Category archive

Islamism

Popular TV show used as PROPAGANDA to DEMONISE patriots

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

In yet another unhealthy dose of cultural Marxism, state-owned broadcaster Channel 4 once again demonises patriotic Brits of who are worried and fearful about the rise of Islamic extremism in our society, and those of us who want to feel pride in our country as well.

In a show called Ackley Bridge (of which is about the day to day goings on about the multicultural eponymous school in a fictional Yorkshire town of the same name), the eighth episode displays severe hatred towards patriots and those worried about the rise of radical Islam in British society, under the guise that we are all supposedly far-right neo-Nazis who simply hate all Muslims. Seriously.

It starts off pretty badly in this sense, with a campaigner handing out said leaflets outside the school, whereby he yells about how the UK has become a ‘dumping ground for Muslim extremists’ and to join his group’s rally on that following Saturday, not to mention to keep ‘England English’. When confronted by staff (one of whom accuses him of distributing ‘racist propaganda’ in a school environment), he is sarcastic, states that the material isn’t racist (which it isn’t, because Muslim extremists aren’t a race, unless one views all Muslims as extremists of course, which is absurd on that notion alone) and advocates that he has ‘free speech’ rights (which he does). One staff member then threatened him with violence, stating that if the campaigner comes to the school again it won’t only be the ‘flyers he’ll lose’. To show how evil and racist the guys are, they have England tops on with a St. George’s Cross. How lovely.

Now already we are in crap creek with the distortion and lies about the populist right and their opposition towards radical Islam. To my knowledge, those on our side who hand out flyers to crowds usually don’t do it on areas like school gates and such, nor are we usually fond of having a violent confrontation with people we disagree with. Case in point, when me and others at the MBGA team were threatened with violence from the Stand Up To Racism conference last year, we calmly left the place (not that they didn’t try, but that’s a story for another time). We don’t go out and cause trouble, especially near schools as that doesn’t get us anywhere. Now there are problems with Islamist grooming gangs behaving in such a fashion, most notably in Bradford as Katie Hopkins recently exposed, but we on the populist right don’t behave in such a passive aggressive manner for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, we want to stop such gangs from conducting such despicable behaviour, and does Channel 4 have a problem with that or something? If so, it speaks very loudly of their moral code as opposed to ours on the populist right.

Besides, the seemingly hostile attitude of the aforementioned staff, especially the threat of violence was totally uncalled for. I can appreciate the campaigner was being rude and passive aggressive, but he wasn’t refusing to leave the premises, and from this, suggesting violent attacks against him for handing out flyers that some may deem offensive is not only alarming but extremely out of line. As conservative commentator Ben Shapiro once stated when faced with similar threats of violence for expressing a naughty opinion ‘that seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion’.

To make matters worse, this condoning of unprovoked violence with people you disagree with is a constant theme all throughout this episode. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

After a brief altercation between two prominent characters in this episode, Nasreen and Samantha, among other elements, a group of students examine the leaflet of which they mock for suggesting that halal meat funds terrorism (which it does, more rather its certification as halal does), the two main characters in this episode kiss and start to form a bond of which shall become more significant later on in selling the anti-patriot propaganda.

After more plot development transpires in the episode in which Nasreen discusses how we live in a ‘Brexit, austerity Britain’ of which puts minority groups in ‘twin shackles’ of racism and homophobia – couldn’t resist, eh Channel 4? – and she has Samantha’s number written on her arm by Samantha – oddly looking like the numbers written into the arm of Donnie Darko’s in the golf scene in the 2001 cult classic Donnie Darko, but I digress – Nasreen meets Samantha at her house after talking via text. As Nasreen arrives at the house, we get an ominous shot of the St. George’s Cross flying from the house’s window (every leftie’s favourite whipping boy at this moment) and then have a discussion when they mention the shoe theft, do silly chicken jokes (apparently, this show decided to become The Room for a short time) and make love. Very nice.

After detailing her experiences with a friend, we finally see the rally take place in which… nothing really happens. The protestors yell about how it is ‘their England’ and want to protect their country for the sake of defending what their ‘grandfathers and grandmothers’ fought for in World War 2 which is freedom above anything else. Why Channel 4 would immediately insinuate that this is a bad idea is befuddling. Just because they are talking about Islamist extremism (of which is a major problem in UK, and with Islamic terror plots being stopped frequently, there’s no dancing around the issue) doesn’t delegitimise their cause. Funnily enough, they make no statements against all Muslims, nor be actually racist towards minority groups, all of which makes me wonder what part of this Channel 4 finds objectionable.

I can appreciate the left hates any criticism of Islam at all (mainly because they feel it demonises all Muslims – of which says a lot more about their worldview that it does ours on the populist right) and feel that such marches target all Muslims, all the while feel that probably these terrorists have grievance given evil European colonialism (no I am not making this up), but none of that holds up to scrutiny. The populist right are against radical Islam not all Muslims, given how an idea can be entirely separate from a person who supports it, because Sharia law’s regressive views on government, how women should be treated, how minorities should be treated (especially in the LGBT community) not to mention how intolerant it is to other worldviews, is not something a civilised, liberal democracy should bow down to. These marches and such only come about because whether it be Islamist terrorism, grooming gangs among other issues, the elite seem to remain silent all the while endlessly preaching about how Islam is a religion of peace (without bothering to read its holy books of course) and that anyone who objects is an evil bigot and Islamophobe. When this anger brews, a peaceful protest against it is perfectly legitimate, and to demonise patriots who share fears about the way extreme Islam is seemingly being ignored by our political class is utterly despicable. After all, if we can’t express such views in a peaceful manner (of which are totally legitimate), what is the alternative? Starting a riot? Confronting the authorities in aggressive ways? Or would Channel 4 prefer us to shut up for the sake of preserving their utopian leftie vision of a multicultural society, regardless of the harm that may do and the inevitable anger that may rise from it? I bet so, and from that, what an utter disgrace. It’s no surprise that the broadcaster is state-funded then; its views parrot the views of the liberal elitist class.

Not to mention how the protestors are so crudely stereotyped; often fat, wearing English flags, often bald resembling skinheads associated with actual far-right groups like the National Front and looking and acting like typical football hooligans. For a political side who claim not to judge the actions of a group by stereotypes about them, the left happily abandon that against their opponents, don’t they?

Moving on, Nasreen’s sister advocate throwing eggs unprovoked at the protestors, on the grounds that they supposedly ‘deserve it’. No they don’t. While one may find the views of someone or a group objectionable, immediately resorting to violence to counteract them not only shows you to be the overly aggressive one, it gives your opponents (no matter how awful they may be) the upper hand morally. The constant advocacy for unprovoked violence against peaceful protests and campaigners in this show is truly alarming.

To make matters worse, once Nasreen notices Samantha there (being a lesbian character, I assume this is a dig against the Gays Against Sharia group), she decides to say screw morals and throw eggs at the protestors, including Samantha. This leads to a chase scene where the group follow Nasreen through a shopping centre, quickly losing her. Now again, this is out of order and highly inaccurate. Once again, throwing eggs into the faces of your political opposition for peacefully protesting is not only wrong, but immoral. If they don’t throw the first punch, why should you fight back? Offensive tactics like this is the reason why many left-wing groups like Unite Against Fascism and the aforementioned Stand Up To Racism are not heavily popular to many; they advocate violence against people they disagree with hence making them look like violent thugs, no matter how obscene the opposition is.

Meanwhile to my knowledge, patriots don’t follow angry lefties who try to violently attack them; they let them go or let the surrounding police officers deal with them. From experience, I have noticed that patriots at rallies, no matter how angry they are, don’t fight against or follow lefties trying to cause a scene. At the Day For Freedom, me among many others in the MBGA team were left in a pub after the main event when we noticed some angry left-wing thugs outside with brass knuckles. Instead of fighting them, we let the police come and arrest them. At a recent Gays Against Sharia march I attended at Stockon-on-Tees, lefties from Stand Up To Racism who tried to storm the crowd to presumably attack the speakers were dealt with by police. Those attending the meeting, despite also being very angry about Sharia like the protestors in the programme, didn’t follow them back. To portray us on the populist right as angry Neo-Nazi skinheads deliberately wanting to attack people from ethnic minorities is not only wrong, but embarrassingly laughable, and also arguably snobby as well to working class patriots unhappy with the elite not wanting to tackle radical Islam and being sneered down by them for doing so. Also note the intentional sad music and contrasts between a baby in the group and the grown men, indicating the loss of innocence the toddler shall suffer by going down this road. Unbelievable. Talk about propaganda.

Then we get the final confrontation between Nasreen and Samantha over the latter’s political views. After a lazy ad hominem attack of ‘racist’ doesn’t fly (given as Samantha points out, she has slept with an Asian woman), the writers try to make Samantha seem dumb by her not knowing the difference between Indian and Pakistani culture when calling Nasreen’s house the former despite her heritage being the latter. Samantha then points out some legitimate grievances; her mother getting called a ‘slapper’ when passing the local mosque because of her skirt being too short or her grandfather getting spat at in a mostly non-white area, all the while pointing out that its only the extremists her group want kicked out, not all Muslims. Such problems are real, and clearly not right, and it speaks worryingly to the mindset of the writers that these problems and pointing them out (especially the extremists being kicked out) is racist and non-legitimate. Nasreen’s response is to claim that there are some who treat her bad for being ‘brown’ which is also wrong. Not to mention how the other way round Samantha was talking about her grandfather being spat upon was by people invited into the country, hence that attitude is also unacceptable and while may also underlie existing tensions too, is weird one would hold animosity like that when being welcomed into another country full of people one has the animosity towards, while the white people behaving badly also doesn’t help matters either. Either way it is unacceptable, but weird how pointing it out one way is seen as racist.

A cringey discussion of halal comes up, when Samantha states that she doesn’t want everything to become halal as it ‘funds terrorism’. Nasreen denies this, claiming it isn’t true (which it is) and Samantha discusses how her ‘grandfather’ told her that; implying that she is a misguided person wrongly being brainwashed by extremists and doesn’t understand the truth about certain issues. This is once again a disgusting smear against the British populist right who mostly do know their facts about Islamic extremism and hence use such fears to peacefully protest. There is a reason most of the populist right in Britain don’t subscribe to the views of say Timothy Scott, given that he clearly knows nothing about it, as opposed to someone like Anne Marie Waters, Douglas Murray, or Katie Hopkins who does. This is a lazy smear tactic by the left; in that their opponents are only being lied to by someone else and could be shown down the right path. What a disgusting smear.

The conversation ends with Samantha saying that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with wanting to ‘keep Britain British’, of which is treated with shock with Nasreen who argues that ‘you can be more than one thing’ when referring to her Pakistani heritage (of which no-one was arguing against). Once again, the populist right are portrayed as Neanderthal-esque bigots of who hate people of other races and cultures and should embrace multiculturalism. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve our culture, especially when it has been arguably the liberal elite who has been happily watering it down for the last fifty years or so, as someone like journalist Peter Hitchens points out. That doesn’t mean one can’t respect other cultures, but why should that mean accepting diluting our parent culture to do that? Legendary comedian John Cleese pointed this out when discussing London’s changing demographics.

After sweeping Sharia’s proven homophobia under the rug too, Nasreen talks about how anti-Islam marches leave her scared for weeks, usually being called a ‘terrorist’ or told to ‘go back to her country’ because of people like Samantha. Again, this is indefensible behaviour, but Enoch Powell pointed out, such behaviour underlines already existing racial tensions, and can’t be blamed simply on one expressing a politically incorrect view. Not to mention how the populist right themselves don’t subscribe to such views, and can’t have the guilt by association fallacy attached to us over that while we would condemn this sort of behaviour in full. No-one is saying all Muslims are terrorists, and we on the populist right don’t encourage that worldview, so what gives Channel 4 the right to smear us this way when discussing how all those who are anti-Sharia in their eyes anti-Muslim bigots? The hypocrisy of the left is stunning to witness.

They for the rest of the episode try reconcile such differences (despite Samantha showing continued commitment to Nasreen by refusing to share her identity about their relationship coming to light, so that people won’t ‘harass her’ too), but to no avail, all the while Samantha gets called a racist for attending the march along with a friend, including by a teacher. Lovely. And the episode further cements how Samantha is out of touch and a loner because she admits that she came from a mostly white area during her early school years and she hasn’t got many friends, thus continuing the false portrayal of patriots as lonely outsiders with nothing to do that the left loves to spin. Thus ends the episode sans the aforementioned family drama over drug addiction.

So that is the end of the episode; ugly, disgusting propaganda of which demonises patriotic right-wingers for wanting to fight against Sharia on the grounds that supposedly hate all Muslims, are aggressive towards minority groups and are uneducated bigots. Forgive me if you’ve heard all this before, and it isn’t funny anymore, especially being pushed on a popular TV show with frequent consistent over a million views in terms of viewing figures, especially when the left at large and those uninitiated with politics may just swallow such views at face value.

But to portray innocent patriots as bigoted is wrong given we have no problem with racial minority groups, with even some people from those groups (most notably YouTubers like Red Pill Phil and Jonaya, of who has attended several marches on our side). To portray them as aggressors is also wrong, given that we peacefully march against acts of terrorism and grooming gangs, all the while idiotic lefties happily do all the dirty work when it comes to the violence at these rallies, of which they stoke. To portray them as sad loners of who are being led down the wrong road by extremists is also wrong, given that we do know our stuff about these issues, as opposed to many of our leftie opponents who don’t and from this shall smear well meaning patriots as Neo-Nazis, as if we are one in the same. It is about as laughably misguided as a typical non informed music journalists listing hard rock bands like Queen, Kiss and Rush into a documentary about heavy metal; it is utterly painful to watch.

This is especially true given that the far-left and the alt-left are never given equal coverage in these shows, despite them behaving far worse.

To make matters worse, unlike something like the abysmal The Battle For Britain’s Heroes of which was mostly irredeemable as both a documentary and as propaganda, Ackley Bridge is not too bad on its own. It’s well made, has great acting, and as talked about before, does handle tricky issues like drug addiction in a smart and hard hitting way. And even stuff like the chemistry between Nasreen and Samantha is well done and feels real. Hence why such a lazy swipe against genuine patriots who care for all British citizens is so infuriating in a show that clearly means very well.

All it shows is that even half decent shows can fall flat on their faces when dealing with political subject matter it knows nothing about. The sooner shows like this stop doing that the better. It shall make these shows more watchable and make us appreciate the other qualities of the show beyond their idiotic propaganda motives, something our overall culture could learn as a result.

DISGUSTING: Fundraiser CONVICTED for stealing Lee Rigby’s charity money

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

In a recent turn of events, a fundraiser who was collecting money via a charity single as donations to the late soldier Lee Rigby’s family has been convicted for fraud.

Gary Gardener was convicted for two counts of fraud at Leicester Crown Court over the charges, of which involved a charity single to commemorate the life of Rigby, a single of which he knew would be a ‘flop’ to push forward ’emerging music artists’.

This money came around at charity events of which the Rigby family attended. He also claimed to Rigby’s son Jack that other fundraising events that he was conducting would set up Jack ‘for life’, and eventually raised £24,000, of which Rigby’s family never saw, despite endlessly trying to get in contact with Gardener over the money. Instead, he used the money to become the top producer of said single, pay off his overdrafts and according to the Coventry Telegraph, blow it on more expenses. Rigby’s widow Sarah claimed that she ‘never received a penny’ from the single’s profits.

The lorry driver initially denied wrongdoing, despite having blown £1000 on a recording studio for the single, and £3000 for a launch event of which included big name acts, like the pop band Boney M.

He was cleared of a third charge of fraud whereby he failed to keep a record of the amount he raised at fundraisers.

The fact that anybody can be defrauded, let alone the family of a murdered war hero is disgraceful.

It also shows how low some are prepared to sink to make a quick profit.

What is wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/Patriotism by

Mass hysteria has struck once again. Following Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision to not seek ‘assurances’ as to whether two members of the Beatles group of Jihadis shall not be executed when they arrived at the United States, utter hell and fury has poured out of the left.

We have had the left endlessly complain about how it was abhorrent that Javid’s acceptance of the death penalty was horrible, from thinkpieces outlining how Britain’s opposition to such a punishment should be maintained, to MPs like Diane Abbott and David Davis complaining about how ‘abhorrent and shameful’ it is to be potentially allowing the death penalty against such people and how ‘unnecessary’ it was to let the Americans off the hook in this regard respectively, to a mixture of the two, most notably with a LBC discussion between one of their hosts Shelagh Fogarty and Lord Carlile, of which the latter called Javid ‘completely wrong’ on the subject matter. The outrage has been so strong, that it has even led to the mother of one of the terrorists launching a legal case against his decision.

But in many a view (including my own), one question has to be asked: why is it wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

Firstly, it seems like a perfectly sound punishment for people whose mission it is to kill for their cause no matter what, given that they are fighting in their eyes a holy war against the West. Need we forget that the likes of the Jihadi Beatles aren’t exactly saints (obviously), especially given how one of them (Jihadi John), has executed numerous people in cold blood, including prominent American journalist James Foley in Syria. This is perhaps the most notorious of their crimes, all the while they have a rap sheet nearly a mile long, including executing various people (including some journalists), hostage taking, torturing dissidents among other heinous acts. In fact, the two specific Beatles going to be extradited (George and Ringo), were known for promoting extreme views before joining ISIS and taking part in many of the disgusting activities ISIS got up to. I could appreciate the argument against them receiving the death penalty if they were vulnerable guys and open to rehabilitation, but given that they are jihadists of who shall happily kill and butcher in the name of spreading their evil ideology, they are clearly beyond reform. They believe they are soldiers in a holy war against the West, and from that, only understand the language of violence. Kill or be killed is their attitude, something a typical prison sentence isn’t going to satisfy. Now while I understand some would argue that giving them the death penalty is giving them what they want as Islamic martyrs, surely at least getting rid of some of the extremists means that not only is some of the enemy defeated, but it shall also show be appropriate given their reprehensible behaviour.

It also shows that we have the upper hand against these guys, something simply jailing them shall not bring. There was a reason for example that during World War 2, Britain refused to release Nazi Prisoners of War for the longest time, and even when the war was over, it took time for the relatively left wing Labour government of Clement Atlee to free them. There was also a reason that during the Falklands War, no mercy was given to Argentinian enemies. If we as a free, democratic country want to show that we shall not tolerate the behaviour of barbarians like ISIS, we should show them that we shall not tolerate their vile behaviour under the guise of showing diplomacy. And especially given that the leaders of our great nation have been foolish enough to allow ISIS terrorists back into the country, give them council housing (amongst a housing crisis I should add), and even constantly pander to the ideology that has caused numerous terrorist attacks on our soil, it is about time that Britain found the spirit of Churchill and put our foot down against an irredeemable enemy who wants to change our way of life.

So one must wonder why the left (and some on the centre-right like Davis) advocate that the jihadists be let go. After all, I don’t recall their reaction to such a punishment being as hostile when the likes of Dylan Roof who (quite rightly) initially received the death penalty for the deaths he caused during the clear case of terrorism during the 2015 Charleston church shootings. Nor would they probably complain if the likes of say Thomas Mair had received a similar punishment. I think there are various reasons for this, and none of them good. Firstly, I think the whole idea that the West is currently collectively treading on eggshells around the issue of Islam applies here. There is no reason we shouldn’t be sending these jihadis to death in the United States, but unfortunately, the whole notion of Islamophobia and offending progressive types comes about here. This partially comes from the idea that progressives (for whatever reason) feel as though the Islamic world and (by that extent) Muslims as a whole are oppressed and that any sort of criticism against them is picking on a minority group. This in turn leads to Islamic terrorists being seen as reactionaries and freedom fighters, of which in the left’s eyes is a reaction against European colonialism and the various foreign wars against Middle Eastern countries since then. As prolific author Raymond Ibrahim points out, progressive types feel that Muslim violence is a direct result of Muslim grievance of both European colonialism and American imperialism (both of which are supposedly encapsulated by the state of Israel), and from this, the violence Islamic extremists carry out while not justifiable, is unsurprising given what we in the West have done to them, of which to them indicates that their proverbial revenge is at least vindicated in that regard. From this, it can be seen that any attack the West launches against jihadists in retaliation is just further abuse of that part of the world, and extolling more suffering against those living throughout it. That is of course absurd, given how people in such areas are the most vulnerable to jihadist attacks, given that the most frequent Islamic attacks occur in the Islamic world, but that’s besides the point. Not to mention how the bigotry of low expectations undoubtedly play a part here too. The idea that because the culture that inspires Islamic terrorism has different standards to that of the far more peaceful Western culture that they fight against, that it is inherently wrong to apply our standards of law against them. As journalist Melanie Phillips points out, the left (as exemplified by her former employees at sh*trag The Guardian) feel that it is racist to judge other cultures by the standards of the West as a whole, apart from Israel of which they regard as part of the West. From this, any attempt to judge Islamic terrorism by our own standards is racist and wrong and we should treat them with not ambivalence, but rather different standards, hence why applying the death penalty to them is us in the West misunderstanding their culture according to the left. Moral relativism in action, and boy does it stink.

Meanwhile, other explanations may be more damning as to those the left share a proverbial bed with. As Tommy Robinson points out, some of the left feel that they can use Islam extremism to achieve a communist state in the end. This mainly comes around from how, like Islamic extremists, the radical left hate the law, the police and the state hence why they are in bed with radical Islam for you, even though they shall eventually turn on them too, on the grounds that they hate religion too. Casein point, the actual jihadists who have been big names within leftie movements. Take for example the various Islamic extremist groups who work with Stand Up To Racism and the Labour Party. For the former, one prominently featured guest at last year’s SUTR conference (of which I’ll be detailing my experiences there in a future article, of which you can get a sense of what went down here) was the director of CAGE Moazzam Begg, who was a former Gitmo prisoner and had called Jihadi John a ‘beautiful young man’, all the while SUTR worked with him and his group. Meanwhile, the Labour Party invited into Parliament a group called MEND (of who the think tank The Henry Jackson Society call ‘extremist’) and whose head supported the killing of British soldiers. To rub salt into the wound, this was during the time of year when most wear a poppy to show respect to fallen soldiers.

So I feel that there is no good reason as to why jihadists shouldn’t be given the death penalty. They are extremists who live by their moral code of kill or be killed, and given that they are waging holy war against us, we have every justification to fight fire with fire, so to speak. But given the left’s sympathies with radical Islam, both in the supposed legitimacy of the grievances of the jihadists and the way they can use their ideology to get into power themselves, it is unsurprising that there has been yet more pho-outrage against allowing jihadists to be put to death, let alone criticise the jihadists at the centre of it all at all.

It shows that the left are guided by deceit, ridiculous emotional arguments and very questionable ethics in place of facts and practicality. The sooner their power wanes, the better.

But on a final note, good on Sajid Javid for actually approving this in the first place. While clearly put into the role of Home Secretary as a diversity hire in response to the whole Windrush Scandal and the laughable accusations of racism it brought against the Conservative Party, he has seemingly proven his worth so far. He has finally proscribed Hezbollah as a political organisation in this country while his predecessors twiddled their thumbs on the issue and helped to block a plan to create a customs partnership with the European Union after Brexit in the House of Commons, feeling it would harm British trade worldwide. He has even said that the grooming gang issue in Britain has to be fought head on, regardless of race.

If he continues down this route, he may prove his salt just yet. Heck, even former Conservative MP Norman Tebbit praised Javid on the grounds that he felt that he was a ‘man of action and principle’ in the current ‘mess’ that was this Parliament. This indicates a positive future for Javid at this point.

I wish him well.

DISGUSTING: Pakistan’s Prime Minister CAMPAIGNS for blasphemy laws

in Islamism/World News by

In a further crackdown on freedom of speech, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan is now campaigning for blasphemy laws, including attempting to revive a campaign to advocate for global legislation on the matter.

To make matters worse, the Pakistani senate has also advocated to crack down further on blasphemy within its own nation, a practice which has already led many to be killed in Pakistan under the death penalty.

According to Humanists UK, an organisation committed to ending blasphemy laws, this is one of many attempts by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (consisting of 57 countries, including Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq) over the last two decades to push for such legislation.

A statement by Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson read as follows:

Blasphemy laws are a violation of the human right to freedom of expression. They prevent legitimate and necessary criticism of religious beliefs, leaders, and institutions, and in extreme cases legitimise vigilante violence and state persecution of the non-religious and religious minority groups. Humanists UK and others have fought for many years to oppose attempts to impose such restrictions through the UN and will continue to do so. We are seriously concerned that Imran Khan’s administration, just weeks into office, is already trying to use international blasphemy restrictions as a strongman policy to appease the ultra-conservative and religious fundamentalist factions of Pakistan.

He is quite right. In a time when freedom of expression is seriously under threat due to Islamic extremism (leading to such unfortunate incidents as the 1989 fatwa against The Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie and the 2015 attacks at the Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris), pushing for such dangerous laws on the world is pandering to these extremists (of which the article points out is the audience Khan is appealing to in his own country) and letting them win.

This is especially true given that Pakistan is currently in a struggle between more secular ideals and religious fundamentalism, where even reformers like Salman Taseer (the former governor of the Punjab region of Pakistan) was killed by someone in his own security personnel, and this clash is something Georgetown University scholar Haroon Ullah explained very well in a PragerU video about Pakistan.

Khan is not only being seriously reckless by pandering to these extremists, but pushing it on a global scale is completely reprehensible. This is an alarming precept for freedom of speech, and one that we must all be on guard at against at all costs. Losing freedom of speech is utterly perilous, and hence we should defend it at all costs. As George Orwell once said ‘if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’.

It is time people like Khan accepted this. He should have kept playing cricket instead.

Could Tommy Robinson be joining UKIP?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit/Islamism by

In a recent turn of events, a blog is claiming that political activist Tommy Robinson could be joining the UK Independence Party. The National Executive Committee of the party are going to potentially debate a motion first put forward by their Family and Children Spokesman Alan Craig, of which has to be given the go ahead by the party’s chairman Tony McIntyre and the party’s NEC this Sunday.

The proposition reads as follows:

Conference believes that Tommy Robinson is a global figure who stands in the long English tradition of anti-establishment rebels with a cause from Robin Hood to the Suffragettes; admires his campaigns both for #FreeSpeech and to expose the authorities’ decades-long silence and inaction over the industrial-scale child sexual abuse by rape gangs; and requests the NEC to consider offering him membership of UKIP.

– Craig, 2018

It seems that the possibility of Robinson (otherwise known by his real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) has been eaten up by several UKIP members, including prominent member of their youth wing Young Independence Reece Combes and Nathan Ryding, the chairman of the youth wing, and member of the NEC of who shall support the motion tomorrow, according to Kipper Central.

Craig has put the motion forward on the grounds that he was now a ‘global phenomenon’ who backed important campaigns and now was a ‘kipper at heart’ to be welcomed. At this point, if the greenlight is lit on this proposal, the NEC shall give him the option to join at their annual conference, after consulting their members and discussing the motion again.

Meanwhile, Robinson has thrown his own views out there on the subject matter. In a video titled ‘My message to UKIP’s NEC’, Robinson outlines how thankful he is to UKIP in their backing of him in the ongoing court case against him over his controversial jailing where he allegedly was guilty of contempt of court, a ruling currently undergoing a retrial for later this year.

He also states however that he doesn’t appreciate how UKIP does not ask its members for approval as to whether he should join or not, but rather leaves that to the NEC initially. He feels that the status symbol that he has gained could be beneficial for the party, and that UKIP were missing out on a ‘political revolution’ by not allowing him in.

At this current stage, Robinson is not allowed in UKIP, as he has been a member of two groups of which are on the party’s proscribed groups list; the anti-Islam activist group the English Defence League (of which he led from 2009 to 2013 in a very public resignation) and the far-right British National Party (of which he quit upon finding out his black friends were not allowed to attend the party’s meetings). That being said, the move to let him join has some precedent if it goes ahead; both UKIP leader Gerard Batten and peer Lord Pearson have been interviewed by Robinson in the past, with the former sharing a stage with him at the Day For Freedom rally back in May 2018.

Whether this motion goes ahead is yet to be seen. But if it is, it could mean that while the party shall inevitably get a heavy backlash from angry leftists, some think it could gain UKIP a swell of working class support it desperately needs. Whether it can help the party to recover from its bad fortunes is another matter.

Electoral Commission ‘can’t register’ Henry Bolton’s One Nation

in Brexit/Islamism/Patriotism by

In another blow to the long line of them to the political career of former UKIP leader Henry Bolton – culminating in him getting ousted by his former party for the whole Jo Marney controversy – his new party One Nation has been rejected by the Electoral Commission according to Sky News, mainly on the grounds that its name clashes with that of an Islamic charity based in Leicester and West Yorkshire.

The charity is one of which gives international aid, mainly through education and healthcare, in countries like Syria, Bangladesh and Sudan. According to the Electoral Commission, the reason why the party can’t be commissioned at this time is because it suggested that the electorate ‘could reasonably believe the proposed party to represent, or be to affiliated with, the charity of the same name’.

Mr. Bolton has seen the event through two lens. On the one hand according to Kent Online, he is rather frustrated with the party not being able to stand candidates in future elections, but has conceded that the party can spend more time to develop policies, while the decision is being repealed.

If the party is to be launched, it has been described as one of which will be Eurosceptic, all the while upholding our national identity. Whether this is a huge stopgap for the party is yet to be seen.

It shall also be the third registered party from a former UKIP leadership contender following the 2017 leadership election. The first one to be initiated was the Democrats and Veterans party (firstly called Affinity) by one John Rees-Evans, and the second one being For Britain, launched by Anne Marie Waters.

Whether all these pro Brexit parties shall cause the Brexit vote to be spread too thin is yet too be seen. All it demonstrates is that the public’s grievances over the European Union are at last being somewhat listened to, albeit by smaller parties at this point. Hopefully one of them can eventually gain substantial political office. Let’s wait and see.

Instagram Has BANNED Mixed Race #FreeTommy Activist Luke Alexander

in Islamism/Tech by

Luke Alexander, 28, a #FreeTommy activist from Cambridge has been banned from Instagram.

He is a ‘right-wing’ activist, associated with Make Britain Great Again, who organised a #FreeTommy rally in Cambridge last month.

Alexander said: “I’ve supported Tommy Robinson for quite a few years and follow the same views he does. I decided to do my part for the Free Tommy movement, so I created an event in Cambridge last month, where we had a few speeches and then where confronted by the violent left and Antifa who tried to disrupt our speeches and they were very violent.”

He, Luke Nash-Jones, and Brian Calder had to be escorted by the police, as they departed from the rally, due to threats by Antifa thugs.

He posted a picture criticising Islam and says his account has been banned. This ban comes just days after InfoWars was banned from YouTube and Facebook.

You can follow Luke Alexander on Facebook here.

Alexander said: ”Within a short hours of posting this my Instagram kept freezing so I restarted the app and cannot now access my account, seems to be a regular occurrence for us that criticize Islam and the problems within the ideology due to the lefty bias moderators of all these social media platforms.”

“Nothing compared to the violence and death threats for myself and family I have received over the time I have done this for.”

Tommy Robinson has also been banned on Instagram, a Facebook-owned photo app and said: “Facebook will soon close us down.”

A source told The Guardian: “The account was reported by a radical leftist for ‘violating’ Instagram’s community guidelines regarding ‘bullying.’”

“One of Instagram’s moderation team decided it broke the rules and suspended the account, unwittingly they put themselves in the middle of a major culture clash over the limits of free speech.”

The elite is full of paedophiles. Why do you think they promote it so much?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Ah Facebook. Once a shining light of hope in terms of sharing connections and information, it is now a cesspool of vulgarity, lies and having an addictive quality akin to that of cocaine. These criticisms among other issues are why the crew here at the Make Britain Great Again will be having a protest against such problems with Facebook, Twitter and the BBC, later on this week.

We (including myself) will speak against such problems in an effort to raise awareness and hopefully change it, and even if the protest falls on many a deaf ear, the important nature of it is reason enough to complain.

Now one main criticism that we have is the double standard Facebook imposes when it comes to censorship. This is because while they go out of their way to censor fake news and hate speech, this often resulted in moderate conservatives getting pulled from the platform. This included posts on our Facebook page, most notably ones about criticising paedophiles, something we heavily criticised during one of our livestreams.

One reason I suggested to explain this blanket ban was because of how the elite was crawling with paedophiles, and criticism of such behaviour would be subsequently seen as unacceptable on that platform. This article is a description of such behaviour.

Let’s examine the nitty gritty here; for years there has been an attempt by the MSM and our culture at large to promote or downplay paedophilia for whatever reason. This isn’t some tin foil hat conspiracy either. There have been numerous examples of such behaviour in recent years. Most notably, this came in form of the media outlet Salon giving a platform to Todd Nickerson, who openly admitted to having a thing for children, culminating in a video whereby he declared that he wasn’t a monster, described his sick fantasies about loving children all the while having a dreamy looking clip of a young girl in a ballerina costume in the background. He criticised anyone who (quite rightly) called him out on his behaviour as part of the ‘vile right-wing hate machine’. Because apparently right-wingers worried about young children getting raped by disgusting individuals like Nickerson are cranks who should have people turn their noses up at them, more so than the actual paedophile here. Salon quite rightly then unpublished the articles after much uproar.

Meanwhile, BBC Three (the outlet of our public broadcaster aimed at a teenage audience I might add) released a similar article called ‘Paedophiles need help, not condemnation – I should know’ where an anonymous individual (surprise, surprise) discussed how paedophiles like the author were misunderstood and wouldn’t want to harm children. That’s nice and all, but why is our public broadcaster giving a platform to people like this who openly admit to sexually preferring children and treating disgusting elements in our society like paedophile online relationships (with the author discussing how he found a woman online who was LIKE HIM), given that such people are clearly those who should be looked at by a doctor, not emboldened by a public broadcaster, especially given the harmful message that it sends out, that being paedophilia is OK?

Meanwhile, various Hollywood movies have had similar messages about paedophilia. Most notably 1997’s Lolita actually asked the audience to be sympathetic towards the main character WHO WAS A PAEDOPHILE, not to mention how he abducted the title character to pursue his romantic relationship with her after her mother died. The film was so controversial at the time that it took time to get distribution in both the USA and Australia, all the while the British Board of Film Classification brought in experts and child psychologists to assess whether the film was harmful or not.

In 1999, American Beauty was released and focused a good chunk of the run time on a main character (now laughably played by alleged paedophile Kevin Spacey) who was stalking his teenage daughter’s friend because he had a crush on her, all the while treating his wife like dirt. And while the character doesn’t go through with the deed, the fact that the film didn’t criticise his behaviour is rather telling. Admittedly, it was quite uplifting to see him shot in the back of the head at the end of the film. Ten years later, The Hangover made several inappropriate jokes about a baby engaging in lewd sexual acts like masturbation for example. 2017’s Call Me By Your Name has received heavy criticism from conservative commentators for supposedly endorsing a paedophilic relationship between a 17 year old boy and a 24 year old student. The left didn’t care though. They ate up the film (mainly because it was a ‘powerfully affecting portrait of first love’) and comedian Jimmy Kimmel brought up the film at the recent Oscars ceremony whereby he stated that films like that are made to ‘upset [Vice President of the United States] Mike Pence’. Ah, the left. Laughing and cheering at their own jokes because no-one else can, typical of bad comedians in general.

Speaking of the left, their hero Peter Tatchell co-wrote a book called The Betrayal of Youth back in 1980, which called generally for the legalisation of sex with children, while his chapter (as activist against child rape, Luke Nash-Jones, frequently points out) questioning whether 16 was the right age of consent, and wrote similarly about such behaviour both for the Outrage! Campaign (which itself campaigned for lowering the age of consent) in 1996 and in 1997 for The Guardian whereby he advocated that ‘not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful’. While he has distanced himself from such works later on (advocating that he wouldn’t have co-written the book had he known about the genuine paedophiles involved in it) he still maintains that people shouldn’t be arrested for their behaviour for having sex with minors, even if he stated that he disagrees with the act itself. Whether he is serious or just covering his own back (especially given the flip-flop views on paedophilia) is unclear. Meanwhile MP Harriet Harman (the arch feminist in Westminster) has been linked along with various other MPs to Liberty, which was linked to the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was calling for child sex and lobbied heavily for it.

So, you may be wondering why paedophilia, a reprehensible act made illegal in most decent countries, is being promoted heavily by the dominant culture at large. The reason? Because the elite (who dominate the important facets of society) revel in it. Make no mistake; a good chunk of the top brass in society get up to such behaviour. The most prominent example is how the various Islamist grooming gangs sweeping up and down the country are covered up by the elite who regularly run the councils ignorant of such behaviour until it is staring at them right in the face. Usually, it would be out of pathetic fears of being called a ‘racist’, but sometimes the reasoning is a lot sicker than that. Take for example how in Rotherham, a councillor gave a CHARACTER REFERENCE for one of the accused groomers in a town whereby accusations had been ignored by the authorities for nearly 2 decades until the Jay Report forced their hand, even if such nasty behaviour is still operating in the town. There are also accusations of how police officers got involved with the groomers in their sex with minors, similar to how in Telford, councillors were among the accused when it came to allegations of prominent grooming gangs stretching as far back as over 40 years.

So not only are the authorities scared of being called racist because of their fear of not wanting to be hostile to a foreign culture, feeling that they shouldn’t judge bad behaviour from a different culture but also because some authorities share similar urges and sympathies with the groomers in question.

Meanwhile, Muslim grooming gangs are only scratching the surface when it comes to elites being involved in the sexual conduct of minors. Take for example another religion, that of Catholicism, more specifically how the Catholic Church had numerous priests have sex with minors and covered it up for decades too. The 2015 film Spotlight is the best representation of this abuse and the lives it helped to destroy. To this day, the behaviour still goes on, and the various priests involved haven’t been prosecuted because of their elite status, and the reluctance of the various Popes to act against this reprehensible behaviour.

On top of this, various cases of sex child trafficking ring busts often involve the elite. Take for example the launch of Operation Yewtree, whereby former BBC presenter Jimmy Savile had various accusations about him (entering the hundreds) covered up for years by his friends in the entertainment industry and political friends. The subsequent investigations of Operation Yewtree led to several arrests, including those of glam rocker Gary Glitter (himself already convicted of possessing child porn in the late 1990s) and publicist Max Clifford, who then died in prison to no tears spilt.

Meanwhile, in 2008 financer Jeffrey Epstein was convicted for soliciting prostitution from girls aged as young as 14, mainly through his ‘Orgy Island’ whereby he would go to have sex with young girls, all the while having celebrity friends (like former US President Bill Clinton and actor Kevin Spacey) come along with him. There is also allegedly a similar scandal among British MPs yet to be uncovered, meanwhile former British MP Cyril Smith has similar accusations spanning decades, and alleged attempts to cover up his deeds were heavily criticised by Wigan MP Lisa Nandy. Australia has an allegedly similar problem with its MPs too. Meanwhile Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page abducted and potentially raped a 14-year-old groupie and former Judas Priest drummer Dave Holland was convicted in 2004 for having sex with a minor.

And if anything good came out of the #MeToo movement, it finally brought down titans within the movie industry who had gotten away with their bad behaviour for decades and exposed a legitimate rape culture in the industry, which up until that point had been dismissed as conspiracy. The most notable example of this being how film director Roman Polanski has often been excused for drugging and raping a young girl in the 1970s (leading him to flee the United States) by Hollywood actors at large, who signed a petition to allow him back into the United States. The fact that it took the #MeToo movement to have him removed from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says a lot to the sympathy he has in Hollywood.

The contrast between the reception of director Elia Kazan winning his honorary Oscar (whereby various Hollywood lefties sat down and didn’t applaud him because of his involvement with the House Committee of Un-American Activities to weed out communists in the film industry) and to Polanski winning the Best Director Oscar in 2002 for The Pianist (whereby the audience were in seemingly unanimous in applause and some in standing ovation) speaks very loudly of both their sympathy to Polanski, and the backwards moral relativist politics of Hollywood, whereby disagreeing with someone politically is far worse than raping a child.

So, in conclusion, our elite is full of paedophiles and is using their power to promote that sort of behaviour. The only thing we can do about it at the time being is to demand change, both by boycotting any facet of popular culture that endorses paedophilia all the while voting out corrupt politicians and councillors who get involved in that sort of behaviour, and to expose it later on.

That is the simple solution. A more concrete one is to have tougher sentencing for such crimes when they are exposed. This is most notable in arguably bringing back the death penalty, which has been abolished for over 5 decades in the UK and is needed once again to get rid of these rats. After all, it seems strange that the rise of such people in our media and establishment has exploded with the correlation of abolishing the one guaranteed deterrent against it. And while one may say my suggestion is a tad extreme, I would argue that tough times call for tough measures. We need to establish the rule of law again in the West otherwise such behaviour is only going to carry on and on. The banning of exposing such behaviour by Facebook is one symptom of a very wide problem, which will only get worse as the years go by if nothing is done to tackle it.

Immigration crisis in Mediterranean begs for reasonable US intervention

in Islamism/World News by

As the illegal immigration crisis unravels in the Mediterranean Sea, the current Trump-backed Italian government officials have flown to Washington to specifically demand President Trump’s attention and support.

Although the situation in the Mediterranean has improved recently, since a few major ports have been shut down and NGO ships are no longer able to easily pick up people at sea anymore, we are still far from a long-term solution that works for everyone.

Perhaps there isn’t a solution that will keep everyone happy, and the numbers of alien arrivals in Europe down for long, but what is certain is that countries like France, Italy, Spain and Greece are no longer able to co-operate with northern-African semi-states (Libya and others) on their own to reach real solutions to the problem.

European military power is obviously limited when it comes to such arduous efforts. For this reason, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte with little approval from the French and German political establishment has flown out to the States to speak to the only leader that can help prevent a catastrophe from developing in the next few years, Donald J. Trump.

The real heart of the issue here is that Emmanuel Macron has insisted that the Libyans should hold democratic elections in five months’ time, to bring the country together. The Italians have already openly stated this would be a terrible idea.

Mike Pompeo, a close State Department advisor to Trump has also expressed his disapproval for this superficial interpretation of the Libyan crisis: the balance of power between the two main rival governments in Libya (Tripoli and Tobruk) and their deals with the west will be completely destabilised by elections which will only contribute to another violent civil war, a clash between Tripoli, Tobruk and other tribes as well as an opportunity for smugglers and Islamists to take control of the coast again and benefit from the exodus of people.

Of course, this would result in even more mass immigration to the European continent. It is unclear what the German position on the Libyan-elections matter is yet, while it is not so hard to believe that part of the French establishment still do think of themselves as a colonial power that has something to gain from the promotion of chaos in northern Africa (Sarkozy’s behaviour in 2011), only this time at the expense of others; as we do not live the rather stable late 19th and early 20th century dynamic anymore.

Perhaps with Trump’s help in the Mediterranean we can scare both Libyan factions. Also, we can force them to work with us, keep courting the Libyan coast guard and guide parts of their military towards operations of stability. This is mostly done by arresting human traffickers, shut down and put on trial corrupt NGO businesses affiliated to Soros and the EU, but mainly give Americans and the two Libyan governments complete freedom determining the fate of Islamist factions. We have been far too generous with all these criminals. “Democratic” measures are not always the best to use in all cases, Libya is a complete mess, let’s face it.

Luckily Trump and the EU’s bizarre Juncker met and came to an agreement last week. An economic war was avoided, and Trump’s tariffs will only hit those who really deserve to be hit. It appears, European nations were mainly complaining about the tariffs that could affect the vehicle industry, which most European nations rely on.

However, it can be viewed as positive that Trump has decided to economically punish anyone who makes deals with the Iranians at this moment in time.  The economic front is for various reasons closely linked to the defence situation and the struggle in the Mediterranean.

A new gas deal that will exclude the Russians will most likely go forward bringing amounts in from Azeirbaijan to southern Italy, passing through Greece and Albania. We do need these areas to be stable and fully accessible, for the deal to go through. What we do not need is no-go zones and the invasion and Islamification of southern Europe which already has and will continue to cause problems to countries in Central, Northern Europe and the Atlantic.

Britain, as a strategic, and great economic partner of the USA needs to think long and hard what friends it wants to have in and out of Europe after Brexit. At the moment, the ambiguous economic stances of Germany and France towards China, and politico-social ones towards immigration and integration should worry us all.

Are these French and German EU loyalist-elites still reliable partners and friends?, or are they unethical money-grabbing individuals who will put their dirty interests first before concerning themselves with geopolitics and a common defense strategy for the western world?. Well, only time will tell.

REVEALED: Shocking Crime Statistics the EU and Our Governments Do Not Want You to See

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

This week I published my book, the Migrant Crime Wave, covering the shocking crime statistics that the EU and our governments do not want you to see.

It is compiled from official EU statistics, reports and committees, respected think tanks from around the world and verifiable news sources. What we reveal is a cover-up, particularly of rape statistics and the migrant nationalities of those committing the crimes.

I cover:
– terrorism
– rape and violent assaults (mainly against women and children)
– illegal border crossing
– trafficking in human beings
– drug trafficking and consumption

Some of the shocking statistics :

• 40 percent of rapes in Italy have been committed by migrants.
• 5,000 returned Jihadis that have travelled to Syria/Iraq now live in the EU.
• 40 percent of migrants from the Maghreb committed robbery or theft within the first year of their arrival in Germany.
• Migrants are 10.3 times as likely to commit gang rape as native Germans.
• Asylum seekers are 42.7 times more likely to commit gang rape.
• In the Netherlands, half of the youth of Moroccan origin (aged 18-24) have been investigated by police.
• In Sweden 76 percent of the perpetrators that could be identified for sexual assault on the street were of foreign origin.

Violence and crime have increased in Europe since the unprecedented and unwelcome level of migration facilitated by Schengen and the open borders policies of the EU.

We are in a battle to protect our culture, heritage and way of life against the liberal left who instead of encouraging family friendly policies for Europeans, prefer to replace us with alien cultures because our own birth rates are dropping. With almost 50% youth unemployment across many EU countries, forced migration is a dangerous policy, damning the futures of a whole generation of young people.

The number of rapes is exploding, and protection of women is a priority. This can only be raised in the context of gender equality and LGBT rights, while migrant attitudes to our women and girls is brushed off as ‘cultural issues to be addressed’ and rape statistics are being ignored. We have a right to be protected, not the migrants.

Because of the mainly jihadi based terror in our countries, law-abiding Muslims who identify as European, should be encouraged to be more vocal about their condemnation of Radical Islam as there is a dangerous and growing anti-Muslim sentiment, not just among the far Right but ordinary citizens too.

We have to halt migration from Pakistan and north Africa, until we are confident that our Muslim citizens have integrated by learning our languages, adhering to national law rather than Sharia, reject female genital mutilation, honour killings, burkas and forced marriage.

We have to stop the foreign funding of mosques as they have done in Switzerland and the closing down of radical mosques, as in Austria with deportation of hate preachers. That is a start but we have a long way to go.

This week we saw the African invasion of Spain via Ceuta when 100s of migrants jumped the fences, attacked the Spanish semi-militarised Guardia Civil, who were forced to watch and were humiliated by their government which insists they cannot use their guns.

What have we come to when our police and military stand by and allow invaders to walk straight into our countries? The Guardia Civil can use their guns on Spanish citizens, but not the invaders.

It is no surprise that when the centre right Spanish government fell recently, there was no general election. Instead, an EU puppet socialist government took the reins.

When Italy shut its borders, Spain opened theirs. There will now be a further migrant crime wave.

You can download my book here: Home – Janice Atkinson MEP

Tommy Robinson’s Appeal Judge Has Already Declared Him GUILTY

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Tommy Robinson’s appeal will be heard on 10th of July by Britain’s top judge Lord Brian Leveson.

Leveson has ALREADY declared Tommy to be guilty, before hearing the appeal.

He gave an interview to the BBC Radio 4’s Law In Action programme on the 24th of June in which he used the case of Tommy Robinson as an example of when posting material on the internet can lead to imprisonment due to contempt of court.

At 03:45 into the interview, Leveson states:

“Members of the public ought to know that publishing comments which impact unfairly on the course of a trial could constitute contempt of court and there is a very good recent example of a man who videoed material which he fed into the internet which did constitute contempt of court as a result of which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.”

London Police Overlook Illegal Immigration, Stating No Reason for 20% INCREASE in Rape

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

The number of alleged rapes reported to police in London has risen by almost 20 per cent in a disturbing increase police are struggling to explain.

There were 7,613 reported rapes in the year to January, compared to 6,392 over the previous 12 months, according to figures collated by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).

Often, lefties will brush off rape increases, by saying the hard work of deranged feminists flashing their tits at people in the name of sexual equality has made it easier for rape victims to come forward. That bullshit won’t sell this time, because Sir Craig Mackey, deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said the rise could not be accounted for simply by more victims feeling able to report abuse or better recording practices. Oh, damn!

This is a massive turning point. Joanne McCartney, the deputy mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, told the meeting on Wednesday that Sir Craig’s statement was “the first time a senior officer has come to this committee and accepted that the increase in sexual violence may not just be about an increase in reporting and confidence”.

Scotland Yard has emphasised that the statistics emerged following an attempted rape and robbery by Nayed Hoque, 20, of Manor Park.

Sir Craig muttered, “there is something going on with sexual offending in London that we don’t fully understand.

“We see the end of it but we don’t understand the causes.”

Surely it has nothing to do with the increase in illegal immigration, as hordes of unskilled, aggressive, Sharia-praising thugs assemble in Calais, offering to kill us all?

A German report found that 92.1 percent of the increase in rape was attributable to illegal immigrants. In Leipzig, rape figures increased by 670%!

Pfeiffer et al. 2018 found that there was a high level of violence by Morrocan migrants – these people are not genuine refugees under UN convention.

Other data points are also damning. Between 2014 and 2016, the share of solved violent crimes attributed to asylum seekers increased to 13.3 percent from 4.3 percent — a disproportionately high share compared with the state’s foreign population. Bloomberg says this is “behavior that would go unpunished, or is even encouraged, [in their home countries]”.

BREAKING: #FreeTommy: Courts to Hear Appeal Against Imprisonment of Tommy Robinson

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

#FreeTommy Update: Lord Justice Leveson will hear Tommy’s appeal on 10th July 2018 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Sir Brian Henry Leveson is currently the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Head of Criminal Justice.

While we can all agree this is good news, we have yet to see what the result of the hearing will be. Leveson’s past suggests he may not take a very favourable view of Tommy.

Leveson has previously called for further criminalisation of investigative journalism, and he proposed a tightening of the 1998 Data Protection Act to give journalists less protection and jail those who break the new rules for up to two years. He also called for amending the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act to remove the ‘journalistic exemption’ for material that has been ‘stolen’ — which would mean most information leaked by whistleblowers.

When will Nigel Farage let his little baby grow up?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

As you may be aware, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has openly criticised their new leader Gerard Batten for his hard stance on Islam.

In a recent party meeting, Farage discussed how while Batten’s new direction on criticising Islamic extremism was welcome, he felt that his supposed attack on the religion would mean that UKIP would ‘lose’ any support. He also stressed gaining the support of moderate Muslims.

While many would find it surprising that Farage would openly attack the party for such issues (for which I believe it would have the backing of the majority of the British public), the sad truth is that it doesn’t surprise me much at all.

This is because Farage, as great as he was as both UKIP leader and the one to get Brexit rolling, has seemingly been doing everything he can to push the party back. Why do I think this you may ask?

It is because he seems rather terrified of either the party moving on beyond Brexit (why this is, I don’t know; our Editor-in-Chief asks if Nigel is concerned about his image for his media career) and has subsequently demonised anyone who has tried to bring change into the party. This also isn’t helped by how he seems to weed out anyone from the party who doesn’t share exactly his view.

Most of his feuds have been out of line. This fall out with Batten being one example, showing his complete unwillingness to tackle one of the most important issues in our country of which could win votes for the party, and make sure those votes didn’t fall in to the hands of actual far right parties.

His public feud with Clacton MP Douglas Carswell over funding, that some suggest would have been spent on jobs for Nigel’s favourites. Then there is his infamous clash with Neil Hamilton AM over whether his mistress Alex Philips should be parachuted in Wales; awkwardly for Nigel, Welsh UKIP said no. Democracy in action!

Not to mention, his (or more likely the party’s) removal of the likes of anti-globalist Godfrey Bloom and Winston McKenzie from UKIP because of their non-PC attitude caused huge fallout, with the former stating that Farage had ‘lost touch’ with his grassroots supporters in the party and the latter openly (and wrongly) called the party racist over the debacle.

Now I fully appreciate that the likes of Bloom and McKenzie were probably not the shall we say presentable types that UKIP may have wanted to have standing for the more professional party they were becoming in the earlier half of this decade, but they were local party supporters, not to mention electable.

Bloom was a Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber for a decade, and McKenzie did come third in the seat of Croydon North, both in the 2012 by-election in that seat & the 2015 general election. His blunt dismissal of both of them may have been excusable, one may argue, because he was planning to professionalise the party. That would be wonderful had the subsequent candidates been worth their salt, but more on that later.

Despite what one’s feelings are on both Bloom and McKenzie being fired from UKIP are, at least one could argue that they were doing it to make the party look professional, which their gaffes prevented UKIP from doing. However, many UKIP members would feel otherwise. 

As for Anne Marie Waters, she may have been politically incorrect, some would say she needs to be more so, but she was also deadly serious, and anyone who campaigned with her back in last year’s UKIP leadership election (including myself) would know.

She cared about important issues like Islamist extremism, on top of issues like public sector funding and holding the authorities (the police most notably) to account. I believe she was the perfect person to take UKIP forward after its complete tanking in that year’s earlier general and local elections being blamed on its supposed one issue stance.

The way she was treated was shocking to me. It seems weird that Farage was so angry about Waters. While there was some controversy within UKIP regards her choice of campaign team, it was Waters herself that Farage attacked, as he claimed that she was a ‘racist’ after she lost, and even hoped that she would leave the party as soon as she lost. What a charmer!

I find this to be most inconsistent. After all, she had said similar statements about Islam back in 2015 when she was standing as a candidate in Lewisham East for UKIP and no one complained there (she came third). Meanwhile, Farage had no qualms about backing the likes of Marine Le Pen, the Alternative for Germany party and Donald Trump, of who all had similarly critical views on Islam, and ran on those platforms. Hell, Trump managed to win the Presidency, so Farage’s views that such a view is unelectable isn’t true either.

Not to mention how he also backed the Republican Senate candidate for Alabama Roy Moore, whose views on Islam are far more extreme than anything Waters expressed (unless you think calling Islam a ‘false religion’ and arguing that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to stand for public office aren’t extreme views – neither view advocated by Waters it should be said). Meanwhile, Moore’s other views (including those on various tragedies in the US being committed because of the lack of belief of God in the States and homosexuality) are far more extreme than anything Waters could have cooked up. So, one must wonder why Farage had such a problem with Waters at all.

It was most likely because he couldn’t control the party from the outside with his stooge Bolton, or have as large an influence as he used to. Despite stepping down as leader after the 2016 EU referendum declared a Leave victory and denying various chances to re-run, he seems to have a huge sway as to who is in charge and their limitations. He is still leader of the EFDD. From this, most of UKIP’s leaders post-Farage have been singing from the same hymn sheet.

That would be fine had this worked out for the better for the party, but it hasn’t, with even the likes of prominent UKIP member Suzanne Evans saying that Farage had ‘terrible judgment’ over it.

The likes of Carswell and Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP in 2014 may have been seen as great advances for the party at the time (of which Farage was initially positive about for the former and called the latter a ‘great result’) but when Farage seemingly implied that they were career politicians jumping on the UKIP bandwagon, it got rather messy with public feuds between both politicians and Farage, with him even calling the latter returning to the Conservatives ‘very dishonourable’.

Not to mention his backing of former leaders Paul Nuttall and Henry Bolton. The former may have been possibly competent, or maybe a weak yes-man, but was clearly the captain of a sinking ship of who didn’t have the resources or the public support to stop it sinking completely.

And the latter (who Farage claimed was a ‘man of substance’) is now disgraced, through his infidelity to a very racist woman and is now under such grand delusion, is now starting his own party, making him this decade’s Robert Kilroy-Silk. At least Farage called Henry’s behaviour ‘stupidity’ I suppose.

That is why his constant intervention post his leadership is such a problem; it’s stopping the party from growing into a post-Brexit party that can truly challenge consensus politics and do something. I understand that he is passionate about Brexit (what British patriot isn’t), but there are other problems affecting Britain outside of that.

His refusal to move beyond Brexit and weed out anyone who does threatens to sink UKIP into political Britain, leaving a power vacuum where actual far right parties can spring on, which is never a good thing.

There are rumours that Nigel Farage may stand as a Democratic Unionist Party candidate in Northern Ireland in the next general election, a move which has been compared to Enoch Powell’s one whereby he left the Conservatives in 1974 and subsequently stood for the Ulster Unionist Party later that year, winning the seat and holding it for 13 years. And while this comparison is probably one just to further demonise him as evil and racist like Enoch supposedly was (which he wasn’t), it is apt here. And maybe it is for the best.

Until he can let his baby grow up in UKIP, it will ultimately struggle not to be stagnant and will strive against political oblivion. This will only lead to bad times in the future which will give the far right breeding ground. So maybe it is time for Farage to keep his promise about staying out of politics. It’ll do him and his party some good.

Government Will BAN Hezbollah Marches: Victory for Make Britain Great Again and the FLA

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Following counter-protests to the Hezbollah flag march in London, the government plans to proscribe the Islamist organisation later this year. Here, we bring you the full story that the media is ignoring.

Hezbollah’s military wing was banned as a terror group in Britain in 2008 but a legal loophole allows supporters to fly the flags at events such as last Sunday’s rally, because Hezbollah’s political arm is not banned.

The Home Office has the power to ban the political wing and thereby proscribe the group in its entirety, but it didn’t. Why?

Tommy Robinson spoke of a case where police let an accused paedophile go free to avoid a riot by a certain religious community. In Bradford, Tottenham and elsewhere riots have caused violence, even the horrific death of a police officer Keith Blakelock.

The state approach seems to be to ignore serious crime to avoid a riot by ethnic minorities and Islamists – they are letting jihadis slowly take over. If I dare to revise the words of Enoch Powell, the whip hand is held by the Anglophobes!

Former Home Secretary Amber Rudd was accused of appeasing radicals, as she drew some mythical distinction between a peaceful wing of Hezbollah, and a violent wing.

This is as stupid as saying ISIS would be allowed to register a peaceful branch as a British political party. All persons waving the Swastika are deemed bigots, so all persons waving a Hezbollah flag are terrorist sympathisers.

For years, the “political wing” of Hezbollah was permitted to march on our streets, despite being labelled a terrorist group by the USA, and the Arab League. Even Hezbollah itself denied that it has two wings.

Following recent terror attacks in London and Manchester, where children were killed, British patriots decided enough is enough.

Arriving at the counter-demo to Hezbollah, the People’s Charter Foundation (known for the slogan Make Britain Great Again) and the Football Lads Alliance met a mixed reception.

While happy Israeli activists shook our hands, two members of the Zionist Federation who seemed to be organisers told us we were not welcome. They placed a metal barrier between us and them.

As Jewish activists sang songs up the road, the FLA and MBGA, the supposed “far-right”, went round the back and literally stopped the Islamist march, by sitting in the road on the march route despite death threats.

Undeterred by slurs against our character, British patriots achieved what never has been before. We forced the government to stand up to extremism, as we met the Islamists with signs saying Make Britain Great Again, and both British and English flags.

We stood for freedom and Western civilisation, even when kettled, blocked in by a wall of police vans, and threatened with being trampled by police calvary on horseback. And we won!

The British must stand together and speak out for justice and freedom, for our traditional values and culture. On Sunday, our voice was louder than the Islamists, and the state stopped ignoring their promotion of violence. Those who say rallies are pointless, think again!

Tommy Robinson Moved Prison: High Risk of Being Murdered Tonight

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Tommy Robinson, known for bravely campaigning against child rape gangs, last night was moved for no apparent reason to a new prison. He was being held in Hull, for reporting facts that the BBC had already made public domain. No charges were brought against the BBC. Within hours, the quickest processing of a case that we know of in history, Robinson was locked up. Meanwhile, the state can’t find and detain paedophiles who have abused thousands of our children.

Tommy has been moved to Leicester prison, which has a high Islamic population, according to Paul Joseph Watson, who claimed inmates were banging Robinson’s cell wall all night and shouting death threats. He has not be placed in solitary confinement, but in open ‘gen pop’, meaning persons convicted for child rape will be able to beat him up, even kill him, in revenge for calling out such crimes. Already a price has been placed on the British hero’s head.

This is a death sentence. He did nothing wrong. He read out information in the public domain, and the judge supposedly didn’t even watch the livestream Tommy made before summing up. Tommy wasn’t on the court forecourt. He used the words “alleged” and “accused”. No reporter was booked for this during the Rolf Harris case. Tommy has been singled out. We will not accept this bullying by our police state.

#FreeTommy: police ‘used undercover men to incite crowds’?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

This Saturday at the #FreeTommy rally, the atmosphere was tense. The police were marched out of Whitehall by an angry crowd, but are we being given the true story?

For example, the media is quick to label the crowd as thugs, but ignores why they were so angry. The police were literally knocking elderly people to the ground, pushing and manhandling the crowd with what seemed to be needless force.

Did they wish to provoke an incident so that they would have an excuse to beef up the police state?

In 2009, Liberal Democrat Tom Brake MP who attended the G20 protests accused the police of planting provocateurs to start riots.

“When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, ‘There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police,'” Brake said.

But when the crowd became suspicious of the men and accused them of being police officers, the pair approached the police line and passed through after showing some form of identification.

Did the police do likewise on Saturday? We struggle to believe they were simply maintaining the peace, as multiple witnesses claim to have heard Underground station announcements claiming the rally to be cancelled.

Do the police serve the British people, or so they receive their commands from the union of the Arab League and the EU, that has a parliament of the Mediterranean in Barcelona?

The body that has demanded we step up migration from Arabic countries. Did the facts Tommy highlighted inadvertently hinder their plan? Is that why he and his supporters face what seems like state efforts to silence us?

Islamist-linked Labour candidate and the wild bunch of the Lewisham by-election

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

As you are probably aware, on the 14th of June 2018, there will be a by-election in Lewisham East to replace the incumbent MP Heidi Alexander, who has now been picked for the job of Deputy Mayor under Sadiq Khan (presumably to cover for him as he vanishes when another violent attack happens in the capital, as you do).

From this, there is an upcoming by-election whereby a whole slew of candidates will be standing, fourteen in total. Pretty much every British political party under the sun is standing, sans the likes of very small parties like the English Democrats and also the various joke candidates one would often expect at a by-election like this.

So, who is standing? Let’s review the record:

The Green Party candidate is one Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, of who is mainly focused on being a clean air campaigner (nothing shocking there then). Her background mainly consists of being the head of a 6th form in Lewisham (being local in the constituency is a big boost already), and being involved heavily in education in her area in general, with her being a school governor too. Hence why one of her other main priorities if elected (to make schools to ‘be proud of’) should be no shock either.

Mostly harmless, right? But no. It turns out that she advocates that Britain has another referendum over Europe, arguing that Britain should have a ‘final say over Europe – with the option to remain in’. Presumably she forgot that we already had that nearly two years ago at this point, but there we are. It is possible that this candidate can do well, given that the Green Party have always finished up in the top five of the last few Lewisham results, but it seems very unlikely for her to win.

Given that the Labour Party has such a stronghold over this seat and that the Green Party are pretty much pointless at this time (given that all three of the major parties have bought into the climate change agenda, including Labour), she may do well, but a win is highly unlikely.

But what more would you expect from a party who are single issue to the point of being asinine and having only the city of Brighton and Vivienne Westwood propping them up? Not to mention, the whole anti-Brexit rhetoric of Debrah is something that will be seen from other candidates too. Brace yourselves.

Moving on, the Conservative candidate is one Ross Archer. Looking like the unholy love child of Martin Lewis and George Osborne, Archer’s main priorities for the area mainly are about stressing good education, improvements to the local railway network (which include extending the Bakerloo Line on the London Underground to not only Lewisham but surrounding areas, like Catford and Lower Sydenham, and to the zoning of the Grove Park Overground station), fly-tipping (which saw him campaign to stop the weekly bin collection by the Labour led council) and the football teams around the location (no joke). Another local candidate, it seems that Archer has been campaigning in the area for some time, not only here, but also in various campaigns about rubbish collection and attempted to become the mayor of Lewisham, only to lose to the Labour candidate.

He is most likely the candidate who will come second here. This seat has been held by Labour since 1992, and their candidates have usually come second in subsequent general elections, sans 2010 when the rise of the Liberal Democrats had them come third.

Ah, those were the days. The days when Nick Clegg seemed like a respectable politician and the media were comparing him to Winston Churchill, as opposed to the laughing stock he is now and his party for that matter. Anyhow, the Conservatives will most likely come second here.

There have been rare occasions when a Conservative takes a long-held Labour seat in a by-election (the 2008 by-election in Crewe and Nantwich being one such example), but given Labour’s stranglehold here, it is unlikely to happen.

There is also an independent candidate in the running under one Charles Edward Carey. A new candidate, his main focus is updating the Statute Law Database, which is the official database of laws made in Parliament. His problem is that it isn’t up-to-date (having been updated to the year of 2002), so the public are misinformed about what legislature currently stands. His main goal is to use this campaign to raise awareness of this issue.

While independent candidates have occasionally done well, the last time one was elected to Parliament was in the 2006 by-election in Blaenau Gwent and the last one generally elected being in 1997. That and his single-issue campaign and his very limited social media profile (he has on his Twitter account thirteen tweets at the time of writing) means that his chances are limited at best. Whether he has enough clout in the constituency to aid him is yet to be seen.

Meanwhile, the main focus of this election is the Labour candidate, one Janet Daby. Already, she seems like the most likely winner in this contest. The seat is exclusively a Labour safe seat as previously discussed, and various betting companies have placed her as the favourite to win because of it.

Admittedly on the surface, she doesn’t seem too bad. Her experience in politics (being the Deputy Mayor of Lewisham being the main representative here) and her background in social care and running a food poverty charity may earn her sympathy points.

That being said, she isn’t some harmless stooge for the Labour Party. Oh no, rather she seems rather dangerous in some ways, making her seemingly inevitable victory all the more worrying. Firstly, she is yet another type who hates democracy, advocating the UK stay in the single market after we leave the European Union. In other words, she advocates that the UK still accepts the free movement of people, EU laws and the vast fees the EU dumps on us every year. In other words, everything we voted against when we voted to Leave.

Given that most of the public wants to leave the single market (as indicated by a poll detailing most of the Leave voters wanting a hard Brexit which would mean leaving the Single Market), Daby is clearly a Remoaner. The cruel irony being that her fellow contenders in the Labour Party for this selection were more lenient on this issue, feeling that we should leave it to respect the result of the referendum.

Beyond that though, Daby has links to the extremist imam Shakeel Begg, of Lewisham Islamic Centre. Earlier this year, she had a general discussion with him at the centre. Given his extremist advocacy (of which included supporting Islamist fighters abroad and promoting religious violence, which he lost a libel case against the BBC over), it seems rather worrying, especially since all three Labour candidates shared a platform with him at some point. So here we have Lewisham’s most likely next MP: a Remoaner with links to Islamist extremists. Hip hip hooray!

The Democrats and Veterans Party are also standing here. Led by former UKIP leadership and Parliamentary contender John Rees-Evans, the party stands on broadly patriotic, libertarian and Eurosceptic values. Their candidate is one Massimo DiMambro, whose main policy is campaigning for direct democracy. While his locality to the area will again help (not to mention his previous standing in Lewisham Deptford under the UKIP flag), his single-issue stance and the various controversies surrounding his party already (mainly through their utter failure at the 2018 local elections and the deputy leader resigning soon after) probably will work against him as well.

Not to mention how his election campaign has only raised £370 out of the £1000 expected on Just Giving, which isn’t a good sign either. Not much in his favour it seems.

Speaking of libertarianism, the official Libertarian Party are standing here as well, with their candidate Sean Finch. He similarly stands on libertarian values to the Democrats and Veterans candidate as well, with free speech being the big aspect touted here.

However, unlike their Stateside cousins (whereby the American Libertarian Party is considered the third party in the States behind the Democrats and the Republicans), the Libertarian Party UK haven’t done much throughout the last decade and a bit from their formation, having only stood in both the 2010 and the 2017 elections and never gaining 1% in any of the seven seats contested.

It is rather telling how limited their resources are given they didn’t contest in the 2015 election (calling it ‘waste of time and funds’) and had the None Of The Above vote beat them in their first contested by-election in 2009 in Norwich North. Their lack of much support online (most notably with their interview with Finch gaining only 186 views at the time of this writing) doesn’t help either. So again, no real competition.

The Radical Party are also standing, with their Party Secretary Patrick Gray. Their chances seem rather limited as well. Given that their platform is based on left-wing doctrine (such as fighting against the likes of lobbyists, reducing the gap between rich and poor and general globalism), it seems rather pointless standing in a Labour safe seat, especially given that their big policies over remaining in the European Union and climate change are already taken by the Labour and Green parties respectively. Not a strong contender either, especially with a lack of a strong presence on the ground or on social media, and a sense of elitism in this candidate (a former Oxford boy) doesn’t go in his favour either.

The Young People’s Party are also standing, represented here by Thomas Hall. Their platform is one of mostly economics, inspired by Georgist thinking, mainly on the grounds of basing taxes on land instead of earnings, leaving the EU and bank reform. Like the Libertarian Party, all of their contested seats have landed them with less than 1% of the vote ever since their founding in 2012, and their main niche may not appeal to a wide core of voters. Not much of a chance here either.

To lighten the mood, a joke candidate is also standing in the Monster Raving Loony Party’s Howling Laud Hope, the leader of the party. Not much to say, beyond the fact that their various policies may be jokey and the rest of it (including replacing carrier bags with pigeons and introducing silent fireworks to avoid pets being frightened), but the sad truth is that they probably are more tenable than anything out of Westminster these days. Given that this is a joke candidate, listing their chances will be pointless.

UKIP are also standing with their London Assembly member and former leadership contender David Kurten. A first-time contender in Lewisham, this could be an opportunity for UKIP to recover its bad fortunes. After all, they tend to do well in by-elections, with last year’s result in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election being their best result in an otherwise disappointing year for the party. Kurten’s main stances (of campaigning for a ‘full Brexit’ and cracking down on crime) may win him support too. 40% of Lewisham did vote Brexit and that vote has to go somewhere, while the general crime increase in London (especially in Lewisham) may aid them too.

That said, the party’s diminishing fortunes, along with the controversy over Kurten (through some of the comments he made last year over gay children and the Stop The Khanage campaign material) are working against them here. Only time will tell as to whether they can pull it out of the bag here.

The Christian People’s Party is also standing, with their regular candidate Maureen Martin standing. Not much here to say either, as she has come last in the prior two elections in this seat, and there doesn’t seem much different here.

The Women’s Equality Party is also standing in their candidate Mandu Reid, a local resident and the founder of the Cup Effect, a women’s menstrual health NGO. An unashamedly feminist candidate, she was inspired to stand after the #MeToo campaign gained steam, feeling as though she ‘had to put herself forward’ afterwards. It doesn’t seem that she will get very far, given the very one-note nature of her candidacy and the party she stands for.

The Liberal Democrats are also standing with their candidate Lucy Salek. Previously a council candidate, she also is notable for her humanitarian work (including being the chair for the refugee charity AFRIL), which may go in her favour.

Meanwhile, she is also a staunch Remain type, which given that seems to be the only platform the party has these days isn’t a surprise. She plans to use a potential win to use it as a ploy to make a statement against Labour’s wishy-washy stance on Brexit, with party leader Vince Cable going as far to say that the party will use the by-election to ‘cut the majority substantially’.

The fuss over her supposedly misleading election material may work against her too. Given their recent uptake in the 2018 local elections, they may have a strong chance here. Then again, their lack of ability to break new ground following the 2010 general election seems to indicate otherwise.

Last but not least, we have Anne Marie Waters of For Britain standing. Previously a UKIP candidate for the area (coming third in the 2015 election there), Waters started the party in October 2017 after having left UKIP over her loss over the UKIP leadership election and the various top brass of the party calling her racist and the like.

Her previous standing may help her here, and many of the policies that she stands for this time round (including solving the housing crisis in the area and getting a hard Brexit too) may win over voters. Meanwhile, the endorsement of The Smiths’ former frontman and British icon Morrissey (of who called her a ‘humane Thatcher’) can’t hurt. Neither can the controversy.

Her standing has already caused a stir, most notably with the likes of various leftie groups threatening to disrupt her campaign and the Labour Party boycotting next week’s hustings over her being allowed to stand there, mainly because of her views on Islam. It may be possible that her prior standing may win back her old voters, not to mention all the fuss in the press may boost her profile. Only time will tell.

So, after all that, one must think what was the point of discussing this? Because of how crucial the outcome is. Beyond how the most likely next MP for Lewisham East is a Remoaner with links to Islamist extremism and the various single-issue candidates who can no more muster the true meaning of the cult classic Donnie Darko than they can electoral support, there is a compelling battle here, that being the one between UKIP and For Britain. Given the former’s seeming collapse in voter share and the latter’s slow rise (mainly through beating the Green Party and UKIP in some wards in the local elections earlier this year), the battle between the two big pro-Brexit and populist parties in Britain shall commence.

Will this mortal combat see UKIP rise from the ashes once more or show For Britain to be their replacement? Only time will tell.

Only one thing’s almost certain though: Janet Daby will be Lewisham East’s next MP, who is so problematic that it won’t even be good for her party’s leader. Ouch. Then again, her anti-Brexit stance and links to Islamist extremism will be the ultimate fatality for the British public.

Biased New BBC TV Drama Will DEMONISE Tommy Robinson and the Football Lads

in Islamism/Student Politics by

When most people think of Aussie TV, they might have Neighbours in mind, or an episode of Home and Away. They wouldn’t be expecting the BBC to dump on us a new TV series from Down Under which mocks patriots who oppose Islamofascism.

The description of episode one is clearly misleading viewers, giving them an inaccurate idea of patriots, as it states, “Right wing group Patriot Blue hold a rally at a Muslim festival, where they clash with anarchists Antifasc.”

Recently, such as in London last weekend, or the DFLA/FLA march in Manchester, there have been protests, where football lads and Antifa have had a few minor scuffles, started by the communists. HOWEVER, patriots do not target Muslim festivals, but have peaceful protests, where none of them are arrested. However, Antifa are arrested for seeking out events of Tommy Robinson, the DFLA, and the People’s Charter, to violently attack them, in an effort to shut them down.

Is that Lucy Brown?

Hence the title of the series “Romper Stomper” is most unfair. It is from a controversial 1992 movie that launched Russell Crowe’s career is a gritty and unflinching look at the violent world of Neo-Nazi skinheads. The movie follows leaders of a racist youth gang who spend their nights attacking Asian immigrants in a rough section of Melbourne.

Those at the Day of Freedom march were not picking on people for being Asian, but they criticised jihadism.

They describe the “Romper Stomper” programme as a “High stakes six-episode drama that follows a new generation of far right activists.”

Their write-up continues, “Young stranger Kane steps in during the fighting to help members of Patriot Blue, immediately winning their trust. Muslims also get hurt in the clashes and defiant Laila takes on the challenge of representing her community.”

Again, the BBC is trying to give the impression that patriots are beating up people of a certain religion – there have been no arrests at marches by the DFLA, the People’s Charter, or the Veterans Against Terrorism. However, jihadis have KILLED people as they bombed Manchester Arena, slaughtered people in the streets of London, and mowed people down on bridges.

Many understandably believe the state wants to shut down any criticism of Islam, valid or not. The BBC itself is state-owned and state-funded, hence, it says what the government wants.

Lies? Antifa claims Lucy Brown is their operative, as she calls for the arrest of Football Lads

in Islamism/Student Politics by

There is uproar across the Internet, in Facebook forums and chats, as well as Discord. The drama has continued all day, into the night, as patriots discuss with fury that Ali Dawah was invited to speak at the Day of Freedom rally in Whitehall.

We sat shocked, unsure what to say or think as Lucy Brown clashed with the DFLA and the FLA on Twitter. Brown then claimed she was reporting the DFLA to the police.

Members of the Democratic Football Lads Alliance, Veterans Against Terrorism, and the People’s Charter Foundation, have condemned Lucy Brown’s decision to invite the controversial speaker to stand with the likes of Tommy Robinson, Raheem Kassam, and Count Dankula.

However, things took an even darker turn, as a seemingly very legit Twitter Antifa account claimed Brown is their operative working under cover. We wait to see if Brown tweets a response to their claim; surely this can’t be.

For a certainty, Lucy was certainly an Antifa member in the past, though she is said to have become red-pilled and joined the patriotic right. We really want to believe her, but the bizarre thing is that last year she shared a fake poster for the Last Day of Silence rally against child abuse – a poster she knew very well to be fake – and falsely labelled the rally as white nationalist, with a clear reference to the Charlottesville massacre – this would rile Antifa.

Not only that, she actually tagged her former Antifa associates, telling them to check it out. What was her intent? Does she want her supposed allies, fellow patriots to be beaten up? Would it be a good video? What’s going on?

This almost destroyed the event, perhaps reduced the turnout, and caused a lot of anger, as speakers felt she’d put their safety in danger.

A member of MBGA said earlier today, “We want to thank all the brave speakers, at that Last Day of Silence rally, and also the more recent Day of Freedom. I wish to thank the Vets and DFLA for their hard work arranging the march for free speech. We should be proud that thousands marched for freedom, peacefully. There was a diversity, including in political ideas. It was amazing!!”

We just can’t believe Ali Dawah was invited, as he blatantly was. The denial has only annoyed people more, because the invitation was most clearly made by Lucy Brown – here on her Twitter page she boasts of the confirmation. We all know.

Ali Dawah can be seen in the Running Order for the event, and he clearly seems to legitimately think he was invited to speak. Everyone knows.

These concerns were raised by one of the MBGA team:

1. If Ali Dawah had spoken, there would have been serious risk a riot would have occurred, and people would have been severely injured. This isn’t fair on lads who’d get bottled, etc..

2. That would have given police an argument to restrict freedom of the British people, becoming more of a police state.

3. The rally was for free speech for those silenced; Ali Dawah is not silenced by society.

4. Moreover, he would not have given a speech promoting free speech.

This could have been resolved. All this drama didn’t need to happen. It was a misjudgment to invite Ali Dawah. More care could be taken in future. Instead, all hell has broken loose.

We can’t believe what Lucy and Caolan Robertson today posted about the patriotic football lads who had their back. There was shock and anger as Caolan backed Ali Dawah, calling for the police to arrest lads.

Then Lucy also called for the police to arrest DFLA lads.

The Football Lads Alliance have responded by banning Tommy Robinson’s camera girl from all future events they hold:

And the words directed at her from the Democratic Football Lads Alliance were far from complimentary, as she was accused of sharing “bullsh*t”, and blamed for the violent struggle that was terrible PR for the event. She was even accused of “Being up Ali’s arse”.

The Internet is full of calls for Tommy Robinson to sack Lucy Brown and Caolan Robertson.

Iran is not our friend, but let’s tread lightly regardless

in Islamism/World News by

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave what resembled a press conference in which he openly accused the state of Iran of not abiding by the 2015 Nuclear Deal.

According to the Israelis, they have further proof than what was given on air with a rather bizarre powerpoint presentation, that Iran is actually optimising its nuclear arsenal for military purposes.

Now, the fact remains that we do not really know enough details at this moment in time, in order for us Westerners and Americophiles to verify whether the information put forward by Israeli intelligence and Netanyahu is reliable.

However, what we do know is that the Israel is and will remain our greatest ally in the Middle East, and this is not going to change anytime soon. We have the duty to take their concerns seriously. The recommendation that I am sure anyone would give to the Trump administration is to tread lightly.

In this situation, it is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that needs to be called into immediate action, before we jump to any conclusions.

Any military conflict with Iran needs to be avoided as it could lead to serious diplomatic hostilities with Putin, in the best case scenario. A struggle in the Middle East is not a good idea at the moment given we are all on same boat when it comes to fighting off ISIS and Al-Qaeda divisions.

Also, not to mention that escalation with Iran could cause more serious problems to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The latter has recently undergone a great reform under Mohammed bin Salman, who is certainly more pro-Western than his predecessors and needs time and stability to conclude his investigations on the extremist attitudes of the old Saudi administrations.

With regards to Iran, it was merely last summer that the IAEA told the world that Iran was not breaking any rules of the agreement. This agreement – in case our readers did not know – is called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. If Iran has not really stopped producing uranium at medium enrichment, and is not only using its enrichment capacities for civilian purposes, while continuing to use its centrifuges at full extent instead of cutting the numbers down by two-thirds which is what agreed to do three years ago, then we shall find out.

Momentarily, we can expect Trump to be working closely with Netanyahu’s government and make a decision by May 12th. What we must avoid is giving the impression that we are hostile to them and take the word of Israel for everything without hard proof.

Also, Trump should keep in mind that cracking down on Iran by being tough but fair at the same time can send a signal to the North Koreans and make them slightly intimidated, as they should be, but without ruining the positive environment that has recently and surprisingly created itself (benevolence between the two Koreas), by making them think they are dealing with a warmonger they need to defend themselves against at any cost.

As James Mattiss from the United States Central Command once said  “There are plenty of ways to deal with Iran’s misconduct.” Leaving the accord would give Iran more freedom to do whatever they please with nuclear weaponisation, and although strong economic sanctions would be reinstated, this doesn’t mean that we will be able to keep an eye on them.

Trump must not put an end to the Iran deal, not just yet. To those who question why Iran having those potent weapons is a dangerous and unacceptable while Israel isn’t – we only have to remind them that Iran is an ultra-conservative Islamic state that practices Sharia law. Their rulers, both political and religious, have called several times for the destruction of Israel – a bastion for civilisation and modernity in the Middle East. Therefore, Iran is not our friend, not just yet.

People’s Charter March in Telford “Stop the Rape of Our Kids”

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Saturday was another beautiful spring day. With the sun shining many may have thought about relaxing and socialising but we had only one thing on our minds – Telford.

It is a town similar to many others in many ways, such as the same shops and facilities, but it also holds the infamous title of the rape capital of the UK.

It has become the focal point to protest about the lack of convictions and inadequate police response. At the meeting point hundreds of brave people gathered to make their voices heard.

Waving our People’s Charter banners that had the phrases “Stop the Rape of Our Kids”, as well as, “Hang All Paedos”, and “Stop Anglophobia”, we marched. Gadsden Flags, the international symbol of liberty, were waving high, emblazoned with the words “Don’t Tread on Me”.

Our group, of people from many races and backgrounds, marched on to the police station where there were speeches by myself; Luke Nash-Jones (the Director of the People’s Charter Foundation); and Edward Howard (a Young Chartist). We were also most privileged to have speeches by two Telford parish councillors Bill Gillmour, and Andrew Morris.

Nash-Jones hit out hard at Diane Abbott’s Stand Up to Racism, who have opposed marches against child abuse. He mentioned that their top activist Peter Tatchell wrote a book Betrayal of Youth, which called for the legalising of the rape of little boys. Nash-Jones slammed Labour, for their former deputy leader Harriet Harman, who worked for NCCP that was linked to the Paedeophile Information Exchange. He mentioned Gary Swain who called the Rochdale rape victims “p*ssed”.

Nash-Jones also called Labour “the biggest racist organisation” in Britain, and asked why Hope Not Hate was so quiet on that anti-Semitism until recently.

Nash-Jones stated that newspapers have alleged that a West Mercia police internal memo called the sex “consensual”. The police look uncomfortable as Luke shouted, “How on earth can sex with an 11 year old be consensual?” He spoke of the need for the reintroduction of capital punishment to deter offenders, “to put the fear of God into them!

A penalty that many will argue for with the spike in child abuse. His call for “Parliament to be serious” come after the recent reintroduction of capital punishment in India. Although a strong line, the benefits of this penance will highly likely stop many offences from taking place, such as Thailand’s tough stance on drugs has equally done.

I took to the mic next to tell the huge crowd that “In the name of appeasement and political correctness, our government has allowed the systematic rape and abuse of little girls to continue – and we have done nothing!”

We must stand up now and say enough is enough, it is our fundamental duty to protect our children. Abuse can leave mental scarring for a lifetime and is indeed a life sentence to many.

Bill mentioned previous arrests, but called for more to be done. He made a passionate speech raising awareness of the child grooming gangs and to make sure that the victims and survivors are not only heard and supported but that those responsible are prosecuted.

Andrew Morris lambasted the police for in action, calling for more to be done to stop this corruption.

Of all the rallies we have done, this one left the biggest impression on me. It left me wondering how low our society has sunk to allow these sick people to harm our children and the fact it has gone on for decades. To those who have been affected, we shall continue to fight for you and raise awareness so that no other children suffer.

When heroes are not good enough

in Islamism/World News by

Anyone following up on the news in the past week has heard about Lieutenant Colonel Arnaud Beltrame. Now, make no mistake, although they don’t always do so in good faith, the mainstream media is absolutely right when they refer to him as a hero.

Lieutenant Beltrame was indeed a hero, someone who sacrificed his life for the French nation, a great European man. It is rare in modern times to find someone of such high moral value.

The Islamist terror attack that took place in Carcasonne and Trebes, in southwestern France, was another of our routine tragic events that take place in geographical Europe.

The gunman was a 25 year old fanatic who pledged allegiance to ISIS while taking the life of Lieutenant Beltrame in a supermarket. Prior to being a victim of homicide, Lieutenant Beltrame managed to successfully negotiate the freedom of other innocents present there in exchange for his own life.

That being said, there is one thing that surely bothers those who have read about this particular terror attack. The vile primitive being that conducted the attack, Redoauane Lakim, had been on a watch list for more than four years. Not four months, four years.

On top of that, Lakim was allowed to live relatively freely in the country instead of being punished severely for a series of past drug-related offenses. Moreover, if he had wanted he could have easily moved around the European Union territory without too much difficulty. Perhaps, even reach Syria to fight for ISIS. After all, this has happened on several occasions.

While the media and the establishment, including the French President Macron, of course, overly focus on Lieutenant Beltrame’s heroic deed there are more terrorists out there just like Lakim who are ready to strike.

How many more heroes are we going to need to halt them? Are we supposed to just sit down and wait hoping that next time someone else from the police forces will be a hero? We need answers.

People across the continent cannot continue to fall for the propaganda pursued by liberal governments anymore. What the mainstream media now wants you to believe is that there are heroic men who will give their life for you if your time comes or that “everything is under control”.

This is a false sentiment. Islamist terrorism is having one of its greatest moments in history. Our enemies know very well that the situation has been tilted in their favour so much that there is only so much the European Union, and our individual state authorities and intelligence can do to stop them.

You might say; this is what happens when you let large numbers of undocumented people in illegally. However, the same happens when you let in the same large numbers of people in legally, who tend to reproduce with more frequency than the Occidental man, and let them live in free housing usually available in low market neighbourhoods where there is no chance for actual integration.

We have already lost the psychological war. The media expect us to feel acceptance fused with a sentiment of denial over terrorism. One must only briefly remember one of Sadiq Khan’s old statements about how terrorism is part and parcel of living in a “great global city”.

The matter of the fact is people are not even really surprised when they hear about terror related incidents. On the contrary, the average person is more than happy to take his “fifteen minutes of glory” offered by the media that talks about great heroes, and great multicultural futuristic visions.

The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Le Monde, New York Times, and other news outlets will happily publish a heart-breaking and tear-jerking article every now and then about how we are fighting terrorism with heroic deeds or lighting candles in some random European capital.

They do this because they have no real answers to provide towards the Islamist terror question, and because they want to distract from reality; and take your attention away from the fact that still today there has been no military operation in conjunction with NATO and the European Union forces against ISIS on the Libyan shores and there have not been mass expulsions of people on watch-lists.

Meanwhile, the Americans and Russians are too busy being counterproductive and backing different anti-ISIS forces in Syria.

Our nations are constantly under threat, suffering vicious attacks perpetrated against us because of who we are and what we represent. We are the West, and sorry but heroes are not good enough anymore.

Tory MP says letting “refugees” come to the UK will cause risk of Cologne-style mass rape

in Islamism by

Tory MP of Asian ancestry, Ranil Jayawardena, has been attacked by Labour for claiming that letting the families of child “refugees” come to the UK will put the country at risk of Cologne-style mass sexual assaults.

The Conservative member for North East Hampshire, Mr Jayawardena, faced cries of “shame” after he warned of the “potential to face similar issues’” that Germany had if they backed a so-called ”Good Samaritan Bill”. The draft legislation put forward by SNP backbencher Angus MacNeil would allow minors to sponsor their close relatives to join them in Britain.

Mr Jayawardena opposed cross-party support of the absurd bill as he delivered a speech in opposition – which was labelled a “spiteful, rambling filibuster”.

He referenced the shocking events in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015 as he called on colleagues to “do what is best to keep control of our system” and protect the “silent majority” in the United Kingdom. The Tory MP said “up to a million refugees and migrants” entered Germany that year, and brought up the fact a “failed asylum seeker from Tunisia plough a truck into a Christmas market stand in Berlin, leaving 12 dead”.

Despite childish shouts of anger from his fellow MPs, Mr Jayawardena said: “Perhaps no event was more disgusting, more disgraceful, than the events on New Year’s Eve 2015 in Cologne where the BBC reported that more than 1,000 criminal complaints were filed, hundreds of them alleging a sexual assault.

“An officer with the federal police put in his report about that night saying that ‘women, unaccompanied or not, had to run a literal gauntlet of heavily intoxicated masses of men of a kind that it is impossible to describe – the situation we were confronted with, chaos, could have led to serious injuries or death’.”

Mr Jayawardena said that while a majority of Germans would “still say that refugees were very welcome or quite welcome, a majority were also saying for the first time that their country simply cannot take in any more refugees”.

He said: “The UK has the potential to face similar issues.”

But the MP, who was speaking against the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No 2) Bill, was heckled by the SNP throughout his speech.

And his fellow Tory MP Anna Soubry told him: “This is a Bill about refugees. Not economic migrants.

“These are people who are fleeing war, persecution, terror on a scale frankly that none of us can even begin to imagine.”

Luke Nash-Jones, the Communications Officer for UKIP North East Hampshire & Basingstoke said, “Anna Soubry is a lost, confused person, who, even as news breaks of the horror of the Telford abuse, obstinately pursues this self-aggrandising lefty virtue signalling while bizarrely claiming to be conservative. If she wants to take the moral high ground, she should speak out against the horrific rape of women in Cologne, and demand that Britain take necessary border control measures to stop such atrocities occurring here.”

Labour MPs ATTACK Tory MP for mentioning Grooming Gangs

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

LABOUR MPs have openly attacked a Tory MP on Twitter for daring to mention grooming gangs.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries responded to a tweet by London’s Muslim mayor Sadiq Kahn in which he said that it was time “to act on hate speech.”

Mayor Khan launched an anti-hate campaign amid a national sexual abuse scandal in which it was discovered mostly Asian men had pimped and raped 1,000s of white girls and were protected by Labour-run authorities in Telford, simply because they didn’t want to be branded “Racist.”

Nadine Dorries, who is the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire replied to Sadiq Kahn and said: “How about, ‘it’s time to act on sex abusing grooming gangs,’ instead?”

Labour MPs then started to attack Nadine for daring to mention grooming gangs with one accusing her of being a “Racist”.

Labour MP Anna Turley, who represents Redcar in Yorkshire said, “What’s it got to do with the Mayor of LONDON or are you being racist?”

Labour’s Wes Streeting MP then told Nadine Dorries to “Delete her account,” and called Nadine a Hypocrite; “Number of times Nadine Dorries has mentioned ‘grooming gangs’ in Parliament? Zero”

It didn’t take long to discover that Labour’s Streeting had NEVER mentioned grooming gangs in Parliament.

I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

It’s difficult to remember a time in our history when free speech as been under threat as much as it is now. This week saw ‘far-right’ journalists being detained when wanting to visit the UK, but with no credible reasons given at the airport.

The most concerning aspect is that the police continue to let in jihadists and fail to protect our young, as we have now seen in Telford where the latest child grooming scandal has surfaced. They seem more interested in making a fuss over a couple of people who share different views. In the spirit of John Stuart Mill, if we disagree with others, unless they are calling for violence, we should challenge them to debate, not lock them up.

Facebook is becoming a beast and is also threatening our right to free speech. Today the Britain First page was taken down despite having 2 million followers; this has happened to many other groups where the company has exercised its power in an undemocratic way. Twitter banned Milo Yiannopolous, and even Gerard Batten, the leader of UKIP. YouTube has deleted our videos. This boundary is being slowly pushed under our noses and it will continue to be moved until more of us speak out about it.

London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan issued a statement suggesting that “Britain First is a vile and hate-fuelled group,” he said. “Their sick intentions to incite hatred within our society via social media are reprehensible, and Facebook’s decision to remove their content is welcome.”

Whether that statement in itself has weight, this is the man who has made it perfectly clear that he does not want the US President to visit the UK by using social media. This is clearly an affront to our liberal principles as the British nation. Khan acts like a university student union, wanting to “no platform” anyone with an alternate view. This just shows how insecure he is. Should he have his account removed for inciting hatred to Donald Trump?

It is a very dangerous path to go down and while the left may mock and laugh, thay need to understand it will be them next. As the saying goes, “I may not agree with what you say, but i’ll defend your right to say it”. We must all unite to protect our fundamental rights otherwise all of our voices and thoughts will be taken. I’ll leave you with this quote from German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller to provoke thought.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Urgent, immediate investigation into CSE in Telford demanded by MEP

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Rotherham MEP Jane Collins has called for an “urgent, immediate investigation into the apparent industrial scale child sexual exploitation in and around Telford.”

Ms Collins, who has spent years campaigning for justice for the Rotherham victims, also said the West Midlands PCC and nine councillors who wrote to Amber Rudd saying an inquiry was ‘not necessary’ need to be named and held accountable for their actions.

“It brings me to tears to think that despite everything people said had been learnt from the scandal in Rotherham, and the suffering and abuse of those victims, we still have young girls being raped by predominantly Pakistani Muslim men, just as they were and, I believe, still are in Rotherham.”

“When did some people in the police, in social services and in local and national government start thinking that the systematic rape and abuse of children was acceptable, which trying to stop an investigation seems to indicate?”

“In Rotherham, South Yorkshire Police treated the victims like criminals. And we hear again from one of the mothers of a victim who died in a car crash described as a “prank” after suffering from two years of abuse saying the same thing.”

Torron Watson, mother of Becky, who died aged 13 said “Girls like Becky were treated like criminals.”

“A girl of 13 is not a criminal for being raped and abused, she is a victim and it is the disgusting perverts who abused and violated her who are the criminals.”

Ms Collins, who is facing bankruptcy over her outspoken criticism of how the authorities handled CSE in Rotherham, said she was also “deeply worried that people are more concerned about not offending ethnic minorities than in protecting girls.”

“Dennis MacShane admitted that the reason things were not really investigated in Rotherham was because he didn’t want to ‘rock the multicultural community boat’

“Nothing is more important than safeguarding our children from vile sexual abuse and the associated drugs, violence and even murder that comes part and parcel with it.

“If one good thing were to come out of what happened in Rotherham it should have been that people stopped treating people based on the colour of their skin and the communities they belong to and instead looked at the reality of systemic abuse of predominantly young, white girls treated like sex slaves.

“Yet years on, evidence suggests that even that hasn’t permeated the bubble in which some local authorities and politicians appear to live.

“We need to rock that boat and drain the swamp of anyone who thinks child sexual exploitation is something which can be covered up.”

ISIS Fighters a “Threat to Britain” Says Richard Walton

in Islamism by

Richard Walton, a former head of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command, said, “everyone is assuming” the danger came from British IS supporters arriving back in this country. Mr Walton’s comments come ahead of his participation in a World Counter Terror Congress which begins in London tomorrow.

World Counter Terror Congress:
“DETECTING, DETERRING AND DISRUPTING TERROR THREAT

As nations seek to advance their resilience and ability to respond to the global terrorist threat, there is need for collaboration on shared challenges faced. Aligned with the UK’s CONTEST strategy and run in close correspondence with the UK’s Home Office, Cabinet Office and Emergency Services, the conference will deliberate best practice to defeat the terrorist threats to our nations.

Featuring an unrivalled speaker line up, the World Counter Terror Congress will hear national updates on counter terror strategy, operations and policy, examining the key areas of Prevention, Pursuit and Protection from international terror threats”

One aim of the event is to improve international cooperation and to allow countries to share knowledge about the terrorist threat.

Around 300 of the 850 or so British residents who went to Syria are still estimated to be overseas. Of these, around two thirds have been deprived of their citizenship because they were either foreign-born or are of overseas heritage with access to another nationality.

But Mr Walton said the danger was much greater because of the ability of foreign fighters from other parts of the EU to travel here.

He said: “About 30,000 to 40,000 people from 100 nation states went to Syria and a proportion of those are coming back. But they are not necessarily returning to the countries of origin, they are returning to regions of origin. “A French national may not return to Paris, he may return to London. No-one’s considered that yet.”

“Everyone is assuming it’s your own nationals coming back but, of course, with the common travel area in the EU, it could be any European that’s gone in the last five or six years. If you tot that up for Europe, there are several thousand.”

“The concern is foreign fighters .. using common travel areas and their passports to travel around. You hop into one EU country and you’ve got the liberty to get around all the others. Unfortunately, freedom of movement provides freedom of movement for terrorists as well.
“People don’t realise. They think it’s only our British jihadis who have gone and are coming back but it’s not.”

Mr Walton said that if jihadis did seek to return, they should be prosecuted and that Britain had “a sophisticated counter-terrorism machine” capable of using evidence gathered overseas to secure convictions.

He also praised Britain’s counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies, saying that they remained outstanding despite the wave of attacks last year.

He warned, however, that vigilance was needed about potentially new methods of attack, including using drones, because “there are very few methodologies used by terrorist organisations in their war zones that don’t at some stage come over here.”

To explore the work the Congress does, or if you would like to tune in to some of the major speeches, click the link below:
https://www.counterterrorexpo.com/world-counter-terror-congress

Mixed feelings for “young Le Pen” at CPAC

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/World News by

First and foremost, let us get one thing straight to avoid any confusion; Marion is not Marine. Nonetheless, just like her aunt Marine Le Pen, the young lady does not fail to present herself as a risk-taker, a dominant, robust social conservative who does not back away from a challenge.

In this case, the challenge meant giving a speech in a foreign language, thousands of miles from home, on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, to a huge crowd of free-market obsessed, gun worshiping, American Republicans. Not all of them were happy and not all of them were appeased by Marion’s aesthetically pleasing looks.

The twenty-eight year old niece of the notorious “Devil of the Republic”, Jean-Marie Le Pen, gave a magnificent yet apparently controversial speech at the popular Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) just over a week ago.

Marion Le Pen’s positions are more to the right than any classical liberal or conservative. We should not feel the need to lie about that and compare her to a random candidate who falls on the losing side of the 2016 Republican primaries (a few of those were already present at CPAC).

Marion’s values are those of authority, nation, state, strong traditional family unit and many more. She is a devout Catholic, and unlike her aunt Marine, during the French elections last year, she campaigned for much more than just immigration reform. Most of her focus was on anti-abortion and preventing the degeneration of the traditional norms of society. She has strongly spoken out against homosexual adoption as well.

Several political analysts and commentators have stated that even if very young, she would have made a stronger candidate for the Front National than her aunt.

Her ten minute speech at CPAC was followed by constant clapping and cheering. A few Americans felt it was appropriate to yell “Vive la France!” at her. She outlined how important it was for conservatives worldwide to unite against globalism and mass immigration.

Marion even gave Trump her blessing, praising him for his incredible efforts and clearly stating that the only way forward is putting each one of our western countries first, looking after our own interests, our own communities, our own folk.

Marion rhetorically asked the energetic crowd “How did we get here?”, referring to Islamist terrorism and also pointing out that this most certainly was not the France and the Europe that her ancestors fought for in the Second World War. Americans can obviously relate to the struggle so it was necessary for her to point out that somewhere along the way, Western civilisation embarked on a dark path and is now having tremendous difficulties getting back on on track.

Towards the end of her speech, she alluded to sparking the “Conservative flame”; she put forward the idea “that tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire”. This particular quote, and her presence at CPAC in general, made a few boring, old and decaying liberals disguised as Republicans, feel uncomfortable. A few of them like Glenn Beck took it on Twitter, complaining that Matt Schlapp, one of the main CPAC organizers, had given a platform to a “national-socialist”. Other Republicans, Ben Shapiro-like figures, very easily triggered by any one slightly more to the right than libertarianism, ironically suggested that next year perhaps Richard Spencer would be the main event.

The ‘American Conservative’,  a fiscally right-wing news outlet, was extremely hostile to Le Pen suggesting that someone who does not believe in privatised healthcare, the elimination of welfare, and wants to reorganise the banking system should not be invited at the event merely for being anti-immigration.

The discussion about the discrepancies between a Europeanist, ‘New Right’, and social movement like the Front National and American Republicanism is a long, and complicated one. However, one that has attentively read this piece will have noticed that I have indirectly and discretely underlined some. Now with the same discretion, it would be appropriate to leave the reader with a simple query:

If we are not able for any reason to come together as social conservatives, and join our efforts as right-wingers, how in the world do we expect to be able to defeat the globalist internationalists who have poured billions in creating this immoral, chaotic system which relies on mass immigration and trans-humanist theory?

Football Lads Standing Firm Against Terrorism

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

There’s been infighting in the FLA. Whoever you are, splinter group or whatever, we need to keep marching.

Don’t forget why this started. Our kids being killed by terrorists in Manchester! Whatever you are, put your name in, so we can tell you about the next march. Who are ya?

Get emailed about upcoming rallies
https://www.subscribepage.com/footballlads

Join the FB group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/133634940523059

Give the page a like too
https://www.facebook.com/Football-Lads-Alliance-England-11…/

Police ‘had sex’ with Rotherham abuse victims

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

Two local councillors, one of whom is still serving, and a police officer have been accused of having sex with victims involved in the Rotherham child abuse scandal.

1,400 children were raped by gangs of Pakistani men between 1997 and 2013. Girls as young as 11-years old suffered abductions, beatings, and rape by multiple attackers, as well as trafficking across the North East. Similar abuse has been uncovered in Rochdale, and Keighley.

The South Yorkshire Police constable at the centre of the allegations is also alleged to have passed on information to gangs grooming young girls in the town. A second police officer has been accused of neglecting his duties after failing to report his colleague.

Both claims are being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Today’s modern police force is a beyond a joke, ignoring child rape, while harassing, even arresting, people for speaking out on Facebook and Twitter against the decline in rule of law.

According to The Times, the complaints against the two Rotherham councillors “are understood to have been sent to the National Crime Agency, which is investigating child-sex crimes in the town”.

The news comes on the same day that a much-anticipated independent inspection report by former Victims’ Commissioner Louise Casey declared Rotherham Borough Council “not fit for purpose”.

The reports found that councillors and police officers were aware of the abuse, but chose to “disbelieve, suppress or ignore” it, for fear of being called racist – most of the rapists shared a religion and ethnicity. The abuse of these little girls is the largest racist attack in the British Isles in modern time, but few cared because the victims were white.

Rupa Huq MP SHUTS DOWN speech by Polish anti-Islamism commentator Rafał Ziemkiewicz

in Islamism/World News by

In the last couple of days, Rupa Huq, MP for Ealing Central and Acton, has successfully bullied a Polish writer and social activist, Rafał Ziemkiewicz, who was due to give a speech in Acton criticising Islamism, into cancelling his trip.

Rupa lied in her tweet stating ‘he refused to debate with me’ when what actually happened is Rupa wrote to the Home Office trying to bar his entry into the UK, and when that failed she got her mates in the Metropolitan police to threaten the premises that were due to host the debate with having their licence revoked if they went ahead.

Rupa described Rafał’s intended UK tour as ‘hate speech’. The Guardian published Rupa’s view on why Rafał should be barred from entering the UK but refused to publish Rafał’s letter response to her.

She also claimed that Rafał is a Holocaust denier which is not correct – Rafał actually called for an exhumation of the Jedwabne mass grave – this has been supported by the Mayor of Jedwabne – and the campaign was led by another guy, a historian called Krzysztof Krasowski, who wanted to determine whether the Germans were behind the Jedwabne massacre during the War, which a Princeton professor had claimed was perpetrated by Poles.

This is sheer hypocrisy from Rupa Huq, who has previously suggested that the UK should apologise for creating the state of Israel.

The same Rupa Huq has failed to speak out against the Al Quds March in London where Islamists openly call for the state of Israel to be destroyed. She has failed to call out Shaykh Bahm from South Africa who called Jews ‘fleas’ and who came to speak at an Islamic Conference a few weeks ago, also speaking at the Palestine expo in August last year. She has failed to speak out against Anjem Choudhary being released early from prison.

As outspoken ex-Muslim Shazia Hobbs pointed out in one of the comments: “We allow hate preachers from Pakistan to come to UK & tour mosques, spreading their poison. Hate preachers who are banned from addressing crowds in Pakistan.”

In fact many people spoke out very strongly against Rupa Huq’s censorship.

A few Polish accounts supported Rupa, one of which was clearly a fake profile with 8 followers that had been set up the day before simply to comment supportively on Rupa Huq’s account.

Riots in India as Muslims burn Pampers nappies for “insulting Mohammed”

in Islamism/World News by

Riots in India as groups of Muslims burn evil Pampers nappies for “insulting Mohammed”.

The whiskers of the cartoon cat on the packaging supposedly resemble the name of the Islamic prophet; except they don’t.

Protestors claimed the Procter & Gamble diapers ‘hurt the feelings’ of the Muslim community, and demand that they be banned from the country.

The lines illustrating the whiskers, nose, mouth and left eye of the smiley feline clearly do not bear a close resemblance to the Prophet’s name when written in Arabic or Urdu.

Video footage viewed more than 175,000 times online shows outraged parents making pyres out of Pampers Baby Dry Pants in the streets of India and torching whole packets in protest.

Activists from the Islamic group Darsgah Jihad-o-Shahadat yesterday lodged a formal complaint about the nappies at Dabeerpura Police Station in Hyderabad, reports the Deccan Chronicle.

In a letter to police, the group said Pampers – owned by US multinational Procter & Gamble – had ‘hurt the feelings’ of the Muslim community and called for the products to be taken off the shelves immediately.

It stated: ‘Even with (the) bare eye it is been identified that the name of Prophet (PBUH) can be seen printed on it in Urdu/Arabic.’

The Prophet Mohammed, it added, was a ‘holy personality in Islam’ and the ‘disrespect cannot be tolerated’.

The letter went on to say: ‘Arrest them and punish them.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5418129/Muslims-burn-Pampers-nappies-cartoon-cat.html#ixzz57oShfTbI

Shock as Lancashire Methodists Back Call for Sharia Britain

in Islamism by

The Light Foundation, launched at the University of Central Lancashire, is holding an event calling for Britain to adopt Sharia law.

The seminar entitled, “Is it now time for Sharia Law in the UK?” is hosted by the local Methodist church. This is a surprising choice, because surely the role of a church is to promote Christianity and not other faiths.

The event features guest panellists Shaykh Adam Kelwick from Liverpool, and Shaykh Bilal Brown from Oldham.

The Light Foundation group has support from the Mayor and Mayoress of Preston. Their website states that their aim is for a “greater awareness of traditional Islam by promoting teachings firmly rooted in reliable Sunni scholarship.”

The event advert on Facebook states that Sharia has been “used . . . to kill others in the name of religion”. The legal system has often been criticised by opponents of FGM, while even Channel 4 has criticised Mohammed’s rape of a nine year-old child.

Freedom of religion is a right, certainly, but the practise of faith, whatever faith, must be in a peaceful manner, subject to the English law (Scottish in Scotland, etc.).

Global Security Threats 2018

in Islamism/World News by

Speeches and panel discussions at the Munich Security Conference in Germany over the weekend portrayed a world on the cusp of three potential conflagrations: In the Middle East, on the Korean peninsula and, in years to come, cyberspace.

Add to that a growing concern that arms control agreements that kept the nuclear peace between the U.S and Russia since the 1980s are at risk of unraveling, and the mood among the annual assembly of political leaders and generals was unusually sober.

In an otherwise reassuring speech, U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster defended plans to develop low-yield tactical nuclear missiles as a means to deter Russia, which is developing similar weapons. Both former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana and German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel expressed alarm at the implications of such supposedly limited nuclear weapons for Europe.

“I think there is a question of whether we are at the end of an era of formal arms control,’’ said Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who advised the Pentagon under Ronald Reagan. “The way to think about this is to ask why did people invent arms control?”

Emerging as the new area of conflict is a potential great-power arms race in areas such as cyber security and artificial intelligence. At Munich, a breakfast on technology overflowed with delegates. A NATO discussion down the hall was largely empty.

Last year, Trump had just been elected. The new administration’s commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the defense of Ukraine against Russia were in doubt. The far-right politician Marine Le Pen seemed as likely to become the next French president as Emmanuel Macron.

Even Russia was less of a focus this year, Andrei Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, said in an interview. And that despite the emergence, mid-conference, of U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals as well as organisations.

Cybercrime remains the most pressing concern for Western liberal democracies, according to intelligence officials.

They cited Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — as well as militant groups in the Middle East — as threats to global security.

National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats warned the US is “under attack” by “entities using cyber to penetrate virtually every major action that takes place in the US”.

Donald Trump issued a national security strategy document in December deeming cybersecurity a top priority.

Cyber-based influence campaigns have been a hot topic since the US election, with experts warning such activity poses a major threat to global democracies.
Mr Coats said Russian interference has and will continue to threaten security in the Western world.

He warned it would continue harnessing fake personalities on social media and throwing propaganda at Americans ahead of the 2018 US midterm elections.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 US midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” he said.

“Throughout the entire community, we have not seen any evidence of any significant change from last year.”

The next main security threat is nuclear weapons: Mr Coats warned time is running out for the United States to act on North Korea’s nuclear threats.

He said North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction present “a potentially existential” threat to the US and its allies and is likely to conduct more weapons tests this year.

“North Korea continues to pose an ever more increasing threat to the United States and its interests,” Mr Coats said.

Lastly, terrorism continues to be a major global threat, including homegrown terrorism.

“Homegrown violent extremist terrorism, including inspired and self-radical individuals, represent the primary and most difficult to detect Sunni terrorism threat in the United States,” stated Mr Coats.

Islamic State militants have lost significant ground in Iraq and Syria, but Mr Coats said they “remain a threat” and will most likely attempt to regroup.

The threat to the UK from terrorism is currently ranked as “severe”.

With these main security threats facing the international community, it is comforting to see that global institutions and agencies are working closely to reduce the risk of attacks.

Diane Abbott orders Labour MPs to oppose ban of Islamist ‘terror’ group

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism by

The Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has ordered Labour MPs to OPPOSE a move to ban the Islamist terror group Hezbollah from Britain.

Abbott would rather “encourage” it to become democratic. Democratic jihad? Jeremy Corbyn famously called Hezbollah “friends” during a meeting in Parliament in 2009.

Currently only the military wing of the Islamist political party is classed as a terrorist group but a Labour MP led a Commons debate arguing for the whole group to be banned.

Before the debate Abbot sent a briefing note to Labour MPs urging them not to back the motion because it would hinder peace talks in the Middle East.

The document –  obtained by the Jewish Chronicle – read: “There is a balance between making absolutely clear our abhorrence of using violence to achieve political ends and at the same time encouraging organisations down an effective democratic path.

“Full proscription could be a move against dialogue and meaningful peace negotiations in the Middle East.”

This has caused more division in Labour; a party known for anti-Semitism issues. Jennifer Gerber, Head of Labour Friends of Israel, slammed the Labour frontbench for actively pressuring its MPs to block the banning of Islamist group Hezbollah.

Gerber said: “It is sadly unsurprising that the Labour frontbench would issue a statement on Hezbollah which fails to support banning the terror group in its entirety, and which makes no reference to its virulent antisemitism, its desire to annihilate Israel and its appalling role in propping up Assad’s murderous regime in Syria.

“It is, moreover, utterly delusional to think that, having wreaked death and destruction throughout the region, Hezbollah can play any role in promoting peace. We would urge Labour’s leadership to listen to this afternoon’s debate and reconsider its position.”

 

The tragedies British and European detainees face in foreign lands

in Islamism/World News by
Laura Plummer and her husband

If there is one thing we learnt with certainty by the conclusion of the year, it is that travelling to a country where Sharia law is the rule of the land can be exceptionally risky for anyone of European descent or at least anyone travelling from the European continent. Unfortunately, this includes our fellow Britons.

In the past few months, there have been at least three striking cases of British citizens withheld as detainees in nations where Sharia law is applied. The tragedy suffered by British journalist Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 40, which everyone has read about in The Times or the Daily Telegraph, is only one of the many cases of British citizens being held as political prisoners in foreign lands. Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has worked for several media organisations in Britain, has been incoherently and unjustly accused of “attempting to topple the Iranian regime”.

Another ambiguous case is that of Laura Plummer, 33 (pictured above), who risks ten years imprisonment in Egypt merely for having brought a high dose of Tramadol (painkillers) to her ill husband, who resided in a country that is clearly inclined to the use of anti-democratic and authoritarian measures. Let us not forget that Egypt is a location where to this day vicious terror attacks against Christians occur with frequency.

However, what is truly shocking is that similar cases to those mentioned above do not only happen in strictly traditionalist and reactionary Sharia states such as Iran, Egypt or even Libya but have also occurred in the ‘westernised’ and ‘capitalist’ United Arab Emirates.

A young British woman named Asa Hutchinson, 21, may indeed face prosecution in Dubai. The reasons for her arrest in November were unclear, and the investigation was most likely conducted in a superficial manner. The British youngster has been accused of disturbing a man sleeping in the lobby of a hotel room while taking pictures of him with her friends. As fictitious as the story may sound, according to UAE law the accusation is serious enough to have her locked up in a local prison after having manipulated her into signing concession papers written in Arabic.

Tragic incidents involving young British citizens are not new to Sharia states. Britain still hasn’t healed after the homicide of diplomat Rebecca Dykes, 30, in Beirut, Lebanon. Moreover, the British are not the only ones to have suffered tragic fates in certain countries. The murder of the Italian former Cambridge student Giulio Regeni, carried out by Egyptian police authorities in Cairo and the unfortunate events of several French travellers throughout the year have marked a new low in diplomatic relations between European countries and Sharia states.

Something needs to be done, justice needs to be done.

1 2 3 4
Go to Top