The attempt to implicate the EDL in social division that is increasing in ‘our’ multicultural ‘society’ misses the point and diverts focus from the actual causes – multiculturalism that encourages minorities to lobby against the majority and mass immigration that has created upheavel through widespread and rapid change.
Until we tackle these problems then society will continue to divide. Therefore groups such as the EDL, and parties such as the BNP, must not be viewed as the cause of social division, but as the manifestations of legitimate voices for the grievances of the indigenous majority – in other words, social division is the cause, and the ‘far-right’ is the response. The white working class, especially, must be listened to; expressing this frustration through violence, on the tiny scale that it is actually carried out by whites is no excuse, but it must be recognised that the indigenous majority, especially the marginalised white working class, are losing out amidst the veneration of the minority and failure to tackle immigration.
The establishment must recognise the cultural costs that are being imposed on the indigenous majority through the imposition of foreign cultures. Mosques, or ‘Islamic Centres’, represent a gain for Muslims, and a loss for the indigenous population. It is unreasonable to expect the indigenous population, for example, to approve a building symbolising our cultural heritage, such as a pub, church or listed building, being converted into, or knocked down to accommodate, a mosque. In order to stem social division a stringent system of defending our heritage from incursions needs to be installed.
Lies that are pedelled by groups such as the SWP needs to be tackled head on; they unfairly stigmatise any indigenous Britons who want to defend our way of life, not out of hatred, but out of a pure connection with our heritage. Even if there are actually individuals who have malicious intentions it is not fair to make us all pay in order to spite ‘racists’. This increases resentment because ordinary Britons finds themselves wanting to defend their heritage but too scared to speak out in case of stigmatisation.
At Muswell Hill an Islamic centre, called the Al-Rahma Centre, which catered for Somalis mostly, was burned down in what police are pursuing as an arson attack because the letters ‘EDL’ were allegedly written on the side of the building prior to the burning. In the press the EDL, or some other ‘far-right’ activist connected with the group is blamed, although there is no evidence for this; for example, for all we currently know, the arsonist could be Muslim and intended to implicate the ‘far-right’. This is not unfeasible. In Austria, and elsewhere, this has actually happened (www.barenakedislam.com). It is claimed that this was done in order to invoke social tension.
The underlying issue here is the role of the far-right in (apparently) invoking inter-communal tension. As I will argue the ‘far-right’, and in particular, the EDL, are manifestations of pre-existing social division, and claims that they are causing social division are dubious. This is clear if you recall the circumstances of the creation of the EDL. The Royal Anglian regiment was parading through Luton when Islamic fundamentalists launched abuse at our brave troops and, in an extremely provocative move, burnt a poppy. They intentionally chose a symbol that they knew had a powerful symbolic importance. This enraged those present at the parade and a group confronted them, and the EDL was therafter formed. So to claim that the EDL are socially divisive is to misunderstood and to adopt a selective stance as to what forces in society will tend to drive society apart to the limited extent that it actually is united.
It is unlikely that the EDL burnt down the Islamic centre; on Twitter the leader Stephen Lennon denied EDL involvement and the deputy leader, Kevin Carroll, said that ”the EDL do not approve of any religious building being attacked” (www.guardian.co.uk). It is then unclear as to why they would burn the centre down and then deny involvement only to have written ‘EDL’ in foot high letters beforehand. It clear therefore the EDL, and the ‘far-right’ in general, are the scapegoats for any incident that cannot be undeniably be attributed to a minority.
These Islamic fundamentalists were a clear sign that things were not good before the EDL arose; in other words, prexisting social tensions were the cause, Choudary, for it was he, and his minions were the catalyst, and the outpouring of frustration in the EDL was the effect. This begs the question as to why the established press tries to portray the ‘far-right’ as the cause of social tension and ignores other factors such as the role of ethnic minorities and the concept of multiculturalism. The use of inverted commas to enclose the term ‘far-right’ is to use it in its conventional form; in fact it is a matter of dispute as to where the label should justifiably be placed because criticising the extent of Islamic influence would not necessarily place someone on a particular point of the political spectrum.
It would be inconsistent for these Leftists to imply that consciousness of ethnic and religious difference is a preriquisite to social division. It is claimed that the far-right divides people by race and religion. The verb here makes no sense because it implies that there was no previous division. This is false because, whether or not there is a ‘far-right’ group there or not, people are not atomistic individuals lacking ethnicity or religious identity, they are distinct groups; someone is black or they could be white, someone could be a Muslim or they could be a Christian. This division is exactly what multiculturalism does yet these people do not point to the doctrine of multiculturalism as a cause of social division. Many of these people who proclaim support for a conception of social unity actively support the divisive concept of multiculturalism.
The ‘far-right’ are generally a sector of the population that acting in the interest of a particular segment that is ignored or demonised in the multicultural narrative- the white, or indigenous, sector. This implies a pre-division, not a creation of one let alone one that would necessarily lead to conflict. Other communities possess sectional organisations representing these communities as distinct groups and pursuing the interests of their communities; the difference is that the latter gets public funding while the former gets labelled ‘far-right’, and demonised, regardless of the moderation of their worldview or lack of hatred of others. There are a minority who undoubtedly hate, but these are not representative of people and groups generally labelled ‘far-right’.
It is argued that the ‘far-right’ divides because trouble results from its activities. In practice this often means that the ‘far-right’ gets the blame for the violence of ‘anti-fascists’. For example, the British National Party, as can be seen from youtube videos, often protest by occupying a particular spot legally and waving flags and making speeches; I am not aware of an instance where the BNP has actively sought trouble. Certainly not to provoke social tensions. This is done by the far-left; they either attack the BNP, whether men, women or children, or if they are prevented from doing so, they fight the police – and the blame the BNP. This thuggery led to 58 of them being arrested during the BNP’s post-Woolwich protest against hate preachers.
When the ‘anti-fascist’ movements point to racial incidents where the BNP makes electoral gains they adopt their favoured explanation to the exclusion to of other ones. They point to the gains of the BNP as the cause, not the effect. They do not even bother to investigate the nature of these incidents of racial violence – if they actually happened, that is. If white people were on the recieving end of racial violence this would explain increased support for parties and organisations such as the BNP and EDL. The majority of victims of racial attacks are white (www. independent.co.uk/news/most-race-attack-victims-are-white). Other accounts that do not reach the official reports can also be found through social media (example, www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LITyIOuqE). White people can be on the receiving end of social division, rather than instigating it.
The BNP and the EDL are often lumped together. The Socialist Workers Party has been suspected of whipping up local minority communities prior to BNP or EDL activities in the vicinity even though suspicions do not emanate from the mainstream press. The antics of the SWP has manifested itself in unfounded beliefs of minority communities that these far-right activists have the intention to attack families in their homes. There has never been an instance where this has happened, or any proof that ‘far-right’ groups have intended this, but the belief in it has inflamed tensions in society; an inflammation caused by the far-Left, not the far-right.
It represents an attempt to place blame on the white majority for social tension rather in any minority hands for politically correct reasons. For example, in the Socialist Worker, the propaganda sheet of the odious SWP, it implicitly supports violence against the EDL, and by extension against any ‘far-right’ group (www.socialistworker.co.uk). In this laughably illogical and ignorant piece they claimed that the individuals who turned up at the EDL meeting after it had finished with the intention of blowing them up were doing it out of desperation because they were subject to racism. They said that it ”was an act of despair against racist thugs”. The piece did not object to the attack because out of any moral consideration but because it would create sympathy for the EDL.
Therefore, the SWP position is clear; white people are responsible for an incident whether it is known that it was a white person or not, while an incident that is carried out, or intended to be carried out, by a Muslim is the fault of … white people!. It is not taken into account as to whether the EDL, or the ‘far-right’ are acting ‘out of despair’. Whether out of Islamists burning poppies and abusing our brave troops or seeing successive incidents in which our heritage is trampled on as increasing amounts of churches, historic building and old pubs are converted into mosques and ‘Islamic Centres’. It seems as if it is unimportant as to whether we are offended or not because it is no excuse for standing in the street waving flags. Whereas if Muslims want to release their frustration through a bomb or two…
In case you are even slightly convinced by the case of the SWP then consider the case that they, rightfully, do not consider the EDL and the ‘far-right’ as equal to the fundamentalists on the Islamic side – but consider the ‘thugs’ on the ‘far-right’ as worse! Because they are ‘racist thugs’. So being a ‘racist thug’, whatever that is supposed to mean, is worse than someone who carries out, or plots, attacks designed to kill large numbers of people.
In fact the defendents in that case targeted the EDL for blasphemy (www.bbc.co.uk). A leaflet was in their car containing the message that ”today is a day of retaliation for your blasphemy of Allah and his messenger, [The Prophet}Mohammd”. They also referred to the EDL as the ‘English Drunkards League’. So the motive for that attack was the belief that the EDL, and therefore all non-Muslims, should be bound under Islamic law. The would be offensive to those who do not buy the Islamic narrative, and since there will be non-Muslims who want to defend our free way of life, relatively speaking, this would cause social tension – but apparently us in the indigenous majority are to blame for this.
This attempt to create the narrative of an oppressive majority, stubbornly trying to retain our way of life, and Muslims on the receiving end is itself a major factor in the stoking of social division. This narrative itself creates a faultline with the majority on one side and Muslims on the other. How this is apparently not divisive is not clear. This shows, therefore, that it is not justifiably placing responsibility where it is due that is important, but placing it for politically expedient reasons. It is clear therefore that failure to recognise the cause of this social division will mean that a solution is unattainable. Instead social division will continue to escalate and the same cycle of denial will occur.
An example of this is the anti-‘Islamophobic’ group, Faith Matters, that runs a project called Tell Mama in which members of the Muslim community can report incidents of Islamophobia. It does not matter whether it happens or not; Tell Mama will compile it in order to uphold the narrative of the Muslim community undersiege from ‘Islamophobes’. They even research accounts on Twitter and other online sites. It does not matter of they are duplicated, happened in this country or elsewhere or whether they happen at all. These ‘incidents’ go on the statistics before verification, not after. Gilligan, in the Telegraph, has done a damning report on this project; the wave of attacks on the country’s official 1,500 mosques amounted to two actual verified attacks; a petrol bombing in Grimsby and a man walking into a mosque with a knife. Tell Mama detailed 11 overrall; even 11 out of 1,500 is hardly a countrywide onslaught (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk-10093568/).
Therefore you can dispel the image of terrified Muslims huddling in mosques with crowds of skinheads in bomber jackets outside trying to break the doors in. It is clear that there is a propaganda campaign going on. Responsibility for social division should be extended beyond ‘far-right’ bogeymen. The possibility that the indigenous patience is snapping should be considered. It is often claimed that the majority should ”address root causes” of terrorism – translation: find out how we are responsible and channel more money into mosques and Islamic organisations. But why not address the root causes of white resentment?
There is good reason for the patience of the indigenous population to snap because, as always, aggression against white populations in ‘enriched’ areas is absent from the social division narrative; this is not because it does not happen, it does. It would be argued by the deluded Left that white people cannot have legitimate grievances because we are a majority; but then the blacks in South Africa were a majority during the Apartheid era. While this country is not run by a non-white minority government (at least not yet), the example sort of undermines the claim that the majority in this country, by definition, cannot have legitimate grievances.
These grievances stem from another issue that too many people are in denial about -mass immigration. The logic is simple (but still beyond the intellectual abilities of your average SWP member). Mass immigration creates widespread and rapid change because there is too many people, with alien cultures, that need to be integrated in too short a time. Change causes instability and rapid change causes greater instability than gradual change. Mass immigration is causing rapid change so therefore it is feeding social division as a result; the EDL formed as a response to symptoms caused by this policy. When rapid change is enacted, established cultures go through greater pressure, and then established population cannot be expected to approve. Therefore the indigenous population needs to be able to voice our grievances without being labelled ‘racist’, ‘far-right’ or ‘fascist’, or being beaten over the head by a narrative in which we are apparently launching a (one-sided) onslaught against pacific, harmless and defenceless minorities – it is this that leads to social division because it creates grievances, real or imagined, for and against everyone else.
resistancetoantidemocraticleft 