The dangers of the Alt Right on the minds of our conservative youth

The Alt Right is an  eclectic mixture of  white nationalists, who appear to be exerting an increasing influence on the newly energised conservative youth movement of late, particular via the internet.

Alt Right has been described by The Associated Press as:

“…a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasises preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order. The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism, it criticises multiculturalism and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.”

Alt Right is a  revolutionary movement to counter the effects of Liberal Progressivism. It has been accused of harbouring Neo Nazis in its ranks. However, many in the Alt Right would claim that their concern is with preserving ethnic and racial biodiversity and not promulgating ethnic cleansing or genocide. To achieve its aims, however, would require at least mass deportation based on racial profiling. It similarly denies the charge of white supremacism, but  it is clear that some of the Alt Right consider the IQ (or at least the creativity levels) of the “White European” race  generally to be higher.  They often point to the technological achievements of western civilisation to  prove this.   Some of its adherents are, then, cultural supremacists, and by this indicator racial supremacists, even though not all contributions to western civilisation have been by “Whites” exclusively. 

As “nationalists” and  “conservatives” Alt Right have publicly supported Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again campaign. Richard Spencer, the leading spokesman of the Alt Right, has described the new President as a “great leader”, chiefly due to his Executive Orders to  deport  illegal criminals, his extreme vetting procedures, and his desire to build the wall on the southern border. In respect to this, President Trump’s Executive Order  seeks a temporary ban on visa holders from seven identified countries with strong ties to terrorism. It is not a Muslim ban, but has been described by Spencer as a “Muslim ban”, and a step in the right direction, but also one that is too “weak”. His stronger measures are outlined in this interview.

Spencer, the “President” of the National Policy Institute , essentially calls for a stronger stance from Trump and thus a stronger “Muslim” ban. Trump, however, has been highly critical of the “Alt Right” and has said during his campaign that  he disavows and condemns them. His so called “Muslim” ban is not a ban on Muslims per se, but strictly on terrorists. Forty seven other Muslim countries are not banned. People from the seven countries are banned, if they have proven links to terror, irrespective of faith or race. 

Recently Alt Right has merged with a number of other organisations, most notably Red Ice Creations and Spencer’s publication arm Arktos.

Red Ice appears to be something of a recruiter for the Alt Right, but in this it largely recruits from the conservative youth, or those who are “patriots” in the best sense. Many of these young people are Trump supporters with strong national values, opposed to open borders and globalisation and generally critical of Liberal Progressivism and the ideas of the Left. The presenters of Red Ice who invite them on the show appear not so much to be wanting to explain specific NPI issues, as much as quell any reservations and lead them with questions to certain broad positions in line with their own. Other than this, they  counter criticism or arguments that might arise in the alternative media and  popularise Alt Right generally with a chat room type atmosphere. Red Ice, then, generally creates a space to communicate and spread their ideas unopposed.  Their chief concern with more ambivalent guests, not in the inner coterie, often focuses on trying to persuade young conservatives with some overlapping concerns that they are not “Neo Nazis”.  The fact Red Ice has now joined with Spencer more formally suggests its presenters might in fact be more extreme than they present themselves. Alternatively, they might be being duped themselves, or just simply reflective of the Alt Right’s fairly broad church.

The worrying problem concerning the Alt Right is the subversive influence being  exerted on the minds of the conservative youth, who ordinarily would be more constitutional and patriotic in their values. In this, there are any number of  subverting influences. Many of these are racist, or avowedly anti-Semitic, whilst others also espouse more collectivist, statist, totalitarian ideologies.

The disingenuous use of labels particular the traditional ones of “Left” and “Right” in this are largely used to sway, but are increasingly irrelevant.  Influences that have helped shape the movement have  originated from both Communism, fascism, anarchism and National Socialism, and there is a great debate as whether these specific ideologies are actually of the Right or Left. Mindful of this, it is best to proceed impartially with a simple analysis of  how these movements have influenced Alt Right. This will require showing clear links to  these movements to determine this.

Whilst it disavows the “Neo Nazi” tag, Alt Right’s publication arm Arktos has clear connections to Aleksandr Dugin’s Neo-Eurasian movement. This has called for a “consistent fascist fascism” for countering the threat of “western liberalism”.  Arktos has it claims:

“…established itself as the principal publisher in English of the writings of the European “New Right” school of political thought (including original translations of works by its luminaries Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and Pierre Krebs). We have also issued the first translations into English of the prominent Russian geopolitical thinker Alexander Dugin, who has served as an adviser to Vladimir Putin, as well as several works by the noted Italian traditionalist philosopher, Julius Evola.”

 This link with Dugin also became evident in 2014, when the think-tank, together with supporters of  the Russian Dugin, co-sponsored a “pan-European” conference in Budapest; although the Hungarian government deported Spencer and denied Dugin a visa. 

In this association, then, Dugin uses the Alt Right to spread his ideas in the West, whilst simultaneously the conservative youth are somewhat unwittingly being influenced by them as they are drawn to the “Alt Right”. They are drawn to it because Alt Right have claimed to be  supporters of Trump, and in this Dugin has voiced strong support of Trump in turn. In one recent interview with Remi Tremblay however, Dugin  notably asserted:

“Eurasianism works with different groups who are against liberalism, North American hegemony and Modernity as a whole. These groups can be right or left. It is most important to be against liberalism and Atlanticism. But Eurasianism is not nationalistic—it is a Fourth Political Theory, ideologically similar to the European New Right of Alain de Benoist.”

The influence of Neo-Eurasianism on the Alt Right

Although Dugin in the 1980s was a dissident and an anti-communist (by 1988 he had joined the nationalist group Pamyat) he yet helped to write the political programme for the newly refounded Communist Party of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Gennady Zyuganov.

Dugin was amongst the earliest members of the National Bolshevik Party (NBP) and convinced Eduard Limonov to enter the political arena in 1994. Some hard-line nationalist NBP members, supported by Dugin, split off to form the more ( so called) “right-wing”, anti-liberal,  anti-Kasparov nationalist organisation, National Bolshevik Front. After breaking with Limonov, he became close to Yevgeny Primakov and later to Vladimir Putins circle.

By 1997 his  views had become crystallised more clearly in his article “Fascism – Borderless and Red”, where Dugin proclaimed the arrival in Russia of a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism”. In this Dugin claimed that it was:

“by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans. Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true change.”

He does, nevertheless, still  favour the “Waffen-SS and especially the scientific sector of this organisation, Ahnenerbe” as “an intellectual oasis in the framework of the National Socialist regime”.

Dugin soon began publishing his own journal, Elementy, which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian Jean-François Thiriart, a supporter of a Europe “from Dublin to Vladivostok”. Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia, Elementy also revealed Dugin’s admiration for Julius Evola and his ultra fascist, aristocratic views of racial superiority and political leadership. These ideas are summed up in an interview with Remi Tremblay called “Against Universalism”.

“We need to have some fully independent Great Spaces (Grossraum)—North American, South American, European, Islamic, African, Russian-Eurasian, Indian, Chinese and Oceanic—that could be allies or foes, depending on the concrete situation. We are totally against uni-polarity and North American hegemony, as well as a bipolar system. The strategically centralized poly-cultural hyper-state is called Empire. Empire should be strong first of all in its ideology, and that ideology cannot be loose or liberal. It should be strong and based on the new aristocracy or ideocracy (as Eurasianists used to say). So, not only an Emperor but also an imperial ideology of a strong idealistic type is needed to grant cohesion to the whole system. I presume that Orthodox Christianity, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Islam are of such types. But they need the spiritual revival. The tri-functional Indo-European model studied by G. Dumezil should be the main platform for the societies of Indo-European origin. The society should be created not from below but from above. The meaning of the State is its spiritual mission. The aristocracy should consist of “Platonic Guards,” philosopher-warriors, that grant unity to the different ethnic groups representing the supra-ethnic elites, as was always the case in historic Empires.  But instead of one liberal, decadent North American financial Empire, there should be different Empires with different imperial visions. The Russian vision is obvious—it has its roots in our organic Orthodox tradition and Russian Eurasian Empire. I presume that the future of Europe lies in the restoration of the Charlemagne heritage and of the eschatological anticipation of the return of King Arthur. Possibly some would hope for the new Roman Empire professed by Virgil, who thought that Apollo would return and this time for eternity. 

Dugin disapproves of liberalism and the West, particularly in respect to American hegemony, which he views as a direct threat to Russia. It is this opposition which strengthens his claim to be a “conservative” and “nationalist” who seeks to preserve Russian culture, faith and civilisation from the western, primarily US liberal threat. In this, however, he makes no formal distinction between Constitutional America and its more national values to preserve its independence by minding its own business (primarily within its own borders) and the anti Constitutional, neo Conservative and Democratic corporate socialists, that have subverted the Constitution and held sway for so long. It is these political movements that have promoted unilateral and multilateral military excursions to promote US hegemony abroad, and in turn Liberal Progressivism via globalism. His critique of “Liberalism” in this, then, is generally too broad and he completely fails to distinguish between Classical Liberalism and Liberal Progressivism sufficiently. He often, as a consequence, speaks only of the “western” threat, or the “US” threat, without drawing subtler distinctions. Whilst he overtly claims to support Trump, who might tend to a more constitutional approach, it is notable also that he does not see the threat as dissipating in respect to Russia anytime soon.  

Dugin’s proclaimed ideas on “conservativism” and “nationalism”, like his ideological forefathers, appear not to be concerned with the constitutional merits of limited government and individualism. They focus, rather, on the corrupting influence of US corporatism and the rather bourgeois globalism that could subvert Russia: its political, religious, social and cultural values. His universal opposition to “western liberalism”, however, is cast very much in terms of the threat it poses to Russian hegemony in turn,  and this is suggestive not just of simply wanting to preserve its own nation and culture, but of Russian supremacism and empire building.

Dugin ‘s 4th political theory  claims multipolarity and the right for all his newly formed “great spaces” to co-exist free from interference. However, the sincerity of this is very much open to question, and it appears very much to be on Russia’s own terms. He often even speaks of Eurasia as the “Russian Eurasian” space interchangeably.  In respect to this too, he often quotes Mackinder’s theory of Heartland  as a region the “Russian Eurasia” will govern. In Mackinder’s “Democratic Ideals and Reality (p.150) he asserts:

 “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”

Dugin has often quoted this in his work and in interviews and it is significant. It suggests a Russian Eurasian “empire” bent on world domination.  Any power controlling the “World Island” would control the planet and well over 50% of the world’s resources. At the turn of the 19th century the Heartland’s size and central position made it the pivotal region to control the “World Island”. In 1904 the Russian Empire ruled most of the region from the Volga to Eastern Siberia for centuries  and it held a clear advantage. It is clear Dugin wants to restore  and achieve full control of this important region once more.

The conservation and preservation of Russian culture, which Dugin has claimed will largely oversee the political rule of Eurasia (a large space that reclaims old Soviet territory and might well include Poland and large parts of Eastern Europe) is largely considered to be preserved and defined by a government centric Russian state. This Russia centric, state centric approach, heavily influences the individual and the family in turn and their identity and culture is largely determined by it.

This perspective is, therefore, quite  distinct from US constitutional values of limited government and its ideas of individualism, liberty and natural rights. Its views focus on the idea of rights originating from the government, not  from “Nature’s God”.

His ideas, therefore, are very distinct from  the more constitutionally based ideas of Classical Liberalism: the largely Christian values that informed US Constitutionalism, and which shaped the (paleo) conservativism that arose from it in turn. As he asserts:

“We, conservatives, want a strong, solid State, want order and healthy family, positive values, the reinforcing of the importance of religion and the Church in society. We want patriotic radio, TV, patriotic experts, patriotic clubs. We want the media that expresses national interests.”

This might seem innocuous enough, until one realises his assertions about what entails “patriotic” nationalism show that he still  likes Stalin and the Soviet Union: “We are on the side of Stalin and the Soviet Union” he has claimed Иван Зуев (31 October 2012). Александр Дугин: Уроки религии – это великая победа над русофобами (in Russian).

Nationalism for Dugin is,  then, defined only in terms of what the government determines it should be. It is a political definition, more reflective of a Stalinist General Line programme determining culture and society.  Liberty  is not vouchsafed in the idea of natural rights and Nature’s God, nor  in the idea of limited government, but determined by a state government that wields authoritarian power. He even offers (like Mussolini and other fascists of old)  a political, state-centric notion of personal identity. This  principle runs throughout his work, irrespective of the evolving ideas it might inform. 

The influence of the European “New Right” on the Alt Right

The Alt Right’s other significant intersecting influence, which Dugin himself also often refers to, is the European New Right (ENR).

The ENR began in France in the late 1960s and then spread to other European countries as an initiative  to rework fascist ideology, largely by appropriating elements from other political traditions—including what they termed “the Left”—to offer an alternative means of implementing human equality. 

The ENR championed “biocultural diversity” against the homogenisation  brought about by liberalism and globalism. They argued that true antiracism requires separating racial and ethnic groups to protect their unique cultures.

European “New Rightists” dissociated themselves from traditional fascism in various ways. In the wake of France’s defeat by anticolonial forces in Algeria, they advocated anti-imperialism. Thus, expansionism centred more on a federated “empire” of regionally based, ethnically homogeneous communities, rather than a big, centralised state spreading its influence. Furthermore, instead of organising a mass movement to seize state power in a coup, they advocated a “metapolitical” strategy that would gradually transform the political and intellectual culture. This was a precursor to transforming institutions and systems. This cultural incremental struggle was  very much a Gramscian or “cultural Marxist” type approach.

The  Neo Eurasian and New Right ideology might appear at loggerheads, rather as classical fascism’s big state authoritarianism and Neo-fascism’s decentralised polities are,  but Dugin has worked to create a more consistent perspective in his evolving ideas of 4th Political theory that now combines elements of both. They intersect most obviously in the acknowledged influence of Julius Evola, Ernst Jünger and Carl Schmitt’s political writings.

ENR ideology began to get attention in the United States in the 1990s via paleo-conservativism, notably in its shared concerns about the problems of open borders, the negative effects of multiculturalism,  and the dangers of globalism to nation state democracy. On other issues, the two movements tended to be at odds: European New Rightists were not simply ignorant, but openly hostile to Classical Liberalism, ideas of  individualism and laissez faire capitalism, and many of them rejected Christianity entirely in favour of paganism, or more accurately Neo-Paganism.


The influence of anarchism on the Alt Right 

National-Anarchism, which advocates a decentralised system of “tribal” enclaves, was propagated in the 1990s by Troy Southgate, an advocate of British Neo Nazism. Over the following years, National-Anarchist groups formed  across Europe, the Americas,  Australia and New Zealand. The first U.S. affiliate, BANA, began in 2007, and Southgate formally launched the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) in 2010.

National-Anarchism is a White nationalist ideology. Like Identitarianism, it draws heavily on the ENR doctrine that ethnic and racial separatism is needed to defend so-called “bio-cultural diversity”. The N-AM Manifesto declares that race categories are basic biological facts, and some people are innately superior to others. National-Anarchists also repeat classic antisemitic conspiracy theories and, like many Neo Nazis, promote Neopaganism. But National-Anarchists reject classical fascism for its emphasis on strong nation-states, centralised dictatorship, and collaboration with big business. Instead, they call for breaking up society into self-governing tribal communities, so that different cultures, beliefs and practices can co-exist side by side.

As part of its project to bring together a range of dissident voices, published articles by self-identified anarchists Andrew Yeoman of Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) and Keith Preston of the website Attack the System (ATS). National-Anarchists have not had a significant presence in the Alternative Right since BANA disbanded in 2011, but self-described “anarcho-pluralist” Keith Preston has continued to participate in Alt Right forums: for example speaking at National Policy Institute conferences and on The Right Stuff podcasts.

Preston is a former anarchist of the Left, who then moved to the “Right” in the 1990s before founding the “American Revolutionary Vanguard”. This group gave birth to  the Attack the System website. ATS brings together a number of movements:  National-Anarchist,  White nationalist and Neo-Eurasianist, but Preston’s own views are  distinct from these.

Like the National-Anarchists, Preston advocates a decentralised, diverse network of self-governing communities. Authoritarian and supremacist systems would be fully compatible with the anarcho-pluralist model, as long as they operated on a small scale. But unlike National-Anarchists, Preston frames his decentralist ideal in terms of individual free choice, rather than tribalism, and he is not a White nationalist. He has echoed some racist ideas in his work,  such as the claim that non-European immigrants threaten to destroy western civilisation, but his underlying philosophy is based on a Nietzschean “ubermensch” elitism that is not ethnically specific. While Preston himself is white, several of his closest colleagues in the Attack the System coterie are not.

Preston has offered several reasons for his involvement in the Alt Right. He sees the movement as an important counterweight to what he calls “totalitarian humanism”: i.e. state-enforced progressive values, or political correctness. He  regards the Alt Right’s foreign policy of non-interventionism and economic nationalism as superior to what the Republican or Democratic parties advocate, and he shares again the Alt Right interest in those “critics of liberal capitalism and mass democracy” Evola,  Schmitt and Jünger.

Preston’s approach to political strategy echoes third position fascists, who denounce both communism and capitalism. He and ATS call for a broad revolutionary alliance of all those who want to destroy U.S. “imperialism” and the federal government. Within U.S. borders, this would involve a “pan-secessionist” strategy uniting groups across the political spectrum that want to carve out self-governing enclaves free of federal government control. To achieve this,  ATS supported a series of North American secessionist conventions to formulate a common strategy. This brought together representatives of the neo-Confederate group “League of the South”, the Reconstructionist-influenced “Christian Exodus”, the libertarian “Free State Project”, advocates of Hawaiian independence, the left-leaning “Second Vermont Republic”, and others.

Other fringe ethno-nationalist literary associations developed ties with a number of other White nationalist  journals, which eventually became associated with the term “Alt Right”. These have included Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, whose conferences attracted anti-Semites; The Occidental Quarterly and its online magazine, The Occidental Observer, currently edited by prominent antisemitic intellectual Kevin MacDonald; and Counter-Currents publishing, which was founded in 2010 to “create an intellectual movement in North America that is analogous to the European New Right” and “lay the intellectual groundwork for a white ethnostate in North America.” 

Some conflicting concerns of the Alt Right

The  mix of influences and ideas will most likely mean the Alt Right will splinter once its long awaited manifesto of principles is officially formulated.   This will raise the issue of whether it will modify its ideas and work within established political channels in an attempt to preserve its popularity,  or tread an increasingly esoteric  and radical path. Presently Alt Right followers have been moving from one position to another. Richard Spencer, for example, argued in 2011 that “the GOP could unite a substantial majority of white voters by focusing its platform on immigration restriction.” This strategy:

“would ensure that future Americans inherit a country that resembles that of their ancestors.”

But two years later Spencer appeared to  reject the Republican Party entirely and called for creating a separate White ethnostate in North America because: 

“the majority of children born in the United States are non-White. Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.”

Spencer also argued that simply “restoring the Constitution” in its truly originalist sense (going back to an aristocratic republic run by property-owning, slave owning Caucasians) as some White nationalists have advocated, would only lead to a similar situation, or worse. This is presumably because he opposes the assumption of  the Declaration that there are such values as equality and this universal truth of what natural rights entails is “self evident”.  

It is clear Spencer is confused about whether to work within or against the existing  system. One approach has been to propose working within the system in order to weaken it, advocating changes that sound more mainstream, but require radical change. This is a version of the Trotskyist transitional demand strategy. Ted Sallis, for example, urged White nationalists to:

“demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not grovelling patsies.”

This would require using the language of multiculturalism, as an example, to complain about “legitimate” cases of discrimination against Whites, or members of other dominant groups. The aim here would not be “reforming the System”, but “using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself…”

The Alt Right offers a vision of the state that is both authoritarian and decentralist. It upholds classical fascism’s elitist, anti-democratic views on how society should be governed. At the same time, the Alt Right has a goal of breaking up the United States into ethnically separate polities, and simultaneously seeks to replace nation-states with a federated “empire”. The centralised authority of the empire controls the numerous ethnically determined regions, but rather  appears to contrarily need to enforce a collective political identity as a consequence: this overrides cultural and national distinctions. This might well cause conflict with any specific ethnic values of what culture and society might entail. It is an inconsistency not satisfactorily  addressed. 

Basic philosophical problems  of the Alt Right

The Alt Right philosophy has been summed up by  Alfred W. Clark in Radix as an ideology that recognises human biodiversity; rejects universalism and wants to reverse Third World immigration into the West. Generally, Alt Right rejects free trade and free market ideology; opposes mainstream Christianity from a variety of religious perspectives, and generally (but not always) supports Donald Trump.

Lawrence Murray in his 2016 appraisal in The Right Stuff believes Alt Right ideology necessitates the acceptance of inequality of both individuals and populations as “a fact of life”, where  “races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land and influence”. White people are being supposedly repressed in this and “must be allowed to take their own side”; men and women have separate roles and heterosexual monogamy is crucial for racial survival; “the franchise should be limited”, because universal democracy “gives power to the worst and shackles the fittest”. For Murray, “Jewish elites are opposed to our entire programme.” Whereas Clark is more ambivalent in some respects, noting that Alt Rightists disagree about the “Jewish question,” but generally agree “that Jews have disproportionately been involved in starting left-wing movements” over the last 150 years.

Clearly there are moral objections that can be readily identified as racist associated with the Alt Right, but some basic logisitical problems  can be summarised in the ethno supremacist theory that underpins it.

Probably the unifying principle in the Alt Right is the desire for an all white state, but it is an ethnically determined New World Order which is difficult to actually implement. Besides a ban on immigrants of non white racial profiling, ethnic cleansing and mass deportation would be required of those non white and even mixed race citizens already settled for generations. In this, however, there appears only a very arbitrary idea of what is acceptable racial profiling. How for example are white Jews, or mixed races  that appear to be white to be treated? How are different tribes to be determined within a nation itself, when bloodlines too are so intermixed? 

Alt Right speaks of the need to preserve “White European” values. It considers these to be under threat via  miscegenation, or just mass influx of non white aliens. This threat is identified as negatively impacting on the Whites in both Europe and North America, which is seen as the cultural and racial inheritor of Europe. Yet this notion appears to be very rooted in an “Anglo Saxon” idea of what the “White European” ideal should be. It does not, however, account sufficiently for what different “European” races or ethnicities themselves might entail (see Joseph Deniker) and on this there is no clear consensus. By extension, too little is made of a European influx into a particular European nation state itself causing cultural and ethnic or racial change: e.g. the influence of Slavs into Britain has begun to effect the national culture, as EU immigration has shown. It does not, therefore, account sufficiently for the European threat itself  undermining specific national cultures within it. The argument is therefore inconsistent, even accepting the premise of their own argument.

Alt Right consistently maintains ethnic or racial identifiers determine national culture. If  for example you replaced all the British in Britain with Pakistanis, it would no longer be British. But it is clear that the definition of what exactly constitutes ethno-national identity is too arbitrarily defined.  It is defined either in increasingly broad geopolitical terms, or contrarily non political, racially specific terms, These cannot be clearly identified and tend to lead down a slippery slope of unending bigotry. It is either defined as German for the Germans, or Britain for the British, etc, when these nations were politically and not racially determined. Or it is defined as “White European”, which implies a mono-racial continental identity when it might not necessarily be so (see Joseph Deniker). More generally it is defined in national terms: e.g. as “British”, when this too is not necessarily homogenised, or even indicative of one national culture or race, or ethnicity, even historically speaking.

White Britain for example comprises of Scots, Welsh and English as a minimum, it also entails White British Jews. This is over and above the black British Asian or black British Afro Caribbeans settled for generations. These too also consider themselves “British”. This, then,  raises problems in determining what precisely is “British”, if this political/national term is used within the context of a limited racial idea of identity.

It appears Alt Right have ideas of nationality based not simply on ethnicity or race, but one generally based on skin colour. But this determinant is often too simplistic and limited to an Aryan idea of whiteness. They speak of the European in these terms, but this raises a universalism – ethnic specificity clash of what kind of “whiteness” is entailed. They often speak of  national identifiers to soothe the  qualms of the patriot, but tend also to more broadly speak of continental identifiers that are not necessarily homogenous. They often speak of the European as representing a particular idea of what constitutes acceptable culture, but it is one that tends to favour an exclusively uniform idea of  European ideas and values. This dichotomy also runs parallel with their conflicting ideas of a centralised and decentralised, authoritarian and non authoritarian political vision.

Much is made of racial “purity” in Alt Right’s vision of how to implement their political and ethno-national programme to preserve the “White race”, but what exactly determines its perimeters? If it is simply  skin colour, this clearly overlooks cultural and national dissimilarities between white peoples themselves. For example the basic problems of Corpus Juris and Habeas Corpus practised by the British and the French. If these are to be retained as national polities, how are these to be integrated into a more centralised pan “European” white political authority that unites but supposedly determines the idea of the “White European”? Which interpretation and authority exactly is to be deemed acceptable if they have opposing value systems?

Often Alt Right speak of keeping Britain for the British, France for the French and Germany for the Germans, etc. Britain, however, is a political construct created in 1707. Previously it consisted of separate countries. It was initially identified as Britannia by the Romans who  knew little of the warring tribes that comprised the land mass island itself. So too with Germania and even Palestine.  But these Roman defined regions in modern terms too are and have been primarily politically defined, not simply racially determined. Germany wasn’t created politically until 1872. Palestine wasn’t created until 1920 under the jurisdiction of the British. 

Logistical problems exist considering the various ethnicities that comprise even “White” Britishness. Indeed “purity” entails a shifting, prejudiced notion, when Britain itself from its inception consisted of a mixture of tribes: Angles, Britons, Saxon, Scots and Celt. The influence of the French Normans and Vikings was considerable too. As a consequence, smaller and smaller regions might need  to be formed based on past alien influences: the Nordic or French Norman blood line influences on the “British” indigenous that could hardly be determined accurately, but might well be considered as foreign, placing the viability of the nation state itself under threat, and preventing  the formation and functioning of even regionalised communities themselves. The ideal appears positively divisive, and an increasingly narrow and difficult vision to achieve. It logically entails a process of continual deconstruction, bordering on a nihilism even of the nation state and the local communities within it.

Alt Right believe if Whites cease to be a majority in the US, the character of the country too will change. Whiteness is not specifically defined, but appears to reference the  English and French influence, as they were the prime movers in the founding of the US republic. As a consequence, however, even Italian and Irish immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries might well be deemed to have diminished the pure “White”  values of the US.

Filling the US with Central Americans will make the US more like Central America they argue, and thus they seek to restore “purity”. “Purity” would then require a determination of who were the acceptable “whites”, suggestive of genocide of particular ethnic groups.  

Even if this unpleasant, ill defined aim of “purity” was achieved, we should not necessarily expect that an all-white state would necessarily mean a return to more “conservative” or “nationalist” values as they are traditionally defined. This is particularly so if many of these whites were in fact socialists, progressives and liberals. White people have been conditioned for generations to oppose nationalism. Ethno nationalism and its associated values, therefore,  could not be guaranteed simply by race, unless white socialists or white globalists were also purged. But this invites only the pogrom and the gulag as of old, even against those who are deemed “racially pure”, but who are nevertheless politically incorrect.

 Ethnic cleansing would be required to kick start the Alt Right vision,  but would most likely trigger civil and global war. Alt Right would need state secession for white regions to be formed, or the collapse of the United States completely. It would require ethnic cleansing, or mass deportation, which would trigger chaos and war on a global scale. Of course they want this, and work to initiate it in some of its circles, but it is clear that,  even if they were formed,  these regions could not be easily defined, or determined, or governed successfully without an overriding authoritarian power to organise their needs.  Trade and cooperation would also be required, as there is no guarantee communities or polities could be self-sustaining. Ethnic mixing in this would be inevitable, precisely as it was in the early days of trade and commerce. A phenomenon that very much created and feeds the current progression they now oppose in the first place.

The realisation of their ideas is unlikely to happen in any case, particularly considering the US has a strong well armed “militia”: a  well armed citizenry opposed to its values of separatism and segregation, consisting of many racial and ethnic mixes, a strong military and Police.  A more likely scenario is that the US will evolve into a surveillance state, with strong border security to protect its citizens from the illegals, undocumented criminals and mostly Muslim terrorists that are currently being allowed into the country. Non of these measures would use unconstitutional racial profiling to implement the measures, but will be based on whether someone observes the rule of law and acts as a legal and model citizen. This is largely a case of honouring a contract, but adherence of subversives keen to break the rule of law for their own goals and aims could never be successfully guaranteed just because they are citizens.  Eternal vigilance is therefore required.

 Alt Right highlights problems and many conservatives might well sympathise when they are framed in a friendly way by Red Ice  Radio’s attractive, intelligent presenters. Problems such as how the too speedy current  immigrant influx shows a continued failure by the elected politicians to address the lack of assimilation, and the dangers of multiculturalism that this invites. Admittedly the problem of assimilation, even in a nation with a history of strong constitutional values, is now under strain, and social problems are becoming increasingly evident. Illegal immigration is rife too, and poor immigrants tend to engage in criminal activity. The Alt Right often highlights these problems correctly. However, in order to fully implement their objectives for a “White national” majority, a civil war and ethnic cleansing would certainly be required. The open border ethos, if it continues, will inevitably lead to enclaves, no go zones, social breakdown,  civil strife and war anyway they complain. There are alternative strategies however, and these could be implemented in more measured terms. President Trump seeks to address all this far more sensibly.

A real and more “conservative” solution requires stronger borders,  an emphasis on the values of national citizenship, irrespective of race, creed and colour, increased immigration control standards and more extreme vetting of terrorists generally  from identified countries that pose a threat. This is the most prudent and, therefore, the most constitutional and best way to achieve “national survival”.  

Trump clearly has the right balance and a traditional, more constitutional approach, that  supports the idea of natural rights originating form Nature’s God. He is trying to implement the security measures necessary to protect the nation and  the American people. He is deporting illegals and criminals who break the law. He is imposing extreme vetting on terrorists that pose a threat to law, order, security,  peace and prosperity. He is tightening immigration requirements generally, so that professionals are encouraged, and less skilled workers are limited. These measures have nothing to do with race or faith. They are based on whether people can demonstrate their eligibility, whether they can fulfil the requirements of citizenship, and are prepared to be good citizens of a secular republic, based on following the rule of law.

 In Britain, multiculturalism has led to cultural separatism, a loss of a national identity and a dissipation of  Britishness in the traditional sense. This progression is a form of cultural nihilism and soft genocide too, but only in the more qualified sense, inasmuch as  it invites change. All cultures and races have been subject to change however.  Political authoritarianism in turn is no guarantor of survival: the Romans now no longer exist. Racial and cultural transformation is  an inevitable phenomenon of  life. It has characterised the rise and fall of empires and civilisations throughout recorded history. 

Alt Right proposes stopping more races and ethnicities mixing with Whites in order to recapture a more preferable past, or produce a new classically influenced golden age empire of the future. This, however, cannot be achieved without the madness of ethnic cleansing, or genocide of non Whites that inhabit regions presently desired in turn. They might claim deportation is all that is required, but what if they refuse to leave? Mass immigration has ensured that the genie is already out of the bottle, it cannot simply be replaced.

 The future on the present progression in Europe (unless prevented) will lead to a new racial demographic majority by the turn of the 22nd century.  Mass importation of largely Middle Eastern and African blacks is already occurring. It is most likely being facilitated by open borders globalists in governments across Europe and the US sympathetic to the ideals of humanism. This is largely done also for political and economic reasons. In respect to Europe, the elite hope this influx will lead to   a peaceful interbreeding into a new,  assimilated, mixed European race. A new source of cheap labour might be the prime motivator, but cultural and social cohesion whatever the reason is being sacrificed.

Besides the racial component that invites change,  the influx is largely Muslim. Islam is a religion not a race, but it invites social and cultural change nevertheless.  As the majority influx are Muslim,  and sharia and political Islam historically have sought either submission or  dhimmitude of the indigenous   non believers, not necessarily a peaceful coexistence, the future scenario does not bode well. Even if peaceful Islamisation occurs, any idea of  Europe retaining its old values, its racial profiling,  existing faiths and cultures, unaffected by all of this  is highly unlikely. Assimilation of Islamic values into a homogenised European culture seems unlikely without Islam being reformed, due to the recalcitrant nature of sharia and Islam’s largely absolute, theocratic value system.  

 In this, Trump is demonstrating the correct approach, whilst not advocating Alt Right’s absurd proposals. This requires a truly conservative ethos and a proactive, brave approach. Paleo-conservativism in this isn’t to retreat or submit in the face of inevitable change: it is to preserve what is best about traditionalism, whilst being open to improvements and safeguarding the future. We need to preserve, but make the best of what we currently have created in order to strengthen our societies and our evolving civilisation. We should not simply seek to restore the past by seeking to destroy  the current order. This is not what “conservativism” should be about. In this, then, “Constitutionalism” and the implementation of laws within its limitations create the bedrock of what civilised and humane government entails.


If conservativism is to continue to grow in popularity, the dangers of  subversives using the terms “conservative” and “nationalist” have to be highlighted. The problem with the current wave of conservativism is most likely a number of 5th column movements associated within it that are  seeking to channel the current popularism of the message in more radical, so called “new” and therefore supposedly more “relevant” directions. They do this by calling themselves “Alt Right”.  This tendency unfortunately is already well established.

In this, the so called Alt Right movement more generally is taking many conservative nationalists and patriots and shifting them to Identitarian political issues that have in turn increasingly been taken over and subverted by fascists and anarchists (collectivists and statists) calling themselves  “conservatives” and “nationalists” in turn. They use these terms in radically different ways, and in ways  many young conservatives might not be fully aware of. The risk to the conservative youth as a consequence is that they may be unduly influenced and become anti Constitutionalists, anarchists, race haters, or political subversives. This poses a very real threat to the very fabric of any western nation, an aim they contrarily claim they primarily seek to preserve. The possibility of total immersion in these extreme ideologies  through incremental brainwashing too is very real.

The good news might well be that the Alt Right is already at war with itself by virtue of its eclectic intellectual influences. The idea of decentralised ethnic regions  is rather at loggerheads with ideas about pan Eurasian authoritarian empires. This in turn brings up questions of whether cultural identity will be preserved, or simply rebranded, based on political or racial determinants. It might well require both, but how are these to be identified and reconciled? Another related issue is the idea of culture being safeguarded by ethno nationalism, but which appears to be at loggerheads with the more universal  ideas of what “White European” culture and “White western civilisation” supposedly entails. Philosophical problems abound within Alt Right, which may well trigger its demise, or prevent it from ever producing a consistent manifesto that its followers will collectively support in the future.  

The more immediate danger, however, is that many decent conservatives are being duped by extremists. They do this by  using false labels to promote their own more totalitarian and racist ideas in the intellectual space the  popularist movement has created.

One example of this is Aleksandr Dugin, who has said in 2012 that he is a “nationalist”, whilst he also claims 4th Political theory avows nationalism. His support of Russian nationalism appears fairly clear however, but it is as a “former” national Bolshevik professing himself to be “on the side of Stalin” in which his definition of “nationalist” raises real concerns. His new 4th political theory claims to transcend these old definitions, but his Russian mind-set often means his theory is rooted in the old state-centric Soviet and Imperial Russian values nevertheless. Neither is it clear how Russian nationalism is to tolerate other nation states that might not want to be part of what the new Eurasian empire  entails, nor how other non Russian races that are deemed less preferential to it are to be treated, as his statements have been rather contradictory in respect to this evolving theory.  It is not one that provides any hope of peace and mutual cooperation if he does indeed favour the values of Stalin.

If one was charitable, one might see Dugin as simply a misguided  intellectual, with  a half baked academic theory of what is required to solve the problems posed by western liberalism. Confined to an ivory tower, he poses no threat, but the fact he has  connections in the Kremlin makes  the likelihood of political implementation and military confrontation a very real danger.  

Some in the Alt Right have praised Dugin as a visionary. He is claimed to be  someone who  rightly criticises political correctness, and who champions the conservative and nationalist cause of the “Whites” and their need to preserve their unique cultures. It is usually best not to accept labels on face value however, but analyse the principles, as far as possible, free of value laden clichés. This is required, even if they are less readily accepted. Clearer examples of the contradictions then become more evident.  In Dugin’s case, a simple series of contradictions can be provided that reveal his deceit, suggesting he cannot be trusted. They reveal him as  a very dangerous extremist posing as someone more philanthropic, well meaning and moderate.

The broad contradictions are these. Dugin calls himself an Orthodox Christian, but  elevates Heidegerrean nihilism and the superiority of “Eastern” religions over his own professed faith. He uses these preferences to formulate a  philosophical response  via his 4th Political theory, and it is this which largely determines what must occur in the military, geopolitical and cultural arena. His philosophical theory, however, does not simply favour nihilism and Eastern religions over Christianity, he actively seeks to destroy its basic principles in turn. In this, he supports  an anti Logos (and therefore anti Christ) pro Chaos agenda. He justifies this to bring about  a rebirth of mankind, but it is one effected by men, rather than by God. He even calls for the use of pre-emptive military action. A position in contradiction to Christ’s teaching in the Beatitudes. It is a goal that appears positively anti Christian in itself, but is justified to supposedly hasten the Armageddon or Apocalypse of the End Times. An event prophesised in the Bible. His objective, he claims, will usher in a supposed rebirth of civilisation, with the ontological and metaphysical resuscitation of mankind’s Being through the worship of Chaos. A goal which appears positively satanic in its aims, and which will inevitably require the death of the logo-centric civilisation that has been the foundation of western civilisation since the birth of the philosophical age in Ancient Greece. 

Philosophical vagaries and contradictions aside, the practical implementation of his ideas are just plain dangerous, whatever one thinks of the intellectual rationale, as they  justify pre-emptive war. He even considers cannibalism and genocide as justifiable  in the midst of this battle to overcome the western threat! These aims are hardly the laudable values of an Orthodox  Christian preaching the gospel of peace! 

 Dugin’s genuine fascist fascism claims not to be racist, but he has  contrarily called for the massacre of Ukrainians because they are a:

“race of degenerates that has crawled out of the sewer. Genocide is in order.” 

Views such as this led to him temporarily losing his academic post a few years ago, as he called for them to be massacred “without mercy”.

Similarly he has sought to pit blacks against whites, supporting blacks and other non white races, whilst yet contrarily supporting Alt Right ideas of “Whiteness”.

As he claimed in 2002:

“I am a supporter of blacks. White civilisation- its cultural values and false dehumanising model of the world, built by them- there were no benefits. Everything is leading to the start of anti White pogroms on a planetary scale. Russia is saved only by the fact that we are not pure White. Predatory multinational corporations, oppressing and suppressing everyone else, besides MTV gays and lesbians,  this is the fruit of White civilisation, which it is necessary to get rid of. So I am for reds, yellows, greens [political Islam or Muslims?] and blacks, but not for Whites. I’m wholeheartedly on the side of the people of Zimbabwe.”

Clearly, then, this is a very dangerous divide and conquer strategy of global destruction. Any means is justified to stop the threat of “western liberalism”, without distinguishing sufficiently between its classical and progressive forms. It makes no distinction either between different ethnicities that might come under the rubric of the “White race”. It sees “Whites” only in their entirety as a danger. Yet it is prepared to recruit  any anarchic and radical influence in turn, if it can hasten war and racial confrontation, by claiming it supports  Alt Right values of preserving “Whiteness”.

 In this, then, while Alt Right is indeed eclectic, it is always wise to analyse exactly whose ideas  the spokespeople at the top actually promote. The use of the term “conservative”    (which has been similarly exploited like the word “nationalist”) to harvest unwitting recruits,  is a misnomer and disingenuously used.  While Spencer himself might very well disavow its use to describe the Alt Right in any case, it is clear than many in the movement still strongly identify themselves as such, but would be horrified if they knew more fully of the subversive influences and extremist ideas being promoted with the false use of such terms. 




Milo Yiannopoulos keeps on digging a hole

Milo’s dishonesty

If it needs to be said by now,  I am a right wing paleo conservative and an advocate of US constitutionalism. I am also an advocate of nation state democracy. I campaigned for Brexit with a number of political organisations and associated  think tanks for about ten years.

I have been a critic of the conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for the last few years, however, when Breitbart was being used effectively as a fan base to launch and further his US career. This has not  been because of ideological differences per se, but simply because of his questionable values in respect to sex practise with children under the age of consent.

I was one of the first to highlight the video of his own self confessed under age sexual experiences with a Catholic priest, Father Michael, whom he claims he first seduced  when he was thirteen or fourteen years old. He claimed he was the “predator” in that particular sexual relationship.

Here are all the highlights of that disturbing and shocking confession. An event he certainly makes light of.

The confession has caused Milo to resign from Breitbart, based he claims on a distortion of the facts, his own inability to express himself, misleading film editing and a better realisation that he was the victim. His realisation that he indeed was the victim and the one abused flies in the face of his claim to be the “predator” he bragged to be, but we can all change our minds as we mature.

In all of this spin and backtracking, his sexual predilections as “victim” or “predator” are largely irrelevant. His later admission in the same radio interview, however, that he attended Hollywood sex parties where he witnessed “very young” children being abused is far more important. In the original confession he admits to being a witness,  but effectively protects the perpetrators’ identities because it would be “dangerous” to identify them by name. He does, however, identify the victims as “boys” who were “very young”. Presumably, then, in the age context of which he is talking, they were well below the age of thirteen or fourteen.  At no time does he think he should have reported all this to the Police. His attendance itself clearly triggers loud warning bells: why was he even there in the first place?

Originally he said this interview was re-edited to give the wrong impression, a clear lie. He then states he expressed himself wrongly, but Milo is nearly always very articulate. If he did express himself wrongly in his first interview, he had ample opportunity to explain, but here, it seems, he simply blabbed too much of something he largely appears to be proud of. Neither was it simply a faux pas, for he talks at length about these experiences and had many opportunities to alter his account of the events in proceeding months. Indeed, until yesterday, he never expressed regret or outrage at the immorality of his actions. Regret appears to be conspicuously absent in the first interview, but he does seek to make amends in the second.

Adulation tends to swell the ego and blunt sober objectivity

Since the video was posted on YT, I have attempted via the internet to bring this to the public attention of readers of Breitbart. The response was disturbing. It was largely met with heavy insult and criticism from many calling themselves “Christian” and “conservative”. I found that extremely odd. There seemed to be an agenda to protect Milo,  whatever the circumstance or charges brought against him. A refusal to even acknowledge the immorality, or to dismiss the evidence out of hand. Many like myself were attacked if any criticism against him was ever raised, with the assumption we were of the Left, or subversive, or even prejudiced against gays ourselves. The truth should be told, however, irrespective of whether he himself is genuinely a gay conservative.

His actions as confessed were not just immoral, but illegal. Failure to disclose such activities even as a third party witness of a crime at a party, even if he had no part to play, amounts to accessory after the fact and a knowing collusion. His justification that ran along the lines of: ‘in Germany our values at fourteen are different’,  rather contrarily suggests he still finds such acts justifiable and therefore acceptable.

Whilst Milo has said some excellent things on other topics, his life as a student at university was a period when I knew him, albeit briefly, as a self confessed Leftist. My feeling throughout his more outrageous claims has been one that awoke the suspicion he was not simply misguided or young, but actually controlled opposition: a 5th column subversive perhaps, meant to discredit Breitbart and conservativism more generally. I hope this isn’t the case, but should he simply be a misguided, albeit depraved conservative, he hardly does the cause much merit or service.

When I taught him as an academic his tendency was to Progressivism and cultural Marxist values, which I think says a lot about his motives at that time. One hopes he has moved on since then and one can only hope his so called “alt Light”, so called “conservative” values, are an ongoing journey that leads him to re-evaluate the immorality of his past. He is very intelligent and not a bumbler. He appears eager  to contribute, so there is hope. It might, however, require a public conversion to Judaism or Christianity if he has any real hope of redemption for the conservative cause and/ or any future career in politics.

I’m personally glad he has resigned from Breitbart. It is an important media website to inform in a world of increasingly fake news and propaganda. At the least, it gives a fairly right wing perspective, even if it is itself derided as “fake news” in turn by the Liberal mainstream media.

The dangers of conservative infiltration by Leftists in government, strong activism in political circles and in the Press, is real. This is especially true as the Left becomes more radical. This subversion has naturally progressed over time however. A lack of objectivity as to what true conservativism entails intensifies, and a Left wing bias commensurately increases, even amongst those calling themselves “centre Right”.

Just look at the Telegraph as an example. Its reporting has increasingly lost touch with reality in respect to Donald Trump. It even claimed a recent future Nazi alternative history entertainment show was a pretty accurate reflection of the current Trump administration and its objectives and values. If the Nazis had won, or the fascists had succeeded, this is what the present would look like they claim: a Trump administration. This is an irresponsible insult to a constitutionally minded President, limited in his Executive powers by the checks and balances of the three tier separation of powers. It further impairs the horror afforded the dictator, placing a good man on a par with a Hitler or a Mussolini; men who were responsible for the deaths of millions.

This slanted, Liberal perspective is, however,  too often pursued and usually beefed up with absurd assumptions: his wife shudders every time he touches her; the Russians hacked the election and created his victory; he is an Islamophobic “racist” who is clueless about the merits of Muslims; as a billionaire he is a narcissist and as a narcissist he again is clueless about the value of humans and human nature. It even impairs his judgement on how to manage a business or the economy, an administration and the nation successfully: utter nonsense.

Alternatively, comparisons have recently been made with Milo by those conservatives who wish Trump and himself to be painted as faultless, simply because they are “conservative” and “Right wing”.  The comparison to defend Milo is, however, disingenuous and damaging. Trump has his Christian faith to support him, along with his love for his family. His very public demonstrations of his faith, along with his love for his family provide him with a moral context which Milo appears not to have.

Faith and family are the great templates of moral behaviour for those who cannot live a more contemplative, philosophical life. Milo, however, lacks in both spheres, and the subversion to impair and corrupt the traditional values of the nuclear family by encouraging promiscuity is far too evident in his own contrary values. Milo, then, is living the Leftist strategy he supposedly opposes. He is very much a product of it. By acting as he does, he is promoting the values he claims he opposes in turn.

Milo again has said many good things, his contribution overall has been worthwhile, but this perverse attitude laughed off as being merely “gayness” always sat uneasily with his “Right wing” values. Not all homosexuals would act as he does, nor would they celebrate such a pose. Some gay couples would even find his perversity rather objectionable, disturbing and damaging to their own reputations.

He explains his adoption of shocking speech and his lewd public confessions as a hangover of his party years, but why should his adult audience have to listen to a self appointed spokesman in the conservative movement who too often makes mistakes and hasn’t yet quite grown up? His increasingly dizzy, loose tongue became slackened by his growing ego. The unquestioning, rather stage manufactured juvenile adulation he garnered and created in turn, gave him a rock star status, which he sought to exploit for good purposes. He sought to do good work in the name of conservativism, but he failed spectacularly.

His subversive influence on the conservative young has been notable however, irrespective of whether it has been intentional or not. Many of the conservative youth  see him as a heroic role model, but it is one he has proven himself unfit to be. The values he espoused were largely tolerated, lauded and embraced, without even being properly analysed or questioned. His values were very much an attitude born of cultural Marxism and not homosexuality per se.  The collective, almost hypnotic adulation conferred, was unbefitting of the Right in any case: young conservatives should  advocate Individualism, not simply be slavish worshippers to feed the cult of Milo.

When, or if he returns to the UK, he will eventually be met with legal actions to retrieve unpaid wages by journalists who worked for him formerly and who were not properly reimbursed. These writers worked for him on his failed media projects in London. The US Police of course might want to interview him in any case, based on his disturbing comments concerning child abuse in Hollywood. Clearly his latest public attempt to mollify the problem and silence the issue has only raised more questions in turn and stirred the wasps’ nest. A Police interview might well be required.

The subversion of homosexuality into gay fetishism 

The values expressed by Milo open up a debate about the way homosexual predilection in a cultural setting is expressed and how it  has been subverted in the late 20th and 21st centuries in particular. Although one can only speak generally,  gay fetishism of the kind more characteristic of Milo’s pose, is actually a fairly recent, popular and mainstream modern phenomenon, born of cultural Marxism and the “live as thou wilt” Marcusean ethic of the 60s free love revolutionary movement. Previous to that, homosexual relationships were not necessarily popularly characterised as “queer” or “gay”, but very much characterised as having a Platonic element, in private circles that combined both spiritual and physical aspects (παιδεραστία) .

Homosexual “relationships” could certainly be virtuous, as Oscar Wilde noted at his trial in respect to Socrates’ love of the Athenian youth and his comparison of Jonathon and David. A quality which Milo appears to yearn for in his own remarks, but appears to be bereft of. The spiritual dimension of homosexuality has a philosophical and therefore moral basis, as Plato’s Socrates too befriended the Athenian youth to celebrate their beauty and to ascend via Eros to the heavenly Form, without necessarily indulging in sexual pleasure. Although there is a debate as to whether it entailed both (see Symposium).

The lopsided popular emphasis on the fetishism of gayness, however, is very much a cultural Marxist subversion, and one that has subverted morals in turn. It has encouraged freedom of expression, but facilitated a perversion of the homoerotic higher ideal, practised by the great artists and  the private lovers alike, who often saw it as combining the feminine and masculine, the spiritual and the physical, the older and younger aspects in one natural and liberating relationship.

The modern fetishism (sexual promiscuity and lewdness)  that characterises contemporary gayness most probably has been driven by an urge for total emancipation after it was no longer illegal and necessary to hide. It turned moderation to excess however, with an overemphasis on a stereotypical classification of collective desires as expressed by the LGBT “community” in the name of equality and freedom of expression, rather than the integrity of personal morality and the responsibility of the individual. This collective identity sought to determine what gayness really ought to be, but has largely trivialised and corrupted it.

Today homosexual practise is not illegal, but the thrill of performing illegal naughtiness remains. The insistence on the right to be gay contrasts with this lingering sense of wickedness. Hence they still hang out in public places, risking their reputations whilst performing sexual acts. The forbidden thrill syndrome generally appears to be pushed as being part and parcel of what gayness should entail. Yet the insistence on freedom of expression has forced it into the public arena.   Activity often entails young gays dressing lewdly in Pride celebrations, whilst a compromising smooch or a sexual tryst in public places is too often lauded as fashionably risqué behaviour.

Perhaps making it illegal in Christian Britain marred it too, but in ways only half understood. Gayness  never really got out of its furtive fumblings in the public toilet, the library, or out from behind the park bush. Whilst the Classical Greeks celebrated its spiritual aspects, it was despised if it was seen as being pursued merely for sexual gratification. Licentiousness was frowned upon. Wandering around trying to pick up boys in the market place only to indulge in sex for physical gratification was seen as a subversion and unbefitting of what moral behaviour should entail.   Later, its illegality in Christian Britain, but not in some less Puritanical countries in Europe, dealt its spiritual and philosophical heritage a blow. It emphasised its physical wickedness according to biblical teaching, but ironically also served to emphasise the “take me before anyone sees” aspect for those who practised it secretly. Quick trysts were therefore required. Its practise went underground and was a source of shame not celebration. Punishment was generally severe for those caught.

The Christian legacy of the Judaeo-Christian laws made homosexuality illegal, but ironically robbed it of the emotional, virtuous spiritual side that Christianity sought to preserve in turn. The labelling of it as “wicked” and “immoral” crushed its spiritual dimension recognised by the Ancients. An ideal still written of in “Maurice” by EM Forster in the 1900s. It was robbed too, by virtue of the more divine and moral heterosexual relationship sanctified in marriage, which was always deemed a more acceptable and natural alternative: one Christians believe was approved and sanctified by God, but which is increasingly relinquished today.

Like so much of value that has been lost today, so called Liberalism has been subverted into a perversion itself by a dogmatic absolutism. A progression that continues to become more inflexible and extreme in the political, cultural,  educational, social and moral spheres.

Cultural Marxism’s politically correct moral relativism, its absolute intolerance for any but its own view, has become a dogmatic edict that fails increasingly to champion majority rights appropriately, or indeed the traditional values and virtues that largely built the western legacy. It tends to champion only the importance of minority rights to their prejudice. These minority rights are consequently deemed of greater importance and superior to the majority because of this. The majority are harangued and castigated for their own largely more orthodox values in turn. In this, however, relativism has too quickly morphed into a progressive absolutism and is dogmatically imposed on any that oppose it. Gayness has been championed, but trivialised in  a rigid,  dogmatic, group-think notion of what it is supposed to entail. One that too often today purveys a limited notion of its values, expressed in the purely sexual context. Group think, however, silences individual originality in thought and expression, and simultaneously subverts more conservative values that might temper it as an automatic response. The common denominator is too often accepted. Unbridled passion, or licentious values, a pleasure for pleasure’s sake ethos, are then the free for all modern popular expression: a Liberal group think progression that determines it and championed it.

More generally, whilst two generations have been educated by its values, and many do not even necessarily consider themselves soldiers for the cause, the cultural Marxist revolutionary imperative remains. Using moral relativism as a tool, it sought to “make western society so corrupt it stinks” and the effect today is a perversion of once noble ideals concerned with civil rights, equality and the emancipation of the human condition. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence prove, however, that these noble ideals were not simply the sole concerns of the later Socialists (those who came to call themselves “Liberal Progressives”) they were the concerns of the early Classical Liberals and the Founding Fathers too.

Marxist extremism and political activism, however,  became the spark to trigger a social and revolutionary change of these once traditional concerns. Along the way, cultural Marxism sought to subvert more spiritual homosexual relationships of the kind practised by Plato’s Socrates’, taking “naughty”, “ungodly”,  “wicked”, “unchristian” ideas of gayness as an enemy, championing the gay cause in a claim to liberate it, but turning it merely towards licentiousness,   fetishism and increasing depravity in turn. Its tendency to embrace increasingly perverse ideas, justified in the name of absolute freedom, has too often fuelled a perversion of traditional values and a distortion of family roles and sexual identity in turn. It has perverted homosexuality itself into something now largely expressed in the modern era more akin to sexual feshitism. The gay cruiser seeking pleasure with multiple partners is a more popular conception of gayness today, rather than the private relationship that expresses far more moral ideals.

Now, at least for some, gayness itself  has become a rather sick parody of something once more ennobling and emotionally and spiritually satisfying. The gay attitude has become subverted as it became more acceptable, but this in turn made it more sexualised as it became mainstream. Its decline can be compared to the subversion of artistic erotica to pornography, that whilst becoming more popular, does not ennoble, but  celebrates depravity and perversion. As this has occurred, it has been unjustly lauded and glamorised as a superior  lifestyle choice, but trivialised and subverted in turn, to the detriment of other, more moral forms of expression, and in relationships more deserving of the claim.

Like everything else, western civilisation has been dragged into the gutter by revolutionaries posing as moral arbiters and champions of the downtrodden and oppressed, but who have largely used minorities merely as useful idiots, or simply pawns, to trigger dissent for their  own anarchic political objectives. Their self professed goal of emancipation and equality appears laudable,  but in any case is a hypocrisy they have hardly truly espoused. Historically, and ironically so in this context, the Left have been shown to hold values ultimately intolerant of homosexuality. The gulags were full of homosexuals deemed unfit for a moral, politically correct, Soviet Socialist society. Even in Russia today its public expression is still considered immoral and illegal.*

More broadly,  the subversion of values accrued by the development of cultural Marxism, moral relativism and Liberal Progressivism might not have even been deliberate or intentional in a second generation exposed to its concerns. It has been passed down via the education system and implemented almost subliminally as a self fulfilling prophesy. The progression entails subversion of traditional values generally, and the uncompromising change of culture entails a deconstruction and degradation of once noble institutions.

Cultural Marxism seeks to destroy institutions, but inevitably requires the imposition of  new values and institutions reflective of it in turn. In this, even if its overt aims seem to mouth laudable platitudes, its covert concern to subvert is a danger in itself. Its natural imperative to absolutism too is a danger that’s invites a far too rigid imposition tending to autocracy. It is one that rather leads to the gulag to secure and neutralise any dissenters. In this, then, Progressivism leads to autocratic rule and less liberty, whilst conservativism and constitutionalism represent the true safety valve for any that seek to safeguard real liberty and freedom for the individual under the rule of law.

For the sleeping liberal majority, homosexual rights and values  will be claimed to have progressed, but the dogmatic insistence on absolute tolerance and a lopsided emphasis on the rights of the minority have become subversive values against others in and of  themselves. Fascism is being born from anti fascism. Progressivism subverts Traditionalism. Political values that historically sought to emancipate homosexuality in the name of tolerance, now seek to practise intolerance of others in turn.

In this, the Left seek to claim the moral high ground and champion homsexuals. The irony, however, is that the gulags of the Soviet Union were once full of homosexuals. Even in Russia today its public expression is still considered immoral and illegal. A  legacy as much to do with its Soviet Socialist past than it is reflective of Russia’s Orthodox Christian reaffirmation. It shows too,  in respect to the West and its persecution of Christians who still oppose it,  that Liberalism can evolve into a dogmatic and dangerous autocratic perspective in and of itself. An absolutism that ironically might well have no further use for moral relativism and the tolerance it claimed to show towards homosexuality once its own revolutionary objectives and cultural imperatives for change are achieved with a totalitarian government.

* Homosexuality became a criminal offence in the Soviet Union on 17 December 1933. On 1 April 1934, article 154 (later 121) was introduced specifying a punishment of up to five years in prison.

On 23 May 1934, Pravda and Izvestiya published an article by Gorky declaiming that homosexuality was the result of pernicious influences from both the Western bourgeoisie and German fascism. The article concluded with the slogan: “Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear!” It is an irony however that the reality was that many of the concentration camps of National Socialist Germany contained homosexuals. themselves.

In January 1934, homosexuals were arrested en masse in the Soviet Union’s main cities justified by Article 154. Among those imprisoned were many actors, musicians, poets painters and writers.

In 1936 the Commissar for Justice, Nikolai Krylenko, declared homosexuality a political crime against the Soviet state and the proletariat. It became an object of NKVD (later  KGB) investigations, possibly with a view to recruiting new informers from among known homosexuals.

The fate of homosexuals in Soviet prisons and camps is typified by tragedy and brutality. Not only were the numbers vast, homosexual rape was commonplace. However, not only did the Soviet system fail to cure the ‘foreign disease’, it led to a dramatic growth in its numbers by a widening of what was considered immoral and therefore politically incorrect and illegal definitions. Freedom then and liberty as a consequence became increasingly limited. Even the classification of what was gay widened as to what it was originally and became more generally categorised as opushchennye (literally crestfallen, degraded, downcast; also a slang term for one who has been beaten up, raped or even simply abused).

As  Andrei Amal’rik in  Notes of a dissident  asserts:

“Passive homosexuals are not necessarily prisoners with gay inclinations, they are the unassertive, the timid, those who have lost a game of cards, those who have broken the camp code of ethics. Once you have the reputation of being a “cock”, it is impossible to get rid of it. It follows you from camp to camp. And if, after transfer to a new place a “fallen” prisoner fails to reveal himself, sooner or later it is bound to come to light. Then punishment is unavoidable, and it will take the form of a collective reprisal often ending in death.”

The first convicted homosexual to come out was the Leningrad poet Gennady Trifonov. In December 1977, he sent the following open letter to Literaturnaya Gazeta from Camp No. 398/38 in the western Urals:

“I have experienced every possible nightmare and horror; it is impossible to get used to it. Over a period of 18 months I have seen daily what it is to be a convicted homosexual in a Soviet camp. The position of gays in the death camps of the Third Reich was nothing compared to this. They had a clear prospect for the future-the gas chamber. We lead a half-animal existence, condemned to die of hunger, nursing secret dreams of contracting some deadly disease for a few days peace in a bunk in sickbay.”

“I know people who have either forgotten the end of their prison term, or who have not managed physically to survive that long. Their bodies were taken off the electric wire; they were found hanging in prison cells, tortured to death by prisoners in bestial mood or beaten by guards, mad. I know their names; I have access to the written evidence of witnesses. In a year and a half of this hell I have carefully studied 22 convictions for homosexuality in the USSR. If this information reaches the West, I will be accused of slander and physically liquidated. It won’t take much. They will set a group of convicts who have lost all semblance of humanity against me and certify my death ‘in the natural way’.”


Trump’s enhanced vetting saves American lives

Tonight the news from Canada reports that six Muslims have been slain in a terrorist attack on a mosque in Quebec. Eight were also injured. The gunmen were reported by witnesses as having shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as the massacre occurred.

Simultaneously, Trump’s temporary  ban of aliens from seven countries with known terrorist ties (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) is being hailed as a “ban on Muslims” by the misguided Liberal Press. The Left have largely reacted hysterically: calling  for a cancellation of the temporary ban in the name of “equality for all”, or at least all Muslims. Anything less is hailed as bigotry. Liberals in Hollywood particularly are calling it “Islamophobia” and born of a particularly un-American prejudice, or just more proof of the President’s supposed “fascist” values.  The Trump measures generally are being criticised as lacking humanity or just plain wrong. The special relationship too is quickly being tarnished by Boris Johnson who has called the measure “inhumane”, “divisive and wrong.”

In the cold light of day, in the aftermath of the Canadian atrocity,  the PC crowd make themselves look stupid. The temporary ban is required before extreme vetting can be put in place. Both the temporary ban and extreme vetting are required in order to save Muslim, as well as non Muslim lives. The violent jihadis need to be weeded out and all citizens must help by accepting the measures imposed by fully playing their part. In this, Trump’s concerns are fair, sensible and widely philanthropic. His concerns enhance his pledge to serve and protect  the United States, which extends to all citizens, irrespective of whether they be Muslim or non Muslim. It chimes with the America First promise he made at his Inauguration.

In respect to the call for equality, however, Trudeau has been acting like an irresponsible  fool. His position on immigration treats all Muslims the same, scrambling the distinctions required to identify the violent jihadis harbouring amongst them. He makes distinctions between them for political or PR reasons sure, but talks like a no borders juvenile idealist  when he invites all Muslims to come to his country in the name of freedom from the Trump imposition. He needs to stop treating Muslims as a bloc and study Islam, its strengths and deficiencies, and also enter the world of Real Politik. His naïve tolerance for all is proving to put Muslim lives at risk from the violent jihadis themselves, who take refuge in their midst!

Only a useful idiot or a subversive would say otherwise. In this, distinctions need to be made. The Liberals are failing to distinguish between cultural Muslims, or nominals, moderates and fundamentalists, some of whom are violent jihadis. They need to identify the peaceful Muslims from the violent jihadis who mix amongst them.They need to recall the dangers when they call for more open borders in the name of some ill defined moral duty.

Clearly the present vetting has failed to stop acts of terror. Without more stringent vetting more lives could be lost. The prime moral duty for this President, therefore,  is to put US citizen’s first,  not simply to welcome in all refugees out of some rather vague sense of moral obligation. Anything less is the equivalent of putting up a “Welcome All” banner over the checkpoints to increase the likelihood of murder. Whilst some might claim the US checks in particular are the most stringent in the world, clearly the recent atrocities merit more.

Is Trump’s temporary measure a “Muslim ban”?

The measure (a 90 day or 120 day deferment of entry) is being called a “Muslim ban”, but it is largely temporary based on national links to terror. The seven nations, some of which are failed states, have a large terrorist contingent. Paperwork supporting background data for individuals is rather poor, but what is clear is the concentrated terrorist threat within these specified regions. The list cited was first proposed by the Obama Administration in 2015, but was unaccountably not followed through with any positive vetting action.

This is not “faith based”, or specifically an “Islamic” ban per se, which would be unconstitutional in any case. Neither is it “race based”, as some claim when they cry “racism”, as to be a Muslim is not racially determined.

As forty seven Muslim majority countries without classified links to terror are not subject to the temporary deferment, we can safely dispense with the notion it is a “Muslim ban”, or religiously biased. The most populated Muslim country Indonesia is not included, nor is Saudi Arabia, to cite but two examples. The seven that are, include Christians and Zoroastrians, Bahaists and others of non Muslim faith also. The measures, then, are not concerned with  “faith”, or with a specific faith, but concerned with nations that demonstrate high risk terrorist links. In this, however, the discrepancy rests in a paradox that whilst not all Muslims are necessarily terrorists, many terrorists happen to be violent Muslims.

The truth is certain sects of fundamental Islam are largely to blame for propagating terror. But conversely not all Muslims (i.e cultural) believe in Islam and not all believers necessarily practise terror. This, then, is not simply an attitude born of the conservative Right wing that can be conveniently labelled by the Left as  “Islamophobic”.

In adopting this stance, however, the Left appear to want to solely blame the conservative non Muslims as espousing a misplaced bigotry of Muslims. They call for more freedom and rights for  Muslims as a solution, when the biggest haters and slayers of Muslims are in fact the Islamic radical fundamentalists mixing amongst the Muslim communities themselves.

These problems need the President to speak carefully. In a secular Republic, no preference can be given to one particular religion, nor has Trump as President sought to do so. President Trump has therefore spoken largely of terrorists, without falling into the unconstitutional trap of proposing a “ban on all Muslims”. He does, however, speak of Islamic terrorism. This is a rhetorical difficulty Barack Obama has seized on in the light of Trump’s past stump speech remarks specifically mentioning a  “Muslim ban”. These criticisms have fomented social unrest and confusion in America and around the world.

President Trump’s measures, however, are largely defined as “Extreme Vetting”. They are intended to “keep America safe”. This has been done in order to identify terrorists specifically, and in this no deliberate discrimination of Islamic believers, people of faith, or nominal Muslims more generally is being made. It is just that many of the terrorists themselves do indeed happen to be Islamic believers of a peculiar kind.

The knotweed of terrorism

Islam is like a garden. The garden has deadly knotweeds and the garden needs pruning. This must apply to the whole , not just a part. During war, extreme security measures are  usually required. It is insufficient to simply suppose this crowd are Muslims, therefore all should be allowed entry simply because they are practitioners of a great faith and consequently must be our friends. It is insufficient to suppose Muslims and Islamic believers, without qualification, simply follow an ethos of peace, when particular perspectives incite violence as a religious imperative. Neither is it prudent to risk US citizens lives in preference to a moral belief that America must welcome all refugees into their midst, when some of those refugees themselves pose a future  existential threat.

Extreme vetting is required to determine which amongst them are a threat, both to non Muslim and Muslim lives alike. During WW2 , a sentry guard would not simply wave in a crowd of Jewish refugees, without checking first whether Nazis were hiding amongst the crowd! This indeed was one of the primary reasons Roosevelt temporarily banned Jews prior to the Second World War, as some German National Socialist spies were  harbouring amongst them. To offer another analogy that is more cogent, violent Jihadism is a cancer and the Muslim body needs a proper examination in order to effect a cure.

Trump’s temporay ban must stand, and his Immigration Executive Order implemented and even widened. The violent jihadis are amongst the Muslim crowd. This now is a global threat. All need to work,  be they Muslim or non Muslim, to identify, isolate and excise that specific and very dangerous threat. The Muslims must  accept the measures are  necessary to save their lives, as much as non Muslims must accept that the inconvenience of extended queues is necessary to save theirs. Chaos at airports is not helped by belligerent and often violent naïve idealists calling for an end to the ban. Generally they are low information activists, who do not fully understand the issues, nor the measures necessary to keep everyone safe.

Trump must stand firm

Today, British passport holders with visas were told not to expect a 90 day waiting process,  but that they may yet experience “additional security checks”. The lack of a temporary ban was heralded as a  retraction of Trump’s measures for those “British” citizens with dual nationality that originate from one of the seven identified countries, at least by some critics.  Johnson, for example, has claimed the delays will only apply to those actually travelling from the named countries to the US and not to British passport holders travelling directly from the UK.

No  exemption should be given in respect to the temporary ban, however, or in respect to extreme vetting,  just because a Muslim carries a British passport. Concerning a potential terrorist, it is largely irrelevant today whether a Muslim was born in Britain, Yemen, Syria, or Tucson, Arizona in this. British born jihadis are just as much of a problem as non British jihadis, no more, but no less. British jihadis posing as moderates have in the past used the West’s open attitude  to slaughter supposed Muslim heretics in turn at home and overseas.* They have swelled the ISIS ranks. Many are second generation British born Muslims who have turned to fundamentalism during time in prison.

The nature of the enemy is diffuse and not geographically, but ideologically determined. It is not one that can garner unquestioning trust, even if the nation be an old ally. Largely open borders and increased multiculturalism have exacerbated the diffusion of an alien terrorist threat into the midst of multiple western nations.

Trump then must stand firm, offering a compromise for political appeasement, accepting the present visa bearers, or British citizens who come into this dual category, must still be subject to a ban, or suffer  “additional security checks”, whatever that extended process might entail. Ultimately, extreme vetting will have to be applied to all who enter, commensurate with specific definitions and a deep understanding of the  nature of this diffuse and increasingly global terrorist threat. It will require extreme vetting of many more with demonstrable terrorist links, irrespective of where they were born.

If the Canadian slaughter proves anything, it is that terrorism is a threat to both Muslim and non Muslim alike. Nationality in this is largely an irrelevance, just as it is irrelevant what the particular passport is that they hold. Nationality for the violent jihadi does not change their ideological world view.  Violent Islamic jihadism is viewed as a global imperative, and nations are simply regions to be conquered, as the battle for a global caliphate by the radicals intensifies. Links to radical sects however, or visiting regions of the world with demonstrable terrorist links should trigger Extreme Vetting procedures.

Trump in this can only do his best, with a temporary ban and an extreme vetting solution proposed along national perimeters and Constitutional lines, but it is a solution that as long as it remains within national identifiers can only provide a partial fix. The full scale of the  problem has increasingly to be recognised as lying more broadly within the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”: a distinction made by the Islamists themselves. In this, the specific, yet diffuse nature of the enemy must be seen as one that recognises no territorial limits. Whilst any that call for a borderless world are part of the problem that advantages radical Islamic terrorism,  not part of the solution.

Radical terrorism, it could be claimed, is not Islam but Islamism. The distinction, however, could be viewed as pedantic, inaccurate and irrelevant, as Islamism is still ideologically centred in the Islamic faith, but uses violence to achieve its theocratic aims. As a consequence of the religious element, Trump has identified the enemy simply as terrorism, and the security measures simply as safeguarding against potentially violent acts. Whilst this ignores the Islamic context, it yet allows Trump to claim the measures are not punitive or discriminatory against believers of Islam. It further raises the anomaly of why Barack Obama is justifying a call for the ban to be lifted and extreme vetting measures to be rescinded on some of those who yet might practise terrorist activity, simply because they can be termed “Muslims” or “people of faith”.

In this respect, politician’s more generally are too often spouting liberal platitudes that belong to the values of the last century and which do not meet new criteria and present security needs. They are themselves on “the wrong side of history”. A criticism Obama often tarnishes his political foes with. Such values cannot be sustained if lives and indeed entire nations are to be saved.

Boris Johnson and Theresa May  are too often liberal appeasers in this, who have largely appealed to Mr Trump’s love for Britain to encourage a rolling back, or exemption of his proposals, based on an appeal to the special relationship. In this, they too readily view Islam generally as a “religion of peace”, without adequately drawing  distinctions. They also largely ignore the dangers of a British violent jihadi presence, exacerbated by themselves, because they have either kept them in the country, or even allowed their return from Syria in the first place. In this, they have only been  paving the way for more attacks at home, as well as abroad, by violent jihadis with British passports. All this makes perpetrating terrorist acts easier.

Undercover terrorist activity in the past  has largely been maintained by using false passports. But these false documents may now not even be required, due to May and Johnson’s rather foolish criticisms of Trump’s measures and calls for a British exemption. A threat in any case is still posed from British terrorists carrying genuine passports, and these terrorists are in turn faced with the possibility (unlikely admittedly) of a less rigorous vetting process in the US, simply  because they are “British”: a status more generally deemed less of a security risk, but which is rather deceptive of the reality. National distinctions are quickly changing. Nothing can be taken for granted. Old allies have been subverted by weak borders and multiculturalism and exploited accordingly by the terrorists themselves, who constantly strive to take advantage. Even the jihadis born in Britain are a small, but growing number of second generation fundamentalists.

Equality and diversity

Much has been called for in the name of tolerance, diversity and equality for all of late, but it is insufficient  to merely make a national distinction and expect the terrorist threat to be simply contained when religion transcends these boundaries. We need to make not just national distinctions, but a distinction between Muslims themselves: between the jihadis who kill and the moderates who don’t. We need to make a distinction between nominal and cultural Muslims who might  not even believe,  moderates who are believers, and the Islamic fundamentalists,  only some of whom are actually “Islamists”, who practise jihad through terrorist acts. Even these distinctions are often too broad, as some of the Jihadis are in some cases not particularly religious, but politically motivated, or even naïve nominals who are duped, or simply looking for excitement and adventure. The key approach, however, must be a need to recognise this threat as no longer being confined to particular nations, but one which is spread throughout the world.

Much has been said about the faults of Trump’s Extreme Vetting and its divisive tendencies. Yet divisiveness need not necessarily be a negative thing. Divide and conquer can be good, if the violent jihadis usual mode of stealth cover is exposed and their presence identified. Peaceful and moderate Muslim factions should be encouraged to hamper them in turn, identify them where they can, and in doing so play their part to weed them out. Too often violent jihadism takes root in Islam, which is a far too submissive, passive, or even welcoming host. It serves as a harbour to nurture and protect Islamic terrorism in turn, which seeks only to destroy. The Muslim community more generally needs to break ranks and draw clear water between themselves and their radical counterparts. They are either for us or against us. Divisiveness at least serves  to better identify the terrorists amongst the Muslim crowd, even if the corollary is violence, which is exacerbated as a counter response in turn. If violence is inevitable, however,   at least division can be used productively to help locate and isolate the enemy within.

Western politicians must stop treating Muslims as a bloc in the name of  equal rights and draw more informed distinctions. They must abandon appeasement in the name of equality and pacifism,  and let Trump deal with this thorny problem the best way he can. He will do so within political, legal and constitutional perimeters. He, at least, is prepared to take the Terrorist bull by its horns, identifying, isolating and weakening it with positive and swift action.

Such proposals should be supported as a cross party concern, and supported by the Muslim community as well. The measures should not be hampered simply in order to score Party political points, or further the cause of Muslims more generally, who might espouse a misguided idea of global theocracy. People’s lives could be put at risk. In this too, law abiding Muslims need to demonstrate their patriotism and sustain the rule of law for the good of America and other nations in turn. They must recognise and  honestly admit that terrorists find refuge amongst them and act to expose it as best they are able. Patriotic, constitutionally minded Muslims, are the nation state’s most precious allies.

It will ultimately require the recognition of the fact that the nature of violent jihadism lies within some Muslim communities at home and is not simply an exterior threat from abroad. For the present however, liberalism and its borderless aims, must be seen as an ethos that is alien to what America needs to protect itself.

Freedom under the rule of law, not the rule of the mob

The liberal ethos of inclusivity for all only exacerbates the terrorist threat. In this, security must be maintained and cannot be sacrificed irrespective of whether they do not follow the law. The rule of law here is the distinguishing factor. A distinction often made, but too often overlooked. The voice of constitutional law  is too frequently drowned out by the liberal call for universal tolerance that they claim informs its charter in turn. Values that, whilst admirable, too easily permit violent jihadis  to be treated more generally as moderate Muslims are, because of an absolute, rather misappropriated, equality ethic.

Freedom is a noble ethos and a basic principle of the Constitution, but that ethos permits the violent Muslim jihadis to slay more freely in turn. The principle of freedom centres in the Declaration on “we the people”, an epithet often viewed as referring to the more universal idea of “humanity”, but which can only be guaranteed for law abiding US citizens. It cannot be justified for “all” with a porous border, or a poor definition of what Islam and the Muslim denotes,  at least if American lives are to be protected and constitutional values maintained.

Too often the Statue of Liberty has been cited as symbolising the prevailing ethos of America and used disingenuously, as Chuck Schumer has, to pull at the heart strings and justify more open borders and a more welcoming, inclusive ethic as a moral response. In terms of America’s guiding ethos, however, one should not simply appeal to a poem by Emma Lazarus, but the Declaration and Constitution itself. In this, the Founding Fathers were both pragmatic and prudent. They sought to preserve the independence of the nation as the prime directive, whereas the more universal moral principles of freedom and liberty  provided a sanctuary for the poor, irrespective of race, creed,  colour or national origin, as secondary virtues. Independence could only be maintained with a strong militia. This represented a security measure and made for a strong nation, so that freedom could be protected in turn.

Too often today the cry is for freedom for all, without freedom denoting the rule of law, or a call for the citizen’s obligation to protect the nation with constant vigilance. The rule of law is self evident, but too readily overlooked because of this. Whilst the role of citizens in protecting the nation, over and above the more universal principles that inform and shape America’s attitude in respect to aliens’ rights, is rather inaccurately recontextualised and given undue precedence. The President, however, should at any time have the right to bar any alien as he sees fit, if the security of the nation is at risk. Security in turn protects those citizens that constitute a strong and integrated Republic. Security is a prime constitutional imperative. It guarantees independence and freedom and protects the vessel of nationhood, which should it fail, cannot harbour those other benefits derived from the moral principles that citizens currently enjoy.**

The role of the Press

The values of the Constitution can only be safeguarded by a moral and educated citizenry mindful of their civic responsibilities. The Press in this have a duty to inform the public and clarify, not muddy the issues. They should not strive merely to  find an angle, generate headlines and sell papers. The problem in large part today is one where the Press think they can decide what happens and they can shape political events as they see fit. They seek to create and shape the world in their own image through spin, hysteria and provocation; but in this they must remain scribblers of the events as they unfold, not act as Gods with a divine mission,  or more particularly elect themselves as unofficial politicians. Too often they are merely Left wing propagandists and disinformation strategists. They should not try to create a future brave new world filled only with attitudes from one side of the fence. They should not seek to hamper the legal and constitutional requirements of a President simply seeking to save American lives. At least they have an obligation to practise greater impartiality and propagate a sense of morality.

Too easily Journalists fall into lazy thinking and spout politically correct platitudes as a knee jerk reaction. Their anti Trump message is suspiciously biased in this respect, as they call for no walls, freedom and open borders, and an equality for all ethic that echoes the globalist concern. They  bolster this with shrieks of Islamaphobia and the call for a more humanitarian ethic against any who oppose them, when violent Islamic terrorism clearly disqualifies itself in turn. Too much of it frankly smacks of bias and propaganda and appears to be naïve (or even brainwashed) thinking. It dreams of  a utopia for all that misjudges human nature, and which may well only lead to the destruction of the nation state and the end of freedom and human rights in turn.

A more basic recognition of the reality needs to occur. A realisation that terrorism is harbouring within the midst of Muslim communities. It is one that is intolerant and seeks to do its more tolerant enemies harm.  It is one that largely has a religious basis, and it is one that shouldn’t be excused or overlooked because of this. Too often it is seen as something other and separate, when it simply isn’t.  Muslims across the board are excused and given a free pass because of this,  simply for being “Muslims”, irrespective of what different definitions that term entails.*** In this, the Press  too often provide only generalisations, and are actually perpetuating the struggle and adding to the confusion; indirectly putting lives at risk.

Journalists are largely not up to the job required of them. They  lack the intellectual acumen to be philosophical or provide solutions. Generally, they are hopelessly conditioned to spout politically correct platitudes as part of a long term agenda that doesn’t match up to the reality. They are rarely specialists, yet too often they believe they have the right to tell us what we can or can’t think, what we can or cannot say, or even what  Presidents should or shouldn’t do, based on rather half baked personal opinions and values they too readily claim as experts. Their views too often have little to do with the pragmatic and more subtle decisions required for maintaining security and safeguarding lives.

Of course, they have the right to express their opinions, but it is  too often formed in a university steeped in the Liberal perspective. A one sided view, and one not born of actual experience of individual Muslims and their different and sometimes conflicting views and needs in the community. It is one that espouses western liberalism, or cultural Marxism as an ideal, but one which is too often blind to its shortcomings and the dangers it permits via ideological radicalism. It too happily turns a deaf ear to the counter arguments that the conservative right could provide as a solution. This, then, displays a rather rigid, dogmatic, ideologically driven perspective, surprisingly intransigent to change or modification.

To labour the point, the Press more generally need to report the news, not try to make it. Critical analysis must be given by genuine experts, not juvenile “Jack of all trades” graduates, who set themselves up as experts on every topic under the sun. They need to stop acting like the political opposition, and at least provide impartiality, so the President is free to do his job within the limits of the Constitution. Unless they do, they will be hampering his concern to save lives and only perpetuate the ongoing mass slaughter they claim they seek to stem themselves. Too often, the Press suspiciously act like a collective in this. They speak of the virtues of criticism and free speech, but too often act like an angry mob lacking reason. They too readily espouse universal values, without drawing the distinction of the particular, just as they  too readily jump to automatic attack mode, irrespective of the merits or value of a particular position.


In closing, nothing President Trump has done concerning the Executive Order is either illegal or unconstitutional, as some of his critics have claimed. Article 4 section 4 denotes the government:

“…shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

The prescience and wisdom of the Founding Fathers as ever provided a beacon of light that guides the American people through their darkest hours. The law too is explicit, as in the 1952 statute 8 U.S. Code § 1182  on Inadmissible Aliens denotes:

“Whenever the President finds that the presence of any Aliens or of any class of Aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restriction he may deem to be appropriate. “

The claim that this is overridden by the 1965 statute that the President cannot discriminate against immigrants based on race, nationality or place of birth is exempt if the President deems such immigrants a national security threat. The 7 listed countries are  a national security threat in respect to their demonstrable links to terrorism.

A recent poll shows the majority of Americans strongly agree with Trump’s assessment and the proposed temporary ban and vetting. The majority around the world most probably agree as well. It is only the Liberal Press and their general pc platitudes, the organised Soros protests and bot petitions, which mysteriously arise without any seeming publicity in advance, that want to give the opposite impression. Too often they act for the ideological aim of a borderless world, and a universal equality ethic, but in turn attack the nation and the virtues America seeks to defend. They seek to score political points, but put citizens lives at risk.

The general public are not stupid, but they may be misguided by those with less honest aims. Radicals often distort to justify their cause, by appealing to Americans’ charitable and good natured hearts. The bottom line, however, is often all that counts,  and the majority do not want terrorists in their country. This concern cannot simply be dismissed as paranoia, nor can it be airbrushed with a moral call for equality, openness and freedom. An undetermined number of terrorists pose an existential threat to the  people and to the nation, the protector of those very principles of freedom that citizens enjoy in turn. The thorny problem of the future is the fact that many are home grown, and the cultural issues this raises are serious and have yet to be fully grasped.

* Here are but a few recent British jihadis living and dead. Numbers are estimated to stretch into the thousands.

Nasser Muthana, 20, from Cardiff, is believed to have joined IS in Syria. He posted pictures of home-made bombs on an unverified Twitter account with the caption: “So the UK is afraid I come back with the skills I’ve gained”.

Aseel Muthana, 17, also from Cardiff, is Nasser’s brother. Aseel is believed to be in Syria but may have secretly returned, after he told BBC Wales “Jihad is obligatory”.

Reyaad Khan, 20, from Cardiff, appeared with Nasser and another Jihadist from Aberdeen in a recruitment video on 20 June, apparently filmed in Syria, urging others to join the IS cause.

Abdul Raqib Amin, believed to be 26, was brought up by his parents in Aberdeen. He appeared in the terrorist recruitment video just weeks before he was reportedly killed in a gun battle with an Iraqi Army Swat team.

Abu Dujana al-Muhjahir, 19, from Portsmouth, is an IS recruit who announced the death of Amin on social media in July. Former Primark worker Muhammad Hammidur Rahman, also from Portsmouth, died fighting in Syria in August. On Twitter he said he joined Isis after being “called by God to help Muslims being killed by President Bashar al-Assad.”

Twins Salma and Zahra Halane, 16, were reported to have travelled from their home in Manchester to Syria via Turkey in June, despite pleas from their family to return home. The girls are said to be “deeply religious” and social media accounts have since shown them learning to use guns and seeing grenades and Kalashnikov rifles

Abu Muhadjar, is among 20 young British men reported to be fighting in Syria last October. He told a foreign correspondent for the BBC: “I grew up in a fairly nice area. I come from a decent close-knit family. My family do know where I am and what I’m doing”.

Jafer Deghayes, 16, Amer Deghayes, 20, and Abdullah Deghayes, 18 are brothers from Brighton who travelled to fight alongside IS in Syria. Abdullah is believed to have died in April this year. Their father Abubakr says the boys initially travelled to the region for humanitarian reasons to deliver aid, but decided to fight against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Abu Sumayyah Al-Britani left the UK a year ago to fight what he calls a “holy war” in Iraq and Syria. Speaking from an Internet café in Idlib, northwest Syria, the British father-of-three told reporters his terror training camp is “really really fun”. Five young unnamed British Asian men are believed to have boarded a flight from Manchester to Antalya this month on the pretence of attending a holiday spa, before slipping across the Turkish border to Syria to join up with IS forces.

** There is a philosophical debate as to whether universal principles such as freedom and equality, because they are derived from “nature’s God”,  take precedence to the concerns of independence and its corollary security. But the latter too are principles which determine and safeguard a nation, and a nation cannot be a repository of ethical values if it no longer exists. If virtues are of God, they may well be eternal. It is the citizen’s notions of how they are to be realised in political practise, however, that inevitably requires the vessel of nationhood to be   preserved and protected as a prime concern for their propagation. Terrorism represents an existential threat to the nation. Moral practise under the rule of law inevitably requires decisions to be made prudently and pragmatically. Priority must always be given  to what is in the best interests for protecting its citizenry, and thus preserving the nation and its virtues in turn.

 *** Part of the problem the West faces is defining the nature of the enemy, when the enemy too often cannot even be defined due to political correctness. Even ignoring such niceties, the terms are invariably difficult to define precisely. They test the boundaries of any translated meaning and the wide disparity and significance expressed. Thus a  “Jihadi” is one who could yet denote a terrorist, but one who might equally be simply a spiritual practitioner, who believes in the worth of a peaceful and interior “struggle” to achieve purely spiritual development. Equally jihad  might entail both. An “Islamist” furthermore could be one who might be viewed to be a violent practitioner of jihad, that is not Islamic, but it is a term that yet cannot rid itself of its Islamic context. The deficiency of terms has sown confusion and chaos and a better and more precise understanding of the enemy is required. It is a vocabulary  still straining to convey the precise nature of why, or even how a violent jihadi terrorist should be distinguished from an Islamic believer that advocates peace, when that terrorist can make the claim that they, above all other Muslims, practice the true faith which is Islam.

Comments on the “Strange”

On the Obama years

Obama spent most of his time fomenting race riots and spending tax payers’ money on holidays in Hawaii. Rubbing people up, whilst damning the police with faint praise:  justifying the innocent slaughter of law enforcers, as he tried to make out he and his “brothers” were still  “oppressed” black men. His racism was not only divisive, but dangerous, justifying any crazed person reaching for a gun if their skin colour was black, but clamping down on gun rights if they were white.

His ideological mantra was “we all just gotta get along”, but it was a straightforward Alinsky ruse. He sought unanimity, not by working together to iron out differences, or doing business together to further individual or national causes, but by furthering the ethos: “be exactly as we say you should be, and do exactly what we say you should do”. Doing as we say, didn’t leave much room for a different opinion. Anyone who refused just hadn’t got the globalist edict and the radical memo of  “that’s not who we are supposed to be.” Being and doing what we say paved the way for justifying the gangster mentality (just as Alinsky was mentored by the Chicago mob) a future autocratic socialist state, beefed up with plenty more unconstitutional Executive Orders, and less personal freedom, independence and initiative.

His idea was to initiate a race to the bottom, with an impossible equality in earnings for all, whilst ignoring those wealth creator principles that made America great. He shipped jobs overseas. He spent as recklessly as possible, in a Cloward-Piven strategy to double the national debt. His extravagance culminated in his pie in the sky socialist health care project that no ordinary working American could even afford, let alone the more affluent middle class.

In his desire to live in a borderless world, he apparently thought that any nation wanting sovereignty and independence had to be treated wiith disdain. He displayed this by claiming they should be “placed at the back of the queue”. This disdain for sovereignty, freedom and independence also informed his view of the US and its constitution, which he called on occasions an “antique”, “in need of modernisation”, or simply a plain old  “piece of parchment” .

He was the most powerful racist on the planet, who never outgrew his Alinskyite student militancy and “woe is me I’m such an oppressed African” pose.

He achieved nothing in terms of a legacy, bar perhaps one good thing: he set back the cause of the multilateral hegemony he championed by a few more years through his  staggering incompetence and naivety. Failed ideas crystallising this being: that Islamist radicals could be used to help him, when they only wanted to slaughter; coupled with an open borders policy to welcome them in to do it, whilst berating those that objected; along with a mistaken view that the general public would just accept being killed, because they all thought like the Hollywood luvvies he hung out with at his security flanked fundraisers. What he intends to do with all the money he snaffled from the parties remains to be seen. It probably entails a chain of Hawaiian hotels and a shadow government to keep his brainwashed fan base active.

On Scottish Nationalism and the anti-Brexit SNP

Apparently “independence” for Scotland doesn’t involve anything but running into the arms of the new European Soviet. That is why this so called party of nationalism is nothing more than a Socialist front, which only seeks rule by a bigger foreign government in Brussels. The majority of Scots are canny enough to see through its ruse however, and reject the idea of rule from Brussels as one that entirely negates any form of true devolution.

On the anti-Trump demos 

I saw a few Hollywood liberals frothing angrily about how we all had to be “tolerant and get along” as they called for anarchy, civil war and death to the new President. The guys on the street appeared to be paid for activists with the usual pre-manufactured, Soros funded, billboards.

Apparently anyone who doesn’t like the idea of a borderless world is a threat. Those that do support it are our “friends”. I think they need to tell ISIS this, as they haven’t read the memo.

On the EU’s objections to a US UK free-trade deal  

A bit like Horatio Nelson (with his blind eye) simply turn the deaf ear to these Commies on the Continent and plough on regardless. What will they do, oust us from the EU?  Now we are re-establishing our special relationship with the most powerful nation on Earth, I think the whinging of a few technocrat OAPs, in a dysfunctional Brussels politburo club we have already half left, is pretty much an irrelevance.


On Donald. J. Trump being called a “fascist”

Ignore the labels and actually look at the bare bones principles the name  shifting Socialists/ Liberals/ Progressives  support and what this actually entails and culminates in. It soon becomes clear where the real danger lies. A danger culminating in supranational totalitarianism.

Considering the basic principles, modern day international Socialism differs little from the Communist, Fascist and National Socialist threats that preceded it.  They are all characterised by a supranational state centric government that seeks to exert absolute control. This in turn exacerbates an unbridled expansionism and a political desire to determine what culture, race and even the individual should be. All entail uniformity in group think and an ideologically derived perspective of what was and what was not permissible, within narrow political terms determined by this supranational state power.

Globalisation represents just as much of a danger as  the old threats of the past. Like Fascism and Communism, it seeks not just to dominate, but to end the concept of the nation state entirely and absorb it into an entirely  new  political  framework for its own use and purposes. This logically requires inevitable domination by a totalitarian supranational government. Nation state democracy is accordingly sacrificed on the altar of political progressivism and political empire building. Moreover, through the imposition of new borderless political zones, the new progression strives to transform, through demographic influx, the culture and country that was previously maintained.

The globalist progression encourages the new supranational government to impose politically determined values on the peoples of the former countries. Political correctness will determine what is acceptable and reshape national culture and attitudes. In the current progression, however, this will be derived from cultural Marxism itself. A value system  that was derived from the Soviet Union and propagated via the Frankfurt School in western universities by  Marxist intellectuals, with the intention of spurring revolution and sparking a radical shift in values. Ironically its concern with countering absolutism, authoritarianism and fascism sought a solution fast evolving to an absolute, authoritarian and dogmatic liberalism itself. Paradoxically, the collectivist state centric idea of the globalists (most prominent currently in the EU and UN)  and the PC cultural values it seeks to impose are increasingly coming to mirror the values of the General Line of Stalin, or even the Hitlerian authority ideas it claimed to oppose in the first place. The nature of the political progression culminates in a full circle return to the dangers of a dogmatic political correctness.

The EU imperative, as an example, strives for a uniform, state-centric, supranational government. A government that in turn imposes political authoritarianism and political correctness in the name of an imposed  Liberalism, but  which in turn negates  classical liberalism and the values of the past heritage of the nation state.  Localism, limited government  and individualism are therefore sacrificed, only to be replaced by a new, more powerful, remote,  supranational state authoritarianism. In this too, the age of the new man/ new citizen will be born: a politically derived individual that is expected to take root in the new “Liberalism” of cultural Marxism, or the “progressive socialism” that it continually espouses and propagates as group think in the name of “solidarity”.

Political Progressivism  results only in totalitarianism. Whereas a political stasis, achieved through the 3 tier separation of powers and implementing the checks and balances of a Constitutional Republic, limits the power of federal government and results in a political system that  serves its utility to best represents local communities and  the needs of the people.

Today the Liberal Progressives claim Communism was a mistake that will not be repeated, whilst they continually give government the mandate for increasingly authoritarian rule. They skip over the fact Lenin called himself not simply a Communist, as much as a “socialist” and a “liberator” from oppression. In this, he viewed the Soviet Union not as a tyranny, but as “the most democratic form of government yet practised” for “the benefit of the people”. In this Progressives largely ignore the victims numbering in the many millions who stood as enemies of the Soviet imposition.

Socialists claim fascism is a clear danger, but they still support the same, or very similar,  corporate state centric principles and political ideas as an ideology themselves. Their activists call for an end to the system, but support the values of the new globalist/ corporate socialist “system” in turn. They call for a borderless, politically correct world, a return to EU integration, and a continuation of the global imperative that will eventually usher in the values of world citizenship for all. All this is to be achieved in the name of tolerance and equality, strengthened by an enlightened modern liberalism, whilst they negate national and racial diversity, liberty and  nation state democracy, which protect individual citizens rights as a consequence.

In practise, at least in Europe, they view corporate socialism as the answer. They turn to an unelected oligarchy (an EU Politburo of Commissioners and various technocrats) for guidance as to what to think. Their ideal utopia is for the people (not even workers) of the world to unite. This is placed in a free movement political utopia context, which  espouses the virtues of a continent without borders. They largely ignore this as a threat to individual and national security, stability and prosperity however, and appeal to the cause of global humanitarianism to justify its progression and expansion. But it is an ethos which in turn also largely negates national identity, economic prosperity that requires healthy competition between nation states,  and a country’s cultural values that help shape them as distinct and maintain social order and cohesion.  It is a progression too that requires an increasingly monolithic and all powerful government  to rule the larger zone it assembles. This political  leviathan  cannibalises nations. Expansionism then is a necessity for it to survive, as it negates European competitiveness between nations. The progression is fatally flawed. Is it any wonder then that, on the fall of the Berlin Wall, Mikhail  Gorbachev should question the virtues of why the peoples of Europe were attempting in turn to build a new “European Soviet” in the fledgling European Union?

The EU proposes a supposed “equality for all”, but it is an equality ruled by a political elite afforded special privileges. They call for equality of income, but they destroy the innovative middle class  wealth creators that give people jobs in the name of the oppressed they in turn have helped to create. They call for social justice and human rights, but increasingly this entails human rights that vilify the majority and champion only a minority. They champion political correctness and tolerance and diversity, but arrest and imprison any that practise the freedom of speech that deviates from it. They claim they represent the people and their communities, but increasingly centralise power in an increasingly large, remote and all powerful government for their own self interested, corrupt and greedy ends.

The strategy is ongoing in a more general globalist  progression in both Europe and America. Its value system is modern socialism or “Progressivism”, and its value system is characterised by political correctness: an increasingly intolerant, radical and dogmatic perspective. A perspective that claims to be the opposite of what it is evolving into: an authoritarian mono perspective espousing a dictatorial dogmatism. In the US it has now become so extreme and dogmatic that even a President that proposes putting national values first, or who seeks to champion the rights of its home nation citizens, is somehow “dictatorial” in his aims. The Globalists of the Left even find fault in Trump because he simply  promises to work to keep jobs in America. In this too, preventing illegal workers from entering is somehow “intolerant” and “racist”; checking borders and personal records for terrorists is somehow the thinking of a “bigot” and a “fascist”; withdrawing finance for overseas abortion programmes is somehow “sexist”;  whilst even protecting Constitutional principles, in a more general sense, is somehow supposed to be “dark” and “sinister”.

What precisely is supposed to be wrong with Trump’s common sense patriotic approach, much of which was touched upon in his Inauguration speech? Is it to be criticised simply because it stands against the so called “inevitable” progression towards a New World Order, and its often too shallow call for absolute inclusiveness, whilst it glosses over its own too self evident authoritarianism in turn? Is it a threat because it stands against the corrupt and belligerent political elite that too often champion an agenda that largely fails to represent the will of a large swathe of the people? The people that love national values and the individual freedoms they successfully represent and protect. Since when is an affirmation of Constitutional America and the nation state supposed to be a threat, or an echo of fascism, when its checks and balances provide the necessary safety net to prevent such a political imposition occurring in the first place? Is this why the Globalists themselves find the values of it and what it represents so irksome? Because it scuppers their totalitarian agenda? Why should Trump’s message and concerns even be a “terrible danger” to the US, or its own citizenry, as the “fearful” Progressives claim?  After all, wasn’t this simply an affirmation of the pledge he made at his Oath of Office during his own Inauguration? Isn’t it mandatory to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States” and to the best of his ability “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States“? Or is that pledge now,  like the Constitution, supposed to be merely an irrelevance and an outdated way of thinking, which requires something more progressive and modern to replace it? Have we fallen that far?

The hubris and ideological intolerance of the globalists today is characteristic of the same dictators we fought to rid ourselves of in the past. They seem to think any President that speaks of improving infrastructure and rebuilding America is somehow “subversive”. Any President that spouts Constitutionalism is “extremist” and “radical”, or at worst a “Nazi” and a “fascist”. The words are often used interchangeably to any that oppose their agenda. In this, someone like Trump (who promises to never let the people down and to fight to represent them with every breath in his body) is somehow cast as a dictator. But the truth is Trump is the opponent of dictators, and far more Constitutional in his thinking. He is (to date) far more a champion of freedom and with it human rights  then this new clack of fascists and Communists that call themselves “globalists”, or “Liberal Progressives” that continue their autocratic international strategy with a new belligerence and intolerance today.

Currently their leaders respectably call themselves the “political elite” or even “experts” or “technocrats” or “Czars”, as opposed to merely “politicians”, “representatives”, or “public servants”.  Such unofficial terms speak much about their real attitude. They espouse International Corporate Socialism in the name of advancement. They call for a borderless world, uniform group think and a Left wing Liberalism in values imposed by a political organisation that will supposedly serve the people, but will inevitably only rule and tyrannise them to accept their dogmatic and increasingly tyrannical one world,  uniform perspective.

The logical conclusion of the progressive strategy is to turn the entire Western hemisphere into a number of large single state political zones on the way ultimately to a one world western government. Ultimately this would lead to a one world dictatorship. This is no mere speculation either, as the aim was vocalised by Hillary Clinton herself in the claim:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” -Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.

A common market too often is a ploy used to facilitate a political bloc, just as the EEC preceded the EU.

Whereas John Kerry has espoused the virtues of the New World Order far more starkly in his concern young people should champion the values of a “borderless world”.

Of course if you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country. Americans are beginning to understand this. Increasingly the British and the French and the Dutch and the Italians too understand  the terrible and frightening implications and are acting according to their conscience.

In any case, if pursued, the imposition of a new regime could well culminate, if not in war, then certainly in a tyranny that overrides the freedoms nation state democracies protect. In this imposition too, any individual that holds a different or opposing opinion, or perhaps even a “nostalgia for the past”, as Kerry critiques it, represents a threat politically, ideologically and culturally. A threat which could well result in them being arrested and imprisoned.

Neither is this simply a strange fantasy, nor is it merely born of paranoia. In this  new globalist progression “popularism”, as a counter response, is already being discussed as “illegal” and “dangerous” in the EU offices and chambers of Brussels and Strasbourg. Only time will tell what they propose to do about it. In this, even the act of waving a national flag will be forbidden. It is already being described as a “dangerous”, “subversive” and even a “racist” act by its leaders, as President Barosso made clear in his State of the Union EU speech only a few short years ago. One presumes, however, the new EU flag is to be viewed as an uncritiqued symbol of the pride of the “new” citizens we are all supposed to be.

Is anyone surprised, therefore, that his increasing authoritarian dogmatism aligns more closely to his former adherence to Maoism? Is anyone surprised Mrs Merkel too was a former Communist? That Mogherini was a former Communist Youth League member? That Jens Stoltenberg, a current representative of Nato, was a former Communist also, code named Steklov?

The EU is a dry run for totalitarian rule in Europe, where nation state democracy will be dispensed with. The United States too will succumb and become the American zone, unless it enforces constitutional values, strong borders and teaches the virtues of national patriotism to combat it. Eternal vigilance must be encouraged to temper the far too imminent dangers.

The new progression absorbs nations into new political zones with an all powerful centralised autocratic government at the helm. A government whose leaders ( on the present progression) will be unelected and who will champion corporate socialism as a political imperative and cultural Marxism as a uniform approved state ethos. In this, it has already sought to impose increasing  political collectivism and an increasing centralisation of power at the heart of its progression. A threat that has in turn sought to destroy and undermine the nation state and the constitutional and individual liberties it represents and protects. Our old values are being dismissed as a relic of the past. Traditionalism, nationalism and patriotism are being vilified and may one day soon be outlawed as evidence of a dangerous “fascist” mind set.  Anti fascism is becoming the new fascism. The kind of freedom we fought to preserve in Britain and America during two world wars will be misrepresented as theirs. It is being inverted and distorted as our histories and traditions are being rewritten for political purposes. Thus the objective of preserving the nation state fought for in two world wars is now being claimed as the sacrifice made to preserve peace in Europe. Peace in Europe only being guaranteed by compliance to the aim of an EU super state. The very antithesis of what soldiers fought and died to protect as they sought to oppose the fascist regime and its future idea of “Europe a nation”.

The constitutional values,  which the US presently enshrines as basic principles of what liberty and independence entails are also being belittled, devalued and reconceptualised. Running parallel to this attack on the US Constitution and its values is the EU model. A model that is being hailed by some European Socialists as the USA’s new North American future. A political organisation that  worryingly is characterised by an increasing  democratic deficit: where the Commission rules and decides without even being elected, and a European Parliament is largely toothless and cannot propose, but only rubberstamp the edicts presented before it. The EU elite  attempts to tell countries what they can or cannot do, what they can or cannot say, and even who they can or cannot trade with. We all know what that represents. It is the beginnings of a totalitarian state. It represents the true face of fascism by any other name.



Future Scenarios for Britain and the EU




Today the foreign ministers of France and Germany have revealed a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states  and morph the continent’s countries into one giant superstate. The radical proposals mean EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with these powers being transferred to Brussels. The nine-page report has apparently  “outraged” some EU leaders and member states, particularly the  Poles, who have described the plans as an “ultimatum”.

The EU’s democratic deficit is a greenlight to the construct not simply of a single political bloc, but a totalitarian state of the future. Britain can have no part in this project, nor should they seek an agreement that binds them in subservience as an “associate member” of the kind EEA  will provide.

There are a number of scenarios for BREXIT:


Leaving the SIngle Market and Customs Union  with No Deal.


Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, renegotiating access to the Single Market ideally tariff free, with no need for 4th freedom of peoples/labour.


Remain in the Single Market and just pay  fees and follow 4 freedoms obligations.


Remain in Customs Union (limitations on trade outside EU) and Single Market  (follow 4 freedoms and pay fees). This is the Remain position of Lib Dems, and others.

It is clear hard Brexit, if defined in this way, is the best deal  for Britain.

The Norway option involves Soft Brexit then and is a means of keeping Britain tied to the bloc. As they are in EFTA and follow freedom of labour/ peoples obligations. They follow EU rules in some respects then and pay fees to trade in the Single Market. Remaining in the Customs Union too prevents Britain from trading freely with the rest of the world.


A future Eastern bloc

The Visegrad nations of the Czech  Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are now calling for dramatic reforms to the EU. They are calling  for national integrity to be preserved within a union.   They have been calling for the creation of “a genuine Union of trust”.

Calling for reform of the EU and its autocratic mandate they assert:

“The genuine concerns of our citizens need to be better reflected. National parliaments have to be heard. The institutions of the European Union need to stick to their missions and mandates. Trust also needs to be fostered among member states, starting with overcoming the artificial and unnecessary dividing lines we have seen emerging in past few months.”

Foreign ministers from the Czech Republic and  Poland had already blamed  “responsibility” for last week’s referendum result on the EU institutions, and even called for the resignation of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.


Visegrad would be served better if they operated amongst themselves and separate from the EU in a new kind of national union. A kind of non Soviet led  Warsaw Pact.

Other trade blocs, not limited  by global trade, could also emerge. A   Mediterranean trade bloc of Portugal, Spain, Italy & the currently ailing Greece as an intermediate solution before other FTA’s are agreed.

Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are probably of a similar understanding culturally also and with comparable GDPs could form their own trading association. The same is probably true for other  Nordic countries.

This is the way it should have operated in the first place—the idea that you can start to include Kosovo, Albania and Romania in a future currency union for all member states, as President Juncker recently proposed, is palpable nonsense. It is born of a political ideology not the economic reality. The disparity of GDPs in a monetary union is too great without deep centralisation. But centralisation also brings about a loss of national integrity and power, something the Visegrad clearly wants to retain.

Similar peoples, similar mind sets, similar economies could form more stable alliances politically and economically.

There might well be multiple trade blocs within Europe, and a broad geo political separation of Eurasia  and Northern Europe. They wouldn’t necessarily have to be politically joined, or merged into one, as on the current model of progression.

A warning to the EU is that the Roman empire spanned the regions of both. It tried a simultaneous system of rule, but  ended up losing its eastern part when Constantinople became Istanbul.

For now EU is about control and central planning by a European oligarchy. The historical rhyming with the old Austro-Hungarian empire or the Roman empire may offer some unfortunate and perhaps once rejected alliances. These may not necessarily be preferred choices, but desperate times might call for desperate measures.

The key choices will be born out of cultural and demographic considerations and not simply the economic convenience of a single market that is in any case failing. The chief issue will be how the distinct and unique cultures of the West will be preserved in the face of a European Union that seeks a merger with Turkey in its on going expansion into Asia.

It is doubtful that the V4 would readily agree to  Turkish accession and this might well be a tipping point to trigger realignment. Hungary has already expressed defiance at immigrant quotas and these will only get worse, not better with Turkish accession, which appears to be acting as a porous buffer for an increasingly serious immigrant crisis.  The V 4 will be in the front line, whether the bloc splits or not, but they might in a new alliance forge a common immigration policy to deal with the influx. In the worse case, the V4 may even become a political and not simply a trade bloc in itself, outside of the EU. It would be unlikely however as  I cannot imagine any of them allowing the  destruction of their cultures. The current EU progression in the name of a diversity strategy is affecting this with a predominantly Muslim influx. A progression and a kind of political rule they have had enough of at any rate in their histories dished out by the old Soviet Union.

Hopefully the UK will form bilateral trade links with the Commonwealth and the US. These bilateral deals will nullify any freedom of movement  principles currently being enforced by the EU. This would require WTO membership once more and increasingly more bilateral fair trade deals around the world as well. It would be a case of putting Britain first and maintaining its sovereignty and independence in turn.

We have expressed a desire for Brexit,  and now is the time for forthrightness and valiancy. It  may be enough to save our English culture by putting a stop to the freedom of movement principle that had been foisted upon us. As the  originator of the Anglo sphere civilisation, trade links will be easily made. The necessity to achieve distance and independence even from the European single market could be met with other bilateral trade deals, particularly with France and Germany. This will protect these countries also from the fall out of a failing Euro and the disintegration of the aftermath of a collapsing EU which seems increasingly likely.

We are in the midst of an existential and political threat, but it also requires a strength of character from our politicians in soon to be arranged Brexit negotiations, which (judging by the quality of some of the political candidates we currently have in place) may be lacking. A Brexit candidate as PM would be the sensible choice and a popular one.

In this, the future is uncertain when potential leaders express such contrary ideas. Consider a popular candidate Boris Johnson, who has today spoken of the absolute necessity to end freedom of movement in any Brexit negotiations for trade with the “single market”. A paradox as membership with this requires allegiance to the four freedoms. For Johnson, immigration would be contrarily initiated with an Australian style points system.

boris johnsonWhilst a more palatable choice than the current one being enforced on us,  this is a very different voice from the man who only a few days ago reaffirmed his commitment to introduce a 12 year amnesty for illegals in the UK and who spoke of the necessity to maintain the “closest possible links” to Europe.  It is a very different voice from the man who, in 2006, spoke of the EU being a new “Holy Roman Empire” and who has written on the subject extensively.

Yesterday Mr Johnson spoke about “building bridges”. But what kind of bridges does he really want to build?

“I believe our generation has a historic chance … to build a bridge between the Islamic and the Christian worlds,” the politician  said in 2006, when he called for EU expansion into Asia.

He made the case for Turkey to be admitted to the EU in a BBC documentary, saying he could not wait for the “great moment” when the two halves of the Roman Empire “are at last reunited in an expanded European Union.” His association with The Friends for Turkey Campaign, of which he was a founding member, shows his ideological conviction in the political sphere.

In the BBC documentary he asserts:

“What are we saying if we perpetually keep Turkey out of the European Union just because it’s Muslim? First, it’s a denial of the huge achievements of men like Kemal Ataturk who created a secular Westernising country that just happens to be populated by Muslims; it sends out the worst possible signal to moderates in the Islamic world, saying that we can’t incorporate such a country into Europe. And thirdly, are we really saying about ourselves and about Europe that it must be forever conterminous with nothing but Christendom? Well, try going to Bradford and saying that.”

Placing the Islamisation of Europe aside, Mr Johnson made a historic comparison to the later Holy Roman Empire also. Modern Europe like Rome once did, faces the problem of  “how to deal with the people who yearned to come in”.

A 12 year welcome amnesty is not  the kind of solution we need in the light of increasing terrorist threats from the Muslim world. Nor is weakness in the face of an EU Commission and a German Chancellor now insisting that trading in the single market necessitates observing the four “freedom” principles of the Treaty of Rome. Principles expanded upon in the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The consequence of these freedoms have been, in many respects, self defeating and self destructive to nation state hood and the protection of personal liberties. Liberties best maintained under the rule of our own laws. Neither multiculturalism, nor parallel judicial and legal systems, can be accepted in any model for the future. An assimilation of immigrant numbers through an acceptance of national values must be the way forward.

Johnson’s 12 year amnesty remarks, along with his early EU idealism, suggests a future gaffe maker of Bidenesque proportions. Whilst Johnson privately might welcome such ideas,  to prove his liberal inclusivity and racial and religious tolerance, it is hardly suitable for the pragmatic problems now facing an increasingly densely populated Great Britain.  Catering for  increasing numbers from a constantly expanding EU, its own colonial past and an African and Asian illegal immigrant influx that only appears to be increasing, how is British infrastructure to cope?

Today’s Johnson might realise the idealism of his younger days has to be abandoned in the face of the harsh reality. But it is a realisation born from career ambitions and courting favouritism, rather than the economic and infra structure difficulties posed. It is facilitated too by his liberalism: an ethos that fails to see Islam  and its values as a future alien threat that resists assimilation with the Christian liberalism of the West. He assumes ipso fact  it can be westernised through acceptance and should be welcomed before it is.

Whatever his imperative is born of, and something of his Turkish family background plays a large part, one thing is certain, it is time to take back control of our economy and sovereignty and reaffirm British values. It is vital in order to safeguard our constitutional legacy and our future place in the world as a key player. It is vital to preserve this island’s social unity, its ancient traditions, and the principles contained in Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. Our island must remain a united democratic nation state. We must in this act for the good of the nation, as well as its people as a whole.

BREXIT: Some issues with Article 50 and a Second Referendum




Guy Verhofstadt, the pro EU federalist, has today tried to give the impression the EU will soon be reformed into a “small”, “less bureaucratised” government and that the British referendum did not represent the greater percentage (70%) of young people in Britain who largely voted  Remain. He claims they must now live with the consequences in a  future which rightly belongs to them.

To downplay the EU’s democratic deficit and to talk about reform, after so many British attempts to negotiate reform have been ignored, is a cynical and devious ploy by him. it flies in the face of their own agenda.** Particularly considering his extremely pro EU federalist stance.  EU has no intention of reforming democratically, at least in any genuine sense, and it is doubtful Verhofstadt believes it warrants it. To do so would require a reform  of all its fundamental institutions and a rewriting of the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.

In truth, the EU seeks only  a deeper union,  ceding more power to its oligarchy. “Smaller government” is here probably a euphemism for an increase in the Commission’s power and a reduction in the Parliament and Council’s already limited, overly bureaucratised powers. “Smaller” government here also rather suggests  the idea of a One State government of Europe, ruled by a self appointed, all powerful oligarchic elite.

The power of the unelected oligarchy to make EU laws, without a true democratic mandate from the people, has  been one of the intrinsic flaws of the EU project. It   lacks the necessary checks and balances of the United States Republic. It is a Soviet model that negates freedom and democratic accountability, placing centralised power in the hands of a few, with an impotent EU Parliament as a mere rubberstamp authoriser and false front. It essentially involves  remote rule by a foreign oligarchy. A cabal that  increasingly enforces laws on its member states against their own expressed wishes. The QMV process has now very much negated the value of the national veto, but also highlights further the problem of the EU’s democratic legitimacy. Clearly morally, as well as politically, such nation states should be free to govern themselves without interference.  The corruption of many of its EU ministers more generally and their questionable political and financial histories has raised further doubts  as to the merits of technocracy in any case.

Mr Verhofstadt’s disingenuous claim that the EU will reform has most likely been a cynical damage limitation exercise in the light of the fact that Brexit has triggered calls by elected politicians in  Denmark, Italy, France, and Holland to hold referenda in the near future.  As the “contagion” (as Mr Verhofstadt calls it) for self determination by nation state democracies spreads, the existential threat posed to the political project might very well be irreversible. Indeed, the EU may well be a defunct project in 10 years time; collapsing  more because of its democratic deficit,  rather than the economic one size fits all project of trying to assimilate differing GDPs in the Euro Zone.

The United Kingdom has never required union with a political bloc  in order to trade. In this, the wise words of Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address should serve as an imperative:

“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”.

The United Kingdom should look forward to trading with nations that understand the significance of these  words and practise them as an ethos with bilateral trade deals. Hopefully Jefferson’s words in this will be heeded in any future free trade agreements.

The Second Referendum Petition

In opposition to the decision reached by the majority,   a Petition has emerged with over 3.7 million signatures, calling for a Second Referendum. The petition seeks to justify itself as a call:

“upon HM Government to implement a rule that, if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60 percent based on a turnout less than 75 percent, there should be another referendum.”

It tries here to suggest the 72% turn out of the original EU referendum, which  has triggered Brexit, is somehow invalid, even though there is no such threshold.

The EU referendum had a historic all time high turn out at 72%. Furthermore, a law  cannot simply be applied retrospectively to this, deeming it invalid, just because the minority lost and happen to disagree with the majority decision. It cannot be considered legitimate based on a retrospective application of the threshold, even if it was turned into law at some point in the near future. The petition, therefore, must be deemed invalid.

The Petition originated from a Leaver, it is claimed, but has been hijacked by Remain to force a second referendum. It was written when Leave were in fact polled to lose. It cannot be taken seriously, however.

Of the currently 3.7 million supposed digital signatures it has garnered, many do not even originate from locations involved in the first referendum. Many have originated from Europe, including to date 39,000  from the Vatican City, which only has a population of 840. There are numerous other instances from far flung overseas locations such as   24,855 signatures from North Korea and  2,735 from British Antarctic Territory, which has a population of just 250. Clearly, then, the vote is being manipulated and should be viewed as inadmissible.

A second referendum could only be seriously considered if any future PM decides that Article 50 need not be implemented before a general election, and the process drags on. As a  new government is not bound by the decisions implemented by the former, theoretically the Referendum result could be overruled, but is likely only if Labour was elected, If this occurred, however, the political fallout would be immense, and very damaging to the ethics of what constitutional democracy should entail.

The referendum could be overruled in the largely pro Remain House of Commons anyway, before any general election occurs, but that is unlikely, as it would be against the majority will of the people as expressed. Generally, that would be tantamount to  an admission that politicians do not serve as representatives of the people, but serve only to meet their own personal ideas and ends as to what they deem is best. In this democracy would be weakened, and the people’s will overruled.  But that would be tantamount to political suicide, and no party would survive it. The likely scenario is a vote of support in the Commons. It is unlikely to be opposed either in the House of Lords, as that would trigger a Constitutional crisis and the call in turn for its abolition.

Brexit without Tears

Article 50 appears to be the chosen route to leave the EU, rather than simply a repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.* The latter would entail leaving the EU, the customs union and the single market entirely, reneging on commitments, and in effect repealing EU laws.  It might entail returning to a 1960s EFTA arrangement by default, before renegotiating a new UK trade deal. Article 50 involves renegotiating in a slower, more orderly fashion, as UK leaves the political bloc. The new  EEA or EFTA arrangement must be negotiated within a 2 year period. EFTA is something of a trap masquerading as a trade advantage. It means the UK would still be subject to some EU determined regulations, laws and fees  on completion in the future. The customs union itself would limit trade agreements around the world. Leaving it would be best, as well as leaving the Single Market, so that the 4th freedom of labour/peoples would not have to be met. Britain would then be able to regain full control of its borders in respect to EU citizens.

Concerning Mr Johnson, the most popular candidate to succeed after Mr Cameron’s resignation (although Michael Gove or Theresa May are better candidates) he has in fact stated, in his post resignation speech,  that Article 50 need not be implemented.

“There is no need to invoke Article 50” he states.

However, Mr Cameron only said that Article 50 need not be implemented immediately, until after a new Prime Minister has been selected.

This omission may have been due to tiredness on Johnson’s part, after a night of following the referendum result and the carnival atmosphere that ensued. However, the statement raises a feeling of foreboding as to his own intentions, let alone his ability to do his job.

Johnson  might simply mean he wants us to “take our time” in the face of fierce EU bullying, particularly by the Franco-German axis and the Commission, to implement Article 50 immediately and leave within the 2 year time period. It is the slow “steady” position of Mr Cameron. It might alternatively mean he desires a new British trade agreement outside the single market with the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. If this is his wish it is a new one, born also from a desire to improve his chances as a future Conservative Party leader leading Brexit.

As many a Commissioner and  President have made clear, Article 50 must be invoked in order to proceed. They of course wish this to happen in a short time frame, in order to lessen the chances of uncertainty in the markets, but as the markets are already recovering, it appears more to be concerned with survival and limiting the political fall out of further Frexits, Dexits, etc.that pose an existential threat to the bloc. It also appears to be a handy way of hoodwinking the British and driving them into an EEA/EFTA Norway style agreement, where they will be less troublesome, but still bound as an “associate member” by the main principles of the Four Freedoms.

Mr Johnson has called himself pro European, but against the anti democratic EU. In other comments he rather has appeared to want to remain in the EEA with a Norwegian style trade agreement, whilst being able to trade globally outside the Customs Union, something the UK currently cannot do. Our own seat on the WTO would be needed to achieve this once more.

The arrangement is not without its drawbacks. It still requires the payment of a membership fee. It has been a poor deal for Norway in any case, as it has limited their negotiating powers, whilst forcing them to still comply with some EU regulations. They have also been pressured for bail ins.  It lets Norway set its own rules concerning agriculture, fishing, justice and home affairs. It has not limited immigrant numbers however; although this  has largely been due to its voluntary adoption of Schengen, something the UK is not part of.

The British people, however, voted on the assumption immigration would be greatly reduced and that freedom of movement would be stopped, or subject to an Australian style points system. This was the prime reason offered by the Leave campaign to vote Leave. Spinning the opposite, in the face of discontent at a possible EEA arrangement, which simple justifies freedom of movement, is disingenuous. This has been the position of Daniel Hannan. The people are more than tired of being lied to. Clearly, a Norway style arrangement would not fully satisfy many of their high expectations caused by the promises some offered in order to win.

There are 4 EFTA countries with various degrees of involvement in the single market: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Liechtenstein has negotiated a curb on the freedom of labour, goods, services and capital, and with emergency provisions applied, it might be possible to negotiate no freedom of movement for the UK. On the other hand, the “Swiss” option involves a multitude of bilateral trade deals, but at least grants a reduced membership fee. Notably, Switzerland has recently come under pressure to accept increased immigrant quotas, but it has successfully  countered this demand via its own regular referenda. Britain, however, does not favour the regular use of referenda.

All is not lost. First it is worth emphasising that all countries of the world have access to the single market and can trade with it, without necessarily being in it, or restricted by the mountain of red tape the EU foists on those within its member states. According to  World Trade Organisation rules, therefore, the UK could  enjoy full right of access to the single market outside of it, regardless of our stance on immigration, just as Canada does. The need for all the complex trade regulations that EU officials feel are important would then be rendered superfluous. The mountain of bureaucracy could be wiped out at a stroke, by declaring post-Brexit Britain to be a free trade zone. This would turn the UK into a magnet for enterprise, while the EU remains trapped in economic stagnation by its political and increasingly bureaucratised tendencies.

 The idea that trade with the single market necessarily entails free movement as a requirement has been a too often proclaimed fallacy by the Eurocrats. It blurs the distinction between access and being a member of the single market. It is a stance Merkel has reiterated again only recently. It is a red herring however. For example,  Canada is about to conclude a free trade deal with the EU, yet none of its  citizens have the right to freely settle in EU territory.

In truth, the free movement of people has never been simply about economics, but more about the progression towards political integration. Formally imposed through the Maastricht Treaty,  it was a tool used for replacing nationhood with the concept of European citizenship. It was meant to strengthen the solidarity and progression towards a single super state. That is why federalists cling desperately to this political ideology, even in the face of social dislocation, terrorism, fiscal bankruptcy and extremism. It is the reason too why so many European Communists found its values compatible with the Socialist Internationale’s values after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Johnson’s Amnesty

Added to the mix, as proof of his  pro European liberalism, Johnson has called for a general amnesty for illegals residing here longer than 12 years. This might appear to be a noble and moral gesture, but would be dangerous in practise. It sends out a signal that any may come and reside illegally, knowing after the 12 year period they would be safe and not prosecuted, or might even have citizenship conferred automatically. It  suffers from the same myopia and deficiencies the free movement principle implemented under Maastricht does, inasmuch as it is the application of a universal applied across the board, irrespective of an individual’s criteria, at least in practise, if not in theory. It facilitates, encourages and even sanctions the spread of criminality across borders. It is an amnesty based on a period of ordinary residence, irrespective of its legality, rather than one based on individual suitability and a clean record.

Johnson’s amnesty is more of a PR exercise to prove his non racist, inclusive credentials. It means little in practise, as most illegals would not be able to work and or claim benefits without a national insurance number anyway, which could not be obtained without checks determining their illegal status. If they did work to survive on the black market, they would be working and residing illegally, breaking the law on two counts. Whilst this does occur in some  instances, breaking the law must be an automatic disqualification for permanent residency status, let alone citizenship, once discovered. It should not be forgiven, or even offered as a carrot for political purposes.

In respect to the majority of the electorate’s wishes, free movement of labour and people would have to be determined by an Australian style points system. This cannot be applied retrospectively to those already residing in the country illegally. It requires leaving the Single Market so that the limitations might be applied to Europeans also.

In applying this, illegals who have entered via Europe should be deported, irrespective of their credibility to meet employment criteria after 12 years, as they have already broken the law as illegal aliens originally. Leaving the EU, EEA and ECJ enables this by effectively detaching ourselves from the EU and closing the open door. This requires invoking Article 50 and the 1972 Communities Act simultaneously. They should not be protected by the rights of citizenship they do not ordinarily have whilst residing in Britain as illegals. They have already broken the law and permanent residency, let alone citizenship, should be denied on these grounds alone.

Free movement of people should not be permitted automatically based on EU citizenship either, as it currently is. Neither should the free movement of labour.  A full visa system should be non discriminatory and should require each candidate proves his or her eligibility, irrespective of citizenship.  This alone is fair and impartial. Candidates should already have a job offer and a signed contract as proof of eligibility and admission, unless they desire a holiday or temporary stay.

The  same requirement non EU citizens must satisfy, must be applied to EU citizens. There should be a  temporary residence visa for work purposes subject to contract duration. Permanent residence would require an application to emigrate. Citizenship would be accepted only after permanent residency had been granted after a period (say 5 or 7 years).  A previous criminal record or illegal status, even if that is over 12 years, should lead to automatic disqualification for a permanent residents visa, as well as automatic disqualification from attaining citizenship assessed on a case by case basis.

To summarise, the problem is whether we will implement Article 50 in an orderly fashion, or also repeal the European Communities Act 1972 to initiate a British Sovereignty Bill with emergency laws. EU and Berlin is pushing for Article 50 only, but we might find ourselves in EEA where we still pay a membership fee and must obey laws as Norway does with no real voice. They are voluntarily part of Schengen with a growing immigration problem, something we desperately need to control.

We need control of our borders to limit numbers. We need strengthened border controls. We need a special trade deal for the UK, recognising our exceptional status and contribution as EU’s greatest customer. It is not one that should inflict punitive measures as an “associate member”.

That Nigel Farage has been sidelined is saddening considering his contribution and presence for twenty years has very much shaped the debate.  There are constitutional reasons however, as he is not an elected MP. He is an MEP however and this has not prevented private advisors influencing government policy in the past.

The Leave campaign, whilst bringing UKIP popularism into mainstream acceptance (after much earlier backbiting) has largely filched UKIP’s ideas for their own political purposes. His influence and contribution should be recognised. His efforts have largely led to the referendum, the awakening of the sleeping masses,  and on completion, the independence of this country from EU rule.

As for Mr Cameron “steadying the ship” and staying until October, the downgrading by Moody’s reflects the protracted uncertainty this might bring. It might well cause him to think again.

  • The new prime minister can trigger the two-year process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without a vote in Parliament under the Royal Prerogative. However, the issue is almost certain to end up with the courts, after law firm Mishcon de Reya launched legal action on behalf of a group of anonymous clients, arguing that an Act of Parliament will be required to deploy Article 50. The withdrawal process should also involve  repealing or amending  the 1972 European Communities Act, which in any case will require debates and votes in Parliament.


  • Proof of the democratic deficit comes from their own mouths.

Claud Cheysson, former French Foreign Minister and member of the European Commission
“The Europe of Maastricht could only have been created in the absence of democracy”

Klaus Kinkel, German Foreign Minister
“Politicians should have the courage to take decisions….against the will of the people”

Raymonde Barre, French Prime Minister and Commissioner
“I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account”

M. Willy de Clerq, MEP
“EC Governments should not try to explain the Maastricht Treaty. It is unexplainable. Treaty decisions are far too removed from daily life for people to understand”

It’s time for the Leaders of the Western World to wake up!


In the wake of the Brussels bombings we have already been inundated with more of the same ineffectual responses that were the trademark of the Paris massacres. The signs of “solidarity” have prompted more self indulgence and no real pragmatic solution on how to stop the slaughter. Teddy bears, candlelit huddles, flowers, cartoon tweets of sobbing children and lightshows on landmark buildings have been the order of the day. Socialists calling for deeper unity and paradoxically more “open” borders are at the forefront of an emotional response lacking any understanding of what needs to be done.


 I discount Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, along with Viktor Orban of Hungary, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Penn, as the leading counter critics in this. Though of varying degrees of rightwing political persuasion, they are all united in their recognition of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to western civilisation. They realise something must be done that entails increased national security and an end to the Liberal idealism of open borders that their critics  advocate.  Certainly a reassessment of the Schengen policy in Europe is the next necessary step to achieve this. A policy that so far provides visa free cover and easy access for the Islamists to cause the general public harm.

Chief amongst the apologists for Islam has been Federica Mogherini. Mogherini is the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission in the Juncker Commission. Mogherini  has been at the forefront for years pushing the idea of a Europeanised Islam, or at least more Muslims in Europe because supposedly:

“Islam holds a place in our western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future.”

She continues:
“Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe, they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are.”

Whilst we can discount the nominal Muslims and those of genuinely peaceful sects (such as the Sufi and Ahmadiyya) who are themselves persecuted as not even practising “authentic Islam”,   it is Mogherini who is the “clueless” one here. Her general all inclusive stance is an odd one for an academic expert on Islam. Certainly she should differentiate between radical and non radical sects here. But she appears  incapable, due to her liberal imperative of inclusiveness to Islam more generally.An ethos characteristic of the Left.

Mogherini was once a member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation. Like other Communists her background has facilitated a smooth rise into the upper echelons of the European Union. Unsurprisingly in this too was her transformation from Communist Leftist into an influential spokesperson in the  Social Democratic party. In 2001 she became a member of the National Council of the Democrats of the Left (DS), later serving on its National Executive Board and Political Committee. In 2003 she started working at the DS’s Foreign Affairs Section, where she was given responsibility for relations with international movements and parties, later becoming the team’s coordinator. After that she was given responsibility for Foreign Affairs and International Relations on the staff of DS Party chairman Piero Fassino.

Lets analyse Mogherini’s statement as given.  Besides the fact there is no “European” demos, or “European Identity” (for we are an eclectic mix of nations, races and cultures), Liberal Progressivism (the EU’s multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity) is incompatible with the fundamentals of what Islam actually entails. For Islam requires submission to the truth of Islam and nought else. This it holds as an absolute  truth. It is one not compatible with moral relativism or Liberal Progressivism. It cares not for tolerating alternative faith systems, as Christianity does. Neither does it readily tolerate competing political ideologies that are un-Islamic, if they seek to inform it in its jurisprudence and ethics. The sharia more generally is its framework of moral and legal jurisprudence in Muslim majority countries. This teaching is in line with the edicts of the Prophet, which is deemed divine and absolute. Islam is,  therefore, rather dogmatic and in this dogmatism  antithetical to the values of a modern, Liberal Progressive democracy, irrespective of what western supporters might want it to be.

Ideally, for many believers, Islam is to be implemented politically via the sharia. Those who fail to submit are to be tolerated and no more. In the past, they have been treated very much as second class citizens. In practise,  many have been enslaved, and too often they have been persecuted and even  slaughtered for their anti Islamic beliefs. But this is not just the terrorists’ view. It is portrayed as Muhammed’s view also. It has been historically practised since his ransacking of Medina and the conquests in that region from Islam’s inception. It characterises Islam as a political and religious ideology, with a continuous history of bloody conquest and war. In this, it leads all other ideologies in terms of death events (both politically and religiously inspired) with 270 million suffering as its victims.   Its practise in Europe was most recently led by the Turks, persecuting the Greeks and Armenians 100 years ago, but it has continued into the present day with the practises of the Islamic State, which puts fundamental Islam into practise. Terrorism is but one aspect of its objective to achieve a global caliphate.

Mogherini , therefore,  ignores fundamental Islam and is speaking only of an undefined “western” Islam. She claims Islam “holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture”.

It  is to be noted in this, however, that its cultural influence on Europe has only been a secondary cause of the jihad. Its primary imperative has always been the pursuit of its political objective to implement the belief system of Islam and in turn the values of the sharia. These goals have been achieved by multiple battles and invasions. In this, Islam took at least parts of Europe by force, and the treasure of war often meant Muslims took women and enslaved them as  a part of merchant practise also. European women were even being raped and abducted up until the end of the Ottoman empire, a mere century ago. A practise ISL continues today.

Sharia law, and its implementation as it is practised in a political, theocratic Muslim state, is utterly incompatible with secular liberal democracy. It is clear, therefore, that Mogherini’s European idea of Islam is not one defined in terms of a fundamental or even mainstream perspective, but is rather a westernised idea more akin to cultural or nominal “Muslims”, many of whom are no longer full believers or practitioners. These are  indeed an increasingly vulnerable and alienated group, existing neither as followers of Islam, nor accepted as western citizens in the full sense. Other Muslims, however, appear to be radicalising themselves as a response in turn, and historically reaffirming their past with a more fundamental affirmation of Islam as a solution.

The values of Islam (even in Saudi Arabia) are inhumane and immoral. It involves the persecution of gays and the subjugation of women. Muslim women can be imprisoned themselves, if they bring charges of rape without 4 witnesses. If they venture out improperly dressed (without burqa, or at least the mandatory hijab and long coat) they can be reprimanded. Public displays of affection can result in a flogging or imprisonment, as  can infidelity. Even seemingly innocuous activities, such as writing blogs which oppose sharia law, can result in the death sentence. Brewing alcohol too can result in life threatening punishments. The “hudud” (violent sharia) that imposes these ideas is basic to many Islamic sects. Whilst punishments from country to country may vary, the notion of a specific act being a crime is remarkably consistent. This is because they are based on the edicts of the Quran as to what constitutes moral and immoral behaviour. In this, the West often claims to champion human rights, but indulges oil rich sharia states such as Saudi Arabia to a remarkable degree, even if they enforce (by Western standards) human rights abuses. This is hypocrisy of the grossest kind.

The possibility of reform, or the conversion of Islam to more liberal values, is unlikely. Moderate interpretations are usually suppressed by both Sunni and Shia traditions alike. Salafism too is staunchly and rigidly conservative. It tends to nip any grassroots modernism in the bud, before it can become popular. The Western idea of a moderate Europeanised Islam, therefore, is very much simply a longshot hope that mainstream perspectives might one day evolve into a more liberal value system.

Whilst moderation as  a pc ideal is championed by the political liberals of the West, the trend in Europe too mirrors an increasing trend towards an Islamic orthodoxy: a  conservativism veering towards increasing fundamentalism in  mainstream practise. The increasing trend of a growing number of predominantly young, middle class, second generation Muslims is to join ISL, and the tendency for even “mainstream” Muslims to wear hijab and burqa in public is growing in popularity. This was a lessening tendency for European Muslims 40 years ago, and even in places like Iran and Afghanistan in the 1970s. What then are the factors briefly for this trend in Europe?

The trend toward a reaffirmation of more orthodox views in thought and practise goes hand in hand with the failure of multiculturalism to produce social integration. It has tended to exacerbate cultural enclaves, which increasingly become isolated from what the host country’s values are supposed to be. Moreover, the tendency of liberal progressivism in Europe is to less conservative values over time. These values liberalise and represent a departure from the traditional values of the past. The progression tends to be a “do what thou wilt” ethic, in the name of tolerance,  diversity, freedom of expression and non repressiveness. But this also tends to overly liberalise.

This moral relativisms stands in contrast to the absolutism and conservativism of Islam. Multiculturalism, which liberalism champions, tends to fragment cultural identity, with an acceptance of all cultures within the social set up. This has led to a confusion of national identity. It has also led to a backlash, brought on by a failure of the western liberal value system to provide an edifying and uniform canon of values, as it seeks to champion  tolerance and diversity above all else. Furthermore, it has been exacerbated by the effects of the EU,  which has failed to provide sufficient integration of Muslims into the deteriorating and unstable national set up. EU largely tends to negate national identity as it evolves in political power. Its concern is political, rather than cultural, but it exerts a detrimental effect upon national cultures nevertheless, as it strives for a supranational identity. 

Unless western nations reaffirm their values strongly, they will be required to act forcefully in the future, having to deport the extremists and resist proactively in ways that might trigger civil and social unrest.  They are facing a war with the values of sharia, as the Muslim demographic grows. They might, in the future,  be obliged to act in very illiberal ways: such as destroying the no go zones which harbour extremists by force. If this is enacted later, as the Muslim populace grows, it would be in the face of much resistance from “Progressive” political groups. This is why a shift in educational policy must occur now. Unless assimilation to a clear set of British values occurs soon, based on the current demographic progression, the increasing political and cultural Islamisation of Europe is inevitable. This increases the likelihood of a growing fundamentalist presence and increases the likelihood of social conflict and civil war.

A cultural reaffirmation of national values is  required to induce a change in the Muslim community that is veering toward more orthodox values. A trend amongst second generation Muslims has been to embrace more fundamentalism in an attempt to offset the lack of it in the national set up, and to bolster their own cultural identity in a culturally alien environment. Increased vetting of Muslims to identify extremists in the immediate term is an inevitable reaction. But this rather exacerbates the likelihood of civil strife in turn. A catch 22 situation without educational reforms. More generally, Muslims would deem themselves to be victims, because they are Muslims. This victimhood mentality in turn tends to exacerbate an increasingly orthodox tendency itself, fuelled by a growing number of extremists seeking to reaffirm Islam’s historic legacy in response. It prompts a tendency to resist any call for conformity to western values. Western values being viewed as confused and corrupt in any case, due to the multicultural fragmentation it has embraced, along with its liberal, no holds barred ethos. A tendency to extremism will also be largely stoked by a small minority appealing for stronger, more virtuous values, left in the wake of the western cultural and political vacuum. Unless integration and a clear definition of national values occurs, increasing fundamentalism, social unrest and bloodshed will occur.

Placing to one side the current mass influx of largely Muslim immigrants into Europe, the horrible truth  is that the new generation of European Muslims have  not become more Europeanised. Indeed, shorn of a truly Muslim identity, and confused as to what a European identity entails, they have looked to the past, and sought refuge in the values of a more fundamental Islam. One perceived as providing them with a value system they can believe in, and deemed an antidote to the corruption and immorality of the West they too evidently perceive around them.

The Islamic fundamentalists who wish to inflict harm have found happy bedfellows with many confused about what it means to be European today. The majority see themselves as Muslims first and EU-ropean citizens second. The greater percentage of them want some kind of sharia implemented in Europe. Many believe acts of terrorism can be condoned, defended or excused. They speak of a former Muslim “golden age” and a glorious past. They look to an increasingly traditional, sharia inspired idea of what constitutes fair or effective punishment. This attitude is only increasing, as a weak attitude grows towards law and order in the West, fuelled by the increasingly trendy liberal idea of the need for “tolerance” of minorities by western politicians. Commensurately, in the Muslim community, those who do provide a critical voice, are too often silenced, or do so with a slanted perspective, and are far too willing to excuse the violence to further Islam’s cause. This only strengthens sharia’s advantage and its growing popularity.

Islamic terrorism, which is spreading across Europe,  must be rooted out, and its practitioners nullified as an immediate threat. This requires the strengthening of borders, more security, the end of Schengen and a more stringent vetting of immigrants with an Islamic background.

Life imprisonment of terrorists, rather than deportation,  is another solution, but requires the taxpayer foots the cost. It at least has the benefit of knowing where they are. Others might baulk at the cost and call for capital punishment to be re-imposed. Whether execution or life imprisonment is favoured, either must be steadfastly imposed to safeguard a more peaceful and civilised Europe. Both have advantages. Restoring capital punishment shows a strong attitude that might satisfy the Islamic idea of what just punishment should entail along retributive lines. The penology largely used by the sharia. But it might also show it as no more than a hypocrisy that unfairly targets Muslims, even if they are terrorists. Reform tends to send out the message we are humane, but this could be seen as a weak response in the light of the terrorists appalling atrocities.  Recividism has proven educational programmes in Saudi Arabia, where many re-embraced terrorism, to be ineffective.  

The tendency in European societies is to view capital punishment as inhumane. Incarceration and reform, rather than a retributive penology  has been favoured, but  merely provided a breeding ground in prisons for radical Islam to be propagated. This radicalisation must be stopped. If reform is to be implemented, rather than capital punishment restored, we must send out the message that the values and ideology of Islamic terrorism will not be tolerated and a prison sentence must entail strong educational programmes not merely incarceration with other radicals to justify their message.  A strong approach in this, will not only effectively deal with the terrorists, it will also satisfy those who find something attractive in the conservativism of nationalism in turn.

To date, many extremists have found themselves shot during the course of their attempts to kill, or simply committed suicide while taking others with them. The issue arises only for the survivors.  If  a humanitarian emphasis in respect to what constitutes justice and fairness is followed to show we value justice in a humane penology, it needs to be more effectively enforced. If recidivism occurs, as it has in Saudi Arabia after educational programmes failed we must not shirk the responsibilities of capital punishment. Recidivism for survivors must entail the ultimate punishment.

Mainstream perspectives in Islam must also play their part. They must satisfactorily prove their credentials as a genuinely peaceful religion, or at least lead the way, and be willing to actively engage in a western reform programme that embraces liberal democracy. A programme of reform that demonstrates integration and compliance to our own political and moral ideals.  This cannot simply be taken for granted, as Mogherini does, on the assumption that Islam is already European and fits readymade into some unified and wholly assimilated Europe. 

Any unprepared to demonstrate their allegiance must be viewed with suspicion and considered a genuine threat to western civilisation. English speaking Imams with proven allegiance to British values, or some demonstrable allegiance to the nation will be required. This also requires the immediate deportation of hate preachers lessening the educational programmes, or at least the imprisonment of any that propagate fundamentalist perspectives on home soil. Any who champion terrorist perspectives of sharia, or a view of it being superior to western democratic values, are potential subversives. A shift in attitude via education programmes will not be easy in any case, considering sharia (in various forms) represents, for many Muslims, an integral part of their belief system.

Policies to encourage integration are wrought with difficulties, many of which have been extensively analysed elsewhere. Policies are open to the charge of intolerance by many so called “moderates”, who claim they are being persecuted as law abiding citizens, simply for being Muslims. But deportation, or the incarceration of fundamentalists is the only humane answer to deal with a growing threat within mainstream Islam itself. In any case, the extremists must be viewed as a potential threat to national security. Tolerance or problems to deport have been too often curtailed by the championing of ECJ and ECHR claims for human rights, and these have limited effective action. A clean Brexit should address at least some of these issues.

The cultural transformation of Europe is already well advanced, and also poses intractable future problems,. These cannot be easily solved. Some form of voluntary deportation might be required for those unwilling to accept the dangers and injustices of sharia in the future. At current level this issue affects the greater number of Muslims in Europe who believe sharia should replace liberal democracy. It can be morally justified with the claim that orthodox Muslims are being alienated and denied the full benefits that the practise of their religion in a fully Islamic sharia state can provide.  If this is the humane choice, it is one that cannot be enforced without provoking a liberal sense of “injustice” that invokes the spectre of the Holocaust and the inhumanity of enforced deportation. This will undoubtedly be voiced, even if it is an erroneous comparison with the Jews and the tribulations they suffered. Many lives might be lost if we do not act in the interim.

Whatever the sense of injustice, Progressives will cite equality and diversity, and try to taint Islam’s critics as xenophobes  that show no compassion or humanity. Undoubtedly this cry will only grow stronger, but it a misjudged voice and one that oversees its own demise. For peace, equality, harmony diversity, tolerance, freedom and democracy cannot be maintained through the incremental deconstruction of the western value system and the facilitation, or toleration, of the authoritarian and inhumane sharia. Whilst both espouse rule under the law,  democratic law cannot tolerate sharia in the West if voices for its increasing inclusion grow. Neither can this be maintained through appeasing Islamic fundamentalism in the name of a recognition of their right to practise their own belief system parallel to our own. Submission of the non believers is the prime Islamic imperative here. Acquiescence and tolerance of such beliefs are antithetical to our own. They represent a genuine threat to western civilisation’s  continuing endurance.

On the present trajectory, the problems will only increase with an increasing Muslim demographic. The current demographic projections for a Muslim majority Europe in 70 years time must be reversed or counter balanced with comparable European numbers.  The possibility of this on current numbers is unlikely. At the minimum, if peace is to be preserved and western civilisation saved, the slanted values championing minorities fast becoming the majority and lauded by the Liberal Left, are a luxury we cannot indulge in, let alone afford.


Meanwhile, amidst the teddy bears, flowers, wailing LGBT semi naked tree hugging activists and weeping politicians crying “Islam is a religion of Peace”, the fundamentalists are being given refuge by the self-professed “moderates” planning their next campaign. The stark truth in this, however, is that Islam in its fundamentalist interpretation and even its mainstream manifestations, is not a religion of peace. Increasingly its mainstream manifestation seeks as a minimum the implementation of an intolerant and authoritarian jurisprudence. Its most fundamental perspective calls for the end of the western value system and an Islamic  supremacism to be imposed in turn.

David Cameron’s blind faith in Islam

Some Islamic values stand in stark contrast to the values of the West. It is a contradiction David Cameron fails to appreciate or understand in his own championing of the sharia in British society. His claim that Turkey is a fine example of a democratic Islamic state, that should be fast tracked into the EU, displays more naïve idealism too. His naivety is also apparent in his call for continued multiculturalism and the strengthening of the Islamic influence, whilst he contrarily claims the continually dwindling English Christian population,  will yet ensure that Britain will continue to remain a Christian country”.  

His idealism blinds him to the reality. Based on current projection Muslims will be in the majority in 70 years. Exacerbated by an increase in those of atheistic leanings, he fails to explain how exactly this “Christian country” will be tolerated by this increasing demographic as it fast approaches the tipping point in certain locales. Such a demographic will largely wish to follow the absolutism of Islam, unless westernisation occurs. The call for sharia zones is already growing. Nor does he bother to explain how multiculturalism, moral relativism, tolerance and diversity can survive, given the tendency to absolutism in Islam. On a wing and a prayer it would seem.

Already Christianity is dying in Britain, chiefly due to the increasingly Muslim presence, but a trend exacerbated also by the sustained influence of cultural Marxism over a half century and an escalating faith in the supremacy of empirical science as the preeminent philosophical paradigm. A trend that has  grown most notably from the beginning of the 1960s. Admittedly too, this tendency is exacerbated by a desire for sensationalism and materialism as desirable values, rather than the spirituality of “self denial” in the modern age. The beliefs of the orthodox Christian are increasingly viewed by the contemporary western mind as a Middle Ages relic of the past. The same, however, is certainly not true of Islam. Indeed, the opposite is the case, as it appears to be undergoing a rebirth and an affirmation of its orthodox, more fundamental values.

 How exactly, then, are  “British values” in Cameron’s so called “Christian country” supposed to square with the absolute values of Islam? Islam increasingly requires submission first and foremost and not tolerance. It preaches exclusivity, not inclusivity  It propagates absolutism, not moral relativism. It promotes authoritarian  theocracy, not liberal democracy. Furthermore, Islam doesn’t believe Jesus was God, the living Messiah, who  died on the cross and who was born again to redeem our sins. For a dwindling Christian population in Europe, forced to accept an increasingly Muslim population, the writing of Christianity’s demise is clearly on the wall.

It is clear the so called “Christian country” of Britain will (in the next 70 years) undergo a radical transformation, not only in its demographic, but also in its culture. The pressure to change its political system too will only increase, as the call for more sharia compliant laws becomes the majority view. It is one that will be unable to satisfactorily align the values of the sharia, which many Muslims (some 72%) increasingly want imposed, with the liberal, democratic, Christian values Mr Cameron claims Britain upholds. All this can yet be avoided, but it requires a massive re-evaluation, and in some sense a restoration of the traditional values of our past.

The reality of the present, however, does not square with Mr Cameron’s contradictory claim that:

“…it is mainstream Britain that needs to  integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way round ..”

Mr Cameron wants more worshippers of Islam in key positions to control the country. This in turn demonstrates tolerance and diversity as the virtues of a modern democratic state. But Islam isn’t about tolerance and diversity, moral relativism or multiculturalism: it is about Islam and submitting to its absolute value system. Other faiths or political ideologies ultimately must submit to this, for they are incomplete, unfulfilled perspectives, in contrast to the divine truth of Islam, which is considered by its believers to be the final message  of the Prophet, and which through the act of jihad will eventually facilitate the prophesised return of the Mahdi.

The consequence of Mr  Cameron’s approach squares with Mogherini’s. It is fundamentally misconceived.  He interprets Islam with a Christian perspective as a “religion of peace”, and in doing so largely misunderstands its contrary ethos and values. He acts as a political pragmatist, espousing equality for Muslims, but too often betrays himself as  simply a liberal appeaser hampered by political correctness. In this, he largely appears blind to the dangers of even the mainstream perspectives. He  unwittingly puts national security under threat also, by assuming a benign Muslim majority, when many increasingly support sharia in some form. The incremental imposition of sharia being an increasing and dangerous tendency.

Mr Cameron naively champions the right for those who hold an anti democratic politico religious perspective to be placed into positions of power. The possibility that many Muslims more broadly hold an ethos to further an Islamic theocratic state, opposed to the democratic rights and freedoms we in modern Britain too often take for granted, appears largely to have escaped him. He views true Islamic believers generally only as morally good and politically sound, without distinguishing the perspectives, contradictions and dangers. More broadly, he views religious practitioners unfailingly as moderates, without appreciating that Islam contains both religious and political elements, some of which are highly dangerous, and often cannot be separated. He views Islam too much through the lens of Christianity. He sees it as  just another faith, but in doing so largely ignores its intrinsically radical political elements.

 Even the so called moderate activists of  Islam cannot always unfailingly be trusted.  Whereas many of the genuine moderates are passive and quiet, others use the claim to moderation as a façade to further extremism.   Many of the self claimed “moderates” with a public profile prone to activism are proven liars, often with a radical background, or some past association with fundamentalism. They appear to have no problem practising taquiyya or “lying for the cause” in any case, in order to further  more extreme concerns. Political power too affords a means to further a pro Islamic agenda, not just politically but culturally. But this more generally requires the acceptance that the West is a corrupting and immoral enemy, which needs to be abolished, or subsumed under the  power of a new political and religious order. 

 Mr Cameron too often fails to realise Islam requires submission. He has called for more interfaith conferences to promote a better understanding and acceptance of its merits in contemporary Britain.  He therefore assumes like most liberals that the West needs to adjust and this acceptance can lead to a harmony of disparate faiths and apparently clashing cultures. In this, however, he again underestimates the dangers: for even  an interfaith conference with Christians (in an attempt to promote peace and community cohesion) could be viewed, at least by some of its more fervent believers,  as only a temporary concession (hudna) to further Islam’s ultimate victory. This victory is the concern of the greater  jihad, but it is one that has multiple elements that pose a threat. In all of this, infiltrated extremists posing as moderates are not easily discerned.

Apart from the religious ethos, a more general argument signifies the imperative of Islam as a political struggle. Jihad can be characterised not just as a spiritual, or moral struggle, but a political and military struggle. In this, then, there is either the House of Islam or the House of War: a basic division. Any who are not for Islam are against it. They are, therefore the enemy, and war can be justified  (by any means) in the interests of furthering the faith. Any “hudna”,  or treaty of cooperation then, is a temporary alliance to further the ultimate aim of victory. Discussion and concession with others is accepted short term, but  only if it advantages Islam in the long term. Believers may lie and claim moderation, but only if it advantages them. They will  deny their true goals if it advantages them. This is why too few Muslims complain even when terrorist acts occur (in spite of such acts seemingly sullying their faith and reputation) : it is the House of War in action, and such acts further the long term struggle, and represent one more step along the path to the final victory. If you are not part of Islam, then, war can basically be  justified. Indeed, it is an intrinsic characteristic of what Islam requires and expects as a political and religious struggle.

 Mr Cameron must surely know Islam requires the conversion of believers. Refusal to submit can only lead to enslavement, tyranny or death if the infiltrated extremists hold sway. In this sharia cannot be allowed a foothold. Even at best, the political implementation of the sharia via a theocratic state is generally viewed as the true moral course of action for how state government should be practised,. But this perspective is utterly opposed to western democracy and is intolerant of liberal perspectives. Too often in this, Mr Cameron’s liberal idealism is blinding him to the reality and truth of what Islam, even in its mainstream manifestation, truly is. He needs to read the Qur’an and Hadith and other texts to fully acquaint himself with the truth, before speaking as an Islamic spokesman. His idealism does not square with the reality which is Islam.

Speaking of the virtues of interfaith conference is a nice idea Mr Cameron, but it is  one that often overlooks the essential political motivations that are wedded to what Islam is. It  favours emphasising the religious, but in doing so ignores the political. By doing so it decontextualizes Islam and misconstrues the  religious imperative in turn. 

The religious imperative cannot be divorced from the political in Islam. Neither can the element of struggle that characterises both. The ethos of war characterises the religion as a whole,  but distinguishes its moral and philosophical imperative  as distinct from the basic tenets of the Christian faith, which is informed by pacifism. It is unwise, therefore, to view Islam through a Christian perspective, or view it as propagating similar values. Even on theological points it is radically different. For Islam believes Jesus was not the Messiah. He was not God, but a mortal prophet and one of many. In contrast, Muhammad, a man that slaughtered and beheaded hundreds, who had many wives and practised sex with many young girls, is considered more perfect than Jesus: a peace loving ascetic, who taught primarily that one should practise the law of Love in spiritual and moral, but not necessarily physical terms. Whilst Jesus spoke of pacifism, and his kingdom as not being of this Earth, Muhammed sought to encourage the slaying of the non believer, until all peoples in all territories on the Earth were under Islamic subjugation. 

 Too often some Muslims with less sincere aims claim that Christianity and Islam are essentially brothers in the cause of worshipping God. They do this to reinforce the idea that Islam denotes a religion of peace as Christianity does. Clearly, however,  Islam is incompatible with the basic spiritual and moral ethos of Christianity. Its war imperative is certainly incompatible with modern day perspectives. But even on basic theological points it is incompatible. It believes, for example, that Jesus did not die on the cross, was less than the perfect man Muhammed, and was replaced by a similar imposter during the crucifixion, in some kind of insincere Christian hoax.

For Christians to accept Muslims into churches to conduct Islamic rituals is in effect destroying their own faith system. It is Islamising the Church and subverting and weakening its own beliefs amongst its practitioners in the name of a misconceived inter-faith piety, tolerance and liberalism. It is in fact welcoming a subverter within its midst. As such it is a religion in decline and one that has hastened that decline by adopting the collectivist values not so much of “Chrislam”, but Liberal Progressivism. Considering this, it is of little wonder that a large percentage of today’s clergy within the Catholic Church and Church of England, claiming to encourage the virtues of “Chrislam”, or Christian liberalism, sermonise in increasingly empty churches.

Mr Cameron is naive, but even Prime Minister Cameron’s naivety pales into comparison to Mr Justin Trudeau’s, who has himself been on record as proving he supports the virtues of Islam to such an extent he has attended fundamental Salafist (Wahabbi) mosques.

Trudeau is on record as saying we must not simply blame terrorists. This would make them feel “excluded” (or alienated) and this in turn would only make things worse. It appears terrorist attacks happen because of “society’s ills”. We must not rush to judgement, therefore, or seek to blame the terrorists, or Islam more generally, but chiefly we must look to ourselves as the cause of the problem. Lets not “point the finger”, because terrorists are “human” too, and we mustn’t rush to judgement, less we make them feel worse and provoke more dissent!

In this, his appeasement is as shocking as his naivety. He speaks in meaningless soundbites, as Obama once did of “hope for the future” and the importance of having the “faith that we can succeed”. But what does this actually mean and entail? It appears to be an apologia, more concerned with excusing any who seek to impose an alien value system, either by stealth or by force, and to silence any who raise an objection to increasingly Islamic immigration. His platitudes mean little also in terms of actually addressing the real threats posed to Canadian national security, through an increasingly open door policy of poorly vetted Muslim immigration.

His views can be summed up thus:

*We mustn’t blame Islam generally nor define terrorists who do bad things to us as “Islamic”. If we used that term we might end up blaming innocent Muslims. We mustn’t “marginalise” Islamic terrorists specifically either, because “pointing the finger” just makes them feel “excluded” and that really only makes things worse!

His view then can be summed up as an “If we are nice to them they will be nicer to us” line of reasoning. This is the same kind of ethic as Obama’s. We must do this in order not to cultivate a “culture of mistrust”. The justification, however, appears to be a catch all appeasement for Islam. It is excused too with the liberal ethic that we are all part of the common swathe because we are all “human”. Whilst it is certainly the case that not all Muslims in this are potential terrorists Trudeau’s attitude is far too liberal. It tends to give any who call themselves Muslims too much of a free pass. He fails to consider conflicting values sufficiently. Monsters who murder and behead as a politico religious cause and who loathe the values of western civilisation are generally not people one can ever be reasonable with, let alone be tolerant towards, even if they identify as practitioners of the religion of peace. If we appealed simply to tolerance because they are human and our common sense of humanity, criminals and murderers on this line of reasoning would also always be given an unqualified pardon.  

Trudeau is typical of the US and EU politically correct liberalism that has affected the political class generally.”Fear and mistrust”? You bet people are scared and don’t trust politician’s who wholeheartedly accept an ideology and a faith that in some of its sects advocates the general principles of war, death and murder as justifiable religious and political imperatives. Whilst this is manifested in Islam’s fundamentalism, it yet finds its inspiration and justification throughout the violent edicts of its scriptural canon. In any case, fundamentalism is gaining a more widespread acceptance generally amongst mainstream Muslims today. This implies a dark future for the West, unless it begins to act to remedy this increasingly popular progression through an increasingly necessary raft of reformative measures. These must address reform in both political and educational terms to align Islam more generally with the values of liberal democracy. It is indeed time for the Liberal political class to wake up!



The Telegraph bias against Trump reveals its Liberal perspective

donald-trump_2015-09-24“Donald Trump, who has never held elected office, who has claimed that he will build a wall along a 2,000-mile national border, and who urges American military forces to commit war crimes, seems to be motoring to the candidacy.”

In this absurd article, Janet Daley shows her true colours and they are not those of an American patriot, nor the pro Republican she claims to be. What justification is there for Daley to call Trump, (an American patriot and billionaire clearly concerned with national security)  an  “infantile narcissist”?

Of course we cannot know for certain if Donald Trump is a Republican in name only (RINO),  or  if he is about to perform the biggest U turn in history (should he become President) in respect to illegal immigration. It is clear, however, that he is more constitutionally orientated than most would be Presidential candidates of the past.

Yet Janet Daley goes further and calls him a “a foul-mouthed know-nothing trying to bully and bluster his way to national ascendancy.” Thus, she tries to make out he is some kind of tin pot dictator in the making. Others might call it simply running for office Mrs Daley, as is his right. Okay, he bawls a bit, but he is on the campaign trail. He makes the argument and doesn’t spin.

In Trump’s concern to reaffirm what made America great, Daley also appears confused. She appears to have an issue with this candidate wanting to follow the Constitution and in his emphasising the importance of keeping a nation safe and integral in its borders. Clearly she has forgetten what the Constitution says about the responsibility of the federal government and national defence.

National defence is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defence—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defence of the nation as it was then understood.

The Constitution requires the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the:

“United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”

In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the nation’s defence, in respect to one or all of its states.

The great irony of our time is that the bigger federal governments become, the less well they perform this prime function of  national defence. Today America is in great danger from illegal invasion. This is the greatest threat since  Communism threatened during the Cold War. Indeed the mass  illegal invaders are very much a cause of a new wave Socialist attack strategy and will therefore only increase. All this has been exacerbated by the Progressive Liberalism that has permeated the values of federal government.

Trump’s concern for national security is more Constitutional. It is a call like Jefferson’s,  or Washington’s in his Farewell Address. It is one that urges Americans avoid “foreign entanglements” and costly wars. In this, he might not be as much a constitutional purist as Dr Ron Paul, or have the charisma, or self effacing charm of Ronald Reagan, but he does at least display a concern to reaffirm at least some constitutionally orientated values, unlike so many Presidents who have actually flouted this concern in the 20th and 21st centuries.

“Trump openly presents himself as an isolationist who was opposed to the foreign interventions of the Bush doctrine, and who believes that the greatness of America is all about the folks at home.”

Even Daley admits it, but is blind to its value. This virtue is what made America exceptional during a time of Imperial empire building by other nations, such as Britain and France. It enabled it to build itself into an economic powerhouse, and by consequence of this a  world super power.

As an Englishman myself, to point this out to an American like Daley is painfully embarrassing, but clearly Trump is fostering a concern  to try and keep America great by “minding its own business” and strengthening national defence, whilst simultaneously avoiding “foreign entanglements”. In this he is reaffirming American Constitutionalism, and isn’t denying the virtues of fair trade and commerce. Is this supposed to be subversive and dangerous?

For Daley, it is little wonder she left for more left wing friendly shores, but this is a  problem for us in Britain. It is surprising she isn’t bawling about how we need to open the borders of the UK to enrich our society with more illegals, Islamists and terrorists. It is a wonder she isn’t calling for security fences in France to be torn down and any that oppose this  named and shamed as “Nazis” or “Fascists” working against liberty.

Which side of the fence exactly is she sitting on? She appears more in sympathy with those Black Lives Matter Marxists and Anonymous activists who were at the Trump rally recently, rather than any  candidate that professes right wing traditional Conservative values.

She certainly once spoke as a fan of multiculturalism and increased immigration, describing it mostly  as a benefit. But of late she has moderated that tone, which rang so clearly only a few short years ago, along with her overwhelmingly positive pro EU  message. Of course people’s opinions change, but what are we to make of her statement that:

“…after the electoral debacle that a Trump candidacy will bring, the Republicans will have to emulate the Democratic party’s system in which the grown‑up party leadership has much more control over the nomination through a system of super-delegates (congressmen, senators, party elders and governors) who are not tied by primary votes. It will become appallingly clear that the party must settle its internecine difficulties and get a grip. “

The American people have had a bellyful of Executive Orders and Presidents acting like juvenile gods in order to “get things done”. They invariably trash the Constitution along the way. But this says a lot about the supposedly pro Republican Daley, whose Socialist sympathies and preference for technocratic, non representative government, via a strengthening of Federal rule, is barely disguised in this article. It shows too how far the mantle of Socialism has been incorporated into the wider spectrum of US party politics.

“The big, more interesting thing sometimes comes under the inadequate heading of “political correctness” but is actually far greater than any quibbles about inappropriate words. There was a time within living memory when national pride and patriotism were the stuff of everyday life in the US. Now, while American school pupils may still pledge allegiance to the flag, the innocent (or naive, depending on your point of view) love of country is no longer instilled in the children of every generation as it once was. This might not have been a bad thing– particularly from a jaundiced European perspective – had it not involved a downgrading of the invaluable education in the democratic process and institutions that went with it. “

In this packed paragraph a number of things need to be pointed out. First, Political Correctness is precisely what the problem is. Political Correctness, or Cultural Marxism, is the very reason why America today is in crisis. It is  the reason why patriotism and the American way of life is being incrementally destroyed. It is the very reason why the country is becoming increasingly divided to the point of anarchy, chaos and social revolution.

Political Correctness is not just about “inappropriate words” Mrs Daley, as you must surely know as a “former” West Coast Liberal.   It is about a revolutionary strategy to deconstruct the very fabric of American society. It entails a “slow march through the institutions”  in order to implement a radical transformation or “change” in  American society until it is ready for a socialist revolution.

Cultural Marxists such as Willi Munzenberg wanted to make America “so corrupt it would stink”. Key to this was the need to induce cultural pessimism and shame as to America’s real achievements and true history. It required historical revisionism and a concern to paint the white man as the “privileged” “bourgeois” authoritarian figure: a target as persecutor and bogeyman.

An attack on the traditional family structure was also paramount in this. As was dumbing down the education system. It has been achieved via the Socialist inspired  ideas of John Dewey and the common core experiment has been integral in propagating those ideas and values in the name of a “democratic” ideal. A non Constitutional value, as the Founders and Framer’s were wholly fearful of democracy and “the rule of the mob”. They thus championed a Republic.

Three anti Constitutional measures Common Core is throwing up in front of school children in this respect are:

1. Dumbing down of all levels of America’s public school system with  a uniform one size fits all non Constitutional programme.

2.  Taking away the rights of states to individually design, administer, and control their own schools, whilst empowering a Federally approved socialist government “General Line” ethos. It requires as Melissa Harris Perry has said that children become the property not just of their parents, but of the nation state.

3. Setting up a 400 point “Data Mining” paradigm that will encode for the federal government a tracking system for each child.  Such data will include parental income, babysitters, bus stops, and even political affiliations of Democrat or Republican/family voting patterns. The result is clearly a strengthening of the Federal government’s grip on power. It is but one more step towards assembling a totalitarian government.

We know Daley is now supposed to be a Republican/ Conservative type, but here she is clearly an advocate of more government control and less localism. She clearly favours the values of the collectivised, centralised, top heavy, government centric socialist perspective.  Less of a Constitutionally orientated education at the local level and more uniform Federal Government state education influencing children’s minds. These are the key Socialist centred themes pervading her article.

Daley likes to give the impression of being a right wing Conservative. At least she wants us to believe she is, like so many working for the Telegraph. But if she finds Trump foreboding, who then does she advocate? We can discount Rubio as a non starter. We are left then only with Ted Cruz. A non native born Canadian “American”. Hardly a constitutionally appropriate candidate, let alone an appropriate Republican candidate,   as his parents have a dodgy Cuban Communist past. Already his credibility to run for office, like the present President before him, is one steeped in controversy and mystery.

Cruz father at least has a controversial, most probably Communist background. Here he is posing with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Cruz himself is a Corporate Socialist claiming to be a Constitutionalist, but he appears to be working to further the globalist agenda. His wife (a Goldman Sachs employee) was CFR and pro TTIP.

TTIP and TPP will destroy the US and its economy. It advocates no borders trans globalism politically and economically.

Along with NAFTA it will lead to the end of US independence and the forming of a North American Union, just as the EU was once  formed out of a Common Market trade agreement.

Ted Cruz cannot be trusted. Even his name is fake, like Barry Sotero. Why not call yourself Rafael Ted? After all that’s your real name.


As for Mr Trump, his anti TTIP concerns have been consistent. However his funding of Hillary Clinton in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007 along with his funding of Clinton foundations with $100 000  and his formerly Democratic Party support makes him an odd Conservative. His tendency to seek the advice of the NWO  advocate Henry Kissinger recently sets off an alarm bell. His initial support of transgender restrooms (amended the next day) is not a stance that reassures one entirely of his genuine conservative Christian ethos, but his concern to maintain national borders and clamp down on illegal immigration does.

Two Muslim “moderates” who are not what they claim to be: Mohammed Ansar


-The charlatan  Mr Mo Ansar


Mo Ansar has been a regular guest speaker on  the BBC and a large variety of world wide  news media sites in recent years. He portrays himself as one of the supposedly moderate voices of Islam in Britain and seeks to provide informed debate in the name of a progressive, left wing perspective. Ansar himself claims he is a “left-wing commentator and social libertarian”, whilst contrarily on occasion he has claimed to hold very “conservative” views. He is on  the record as supporting democracy and the democratic process and claims not to be an advocate for the spread of sharia law. In this he appears to support pluralism in religion, and secularism in respect to politics and jurisprudence. He claims he seeks the separation of church and state.

A sample of his “moderate” and lately more Westernised style, in tone and garb, is on display in a recently televised RT debate against the effervescent and principled defender of Conservative British values Katie Hopkins.

Here Ansar makes the usual case for acceptance of any number of refugees into the country, without actually contemplating a limit on numbers. In this, he thinks nothing of the practical problems. He simply implies unending immigration  in the name of tolerance, humanitarianism and the benefits of diversity. He tends to make the usual Left wing case that immigrants are unquestionably of economic benefit and culturally enriching.   He fails in this to fully consider the practical problems  of successfully housing, feeding or employing the multitudes that currently wait impatiently  at the border, let alone the millions more that soon will be legally entitled to come as EU citizens.

Ansar justifies and overlooks a great deal in the name of philanthropy. His explicit claim is that any rejection of the undefined number of illegal immigrants he champions is morally wrong.  Indeed it is  “xenophobic”,  the “peddling of hate and hysteria” and “prejudice” to suggest any control or limit on the influx should even be countenanced. His default position is all immigrants are of benefit.

In this, he fails to consider the  strain on infra structure and the economic and social impact on the country  as a whole. Any that oppose  this with a more pragmatic, sensible and particularly “conservative” approach are immediately branded as “far right” and in this (by association) hate mongers and extremists. By association, then, they are “racists” and “Islamophobes”, whose stance is evaluated, not because of the practical problems that are posed, but purely because they speak from a perspective of prejudice and fear. He thereby seeks to suggest that such fears and prejudices are irrational, unlike his own arguments,  even if they are in some cases based on very reasonable justifications themselves.

Katie Hopkins’ creditable response is that she is not a “far right” extremist, but a “hard working British tax payer”, who does not want to fund immigrants “who show no gratitude whatsoever.”*

By way of supporting her view,  contra Ansar, there is little evidence to suppose that the majority of the largely illegal immigrants from a wide variety of countries, and not just Syria,  are either well educated, or of professional standing. It is unlikely, therefore, that the majority will contribute or enrich Britain with any lasting contribution, irrespective of their willingness and desire for a “better life”. A life on state benefits appears to be the more likely scenario. The British taxpayers, therefore, have little reason to support mass immigration, especially when it will largely have a negative impact and drain on the quality of their own lives, hopes and future ambitions.

Even if the case could be made that a small minority of the illegal influx are professionally trained, or qualified in a manner that means they could contribute something that might “enrich” Britain economically, there is little justification for degrading the work prospects for those who have been born, educated and bred in this country, and have an even greater claim on securing work and vouchsafing a brighter future for themselves and their families.

In this, it is the primary duty of the government  to safeguard the welfare of its citizens. Whilst this  need not necessitate that the state owes each citizen a living, it is the primary moral duty of the government at least not to imperil the fortunes and security of its own citizens by acting recklessly to prevent employment opportunities.  A basic quality of life must be maintained and not sacrificed. Our  enviable record of philanthropy through overseas funding in the past and present and our proud legacy of providing a safe harbour for genuine refugees speaks for itself. In this, however, Britain should not be imperilled, nor its present populace be endangered. For a sinking ship of state cannot successfully save one drowning man, let alone uncalculated millions. In this, then, at least Hopkins is correct that:

“it is important that we should send financial aid to Syria in order to keep people in location, we look after them in location and they can return to the country they love.”

Ansar’s  promotion of unending immigration  in the name of a humanitarian and ill conceived woolly idealism is courting disaster. It signifies the cultural, racial and national demise of the largely white indigenous British.  Indeed, it might even be promoting social and civil conflict and a future revolution. It is certainly impairing British citizens’ own prospects. Ansar appears unaware, or is strangely unconcerned about all this however. One wonders whether he harbours secret hopes for the ultimate demise of Britain in this, or whether he really is simply naïve. Meanwhile, his own hatemongering is on show, as he  vilifies, berates and even threatens any British citizen that seeks to provide a pragmatic conservative solution.


Ansar downplays present difficulties

In the light of the current gang rape epidemic that has been sweeping over Europe, particularly in Germany, Norway and Sweden, the likelihood of a total breakdown of civil harmony, law and order and an increase in conflict and suffering for all appears to be greatly heightened.  One suspects this is being waged as a kind of sexual terrorism in some instances, and not just as random acts, perpetrated through ignorance of European norms and mores. Such heinous crimes will continue to cause a great deal of long term misery and social instability, whatever the reason or justification or the long term political consequences might be.

The influx of predominantly Muslim migrants express a Middle Eastern, misogynistic attitude to women, which is alien to Western “liberal” progressive sensibilities.  The response could be  a catalyst for civil unrest from disenchanted citizens, tired with the situation and their government’s schizophrenic response. A response that has led to a clampdown on those protestors, who rightly object to mass rape and violence, and in turn a weak response to the perpetrators of the crimes themselves. Increasing authoritarianism by governments may attempt  to manage the situation triggered by this self evident clash of cultural values.

The likelihood of civil unrest and a breakdown in law and order  has been  brought into stark focus  by the actions of  a largely Middle Eastern mindset.  Civil unrest, revolution and war appears to be already brewing, coupled  with a fast approaching  economic downturn, and a more general scepticism amongst the peoples of Europe  as to the merits of the EU. The political body appears itself to be increasingly dogmatic and inflexible in its approach, ideologically rather than pragmatically driven,  and   exacerbating confusion as to what our own country’s place in the world and the worth of our national values should be.

Besides this rather bleak scenario,  the invading influx  poses an immediate and current security threat,  irrespective of their own personal allegiances to Islam. For new Islamic terrorist cells are now forming in Europe, and many are using the mass influx as a cover for their operations.  The precise number that have infiltrated as “refugees” cannot be properly assessed in the current crisis. Even if the numbers are small, the collateral damage and fall out from successfully coordinated acts of terror could still be very great.

Irrespective of political or religious  affiliation, national or cultural background, the mass of refugees  appear largely to be healthy Muslim males of fighting age. A growing number have flouted the laws of the countries they have travelled through, and besides causing distress to local populaces, have shown scant respect for the law.  The response of western politicians and the police in response to them has been astonishingly weak and disproportionately threatening and violent to any European citizens that object.

No justification can be made to tolerate the current situation. It certainly cannot be justified as Ansar does in the name of political correctness. For all the so called “refugees” currently camped in Calais, or tramping in hordes across the continent, are in point of fact “illegals”. They are flouting the requirements of the Dublin Regulation that refugees are required   to seek harbour in the first country of safety. Many countries have been passed over by these “illegal immigrants” en route to richer pastures in a proclaimed search for a “better life”.

Mr Ansar fails to consider these points however. His concern is only to push the left wing narrative that any who oppose or seek to conserve, preserve or protect themselves, their livelihoods, lifestyle, their cultural values  and their nation are hatemonger and extremists. This is an odd and somewhat naive perspective that is suggestive of being a façade to cover more radical motives.


Mr Ansar speaks as a hypocrite

Dubbed the “Islamic Waltter Mitty” by his critics, Mr Ansar is a notorious fantasist who has made false claims to work experience  in a very great number   of professional occupations.  He is also believed to be a supporter of slavery  and has controversially promoted extremist organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir on social media. A dangerous organisation that gave birth to Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri and which calls for the imposition of a worldwide Caliphate. As Amjad Khan has so shockingly detailed:

“Mo’s twitter feed is replete with jovial discussions with leading members of Hizb ut Tahrir (HT). In particular, he seems to share a real affinity with the UK spokesperson for HT, Taji Mustafa. In fact, their twitter conversations seem to reveal that the two are kindred spirits. They both agree that secularism is the cause of the world’s ills – see here, they both support enforcing gender segregation at public events in the UK – see here. Mo also seems to endorse the HT stance on homosexuality – see here.

Mr Ansar has even recommended Hizb ut Tahrir events to his followers – see here. A tendency that attracted criticism in the light of his so called  moderate views by one tweeter.

Here is an instructive discussion and summary of his general shortcomings with Douglas Murray of The Henry Jackson Society.


Mr Ansar appears to be nothing less than a serial liar. He has claimed, amongst other things, to be an ‘Educationalist’, an “Imam”, a ‘Lawyer’ a “Marriage Counsellor”, a Muslim theologian (although he does not understand Arabic) and a “Visiting Lecturer”. He lacks, however,  any formal academic or vocational qualifications to merit the claims. He has never held a position at a school, university, or law firm.

This self-styled “expert” is also suspected of not declaring income from media appearances, falsely claiming state benefits, and  costing taxpayers up to £500,000 in unnecessary police protection. A spurious claim, made up because he was supposedly on a wanted list assembled by militant group Al-Shabab. This was despite no such file  ever being proved to be in existence.

Jamie Bartlett in an article for the Telegraph website has called him a “bogus social media commentator”, after reports emerged that television producers at Sky, the BBC and other channels were booking him on the basis of his Twitter account, rather than any vetted expertise.

Bartlett’s claims have been supported by Saif Rahman, founder of the Humanist & Cultural Muslim Association, who accused Ansar of publishing under multiple identities on social media.

“I think people in the UK are waking up now. They can see through him and they know exactly what’s going on… the number of Twitter accounts he posts under and the YouTube account that is obviously him.”

Rahman continued:

“Mohammed Ansar doesn’t represent the progressive Muslim community like the media portrays. His comments about segregation, race, homosexuals, slavery and so on misrepresent groups of enlightened Muslims and the way they are perceived in our society. He is a Frankenstein’s monster that the media created.”

Jeremy Duns writes about Mr Ansar thus:

“He is most often featured speaking out against the demonisation of Islam and Muslims and calling for more calm and tolerance. Well, that’s for the good, surely? A measured, moderate voice in the public sphere is to be applauded. Except Mo Ansar is far from moderate. He has some very immoderate views indeed, and is a devious charlatan to boot. With no serious base of expertise to draw on, he has created a media profile for himself built on sycophancy, evasion and deception. He has smeared perceived rivals, promoted extremist views and inflamed tensions. He may seem like a buffoon at times, but his ruthless pursuit of more airtime has been toxic… The rise of this narcissistic, faux-pious conman as the media’s go-to Muslim pundit is a bizarre one. It has been almost entirely fuelled by his online presence.”

Milo Yiannoupolos too has written scathing assessments  a number of times here and here:

“There is no evidence he has any professional teaching or lecturing experience, besides a single talk given at Horndean Technology College in January 2013 to students considering a religious studies GCSE, a few invitations from Islamic societies and one talk at a church. He has repeatedly and falsely claimed on Twitter to be a lawyer, which is an offence in England and Wales, before admitting earlier this week to Financial Times legal journalist David Allen Green that he was not in fact a qualified legal professional and he “regretted” any “impressions” to the contrary. But Ansar’s publicly made claims speak for themselves:”

Answar cuts an almost tragi-comic figure, who  appears to be suffering from delusions of grandeur considering all this. His comedy value is further enhanced by his  bizarre belief that Muslims first colonised the United States of America over a thousand years ago, along with his belief that he was once the “Muslim Bishop of Southampton”.  An absurd claim, further compounded by his claim that he had once been offered an Archdeaconship if he converted to Christianity.

To view Ansar as merely a buffoon, however, would be to grossly underestimate the danger of this  man’s radical ideological views. Mr Maajid Nawaz, chairman of the anti-extremism Quilliam Foundation, was able to bring  Ansar’s real  extremism and more radical perspective into sharp focus in a brief barrage of questions in the following clip. .


Note Ansar refused to voice any objections to the contrary when asked whether thieves in an Islamic state should have their hands cut off ,or whether being stoned to death was acceptable if full sharia conditions were met. This view on apostasy runs in direct contradiction with his self professed “moderate” views. Indeed, his call for a theological judgement by Imams to determine in some instances the issues, or his claim that his mind is not fully “made up”, rather suggests a tacit acceptance in the primacy of the sharia and the hudud.

This appears to be a consistent theme, and no mere aberration, based on his public support of other tenets of the sharia: such as the idea of the separation of the sexes, or the punishment of homosexuals. In this, he is proven again to be a deceiver, making public statements that homosexuality is a sin, while contrarily and hypocritically he praises feminist and Left-wing activists as people he admires. The credibility of his feminist stance has been further thrown into doubt in a dispute with a woman who  claimed he advised her, in his role as a “Marriage Counsellor”, to remain with her husband  if he beat her. Another action supported in the Quran, which advocates that a woman, if she opposes the will of her husband, should be “lightly beaten”. **


A tendency to embrace political extremism

Other examples of Mr Ansa’s real, more extreme, anti Liberal, anti democratic attitude come to light due to his actions on the 9 March 2012, when he publicly thanked Anas Al-Tikriti of the Muslim Brotherhood, son of a wanted man and suspected terrorist, Omar Al Tikriti, for a gift of Arabian perfume. This was described as a “simply beautiful gift” from a “dear friend.”

Although this is only guilt by association in the context of his other statements it says much.*** It suggests a preference for a “conservative”, fundamentalist interpretation, and with his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, a favouring of covert activism in support of terrorists and terrorism. These associations are hardly indicative of a moderate.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal is to champion  the teaching and supreme example of the Prophet,  as detailed in the Quran. This book being considered the  “sole reference point” for “family, individual, community and state.” It propounds the  divine supremacy of his teaching and revelation as an absolute, irrespective of whether it is at loggerheads with the proponents of a secular democratic society. Its extremism can be summarised in its motto:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The details of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood with known terrorist organisations, such as Hamas, reveals the extent of the Muslim Brotherhood’s sympathetic concerns and goals that unite many Muslims in a global network. The common goal being  the imposition of an Islamic Caliphate upon the whole world. This common concern is strengthened too in Hamas’ own charter which reveals they are the Muslim Brotherhood’s arm in Palestine. In Article Two of their manifesto it states:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organisation which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.”

Egyptian MP and Muslim Brotherhood member Ragib Hilal Hamida has stated that he supports al-Qaeda and that the Quran condones terrorism. He clarifies his position by claiming that terrorism is not a criminal act, but rather a resistance to occupation and the influence of non-Islamic powers; a legitimate position according to his interpretation of the Quran.

In an interview with Roz al-Yousef, an Egyptian weekly, Hamida states:

“Terrorism is not a curse when given its true meaning. [When interpreted accurately] it means opposing occupation as it exists in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq…From my point of view, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists.”

Like any political organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood has its moderates and extremists and Hamida’s views are not universally held by the Muslim Brotherhood. As propagater’s of the objective to impose sharia and the Islamic state globally however, both hold sympathetic ideas and common and shared objectives. The disagreement with al-Qaeda is therefore one of tactics, not ideology, although this particular MP supports al-Qaeda’s tactics as well.

Herein lies the problem then: exactly who is Mo Ansar? What are his real concerns and objectives? Why is a man who clearly has no claim to any real profession or academic expertise continuously invited onto television shows as a supposed “theological expert” when he has zero academic publications in the field? Why is he accepted on face value without question as being moderate, when he is so transparently working for the destruction of the nation state by undermining its economy, society and security? He is by any sane measure of reason, as he advocates  unfettered (largely Muslim) immigration and campaigns to welcome  in some instances rapists, thieves and radicals without proper vetting or hindrance. Why are his views continuously sought when he can demonstrably be proven to be a liar who keeps the company of hate preachers and nurtures the friendship of extremists?



Since the excellent work in exposing Mo Ansar several years ago by a host of writers and journalists, it was expected he would slip into oblivion and not be given the air time to peddle his insincere charade in order to further the objectives and cause of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Ansar’s recent exposure on Russia Today however has dashed that hope.

The lies peddled are dangerous and the threat posed from activists  with such  exteme anti democratic, pro sharia views, very real.  Mo Ansar, therefore, must  once again be exposed and the public educated as to who he really is:  a liar  and  5th Column activist, shamelessly practising “taqiyya” in order to further the political and civilisational jihad. In this he is no  moderate purveyor and defender of civilised western values.  His support of extremism is self evident in his Twitter comments. Whilst in his conversation with Maajid Nawaz, another “former” radical who appears to be genuinely seeking to make the case for a reform of Islam, his implicit support of sharia appears all too clear.

 It is to be stated with reservation and a heavy heart too in this that whilst Mr Nawaz’s  proclaimed aims are  laudable, he too has a history of not practising what he preaches. This activist and former reformed imprisoned extremist of Hizb ut-Tahrir now calls himself a “liberal democrat”, a “progressive”  and again a “supporter of feminism” as Mr Ansar has. This in spite of this married man sometimes frequenting sleazy nightclubs and paying for the favours of gyrating lap dancers to pass his time between speaking engagements. One can only hope, therefore,  that his reported tastes and habits have not been  financed out of Quilliam Foundation membership funds, nor distracted him from the laudable cause of reform.


Some of Mr Ansar’s outlandish claims and utterances

On dhimmitude: “If slaves are treated justly, with full rights, and no oppression whatsoever… why would anyone object?”

On false claims to expertise: “As a theologian I debate with people of other faith regularly.”

“I’m a muslim, an imam, a legal advocate and I devote my life to Islam.”

On the separation of women: “Not misogyny, patriarchy or apartheid if people wishing to sit with one another separately are accommodated. The law allows it.”

Against secularism: “Secular wars of the last century have caused more deaths than the total of all conflicts in the previous 50 centuries, combined.”

Another lie and typical of the Muslim tendency to make up history. 108 million people were killed in wars in the twentieth century. Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history (about 50 centuries) ranges from 150 million to 1 billion according to the New York Times. Of this Islam has been responsible for up to 270 million deaths alone in attempting to fulfil its violent jihadic imperative. A cause it is still fighting to this day. It is therefore the most violent religion in the history of mankind.   To give an impression of the effect on Europe in contrast to the relatively benign and limited Crusades see Bill Warner’s summary here.

On supporting radical Muslim extremists in Hizb ut Tahrir:

“He’s a spokesperson for Hizb ut Tahrir UK. Usually very good.”


“There are issues which arise concerning how Ansar himself can possibly support a wife and six children simply on television appearance fees, unless he is himself in receipt of substantial state benefits.

**Quran (4:34)“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”  Contemporary translations sometimes water down the word ‘beat’, but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means ‘to strike’.

Quran (38:44)“And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath…”  Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

*** Other examples Mr Ansar’s guilt by association arise in respect to his own family and his business and financial dealings with his brother. Jabraan Azlam, is currently serving a four-year prison sentence for dealing heroin and crack cocaine. Mr Ansar and his brother were former co-directors of a company called Securum Limited, a company which never filed accounts and was eventually struck off, like every limited company Ansar has registered as a director of. To date no financial or business irregularities have been discerned to suggest Mohammed Ansar may be involved in any organised criminal business activity.

Two Muslim “moderates” who are not what they claim to be: Medhi Hasan

Medh Hasan

2. Medhi Hasan

Medhi Hasan was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where he read Philosophy, Politics and Economics. He graduated in 2000, without pursuing higher degrees. He has been a prominent speaker on BBC’s Question Time and Newsnight shows.  As a journalist and author, Hasan has been the co-author of a biography on Ed Miliband  and has been the political editor of the UK version of  The Huffington Post. Hailing from a  “British Indian” background,   he is the presenter of The Café and Head to Head and UpFront Al Jazeera English showsMr Hasan moved to Washington DC to work full time for Al Jazeera on UpFront in 2015.

Mr Hasan’s published views are those in support of secularism. As a Shia Muslim, he has claimed his Islamic faith is based on the principles of “peace, moderation and mercy”. While Muslims “have every right to be angry”, such anger “…is not an excuse for extremism.” Controversially, Mr Hasan has stated that the media should be sanctioned for “dishonest, demonising press coverage” of Islam.

In April 2009, Hasan argued against the idea of an Islamic state, claiming it is difficult (if not impossible) to identify a Muslim-majority nation that could plausibly be identified as a modern, viable and legitimate “Islamic state”. He has written that “contrary to popular Muslim opinion, there is not a shred of theological, historical or empirical evidence to support the existence of such an entity.

Concerning suicide bombers and terrorist organisations, Hasan has stated: “There is, in fact, nothing Islamic about so-called Islamic terrorism… “. A consistent position that he has argued throughout. Following the allegation of antisemitism against Lord Ahmed in March 2013, Hasan referred to antisemitism in some sections of the British Muslim community as “our dirty little secret.”

Mr Hasan is a skilled rhetorician, well educated and informed in supporting and justifying his positions. He speaks quickly, however, and in doing so often makes statements that given a cool, critical eye are not as reasonable as they might initially appear.  Here is an example of Mr Hasan speaking as a defender of Ralph Miliband, the former Labour Leader’s Communist father, who was subject to criticism in the Daily Mail  several years ago. He makes a number of statements that show him in full flow.

Whilst I am sure many would agree with him as to at least some of the dubious merits of this tabloid, it is clear that Medhi Hasan is something of a hypocrite in respect to his actual and personally held views on at least some matters. In this, as in a number of other areas, he acts as a deceiver and dissimulator.

First, his duplicity centres on the Daily Mail as the real “Hater of Britain”. A paper he summarises as the: “immigrant-bashing, women-hating, Muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting Daily Mail.” Yet in July 2010, Mr Hasan wrote to the Daily Mail’s editor, Paul Dacre,  asking to write for the paper as a journalist. In his application letter  he  referred to the paper as one  whose “passion, rigour, boldness and, of course, news values”  he had “always admired”. The use of the word “always” here is  significant, as Peter Hitchens notes in his article. It rather suggests he is a sympathiser with such views. and a supporter of them overall.

However, Mr Hasan in his letter of application does write that he is:

“on the left of the political spectrum, and disagree[s] with the Mail’s editorial line on a range of issues”.

He then goes on to write he “could be a fresh and passionate, not to mention polemical and contrarian, voice on the comment and feature pages.”

Clearly, Mr Hasan on Question Time (a few short years later) had experienced a complete change of heart in respect to his own feelings towards the paper. Fair enough, but there is a more significant paradox here in his claim to be both  a “progressive”,   but simultaneously also “socially conservative”, which again tends to indicate a contrary agenda.

Mr Hasan  is actually from the Islamic religious right. He even admits to this in his application letter in a moment of sincerity and honesty when he claimed he was:  “attracted by the Mail’s social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family, abortion and teenage pregnancies”. Medhi’s conservativism extends to being pro-life and having reservations as to the morality of  homosexuality, a practise and community he apparently “struggles with” to such a degree he has openly admitted to having made “homophobic remarks in the past.”

All this is to be forgotten now, however, in the light of his more mature,  “Progressive”, socially Liberal  public persona. Whilst contrarily, he still claims he seeks to champion integrity, and stand up against the “hatemongering, gay bashing tabloid”. A paper in his application letter he “always admired”,  because of  its “relentless focus on the need for integrity in public life and its “outspoken defence of faith, and Christian culture, in the face of attacks from militant atheists and secularists.”

Mr Hasan ‘s perspectives on “militant atheists” in respect to “Muslim” terrorist groups is a consistently held position. They are people of no faith  and certainly not “Islamic” he states. This is a  position he has specifically stated in respect to  Islamic State, ISIL, Isis, Dawesh, or whatever non- Arabic name you wish to call them  But this is  an odd claim to make in the light of the Leader of Isis Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi having a Ph.D in Islamic Studies. According to a memo circulating on jihadist internet forums in July 2013, he obtained a BA, MA, and doctorate in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. Of his pracisting faith a fellow student in his class has claimed:

“I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same course, but he wasn’t a friend. He was quiet, and retiring. He spent time alone … I used to know all the leaders (of the insurgency) personally. Zarqawi (the former leader of al-Qaeda) was closer than a brother to me. But I didn’t know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. No one really noticed him.”- Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Islamic State’s driving force”. BBC News. 31 July 2014.

Baghdadi was already an Islamic revolutionary during the rule of Saddam Hussein, but other reports contradict this. He may have been a mosque cleric around the time of the US led invasion, that Hasan personally detests and often refers to in his polemics, in 2003. After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, al-Baghdadi helped found the militant group Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah (JJASJ), in which he served as head of the sharia committee. Al-Baghdadi and his group joined the Mujahideen Shura Council in 2006, in which he served as a member of the MSC’s sharia committee. Following the renaming of the MSC as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in 2006, al-Baghdadi became the general supervisor of the ISI’s sharia committee and a member of the group’s senior consultative council.

Clearly, then, Baghdadi is not just Muslim, but a prayer observing,  very influential follower of Islam, who was steeped in Islamic theological scholarship and has intimately been involved in sharia councils and committees.

Yet Mr Hasan wishes to view such terrorist organisations, not as driven by the tenets of a 1400 year old faith, which yet has countless specific Quranic edicts advocating slaughter against the harbi (non believers) as a communal religious duty. He ignores the 1400 year history of bloodshed that has  led to its chief leaders and historical figures being termed Conquerors (fatheh).* Such views are, he claims, the views of the “lazy”, the  “bigoted” or “uninformed”.    He prefers instead a more modern, westernised, psycho-social explanation. In this, he quotes Sageman (an ex CIA man) he clearly admires, at least for now.

“To give themselves a bit more legitimacy, they use Islam as their justification. It’s not about religion, it’s about identity. You identify with the victims, [with] the guys being killed by your enemies.”

He then goes further:

“To claim that Isis is Islamic is egregiously inaccurate and empirically unsustainable, not to mention insulting to the 1.6 billion non-violent adherents of Islam across the planet. Above all else, it is dangerous and self-defeating, as it provides Baghdadi and his minions with the propaganda prize and recruiting tool that they most crave.”

Religion, according to Hasan’s view then, “plays a role not as a driver of behaviour but as a vehicle for outrage and, crucially, a marker of identity.”

He agrees with Sageman who views religion as important in the sense that it happens to “define your identity”, not because you are “more pious than anybody else”. He cites too Benedict Anderson’s view of a nation state as an “imagined political community”, arguing that the “imagined community of Muslims” is what drives the terrorists, the allure of being members of – and defenders of – the ultimate “in-group”, but this ultimately is not an “authentic” Islamic imperative.

Here is a summary of Medhi Hasan’s consistently held views on Isis and terrorist organisations more generally.

Hasan begins his defence by claiming “religion is not the motivating factor that’s what comes later”. This might well be the case, but it does not therefore justify Islamic State as non Islamic. This is mere obfuscation. It is merely dealing with the more generalised claim of what the initiating motivating factor might be.  This could be any of a number of factors: loss of identity, excitement,  boredom, desire to be involved in a misjudged moral cause, or yet (contra Hasan) finding one’s self in Islam. The latter would explain much and satisfy all conditions. Whilst undoubtedly it is a strong claim that those who are religious do not, or are “less likely” to embrace radicalism (as they already have a strong sense of religious identity) it might equally be claimed, using Hasan’s perspective, that  many of those confused Muslims, lacking a deeper sense of who they are, in their multi-cultural, non Islamic majority societies, feel attracted to such groups for that very reason. They fight for the Islamic cause, therefore, in order to find themselves, or reaffirm their understanding about what they think Islamic identity should really be.

In this, those with a strong sense of faith may not feel compelled to join, but those who are not particularly steeped in an Islamic perspective who are yet Muslims do. This, however, does not preclude a sense of religious curiosity, nor does it mean the recruiters themselves lack an Islamic identity or imperative, for they are Muslims. In this being a Muslim, whether nominal or religious, is a key factor and invites activism. Indeed,  the pragmatic side to Islam requires it as one of its chief features.

Note Hasan states: “we shouldn’t take as gospel people who behead aid workers and rape young girls.”

Such heinious crimes are not justifiable in any circumstances. They certainly should not be justified by Islamic theologians. Yet considering Baghdadi, his faith and academic and religious background, they are.

Not only that, they are affirmed by the Prophet’s utterances also. Here is but one edict of many:

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

Islam is a politico-religious ideology. It is neither in its multiple sects and manifestations simple a “religion of peace”, nor is it merely an “ideology of war”, but both. There is a wide spectrum of interpretation.

For example, the Ahmadiyya act philanthropically, offer a reformation of Islam and a peaceful, spiritualised  notion of the Greater Jihad as striving against one’s low desires, such as anger, lust and hatred. Salafism, on the other hand, is defined not by a philosophical or spiritualised interpretation of texts, but by a literal, puritanical conservativism. It advocates the sharia, and more importantly the violent aspects (hudud) of sharia law in respect to treatment of rape victims, homosexuals, alcohol drinking, dress and displays of public affection, etc.

Ahmaddiya’s peaceful, more philosophical interpretation of texts, one would think would be but one interpretation tolerated in the broad spectrum of Islamic faith. Indeed, with its consistent striving for a peaceful interpretation, one would think it would be strongly welcomed by a religion that at the present time is stuggling to justify itself as peaceful.  Yet they are denied the right to even call themselves Muslims, or go on pilgrimage to Mecca. They are persecuted in Islamic sharia led states such as Saudi Arabia, who are too easily influenced by the Salafist leaders perspectives and causes. Ahmaddiya are commonly ostracised and punished, often violently. Salafists, on the other hand, who are  guilty of financing the propagation of fundamentalist materials throughout the world for the spread of anti Jewish sentiment and the implementation of the global Islamic caliphate, are given safe harbour and honour in the West.

 Mr Hasan criticises Graeme  Wood’s   claim that Islamic state are not just Islamic, but “very Islamic”. Hasan here is again dissimulating. Whilst it is true that Islamic scholars have condemned Isis as not just  “un-Islamic but anti Islamic”, the stance counts for little when there is so much disagreement and dissent amongst themselves as to the validity of scriptural interpretation. Nor is it a worthy claim considering that those who do not fit in with their own  perspectives and interpretation are too often ostracised, persecuted or even denied the right to be even deemed “Muslims”, as the Ahmadiyya and some sects of Sufism have experienced themselves. It is to be noted here that Hasan does term Isis “Muslims” just not followers of “authentic” Islam. **

Hasan assumes he, and the Imams he refers to, are the true purveyors of the faith. But there is little evidence that a broad common perspective of what constitutes “authentic Islam” as he terms it exists. Certainly, however, its legitimacy as being Islamic can be argued for, on the basis of its literal interpretation and pragmatic jurisprudence, as Wood, in a less specialised way, attempts to do.

In this argument, the role of taqlid and ijtihad are of importance. Taqlid is an Arabic term, which literally means “to follow”. In Islamic legal terminology it means to follow a mujtahid (an Islamic scholar who is competent in interpreting the sharia) in religious laws and commandment as he has derived them. Some muslims, then,  follow the decisions of a religious expert, without necessarily examining the scriptural basis, or reasoning of that decision, such as accepting and following the verdict of scholars of jurisprudence (fiqh). This requires no explanation of the processes by which this is arrived at. It does not even necessarily require an adherence to one of the four classical schools (madhhab) of jurisprudence as a strict obligation.

Notably here, madhab schools have a history of being founded independently. In the first 150 years of Islam  there were numerous madhāhib. Several of the disciples  of the Prophet Muhammad are credited with founding their own. As a matter of fact, there were as many mazhabs, as there were disciples. The mazhab schools were variously founded, grown, spread, split, and disappeared, or were absorbed into other more popular schools.

Taqlid may be contrasted with the  independent interpretation of legal sources by intellectual effort (ijtihad).  Ijtihad  means “independent reasoning”. It is recognised as the decision-making process in Islamic law  through personal effort (jihad). This is completely independent of any school. The emphasis  yet requires a “thorough knowledge of theology, revealed texts and legal theory;  an exceptional capacity for legal reasoning; thorough knowledge of Arabic.”

Salafis are people who don’t follow a madhab. Salafism was characterised and founded by its ijtihad. It is this which gives it its supposed authenticity, free from philosophical interpretation and traditions and schools that arose. They follow a more puritanical and literal interpretation. Their interpretations are deemed acceptable in terms of Arabic language;  that they have exhaustive mastery of all the primary texts that relate to each question, and that they have full familiarity of the methodology or “fundamentals of jurisprudence” based on the primary texts.

 The benchmark for both is that only a leader with scholarly qualifications can legitimately produce a valid interpretation of the texts from the primary sources. Without these qualifications, the most one can legitimately do is to parrot such an interpretation from someone who definitely has these qualifications.***

It is clear that while there may not be a simply correlation between extremism and  ijtihad (as many progressives seeking reform emphasise its importance also) there is a justification to make the claim of either being Islamic in respect to practising either taqlid or ijtihad. Clearly Isis offer independent readings of the scriptures in a practise that itself has a long historical legacy. Its followers accept the pronouncements and interpretations on the Prophet’s teaching by Dr Bahdadi or “Caliph Ibrahim” as he is now known by Islamic State. In this, his army of followers enact a literal interpretation of the  sharia and Quranic surah, even if they don’t necessarily understand the theological or scriptural justification or reasoning themselves.

Hasan is dissimulating then. One presumes he knows these distinctions. He knows, therefore, that it is unnecessary for followers of Isis even to be fluent in Arabic or theological jurisprudence, or even to have an adequate reading of the texts themselves to justify being practitioners of Islam. Yet he nevertheless cites Didier Francois here, a man captured by Isis, to try and support his case in his article:

“There was never really discussion about texts.It was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.”

According to François, “It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran.”

Hasan cites Abdal Hakim Murad in his article to support his position. Murad makes the staunch claim that:

“Legitimacy comes through endorsement by religious leaders. If Sunni Islam’s leaders consider Isis inauthentic, then that is what it is”.

But this view takes little account of taqlid or ijtihad. Neither is it the case that just because Sunni Islam does not endorse a rogue school of interpretation (if that indeed is what it is and not simple the most fundamental and literal interpretation) it is necessarily “un-Islamic”. Baghdadi is an Islamic theologian of a very high calibre.

One cannot simply state Isis is un-Islamic, simply because it does not tally with one’s own idea of what constitutes “authentic Islam”. They read and practise the Quran. Dr Baghdadi offers the interpretation.

A comparison can be made with Christianity. Untold sects of Christianity such as the   Waldensians, Cathars and Lollards were persecuted throughout Europe. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) codified the theory and practise of persecution and many of them were termed as “heretics” and “non Christians”. Yet all these sects believed they were Christians and believers of the true faith, and practised and prayed accordingly. They quoted from the Bible, and believed Jesus Christ was their Messiah, Redeemer and Saviour. They acted to fulfil their perspective of what the faith was.

Hasan downplays the claim of Princeton’s scholar of Near Eastern Studies Professor Bernard Haykel, who insists that the leaders of Isis “have just as much legitimacy as anyone else”. He fails to even mention the importance of taqlid or ijtihad, nor the simple fact that history proves that any number of religious perspectives by believers have led to admonishment and denial, simply because they offered a new interpretation of their faith. The Sunni Shia schism has been a historic testament to this. This is not to support Isis or Baghdadi’s interpretation, it is is simply to acknowledge that it is indeed Islamic by virtue of, as Wood states, the fact that Baghdadi (a skilled Islamic theologian and reader of Arabic) cites a literal reading of the Quran, and more importantly his followers act it out, and enforce its edicts as prescribed in the religious texts.

In respect to Isis, “Caliph Ibrahim” (as Baghdadi is now called in the new Islamic state) has every theological justification and legitimacy, as Professor Haykel observes, to claim Isis involves the practise of  Islam and is Islamic. Irrespective of endorsement, he provides  with his learned theological scholarship, a very literal perspective. It is one that bears weight for “some” Muslims, no matter how abhorrent this perspective is. Indeed, it might even be claimed the Isis perspective, as the most literal, is indeed the most pure. In this, purity equates to the most literal and most fundamental perspective of what authentic Islam entails. The very claim the Salafists  made during their reform, when it sought to rid Islam of its  excessive philosophical interpretation and traditions with the  embracing of ijtihad.

In this, Islamic fundamentalism is commensurate with literalism. Thus, Salafism offers a far more conservative fundamentalism in thought and practise the more it embraces literalism. It is this that justifies its  orthodoxy and lends it, for some Muslims, the authenticity and purity of the past. In contrast, the Sufi tradition, the Berelvi for example, the Bahais, the Alawi, or the Ahmadiyya, offer a far more esoteric, spiritualised, philosophical interpretation. These perspectives should be recognised as having legitimacy within Islam also, irrespective of whether other perspectives and schools fail to “endorse”, or even actively condemn them as “un-Islamic”.

Concerning the condemnation of Isis, 70,000 Indian Muslim clerics have signed a fatwa against it and other terror groups saying they were not “Islamic”. This is to be welcomed, but does not go far enough. The majority of Imams actually do not condemn it as heretical with fatwa, they merely strive to distance themselves from it publically, by justifying it as  “un-Islamic”. Thus  the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, representing 57 countries claim “Isis has “nothing to do with Islam”; the Islamic Society of North America claim Isis’ actions are “in no way representative of what Islam actually teaches”, etc. None of them, however, condemn it as a blasphemy with fatwa.

Abdallah Bin Bayyah  has offered a fatwa, but this has been viewed as a mere PR exercise and offered merely too soothe the qualms of others sat in the United Nations. It smacks of hypocrisy too when he is claimed to be anti-Semitic and justified and called for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. The claims of his insincerity are  pertinent too considering  he is linked as a vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, headquartered in Qatar, to its Head Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi being an Egyptian theologian, and yet another  who has close links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist  organisation in at least some countries.

Neither is the fact Isis “cherry pick Islam” a disqualifier to them being Islamic. Ahmadiyya emphasise the importance of accepting all the Quran, unlike most Sunni and Shia Muslims who accept abrogation (naskh). Yet no one would want to say that Sunni Muslims are “un-Islamic” because they “cherry pick”. Ahmadi believe that no verse of the Quran abrogates or cancels another verse, but they are yet not recognised as being Islamic by the Sunni and Shia.

For the Ahmaddiya, all Quranic verses have equal validity. This is in keeping with their emphasis on the “unsurpassable beauty and unquestionable validity of the Quran”. The harmonisation of apparently incompatible violent rulings being resolved through their juridical deflation in Ahmadi fiqh,  so that a ruling (considered to have applicability only to the specific context for which it was revealed), is effective not because it was revealed last, but because it is most suited to the current situation. In Sunnism and Shia, however, cherry picking (using the abrogation principle) may endorse the later more violent surah, rather than the earlier, more peaceful. Thus, there is a general problem of justifying violent passages for these so called “moderate” mainstreamers. The Salafi movement in this creates sharia, based on a much more literal reading of the Quran, Sunnah and the actions and sayings of the first three generations of Muslims, producing a more puritanical perspective. Isis as an offshoot of this, is yet an even more extreme form.

Cherry picking in all of this, or the tendency to a literal fundamentalism, are not reasons for  justifying Isis as being “un-Islamic”, as Hasan must be aware. There are a plurality of perspectives. In this, even what constitutes the basis of Islamic practise has no unified common perspective. Consider the  5 Pillars (Shahadah, Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj).  Admittedly the Shia and Sunni both agree on the essential details for the performance and practice of these acts, but the Shia do not refer to them by the same name (see Ancillaries of the Faith, for the Twelvers, and Seven pillars of Ismailism). Neither is the fact Salafis do not follow the 4 classical madhab a disqualifier. Even Ahmadiyya’s denial of hajj should not be  a disqualifier of them being considered believers in Islam, or the fact Isis may not attend hajj, for this has always been with the proviso of capability “as far as one is able”; a recognition of impediment in personal circumstances such as ill health, persecution, or a war situation.

Hasan states: “no one is saying these people are not Muslims. We are saying they are not authentically representative of Islam”. Hasan, however, is assuming “authentic” can only be justified by endorsement by particular Imams, or even one school of thought, his own,  when it simply does not have to be. His endorsement is coloured by his Shia perspective and bias. It is the equivalent of saying as a Roman Catholic a Pentecostal Christian is not a real Christian,  even though both accept the validity of the New Testament as the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Messiah and Saviour, who died for our sins and was resurrected. All these sects and perspectives, even ostracised ones,  accept the essential  belief as followers of Islam that “There is no other God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger.”  (lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh). Isis are no different. They pray and cite from the Quran.  Why is Hasan denying this? What other qualification as a Muslim particularly is required to qualify them as authentic?


Anything or anyone is to blame but Islam

Hasan has a pet theory he favours to deflect from the culpability of Islam: a  psychological idea, that we are mistaken in understanding the causes of what motivates these individuals to act. This he claims is a “fundamental error of attribution”. We should, therefore, be concerned not with their internal beliefs,  but rather with what other “worldly”, “external” factors cause them to act.  The delusion is characterised thus:

“We are looking at people and instead of looking at what other factors may influence them what worldly or external factors may influence them, it is much easier to look at what internal factors may influence them. When we judge other people…we say they are doing it because of something they believe or something inside their heads. When we act we say we are doing something because someone has done something to us and there is this fundamental error of attribution we are applying to Isis. We look at them and  say: These simple souls who are motivated by a mad Messianic view of the world.  Rather than looking at them and saying well what are the political, the cultural, what are the psycho-social, what are the socio-economic factors that are in play here as well..”

Besides the fact Hasan slips here, and admits the Islamic belief that Isis as Islamic believers (lets just call them practising Muslims) accept the idea of Islamic prophesy concerning the Messiah, this is really dissimulation again. Of course, “other external factors” should be considered, but this does not mean internal factors: beliefs, and the individual’s response and need for them to fulfil themselves emotionally, should not also be considered. Here, it is clearly the case that the Isis recruits are Muslim, or rather they are followers of the Islamic faith. They come from families within all mainstream perspectives too, both Sunni and Shia.

This is Medhi Hasan being disingenuous again. It is his way of deflecting by saying look this is nothing to do with Islam. They are Muslims sure, but Islam, “authentic Islam”, has to be given a free pass.  Indeed, it is vital to correctly understand that we will “not win this struggle” unless we correctly understand “who we are up against, what they are about, where they are from”, but which “struggle” are we talking about here? The struggle for Islam, or the struggle for democracy?

This indeed is a question of  “counter terrorism and national security”. Many lives have been given fighting the cause, and many more innocents have lost their lives as a result of their faith perspective; be they Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Yazdis, atheists, constitutionalists, patriotic soldiers, etc. In this, we do indeed need to understand their motivations and their background. That is why to  claim that these people are a “product of the invasion of Iraq…the violence, the sectarianism, the torture..” is but one factor in a  larger picture that needs to be understood.

In this, Isis are not simply a band of crazy cutthroats who believe in nothing at all. They have an ideology which has both a political and a religious dimension. In this politico-religious perspective they are truly Islamic, if not “mainstream” Islamic.  They are justified as Islamic originating as they do from the Salafist interpretation. They represent a yet  more fundamental strain, which reinterprets the Quranic surahs in its most literal sense. But this reinterpretation was born not simply  due to poverty, or some experience of prejudice, where  we can simply blame Britain, or any one of a dozen other affluent, democratic western countries as Hasan tries to do. Many of these Western warriors recruited to the pre-established Islamic cause were not disadvantaged, nor  victims of prejudice. Indeed in some respects equality laws and positive discrimination may have even afforded them an unfair advantage as Muslims.

Here are some quotes from the paper Hasan admired, but now despises, about some of his so called disadvantaged dupes.

“Salma and Zahra Halane, both 16, who had 28 GCSEs between them ran away to Syria. The sisters were hard-working  students who were planning  to train as doctors. One recent tweet from their account said: ‘Training to be doctors to Training to be killers… I will become a doctor for Isis not for these pagans’. Police said the pair are thought to have followed their elder brother, who also ditched his own ‘excellent’ academic career to join the ISIS terror group around a year ago.”

“Brighton University student Abdullah Deghayes, 18, was killed in a gunfight in Kassab in Latakia. His two middle class brothers both from an affluent family background, Jaffar, 16, and Amer, 20, remain in Syria.”

“Nasser was a star medical student who secretly travelled to Syria from his family home in Cardiff despite being offered the opportunity to study medicine by four universities.”

“Reyaad Khan, also from Cardiff, appeared in a shocking recruitment video aimed at luring jihadists to Syria and Iraq. The former college student from Cardiff  once dreamt of becoming Britain’s first Asian prime minister.”

“Aine Davis grew up in a leafy London suburb.”

“Ibrahim al-Mazwagi, 21 Raised in north London, he studied business administration at Hertfordshire University in Hatfield.”

“Mohammed el-Araj, 23 was the son of an antiques dealer.”

” Muhammad Hamidur Rahman was a former supervisor at Primark…  His father  said: ‘He asked us to pray for him, and said he wanted to become a shaheed (martyr) for the sake of Allah.’”

And if anyone is in doubt about the Islamic imperative and ethos motivating these Western warriors, they clearly not only believe in Islamic eschatology, as Hasan mistakenly admits, but they also believe in Islamic soteriology and the doctrines of salavation:

“Ifthekar Jaman, 23, died in 2013 in a battlefield clash 2,000 miles from his Hampshire home .He was one of an estimated 350 British men to have taken up arms with Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria – where they are known as British Kataa’ib, meaning British Brigade. Jaman declared he was ready to die as a martyr, vowing: ‘I don’t plan to come back. Life is for the hereafter… it’s an eternal paradise so the sacrifice is small.’

Both the religious and the political justification evidently is a motivating factor:

“Ifthekar Jaman, 23 (Alias: Abu Aburahman). He previously worked in customer services for Sky. Before his death Jaman, whose father owns a curry house, said it was his “duty” to help Muslims “being slaughtered” by President Bashar al-Assad and was reconciled to dying in Syria. One of his final posts on Twitter said: “It is better for the authorities to allow these Muslims who want to migrate & do jihad.”  In October, his father, Enu Miah, 57, and mother, Hena Choudhury, 48,  originally from Bangladesh, were among six people arrested in coordinated counter–terrorism police raids in Hampshire and London.”

These middle class, often well to do, intelligent students, are certainly not people who have been disadvantaged, nor are they lacking in intellectual acumen or awareness.

Hasan then pivots to ridicule and sleights the credibility of his opponent, who although not demonstrative has truth on his side. “Anjem Choudary is a joke figure” states Hasan. In this, he wants to portray him as the buffoon with an outlandish “un-Islamic” view of the world. The fact Wood has used him as a figure in his article helps Hasan to downplay its validity. Just as Wood’s claim not to be Muslim himself is supposed to downplay his ability to make a simple association of the fact a believer of the Quran is a believer in Islam, whatever the interpretation or perspective might entail.

There are nominal Muslims of course, who are not particularly up or enthused about attending mosque, praying, fasting or practising the faith, or steadfastly observing the 5 Pillars, but whilst Choudary may not be a serious “Islamic theological scholar”, his interpretation of Islam is yet an interpretation of Islam and he fulfils its practises stringently. He is, therefore, not simply a nominal Muslim, or someone who is a cultural Muslim and therefore un-Islamic in that sense, but an ardent believer in the faith of Islam. He is also a man who nearly always has the honesty and conviction in his faith to speak the truth, at least as he sees it, even if his literal interpretation of texts  may not always be endorsed by Hasan’s more esteemed “mainstream” Imams.

Of course, Choudary’s perspective is objectionable in respect to his support for  al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir and Isis. He is, however, not to be simply dismissed as a joker, as Hasan tries to do. On the contrary, his influence in prompting disciples to follow and support such groups needs to be taken extremely seriously indeed. In this, however, Hasan  shows his own unintentional (or otherwise) support in treating such figures as a joke. He merely seeks to downplay  the influence and effects of a very dangerous Islamic imperative.

Choudary has influenced many individuals through his interpretation and perspectives, not just people who have travelled to Syria in order to behead  “the people in the desert”, but people such as Michael Adebojalo, who has beheaded on the streets of London.

Choudary Adbajabolo

Choudary with his disciple Adebolajo who murdered Lee Rigby


Mr Hasan continues to smirk and tell us there is nothing more to see here with Choudary move on. Islamic State  too are just “un-Islamic”: a  bunch of fringe loonies who might well have had difficult childhoods, or “suffered” in their alienation due to difficult “socio-economic” circumstances.

He effectively continues to make the case, and whilst he does not go so far as to excuse them as CAGE (in their claim about Jihadi John being “a really sweet gentle guy” who was just reacting to the alienation and injustice he felt in his society) did, he still invokes the idea that these activist are more to be pitied as irreligious, misconceived fools.  In doing this, he protects them by default. He seeks to shift the association from Islam and its presumed intellectual rigour, something he is very proud of in respect to himself, as he smirks that he certainly couldn’t be beaten in an argument, and seeks to blame British society, or Britain’s incursion into Iraq, or Britain’s inherent racism as the cause. These irreligious, immoral, deluded activists,  are lacking intelligence. They have simply been led astray. Their alienation as Muslims like their “anger is understandable”, because they’ve been given such a hard time. Their reaction and response, however, reveals for Hasan their quintessentially un-Islamic foolishness. A position that gives them harbour to not be taken seriously and continue by default,

Liberal politicians,  CIA and Military Intelligence Agents, want to claim  this is “nothing to do with Islam”. Hasan cheers them on. They are Muslim sure, he claims, but Christians have done lots of bad things too, and there are so many other factors to consider. Admittedly there are, but their Islamic faith is one of the big ones. Exactly how many disenfranchised alienated Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhist, Hindus and Jains joined Isis Medhi? We  should not then, as Hasan tries to do, simply cloak Islam in a socio political explanation. This is something far more complex.  In this practise of disassociation with Islam too, he is indeed suffering and perpetuating further psychological trauma himself, and perpetuating the continuation of misunderstanding in providing an effective  response to an escalating and very perilous problem by ignoring the elephant in the room.

Isis are not Islamic insists Hasan. Meanwhile, they quote the literalist version of the Quran and  pray and fast and cite the Quranic surah. They continue to fly the flag too. The black banner of Islam flies overhead;  a symbol that goes back to the 8th century, when the Second Dynasty of Islam came to power with black banners, according to Jonathan Bloom, Professor of Islamic Art at Boston College.

Lets just lessen the confusion wrought by Hasan on his audience, then, by noting something else that makes Isis truly Islamic. It is something else Medhi appears to want to skip over, for reasons that will become clearer soon. The white writing that you see at the top of the flag is the first half of an Islamic phrase called the shahada, or declaration of faith. It  reads: “There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is His messenger.” The entire shahada is found on many different flags throughout the Islamic world, including the official state flag of Saudi Arabia. Another appropriated symbol on the flag is the white circle at its center, which contains the second part of the shahada: “Muhammad is the Messenger of God (Allah).” It is meant to represent the official seal of the Prophet Muhammad, although Bloom concedes scholars have long debated what that seal actually looked like.

The two Arabic phrases, the black color of the flag, and even the ancient looking font of the Arabic, all work to evoke an image of the historical Islamic caliphate, the massive state that Isis claims to have resurrected. It is evoked too in their hand gesture, when Isis militants hold up a single index finger on their hand. Here, they are alluding to  the belief in the oneness of Allah (tawhid),  a key component of the Islamic  religion. The tawhid comprises the first half of the shahada, which is an affirmation of faith, one of the five pillars of Islam, and a component of daily prayers: “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

When Isis militants display the sign, to one another or to a photographer, they are actively reaffirming their dedication to that politico religious ideology, whose underlying principle is a deep literal fundamentalism, an end to pluralism, and a call for  the destruction of the irreligious non believers in the West.

Speaking then of pluralism Mr Hasan, what is “authentic” Islam? There are multiple perspectives from Salafism to Alawi or even Ahmaddiya. Yes and even the physical jihad inspired fundamentalism of Isis appeals to its name. Do tell us all how you can profess to know what is “authentic” Islam? Do you find pluralism objectionable? If you do, it suggests you are a fundamentalist of another stripe to me.


Hasan’s dubious connections

Certainly with  his, “they are not Islamic” rhetoric, Hasan is seeking to prevent a full evaluation of Isis, so that counter security measures, MI6 operatives and other important people, some of whom he  appears to know,  cannot adequately make the correct appraisals and do their job. For if we cannot understand fully the enemy, how are we to successfully defeat it?

Certainly claiming as Hasan does that Isis is not Islamic and saying this wholesale with such a sweeping broad statement is an obfuscation of the matter. He certainly fools the general public also, but this is a consistent strategy: it is an active deceit that can be justified, but also masked by the call for the furtherance of  his own brand of Islam as the “authentic” kind. Of course not all sects and interpretations of Islam are extreme, but the more mainstream is certainly not moderate, and too many practise violent hudud in sharia as it is. A plain violation of basic human rights. Yet here he seeks to give Islam across the board  a free pass. The question then is why?

Hasan has some strange connections. He is not simply the moderate westernised Muslim secularist he likes to portray himself as. He has  visited CAIR in the US and even had his airflights paid for  by them. He is friendly with associates of the Muslim Brotherhood also. The Muslim Brotherhood are officially recognised as a terrorist organisation in Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Syria. The Holy Land Foundation trial too has been significant in shaping US opinion in this respect.

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instil the Quran and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state.” This is a global endeavour. One presumes democratic states then are to be usurped, or infiltrated, or Islamised in some sense. This might well be by violent means, as its  mottos include “Believers are but Brothers”, “Islam is the Solution”, and “Allah is our objective; the Quran is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.” It is financed by members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement. It was for many years financed by Saudi Arabia, with whom it shared some enemies and some points of fundamentalist  doctrine.

Here is Mr Hasan talking to one of these dubious associates openly, his “brother” in faith, Tariq Ramadan, in a televised debate. Hasan plays devil’s advocate sometimes and asks nice questions the rest of the time.


Ramadan has called for the development of a new and distinctive variety of Islam from the traditional Islamic division of the world into two: the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). He  suggests a new category of the Dar al-Shahada (House of Witness) for pluralistic societies. In this, Muslims can give witness to their faith, but yet fully participate in other elements of their new, primarily secular environment.

Ramadan advocates a re-examination of the core Muslim texts to achieve this. He seeks to  distinguish the permanent and essential (thabit) from the impermanent and contingent (mutaghayyir), thus separating Islam from its traditional Middle Eastern social and cultural settings. His works, then, call into question the assumption that in order to flourish Islam must control its entire political, social and cultural space. In this, for Ramadan, Muslims living in the Dar al-Shahada should accept the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship in some sort of contractual obligation.

Ramadan’s thesis represents a significant departure from the absolute and dogmatic views of such Muslim thinkers as Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who asserted:

“the doctrines and teachings of Islam are all-comprehensive and govern the affairs of men in this world and the next.”

Ramadan’s view sounds great. However, questions  arise, as to Ramadan’s sincerity, as he  happens to be Hasan al-Banna’s grandson. Despite the arguments cited above, and his claim not to be involved with the Brotherhood, Ramadan has also made public statements praising Islamic extremists and condoning terrorist acts. A case might be made by his critics, therefore, that he is simply another covert subversive agent, working to further more extremist aims: a kind of Islamic Trojan Horse, working as part of a Fifth Column to further civilisational jihad.  His apparently contrary statements in any case do little to further trust, let alone his distinctions for a reformed Islam, but only highlight the difficulties in effecting reform, even if individuals appear enthusiastic to the cause.

This is not simply my opinion, nor is it born of paranoia or “Islamaphobia”. Even Western governments have been cautious. In 1996, France refused entry to Ramadan, because of his alleged ties to Algerian Islamic terrorism; other reports suggest that he has connections to al-Qaeda. The Department of Homeland Security has recently prevented him from entering the United States to take a prestigious academic post.

Ramadan’s ambiguous record lends some credence to his critics that his notions of a reformed Islam are nothing but a deception strategy to further Islamic totalitarianism. In this context, the concept of European Islam has certain parallels with the Euro-Communism of a generation earlier. At that time the so called Euro-Communists maintained that Communist parties of Western Europe had become independent of the Soviet Union and discarded their Stalinist ways. Jean-François Revel refuted both claims in a 1978 article in Foreign Affairs.

Concerning Hasan, however,  his connections with both CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are significant indicators of more fundamental, privately held,  radical  beliefs. Beliefs other than his pubic advocacy of left wing “secularism” and being a “moderate”.

His association with CAIR and its influence on his own arguments is significant. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a notorious Islamic Supremacist group in the United States. It masquerades as a civil rights organisation. It often complains about petty slights to Muslim-Americans, while ignoring much more serious human rights violations against non-Muslims more generally in the Islamic world. This is something Hasan himself adopts as a personal strategy in his deflection and belittling of the effects of dangerous Muslims, or his claim Isis is un-Islamic. The ethos of the group can be summed up by its founder Omar Ahmad:

“This is the war technique. Politics is also war and deception.”

Some facts about CAIR 

  • CAIR was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic supremacist organisation that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism and sanctions violence against civilians.
  • CAIR represents the opinions of only 12% of Muslim-Americans according to Gallup.
  • CAIR receives financial support from foreign powers who have also provided direct support to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Hamas in the past.
  • CAIR has solicited money from sponsors of terror and received financial support from convicted terrorists.
  • CAIR has raised funds for terrorists under the guise of helping 9/11 victims.
  • CAIR board members have called for the overthrow of the United States and the imposition of Islamic law.  CAIR has suggested applying Sharia punishment (ie. the death penalty) to users who criticise Islam on the Internet.
  • At least 15 high-level CAIR staff members have been under federal investigation for ties to Islamic terror.
  • CAIR has discouraged Muslim-Americans from cooperating with law enforcement and has spent more time and money advocating on behalf of convicted terrorists than for their victims.

Hasan Cair

Hasan the literal fundamentalist

In all of this, remember the fundamentalist view is one that advocates the most literal view of the Quran. The more literal the view the more fundamental the believer. The Salafists reform movement was characterised by this very tendency in response to the excessive philosophical teachings and traditions that had impaired the purity of the original prophetic message.

Here are some clips  of Mr Hasan displaying his more  fundamental bent. In this too, let us not be surprised that Medhi Hasan takes the religious text very seriously and literally. First,  watch him in conversation with  Richard Dawkins, supporting a very strong belief in miraculous events.

He clearly believes Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two. But of more concern is what does this belief in the possibility of miracles really tell us about Mr Hasan? It tells us he is a man of the Islamic faith sure, but it also tells us he is a literalist, and not one prepared to accept allegorical interpretation readily. His concern here is not even to justify or suppose it. He claims he can’t. He can’t because he is clinging to a very literal interpretation of the events happening as stated. But this indicates a very fundamental position. It is one that comes across more clearly in the following clip.

Note Hasan states the literal interpretation that the kuffar (non believers) are ignorant. That they have “diseased minds”. That they are not just immoral, but lack intelligence in comparison (that old chestnut again) as they are unable to cure themselves of their delusions and transgressions. Whilst Hasan has  stated that the media should be sanctioned for “dishonest, demonising press coverage” of Islam, he appears incapable here  of applying the same standards to himself and his views on Christians, Jews and other non believers.

Hasan has  stated that these clips have been taken “out of context”. But irrespective of the context, non-Muslims and atheists are termed as “cattle”, a reference in surah Al-Qur’an 25:44 amongst others. They back up a sermon delivered in 2009 where quoting the Quran, Hasan said:

“The kuffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

In response to criticism over his translation and  the use of the term “cattle” to describe non-believers, Hasan wrote in his New Statesman blog that “the phrase ‘people of no intelligence’ simply and narrowly referred to the fact that Muslims  regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins)  regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient.”

But this is not a reasonable comparison, but it says much about Hasan’s feelings towards non-believers. People of no faith need not be considered irrational. Nor should faithlessness have to equate to being “mentally deficient”. In this too, irrationality  might  denote only a misuse. or misappropriation of reason. It need not denote imbecility. Whereas those ruled by the tenets of faith require only an emotional acceptance to believe.

Deductive reasoning to justify faith is not necessarily superior to an empirical inductive justification favoured by science. A mode of reasoning Hasan himself cites as a preference in justifying Islamic State as un-Islamic.  Irrationality for Hasan clearly equates to a man of no religious sensibility being  an imbecile, whilst a clever man of intelligence (if we accept Hasan’s  definition) is Islamic. But it is disingenuous considering the basis of faith elevates deductive reasoning over empirical reasoning. It is less credible too as it only requires essentially  that emotion rules over reason as a qualifier to believe. A  non religious man, however, is not afforded this luxury. All he can appeal to is a  prodigious intellect and  facts to justify his position. It is one in respect to flying horses and moon splitting that certainly cannot be justified empirically.

Furthermore, how does empirical intellectual justification equate to  non believers being mentally deficient or like “cattle” specifically? Dawkins has never referred to  people of faith as apes or pigs for their beliefs.  Dawkins clearly makes the case that ignorance is no crime. “Ignorance Is No Crime“, Free Inquiry 21 (3), Summer 2001.

Medhi, however, doesn’t know when to stop digging. He returned to this issue in August 2012 following criticism from the columnist Peter Hitchens  only to admit  his guilt by claiming his:

“phraseology was ill-judged, ill-advised and, even, inappropriate”.

Is he actually stating here that the Prophet’s utterances are wrong? Surely not. He appears to be merely trying to sidestep an issue that displays his own self evident fundamentalism, prejudice and bigotry. His fundamentalism and religious intolerance is on show for all the world to see, even though many of these videos have been suppressed.

It is one thing to soberly argue about the relative merits of atheism, or religious beliefs, and it is surely right to say that some atheists have become “blind to the wonders of the world”. It is quite another to speak with a passionate disgust. Certainly, however, it is clear from the way that Mehdi Hasan speaks of “the kaffar”, the “cattle” or “disbelievers” that this is not simply a rational discussion of  the merits of faith, as his conversation with Dawkins was, but a hate speech sermon justified by an interpretation of the Quran. Furthermore, he at no point or juncture  states this as anything but gospel truth, and an irrefutable fact of a sinful character he clearly despises in any who do not believe as he believes.

This is not simply a distaste for non Muslims,  but extends to any who do not share the Shia interpretation when pushed. Other Muslims, however, do not simply get off scott free.  For here  Hasan talks about the sixth Caliph of Sunni Islam Caliph Yazid as “a kaffir” or a “fasiq“, a  wicked:

“breaker of Islamic laws, a corrupt individual, a tyrant, a killer, a drunkard, a dog lover, a music-lover, a…. a homosexual, a paedophile, a sexual deviant.. someone who slept with his own mother! ”

More and more people are beginning to see through his moderate pose and observe  the hypocrisy beneath however, as shown by this Muslimah who reprimands him in one of his lectures. So too the blogger at British Secular Muslims who felt compelled to write in their defence:

“British secular Muslims reject Mehdi Hasan’s obfuscation of Wahhabi and Deobandi Islamist terrorism against Muslims and non-Muslims.”

In contrast, Mr Hasan is tired of any perceived criticism he might receive because of his stance, but  is so quick to judge others for the slightest transgressions.

“I grow tired of having to also endure a barrage of lazy stereotypes, inflammatory headlines, disparaging generalisations and often inaccurate and baseless stories.”

Mehdi Hasan is upset by “disparaging generalisations” made about “Muslims”, but hypocritically goes on a public  attack of all atheists and “disbelievers”, as well as specific Muslims, whom he likens to “cattle” and “of no intelligence” himself? Is this not hypocritical?

His speeches clearly harbour deeper prejudices against not just non believers of Islam,  but at least some contemporary believers of the faith also. In the UK he has labelled other advocates for reform like Maajid Nawaz as “Islamophobes”, sternly berating him, whilst he sat alongside his supporter Mo Ansar on BBC Newsnight for a supposedly “offensive” stick drawing of Muhammad. Another example of his intolerant, less moderate fundamentalism, and a very telling sign of his outrage against one image in a series posted by Maajid Nawaz, which prompted threats on his life.

 The dispute  here is one that has been raging for the last 1200 years, ever since Ali, the Prophet’s cousin, was denied the position of Caliph. This led to the first and most important schism in Islam, between those that went on to support Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s father-in-law, to become Muhammad’s successor and leader of the Muslims and those who supported Ali. This, then, isn’t simply about “Islamophobia”, but Medhi Hasan’s prejudices against any who do not advocate what he believes is  “authentic” Islam. It extends not just to non believers, but Sunni too. It is clear also in his unwavering support of Iran and its persecution of other sects.

As Saif Rahman of the Humanist and Muslim Cultural Association has stated, we need  more exposure of “spurious moderates who wear one hat for a Muslim audience and another one around non-Muslims”.

 In respect to Hasan, Rahman notes too his  tendency to mock and deride true moderates and reformers, revealing a more conservative mind set of his own. He asks progressive Muslims like Mona Eltahawy “Are you a practising Muslim?” and “sneers at Muslim reformists like Irshad Manji” in turn.
But this is not just an ideological objection, or a religious persective, his own personal misogyny, sexism and racism too comes into the equation. As Saif Rahman has stated:

“After speaking to a number of his associates and former work colleagues (who wish to remain anonymous fearing his retribution), Mehdi Hasan garnered quite a reputation for his anti-white female racism & bullying of female work colleagues. On numerous occasions he proudly affirmed he’d never marry a white girl much to the annoyance of his other open-minded white female work colleagues, they themselves had no problem with marrying men of any race, creed or colour. He bullied and reduced a Muslim female work colleague to tears by calling her a ‘coconut’.  It is a term used amongst Asians to slander other Asians who are “brown on the outside and white on the inside.”

 In this, Mr Hasan’s attitude to gays, whites, females generally and any Muslims with a  faith perspective he objects to are targets. Whilst he indeed appears to be  prejudiced towards any based on his own particular understanding of what he considers is “authentic Islam”. If it is, it is clearly not a perspective that many will welcome in the West.


Freedom of speech for my views but nobody who disagrees with me

Medhi free speech

During a session called “The Muslims are Coming!” delivered to an audience of media figures at a Mindshare event, Hasan was at his most disingenuous. He insisted the British press had proven themselves: “singularly unable or unwilling to change the discourse, the tone or the approach” of their criticisms of Islam and Muslims. They  would only do so too if there was “some sanction, there is some penalty” to enforce this.  “This is not just about Muslims; it is about all minorities”  Hasan went on to say.

He suggested  that there was a double standard at play in the media. That advertisers would have boycotted publications if they had carried stories on other minorities similar to those written about Muslims. Hasan then presented a slideshow of British newspaper headlines, which he  argued “alienated” Muslims from the rest of the British population.

According to Hasan, the headlines were not only morally wrong, but also “dangerous and counter-productive”. They confirmed an extremist narrative: that there is some kind of inevitable clash happening between the West and Islam more generally. That there can never be any kind of reconciliation between them. “To pretend that all this negative, mad, crazy, over the top, dishonest, demonising press coverage is justified is wrong.” he said. “To pretend that it has no impact on a minority community living in the UK, or on our multicultural society, on relations between communities is naive, if not disingenuous.” Furthermore, in order to combat this  “Islamophobia”, Hasan advocated a drive for increased diversity in the industry and front page apologies, commensurate with the damaging headlines, as recompense. As Hasan told the Guardian:

“I’m all in favour of free speech and the robust criticism of all religious beliefs. But it’s the made-up stories and the smearing of individuals and whole communities that I have an issue with. “Why isn’t anti-Muslim bigotry as unacceptable in the press as anti-Jewish bigotry?’ That’s the question that needs answering.”

Hasan speaks of a general Islamophobia in the media and a demonisation of Muslims generally without distinction. This, however, is incorrect, as the mainstream press often make the distinction between Islam and Islamism: a rhetorical and in many senses false distinction. Indeed, they have often downplayed  the religious ethos underlying the jihadist imperative, even to the point of being openly ridiculed by the general public because of it.  When reporting on radical Islamic acts of  terror, they will even  refer to jihadis as “youths” or “militants,” or “insurgents,” or (in the UK) “British Asians” doing everything they can to obscure what they really are: Muslims acting in the name of an admittedly radical Islamic perspective, but one which is Islamic nevertheless, and one in accord with Baghdadi’s understanding of the Islamic texts and edicts. Even the reporting of domestic crimes tend to focus on the gender or ethnicity, rather than the religious ideology which many of them share. Here, religious ideology is deemed an irrelevance, in contrast to a begrudging acceptance of a predominant ethnicity, or cultural mind set, broadly termed “Asian”  or “Middle Eastern”, but often even this is downplayed. Religious ideology cannot be ignored, however, when the committers themselves are citing the Quran and screaming Allahu Akhbar as they murder people in turn.

Yet even in this, the mainstream press censored any association with the religion of Islam. The perpetrators were “mentally ill”, they were “radicals” perhaps, but this had “nothing to with Islam”. Considering his own hypocrisy towards others then Hasan must be glad of such censorship and spin in the name of political correctness. Too often, however, it is clear that such spin is a pure misrepresentation.

“And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” Quran 5:45.

There is a correct understanding in this however, as it is emphasised that forgiving is the better option:

“The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it. But if someone pardons and puts things right, his reward is with Allah…” Quran, 42:40.

“But if you pardon and exonerate and forgive, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Qur’an, 64: 14.

“who restrain anger and who pardon the people – and Allah loves the doers of good” Quran 3:134 (Speaking of people who are “successful in the eyes of God”).

So while the Quran does say retribution is a viable option, forgiving is the better option.

Reform and education  of false perspectives is required here, not censorship of any criticism, or ridicule of such advocates, so that ignorance and prejudice persists and turns to war. People cannot learn or improve by denying their faults. Hasan, therefore,  cannot prevent conflict by simply getting others to shut up about the inevitable clash of cultures and values entailed if radical Islam is not reformed  to one more compatible with the Western value system. Nor can he merely dismiss other Muslims who hold more fundamental perspectives as simply being “un-Islamic”. Not unless he seeks to protect them and give them the ability to continue their misguided acts. This appears to be a man simply in denial, or more worryingly, deeply single minded in his own world view.



Mr Hasan does more damage when he criticises those who stand-up against calling out Islam as radical, as he more often than not does. The  stance he takes against radical Islam is usually an obfuscation that helps further their cause. A charge he himself wants to pin on those that make the connection. This is “misguided”, “intellectually bankrupt”, and in some cases born of “Islamophobia” he claims. He is, however, merely seeking to stifle criticism and shame any who propose solutions. In this, he gives radical Islam too  much of a free pass, and facilitates further the likelihood of terror and conflict  in turn.

His bias and prejudice against Sunnis exacerbate old divisions too.  Very rarely will we see him take a stand against Shia radicals. In fact he supports the Iranian theocracy and is even empathetic towards its nuclear programme.

Rarely (as Saif Rahman observes) will Mehdi Hasan share anything that casts his Supreme Spiritual Leader Ayatollah Khomeini or Iran’s human-rights violating regime in a bad light; yet he is more than happy to criticise British foreign policy. He won’t mention Islamic Trojan schools either, but will compare counter attempts by British politicians to those of Anders Breivik.

This is typical of Mr Hasan’s biased and hypocritical stance. He’ll rave on about Islamophobia in Britain, but attack Muslims in turn who seek to implement measures for pragmatic solutions and reform in the name of moderation and peace. He will happily complain about prejudice and targeting by journalists in the media, whilst attacking others as  “stupid” and “intellectually lazy”. He needs, based on the empirical evidence provided, to look in the mirror before making such charges.

*Islam resides in the fact that, more or less right from its inception, politics was intimately wedded to the faith. Indeed, Islam as a religious faith would not have achieved any success had Muhammad not moved to Medina to become both Prophet and Conqueror. His triumph over his enemies in Mecca was a military victory, not simply a victory of proselytising. In 630, he entered the holy city as Conqueror (Fateh) which explains why Muslim historiographers call the expansion of Islam throughout the world “conquests” (al-Futuhat). The Ottoman Sultan that conquered Constantinople in 1453 was known notably in this respect as Muhammad al-Fateh, (Muhammad “the Conqueror”).

**Whilst Shiism itself is recognised as a valid madhhab, following Al Azhar, some Sunnis both now and in the past have regarded it as beyond the pale, and have attacked its adherents. In modern times, notable examples include the bombing campaigns by the Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria, two small extremist groups, against Shia or Sunni mosques in Pakistan, the persecution of Hazara under the Taliban, and the bloody attacks linked with Zarqawi and his followers against Shia in Iraq. The point here is  Hasan’s claim to  “authentic Islam” is not readily determined even amongst Islamic believers.

***In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah this question was answered in a detailed manner, which is worth quoting here in full.


What is the ruling on following one of the four madhhabs in all cases and situations?

The Committee replied:

Praise be to Allaah, and blessings and peace be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.

Firstly: the four madhhabs are named after the four imams – Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Maalik, Imam al-Shaafa’i and Imam Ahmad.

Secondly: These imams learned fiqh (jurisprudence) from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they are mujtahideen in this regard. The mujtahid either gets it right, in which case he will have two rewards, the reward for his ijtihaad and the reward for getting it right, or he will get it wrong, in which case he will be rewarded for his ijtihaad and will be forgiven for his mistake.

Thirdly: the one who is able to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah should take from them like those who came before him; it is not right for him to follow blindly (taqleed) when he believes that the truth lies elsewhere. Rather he should follow that which he believes is the truth. It is permissible for him to follow in matters in which he is unable to come to a conclusion based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah and he needs guidelines concerning a particular issue.

Fourthly:  Whoever does not have the ability to derive rulings himself is permitted to follow one whom he feels comfortable following. If he is not comfortable following him then he should ask until he finds someone with whom he is comfortable.

Fifthly:  From the above it is clear that we should not follow their opinions in all situations and at all times, because they may make mistakes, but we may follow their views that are sound and are based on the evidence.