Unmasking the EDL
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).
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 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.”
“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
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
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
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
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
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).
has also appointed a series of Muslims to positions of power and influence,
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,
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’s
“Antichamber” and later deleted by
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.
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
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
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
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
David, “When Britain becomes “majority minority””, Prospect, 17 Nov. 2010.
Martin, “I’m an EDL Angel says Gail … but is she really a
devil?” The Sun, 22 Feb.
2014; online version 21 Feb. 2014.
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.
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
a British revolution
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of
the Fabian Society
The truth about the Labour
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
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international
elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World,
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,
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,
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
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.