FREE BRITAIN NOW!

 

 

THE VOICE OF TRUTH, DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

 

 

 

Socialism exposed

 

Exposing

the

Labour

Party

 

The Fabian

Society: the

masters of

subversion

unmasked

 

Revealed: the Socialist International

 

The truth about the European Union

 

The

Fourth

British

Empire

 

The

Migration

Observatory

 

The Oxford

Martin

School

 

Unmasking

the EDL

 

 

 

 

Unmasking the EDL

 

by Cassivellaunus, 26 February 2014

 

 

The English Defence League (EDL) is a street protest group formed in 2009 in the Bedfordshire town of Luton, a notorious centre of Islamism, to campaign against Islamic extremism and Islamisation.

 

Given the growing domination of British society by Islam, protesting against Islamisation seems like a sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, the EDL has chosen some very strange ways of going about it.

 

For example, while campaigning against Islamisation, the EDL has inexplicably been supporting multiculturalism.

 

One vocal supporter on behalf of the EDL has been the Sikh activist Guramit Singh who has been using the screen name “lionsingh” to promote multiculturalism on the group’s online forum (Ratiu, 2012).

 

In several television programmes, former EDL leader Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) himself has insisted that it is not multiculturalism which has failed, but religion. In a speech in Chelmsley Wood, Birmingham, he expressed the view that multiculturalism has “worked” with all cultural and religious groups except Islam (Catrin Nye, “Inside the English Defence League leadership,” BBC Newsnight, 1 Feb. 2011; “Proud and Prejudiced,” Channel 4, 5 Apr. 2011).

 

The EDL’s somewhat rambling and confused Mission Statement on its current website (last accessed on 26 Feb 2014) states:

 

“The EDL believes that English Culture has the right to exist and prosper in England.”

 

While this is a good start, it goes on to say that it is committed to promoting the traditions and culture of England,

 

“while at the same time being open to embrace the best that other cultures can offer,”

 

that

 

“We recognise that culture is not static, that over time changes take place naturally, and that other cultures make contributions that make our shared culture stronger and more vibrant.”

 

and that

 

“The best of their cultures [of people who migrate to this country] will be absorbed naturally and we will all be united by the enhanced culture that results.”

 

It isn’t difficult to see what is wrong with the above statements. Although the EDL claims to believe in English culture, it turns out that it is not really English culture but a form of it that is being modified and “enhanced” by foreign cultures.

 

The belief that English culture is in need of “enhancement” by foreign cultures is curious enough. But it ought to be obvious that the more English culture is being modified and “enhanced” by other cultures the less English it is going to be.

 

What’s more, the Mission Statement is silent on English people’s right to preserve their culture as it is without having it modified or “enhanced” by others, as well as on their right not to embrace any aspects of other cultures.

 

Essentially, then, what the EDL Statement really boils down to is this:

 

“The EDL believes that English Culture has the right to exist and prosper in England but only in a form that has been modified and enhanced by other cultures.”

 

And, since the EDL does not appear to set any limits to the degree of modification and “enhancement” that is to be imposed on English culture, it is doubtful whether the resultant culture will be recognisably English.

 

For example, how can the dominant culture in immigrant-controlled areas like East London’s Tower Hamlets be described as “English” when many of their inhabitants don’t even speak the language?

 

 

Whitechapel High St., Tower Hamlets: culture enhancement or replacement?

 

The EDL seems to naively believe that cultural changes happen “naturally.” But closer examination of the facts shows that our culture is being changed artificially (i.e., as part of a deliberate policy) by business interests, politicians and their collaborators. As Ioan Ratiu has shown in The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy (2012), culture is being systematically manufactured by self-serving elites for their own agendas.

 

Above all, culture is being changed by immigrants themselves. For example, there are numerous Islamic organisations across the country promoting Islamic culture and religion as part of their missionary (da’wa) work. Clearly, the more such immigrants come into the country, the more our culture will be changed as a result of immigrant influence exerted quite artificially and, in some cases, aggressively, against the wishes and interests of the indigenous community.

 

Moreover, who exactly is to decide what elements of alien cultures are “enhancing” native culture, and how is this going to be implemented?

 

The fact is that it would take years of legal and political wrangling to come to a decision on issues of this nature (if at all) and further years to implement it. By then English culture will have been “enhanced” out of existence.

 

Another key question is, who is the culture promoted by the EDL going to belong to?

 

With the rising tide of immigrants coming into the country and the high birth rates in the immigrant community, English people will eventually be outnumbered and become a minority in their own country.

 

On figures provided in 2009 by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) the immigrant population is estimated to have already reached approximately 20 per cent of the total population – 14 per cent non-white (South Asian, black, mixed-race and Chinese) and 6 per cent white – and is projected to reach 27 per cent by 2031 and 43 per cent by 2056, whereas the white British-born population will become a minority after 2066 (Coleman, 2010; Silverman, 2013).

 

In other words, we are going to have a non-English and non-British population with a culture that few would recognise as “English” in the near future.

 

Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that we could ensure the preservation of a recognisably English culture, what would be the value of it, if the English population that created this culture disappeared from the face of the earth?

 

Why does the EDL find English culture worth preserving but not English people? If English culture “has the right to exist and prosper in England,” don’t English people also have the right to exist and prosper in their own country? If no, then the EDL doesn’t care about English people and stands exposed as an anti-English organisation. If yes, then the EDL must acknowledge that the right of English people to exist and prosper in their own country can only be enforced by drastically restricting immigration.

 

As history shows, Islamisation is reversible (see, for example, the reconversion of Spain to Christianity). Domination by foreign cultures is also reversible as seen from the return of former colonial countries to native cultures. In contrast, ethnic annihilation through population replacement is permanent and irreversible. 

 

Therefore, the dangers threatening English (and British) society and culture, in order of severity, are: (1) mass immigration leading to population replacement and ethnic annihilation, (2) multiculturalism leading to the annihilation of traditional native culture and (3) Islamisation leading to domination by Islam.

 

While the UK immigrant population has reached 20 per cent, the Muslim population amounts to only about 4.8 per cent of the total. Similarly, Islamic culture is only one of the many alien imports subverting traditional native culture, the most dramatic impact being made by Afro-American influence (for example, subversive music genres like hip hop). Muslims, Islamic religion and Islamic culture play a central role only in Islamisation, which ranks third in terms of severity.

 

It follows that the EDL has got its priorities wrong and, while this may have to do with the EDL leadership’s lack of information (or intellectual prowess), we cannot exclude the possibility that its exclusive concern with Islamisation is a device for deflecting attention from the far greater dangers posed by mass immigration.

 

Indeed, most EDL members and supporters have the common sense to realise that a culture without the people who created it is not worth preserving and that in order to preserve both English culture and English people immigration must be restricted.

 

For example, in an interview with the Sun newspaper, EDL Angel (female member) Gail Speight has said that “there should be a total stop on immigration” (Daubney, 2014).

 

In contrast, the EDL leadership has persistently refused to speak out against immigration. What’s more, serious discussion of the topic on the EDL forum has been discouraged and threads perceived as being critical of official immigration policies have been deleted, for example, in May 2013, the thread “Why EDL must fight immigration” which had interesting contributions from forum members as well as administrators and moderators and had been viewed over 1000 times, was deleted without explanation.

 

This brings into sharp focus not only the unbridgeable differences between the rank and file and the leadership within the EDL but also between the latter and the general public the majority of which is strongly opposed to immigration. This exposes the EDL leadership as out of touch with the English people it purports to represent. And an organisation that is out of touch with the people cannot be an organisation of the people or for the people.

 

The truth of the matter is that both immigration and multiculturalism are major causes of Islamisation, the basic equation being:

 

Muslim immigration + high birth rates in the Muslim community + multiculturalism = Islamisation.

 

Logically speaking, if the EDL is serious about fighting Islamisation it must start by fighting the causes of Islamisation.

 

And if it is to fight the causes of Islamisation it must fight those who are responsible for them, that is, the political parties which have devised and enforced policies like mass immigration, multiculturalism and the promotion of Islam.

 

The main party responsible for the above policies in Britain has been the Labour Party. As revealed by Andrew Neather, former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, Labour devised a deliberate plan “to open up the UK to mass migration” in order to make it “more multicultural” (Whitehead, 2009).

 

Labour has also appointed a series of Muslims to positions of power and influence, notably Shadow Lord Chancellor Sadiq Khan who, not surprisingly, declared that “Labour is, and has always been the Party of British Muslims” (“Khan: Labour’s the only way forward for British Muslims,” Left Foot Forward, 3 May 2010). In 2013, Labour Leader Ed Miliband appointed Khan Shadow Minister for London and leader of Labour’s election campaign, etc.

 

Unfortunately, the EDL does not encourage criticism of the Labour Party. We found that a thread entitled “Why EDL must fight the Left,” which was critical of Labour and its pro-Muslim policies, was moved to the EDL forum’sAntichamber” and later deleted by the administrators.

 

The EDL leadership also appears to be oblivious to the influence of international financial interests on political parties like Labour and their links to think-tanks and academic institutions like the Fabian Society and the London School of Economics.

 

Sadiq Khan, for example, has been a member of the Fabian Society executive committee and the Fabian Society – the dominant force behind Labour – has been at the forefront of a campaign against groups opposed to Islamisation like the EDL.

 

On 7 March 2013, the Fabian Society in collaboration with Chatham House held a conference entitled “Understanding Counter-Jihad Extremism” that included a study of the EDL. Unfortunately, a strangely indifferent and inactive EDL leadership failed to take any notice of an event that was of direct concern to its organisation, missing a rare opportunity to present its own views to the media and to the wider public.

 

Similarly, although the EDL uses the cross as its central symbol and Christian religion is admittedly an essential element of English culture, we have seen no evidence that the EDL is promoting Christianity. On the contrary, its promotion of multiculturalism (which includes non-Christian foreign religions) is arguably incompatible with the preservation of Christianity as a dominant element of England’s national culture.

 

Instead, the EDL’s arsenal of bizarre tactics has included public support for homosexuality, America and Israel (none of which appears to be in any great need of EDL assistance), as well as childish and pointless publicity stunts like burning Germany’s wartime Nazi flag – but not the flag of Rockefeller-funded International Socialism or the flag of Islamism and Jihad.

 

(Burning Germany’s wartime Nazi flag is childish and pointless (a) because Nazism as a political power is non-existent in Britain and (b) because in order to deflect attention from its own crimes the Left will always brand its opponents “Nazis” irrespective of what they do)

 

It is unclear how any of these tactics contribute to either the suppression of Islamisation or the promotion of English culture. What is clear is that in spite of the EDL’s best efforts Islamisation is making steady progress with the full backing of finance, academia and politics (Ratiu, 2012).

 

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, like most other movements and organisations in this country, the EDL leadership does more harm than good, sowing confusion among genuine opponents of the establishment and leading the masses in the wrong direction – all of which can only compound and accelerate the impending national disaster.

 

If the EDL is serious about helping to bring real changes to the national situation it must show that it is willing and able to make some urgent changes about itself, particularly at leadership level, the source and origin of all its problems.

 

 

 

 

Coleman, David, “When Britain becomes “majority minority””, Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.

 

Daubney, Martin, “I’m an EDL Angel says Gail … but is she really a devil?” The Sun, 22 Feb. 2014; online version 21 Feb. 2014.

 

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

 

Silverman, Rosa, “White Britons ‘will be minority’ by 2066, says professor,” Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2013.

 

Whitehead, Tom, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009.

     

 

 

Articles

 

 

’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian Socialist

smoke-and-mirrors campaign

 

Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order

 

Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?

 

Diversity is Not a Catholic Value

 

If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot

 

Towards a British revolution

 

Do white people have a future in South Africa?

 

Romantic Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context

 

Is there a “need” for immigrants?

 

The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society

 

The truth about the Labour Party

 

The truth about the Fabian Society

 

The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity

 

Socialism’s prescient critics

 

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

 

Britain divided by Islam, survey finds

 

Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of Commons, that is

 

The Real Churchill

 

The last days of a white world

 

A Webb of Lies

 

Socialism and Incentives

 

 

 

 

Recommended reading

 

 

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.

 

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

 

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

 

Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.

 

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

 

Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.

 

Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.

 

Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, New York, NY, 2006.

 

Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.

 

Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,

2011

 

Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.

 

Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.

 

Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

Home

 

About

 

FAQs

 

Articles

 

Unite

Against

Socialism

 

Get Britain Out

 

Big Brother

Watch

 

Young Britons’

Foundation

 

Civitas

 

Bow Group

 

Traditional

Britain

Group

 

Salisbury

Review

 

This

England

 

Migration

Watch

 

Immigration Control

Platform

 

Stop

Islamisation

Of Europe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2013