The Persuasion of Conversion...

Last week saw the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's controversial 'Rivers of Blood' speech, in which the late MP warned of the threats of a multi-cultural society. In it he aired the concerns of his constituents with regard to immigration and race, and suggested that the influx of huge numbers of foreign born peoples would lead to tensions in following years. The explicitly apocalyptic suggestivity and nature of the speech still harrows the mind even today.

"In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.... We must be mad, literally mad, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’."

Taken out of context Powell seems irrational, like a racist scaremonger making false prophesies; but if it is known that Powell is reading a letter from a concerned constituent of his, the speech seems to loose much of its ferocity. At the time however this was irrelevant, the speech provoked outrage when it was broadcast in 1968, at a time when black America was at the height of it's civil rights movement, and the results of the British 1950s immigration experiment were first being made known. Powell was remembered for what he said on that day for the rest of his life, he became a hero to some, and an monster to others as a direct consequence of it. The speech has been a stumbling block in the immigration debate ever since that day in Birmingham, a 'no-go area' for most MP's and politicians, until the influx of predominantly white European migrants in recent years has changed everything.

For half a century or more, immigration and race were always seen as one entity, and of course the two have been historically intertwined for thousands of years. For a non-white person to be residing in the UK, their family line had to have been originally extracted from elsewhere, such is the nature of evolutionary development. Colour may be a physical indication that people are of a foreign descent genetically, even though this is obviously not the rule. And because it is not the rule, people of foreign white descent may have been overlooked in the past, or not known about, by the population of the time. Because of this, concerns aired about immigration in previous decades must have been directly linked to race and colour, therefore deeming it (rightly or wrongly) racist to see immigration as bad.

Due to this, concerns about immigration were previously ignored by politicians, as opposition to it was seen to be an overlying excuse for opposition to people of non-white descent. Despite the fact that an uneducated, racist element may still reside within the UK, I believe it is far smaller than those politicians previously thought. And that in fact more people are opposed to uncontrolled immigration full stop, whether immigrants coming into Britain are white or not. This realisation that immigration is no longer a race issue has taken the influx of Polish, Estonian and Lithuanian immigrants into Britain in recent years, for the Left to see that people are opposed to their uncontrolled migration as well, even though they are white. If immigration was still a race issue, surely we would see the promotion of the influx of Eastern Europeans, and at the same time the opposition of non-white immigrants. The snake of racism in Britain is evidently dying, and immigration is now being taken seriously by politicians.


This week, Islamic-extremist Abu Izzadeen and five other men were convicted on charges of terrorist fund-raising and inciting terrorism overseas. Izzadeen, who has been known to BBC 2's Newsnight for four years, has openly praised the 7/7 London suicide bombings and the atrocities of 9/11 live on television, and is a spokesman for banned extremist group Al-Ghurabaa. If I were to remark on the relevance of verses in the Quran which may justify the extremist views of Izzadeen, I may be accused of (as I have before) 'Islamaphobia'. The fact that extremists are generally known to be non-white may also have led to an accusation of my being a 'racist' or 'xenophobe' as well, until now.

One of the men convicted along with Izzadeen was 35 year old Simon (Sulayman) Keeler, a white convert to Islam from Whitechapel in London. Keeler's anti-American, anti-western sentiment had also been made known on BBC 2's Newsnight in 2004. On 9/11 he said this:

"I don't believe in democracy. It's man made. You're talking about a government that taxes the people to death. It oppresses many millions of people in the world. It wouldn't be such a shame to have them overturned. You're talking about one man, Tony Blair, sends a bunch of aircraft into Iraq, bombs a bunch of people. You're talking about another man, Osama Bin Laden, who sends a bunch of aeroplanes into America and bombs a bunch of people - what is the difference? You tell me."

And on the victims of 9/11:

"But you talk about 3,000 so-called innocents. What about the 200,000 innocents in Afghanistan? What about the one million children in Iraq who died as a result of America's foreign policy? Let's remember who we're talking about. You're crying about the fact that America, the oppressor, has been punched in the nose. That's what happened"

It is one thing to be aware of the frightening reality that is the home-grown threat of terrorism, but it is quite another to now accept that white, British converts may also be as willing to blow themselves up in British cities as people such as Muhammad Siddiq Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. The only good thing I can see from this scenario, is that the threat of this extremist ideology can now be made known. To see the London suicide bombers as nothing more than murderers is dangerous, and it is ignorant and naive to think that only foreignly extracted Muslims are capable of such atrocities. The proof of the danger of Islamism is now clear, the ideology must be defeated.


It is no use locking up people on terrorism charges all the time, hoping and praying that people like Anjem Choudary leave enough substantial evidence for the authorities to take legal action against them, even though we all know of their abhorrent views. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir need to be banned in Britain, as does the public proclamation of support for such groups. In Germany and Austria it is illegal to depict Nazism in a positive light or to possess any Nazi paraphernalia; and to openly deny the holocaust is an act that will rightly land one in jail in those countries. Nobody disputes these laws, and so why not implement something similar here? Islamism, like Nazism, is no joke.

Situationary evolution has once again meant that the racial gap has been bridged, potentially meaning that reactionary debate might no longer be hindered by re-worded accusations of racism. The enlightening realisation that we might not only be at war with Islamists, but with our own genetic countrymen in future years, changes the way we now view the extremist threat. There is now a danger that because the adoption of Islamism is a choice, which white and non-white may endeavour in, it may prove to become a far wider phenomenon than previously anticipated. Remember if you will the number of victims of the London bombings, 52 people were killed and 700 others were injured by a mere four men, a mere four dedicated Islamists. Race was an irrelevant factor...

(Picture 1: Enoch Powell in 1968.)
(Picture 2: Abu Izzadeen heckling John Reid in 2006.)
(Picture 3: Recently gaoled Sulayman Keeler at an extremist rally.)

A Bit Of Tasteless Promotion...

Just for a tad bit of promotion, seeing as I am a member of the Conservative Party, I have decided to publish the following video below. And yes, I admit it, as tasteless and cringe worthy this medium may in fact turn out to be, I just had to post it here in the hope of bringing a few Labourites and Lib Dims to the light. I have thought about this post a great deal and know for certain that I wouldn't appreciate some of the worlds more admirable political commentators doing the same on their blogs. It's just not done, admitting to your fellow countrymen and women whom you support politically, in such an explicit and obvious way; but there, I hasten to say, you have it.
For those of you who may have missed the brand new Conservative Party Election Broadcast, directed by producer Matthew Vaughan, at 6.55pm on BBC 1 this evening, here it is:

The Menace Of Mugabe...

As we await the final outcome of the elections in Zimbabwe, and indeed the subsequent violence that will no doubt follow, the Government here in Britain seem quite unconcerned about the whole matter. The trappings of post-colonial guilt and the incapacity of a Labour government to criticise post-apartheid South Africa has meant that President Mugabe and his merry band of thugs are free to run riot in what was once British Southern Rhodesia without any serious opposition from Britain. Thabo Mbeki the president of neighbouring South Africa, and a well known Mugabe sympathiser, said only days ago that the situation in Zimbabwe was 'manageable'. Words which must send dread through the few remaining white farmers left alive in Zimbabwe.

In recent days armed militias in support of Mugabe's ZANU PF have been reported to have been attacking and intimidating voters in what has been described as 'huge violence', a move which opposition groups claim is part of a wider Government strategy to gain votes through force. And just yesterday neighbouring Zambia has called for an emergency meeting of the Southern African Development Community, due to the delayed election results. A foreign reaction which is itself way overdue.

When last I visited Africa, I was not prepared for what I saw, and some of the things there truly shocked me. Poverty, death, and crime all of which I experienced and witnessed first hand, all of which are everyday realities for most people. I learned quickly the truth, the mentality of the region which views life as cheap, and changing that mind-set would be like changing the French to view snails much like the rest of the world does. It is an eclectic and complex mix of religious duty and desired well being for ones fellow neighbour, and yet also a survival society, where to rob or murder to feed your family is acceptable. The people of African nations seem individually to incorporate both the centuries old tribal values of long-gone eras with the more recent colonial imports of Europe. The latter primarily being: Religion, Government Structure and Social Formality.

The democratic evolution of a country is extremely important in the grand scheme of things. To have a government which rigs elections and polls can only ensure the people under its rule will value the importance of real democracy and appreciate free democratic rule later in their national lives. The evolution of a country like that of Zimbabwe in our eyes could be seen similar to that of an adolescent child who is making all the mistakes we did as children. And as a more developed adult nation, we try to prevent them from making the same mistakes we did, yet knowing full well in our subconscious that they have to learn their own lessons.


We must however remember that it is not the people of Zimbabwe whom are playing around with democracy, but Mugabe. The ability to 'see how democracy fits' is, as we see it, a right which every citizen of the world should be allowed to have. To have a voice, and an opportunity to make decisions on who governs us is one of the core foundations of democracy. The people of Zimbabwe have been denied this basic and fundamental right for over 20 years, because Robert Mugabe has decided otherwise. A man, who seems to have a problem with democracy.

Apart from the incredibly high inflation, the plummeting life expectancy figures, the internal displacement of millions, the human-rights abuses of Zimbabwe, and the fact that Mugabe fits the role of a Dictator to a tee, there is another reason why our Government should be playing a more prominent role in encouraging the removal of Mugabe. Over the past 10 or 11 years, the number of applicants for asylum in Britain has risen dramatically, with more asylum seekers being granted acceptance into Britain than ever before. This along with the influx of economic migrants and others, has meant that overall immigration figures are up. And apart from the strain on services, education and housing which go along with the wider issue of Immigration, other subsequent problems have seen the radicalisation of the white working classes, which I have covered in previous posts.

The inability to understand the difference between an Asylum Seeker and an Economic Migrant has meant that all immigrants have been tarred with the same brush, when it comes to influx figures, by those people. To them, figures are figures, and the numbers are acting as a recruiting agent for the extreme-right. To limit the number of asylum seekers allowed into Britain just for the sake of lowering overall figures might be considered to be insensitive and wrong. But to lower the number via the removal of the threats posed to those asylum seekers in their own country's, would be a triumph not just for British infrastructure, but a triumph for good. The Conservative Party have put forward ideas to 'cap' the number of immigrants coming to Britain in their manifesto, asylum seeker or not. But wouldn't it be far greater if we could eliminate foreign threats to those asylum seekers so that they would not need to seek asylum in Britain in the first place.

Having once known a Zimbabwean, church-going, asylum seeker here in Britain for many years, I understand the horror of what life is like for the poor Zimbabwean. Constance, as was her name, was an opposition activist in Zimbabwe and had suffered horrendous treatment at the hands of state police which she claimed had been ordered by senior government officials. Two of her daughters had been kidnapped, her husband was murdered and her son went into hiding as she fled to Britain to try and get asylum. From the conversations we used to have with Constance, it became apparent that she did not want to live in Britain, but Zimbabwe with her son, the only thing that prevented her from doing this was not famine or drought, but the ZANU PF.


I do not know the outcome of Constance's story but the last I heard she wanted to get her son to Britain also, but was denied this request by our Labour Government. Her plight has very much been on my mind in recent months for obvious reasons, and I hope for her sake that Mugabe is removed soon. Saddam Hussain, the late and former president of Iraq was similar in his ruling of Iraq as Mugabe is of Zimbabwe, but many people have commented that they don't want Zimbabwe to become the new Iraq. It wouldn't, and I'll tell you why. The situation in Iraq meant that when Saddam's Ba'ath Party was forced out of office by the invasion in 2003, there was a political void, a vacuum where nobody was experienced enough to know how to run the country. In Zimbabwe however, the opposition MDC party have enough support, knowledge and resources to take over after Mugabe.

If Mugabe does make a deal with someone to leave his role in return for an international pardon, making him exempt from prosecution, then I trust that someone will face just as much criticism for it. The ideal situation for Zimbabwe would be the removal of Mugabe from office, his prosecution at the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity and the Breaking of International Law, and the dismantling of the ZANU PF.

As far as i'm concerned Gordon Brown and his Labour Government can make a start by at least pretending to support the idea of a Zimbabwe without Mugabe, instead of chumming-up with South Africa's incompetent Mbeki. A move clearly related to the, currently irrelevant, support for a post-apartheid South African government...

(Picture 1: The defiant menace, Robert Mugabe.)
(Picture 2: Mugabe meets President Ahmadinejad of Iran.)
(Picture 3: A victim of Mugabe's Operation Murambatsvina or 'Clear the Filth'.)