Monday, 3 March 2014
"It was heartening to see the many different nationalities; Jamaican, Malaysian, Arab, Pakistani, English, Bengali and others at the gathering. This affirms a growing awareness of the need for a Muslim Community [i.e., ummah] devoid of ethnic, territorial, micro-religious or political divides."
–The Islamic Banner, July 1986
You might have noted that many non-Muslim commentators suggest (or hint) that it's a good thing that Muslims in the UK are less 'ethnic' than they used to be. Good for whom, exactly? Well, it's actually a bad thing for non-Muslims because it means that Muslims are more uniform and therefore more powerful and therefore politically dangerous. Indeed this is something that many younger Muslims, especially Islamists, stress.
The ummah is a dangerous thing. When you have Pakistani mosques and Bangladeshi mosques, or even Deobandi and Barelvi mosques, that is a good thing because there is disunity among Muslims. And that's precisely why Islamists, and other Muslims, stress the ummah. A larger and more uniform ummah will give Islamists more power. That is why they detest 'Muslim nationalism' and the 'un-Islamic' stress on Muslim ethnicity. (Though being politicians, Islamists, just like socialists/ communists historically, also sometimes use nationalism and ethnicity when they need to.)
Thus Islamists, and many young British Muslims, are like International Socialists ('progressives'/ communists/ Trotskyists) in that they downplay nationalism/ patriotism and the nation state itself. Islamists are hoping that an increase in the power of the ummah will increase the power of Islamism.
So non-Muslims shouldn't be at all impressed when Islamists and educated Western Muslims criticise what they call 'Bengali Islam' and call it 'superstitious'. It is of course younger Muslims who are less ethnic but more ummah-inspired. It is younger Muslims who are more likely to be Islamists than older ones. How, exactly, is that supposed to be a good thing for non-Muslims?
It is younger Muslims who are more likely to wear the niqab and burka than older ones. In fact hardly any older Bangladeshi or Pakistani Muslims, for example, wear the niqab and burka, though they do wear the hijab. The niqab and burka are effectively the uniforms of Islamism, not Islam. Far from burkas and niqabs being "traditional Islamic dress", they are quite new in origin. In fact, at least here in the UK, they only started to be worn on a frequent basis in the late 1990s or after.
To repeat: rather than the younger generation of Muslims being more moderate than the older generations, it would be easy to argue the opposite case. For example, the infamous East London Mosque, during Ramadan, was attracting between 4,000 and 5,000 people every day in 2009, many of them young. In other words, Islamist groups are doing their best to increase 'Islamic identity' amongst the young in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere. As I said, when the ethnic identity of Muslims was primary in the UK, the threat of Islamic extremism was much less. Now 'Islamist universalism' is a major tune for young Muslims, extremism is increasing and, inevitably, so too will violence and the threat of Islamic terrorism.
To put all this in basic terms: if you look around the word, wherever Islamists are strong and have large numbers, there is political violence, intimidation and threats towards gays, Christians, non-Muslim women, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews. The recent 'Muslim patrols' in London have just been the most obvious and media-focused aspect of the Islamisation of large parts of London and elsewhere. Other aspects of London's Islamisation have been the closing down of gay bars, 'white flight', the intimidation of drinkers, night-clubbers, women and so on.
And don't be fooled by the increase of Islamic 'peace' conferences either. Islamic peace is something very specific. It is brought about to the degree in which more people become Muslims and embrace sharia law. In other words, Islamic peace will come about when, for example, the whole of Tower Hamlets – and ultimately the entire world – 'submits to Allah'. That is the 'peace' Muslims are referring to.
Take this example: the Baitul Futuh ('House of Victories') Mosque in Morden once acted as the centre for what it called the "Loyalty, Freedom and Peace Campaign". Here again they are talking about Islamic loyalty, Islamic freedom and Islamic peace: not freedom and peace as they are usually understood in the non-Muslim West. In other words, a loyalty, freedom and peace which can only be brought about when an area – or state, or the entire world – embraces sharia law. The truth is that Islamic peace is "the peace of the grave", at least for non-Muslims.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 22:06
On the 16th of February I came across Cambridge Unite Against Fascism’s (UAF) website. At the head of the website there is a quote which I still take to be an explicit call to violence against all those that UAF deem to be “racists”, “fascists” and “Islamophobes”. That is, it is a call to violence against quite literally millions of British people.
In the end I decided to report this quote as a hate crime to Cambridge police. That was around two weeks ago. They advised me to contact my local police first (that's the way such things work). I reported it to my local police and they visited me a couple of days later. The officer took down all the details. He said he would get in contact by phone the day after. Two nights later he phoned and told me what had been done.
He said that the the information has been passed on to the Counter-Terrorism Unit. This police officer also told me that Cambridge UAF's website had only just been reported by someone else as well. He couldn't tell me if it was for the same quote. In addition, if you look on the Cambridge UAF website, there's an article on it about how it is being “surveyed” by Cambridge police.
The quote in question isn't a comment or post by a UAF supporter. It's embedded at the top of the website's front page. This is the quote:
"Only one thing could have broken our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle, and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolf Hitler
(See image above for the quote; just below the yellow squares.)
(See image above for the quote; just below the yellow squares.)
Quite clearly, this is an explicit, if subtle, call to violence against what Cambridge UAF deems to be fascists and racists. According to this UAF's definition of “racist” and “fascist”, this is a call to violence against all members and leaders of UKIP, certain Conservative MPs and councilors (the politically-incorrect ones), certain councilors (ditto), every member of the EDL, all critics of Islam and everyone who's against mass immigration.
The point being made by the quote is that if Hitler and the the Nazis had been “smashed” with “extreme brutality”, then the Nazis would never have assumed power. Consequently, if all the people Cambridge UAF deems to be fascists and racists are “smashed” with ”extreme brutality”, then there will be no problem in this country either.
Understandably, Cambridge UAF could not have said that itself. Hence the quote! If it said it itself, it would have been far too obvious and it would have been very quickly reported or even seen by the police.
All this means that Cambridge UAF can say that “it's only a quote”. The question is: If it's only a quote, then why, exactly, does Cambridge UAF use it? I can think of no other reason other than the one I have just put forward.
In other words, this is what the quote really says:
Cambridge Unite Against Fascism believes that only one thing can break the fascists and racists (such as UKIP, the EDL, critics of Islam and mass immigration, and other racists and fascists) in the UK – is if we smash, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of their new movements.
So, basically, an organisation which is forever going on about “hate crimes” and the violence and “hatred” of what they take to be Nazis or racists, has itself committed a hate crime and called for violence. UAF is advocating the most extreme violence against literally millions of (non-Leftist) Brits. I say literally millions simply because there are literally millions of Brits who are against the rising power of Islam and Muslims in the UK. There are also millions of Brits who justifiably have a massive problem with the Leftist social experiment that is mass immigration into this country. (Now carried on, if to a lesser extent, by the Conservative Party.) It is all these Brits which Unite Against Fascism thinks should be “smashed” with “extreme brutality”. (Of course not all these people are directly targeted by UAF because not all of them are politically active. If they were politically active, then UAF would target them.)
Yet Cambridge News, and other institutions, weren't at all interested in this clear hate crime. Neither were they interested in the fact that Cambridge UAF is being monitored and investigated by the Counter-Terrorism Unit. However, if such a quote had been found on the EDL or the BNP website, then it would have definitely been extensively covered. How do I know that? Because such things have already been extensively and frequently covered when committed by groups and individuals deemed, by both national and local newspapers, as “far right”.
Despite that, it's seems that Cambridge News and others have feigned scepticism about my “interpretation” of the Hitler quote. However, none of these people have given me a single reason as to why the quote is there. And none of these people have said how the simple fact that it's a quote - rather than the direct words of UAF - makes the slightest bit of difference to its call to violence.
The Cambridge News crime reporter, Raymond Brown, did contact Cambridge UAF (though there has been no news item) and it responded. CUAF seems to have responded, however, with a very long non sequitur. Rather than talk about the incitement to “extreme brutality”, they referred, instead, to things like Cambridge believes in Community Cohesion, We are in favour of Embracing Diversity and Don't let the racists divide our community. That is, they responded like typical Trotskyist automatons.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 03:19
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
If non-Muslims want to understand the nature of Islam and Muslims in the UK, the first thing to say is that the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni and of Pakistani descent. There are also 16.8% of Muslims in England and Wales who are Bangladeshi. 8% of Muslims in the UK are also of Indian, not Pakistani, origin.
To break this down even more: most of these mosques in the UK are Pakistani and Bangladeshi is terms of ethnic/national affiliation. Here again, most Pakistani and Bangladeshi mosques are either Deobandi or Barelvi. So, basically, in order to understand the nature of Islam in England, the best way is to understand the Deobandi and Barelvi forms of Islam, as practiced mainly by Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
As for both Deobandi and Barelvi, they have often been very confrontations between the two groups. For example, in 2006 in Karachi, a bomb attack was launched on a Barelvi gathering which resulted in 57 deaths. Barelvi also got involved with the Islamic violence by forcibly gaining control of a mosque in Karachi and, in the process, killing worshipers and injuring others.
Consequently, I think it would be wise to expect this kind of thing to start happening in the UK some time in the future.
As of 2012, there were eight Muslim MPs and twelve Muslim Peers. And, as many people know, most Muslims vote for the Labour Party.
There are also a number of Islamic television channels in the UK. These include the Islam Channel, the Ummah Channel and Ahlebait TV. The Islam Channel, for example, was reprimanded, by Ofcom, for encouraging domestic violence as well as for being “political biased”. The Islam Channel also features broadcasts by various Trotskyist political activists, such as ex-SWP John Rees (now of the Stop the War Coalition, Counterfire and The People's Assembly - see image right), Yvonne Ridley (now a Muslim) and George Galloway.
As of 2006 (there are more today), there were 140 Islamic schools in the UK. And at that time, twelve of them received funds from the state.
In 2007, there were more than 1,500 mosques in the UK.
The fact that the younger generation of Muslims is more extreme (i.e., more fundamentalist and/or Islamist, though less “ethnic”), than the older generations, was show by a poll which said that 36% of 16-to-24-year-olds believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion, then he or she must be killed. This compared to 19% of Muslims in the 55 years and above bracket who think that apostates must be killed.
Finally, one survey, again from 2006, shows that 81% of British Muslims think of themselves as being Muslims rather than British. That is not a surprise when you bear in mind the fact that this is replicated throughout the Muslim world. In all Muslim countries, Muslims see themselves as Muslims first. Take Pakistan. 87% of Pakistanis see themselves as Muslims rather than Pakistanis (even though this state was created specifically for Muslims). With the rise of Islamism amongst the British young, this way of thinking is bound to increase until, eventually, virtually no young British or English Muslim will see himself or herself as being British or English.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 02:54
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Professor Shlomo Sand's book, The Invention of the Jewish People, was published in 2010. In that book he uses the Khazar theory to back up his central argument - as the Internet magazine Science puts it - that most
“modern Jews do not descend from the ancient Land of Israel but from groups that took on Jewish identities long afterward.”
What I mean by that is that National Socialists (Nazis) hate Jews simply because they are Jews; not because of theory X or theory Y. In other words, theory X or theory Y doesn't cause them to become Jew-haters. What usually happens is that the Nazi adopts theory X or theory Y because he's already a Jew-hater.
Similarly with International Socialists (Leftists) like Shlomo Sand (a self-described “communist”). They say what they say because they are already against capitalist democracy and the very idea of a “state for the Jews” (which, of course, both come together in the state of Israel). To Shlomo Sand himself, the Israelis - as well as many Jews worldwide - use their “ethnos” (as he puts it) to justify their “territorial ambitions”. In other words, Sand is using a classical Marxist/communist theory and applying it to today's Israelis and Jews. (Of course Marx, Stalin and other well-known Leftist Jew-haters, or “anti-Zionists”, had already done pretty much the same thing long before Shlomo Sand.)
To put this another way. Shlomo Sand's all-encompassing Leftist ideology - as well as his zealous hopes for a fully socialist Israel (which would amount to Israel's annihilation) - permeates just about every single word he utters. If his readers don't understand that, then they will have no idea about where this man is coming and what he is trying to achieve through his books and articles.
Biographically, Shlomo Sand's parents – as was the case with the parents/families of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein - passed on their Marxist ideology (or religion) to their son. And as you'd expect to follow from that, Sand has been active in Leftist politics/activism almost ever since. (For example, Sand, in the 1970s, was a member of the fanatical Maoist group Matzpen; a group which, rather fantastically, wanted to turn the entire Middle East into a socialist federation.)
It's ironic that the man who popularised the Khazar theory, Arthur Koestler (in his 1976 book The History of the Jewish Khazars), did so in order to dissipate European Jew-hatred. The idea was to show his fellow Europeans that the Jews were just as European as anyone else (i.e., they not really 'Semites'). He thus attempted to show people that Jews could trace their heritage back to the Khazars in the 8th century. In fact Koestler himself once told French biologist Pierre Debray-Ritzen that he
"was convinced that if he could prove that the bulk of Eastern European Jews (the ancestors of today's Ashkenazim) were descended from the Khazars, the racial basis for anti-Semitism would be removed and anti-Semitism itself could disappear".
"In the Khazar kingdom, Koestler wanted to see the origin of the eastern European Jewry. Nevertheless, all the historical and linguistic facts contradicted his theories."
Nowadays Jew-haters are using Koestler's theory of a European heritage against – rather in favour of - European Jews. In addition, the theory is also used to support the cause of brown-skinned Palestinians; a group you wouldn't ordinarily think would stir the deep sympathetic emotions of the Nazis or racists who tend to dislike people who don't have a white skin.
In any case, Koestler was right about the European heritage of the Jews; though he was largely wrong when it came to his theories about Jewish Khazars. That is, Jews had indeed lived in Europe for centuries. Nonetheless, they had done so for roughly a thousand years before the Khazar kingdom came into being.
Although is was Arthur Koestler who made the Khazar theory popular (at least largely amongst Jew-haters), the theory did of course exist before that time. For example, Albert Yakovlevich Harkavy raised the possibility (in 1869) that there may be a link between the Khazars and European Jews. And it was Harkavy's theory which inspired Koestler's work on the very same subject.
This raises another point. Because some Jews have endorsed the Khazar theory (incidentally, almost all of the contemporary believers are either Leftists, Nazis or Islamists), you often get the following 'argument':
If even Jews think this theory is true, then it must be true.
This is, of course, exactly the same argument used about the Jewish critics of Israel such as Chomsky and Finkelstein.
Of course it's hardly a logical position. (In fact it is hardly anything at all.) You may as well say that because one black person once said that all black people are the sons and daughters of Satan, then that must indeed be true. In any case, for Harkavy the Khazar theory was really just a suggestion. In addition, it wasn't even a suggestion that all European Jews were descendents of the Khazars.
I mentioned Professor Shlomo Sand earlier. He argues that Jews and Israelis reject Koestler's theory simply because
“[n]o one wants to go looking under stones when venomous scorpions might be lurking beneath them, waiting to attack the self-image of the existing ethnos and its territorial ambitions."
The National Socialists too have praised for Koestler's book. For example, the neo-Nazi magazine The Thunderbolt said it was "the political bombshell of the century".
Of course this new brand of Jew-hatred is primarily used as a gimmick - by both National Socialists and the International Socialists - to claim that Jews have no right to live in Israel and thus to “displace the indigenous Palestinians”.
Leftists propagate the Khazar theory for exactly the same reasons why they propagate the theory, or myth, of “Israeli apartheid” – to destroy Israel. (Both Nazis and Leftists want to destroy Israel because it is a capitalist and democratic state for Jews; which is a three-level heresy for any respectable Leftist or Nazi.)
All this clearly shows us how deeply both International Socialists and National Socialists fuse on the Jews and on so much more. (Here's a video in which Leftists, Nazis and Islamists quite literally joined together on the streets of Paris – in January, 2013 – to call for the Jews to be “kicked out” of France.)
It’s is a simple fact that most scholars - such a historians and geneticists - reject the Khazar theory. Still, all of these scholars could of course be cynical “Zionists” (or Jews). Alternatively, they could - each and every one of them - simply be the victims of a false consciousness created by a platonic Media and an academia which are both also “run and controlled by Zionists” (or Jews).
The history in favour of the Khazar theory is very weak. In addition, the evidence from studies in genetics is strongly against the theory. So much so that the general consensus is that the Khazar “blood” in the Ashkenazi gene pool is insignificant. For example, there is no genetic evidence at all that shows that (all) Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Turkic tribes (as the Khazars were). In fact the genetics show that European Jews are closer to Levantine and Syrian Arabs than to central Asians like the Khazars.
Some people have of course argued to the contrary. Nevertheless, in science, as everywhere else, someone will always argue to the contrary. For example, an Eran Elhaik argued, in 2012, that there was a significant Khazar component amongst Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis; though not, it must be added, amongst French, German and other central Europeans. Despite that, one year later, in 2013, another study found that there is a large amount amount of evidence to show a prehistoric – i.e., pre-Khazar - European ancestry for Ashkenazi Jews.
All this shows that you should never rely on a single scientist, or historian, to give you the complete picture on - or of - anything. Nonetheless, if you are a hater of Jews, and therefore on a constant look out for scientists or historians to back-up what you already believe, then my bet is that you'll find such a person; even if that person is going against the scientific consensus.
Still, if your hatred of the Jews is based on “thinking with the blood”, then genetics, or science as a whole, will have little impact on such “thinking”.
In terms of history, it's quite incredible that it's generally recognised that the Khazars themselves left no documentary evidence. In fact most of the evidence comes from a later Arab historian by the name of Ahmad ibn Fadlan (whose work was also used by Jewish scholars). The thing is, he wrote about the Khazars some two hundred years after the Khazar conversation to Judaism.
The very same racists who argued that the Jews were evil and conspiratorial because of their Semitic DNA (as it were), are now using another racial theory - which is a direct contradiction of the former one - to say pretty much the same thing.
Let's remember here that the Khazar theory was largely unknown until the 1970s. That means that Jew-hatred of the German Nazis and Hitler, for example, predated the large-scale adoption of the Khazar theory by some 50 or 60 years. Indeed Hitler and the Nazis would have been largely - or possibly completely - ignorant of all this talk about Jews being Khazars. After all, the Nazis were anti-Semites (the clue is in the word 'Semites'!).
In other words, Jew-haters may base their hatred, on Tuesday, on the Jews being of Semitic origin. However, their hatred on Wednesday may then be based on the Jews being of Khazar origin. That's just like the National Socialists who on Thursday claim that “all Jews are Marxists”. Yet who on Friday claim that “all Jews are capitalists”. When pressed, however, they may say that “Jews bat for both sides” because “their prime concern is to destroy the white race”. Yet when you also tell them about liberal/centrist or apolitical Jews, they simply stress the fact that “they are still Jews”. (Karl Popper called such ideas - or theories - 'unfalsifiable'.)
Finally, it's clearly a bizarre fact that for centuries Jew-hatred was primarily based on the supposed racial characteristics of the Semites. Then, all of a sudden (primarily because that prior theory was no longer paying political dividends), the Khazar theory was adopted.
Of course none of this will help dissipate Jew-hatred. A confirmed and professional hater of the Jews will simply find another reason to hate them. And that reason will no doubt also be racial in nature. For example, instead of the argument that all European Jews are Khazars, a Jew-hater may well effortlessly slip into stressing, yes, the Levantine (or Semitic) nature of the Jews (as the Nazis did). As I said, it doesn't matter what the theory or reason is (let alone if it is true or based on facts), as long as it backups an already-existing hatred of Jews.
1) Shlomo Sand is a self-described "communist". It can be said that he's using his anti-capitalism and other Marxist theories to legitimise his own - and others - pre-existing hatred of the Jews. In the case of Leftists since Marx himself, the Jews have been seen as closely connected to capitalism. (This is strange when you consider Jews like Sand himself, as well as Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc.).
Jew-hatred has to be updated. And Marx and Shlomo Sand have done that with their Marxist theories. So course Jew-hatred predates capitalism and the creation of democratic states. And I make that point about the morphing of Jew-hatred in the piece.
Shlomo Sand wants to make the West Bank Judenrein. (Gaza is already free of Jews.) This is strange when you consider the one million Arabs in Israel. It's also strange when you think about European and Western Leftists who otherwise agree with immigration and the mixing of communities - but not when it comes to the West Bank and Jews, it seems. (The UK imported up to five million immigrants between 2000 and 2010. How many Jews are there in the West Bank?)
Because Palestine has never been a state, and Jews have always lived in the West Bank area, it can hardly be said, though, that Jews are immigrating into the West Bank; but the general point still holds - Leftist hypocrisy.
Of course the Muslims and Islamists whom Western Leftists support want to make the entire Middle East Judenrein (and, to a lesser extent, free of Christians) - otherwise why else would they make such a fuss about a country that's about the size of Wales? Muslims have already nearly made the Middle East free of Jews and now they are getting to work on the West Bank - followed by Israel itself.
Millions of other Muslims also think that India, Andalusia (Spain), southern France, etc. "belong to Allah".
So what's the Leftist-Islamist solution to this? I may be being illogical and stupid here, but this sounds like they are arguing for another Final Solution: this time a Leftist-Islamist one. I know that not all Leftists think this way; but that minority who do so is growing every day.
3) Shlomo Sand himself has said, in a rather obvious example of self-contradiction, that the genetic tests which show that most Jews "are of Semitic or Levantine lineage would have been a godsend to Hitler" (to paraphrase). A classic case of someone believing both p and not-p. That is, he is arguing both that Jews who stress their blood line to Israel is a bad thing. And that their being Khazars is also a bad thing (i.e., this makes them have no right to live in Israel). He's against them because "they are all really Khazars". And he's also against the Jews who stress the genetic evidence which disputes that (which it does). It seems that Shlomo Sand is attempting to have it both ways!
Clearly not all Jews can trace their lineage back to Israel because of the many Jewish converts and other factors. (Though this has nothing to do with the Khazars or the Khazar theory.) However, if that's the case, then Leftists will say that Jews have no right to be in Israel. Again, Shlomo Sand, and no doubt other Leftists, would criticise the Jews who emphasise genetics as "racist". Yet this is the man who has also claimed that all European Jews, and by definition American Jews, are Khazars.
i)So Jews being Khazars denies them a right to Israel.
ii) Yet Jews stressing the genetic evidence which shows them to be from that part of the world also denies them a right to Israel (because it is "racist").
We have a classic case of a critic of Israeli Jews believing both p and not-p before breakfast. But believing contradictory things doesn't matter to a communist (like Sand) or a Nazi. What matters is destroying Israel. Indeed, in many Leftist and all Nazi cases, what matters is destroying Jews. And destroying Israel is just a roundabout way of destroying Jews.
5) I use the word "Jew-Hater" because "anti-Semitism" is clinical and it has lost its force. I hope I don't throw the word around either. I aim it at all Nazis, some Leftists (a growing number) and most Islamists. I only accuse one person, directly and by name, of being a "Jew-hater" in the post.
So what can I say? Some people just are what people claim them to be. And if you can offer arguments and evidence as to why you think someone is an X or a Y, that's fine in my book. Most Leftists rarely offer arguments and evidence. They state things because they assume that someone who believes the wrong thing, they simply must be an X or a Y.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 04:32
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
By Nicholas Cox (2013)
As you will see below, the prime goal of UAF is far removed from the elevation of equality, love or tolerance that it so artificially claims to promote. Indeed, the flagrant abuse of such honourable words has become common place within the ranks of UAF, yet in reality, these words are being systematically exploited by the leftist faithful, with no other purpose than to throw up a smokescreen, in an ongoing effort to deceive and defraud the mostly, politically apathetic, British public. Behind the scenes, UAF has but one aim: that of undermining British politics by attempting to promote the extremist ideologies of both Marxism/Socialism and Islam over and above that of all other political ideals, while at the same time, making efforts to somewhat feebly, conceal its adherent’s treachery behind that of the more palatable banner of ‘Progressive’ Liberalism.
Before we take a more in depth look at the machinations of UAF, let us take a brief look at some of the key figures who are responsible for the running of this allegedly innocuous, ‘pressure group’.
Steve Hart is the current UAF Chairman or ‘Chairperson’: a descriptor that he would, in his PC induced coma, no doubt prefer. He is also the chair for the leftist thinktank, Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS) and former Political Director for Unite: the union which has found itself firmly under the iron fist of Marxist firebrand, ‘Red’ Len McCluskey.
Hart has in the past, also been closely linked to ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone: yet another shameless advocate of the Socialist/Marxist agenda, who is somewhat unsurprisingly ‘Honorary President’ of the UAF as well.
Hart is certainly not shy about promoting his leftist beliefs. His obsession with demonising the political right has even extended to remonstrating with the ‘progressive’ embracing, Labour Party for ‘pandering to right wingers’, a party which Unite has consistently attempted to subject to its own political whims and desires. In a report written for his former employer, he self righteously goes on the attack, declaring that “UKIP bares all the hallmarks of a pre-fascist movement” and that the anger displayed towards Islam after the murder of Lee Rigby by two of its fanatical adherents were “outpourings of racism”. In the oh so predictable tradition of career leftists, who for some unfathomable reason seem to suffer from the debilitating affliction known as politically correct, verbal diarrhoea, he went on to spout, “Far too many, in the thrall of ‘Islamophobia’, sought to blame Islam. Yet rightly, no one blames Christianity for Jimmy Saville’s crimes.” Need I say any more.....
Ms Blower is currently a UAF vice chair and General Secretary of the NUT, a militant union backed by the Socialist Teachers Alliance and the SWP. In July 2011,
one of her predecessors Doug McAvoy was quoted as saying “She’s committed to a policy platform that will be more aggressive and confrontational than anything we have seen in the last 10 years”.
She is also a staunch advocate of uncontrolled immigration, the easing of laws relating to drug use and once stood as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance which is linked to the Communist Party of Great Britain.
Islamic fundamentalism is well represented within the UAF in the shape of Azad Ali. He is currently a vice chair for the UAF as well as community affairs coordinator for the Islamic Forum of Europe; an Islamic organisation based in the Tower Hamlets borough of London.
This very same organisation was resoundingly criticised in the well renowned Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ documentary that sought to expose Islamic extremism and the preaching of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK.
He is an avid supporter of Shariah, not to mention an obeisant, fawning devotee of Islamic radicals and hate mongers such as Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and Abu Qatada. He also openly supports terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. British journalist Andrew Gilligan has been quoted as referring to Ali as an ‘Islamic fascist’.
No-one courts controversy quite like Mr Bennett who is a long serving, joint secretary for the UAF, member of the Central Committee for the SWP and a well known Trotskyite and anti-Semite. Frequently highlighted in most of the national newspapers for all the wrong reasons, his high profile involvement in scandals, conspiracy and the promotion of violence requires no further elaboration here.
Ms Dhalu is also a joint secretary of the UAF. Like Bennett she is a Trotskyite sympathiser who is co chair of the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR), a front group for Socialist Action (formerly known as the International Marxist Group), which has links to George Galloway’s Islamic promoting, Respect Party.
It doesn’t take an individual of great intellect to work out exactly where the loyalties of the individuals above lie. While they might revel in continually overstating their somewhat, self perceived importance due to the constant media attention they garner, these individuals thankfully, possess little real power and are increasingly being seen by most as fringe crackpots, extremist lunatics and attention seeking, media whores. Yet, given the exposure they receive, they still represent a danger to those of us who appreciate what political fanatics such as these are capable of. Their overwhelming promotion of and fervour for Marxist/Socialist/Islamic ideals should be enough to worry even the most cynical of right minded thinkers.
The Psychology of UAF Lies & Contradictions
As one of the principal proponents of the extremist ‘progressive’ cause, UAF seems to have quite predictably lifted its doublespeak, directly out of an Orwellian novel. Indeed, where Orwell’s tremendous yet infamous ‘1984’ is concerned, you could almost be forgiven for believing that this stalwart ‘vanguard’ of leftist dogma, had quite literally extracted its core ideology directly from the very pages of this veritably despotic tome. With this in mind, it goes without saying that contradictory antonyms have now indeed become the preserve of these intolerant, leftist apologists, who will do anything in their power to quell freedom of speech and shut down public debate entirely, especially when it goes against the grain of their uncompromising and inherently totalitarian beliefs.
Hiding behind the respectable veil of ‘tolerance’, the UAF promotes intolerance of anyone who dares to oppose their extremist views. ‘Love’ is replaced with hatred for those who seek to promote an alternative political agenda while ‘equality’ is reserved exclusively for those who most obsequiously, tow the leftist/Islamic line. At the same time, words with negative connotations such as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ are used like a cudgel to silence detractors into submission. Yet, if these words were actually to be employed correctly, they would no doubt be more applicable to the very people who so enthusiastically spout them in the first place. Indeed, it seems that the UAF faithful find it almost impossible to construct a coherent sentence without robotically reciting one of their beloved, leftist buzzwords that in their unwavering penchant for their blinkered hatred and intolerance, seem to covet so much.
The True Face of UAF Revealed
The UAF seeks to make good use of empty and pointless logos in an attempt to stir up dissent where none actually exists. ‘Jobs and Homes, Not Racism’ and ‘Say No to Racism, Islamophobia and Fascism’ are as puerile as they are hollow and ring of the Marxist/Socialist backed, CND demonstrations of the 1970 and 80s that carried equally asinine logos such as ‘No More Nukes’ and ‘Human Race or Nuclear Race’. Fringe groups that attach themselves to the UAF whether by choice or opportunity, seem to also carry equally, meaningless titles such as ‘Love Music, Hate Racism’ and most absurdly of all ‘English Disco Lovers’ all of which are being used to camouflage the real agenda of the UAF by attempting to first captivate and then divert the attention of the public away from their political plotting and scheming and onto minor or virtually non-existent political or social ‘problems ‘of the UAF’s somewhat imaginative making.
However, UAF’s Marxist/Socialist proclivity for intolerance and violence does on occasion show through. ‘Facist EDL not wanted here’ is one proclamation that is frequently vented towards a pressure group, which much like the UAF, was formed to oppose extremism. The EDL seeks to do but one thing: oppose the ever increasing threat of ‘radical’ Islam, a form of extremism that despises everything that Britain stands for, yet one which UAF has somewhat, inexplicably embraced with open arms. While EDL rallies generally pass off without much ado, the jackbooted thugs of the UAF always choose to put in an appearance and stir up trouble whenever they can, in the name of defending their equally intolerant and bigoted, Islamic brethren. Another favourite employed with vigour by the UAF extremists is ‘Stop/Smash the Facist/Nazi BNP’. As I stated earlier, I find the BNP not only to be odious, but an affront to British politics as a whole, yet one essential fact remains. The UK is for the time being, still a democracy and one in which the BNP is a legitimate political entity that has the right to voice an opinion, even if many of us do disapprove of it. However, yet again we see the UAF displaying their abject contempt for the political process and the right of the people to decide.
Even their political statements do on occasion border on the farcical. In their, what can only be termed as a ‘fascist’ attempt to prevent the EDL from marching through certain districts of London during September 2011, the UAF lobbied the Home Secretary to implement a carpet ban on EDL protests. The UAF initially responded with absolute glee to the news that their demands had been met. However, their joy was to be short lived as Theresa May had subsequently banned protests by all groups, in five London boroughs for 30 days. The UAF, no doubt having suddenly had their smug, condescending grins wiped from their more commonly contorted, hate twisted faces, were incensed and responded with the following loopy, yet sublimely humorous statement, the irony of which seems to have eluded them somewhat: “We the undersigned welcome the banning of the racist English Defence League’s march through Tower Hamlets. But we are appalled to discover that the Metropolitan Police are applying for a blanket ban on ALL marches across five London boroughs… It is our human right to peacefully march in Tower Hamlets.” No better advert will you find for the UAF’s illiberal intolerance than embarrassing rants such as these.
Approval of Violence
The thugs of the UAF will generally mete out violence to anyone who possesses the temerity to oppose their ideology in any shape or form. In the name of ‘tolerance’ they can frequently be seen stirring up hatred and dispensing vicious ‘punishments’ out to those who dare to protest against any of the tenants that extremist ‘progressive’ liberalism holds in such high esteem. So flawed is their fatally compromised leftist dogma, that like drunken, illiterate, knuckle dragging yobs who lack both the ability and the intelligence to engage in rational debate, they lash out, hoping desperately that thuggery alone will be sufficient to enough to muzzle their detractors. On an average demo or counter demo, eight to ten times as many of the UAF faithful are generally arrested for breaches of the peace, assault and other violent crimes than those who belong to groups they so fervently seek to silence. A most fitting epitaph for the self proclaimed ‘tolerant’, if ever there was one.
While the Lib/Lab/Con cartel does not directly support the UAF, they do promote its leftist, ‘progressive’ ideals. Links from within these parties to this extremist group are also not so difficult to find either. The UK despising, Labour party has the strongest ties, mostly through the unions, with some individuals retaining an unflinching loyalty to both organisations. The current PM, David Cameron is also a UAF signatory who clearly seems to retain a somewhat fervent passion for ‘progressive’ doctrine too, despite attempting to pass himself off as the leader of what was once the highly patriotic, Conservative Party. As for many of the other signatories, we find a somewhat pitiful band of political pygmies, rag tag has-beens not to mention a whole glut of leftist, extremist sympathisers who are most sycophantically willing to sell out their country and their fellow countrymen and women in the name of kowtowing to their beloved agenda.
Defeating the UAF, ‘progressive’ leftism & Islam
The ever increasing exposure of UAF’s blatant lies, deception, clandestine intent and their ever growing use of violence in somewhat lamentable attempts to get their ‘message’ across, effectively guarantees that this organisation will in the end, founder and die. However, the ‘progressive’ liberal movement that they have helped to create and now promote so vigorously is one that we will need to render impotent if we ever have any hope of winning our country, rights and civil liberties back from these despots who so desperately desire to take them from us.
Never forget that between them, these two ideologies that are currently toiling away in attempts to subjugate us, have been responsible for the deaths of around 380 million people, which is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the UK and the USA combined. Yet, we can defeat them using the one thing they despise the most...the truth! By learning as much as you can about the ‘progressive’ cause and Islam, you will then have it in your power to educate others about their tyrannical attempts to mould Britain into a nightmare state, which would no doubt bare all the hallmarks of the former Soviet Union and Shariah dominated Saudi Arabia.
But first, we desperately need to awaken our fellow country men and women from their zombified, PC induced stupor. So brainwashed have they become that they are unlikely to come quietly, yet, this single goal must remain our number one priority. We also need to put any differences we have aside and unite: becoming one strong voice of millions, rather than millions of single, insignificant voices. The time has also come to throw off our fear and fight this most heinous of evils for unless we do so, our country and those countries around us that have been similarly afflicted, will eventually fall to the yoke of Islamic imperialism or left wing hatred and intolerance. Our cause is not only a great and honourable one, it is also righteous and just and through our solid devotion and unrivalled passion for a country that we all love, I resolutely believe that we will emerge victorious. So, the time has arrived for us to make a choice. We can either remain steadfast, fight for what we believe in and see this most vital of undertakings through to the bitter end or we can choose to remain silent... slithering in a pit of sloth, self loathing and apathy where we will most certainly ensure not only our very own destruction, but that of everything we love and hold dear.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 01:53