IMPORTANT - The Blackhoods of Antifa

The Blackhoods of Antifa

I’ve written several times previously about Antifascist Action (a.k.a. AFA or Antifa, with name variants in several other European languages). It’s a loosely interconnected alliance of hard-left groups who use violence and intimidation against “racists” and “fascists”, i.e. anybody who opposes Leftist orthodoxy. In some countries the AFA brigades enjoy the tacit support of the police and local authorities in their actions.

Recent events in Cologne and Malmö have brought the “anti-fascists” into the limelight. El Inglés and our Flemish correspondent VH teamed up to do a little research into the black-hooded goons of Antifa. It El Inglés has gathered the results into a report, which is presented below.


The Blackhoods of Antifa
by El Inglés

Introduction

As readers of this blog will all know by now, the recent anti-Islamization demonstration planned to take place in Cologne was disrupted by groups of blackhooded thugs. These thugs, whom I will refer to collectively as Antifa for the purposes of this brief preliminary discussion, are a force the size and strength of which it is extremely difficult to discern through casually scanning the news reports concerning the event. With the help of a great deal of valuable research done by VH, already a regular contributor at Gates of Vienna, I propose to start thinking slightly more rigorously about these far-left hoodlums in the hope that we might come up with some ideas as to what, if anything, should be done about them. This essay will not and cannot propose anything definite course of action or present any definite conclusions. It is no more than a speculative piece designed to foster and stimulate discussion amongst those who may be interested.

I will confess to a certain lack of interest in the taxonomy of the hard left. Communists, anarchists, revolutionary socialists, autonomer, ‘anti-fascists’: I neither know nor care what the exact differences may be between these various groups. Parsing this swarming bunch of criminals is an activity I will leave to those who both have the stomach for the task and consider it important to understand the ideological structure of, and fissures within, our self-elected street-level human rights enforcers.
Given that Antifa are clearly capable of putting aside their differences for long enough to engage in the occasional bout of civil unrest, for the duration of this piece I will treat them as the single group that they are sometimes able to form. However, for the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the occasional small-scale targeted action carried out by Antifa types, such as arson attacks on the homes of anti-immigration politicians or brutal assaults on anti-Islamization activists such as Anders Gravers, the head of SIAD. Though perpetrated by the same stripe of person, I think these criminal activities are sufficiently different from the mass action witnessed recently in Cologne to deserve an analysis of their own. Accordingly, I will concentrate on Antifa as a mass-action entity in this essay.

This discussion will be loosely structured around a series of key questions about Antifa that I will try provide some preliminary and speculative answers to below. They are as follows:

1)		How many of them are there across Western Europe and where are they located? I define an Antifa member here as being a core member of Antifa activity, concealing their identity with masks and hoods, and prepared to engage in violence against ideological opponents and/or the police and whatever other criminal activity they deem appropriate to their interests. Normal demonstrators do not count, however closely allied they may be with Antifa.
2)		What are their financial resources?
3)		What is their recruitment process?
4)		What are their strengths?
5)		What are their weaknesses?

1) How Many and Where

Despite initially reading that 40,000 people were expected to attend the counter-demonstration in Cologne in total, it seems, on the basis of what VH was so good as to unearth, that no more than five or six thousand people attended in total. VH has also estimated (I am entirely reliant on his work here) that there would not have been more than about 2,000 Antifa there. The significance of this number depends on certain factors. If the attempts to disrupt the Pro-Cologne demonstration were a major event on the Antifa calendar for 2008 and only 2,000 of them made it, we must either assume that the figure of 2,000 is roughly representative of their strength in Western Europe, or that there are is a significant number of additional cadres, but the financial and organizational resources required to get them there were lacking, or some combination of both possibilities.

VH informs me that there were probably not more than a few hundred non-German Antifa members at the demonstration, and that those came mainly from Belgium, the Netherlands, and perhaps parts of France. It seems reasonable to suggest that there are at most a few thousand serious Antifa members throughout the bulk of Western Europe. They may be complimented in any given situation by a significant number of normal protestors who they may instruct and direct to a certain extent, but these people are probably not much of an issue one way or another in their own right.
- - - - - - - - -
2) Financial Resources

As one might expect of a group of people who, despite their ideological differences, all reject the fundamental organizing principles of Western societies, Antifa members do not seem to be high earners. It is also hard to see how a group of this nature could generate any reliable flow of funding of any sort, or who it would be prepared to accept it from.

We would benefit by knowing more on this subject, but VH has sent me some fascinating information on the attempts by Antifa in the Netherlands to have “squatters’ rights” recognized by the government. As far as I can make out, the Netherlands has recognized a ‘right to squat’ since a court ruling in 1971, which Antifa have made great use of. The vexing question of how people who are presumably not engaged in productive labour of the sort rewarded in a modern economy can continue to lead their chosen lifestyles is thus partly answered, certainly for the Netherlands and perhaps for other countries as well to some extent. Availing themselves of the opportunities presented by the occasional building left vacant for more than a year, the single largest component in their, or anybody else’s, living expenses is reduced virtually to zero.

In September of this year, in response to a proposed bill to change the law and ban squatting, several hundred ‘activists’ from across the country held a demonstration in Utrecht to protest. With Antifa as with anyone else, threaten to withdraw the subsidization of their lifestyles with the wealth of others, and they squeal. The reliance of these people on living off other people without providing something of value in return is evident, and provides a great insight into how feeble their ability to fund themselves presumably is. I will discuss this important issue in more detail below.

3) Recruitment Process

I would imagine that many, if not most Antifa groups have some sort of web presence or are at least active enough on Indymedia and other similar sites to be able to provide a point of contact for those who are interested in getting involved. Face-to-face contacts and recruitment will be viable in areas with visible Antifa groups. However, the most interesting questions with respect to Antifa recruitment are those that pertain to screening and depth of access.

Anyone turning up to an action dressed in black with a hood and a mask will doubtless be allowed to participate to some degree, as Antifa requires large numbers of people if it is to achieve what it wants to achieve. It gets away with this because of the lack of any obvious operational security requirements, which is another point I will touch on below in a discussion of Antifa’s possible weaknesses.

4) Strengths

Though the organizational prowess of Antifa seems to be considerable in some regards, we would do well not to overstate it. Given that hardcore Antifa members presumably spend their lives waiting for the next bit of ‘action,’ their ability to buy a bus ticket to Cologne given two months’ advance warning is hardly overwhelming. The key strengths of the Antifa, for which we must give them their due, are their tactical and ideological coherence at street level. This conclusion is based on sketchy evidence and a few leaps of faith, but I believe it is likely to be valid, as I shall explain below.

Antifa seem to have a finely-honed awareness of what they can get away with, both politically and tactically. Given that this is not something that can be derived from first principles, but must be understood afresh each time on the basis of the country of operations, the relevant stances of the government in question, and perhaps other factors too, Antifa must have good intelligence in this regard if my reading of their tightrope-walking act is correct. This bespeaks contacts in government and a nuanced understanding of the politics of the country in question and the way they themselves are viewed in it.

According to VH’s research, some 500 Antifa were eventually arrested in Cologne. The number of these people charged with a crime is presumably zero. To what possible end would the German authorities, national, regional, or municipal, wish to clutter up their court and prison system with hundreds of well-organized young criminals whose comrades could create significant political fall-out and bad publicity?

No, the desire of the authorities in situations such as these is to do the bare minimum necessary to contain the situation, and ensure that ensuing problems are as minimal as possible. So if we assume that one in four of the Antifa members present in Cologne were arrested, all to be released in the next couple of days, we are forced to conclude that Antifa as a whole have a very clear idea of which lines they can cross and which they cannot in attempting to achieve their political objectives. The demonstration was cancelled, and the long-term damage to the Antifa was nil insofar as we can discern it at present. This was a good result for them, at least in the short term, and was not achieved by chance.

To realize how impressive the performance of Antifa is in this regard, consider what is presumably involved in setting up an illegal blockade of the type that apparently featured in Cologne. Let us assume either that there are no police in the area in question or that the police who are present are keeping their distance. We have then a road or some other similar area of passage that Antifa wish to curtail passage along. My own experience of blockading roads is, sadly, rather limited, but a few minutes’ reflection will make it clear that the task the Antifa set themselves in doing this is far from trivial.

A group of Antifa deciding to block a road are putting themselves in a position where the probability of being involved in direct physical confrontation with others, up to and including heavily armed riot police, is high. Depending on the circumstances, the ability to predict the nature and scale of the likely violence may be rather limited. Though the recent Antifa activities in Cologne seem to have passed without significant challenge to said Antifa, despite the large number of arrests, this will not always be the case.

I submit that it is not possible for any group of people to do what Antifa do in blockading roads without having both a clear and well-communicated plan of action which takes into account different contingencies (police involvement, police charge, attack by opposing demonstrators, attack with bricks or water cannons, partial break in the blockade, injury to one of the Antifa members, etc.) and a high degree of confidence that fellow Antifa will back them up with fist and foot if need be.

Take away the first and they become a mob, the second a routed mob. Their ability to maintain tactical coherence and strong unit morale, which I take to be considerable, is impressive and a significant advantage in the face of less well-disciplined opponents. It presumably derives largely from distinct Antifa chapters acting in unison during Antifa actions, as it would be exceptionally difficult to maintain if members were dispersed at random throughout the Antifa contingent. As in an army, so in Antifa: small-unit cohesion will be an indispensable component in how they work.

Moving onto a slightly different strength, Antifa need some sort of reasonably well-established doctrine with respect to the degree of violence they can offer opposing demonstrators and the police. I have very little awareness, either in terms of background knowledge or specific information pertaining to recent events, of Antifa trying to kill people. Yet given their militant nature, ideological commitment, and the manifest hatred they have for their opponents, this would seem to require some explanation. I can only assume that Antifa know very well that they operate with, and only with, the consent of the state, be it in their home countries, or the country of any particular Antifa action.

Note that consent does not necessarily imply approval here. It only suggests that, at the very least, the authorities have conducted some sort of cost-benefit analysis on the crushing and dispersal of Antifa and decided that the costs outweigh the benefits. Whether approval exists or not would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Given the intrinsically criminal nature of what they do, Antifa are clearly vulnerable to large-scale prosecution should any particular government turn its mind to the project. They are also liable to being undermined financially (turfed out of their squats, for example), banned from staging counter-demonstrations, infiltrated by the police and security services, and damaged structurally and ideologically by the incarceration of key figures.

It is therefore in their interests to keep the irritation they cause governments below a certain threshold if they wish to continue their activities at all. But they must keep it close to this threshold in order to be effective as judged by their own standards. This requires a keen awareness of lines that must not be crossed and the political scenes in their countries of origin and action. In effect, they must conduct the same cost-benefit analysis as governments (as outlined above), and conduct it accurately enough to arrive at the same conclusions. This will require a combination of ‘empirical research’ and political savvy that would be non-trivial to acquire and update as necessary.

5) Weaknesses

At first glance, it seemed to me that the recent events in Cologne marked Antifa as being, potentially at least, a major force in street-level politics throughout Western Europe. However, after having peered through at least some of the murk surrounding those events and accumulated some reasonable amount of information on the concrete details of what happened in Germany, it seems to me that this conclusion was unwarranted. Indeed, I do not think that Antifa constitute a force that will be capable of significantly influencing events in the case of a breakdown of civil order of the type predicted in “Surrender, Genocide, or What?”.

As discussed above, there do not seem to have been more than 2,000 Antifa in Cologne. If we assume that, adding in Scandinavian Antifa and German, Belgian, French and Dutch Antifa who were not in Cologne, we would have a maximum of 5,000 spread throughout this part of Europe, we are still talking about a force that is small in any absolute sense and cannot assemble itself as a whole even for an event such as that that took place in Cologne. Even there, it successfully conducted its activities only because the authorities in Cologne were, by all accounts, happy to let it move freely around the city, sabotage transport infrastructure, and intimidate and assault people trying to peaceably take part in a legal demonstration.

It is hard to believe that Antifa had any more freedom of movement, literally or figuratively, than the German authorities allowed it. It is terrible news for Germany that its government is sanguine about the notion of large gangs of hard-left criminals dictating what can and cannot take place on its streets, but this is more indicative of the current state of German party politics than any intrinsic capabilities of Antifa.


Furthermore, it should go without saying that, without at least the tolerance of government, Antifa cannot even really exist, much less function.

• It is not an insurgency.
• It cannot create or maintain the pillars of a modern society.
• It is not a government-in-the-making.
• It has no moral authority.
• It is not a mass movement, despite its ability to occasionally recruit a few thousand placard-wavers to swell the ranks of its blockades.
• It has no military capabilities.
• It cannot take or hold territory.

When government opposes it, it will crumple. Yet when government supports it, it will be irrelevant, swamped by the vastly superior resources of the state. It is probably only relevant at all in marginal cases in which society as a whole and government in particular are weak, divided, or ambivalent with respect to given political developments and lack either the resolve to act, leaving a vacuum within which Antifa can operate, or the courage to apply pressure to certain parties, in which case they can allow Antifa to do so for them, thereby maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. That this sorry state of affairs currently prevails in many European countries does not remove this fundamental weakness of Antifa.

Another striking weakness is the lack of any independent financial base. The above anecdote about the squatters laughably trying to protect their “right to squat” makes clear the financial weakness of Antifa in general, at least insofar as the anecdote is applicable to Antifa in general. If the Dutch government does indeed succeed in taking this most cherished of human “rights” away, many Antifa may find themselves in the hideous position of having to work for a living.

More fundamentally, the financial weakness of Antifa will increase the attrition rate of recruits, pushing down the number of years the average recruit spends as a member and with it the mean competence of Antifa as a whole and the morale of remaining members. It also reduces their ability to engage in international actions, which would presumably explain why significant numbers of European Antifa members (using their numbers as estimated above) do not seem to have been in Cologne. It is, after all, hard to imagine that they had anything better to do with their time.

It was noted above that Antifa needs the tolerance of government to survive, but this is not only true in the sense that it can, as an intrinsically criminal entity, be shut down if the political will exists. Perhaps more importantly, it is true in the sense that the very livelihoods of Antifa members seem to be dependent on the existence of a strong welfare state, and I am particularly indebted to VH for explaining this point to me.

He tells me that most of the street-fighting militants are between the ages of 16 and 28 or so, and that they survive on welfare payments whilst living a noble savage-type existence in squats. Upon eventually graduating from the ‘tactical’ branch of Antifa, they drift in the direction of more ‘managerial’ roles while obtaining volunteer positions (and still receiving welfare), or employment at certain predictable types of organizations (‘anti-racism’ organizations, immigrant advocacy organizations, local government and so on, all of it funded by the taxpayer). What this means, if I have read the situation correctly, is that significant numbers of parasitical, seditious, hard-left types with overt criminal tendencies are subsidized by the state to try and undermine it and its laws. Leaving to one side the absurdity of this situation and what it says about modern Europe, it is clear that one of most obvious ways of trying to damage, if not destroy, Antifa would be to castrate it financially through ripping it, kicking and screaming, from the teat of the state.

The last obvious point that could, in principle, constitute a weakness is the open nature of the Antifa recruitment process. Given the large numbers of people Antifa must attract to be at all effective, and given further the lack of any obvious mechanism whereby an infiltrator could impair Antifa’s ability to achieve its goals, we must assume that virtually anyone who wants to join any of the subgroups that combine to form Antifa as a whole is welcome provided they display a minimum level of commitment. This suggests that finding a way of making infiltration hurt Antifa could radically reduce its recruitment capabilities while hurting morale at the same time.

Of course, if one were prepared to engage in illegal activities, it would not be hard to think of ways to use Antifa’s laxness in this regard to punish it and rot away at it from the inside. Doing so without crossing the line into illegality, however, would require detailed case-by-case knowledge of what sort of information could be gathered on individual Antifa members to convince the police to prosecute them, public authorities to withdraw their financial support, or employers to fire them. Whether or not any theoretical efforts made in this regard might not be made with greater effect in lobbying to reform the relevant parts of the welfare state or persuade the police and courts to more assiduously prosecute Antifa in the first place is, admittedly, an open question.


Conclusion

Antifa, though impressive in its ability to occasionally motivate and organize reasonably large numbers of dysfunctional and unproductive youth, does not seem to be in possession of any of the characteristics that might award it some determinative influence on the trajectory any particular European state will take with respect to Islamization. Whether or not any given demonstration will take place is ultimately determined by the government of the country in question, though in hiding behind Antifa may to allow that government to shrug and attempt to avoid responsibility for making said demonstration impossible.

Note also that, given the small numbers of Antifa members, their feeble financial resources, and the amount of time required to organize any major action, the ability of Antifa to disrupt simultaneous or near-simultaneous events across Europe will be close to zero.

Nevertheless, Antifa is a serious enough political phenomenon to deserve serious consideration, especially given its tendency to target individuals with potentially lethal violence. Though I excluded this aspect of its ‘activism’ from this discussion, the destruction of Antifa as a whole would be justified on these grounds alone, insofar as such a loose-knit entity can ever be completely destroyed.

Furthermore, the willingness of what is presumably a small set of Antifa members to viciously attack specific individuals, be they politicians, judges, or political activists, is probably more of a problem for those who would oppose Islamization than the mass mobilization witnessed recently in Cologne. Identifying the individuals responsible for these attacks almost certainly constitutes a better reason to infiltrate Antifa than that outlined above, the costs of which could well outweigh the benefits.

Perhaps the single greatest structural weakness of Antifa is that its entire operational doctrine, at least with respect to mass action, is predicated on the existence of a powerful apparatus of state, which sets the constraints within which it must work. Should the breakdown of civil order that I and others have envisaged ever occur in any European country, Antifa will find that its baseball bats and steel toecaps do not represent the cutting edge of early 21st-century military technology. If that day comes, there may well be a belated discovery that walking into a gunfight without a gun is the most unforgiving of errors.

Paul Weston - Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits

Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits

by Paul Weston

Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice, but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.

After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the Lenin-admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr. John Sentamu, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing their culture.

With the taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the merits and debits of multiculturalism — with particular regard to Islam. The general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in crowded tube trains is semi-excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate that can in any way be termed intense.

If we are to genuinely hold an intense debate on multiculturalism, then it must be warts and all. Hiding behind a wall of well-intentioned words is of little use when our lives are under threat every time we board a bus or train. There are many criticisms of multiculturalism, yet even now these negatives are never allowed to see the light of day. These criticisms are real words about real effects and as such transgress the idealistic and unrealistic worldview held by our liberal elites.

The first issue to look at is what does multiculturalism actually mean? It is a word of such obtuse generalisation that one has to assume it is merely camouflage for an underlying agenda. It is also a word that was unknown a few decades ago, only coming to prominence with the simultaneous rise to political power of sections of the liberally inclined baby-boom generation.

The education- and media-led definition of multiculturalism is that all races and cultures are equal, that immigration enriches us culturally and economically, and, given an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect, differing races and religions will benefit one another when intermingled within the same territory. This is the prevailing and generally accepted definition across the West.

However, this is not the way it is taught in our schools, nor disseminated by our media. Indigenous children are indoctrinated into the belief that Western civilisation is guilty of historical and present day inequality and oppression — in short, brainwashed into shame about their race and culture. Conversely, ethnic children are both encouraged to take pride in their own race and culture and to feel victimised by the majority white society they live amongst. This version of multiculturalism is force-fed with a fervour almost religious in its intensity, despite it being a recipe for balkanisation and resentment rather than assimilation.
- - - - - - - - - -
Multiculturalism in not some type of fixed entity; it is constantly evolving, and means different things to different people. For example, to the 1960’s cultural revolutionaries and their ideological progeny, multiculturalism is simply a tool with which to bash Western civilisation. The white working class had become too affluent to be used as political pawns; ergo, import a new, “oppressed” revolutionary power base. It is not coincidental that multiculturalism’s white activists are politically of the hard left and that they deliberately divide Western countries along imported racial and religious fault lines.

To the naïve white liberal, multiculturalism means a happy-clappy utopian world without borders, where all races and all religions live together in peace and tranquility. That this runs counter to historical precedent, current reality, and the law of nature is of little interest to its proponents, thereby exposing them as either astonishingly uneducated or wilfully ignorant.

To the incoming third-worlder the white abasement ideology of multiculturalism is viewed as a weakness prevalent in the governments of the native countries. Not only are they welcomed and subsidised, they are encouraged to keep their own identities and cultures and are the recipients of state-legislated privileges not available to the native whites. It is thus an ideology that can be used to advance their ethnic group self-interest over and above that of the native group. I can only assume that their private discussions must revolve around disbelief and astonishment that any race or culture could prostrate themselves before an aggressor in such a grotesque and effeminate manner.

To the white native who wishes to preserve his historical homeland, tradition and culture, multiculturalism takes on a more disturbing aspect. Demographers predict that we will become a minority in our own countries at various points this century, some even before 2050. This means we are being territorially dispossessed, that each and every year we cede a little more physical ground to the incomers.

When one race invades the homeland of another race it does so in order to acquire territory and to impose its own culture. Conversely, the invaded group resists in order to preserve his race, his territory and his culture, not simply because he is a racist and dislikes the skin colour of the invader. Or at least that is historically how things were. The people of the West today are ceding territory, tradition, and culture, and do so in the face of evolutionary imminent minority status, whilst the incomer makes no pretence of his intentions in his avowal of Islamic mono-cultural superiority. To resist is to be called a racist, yet no one was called a racist in 1939 when we went to war with a different race and culture that wished to enter our homeland, overthrow our elected government, murder the Jews and homosexuals and consign our remaining citizens to second-class status.

Multiculturalism, when viewed through the conservative prism of racial reality rather than the liberal prism of a multiracial and multi-religious utopia can lead to only one logical conclusion, to wit, Western countries are in the process of unopposed invasion and are submitting in their entirety. Multiculturalism as practiced in the West today is an ideology of territorial and political aggression by the anti-Western invader and the submissive ideology of state sanctioned white European appeasement.

Democratic societies require balance if they are to remain democratic. Multicultural societies have drawbacks — as listed below - and if we are not to slowly slide into dictatorship or civil war then the following negative points must somehow be balanced by the positives of multi-racial, multi-religious societies.

1.		Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as “mass” as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip-feed propaganda), still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.
2.		Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and they therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.
3.		White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the world’s population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe, the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.
4.		Ethnic colonisation and ethnic political advancement operate only in countries with white European majorities. Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled. No non-white country today makes special exceptions for white minorities. Indeed, those parts of the world where whites have a final scrabbling toehold actively discriminate against them to the point of ethnic cleansing. Witness Zimbabwe and South Africa.
5.		Multi-religious countries have a history of internal violence, the outcomes of which tend toward a reversion to mono-religion after bloody civil wars. When India was partitioned in 1947 seven million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan whilst a similar number of Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction, seeking safety in a religious majority. Whilst partition stopped a full-scale civil war, some half a million people were killed [some Indian sources cite a much higher death toll — ed.]. Europe has had its Protestant/Catholic religious wars, so to introduce into its peaceful midst the fanatical religion of Islam is an act of breathtaking irresponsibility.
6.		Multicultural societies have present day tribal conflict. The UN currently has sixty thousand peacekeepers engaged in fifteen peace missions around the world. These are not cross border wars; they are internal, inter-tribal/religious conflicts. Only Western, liberal minded elites, be they Labour or Republican, could suppose that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would all kiss and make up. The chaos in Iraq is multiculturalism in the form of religious tribalism — without the benefit of a ruthless dictator to hold it together — exposed in its stark reality.
7.		The white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. They are in the main, middle class suburban or rural dwellers of majority white enclaves. One peculiarity of white liberals is that whilst they embrace the ethnic colonisation of the West they are repulsed by the history of white colonisation in the East, thereby showing that their political views have less to do with colonisation per se and more to do with a hatred of Western civilisation. Trying to find a working class man in a gritty and diverse part of town who supports this peculiar ideology is akin to discovering a conservative at the BBC or a democrat in church. Put simply, Western liberals, feminists and homosexuals, who for reasons known only to themselves support multiculturalism, do not choose to live in Riyadh yet hold up Islamic culture as equally valid.
8.		The non-white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. The Middle East is monocultural, as is Pakistan and India. The idea that Europeans in Saudi Arabia can be flogged for practicing Christianity whilst Saudi money is financing thousands of radical mosques throughout Europe is perhaps the best example of multiculturalism’s rank hypocrisy.
9.		Multiculturalism’s belief that all cultures and races are equal is simply not true. Their evolutionary capacity for equality may well be so, but when the Romans left Britain the indigenous Brits forgot all about aqueducts, under-floor heating, and democracy and immediately sank into the dark ages. If white Europeans became extinct next Friday the entire world would similarly revert to the dark ages. The world flocks to the West; there is no reciprocity as would be the case if we were truly equal.
10.		Multiculturalism breeds resentment. If we are all equal, as it supposes, then the only reason many non-whites fail to become CEO’s of multinational firms is perceived to be a consequence of white oppression rather than an innate lack of ability. Breeding resentment of course was always foremost in the mind of the culture wars liberal.
11.		Multiculturalism brings with it an increase in violent crime committed at a ratio vastly out of proportion to the ethnic numbers. This also leads to an increase in low-level crime, which the police simply have no time to handle as they are too busy writing reports and recommendations in triplicate over the latest gang rape or racial murder.
12.		Multiculturalism promotes dishonesty. Were the true facts of rape, murder and violence honestly reported, it is possible that even the docile, TV-addicted Brits might rise up. The facts are not reported, however; censorship or self-censorship of the press and media lead to a road travelled upon in the last century only by totalitarian states.
13.		Multiculturalism leads to propaganda and brainwashing. It is no coincidence that the majority of our young today display a conformity of politically correct thought diametrically opposed to that of their grandparents. In order to make a suicidally unnatural ideology acceptable it is necessary to resort to the indoctrination of children, so the history of Islamic conquest and the subjugation of the defeated peoples is hidden from view in the liberal establishment’s educational curriculum. Again, this has more to do with totalitarian dictatorships than democratic states, although having said that, it is very definitely a first whereby the state works to dispossess its own ethnic majority.
14.		Multiculturalism leads to greater government controls. In the wake of Islamic terrorism in Britain the government has passed various control and anti-terrorism orders. In the main they have been used against terrorist suspects but they have also been utilised against the indigenous population when the government does not like what it hears or sees. One example out of many is the televised manhandling and detaining of an eighty two year old heckler, Walter Wolfgang, under anti-terrorism laws during the 2005 Labour party conference. Similarly, the EU’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, whilst purportedly seeking to criminalize genuine racism also suggests that criticism of the EU could be termed xenophobic! We no longer have freedom of speech and this type of restriction is liable to intensify as the ethnic numbers and ensuing tensions increase, until eventually control will by necessity be on a par with Tito’s Yugoslavia or Saddam’s Iraq.
15.		Multiculturalism, if history repeats itself, will lead to a probable — rather than a possible — civil war. There are some three hundred and forty million ageing and demographically declining white Europeans in Western Europe and some twenty million Muslims whose reproductive proclivity will give them, varying from country to country, a numerical advantage amongst the traditional fighting ages of sixteen to thirty year olds within the next twenty to forty years. Mark Steyn in “America Alone” suggests that Islamic youth makes up forty five percent of total French city youth today. If the forty percent of Islamic youth mean what they say with regard to wanting Sharia law and if Western youth has really absorbed the appeasing indoctrination of multiculturalism then the scope for bloodshed and carnage amongst hundreds of millions of peoples is something not even the veterans of WWII can begin to imagine. If Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Turkey became involved the number of European Muslims today amounts to approximately one hundred million.
16.		Multiculturalism promotes a brain drain from Western nations. According to the Conservative Monday Club, one in two native Brits would emigrate if financially able to do so. They cited crime, education and overcrowding as the reasons but true to politically correct form never mentioned Islam or multiculturalism — only the consequences thereof. Young middle-class professionals with children are also bailing out of Europe in unprecedented droves. As this escalates, the tax base will have to rise to support Europe’s welfare states, thereby driving further taxpayers abroad until Europe will eventually consist of an embittered white underclass and a simmering ethnic population, both competing for dwindling resources.
17.		Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction to the West of tuberculosis, cholera and malaria, diseases previously thought eradicated. In Britain no medical checks are carried out on immigrants.
18.		Multiculturalism has brought the British National Health Service to its knees. The cost of anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV sufferers is some twenty five thousand pounds per year and, as a great many sub-Saharan Africans have the misfortune to suffer from this virus, it is unsurprising that they move heaven and earth to bring themselves and their infected families to Britain to benefit from free medical aid. Disapproving of this may sound inhumane but economic reality leads to a service for its own or no service for everybody.
19.		Defenders of multiculturalism point out that the British health service would collapse without immigrant nurses and doctors. This may well be true but to import them from poor countries, which have stumped up the money to train them in order to tend their own populations is an act of extreme illiberalism.
20.		Multiculturalism leads to a lack of cohesion. A successful nation is made from the bottom up. Individuals form families, then communities, towns, cities, and lastly the Nation State. Cohesive countries tend to be monocultural, acting in the best interests of the group. The West today is being balkanised and tribalised and, should we need to come together at some future point to defeat, say, a 21st century Hitler, or more pertinently an Islamic France, it is unlikely that our Muslim communities would fight on our side.
21.		Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction of slavery, euphemistically entitled “people trafficking”. Britain’s massage parlours generate close to a billion pounds per year from the enforced prostitution of five thousand predominately East European and Asian teenaged children smuggled in by Albanian and Turkish gangs.
22.		Multiculturalism is a betrayal of our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died to preserve their countries and cultures. Many ex-servicemen I have spoken to tell me with great sadness that multicultural Britain was not worth their sacrifice or the deaths of their comrades. Indeed it is a double betrayal: young children today may well have to face submission or war in the coming decades.
23.		The Jewish Holocaust was an act of such inhumane savagery that Western Europeans vowed it would never happen again. But multi-racialism/multi-religion is responsible for present day holocausts. The Islamic Janjaweed militias have killed one million non Muslim Sudanese Africans over the last decade. Does one million dead not count as a holocaust?
24.		Multiculturalism betrays the low-income white child. Some schools in the poorer parts of London speak thirty different languages, hardly a place for poor white children to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The result is that low-income white children are now at the very bottom of education league tables.
25.		Multiculturalism restricts the freedom of both children and adults. I know many parents who refuse to let their children travel into central London and undertake said journeys themselves only if absolutely necessary. This is hardly surprising. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 claims that British secret services have thwarted five full-scale attacks since the July 2005 tube bombings and are actively tracking two hundred groups consisting of one thousand six hundred people. She admits these are only the ones that they know about, and is concerned that one hundred thousand “British” citizens sympathise with terrorist suicide bombers. Well, yes — so she should and so should we.
26.		Multiculturalism leads to a reduction of standards in our quota driven-institutions. To take one example, entry requirements for the British police now consist of zero academic qualifications whilst minor criminal convictions are overlooked if the applicant is of the right colour.
27.		Multiculturalism is a drain on the taxpayer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of diversity officers, equality officers and race awareness officers, all funded directly by the state.
28.		Multiculturalism claims all faiths are equally valid yet in practice it is distinctly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic. It is thus partially responsible for the cleansing of Christianity from continental Europe and is totally responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism, particularly in France, which Israel now deems unsafe for Jews.
29.		Multiculturalism is totalitarian. It brooks no opposition from its detractors and carries out campaigns against perceived heretics with a viciousness previously unknown in Western politics. The vitriolic campaign waged against the British headmaster Ray Honeyford during the 1980’s is a case in point. That his proposal of Muslim assimilation has now been vindicated is not to suppose he will receive compensation or apology. The irony, if irony is not too weak a word, is that multiculturalism, in its promotion of Islam, seeks to elevate the one single culture and religion with an avowed ambition of mono-cultural global dominance.
30.		Finally, multiculturalism is treason. Not legally, I grant you, but technically, how can this not be so? If it is indeed the case that the West is undergoing a slow-motion, unarmed invasion then any government that both condones the invasion and criminalizes those that oppose it must surely be guilty of treason. When the ancient treason laws were written it never occurred to the original drafters that any country would be foolish enough to open its doors to an Islamic Trojan horse, but we in the 21st century West are that foolish; we have opened the doors and the treason laws need urgent redrafting.

In conclusion, although this essay is entitled “Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits” I cannot in all honesty think of any merits important enough to outweigh the negatives above. That mass immigration from the third world is of supposed economic benefit is one, but Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK debunks this proposal, whilst a liking of spicy curry simply doesn’t cut the ideological mustard.

This essay, although slightly revised here, was posted on a British web site earlier this week. The reaction was one of incredulity that anyone could write such racist rubbish. I was accused of being either xenophobic or mentally unhinged. The web site was right of centre with a distinct anti-Islamic ethos, so either too much thinking about Islam and the West has finally done for me, or more worryingly the British have been so utterly brainwashed they can longer see the reality of their imminent demise. Many social commentators on American web sites are of the opinion that Britain is committing suicide. In further light of this article[BELOW] in today’s Daily Mail, I am inclined to agree.
----------------------------------

 

Sunday, Apr 01 2012 

The town branded too white and too British

Last updated at 09:42 02 March 2007

Corby (top) is 93.7% white, while Leicester (middle) is 59.6%. Louise Bagshawe (bottom) received the letter from Ann Beasley (inset)

A town is being stripped of scores of public sector jobs because its residents are "too white and British".
The Prison Service is relocating the posts to a nearby city where there are more ethnic minorities.
The incredible decision, which could lead to an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality, was disclosed yesterday in a leaked official letter.


It is the first known case of its kind, but MPs warned similar moves could secretly be taking place across the country as civil servants are under enormous pressure from ministers to boost the number of ethnic minorities working in the public sector.
The 80 office jobs are being transferred from the depressed former steel town of Corby, in Northamptonshire, to Leicester.
The Tory General Election candidate for the town, which suffers from deprivation and is in desperate need of jobs, wrote to the Prison Service to demand an explanation.

In an astonishing reply, director of finance Ann Beasley - one of Home Secretary John Reid's top civil servants - said the town had too many white British residents.
As a result, it does not satisfy the drive to recruit more ethnic minorities.

Under the heading "key influencing factors", the letter states: "Our ability to attract a more diverse workforce - 93.7 per cent of the population of Corby are white British, compared to 59.6 per cent in Leicester>"

Mrs Beasley also implies Corby's residents are also too stupid to keep the jobs, which are mostly clerical posts buying equipment for the prison service.

She states that 17 per cent of people living in Leicester are qualified to degree level, compared with only nine per cent in Corby.

Furious opposition politicians were stunned by the reply and accused Labour of effectively being racist against whites.
The Conservative's diversity spokesman, Dominic Grieve, said: "This is very worrying. The Government should not be penalising people because of the ethnic make-up of where they live. The Government needs to explain just how widespread this policy is."
Louise Bagshawe, the candidate who received the letter, said: "Labour has controlled Corby council for 23 years and the town is very deprived. We have the lowest wages in Northamptonshire. Now locals are being told that Corby is too British for British jobs."
She added: "I told Ann Beasley our town already has a thriving Polish immigrant community, but she ignored this. Corby is just beginning to turn the corner, but we need good jobs.
"Gordon Brown loves to bang on about Britishness - if he means it, I call on him to reverse this disgraceful policy and tell Corby people they aren't too "white British" for Government jobs."
Kettering's Tory MP Philip Hollobone, whose constituents are also facing job losses, added: "People will be hugely offended that a decision like this is being made on racial grounds."
The Home Office last night stood by the letter, saying that attracting a "more diverse workforce" was a "key factor" in moving the jobs.
Discriminating against somebody on the grounds of race is outlawed by the Race Relations Act 2000.
But the Act does allow public bodies to take "positive action" to meet recruitment targets. In this instance, it would be illegal to say that the jobs must be filled by ethnic minority recruits, but moving to an area where they are more likely to apply for the posts is not illegal.
Staff based at the Crown House building in Corby will lose their jobs on March 19 when the building closes for regeneration work.
It had been assumed the Prison Service would find a new office in the town - which has an above average unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent, compared with 5.2 per cent nationwide. But officials, keen to fall in with Labour's "diversity agenda", seized the opportunity to move jobs to Leicester, one of the UK's most ethnically-mixed cities.
Staff have been given the option of transferring, but few - if any - are expected to agree to the lengthy commute.
A spokesman for the Commission for Racial Equality said that if they receive a complaint from any of the workers involved, they will start a full investigation.
A Prison Service spokesman said: "The potential sale of the property has given Her Majesty's Prison Service the opportunity to look at what provides the best option for the Prison Service and therefore the taxpayer in the medium to longer term.
"The key factors that influenced our decision to relocate to Leicester were the closer proximity to a greater number of prison establishments, better transport links, the ability to recruit professional staff and the ability to attract a more diverse workforce."
---------------------------------

Paul Weston - Cool War — Warm War — Hot War

Cool War — Warm War — Hot War

This is the latest in a series of essays from the British author Paul Weston.


Part 1

by Paul Weston

If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but — as an added bonus — also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook, of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this, notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself — to name but a few.
[.......]

What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” — manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism — inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.

A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.

The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”

The Culture / Civilisation War
- - - - - - - - -
The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching its peak in the attitude demonstrated not only by the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but also by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.

On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.

The Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen, was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.

Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien, and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of AIDS victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!“

The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.

No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and — in contrast with Islamic countries — respect for religious and political rights.”

Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam — a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?

But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr. Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.

Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.

The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to “unlearn” racism, young Westerners have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history — or more succinctly, the very essence of their being — is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.

This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed — as they say they are — of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.

Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.

As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged — nee forced — to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with its inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”

Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:

There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.

Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:

“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable — providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”

Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”

This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West — but it gets worse. When little boys rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.

Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.

This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it — “girly men” — little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.

As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.

If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,“ but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.

One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.

A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result — for the first time in the history of womankind — we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.

Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West — which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.

Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men — brainwashed into dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it — have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word — extinction.

If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types — if there are any left — for their defence.

And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed-for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.

It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.

What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WWII, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women, and blow their citizens up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:

“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”

As a final note: what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.
--------------------------Part 2

by Paul Weston

The second strand of the cool war is the political/propaganda war, which we are also losing. Whether this is this because our ruling elites are terrified of Islamic aggression, harbour a loathing of the West bordering on the suicidal, or exhibit ignorance verging on the criminally negligent is not completely clear at the present moment, but may yet be discovered at some future Nuremberg style war trials.

As “The Religion Of Peace” bombs, beheads, maims, murders and rapes its way around the globe, the citizens of the West find themselves inhabiting some sort of parallel universe where the daily evidence placed before their eyes is flatly contradicted by their own liberal ruling elites. Western politicians appear to have appraised the situation and made a decision, based on short-term political expediency, to side with an alien culture that promises violence rather than their own indigenous people, who peacefully — to date — accept pretty much anything.

The attempt by Western liberals to portray Islam as the religion of peace is nothing short of pathological. In a sane world this would not be possible, but the West is no longer sane, and this is the message promulgated by our political, media and educational establishments.

The Muslim radicals, acutely aware of what would happen if Christians emigrated en masse to say, Saudi Arabia, and behaved as they themselves do in the West, can only rub their eyes in amazed disbelief at not only what they are able to get away with, but the subsequent debased reaction from their victims, manifested in the cringing appeasement of Western elites as they apologise for their wicked existence and prostrate themselves before Allah.

Prostrate themselves before Allah! What a typical example of reactionary, right wing, racist hysteria the liberal/left will shriek, but how does one explain the following?

When Islamic terrorists blow us up in skyscrapers, trains, metros and buses, the ruling elites immediate response is to ask what wrongs the West must surely have perpetrated in order to attract such animosity. If no particular wrong can be found, our politicians will try to explain it away as the result of poverty and oppression, and should that prove to be false, then some past act of Christian aggression from the 11th century, or the full moon, or Europe’s dreary weather, or anything, simply anything, save the one simple, unpalatable truth: Jihad for the sake of Allah in pursuit of the Global Caliphate.

After 9/11, the FBI asked the terrorist linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to provide “sensitivity training” for their agents, whilst in the wake of the 7/7 transport bombings in London, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were asked to help draft the new anti-terror laws, which included the notification of Muslim communities prior to any police raids, the requirement by the police to remove their shoes and socks before entering a Muslim house, times when they could and could not carry out said raids, and the stipulation that police dogs were strictly “canina non grata.”
In France, the Muslim street riots of 2005 led to French politicians promising more money for the banlieus and agreeing to turn a blind eye to the Sharia courts, the honour killings and the polygamy carried out within them. In Belgium, native socialist sympathisers have allied themselves with Islam and now politically dominate Brussels, where they use this political clout to ban demonstrations protesting Islam’s growing political control in Europe.

In Holland, 2006, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner had no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it was done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”


In Spain the Madrid train bombings ushered in a new era of dhimmified government more in tune with Islam’s demands and in Britain, after yet another transit bombing by the religion of peace, Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, immediately set up a committee to advise and “reassure” Muslims on the “Islamophobic” backlash (which never materialised) and said: “What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love.”
- - - - - - - - -
The legislation emanating from the European Court Of Human Rights has meant terrorists wanted for questioning in Egypt and Syria are allowed to remain free in Britain, lest they be tortured if their extradition were granted, whilst Oriana Fallaci, whose passionate love for Italy and democracy was proven in her resistance against Mussolini’s fascist state, was forced to die in exile in America, even as the Italian courts pressed for her extradition to face charges contravening EU laws on racism and xenophobia.

Her crime? She wrote two deeply moving books, The Rage And The Pride and The Force of Reason, lamenting the death of her beloved Italy and its replacement by resurgent Islam. If she had sought refuge in any EU country, she would have been forcibly extradited by Europol under another new EU law, The European Arrest Warrant, and tried by Eurojust, who along with Europol now possess powers that override those of nation states; their personnel are also covered by diplomatic immunity. These people were not fit to wait on her table; the idea that she had to flee them is obscene.
When Jewish graveyards were desecrated in France and Germany a few years ago, the EU commissioned a report, assuming it was the work of the Neo-Nazi “right”. When it turned out, all too predictably, to be the work of the followers of Mohammed, the report was quietly shelved and replaced with one six months later, exonerating the Muslims. Or to use Oriana Fallaci’s words, “the sons of Allah.”

When investigations (Daily Mail, 23 Nov 2005. No link) suggested that some 2,000 young Muslims — annually — attend terrorist training camps in Britain for unarmed combat training, the politicians and media tell us that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who wish us harm, a lie countered by Daniel Pipes who has a web page devoted to surveys revealing the true extent of support for radical Islam. The politicians and the media, who prefer to call Pipes an extremist, ignore this site.
The manipulative tactics of EU politicians do not stop at mere misrepresentation; they also use their new laws to curtail free speech. The rights of Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Expression, as ordained by the EU, do not hold up to close inspection. The attempt to hold a demonstration in Brussels on 9/11 2007 was thwarted lest our freedom of expression interfere with Islam’s freedom not hear it. Terry Davis, the socialist Secretary General of The Council of Europe, put out the following press release:

It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

One cannot pick and choose freedom of speech, it either exists, in which case one lives in a democracy, or it does not, and one does not. Islam is not simply a religion; it is also a political ideology. The EU has therefore made the protest of a political movement illegal. This is totalitarianism.

When Nick Griffin of the BNP predicted — before the London transport bombings of 7/7 — that Britain would be attacked, that the terrorists would be home grown “British boys” and that Islam was a “wicked, vicious faith,” he was prosecuted and tried not once but twice, in an attempt to jail him for inciting racial hatred. When he was found not guilty, the government’s response, at the behest of Muslim leaders, was to bring in a new law, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act under which they could be more confident of jailing him the next time he correctly predicted a terrorist attack and accused Islam of being wicked and nasty.

Contrast this with the surreal antics of the British police when radical imams were exposed calling for the overthrow of the West in Channel 4’s undercover dispatches program. The immediate response of the police was not to prosecute the imams for sedition and incitement to racial hatred, but the makers of the program themselves! By drawing attention to genuine racial and religious hatred, Channel 4 was accused of inciting racial hatred. This is more than merely bizarre; this is insane.

To date, not one of the Islamic preachers has been tried and prosecuted, despite calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals, the beating of women and the subjugation of the infidel kuffar. A BNP member calling for the death of “niggers” would quite rightly be arrested and prosecuted, whilst I, as a white European Christian “kafir,” can be abused in a similar vein with impunity. This situation is fast becoming intolerable.

When Muslim radicals see this craven appeasement they become, quite naturally, emboldened. Despite being a significant minority, they are aware that they can punch well above their weight, which in Britain now means pushing for Sharia schools and a semi Sharia state.

In February 2007, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a 72-page manifesto demanding that British schools adopt Islamic guidelines. These included pretty much everything you would expect of a school in Saudi Arabia, including veils for ALL female students, full-length swimming costumes for boys, and separate wash areas for Muslims. The report, which was available at the MCB website has since mysteriously disappeared.

Dr Bari, the Secretary General of the MCB, also thinks the British should adopt arranged marriage, recruit 3,000 Muslim policemen in London to “restore trust,” attend Muslim institutions, stop drinking and gambling and accept Muslim dress codes, saying: “That is another thing the British should learn from us, modesty is attractive.”

If Europeans try to resist further Muslim immigration, they are liable to fall foul of being labelled xenophobic, which under EU laws can carry a prison term of up to three years. If the native British resist the MCB’s ongoing Islamisation of their country then they could, in Bari’s words, only be compared to Nazi Germany. In other words: Peace On Our Terms, as prescribed by Islam and the EU.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic movement banned in Middle-Eastern countries and dedicated to bringing about a global Islamic Caliphate, was supposed to be banned by the British government in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. It has not, and one if its leaders actually works in the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Needless to say, membership of the BNP would preclude you from such a position.

Whilst we are busy denying our culture, Islam is busy promoting theirs. If they run into difficulties, a simple accusation of racism tends to make any potential resistance disappear, whilst our appeasement, increasingly mandated by legal requirement, is one part of our culture that Islam has no problem interacting with. The result of their aggression, combined with their tactical awareness of how to use our appeasing liberalism against ourselves, has bought them a great many political concessions, where our culture and our civilisation are forced to bow to theirs.

Halal food is served in many public institutions, swimming baths have Muslim only sessions, crosses are removed from public areas, Christmas is downplayed lest it upset Muslim sensibilities, the Holocaust is dropped from school curricula, as it opposes the Holocaust denial that Muslim children are taught at home and in the mosques. The police drastically lower their entry standards in order to fill racial quotas and then stand idly by as street preaching imams promote death and destruction to the West, spurred into activity on occasion only to arrest members of the native population who heckle or attempt to take photographs.

The EU passes laws criminalizing the indigenous population if they speak out, backed up by national governments that do the same. The police arrest us on the slightest pretext, yet ignore genuine hatred emanating from Islamic preachers, and our politicians appear to have tacitly accepted that peace can only be bought off via our appeasement. Living in Europe is becoming a wholly surreal experience that defies logic and reason as we slowly sink into state-enforced Dhimmitude.

The various councils, parliaments, brotherhoods and associations, all prefixed by “Muslim” are driven more by political ambition than religious empathy, and their advance is both remorseless and relentless. The political parties representing the indigenous peoples of the West are retreating, apologising, appeasing and betraying. We are not just losing the political war. We are being annihilated.

------------------------------

 

IMPORTANT-The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip

The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip

by Paul Weston

The increasingly dictatorial behaviour of the unelected EU Commissioners rather proves the point made by Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who way back in 2006 stated that the political structure of the European Union was similar to that of the Supreme Soviet and the Politburo, and that the similarity was intentional.

The liberal-left are woefully ignorant of history, yet with their various humanities degrees they should know something of human nature, but even this appears to be beyond their intellectual grasp. The mental make-up of all dictators seeks one thing and one thing only — control over all others. Lenin once remarked that Communism was not actually about equality for the worker, but was rather about control. Total control.

Have we not seen this in the last few weeks? Frau Merkel and Monsieur Sarkozy are both on record stating their intention to wrest further EU control from the European electorate in the wake of the Eurozone economic catastrophe (inflicted by EU economic policy) and they are now doing this in spades.

Greek ex-Prime Minister Papandreou rather foolishly suggested the Greek people might like to influence their economic future in a democratic manner, only to be immediately toppled by the EU powers and replaced by Lucas Papademos, a man of impeccable Socialist economic credentials, who went from Governor of the Bank of Greece to Vice President of the European Central Bank (ECB) to Prime Minister of Greece. In other words an EU placeman in a previously democratic country.

In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was not brought down by his lurid sexual shenanigans or his alleged lifelong corruption, but because he dared to question the validity of the euro. Enter the incensed EU Politburo, and exit the aged yet curiously wrinkle-free lecherous Lothario, to be replaced by unelected former EU Commissioner Mario Monti and a cabinet of bankers and academics, not one of whom represents a single Italian political party. Is this democracy in action? No, it is totalitarianism, pure and simple.

This should come as no surprise to those who understand the dictatorial machinations of the EU. Countries such as Ireland and Denmark were allowed referendums, but when they refused to accept the EU’s vision of a Utopian Socialist future, they were alternately threatened and bribed until they eventually complied with the wishes of the unelected EU Commissioners.

We saw the same disregard for democracy in Britain in 2004 after the North East firmly rejected setting up a Regional Assembly, much to the fury of the Labour government, whose response was simply to carry on regardless of the will of the people. In 2007 Gordon Brown established nine regional government offices complete with regional ministers, as per the EU geographical division of England.

Britain has been shamefully treated by its own politicians. The Labour manifesto of 2005 stated the electorate would be allowed to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but they lied. David Cameron, ever clever with words, managed to sound like he intended to offer a referendum, but of course he has not. So here we are, run effectively by unelected Socialists in Brussels, via a puppet government of supposed “Conservatives” in Westminster.

In the last week alone we discovered that the EU wishes to import millions more North African Muslim migrants into Europe and Britain through Mobility Partnerships, the aim of which is to make EU action “more migrant-centred, with the aim of empowering migrants and strengthening their human rights in countries of origin, transit and destination.”

William Hague, Foreign Secretary and EU poodle, heard the call and penned an article for the Daily Telegraph outlining the importance of Turkish accession into the EU, no matter what Amnesty International might have to say about Turkey’s attitude to Human Rights. What a curious situation: even as the Arab Spring descends into Koranic Winter, our impossibly stupid politicians press for their own countries to be overrun by people unable to function in liberal democracies.

Why does the EU wish to import these racially and culturally foreign people? The answer is very simple: divide and rule, break down the community and smash the nation state. The Russians did this after they annexed the Baltic States during WWII, when huge numbers of Russians were exported to the conquered territories in an attempt to dilute and “de-nationalise” the native populations, thereby easing Soviet control.

The other reason for swamping racially and culturally cohesive countries with massed foreign people who have no intention of adopting British values is equally simple. Our rulers tell us they bring “diversity” but that is a lie. Local police chiefs talk of “nerve jangling” friction in multicultural areas which leads to ever-greater government control to keep the lid on the simmering factions. The more divisiveness, or multiculturalism, the more power to the Socialist elites — just as was planned.

Control is what it is all about. Over the last few days we learned that the EU wants the financial City of London to fall further under EU governance, with additional pressure being applied on Britain to join the calamitous Euro. Another EU diktat currently going through legislation proposes all new businesses must provide a surety of twenty-five thousand Euros. Why? Because it is far easier to control a thousand companies of a reasonable size than ten thousand smaller ones, no matter the economic destruction this will cause.

Meanwhile Frau Merkel and the EU Commissioners are making plans to ensure Britain is prevented from allowing a referendum, which under current EU law would be triggered as a direct result of the constitutional changes necessary in the proposal of a new, powerful and unelected EU quango, whose remit is the political annexation of failing Eurozone member-states.

And let us not forget the extraordinary physical power the EU already has over us. Europol, the EU’s sinister state police service, can travel across borders under diplomatic immunity. The EU even has its own paramilitary unit, the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) which is rumoured to be operating alongside Greek riot police. Then there is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which can be issued anywhere in Europe, requesting the arrest and extradition of a British subject — a matter in which British courts are overruled should they wish to intervene.

The EAW was introduced in 2003 to target serious crime and terrorism, but many of the thousands of European and British people extradited to date were arrested for “crimes” of laughable triviality. The future however may not be so trivial. Under the EU’s laws on racism and xenophobia it is quite possible we could see an EAW issued simply because the accused person publicly expressed his dislike of Islamic immigration, thereby exposing himself as both a “racist” and a “xenophobe”.

All of the above should be taken very seriously. And, if we had a decent mainstream media, I have no doubt it would, but the Socialists in the media are in broad agreement with the Socialists in Brussels, so the dictators get a free pass. Can you imagine the BBC still supporting the European Union if Brussels had been taken over by the political right? Of course not — they would denounce the EU as a totalitarian disgrace — and they would be correct.

The EU has passed 120,000 pieces of legislation, out of which only some 10% have been enacted. The remainder are waiting to be used in the future. The framework has already been built for total and utter control of previously democratic European countries; we now simply await their enforcement. When might this be? No one knows for sure, but it seems a good long-term bet to suggest we will be subjected to an incremental tightening of their control over us. Whether it remains a soft ideology remains to be seen, but there is no reason at all to think the violent Socialist history of the last century is now behind us.

We are watching a genuine dictatorship in the making. These people have no regard for democracy, and their Socialist ideology is simply a softer version of the Communist ideology that murdered over 100 million people over the last century, whilst simultaneously destroying the economies and societies of the nations it infected. The most powerful man in Europe is Commission President Barroso, an ex-Maoist with no apparent regrets, and even now his apparatchiks talk of the new powers appropriated on the back of the economic disaster as a “Great Leap Forward.” During the Chinese “leap”, of course, Chairman Mao murdered some 45 million of his own people.