Friday, 29 April 2016

Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and Socialist Jew-Hatred

Hitler might have supported a Zionist state as an alternative to his own Final Solution. Don't forget that the Final Solution was never made public. Thus it's no surprise (if true) that Hitler, at one point, wanted all European Jews to go to the Middle East. However, he probably never really wanted this. Why? Because of his close relationship with many Islamists and Muslims in the Middle East. Primarily with the Mufti of Jerusalem (who was a close friend).

Why did Ken Livingstone feel the need to express this fact? Comparing Israelis with Nazis is, of course, a classic Leftist trope. In this case, a connection was made between Hitler and Zionism.

Yes, it's true, anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred aren't the same thing. However, the utterly mindless obsession with Israel and its actions can't come from anywhere else other than from a prior hatred of Jews.

Another way of putting this is that most “anti-Zionists” began life as Jew-haters. Their anti-Zionism rationalises their prior Jew-hatred. It's really that simple.

The obsession with Israel itself shows a prior hatred of Jews. Many Leftists know nothing of any other foreign issue... What do these protestors know about the violence in the Sudan, the Congo and so on? Why are their eyes always and only pointing at Israel? Why? Because Israel is a democratic and capitalist (with many anti-capitalists) country for Jews. And that's at the heart of “anti-Zionism”. Thus Marxist ideology and socialist racism fuse with Ken Livingstone and the anti-Zionists.

So in one breath, we are told that Hitler propagated the Zionist/Israel solution. In the next breath, Jewish behaviour in the Middle East is portrayed as evil incarnate. What now?

The Labour Party is itself racist in three ways:

       One) It is racist against all non-”progressive” whites... and even racist towards a minority of progressive whites (who must bathe in their "white guilt").

      Two) It is racist because it supports positive discrimination and positive/inverted racism.

    Three) It is against Israel because it thinks there is a fatal link (in that country) between Zionism/Jews, capitalism and imperialism – that explains the obsession with Israel... it's Jewish and democratic/capitalist nature.
On this count, the Labour Party is more racist than the BNP.

Jew-hatred is at the heart of European socialism. Internationalist Socialism took a position against “capitalist Jews” in the 1850s. Nazism partly grew out of this socialist tradition.

Jew-hatred was prevalent in the Soviet Union and all socialist sates. This fusion of racism and anti-capitalism has been part of socialism since the second half of the 19th century. Sure, I'm prepared to accept that Jew-hatred and anti-capitalism aren't necessarily linked. However, anti-Zionists almost uniformly start off as Nazis or as (International) Socialist Jew-haters.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Microaggressions: All Racism. All the Time

Have you ever said something to someone of another culture or ethnicity and later wondered if it was patronising or slightly racist?” - the BBC (8.1.2016)

What doesn't seem like racism, is racism. Our problem is that we don't know the truth about racism. Well-paid academics, however, do. They pierce through the veil of perception to find the truth (e.g., “racism is systemic and everywhere”) behind it.

Thus the whole anti-racist thing has taken on new Orwellian forms. Those who don't see themselves as racist are suffering from what the economist Mary Rowe called “innocent ignorance”, which is itself a result of “unconscious bias”. In other words, not seeing oneself as a racist doesn't mean that you aren't racist. Instead, let some Ivy League academic clarify your position for you. You may not like what he/she says.

The term “microaggresion” was coined by a psychiatrist named Chester M. Pierce. That was in 1970, so clearly it took quite some time to catch on; or, at the least, to become the fashionable meme that it is today.

Microaggressions have been called “the new face of racism”. The bag is that good-old-fashioned racism has been supplanted by racisms which are more “subtle, ambiguous and often unintentional”. Yes, racism is still seen as being a big problem. The thing is that most racisms nowadays are actually microaggressions.

Now let's get down to some hardcore anti-racist theology (or theory). Derald Wing Sue, for example, believes that there are three kinds of microaggresion. None of the three kinds refers to direct physical violence. Instead what we have is “microassault”, microinsult” and “microinvalidation”. The term “microassault” includes “discriminatory action, avoidant behaviour and name-calling”. “Microinsult” includes “hidden insulting messages”, insensitivity and rudeness. Finally, “microinvalidation” is a case of the roundabout negation of “ethnic identity” and “pride”.

What a puritanical world these progressive theorists (or theologians) belong to. It all boils down to the belief that there is racism everywhere and at all times. Or as Anita Saarkesian put it:

"… everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time...”

(This has been classed as a “cherry-picked quote”. However, the full quote simply adds detail and context. Saarkesian still believes that everything is racist, etc. (See

The incredible thing is that ethnic minority groups who don't accept that they've been the victims of racism, have been the victims of racism. Or, I should say, the victims of microaggression.

You see, the real motivation behind microaggressions theory (as with much anti-racism) is the political desire for complete radical political/social change.

According to one study, for example, it's the case that black Americans are expected to “represent” other black Americans. That is, they're expected to be “proud of their identity” and thus to also propagate it. The researchers, of course, see this as a bad thing. Now this very same study also came to the exact opposite conclusion. In this case it was claimed that black Americans are put under pressure (by evil white people) to “act white”. This is also seen as a bad thing by the said researchers.

So, to reiterate, the study (although I use that term loosely) came to two diametrically opposed findings when it came to black Americans. One, that blacks are expected to represent all black people. Two, that blacks are also put under pressure to “act white”.

The same thing has occurred with another study of “African Americans”. On the one hand this study concluded that microaggressions are worse (in the long run) than explicit acts of physical and verbal racism. Such “tacit racism” causes “isolation” and “self-doubt”. On the other hand, microaggresive racism (in the long run) also tends to make black Americans “more resilient”.

Finally, positive comments towards black Americans are often actually... yes, negative comments... in disguise.

But none of this really matters. What does matter is chipping away at “white capitalist society” by “any means necessary”. What matters is “radical change” - endless and unceasing radical change. Revolution.

As I said earlier, microaggressions theory has it that much racism isn't seen as racism. It's also the case that many racists don't see themselves as being racist. Basically, every white person who doesn't endorse these recondite theories simply must be a racist. Indeed, in ultra-extreme anti-racism, even a white middle-class defender of “intersectionality” could be deemed to be (closet) racist.

The thing about microaggressions theory is that real racism may (or is) ignored under the wait of silly artifactual microaggressions. After all, if you cry wolf enough times you'll eventually be ignored. Amitai Etzioni, for example, has claimed that the fixation on microaggressions means that real racism (not theoretical racism!) is often ignored under the weight of pretend microaggressions (see here).

An article in The Atlantic also expressed concern that the obsession with microaggressions can actually cause more emotional trauma than the microaggressions themselves (see here).

In addition, most of these microaggressions are so minor that even those who champion the fight against them admit that they “occur at the unconscious level”. In other words, both the instigators and the victims simply don't know that they're taking part in in a tête-à-tête of microaggresion. Still, what does occur remains “denigration”.

It almost sounds like a statement of the obvious to say that an obsession with racism – or with microaggressions – feeds paranoia and thus in the process creates the sickness of over-sensitivity. Thus it's no surprise that City Journal (amongst others) has called the whole show a “farce, and a fad” .

It's crystal clear that microaggression theory feeds off an already infantile sense of victimhood. Moreover, our society – with the help of mollycoddled academics – has become ill with victimhood. So much so that the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said that to be a fully-fledged victim is to reach the “height of this culture”.

So no wonder there's so much noise coming from the propagators and the supposed victims of microaggression.

Thursday, 24 March 2016

Hungary Speaks Out Against Islamic Immigrants


What we have here is a politician that's telling the truth about the Islamic Demographic Jihad in Europe. And like Geert Wilders, he has faced the attacks of the social engineers in Europe. He also states that international socialism, care-of mass immigration, will be fought against.

When will the UK have someone who dare to say these things? Not in the near future – a near future in which civil war beckons.I would prefer to fight a civil war today and win, than wait 10 to 30... years and loose.

Bravo Hungary!

Islamic Lies: the Lies of the British Media

“I have been made victorious through terror.” - the Prophet Muhammed

“The faithful will fight for the cause of Allah, slay and be slain.” - Koran, 9:111

Have you ever seen such a pure and transparent lie as that printed by The New Day (see above)? This is taqiyya made flesh. When the imam told this lie, he would have felt zero guilt. This lie, just like the bombings in Brussels, is endorsed by both the Koran and the life of Muhammed.

How much longer will our newspapers and politicians feed us with these lies about Islam? Will they only stop when there are bombs going off every other week?

The fightback has to begin today – in ten years' time it will be too late. Indeed, in certain respects, it's already too late.

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Anders Breivik & Timothy McVeigh: “Christian terrorists”?

Reza Aslan (the TV personality and academic) simply can't resist mentioning the Huffington Post and Guardian's saviour of 2011: Anders Behring Breivik.

So how many acts of Islamic terrorism has there been since Breivik's own act of terrorism in 2011? In 2011, the year of Breivik's attack,there were seven Islamic terrorist attacks which claimed more lives than those claimed in Norway (i.e., 77 lives). There were literally hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks that year which claimed, all in all, well over1,000 lives. (All this will have quickly faded from The Guardian’s memory.)

In any case, Reza Aslan says:

"Breivik explicitly defined himself as a Christian warrior fighting what he called an 'existential conflict' with Islam. Nevertheless, a great deal of the media coverage surrounding his actions seemed to take for granted that his crime had nothing to do with his Christian identity-- that it was based instead on his right-wing ideology, or his anti-immigrant views, or his neglectful upbringing...”

Only a few minutes of Google-time would have shown Reza Aslan that Anders Breivik was not really a Christian at all – let alone a Christian terrorist. How do I know that? Because Breivik himself said so. He variously described himself as an “agnostic” and went on to say that he's only a “cultural Christian”. (He was, according to himself, a member of the Knights Templar).

Even though there are references to Breivik being a “Christian warrior” in various articles, none I have seen provides the source of that self-description. However, Breivik might well have used that description. Though even if he did, then, clearly, he was very inconsistent on this matter as he also believed in abortion, prostitution and vampires
Timothy McVeigh

The same kind of thing that has been said about Breivik was also said - by Muslims, Leftists and the Southern Poverty Law Center - about Timothy McVeigh: that he was a“Christian terrorist”. However, they too left out the ever-so-minor fact that he was a self-described “agnostic”. Not only that: he didn't believe in Hell and said that science was his religion.

Even Andrew Brown - in his 'Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam' - denied that Breivik was a Christian terrorist. Indeed in Reza Aslan's own Huffington Post (in its 'Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?') there's a quote from Breivik himself which goes:

"....I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”
Now would any Muslim killer of a Western soldier or civilian ever come even close to saying that he's “not an excessively religious man“; that he's “foremost a man of logic”; and that he's an “agnostic” who doesn't believe in Hell?

And when Breivik said that he's “a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe”, all he essentially meant is that he Western society is largely based on Christian traditions and values. But that's not a surprise because none other than Richard Dawkins – an agnostic! - has said more or less the same thing. Indeed I know of many atheists who accept this sociological and historical fact. Are they all “Christian warriors” too?

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.