Thursday, December 27, 2007

Has Little Green Footballs Been Infiltrated?

There is an interesting analysis of the blog war that erupted following the Counter Jihad Conference held in Brussels on the site Het Vrije Volk an English translation follows below. Perhaps this is the reason for the approach of the large American blog Little Green Footballs; I invite the reader to add this to the other material that has been produced on the blogosphere and make up their own mind based on the availible evidence.


LittleGreenFootballs has been infiltrated

Bottehond 25 december 2007


For some weeks a controversy rages between the counter-jihadis of Litte Green Footballs and a number of Islam-critical topbloggers. Your reporter went into the battle zone of this controversy to discover a sinister plot, and the explanation why this matter went completely out of control.


On first glance the issue seems to be whether or not some European parties are fascist or not, notably Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna. Both parties sent representatives to the anti-Islam conference in Brussels, where nearly all relevant players were present. This was not what LGF liked, being tipped off by Swedish anti-fascists.


But further investigation proved there is more going on. The debate went completely out of control: old alliances and long lasting friendships might very well be permanently damaged. How did this come to be?


Because of the Brussels Conference LGF boss Charles Johnson received messages from Europe about the assumed neo-Nazi secret agenda of Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna. Johnson obviously was flabbergasted. Understandable, because, as many posters said: “If it can be proven that European anti-Islam organizations are allied to fascists, many Americans will step aside from supporting the Euro anti-Islam organizations. An old problem was reborn again. Who doesn't remember the messages collected by Blokwatch (and partly fabricated by them) about the roots of Flemish nationalism, who, as is commonly known, en masse choose to support the Nazis during WW2, in the hope of gaining independence after the war. Blokwatch also collected a lot of material about contacts between Vlaams Blok and questionable neo-Nazi organisation and persons. A similar file was collected about Sverigedemokraterna. The Swedes had some members in their ranks who maintained similar contacts with questionable clubs and persons.

In the following weeks many bloggers pointed Johnson to the fact that most of the “evidence” was razor thin, could be easily countered and was often manipulated. Then something important happened. Every reasonable man with sufficient understanding of politics will understand the vulnerable position of the international anti-Islam movement, and will know he has to work carefully and with restriction. Not so on LGF. Every critical remark about the “evidence” or suggestion of making things up were tarred as fascists or VB apologists. Even the most reasonable posters were scolded and suspected. Johnson was not capable of keeping the situation under control. Far from it: he was tempted by a herd of Lizards (which is how the posters on LGF call themselves) to estrange himself even more from such reputable bloggers as Fjordman, the folks of Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.

In the ongoing debate a Norwegian antifascist, ุyvind Str๘mmen, showed up. He wrote the book “Eurofascism”. Several times Charles Johnson published parts of this book, all of them accusations aimed at Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna. Of course, all of this was simply more of the same. In my opinion, it was a major error of Charles Johnson to quote from this book. Not just because the material was mainly irrelevant; to the contrary. Such accusations should always be taken seriously. But because he refused to call for a time-out or discuss matters with the (at that time) friends and allied bloggers, Johnson hanged himself with his, or better phrased, this evidence. That evidence became quickly irrelevant; matters had gone too far already. Apparently Charles Johnson had released the genie out of the bottle and had no idea how to get it back again. He had few options but to keep walking the path he made himself.

Now the smoke has cleared, mainly because Johnson's opponents had the wisdom not to overreact we can make up the balance sheet. Those who followed the debates have seen the resentful tone that many Lizards used. LGF is known as very much pro-Israel, which really is a point to their benefit. It's no surprise many Shoah survivors or descendants from them are amongst the Lizards, and they turned themselves away from the Euro movement. Add to this the deep suspicion many Americans hold about Europe, and European history, and we have the explanations for this debate that went completely out of control. At least, that is what a superficial observer will think.

However, to quote Dani๋l Belinfante: “there is more going on”. Let's have a closer look at this gentleman Mr. ุyvind Str๘mmen. Who is he? A small investigation showed that Mr. Str๘mmen is member of this club: http://webhost.ua.ac.be/extremismanddemocracy/members/MembersList-S.htm When we read this list carefully, we find the name and founder of Blokwatch, the “anti-fascist” blog that began the accusations of fascism against Vlaams Belang. This is Bart Spruyt. You will find his name on this list.

But there is more: Mr. Spruyt, a friend of ุyvind Str๘mmen, did much to internationalize the 'anti-fascist' jihad by founding disreputable anarchistic-like clubs such as AFA Netherlands. These chappies are internationally organized. Scandinavia abounds with these little progressive clubs. Perhaps you recall the attempted murder on four SIOE members in Copenhagen, recently? Yes, friends of our friends Spruyt and Str๘mmen. Those of you who would bear the stench can open a cesspit of extreme left Inquisition. And be surprised of the way these little hysteric clubs work intimately together, internationally.

What are the conclusions of this little investigation? The obvious, of course. LGF has been infiltrated by left wing fanatics, who respect nobody and nothing to achieve their goals. Those who tar everybody fascist who resists, for example, the Islamization of Europe. We are talking here about delusional fanatics who are so utterly convinced of being right (compare them the Baader Meinhof gang) they don't worry about one victim more or less. They actually became what they fought: merciless fascists. Their current champion: ุyvind Str๘mmen. The man shows off with his many 'investigations', but got his 'investigation' directly from Bart Spruyt. I do not doubt this applies to his 'investigations' about Sverigedemokraterna as well.

Please draw your own conclusions by reading his own forum. A very weak debater, drawing up smokescreen after smokescreen. All questions that might compromise him will remain unanswered. However, his strategy is clear enough: he wants to uncover the Islam-watchers as fascist fanatics, or at least as their helpers. Practically ALL Islam critics (Bat Ye 'Or, Oriana, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Fjordman, you just name anyone) have been criticized by him. There can be no doubt at all: ุyvind Str๘mmen thinks Islamization is a hoax, and Islam critics are mentally ill or (his preference) fascists. And this is supposed to be the source of Johnson? An infamy!

Did Str๘mmen enter the debate alone? Of course not. I found so much hatred in the ongoing debate that my conclusion is that Charles Johnson not only has a very questionable advisor, but also that the Lizards have been infiltrated. Check it out for yourself. Observe the responses from the Lizards: foaming at the mouth as they blast their 'fascist' mantra to your postings. Amongst them are a lot of Europeans who will claim not to be left wing orientated. But also a bunch of Lizards who feed Charles Johnson with a deluge of evidence. Evidence collected for many years by the Str๘mmens and Spruyts of the world.

There is a little bit of good news to report as well. Charles Johnson has put some distance between himself and Str๘mmen. He repeatedly said that he doesn't agree with everything Str๘mmen said or stands for. Hardly possible, as Charles keeps the photo of Oriana prominently on his website. Hopefully he will realize one cannot have it both ways. I called on LGF for a debate. Face to face, for communication of such and important matter by mail will not do. The raid on LGF by Euro extremists makes it crystal clear that we cannot afford to. Only reason can heal the breech. Therefore I suggest we all take responsibility for our own actions, and take it from there.

The only question remaining is: will ุyvind Str๘mmen hang Charles Johnson's scalp on his AFA belt, or will Charles Johnson see reason, and organize a mediation?

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Reform Treaty - An Italian Perspective

The excellent Italian website Lisistrata has an article about the new Reform Treaty. This can be found in Italian HERE and in English (Google translation) HERE.

Those of us who are opposed the the assault on on rights and freedoms in all countries across Europe need to come together as a united movement of Europeans. We need to defeat the treaty by allowing referenda in all member states of the European Union. Then we need to look at the very nature of the EU and move forward to either making it a democracy (which it currently is not) or replacing it with something that is.

No to EU totalitarianism! Citizens of Europe unite!

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Oppose the EU Reform Treaty - Sign the Petition

If you want a referrendum on the Treaty of Lisbon click the following link and also email the link to all your contacts asking them to do the same:

http://x09.eu/en/home/

Monday, December 17, 2007

A Group of MEPs Dare to Speak Out for the People in Euroland!

Hat Tip: Devil's Kitchen




Re-fe-ren-dum...! Re-fe-ren-dum...! Re-fer-ren-dum...! REFERENDUM!!!

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Dutch Establishment Running Scared as Geert Wilders Gains Popular Acclaim

Hat Tip: Klein Verzet

Please read the article on the blog Klein Verzet entitled ‘The writing on the wall’ as it is a source of good cheer for all Europeans.

It would appear that the people of the Netherlands are not as stupid as their treacherous rulers. They have elected the highly gifted and courageous politician Geert Wilders as their politician of the year.

I think the Dutch political establishment, who now realise that the people are on the side of Mr Wilders, are desperately trying to smear him. They do not like it when people see through their short-sighted plans and people like Mr Wilders are providing a source of illumination that allows this.

When are the politicians of Europe going to realise that they do not rule by divine right but by the will of the people. The signing of the EU Reform Treaty demonstrates that they are willing to defy the will of the people and trample on the rights of the rights of us all. Europeans do not want the European Union or politicians who deliberately undermine Western Civilisation.

Politicians like Geert Wilders are a ray of hope for us all. I am looking forward to seeing his video about the Koran in the New Year.

Three Cheers for Geert Wilders!

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Charles Johnson: The Dan Rather of the Blogosphere? by Baron Bodissey

Readers of this blog are probably already aware of the ongoing 'blog war' between Little Green Footballs (LGF) and Gates of Vienna/Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF). Baron Bodissey has now published an article over at Gates of Vienna to conclude the Gates of Vienna/CVF side of the story. The article is reproduced in full below:


Charles Johnson: The Dan Rather of the Blogosphere? by Baron Bodissey

Remember this?

[Note on Gates of Vienna blog refers to a image "This image was removed at the request of Charles Johnson. The original showed the "Killian Memo" purpotedley from 1973, superimposed over a document created by Microsoft Word in 2004"]

This is the infamous “Killian Memo”, the blatantly forged document that discredited Dan Rather and CBS News during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign. If this hoax had been deployed prior to the emergence of blogs, it would probably not have been discredited before election day, and might have changed the course of the election.

This image was the iconic representation of the success of bloggers in fighting dishonest smears coming from Big Media. It showed that even the most prominent liberal stars of TV news were vulnerable to an internet investigation involving hundreds or thousands of independent volunteers working and communicating via their computers.

It exposed the arrogance and unaccountability of outfits like CBS, and awakened the hope that they might become answerable for their bias and errors. If newspapers and television could be held to enforceable standards of accuracy — without any dependence on ombudsmen, in-house review boards, peer standards committees, or any of the other devices through which the modern news industry pretends to police itself — then “truth in journalism” might become a real possibility.

The downfall of Dan Rather in the fall of 2004 was brought about by the hard work of a lot of ordinary people, by men and women without any J-school credentials or experience in the field. It was a triumph of a new form of media.

And Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs was the hero of that triumph.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Needless to say, Mr. Johnson wasn’t the only star of the show. The initial exposé of the Killian memo came from Free Republic. Other prominent bloggers were in the thick of it doing important work, including Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Roger Simon, and Instapundit. Bill at InDC Journal played a crucial role when he contacted an expert on typewriters who made mincemeat of the CBS in-house expert’s laughable assertions. Many other smaller blogs, commenters, and forum posters contributed to the effort. It truly was “an Army of Davids”.

Here’s how National Review summed it all up the following year, after the founding of Pajamas Media:


Pajama-Clad Revolutionaries

A year ago, Jonathan Klein, current president of CNN,
airily dismissed the bloggers who dethroned Dan Rather. “These bloggers have no
checks and balances… You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple
layers of checks and balances [at 60 Minutes] and a guy sitting in his living
room in his pajamas writing.”

Of course, it wasn’t so long ago (25 years, to be
exact) that CNN was the new media outlet on the block. And the neighborhood kids
turned their noses up at Ted Turner’s brainchild. Broadcast newshound Sam
Donaldson derided CNN as the “Chicken Noodle Network.”

Time, you see, not only heals all wounds. It heels all
mavericks, making top dogs out of underdogs.

The underdogs of our time, journalistically speaking,
are bloggers. And the online unraveling of Rathergate was their first
unmitigated triumph.

One of the bloggers who led the charge against Rather
is Charles Johnson, proprietor of the curiously named Little Green Footballs.
Shortly after this triumph, Johnson joined forces with another popular blogger,
Roger L. Simon, to form (thumbing their noses at Klein and all other doubters)
Pajamas Media.

[…]

It’s their contention that blogging has demonstrated
journalism isn’t rocket science, nor is it even medicine or law, requiring
highly specialized training over a long period of time. Rathergate, the Jayson
Blair scandal, and other major media slip-ups too numerous to mention revealed
that the mainstream media have no magical wardrobe.

[…]

…Johnson and Simon consider the entire blogosphere
their fact-checkers. This is a sacred tenet among many bloggers. If a blogger
makes a mistake, readers will call him on it right away, either via comment or
email. And the blogger is honor-bound to correct it immediately and
clearly.

Instead of relying on a few overworked editors to
fact-check every story, bloggers count on thousands of other bloggers to, as
they like to say, “fact-check their a**.” Bloggers, in other words, lean on the
collective knowledge of the entire Internet rather than a handful of
elites.

Johnson and Simon claim that, like most bloggers, they
will not hesitate to own up to errors. In their view, more established media are
too arrogant and hidebound to admit many of their mistakes.

This is the ideal that we all try to live up to. This is what got Dymphna and me
into blogging.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club was our primary inspiration, but Charles Johnson was up there at the top of the list of people who set the example.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What does “fact-checking their a**” mean?

During Rathergate it meant that an insistent buzz from thousands of small internet sources and several large ones kept CBS from riding out the Killian memo hoax. The blogs got inside CBS’ OODA loop and kept them off-balance, leaving then unable to mount a successful defense.The blogs had the facts on their side, but the distributed intelligence of the internet was the informational framework that made their efforts successful. The new media changed the communications landscape in the same way that the invention of the printing press did in the 15th century, bypassing an established hierarchy and opening the field to newcomers.

The blogs that emerged in these new media lived or died based on how closely they stuck to the truth. A neophyte blogger quickly discovers — as Dymphna and I did repeatedly — that any errors of fact are punished instantly from multiple sources. Respect and credibility depend on responding promptly to errors and correcting them with updates.

When dealing solely with opinions, none of this matters, but as soon as a blogger drops a factual assertion into his argument, he comes under the scrutiny of knowledgeable readers who are alert, ready to respond, and never seem to sleep.

My first stumbles taught me to check my facts, and my accuracy has improved. But human error always creeps in, especially when I have prejudices and blind spots that predispose me not to see the facts.

Self-correction is difficult. When I say to a commenter or an emailer, “You’re quite right,” and post an update, it’s painful and embarrassing, but it pays off over the long term.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So what has gone wrong with this process as it applies to the conflict with LGF about Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna?

As mentioned yesterday, Charles Johnson has left standing a number of erroneous posts on these topics, without posting a public retraction or correction. These are not mere opinions, nor interpretations of photos or rat cartoons. These are actual errors of fact, ones that can be easily confirmed as false if anyone bothers to look up the cited sources.

So why has fact-checking failed in this case?

- - - - - - - - -
The evolution of the blogosphere propelled a number of accomplished bloggers to the top of the heap. Thorough coverage of important issues, good writing, and a reputation for being scrupulous with the truth have given the major players their well-deserved traffic and reputations.

However, an unfortunate side effect of blog fame is the potential for the same kind of unaccountability that has become endemic in the mainstream media. If a blogger can count on maintaining his traffic and popularity, at least in the short term, then natural corrective influences become less important.

A smaller blog simply can’t afford these luxuries, but the risk is there for any blog that becomes large enough.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So how well does the Dan Rather analogy apply to Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs?

Some aspects of Mr. Rather’s situation seem quite apt. Consider what the The New York Times wrote in the wake of Rathergate, after CBS’ investigative panel issued its report:

Over the next week or so, CBS News issued a number of press
statements and “CBS Evening News” reports that staunchly defended the Sept. 8
segment despite increasingly strong indications that the reporting for the
segment was flawed. The panel finds that these statements and reports contained
numerous misstatements and inaccuracies. Moreover, the panel finds that once
serious questions were raised, the defense of the segment became more rigid and
emphatic.

But other aspects of the CBS debacle differ from the LGF situation. LGF has no Mary Mapes to take the fall for any errors. There is no corporate board which can ease Mr. Johnson out when he becomes embarrassing. He may suffer an attrition of traffic over the long haul, but it’s also possible that his popularity is independent of any fidelity to the truth, and that he will continue to flourish.

So the analogy, though instructive, is incomplete. This leaves open the possibility of a different denouement than emerged from the whole sordid mess at CBS.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What are the options for Charles Johnson, or for any other prominent blogger who makes significant factual errors?

I see the same three possibilities that faced Dan Rather when the forged Killian memos were exposed:
  1. Acknowledge the errors and accept responsibility for them, even though they were committed by subordinates. This was not the road taken by Mr. Rather.
  2. The infamous “fake but accurate” defense, which acknowledges that the “facts” were bogus, but asserts the underlying truth of the accusations. Dan Rather attempted this strategy, but it never gained any real traction, not even in the MSM.
  3. Stonewalling. This was the method most favored by Mr. Rather, and which he persists in to this day, as witnessed by his lawsuit against CBS.
So far Charles Johnson has preferred option #3, failing to take up any of the suggested corrections posted here yesterday.

But I’m optimistic that this situation might change. After all, Mr. Johnson gained a well-deserved reputation for ferreting out the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is the final wrap-up of the conflict between CVF and LGF over the issues of Counterjihad Brussels 2007, Vlaams Belang, and Sverigedemokraterna. All the research has been done, the refutations have been posted, and the links are collected together in one place for archival purposes. Anyone who is interested can now look at all the information and make up his or her own mind.

Moving past these issues opens up the opportunity to examine the evolution of the blogosphere.

The internet evolves at an astonishing rate and in unpredictable directions. A lot has changed in the last three years. Big blogs are still important, but thousands of small niche blogs (like Gates of Vienna) have emerged, and are following new strategies and employing new modes of organization.

The distributed intelligence of the internet is expanding to include different functions. Blogs and forums emerge out of other kinds of structures, or form independently and become associated with them. Such structures may include activist organizations, non-profit foundations, interest groups, and political parties. On the blogs and the forums talk still rules, but other organizations are engaging in various forms of action.

As the pragmatic and action-oriented forms of organization collide with the more idealistic world of “pure” blogging, conflict becomes inevitable. It is inherent in the tension between maintaining a principled stance and actually taking effective action.

From these conflicts we can learn and grow stronger.

This is what CVF is all about. Times have changed. The blogosphere has moved on. The center of gravity has shifted into different structures, and the changes continue.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
— Bob Dylan, from
The Times They Are A-Changin’

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Civilisational Nationalism and the Beginning of a New Golden Age

Nationalism has had a bad press in recent years. It has been demonised by the political left in their attempt to destroy the ability of people to resist their plans. However, far from been an ideology that pushes people apart and compartmentalises them, nationalism can be a force to bring people together. Nationalism is about creating unity out of diversity and thereby allowing human organisation on an increasingly larger scale. By focusing on cultural attributes held in common the nation state was able to out perform its pre-modern counterparts. In this sense nationalism was a force for progress and social improvement.

A nation is a very abstract concept that was impossible to realise without mass communication. Its size makes it difficult for an individual to understand or appreciate. Traditional human spatial understanding is usually restricted to the specifics of the viewable locality. ‘Nation State Nationalism’ was made possible by technological changes such as the printing press and the Reformation’s encouragement of literacy in vernacular languages. It was reinforced further by the invention of mass communication technologies such as railways and the telegraph that effectively made the world smaller.

We are living at a time when the powers of nationalism can once again play a role in bring diverse groups of people with a variety of interests together in the service of creative human endeavour. I call this variation of nationalism ‘Civilisational Nationalism’. As with its predecessor, civilisational nationalism is in part based on a communications revolution. Once again the world has become smaller and distance is now meaningless in the virtual sense, thanks to the Internet, and is shrinking in the physical sense as a result of improvements in air travel. Our technological progression has finally allowed nationalism to evolve further so it can continue its role of bringing people together as a mechanism to create greatness.

Many people in the western world are waking up to the fact that Western Civilisation is under threat, most notably from its own political and media elite. People in many nations are coming together to defend our civilisation and in the process are creating a completely new sense of human awareness – a civilisational consciousness. This represents the birth of civilisational nationalism.

Groups like the Center for Vigilant Freedom and SIOE are, perhaps, the first wave of this new concept of human awareness. The use of the English language across borders has allowed people to communicate. In this way civilisational nationalism appears to be built on very different foundations to its precursor. Rather than been built on the use of the vernacular its basis is a move to a more universal language. However, due to the rapid advance of technology, and the evolution of translation devices, language itself may cease to be a barrier to understanding and people can achieve universal communication in the vernacular of their choice. Language will then become just as irrelevant as distance.

All this makes it possible to organise global grass roots movements just like nation state nationalism facilitated organisation on the scale of a single state. Changes in the nature of the state produced the nationalism of the nation state. The nature of states is changing once more. As states evolve into supra national entities like the European Union (EU) or the North American Union (NAU) the political reality changes with them.

Civilisational nationalism is a response to the rise of political actors that transcend the traditional nation state. Since organisations such as the EU and the activities of multinational corporations operate with scant regard to culture, and in fact appear to dismiss western culture as an irrelevance, means that some mass movement will inevitably emerge to cater for the human need for meaning. This movement will be based on a civilisational level of organisation.

Established institutions now operate freely on the global scale and it would appear that they are all powerful. However, increasingly the individual is also in a position to participate directly in international relations. This grass roots activity will form the basis of the civilisational nationalism that will provide the organising principle to oppose global establishment power.
Such a movement against tyranny needs an organisational basis that unites people from varied backgrounds and traditions; civilisational nationalism could provide that organisational basis. Nationalism united a people, civilisational nationalism unites peoples.

Since civilisations are varied and vast then I would not expect them to be a threat to the individual nation states that comprise them. They might be a threat to organisations that don’t respect western culture such as the EU and multinationals as it provides a blueprint for organised opposition to their plans to degrade and undermine our common culture. For the first time it is possible for individuals to come together as citizens of Western Civilisation and assert the right of their civilisation to exist.

Something new is emerging, this could be the begining of a new golden age.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Support Free Speech in Europe - Boycott Unilever

I have been reading a story, over at the Brussels Journal, about a member of the Board of Directors of Unilever, Doekle Terpstra, and his opposition to the Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Multinationals do not seem to care about Western Civilisation, only about making a tidy profit and lining their pockets in the short term whatever the longer term consequences might be. This is short sighted and dangerous. It is our job as political activists who promote Western Civilisation to make them care.

As I see it Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) want immigration on a massive scale into the West in order to reduce labour costs. They also want to sell their products across the world. The Islamic world is an important consumer of the products of such companies. Unless people in the West are willing to boycott such companies in large numbers then they will continue to support policies that undermine western culture and western civilisation.

At the moment people take to the streets in Islamic countries when anything, however small, displeases them and MNCs respond by pandering to them. At the same time MNCs compromise Western interests because the people of the West tend, on the whole, to be docile and politically illiterate.

I will be boycotting Unilever products but unless millions of us do the same then Unilever will concentrate of placating those that are willing to take such action.Boycotting an organisation takes determination and discipline. In fact there are already so many companies that I am boycotting that soon I fear that I will be forced to grow my own food - but I will do this if it becomes necessary in order to defend the West.

Unilever's brands are listed on its website under 'Brand information'. The question is whether you are willing to make the effort to boycott for the sake of your civilisation and also to actively encourage others to join the boycott. It is much easier to post comments on blogs, but the real test is whether you are willing to make compromises in your own life for the cause. The Unilever website is as follows: http://www.unilever.com/

The other thing that we need to do is list all Unilever products together with an alternative product that serves the same purpose but is produced by another company.We the need to send such information far and wide along with the reason for boycotting all Unilever products.

This is the scale of the problem, unless we can put ourselves into a position to actually bring down organisations such as Unilever, via campaigning, lobbying and boycotting, then we will never be in a position to stop the ongoing destruction of Western Civilisation. People have to take personal responsibility by not filling the coffers of organisations that cannot demonstrate that they support Western Civilisation and its most treasured traditions such as freedom of expression. Organisations that do not support freedom of expression need to be ostracised.

Boycotting is still something that individuals can do to demonstrate their dissatisfaction. You cannot blame countries when individuals have it within their power to make a real difference. If multinationals can no longer be 'national champions' they should at least be 'civilisational champions'.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Large Scale Mosque Building and the London 'Mega Mosque'

What follows is the speech that I was going to give at the Bologna Conference on 30 November 2007 (I was unable to attend the conference as a result of strike action by Italian air traffic controllers):

When our UK members first stared meeting online, the one issue that people wanted to talk about, and act on, was the London Mega Mosque. Perhaps this was due to the symbolism that such a construction represents, something that makes people fearful for their own way of life.
One reason for opposition to such projects is the fact that governments seem to have something to hide. They don’t want people to talk freely about Islam - they enact laws that stifle open discussion, and they label and demonise those who ask awkward questions or defy political orthodoxy. Media blackouts and journalistic codes that prevent proper discussion and reporting of issues surrounding Islam mean that people are left in the dark and fearing the worst. Speech codes, political repression, and ‘heresy laws’ do not make people stop thinking, but they do make them suspicious.

We must remember that a mosque is not just a place of worship but has a political role. Islam is very different from Christianity but politicians seem very unwilling to recognise this fact. Rightly or wrongly, there are many people who believe that verses from the Koran are behind the current spate of terrorist atrocities.

The way to deal with this fear is to debate the issue and let the truth be revealed; if there is nothing to fear then why do governments oppose open debate? When people do step forth to debate they are denounced as racists, xenophobes, and Islamophobes. Government crack downs on free speech implies that they are afraid of the truth that might be revealed. We have seen, here in Italy, rumblings in Government circles about licensing the Internet as a way of further suppressing the free circulation of information. This is not healthy, not desirable and certainly not in the public interest. The governments of the West are therefore directly responsible for the suspicion and fear that is beginning to grip our society. This is why people oppose mega mosque proposals!

The defining feature of the London mega mosque is its size. The original plans, which allowed for a capacity of up to 70,000 people on a 17 acre site, would have made it the biggest mosque outside the Middle East and the largest place of worship in Britain. It would have dwarfed similar projects across Europe, including the one planned here in the beautiful city of Bologna. Due to public pressure the project seems to have shrunk to a mosque with provision for 12,000 worshippers. This is still a considerable size!

A very alarming feature of the modern West is the apparent hatred and contempt that our political and media elite has for Western Civilisation and Western Culture. The non-western is celebrated and promoted while only the negative aspects of the West seem to be discussed. It’s as if our leaders want to destroy the West in their attempt to create some kind of post Western Utopia. This view is reinforced by EU policies such as the Euro Arab Dialogue that seems to have facilitated the process of mass immigration without assimilation from the Islamic world. Our societies are gradually being transformed by the active and deliberate actions of our own governments.

One of the concerns about the mega mosque project is that it may result the creation of a Muslim ghetto. The Government claims to be promoting ‘Community Cohesion’ but such a development would take us in the opposite direction (perhaps they see community cohesion as something different to me?). Would such a zone become a ‘no go area’ for outsiders and would there be calls for the application of Shari’a law in this and other ghettos inspired by the project. I suspect that the real reason why the Government will ultimately support the project is that it will further act to undermine western culture and the sovereignty of western nations.

The group behind the London Mega Mosque, is Tablighi Jamaat, an organisation that French Intelligence has described as ‘an antechamber of fundamentalism’ and which seems to have attracted the likes of the so-called ‘shoe bomber’ - Richard Reid, and the July 7th terrorists Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. Coupled with Tablighi Jamaat's secretive nature, this does not soothe people’s fears about the project or discourage people from questioning the motives of the group pushing it forward. Again, government ignores or belittles such fears….Why?

An article published by The Times suggested that nearly half of the mosques in the UK are now controlled by the hard-line puritan Deobandi Sect. If the views of a leading Deobandi preacher are anything to go by people have every right to be concerned about projects such as the ‘Mega Mosque’. Rejecting, or even openly hating, the West does not make for good community relations within the West. I for one do not regard this sect as the moderate voice of Islam that our government purports to encourage. This also makes me believe that our governments actually want to Islamise our countries.

Why isn’t there a national debate on the pros and cons of Shari’a law? Why the silence on the subject? Many Muslims want to live under it, many non Muslims are suspicious of it. Would it be better to get this subject out in the open as a way of allaying people’s fears? We hear cases in the news where people who leave Islam and are sentenced to death – is this part of Shari’a law? Why do governments oppose debate about the long-term effects of the Islamisation of Europe.

Why does discrimination take place when Christians decide to openly wear crosses or chastity rings? Why are non-Muslims being served halal meat in British schools, why are some people contemplating Muslim only toilets – if we can’t piss in the same pot then what hope is there for preventing segregation and the creation of parallel societies! Are we already living under a form of Shari’a law, under the guise of anti-Western, anti-Christian, political correctness?What happens if Islam becomes the majority religion in the Western world? The Muslim Prophet himself was more conciliatory when his fledgling community in Mecca was a minority but less so when he held political dominion in Medina. Since Muslims supposedly see the behaviour of their Prophet as the perfect example, how can we be sure that we will not suffer the same fate as, say, the Jews of Medina. We are told that Islam represents the unchanging word of God. Why, therefore should we expect that it’s changed over the ages? Taboo subjects, a dearth of information and lack of discussion creates an environment of fear and uncertainty. The recent intimidation of Cllr Alan Craig, the man who is leading the opposition against the London Mega Mosque, does not inspire confidence or alleviate legitimate concern either. Again why does government fear debate? What are they hiding?

Until these and many other concerns are properly addressed and openly discussed there will always be people who oppose the construction of mega mosques. Until critical discussion takes place, there will always be those who look at what happened in history under similar conditions and take to fretting about the future islamisation of Europe. The answer is openness and the governments of Europe have it within their power to bring such a state of openness about, for the benefit of all the people of Europe, of all faiths, of all races, and of both genders.

What many of us are protesting about continent wide & globally, is Government betrayal. The Government, in apparent co-ordination with the mainstream media, seems to be deliberately generating fear by suppressing debate and demonising those dissidents who dare to question the orthodoxy of establishment policy.

Until we get open and honest government, and open and honest public debate, we must continue the struggle. Our freedom and that of future generations depends on it! Governments of Europe, it is now time to step into the light!

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Freedom of Association, the BNP and the West Yorkshire Police

I saw the following on an application form, for police staff, for the West Yorkshire Police:

“The police service has a policy of prohibiting any of their officers or staff becoming members of the BNP or similar organisations whose aims, objectives or pronouncements may contradict the duty to promote race equality. Are you or have you ever been a member of the BNP or similar organisation. If you are, or have been, a member of the BNP or similar, your application may be rejected”

Whether you agree or disagree with the policies of a political party this is a very dangerous trend in recruitment practice, that may effectively discourage people from participating in the political process. This policy of the West Yorkshire Police makes assumptions about why people decide to join the BNP. Reasons could be many and varied including a sense of desperation caused by mainstream political parities simply ignoring genuine concerns and not engaging properly with the public.

Personally I think that ethno nationalism is silly, backward and ultimately weakens our society and our culture. Making judgements about people based on their race is wrong. However, the sort of policy referred to above is discrimination and it undermines the principle of freedom of association and prevents people being honest about their political beliefs.

The thing that really worries me about this practice is which party or group will be next? Without freedom of association and freedom of speech honest political discussion is impossible and fear therefore increases. Where will a trend in the direction of political exclusion end? Will established parties, when in government, prevent the emergence of new parties who are potentially a future threat to their political dominance?

Anyway, I would be interested to find out when this sort of thing started to appear on application forms. I suspect that the practice came in after the socialists came to power in the UK in 1997 (I could of course be mistaken). I think that the BNP should formally repudiate ethno-nationalism, not because of the discrimination and intimidation of which the above requirement on an application form is but one example, but because it is the right thing to do.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Odin's Cross Honours Our Fallen Heroes


I have been following the recent hysteria on the American blog ‘Little Green Footballs’ surrounding association of individuals and groups with particular symbols. One of these symbols was ‘Odin’s Cross’. I never really thought about this particular symbol before the recent ‘blog war’ was initiated by LGF following the organisation of a counter jihad conference in the European Parliament in Brussels, a conference that I was involved with. Now I have started noticing the symbol, not least on a war memorial, as I go about my daily life. Perhaps this symbol is more deeply ingrained within our western culture psyche than I previously realised. That being the case, what right does a blog like LGF have to rule such a symbol out of bounds?

If symbols that can be associated with unsavoury ideologies are erased from Western culture the what would we have left? Are we supposed to erase all references to Odin or to crosses from the cultural milieu of Western Civilisation to please all those who might be offended or feel uncomfortable having such reminders of their own history in their midst? Where does it end? Do we rewrite the history books to make them more inclusive of other cultures irrespective of what actually happened in order to please the PC brigade?

I for one am not willing to deconstruct my own civilisation and culture to please the iconoclasts of the political left; that is the road to cultural and civilisational doom. I will not consign our symbols, our flags, our traditions and our freedoms to the dustbin of history. If people don’t like that then all I can say is, tough, get used to it because our culture and our symbols are here to stay!

If Odin’s Cross is good enough to honour our war dead then why is it regarded as permanently out of bounds as a cultural symbol. Should we forget the war dead and forget the symbol as well? Should we do the same with all aspects of our culture, after all the political left do not seem to like our civilisation very much, perhaps that is what they want us to do. Should monuments such as the War Memorial that I have referred to be replaced by something more fitting, perhaps a little green football would do the trick. After all, we would not want the heroes who died fighting fascism to be doomed to guilt by association with the very fascist ideology that so many of them fought with their last breath!

I am not sure where LGF is positioned politically, neither do I care. This cross is part of our cultural heritage and no lizard or no lefty is going to make me throw away my cultural heritage. In my view our symbols are deliberately given negative associations by the left. The political left is forever demonising and debasing our culture while celebrating all that is not western. This is a disgrace and an insult the those who fought and died to keep us free, people whose sacrifice is remembered in monuments such as the one pictured.


The political left wants to demoralise those of us who love our civilisation, they want to take it apart one brick, or should I say one symbol, at a time until finally there is nothing left. I have news for them, I will not co-operate, I will not surrender and I will never give up that which I hold dear.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

'The AntiTerrorist' Speaks Out About Some Of The Dangers Of Current Trends Within The EU

This video, by 'The AntiTerrorist', outlines some of the dangers posed by current trends in the European Union. This is pretty scary stuff!



Other videos by 'The AntiTerrorist' can be found via the following link: http://uk.youtube.com/user/TheAntiTerrorist