I copy here a message I sent to Gerard Batten after receiving his notice that Tommy R’s membership application would be debated at Conference.

Dear Gerard,

Once again you have made the right move. Unfortunately I shall not be able to attend the Conference but my vote would be to allow Tommy to join, while keeping the general ban as you suggest.

My reasons for backing Tommy were given in this piece I published on UKIPDaily.

Under your leadership UKIP is at last picking up the fight to stop the creeping Islamisation of Britain. We must join forces with Tommy on this; there are thousands more who will surely join if Tommy is allowed to join the party.

If Tommy is rejected by UKIP, the thousands of families whose children have been the victims of the Muslim rape gangs will have nobody to speak up for them except precisely those groups – BNP etc – who wish to use this to foment a race war, of whites against coloureds, whereas what we need to stigmatise, isolate and neutralise is not people of a certain skin-colour but an evil ideology dressed up as a religion.

Anti-EU forces are growing in strength throughout Europe, largely as a response to the mad ‘open borders’ policies of Merkel and others on immigration. The problem is that some of these forces do have tacit racist agendas, and some may even have roots in Europe’s sombre fascist past.

The danger is that the dreadful and illogical establishment narrative whereby Criticism of Islam = Racism (now enshrined even in our laws!!) should be allowed to take hold. We need to stress that while Tommy founded the EDL, he abandoned it when he saw that it was being infiltrated and taken over by racist BNP types.

He opposes the Islamisation of Britain and we must oppose it – and this is nothing to do with race!

Were it not for Tommy’s resolute denunciation of the Muslim ideological nature of the raping gangs, the MSM’s spin on the story of their being ‘gangs of Asian men’ would still be standing, causing popular resentment to be directed at all those of Asian background, some of whom are themselves victims of these gangs.

Paradoxically, this kind of wicked confusion favours both the ‘politically correct’ establishment who wish to stop us from opposing the Islamisation of the country, and the Nazi-fascist types whom the establishment say they want to keep down. If UKIP buys into this confusion, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. If UKIP rejects Tommy Robinson and all he stands for, the crowd of politically correct Remainers will be very pleased, the Islamists will rejoice, and so will the BNP types who will come out of the woodwork and say that they are now the only force to oppose the Islamisation of Britain.

I hope you have a good Conference, and am sorry I shall not be there in person.

Best regards,

Torquil

I received a circular from the party chairman saying that he had looked more closely at the rules and seen that a motion to change a rule had to come from a party branch – or something like that, and not just from a group of NEC members, or even from the leader. Whatever the position, it would be a crying pity if the proposal fell through owing to some silly procedural false step.

I think the party should beware of pandering to wrongful and deceptive MSM narratives, which should be tackled head-on and dismantled. Nigel had the rule put in about no former BNPs etc, partly to prevent infiltrations, but also to put a stop to the false MSM narrative ‘UKIP = BNP in blazers’. (In our early days he had to choose his battle-grounds taking care of the MSM tendency to blank him and us out completely.)

Now, rather than put in a dateline limit on former membership of a proscribed group – I gather a five-year limit has been suggested – surely better and more to the point to insert a rider, “…unless the applicant has since demonstrated, by word and deed, to squarely and actively oppose racist ideology”. After all, TR left the organisation he had founded precisely in protest at its being taken over by racists. What more could he do to show he is not a racist? He works alongside Sikh and other non-Muslim Asian groups whose own children are victims of the child rape gangs.

The Muslims are not interested in race; they are against anyone who is not a Muslim, whatever their colour, shape or size. Their outlook is not unlike attitudes were in the 17th century, when Europe was racked by wars of religion. This is why they must be exposed and opposed, we cannot regress by four centuries.

UKIP needs to work strongly to target, dismantle and destroy the establishment narrative that to criticise Islam is somehow racist.

Racism is unacceptable in British political discourse today, and I would certainly not contest that. I think Paul Weston. and some others, are not quite right to somehow accept it when he says, as he says in a video-clip: “I oppose Islam … and so I am a racist”. He might be thought to be justifying racism.

Nigel was also wrong not to demand that the Telegraph retract the dreadful headline they put on his op-ed article ‘Racists nearly destroyed UKIP, now with Bolton there is hope!’ (How ironic, when Bolton then started a ‘serious relationship’ with a woman, a UKIP member alas, who said that Meghan Markle would “taint the royal family with her negro seed”!!!)

However, criticism of, and antipathy to, a certain religion is not only acceptable but mandatory when that religion is actually the vehicle of a dreadful medieval political ideology that wants to take over the world, by deceit (taqqiyya) and violence (jihad).

We must clarify and combat this confusion between race and religion that exists in people’s minds, and campaign to have the words ‘religious’ taken out of the anti-discrimination laws, where they say ‘racial and religious’.

We should single out and focus on the worst aspects of Islamic doctrine, e.g. by targetting the eight Muslim states where apostasy is not only criminalised (as it is in many Muslim states), but is actually a capital offence. This is a denial of a fundamental Western value – religious freedom – and is as much a threat to our civilisation as was Nazism or Bolshevism in the last century.

A good policy I think could be to add say 50% onto the penalty for any crime of violence or incitement to violence committed for religious reasons. This would send a clear message to the jihadists that their days of being coddled and justified by the UK are over, while yet not infringing freedom of thought, for only criminal acts would be punished. So if someone murders someone during a robbery and gets 30 years, a murderer could get 45 years if at the same time he shouts Allahu Akbar!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email