Immigration or Invasion?

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


What we insist on calling “immigration” from the Third World to Western European countries like Britain is a historically new phenomenon, for which a case can be made that other, more appropriate terms should be used — like “colonization” and “invasion.”

The definition of “colony,” from which the word “colonization” is derived, is: a) a body of people living in a new territory but maintaining ties with their homeland or b) a number of people coming from the same country, sharing the same ethnic origin or speaking the same language, who reside in a foreign country or city, or a particular section of it.

Either could apply to the people coming to live in Europe from Asia and Africa.

In reference to colonization, dictionaries add “relating to the developing world,” but this is only because colonization primarily occurred there in the past. Word meanings have to change to adapt to the new historic realities.

Similarly, the expressions “native” and “indigenous” previously referred to the original inhabitants of non-European continents, whereas now they are used to describe Germans, French, British, Swedes, Dutch and so on.

“Invasion” has three main meanings: a) the act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer; b) a large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease; c) an intrusion or encroachment, an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

The latter is a perfectly apt description of what is happening in Western Europe.

Even “ethnic cleansing” could be used, since local populations are being replaced by different ethnic groups. London, for instance, is no longer a white-British-majority city, although mainstream media like the BBC and London’s own paper, the Evening Standard, barely mention it, to say nothing of the city mayor Boris Johnson.

From Wikipedia:

The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”

[...]

Terry Martin has defined ethnic cleansing as “the forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory” and as “occupying the central part of a continuum between genocide on one end and nonviolent pressured ethnic emigration on the other end.”

European native populations are being replaced because many locals, tired of being colonized, flee their countries, cities or neighborhoods.

The proportion of white British Londoners fell drastically from 60 percent in 2001 to 44.9 per cent in 2011, partly due to the arrival of so many foreign nationals and partly to a mass exodus of white Britons. David Goodhart, director of Demos, writes in The Financial Times:

Over the decade between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, the number of white British Londoners fell by more than 600,000 (17 per cent). That is about three times the fall over the previous census period, 1991 to 2001.

“Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead.

Six hundred thousand is a big city disappearing in just 10 years.

Are we sure that Londoners have abandoned their city because of this “cultural enrichment”? Looking at the areas where white flight mostly occurs provides reasonable evidence that they do: the most multi-racial districts tend to experience high levels of it.

What the large-scale influx of foreigners to Europe can no longer be called is “immigration.” Immigration is what you have when, for example, small groups of French go to live in Britain or the British in Spain.

What distinguishes invasion from immigration are three things: the volume of people involved in the movement, the span of time and frequency of these movements — the same number of people moving to live in a country over 4 years as opposed to 400 years — and the kind of people, in particular how similar or alien to the natives they are, and how easily or improbably they’ll integrate.

The sheer numbers of people who have come to live in the UK in the last few decades have negatively affected the indigenous population’s quality of life in a serious, profound way, even assuming that those people were all law-abiding, upright citizens, which they are not.

There are many areas where this is occurring, including jobs, social services, education and public health – with tuberculosis constantly rising largely due to immigration.

A classic example is the current housing shortage. The UK is suffering its worst housing crisis in modern history. Two or more household units cram into one dwelling, and young people, not being able to afford to move out, live with their parents.

It would be trivializing the issue to say that all housing problems are created by immigration, but it’s impossible to deny the obvious fact they are exacerbating it.

There are other factors contributing to the housing crisis, including the very low interest rates, which result in fewer forced sellers, and the welfare system that, by underwriting sometimes exorbitant rent bills for people who’ve never worked, indirectly encourage landlords to charge more, thus driving up both rental and purchase prices for those who do work.

But one of the main causes is the high number of immigrants increasing the demand for dwellings, while the supply remains low, therefore pushing up house buying and renting prices.

Liberal commentators say that there is no evidence for that, but the evidence is in the most self-explanatory statistics: the more people are in the country, the more properties are needed.

Most immigrants rent, rather than buy, a property in the first 5-10 years since their arrival, which inevitably increases rental prices for everyone, including the indigenous people.

Social housing is also in limited supply. Therefore, the immigrant population that takes a share of it deprives the natives. The percentages are roughly the same: 17 percent of British live in council-rented accommodations, 18 percent of foreigners do.

Leftists and charities would want the government to “build more affordable housing” and “enough homes to meet demand” rather than limit immigration, although it’s difficult to see why the government should act like a construction company in preference to a body that protects and defends the country’s borders.

Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment

Via Facebook.com



This is something I like very much. We should do more things like it:

The New Fad Taking The Country By Storm: "Overpasses For Obama’s Impeachment"

The group “Overpasses For Obama’s Impeachment” held rallies around the country this weekend calling for Obama’s impeachment. The group lists 12 reasons for Obama’s impeachment on their website and has quite the following on Facebook. It’s the next big thing.

They have a Facebook page, Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment, with currently 35,108 likes (including mine) and 37,700 talking about this.

Their website is Impeach Obama.

Christianity Is a Crime Punishable by Death under Sharia Law

I'm in the process of transferring here the articles I had on another, older blog which I'm closing down. They are still relevant, showing how things haven't changed at all in the Islamic world but maybe - just maybe - have developed a little bit chez nous.

The Guardian article that I quoted from in here might have still made today the same unfounded, false claims that death for apostasy is not part of Islam that it made then. But, while it's becoming more and more obvious every day that the Muslim persecution of Christians throughout the world is the greatest humanitarian disaster of our times, and while we are in the middle of a proper, probably irreversible, ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East and the media, while pretending to ignore it, cannot possibly be totally unaware of it, the justifications given by this Grauniad hack for the horror being commited against the story's poor innocent man by reference to colonialism ("The age of classical colonialism may have passed but where once the blunderbuss came as an adjunct to the bible, today it has been replaced by the rice bowl.") - even accusing missionaries of only pretending to give aid -, or by reference to "well-intentioned desire to protect cherished beliefs", would today be considered beyond the pale even by Leftist standards. I hope.

------------------------------------------------

The news

Sunday, March 19, 2006.
KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday.

The hypocrisy of the Muslims

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

No, they “are not against any particular religion in the world”.
Except that they consider being Christian a crime punishable by death.
That’s not being against a religion, is it?

The response of Western media

I watched a Channel 4 report on this, that made it sound as if Abdul Rahman (this is the name of the Christian man) was mad (it reported that he was mentally ill), and as if the Afghan government wasn’t all that bad.

Or, look at the Guardian Online. “Don't make a martyr” is the headline, and the article by a Faisal Bodi (isn’t it a name that says it all?) says:

Sending Abdul Rahman to the gallows would indict Islam on a charge of which it is wholly innocent.

Nobody likes a turncoat. Whether it's a scab crossing a picket line, or a footballer joining his club's arch rivals, the consequences of defection will usually haunt them for life.

It's a cross that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity, is currently having to bear.

By the way, the explanation for his madness could be this one, from two comments posted on Jihad Watch by the same person. One is:

As I noted here, the idea that Abdul Rahman is insane is a more or less clever attempt to please both the irresistable force of Afghanistan's allegiance to Sharia and the immoveable object of American presence and pressure.

Officials say the man, Abdul Rahman, will be released from custody soon.

Who will protect him from raging Sharia-minded mobs when he is freed?

And the second comment is:

Sarinwal Zamari may be floating this idea to extricate the Karzai government from the tight place this case has put it in. It is a common view among Muslims that only someone who is insane, corrupt or under immense pressure would convert from Islam to Christianity, so this angle will make sense to those in Afghanistan who want Abdul Rahman's blood. Likewise it will get them out of holding the trial without their having to say or do anything contrary to traditional Muslim apostasy law. This could be the perfect pirouette to allow Karzai to save face with both camps.

Why Muslims Are Necessarily Fundamentalists

There is an incompatibility between Islam and the ideas which are fundamental to Western civilization.

There are logical contradictions between the principles at the basis of Islam and the West. One cannot resolve logical contradictions, they cannot be solved in the way that problems can. You simply cannot square a circle.

It’s got nothing to do with terrorists, or fundamentalists, fanatics, or Islamic radicals of various sorts.

I’m here talking about mainstream Islam and the fact that it is in serious, direct and open contradiction with principles which are at the core of Western civilization and form the very basis on which all our Western world is erected.

I am not talking about issues like the treatment of women. Islam’s treatment of women is only one aspect, one application of the much more general problem of Islam’s incompatibility with Western principles which I am about to discuss.

There are several elements in Islam which conflict with and contradict Western core principles. Here I'm outlining one of them.

All Muslims believe (and they must believe, I mean it’s not open to interpretation or dispute) that the Koran is the actual word of God. They think God himself dictated it word by word to Mohammed.

Christians think that the Bible was written by human beings: that leaves a lot open to different interpretations and variations in opinion, and it leaves a lot of room for mistakes.

But for Muslims, none of this tolerance and flexibility is possible. Every true Muslim must believe in the complete, literal truth of every word of the Koran.

So, basically, every Muslim is a fundamentalist. That old, tiresome, repeated ad nauseam distinction between Islamic fundamentalists and the “benign” majority of mainstream Muslims is much less important than it is constantly portrayed to be.

This fact in itself, that all Muslims believe in the literal truth of the Koran (no word of the book can actually be disputed) “invites trouble”, opens the gate to all the flood of problems that we have continuously witnessed in the history of Islam. It is a veritable Pandora’s box.

The funny thing is that Muslims themselves have used this argument in order to justify their own intransigence and intolerance, for instance when they try to justify the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

And I want to remind that, when in Muslim communities living in Britain there were episodes of public burnings of Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in the streets, it wasn’t a minority of fundamentalists who were doing and justifying the burnings. On the contrary, it was the Muslims’ majority.

Whenever I watch a TV debate or interview involving Muslims, hardly ever I see the interviewer or participant in the debate ask a Muslim person (supposedly a member of the tolerant Muslim majority who has no problems with Western values) what s/he thinks of the fatwa against Rushdie. That question, and especially its answer, obviously would immediately show an unbridgeable gulf between the supposed “tolerant Muslim” and the rest of us, and would expose this construct of the “tolerant Muslim” for what it is: a myth.

To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I am not here talking about personality traits: I don’t mean “tolerant” in the sense of nice, decent, pleasant, likeable person. I’m sure that there will be many Muslim individuals who fit the latter description. But their “tolerance”, or rather lack of it, is nothing to do with their personal characteristics: it’s not a matter of personal choice. They have no choice. If they are Muslim, they must think that the Koran was indeed written by God through Mohammed’s hand, and therefore it necessarily follows that they cannot tolerate a work like The Satanic Verses: to them it will be tantamount to blasphemy, an insult to God himself.

Photo by George Daley

We Cannot Protect British Culture without Christianity

If we want to protect and preserve British traditional culture and values, we cannot do it without Christianity. Not only has Christianity been part of them since time immemorial but also they couldn't continue their existence without it.

An anecdote. I was in Steyning, in Sussex, in the Downs, not far from the sea. Our car had broken down. It's a beautiful village (or perhaps a small town now) in the South-East of England, the constituency that my party Liberty GB has chosen for the 2014 Euro Elections. Without enrichers in sight - except for one very kind black bloke who offered to help -, it looked like England may have been pre-enrichment. Very well preserved, with lovely Tudor houses, quaint, there was a building covered in Union Jacks and portraits of the Queen, you've got the idea. Every time we asked the locals for directions to the centre of the village, they directed us to the church.

The question about atheism and religion is simple. Individuals can be atheist, societies cannot. Atheists can be upright, moral individuals. But most people who follow the idea of a Godless world end up behaving in unethical ways, like irresponsibly having children out of wedlock they cannot provide for; treating their sexual life as a drug or alcohol (which they may also be addicted to); repeatedly having late-term abortions which more and more resemble infanticides; becoming addicted to consumerism and material things - kindly called "shopaholics" - to fill their empty lives and ending up with debts they cannot repay; neglecting their elderly parents; putting other people's and their own health at risk with promiscuous heterosexual or homosexual sex; and committing crimes. These people may not necessarily call themselves "atheist", but they have abandoned a moral system which for them would in the past have been dependent on the idea of God.

Think of this. If prisons, punishments and the penal system were abolished tomorrow, there are people who would continue to act more or less in the same way as before. But do you really believe that all members of society would?

There are many who, either because of limited intelligence or other factors - emotional, for example - don't live an ethical life without something guiding them from the outside (a condition that the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant called "heteronomy").

You may ask: what about those atheists who are behaving morally?

There is a risk in that too. A risk of erosion. The majority of atheists or agnostics among us have parents who believed in God, or grandparents, and so on. We have been educated in a Christian or Jewish way which has influenced our outlook, even if this can go back a few generations. But over time those values will become more and more diluted in people and therefore in the education they impart to their children. Gradually, maybe slowly, they will weaken or even disappear.

British culture has its roots in Christianity. It is its breeding ground.

Christianity has a solid rational basis. It has been studied and systematised by philosophers, first in the Middle Ages with the Patristic and Scholastic movements. It has incorporated Aristotelian logic. People like Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens who tell you otherwise are zoologists or journalists, not philosophers of religion, not even philosophers of science. They have no in-depth knowledge or understanding of this subject. If we lose Christianity, we end up believing in all sorts of superstitions, as it's already happening with the increase in the number of people who believe in astrology, spiritualism, all sorts of cults, New Age doctrines, "alternative" medicine, and so on.

And also, let's not forget that reason has its limits. It is rational to understand that reason is not everything.

No society has ever been without religion. If we lose Christianity, we will fall prey to other, much worse, religions or pseudo-religions, like, um, let me think, Islam for instance.

The State of UK Immigration Debate in 2005

I've just found something I had written in February 2005, at a time when questioning government's immigration policies in the UK was no longer considered downright racist like in, say, the 1990s, but not yet mainstream political discourse at it has become now. I publish it here because it shows the road we've travelled.

---------------------------------------

In January 2005, the UK television channel ITV showed a program, called Vote For Me!, described as a political reality show, in which some so-called members of the general public, all with passionate political views, contested to get a public phone vote. The winner of Vote For Me! moved forward to the opportunity of standing for parliament.

There was also a panel of 3 judges and a studio audience, but they didn't actually affect the vote in the end.

At the time the ITV website said: “But that was what Vote For Me! was about: giving real people with real issues a voice. But more than that, Vote For Me! gave you, the people, the chance to choose a representative. A person who could honestly claim to be: 'The People's Choice'.”

That was the blurb: the reality was quite different, in that the program tried in every way to influence the result, and in the end it was rumoured that ITV was not happy at all with it, to the point of regretting having made the show.

The winner was a Rodney Hylton-Potts (pictured above), somebody whose views you can easily call politically incorrect.

Listen to what he said in interviews after his victory:

“All three judges urged viewers to vote me off. The show started as being light-hearted. But as it progressed it changed. In fact, it changed following my mention of a policy of nil immigration. At that point, it turned into a different animal.”

In fact, after having watched that, in the face of escalating insults from the panel "judges" and continuous booing and jeering from the TV studio audience, Rodney Hylton-Potts obtained such an astounding victory from the public at home, which almost looked like an opinion poll result, I decided to look for myself at what the British public actually thought of current immigration policies.

What I found supports, confirms and vindicates Hylton-Potts ideas.

For example, this article in The Guardian of January 19, 2004, with the headline “Four out of 10 whites do not want black neighbour, poll shows”. The article says:

Four out of 10 white people do not want an Asian or black Briton as their neighbour, according to a survey published this week. The opinion poll found rocketing concern about immigration and asylum.

The Mori survey for Prospect magazine found that 39% of those asked would prefer to live in an area only with people from the same ethnic background. Forty-one per cent of whites and 26% of ethnic minority people surveyed wanted the races to live separately. Over half of all ethnic groups wanted to live in diverse areas.

Bobby Duffy, research director at Mori, said: "We have overestimated the progress we have made in race and immigration issues. I'm surprised about such a high finding as people are usually reticent because they worry about being judged by the interviewer, so this finding is worrying."

The poll shows that the issue of race and immigration has risen up the list of people's concerns, and is now the third most important, ahead of crime, defence and the economy. The issue is ranked the most important by 29%, behind education on 33% and the NHS on 41%. Ten years ago the figure was below 10%.

If the Mori research director mentioned in the article is worried about those results, what about the next?

A YouGov/Economist survey in December 2004 gave the following results.

Of the people polled, 74% agree with the statement "Too many immigrants are coming to Britain."

Asked about the problems caused by immigration - and remember, this is important, that it was a one-answer question, so people could only choose one among some possible answers - 53% think that immigrants are putting too much pressure on public services, and as many as 25% (one quarter) think that immigration is upsetting the racial balance in the country.

To the question "Do you think people in your neighbourhood would approve or disapprove if more people from each of the following groups moved to your area?", the majority of people answered "Disapprove" when the group in question was Black Africans (43%), Iraqis (64%), Pakistanis (56%), West Indians (41%). The majority answered "Not mind" when the group in question was Australians (63%) and Polish (50%).

Some people might rush to say: racist.

But this is a too hasty and harsh judgement of public opinion.

Look at this interesting result: the only other group was Romanians and, although last time I checked these are white, the majority said: "Disapprove" (48%).

So, something else is at work here.

Could it be that common people have a better instinct than politicians, the media, and the intellectual elite?

And it's the same all over Western Europe.

From The Scotsman of 27 May 2004:

A new opinion poll which sampled opinion across ten countries found the majority of people in Britain are supportive of religious tolerance - but still believe that immigration has damaged the country.

The research triggered a mixture of disbelief and concern from mainstream political parties yesterday, amid fears that asylum is becoming a growing issue ahead of the 10 June European Parliament elections.

Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that immigrants were a bad influence on Britain - the highest proportion of all countries surveyed.

France, where the far-right National Front came second in the presidential election two years ago, emerged as one of the more moderate countries in the study with only 53 per cent arguing that migrants made the country worse.

But seven out of ten in France said that religious diversity within a country is to be welcomed, and three-quarters said that immigrants arrive to take the jobs which native Frenchmen refuse to do.

The same split reaction - welcoming religious pluralism but fearing that immigration has been harmful overall - also characterised Spain, Germany and Italy.

Ipsos, which conducted the poll with the Associated Press, admitted that its findings contradict widespread feeling that Britain - with its long history of migration and colonisation - is more relaxed about multiculturalism.

For that last statement, read: we thought that we had done a much better job at brainwashing the British public than we actually, demonstrably have.

And, finally, consider this: pollsters, namely the professionals in the field, think that polls, particularly online polls, are likely to produce more liberal responses than in the electorate as a whole.

Liberty GB: UK's Best Party for Geert Wilders' European Coalition

When we at Liberty GB first heard that the leader of the PVV Geert Wilders is looking to form an alliance with like-minded parties in Europe to fight next year's European elections, our immediate thought was that we are the right party to represent Britain in that alliance.

The party Liberty GB is very new, as it was formed in March of this year. The Executive Council comprises Chairman Paul Weston, Party Nominating Officer George Whale, Culture Officer Jack Buckby, Policy Officer Stephen Evans, Associate Matthew Roberts, IT Officer and Treasurer, and me as Press Officer.

Liberty GB is a patriotic, counter-jihad party for Christian and Western civilisation, freedoms, animal welfare, capitalism, progress in ideas and society.

It arose from the need to fill a vacuum that existed in British politics between the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and parties like the British National Party (BNP) with a reputation of anti-Semitism and racism.

The country's three main parties - Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats - are clearly creating, rather than solving, the problems facing Britain, but they are not the only ones to appease Islam and compromise about immigration, having recently been joined in those endeavours by UKIP, despite its initial promise of real conservatism.

An example of UKIP's concessions regarding the debate over immigration is an interview that in late July party leader Nigel Farage gave to the most Leftist mainstream paper in Britain, The Guardian. In it Farage castigates the late Conservative Member of Parliament Enoch Powell for his famous "Rivers of Blood" speech of 1968.

Powell was prescient in warning his countrymen about the serious dangers of mass immigration from the Third World, which had then only started and had not yet reached the astronomical levels of later decades. He said:

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre...

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

His predictions were correct in every respect: the indigeonous population has indeed been overwhelmed by huge numbers of immigrants and subjugated by the politically correct race-relations industry. The last sentence, which gave the speech its name, is a reference to the Latin poet Virgil’s epic poem Aeneid.

But, rather than applauding Powell and blaming his opponents, in the interview Farage blamed the parliamentarian for the opposition his speech encountered, siding with the Left who strumentalised the metaphorical, indeed poetic, part of the speech - the one containing the word "blood" - to make the whole thing appear like the utterances of a violent fanatic who wanted, rather than predicted, blood:

He [Farage] said: "The Powell speech was a disaster. Everybody ran scared of discussing this for decades. Now, I think what Ukip has done is to help make immigration a sensible, moderate, realistic, mainstream debate."

UKIP's previous policy to put an end to the age of "mass uncontrolled immigration" through a 5-year-freeze on immigration and a cap of 50,000 people per annum on future immigration, which is the party's main selling point, is under review, with a possible increase in the cap.

The disappointment with the UKIP felt by many supporters could explain its sharp decline in opinion polls, already evident in June and now even more pronounced. It was supported by 18% of respondents in May, 12% in June and now just 7%.

Islam, one of the major problems facing Britain and Europe today, indeed in many ways the most important problem, since it is a question of our own survival, receives so little attention from UKIP that a search for the term "Islam" on its website produces only 6 results. In some of them Islam is mentioned in the context of foreign policy, like the possible British intervention in the Syrian war or how to interact with "moderate Muslim states". In 5 cases out of those 6, the word "Islam" is accompanied by the qualifying adjective "extreme", "extremist" or "fundamentalist", and in the 6th is part of the phrase "puritanical and intolerant strain of Wahhabi Islam".

No results for "halal" on the UKIP's site.

On ritual slaughter this was the policy in the 2010 General Election Party Manifesto:

UKIP believes that the UK should examine the pros and cons of proposals to insist on pre-stunning through a Royal Commission. The Commission should study examples from Denmark, New Zealand and others and evaluate whether the religious exemptions which cause suffering to animals should be repealed or not, or whether a requirement for pre-stunning be introduced.

Contrast that with what Liberty GB is saying and doing.

We have an extensive plan of action on how to limit immigration and on how to deal with Islam.

We think that the distinction between Islam and "extreme" Islam is spurious, because Islam, wanting world domination and global imposition of its law with any means, is intrinsically extreme. It is also fundamentalist because it preaches that the Quran was written by Allah and dictated to Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel, so, being directly the word of God and not - like the Bible - written by men, must necessarily be taken literally.

We know that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology worse than fascism and communism, and that it is wrongly and unjustly protected by freedom of religion.

Indeed the Liberty GB website has devoted many articles to exposing Islam, including essays which criticise historical revisionism of the Crusades and the imaginary contributions of Islam to science and mathematics that inhabit Obama's mind.

Unlike UKIP, we are well aware of the no-go areas, of the whole communities that live by Sharia law, of how mosques disrupt neighbourhoods and are a hotbed of militancy, in short of the many forms taken by stealth jihad in our countries.

Of all these, none is more dangerous and insidious than halal meat, which is why Liberty GB has made it the target of a particular campaign. Halal is Islam's Trojan horse to penetrate and conquer our lands. It is the first giant step of our Islamisation.

In a similar way in which magazines, for example, introduce to the reader and explore a wide topic by focusing on particular individuals affected by it, it is easier for people to concentrate their attention and energy on a specific issue like halal, through which all of Islam in the West can be targeted, rather than tackling the whole subject of Islam. Besides, halal is arguably the most detested aspect of our Islamisation.

In addition, Halal in Britain and in the West generally, being a multi-billion-pound industry, empowers Muslims economically and there is ample evidence that it finances jihad and terrorism all over the world.

A ban on ritual slaughter is part of our manifesto.

We think, like Wilders, that Christians are our allies.

We stand for Christianity as an ethical as well as a theological system, therefore accepting that there can be, as the great Oriana Fallaci declared herself, “atheist Christians” or “agnostic Christians”.

We exist not just to attract people, but also to change them in order to change the status quo. We won’t change anything if we don’t change what people think. This is the cultural battle that the Left has fought and won until now, and that we know we must fight in order to win.

We don’t want to do what UKIP has recently been doing. We don’t blindly follow public opinion, we change it, and this is our unique selling proposition.

Decades of socio-communist propaganda have resulted in many people having very confused ideas about Christianity, about which they only know or believe they know bad things.

Jesus Christ declared all men to be equal. Both the doctrine and the history of Christianity vouch for its solid egalitarian, anti-discriminatory stance. When we say that we are Christian, ethically even if not necessarily theologically, we are implicitly saying that we are anti-racist without even having to say it explicitly. It was Christians who abolished slavery first in the Roman Empire and then in the 19th-century United States. No other religious group has ever done that. It has been Christians, today as in the past, who have gone to all the most inhospitable corners of the globe to help the poor of all races for nothing in return.

I'll conclude with this comment on the current first place of the PVV in the Dutch opinion polls, which I find particularly true and useful for us:

A smart party primes voters for the realization that it was right all along. A stupid party “evolves” and tosses aside its positions and becomes discredited and indistinguishable from the ruling party.