The Importance of Being Haram.

Tags

American Liberty, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Halal, Haram and Halal, Islam, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Peppa Pig, Pork, Tommy Robinson, United States

In Spain, where I’ve been living for over a month, I’ve gotten used to the following rule of thumb: if you want to eat, you’ll have to eat pork. Almost everything on the menu of a Spanish restaurant has involved the death of a pig or two. A paella dish will include shredded pieces of chorizo. Sandwiches are stuffed with ham, seasoned sausage or salami. Pizzas have more pork-based toppings than cheese. Even dips for potato chips have pork listed somewhere in the ingredients.

Why is this? One thought that came to me (though this is probably incorrect) was that it could be traced back to Spain’s defence against Islamic conquest in the last millennium. Perhaps, I wondered, the Spanish have sought to insulate themselves from Islam by adopting behaviours offensive to it.

Who knows.

But whether there is any truth in this or not, it is surely important to maintain those practices in our culture which cannot be integrated into any future Islamic system.

If Muslims wanted to convert Spain (and the Spanish) to Islam, the centrality of pork products would prove (as frivolous as it sounds) a genuinely strong line of defence. So much of what makes Spain, Spain, would have to be undone that the process seems destined to failure.

We have our own defences of this kind in England. The lack of Muslim integration in Britain has as much to do with alcohol as it does with Islamophobia. Integration into British culture requires (and has always required) a lot of heavy drinking. You can’t make friends at university without getting rat-faced every now and then. The same is true in the workplace or at parties, at Christmas, New Years and other occasions. This behaviour might support the European view of Englanders as violent, lager-swilling hooligans, but the effect within our own borders has been a positive one.

Although it was later revealed to be a hoax, the idea that British Muslims wanted to ban the cartoon character Peppa Pig is really no trifling matter either. The recently publicised plot was meant satirically (in order to show how crazy we Islamophobes are), but the division they jokingly referenced is real and potentially significant. Un-Islamic artworks (just like Un-Islamic traditions) provide genuine obstacles to the kind of ‘soft conquest’ promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies.

To ensure our survival, the cultural incompatibility between our native way of life and that of Islam must be rigorously maintained. It is important that Christmas and Easter are celebrated nationally, regardless of any ‘offence’ they may cause. It is crucial that Churches and Public houses remain open, and that we oppose the cultural changes diminishing their business. Those public houses with Islamophobic names – ‘the Saracen’s Head’ etc… – should be preserved as a matter of priority. Drinking – even binge-drinking – must retain its central place in our social life. The Full English Breakfast must remain a national dish.

These little, stupid-seeming issues mean more than one might presuppose. A town without a church will soon have a mosque. A town without a pub will soon have a sharia-compliant butcher. A country that becomes halal already has one foot inside the House of Islam.

D, LDN.

Obituary for the English Defence League.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, English Defence League, Multiculturalism, Tommy Robinson

When the Manchester United football team play Manchester City, a physical crowd of 70,000 people is these days almost guaranteed. A similar number can be expected at other rivalrous matches like Everton Vs Liverpool, Celtic vs Glasgow Rangers, Tottenham vs Arsenal, and Chelsea vs Human Decency.

These crowds are not drawn by the promise of entertainment (or at least not by that alone) but by emotion and genuine sentimentality.

Tens of thousands of people, young and old, male and female, show up at football stadiums periodically to unload the kind of hatred, loyalty and aggression that was, perhaps only 70 years ago, confined entirely to the battlefield.

And as on the battlefield, the entrenchment of division over extended periods of time has spilled naturally over into personal animosity. Manchester United fans – for example – are known to detest their Manchester City rivals with a racial intensity, often leading to acts of deranged, pointless violence. The same is true of the other examples mentioned.

Every football club in Britain therefore has its own army fit and willing to engage in massive co-ordinated action. The genius of the English Defence League was to try and tap this enormous resource and redirect the energy expended on the irrational into something rational. To take, that is, the hollow love for a corporation (because that is all modern football teams are) and channel it into a love of country and culture.

Indeed, the original name for the EDL – ‘Casuals United’ – (‘Casual’ is an English phrase for a football hooligan hidden among ordinary supporters by the wearing of inconspicuous casual clothes) suggested a unification of the nation’s hooligans into a common formation; one in which all differences would be suspended under a single banner to combat a menace that recognises no distinctions.

And how it worked!… For while at least.

Crowds came out in thousands. Shivers trickled down the coward spines of Islamists in every city. Streets were, for a while, reclaimed – repatriated to the soil beneath their urban paving and all its socialist rot.

And then in Walthamstow, the Socialists fought back and by numbers the EDL was humiliated in a way it never recovered from.

Months later, sensing the ship he built beginning to waver, leader Tommy Robinson converted to moderation, leaving confused and betrayed masses scrambling for land and meaning.

They have since failed to find any.

The EDL is dead. Deader than the BNP, National Front or any other ‘far-right’ political body to which it was once erroneously compared.

Those armies the EDL plucked from the fancy of sport are now steadily returning to the terraces. All their anger will soon be again directed at millionaires booting a ball of leather on a green-grass pitch, and not spent on protesting the encroachment of a religious community who would forbid such gatherings altogether. A sad irony.

Those who still fancy a fight for cultural survival are turning their gaze to the cultureless Thatcherites of the United Kingdom Independence Party; a clique obsessed by money, Europe and rural freedoms.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that as it relates to Jihadism, UKIP is a blunt sword. Nigel Farage, his oratorical brilliance aside, is nothing more than a corporate dandy, politically deep and ideologically shallow.

We would of course be better off under a UKIP regime in the short term, but the long term would likely emerge unaffected.

The search for a viable resistance continues. It is to accelerate that search that we should be frank about the EDL’s demise. It has ceased to motivate or to inspire and should now be disbanded.

D, LDN.

If We Do Nothing.

Tags

America 911, anti-Semitism, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islam and the West, Islamisation of Europe, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Muslim demographics, Muslims in Europe, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tommy Robinson

Although I write in favour of European self-rescue, it should be clarified that I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of the measures required being adopted, now or in the future.

The chances, to put the matter frankly, of persuading an indoctrinated population to do something they have been conditioned – often since childhood – to regard as sinful, are zero.

Europe’s rescue from Islamisation requires discrimination, on both national and local stages. At the national level, every government must realise that the needs of its historic majority are more its rightful business than the ‘rights’ of a swelling and hostile minority. At the local level meanwhile, people must learn to recognise human difference as something vital to their personal security.

Discrimination however, is – perhaps more than anything else – anathema to the liberal mind. Consequently, even if the thought of European Muslims being sent their deportation papers may thrill the imagination, that is almost certainly where it will remain.

Muslim immigration will probably be halted the first day after the collapse of the European Union, but that will only deal with a hypothetical inflow and will solve nothing as to those already settled. On this point, the most likely scenario is that those Muslims who already live here (and their posterity) will be part of Europe forever.

Sure, the natives will thrash and moan a bit as each demographic milestone is met with grim punctuality; 15%… 20%… 25% etc… But these will be mere imitations of self-confidence, and of those historic conditions that once permitted self-confidence. Much like the re-enactments of medieval battles on a wet Tuesday in Bosworth, these will be resistance-themed carnivals, hemmed in by police and finally dispersed by reality.

True, it is unlikely that Muslims will capture all of Europe, but it is now almost certain that they will conquer its capitals and other large cities. The demographic material is already in place for the Islamisation of London, Brussels, Stockholm, Oslo, Paris, Berlin, Duisburg, Leicester, Malmo, Marseilles, Luton, Strasbourg, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and the urban parts of Switzerland.

These are all famous and historic places, decorated with treasures invaluable to world-history. What will happen to them when they are populated almost exclusively by Muslims?

Students of Asia’s modern history will be familiar with the fate of the Buddhas of Bamiyan; an ancient relic of pre-Islamic culture in Central Afghanistan. As is now notorious, the structure was exploded and the relics entirely destroyed by Taliban militants in 2001.

Just imagine that – the scene and all its details  – for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Now – if you can – try to impose that image onto Rome, London, Paris or Berlin.

Instead of the Buddhas being demolished, imagine the Roman Colosseum, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, or the Eiffel Tower subjected to the same misfortune.

I can assure you these are not outlandish thoughts. Despite popular misunderstanding of the matter, the 9/11 hijackers did not target the Twin Towers out of hatred of American ‘economic power’. They were rather acting in line with the Qutbist condemnation of idolatry. In Wahhabi Islamism, any great man-made structure that attracts wonder or praise, and that is not built expressly for Islamic worship, is an idol. This is why the Twin Towers were brought low. This is also why the Saudi government – with the consent of the Wahhabist religious establishment – has demolished many ancient buildings connected with the life of Mohammad in Mecca and Medina. Mohammad, you see, is not regarded by Muslims as divine, and therefore any pilgrimage to, or veneration of artifacts associated with him is also considered idolatrous.

The Pentagon too, is an idol. It was built to symbolize the power of the American military – the power therefore of ‘men’, and was attacked for these reasons.

One cannot exactly estimate how many of the cultural treasures of Europe would also be considered idolatrous according to this same measure, but surely if the artifacts of Mohammad himself are not considered sacred, then why would the Brandenburg Gate be afforded any mercy?

A successful Muslim conquest of Europe will reset European history at year zero. History shall not be so much as changed, as removed entirely. Europe will be forced to forget itself; that it ever had a history to begin with; just as the Egyptians were made to forget their past, as were the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and the Berbers, after they too fell to armies of Muslim conversion.

Away from cultural symbols, the mechanics of society will be greatly affected. Sharia courts will proliferate across Europe (whether governments allow them or not). Genital mutilation will continue in private. In the open, women will be assaulted on an increasing scale. Rape rates will skyrocket. Whatever pretentions a rational feminism ever had will be driven to extremism or else submission. Harassment will forbid native European women from urban centres and thus from commercial employment.

Elsewhere, shops selling alcohol will be vulnerable to attack and boycott. Terror-threats will paralyze subways. Every time Israel defends itself in the Middle East, anti-Semitism will become a violent reality.

There are potential military consequences too. The influential blogger Fjordman has commented on the dire possibility of French nuclear weapons falling into Muslim hands. I’m afraid it isn’t a fanciful idea. All it would take is one rogue Franco-Algerian general and Europe would be under a shadow of destruction.

All that for the false virtue of blind tolerance…

Pessimism like this is not an admirable trait, I know, but it is nevertheless appropriate to the situation Europe finds itself in. I see no sign of a popular movement able to achieve anything of substance on this issue. The EDL is all but finished. UKIP, the party in which so many good people invest their hopes, is practically neutral on the culture clash, preferring to badmouth Poles and Romanians than Pakistanis. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders was trounced in the national elections. Where now?

As I say, this is a depressing post, but I do believe it pays to periodically remind oneself of the stakes of doing nothing.

D, LDN.

‘Islam Versus Europe’, Immigration and the Jews.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Holocaust, Jew, Karl Marx, Kevin Macdonald, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Nazi, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tommy Robinson, United States, Zionism

A friend once asked me why Neo-Nazis hate ‘Zionism’ so much. ‘Surely…’ he said ‘…they don’t care about the Arabs.’.

I explained as best I could that ‘Zionism’ to a Nazi means something very different than it does to a Western Liberal. For the former, ‘Zionism’ is a shorthand for any organised Jewish Political force, real or imagined.  The kind of political force usually intended is a conspiracy to promote (or enforce) multi-racialism on the European world, with the ultimate goal of wiping out the White race via miscegenation (encouraged by a Jewish media and pornography industry).

It’s easy to dismiss such ideas as crackpot, if not borderline psychotic. They are not comfortably distinct from black helicopters behind the clouds, or brain-rotting chemicals in the water supply.

But it would be unfair to dismiss them so completely.

Back in July (hat-tip Enza Ferreri), the respected CounterJihad blogger IslamversusEurope  (‘Cheradenine’) published a lengthy post reviewing the book ‘Culture of Critique’ by Canadian author Kevin Macdonald. To my surprise, Cheradenine, a great foe of Islamisation and terrorism, said the following:  ‘

“Having now read MacDonald’s books A culture of critique and A people that shall dwell alone…. I have to say they have made an unexpectedly strong impression on me. I now understand antisemitism. I wouldn’t say I now share the feeling but I am at least much further along that spectrum of sentiment that I was before.”

He goes on to explain his reasoning:

“MacDonald documents, in excruciating detail, the overwhelmingly disproportionate Jewish involvement in intellectual movements that have worked to delegitimise and denigrate the traditional forms of cohesiveness characteristic of European societies, including patriotism, church and family structures…..Communism blighted eastern Europe; multiculturalism is destroying western Europe. Although Jews are clearly not solely responsible for either, it’s reasonable to ask whether either ideology would have achieved such “success” as it did achieve, establishing doctrinal dominance in the minds of policy-making elites, had Jews never immigrated to Europe. In my opinion, the answer is no. Without Jewish political and intellectual activism, without the Holocaust, without the Hitler stick ready to beat down any manifestation of European pride or patriotism, Europeans would not now be losing their countries to Islam.”

OK. Let’s address these points.

I do not personally find the idea that Jews instinctively promote societies which are not repressively homogenous unlikely, but nor do I find it disturbing. It is perfectly natural for Jews to desire a Nationalism they can be part of, and to combat a Nationalism which excludes or threatens them. The cultural totalitarianism of the Middle Ages offered no comfort for the Jews, despite their eschatological importance to the Christian faith itself, and post-enlightenment liberalisation was strongly desired by Christian minorities (Catholics in Protestant countries and vice versa) too. This was (at least initially) nothing like a conspiracy, but merely the fight for a better society.

The modern blight of Communism too is not something to lay solely at the door of the Jews. Communism precedes Karl Marx (who merely provided its most eloquent expression). Class interests and the desire to correct economic ‘injustices’ arose organically among the gentile working classes, and may never have required the assistance of Jews to enact a political effect.

Similarly, modern ‘Multiculturalism’ is as much a class movement as it is an ideology. Multiculturalism is favoured by the business elite and the liberals of the middle class, both of whom associate the objections of the working class with ignorance and inferiority. A desire to not be seen as ‘racist’ is not motivated by Holocaust guilt alone, but by an arrogant wish to prove oneself superior to the uneducated.

As for the author of ‘Culture of Critique’, one must be honest and call him at minimum a suspect character. Professor Macdonald is a sometime associate of David Irving, and a venerated hero of the Ethno-Nationalist fringe. His work typically attracts the dregs of sub-political society and is animated by a science (‘Evolutionary Psychology’) that is rarely accepted as mainstream. As John Derbyshire pointed out in his evaluation of Macdonald, the very idea of a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ (vital to Macdonald’s argument) is open to doubt:

‘The Jewish over-representation in important power centers of Gentile host societies became possible only after Jewish emancipation—which, like abolition of the slave trade, was an entirely white-Gentile project! Did the genes of 12th-century Jews “know” emancipation was going to happen 700 years on? How? If they did not, what was the point of their “evolutionary strategy”? There is a whiff of teleology about this whole business.’

I agree. Perhaps even more than a whiff.

In sum, Jews have long been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism and I truly hope that Cheradenine’s unfortunate fascination for Mr Macdonald’s work doesn’t precede a split in the CounterJihad movement. I have always subscribed to the ‘Big Tent’ ideal when it comes to this issue. It will take Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Ba’hai, Christians and nonbelievers working in agreement for any kind of successful resistance to be formed. A defensive phalanx; not a gabble of factions divided by race.

D, LDN

Crumbling CounterJihad?: Refuting ‘Loonwatch’.

Tags

American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Brigitte Gabriel, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Debbie Schlussel, Defend the modern world, Islam, Islamophobia, Jihadwatch, Kevin Carroll, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Robert Spencer, SION, Tommy Robinson, Transatlantic Kerfuffle, United States, Walid Shoebat

Anyone involved with the CounterJihad movement will be familiar with the Website ‘Loonwatch’. As its name would imply, the site is intended to be a satirical antidote to Jihadwatch (and other similar websites).

Normally, the articles posted on Loonwatch are of scant interest (most simply recycle the garbage idea that Islamophobes are somehow guilty of racism), but this past week, a more analytical piece was uploaded that demands greater attention. The piece is titled ‘Crumbling “Counterjihad”? EDL, SION, SIOA and the Transatlantic Kerfuffle’, and its main contention is that the ‘Islamophobic’ movement is falling apart.

The author of the post – ‘Garibaldi’ – writes that “The reasons for the inherent instability in the “counter-Jihad” reflects the fissures in ideological make up between the various personalities, as well as incongruities between their inflated egos.” (Note: ‘Reflects’ in this sentence should be singular)

Garibaldi then cites a history of ‘internecine civil wars amongst the counter-Jihad’ including the following perceived confrontations..  “Debbie Schlussel vs. Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Zuhdi Jasser, Walid Shoebat, etc… (Robert) Spencer vs. Andrew Bostom. Roberta Moore of the JDL vs. the EDL and now the latest kerfuffle: Geller and Spencer vs. Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll.”

While many of the schisms mentioned were (and in some cases still are) real, they are nothing more than symptomatic of a vibrant, democratically-spirited movement with a tolerance for dissent. Indeed, this might contrast sharply with the almost cult-like uniformity typical of Leftist movements.

Debbie Schlussel, to take one example, is a proudly independent cultural critic. The same is true of Pamela Geller. The fact that they sometimes disagree seems hardly worthy of comment. Both espouse the same kind of opinion, face down the same bullies and name-throwers, and expose themselves to the same risks.

Ms Geller’s accusations against Tommy Robinson similarly have been taken out of context here. Both Geller and Robinson remain essentially in agreement over the need to tackle radical Islam, and even if they don’t see eye-to-eye on each other’s methodology, both are one and the same from an Islamist point-of-view.

As for the talk of clashing ‘egos’, this is pretty rich coming from a Left-wing source.  The Anglo-American Left contains such icons of humility as Michael Moore, Laurie Penny and Barack Obama, and unlike those on the right, Left-leaning parties are dominated by University-educated Toffs (try standing for the Democratic Party without a degree).

Garibaldi goes on to offer this catch-all assessment of the CounterJihad tendency:

“All that binds them is Islamomisia and Islamophobia. On the surface their ideological backgrounds provide a motive: a belief in the need to preserve Christianity in the face of post-Modernity and a rise in Secular Humanism, a belief that it is good for Israel and Zionism, a desire to keep White Europe pure, the nostalgic belief that they are the vanguard “defenders of freedom” who will not only save the “West” from a resurgent Islam but harken in a golden age and if not–Armageddon.”

This is a very bizarre attempt to transform virtue into sin. That the CounterJihad tendency attracts a plurality of people from different backgrounds is presented as a flaw. “All that binds them…” is the very subject under consideration. Why wouldn’t it be? 

Regarding the perceived motive of keeping ‘White Europe pure’, this is a pretty hackneyed accusation. If it applies at all, it is only to the wildest Nick Griffin-ite fringe. While such people certainly exist, to tar Pamela Geller with the same brush as the BNP is absurd.

The future of the CounterJihad movement is not something that can be safely predicted in detail, but it would take a very uninformed mind to reason that it doesn’t have one. The Jihadist threat is mounting across Europe, and the cause of resistance will grow alongside it.

D, LDN.

Not a Traitor, Just Wrong.

Tags

BBC, BNP, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Guardian, Islam, Judeo-Christian, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Nick Griffin, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Robinson, Tommy Robinson

It isn’t a crime to change your mind. A greater folly is to surround your political conviction with an invulnerable coat of armour, letting it stand unaffected by changing evidence or opposing argument.

Tommy Robinson has clearly changed his mind. He hasn’t recanted his past beliefs, but he has substantially moderated them to almost that effect. He no longer believes (so he says) in making Muslims ‘uncomfortable’, or in tarring fundamentalist believers with the same brush as ‘moderates’. Talking to the Guardian, he even went so far as to apologise to the Muslim community for any offence he has given these past few years as EDL leader.

Although this might be disappointing for some, we should try to respect it. I don’t believe, like Nick Griffin, that Robinson was ever a puppet, or that the EDL was a deliberate misdirection of patriotism, a ‘shady Zionist plot’, or a government funded psy-op. It always seemed to me a perfectly sincere enterprise with a clear manifesto and a brilliant organisational structure. It was also something which – in its heyday- did great things for our cause and our defence.

It won’t surprise you then to hear that I disagree wholly with Robinsons new outlook.

His entire conversion, for me, rests upon a flawed idea; namely, the idea that Islam can be moderated by the sentiment of nationality.

What Tommy is now asking of Muslims in effect, is that they become British first and Muslim second, or in other words, that they take the here-and-now as seriously as the hereafter.

But, as anyone who has read Qur’an knows, the Muslim faith hinges on a belief that this earthly life, with all its loyalties, bounties and appearances is merely a test and a prelude to a greater reality. The ‘Muslim’ (literally ‘one who submits’) treats this life as a preparation, a period of moral labour necessary to unlock the doors of death and dwell forever in paradise.

To be ‘British’ by contrast, is of no value whatsoever, or at least not relative to the promise of eternity.

With this in mind, the creation of a distinct ‘British Muslim’ identity seems unrealistic to me. The two loyalties would be locked in constant battle, and the fallout would be toxic.

It would be nice if Tommy’s optimism was proven correct. I’m not convinced it will be.

D, LDN.

Where Now for the English Defence League?

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, British National, Christianity, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, English Defence League, Islamism, Islamophobia, Kevin Carroll, London EDL, Nick Griffin, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Robinson, Tommy Robinson

On Tuesday, EDL leader Stephen Yaxley Lennon (otherwise known as ‘Tommy Robinson) announced that he and co-founder Kevin Carroll are to leave the organisation, in their words to pursue “better, democratic ideas” by which to continue the fight against Political Islam.

Generally speaking, this announcement came as a great surprise to those within the EDL, and the reasoning since given for it by Robinson has confounded much of the liberal press too. Only a month beforehand, he had been tweeting typically hostile comments toward Islam and Muslims, and yet suddenly the former hooligan appeared to have been tamed.

Why? Personally, I’m not sure. Nobody is more shocked by all this than me. According to many different gauges, the organisation seemed only recently in peak health. The EDL page on facebook has never been so popular, with roughly 161,000 ‘likes’ and a second unofficial page with 40.000 more. The demo in Tower Hamlets last month was hardly disastrous, and there is a large and popular outing planned for the coming weeks in Bradford.

But even if the ‘why’ remains shrouded in mystery, the ‘where next’ must now be addressed. Currently, the English Defence League is leaderless. Many thousands of activists face an anxious wait to see who replaces Robinson as their public representative. Some candidates (including the ‘pot-plant guy’ from UKIP) have already been ruled out. I have no nominations of my own.

But a leader must be found soon. The danger of a prolonged state of flux is mass defection. The BNP will almost certainly be eyeing this up. I’ve yet to check the BNP website (I haven’t got the stomach at the moment), but there will inevitably be a semi-literate post claiming the resignations as a ‘victory’ for Nick Griffin. They are, of course, nothing of the kind, but such is the nature of fascist solipsism.

When and if one arises, the most important question for a new EDL leader must not be “What went wrong?” but ‘What can yet be achieved?”

Although Robinson cited ideological reasons for his resignation, there were perhaps other factors involved, such as a declining turnout for demonstrations and lessening media profile. To attain greater victories in the future, significant changes to the core mission of the EDL will be required. To this end, here are five suggestions for the new leader:

1. Reduce the number of irregular demonstrations in favour of larger-scale demos to mark significant occasions (the aftermath of a terror attack/St George’s Day etc..). Make clear to members that their attendance is expected rather than merely desired. Make the rallies pleasant, static affairs with speeches and music, rather than kettling and confrontation.

2. Ensure a number of ethnic-minority spokespeople (especially ex-Muslims) to blunt the accusation of racism.

3. Get rid of the fascistic and irrelevant ‘In Hoc Signo Vinces’ slogan. It has connections with totalitarianism. As a replacement, consider something like the Luxembourgian National Motto ‘Mir wolle bleiwe wat mir sin’ – “We Want to Remain What We Are.”

4. Create a formal membership structure. This will make it possible to expel those who make fascist salutes or threats at rallies.

5. Stand firm on fundamental principles. This is a liberal-democratic country and Muslims are antithetical to our way of life.

Whatever approach is pursued, now is plainly not the time to throw in the towel. The current of Islamisation remains as strong as ever, and the methods hitherto employed by the EDL have borne real fruit. Thousands of patriotic souls have braved all kinds of inconvenience to make a fraternal stand against something toxic and dangerous to our country. They must not be betrayed, or left in want of hope.

D, LDN.

On the EDL, the BNP and the Difference Between Them.

Tags

BNP, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Eurabia, Far-right politics, Jessica Ennis, Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson

I’ve loved the English Defence League from the moment of its inception. After years of the anti-Islam cause being copyrighted by the ‘blood and honour’ lunatics of the Far-Right, here at last was a collective to stand just as ferociously against the Islamist tide as the BNP, but at the same stroke commit themselves to Britain in its modern, multiracial, capitalist reality.

This was a first in British, and arguably European political history; a splintering of the ‘far-right’ away from biological nationalism towards the grander domain of culture.

Since then, I’ve done my best to support them, writing about them frequently and defending them from the (predictable yet incessant) accusations of the Liberal-Left. I’ve never been part of an EDL procession myself, but I’ve witnessed them from the sidelines many times. They seem to be wonderful affairs, loudly despised by everyone I oppose. True to its ideals, the EDL on parade contains quite a mixture of social types. Just go along and see them and you’ll find young and old, Black and White, straight and gay, Christian and Sikh, Jew and Gentile etc… all united for a common end. Not since the early days of Communism could such a phenomenon have organically occurred so often.

The EDL leadership is preferable to that of the traditional Right too. Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon may not be an eloquent, academic type, but he seems perfectly sincere in his beliefs and pleasant in their expression. He’s never denied the Holocaust, or involved himself on matters of race-relations, or called into question the validity of the Capitalist system. He’s just a patriotic, affable young man who wants Britain to go back to how it once was, by which he means how it was in the 1980s and 1990s before the Blair-wave of immigration, and not, like Mr Griffin, back to the Victorian era.

Every time Tommy Robinson is interviewed on Newsnight, I like to imagine Nick Griffin sitting at home with his rottweilers and a large glass of scotch, seething at the screen. He must loathe the attention heaped on this young man, and more than this, he must resent the ability of his organisation to get boots on the street in a way the BNP could never do.

But it isn’t just personalities that divide EDL and BNP, but principles too. The ideological differences between the two groups are worth returning to again and again. Despite the myths and fables put about by Liberal crazies, they really are nothing like each other.

To understand why, consider two cases of modern British ‘diversity’; first, the mixed-race athlete Jessica Ennis, and secondly, the British-based Jordanian preacher Abu Qatada. These aren’t two names you’ll often read in the same paragraph as each other let alone sentence, but stay with me on this one….

According to BNP ideology, the former, as a product of Black-White miscegenation, represents as much of a threat to British survival as the latter, perhaps even more. The latter by contrast could even be considered an ally against the famous ‘Jewish conspiracy’  deemed responsible for the very climate of ‘race-mixing’ in which beautiful creatures like Ms Ennis are created.

For the EDL, the second is an anti-Semitic crank and national-security threat who should be immediately deported, while the first is the opposite of a threat; she is a reason to hoist the flag higher and sing the anthem with greater enthusiasm.

Do you understand? The BNP is a blind alley. Only fools are still found running up it. The EDL, together with parties friendly to it like Liberty GB, are a surer bet, and though I don’t like to invest much hope in any political force, perhaps together they can be the answer we’ve been waiting for.

D, LDN.

The Virtue of Islamophobia.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Islamisation of London, Islamization, Islamophobia, Jason Manford, Multiculturalism, Rihanna Muslim, Tommy Robinson

The comedian Jason Manford once joked that English Southerners and English Northerners only come together in the presence of someone ‘more’ foreign, like a Scot. The two usually opposed characters become in this situation, ‘English’, and proudly so, with all differences suspended. In the face of a French person, all three (the Scot, the Northerner and the Southerner) join together as ‘British’. In the face of an American, all four become ‘European’ etc…. Ultimately, Manford mused, the only way in which humanity could unite given these principles is after an Alien invasion, in which all would be become proudly ‘human’.

The Islamist threat is as close as we may get to that happy situation. Islam is not a race, or a nation, or anything with irreversible physical characteristics. It is something maintained by choice. Islamism, even more so, is entirely optional and can be abandoned at any time. Consequently, opposition to Islamisation attracts an extremely diverse community of peoples, creeds and colours. No one type predominates. All human varieties are banded together in defence of something universal, good and decent: the principle of liberty.

Islamophobia consequently can be (and is) a force for human solidarity.

The Islamists have done much of the work for us. From the dawn of this century, every culture of note has been warred upon.

America was attacked with hijackings. Britain was attacked with subway bombings. Spain was hit by train bombings. India was hit by mass-shootings. Israeli cafes were blown apart. Russian children were massacred inside their own school.

And on and on, the list could go.

Islamophobia, long portrayed as a new Anti-Semitism (with which it bears no resemblance), could turn out to be the new energy globalisation requires to complete itself. By ‘globalisation’, I do not mean the regime of mass-immigration, unregulated banks and rampant pollution rightly protested the world over, but rather the much better (and older) idea of a global sense of solidarity and understanding.

Multiculturalism in-and-of itself need not be a life-threatening disease for Europe. Most people can live with Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist immigration within reason. As long as the numbers stay within reasonable constraints and the areas immigrants inhabit remain open and safe for the natives to live in and visit, who could object?

Human solidarity, humanism, worldliness – whatever you want to call it, was an early victim of Islamism. The Muslims tricked us into believing that it was an either/or choice between liberalism with Islamisation, or fascism without it.

This is dirty lie, and one worth putting well below ground.

Goethe once talked about the ‘evil which cannot help doing good’. Islamophobia, despite its often cruel intensity forms a good example of this. For all the innocent victims of anti-Muslim fury, there are hundreds of diverse communities drawn tightly together by it who would otherwise not have been.

I remember a year ago, when Tommy Robinson attended a Sikh-EDL demonstration wearing a traditional Sikh head-dress, he was widely ridiculed, but surely there is much in this to be warmed by. Before the EDL, Robinson was a mere hooligan, drunkenly fighting rival football fans on Saturday afternoons. Now, he is trying to be a catalyst for something bigger than himself and inspiring others to do the same.

Islamophobia has fertilised an old ethic, an old ideal, at a crucial time in World-History. It may be morally ironic and it may have its imperfections but the cause of human solidarity has a new, unlikely champion, and that’s no bad thing.

D, LDN