Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Pegida in Birmingham

A Short History of Islamic Terror in Birmingham

This are just some of the stories from Birmingham’s recent history.

*) In a report a few years ago, MI5 said that there were 80 known terror cells and 35 suspect Islamic groups in the West Midlands region - more than twice as many as London.

*) In 2006 there was a plot to behead a British solider which led to arrests in the city. The Muslim responsible plotted to behead the British soldier "like a pig" and film the killing in a lock-up garage. Parviz Khan then planned to broadcast footage of "the ghastly death" in an attempt to spread panic among the armed forces and the public.

*) The ‘Tipton Taliban’ (Tipton is an area in Birmingham) were imprisoned after being captured in Afghanistan.

*) In 2011, a group of 12 Muslims were held in police custody on attempts to commit “mass murder”. The plot was to kill at least 2,000 non-Muslims with nail-bombs and other devices. Seven of the group confessed and were charged. Two of the Islamic terrorists were from Birmingham's Sparkbrook and Sparkhill.

*) Five Muslims from Birmingham (one from Sparkhill) admitted to a plot to bomb an EDL demo in 2012.

*) Wounded soldiers in Selly Oak were harangued by Muslims in 2010.

The “Spy Camera” Affair

As a result of the above, West Midlands Police decided to install CCTVs (or what Muslims and their Trotskyist enablers called ‘spy cameras’) in various Muslim areas of Birmingham, such as Sparkbrook and Washwood Heath.

Not long after this, there was a campaign against the CCTVs by various Muslims, Islamists and radical Leftists. This culminated in a public debate at Sparkbrook (6.7.2010) in which the police promised to remove the CCTVs.

In that debate Lord Nazir Ahmed threatened “civil unrest” (this can be seen here) if the cameras weren’t immediately taken down. Lord Ahmed has been suspended twice from the Labour Party: once for placing a bounty on George W. Bush's head and the other time for talking about Jewish conspiracies. He also once threatened to "bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if the campaigning anti-Islamist Dutch MP Geert Wilders was allowed to speak" at a broadcast of the film Fitna.

At the same meeting (then) Councillor Salma Yaqoob also said:

“If the police do not remove them, will you join me this Summer to take every single one down?”

This too is on video.

Only a short while after West Midlands Police promised to take them down, West Midlands Police told the Birmingham Mail (31.10.2010) that it was expecting a “Mumbai-style attack on the city [Birmingham]”.

Just a few weeks later, West Midlands Police did begin to take the CCTVs down.

Birmingham Before the Trojan Horse Affair

*) In November 2010, the Education Secretary Michael Gove warned that schools in Birmingham have been targeted by Islamic extremists trying to infiltrate the education system. (This was four years before Salma Yaqoob started talking about “hype” and “witch-hunts” regarding Birmingham's schools.) He told MPs there were “genuine dangers” due to extremist influence in state schools.

*) The Daily Mail published a feature on a Birmingham Islamic schools. Darul Islamic High School School, Small Heath (Birmingham), was also featured. As a result of this, the Daily Mail (14th Feb, 2011) said that Muslim teachers had “met with police chiefs”.


*) A Channel 4
‘Undercover Mosque’ program (2007) revealed the widespread preaching of jihadist doctrine in Birmingham. (See also 'Undercover Mosque: The Return'.)

*) In early 2011, Channel 4‘s Dispatches programme (‘Lessons in Hatred and Violence’) broadcast a feature on Birmingham’s mosques and Islamic schools. It showed, with a hidden film, that such mosques were rife with Islamic extremism. A preacher/teacher is on film saying “the disbelievers are the worst creatures”.

Another film showing a preacher/teacher talking about Hindus: “The Hindus do, they drink piss... Do they have any intellect? No.”

Birmingham Lib-Dem MP, John Hemming (Yardley) defended Green Lane mosque by saying:

“If Channel 4 thinks this is a school where racism and intolerance is accepted in any way, they have got their facts seriously wrong.”

On the 20th January, 2011, the Telegraph published a feature on Birmingham. In it there's a quote from a Belgium Muslim who had moved to Birmingham. He was quoted (by the Telegraph’s Ed West) as saying:“Everybody knows. Birmingham - best place in Europe to be a pure Muslim.”

The same article stated that “a large Taliban flag fluttered daily on a house near St Andrew’s football stadium ]Birmingham City] for some months”.


Pegida in Birmingham

Why will Pegida be in Birmingham on Saturday? It won’t be there to fight, “divide communities” or to “spread racial hatred”. It will be there to unite communities and tell them about our common threats – militant Islam, sharia law and Islamic supremacism. It is these things which will cause conflict in our society, not Pegida. Pegida simply wants to highlight these problems before they reach the state they've reached in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Palestine, southern Thailand and all the places where the religion of Islam is not properly separated from civic and political society.

As for racism. In many respects, Islam is a racist religion or has become a racist religion. Muslims see all other religions as “deviations” or “perversions” of that “final word”. Not only that. Those who aren’t Muslim - be they Christians, Jews, Sikhs, etc. - are looked down upon by millions upon millions of Muslims as the ‘infidel’. And at times this hatred of diversity within Islam has lead, quite logically, to killing and violence. In fact it has done so numerous times and still does so today – every single day. From the no-goes areas of Paris to the large departures of Jews from European cities - where there is Islam there is violence and conflict. Indeed violent jihad is written into the very fabric of Islam.

As for a more unequivocal racism. Think of how the Arab nature and traditions of Islam are stressed. The Koran “can only be properly understood in Arabic”. Indeed Allah Himself seems to have spoken only Arabic. Every Muslim on the planet - from Birmingham to Karachi - has to adopt at least one Arabic name. This Arabocentrism goes even further than that. Even the dress sense and cultural mores of Muslims are based on Arab traditions.

And then there is the apartheid nature of the Muslim communities which self-segregate themselves from all other communities. That isn't “embracing diversity” or “community cohesion”. It is self-ghettoisation, Islamic supremacism and separatism.

All that is real apartheid.

Thus Pegida won't be in Birmingham to “persecute Muslims” or “spread division”. It will be there to do the job which the Government and the press should be doing. Pegida will be telling the truth about the nature of political Islam. It will be telling the truth about the nature of Islam in our country today. It will be telling the truth about, for example, Muslim self-ghettoisation, the Islamist nature of the Muslim Council of Britain, the duplicitous nature of many Muslim organisations, the deliberate building of mega-mosques as acts of Islamic supremacism and arrogance, Muslim gang violence and the rape jihad in many of our inner-cities.

What's wrong with all that? Nothing. And that's why the Left, the Church of Interfaith, much of the press and politicians call Pegida “racist” or even “fascist”. The use these thought-stopping words betrays the fact that they have no arguments against Pegida. Thus they must insult or demean its supporters with empty phrases and Leftist soundbites. They most focus exclusively on the isolated acts of violence at counter-jihad demos. They must stress the concocted links between Pegida and the far right.

That's why Pegida will be in Birmingham on Saturday.

Wednesday, 13 January 2016

Anti-Racist Zealots

Almost every single day someone or other is put before an anti-racist inquisition or a new - even stricter - law is decreed to fight racism.
Anti-racism has now become another revolution that's eating its own children.
What we have with much of today's anti-racism is the same kind of absurdity and extremity which often happened during various historical inquisitions. More specifically, anti-racism is just like the many other political movements that, in time, became corrupted.
Many anti-racists also feel the need to to justify their existence and legitimacy by becoming more and more pure (i.e. extreme). And, as a consequence, they will also need to find new targets – more evil racists - to reprimand or even punish.
What partly contributes to all this is that a minority of Leftist activists (though often highly-influential people in the law, councils, academia, etc.) are attempting to create a “revolutionary situation” by deliberately making anti-racism policies and actions more extreme. Thus, in the process, these Leftists - along with their words and actions - are alienating people who aren't otherwise racist. Such Leftists think that the violence, turmoil or even civil conflict that their words and policies create may be utilised to benefit their own primary cause: revolutionary socialism or the “progressive future”. Thus they see what they're doing as tapping into anti-racism's revolutionary/radical potential. (These very same Leftists also - to use their own words - “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims”.)
The fight against racism, then, is but a means to a revolutionary or radical end.

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Cologne & Rotherham: Leftist Anti-racism Helped Cause Mass Sexual Abuse


Why are nearly all European and American Leftists/socialists/”progressives” (as well as most feminists and the authorities) utterly silent on Islamic misogyny and rape?

The answer to that is brutally simple.
It's because most Muslims have brown and black skin. Thus the Left's racist and theory-driven anti-racism trumps both feminism and justice itself.
All this explains what happened in Cologne and Rotherham.
Leftist anti-racism (or the anti-racism policies and actions of councillors, the police, social workers, politicians, etc.) initially trumped the abuse of hundreds of German women and even erased any prior commitment to feminist principles.
You see, in the Left's “hierarchies of oppression”, racism is the worst sin. Yet Leftists themselves were profoundly racist for allowing all this to happen.
What I mean by that is that the Cologne and Rotherham scandals were largely the result of a double-dose of the Left's own brands of racism. Namely:
    *) Its negative racism towards the largely white and working-class victims of Europe's Muslim grooming-gangs and abusers.

    **) Its positive/“inverted” (or patronising) racism towards the gangs themselves; which is based on the non-white skin colour of the Muslim rapists and abusers.
    So added to the Left's positive/inverted racism towards all black and brown people, you also have its negative racism towards non-Leftist whites.
      All this was graphically displayed by what happened in Cologne and Rotherham. Though it has also happened throughout Europe and in many dissimilar cases.

    Indeed this situation is so bad that not only have Leftists enabled the mass abuse of young girls, even after the shit had hit the fan (or after it had hit the national news), such Leftists still wanted things to carry on as before. That is, Leftists criticised those who spoke out against both the abuse and the political inaction; as well as agitated against the demonstrations which then occurred.

    Monday, 11 January 2016

    After Cologne

    Cologne is bound to be the start of something new. At first, of course, the media cynically ignored what had happened. Or, more correctly, they knew what had happened but decided not to make it news. After all, being outraged about mass sexual molestation is racist, innit?

    Islam will never stop its jihad. It's been going on for around 1,300 years. Rape and sexual slavery, as practised by the Prophet Muhammed, is just part of that jihad/war.

    We must wake up – wake up or be enslaved. Writing posts on Facebook is no longer enough. Patriots and counter-jihadists must take the war beyond Facebook. Facebook is mainly about the converted preaching to the converted. We must take the counter-jihad outside Facebook...

    Wednesday, 9 December 2015

    Jeremy Corbyn and Stop the War aren't Pacifists!

    … or even “anti-war”.

    American readers may not be aware that the British Opposition – the Labour Party – has appointed a communist (or, in his own words, a “democratic socialist”) as its leader.

    Jeremy Corbyn MP was the chair of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) from 2011 until September 2015. A week after his election as leader of the Labour Party (in September 2015) he announced that he was stepping down from the role. He also said that he'd continue to support Stop the War.

    The StWC has been actively campaigning against military action in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria since it was created in 2001. Thus it was inevitable that both Jeremy Corbyn and StWC would be against any military action in Syria. Though, as we shall see, not because they are pacifists or even anti-war.

    The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has only just accused those who are against air-strikes against the Islamic State in Syria as being “terrorist sympathisers”. He's right. However, Leftists are terrorist sympathisers not because they oppose air-strikes; but because they are literally sympathetic towards terrorist groups (e.g., Hamas and Hezbollah) and terror-supporting states (e.g., Iran and Syria) and their various causes. Isolationists and others, on the other hand, will be against Syrian intervention for very different reasons.


    First things first. Jeremy Corbyn is not – repeat not – a pacifist and it's a disgrace that certain tabloids and commentators have described him in that that way. He is self-described as a "anti-imperialist campaigner" who's working within the system he ultimately wants to destroy. This is a stance which dates back to Antonio Gramsci in the late 1920s and 1930s. After that, the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky and many others have updated Gramscian theories for their own countries and for their own times.

    Thus Corbyn is not against war – he's only against wars fought be Western “capitalist states”. The Stop the War Coalition too is only against supposedly “capitalist wars”. Many other forms of violence - carried by Islamists, communists or those who aren't white (e.g. “national liberation movements”) - are supported by Stop the War. In other words, the Stop the War Coalition has zero to say (in terms of demonstrations, activism and rhetoric) about wars and violence carried out by non-capitalist states and Islamic terror groups.

    The founders of StWC were all members (or former members) of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Indeed it was only the other day that I saw Corbyn share a platform with SWP member and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) leader: violent criminal, Weyman Bennett.

    Since we're on the subject of the StWC, it's also worth mentioning the strong connections between its leaders and activists and the Iranian theocratic state. Various StWC leaders have presented programmes for Iran's Press TV channel; along with other Islamist outlets. George Galloway, for example, is also an important leader of the Stop the War Coalition.
    John Rees and CAGE

    One other leader - and a founder - of the StWC (its 'national officer') is John Rees; who's also a founder and leader of the very recent Trotskyist frontgroup – The People's Assembly. Rees also effectively works for the Iranian state and does its propaganda business via Press TV and the Islam Channel. (Here's a CST link on John Rees's work for the Islam Channel.) Indeed recently John Rees took part in the infamous press conference held by the Islamist group CAGE in which Britain's 'Jihadi John' was both defended and supported.

    John Rees, then, will receiving thousands of pounds (minimum) a month from the Iranian state. Rees, as a leader of The People's Assembly, also once said that he'd support Iran in a war with Britain. And, as everyone should know, Iran supports both Bashar Assad and Hezbollah – all at the heart of Syria's current civil war.

    Now what does Stop the War and John Rees think of the Iranian state killing gays, persecuting Christian minorities and oppressing women? Actually, they don't think that any of this is wrong. Why is that? It's partly because Iranians have brown skin and they're also – or the state is – against the West and semi-officially (at least) anti-capitalist. That's all it takes for Trotskyists/progressives like John Rees to reverse their previous deeply-held political standards. Change the oppressor's skin colour from white to brown (or to black) and the oppressor simply ceases to be an oppressor. That's how simple Trotskyist logic is.

    Now set John Rees views on Iran and indeed Syria within the context of a Trotskyism - now called 'progressivism' – which states that black and brown people can never be racist; or even be held responsible for political violence. This is true, apparently, by (Marxist) definition. Why is that? Because brown and black people never have 'political power'. This means that they are always 'oppressed' and always victims. Thus, like a mathematical equation, they simply can't do either political or criminal wrong... just like children really! This is the stipulation/diktat behind the hypocrisy and (positive) racism of the Left.

    Thus Stop the War and Jeremy Corbyn are against military intervention for two main reasons:

    i) They are strong supporters of Iran. Iran is a strong supporter of Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. (Here is John Rees saying “Don't Attack Iran!''.)

    ii) 'Western capitalist states' would be carrying out the military intervention in Syria. Therefore that's automatically wrong because, according to Marxist logic, it will be exclusively driven by the “inevitable laws of capitalist accumulation and imperialism”.

    So, to recap. Jeremy Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition aren't against military intervention in Syria because they're against war or violence. They're certainly not pacifists. Indeed they are Trotskyists and communists who have a strong commitment to what they themselves call “revolutionary violence”. This also partly explains their tacit defence - and sometimes support - of Islamic terror.

    *) Some examples of John Rees's work for Iran, via Press TV:

    Friday, 4 December 2015

    Oldham Votes for Islam

    Oldham: 25% Muslim (2001)...

    Blackburn: 11.45% Pakistani (2001)
    Burnley: 6.6% Muslim (2001)
    Calderdale: 6.8% Pakistani (2011)
    Derby: 5.9% Pakistani (2011)
    Hyndburn: 7% Pakistani (2011)
    Kirklees: 10.1% Muslim (2001)
    Pendle: 13.1% Pakistani (2001)
    Peterborough: 9.4% Muslim (2011)
    Slough: 17.7% Pakistani (2011)
    Tower Hamlets: 32% Bangladeshi, 34% Muslim (2011)
    Walsall: 25% Muslim (2001)
    Woking: 6.7% Muslim (2004)

    (Some surveys only supply ethnic - not religious - demographics: hence the fluctuation between “Pakistani” and “Muslim”.)


    Labour's Jim McMahon has secured a 10,722-vote majority for the Labour Party in Oldham. And that's despite the endless reports of Muslim victimhood, Muslim grooming-gangs and council corruption.

    Labour Party appeasement of all things Islamic has certainly paid dividends in Oldham. Oldham has one of the highest levels of Muslim voters than any other town or city of the UK. It stands, as whole, at a 25% of the entire population.

    Basically, the Labour Party has bought these votes and that's without looking into the problems of Muslim “block-voting” and rigged postal votes.

    Welcome to Oldham – twinned with Islamabad.

    Working Class Votes?

    The BBC doesn't mention the fact that 25% of people in Oldham are Muslim; although it does talk about... yes, you guessed it, “Asians”!

    The BBC even had the audacity to state that despite the claims that the modern Labour Party is only a party for the metropolitan elite, this election result proved that Oldham's working class is still behind the Labour Party.

    No it didn't!

    It shows that Oldham's Muslim population is firmly behind the party... and it is so in a block-voting-and-rigging-kind-of-a-way.

    This is how the BBC's Brian Wheeler interpreted the result:

    “Reports from the campaign trail in Oldham had suggested Labour was haemorrhaging votes among its traditional white working class supporters, horrified by what one commentator called the party's transformation into a 'poncified' party of middle class Metropolitan liberals.”

    Then BBC's Mr Wheeler smugly rounds things off by saying that the “London-based away-day pundits have been proved wrong”.

    Predictably, Corbyn and the Labour Party generally have painted this victory as an example of “driving the Tories back” and a revolt against their “austerity agenda and narrative”. I'm willing to say that austerity (whatever that is) is part of the story, but the main explanation is the large Muslim population of Oldham.

    Muslim Corruption

    As for Nigel Farage on this issue.

    He claims that the postal vote was rigged. He said that there are "stories of things that shouldn't have been happening". That included Muslims turning up at polling stations with multiple postal votes. Farage went on to say that UKIP “will file a formal complaint about the abuses that our people saw yesterday".

    To top all that, Farage claims that in some boxes 99% of the votes were for the Labour Party.

    Farage rounded off his synopsis by stating the following:

    "It means effectively - in some of these seats where people don't speak English, but they're signed up to postal votes - effectively the electoral process is now dead."

    All that rings very true. Why is that? Because council and voting corruption is endemic in all areas with large Muslim minorities. That includes Bradford, Keighley, Tower Hamlets... and places like Oldham. I've personally seen extensive documentation of Muslim corruption in newspapers such as Bradford's Telegraph & Argus. Though, of course, the T & A also uses the word 'Asian' as a euphemism for the word Muslim.

    More broadly, the Electoral Commission has already identified 16 “high risk” areas across the country: areas where there is a high-risk of electoral malpractice. Now take in the cities and towns cited by the Electoral Commission: e.g., Blackburn, Bradford, Burnley, etc.. and Oldham. All cities and towns with large Muslim populations.

    However, the usual suspect, Tower Hamlets, really clinches the deal here. It seems that this London fiefdom can't keep itself out of trouble. It comes with the Muslim territory.

    What about Syria?

    Since the Labour leader is against military intention in Syria, that would have also played well to Rochdale's (Sunni)Muslims. However, Mr Corbyn and Rochdale's Muslims will have very different reasons for being against military intervention in Syria.

    Mr Corbyn and his Stop the War Coalition (StWC), on one hand, have a dangerously close relationship with Iran. And Iran, in turn, has a dangerously close relationship with Syria's Bashar Assad (Shia-Alawite) as well as Hezbollah (Shia).

    But the clear majority of Oldham's Muslims are Sunni.

    That means that before the growth of the Islamic State (IS), many Sunnis in the UK were in favour of military force – force used to try and destroy Assad's “Shia state of Syria”!

    And then everything changed.

    Now many British Muslims (i.e., Sunnis) will be against military action against their fellow Sunnis of the Islamic State (IS).

    Isn't it strange how things change around so quickly?

    Hilary Benn's Tony Blair Moment

    When Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said that Hilary Benn's speech reminded him of the speech made by Tony Blair just before the Iraq War of 2003, you can be pretty sure that it wasn't meant in an entirely complimentary way. After all, Blair became one of the most despised politicians in recent British history precisley because of that war.

    Indeed Mr McDonnell gives with one hand and takes with the other. He gave when he said he was impressed Benn's speech. And he took when he finished off by stating the following:

    “I’m always anxious that the greatest oratory is going to lead us to the greatest mistakes.”

    Mr McDonnell is right - great oratory can be a disguise for great falsehood. Think of Hitler - the Master Orator.

    However, there was nothing to stop a skilled oratory putting the case against air-strikes or war generally. Think of Neville Chamberlain's “peace in our time” speech. That only became renowned after-the-fact. Indeed even though Chamberlain was shown by history to have been a na├»ve and gullible appeaser, his speech can still be seen as fine oratory. So, yes, Mr McDonnell, “the greatest oratory” can “lead us to great mistakes”. Indeed great oratory can take people in all sorts of direction.