
Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late 20’s and early 30’s as to the welling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.
There is one crucial difference however. The 30’s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.
Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is at war with Europe. Right now. Today.
It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.
It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.
Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.
When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.
It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assasination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.
There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.
Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.
When Germany finally engaged in Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat – which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means - the leaders attempt to silence resistance.
The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland would have Alice in need of prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.
To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life goes far further than normal liberal lunacy.
These politicians are guilty of treason.
If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.
It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitor class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.
Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, Quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever growing public anger they seem intent on stoking
Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.
Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.
IFPS deserves to become a household name in it’s fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from "Change We Really Don't Want To Believe In."
So do your bit and spread the word.
Copyright Paul Weston. 2009
.
Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.
Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.
Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large.)
If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blonde mane flowing over his animal skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.
But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared a criminal by his very own countrymen.
It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film “Fitna” does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.
He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.
According to Gates of Vienna correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.
The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.
The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.
No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which he invites them to draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.
This may also turn out be something of an embarassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?
“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”
Quite.
In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam, and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent that the "right" can then use against the "left."Are the liberal/left not aware of this?
Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a phyrric victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.
What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.
This is not the case of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:
“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”
Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to.
Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late 20’s and early 30’s as to the welling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.
There is one crucial difference however. The 30’s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.
Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is at war with Europe. Right now. Today.
It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.
It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.
Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.
When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.
It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assasination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.
There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.
Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.
When Germany finally engaged in Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat – which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means - the leaders attempt to silence resistance.
The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland would have Alice in need of prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.
To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life goes far further than normal liberal lunacy.
These politicians are guilty of treason.
If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.
It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitor class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.
Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, Quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever growing public anger they seem intent on stoking
Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.
Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.
IFPS deserves to become a household name in it’s fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from "Change We Really Don't Want To Believe In."
So do your bit and spread the word.
Copyright Paul Weston. 2009
.
Thursday, 5 June 2008
The Suppression Of Free Speech In Britain
In 1984 a British headmaster, Ray Honeyford, wrote an article for “The Salisbury Review” where he questioned the values of multiculturalism, which he deemed to be segregationist rather than “inclusive”.
Mr Honeyford, a brave, decent and completely apolitical man was driven to write the article by his belief that young ethnic children were being badly let down educationally, and that their future life chances were being sacrificed for Leftist political gain.
Mr Honeyford was chased from his job amid accusations of racism in a carefully orchestrated political alliance of the hard left coupled with various ethnic-minority spokesmen.
Whether this contributed solely to future anti-racist legislation is unclear, but it certainly played its part.
In 1986 new legislation was passed to counter the rhetoric of such men as Ray Honeyford in the form of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 17 of which clarified racial hatred as being:
“..hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.”
Section 18 clarified racist behaviour as:
“The use of words or behaviour or display of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”
The maximum penalty for any individual found guilty of contravening this act was two years imprisonment.
In 1993 a young black male called Stephen Lawrence was allegedly (legally speaking) stabbed to death by a gang of five white youths in Eltham, south London.
The case was seriously mishandled by the police which led to media hysteria and an investigation by Sir William Macpherson who subsequently published a seminal study in 1999 known as the Macpherson Report which, in addition to labelling the police as “institutionally racist” gave birth to eighteen words which have been used by the British authorities to clamp down on any speech critical of any minority group. The exact wording is as follows:
“A racial incident is one that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”
In 1998 the Crime And Disorder Act 1998 extended the maximum jail sentence over and above normal sentence times if racial aggravation was used in crimes up to and including murder.
In 2006 the Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006 was passed which classified religious hatred along the same lines as racial hatred and extended the jail sentence for transgression to seven years.
2006 also saw the introduction of the Equality Act 2006 which swept away the Commission For Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission and replaced then with a single entity called the Commission For Equality And Human Rights or CEHR.
In 2007 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was passed, with an amendment that bought homophobic hate crime in line with the definition of racial or religious hatred, including a maximum jail sentence of seven years.
In addition to the above legislation, Britain has also seen the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, both of which have been used to suppress freedom of speech in the UK.
Ray Honeyford was fortunate that none of the above legislation was in place when he transgressed the racial thought police in 1984. Other people have not been so lucky.
Robin Page, a television presenter, was arrested in 2002 for inciting racial hatred when he stated that people living in the countryside, and who supported fox hunting, should be granted the same rights as blacks, gays and lesbians. The police claimed they had received reports from distressed persons unknown, although it seems likely they acted on their own volition.
Fourteen-year-old schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested over a “racial incident” in 2006, after she asked to be moved to a different discussion group where her fellow pupils actually spoke English. She was released without charge but only after spending several hours in the cells where her DNA was taken.
Much to the chagrin of the Muslim Council of Britain, Robert Kilroy-Silk was not prosecuted for inciting racial hatred after he described Muslims as suicide bombers and limb amputators in a 2004 Independent newspaper article. The police wanted to prosecute but were advised by the Crown Prosecution Service there was insufficient evidence. Despite this, Kilroy-Silk still lost his job as a television show host.
In 2006, Nick Griffin, Chairman of The British National Party was acquitted (at the second time of asking) over inciting racial hatred, after he publicly accused Islam of being a wicked and vicious faith. His acquittal, after Muslims were deemed a religion rather than a race, was the prime motivation for the religious aspect to be introduced into The Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006.
The blogger Lionheart has now been arrested and bailed on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred. If found guilty, he faces seven years in prison. We await news of this with hope rather than certainty as to the possible prosecution. His crime? He detailed the activities of Muslim criminals in the Luton area. I have read his blog and nowhere does he call for deportation of, or violence toward, British Muslims.
A retired couple, Joe and Helen Roberts were warned by Lancashire police in 2005 that their request to display Christian literature alongside homosexual rights pamphlets at their local council offices was discriminatory and homophobic, that they were walking on eggshells and that they were almost guilty of a hate crime. Much as Lancashire police wanted them to be guilty, they would have to wait a couple of years for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 to be enacted in order to criminalise them.
Author Lynette Burrows was cautioned by the Metropolitan Police in 2006, for suggesting that male homosexuals did not make ideal adoptive parents. This was in the build up to the introduction of the rights of homosexual males to adopt children, built into The Equality Act 2006 which was passed without the necessity of asking whether homosexual males were more likely to commit child abuse than heterosexual couples, which according to Family Research Council they overwhelmingly are. (Note: this report has been censored).
In 2005 Maya Ann Evans was arrested for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in the Iraq war whilst standing next to the Cenotaph, a memorial to the war dead close to the House of Commons. In so doing, she contravened section 132 of The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which had purportedly been enacted to prevent terrorist attacks at the seat of British government.
The use of anti-terrorism legislation has now spread to local councils who use it to spy on essentially law abiding people who may have lied about their post code in order to obtain a place at school for their children, but was used most famously when Walter Wolfgang was detained by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. His crime had been to attempt to rejoin the Labour Party Conference of 2005, having been physically ejected for daring to heckle a speaker over the war in Iraq.
The latest attempt to muzzle free speech occurred in Birmingham in May 2008, when two Christian preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, were warned by a Muslim police community support officer that handing out Christian literature in a Muslim area was a “hate crime” and could lead to their being beaten up if they dared to return. West Midlands Police refuse to apologise for this incident.
What should be apparent by now is the proclivity of the of the newly politicised British police to crack down on any dissent from indigenous Britons if they voice their concerns over any matter relating to race, religion of a non-Christian bent, gender or sexuality, all of which run counter to traditional Western civilisation.
This is the culture war in all its glory. The myriad laws passed in recent years are simply there in order to stifle discussion, let alone dissent, in the Liberal/Lefts ongoing war against that which they hate – indigenous European, Christian, heterosexual families.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Nowhere is this maxim more apparent than the approach by the police to areas where Islam is at fault and the indigenous European innocent.
No imams exposed in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosques programme have been prosecuted under any of the legislation outlined above. In fact, the West-Midlands police force attempted to prosecute Channel 4 themselves for inciting racial/religious hatred by dint of their sheer temerity in broadcasting footage of Muslims calling for the overthrow of the West and the murder of homosexuals and the infidel kuffir.
Although this article is about the UK and not Europe, it seems inevitable that we will be subsumed by Brussels when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified early in 2009, so will leave you with a quote from Terry Davis, Secretary general of the Council of Europe, in the aftermath of the brutal crack down against SIOE and Vlaams Belang in Brussels last September as to the future of free speech in Britain, or such as is left anyway:
“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”
One cannot caveat freedom of speech. It exists or it does not. In Britain we must come to accept that it does not, and we must make every effort to ensure that in the future, it does.
Mr Honeyford, a brave, decent and completely apolitical man was driven to write the article by his belief that young ethnic children were being badly let down educationally, and that their future life chances were being sacrificed for Leftist political gain.
Mr Honeyford was chased from his job amid accusations of racism in a carefully orchestrated political alliance of the hard left coupled with various ethnic-minority spokesmen.
Whether this contributed solely to future anti-racist legislation is unclear, but it certainly played its part.
In 1986 new legislation was passed to counter the rhetoric of such men as Ray Honeyford in the form of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 17 of which clarified racial hatred as being:
“..hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.”
Section 18 clarified racist behaviour as:
“The use of words or behaviour or display of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”
The maximum penalty for any individual found guilty of contravening this act was two years imprisonment.
In 1993 a young black male called Stephen Lawrence was allegedly (legally speaking) stabbed to death by a gang of five white youths in Eltham, south London.
The case was seriously mishandled by the police which led to media hysteria and an investigation by Sir William Macpherson who subsequently published a seminal study in 1999 known as the Macpherson Report which, in addition to labelling the police as “institutionally racist” gave birth to eighteen words which have been used by the British authorities to clamp down on any speech critical of any minority group. The exact wording is as follows:
“A racial incident is one that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”
In 1998 the Crime And Disorder Act 1998 extended the maximum jail sentence over and above normal sentence times if racial aggravation was used in crimes up to and including murder.
In 2006 the Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006 was passed which classified religious hatred along the same lines as racial hatred and extended the jail sentence for transgression to seven years.
2006 also saw the introduction of the Equality Act 2006 which swept away the Commission For Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission and replaced then with a single entity called the Commission For Equality And Human Rights or CEHR.
In 2007 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was passed, with an amendment that bought homophobic hate crime in line with the definition of racial or religious hatred, including a maximum jail sentence of seven years.
In addition to the above legislation, Britain has also seen the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, both of which have been used to suppress freedom of speech in the UK.
Ray Honeyford was fortunate that none of the above legislation was in place when he transgressed the racial thought police in 1984. Other people have not been so lucky.
Robin Page, a television presenter, was arrested in 2002 for inciting racial hatred when he stated that people living in the countryside, and who supported fox hunting, should be granted the same rights as blacks, gays and lesbians. The police claimed they had received reports from distressed persons unknown, although it seems likely they acted on their own volition.
Fourteen-year-old schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested over a “racial incident” in 2006, after she asked to be moved to a different discussion group where her fellow pupils actually spoke English. She was released without charge but only after spending several hours in the cells where her DNA was taken.
Much to the chagrin of the Muslim Council of Britain, Robert Kilroy-Silk was not prosecuted for inciting racial hatred after he described Muslims as suicide bombers and limb amputators in a 2004 Independent newspaper article. The police wanted to prosecute but were advised by the Crown Prosecution Service there was insufficient evidence. Despite this, Kilroy-Silk still lost his job as a television show host.
In 2006, Nick Griffin, Chairman of The British National Party was acquitted (at the second time of asking) over inciting racial hatred, after he publicly accused Islam of being a wicked and vicious faith. His acquittal, after Muslims were deemed a religion rather than a race, was the prime motivation for the religious aspect to be introduced into The Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006.
The blogger Lionheart has now been arrested and bailed on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred. If found guilty, he faces seven years in prison. We await news of this with hope rather than certainty as to the possible prosecution. His crime? He detailed the activities of Muslim criminals in the Luton area. I have read his blog and nowhere does he call for deportation of, or violence toward, British Muslims.
A retired couple, Joe and Helen Roberts were warned by Lancashire police in 2005 that their request to display Christian literature alongside homosexual rights pamphlets at their local council offices was discriminatory and homophobic, that they were walking on eggshells and that they were almost guilty of a hate crime. Much as Lancashire police wanted them to be guilty, they would have to wait a couple of years for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 to be enacted in order to criminalise them.
Author Lynette Burrows was cautioned by the Metropolitan Police in 2006, for suggesting that male homosexuals did not make ideal adoptive parents. This was in the build up to the introduction of the rights of homosexual males to adopt children, built into The Equality Act 2006 which was passed without the necessity of asking whether homosexual males were more likely to commit child abuse than heterosexual couples, which according to Family Research Council they overwhelmingly are. (Note: this report has been censored).
In 2005 Maya Ann Evans was arrested for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in the Iraq war whilst standing next to the Cenotaph, a memorial to the war dead close to the House of Commons. In so doing, she contravened section 132 of The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which had purportedly been enacted to prevent terrorist attacks at the seat of British government.
The use of anti-terrorism legislation has now spread to local councils who use it to spy on essentially law abiding people who may have lied about their post code in order to obtain a place at school for their children, but was used most famously when Walter Wolfgang was detained by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. His crime had been to attempt to rejoin the Labour Party Conference of 2005, having been physically ejected for daring to heckle a speaker over the war in Iraq.
The latest attempt to muzzle free speech occurred in Birmingham in May 2008, when two Christian preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, were warned by a Muslim police community support officer that handing out Christian literature in a Muslim area was a “hate crime” and could lead to their being beaten up if they dared to return. West Midlands Police refuse to apologise for this incident.
What should be apparent by now is the proclivity of the of the newly politicised British police to crack down on any dissent from indigenous Britons if they voice their concerns over any matter relating to race, religion of a non-Christian bent, gender or sexuality, all of which run counter to traditional Western civilisation.
This is the culture war in all its glory. The myriad laws passed in recent years are simply there in order to stifle discussion, let alone dissent, in the Liberal/Lefts ongoing war against that which they hate – indigenous European, Christian, heterosexual families.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Nowhere is this maxim more apparent than the approach by the police to areas where Islam is at fault and the indigenous European innocent.
No imams exposed in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosques programme have been prosecuted under any of the legislation outlined above. In fact, the West-Midlands police force attempted to prosecute Channel 4 themselves for inciting racial/religious hatred by dint of their sheer temerity in broadcasting footage of Muslims calling for the overthrow of the West and the murder of homosexuals and the infidel kuffir.
Although this article is about the UK and not Europe, it seems inevitable that we will be subsumed by Brussels when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified early in 2009, so will leave you with a quote from Terry Davis, Secretary general of the Council of Europe, in the aftermath of the brutal crack down against SIOE and Vlaams Belang in Brussels last September as to the future of free speech in Britain, or such as is left anyway:
“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”
One cannot caveat freedom of speech. It exists or it does not. In Britain we must come to accept that it does not, and we must make every effort to ensure that in the future, it does.
Friday, 28 March 2008
The Face Of Moderate Islam In Britain
The Muslim beating handed out to Canon Michael Ainsworth, priest at the St George – in – the - East church of Shadwell, East London earlier this month and last weeks conviction of a Muslim for the rape of a 27 year old woman in nearby Whitechapel during 2005, share a surprisingly common link in the attitudes and associates of The Muslim Council Of Britain.
In the wake of the faith-hate attack, Inayat Bunglawalah, media secretary for The Muslim Council Of Britain, wrote a quite extraordinary article in the Guardian entitled: “Jihad or Alcohol” where he claimed:
“An alcohol fuelled attack on a Christian priest in East London has stirred up more Islamophobia.”
The amusingly named Bunglawalah was distinctly unfunny in his article, where he attempted to suggest the attack - and subsequent media reporting of it - were nothing to do with Islam’s anti-Christian ideology and everything to do with the British media’s (with the honourable exception of the BBC and Guardian) ongoing Islamophobic agenda.
Quite how he can turn such a cowardly attack on a priest into an attack on the Islamophobic British is positively surreal, and quite how the Guardian allowed him the platform to deliver it even more so. Bunglawalah relied on half-truths, evasion and a refusal to name the perpetrators as Muslims as he distorted their actions as alcohol fuelled high jinks - which is understandable I suppose. To recount the actual facts of the event would presumably have made even Bunglawalah an Islamophobe.
Bunglawalah’s article also carried a press release from the East London Mosque, which decried the attack by “Asian” youths on Canon Ainsworth. Bunglawalah presumably thinks that citing a religious organisation of such undoubted munificence would add credibility to his dissembling, but the mosque in question should really carry no moral authority - more of which later.
He finishes his Anti-British contortion by criticising Melanie Phillip’s article in the Spectator (where she accused the attackers of being Jihadists rather than common or garden drunks) with his piece- de-resistance:
“Alcohol fuelled anti-social incidents are worrying and reprehensible enough without being hijacked by those with a not so subtle anti-Muslim agenda of their own.”
What the discombobulating Bunglawalah omitted to mention in his Guardian puff piece was that this was not an “anti-social” incident at all, having already been classified by the police as a faith-hate crime. A curious aberration considering the time and trouble the Muslim Council of Britain has gone to in order to get just such legislation passed in the first place.
Bunglawalah also failed to mention the insults hurled at this harmless 57 year old man of God prior to his attack by the three plucky Muslims, which were reportedly: “You f***ing priest” and “this should not be a church, it should be a Mosque.” Nor did he mention the previous attacks on the church which left it’s elderly congregation cowering in fear as bricks smashed through it’s ancient stained glass windows, nor the repeated vandalism of gravestones in nearby St Dustan’s church.
The bungling Bunglawalah was remiss again in his failure to mention that half of all London’s clergy have been the victims of faith based attacks over the last twelve months, and as this happens rarely in the leafy avenues of Chelsea and Richmond it is possible that ALL of East London vicars face violence on a regular basis, as articulated by the Bishop of London, the Rt Reverend Richard Chartres who said:
“over the years we’ve had murders, we’ve had assaults on the Clergy….but of course if you go out onto the streets, if you belong to the community, if you’re part of it, then you’re vulnerable.”
This incredibly depressing statement is backed up by ex-policeman Nick Tolson of Churchwatch, who notes that whilst the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are overly eager to classify attacks on mosques or Muslims as hate crimes, they are equally reluctant to classify attacks on churches and vicars as such.
Dr Anthony McRoy, a Christian expert on Islam, also stated on the Churchwatch web site that attacks on churches in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham were a routine occurrence, and questioned why a firebombing had failed to become mainstream media news. The answer to this of course is that the supposedly Islamophobic British media go out of their way to ignore such stories, not that they get much in the way of thanks from their Islamic masters.
It is unfortunate that Canon Ainsworth’s wife inadvertently helped Bunglawalah’s perverse disassociation with Islamic reality when she stated:
“Clearly the Muslim community is very shocked. These individuals were clearly under the influence and this was a random act….. normally community relations here are very good. We have had very strong messages of support from the East London Mosque and Tower Hamlets Mosque with whom we have good relations.”
I hesitate to suggest that Mrs Ainsworth is exhibiting classic signs of Dhimmitude, but firstly, this was not a random act, as she knows only too well, and secondly she should be careful in her acceptance of support from the Tower Hamlets Mosque which has been pressurising Muslim dominated Tower Hamlets Council to dig up the 350,000 dead Christians in a local graveyard in order to provide space for dead Muslims, and she should be even more circumspect with regard to the East London Mosque for the following reason.
The East London Mosque is partly funded by Wahhabist Saudi money, in addition to European Development Fund money. In 2004 it opened a new study centre where the guest of honour was Sheikh Abdur-Rahman-al-Sudais, an imam at the Grand Al Haraam Mosque in Mecca, the heart of Islam. Although Sheikh Sudais was granted a visa to enter Britain, he has been refused one for Canada because of his repeated calls for the annihilation of the Jews, along with solicitations of violence against Christians, Hindus, and British and American soldiers. The BBC, choosing to ignore such trivial details, describe him only as a “controversial” figure, and promote him as a Muslim leader working to achieve “community cohesion” despite Sudais’s following inflammatory rhetoric:
“Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of Jews of today, who are all evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs….these are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption.”
Well, gosh, what can you say to that? Quite frankly such an outburst by the East London Mosque’s guest of honour would have left even Adolf Hitler lost for words! Awestruck admittedly, but lost for words none the less and not a little envious of the Sheikh’s command of anti-Semitic vituperation. But this is not why I draw attention to said mosque, I do so for the part in played in the rape of a 27 year old woman in Whitechapel.
Abdul Makim Khalisadar, an East London Mosque goer was convicted last week of raping the unnamed woman who, pregnant with twins, had a knife held to her throat and was punched repeatedly in the face until she said “I love you daddy” whilst Khalisadar violated her.
Khalisadar was not originally arrested in relation to the rape. He was already under police surveillance over his alleged involvement with a Kazi Nurur Rahman, a fellow Muslim sentenced to nine years imprisonment after pleading guilty to attempting to procure explosives with which to carry out a terrorist attack. Khalisadar’s computer disc was searched for evidence associating him with Rahman, where the police found downloaded images of child abuse. They DNA tested him for possible paedophile offences and subsequently linked him to the Whitechapel rape.
When he was arrested he claimed he could not possibly have carried out the rape, because at the precise time it happened he was attending a 3:00 AM sleepover at The East London Mosque, as one does, and produced seven other East London Mosque going alibis who swore under oath that they were all with Khalisadar, dressed in pyjamas and partaking of milk and cookies as they discussed the meaning of life.
Well, they all lied. Khalisadar’s DNA was his undoing. He was sentenced to ten years in jail and his seven honourable friends were sentenced to twelve months for perverting the course of justice. Burqa clad women in the court gallery screamed abuse at the judge, and accused the violated woman of being a prostitute. In light of a media blackout regarding the race of the woman, and the reaction of Muslim women to her, I am assuming she was English until proven otherwise.
The East London Mosque would appear to be a slightly unedifying religious institution, home as it is to purveyors of paedophilia, rapists, lying friends of rapists, friends of terrorists and Jew haters extraordinaire. To those with more than a casual knowledge of Islam, none of this is remarkable in itself, but what is remarkable is the fact that the Chairman of the East London Mosque is a certain Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, better known as the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB is held up by as the true face of moderate Islam by the British government, which has rewarded Dr Bari with an OBE for his efforts in the promotion of community cohesion, following on from the knighthood awarded to his predecessor, Sir Iqbal Sacrani.
But the MCB is no such thing. On top of the troublesome connections outlined in this article, they have also stated that Britain would benefit from Sharia law, they are connected with the Muslim Brotherhood - which seeks a global Islamic rule - via their affiliation with it’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, and are outraged he has been refused a visa to visit Britain, apparently having no problem whatsoever with a man who condones suicide bombing against Israelis, the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women, and a man who boasts that Islam will conquer Britain and the West.
In these strange totalitarian times we live in, it is no longer possible to suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain and the East London Mosque are representative not of moderate Islam, but of imperialist Islam, of genocidal Islam, of violent, oppressive, raping, gay-murdering, honour-killing, forced-marrying, girl-mutilating, Christian-hating, Jew-hating, suicide-bombing Islam – so I will refrain from doing so. I will let readers draw their own conclusions and would suggest they also read - if they have not already done so - Adrian Morgan’s meticulously researched article on the MCB and Fjordman’s Jihad Watch article on Muslim expansion in the West.
What I would say though, is that the last few weeks reveal a great deal about the state of Britain.
Canon Ainsworth’s wife fears that publicity over her husband’s beating will lead to racial tension in the area, by which she means she is terrified that the Muslim majority in the Shadwell enclave will exact revenge for the temerity of drawing the medias attention to their initial violence.
Bunglawalah’s disgraceful attempt on behalf of the MCB to turn the faith/hate attack into an issue of Islamophobia reveals him to be a devious man whose true intentions, along with those of Dr Bari, are not community cohesion but Islamic expansionism.
The refusal of the British government to denounce the MCB, coupled with the Guardian’s promotion of Bunglawalah in the full knowledge he was being economical with the truth are symptomatic of more than just shoddy government or shoddy journalism. They are evidence of a complicit alliance with Islam in their war against Britain and the West.
The Quisling politicians and journalists would, in different times, be thrown from their offices for aiding and abetting an enemy, an offence of which they are most categorically guilty.
If one replaced The Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Bari, Mr Bunglawalah, the attack on a priest within church grounds and the rape of an English girl by a Muslim man - with the British National Party, Nick Griffin, Phil Edwards, the attack on an imam within mosque grounds and the rape of a Muslim girl by an Englishman, there would be, quite correctly, a national outcry led by the British government, the BBC and the Guardian. An outcry followed not only by the Islamic community, but also by the vast majority of the British people themselves, who, unlike their Muslim counterparts, really are moderate.
This is not of course the case here. After all we are merely white Christians living in our homeland bequeathed to us by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers. There is no outcry, no rioting, no pressure to disband the MCB and its sinister leaders or to close down the virulently racist East London Mosque, and no heads to roll from political or media organisations.
But in the instance of this disgusting Muslim attack on a Christian priest, the sordid behaviour and lies of the inhabitants of Dr Bari’s mosque, and the perverse machinations that ensued, certain people and certain organisations have been seen to have taken very definite sides, and in so doing have made their position abundantly clear to the majority population of this country.
I’m not sure how much longer the British people will put up with all of this. A tipping point must surely be in the offing, and to judge from comments in the online MSM (including the BBC and Guardian) in relation to the incidents mentioned above, the British people are becoming increasingly – but not yet uncontrollably – angry. Not just with Islam, but with their elected representatives who appease the violent alien population and ignore and criminalise the peaceful indigenous one.
Britain is being dictated to by a violent but tiny minority of the population. It’s politicians and main media outlets have taken the side of a quasi-political movement masquerading as a religion whose history is one of unremitting violence and imperialism, and a political movement at the furthest extreme from Western Civilisation as is humanly possible.
The result of this is a country exhibiting clear signs of defeat and Dhimmitude. Our clergy and armed forces are advised to discard their dog collars and their uniforms when they enter the public domain in order to avoid being attacked. This should be an impossible, unthinkable situation, but it is the sad reality of a country ruled by an elite who seek its destruction.
But, to finish on a less depressing note, the leftist enablers of the slow motion Islamic colonisation of Britain number only in their thousands, the colonisers themselves, a mere 3% of the population today. If we wanted to, we could put a stop to this tomorrow were the knowledge and the will to hand. The will is there amongst those aware of the true nature of Islam, although the numbers are currently too low - but with every passing day the numbers grow and will continue to do so until they become unstoppable.
Islam has gone too early. Various Islamic leaders openly boast they will subsume the West through demographic growth and mass immigration, which they could have done if they had laid low rather than self-detonating and engaging in open sedition. But they are out in the open now. 9/11 and 7/7, the Madrid train bombing, these were our wake up calls and should have been Islam’s too, but they are not endowed with massive intellect. Do they really think they can carry on as they are whilst a massive majority quietly accept their fate? They appear to think we will, just as our equally ignorant leftist rulers think we will, but it ain’t ever going to happen.
There are already hints of impending revolution, the heady aroma of which hangs heavy in the air. If things continue as they are for another five years, the possibility of revolutionary change will cease to be a mere possibility and become a certified probability. And that day cannot arrive soon enough.
In the wake of the faith-hate attack, Inayat Bunglawalah, media secretary for The Muslim Council Of Britain, wrote a quite extraordinary article in the Guardian entitled: “Jihad or Alcohol” where he claimed:
“An alcohol fuelled attack on a Christian priest in East London has stirred up more Islamophobia.”
The amusingly named Bunglawalah was distinctly unfunny in his article, where he attempted to suggest the attack - and subsequent media reporting of it - were nothing to do with Islam’s anti-Christian ideology and everything to do with the British media’s (with the honourable exception of the BBC and Guardian) ongoing Islamophobic agenda.
Quite how he can turn such a cowardly attack on a priest into an attack on the Islamophobic British is positively surreal, and quite how the Guardian allowed him the platform to deliver it even more so. Bunglawalah relied on half-truths, evasion and a refusal to name the perpetrators as Muslims as he distorted their actions as alcohol fuelled high jinks - which is understandable I suppose. To recount the actual facts of the event would presumably have made even Bunglawalah an Islamophobe.
Bunglawalah’s article also carried a press release from the East London Mosque, which decried the attack by “Asian” youths on Canon Ainsworth. Bunglawalah presumably thinks that citing a religious organisation of such undoubted munificence would add credibility to his dissembling, but the mosque in question should really carry no moral authority - more of which later.
He finishes his Anti-British contortion by criticising Melanie Phillip’s article in the Spectator (where she accused the attackers of being Jihadists rather than common or garden drunks) with his piece- de-resistance:
“Alcohol fuelled anti-social incidents are worrying and reprehensible enough without being hijacked by those with a not so subtle anti-Muslim agenda of their own.”
What the discombobulating Bunglawalah omitted to mention in his Guardian puff piece was that this was not an “anti-social” incident at all, having already been classified by the police as a faith-hate crime. A curious aberration considering the time and trouble the Muslim Council of Britain has gone to in order to get just such legislation passed in the first place.
Bunglawalah also failed to mention the insults hurled at this harmless 57 year old man of God prior to his attack by the three plucky Muslims, which were reportedly: “You f***ing priest” and “this should not be a church, it should be a Mosque.” Nor did he mention the previous attacks on the church which left it’s elderly congregation cowering in fear as bricks smashed through it’s ancient stained glass windows, nor the repeated vandalism of gravestones in nearby St Dustan’s church.
The bungling Bunglawalah was remiss again in his failure to mention that half of all London’s clergy have been the victims of faith based attacks over the last twelve months, and as this happens rarely in the leafy avenues of Chelsea and Richmond it is possible that ALL of East London vicars face violence on a regular basis, as articulated by the Bishop of London, the Rt Reverend Richard Chartres who said:
“over the years we’ve had murders, we’ve had assaults on the Clergy….but of course if you go out onto the streets, if you belong to the community, if you’re part of it, then you’re vulnerable.”
This incredibly depressing statement is backed up by ex-policeman Nick Tolson of Churchwatch, who notes that whilst the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are overly eager to classify attacks on mosques or Muslims as hate crimes, they are equally reluctant to classify attacks on churches and vicars as such.
Dr Anthony McRoy, a Christian expert on Islam, also stated on the Churchwatch web site that attacks on churches in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham were a routine occurrence, and questioned why a firebombing had failed to become mainstream media news. The answer to this of course is that the supposedly Islamophobic British media go out of their way to ignore such stories, not that they get much in the way of thanks from their Islamic masters.
It is unfortunate that Canon Ainsworth’s wife inadvertently helped Bunglawalah’s perverse disassociation with Islamic reality when she stated:
“Clearly the Muslim community is very shocked. These individuals were clearly under the influence and this was a random act….. normally community relations here are very good. We have had very strong messages of support from the East London Mosque and Tower Hamlets Mosque with whom we have good relations.”
I hesitate to suggest that Mrs Ainsworth is exhibiting classic signs of Dhimmitude, but firstly, this was not a random act, as she knows only too well, and secondly she should be careful in her acceptance of support from the Tower Hamlets Mosque which has been pressurising Muslim dominated Tower Hamlets Council to dig up the 350,000 dead Christians in a local graveyard in order to provide space for dead Muslims, and she should be even more circumspect with regard to the East London Mosque for the following reason.
The East London Mosque is partly funded by Wahhabist Saudi money, in addition to European Development Fund money. In 2004 it opened a new study centre where the guest of honour was Sheikh Abdur-Rahman-al-Sudais, an imam at the Grand Al Haraam Mosque in Mecca, the heart of Islam. Although Sheikh Sudais was granted a visa to enter Britain, he has been refused one for Canada because of his repeated calls for the annihilation of the Jews, along with solicitations of violence against Christians, Hindus, and British and American soldiers. The BBC, choosing to ignore such trivial details, describe him only as a “controversial” figure, and promote him as a Muslim leader working to achieve “community cohesion” despite Sudais’s following inflammatory rhetoric:
“Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of Jews of today, who are all evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs….these are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption.”
Well, gosh, what can you say to that? Quite frankly such an outburst by the East London Mosque’s guest of honour would have left even Adolf Hitler lost for words! Awestruck admittedly, but lost for words none the less and not a little envious of the Sheikh’s command of anti-Semitic vituperation. But this is not why I draw attention to said mosque, I do so for the part in played in the rape of a 27 year old woman in Whitechapel.
Abdul Makim Khalisadar, an East London Mosque goer was convicted last week of raping the unnamed woman who, pregnant with twins, had a knife held to her throat and was punched repeatedly in the face until she said “I love you daddy” whilst Khalisadar violated her.
Khalisadar was not originally arrested in relation to the rape. He was already under police surveillance over his alleged involvement with a Kazi Nurur Rahman, a fellow Muslim sentenced to nine years imprisonment after pleading guilty to attempting to procure explosives with which to carry out a terrorist attack. Khalisadar’s computer disc was searched for evidence associating him with Rahman, where the police found downloaded images of child abuse. They DNA tested him for possible paedophile offences and subsequently linked him to the Whitechapel rape.
When he was arrested he claimed he could not possibly have carried out the rape, because at the precise time it happened he was attending a 3:00 AM sleepover at The East London Mosque, as one does, and produced seven other East London Mosque going alibis who swore under oath that they were all with Khalisadar, dressed in pyjamas and partaking of milk and cookies as they discussed the meaning of life.
Well, they all lied. Khalisadar’s DNA was his undoing. He was sentenced to ten years in jail and his seven honourable friends were sentenced to twelve months for perverting the course of justice. Burqa clad women in the court gallery screamed abuse at the judge, and accused the violated woman of being a prostitute. In light of a media blackout regarding the race of the woman, and the reaction of Muslim women to her, I am assuming she was English until proven otherwise.
The East London Mosque would appear to be a slightly unedifying religious institution, home as it is to purveyors of paedophilia, rapists, lying friends of rapists, friends of terrorists and Jew haters extraordinaire. To those with more than a casual knowledge of Islam, none of this is remarkable in itself, but what is remarkable is the fact that the Chairman of the East London Mosque is a certain Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, better known as the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB is held up by as the true face of moderate Islam by the British government, which has rewarded Dr Bari with an OBE for his efforts in the promotion of community cohesion, following on from the knighthood awarded to his predecessor, Sir Iqbal Sacrani.
But the MCB is no such thing. On top of the troublesome connections outlined in this article, they have also stated that Britain would benefit from Sharia law, they are connected with the Muslim Brotherhood - which seeks a global Islamic rule - via their affiliation with it’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, and are outraged he has been refused a visa to visit Britain, apparently having no problem whatsoever with a man who condones suicide bombing against Israelis, the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women, and a man who boasts that Islam will conquer Britain and the West.
In these strange totalitarian times we live in, it is no longer possible to suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain and the East London Mosque are representative not of moderate Islam, but of imperialist Islam, of genocidal Islam, of violent, oppressive, raping, gay-murdering, honour-killing, forced-marrying, girl-mutilating, Christian-hating, Jew-hating, suicide-bombing Islam – so I will refrain from doing so. I will let readers draw their own conclusions and would suggest they also read - if they have not already done so - Adrian Morgan’s meticulously researched article on the MCB and Fjordman’s Jihad Watch article on Muslim expansion in the West.
What I would say though, is that the last few weeks reveal a great deal about the state of Britain.
Canon Ainsworth’s wife fears that publicity over her husband’s beating will lead to racial tension in the area, by which she means she is terrified that the Muslim majority in the Shadwell enclave will exact revenge for the temerity of drawing the medias attention to their initial violence.
Bunglawalah’s disgraceful attempt on behalf of the MCB to turn the faith/hate attack into an issue of Islamophobia reveals him to be a devious man whose true intentions, along with those of Dr Bari, are not community cohesion but Islamic expansionism.
The refusal of the British government to denounce the MCB, coupled with the Guardian’s promotion of Bunglawalah in the full knowledge he was being economical with the truth are symptomatic of more than just shoddy government or shoddy journalism. They are evidence of a complicit alliance with Islam in their war against Britain and the West.
The Quisling politicians and journalists would, in different times, be thrown from their offices for aiding and abetting an enemy, an offence of which they are most categorically guilty.
If one replaced The Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Bari, Mr Bunglawalah, the attack on a priest within church grounds and the rape of an English girl by a Muslim man - with the British National Party, Nick Griffin, Phil Edwards, the attack on an imam within mosque grounds and the rape of a Muslim girl by an Englishman, there would be, quite correctly, a national outcry led by the British government, the BBC and the Guardian. An outcry followed not only by the Islamic community, but also by the vast majority of the British people themselves, who, unlike their Muslim counterparts, really are moderate.
This is not of course the case here. After all we are merely white Christians living in our homeland bequeathed to us by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers. There is no outcry, no rioting, no pressure to disband the MCB and its sinister leaders or to close down the virulently racist East London Mosque, and no heads to roll from political or media organisations.
But in the instance of this disgusting Muslim attack on a Christian priest, the sordid behaviour and lies of the inhabitants of Dr Bari’s mosque, and the perverse machinations that ensued, certain people and certain organisations have been seen to have taken very definite sides, and in so doing have made their position abundantly clear to the majority population of this country.
I’m not sure how much longer the British people will put up with all of this. A tipping point must surely be in the offing, and to judge from comments in the online MSM (including the BBC and Guardian) in relation to the incidents mentioned above, the British people are becoming increasingly – but not yet uncontrollably – angry. Not just with Islam, but with their elected representatives who appease the violent alien population and ignore and criminalise the peaceful indigenous one.
Britain is being dictated to by a violent but tiny minority of the population. It’s politicians and main media outlets have taken the side of a quasi-political movement masquerading as a religion whose history is one of unremitting violence and imperialism, and a political movement at the furthest extreme from Western Civilisation as is humanly possible.
The result of this is a country exhibiting clear signs of defeat and Dhimmitude. Our clergy and armed forces are advised to discard their dog collars and their uniforms when they enter the public domain in order to avoid being attacked. This should be an impossible, unthinkable situation, but it is the sad reality of a country ruled by an elite who seek its destruction.
But, to finish on a less depressing note, the leftist enablers of the slow motion Islamic colonisation of Britain number only in their thousands, the colonisers themselves, a mere 3% of the population today. If we wanted to, we could put a stop to this tomorrow were the knowledge and the will to hand. The will is there amongst those aware of the true nature of Islam, although the numbers are currently too low - but with every passing day the numbers grow and will continue to do so until they become unstoppable.
Islam has gone too early. Various Islamic leaders openly boast they will subsume the West through demographic growth and mass immigration, which they could have done if they had laid low rather than self-detonating and engaging in open sedition. But they are out in the open now. 9/11 and 7/7, the Madrid train bombing, these were our wake up calls and should have been Islam’s too, but they are not endowed with massive intellect. Do they really think they can carry on as they are whilst a massive majority quietly accept their fate? They appear to think we will, just as our equally ignorant leftist rulers think we will, but it ain’t ever going to happen.
There are already hints of impending revolution, the heady aroma of which hangs heavy in the air. If things continue as they are for another five years, the possibility of revolutionary change will cease to be a mere possibility and become a certified probability. And that day cannot arrive soon enough.
Friday, 14 December 2007
Cool War - Warm War - Hot War. Part 2
Part 2.
THE POLITICAL/PROPAGANDA WAR
The second strand of the cool war is the political/propaganda war, which we are also losing. Whether this is this because our ruling elites are terrified of Islamic aggression, harbour a loathing of the West bordering on the suicidal, or exhibit ignorance verging on the criminally negligent is not completely clear at the present moment, but may yet be discovered at some future Nuremberg style war trials.
As “The Religion Of Peace” bombs, beheads, maims, murders and rapes it’s way around the globe, the citizens of the West find themselves inhabiting some sort of parallel universe where the daily evidence placed before their eyes is flatly contradicted by their own liberal ruling elites. Western politicians appear to have appraised the situation and made a decision, based on short-term political expediency, to side with an alien culture that promises violence rather than their own indigenous people, who peacefully – to date - accept pretty much anything.
The attempt by Western liberals to portray Islam as the religion of peace is nothing short of pathological. In a sane world this would not be possible, but the West is no longer sane and this is the message promulgated by our political, media and educational establishments.
The Muslim radicals, acutely aware of what would happen if Christians emigrated en-mass to say, Saudi Arabia, and behaved as they themselves do in the West, can only rub their eyes in amazed disbelief at not only what they are able to get away with, but the subsequent debased reaction from their victims, manifested in the cringing appeasement of Western elites as they apologise for their wicked existence and prostrate themselves before Allah.
Prostrate themselves before Allah! What a typical example of reactionary, right wing, racist hysteria the liberal/left will shriek, but how does one explain the following?
When Islamic terrorists blow us up in skyscrapers, trains, metros and buses, the ruling elites immediate response is to ask what wrongs the West must surely have perpetrated in order to attract such animosity. If no particular wrong can be found, our politicians will try to explain it away as the result of poverty and oppression, and should that prove to be false, then some past act of Christian aggression from the 11th century, or the full moon, or Europe’s dreary weather, or anything, simply anything, save the one simple, unpalatable truth: Jihad for the sake of Allah in pursuit of the Global Caliphate.
After 9/11, the FBI asked the terrorist linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to provide "sensitivity training" for their agents, whilst in the wake of the 7/7 transport bombings in London, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were asked to help draft the new anti-terror laws, which included the notification of Muslim communities prior to any police raids, the requirement by the police to remove their shoes and socks before entering a Muslim house, times when they could and could not carry out said raids, and the stipulation that police dogs were strictly “canina non grata.”
In France, the Muslim street riots of 2005 led to French politicians promising more money for the banlieus and agreeing to turn a blind eye to the Sharia courts, the honour killings and the polygamy carried out within them. In Belgium, native socialist sympathisers have allied themselves with Islam and now politically dominate Brussels, where they use this political clout to ban demonstrations protesting Islam’s growing political control in Europe.
In Holland, 2006, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner had no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it was done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
In Spain the Madrid train bombings ushered in a new era of dhimmified government more in tune with Islam’s demands and in Britain, after yet another transit bombing by the religion of peace, Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, immediately set up a committee to advise and “reassure” Muslims on the “Islamophobic” backlash (which never materialised) and said: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love."
The legislation emanating from the European Court Of Human Rights has meant terrorists wanted for questioning in Egypt and Syria are allowed to remain free in Britain, lest they be tortured if their extradition were granted, whilst Oriana Fallaci, whose passionate love for Italy and democracy was proven in her resistance against Mussolini’s fascist state, was forced to die in exile in America, even as the Italian courts pressed for her extradition to face charges contravening EU laws on racism and xenophobia.
Her crime? She wrote two deeply moving books, The Rage And The Pride and The Force of Reason, lamenting the death of her beloved Italy and it’s replacement by resurgent Islam. If she had sought refuge in any EU country, she would have been forcibly extradited by Europol under another new EU law, The European Arrest Warrant, and tried by Eurojust, who along with Europol now possess powers that override those of nation states; their personnel also covered by diplomatic immunity. These people were not fit to wait on her table; the idea that she had to flee them is obscene.
When Jewish graveyards were desecrated in France and Germany a few years ago, the EU instigated a report, assuming it was the work of the Neo-Nazi “right”. When it turned out, all too predictably, to be the work of the followers of Muhammed, the report was quietly shelved and replaced with one six months later, exonerating the Muslims. Or to use Oriana Fallaci’s words, “the sons of Allah.”
When investigations (Daily Mail, 23 Nov 2005. No link) suggested that some 2,000 young Muslims – annually - attend terrorist training camps in Britain for unarmed combat training, the politicians and media tell us that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who wish us harm, a lie countered by Daniel Pipes who has a web page devoted to surveys revealing the true extent of support for radical Islam. The politicians and the media, who prefer to call Pipes an extremist, ignore this site.
The manipulative tactics of EU politicians do not stop at mere misrepresentation; they also use their new laws to curtail free speech. The rights of Freedom Of Assembly, and Freedom Of Expression, as ordained by the EU, do not hold up to close inspection. The attempt to hold a demonstration in Brussels on 9/11 2007 was thwarted lest our freedom of expression interfere with Islam’s freedom not hear it. Terry Davis, the socialist Secretary General of The Council of Europe, put out the following press release:
“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”
One cannot pick and choose freedom of speech, it either exists, in which case one lives in a democracy, or it does not, and one does not. Islam is not simply a religion; it is also a political ideology. The EU has therefore made the protest of a political movement illegal. This is totalitarianism.
When Nick Griffin of the BNP predicted - before the London transport bombings of 7/7 - that Britain would be attacked, that the terrorists would be home grown “British boys” and that Islam was a “wicked, vicious faith,” he was prosecuted and tried not once but twice in an attempt to jail him for inciting racial hatred. When he was found not guilty, the government’s response, at the behest of Muslim leaders, was to bring in a new law, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act under which they could be more confident of jailing him the next time he correctly predicted a terrorist attack and accused Islam of being wicked and nasty.
Contrast this with the surreal antics of the British police when radical imams were exposed calling for the overthrow of the West in Channel 4’s undercover dispatches program. The immediate response of the police was not to prosecute the imams for sedition and incitement to racial hatred, but the makers of the program themselves! By drawing attention to genuine racial and religious hatred, Channel 4 was accused of inciting racial hatred. This is more than merely bizarre; this is insane.
To date, not one of the Islamic preachers has been tried and prosecuted, despite calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals, the beating of women and the subjugation of the infidel kuffir. A BNP member calling for the death of “niggers” would quite rightly be arrested and prosecuted, whilst I, as a white European Christian “kuffir,” can be abused in a similar vein with impunity. This situation is fast becoming intolerable.
When Muslim radicals see this craven appeasement they become, quite naturally, emboldened. Despite being a significant minority, they are aware that they can punch well above their weight, which in Britain now means pushing for Sharia schools and a semi Sharia state.
In February 2007, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a 72 page manifesto demanding that British schools adopt Islamic guidelines. These included pretty much everything you would expect of a school in Saudi Arabia, including veils for ALL female students, full-length swimming costumes for boys, and separate wash areas for Muslims. The report, which was available at the MCB website has since mysteriously disappeared.
Dr Bari, the Secretary General of the MCB, also thinks the British should adopt arranged marriage, recruit 3,000 Muslim policemen in London to “restore trust,” attend Muslim institutions, stop drinking and gambling and accept Muslim dress codes, saying: “That is another thing the British should learn from us, modesty is attractive.”
If Europeans try to resist further Muslim immigration, they are liable to fall foul of being labelled xenophobic, which under EU laws can carry a prison term of up to three years. If the native British resist the MCB’s ongoing Islamisation of their country then they could, in Bari’s words, only be compared to Nazi Germany. In other words: Peace On Our Terms, as prescribed by Islam and the EU.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic movement banned in Middle-Eastern countries and dedicated to bringing about a global Islamic Caliphate, was supposed to be banned by the British government in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. It has not, and one if it’s leaders actually works in the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Needless to say, membership of the BNP would preclude you from such a position.
Whilst we are busy denying our culture, Islam is busy promoting theirs. If they run into difficulties, a simple accusation of racism tends to make any potential resistance disappear, whilst our appeasement, increasingly mandated by legal requirement, is one part of our culture that Islam has no problem interacting with. The result of their aggression, combined with their tactical awareness of how to use our appeasing liberalism against ourselves, has bought them a great many political concessions, where our culture and our civilisation is forced to bow to theirs.
Halal food is served in many public institutions, swimming baths have Muslim only sessions, crosses are removed from public areas, Christmas is downplayed lest it upset Muslim sensibilities, the Holocaust is dropped from school curriculum’s’ as it opposes the Holocaust denial that Muslim children are taught at home and in the mosques. The police drastically lower their entry standards in order to fill racial quotas and then stand idly by as street preaching imams promote death and destruction to the West, spurred into activity on occasion only to arrest members of the native population who heckle or attempt to take photographs.
The EU passes laws criminalizing the indigenous population if they speak out, backed up by national governments that do the same. The police arrest us on the slightest pretext yet ignore genuine hatred emanating from Islamic preachers, and our politicians appear to have tacitly accepted that peace can only be bought off via our appeasement. Living in Europe is becoming a wholly surreal experience that defies logic and reason as we slowly sink into state enforced Dhimmitude.
The various councils, parliaments, brotherhoods and associations, all prefixed by “Muslim” are driven more by political ambition than religious empathy, and their advance is both remorseless and relentless. The political parties representing the indigenous peoples of the West are retreating, apologising, appeasing and betraying. We are not just losing the political war. We are being annihilated.
To be continued in part three: The Propaganda War.
THE POLITICAL/PROPAGANDA WAR
The second strand of the cool war is the political/propaganda war, which we are also losing. Whether this is this because our ruling elites are terrified of Islamic aggression, harbour a loathing of the West bordering on the suicidal, or exhibit ignorance verging on the criminally negligent is not completely clear at the present moment, but may yet be discovered at some future Nuremberg style war trials.
As “The Religion Of Peace” bombs, beheads, maims, murders and rapes it’s way around the globe, the citizens of the West find themselves inhabiting some sort of parallel universe where the daily evidence placed before their eyes is flatly contradicted by their own liberal ruling elites. Western politicians appear to have appraised the situation and made a decision, based on short-term political expediency, to side with an alien culture that promises violence rather than their own indigenous people, who peacefully – to date - accept pretty much anything.
The attempt by Western liberals to portray Islam as the religion of peace is nothing short of pathological. In a sane world this would not be possible, but the West is no longer sane and this is the message promulgated by our political, media and educational establishments.
The Muslim radicals, acutely aware of what would happen if Christians emigrated en-mass to say, Saudi Arabia, and behaved as they themselves do in the West, can only rub their eyes in amazed disbelief at not only what they are able to get away with, but the subsequent debased reaction from their victims, manifested in the cringing appeasement of Western elites as they apologise for their wicked existence and prostrate themselves before Allah.
Prostrate themselves before Allah! What a typical example of reactionary, right wing, racist hysteria the liberal/left will shriek, but how does one explain the following?
When Islamic terrorists blow us up in skyscrapers, trains, metros and buses, the ruling elites immediate response is to ask what wrongs the West must surely have perpetrated in order to attract such animosity. If no particular wrong can be found, our politicians will try to explain it away as the result of poverty and oppression, and should that prove to be false, then some past act of Christian aggression from the 11th century, or the full moon, or Europe’s dreary weather, or anything, simply anything, save the one simple, unpalatable truth: Jihad for the sake of Allah in pursuit of the Global Caliphate.
After 9/11, the FBI asked the terrorist linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to provide "sensitivity training" for their agents, whilst in the wake of the 7/7 transport bombings in London, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were asked to help draft the new anti-terror laws, which included the notification of Muslim communities prior to any police raids, the requirement by the police to remove their shoes and socks before entering a Muslim house, times when they could and could not carry out said raids, and the stipulation that police dogs were strictly “canina non grata.”
In France, the Muslim street riots of 2005 led to French politicians promising more money for the banlieus and agreeing to turn a blind eye to the Sharia courts, the honour killings and the polygamy carried out within them. In Belgium, native socialist sympathisers have allied themselves with Islam and now politically dominate Brussels, where they use this political clout to ban demonstrations protesting Islam’s growing political control in Europe.
In Holland, 2006, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner had no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it was done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
In Spain the Madrid train bombings ushered in a new era of dhimmified government more in tune with Islam’s demands and in Britain, after yet another transit bombing by the religion of peace, Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, immediately set up a committee to advise and “reassure” Muslims on the “Islamophobic” backlash (which never materialised) and said: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love."
The legislation emanating from the European Court Of Human Rights has meant terrorists wanted for questioning in Egypt and Syria are allowed to remain free in Britain, lest they be tortured if their extradition were granted, whilst Oriana Fallaci, whose passionate love for Italy and democracy was proven in her resistance against Mussolini’s fascist state, was forced to die in exile in America, even as the Italian courts pressed for her extradition to face charges contravening EU laws on racism and xenophobia.
Her crime? She wrote two deeply moving books, The Rage And The Pride and The Force of Reason, lamenting the death of her beloved Italy and it’s replacement by resurgent Islam. If she had sought refuge in any EU country, she would have been forcibly extradited by Europol under another new EU law, The European Arrest Warrant, and tried by Eurojust, who along with Europol now possess powers that override those of nation states; their personnel also covered by diplomatic immunity. These people were not fit to wait on her table; the idea that she had to flee them is obscene.
When Jewish graveyards were desecrated in France and Germany a few years ago, the EU instigated a report, assuming it was the work of the Neo-Nazi “right”. When it turned out, all too predictably, to be the work of the followers of Muhammed, the report was quietly shelved and replaced with one six months later, exonerating the Muslims. Or to use Oriana Fallaci’s words, “the sons of Allah.”
When investigations (Daily Mail, 23 Nov 2005. No link) suggested that some 2,000 young Muslims – annually - attend terrorist training camps in Britain for unarmed combat training, the politicians and media tell us that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who wish us harm, a lie countered by Daniel Pipes who has a web page devoted to surveys revealing the true extent of support for radical Islam. The politicians and the media, who prefer to call Pipes an extremist, ignore this site.
The manipulative tactics of EU politicians do not stop at mere misrepresentation; they also use their new laws to curtail free speech. The rights of Freedom Of Assembly, and Freedom Of Expression, as ordained by the EU, do not hold up to close inspection. The attempt to hold a demonstration in Brussels on 9/11 2007 was thwarted lest our freedom of expression interfere with Islam’s freedom not hear it. Terry Davis, the socialist Secretary General of The Council of Europe, put out the following press release:
“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”
One cannot pick and choose freedom of speech, it either exists, in which case one lives in a democracy, or it does not, and one does not. Islam is not simply a religion; it is also a political ideology. The EU has therefore made the protest of a political movement illegal. This is totalitarianism.
When Nick Griffin of the BNP predicted - before the London transport bombings of 7/7 - that Britain would be attacked, that the terrorists would be home grown “British boys” and that Islam was a “wicked, vicious faith,” he was prosecuted and tried not once but twice in an attempt to jail him for inciting racial hatred. When he was found not guilty, the government’s response, at the behest of Muslim leaders, was to bring in a new law, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act under which they could be more confident of jailing him the next time he correctly predicted a terrorist attack and accused Islam of being wicked and nasty.
Contrast this with the surreal antics of the British police when radical imams were exposed calling for the overthrow of the West in Channel 4’s undercover dispatches program. The immediate response of the police was not to prosecute the imams for sedition and incitement to racial hatred, but the makers of the program themselves! By drawing attention to genuine racial and religious hatred, Channel 4 was accused of inciting racial hatred. This is more than merely bizarre; this is insane.
To date, not one of the Islamic preachers has been tried and prosecuted, despite calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals, the beating of women and the subjugation of the infidel kuffir. A BNP member calling for the death of “niggers” would quite rightly be arrested and prosecuted, whilst I, as a white European Christian “kuffir,” can be abused in a similar vein with impunity. This situation is fast becoming intolerable.
When Muslim radicals see this craven appeasement they become, quite naturally, emboldened. Despite being a significant minority, they are aware that they can punch well above their weight, which in Britain now means pushing for Sharia schools and a semi Sharia state.
In February 2007, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a 72 page manifesto demanding that British schools adopt Islamic guidelines. These included pretty much everything you would expect of a school in Saudi Arabia, including veils for ALL female students, full-length swimming costumes for boys, and separate wash areas for Muslims. The report, which was available at the MCB website has since mysteriously disappeared.
Dr Bari, the Secretary General of the MCB, also thinks the British should adopt arranged marriage, recruit 3,000 Muslim policemen in London to “restore trust,” attend Muslim institutions, stop drinking and gambling and accept Muslim dress codes, saying: “That is another thing the British should learn from us, modesty is attractive.”
If Europeans try to resist further Muslim immigration, they are liable to fall foul of being labelled xenophobic, which under EU laws can carry a prison term of up to three years. If the native British resist the MCB’s ongoing Islamisation of their country then they could, in Bari’s words, only be compared to Nazi Germany. In other words: Peace On Our Terms, as prescribed by Islam and the EU.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic movement banned in Middle-Eastern countries and dedicated to bringing about a global Islamic Caliphate, was supposed to be banned by the British government in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. It has not, and one if it’s leaders actually works in the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Needless to say, membership of the BNP would preclude you from such a position.
Whilst we are busy denying our culture, Islam is busy promoting theirs. If they run into difficulties, a simple accusation of racism tends to make any potential resistance disappear, whilst our appeasement, increasingly mandated by legal requirement, is one part of our culture that Islam has no problem interacting with. The result of their aggression, combined with their tactical awareness of how to use our appeasing liberalism against ourselves, has bought them a great many political concessions, where our culture and our civilisation is forced to bow to theirs.
Halal food is served in many public institutions, swimming baths have Muslim only sessions, crosses are removed from public areas, Christmas is downplayed lest it upset Muslim sensibilities, the Holocaust is dropped from school curriculum’s’ as it opposes the Holocaust denial that Muslim children are taught at home and in the mosques. The police drastically lower their entry standards in order to fill racial quotas and then stand idly by as street preaching imams promote death and destruction to the West, spurred into activity on occasion only to arrest members of the native population who heckle or attempt to take photographs.
The EU passes laws criminalizing the indigenous population if they speak out, backed up by national governments that do the same. The police arrest us on the slightest pretext yet ignore genuine hatred emanating from Islamic preachers, and our politicians appear to have tacitly accepted that peace can only be bought off via our appeasement. Living in Europe is becoming a wholly surreal experience that defies logic and reason as we slowly sink into state enforced Dhimmitude.
The various councils, parliaments, brotherhoods and associations, all prefixed by “Muslim” are driven more by political ambition than religious empathy, and their advance is both remorseless and relentless. The political parties representing the indigenous peoples of the West are retreating, apologising, appeasing and betraying. We are not just losing the political war. We are being annihilated.
To be continued in part three: The Propaganda War.
Cool - War - Warm War - Hot War. Part 1
Part 1.
If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but - as an added bonus - also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.
They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this; notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself - to name but a few.
In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei” the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.
It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one time allies of the Communists, those moral free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.
What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” - manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism - inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.
A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.
The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”
THE CULTURE / CIVILISATION WAR:
The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching it’s peak in the attitude of not only the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.
On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.
Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.
Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of Aids victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!”
The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.
No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:
“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and – in contrast with Islamic countries – respect for religious and political rights.”
Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam - a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?
But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.
Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.
The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to "unlearn" racism, young Westerners’ have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history – or more succinctly, the very essence of their being - is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.
This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed - as they say they are - of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.
Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.
As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged - nee forced - to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with it’s inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”
Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:
‘There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.”
Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:
“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable – providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”
Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”
This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West - but it gets worse. When little boys’ rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.
Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.
This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it - “girly men” - little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.
As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.
If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,” but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.
One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.
A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result - for the first time in the history of womankind - we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.
Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West - which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.
Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men - brainwashed into Dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it - have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word – extinction.
If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types – if there are any left – for their defence.
And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.
It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.
What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WW11, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women and blow them up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:
“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”
As a final note; what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.
To be continued.
I have only covered one small aspect of the assault, both from without and within, against the West. This may yet run to three or four articles.
If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but - as an added bonus - also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.
They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this; notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself - to name but a few.
In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei” the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.
It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one time allies of the Communists, those moral free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.
What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” - manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism - inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.
A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.
The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”
THE CULTURE / CIVILISATION WAR:
The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching it’s peak in the attitude of not only the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.
On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.
Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.
Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of Aids victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!”
The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.
No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:
“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and – in contrast with Islamic countries – respect for religious and political rights.”
Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam - a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?
But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.
Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.
The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to "unlearn" racism, young Westerners’ have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history – or more succinctly, the very essence of their being - is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.
This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed - as they say they are - of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.
Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.
As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged - nee forced - to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with it’s inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”
Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:
‘There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.”
Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:
“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable – providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”
Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”
This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West - but it gets worse. When little boys’ rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.
Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.
This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it - “girly men” - little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.
As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.
If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,” but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.
One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.
A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result - for the first time in the history of womankind - we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.
Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West - which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.
Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men - brainwashed into Dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it - have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word – extinction.
If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types – if there are any left – for their defence.
And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.
It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.
What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WW11, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women and blow them up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:
“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”
As a final note; what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.
To be continued.
I have only covered one small aspect of the assault, both from without and within, against the West. This may yet run to three or four articles.
The Coming Third World War
When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history.
Fukuyama was drawing on Winston Churchill, who stated: “The history of man is war” thus allowing Fukuyama to propose that a future consisting of perpetual peace meant an end to history itself, history being simply a narrative of warfare, conquest and re-conquest, rather than which queen succeeded which king and on which date.
This idea that warfare within the west is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are, on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.
In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.
What Fukuyama failed to realise however, was that the ingredient for yet another war to end all wars, was already in place. The cultural clashes between fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another culture that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures - Islam.
Wars do not simply spring out of nowhere. Although the causes may be relatively complicated, they require only a few very basic ingredients which when blended together, placed in a pressure cooker on gas level 5 and left to boil unattended, can have only one result.
The first of these, self evidently, is an enemy, without which a chef cannot even begin to prepare his feast gastronomique. Some may argue that Islam is not our enemy; such an entity being radical Islam, a relatively small component of Islam overall. Possibly so, but this rather misses the point that Western liberal democracy is Islam’s enemy, as they tell us over and over again, through word and deed.
The death and destruction wrought throughout the West in recent years is not because Islam, in some childlike, well-intentioned yet misguided way, wishes to assimilate with us, it is because Islam wishes to take us over. We, obviously, do not wish to be taken over, so we must be prepared to resist an enemy, or be prepared to submit to an enemy, the point being, that there is, with absolute certainty, an enemy.
The fact that it is radical Islam as opposed to moderate Islam is immaterial. In WW11 Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical Islam. I am sorry to have to say this, but war entails polarisation of differing races/religions, the pieties of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace.
The second ingredient for war is anger and resentment amongst a unified mass majority. Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not. We are not Islamic, and voluntarily, never will be.
And we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the television news, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call apparently supported by our ruling elites who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves.
Despite the best efforts of the vast, state funded, race relations industry, the glaring evidence suggests one stark, unpalatable fact; Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. The utopian multiculteralist view that we can all get along is belied by the fact that as Islam keeps on trying to blow us up, so “Islamophobia” continues, quite naturally, to grow.
When police chiefs speak of “heightened racial tensions” and in the case of France “low level civil war” they speak volumes of our current predicament. When Islam moves into an area and the indigenous inhabitants move out, this too speaks volumes. We do not, indeed, apparently cannot co-exist, a parlous state of affairs even whilst Westerners have the means and the territory to move away, but what happens when that escape route is removed?
Unfortunately, the birth rate differentials coupled with massive Muslim immigration and growing indigenous emigration suggest that this escape route is only temporary. Many European cities are on the brink of Muslim majorities already; within the next twenty years this will only escalate with increasing rapidity. At some point in the not too distant future, Europeans will have nowhere left to run.
Just as Islam is intransigently opposed to Western liberal democracy, so Western liberal democracy is intransigently opposed to Islam. The West in the case of “within borders” religious conflict is a demographic juggernaut compared to Islam today, but this can change very quickly as I argued in part 1 of a recent article. Within twenty years we will see two juggernauts of equal size, travelling in opposite directions on the same side of the road with the all too obvious result; collision circa 2025 or earlier, depending on their speed.
And it is as simple as that. Western Europe in 1990 did not have the ingredients necessary to bring about another war, but in 2007 we have the only ingredients necessary to ensure it. Two intransigent enemies, one demographically shrinking, the other demographically – and literally - exploding, both sides drawing their lines in the sand, and of course the simmering anger, fear and resentment that comes with such a scenario.
This situation reminds me of A E Housman’s words, describing the year 1914:
“Europe is a powder keg. The Germans are gripped by fervent nationalism, the British feel afraid of German expansion….the French still remember the bitter defeat of 1870. Germany enters into a pact with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but that empire is being torn apart by ethnic tensions and it will take just one spark to ignite a European war on an unimaginable scale…”
Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose, as they once said over a game of chess and chain lit gauloises in the avant garde cafes of the Paris banlieus’. History repeats itself, a fact not lost on the realists of the “right”, but lost in the fluffy mists of time to the liberal/left.
Perhaps a more recent quote might jolt them from their multicultural reverie, taken from Alastair Finlan’s book The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991-1999 which details the civil war that killed 250,000 people, the majority of whom were civilians, out of a population of 10 million.
“In 1991, almost overnight, an ethnically diverse region that had enjoyed decades of peaceful coexistence descended into bitter hatred and chaos. Communities fractured along lines of ethnic and religious affiliation and the resulting fighting was deeply personal, resulting in brutality, rape, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
Yugoslavia was a small country, the death toll would have been much higher were in not for the intervention of external forces. Continental Europe has close to half a billion inhabitants. Should war start, there is no way on earth that any external force can stop it. And it need not be constrained to Europe; would a nuclear-armed Pakistan sit idly by? Will Iran or Syria possess a nuclear capability and would they use it against Israel? Would America then become involved? Would our need for oil necessitate the invasion of the Middle East? How would Turkey respond to that?
Unlike the First World War, given our nuclear weapons, this really could be the war to end to all wars.
Such an apocalyptic scenario should give the liberal/left pause for thought. Is such a possibility really worth this peculiar multicultural experiment of forcing two disparate cultures together, in a perverse attempt to prove history and present day reality around the non-Western world, wrong?
Even the most vacuous multiculteralist would have to admit that religious war is a possibility, but what percentage chance would he admit to? Suppose it was only 1% - is that a risk worth taking? My only question to him would be “would you fly on a passenger jet that had a 1% chance of crashing, and if you would not, why do you think it acceptable that your children will inherit Armageddon based on a statistical chance of death that you yourself would not take?”
The completely unknown Serbian, Gavrilo Principe, provided the spark that ignited the First World War, when he assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the little known town of Sarajevo on June 28th 1914.
In the Europe of 2007 the ingredients for the Third World War are in place, save for Islamic demographics, an issue rapidly being addressed. Will it be a Dwayne Sproat or an Achmed Al-bubba, acting as the present day Gavrilo Principe, who sparks it?
Fukuyama was drawing on Winston Churchill, who stated: “The history of man is war” thus allowing Fukuyama to propose that a future consisting of perpetual peace meant an end to history itself, history being simply a narrative of warfare, conquest and re-conquest, rather than which queen succeeded which king and on which date.
This idea that warfare within the west is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are, on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.
In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.
What Fukuyama failed to realise however, was that the ingredient for yet another war to end all wars, was already in place. The cultural clashes between fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another culture that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures - Islam.
Wars do not simply spring out of nowhere. Although the causes may be relatively complicated, they require only a few very basic ingredients which when blended together, placed in a pressure cooker on gas level 5 and left to boil unattended, can have only one result.
The first of these, self evidently, is an enemy, without which a chef cannot even begin to prepare his feast gastronomique. Some may argue that Islam is not our enemy; such an entity being radical Islam, a relatively small component of Islam overall. Possibly so, but this rather misses the point that Western liberal democracy is Islam’s enemy, as they tell us over and over again, through word and deed.
The death and destruction wrought throughout the West in recent years is not because Islam, in some childlike, well-intentioned yet misguided way, wishes to assimilate with us, it is because Islam wishes to take us over. We, obviously, do not wish to be taken over, so we must be prepared to resist an enemy, or be prepared to submit to an enemy, the point being, that there is, with absolute certainty, an enemy.
The fact that it is radical Islam as opposed to moderate Islam is immaterial. In WW11 Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical Islam. I am sorry to have to say this, but war entails polarisation of differing races/religions, the pieties of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace.
The second ingredient for war is anger and resentment amongst a unified mass majority. Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not. We are not Islamic, and voluntarily, never will be.
And we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the television news, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call apparently supported by our ruling elites who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves.
Despite the best efforts of the vast, state funded, race relations industry, the glaring evidence suggests one stark, unpalatable fact; Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. The utopian multiculteralist view that we can all get along is belied by the fact that as Islam keeps on trying to blow us up, so “Islamophobia” continues, quite naturally, to grow.
When police chiefs speak of “heightened racial tensions” and in the case of France “low level civil war” they speak volumes of our current predicament. When Islam moves into an area and the indigenous inhabitants move out, this too speaks volumes. We do not, indeed, apparently cannot co-exist, a parlous state of affairs even whilst Westerners have the means and the territory to move away, but what happens when that escape route is removed?
Unfortunately, the birth rate differentials coupled with massive Muslim immigration and growing indigenous emigration suggest that this escape route is only temporary. Many European cities are on the brink of Muslim majorities already; within the next twenty years this will only escalate with increasing rapidity. At some point in the not too distant future, Europeans will have nowhere left to run.
Just as Islam is intransigently opposed to Western liberal democracy, so Western liberal democracy is intransigently opposed to Islam. The West in the case of “within borders” religious conflict is a demographic juggernaut compared to Islam today, but this can change very quickly as I argued in part 1 of a recent article. Within twenty years we will see two juggernauts of equal size, travelling in opposite directions on the same side of the road with the all too obvious result; collision circa 2025 or earlier, depending on their speed.
And it is as simple as that. Western Europe in 1990 did not have the ingredients necessary to bring about another war, but in 2007 we have the only ingredients necessary to ensure it. Two intransigent enemies, one demographically shrinking, the other demographically – and literally - exploding, both sides drawing their lines in the sand, and of course the simmering anger, fear and resentment that comes with such a scenario.
This situation reminds me of A E Housman’s words, describing the year 1914:
“Europe is a powder keg. The Germans are gripped by fervent nationalism, the British feel afraid of German expansion….the French still remember the bitter defeat of 1870. Germany enters into a pact with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but that empire is being torn apart by ethnic tensions and it will take just one spark to ignite a European war on an unimaginable scale…”
Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose, as they once said over a game of chess and chain lit gauloises in the avant garde cafes of the Paris banlieus’. History repeats itself, a fact not lost on the realists of the “right”, but lost in the fluffy mists of time to the liberal/left.
Perhaps a more recent quote might jolt them from their multicultural reverie, taken from Alastair Finlan’s book The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991-1999 which details the civil war that killed 250,000 people, the majority of whom were civilians, out of a population of 10 million.
“In 1991, almost overnight, an ethnically diverse region that had enjoyed decades of peaceful coexistence descended into bitter hatred and chaos. Communities fractured along lines of ethnic and religious affiliation and the resulting fighting was deeply personal, resulting in brutality, rape, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
Yugoslavia was a small country, the death toll would have been much higher were in not for the intervention of external forces. Continental Europe has close to half a billion inhabitants. Should war start, there is no way on earth that any external force can stop it. And it need not be constrained to Europe; would a nuclear-armed Pakistan sit idly by? Will Iran or Syria possess a nuclear capability and would they use it against Israel? Would America then become involved? Would our need for oil necessitate the invasion of the Middle East? How would Turkey respond to that?
Unlike the First World War, given our nuclear weapons, this really could be the war to end to all wars.
Such an apocalyptic scenario should give the liberal/left pause for thought. Is such a possibility really worth this peculiar multicultural experiment of forcing two disparate cultures together, in a perverse attempt to prove history and present day reality around the non-Western world, wrong?
Even the most vacuous multiculteralist would have to admit that religious war is a possibility, but what percentage chance would he admit to? Suppose it was only 1% - is that a risk worth taking? My only question to him would be “would you fly on a passenger jet that had a 1% chance of crashing, and if you would not, why do you think it acceptable that your children will inherit Armageddon based on a statistical chance of death that you yourself would not take?”
The completely unknown Serbian, Gavrilo Principe, provided the spark that ignited the First World War, when he assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the little known town of Sarajevo on June 28th 1914.
In the Europe of 2007 the ingredients for the Third World War are in place, save for Islamic demographics, an issue rapidly being addressed. Will it be a Dwayne Sproat or an Achmed Al-bubba, acting as the present day Gavrilo Principe, who sparks it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)