Werkstatt der Kulturen to Remove Evidence of Grand Mufti's Collaboration with the Nazis

A slippery mess of sheer multicultural madness from Germany:

The publicly funded Multicultural Center's (Werkstatt der Kulturen) decision to remove educational panels of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, who was an ally of Adolf Hitler, from an exhibit, sparked outrage on Thursday among a district mayor, the curator of the exhibit, and the Berlin Jewish community.

The curator, Karl Rössler, told The Jerusalem Post that it is a "scandal" that the director of the Werkstatt, Philippa Ebéné, sought to censor the exhibit.

"One must, of course, name that al-Husseini, a SS functionary, participated in the Holocaust," said Rössler.

The exhibit covers the "The Third World during the Second World War" and three exhibit panels of 96 are devoted to the mufti's collaboration with the Nazis.

The grand mufti delivered a talk to the imams of the Bosnian SS division in 1944, and was a key Islamic supporter of Nazi Germany's destruction of European Jewry.

Ebéné denied that there was an "agreement " reached with the local German-Muslim community to shut down the exhibit. She termed media queries regarding an agreement as "Eurocentric." [Ed - She sounds as brainwashed and deranged as any Nazi - Hitler would probably approve.]

She told the Post that the exhibit was intended as a "homage to soldiers from African" countries who fought against the Nazis.

When asked about her opposition to the inclusion of the mufti panels, she asked, "was there ever a commemoration event in Israel to honor the [African] soldiers?"

Rössler was notified last Friday that Ebéné wanted to take out the panels dealing with the grand mufti, but he rejected her demand to remove them.

Meanwhile, the exhibit in its uncensored version has been relocated to the UferHallen gallery.

Maya Zehden, a spokeswoman for the 12,000-strong Berlin Jewish community, told the Post that Ebéné's rejection of the exhibit showed "intolerance," and a director who is "incapable of acting in a democratic" manner.

Zehden urged that the Berlin government consider replacing Ebéné as director. Zehden also sharply criticized Günter Piening, Berlin's commissioner for integration and migration, for defending Ebéné's decision to censor the exhibit.

Piening told the large daily Tagesspiegel that, "We need, in a community like Neukölln, a differentiated presentation of the involvement of the Arabic world in the Second World War."

Zehden termed his statement "an appeasement attempt" to ignore the fact that "there was no official resistance from the Arabic world against the persecution of Jews" during the Shoah.

She accused Piening of showing a false tolerance to German-Arabs in the neighborhood by not wanting to deal with disturbances from the local community.

Piening issued conflicting statements to the Post. While denying his statement to the Tagesspiegel, he said, however, that his comment was stripped out of a context of quotes.

He said the "reason" for the removal of the grand mufti panels dealt with a "misunderstanding of the background of the exhibit."

In an e-mail to the Post, Heinz Buschkowsky, the district mayor in Neukölln, where the exhibit was originally planned, wrote, it is a sign of "anticipatory obedience to avoid probable protests. I do not consider this position to be good."

He added that Piening's statement is a "repression of the facts dealing with anti-Semitism."

The district mayor wrote that the center by its own "claim to stand for freedom, tolerance, and culture should be careful not to set off suspicion that it is imposing censorship."

I wonder if she will be including the mass rapes the "African soldiers" indulged in on their way across Europe in her little homage - or would that be a bit too close to the mark?*

This little episode demonstrates beautifully the narrative of our time: white people and Western culture are uniquely evil, and must be denigrated at all costs and hopefully destroyed - whilst all other peoples and cultures should be celebrated, their achievements shouted and overblown if necessary.

Such deranged fools should be entitled to their little fantasies - but not at the expense of genuine history.

The contact between Islam and Nazism is not only an important historical record, but a useful reference point for the modern world, because I believe Hitler and his ramblings are still widely celebrated in some parts of the world - I'll leave it to the reader to imagine which.

***UPDATE*** 29th August:

*I have been chastised for my racism by "a German national in Lambeth". I admit that my remark about African troops was provocative - it was meant to be.

Why?

We live in a time where any achievement claimed by Western people, those of European descent, whatever you prefer, must be very firmly balanced in the context of the tiniest wrong they have committed. We as a people are not supposed to bask in the glory of our past - we are supposed to hang our heads in shame. The wrong always outshines the right in the eyes of the modern world - no matter how small the former and how great the latter.

Such thinking has spread beyond the obvious to history of which the Left obviously approves, such as the defeat of Hitler.

We now can't celebrate our victory over the Nazis (whilst obviously taking the time to admit that mistakes were made and war is a terrible, tragic thing) without being told how bad we were, how many innocents we killed, how some of our leaders at that time were frankly war criminals.

Maybe this is good and fair - but if we believe it is so, then surely we must apply those standards equally?

So, my question remains - will the negative behaviour of troops from Africa be part of this display - or are we only being asked to celebrate, despite the outrageous actions of some? A comparison of these two Wikipedia articles suggest the answer to the last question is "yes."

We are all now familiar with the way that Russian troops behaved, en masse, when they reached German territory, and the shocking behaviour of some Allied soldiers is slowly coming to light. From what I understand, some North and black Africans had a similar group behaviour to the Soviets - with the good eggs being the exception, rather than the bad. After all, mass rape is a feature of warfare in Africa even today.

Will we be hearing from their victims? Or is their suffering less important than suppressing certain information?

After all, "German national in Lambeth" - we can only begin to erode racism if we apply the same moral standards to all people, regardless of skin colour - right?

Canadian Muslim Insists Islamic Slavery Was Enlightened

A leading Canadian Muslim academic, Mohamed Elmasry, has caused some controversy (well, one article in the National Post) after stating that Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to Islamic slavery (still widely practised) - because it as morally superior to the forms of slavery found in Christian societies.

He is in effect stating that the millions of Europeans and Africans enslaved by Islam were being done a service, by being absorbed into a peaceful, tolerant system, a kind of benevolent forerunner to the huge ethnic and cultural melting pot the world is supposed to be today.

This man is the former head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and a teacher at the University of Waterloo; he is supposedly one of the 'moderates' we hear so much about.

Despite this, his comments have aroused little interest, never mind outrage. Can you imagine if a white American had said something similar?

If Islamic slavery was so peaceful and benign, then why aren't there large numbers of European Christians in north Africa and the Middle East today, as there are Africans in the U.S. and Brazil?

Here is the only critique I have found of his comments:

This just in from former Canadian Islamic Congress chief Mohamed Elmasry: Islamic slavery wasn't all that bad.

Writing in The Canadian Charger — a newly formed internet-based grab bag of anti-Western articles published by hard left Canadian activists — Elmasry works hard to distinguish the evils of Christian slavery from the purportedly enlightened race-mixing that resulted from its Islamic equivalent.

Some snippets: "Islam, with no church, teaches that all humans, irrespective of their gender, skin color, and ethnic origin are capable of doing good; there is no original sin. The One God is the Lord of all, not of special people or tribe … Islam and Africa have made something of each other that is quite extraordinary … Islam teaches that slaves, who were then the result of wars, Africans or not, should be treated well and set free as soon as possible … Islam also teaches that slaves can buy their freedom in-kind. Thus many of them excelled to be teachers and even scholars … Islam teaches a slave is a victim of circumstances who should be helped to be free and treated fairly in the mean time. Trading in slaves is a sin. This is in contrast to the teachings of the Bible, 'Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling.' … The Arab Muslims called Africans Zanji (hence the island of Zanjibar or Zanzibar), Habashi (from Habasha, Arabic for Ethiopian) or Sudani (Arabic for black). Such names “were not derogatory but simply ethnographic … Some [slaves] achieved high rank and status …" And so on.

The basic theme is that Islamic slavery — to the extent it was bad at all (and it's not really clear that Elmasry thinks it was) — was an enlightened, almost consensual, win-win exercise in regional multiculturalism. In his characteristically absurd elevation of Islam over Christianity, he makes no mention of the fact that religious Christians led the abolition movement in the West — while slavery persisted wholesale in the Arab world until late in the 20th century, and still survives in parts of Islamic Africa, including Sudan. Indeed, one wonders what the Christian tribespeople from southern Sudan who have been abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, and enslaved by Arab Muslims in recent years would make of Elmasry's historical fantasies.

It's amazing, isn't it? Our Christian leaders seem to do nothing but apologize these days — for every historical sin under the sun. But here you have a man who recently led the most prominent Muslim activist group in Canada, and he thinks it's just dandy that his Arab forebears colonized and enslaved great swathes of Africa over the course of many centuries — a colonial situation that essentially persists in Sudan and regions of the Maghreb.

Remember this the next time Elmasry or one of his fellow travelers denounces Western "imperialism."

You can ask Elmasry about his obscene views here: elmasry@vlsi.uwaterloo.ca

I don't expect the Canadian authorities to care much about this - they're too busy tolerating mass Islamic prayers in downtown Toronto or running around after Somalis.

Perhaps if enough people speak up, someone might listen.

Islamic Art Project Condemned in Poland

An art project intended to promote 'diversity' has caused outrage in Poland.

The plan was to turn a tall chimney in Poznan, western Poland into a minaret - but the project has caused fury in some quarters, particularly as the design is to be based on the minarets of a West Bank mosque which has launched suicide bombers into Israeli territory.

Predictably, the artists countered that claim by insisting that 'the West Bank harbours victims of Israeli aggression' - but unlike in the rest of Europe, it seems that such nonsense is not stood for in Poland.

From Top News:

Warsaw - An art project that would transform a tall chimney into a minaret drew controversy in western Poland as critics said it mocked Catholics, a Polish daily reported Friday.

Architect Joanna Rajkowska was invited to design a project in Poznan, the daily Rzeczpospolita reported. But architects and Catholics alike criticized the design, which turned a chimney into a minaret in a symbol of diversity.

"The idea is absurd," a local government official told the daily. "It would be like building a belfry in Qatar with Muslim tax money."

Architects said the project could be seen as "mocking a religious symbol." Others said it was modeled on a mosque in the West Bank from which suicide bombings were launched into Israel.

Rajkowska said the project was not an attack on Catholics or Jews, while the West Bank city of Jenin also housed "victims of Israeli aggression."

However, the daily said the project may never be realised, because of the city's budget deficit.

The installation, valued at half a million zloty (160,000 dollars), was to be ready for next year's Malta International Theatre Festival.

BBC Propaganda

Paul Weston has written an excellent essay over at Gates of Vienna, highlighting how the BBC manages to sneak in some very careful wording in its GCSE Bitesize revision programme regarding Christianity and Islam.

So disingenuous (and riddled with errors both factual and grammatical) it could have been written by our resident troll Solkhar himself, it completely distorts the meaning of Christianity and Islam as subtly as possible, whilst staying on message.

Here are some extracts:

Opening with Christianity, the first BBC page reverts to Marxist type as it explains that discrimination can only occur when prejudice is combined with power. As no minority race or religion in Britain is deemed to have power, so they can never discriminate against an indigenous British Christian. And so the scene is set for the evil BBC propaganda that follows their publishing of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

We are also told:

All forms of discrimination go against the first two articles.

Page 2 informs us:

Christianity teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and so all forms of prejudice and discrimination are unacceptable and against God’s will.

Leaving aside the small matter that we discriminate every day on any number of things, such as a preference for good wine over Bulgarian wine or holidaying in Tuscany rather than Arkansas — both examples one would imagine are outside the remit of God’s will — there then comes the inevitable however:

However… there are occasions when Christians are guilty of prejudice and discrimination.

In South Africa, for many years the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid, the system which meant that black people were separated from white people and treated inferior [sic].

When Europeans were colonising other countries around the world they often killed the native people there and treated them as slaves.

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda and he has done a lot to raise awareness and put a stop to racism in the Anglican Church, and in wider society.

Sexism is still a problem for the Christian Church — women are not always treated as equals in roles within the Church.

Page 3 informs us:

Many people think the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.

So although Christianity teaches that everybody should be treated the same, this doesn’t always happen.

Page 4 is a revision page where you have to match up the end of a statement with the beginning. If completed correctly it reads as follows:

Discrimination =		Prejudice + Power
The Roman Catholic Church does not		allow women to be Priests
Article 1 states that all humans		are born free and equal
There is neither Jew nor Greek		slave nor free
The Dutch Reformed Church		supported apartheid
Paul (St) said: women should		be silent in Churches
You shall love your neighbour		as yourself
Native people were treated		as slaves

If you get all the above correct on their interactive site, a little message pops up stating:

Congratulations, you remembered all the facts about Christian prejudice and descrimination. [Spelling mistake courtesy of BBC educationalists.]

The test bite concludes this section on Christianity. You are presented with an interactive statement to which you have to answer true or false. It mimics most of page 4 so I will draw attention to only 2 out of the 10:

Christians believe most people are equal in the eyes of God.

The second statement reads:

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York is trying to reduce racism in the Anglican Church.

Another clever question, to which the correct answer is TRUE. Notice there is no argument as to whether there really is racism in the Anglican Church, it is just presented as fact, and provides the BBC with the opportunity to subliminally brainwash whilst promoting the only Christian they admire, based solely on the fact that he is an African, an enormous positive that far outweighs the inconvenient fact that he is far more hard line than the liberal rank and file excuses for the British Clergy epitomised by the Archdruid, Rowan Williams.

Islam, as I am sure you have probably guessed, is treated in an altogether different way.

Page 1 is identical to page 1 for Christianity, detailing the meaning of discrimination and quoting the Human Rights act.

Page 2 informs us:

The Qur’an (the divine book revealed to the Prophet Muhammad) teaches that everyone was created by Allah and that everyone is equal.

Therefore there is no reason to treat people of different races differently. The Prophet Muhammad showed how important this teaching was in his last sermon, when he said…

…All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim and that Muslims form one brotherhood.

Page 3 informs us of Islam’s attitude to women:

Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.

However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for the woman to look after the home and family.

Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.

The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said — paradise lies at the feet of your mother.

Page 4 is a revision page where you have to match up the end of a statement with the beginning. If completed correctly it reads as follows:

Discrimination =		Prejudice + Power
The Qur’an teaches		that everyone is equal
Article 1 states that all humans are		born free and equal
Women have the right		to take part in politics
Men and women		will be judged equally
All mankind is descended from		Adam and Eve
Paradise lies		at the feet of your mother
Sometimes men		have the final word

If you get all the above correct on their interactive site, a little message pops up stating:

Congratulations. You have understood all the arguments about Islamic prejudice and discrimination.

Notice how the BBC uses the word “facts” in relation to Christian prejudice and discrimination, but replaced it with “arguments” with regard to Islam.

The test bite concludes the section. There is nothing surprising in it; just a continuation of the BBC’s overt propaganda suggesting Islam is divine, pure, non-racist and non-sexist.

There is a different section on Christian and Islamic attitudes to fighting and warfare. It is worth browsing in its entirety but the general thrust of the propaganda is that Christians and Jews are warlike and Islam is a religion of peace.

Racial Violence in America

Below are the ramblings of an American comedian called Louis CK:

Sorry I’m being so negative. I’m a bummer, I don’t know I shouldn’t be I’m a very lucky guy. I got a lot going from me. I’m a healthy, I’m relatively young. I’m white; which thank God for that sh** boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? I love being white I really do. Seriously, if you’re not white you’re missing out because this sh** is pearly good.

Let me be clear by the way, I’m not saying that white people are better. I’m saying that being white is clearly better, who could even argue? If it was an option I would reup ever year. Oh yeah I’ll take white again absolutely, I’ve been enjoying that, I’ll stick with white thank you. Here’s how great it is to be white, I could get in a time machine and go to any time and it would be f***** awesome when I get there. That is exclusively a white privilege.

Black people can’t f*** with time machines. A black guy in a time machine is like hey anything before 1980 no thank you, I don’t want to go. But I can go to any time. The year 2, I don’t even know what was happening then but I know when I get there, welcome we have a table right here for you sir. .nbsp;. . thank you, it’s lovely here in the year 2. I can go to any time in the past, I don’t want to go to the future and find out what happens to white people because we’re going to pay hard for this sh**, you gotta know that . . . we’re not just gonna fall from number 1 to 2.

They’re going to hold us down and f*** us in the ass forever and we totally deserve it but for now wheeeee. If you’re white and you don’t admit that it’s great, you’re an a******. It is great and I’m a man. How many advantages can one person have? I’m a white man, you can’t even hurt my feelings. What can you really call a white man that really digs deep? Hey cracker . . . oh ruined my day. Boy shouldn’t have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people what a drag.

Well, he may not be eloquent or erudite, but the basic thrust of his message - we're all going to pay for past sins, real or imagined - is sadly accurate, it seems.

Perhaps the following video attests to Louis CK's vision coming true, as it has in countless other places:


Racist? Or simply gang related?

You decide - but if the colours of victim and perpetrator were reversed, we all know what conclusion would have been reached automatically.

Thus Louis CK's vision is born not only through racist violence, but through the wilful blindness of those charged with protecting us.

Re-writing History in Holland

A Moroccan artist called Aziz Bekkaoui has caused controversy in the Dutch city of Dordrecht with his plans for displaying a sculpture which would be used to celebrate 500 years since the birth of John Calvin, the founder of the Protestant church in the Netherlands.

Bekkaoui's piece is called "Het Mekka van Calvijn" (Calvin's Mecca).

From NIS:

It is a cube measuring 4 by 4 by 4 metres, consisting entirely of reflective glass. The cube apparently refers to the Kaaba, the sacred central building in the courtyard of the Great Mosque in the Islamic place of pilgrimage, Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

The controversial sculpture is intended for Het Hof, the square beside the historic Augustijnenkerk, in the centre of Dordrecht. Gert de Boon, verger of the church, submitted an objection to the artwork to the local authority yesterday. "Calvin had nothing to do with Mecca, and certainly not with Islam. I consider it provocative that this piece of work lays a link between them."

Muslims as well as Christians will be offended by the artwork, Boon claimed. "Mecca is the sacred place for Muslims. They will not be very happy either to see their Mecca used in this way."

10 July 2009 is the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth. His significance for the Dutch church was so great that Dutch culture is still under his influence today. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in a speech only last week that he is a Calvinist.

Boon hopes that a "wide protest" will develop, from politicians as well. "The councillors for the Christian Democrats (CDA), progressive Christian party ChristenUnie and orthodox Christian party SGP are now aware of the matter. I hope they will take action."

Director Gerrit Willems of the visual art centre CBK in Dordrecht was surprised. "The artwork has been made into a religious statement, but this was not the intention at all. The artist wishes to emphasise that values such as soberness, self-reflection, hard work and care for others are not exclusive to Calvinism, but also exist in other religions, such as Islam."

This is one of those stories - you just don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Yes, traits such as sobriety, hard work and self reflection may appear in Islam and other faiths - but the Dutch, along with Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians and Germans, used these principles inherent in their faith to pretty much create the modern world.

As Lenin had it, Who? Whom? Let's remind ourselves once more - who is desperate to get into the countries built by whom?

It seems even ardent Muslims are desperate to get out of the world create by the values of Islam and into the one created by Calvin and wider Christendom.

All that aside, this is a cynical attempt at social engineering - to quite simply re-write the history of the Netherlands and the Christian faith in Dutch society.

Rehabilitating the Left

The recent European Elections saw many Left-wing commentators in Britain evoke historical memories when attempting to persuade people not to vote for the 'far-Right'.

Many of these memories were tainted by ideological bias, however.

The worst corruption pertains to the Spanish Civil War, where the crimes of the Communists and the Left can apparently be simply airbrushed out of history because they happened to be fighting those semi-mythical agents of evil, 'fascists'.

Never mind the fact that those 'brave lads' from Britain were volunteering for a cause which forced priests to dig their own graves before burying them alive, a cause which wished to see Spain subjugated by a wicked tyranny based on that of the Soviet Union - that can be overlooked because of their enemies, as can the ensuing cultural and economic destruction such a system would have wrought.

Of course, this ideological double standard is nothing new; for many decades Western intellectuals lied to the population at large about Stalin and the nature of his regime in the Soviet Union, and refused to admit the truth even to themselves about that blood-drenched fanatic Lenin.

One of the least acknowledged truths of history is that no one thinks of himself as the villain of the piece, no matter how easy it is to see him as such afterwards, when history's emotional baggage has been attached.

Most people are not attracted to a cause because how evil its leader is makes them tingle all over; generally they are drawn in, find themselves in too deep, and then it is too late.

Even the Nazi leadership of the Second World War were not cackling Bond-worthy supervillains - they believed themselves to be fighting for a just cause which was a long time coming. In fact, the entire Nazi movement was profoundly self-righteous.

To be honest, isn't that actually more frightening than dismissing them as 'evil', or 'monsters'?

We live in a time when only one interpretation of history is permitted in the mainstream. But, just as you would be wise not to ask a Holocaust denier how bad Nazi Germany really was, why would you expect a committed, ideologically sound Leftist to tell you the truth about his movement, and the blackness found at the centre of it?

I favour an objective, fact-based approach to history.

To the likes of Stuart Maconie, I say that the young men from Britain who volunteered in Spain - for the fascists or the communists - were simply misguided.

Neither group was uniquely evil, because they were both blinded to objective reality by ideology.

Observe the following scene from the excellent Dutch film Zwartboek, which deals very well with moral ambiguity and the many guises which evil takes. Watch General Käutner's speech before the song starts:


That probably is a fair assessment of how the Nazis really saw themselves. The only problem is that it is simply untrue. In no conceivable way were the Nazis fighting for what we would recognise as freedom, or for a good cause.

We would rightly not trust any of their modern apologists or intellectual heirs if they told us otherwise.

So why do we trust ex-Communists, Trotskyites and Stalinists to tell us about the Left and the Right?

I would hate to see the Spanish Civil War become the new Soviet Union, a one way narrative where only one viewpoint counts, no matter how deviant from reality.

The horrors of the Soviet Union are still new in the public consciousness compared to those of Nazi Germany; such large scale atrocities are so incomprehensible to normal people that stories of individual courage and suffering often highlight them most effectively.

Yesterday the Mail published the story of Brian Johnson (circled below right), an Englishman who was servant to Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov (below left), technically the very last Tsar of Russia.


Johnson and his master were murdered by bloodthirsty Bolsheviks in woodland near the Ural Mountains.

Mikhail was wounded by the first bullet, and the second struck Johnson. Mikhail crawled over to his dying servant and begged the executioners to let him say goodbye to his friend.

Both were then shot in the head at point blank range.

The man who killed Johnson, Andrei Markov, then stole his antique watch, later boasting:

'I took it as a memory of him after I shot him dead. Since that moment, I haven't taken it off. It hasn't required any repair work.'

Here is the full story:

He had devoted his life to serving his master - and, even in the face of certain death, that loyalty never wavered.

Yet for 90 years, Briton Brian Johnson - murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia - was officially branded an 'enemy of the people'.

As valet to Michael Romanov, younger brother of Tsar Nicholas II, Johnson had known he faced execution as the 300-year-old dynasty was swept aside in 1917.

Michael pleaded with his faithful servant to flee to the safety of Britain - but Johnson bravely refused to leave his side.

On June 12, 1918, both were shot by a bloodthirsty rabble.

As Johnson lay dying, the wounded Michael went to his aid, begging the execution squad: 'Let me say goodbye to my friend.' Moments later, he too was dead.

Now, however, the Kremlin has officially rehabilitated Johnson - meaning he no longer carries any stain of guilt on official records.

The Russian government declared Johnson, Michael and other members of the Imperial Family had been unlawfully persecuted and killed by the feared Cheka, the forerunner to the KGB.

Johnson had been Grand Duke Michael's private secretary since 1912 and was described as being 'round faced, not very tall, and speaking three languages'.

His father, Nicholas, was a Briton, although it is not known exactly where he was from.

Nor is it known how he came to meet and marry Brian's mother, a Russian woman who was a music teacher at the Russian Imperial Court.

Brian Johnson was an accomplished pianist, and a shared love of music led to his friendship and then employment with the lanky Michael.

The pair became known as 'Little and Large' around the court. Michael represented his brother, the Tsar, at the funerals of both Queen Victoria in 1901 and Edward VII of England in 1909.

As a result of his travels, he became something of an Anglophile.

Many of his tastes and preferences shaped during those years reflect those of the English aristocracy. He was an accomplished equestrian, an avid automobile driver, and loved animals and country living.

Johnson's moment in Russian history came in 1917 after Tsar Nicholas abdicated on behalf of himself and his sole heir, his haemophiliac son Alexey, 12.

Rather than renounce the throne altogether, Nicholas quit as absolute ruler in favour of his younger brother.

Johnson was involved in drawing up Michael's response a day after Nicholas' abdication on 15 March.

The response did not turn down the throne, but agreed to accept it only if Russia became a constitutional monarchy supported by the 1917.

'will of the people'. Russian historians argue that while never crowned, Michael technically ruled for a matter of hours before Russia was declared a republic by the provisional government.

Aware of the dangers ahead, Michael told Johnson he should flee to Britain, but the aide refused to go unless Michael went with him to safety.

But the royal refused to leave Russia, which was then engulfed in the First World War. Both were soon exiled to the city of Perm.

Despite having to report to the guards every day at 11am, they lived in some luxury in a hotel, with a Rolls Royce at their disposal, much to the chagrin of local Bolsheviks.

It was local 'workers' who conducted the execution in a nearby forest - apparently on the orders of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the

Soviet Union, amid fears the anti-revolutionary White Russians would liberate Michael.

Michael was struck by the first bullet, then Johnson was shot and mortally wounded.

After going to Johnson's aid the wounded Michael was shot at point blank range in the head.

The murders were the first in an orgy of Romanov killings between June 1918 and January 1919. In all, 18 members of the Imperial Family were executed.

I think if this tells us anything, it is that ideology gives no person the right to the moral high ground.

BNP Derangement Syndrome Continues

It seems that the Mail have updated their article on yesterday's attack on BNP leader Nick Griffin as he attempted to hold a press conference outside Parliament.

This entire incident has reached ridiculous proportions, for it seems the stated aim of the protesters was to 'get between Griffin and the cameras'. Instead, they've ensured that he has received front page coverage at every major news outlet for at least 24 hours.

It also seems the attack goes beyond the egging which it was initially reported as, as this picture demonstrates.

Griffin's security were pretty much described in the press as 'thugs', despite the fact they clearly saved him from a serious assault, as what was described as 'a sizeable group of armed police' simply stood by.

Despite this, the article notes:

But when the far right leader arrived to deliver his speech opposite the Houses of Parliament, he found his party's message of hate was afforded precious little respect.

Together with fellow British National Party MEP Andrew Brons, Mr Griffin tried to use yesterday's Westminster meeting to publicise his party's racist agenda.

Why would he need to publicise anything, when it seems everyone has made up their minds?
But anyway, an innocent cameraman was also hit in the face. Presumably that was acceptable, as clearly anyone standing within 20 yards of Mr Griffin has to accept they too are a target for thugs screaming the magic words of 'Nazi' and 'racist'.

This does beg a question though; if Griffin and a few other people doing their job who happen to get in the way can be pelted with eggs for the cause, and this is all a bit of a giggle at best or at worst an actual political agenda (stopped those racists spreading their hate, dude) - what degree of violence is acceptable?

Is Griffin getting a bloody nose funny? A black eye? Couple of broken ribs? A hammer through the skull, maybe?

What terrifies me is the wonderland we're walking in, where everything means the opposite. Griffin's minders are thugs for protecting him from a beating, whilst those doing the beating are angels defending freedom and democracy - despite Griffin being the only one in the crowd with any democratic legitimacy.

The people attacking him don't care why he has that democratic legitimacy - because after all, anyone who voted for him is a moron, or a racist.

If you're against the Islamisation of this country, or the importing of millions of low-IQ, criminal Third Worlders who are a net drain and useless in any society which doesn't rely on violence and extortion for its income, then you are a lunatic.

It's like Soviet Russia, where every economic failure was due to saboteurs, or as Stalin used to refer to them, 'bastards'. Of course, if one had pointed out to Stalin that his own ridiculous policies were actually the surest route to economic failure, one would have been killed.

In such a society, truth is an anathema, and success depends on stringing out the illusion. The failure of multiculturalism and mass immigration in this country isn't due to the fact it was a ridiculous, criminal notion to begin with, but because of racists, haters and fascists.

There is also a rather unseemly battle going on over the corpse of Winston Churchill, and just what those who sacrificed their lives and their youth on D-Day were fighting for.

'Be honest with me, Sarge - did you vote BNP?'

I can assure you that no soldiers that day were fighting for 'multiculturalism' or tolerance which stretches to the point of national suicide.

To suggest otherwise is a revolting perversion of history of which Goebbels himself would be proud.

Can anyone seriously imagine what Churchill might think if he were to somehow see modern day Tower Hamlets or Oldham? I can, and I can tell you this - he'd be prosecuted under hate crime laws if he voiced his thoughts.

My Great Uncle George did not take part in the D-Day landings, but he fought with the British 8th Army across the North African theatre, culminating in the Salerno landings - the Allied invasion of Italy, the forgotten second front.

He was one of the first onto the beach, part of a wave of British and Americans which took 75% + casualties.

I can tell you from experience that in many respects he despised what this country has become, not because he held any brief for Hitler or 'fascists', but because he was under the impression that he was fighting for this country and its survival as a nation.

The UAF and other Antifa thugs despise this country outside of a very narrow prism of their own creation - the perpetual and ever-lasting multicult, which has renounced its own identity, its own history and its own birthright as inherently evil.

James Delingpole at the Telegraph sums up my views pretty well on the ongoing BNP bashing:

God, I am sick to death of the BNP. I don't mean the party - they only got two seats in the Euro Elections, for heaven's sake - I mean all the rival politicians and commentators and dinner party chatterers falling over themselves to say just how utterly disgusted they are by this victory for the racist "far right."

In yesterday's Twittersphere the talk was of little else and the subtexts of every Tweet could be loosely translated thus: "See what a caring, lovely, non-racist person I am?","Do you know just how many black people are close personal friends of mine? An awful lot, let me tell you"; "I have a West Indian supermarket near me. It sells all sorts of marvellous ethnic things: smelly dried fish, ackee fruit. The proprietor is a delightful fellow and we always have a jolly chat. Did I mention he's black? Well he is and it doesn't affect our relationship one bit"; "Oh, well I live next to an Indian restaurant and I so much prefer a lovely Sag Aloo to fish and chips with their awful racist Union Jack connotations. Kinder to the environment too. And the chap who runs it has taught me to say "two Cobra beers and some spicy poppadoms" in Gujerati." etc.

Next time, what I suggest these people do is come clean and Tweet the subtext. At least then we won't to have endure their half-baked, ill-thought-out, glib, bien-pensant inanities sullying one of the most important political debates of our age.

The people who voted BNP are on the front line of this debate. They don't have the luxury of being able to nip in and out of a cornucopia of simply marvellous ethnic food shops, and thrillingly directional Grime Bhangra clubs and delightful arthouse cinemas selling wholemeal samosas and showing seasons of Iranian cinema, before retreating to their lovely safe white enclaves. It's on their doorstep, all the time, and there's no escape: for the white working classes (of the North and North East especially) multiculturalism has been a disaster.

And this isn't, pace some tedious bien-pensant commentators, about racism pure and simple. It's partly about immigration numbers - far greater than the indigenous communities are capable of absorbing without disruption. Mainly, though, it's about assimilation.

The racial tension and unrest in Britain now would not be half so great if were not for the fact that thanks to the imbecilic liberal-leftist philosophy of "multiculturalism" two generations of immigrant communities have actually been encouraged by the apparatus of state and at taxpayer's expense NOT to assimilate. In some areas of towns in the north - Bradford, for example - white people are made to feel that they don't belong any more. And these white people whose families have been there for generations are supposed to go, what, exactly? "Ah! Bless! Bah gum I don't 'alf love living in this wonderful melting pot"?

However dangerous the BNP are - not, in fact, very, I don't think - they're not nearly so dangerous as the liberal commentators who write meaningless "Thought For The Day" drivel like "Far better would have been to enjoin our principal parties to get their act together and offer a viable politics of hope to eclipse the dark underbelly of society."

Every time a politician, media commentator, or glib dinner-party-chatterer bangs on about how disgusting they find the BNP, what they are unwittingly (at least I hope it's unwittingly) doing is shutting down the debate. "Here is a topic so beyond the pale of reasonable discussion that the only proper reaction is to pass the smelling salts, bury your head in the sand, and hope it all goes away," is what they are saying.

But it won't go away. Read Mark Steyn's America Alone: the Islamisation of Europe - it's one of the pressing problems of our age. (Why the hell do you think Geert Wilders did so well in the Euro Elections? You think, what, people just liked his crazy name?). Unchecked - and almost worse - unassimilated immigration is a threat to all Western countries.

And it's not "racist" to want to discuss this issue. It doesn't automatically make you hateful or a Nazi or the next Nick Griffin. It just means that you think.

Hat tip: The Frozen North

Obama in Cairo

When Barack Hussein Obama was asked why he stopped in Saudi Arabia before making his much anticipated keynote speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, he gave the following answer:

'I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began and to seek His Majesty's counsel and to discuss with him many of the issues that we confront here in the Middle East.'

This tells us an awful lot; it tells us that whilst playing peacemaker, Obama isn't really interested in peace. He is interested in how he can surrender whilst saving the most face and still having the opportunity to be elected for a second term. Who, serious about pursuing peace and freedom, would seek the counsel of one of the bloodiest despots the modern world has known?

What were we treated to when he got to Cairo?

The sight of Hillary Clinton, who merely a year and a half ago was apparently pushing the envelope for women's rights by attempting to become the first female President of the United States, simpering in a hijab.

The British media fawning over the sight of armed, masked Palestinian militants, the likes of which have been responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, watching Obama's speech on the television.

We were also, predictably, treated to apologies, lies, distortions and revisionist history, but we will come to the actual speech in a moment.

Obama apparently fancies himself as a peacemaker. Many feel that his vision is the way forward. The point which he is unable or unwilling to grasp is that you cannot make peace of any kind with those who wish to fight you, who are determined to cause you harm.

You can lay down your arms, plead and beg, refuse to hit back - but if your assailant is determined or aggrieved, it will simply not work. In the case of the clash between the West and the Muslim world, our deference makes many Muslims feel more aggrieved, not less - by admitting to mistakes we haven't made and apologising for things we haven't done, we only pour fuel on the fantasist flames of injustice.

For all Obama has done today, selling out his allies, apologising for the history and achievements of America and the West in general - Islam and many Muslims won't hate us any less. They will simply scent victory.

As Obama arrived in the Middle East, Osama bin Laden released an audio tape condemning him for sowing hatred in the Arab world, and urging all proper Muslims not to be fooled by his talk of peace.

That aside, you would think that a fortnight which has included a plot to bomb synagogues and shoot down military jets, plus the killing of an American soldier, all on American soil might make Obama think - America may not be at war with Islam, but many Muslims seem very much under the impression they're at war with America - even the American ones.

The speech was an elaboration on the one he made to the Turkish parliament back in April. I very much doubt anyone would want to sit through 55 minutes of it, but I will present the full video anyway:

A full transcript can be found here.

The speech itself is, quite simply, shameless. We get treated to a list of grievances the Muslim world has against the West at 'this time of tension' - but of course, no mention of Jihad, of Islamic expansion, piracy and slavery, no mention of the desecration of the sacred sites of other religions.

Of course, there is no mention at all of the gifts which Western civilisation has given the world.

Obama is also desperate to draw attention to his own links to Islam - with no mention at all of the silence such links received during the election campaign:

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

This would presumably be the same dignity and peace which led to the Sears Tower plot, would it not?

We then are treated to a series of lies about the 'gifts' Islam has given our civilisation; almost all are based on half-truths and distortions. One of my favourite lines, however, is:

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Oh yes. It certainly has. The idea that blacks are inferior, Jews and Christians apes and pigs who deserve second class status, Hindus and Buddhists must be destroyed - what a truly glorious set of tolerant values. You can still see those values in operation in places as diverse as Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Sudan and Israel.

Not to mention nearly every major Western city!

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognise my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, 'The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.'

Yes, it has always been part of America's story. Wasn't the U.S. Marine Corps founded to fight Muslim Barbary Pirates?

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.

The freedom to oppress your wife or daughter. I'm sure that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

He goes on to insist that whilst Islam will be respected and tolerated, 'violent extremism' will be confronted at all costs, as well as highlighting how much money will be wasted in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Then we move on to the more interesting subject of Israel. Here the speech descends further into double standards, downright falsehoods and absurd moral equivalencies.

For a good breakdown, see this article from Jihad Watch. Needless to say, it's nothing that hasn't been said before - calling on the Palestinians to renounce violence and the Israelis to give up the more tangible prize of land and defences, without learning from history.

The speech goes on to Iran - Obama states that no nation has the right to decide whether or not another can have nuclear weapons.

For all the talk of peace at any price:

Obama made sure that Muslim Brotherhood members attended this speech. Yet the Brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

He seems to desire the abject surrender of the West; Western leaders must 'educate' themselves about Islam (presumably not to the extent of Geert Wilders), we must open our countries up more to Muslim ideas and colonisation whilst prosecuting those who object or tell the truth, we must abandon our allies when it becomes a little tricky - and all Muslims have to do is bide their time and not be too blatant about their goals.

Fjordman Fights False History

Over at Gates of Vienna the noted Norwegian blogger Fjordman has published a review of two books which distort the extent to which Western Civilisation and its scientific advancements owe a debt to Arab Muslim scholarship.

Below is an excerpt:

Stephen O’Shea of The Los Angeles Times has reviewed the book The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization by Jonathan Lyons. I will publish a longer and more thorough rebuttal of this book at some point in April, either at Jihad Watch or at Atlas Shrugs. I will publish a review of John Freely’s related book Aladdin’s Lamp: How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World next week at The Brussels Journal.

I have read both of them, and Freely’s book is the best of the two, or the least bad, since he at a minimum has some understanding of the history of science, which Mr. Lyons in my view does not. That doesn’t mean that I would recommend buying his book; there are better and more balanced titles available on the market. Stephen O’Shea in his very positive review claims that “Dust will never gather on Jonathan Lyons’ lively new book of medieval history.” I strongly disagree. I consider The House of Wisdom to be a bad case of poor scholarship.

Lyons’ book is 200 pages long, Freely’s Aladdin’s Lamp 255 pages. Neither of them mentions the terms ‘Jihad’ or ‘dhimmi’ even once in their books about Islamic culture. This says a great deal about the current intellectual climate. I didn’t notice these words while reading the books and they are not listed in the indexes. The authors certainly don’t devote much time to debating the violent aspects of Islamic expansionism through the Islamically unique institution of Jihad, or the fates of the conquered peoples. Is it a coincidence that whatever useful work that was done in the Islamic world happened during the first centuries of the Islamic era, while there were still large numbers of non-Muslims living in the region? We don’t know because the question is never debated by these authors, but it deserves to be.

It's an excellent read - head over there to read the rest.

Celebrity Lives Sharia Style

Hat tip: Gates of Vienna

I never saw the 'Celebrity Lives Sharia Style' programme when it was first broadcast, but I can confirm that this is an actual BBC production for a modern British audience.

The premise of the programme is:

What would happen if you took high profile celebrity marriages, divorces and legal wrangles and settled them under Sharia law? The answers are rather surprising. Madonna might not have ended up paying Guy Ritchie anything. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills might have done better to consider an Islamic-style marriage contract, where the norm is to agree a settlement figure before marriage.

Just over a year since the Archbishop of Canterbury made his provocative comments on Sharia law, Ajmal Masroor, a leading British Muslim and London imam, enlists the help of legal and Islamic commentators to explore the pros and cons of accommodating some parts of Sharia to the settling of civil disputes amongst British Muslims.

This programme sends a chill down my spine. It might seem innocent and almost amusing - but that's the point.

They are trying to dress up Sharia law, one of the most primitive and barbaric legal systems on earth, by giving it a little glitz and glamour, associating it with celebrities and their lives.

In modern Britain and America, there's almost nothing you can't sell on the back of somebody else's fame.

At Gates of Vienna, a Dutchman published an open letter he sent to the BBC and the programme's host after watching this programme. I would recommend reading it.

I have to ask myself, 'what is the BBC's agenda with this programme?'

They claim that they're responding to a topical issue, trying to make Islam and Muslims seem less exotic and mysterious and more mainstream - but is it just that?

This is appeasement. Not just of Islam, but the multiculturalist agenda in general. Pick the best bits, dress it up a little, make it sound not only palatable - but inevitable. You see, the host, Ajmal Masroor, just so happens to be a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency (currently held by George Galloway).

His profile and CV are very interesting - do click on the link and find out more. Apparently one of the main reasons you should vote for Ajmal - and it's the only line printed in bold - is because the Lib Dems have never had a candidate from 'an ethnic minority background' before.

So, in other words, he's a professional Muslim, and when it suits him a professional 'non-white' man.

The fact he's a prominent Muslim and prayer-leader is clearly supposed to help his case. His site says:

'I now want the chance to continue this work as a Liberal Democrat on the London Assembly. I believe my experiences give me a unique ability to relate to London’s marginalised individuals and reconnect them with the mainstream.

A vote for Ajmal is a vote for a vibrant, cohesive and forward-looking London.'

When he talks about 'marginalised' individuals, I very much doubt he's talking about the people like my Grandparents who now feel like strangers in their own city.

As for 'vibrant' - would that be vibrant as in Lahore, or more like Kabul?

The fact that our taxes in the form of the BBC licence fee are actually paying to push this man's political, religious and yes, ethnic agenda makes me fee physically sick.

But then, perhaps anyone taken in by a programme like this and a shyster like this pretty much deserves whatever they get; they'll get the 'vibrant' city they so desire, but they might be surprised at just what that word is a code for.

Watch 'Celebrity Lives Sharia Style' below (I would not recommend it after eating):

There's a part at the end where Masroor coos to his baby son:

"When you grow up, there'll be no need for a Sharia wedding certificate and a civil one - they'll be combined."

Absolutely shameless propaganda.

Historectomy

A report from Gates of Vienna's Baron Bodissey.

Gates of Vienna: Historectomy

This is one of the most despicable things I have ever read, and I hope that this man is punished to the full extent of the law. By this I mean a huge fine, a prison sentence, and then deportation, not sweeping up whilst wearing one of the increasingly eerie Jack Straw's orange 'Community Payback' vests.

The fad of political correctness may well pass, but as is pointed out in the post, our history is irreplaceable.