Melanie Phillips: "The leaders of the democracies are...burying their heads in the sand"

Hans-Christian%20Strache.jpg
Strache: A limp-handed Nazi salute?

The perceptive and courageous Melanie Phillips here discusses a phenomenon that Hugh and I have discussed at Jihad Watch several times over the years: that the mainstream parties in Europe are either mute or complicit in the face of the threat of the Islamization of the continent, and have thus left the anti-jihad resistance to be in some cases championed by Europe's most noxious elements: neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and white supremacists.

Phillips also points out that the situation is further complicated by the fact that the mainstream media and the governing elites brand anyone who opposes Islamic supremacism and the Islamization of Europe as a neo-Nazi. This makes it extremely difficult for Americans to determine just who is a real neofascist and who isn't, and thus whom should be supported and whom should be opposed. Some commentators absurdly complicate matters further by branding those who doubt that a particular group is actually neofascist as neofascists themselves.

And in fact, her Spectator article is itself a case in point. The accompanying photo, which I have placed above, is of Hans-Christian Strache, the Austrian politician whose party Phillips here states is "neo-Nazi." It seems that this picture was chosen to accompany Phillips' article because in it Strache is making the Nazi salute. But is he? It looks more to me as if he is gesturing to make a point -- his hand is not held stiffly the way it is in the actual Nazi salute.

But maybe I just don't know enough about Nazi salutes. There is also apparently another picture in which Strache seems to be making a "three-fingered Nazi salute" -- an animal I have not previously encountered. But in any case, the claim that Strache is a neo-Nazi doesn't rest only on these disputed gestures. According to the article to which Phillips links, some of Strache's supporters are "jackbooted skinheads." This in itself doesn't prove that Strache himself is a neo-Nazi -- anyone can attract unwanted supporters (cf. Hamas' endorsement of Obama). But there is more:

1. Video exists of Strache in fatigues. The Guardian says: "He has been filmed in forests, carrying arms and wearing paramilitary fatigues in the company of banned German neo-Nazis." He says, however, that he was playing a game.

2. The Guardian also says: "He was photographed apparently giving a three-fingered neo-Nazi salute - though he says he was ordering three beers."

3. Again according to The Guardian, "when he sued the Vienna news weekly Profil for defamation, the court ruled that Strache could fairly be said to display 'an affinity to national-socialist thinking.'" But he maintains: "I was never a neo-Nazi, and never will be" -- and the court's ruling could be an example of Phillips' observation that anyone who opposes the Islamization of Europe is branded a neo-Nazi.

4. Perhaps most damning of all: according to the TimesOnline, "police film his public appearances because supporters of Mr Strache have, in the past, made the Hitler salute or displayed Nazi insignia, which is illegal in Austria - under a law that Mr Strache is seeking to ban."

He is trying to ban a law against displaying Nazi insignia, and some of his followers make the Hitler salute -- that seems open and shut. As for the followers making the Hitler salute, he could be a Nazi and attract Nazi followers -- or, alternatively, he could be attracting followers he doesn't want and doesn't approve of. As for Strache's attempts to get the ban on Nazi insignia overturned, Trend News says this: "He has called for the repeal of an Austrian law banning National Socialist activities. 'A democracy must be able to deal with moronic and crazy ideas,' Strache argued last week." So he is framing this as a freedom of speech issue -- and indeed, when I support the right of the Revolutionary Communist Party or the Council on American-Islamic Relations to spew their propaganda in the U.S., that doesn't make me a Revolutionary Communist or a CAIR op. It makes me a believer in free speech.

So we have the prospect of a man accused of being a neo-Nazi saying that National Socialism is "moronic and crazy" and denying that he ever was or ever will be a neo-Nazi. Of course, maybe he is lying -- he wouldn't be the first or the last politician to lie about his true sentiments -- and maybe his explanations of this evidence are flimsy rationalizations. I don't know where Strache really stands. But the old Nazis were never coy or deceptive about their taste for totalitarianism and hatred for Jews, and while actual neo-Nazis have every reason to be deceptive about their true affinities in today's Europe, when the elites brand everyone who opposes unrestricted Muslim immigration as a neo-Nazi, even in the face of the demographic jihad, the situation becomes extremely muddled.

Real neo-Nazis in Europe and everywhere else should be always and everywhere opposed by all decent people. The devilish difficulty is in figuring out who the real neo-Nazis actually are, and who are anti-jihadists who are being falsely accused.

"The distant sound of breaking glass," by Melanie Phillips in The Spectator, September 29:

We should all be shuddering at the news from Austria where neo-Nazi parties, including the Freedom Party led by Hans-Christian Strache (pictured) have emerged as the biggest parliamentary block. It’s awful not just because it’s Austria, that cradle of Nazism which shows yet again that its terrible past remains its present. It’s because the implications are much wider for the whole of Europe – and are unlikely to be recognised before the danger spirals into the unspeakable.

A small correction: Hitler was born in Austria, but Austria was not the cradle of Nazism. Nazism was born in Germany -- which is not to deny that many, if not most, Austrians ultimately became enthusiastic about it.

These parties campaigned on an anti EU integration and anti-Muslim platform. Their success is due to the enormous feeling among the people of Europe against, on the one hand, the destruction of their powers of self-government and their assimilation into the undemocratic Euro superstate, and on the other the threat to western culture from Islamist conquest. On both of these seismic issues, the leaders of the democracies are either burying their heads in the sand or are actively bringing them into being. With no democratic party addressing these concerns and instead demonising legitimate nationalist feeling as ‘racist’, xenophobic’ or ‘Islamophobic’, people are turning to parties which truly are racist, anti-foreigner, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew and sometimes, indeed, neo-Nazi, but which are exploiting this political vacuum just as all such parties have always exploited other vacuums in leadership.

This presents a nightmarish prospect in which, if the democratic parties of Europe continue to demonise legitimate aspirations to maintain national cultures against undemocratic and anti-democratic forces, more and more people will be drawn to these parties – see the sophisticated pitch by and increasing support for the BNP in Britain, and social disorder will rise.[...]

The awful thing is that, as the far-right advances and social disorder increases – as it will -- muddled liberals and malign leftists will blame these political and social calamities on ‘the far right’. As a result, the steady encroachment of Islamism will proceed apace -- and anyone who objects will also be demonised as ‘the far right’. The rise of the neo-Nazis will thus turn the defence of democracy toxic. There is therefore a danger that the only people who will be fighting the Islamic fascists and in defence of the nation against the supranational supremacists will be the fascists....

UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Maryatexitzero has posted below a link to a Jerusalem Post article that says that Strache "has aligned his party with the Iranian regime and vehemently opposes sanctions designed to force a suspension of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program." As I noted in a follow-up comment below, this not only constitutes good grounds to consider him a neo-Nazi indeed, but is a solid reason in and of itself to oppose him. Thank you, Mary.

| 90 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

90 Comments

Three fingered Nazi salute? Are they making this stuff up?

I think Ms Phillips should turn her overly sensitive anti-Semitism radar down a notch or two.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The far right Freedom Party, whose leader Heinz-Christian Strache attended neo-Nazi events in the late 1980s, has aligned his party with the Iranian regime and vehemently opposes sanctions designed to force a suspension of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

There's a lot of evidence that Strache is a neo-Nazi, and there's evidence that he's anti-foreigner, but if he's an ally of Iran, he could hardly be called anti-Jihad.

The Israelis and Austria's Jewish community are very concerned about Strache.

Maryatexitzero:

Thanks. I had not seen that Jerusalem Post article. Strache's alliance with Iran is not only good evidence that he really is a neo-Nazi, but also solid grounds on which to oppose him in any case.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Video exists of Strache in fatigues. The Guardian says: "He has been filmed in forests, carrying arms and wearing paramilitary fatigues in the company of banned German neo-Nazis." He says, however, that he was playing a game.

And video exists of an American candidate for president wearing the clothes of a Kenyan tribal elder.

So what? Sauce for the goose....

This hand-wringing over whether or not this man is a neo-Nazi is yet another diversion that ignores the real question:

Who is standing up for the people of Europe? Must they die rather than associate themselves with anyone who is not pristine? We have heard time and again that Western policy "drives peaceful Muslims to jihad". Why aren't Europeans given half the latitude that "peaceful Muslims" are given in their associations?

Did anyone ever hear that politics makes strange bedfellows?

But the old Nazis were never coy or deceptive about their taste for totalitarianism and hatred for Jews

True. Hitler declared his rejection of democracy well before he got millions of votes. He also hated Marxism which is maybe why he got elected (well, sort of elected), the people conveniently forgetting about the anti-democracy bit.

Indeed, anyone who votes for a leader who has a private army consisting of 400,000 men - four times the state's official army - is naive at best and plain stupid at worst.

Anybody who allies himself with the mullahs in Iran is an idiot. I still think support for Israel is one of the best indicators of who is an ally and who isn't. David Duke would be a case in point:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=SP103505

David Duke Visits Syria In Support of Bashar al-Assad

Fjordman:

Quite so.

Thanks
Robert

Although, I've never been a member or supported the BNP, as an Indigenous Briton, I have to say that really, when it comes to political parties, no other one is speaking up for me like the BNP is.
I have always admired what Melanie Phillips writes and speaks of. She is cool, calm and collective and utterly despised by the left. It's ironic that for the simple reason that like me(although not a journalist) she started quite liberal left, writing for, believe it or not, The Guardian. As she's grown in wisdom and common sense, her political stance has changed, thankfully.
However, one thing that I continue to find odd, is that what Melanie Phillips wants, Peter Hitchens wants, Richard LittleJohn wants and in fact most right of centre journalists want is exactly what the BNP offer. In fact, no other party is anywhere near what the above look for and yet they continue to stick with the Tories(apart from Hitchens) when, the Tories are no different from NuLabour and exceptionally weak.

There is then the situation put eloquently put that anyone who opposes Islam is called a racist, Islamaphobe, fascist and Nazi, so how do you tell the difference?
It has dawned on me, being the majority white, that when it comes to choosing to protect a small minority in the UK of other cultures and becoming Islamised or going with a far right party that speaks for the majority and the end to Islamisation and of course control by Europe and no more immigration, then I would be an idiot to not support them. This is now the way many people are thinking and rightly so. I do not advocate any extreme party, but really who's talking to the UK, if not the BNP?

The Tories, have never in their history had the chance to become a great party. If they 'for once' listened to the people then they would win with an overwhelming majority, utterly destroying any Labour opposition. They however are still tip toeing around sensitive subjects like Europe, Immigration, multiculturalism and of course Islam.

Melanie Phillips, has written some fabulous articles in the Spectator and of course the Mail and her own Website. However, her support for the Conservatives is somewhat a sad one, because they do not speak to many people and those who are voting for them are only doing so, not because they're the best party to be in office but because people utterly despise NuLabour.

I would however vote for a party that was started by Hitchens, Phillips and Littlejohn, there's no question whatsoever. However, there really is only one party that's speaking to me and that is the BNP. I would like to vote Conservative, but in all honesty, they will do nothing to sort out the problems in the UK, especially regarding Islam and Europe

If Strache is indeed a neo-Nazi will Austria's "mainstream" parties now adjust their policies in the light of his party's obvious appeal? Or will they proceed full-steam ahead with their EUSSR project regardless?

I know which option my money is on. They can't possibly throw off the shackles of many years' subservience to political correctness and multiculturalism.

Did anyone ever hear that politics makes strange bedfellows?
Posted by: PMK

true, indeed. i'll watch his back, he'll watch mine. soon as we finish fighting islamic terrorist, he goes his way, i'll go mine

Robert: I will publish an online book called Defeating Eurabia at Gates of Vienna in a few days, which can be downloaded, republished and reprinted for free by anybody who wants to. I know this is a little risky, since it could be republished also by people I do not agree with or even actively dislike. I will therefore include some preconditions for the use of my material, one of which will be support for Israel. It is the easiest way to separate the good guys from the bad ones.

This will be the final chapter, btw:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/suggestions-for-future.html

Mark: I understand your frustration. Melanie Phillips is right that the mainstream parties have more or less abdicated. Britain is not unique in this, but it is definitely one of the worst countries in Western Europe. The Tories are weak and the Labour Party has actively allied itself with the enemy against its own people. If this situation continues, people will look for other alternatives, and the BNP will continue to grow. It's that simple.

Thanks. I had not seen that Jerusalem Post article.

You're welcome -

Melanie Philips suggests we all should shudder that neo-nazi parties did well in elections in Austria.

They probably did well because Austrian voters shuddered at events in Cologne just a few days before when some of the said political parties were stoned by people styling themselves as "the liberal left".

Europeans have stared into the totalitarian Euro-abyss and decided to take another path.

Fjordman,

It appears that Hans-Christian Strache is truly a Nazi, concreting evidence that Mein Kampf is important reading for all Islamists out there. As everyone knows, there was and always been a strong bond between Islam and the Nazis.

However....

It does now bring up the intriguing situation that if Hans-Christian Strache is the Nazi we are told about and does indeed support Iran's brutal Islamist Regime, then it must therefore be true to say that the BNP are in fact not Nazis, as they are continually slandered to be, because they completely and utterly despise Islam and Islamism.

This now sheds light on something many people have always wanted to know and although the BNP are actually a Right Wing party, they are anti Islam, anti Immigration and pro Britain. This is what I and no doubt many other Britons are looking for in a party. You certainly won't see these qualities in the Main three that's for sure.
I think the qualities of the BNP and what they stand for are leaps and bounds ahead of the LabLibCon alliance. I think more and more people are waking up to a manifesto that is miles ahead of anything the previous three offer and definately what the people want.

Melanie Phillips says that it seems that the only people left to fight the Islamist fascists in Europe will be the National 'fascists'. Well, I say, better at least the National fascists fight against them than no one at all and lead us into Islamisation.

Fjordman:

If this situation continues, people will look for other alternatives, and the BNP will continue to grow.

It wouldn't surprise me if New Labour introduce some new laws to suppress the BNP. It just wouldn't do to have anything hinder the EUSSR project or Islamification, you see.

It is already the case that BNP members are routinely dismissed from their jobs purely on the basis of their political views.

In November 2006 When Nick Griffin (BNP chairman) was acquitted of inciting racial hatred by describing Islam as a "wicked and vicious faith", Gordon Al-Broon said:

Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made. If there is something that needs to be done to look at the law then I think we will have to do that.

His legal chum Lord Falconer said at the time:

What is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not.

Strange. I don't have any problem whatsoever with declaring that the UK is anti-Islam.

The BNP is not the only political party in Britain to aim to control immigration:

" UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis."
- from the UKIP website policies section.

"we need to change immigration policy so that it better reflects the needs and wishes of the English people". A points system for entry to the UK, based on the Canadian and Australian models, is advocated. The party's manifesto also suggests that the country should withdraw from international conventions on asylum and immigration."
- From the English Democrats Party policies.

The EDP also wants to give English people the same type of devolved government within the UK as the Scots, N. Irish and Welsh now have.

Another alternative to the BNP is the 3 year old party called 'Veritas', the vehicle of ex labour MP Robert Kilroy-Silk.

His views are perfectly in accord with Jihad Watch, as can be seen here:
http://www.veritasparty.com/Video/KILROY_SILK_ADAM_BOULTON.mpg

Nazis have always been, and will always be, allies of Islamo-Nazis. Parties whom we can trust and should support:
The Northern League and The National Alliance, both in Italy.
To distinguish between anti-Islamic Resistance in Europe and Nazis, put any group in question to 2 litmus tests:
1) Do you strongly and unconditionally support Zionism and Israel? Both of the above Italian parties do, but the poisonous French Nazi Le Pen and his National Front do not.
2) Whose side are you on: the Serbian people or the Nazi Croats?
Both Italian parties against the Croats, but the Nazi Le Pen is on their side.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Mark et al,

I post on several different forums, and work in a field, which allows me to meet many people from all over the world. On the forums what I see coming out of the U.K. is nearly unanimous. People are fed up. Most have realized that while Muslims only make up about 3% of your population (now) their Islamic influence on your society has already severely curtailed freedom of expression. People get that correlation, between such a small number, and its relatively large effect. It is quite simple to extrapolate future effects over time as demographics change. I think many sort of have this vague kind of instinctual light, which is starting to turn on. They just need a word to describe the situation to help the light gain focus. I have been helping people along by providing that word, which is "invasion". Invasion perfectly describes what is happening. You can track it from the energy deal European nations signed in the early 70's. I can even provide quotes from the U.N. in which Arab leaders publicly stated their intent. You can quite easily track Saudi money to the current strand of militant Islam spreading in the U.K./ Europe. It is very simple to prove that the growing Muslim population in Europe is no accident. I have had several conversations online, which started with me being a racist, to that flicker of light turning on. Recently I have had the pleasure of having had several conversations in person with some of your countrymen. All sort of low key stuff, as the situation allows at work. All of them in their subtle way are saying the same thing you are Mark. People are mad, and worried about what might happen if things are left to foment like this. I said to one guy that maybe things would cool down a bit, and suggested that this could be handled reasonably. He said that I didn't understand the nature of his country, and that its size and close proximity make it harder to defuse this sort of situation. You are a tolerant people, but I think we are nearing the edge of what your society will allow. Now onto the Monarchy bit for which I understand I am probably naive, so I may come off sounding crazy, but hear me out. I know they are mostly just a tourist attraction at the moment, but isn't it possible if there were a populist uprising that, say a young King, if backed by the military, and populace could dissolve the government. It would certainly be better than electing Nazi's, which is the big fear I get from everyone at this point. I have always thought it was a good thing that you have kept your Royal family around, for just this sort of occasion. I also understand that there are many centuries worth of legal precedent from which a Monarch could draw upon to right this ship. In short these are unprecedented times, and we may see extraordinary measures. Now I also understand I'm about to be laughed off of the forum :-)

I agree with everything Melanie Phillips puts forth above. Charles Johnson at LGF probably does too, which will help keep this article from suffering the fate of the last two Diana West articles...posted here and then deleted without explanation.

Cornelius

At least get your facts straight, please.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022858.php

Cordially
Robert Spencer

InfidelK9

LOL! Ok so I guess that was a bit of wishful thinking .... but who knows, he does have a very popular son. It was just an idea I thought I'd toss out into the ether, to see what happened.

I would however vote for a party that was started by Hitchens, Phillips and Littlejohn, there's no question whatsoever.
Posted by: Mark at September 30, 2008 11:51 AM
Mark

I looked at the Veritas Party website that StephenA55 posted (not the video). From their home page, I went to their core values page, and found the following

  • Veritas is committed to freedom of speech - only by all points of view being heard can problems truly be solved.
  • Veritas is committed to democracy and our policies aim to re-engage the public in the democratic process.
  • Veritas is committed to the rule of law - we will implement a zero tolerance of crime.
  • Veritas is committed to the politics of reason rather than the politics of emotion - we will eradicate political correctness wherever it is found.
  • Veritas is committed to the UK controlling its own borders and being governed by its own laws - and whilst this means withdrawing from a corrupt and bureaucratic EU Administration, we will maintain cordial relations with each country of Europe.
  • Veritas is committed to a moratorium on immigration and the repatriation of all illegal immigrants.
  • Veritas will enforce a provisional moratorium on asylum seekers pending the establishment of a proficient system to assess and validate claims of asylum. Thereafter, temporary asylum will be granted to genuine applicants only and on the proviso that they return to their country of origin when their asylum status is removed.
  • Veritas is committed to equality of opportunity but totally rejects the concepts of positive discrimination and social engineering.
  • Veritas is committed to making the UK a secular state - we believe that religious doctrine has no place in the law making process.
  • Veritas is committed to freedom of religion but all religions must operate within the law.
  • Veritas is committed to end the myth of multiculturalism - we agree with Trevor Phillips, chairman of the CRE who recently warned that the UK was sleepwalking its way to segregation.
  • I found the above manifesto quite inspiring. The only edge that I think the BNP has over it is that the former are explicit about their opposition to Islam, and would therefore presumably oppose Islam on a proactive basis. Veritas, otoh, would presumbaly be opposed to Islam on a reactive basis i.e. once Mohammedans start triggering the various triggers listed in the core values list above, they'd invite the wrath of the Vertas party. Then again, many Brits may consider that a price worth paying in exchange for losing the 'racist' tag.

    So what say you - does Veritas offer you what the BNP does?

    Fjordman

    I still think support for Israel is one of the best indicators of who is an ally and who isn't

    The EU has been giving a billion Euros a year (roughly a billion dollars) to the Palestinian Authority, plus the legitimacy of recognition. The BNP's opposition to such funding, and to the EU itself, therefore places the BNP in a very interesting position for anyone who cares about Israel.

    From J-Post article

    The far right Freedom Party, whose leader Heinz-Christian Strache attended neo-Nazi events in the late 1980s, has aligned his party with the Iranian regime and vehemently opposes sanctions designed to force a suspension of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

    I have been searching for the last hour trying to corroborate the support for the Iranian regime, I can find nothing. Does anyone have any links to support this other than half a sentence in the J-Post.

    It just doesn't sit right, he is vehemently anti-muslim and is behind legislation to ban minarets in Austria. It hardly sounds like a basis for cordial relations with Shia fundamentalists.

    But the worst Nazi collaborators in the US and Europe are those, as Melanie Philips correctly states, who are also the worst Islamo-Nazi collaborators: the "mainstream" political establishment.

    HITLERIAN AND PROUD OF IT:

    http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/08/obama_picks_prime_serbhater.html

    Biden also reveals what is behind his bloodthirsty, sadistic, genocidal pathology toward the entire Serbian people: his dhimmi pathology, the obsessive pathological drive to please the Muslims. Hitlerian, but cowardly and subservient. And he wants to be the vice-president of this country.
    The worst pocket of such cowardly Hitlerians in this country is the US State Dept. where being a sociopath has practically become a job requirement. It is a self-perpetuated sociopathic club, whose cultists immediatelly recognize anyone who has any humanity to him/her as "not one of their own", and keep this person out.
    That the US military had studied the experience of the Nazi Wermacht's attack on Serbia in 1941 as they prepared their own criminal, murderous Kosovo war on the Serbian people is common knowledge: it was all over the news.
    What is also rather obvious to me is that the US State Dept. sociopaths were having fun deliberatelly mimicking Hitler's tactics toward Czechoslovakia in the run-up to the disgraceful Munich treason that ended exactly 70 years ago to the day. And just like their Islamo-Nazi masters, they are fond of symbolic dates.
    Consider the following:
    On Sep. 22-23, 1938, Hitler badgers Chamberlain in Bad Godesberg, escalating his own thuggish earlier demands on Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, declaring his intent to use brute force on Czechoslovakia even if it complies with his earlier diktat.
    On Sep. 23, 1998, exactly 60 years later to the day, US & NATO gang-up on Russia's hapless big old drunken buffoon Yeltsyn, badgering and manipulating him into going alone with their UN Resolution 1199, leading him to believe that it only calls on both the Serbs and the Albanians to cease-fire. After that, they immediatelly reinterpret it as authorising NATO to take military action against Serbia. The very next day, Sep. 24, NATO defense ministers meet in Portugal to prepare war on Serbia. They made Yeltsyn betray Serbia as Chamberlain betrayed Czechoslovakia.
    On Sep. 30, 1938, Hitler prevailed over the shaken and intimidated Chamberlain to back his thuggish ultimatum for Czech military, law enforcement and government officials and citizens to immediatelly vacate Sudetenland leaving all their possessions and property behind. As Czechs begin their tragic exodus, ethnic Germans attack and murder scores of them.
    On Sep. 30, 1998, exactly 60 years later, the US National Security Council issues a thuggish ultimatum to Serbian military, law enforcement and government officials to vacate Kosovo. Left without police protection, Serb citizens in Kosovo fall victims to the Kosovar Albanian KLA terrorists who kidnap, rape, torture, mutilate and murder them.
    On March 15, 1939, Hitler summons Czech President Emil Hacha to Berlin and badgers him into signing a horrible ultimatum giving the rest of his country to the Reich.
    On March 15, 1999, NATO summons Serb government officials to Ramboulliet and demands they sign a horrible ultimatum practically identical to Hitler's, prepared by the obscene Madeline Albright. In fact, the 2 documents are so close, that if you replace "Serbia" with "Czechoslovakia", "Kosovo" with "Sudetenland" and "NATO" with "German Reich", the 2 can qualify as 2 different versions of an English translation of Hitler's ultimatum. I can see State Dept. sociopaths loudly laughing and joking as they lift entire paragraphs from Hitler's paper composing their own.
    March 24, 1939: Albright and her father, sociopath Josef Korbel, are rescued by Serbs from Nazi-invaded Czechoslovakia by providing them with false Serb documents.
    March 24, 1999: Albight thanks the Serbs by bombing and murdering them and their children.

    Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

    km

    That's true. If he is so pro-Iran, it is odd that he would oppose Islamization in Europe. Stranger things have happened, but it would be good to have some corroboration.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Robert,

    I stand corrected.

    I could have sworn it was deleted. The creeping aftermath of too much Marques of Queensbury in my youth...or Acapulco Gold...or both.

    Sincere apologies.

    ethoman

    But dont despair, not all royals are wonkers

    “We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”

    Queen Margrethe of Denmark

    With the rapid growth of the Muslim population in Europe, it will soon be a moot point which party has the cleanest underwear.

    The time is thus not far when we will have to make a choice - a BNP like party to vote in, or lose Europe to Islam.

    So is there a real choice? If Europe falls to Islam, then it will be the end of Europe - not just till the next election, but for all practical purposes, forever. There will be no turning back the clock. On the other hand, if a BNP like party wins, clears out the Islamic threat for good, then the BNP itself can be voted out in the future.

    InfidelK9

    Well I see you have really been enjoying this little escapade :-) I was actually thinking about Prince William. What brought the idea into my head was something Robert mentioned in the article, "The devilish difficulty is in figuring out who the real neo-Nazis actually are, and who are anti-jihadists who are being falsely accused." Then someone else mentioned how difficult it will be to separate the Nazi stigma from any sort of European nationalism. That rattled around for a few seconds, and bingo out popped the Royals. The Royals are national symbols, without the stigma of Nazism. I know it is crazy, but what the heck if all else fails at least you could fall back on that. Now we can let the laughing continue ... enjoy :-)

    DP111: You are right, as you usually are. I have my misgivings with the BNP, and sometimes serious ones, but as many readers here say, who else is there? All other mistakes can be corrected later. Islamization is usually permanent. The choice should be easy for anybody but an idiot or an outright enemy.

    Mr. Spencer,

    Despite what has been reported numerous times in English speaking (primarily British) press regarding this:

    "He is trying to ban a law against displaying Nazi insignia" and "He has called for the repeal of an Austrian law banning National Socialist activities"

    I'd urge caution and healthy dose of skepticism. I believe those two charges to be entirely false. I can't "prove" my belief, but consider these two:

    1) has anyone seen any report of this in English speaking media prior to last Austrian election?

    2) it would have to have been major scandal and a major talking point of FPÖ's opponents in Austrian elections, yet there has not been mention of this in Austrian press at all (I'm not Austrian, but live and work in Vienna)

    Daily Mail put out an article on election night saying:

    "Heinz-Christian Strache, whose Freedom Party won 18 per cent of the vote, wants to legalise Nazi symbols and has previously organised ceremonies to honour SS veterans."

    One can still see it in google cache here, yet later in the day they removed both of those claims, and put in the "usual" 20 years old "paintball pictures" stuff.

    I also believe that "has aligned his party with the Iranian regime" is overstretched (absent some proof to that). It is true FPÖ is against further economic sanctions on Iran, in favor of more negotiations, yet, as JPost article explains, that is a position similar to that which Austrian government regretfully took year ago. Here is more to that: Austria opposes French proposals for EU sanctions against Iran. That is shameful and selfish - putting business of Austrian oil and gas company OMV in Iran ahead of other considerations.

    True, one can argue that trying to stay "neutral" on Iran's nuke issue is, in fact, as bad as "aligning", yet the phrase from JPost suggests something more sinister and does not explain what that actually is.

    Pankukas,

    Thanks for your note -- but I do need documentation. We all do. I have no trouble believing that the MSM is lying -- they've lied enough about me -- but I can't just assume it with no evidence.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    I am going to call BS on the alignment with Iran accusation, I can find nothing which substantiates it. The only evidence I do see, is similar stories to what Pankukas has shown, which demonstrates that it was a a position of the Austrian government in 2007 to oppose more sanctions on Iran. I would hardly call that alignment with the Iranian government.

    Maryatexitzero was pushing the same story on Atlas shrugs yesterday and could not back up the accusation. She got her ass handed to her in the following debate by PRCalDude.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/09/attack-attack-a.html#comments

    Fjordman

    The Muslim population of Britain is often stated as 1.6m. But this figure comes from the 2000 census, and is hopelessly outdated. Since then, Britain has taken in millions of immigrants, asylum seekers, as well people coming in under the "unification of families" policy of the EU - mostly Muslims. At a conservative estimate, the Muslim population of Britain is around 4m or even 5m. Assuming that this population doubles every 15 years, then in less then 30 years, there will be 16m Muslims in the UK. Assuming that the indegenous population stays fixed at 50m, the Muslim population will be nearly 23% of the total. Considering that Muslims will vote for a Muslim party, while non-Muslims will dilute their vote by voting for different parties, this Muslim population is sufficient to win an overall majority in parliament. Assuming an election cycle of 6 years, we thus have a mere 5 election cycles to avoid a catastrophe.

    To avert the catastrophe, just as a driver needs to start applying the brakes far in advance to avoid a collision, the choice we have to make can be no later then the election after the next - that is in 6 years. In fact, given the booming Muslim population, we have have much less time. Long before that though, the nation has to wake up and make its mind up. So really, the have to make choice is now. Ultimately, Rights, Lefts, liberals, socialists, Greenies etc, all will have to make a choice soon, and where they stand.

    Re: Strache and anti-Nazi laws

    Ok, I think, I may have found it: February 27, 2007 interview with Vorarlberg Online.

    He is noncommittal on direct question whether law should be repealed, and says that he is for open discussion if the law still serves its purpose.

    Wie stehen Sie zum Verbotsgesetz?

    Die Meinungsfreiheit ist ein entscheidendes Gut. Gerade wir als freiheitliche Partei erleben heute, dass diese Freiheit in vielen Bereichen insofern in Gefahr ist, als Menschen, die ihre Meinung äußern, mit Diffamierungen und Kampagnen kriminalisiert und in eine Ecke gedrängt werden, in die sie nicht gehören. Das ist etwas, was uns sehr nachdenklich macht. Eine demokratische Gesellschaft muss auch verrückte und dumme Meinungen aushalten. Man sollte daher darüber nachdenken, ob dieses Verbotsgesetz seinem Anspruch überhaupt noch gerecht wird.

    Das Verbotsgesetz soll abschafft werden?

    Ich bin für eine offene Diskussion darüber, ob dieses Gesetz überhaupt noch zweckdienlich ist. Auch Experten und Universitätsprofessoren bezweifeln dies.

    My approximate translation:

    What is your position on "Prohibition law"

    Freedom of opinion is crucial/decisive good. Especially us as Freedom Party today experience that this freedom in many areas is under threat, inasmuch as people, who express their views, are criminalized and driven into a corner where they don't belong through defamation and campaigns. It is something that makes us very reflective. Democratic society should be able to withstand crazy and stupid opinions too. One should therefore consider if the demand for this "Prohibition law" is still justified.

    Should "Prohibition law" be done away with?

    I am in favor of open discussion if this law still serves its purpose/is useful. Experts and university professors doubt it too."

    Maryatexitzero was pushing the same story on Atlas shrugs yesterday and could not back up the accusation. She got her ass handed to her in the following debate by PRCalDude.

    For the record, I haven't taken a position on Strahe at all. If he truly does have an affinity for Iran and a hatred for Israel, it's likely that he is a Nazi. Nazis like the Muslims and hate the Jews. What we need is some solid evidence that this is the case.

    Mary, as you will recall, was lumping in DeWinter with Strahe and then making some rather dubious assertions about the Serbs (i.e. that they support Iran and are therefore Nazis). I'm going to go ahead and take the word of Trifkovic, Julia Gorin, et al over the word of European media outlets about the Serbs. I also don't see any evidence that DeWinter is a Nazi. If DeWinter has some sort of Jewish paranoia, then that's a different story.

    I find Mary to be yet another hand-wringing, holier-than-thou kook, but that's just me.

    Fjordman

    I've been keeping up with your articles at GoV. "kleinverzet" also keeps an update of your articles.

    You are working too hard. I know that the threat we face is so dire, it can upset anyone who realises its gravity, but I hope you take breaks. I for one, visit the many lovely cathedrals and churches in Britain, and also make trips to Italy.

    Despite the current appeasement phase of the political and media elite, I'm confident that we will see off Islam for good. Not just that, 9/11/2001 will mark the date of the "beginning of the end of Islam" - Churchill will be pleased.

    PRCalDude I should have of made that clearer in my post, I apologize.

    Nazis like the Muslims and hate the Jews. What we need is some solid evidence that this is the case.

    I agree with you 100% on this, I am just not seeing the evidence though. Even the accusation of wanting to repeal laws regarding display of Nazi symbolism is looking rather tenuous after Pankukas last post. And I really think the accusation of alignment with Iranians is dead in the water, (its just another smear from as you put it holier than thou hand wringers).

    In fact I think it would be only fair if Robert put an update on this post clarifying the Iranian issue.

    Good job yesterday though, it was a pleasure to read.

    Good job yesterday though, it was a pleasure to read.

    Thanks, bro.

    km:

    In fact I think it would be only fair if Robert put an update on this post clarifying the Iranian issue.

    I'd be happy to -- can you please point me to a source for the idea that the Jerusalem Post's assertions are false? Or even a denial from Strache?

    Thank you.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    I don't know much about Strache or his party--I fully admit that. But there's no way that his gesture in that photo is a Nazi salute.

    "There's a lot of evidence that Strache is a neo-Nazi, and there's evidence that he's anti-foreigner, but if he's an ally of Iran, he could hardly be called anti-Jihad."

    There's a good almost foolproof way to tell if someone is a "neo-Nazi": the real neo-Nazis support and defend Muslims. The falsely labeled "neo-Nazis" are working against the spread of Islam.

    The Muslims will one day start a civil war in Europe. The question becomes which country they will start first? Netherland? Denmark? or UK?

    God forbids, if they ever start a civil war in Europe they will do it when they are confident of the outcome as they have been preparing and training for years while the Europeans were asleep.

    Wake up Europe and defend your land. Never submit to terrorists. You can defeat them now or they will defeat you when they are ready.

    "I still think support for Israel is one of the best indicators of who is an ally and who isn't."
    Posted by: InfidelK9

    I agree. So, is one supposed to be wary of Strache, or not? In reading the entire list of posts above I don't find anything convincing that he should be held at arms length, strained interpretations of various arm gestures as being "Nazi salutes" notwithstanding. This is evidence?

    What is the position of Strache and his party on Israel and the Jews? That's the litmus test. His position on Islam would be automatically determined by this.

    Maryatexitzero, many thanks for the links. From the site linked to your name I snagged an interesting piece of information from one of the signs at the NY rally Hindu Human Rights Watch. An interesting statement on the home page of hhrw caught my eye: "Last 4-1/2 years were the worst in India's history of fighting terrorism. It is a spectacular mayhem (next to Iraq) when not one terrorist has been caught, not one major case solved..." This is very, very depressing.

    A note about UKIP, English Democrats and Veritas.

    Unlike the BNP, none of their manifestos explicitly opposes Islam. They implicitly oppose Islamification, but not Islam itself.

    Anyone can join the above three parties, including Muslims. Anyone openly Muslim cannot join the BNP. As I commented here it is difficult to see how any political party with Muslim members could possibly oppose Islam.

    Veritas are generally regarded as a bit of a joke and rarely put candidates up in elections because they have few members. Their founder, TV presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk, left UKIP after some infighting and formed Veritas in 2005.

    At a parliamentary by-election this year the English Democrats polled only 39 more votes than the Monster Raving Loony Party.

    Ideally these three parties would join forces with the BNP to form an organisation that would really be a force to be reckoned with at national level. Divided as they are at the moment they just don't have the clout to frighten the political elite.

    Watling,

    I agree with some of your comments above. As for Veritas, despite a promising sounding agenda, they seem to have slipped down the political plughole.
    They are now on their third leader; Kilroy-Silk having gone to play at something else.
    I don't know much about the English Democrats except that they are largely about more democracy for England, which is fine but limits their breadth of appeal.
    As you suggest, it is surely better to have one decent party with a range of good policies, that may be ultimately electable, than a batch of more or less useless parties.
    Why not rally round the UKIP, which could be moulded into a party of broad appeal, attracting voters from all sides and with no racist taint.
    I don't agree that a good national revivalist party should explicitly oppose Islam; it should welcome muslims [like Tashbih Sayed], who are genuine pro-western moderates. It should uphold the true British ideals: 'discriminating' tolerance, and oppose political islam and Sharia without compromise.

    ethoman,

    You are quite correct that Islam in Europe is no mistake and it certainly is curtailing our freedoms. Here in the UK, the flood started in the 70's when factory workers came over from Pakistan and Bangladesh and really, we should have put a halt on Islam then and there. There's no problem whatsoever with Hindus and Sikhs in the UK, they are most welcome and integrate within our country, but Muslims, well, we've spoken enough about them. You state 3% of the population, when in all reality they now account for around 4/5million which is about 10% of the population of England. Since the government statistics of 2001, their figures of 1.6million Muslims has tripled thanks to eleven years of NuLabour zero immigration policy. Remember also that the figures for 2001 were estimates and most undoubtedly an 'under' estimate.
    Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia is unhealthy, well for the British population that is, as the governments are lining their pockets. You may not see the programme in America ethoman, but recently we had a documentary made by Channel 4 called Undercover Mosque the Return and people on there explicitly spoke of the government needing to break its relationship with Saudi, or more importantly, halt the wahabism coming into the UK. No one in the government has taken note of the programme and it's clear to all people in the UK that the government just does not care.
    I've said it from day one; the war in Iraq should not have happened but instead a war in Saudi Arabia. They should have wiped that country off the map.

    Ethoman wrote: "He said that I didn't understand the nature of his country, and that its size and close proximity make it harder to defuse this sort of situation."

    I've spoken of this before, but look at the land mass of the UK comapared to the landmass of the USA. Then look at our population compared to yours. To understand the gravity of the situation in the UK, it would mean that you would need a comparable population to your landmass as we have in the UK and instead of your population being 300million try multiplying that number by ten. The reason that Islam is such a problem in the UK is because of ghettos all over the UK. The population is not dispersed but instead existing in tight groups, where the hate is breeding, areas that Non Muslims do not venture in for fear of attack, that of course, the police ignore the outcome, or worse still arrest the victims for trespassing in Mulsim areas.
    We are a tolerant people and unfortunately, because of Islam, we are becoming less tolerant which will cause problems in the future as we become more wary in the future.

    Regarding finally the Royal Family Ethoman, they mean nothing really. They have no power and are controlled, like puppets by the governments. You may not know this but Prince Charles has stated that when he becomes King he will become the 'Defender of the Faiths' and not the Defender of the 'Faith'. This is worrying as he is also part of the multicultural problem too. There is no way that a King would rise up again, well not from the current Royal Family that is. I do believe that a figure will come to unite the people of the UK to fight against Islam though.

    Infidel Pride,

    Thanks for that. I was going to write a long'er' reply but I saw 'watling at October 1, 2008 6:15 AM' post which kind of answered it for me. Don't get me wrong, Veritas certainly have a good manifesto as do the EDP, but where I would be behind the BNP would be for their policy on Islam. I really would not be surprised if the BNP didn't institute the knocking down of Mosques and make it virtually impossible for them to practice their religion in the UK. I know for starters that the BNP would immediately break away from Brussels, itself a good thing as other countries would hopefully follow suit and we can go back to the perfectly workable trade situation we had before. It would also mean that we would break away from the Human Rights controls and political correctness that minorities use against us when they don't get things their own way.
    I have read the manifesto(BNP) and I have read what people have written on their website's forum and they are not the 'knuckle dragging gorillas' people say they are. They speak for me more than any other party and I really do not think that they would start kicking people out because of their skin colour or nationality, although I do believe that they would behave in a much fairer situation, where the best person for the job was given it. Of course it would mean that the Black population(because its youth[young boys] have the highest fail rates in the country) would obviously suffer, but only until they realised that like everyone else they'd have to prove their credentials and start behaving like a person and not a skin colour. It would benefit them overall, because they'd then have to educate themselves at school and the old way of looking at things - "if you don't get the qualifications and have the skills, then you don't get the job" would come back into play and I can't see anything fairer. Unfortunately, we live in a society that now employs MORE minorities in order to appease them, so the establishments are not taken to court.
    The word 'racist' has been thrown around so much now that it's lost its effectiveness. If people call me a racist, I say "fair enough, I don't give a shit, you're in a predominate white country, so get used to it and stop thinking you can jump the queue because your not my colour". There are many people of intelligence who speak much common sense and because of their honest logic are immediately shouted down because they do not subscribe to the left wing, political correct, multicultural dogma, destroying our society and I am one of them.

    More people will vote for the BNP than the EDP, UKIP or Veritas because the BNP are really putting the majority first. They are speaking to the people of the UK, who have been made to feel like dirt and shamed to have pride in their country. This makes me angry that English people have a wonderful country, culture and history and being a Scotsman, I'm proud of who I am, and livid that Englishmen are not allowed to celebrate who they are without the PC, multicultural brigade coming down on them like a tonne of bricks for being who they are.

    In all reality, the BNP will immediately clamp down on Islam. All the Anti British Preachers in the UK, focus points of investigative journalists would be banged up, without charge and deported within a week to Islamic countries along with the extreme Muslims to. There would be no 'pussy footing' around with the BNP and they would bring back law and order. The left wing would be seething, the minorities would be angry, but then, if it's going to cut down the violence, remove the Islamists from the UK and end black gang murderers, then bring it on and bring it on as soon as.

    StephenA55:

    I don't agree that a good national revivalist party should explicitly oppose Islam; it should welcome muslims [like Tashbih Sayed], who are genuine pro-western moderates.

    Unfortunately moderate Muslims don't have "I'm 100% moderate" stamped on their foreheads so we can't spot them as they disembark at the airport, and in any case it's possible for moderates to be radicalised. For that reason I don't think Islam in any form should be present in Western democracies.

    Muslims should stick to Muslim lands where they can enjoy all the stonings, hangings, hand amputation, misogynism, dodgy plumbing, unemployment, streets strewn with camel droppings and generally oppressive religious dogma they want. I don't want any of it. I don't want to see any mosques or minarets in the UK. I don't want to see any burkas or Islamic headscarves.

    I don't want to see Anjem Choudary on the TV mouthing off about how he disapproves of democracy and how Salman Rushdie should be handed over to stand trial in a Muslim court. I don't want to hear politicians complaining about a non-existent backlash against Muslims following the latest Muslim terror attack.

    If I want to experience life in a Muslim country then I'll do so by travelling abroad to one, which I have indeed done and very interesting it was too - as a tourist. I don't want to find it outside my front door, though.

    A little more about UK nationalist parties.

    Veritas, as I said, was created in 2005. The English Democrats was created in 2002 and UKIP in 1993. The modern incarnation of the BNP dates back to 1982.

    It takes many years to establish a political party. The pro-Islamic, leftist Scottish National Party (SNP) took 33 years to get its first MP into Westminster. It could well be the case that it takes more than a generation for a political party to register in the collective public conscience.

    Therefore it would be naive to think that a relative newcomer like UKIP can grab sufficient support to challenge the three "mainstream" parties. True, UKIP now has an MP but only because he defected from another party. Two ex-UKIP MEPs now sit as independents. My guess is that there are UKIP/Veritas/EDP supporters whose views are more in tune with the BNP's but who daren't support the BNP for fear of being ostracised and of losing their jobs. I know that there have been some transfers of allegiance amongst these four parties due to the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" mentality.

    A merger involving the four parties would make political sense but I guess that the personalities involved would never agree to it.

    So, divided, they - and therefore we - fall.

    "Unfortunately moderate Muslims don't have "I'm 100% moderate" stamped on their foreheads so we can't spot them as they disembark at the airport, and in any case it's possible for moderates to be radicalised."

    From Watling, above.

    My suggestion was to go with the UKIP, which promises a 5 year moratorium on further Muslim immigration. So any Muslims at the airport would be sent home regardless of any messages stamped on their forehead.

    StephenA55:

    Unfortunately there are plenty of jihadists already legally within our porous borders and their womenfolk are outbreeding native Brits.

    Horses ... stable doors ...?

    Islamization is usually permanent.

    Nonsense! It took the Spanish a mere 700 years to get rid of their Muslim problem.

    /sarcasm

    Watling,
    Agreed, but unless you can turn back the calender we are stuck with the present situation.
    If we go for extreme policies with the BNP then we will lose as the mainstream parties will demonise and destroy us. Then watch things go from bad to worse.
    However with fair and reasonable measures from a party seen as relatively sensible, we might just get a surprising amount of support; which can translate into action.

    StephenA55,

    It is precisely the actions, or should I say the 'non' actions of our main Political parties that the people are moving towards the BNP. They have continued to demonise anyone who disagrees with any minority for whatever reasons and I hate to burst the bubble, but Extreme situations and I can't see anything more extreme in the UK than the complete annihilation of Britain, it's culture and its freedoms, call for Extreme actions to be taken and really, there is no party that will rise to the occasion to sort out the problem other than the BNP.

    We have a choice Stephen, either to remove Islam completely from the UK and repatriate Muslims, regardless of being born in the UK as their nation is always first, or else we continue to vote for LabLibCon or Veritas/UKIP/EDP and continue down the road to Islamisation.
    What people continue to fail to realise is that as Islam stays in the UK it will grow. When you look that Muslim women have far more children than any other demographic people in the UK, then by logic, in the future, there will be more Muslims in the UK than any other, who will then demand their culture to be placed first before any other.

    Watling is very correct. We already have possibly 100,000 Islamists within the UK already and you can be sure that they have around 2-3 million sympathisers within their ranks. There are possibly hundred of thousands more Islamists already in the UK. No one knows.

    Extreme situations call for Extreme measures and the BNP, being Extreme, in its wanting to preserve Britain and its culture is the only party that can sort it out.

    We have been lied to for the last 11 years by NuLabour. We are about to be lied to by the Conservatives as well. Are people really so blind as to not see the future problems that they are ignoring?

    Let Islam live in Islamic lands and let the West keep out of their affairs. Shut them out, do not get involved with them and let us continue as a far superior culture than Islam ever will be.

    I speak this way only of Islam, because any religion is more than capable of living alongside one another, that is if you remove Islam from the equation.

    Watling, StephenA55 and Mark

    Thanks for all your insights.

    Watling, I agree with you that the minimum a party needs to do is ban membership for, and disown support from, Mohammedans. The BNP has that, but since they restrict themselves to ethnic Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Celts and other native British races, they attract that favorite label of the Left - 'racist'. Even outside the realm of Islam and Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination, I've never understood it: such a group is no more bigoted than a group dedicated to, say, the well being of Blacks, or Slavs, or Carribeans, or other groups. A group is only racist when they declare themselves superior to all others, and initiate a campaign of hate against those not belonging to that race. I know that the BNP arouses those passions from non-Whites resident in the UK, so in my observations of the British political landscape, I have, for the sake of my assumptions, assumed the worst about them, and then weighed whether or not they're worth accepting as an ally against Islam.

    But back to the point about the BNP restricting membership and support to just native Brits - we're talking here about those whose origins harken back prior to the British Empire - it does force them into a situation whereby in a best case, where let's say that every British citizen opposed to Islamization votes BNP, non-Whites, Jews, Slavs and others falling in this camp would have to invent a BNP-like non-White party and vote for it, arranging of course constituency-wise alliances with the BNP depending on demographics of every region. Right now, the latter doesn't exist. As a result, while I see why the BNP does have its membership restrictions, as far as the anti-Islamic agenda goes, it would have been far preferable if BNP membership was open to all non-Muslims - and I'm not talking about the one or two Sikh or Jewish councilors that they happen to have.

    However, km points out above that Israel is a good litmus test as to how genuine a party is about being anti-Islamic, and in that, the BNP failed at least in 2005, when in their manifesto, they stated that they would not participate in any neo-con projects at the behest of Israel to drag Britain into a war of civilizations with the Islamic world. While that is an improvement on the current British policy of putting pressure on Israel to make endless concessions to the Palis, be they Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Yasser Arafat Martyrs Brigades, it still fails the litmus test on whether the BNP is genuine about being anti-Islamic, or is just opposed to those Paki and Bangladeshi immigrants, but has nothing against local converts to Islam, like Abu Abdullah and Yvonne Ridley. I wonder what, if anything, has changed since then?

    Your last messages - the Spaniards were lucky to have Ferdinand and Isabella. The Persians were nowhere near as lucky, although they came close during the Ilkhanate, but failed to grab that chance.

    StephenA55

    I think it's important not to conflate regional parties like the EDP and Vlaams Belang in Belgium (which is a party of Flemish nationalism) with opposition to Islam - those are two completely separate issues. One seeks to rekindle pride in the glory of the English (as opposed to British) and Flemish (as opposed to Belgian) nations - worthwhile goals, I'm sure, but nonetheless completely different from turning Islam out of the UK and Belgium, as well as other places in Europe. Note that this objection does not apply to nation-wide nationalist parties like the Danish People's Party, which isn't a party of just, say, Jutland, but of all Denmark, which is why it makes sense to advocate them in Denmark.

    I also disagree with you on your criterion that such parties should appeal to moderate Muslims. For now at least, leave that out (and in future, only open that up to those Muslims who have openly jettisoned Islam and have made a career and roused the ire of Mohammedans while doing it). Aside from the fact that there is no way to distinguish non-hostile Muslims from hostile Mohammedans, there's always also the potential problems that

    1. Seemingly moderate Muslims might one day discover Islam - a la Meher Hawash of Intel Corp - and go off on a Jihad to Pakistan, or worse, plan Jihad attacks within the UK
    2. They may indeed stay genuinely harmless throughout their lives, but once they have families, their offspring could end up discovering Islam just like they could, and do the same, and this time more lethally, since they're now citizens by birth, and there is no way to deport them

    Also, as Watling pointed out, those Mohammedans already in UK need to be deported en masse - just tell them - look, we gave you a country (Pakistan/Bangladesh) in 1947, just get lost and go there!

    Mark

    I see your point that given that the BNP happens to be the 'pioneer' in this anti-Islam effort as far as the UK goes, it doesn't make sense to split that with me-too parties like Veritas.

    Honestly, despite my apparent endorsement of the BNP here, I actually wish that there was a party there like the DPP in Denmark, or Geert Wilder's party in the Netherlands that would explicitly declare itself anti-Mohammedan and identical to the BNP in that aspect of its message, but also open its doors to Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Rastafarians and other groups in the UK also riled at the Mohammedans.

    Weren't the Nazis and Turks close allies

    Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of Austria's far-right Freedom Party, says Turkey should not be allowed to join the European Union.

    “Not now, not in 100 and not in 200 years” can Turkey become a member of the EU, said Strache Tuesday in his first news conference since his Freedom Party finished third in Sunday's parliamentary elections.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70999§ionid=351020605

    No, Turkey fought on the Allied side in WWII, and the Germany side in WWI

    Infidel Pride,

    I completely agree with you and the BNP 'opening' themselves up to British people not of WASP alignment. I wrote to them over 4 years ago, stating that there are many people in this country who are British in their belief and would protect this country before their ancestral home, whether that be in India, Africa or the West Indies. The BNP are unfortunately not able to make the distinction that you can be Black and you can be British. The Hindus and the Sikks fought with honour for the British Empire and still do along with the, thankfully, allowed to stay in the UK Gurkhas.
    The amount of people I speak to of the above country's ancestries all agree with the BNP policies but are afraid to vote because of the BNP throwing them out of their homes. This of course goes far deeper as many WASP's feel the same and angry at the BNP's ignorance on this and therefore do not vote.
    If the BNP allowed a Black British/Jewish/Hindu/Sikh person to stand for them then it would be nothing less than move mountains in the Political Climate and show the people of the UK that the BNP are NOT a racist party and a party for British people and British Values.
    If the BNP went to Birmingham and had a meeting with the angry West Indians, currently at War with Islam, then they would do so much for their party in having a British Black man(of West Indian origin) standing for them. He'd/She'd clean up.
    At the moment, people look at the BNP as a 'white' party and this will be their downfall. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with this as there are umpteen Black associations, Asian, Chinese etc etc, however in order to change the opinion of the majority white population they have to rise above the level of the other minority parties and start integrating their ideas with people of different ancestry but British through and through.

    We need a party for the British People that will firmly evict Islam. We need to tell Islamic countries that until they reform their religion and throw away the teachings of Mohammed and more importantly realising that he has done more to damage their religion than do it good, that they will not be welcome in the tolerant West. Simply put, a peaceful Muslim is not a Muslim but a Christian(a true Muslim follows in the violent footsteps of Muhammad - Islamists) as the Koran is just another religion that took most of what it is from the Bible and changed the odd bit here and there.

    Mark:
    You have just told us why the BNP is still a racist, fringe party; because they want a white-only Britain.
    If we wanted that then we should never have invited so many milions of Caribbean and Asian and African people to settle here in the last 60 years. It's not fair or feasible to suddenly decide now that we made a mistake and we want to chuck them all out after all? If we tried to do that we would become a pariah state. Rightly shunned by the civilised world.
    Forget this nonsense. The most we could hope for is a halt on further immigration. And proselytise like mad to de-radicalise the radicals. And deport the illegals and the phony asylum seekers.

    Islam has never lost in Islamising a country, the only exception being Spain. Even this last, is beginning to look doubtful at present.

    The only way to save civilisation is to stop Muslim immigration as a first step and the reverse Muslim immigration. Modernisation, reformation and all other "tions" of Islam are simply a ruse to gain time till the demographics make the outcome inevitable.
    Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK and the USA will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.
    Islamic ideologues take the long view - in several decades or centuries, or more. It is only right that we as well consider options keeping in mind Islam's long-term goals.

    The rate of growth of Muslim population in Britain and Europe is so huge, that in 30 years Muslims will have the numbers to form a majority in parliament. To reverse this trend we need to have a BNP like party that has to take power in the election after the next, at the latest. To do so the BNP has to poll at least 20% of the vote in the coming election, build on this base in the next 5 to 6 years, and then take some 40% of the vote in the subsequent election, to get into power.

    Is this possible?

    If you guys can pull this off it will serve as the model the rest of the world will have to follow. The BNP seems like your only choice. They need numbers, and credibility over the race card. It is no secret Sikhs, Hindus, and Jews probably hate Islam even more than you natives of the U.K. do ... yes that is possible. I doubt people of African descent in the U.K. have any love for Islam either. The BNP must open up to these groups of non-whites (which would be a minority with-in the party most likely) to legitimize it for the rest of the people in the U.K. as a viable party. It must find a way to loose its stigma, and its members need to be able to claim affiliation without the specter of being a racist attached to them. If the BNP actually wants to save your nation, it will do what needs to be done ASAP. People within the party must be aware of this, it is hard to imagine that they wouldn't be.

    StephenA55


    I have not stated that the BNP are a racist party. If you happen to read their manifesto, you will find that they state they would only repatriate those who are not supposed to be here and 'offer' voluntary repatriation, NOT kick all non white people out. I qoute from the BNP Manifesto on their Website on Immigration:

    ".......we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question......"

    What I did say is that the British people do believe that they would evict all non whites out upon election. This is a myth that has been promoted by the Left, the Centre and the Right, because they know that their biggest competition really is the BNP, after all they are the only party that would put the British People first, unlike the LabLibCon alliance, all with their snouts stuffed deeply in the trough. Remember also that a vote for the BNP would immediately end the Islamist Terrorist threat from the UK, not forgetting immediate removal from the EU, a clean up of the streets(removing the gangs) and giving jobs to Brits first before foreigners. Once the BNP have cleaned up the UK, then at least we'll be able to then bring about change if things aren't going so well, whereas if we allow the LabConLib alliance into power then we get Islam and NO POSSIBLE CHANGE EVER!

    I think you will see come next election that the BNP will make considerable gains. Depending on how the recessions go, you may very well see civil strife and chaos, meaning that the BNP will make even more gains. They will move out of Fringe status. Watling is very correct in that instead of fighting with the BNP, you know Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, Littlejohn, The Telegraph, the Mail, UKIP, Veritas etc etc, they should all be uniting as they all really want the same. He even mentioned a part of the statement "United we stand, divided we fall". I even wrote an article on here comparing the situation to the time of William Wallace, who failed in his quest to unite Scotland, because the Lords were all squabbling with one another. This is petty, school playground stuff really. They all know what the problem is but none of them have the balls to actually speak up about it apart from the BNP. That's why I'm more inclined to vote for them, because there's no grey areas with the BNP.

    Stephen wrote : "Forget this nonsense. The most we could hope for is a halt on further immigration. And proselytise like mad to de-radicalise the radicals."

    This is what I really do not understand. The biggest threat to our freedom is Islam, not West Indian/African Blacks(Non Muslims), Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. I am not being prejudice because of the way someone looks but for what they believe. Islam is in the West for one reason only and that's complete and total domination of it. It was not my decision to invite people over from other countries Stephen. It was not my idea to allow them to live however they chose to as well. It was not my idea to allow them to live by their own culture over mine, eventually leading to conflict.
    You seem to forget that how do you de-radicalise a Radical when that Radical is only following in the footsteps of their Holy Prophet Muhammad the creator of their Religion? Islam by definition is radical, this is what Robert Spencer speaks of on here and everyone else. We're not just talking about a Religion but a complete way of Life. Islam is a religion, a Nationality and a Political system all wrapped up in one and this is what our governments and media continue to not tell us. They continue to keep the people ignorant, for they know that if one day all papers Front page or TV News channels head story was "Islam is here to take over our Culture and instill Islam and Sharia Law as the way of Life" then there would be chaos on the streets as attacks against Muslims would be sporadic and widespread. I speak of removing Islam from the West, not because I hate Islam, I don't, I say to remove Islam, before it kicks off and it will, saving Muslims in the UK GBH and death, as that will happen when the public 'lose it'.
    It is precisely people with your attiutudes who think it's 'nonsense' to think about completely removing Islam. The west united together to stamp out and remove Nazism from the World and there really is no difference between it and Islam, apart from there was no religion in Nazism unlike in Islam.

    If you allow Islam to stay and grow, then as Powell stated "We are building our pwn funeral pyres". I know you mean well Stephen, but you are more interested in outside opinion of the UK rather than inside opinion and what the people of the UK want. You will however find that when it comes to Islam, most countries in Europe feel like us angry Brits do and believe you me, if Britain did immediately start removing Muslims from the UK, you'd see other countries start to follow suit in Europe. This would set a new precedence Stephen, where Islam would know that the West IS NOT for colonizing and Islamising and that we in the West are a far superior culture than anything Islam could ever hope to be.

    Mark,

    You make some good points. I agree with just about all you say.

    DP111,

    You made a good point about Muslim demographics. Even if (a very, very big "if" and completely false at the moment) all UK/European Muslims were moderates, their rapidly increasing numbers would turn Europe Islamic nonetheless. An Islamic Europe would no longer be Europe. Mosques would dominate the skylines. Churches would be converted to mosques. "The Grand Mosque of Notre Dame", anyone?

    Most women would feel obliged to wear the headscarf. Women would be second class citizens. Native European languages would slowly be diluted as Arabic and Urdu words crept into the vocabulary (indeed we already have a patois called Banglish - a mixture of English and Bangladeshi). Non-Muslims would leave in huge numbers. Europe as we know it would be lost forever.

    Most frightening of all, Muslims would have access to Europe's nuclear arsenal.

    In an Islamic Europe the number of journeys between it and the Middle East would be much, much higher than now. Moderate European Muslims would still come into contact with radicals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Gaza etc. Radicalisation would be inevitable. The dark ages would descend upon Europe.

    We owe it to our children's futures NOT to allow Muslims to become a majority. Stopping immigration is not enough because there are too many here already. We must deport all illegals immediately, stop all mosque building and crack down hard on radicals like Anjem Choudary. Hopefully a significant number of Muslims would get the message and leave.

    Failing that we would have to look at ways of encouraging them to leave. The BNP would offer generous financial incentives for them to leave. Note that this policy contrasts with that of the National Front, who would forcibly deport all non-white people. Anyone agreeing with that policy can join the National Front because they do not belong in the BNP.

    According to UKIP's manifesto they would:

    Freeze permanent immigration for 5 years.

    This implies that migrants (including Muslims) would still be allowed to enter the UK, stay for a few years and then be forced to leave - assuming we could find them again. While here, non-permanent visiting Muslims would be able to procreate, proselytise, radicalise, build mosques, preach hatred, undergo terrorist training and commit terrorist acts.

    In any case UKIP are on the decline. They lost their two seats on the Greater London Assembly this year, while the BNP gained one. In the Henley by-election they polled fewer votes than the BNP.

    Mark,
    I like your points about the Sikhs, Hindus and (especially) the Ghurkas, and their great contributions to Britain.
    And yet you say we should support the BNP, which has a policy of paying these people to return to their countries of origin, at a cost of billions of pounds? That will not help to counter the demographic jihad - expelling our allies against Islamism and bankrupting the treasury at the same time.
    If you watch the interview with Kilroy-Silk that I linked to above, you will see that he shows a grasp of some specific issues such as abuse of women and young girls in Islamist societies. These things should be prosecuted under existing laws not tolerated by misguided multiculturalists. He also cites the support of traditional muslims, those usually of the older generation who agree that radical political Islam is a real threat. We need the votes of those traditional Muslims and Chinese and West Indians etc., as well as the indigenous Brits.
    Until the BNP understands that people can be black and British, they will remain a de facto racist party, and therefore unelectable in Britain. So the way ahead is to unite around one of the other parties; say UKIP as it has the machinery in place, and draw support away from the other parties with a passionate appeal to save our nation before it's too late.

    You cannot hope to destroy Islam in Britain all at once. It's like turning an ocean liner around.
    First we need to stop further Muslim immigration. This on the grounds that England is too full already. Then there would need to be a government led campaign against Islamism; a kind of crackdown aimed at punishing Islamic human rights abuses.
    Finally, the issue of Islam as a personal apolitical faith, not impinging on non-Muslims.
    True, such communities may be vulnerable to re-radicalization in the future. However it is just as likely that in the age of information, Islam will not survive the revelation to the world of the barbarity, greed and cruelty practised and endorsed by it's founder. The ludicrous stuff about angels and genies in the desert. All this becoming common knowledge for the first time in history will, I believe, signal a terminal decline for Islam.
    If I believed that the BNP was the only hope then I would vote for them, but for the reasons given, I don't.

    DP111,

    I completely agree with both of your posts on October 1, 2008 3:41 & 3:52 PM

    StephenA55,

    What the BNP would do, would bring in voluntary repatriation not forced. There is a big difference. I wish I could go to another country and have them say, we'll give you £10k to leave, especially in the case of Eastern Europeans/Africans etc. etc., that's a small fortune and in Poland the equivalent of 5 years salary in many cases. In fact, the way the countries going, if the government offered me £10k or whatever to leave I would, gladly!
    I disagree in giving people money to repatriate them, for the simple reason is that if that's part of their manifesto then it won't take long before tourists and whatever, catch on, come to the UK and stay in the hope the BNP does get in to give them money to go back home.

    I can't get with Veritas or UKIP for the reasons I've given above. I find them weak and their policy on Ilsam is not strong enough. my belief on Islam is completely different from yours as you believe there are moderate Muslims in the UK, whereas I don't. I believe that all Muslims are working towards the same goal and that's total Islamisation. The Islamists are just choosing the 'true' Islamic route that's all.
    You say we need to get the votes of the 'Traditional' Muslims, yet there's not such a thing. You continue to forget that Muslims worship Muhammad as their Holy Prophet, whereas we all know he's nothing more than a bloodthirsty warmonger. Their whole belief is a violent, oppressive ideology and nothing less, so to say that they are traditional, means that they follow the words of Muhammad as written in the Koran, the Hadiths and the Siras.
    A true Christian will certainly try to bring Christianity to the World where it isn't but they won't FORCE it upon the people. Islam on the contrary will. In many countries in this World, people have had a choice and that's Islam or death. Some choice huh?

    As long as you see the peace within Islam then you will continue to allow the threat of Islamisation to happen. Muslims cannot be trusted. The only time a Muslim can be trusted is when he is NOT a Muslim.

    If you really wanted to allow Muslims to stay in the UK then there would have to be strict guidelines for them to follow and they would be:

    1. All Muslim couples must marry within the UK, no oversee marriages and allowed only 1 offspring.
    2. All Muslim males must follow English Law and have only one wife.
    3. All Muslims must adhere fully to English Law at all times with no Sharia Law Courts. Any Muslims found to be practicing Sharia Law would be imprisoned for a long time or the choice of complete removal from the UK including British Passport.
    4. All Cities would allow one Mosque only and no Mosques in Villages as the Christian/Non Religious part of the UK must be respected at all times.
    5. No Muslim dress would be allowed outside of the home and failure to comply would mean instant dismissal from schools and places of work
    6. There would be no Halal Meat shops whatsoever and those practicing this would face the same punishment as point 3.
    7. Any Muslim who who became Radical or any radical preachers/Imams would immediately be deported, with whole family, to place of ancestry and all would have their passports removed.
    8. Any terrorist activity revert to point 7.
    9. All Muslims would swear allegiance to Queen and country above Islam or any other country. Failure to comply would result in action being taken as in points 3 & 7.
    10. British businesses would always take preference over religious holidays/festivals. Those who never attended work because of it, would face removal from their jobs at the discretion of the employers.
    11. No Muslim would be allowed to sell alcohol or pig. All Muslims would also have to sign pre work documents stating that they would handle alcohol or pig, if they chose to work in supermarkets.

    As you can see Stephen, the above would work but would Islam follow them? I highly doubt it. That is called oppressing people of the Islamic faith, but rightly so. They should have no preference above Indigenous Brits regardless of Birth.

    I have never voted for the BNP. I am at loggerheads with them because of their un-professionalism(can't contact them by phone, don't return emails, contact numbers are dead or answer machine only). They are the only party in the UK that will sort out Islam but are not yet ready as they're an amateur organisation. This however shows that they're not in it for the 'dollar' and that's refreshing. The complete removal of Islam is our only hope to stop total Islamisation by the turn of the next century Stephen. I'll be dead by then and very possibly my son, but he will have children and it's my duty to create a safe future for them to live in.

    Stephen this is what I don't understand about you. You would gladly stop the eviction of all Islam, even though it will lead to radicalisation and Islamisation when the complete removal would immediately end it. If Muslims in the UK were true Brits, they would be apostates of Islam, realising that the culture of the UK, its history, it music and arts, its science and medicine is far superior to anything that Islam could ever give them, but that's the point, they're so indoctrinated with Islam that they are blind to anything around them. I could say 'trust me' Islam will islamise the West if it stays here, but then you won't see the day nor will I.

    Mark,
    A wish-list is one thing.
    Reality is something else.

    You give the impression of someone who thinks we can get rid of problems by saying 'ban them' or 'make them all go away'

    Remember you are talking about millions of people, some of whom actually do useful work in Britain, and X% of whom are Muslims 'for identification purposes only', or non-observant.
    As for 'traditional' Muslims, I know a little about them as I used to work with a lot of them many years ago - before the fall of the Shah; before the current wave of radicalization.
    Ed Husain talks about them in 'The Islamist'.
    Agreed that they are not true Muslims in the sense that they are disregarding the more militant requirements of the cult, still they have a coherent version which works for them and harms us not.

    When you say there are no moderate Muslims you ignore all these groups. But they do exist. We need their help to manage the problems created by the extremists.

    Only if such a reasonable approach fails to work, and if we find that despite all our best efforts the various threats increase, would we be justified in much tougher measures. But that would be in the context of something close to civil war. Don't you think we should try to avoid that?

    One thing I do agree with you on is to make changes to the welfare system to cut child benefits. I would look at a Chinese style law to limit family size.

    If anyone reading here who has yet to post would like to join in, better be quick before this gets archived.

    Regards to all.

    StephenA55:

    And yet you say we should support the BNP, which has a policy of paying these people to return to their countries of origin, at a cost of billions of pounds?

    Repatriation would be voluntary.

    Until the BNP understands that people can be black and British ...

    They already do, but clearly people cannot be black and indigenous British.

    So the way ahead is to unite around one of the other parties; say UKIP as it has the machinery in place ...

    I don't think UKIP appeal to working-class people, who are the ones most affected by multiculturalism, mass immigration and Islamification.

    However it is just as likely that in the age of information, Islam will not survive the revelation to the world of the barbarity, greed and cruelty practised and endorsed by it's founder. The ludicrous stuff about angels and genies in the desert. All this becoming common knowledge for the first time in history will, I believe, signal a terminal decline for Islam.

    Muslims are often radicalised by Islamic web sites. They use the internet and email to chat about the Jihad and plot against the West. Radical Saudi-based "scholars" preach via web cam to young, impressionable UK Muslims. The internet is assisting the Jihad.

    Watling,

    On repatriation: voluntary is not as bad as compulsory, but it's still the wrong policy.

    On you can't be black and indigenous British:
    True but not important.

    On which party: Whichever one is adopted can be moulded and adapted. Policies can be added or changed.

    On the internet: Good point, but I think (hope) that sanity will eventually prevail and all the preaching will be seen to be the utter depraved nonsense that it is. Webcams and gimmicks notwithstanding.

    Mark, Watling, Stephen, Fjordman etal

    Re: my post DP111 at September 30, 2008 5:44 PM

    Here I try to lay the dynamics of Islamisation and then reversing it - the fact that Islamisation is occurring rapidly cannot be denied by anyone.

    The question is how to reverse this, and thus remove the threat.

    I would welcome a critique of the above post. It is not the number of years we have, but the number of political opportunities. I see just a couple of electoral opportunities or chances we have before the ultimate catastrophe is inevitable. In fact, unless the nation wakes up and gives 20% of the vote to the BNP or like in the coming election, democratic methods to reverse Islamisation will be insufficient.

    If this thread slips down into the archives, we can resurrect it somewhere else. It is far too important to leave.

    DP111,

    Any prediction based on a projection of current trends is likely to be wrong. You see ups and downs on graphs rather than long straight lines.
    We should take current trends as a warning and take steps to ensure that they do not continue.
    If there are 4 million Muslims here now I think that is too many, and if there were a referendum a majority would vote for pulling up the drawbridge.

    Failing that then you are right that if nothing is done then Britain will become Islamic in 30, 40 or 50 years.
    Long before that happens the cry will go out:
    'The natives are revolting!'

    Britain is under a threat, the likes of which it has never been under. If Napoleon or even Hitler, had conquered Britain, most of our British/Western culture, music, art etc would be unscathed. Islam on the other hand will wipe out everything. In the fullness of time, the very presence of Christianity- cathedrals, minsters, abbeys, will be demolished and razed to the ground (re: Bhumiyan Buddhas).

    So grave is the threat to the existence, nay, the very soul of Britain, that it is not possible to rule out any policy to remove the Islam threat, just because it may harm some innocent person or group - racial, religious or secular, or ethnic, no matter how sacred. Besides, all of them can be compensated in some form at a later date, once the Islam threat has been removed. This is an existential war, and innocents will, and are being injured or killed.

    If this means that we need to suspend parliamentary democracy for the duration - so be it. If it means suspending constitutional monarchy - so be it. If it means banning groups from the realm - so be it. All can be reversed once the danger is eliminated. Besides, there is precedent in British history for all the above.

    StephenA55

    In the case of Muslim demographic growth, the slope is positive in all Muslim countries, even when the country is in the grip of famine. Amazingly, Sudan, Ethiopia and even Somlia, all under extreme food shortages, and a civil war, the population is increasing.

    I'm afraid we cannot put our faith in the hope that Muslim demographic growth will halt in Britain, specially so as we give generous child allowances. Even if we didnt, it wouldnt make any difference - note the situation in India, where Muslim numbers are increasing so rapidly that it is causing alarm to Hindus.

    As I point out in my post, it is not the number of years that is available to us, but the number of electroral chances we have to make any sort of
    impact on the demograhic, i.e., if we wish to remove the threat via constitutional methods.

    Stephen,

    I have explained countless times already the situation regarding "Peaceful/Moderate/Traditional" Muslims and I don't think you can quite see where I'm going. They all worship Allah. They all follow the teachings of Muhammad from the Koran, the Hadiths, the Siras. I have yet to see any(of the above stated) Muslims condemn the calls for book stores to stop publishing books on Islam. I have yet to see any Muslims, speak out against the attrocities committed by Islamists. The Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Brotherhood etc etc are all just fronts for Islamism, as they are the ones pushing for more and more Islamic rights in the UK.
    What I'm getting at and I've said this that it would be completely against the beliefs of the Traditional/Peaceful Muslim to integrate within the UK, into a culture that is completely opposite to their Islamic one. They may state this and that, but do you really, truthfully think that they are going to openly state their true feelings when it comes to Islamisation? What do you think would happen if they did? They know very well that in order for Islam to grow in the West, their needs to be the counter weight in Islam. I mean, there needs to be people in the West, who are playing the part of the Muslim that just wants to get on with their life, in order to 'fool' the Westerner into believing that Islam IS a religion of Peace. You can't just pick and choose what you want from Islam. It's either 100% Islam or no Islam. They are indoctrinated into believing the Arabian Fairytale from a young age and as their "blueprint" on how to live their lives.
    The 'peaceful/traditional/moderate' Muslims are only here biding their time, until their numbers can grow to such a size as to impose their way of life on all. This has happened in all places, now Muslim, that weren't before they started to invade.
    Stephen, it's really simple in that we in the West and in fact everyone in the World can get on well together, however put Islam in the Equation and you've got trouble. Islam is incapable of being a subordinate religion in any country and they will continue to push for supremacy until they have it. Once that's done sectarian violence then ensues. Look at the World and you'll find that Islam is not only fighting with every other religion/non religion, but also itself.
    I have been saying the above for years, long before the problem took hold in the UK Stephen.

    To finish Stephen, I do not judge a person by the colour of their skin or normally their religion, but when it comes to Islam.........
    If people want to live in the UK, adopt our culture and any other religion, barre Islam, then I haven't a problem with that, but allowing Islam into the UK is nothing more than suicide.
    Why do we have a problem now when we didn't 10/20 years ago? We have the problem for one reason - GROWTH.
    If we do not remove Islam then you can kiss goodbye to the UK. Watling, DP111, Fjordman and more all know that when Islam gains power it will wipe the slate clean. Our traditions, our history, our culture, our language, everything will disappear for good. Books will be burned and disappear. Our children will grow up to be subordinates to Islam, never knowing that had it not been for their former Culture, the Great Britons of old, then Islam may very well have died out for the fact that the West has helped Islam no end with ground breaking medical advancements and financial Aid. The only thing Islam had going for them was that they happened to be sitting slap bang on top of Black gold.

    I do say remove Islam completely. I say stop all aid and business with Islam. I say move to Nuclear and place satellites above all Islamic lands to monitor them. I say this for the simple reason that the world can quite happily ignore Islam and have nothing to do with it, but that's not the case for Islam. It desperately needs to the World, like the parasite it is. Without the West Islam would be nothing, having blown itself up many times over in its constant struggle for control and power. Islam needs the West, yet we don't need Islam. And when it comes to great children's stories and Fairy tales, they may have the most well known Arabian Fairytale of all, where their followers behave like Peter Pan's that never grow up, but we have, more greater Fairy tales that are more than a match for Muhammad and his Death Cult.

    It's s simple situation Stephen - Remove Islam = halt all Islamic terrorism and Islamisation of the West or Allow Islam to stay and grow = Islamisation of the West within 100 years. This is black and white. You're either Muslim or you're not. All Muslims want the Ummah and Islamisation and regardless of what you may say Stephen, Peaceful Muslims, Traditional Muslims, Moderate Muslims want Islamisation, even though they say otherwise. Why? If they didn't want Islamisation, they simply wouldn't be Muslim. End of.

    DP111,

    Regarding your post "Mark, Watling, Stephen, Fjordman etal" there are two solutions to stopping Islamisation of the UK and I have answered them in the post to StephenA55 (October 2, 2008 8:34 AM). Extreme measures are needed for extreme situations and I think that stopping the complete destruction of the UK and its culture(all that that entails) is an extreme situation.

    Mark,
    You persistently suggest that I am under some illusions about Moderate Muslims.
    Just to clear that up, I am fully aware of the potential dangers from that quarter, and I thought I had made that clear. Just as I am aware of the more immediate threat from Islamists.
    Also, I am trying to suggest policies that will tackle our long term problems effectively and actually stand a chance of being enacted in our present political climate.
    Call it realism.
    You suggest stopping all business with Islam; but we still have no substitute for oil.
    You want to ban Islam as a religious observance, although our constitution confers religious freedom on every citizen/subject.

    If this situation is as serious as you say, (and it is), then we must ditch the fantasy based ideas and get serious.

    Or... let's just 'remove Islam'
    Now why didn't I think of that?

    DP111,
    I agree with you about the severity of the demographic jihad threat. It's time for drastic cuts in child benefit and possibly legislation aimed at reducing family size. What would be difficult here would be to aim such legislation specifically at Muslim households. There is no precedent for such a thing and I think the only chance of getting that into law would be to apply it equally to all.

    It would be helpful to have some statistics. We are told that the Muslim birthrate is falling as they gradually integrate. We are all entitled to be skeptical about this and call for the evidence.

    As for the electoral cycle, the maximum time between elections is 5 years, though it's usually nearer 4. But an election can be called at any time if necessary.

    Stephen wrote: "You persistently suggest that I am under some illusions about Moderate Muslims."

    I think that your last post to me showed you where you stand regarding the 'traditional/peaceful/moderate' Muslims Stephen.

    Stephen wrote: "Also, I am trying to suggest policies that will tackle our long term problems effectively and actually stand a chance of being enacted in our present political climate.
    Call it realism."

    As am I Stephen. The total and complete removal of all Islam from the UK or else the immediate restriction of Islamic growth(as pointed out in my many points in my last post to you)

    Stephen wrote: "You suggest stopping all business with Islam; but we still have no substitute for oil."

    On the contrary Stephen, it has been proven that alone in the UK's North Sea there is enough Oil left for over 40 years. That will enable the UK to move forward in alternative energy and Nuclear and by the time it runs out the UK will be 0% Oil dependent and 100% self sufficient in alternative energy.

    Stephen wrote "You want to ban Islam as a religious observance, although our constitution confers religious freedom on every citizen/subject."

    That has to be replaced immediately by a new government and should say "Religious Freedom to all bar Muslim". We know that Islam is the only intolerant faith as it sees itself as the 'one and true religion'. You also forget as well, that when the constitution was written it only had Protestantism and Catholicism in mind. The people at the time, who created this ruling had no idea that their tolerant people would be under attack from an intolerant religion. I have already stated many times that we can live quite happily alongside all other religions, however, not including Islam. Islam is not the friend of the West and has never been or ever will be, that is until Islam self immolates and Muslims realise that it's all a lot of rubbish and therefore they are no longer Muslims.

    Stephen wrote: "If this situation is as serious as you say, (and it is), then we must ditch the fantasy based ideas and get serious."

    These are not fantasy based ideas but ideas that were this 70 years ago, the threat of Islam would be on the same pedestal as the threat of Nazism. The immediate removal of 5th Columnists would be under way and sanctions would be imposed on Islam by the West. We have got to this situation because our governments sold us out for their own financial security. Our governments have done nothing but commit treason.

    Stephen wrote: "Or... let's just 'remove Islam' Now why didn't I think of that?"

    I wish you would realise that the problem we face is from Islam and that includes EVERYONE that worships Muhammad's teachings. You seem to think that our problem is with the Islamists, when it is minimal to the threat of Islam. The Islamists are merely the smokescreen/the diversion, in order for the west, with its liberals and socialists, to dissect Islam and make us believe that there is a 'good' Islam and a 'bad' one. They are duping us and this is what I find hilarious. To make an analogy, 'while all the warriors are at the front gates, waiting for the full on assault by the enemy, no one notices the men who sneak in the back and open up the doors.'
    You must not ever make the mistake of trying to separate Islam for the simple reason that Islam is Islam and all that comes under Islam belongs to Islam.

    Stephen, I have already said it that if the complete removal of Islam does not happen then it will grow and grow and grow until by default it is the same as us and starts imposing its own laws on us. We have already let Sharia in. We allow Imams into State Schools to preach. We are allowing the conversion of Churches into Mosques...I could go on. If anything Stephen, it is the liberal beliefs of your thinking that Islam can be divided into groups when it cannot. Unlike Christianity, the true Christians who follow the teachings of Christ are by default peaceful for Christ was a pacifist. There are of course extreme Christian groups who do not follow the teachings of Christ and they are a problem. However with Islam, we know the opposite to be true.

    There is the age old saying "Beware of Greeks baring gifts".
    There will be a new saying "Beware of the 'peaceful' Muslim".

    That's all I can say really on the matter. We are obviously 100% opposed in our solution. My solution would bring about War, no doubt but the uniting of the whole of Europe and the end of any possible Islamisation, for another couple of centuries at least. Your solution would bring about the Islamisation of Europe within 80years or less and the complete destruction of Western Civilisation. I think that many people can see where I'm coming from and know that there will be a major battle between Islam and the West. They know that Islam will not give up Islamisation or go quietly and they know that their culture and civilisation is far more important to them than any Muslims.

    Mark,

    Last comment.

    To sum up, you refuse to consider reasonable political solutions to problems, but prefer to go straight to draconian measures that you admit will cause war. You consider all Muslims equally deadly, even the non observant, westernised ones.

    You want to ban Islam and deport all Muslims.

    Even though it can never happen.

    Try to look at it from the other end of the telescope. Get a different perspective. We both want to save the West from Islamization. With my way there is a chance. I would still go to war if necessary. But it has to be a last resort.

    Think again my friend.

    StephenA55, Mark, Watling, Fjordman, DP111

    Thankyou all for such a level headed discussion, it has been a pleasure to read

    Ditto as InfidelK9

    This is the first ever, and most mature discussion about the BNP that I've read, stripped of all emotion, but highlighting both the plusses and minuses of supporting them. Thanks in particular to Watling, StephenA55 and DP111 for the background info on the various alternate players and their shortcomings, what the timeframe is for any plan of action. And Mark did a brilliant job of highlighting the negatives about the BNP, even though he seems largely inclined to support them.







    Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
    The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


    Stealth Jihad


    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


    The Truth About Muhammad


    What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
    “My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
    Oriana Fallaci

    “Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
    Bat Ye’or

    “Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
    Ibn Warraq

    “America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
    Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

    “Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
    Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

    "The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

    “Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
    Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

    “Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
    Raymond Ibrahim

    “A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
    Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

    “I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
    Brad Thor, novelist

    “A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
    Daniel Pipes

    “A brilliant scholar and writer.”
    Douglas Murray

    "One of my best teachers."
    Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

    “Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
    Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

    “I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
    Neal Boortz

    “Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
    Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

    “Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
    Michelle Malkin

    “Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
    New York Times

    “Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
    Washington Post

    “A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
    New York Magazine

    “A hero of the American right.”
    Karen Armstrong

    "The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
    Salon Magazine

    “Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
    Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

    “One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
    Hamas-linked CAIR

    "Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
    Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

    “Satanic ignoramus.”
    Khaleel Mohammed

    “The Likud anti-Christ.”
    Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

    “Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
    Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



    Follow me on Twitter
    facebook islam
    RSS feed

    Monthly Archives



    Donate
    Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


    Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
    SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
    Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

    » ACT for America
    » Always on Watch
    » American Center for Democracy
    » American Coptic Association
    » American Council for Kosovo
    » American Freedom Alliance
    » American Freedom Law Center
    » American Islamic Forum for Democracy
    » American Sheepdogs
    » American Thinker
    » Americans Against Hate
    » Americans for Legal Immigration
    » Amerisrael
    » Amillennialist Contra Mundum
    » Annaqed
    » A New Dark Age Is Dawning
    » Answering Islam
    » Answering Muslims
    » Anti-CAIR
    » Apostates of Islam
    » Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
    » Armies of Liberation
    » Assyrian International News Agency
    » Atlas Shrugs
    » Atour — The State of Assyria
    » Australian Islamist Monitor
    » Biafra Nation
    » Blazing Cat Fur
    » Bosch Fawstin
    » Brad Thor
    » Brussels Journal
    » CAIR Watch
    » Campus Watch
    » Caroline Glick
    » Christians Under Attack
    » Citizen Warrior
    » Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
    » Conservative Nation News
    » Copts.com
    » Creeping Sharia
    » Daniel Pipes
    » David Horowitz Freedom Center
    » The David Project
    » David Thompson
    » David Yerushalmi Law
    » D. C. Watson
    » Dearborn Underground
    » DEBKAfile
    » Dhimmitude.org
    » Dry Bones
    » Ellis Washington Report
    » Europe News
    » Eye On Islam
    » Ezra Levant
    » Faith Freedom International
    » Father Zakaria
    » Federale
    » Five Feet of Fury
    » Foundation for Democracy in Iran
    » Free Congress Foundation
    » The Free Copts
    » Freedom Defense Initiative
    » FrontPage Magazine.com
    » Geert Wilders
    » Genocide1915.info
    » Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
    » History of Jihad
    » Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
    » Honest Reporting
    » Honor Killings
    » Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
    » India Defence
    » Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
    » Infidels Are Cool
    » The Intelligence Summit
    » International Analyst Network
    » International Free Press Society
    » Internet Haganah
    » The Investigative Project on Terrorism
    » IOwnTheWorld.com
    » IranPressNews
    » Iran va Jahan
    » Islam Review
    » Islam Speaks
    » Islam Versus Europe
    » Islam Watch
    » Islamic Terrorism in India
    » Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
    » Israel Matzav
    » JihadOnBuddhists.org
    » Kejda Gjermani
    » KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
    » Liberated
    » Logan's Warning
    » Looking At the Left
    » Mahdi Watch
    » Mapping Sharia
    » Mark Steyn
    » Martin Kramer
    » MEMRI TV
    » Middle East Facts
    » Middle East Quarterly
    » Middle-East-Info.org
    » Middle East Media Research Institute
    » Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
    » Militant Islam Monitor
    » Morning Star
    » Muhammad Tube
    » The Muslim Issue
    » Muslim World Today
    » Myths and Facts
    » National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
    » NewsReal Blog
    » No Mosques At Ground Zero
    » Nonie Darwish
    » Northeast Intelligence Network
    » Occidental Jihadist
    » One Jerusalem
    » Open Speech
    » Operation Give
    » Operation Gratitude
    » Organiser
    » Orwellian Culture
    » Palestinian Media Watch
    » PamelaGeller.com
    » Panun Kashmir
    » Pedestrian Infidel
    » The People's Cube
    » The People of the Book
    » Persecution Project
    » Political Islam
    » Politically Incorrect
    » Politiskt Inkorrekt
    » Q Society of Australia
    » Radio Farda
    » Radio Jihad
    » RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
    » Raymond Ibrahim
    » Red Alerts
    » Refugee Resettlement Watch
    » Religion of Peace
    » Republican Riot
    » Reuters Middle East Watch
    » The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
    » SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
    » The Second Draft
    » Shire Network News
    » SITE Intelligence Group
    » Small Wars Journal
    » Smoke-Filled World
    » The Snooper Report
    » Snow Report Blog
    » StandWithUs
    » Steve Lackner
    » The Stiletto Blog
    » STOP! Honour Killings
    » Sultan Knish
    » Tell the Children the Truth
    » Terrorism Awareness Project
    » Theodore’s World
    » Tom Gross Media
    » Translating Jihad
    » Una via per Oriana
    » Undaunted
    » United States Central Command
    » Urban Infidel
    » Walid Shoebat
    » Winds of Jihad
    » Women Against Shariah
    » World Council for the Cedars Revolution
    » Yid With Lid
    » Z Street
    » Zilla of the Resistance
    » Zionist Conspiracy
    Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
    Site Meter