Unite Against Fascism: Philosophy, Purpose and Methods
The following document can be read in its original PDF format here. The original document also contains images you may find interesting. In this text version I am responsible for the bolding and italics shown. I am not the author.
Unite Against Fascism: Philosophy, Purpose and Methods
The Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is registered with the Electoral Commission
as a ‘Third Party’ political organisation. The organising committee consists of:
Chairman: Ken Livingstone (New Labour Party)
Joint Secretary: Weyman Bennett (Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Alliance)
Joint Secretary: Sabby Dhalu (NAAR)
Treasurer: Bill Hayes (Official of The Communication Workers Union)
The Unite Against Fascism (UAF) claims support from (amongst others) David Cameron MP(leader of the Conservative Party); Peter Hain MP (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and of Wales); Tony Benn; Diane Abbott MP; Keith Vaz MP; Glenys Kinnock MEP; Leroy Logan (Chair, Metropolitan Black Police Association); Afzal Khan (Muslim Council of Britain); and Dr. Siddiqui (Leader, Muslim Parliament of Great Britain). UAF Chair, Ken Livingstone
The organisation Unite Against Fascism (UAF) was formed in 2004.
Unite Against Fascism: Philosophy, Purpose and Methods
[1] An Anti-white, Racist Hate-Group
In January 2007 UAF protestors gathered outside the London Coliseum theatre to disrupt the performance by English National Ballet prima ballerina Simone Clarke. The basis for their protests (and their attempts to get her sacked from the ENB) was the ‘revelation’ by the Guardian newspaper that Simone Clarke was a member of the British National Party. The protestors’ chants included: “We are Muslim, black and Jew, there are many more of us than you”1 – thus revealing their racist agenda.
Clearly Simone is white, but they did not presume to consider that she might also be Jewish (or, indeed, a Muslim). The message is clear: “there are many more of us than you [white, English, Christian people]”.
A few months earlier, in a statement on the acquittal of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett on race hate charges in November 2006, the UAF critically remarked on the “all white jury”2 – a bigoted smear against all indigenous British people. This comment therefore provides yet another disturbing insight into the core anti-white racist mentality of the UAF. Very occasionally the mask slips.
There is, from the UAF, a notable and rather telling lack of attribution of racism (or fascistic ideology) of groups within non-white (BME) communities. For example it is noted that no equivalent prominence is given to the immense popularity of Black rap music with lyrics that celebrate (promote?) violence towards women and homosexuals, and, most especially, a form of anti-white racism of the most disturbing and violent kind.
Nor is there mention by the UAF of the intolerance of large sections of the Muslim community to alternative forms of belief or social conduct, and in particular of the anti-Semitism of Muslim and left-wing pro-Palestinian groups3.
There are no critical examinations of demonstrations in London calling for the murder of the kufr ‘unbelievers’, or of the widespread teaching from al-Hilli text (in London especially) in which “disbelievers” are described in the context of “dogs and pigs”4 .
The UAF refuses to acknowledge such matters. Clearly the UAF staff and activists wish to portray racism and fascism as a characteristic exclusive to white people. This is not a simple error of omission – it is systematic and enduring. It is a fundamental part of UAF political culture and ethos. In the UAF founding statement5 we find the problems of racism and fascism attributed only to members of the white, indigenous community.
There is no mention in this founding document of the very real fascistic thinking and racist attitudes to be found in the BME communities. And, of course, there is no mention of the hugely disproportionate number of white victims of racist violence within the UK. The UAF is a racist organisation that clearly wishes to direct its hate mongering against only white people.
Therefore it is in this context that the serious matter of criminal offence needs to be considered – in terms of an incitement to racial hatred or racially aggravated offences (including harassment). It is not an accepted defence to argue that the defendant is of the same ethnic/racial group as the victim6. Obviously this is something that needs to be considered by those members of the UAF who are white, and who believe they therefore have license and legal immunity to racially abuse, threaten, harass or insult other white people. They haven’t. The maximum penalty for the offence of ‘racially aggravated harassment or alarm’ is 2 years imprisonment7.
[2] Proven Liars
Under a heading ‘The Truth About The BNP”, the UAF has previously stated on its website: “The BNP is a Nazi organisation. The Standards Board for England and Wales has officially ruled that the BNP could be called a Nazi party.” We have previously downloaded a copy of this material. This claim was also repeated by a UAF representative, in front of national TV cameras, following the conclusion of the trial of Mr. Griffin and Mr. Collett in 2006.
We understand that the Standards Board of England demanded that the UAF remove this lie from their website. It was promptly deleted. It has been recently confirmed in a communication8 with The Standards Board for England that, not only is there no record of the UAF having requested endorsement of their claim, but that The Standards Board of England would never endorse such a statement in any case. The UAF are liars.
Of course what is deliberately omitted from UAF analysis is the fact that there are many British National Party members who risked their lives more than sixty years ago fighting against Nazi Germany. There are many BNP members and supporters whose partners, parents or grandparents were killed or were gravely injured fighting Nazism – and it is also highly likely that there are members and supporters who also have family or close relatives killed or maimed in the conflicts with Marxism (in Korea and Malaya, for example).
As will be shown in a later section, the UAF’s approach to hate mongering is based on Stalin’s use of the BIG LIE – that the more outrageous the lie, then the more likely (the UAF confidently assumes) people will believe it.
The tactics employed by the UAF are very simple – to lie and grossly misrepresent the policies of the BNP, and then to attack those lies and misrepresentations as if they are actual BNP policy. We see this repeatedly on the leaflets printed and produced by the UAF at both local and national level. If we add to this the indulgence in pure fiction and compulsive fantasy, then the nature of UAF political philosophy becomes transparently obvious.
[3] Appeasing Islamic Fascism
The UAF is endorsed by, and operates in cooperation with, the Muslim Council of Britain.
In response to perceived ‘negative’ attitudes towards Islam, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain (Mohammad Abdul Bari) is reported to have threatened: “If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists – 700,000 in London”9. This, presumably, is the basis on which ‘respect’ is to be gained.
Perhaps the UAF need to consider the following report: “Chief among these is the Muslim Council of Britain, whose leadership has established sympathies for the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Both the Brotherhood and the Jamaat believe in the creation of an Islamic state and the establishment of Sharia law.”10
It should also be noted that the rise of the Muslim Council of Britain (under Iqbal Sacranie) can be traced to the ‘Satanic Verses’ affair, and the support given to the book-burning and the raising of a fatwah for the murder of the author Salman Rushdie. In 1989 Iqbal Sacranie said “death was perhaps too easy” for the writer11 .
The Chairman of the UAF is Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London. It is worth recalling Mr. Livingstone’s previous willingness to entertain members of Sinn Fein at the height of the murderous bombings in London by the IRA.
What should we therefore conclude, in the light of the ‘terrorism’ comments by Mohammad Abdul Bari (above) and the Rushdie fatwa, with the keenness with which the UAF seeks MCB endorsement and collaborative support for its hate mongering activities?
From the 7th to 11th July 2004 the Greater London Authority (City Hall) was the venue for the annual session of the ‘European Council for Fatwa and Research’, headed by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. On the 12th July 2004 Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi also spoke at the ‘Assembly for the Protection of the Hijab’ conference – during which Mr. Livingstone also issued a personal invitation to Dr al-Qaradawi to attend the European Social Forum (ESF) event planned for October. It is interesting that Sheikh al-Qaradawi’s visit should have been so robustly defended by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, given comments credited to Sheikh al-Qaradawi such as: “O God, protect them and show them the right path. O, God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile Crusaders, and infidels.” 12
In response to bitter criticisms of his visit, the GLA issued a lengthy justification in which Ken Livingstone proclaimed: “As Mayor of London, I regard it as my responsibility to welcome a leader of any great religion, such as Dr. al-Qaradawi. I would welcome any leader of any other great world religion if similar standing, notwithstanding the obvious fact that we disagree on particular issues.” In the ‘analysis’ that followed the GLA dismissed all the criticisms and allegations laid against Dr. al-Qaradawi.13
Unfortunately for Mr. Livingstone a rebuttal of the GLA document was soon to appear in the public domain (in February 2005). This provided the evidence that Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, widely regarded as the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual head, supports: the murder of people who have turned away from Islam (apostates); female genital mutilation (FGM); that a husband must compel his wife to wear the hijab; domestic violence in certain circumstances; targeting Israeli civilians; and suicide bombing (including by women).14
The self-serving UAF cannot acknowledge the Islamic dimension of both contemporary fascism and contemporary terrorism since this would compromise the particular, anti-white (British, indigenous, Christian) form of its racist political ideology.
The most recent terrorism outrage in the UK was an attempt to explode nail-bombs in the centre of Exeter, East Devon. The Exeter nail-bomber was the Muslim convert and Plymouth student ‘Nicky’ Reilly. Reilly, a radicalised Islamist, was a friend of the President of the Plymouth University Islamic Society15 – a student very active in promoting the UAF within the University (he seconded the motion to affiliate the University Student Union to the UAF). The UAF have, perhaps not surprisingly, kept very quiet about this.
[4] A Totalitarian Agenda
It was the UAF who organised the demonstrations against ballerina Simone Clarke. Her ‘offence’ (apart from belonging to a political party of which the UAF disapproves) was to express her opposition to mass immigration. An opinion that the UAF clearly believes that, if expressed, should result in severe punishment. For this the UAF sought to ‘punish’ Ms. Clarke by taking away her livelihood and effectively ruining her life.
In an extreme left web site16 Bill Hayes, the UAF treasurer, described the British National Party as “a pernicious virus” and that the UAF are fully engaged in “activities designed to stamp out the BNP” – an interesting choice of words. We also find Sabby Dhalu, joint secretary of the UAF, declaring that the BNP “is not a legitimate party” presumably on the basis that membership should be considered as an illegitimate (criminal) activity. This is reminiscent of the policies and activities of the totalitarian regimes (communist and fascist) of 1930s Europe.
To gain an insight into the UAF’s core ideological beliefs it is useful to consider their roots and political affiliations. The UAF is affiliated to the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) and shares much of the same membership – the ANL’s National Organiser is Weyman Bennett who is also UAF joint secretary. Weyman Bennett is a high-ranking member of the Socialist Workers Party and is on the National Executive of the Socialist Alliance.
The UAF is a Marxist group. However it is worth recalling that two notable 20th Century philosophers, Sir Karl Popper and Nobel Prize winner Freidrich von Hayek, saw communism/Marxism and fascism/Nazism as essentially two sides of the same political coinage. The UAF (and other ‘far left’ groups) wish to do to Britain what Hitler could not do in 1940. The ambition of groups that are behind the UAF (such as the SWP) is the removal of sovereignty (the de-nationalisation) of the UK, accompanied by the application of ethnocide against the indigenous population. The picture opposite is taken from the UAF website and shows a UAF rally in Derby in 2008. Both the Socialist Workers Party banners and the ‘Hammer and Sickle’ flag of Marxism are prominently on display. It is estimated that 94.5million men, women and children have been killed as a result of crimes carried out in the name of Communist and Marxist ideology since 1917.17.
The political agenda is therefore clearly totalitarian – of the curtailment of free speech and of the right to dissent. Any behaviour that threatens the political orthodoxy (multiculturalism, diversity, denationalisation) is to be considered a crime. On the 19th May 2002, for example, Julie Waterson (then ANL National Organiser) declared: “We have to forget about freedom of speech” in reference to those groups the ANL wished to have banned18 . The ANL earned a reputation for violent confrontation, drawing the comment from Sir Paul Condon in October 1993 (he was then the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service) that: “Again in London we have seen a cowardly mob of extremists turning up … to cause disorder, violence and damage”.
More recently the ‘on-line’ newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party published an article by Anindya Bhattacharyya calling for “illegal and unconstitutional means” and “physical confrontation” to stop British National Party members going about their lawful business (of contacts with the public, engaging in debate, of election campaigning). The Marxist SWP brazenly promotes Nazi-style political thuggery.
Therefore we should not be too surprised to find the UAF (whose senior members and principal activists are drawn from the SWP) adopting these same Fascistic tactics.
[5] Flirting With Nazism
Unfortunately for Ken Livingstone (and the UAF) the name Yusuf al-Qaradawi and The Muslim Brotherhood (see above) also crops up in an exceptionally disturbing context.
The historical link between extremist Islam and Nazism is well known: “[Charles] Moore, for instance, fitted the search by New Labour’s Foreign Office for radical figures it could do business with, such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, into a wider historical perspective. In the 1930s, we [the British political establishment] adopted a similar strategy with the Mufti of Jerusalem to 'deliver' Muslim opinion. The Mufti went on to support the Nazis.”19 The picture opposite shows Amin Al-Husseini of the Muslim Brotherhood (and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) in a meeting with Adolf Hitler during WW 2 (in, it is believed, 1942).
In fact Al-Husseini had frequent contacts with the Nazis throughout the 1930s and 1940s, and was one of the chief architects of the preparations for the extermination of Jews.
But presumably the UAF know the history of such groups as The Muslim Brotherhood, of its founder Hassan El Banna and subsequent Jerusalem representative Amin Al-Husseini.
Presumably the UAF also knows of the genocide of 1.5million Armenian Christians, of Al-Husseini’s pact with Nazi Germany and participation in the ‘final solution’.
And presumably the UAF knows of the Pejani Plan for genocide in Bosnia and the subsequent extermination of 200,000 Orthodox Christian Serbs, of the SS Hanzar Division of Nazi Muslims, and of the ‘Islamische Zentralinstitut’.
But it would appear that the UAF is more concerned in acquiring powerful political allies than any concern it may have in this ‘wider historical perspective’.
The UAF claim that their aim is to confront present day Fascism and Nazism -but not, it would appear Islamo-Nazism. On this, they remain stubbornly silent. We find no condemnations of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or of the al-Muhajiroun. Perhaps the UAF members have not noticed the religious supremacism, the racist language, the fanatical mass rallies – or the considerable alarm within UK academia of the use of university ‘Islamic Societies’ as recruiting organisations for these extremist Islamic Fascist groups20. Or perhaps the UAF is simply not that bothered.
However the UAF leadership, and the UAF sponsors (see top of page 1) will know these facts. Therefore, given the support for the UAF by Islamic groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Parliament of Britain, and the existence of established groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir within the British Isles, we would expect the UAF to have taken a considerable interest in these matters. But apparently not so -the UAF are only interested in venting their hatred against members of the white, indigenous population.
The reality is that it is the present political aristocracy (and the Government’s Home Office, and Foreign Office especially) who are prepared to “outreach” and appease neo-Nazi terrorist organisations. This is a matter of record21. And, as we have seen, it is the members of the UAF organisation that are prepared to embrace movements (or representatives of those movements) whose ideological roots are fundamentally based on fascistic ideology, and which have close and extensive historical links to Nazism.
The UAF’s chairman, Ken Livingstone, has previously offered his opinion that "what Britain did in Ireland was worse than what Hitler did to the Jews"22. A sentiment that will no doubt help ease the conscience of those radical Muslims and adherents to the philosophy of Islamo-Nazism, currently resident in the UK.
The obscene irony of the UAF’s flirtation with neo-Nazism will not be missed when one considers the crude tactics of such organisations as the UAF – tactics designed to represent the stubbornly independent native Britons as a ‘Nazi’ adversary. The history of the British people over the last century is that of the rejection of these imported, totalitarian beliefs(fascism and communism). It is this spirit of nonconformist individualism that draws down the hatred of extremist groups such as the UAF.
[6] Fear Mongering, Hate Mongering and Threats
The UAF, although registered with the Electoral Commission as a ‘third party’ political organisation, espouses an almost totally negative political agenda. It concentrates on fear mongering, hate mongering and issuing implicit threats – and habitually lies. And (of course) it keeps very quiet about its own core political agenda.
In terms of fear mongering, the UAF concentrates on inciting fear within the minority (BME) communities.
The UAF hate material repeatedly peddles the myth that the presence of the BNP (as a local group, or as elected local government councillors) poses a threat to ethnic minority communities; that: “When the BNP makes gains, racism and homophobia increase”23; or that “Where it [the BNP] wins council seats, it gains a cloak of respectability, legitimising hostilities against Muslims and increasing the climate of Islamophobia”24; or, more specifically “Racist attacks increase where the BNP is active”25.
In fact no authoritative evidence to support this particular myth has ever been produced. It appears to be a nasty example of the internet age, where ‘accepted wisdoms’ grow by repeated (and often circular) cross-referencing within a multitude of similar (so called) research articles.
This is a myth driven by bigotry, and by the UAF’s own extreme anti-white racist agenda.
Therefore the origins of this particular myth have been investigated – and it would seem that this can be traced back to a research study in 1997 by the pressure group Human Rights Watch (HRW)26. This HRW work has now become required ‘teaching material’ in many of our universities (and, especially within the sociology and cultural studies departments). However the HRW ‘research’ is, to be frank, a joke. It uses as its source information, almost exclusively, highly selective ‘opinion pieces’ from national newspapers and from the Searchlight organisation, together with ‘analysis’ produced by various ethnic-minority pressure groups.
Where the HRW researchers attempt to use original crime data, then their methodology descends into farce. For example, on page 5 of the HRW book the authors declare: “All studies show that the majority of victims of racist violence are Asian”. No they don’t. The authors quote from the British Crime Survey (1991) for their analysis of racist violence; however it was only after 1994 that the BCS data included white victims of racist crime. The HRW authors will have known this (the HRW book was published in 1997) and yet they make their absurd and entirely unsupportable (and wrong) claim.
The overwhelming evidence (Home Office, Ministry of Justice, British Crime Survey) is that the majority of victims of racist violence are white.
The UAF base their fear mongering on information they know to be wrong. Interestingly, when racist crime is shown to have fallen in areas where the BNP is active then the UAF remain stubbornly silent. For example, in Barking and Dagenham where the BNP have a record 12 councillors we find that for the 12 months up to October 2008 incidences of racist crime fell by 6 per cent27.
Unfortunately there seems to be no depths the UAF members and supporters are not willing to plumb in order to promote a climate of fear.
The most recent piece of hate literature from the UAF (the ‘postcard’, 2008) contains an especially disgusting stream of bile – that BNP members stand for: “the “physical annihilation” of: “Jews; black people; trade unionists; Muslims; Asians and all ethnic minorities; lesbian, gay and disabled people; and all democrats”.28
This fiction can have only one purpose – to incite fear and extreme hatred within the minority communities towards BNP members and supporters.
The hate mongering strategy for the UAF takes the form of crude caricature, false stereotyping and telling outright lies.
Again, it is highly significant that this vitriol is directed only against people from the white, indigenous (native) community. There is a clear, irrefutable anti-white racist agenda behind this hatred.
The picture opposite, featured on the UAF website shows the ‘poison bottle’ imagery used on much of their campaigning literature. Some of the chosen imagery is totally bizarre – such as that of figures dressed in Klu Klux Klan robes (?). The use of the epithet ‘fascist’ is habitually used, preceding the references to the BNP on almost every occasion. This is a classical example of attempts at ‘conditioning’ the public mind. There is no attempt at analysis or sensible debate – in fact the objective is to stifle such activities and to reduce all behaviour to knee-jerk responses.
The UAF deliberately targets the minority communities with its propaganda with the clear intention of inciting hatred towards members and supporters of the BNP. The images and words are carefully chosen to trigger an extremely adverse reaction from members of the minority population. The objective is to incite hatred.
The UAF also engages in what can only be seen as threatening and insulting behaviour.
The UAF lists on its website the full names, and the areas they represent, of all elected BNP local councillors29. Why?
The UAF repeatedly promotes its position of ‘no platform’ for the BNP, and makes every attempt to disrupt the democratic process. Clearly the UAF does not want members of the public and BNP councillors to engage in any kind of dialogue. The UAF refuses to accept the people’s choice of elected representative. Therefore there can be only one sensible conclusion – that the publication of this list is an attempt to harass and (implicitly) threaten the elected BNP councillors.
In the city of Plymouth, during the period leading up to the 1st May 2008 local council elections, hate literature originating from the local UAF group was distributed around the city30. These leaflets contained lies, abuse and deliberately provocative statements – unquestionably intended to incite a visceral (possibly violent) response against local BNP members and election candidates.
This hate material included a warning that the election of BNP candidates in Plymouth would result in the bombing of the city. The implied threat towards the local Plymouth electorate was very clear. This was approximately 3 weeks before the Plymouth student ‘Nicky’ Reilly (who is known to have been a close friend to at least one local UAF activist – see previous section ‘Appeasing Islamic Fascism’) attempted to explode three nail bombs in Exeter city centre. It subsequently emerged that Reilly had considered bombing other targets in Plymouth itself, including the large city-centre shopping mall (Drakes Circus), the city centre police station, and Devonport Royal Navy Dockyard.
The purpose of the UAF material is obvious – it is to make people too scared vote for, or to actively support, a legitimate political party.
[6] Targeting Children
The UAF, drawing upon its totalitarian principles, makes a particular effort in targeting young people for it’s political purpose – especially little children.
There are multiple reasons behind this strategy.
Firstly, children and young people are less able to make critical judgements with regard to what they are being told. They have a natural trust in those that assume the role of ‘authority’ – especially very young children. Also they have yet to acquire the knowledge, experiences and analytical skills necessary to enable them to subject such political instruction to proper critical examination. It is this natural vulnerability (of little children, especially) that the UAF seeks to exploit.
Secondly, this strategy provides the UAF with the opportunity to remove from young white
children (specifically) any sense of their own ethnic identity; or of pride in their own ancestry and history – and, especially, of any attachment to their own cultural traditions (of customs, beliefs and common social values).
It therefore ‘primes’ the children into accepting the ideology of multiculturalism and diversifism. This ‘political education’ is designed to remove from the developing minds of young white children any notion that these islands may be their inheritance (by native entitlement) but, instead, that these lands belong to everybody (or nobody) or to the State – but not to them. The picture shown above, taken from the UAF website, shows this process in action, under the watchful supervision of the UAF ‘teachers’.
Thirdly it teaches young children to hate – and instructs them as to who they must hate. The obvious problem (for the UAF) is children’s natural affinity for members of their own ethnic/racial group.
Or, at least, this is seen as a problem (of ‘racism’) if those children are white – but seen as a bonus (by the UAF) if those children are from the ethnic minority population.
To instil this culture of directed hate, the standard ‘conditioning’ techniques are applied of inculcation of guilt, and of group social pressure. For any signs of ‘dissent’ the punishment is social isolation, together with constant criticism. The reward for conformity is social group inclusion, together with copious praise. Exposure to hate material is undertaken in such as way as to present such material as not just socially acceptable, but as entirely necessary and desirable. It is presented as an unchallengeable ‘accepted wisdom’.
[7] Politics for Dummies
The use of what Lenin called “termites and useful idiots” has been, for over the last century, the standard practice of the destabilising left (in this case, the UAF and their neo-Marxist /SWP masters).
The UAF seeks to recruit “celebrities, faith and community leaders” into its ranks. It appeals directly to those seeking self-aggrandisement – those who have a perverse desire to parade their moral worthiness to a public audience. The agenda set by the UAF appeals to the conceited, the emotionally immature, the unwittingly ignorant, the spiteful, and the arrogant. It is one particular manifestation of the modern day cultural phenomenon of political infantilism and a craving for attention.
Unfortunately the UAF agenda also appeals to the moral cowards within our society.
It is interesting to note the ‘pop-culture’ campaigning agenda of UAF – the endorsement by c-list celebrities, the rock concert ‘gigs’, the backslapping conferences, the high profile ‘media events’, and the noisy street demonstrations intended to intimidate targeted individuals.
It is all about the collective grooming of egos – the mob psychology of a crowd of bullies that has little (if anything) to do with engaging with the real problems of hate and violence within our society. It therefore provides a platform (often literally) for those who wish to condemn injustice and evil, whilst not having to admit to themselves that they lack the courage to confront anything that may be genuinely evil.
By way of example these are some of the ‘fascistic’ evils which now blight our society, but which supporters of the UAF are clearly too afraid to confront: extremist Islamic Fascism (terrorism, the social subordination and subjugation of women, the obscenity of ‘honour’ killings); institutionalised anti-white racism; the preponderance of anti-white racist violence; political corruption (the organised use of electoral fraud, political funding); the growth of political intimidation and violence; the insidious use of political correctness (thought control); the exposure of our very young children to political indoctrination (via the politically directed schools curriculum); the introduction of authoritarian new laws for social engineering purposes (public order offences and ‘speech’ crime); the dismantling of Constitutional Law (Habeas Corpus, the right to Jury Trial); the erosion of basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.
To challenge these evils often requires a significant amount of personal courage – a willingness to ‘stand out from the crowd’. And to challenge some of these evils can also require a willingness to risk personal harm (or worse).
It is therefore most notable that the UAF, and their followers, are so very careful to avoid any serious campaigning on these issues.
Instead members of the UAF concentrate on directing their hatred against individuals who do, actually, dare to challenge the political orthodoxy – young ballerinas, elderly veterans of the Second World War (and other wars), teachers and university professors. The UAF also target those members of the BNP who are prepared to put themselves before the electorate, even though the UAF dare not stand candidates in these same elections and therefore subject themselves (and their actions) to the same rigorous public scrutiny.
The UAF ‘celebrities’ (especially) behave in ways indicative of extreme moral cowardice.
[8] Summary
The UAF is fundamentally an extremist (totalitarian) political group that opposes true democracy. It supports the criminalisation of dissent, of ‘speech crime’, and promotes ‘no platform’ policies against its political opponents. It is also a racist organisation – it indulges in inciting hatred only against political parties and movements that represent the interests of the white, indigenous community. The UAF is a Marxist organisation that uses Nazi methods to pursue its purpose.
The UAF targets individuals – it attacks their personal reputation and content of character, and deliberately misrepresents the beliefs held by those individuals. It indulges in the fiction of a latent tendency for neo-Fascist, neo-Nazi behaviour within the indigenous community -and uses this to create false stereotypes for attacking (exclusively) members of the white community.
The UAF wallows in a cultural of denial – a refusal to accept the wretched failure of multiculturalism and hyper-diversity. It denies the reality of racist violence in the UK – of the hugely disproportionate number of white victims (including white victims of racist and interracial homicide). The UAF pursues a policy of ‘shoot the messenger’, and therefore enjoys widespread support from the ‘mainstream’ political establishment.
The UAF exists for a particular purpose – to incite hatred against targeted members of the white community. It continually manufactures new opportunities to continue with that hatred, and thereby provide justification for its continuing existence. It enjoys the patronage of the rich and powerful elite, including many MPs, union leaders and political pressure groups31. The UAF promotes hatred – and feeds upon its effects.
1 Lucy Bannerman, The Times, 13th January 2007
2 http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=61115
3 As reported to by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia; with reference to an investigation on the massive growth in anti-Semitism in
present-day multicultural Europe, by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism, at Berlin Technical University
4 The Times, 20th April 2006
5 UAF Founding Statement at http://www.uaf.org.uk/0401MOfoundingstatement.pdf
6 see: R v White, Times Law Report 13 March 2001
7 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 28
8 Email communication with the Communications Adviser, Standards Board for England, Tuesday 25th November 2008
9 David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph, 10 September 2006
10 Martin Bright, The Observer, Sunday 30th July, 2006
11 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1548786,00.html
12 Sermon at Unar-Bin-al-Khattab Mosque, Doha, Qatar, 1st October 2004
13 GLA Document, January 2005, ISBN 1 85261 701 2
14 See www. galha.org/briefing/qaradawi.html
15 Reported in The Western Morning News and in The Herald, 24th May 2008
16 Socialist Worker online, archive, 6th December 2003, issue 1880
17 From a report by the Swedish Parliament, to the Council of Europe – as reported in The Times newspaper, 1st January 2006.
18 Anti-Nazi League – encyclopaedia article, extracted from Wikipedia 8th May 2004, see: http://www.pro-researcher.co.uk/encyclopaedia/english/anti-nazileague
19 Martin Bright, The Observer, Sunday 30th July, 2006
20 see, for example, The Sunday Telegraph, August 13th 2006
21 Martin Bright, ‘When Progressives Treat With Reactionaries – The British State’s Flirtation With Radical Islamism’, Policy Exchange, London 2006.
Bizarrely the Home Office and Foreign & Commonwealth Office describe Islamo-Nazi groups in the following terms: “The root of the reformist movement can be traced to the Muslim Brotherhood (Hasan Al Banna) and Jammati Islam (Maulana Maudadi) which was orthodox but pragmatic.” And describe these
‘reformist’ groups as: “nonliteralist, reason and logic based; liberal approach to traditional schools of jurisprudence and the literalist schools; proponents of a
flexible, balanced and moderate understanding of Islam; acceptance of democracy and the western paradigm in full; … willingness to form alliances with wider non-Muslim movements.” [page 64]
22 Leo Mckinstry, ‘Labour’s Shameful Debt to Livingstone’, The Telegraph, 15th September 2005
23 UAF and LGBT pamphlet, May 2007
24 UAF and MCB pamphlet, May 2007
25 UAF newsletter, Barking and Dagenham, 2007
26 ‘Racist Violence in the United Kingdom’, Human Rights Watch (Helsinki), Ed. Holly Cartner, London 1997
27 http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/datatable.php?borough=kg&period=year
28 UAF A5-size ‘hate postcard’, 2008
29 UAF website, page: http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=70503
30 UAF local election leaflet (Plymouth, St. Peter and the Waterfront ward) April, 2008. Original examples held in archive.
31 Key signatories: http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Tags:
