the latest blethering from the egregious dr miller is that the “conservative thinktanks” policy exchange and the centre for social cohesion are soft-pedalling the racism and violence of groups like the bnp and edl because it “might deflect attention” from islamism – defined by him as:

“the catch-all term for politically active muslims”

now i carry no particular brief for either of the thinktanks he mentions, but this is breathtakingly brazen doublespeak: come on, dr miller – everyone knows what is meant by the term “islamist”. are the muslim brotherhood, jamaat-i-islami, tablighi jamaat islamists? of course they bloody are! are the quilliam foundation, of british muslims for secular democracy “islamists”? are the muslims who work for csc or policy exchange, “islamists”? or, for that matter, the muslim authors at the spittoon? of course not. there is no reason muslims shouldn’t be politically active – either as muslims, or as british citizens, but there’s plenty of reason to be rude about people who are pushing extremist, clerical fascist, racist and homophobic agendas – unless you’re a doctrinaire leftie, that is.

it gets worse – dr miller now appears to be attempting to suggest that by attacks on islamists bolster islamophobia, which ultimately results in things like the breivik atrocity in norway. this is an outrageous caricature – the sort of thing we’d normally expect to see coming out of exeter, not strathclyde! as any regular reader will know, we are not exactly fans of the bnp or the edl.

on the other hand, as we know very well here at the spittoon, “spinwatch” is not exactly careful with its analysis:

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/9428

perhaps we should not be surprised that dr miller can’t tell the difference between islamists and liberals; it seems to be a bit of a theme on the left these days.

In my view, proponents of this theory are partially responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that is eroding cohesion in European societies and creating animosity towards Muslims. This atmosphere is also fuelling the far-right in Europe and encouraging them to direct their vitriol towards Muslim communities and those who support the existence of multi-faith communities in Europe.

The term ‘Eurabia’ was initially popularised by Bat Ye’or, a pseudonym for Giselle Littman who is a British Egyptian political commentator, in her book ‘Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis’ published in 2005. In this book, Ye’or argued that European states and Arab states had colluded to create a joint foreign policy based on hostility to Israel and competition with the US. However, this term was later co-opted by other prominent anti-Islam critics to refer to the dystopian fantasy that Europe is being systematically ‘Islamified’ by Muslims who harbour a covertly anti-western agenda. Such critics include Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Geert Wilders, and Nick Griffin.

Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, has stated ‘Europe is going to become Islamic virtually without a fight’. In a similar vein Mark Steyn argues that ‘On the Continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic’. Other Eurabia theorists have also made such sensationalist claims with some going as far as suggesting that Europe will be 40% Muslim by 2020. So the question arises – to what extent are these claims true, and more importantly, what underpins them.

In early 2009, we at Quilliam published a report entitled ‘In defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda’. In this report, author Lucy James comprehensively debunked the Eurabia myth by showing how the entire thesis rests on manipulated statistics and speculation. The facts are that currently only 4% of Europe is Muslim, this number could rise to 6% by 2020 and possibly to 10% by 2110. Furthermore, studies have shown that whilst birth rates do tend to be higher amongst Muslims and non-Muslim immigrants from developing nations in the first generation, these usually level out by the second and third generation.

Eurabia theorists also assume that Muslims in Europe are a culturally and politically homogeneous bloc, who, when sufficient numbers are achieved, will seek to challenge the secular and democratic framework of the continent. This is far from the truth. Muslims in Europe are culturally, linguistically and politically diverse with the vast majority being law abiding and accepting of the democratic framework. They are, therefore, able to interact in public life as secular democrats who are not seeking to the challenge the values of European society. Moreover, the Muslim presence in Europe is not new. Muslim communities have existed peacefully and positively contributed to European culture for hundreds of years, in places such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Bulgaria.

However, in the minds of Eurabia theorists the facts may be irrelevant. What really underpins their paranoia and dystopian fears is a much broader and deep rooted anti-Muslim sentiment which sees Muslims as posing an existential threat to Europe as we know it. This requires taking al-Qaeda propaganda against the west and then generalising it in a way that all Muslims are viewed as being covertly sympathetic to the al-Qaeda political agenda. The increasingly Muslim presence in Europe is therefore, seen as a sinister plot by Muslims to undermine and change the fabric of European society from within.

Breivik also subscribed to Eurabia. He believed that his actions would spark a 60-70 year revolution in which Muslims, and those who tolerate the Muslim presence in Europe, would be fought and defeated, reverting Europe back to a white Christian continent in the process. Furthermore, unlike his non-terrorist counterparts, he decided that change could only come about through direct action. His stance is reminiscent of al-Qaeda leaders such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who gave up on a non-violent struggle to bring about Islamist revolution in favour of terrorism. But just as challenging al-Qaeda requires deconstructing key tenets of the al-Qaeda ideology, challenging the likes of Breivik requires challenging the Eurabia myth and all those who promote it.

The new face of the far-Right Elite

The Guardian runs a more extensive profile of the man after it has surfaced that he wrote an onlne article in which he conducted a wishful thought experiment on torturing and executing UK’s political and religious leaders.

On 23 May 2010, Alan Lake posted on his 4 Freedoms website an article outlining his belief that “in 20 or 30 years the UK will start to fragment into Islamic enclaves”. He went on: “It’s time we decide… who we will force in the Islamic enclaves (and who we will execute if they sneak out.) By forcing these liberal twits into those enclaves, we will be sending them to their death at worst, and at best they and their families will be subjected to all the depredations, persecution and abuse that non-Muslims worldwide currently ‘enjoy’ in countries like Pakistan… It will be great to see them executed or tortured to death.”

Lake urged visitors to the site to contribute the names of people who should be sent to the Islamic enclaves and made three of his own suggestions. He suggested that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, should be a candidate on the grounds that he “approves of the creation and use of sharia courts”. David Cameron, he explained, should be included in the discussion “to help refine our criteria about who deserves to die at the hands of the Muslim overlords”. He also included Nick Clegg on the grounds that he is “such an angelic and pure person that he upholds various ‘human rights’ issues more important than plebeian matters of public safety”.

Soon after his posting, Lake removed the references to execution and torture. “I took it back after one day,” he said. “I said, ‘This doesn’t help.’ I’m not perfect, I will make mistakes. But the fundamental point of that piece is correct. I am holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions.”

Someone else who was big on “holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions” was Anders Breivik who executed teenagers on Utøya island in an act which chimes with Lake’s wishful thinking. Lake has been identified as the probable English “mentor” whom Breivik referred to in his “manifesto”. Lake denies the association just as has all the other ideologues of the “counter-Jihad” movement from Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller etc who have rushed to deny any links. No surprises there.

Last week Lake issued a statement saying he did not know Breivik and had never met him: “I categorically condemn his actions, which have also killed friends of a friend of mine – one in Oslo and two on Utøya island.” But Lake said he would continue his support for the EDL. “England is the only country that has anything like the EDL, a large grassroots movement that is raising issues that you are not supposed to raise,” he said. “They reopen the debate.”

Lake has spoken at far-right rallies in Sweden and on Norwegian television, where he has warned that Europe is in danger of becoming an Islamic state. Responding to a march by Muslims in Britain calling for the imposition of sharia law, Lake told the Norwegian channel 2 Nyhetene: “They are seeking the overthrow of the state. As far as I am concerned, I’ll be happy to execute people like that.”

Be careful what you wish for, Mr Lake.

“Nationalism”. I believe the word instantly causes thoughts to materialise in one’s mind – of extremists, such as skinheads, thugs, nazis, people with “dark agendas” and violent or deceiving methods to fulfil said dark agendas. This is not me – but I still consider myself a nationalist. If you’re interested in more detail, I consider myself a “territorial nationalist”. That is to say, I don’t see colour / race and such as important, or a necessity to be “a part of the club”. I personally see it this way: everyone is a part of the club and should pull together and make this club a better place. I think most people are truly nationalists, even though they wouldn’t use that exact word to define themselves: “Hi, I’m ABC, I’m a nationalist.” But the dictionary definition tells us it is a person who loves his or her country, with synonyms such as “good citizen”. I am sure that we would all like to consider ourselves good citizens, people who care for the wellbeing of the nation and our neighbours. Sure! So, when a party brings a slogan to you like: “Putting British people first!” “People like you!” “Bring our troops home!”, they feel like reassuring statements, noble statements. Can they inspire to a degree and draw you in? Well, I thought so. I wanted to see how they were doing this and see these “people like me”. Obviously, there was a multitude of people saying this party was full of bad people, people not at all like me. As I saw myself as a nationalist, I thought they must be wrong and that I would be much, much more satisfied finding out what’s what for myself. This is how I am – always having to see for myself rather than taking someone’s word for it. Just because many people say so, that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

I wouldn’t deny for a moment from the beginning that there were bad apples within the group; you’re always going to get a few, (see if you spot the irony and please place answers on a postcard) and I feel it is unreasonable and lacking in logic to define an entire group by the actions of a small percentage. I spent months before the general elections and a few months after that becoming affiliated and trusted within the “online ranks” of the party. It got to a stage where in a relatively short time I had become respected and given Moderation / Administration authority within the groups. If I’m honest, this fuelled my ego. I started to try and educate and moderate the bad apples and promote the good parts of the party, always, always having to defend its past mistakes and errors. But I began to tire of defending the past, which I wasn’t a part of. Each time, I was assured by all the others that things such as that wouldn’t happen again – we were building a righteous nationalist party the land could be proud of, they just needed to realise we had changed! United, we had the power to change anything!

As time passed – especially after the elections – I saw more of the entrails of the beast; saw what it was and how it worked. The deeper inside, the uglier it got. Many people, making a racist remark here or slandering another who opposed them… I still held onto the idea that ‘Well, perhaps this is still just the bad apples; I need to reach the higher echelons.’ I was frustrated, because when I wasn’t there, keeping everyone in check, people would just come on and instantly start spouting hatred. There was no reason behind many people’s rants; they were blinded. “Nationalism seems to just draw this kind of people”, I thought. I finally got a meet with the area representatives; now I was buzzing, it was all going to be different, more positive, more progress, get to meet leaders – it’s going to be awesome. I had planned out so many ideas and suggestions and wanted to put them forward.

But at the meeting, all the ideas and topics I had to offer were shot down or ignored. They were much more interested in and – dead set focused on – ranting about “those damn blacks” and how “they didn’t belong here” and they were “invading inferior beings”. No matter what topic I tried to raise – always the same. It really came down to a personal hatred of black people. Now it was confirmed to me, finally. I had gone on to meet three influential people within the party, whose jobs and duties it was to encourage and promote to the members… All had blinding grudges and unreasonable hatred of other races; they had no interest in speaking to me about education, economy, health, welfare. So what are they teaching the rest of the group? Not many of those I encountered would second-guess them, or follow up on their statements -  they just wished to get people pissed off, because pissed-off people can be manipulated very easily. I felt sad, because I gave them the opportunity to prove me wrong and they, in my opinion, had sadly not done so.

These people just breed hatred and anger.  Maybe there’s something valid they’re upset about, something that looks like it needs looking into or stopping, but this sort of hate only breeds hate. The way they offer misinformation makes this a vicious cycle. I was asked to represent them, to encourage people my age and younger to join. That I just had to decline; I couldn’t encourage anyone to join a group which is so blinded.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

recently, i gave up posting on pickled politics, partly because of the level of personal animosity i was facing, but mostly just in frustration at my apparent inability to get my point across. now, i suppose i have nobody very much to blame for that apart from myself, but i’ve never felt that was a problem before now. now, i think i’m starting to work out what it is that is bothering me; certainly, it’s not about the denizens of one blog, or even the blogosphere, or even the media. it’s not any one set of views, not any one person, but a set of trends, a collective movement i sense in wider society.

one of the things i like about the spittoon and my co-contributors is that they take a robust approach towards the cosy relationship between the left and the various apologists for, supporters of and partisans of islamist extremism. they take, of course, an equally dim view of other forms of clerical fascism, whether it be jewish, christian, or hindu, although, of course, we are often excoriated for not writing sufficiently on these subjects. and why is that? well, the answer that “they’re not as big a problem” simply won’t do. clearly, the activities of the likes of rss/shiv sena in india, or hardcore fundamentalists in the american south ultimately affect all of us. for me personally, the behaviour of both the extreme west bank settlers and that of rejectionist ultra-orthodoxy evokes both profound heartache and deep anger – just as the “as-a-jew” clique that only appear as jews in order to display their preening self-importance whenever an opportunity to attack israel arises. however, i would nonetheless argue that, from the perspective of wider UK society, these concerns are less immediate, in that these groups have no meaningful accommodation with either our government or the UK media, however influential they may be in the communities they come from. what bothers me, really, is what the effects of ongoing and intensifying fundamentalism on me, my family and community and wider society – in this, locally speaking, islamists are in the vanguard, as the leading proponents and practitioners of violence against my community specifically and, generally, against UK civil society.

the question inevitably arises – who’s really worse? well, i think i would on balance come down in favour of the idea that wherever a particular group becomes influential and the closer they come to the levers of power, the more of a problem they are in a particular country. thus, in the UK, the utterly misguided, racism-of-lower-expectations the-west-is-ultimately-responsible-for-everything-bad-y’know attitude has allowed the entryism of islamist organisations and sympathisers everywhere from the police to government to the left-wing media. but would it be any different anywhere else? i expect not – militant fundamentalist christians are busily inching closer to the levers of power in washington, india has had already had one bjp government and i think we’re all aware of the subversion of mainstream democracy and the processes of civil society in israel by the religious parties and the settler lobby. we’ve got a lot of muslim fundamentalists here in the UK and, in a profound act of ignorance and credulity, we’ve allowed islamic education to be systematically outsourced to salafi and wahhabi dawa organisations for a generation, with entirely predictable results – i think we can say the same of many european countries, although i would fall well short of the apocalyptic and hysterical “eurabia” scenario – in fact, i’d be more worried personally about the behaviour of the catholic party in poland led by an anti-semitic priest and any prospective alliance of a russian political party with the orthodox church – not trend anyone jewish can afford to ignore.

of course, in europe particularly, this isn’t the first time we’ve been here. there was of course an “enlightenment”, which consisted in large part of reaction against the authoritarianism of various forms of christianity, whether by trying to eliminate it altogether and replace it with a sort of ersatz state paganism, as in france, or whether to regulate it as a sort of national industry, as in germany and scandinavia, or whether to simply satirise and philosophise it into a manageable social pressure and community support lobby, as in britain. the enlightenment taught that religion was nothing but a corrupt power structure which only the mad, the bad and the deluded would indulge. as we also know, removing religion simply forced the mad, the bad and the deluded to find other channels for their unpleasant attitudes and activities. we still see this outdated and reductionist position being reinvented for modern times using all the tools of modern cultural influence, from popular science to childrens’ books to comedy. religious people are portrayed as knaves or fools. there appears to be no middle ground, no compromise possible – religion must be rooted out, cleansed and exterminated.

of course, we’ve been there before too – modern fundamentalism, as karen armstrong (before she started to become part of the problem by sucking up to the goons at MPAC-UK) pointed out in her still masterful study of fundamentalism “the battle for G!D” evolved largely as a reaction against the enforced, clumsy and often brutal imposition of modernity on societies all around the world. the fundamentalisms we have today have reached their current forms because of the political, technological and social realities of the societies in which they evolved. their priorities and obsessions are driven by the battles they originally fought, against pluralism, liberalisation of dress, behaviour, increased social equality (or inequality), against practically irreversible geopolitical realities, against the aftereffects of wars and economic dislocation. those who give aid and comfort to fundamentalists are inevitably picking and choosing where they have shared priorities and obsessions – anti-imperialism, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, anti-israel, social breakdown, the emancipation of women, the legacy of slavery – but they are always at odds with fundamental features of the societies they criticise.

what i see developing, however, is a sort of multi-lateral polarisation in which the first casualty is moderation, the second is tolerance and the third is social consensus. the effects of this, however, touch all of us, but the effects are peculiarly corrosive on those of us who are able to combine amd integrate reason and religion and deal with the subtleties of creation, revelation and evolution. we are frequently at odds with obscurantists and bigots within our faith, but we are now fighting a rearguard defence against anti-religious forces, without any letup in the attack on reasonableness, complexity and dialogue that continues from reactionary fanatics. both sides, naturally, accuse us of giving aid and comfort to the other in its mission to destroy them – if we’re not with them, we’re against them – and no prisoners will be taken.

so, on one hand, we have the forces of militant anti-religion mounting attacks on everything from headgear to faith schools, on the other we have the walls of the ghetto being built anew, only with gun-ports this time. we can also see the social contract of the enlightenment renewed; previously, the deal was “give up your difference and you’ll get rights as a citizen” – this time, it’s “you’ve abused your rights as a citizen, we can no longer tolerate your differences”. the behaviour of religious fanatics, in their quest to dominate their own communities, has destroyed the delicate balance which allowed religion to be an integrated part of civil society. naturally, comes the response: they want all or nothing? fine – let them have nothing. but what of those of us who always wanted to co-exist? who prize our cultural and spiritual distincitiveness? oh no, distinctiveness is still allowed – but religion will no longer be a valid reason for it. diversity in sexuality, gender, disability, intelligence, talent, wealth – all these are permitted, but not religion. we are offered the choice – everything or nothing. well, we want neither.

i refuse to hide in the ghetto. i contribute to this society. i work. i pay my taxes. i don’t walk about naked, nor do i hide my face from the world. i will not assimilate, nor will i act as if i am living in another country or another century. i refuse to eat foods that are forbidden to me and i refuse to forbid those foods to others who may want them. i refuse to give up the sabbath, the festivals, the Torah and my other sacred texts – and i refuse to impose my vision of them on those who do not share my perspective. if i am attacked, i will defend myself. if i am insulted, i will respond in kind. i am not looking for a fight, but i will not shrink from one. i will not allow others to define what i am. the search for social consensus has been a long and painful one – and now it has been destroyed again, by the hubris and arrogance of religious and anti-religious fanatics. i do not know if we can put the pieces back together again, but there has to be a basis for us to live together – both enforced segregation and enforced assimilation are fascistic responses.

judaism has always been not so much a culture or a religion as it has been a 3000+ year-old argument. there is nothing so boring as loads of people violently agreeing with each other – except perhaps two groups of people refusing to concede anything that the other is saying has any value or validity. the counter-enlightenment is in full swing, without any sign that it has learnt anything from the enlightenment.

Do you remember Sameh Habeeb? He’s a Palestinian activist with very close links to Palestinian Return Centre (PRC). He’s the chap who wrote an email to Nothing British to complain that the PRC was not anti-Semitic because they had invited ”NORMAN Frankensteine who is Jew”. He meant Norman Finkelstein, of course.

Mr Habeeb is also the editor of The Palestine Telegraph (PT), which has close links to the pro-Hamas PRC. The PRC lists the Istanbul Declaration signatory and MCB Deputy-Secretary, Daud Abdullah, as a senior researcher and is close to Clare Short MP and Lib Dem Baroness Jenny Tonge. Its patron is the Daily Mail journalist, Lauren Booth.

Last November the PRC invited the Hungarian neo-fascist MEP, Kristina Morvai, to its December conference in London. It then withdrew the invitation after pressure from Nothing British.

The PT has just written a review of 2009 that documents last year’s rise of the European far-right. The article, rightly, points out the worrying rise of anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe: summing it up as not being a good year for Muslims.

It goes on to say: “In early June, European Elections saw numerous far right parties making gains across the whole of Europe.” It then lists Geert Wilders, the Swiss minaret ban and the BNP’s two MEP’s.

It then comes as a surprise to read the PT mentioning the rise of Hungarian neo-fascism and adding this description of Jobbik: “Hungary’s far-right Jobbik party, which described itself as an anti-immigration party and has called on the police to crack down on Gypsies”.

Jobbik is a revolting party. The Hungarian Guard, Jobbik’s black-shirted militia wear uniforms similar to the Arrow Cross, Hungary’s fascist wartime party who were installed by the Nazis and also responsible for the escalation of the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz towards the end of the war. The Guard was recently banned by the Hungarian Supreme Court for its regular incitement of hatred against minorities living in Hungary (also see this briefing here to find out more).

Jobbik recently entered into a pan-European political alliance with the anti-Muslim BNP, Front National and other European fascists.

In October 2008 Jobbik invited Nick Griffin and Roberto Fiore, the convicted Italian terrorist and close friend of the BNP leader, to Budapest for Jobbik’s annual rally, where they both gave speeches to a crowd of Hungarian fascists.

Fiore delivered a neo-Nazi rant against Jews and homosexuals. Explaining the credit crisis to an over excited fascist audience, he said: “This is the same capitalism that is pushing thousands and millions towards poverty. But it is lead and it is directed from the same people who put Christ on the cross!” You can see his speech here.

Despite Jobbik’s fascist friends and its hatred of Gypsies, immigrants, Jews, Gays, Israel and America the PRC were still keen to t extend an invitation to Ms Morvai.

But then again Jobbik’s leadership are apologists for the Islamic Republic of Iran’s violence against democratic activists (also watch Nick Griffin on this issue) and are crudely sympathetictowards the Islamic far-right in Gaza when they are killing innocent Israeli civilians